Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal

Fee
As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume One

Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Um Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.
Foreword

A Summarized Insight in Respect to the History of Wars Prior to the Coming of Islam and their
Motivating Factors

- Examples of the wars within the centuries of peace.

- Examples of the wars in the centuries of struggle and clashing.
- The attacks of the Nomadic tribes upon the Nile valley and the region between the Raafidain (The Tigris
and the Euphrates rivers).
- Ancient Egypt until the Islamic conquest.
- The Assyrian Empire.
- Greece, Alexander the Macedonian and his conquests.
- After Alexander, the establishment of the Roman Empire and its conquests.
- The Persian Kingdom and its struggle with the Roman State.
- The Arabian Peninsula and some detail about its war history.

The reasons for the wars prior to Islam.

- The essential need associated to living.

- Ambition, coveting and greed.
- Deterrence and terrorising.
- Revenge and reprisal.
- Coming to the help of the oppressed.
- Cleansing the insult made against the guest by blood.
- Fervour in defence of honour.
- To obtain slaves to boast about and degrade others.
- To impose control over others by force.
- Some of the pre-Islamic (Jaahiliyah) concepts used to incite fighting.
- The attainment of material benefits and cheap labour by enslaving the conquered.
- Difference in respect to religion due to mere partisanship or the invitation to a truth.
- A (power) struggle over the authority.
- The struggle over important (strategic) lands.
- To suppress revolutions within the lands and outlying provinces.
- Interference in the internal affairs of other states.
- Dominance over the world.
- Differences in respect to the manner or mode of living.
- To bring about a unity in respect to the people and the state and to eliminate the causes and factors of
division.
- To liberate the land from foreign occupation.
- Ambition in respect to inheriting states.
- To restore balance with an opponent or enemy.
- To protect the external interests of the land.
- Breaking of covenants or treaties agreed between the states.
- Coercion to make others enter alliances.
- To entangle states with whom treaties have been made, forcing them to break the treaty and to use that
as a pretext to declare war against it.
- Fear of the future power of an opponent and to strike it before it attains that strength or power (i.e. pre-
emptive war).
- To eliminate separatist movements and those who have usurped authority in the outlying parts of the
lands.
- To clean the internal house i.e. cleanse the land of elements of trouble, disruption and corruption, or
from those who have ambition to attain the authority.
- War by agency.
 Foreword

A Summarized Insight into the History of Wars Prior to the Coming of Islam and
their Motivating Factors

From amongst the matters that is known by necessity, forming a consensus among history specialists and
those who pursue its circumstances, is that it is a history of disputes and wars, between states, nations and
peoples. Its pages are red with blood, its plains have been scattered with corpses, and we can hardly find a
period of time in which man has laid down his weapons. Even in respect to what has been known in
history as centuries of peace, then those who named these periods as such only meant that these centuries
of peace were firstly only specific to a particular historical state and did not apply generally to states in the
world other than it. Secondly, they were considered as a period of peace in a specific manner or context
due to the lack or minimal external activity of that state beyond its borders and due to the small amount
of civil conflict internally. However, does that minimal activity and this small amount of internal civil
conflict actually mean the absence of war and the existence of a settled peace?

Examples of wars in the times of peace:

For example, during the first century of peace (1) in the era of the ‘Roman Empire’ that began in the year
30 BCE, the armies of this empire were launched and they overran the south of Britain, annexed it and
made it one of its provinces (2). This overrunning and annexation did not have any impact upon the
naming of this century as a century of peace. This is an example in respect to the external activity.
[(1) Ancient Times: p573 by Doctor James Henry Breasted – Translated to Arabic by Dawud Qurban). (2) Ancient Times:
p587].

As for internal activity, then also during this century of peace, the Roman emperor Gaius, went too far in
terms of sinfulness and shamelessness, belittling the rights of the people and insulting the dignity of the
people. The situation reached the extent that he appointed his horse as a senator from amongst his
senators (of Rome), meaning he appointed his horse as one of the state’s rulers. It got to the point where
the emperor would invite the stallion to his feasts, feed it with the most extravagant foods and provide it
with wine from golden vessels. This emperor would squander the state’s funds on evils and sinful acts,
whilst rape and murder spread within it. This led to the people revolting against him and assassinating him
so that the land and the people could be free of him (1).

Also within this century of peace there appeared the famous emperor Nero who was tyrannical, despotic;
the spilling of blood was nothing to him and one of his delights and pleasures was the spread corruption
and destruction! His ease of spilling blood was manifested in the killing of his teacher, his chief minister,
his wife and he even ordered the murder of his own mother! And an example of his spreading of
corruption and destruction was that he lit a great fire (in Rome) which lasted for one whole week. He
amused himself at the mad scene, the fuel of which was men and stones, playing a musical instrument and
singing the “Sack of Ilium”. That was not however enough for him but rather he went further to the point
where he accused the Christian of starting the fire, then arrested many of them and afflicted upon them
the worst of tortures! (2).

Examples of wars at the time of struggle and contest:

If the above was representative of the centuries of peace within the history of the Roman Empire, then
what was the situation like within the centuries of wars and fighting?

In respect to this, then discussing the history of wars is beyond the scope of this short foreword and it is
not one of the main aims of this paper. For that reason, I will present a very brief summary of the most
significant features of this warring history, as mentioned within the general books of history, starting from
the beginning of what has been called the eras of history until the time of the Islamic history. The
historians have approximately determined the era of history to begin from between 4000 BCE to 3000
BCE (3) in the case where the people from these periods of time left artefacts, drawings, recorded
histories and writings that guide to something in terms of the affairs of their life in both times of peace
and war.

[(1) Ancient Times: p587, (2) Ancient Times: p587, (3) Ancient Times: p38].

The attacks of the Nomadic tribes upon the Nile valley and the region between the Raafidain
(The Tigris and the Euphrates rivers).

The historians have mentioned that the first permanent human settlement at the beginning of the eras of
history was located in the Nile valley in Egypt and between the Raafidain (two rivers), the Tigris and the
Euphrates, from the land of the peninsula, in the case where those regimes were the most suitable lands of
the world to settle in (1).

A collective of people took up residence in these areas and their numbers multiplied. There was also
another grouping of people behind them who were living in the European forests, in the desert of the
Arab lands and in the seasonal pastoral lands of the central regions of Asia. These collectives of people
would be reliant upon the climatic conditions of different seasons and would therefore move from one
place to another in accordance to that. These people are the nomadic Bedouin peoples (2).

Those nomadic men used to raid the settled peoples in the Nile valley and between the Raafidain (3) due
to the needs of life so as to take hold of food supplies (4) and whatever they could take into their
possession in these raids of theft and plunder in terms of food and supplies.

At first, these raids did not intend occupation or settlement within the land that they were targeting due to
the large number of settled enemies and the more advanced weaponry these people had which they didn’t
(5). For that reason, they raided and plundered before withdrawing back to the places where they were
living.

However, in the passing of time, those Nomads were able to obtain advanced weapons and leaders arose
from them who were able to make large collectives of people submit to their control and leadership. After
that their raids transformed from raids into wars that sought conquest and settlement. The former
inhabitants of the land then became slaves to the new masters from amongst the nomadic Bedouin leaders
who then began themselves began to take to settled life and learn from those who came before them in
terms of their arts, skills and mode of living… Then other Nomadic people came to practise the same role
with the newly settled people who had previously played that role with those preceding them, and so it
went on in that way (6).

The above represents a general summarized picture of the history of the old human settled civilisations
consisting of those who were settled and those who neighboured them in terms of nomadic Bedouins.

[(1) History of Mankind 1/155 by H.G. Wells, translated by: Abdul Aziz Tawfiq Jaweed, (2) History of Mankind: 1/156, (3)
History of the Mankind: 1/156, (4) (This is) War: p50 by Gaston Bouthoul, (5) History of Mankind 1/156, (6) History of
Mankind 1/157].

The most famous of those settled civilisations were in Egypt, the lands of the Raafidain (Mesopotamia),
the Fertile Crescent and Persia. They then moved to the Aegean lands; the Greek lands and then the
Roman.

Similarly, there arose settled civilisations East of Persia, the first signs of which appeared approximately
2000 BCE in India and China (1).

All of these settled civilisations became a target for the raids of Nomadic peoples upon the same pattern
as we demonstrated earlier! Then following that, these settled civilisations became stronger, their borders
expanded in addition to their interests and aspirations. It was then inevitable that frictions would arise
amongst them. The wars that consequently took place between these settled civilisations represented a
new front in respect to armed conflict, adding to the old front represented in the conflict with the raiding
nomadic peoples that took place from time to time.

Ancient Egypt until the Islamic Conquest (Al-Fat’h ul-Islaamiy):

The designs of Egypt in the middle of the 2800 BCE extended beyond its borders. It would launch its war
ships into the waves of the Mediterranean towards the Phoenician coasts located upon the Eastern coast
of this sea and then this war campaign would return after having fulfilled its mission. Some excavated
pictures upon the walls of Egyptian structures have recorded some of the events of the Egyptian military
attacks upon the Phoenician coast. There is a picture from amongst them demonstrating the Egyptian
fleet consisting of eight sea vessels returning from its war campaign carrying Phoenician prisoners
captured from their lands and being brought to Egypt (2).
In this way, Ancient Egypt was capable through its expansionist wars to make its authority extend to the
Nubian lands in the south and the fortress built by one of the Pharaohs to block the Nubian tribes from
his land still exists today. There is engraved upon one of the rocks that which indicates that it is not
permitted for the slaves to cross over to the North without a special permission. The one who had it
engraved states: “I am the King; I do what I say. And my vicegerent who neglected the limit is not my
son. I erected this statue of me upon my border that I have specified, not to be worshiped but rather so
that you make war for its sake” (3).

[(1) History of Mankind 1/170-171, (2) Ancient Times: 60-61, (3) Ancient Times: 83].

And in the north, Egypt, in the time of Thutmose the Third in the 15th century BCE, was able to defeat
the Syrian leaders who had allied against him in the battle of Megiddo close to Haifa. He then added to
that through wars central Syria, its north and a part of the Euphrates region in Iraq.

In respect to the Mediterranean, his authority extended, through his war ships, to the Aegean Sea and one
of his commanders became the ruler of the Aegean Sea Islands (1).

At the same time Egypt was also subjected to foreign attacks from time to time leading its properties to be
looted and it was even attacked inside its mainland.

They were attacked by the Hyksos (Kings of the shepherds) and they preoccupied Egypt for around four
centuries until the coming of the Pharaoh Ahmose who expelled and utterly took them apart (2).

Then the Hittites launched a war against Egypt and took Syria away from it whilst it had been under its
authority. In the middle of the 12th century BCE the Egyptian army was defeated by the Hittites. It then
happened that the daughter of Akhenaten and wife of Tutankhamun, following the death of her father
and then her husband, feared that the throne would be removed from her family line. She therefore
attempted to keep it within this family and wrote to the Hittite Emperor asking to marry one of his sons.
Excavations revealed the existence of this letter however her aspirations were not realised! (3)

Then Egypt fell under attack from an army coming from Nubia during the rule of the 25th family (4).

It was later occupied by the Assyrian Emperor (5) and following that it submitted to the Persian
occupation in the 6th century BCE. Egypt then became liberated for a period of sixty years before the
coming of the Greek occupation under the leadership of Alexander the Macedonian in the year 332 BCE.
Alexander was succeeded by the Ptolemies who ruled Egypt (6) until the time of the invasion of the
Roman Emperor Octavian (Augustus) at the time of the last of the Ptolemies Cleopatra. Egypt was then
annexed to the Roman Empire and became one of its provinces in the year 30 BCE (1).

[(1) Ancient Times: 90, (2) Stories of the Prophets by Abdul Wahhab An-Najjar 153, (3) Ancient Times 105, (4) History of
Mankind 1/168, (5) History of Mankind 1/169, (6) History of Mankind 1/199].

This was then followed by the Islamic conquests to purify the land of Egypt from the Roman rule.

From this, we see that Egypt which was the number one major state (2) in ancient history, was a warring
state. It did not leave a war except that it entered another one. Its history reflects no more than a model
for the civilised settlements and the states existing at that time.

The Assyrian Empire:

This was Egypt’s rival in ancient history and the number two major state (3). It was the Assyrian empire
and its base was Nineveh (4) in the land of Assyria located between the Raafidain (The Tigris and
Euphrates rivers). It was another warring state that did not leave one war except that it would enter
another. Since the coming of the Assyrians (around 3000 BCE) (5) they took to being in continuous wars
with the Hittites, Acadians and Mitanni, whilst they allied with the Egyptians against the Babylonians to
affirm their presence and found their state. That was until this state became strong and realised within
itself the necessary elements for expansion and making conquests, at the time of which is launched forth
in its expansionist wars. It consequently subdued Syria and gradually incorporated it within its provinces.
Phoenician towns submitted to it and its armies reached the Egyptian surroundings under the leadership
of Sennacherib. The Assyrian army failed and was unable to take Egypt with this attempted conquest.
However, the ball later changed hands in the era of king Ashurbanipal as he was able to conquer it and the
Delta then remained under Assyrian rule for a lengthy period of time (6).

[(1) Ancient Times: 572, (2) Political Concepts, Ash-Sheikh Taqi ud-Deen An-Nabhani: 39, (3) Political Concepts: 39, (4)
History of Mankind 1/161, (5) Ancient Times: 152, (6) History of Mankind 1/163].

The Greeks, Alexander the Macedonian and his conquests:

It was upon this manner that the wars took place between the cities of Ancient Greece until the coming of
Alexander the Macedonian, student of Aristotle. He used war to subdue Greece under his authority and
then launched his expansionist wars that encompassed Asia minor which had been under the Persian
authority. He then conquered the Phoenician coast, the Egypt before turning towards the Persian lands.
He swept through them before reaching India in the east and the India Ocean in the south (1). After that,
he retreated after sensing the inability of his army to keep up with him. In respect to this At-Tabari
mentioned that Alexander conquered India, China, Tibet and entered in the darkness that follows the
North pole! (2).

After Alexander, the establishment of the Roman Empire and its conquests:

Wars broke out between the successors of Alexander whom his Empire had been divided between
following his death into three kingdoms. These were the Macedonian kingdom in Europe, the Asian
kingdom and the Egyptian kingdom (3). That was until the Roman state arose, strengthened and
consolidated itself before launching expansionist wars. The wars between Rome and Carthage lasted for
120 years until the devastating struggle came to an end upon the destruction of Carthage in the year 146
BCE. The Carthage kingdoms were then annexed to Rome under the name of the province of Africa (4).

Rome then launched into its expansionist wars and took over three kingdoms which the successors of
Alexander had assumed ruling over (5).

The Persian Kingdom and its struggle with the Roman state:

It happened that there arose from the Sassan offspring in the Persian lands a war leader called Ardashir
bin Babik who demanded the blood vengeance of his ancester Dara or Darius who had been killed during
Alexander’s war against the Persian lands (6).

[(1) Ancient Times: 418-427, (2) History of Tabari 1/572, (3) Ancient Times 434, (4) Ancient Times 531, (5) Ancient Times
533-572, (6) History of Tabari 1/572].

“He wanted (as was said) for the kingdom (authority) to be restored to his family, to the situation of the
days of his predecessors and fathers who had lived prior to the factional kings and to gather them all
behind one head, one king…” (1). This Ardashir fought with the kings of the cities and many provinces
against those whom Tabari described as the factional kings. He fought with them in continuous wars for
the sake of a national unity and he consequently united the Persian lands under his authority. His son
Shapur rose to be king following him and then began his expansionist wars that led to taking over many
of the Roman held areas.
The Qur’an Al-Kareem even mentioned an incidence of this bloody struggle that took place between the
Persians and the Romans when He Ta’Aalaa said:

‫ني ۗ لِلَّ ِه‬ِ ِ ْ ِ‫﴾ ِِف ب‬٣﴿ ‫ض وهم ِّمن ب ع ِد َغلَبِ ِهم سي ْغلِبو َن‬
َ ‫ض ِع سن‬ ُ ََ ْ َْ ُ َ ِ ‫﴾ ِِف أ َْد ََن ْاْل َْر‬٢﴿ ‫وم‬
ُ ‫الر‬
ُّ ‫ت‬ِ ‫﴾ غُلِب‬١﴿ ‫امل‬
َ
‫ْاْل َْم ُر ِمن قَ ْب ُل َوِمن بَ ْع ُد‬
Alif, Lam, Meem. The Byzantines (Romans) have been defeated. In the nearer land (Ash-Shaam), and they, after their
defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after (Ar-Room: 1-3). (3)

These Noble Aayaat indicate to two wars from amongst the many wars that broke out between these two
major states.

In the first of these two wars, which took place before the Muslims’ Hijrah to Al-Madinah, the Persians
defeated the Romans and took over Edessa, Aleppo, Armenia, Asia Minor, Antioch, Caesarea, Damascus
and Jerusalem, leaving Heraclius the Emperor of Rome with no more than Constantinople. Then, after 9
years, the second of these two wars took place in which the Romans defeated the Persians and this
coincided on the day of the battle of Badr or as some say the year of Al-Hudaibiyah.

This was when Heraclius returned and led the Roman armies into the Persian land, killed its men,
occupied its cities and restored Asia Minor, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the years 623-624 CE. He then
occupied the Caucasus and the Tigris Valley (4).

The above represents glimpses of the wars that used to take place between the major states in the old
world before the Islamic era. The question remains whether the smaller peoples and states were far
removed from the woes of wars or not?

[(1) History of Tabari 2/37, (2) History of Tabari 2/46, (3) Soorah Ar-Room 1-4 434, (4) The Military School: p25 by
Muhammad Faraj and Tafsir of Ibn Kathir 3/325-326].

The Arabian Peninsula and something about is war history:

History informs us that since around 2000 BCE a number of small kingdoms arose within the Arabian
Peninsula from its south to its northern regions. They would expand at times and diminish at others, be
independent at times and subservient to others at different times. They included the Ma’in Kingdom in
the south, then the Sabaean Kingdom followed by the Himyarite Kingdom.

To the North was the Kingdom Al-Jawf (Northern), the Taima Kingdom, the Nabataean Kingdom, the
Tudmur Kingdom and the Ghassanidic Kingdom whilst there was the Mundhirite Kingdom situated in
the south-east region (1).

The history of these kingdoms was not free of wars and invasions in addition to all of woes and calamities
that accompany them. The Qur’an Al-Kareem indicates to a king from amongst the Himyarite kings and
he was, assuming the veracity of what Ibn Hisham mentioned, Dhu Nuwas the Jew who passed away in
the year 525 CE (2). He had attacked Najran, the inhabitants of which were Christians, and he wanted
them to change their religion to Judaism or face death. He dug trenches for them, set them ablaze and
wiped out 20,000 of Najran’s people by burning them in the fire or by sword. In respect to Dhu Nuwas
and his soldiers Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed the Aayaat of Soorah Al-Burooj upon His Messenger ‫( ﷺ‬2):

ِ ِ َ‫﴾ النَّا ِر ذ‬٤﴿ ‫ود‬ ِ ‫قُتِل أَصحاب ْاْلُخ ُد‬

‫﴾ َوُه ْم َعلَ ٰى َما يَ ْف َعلُو َن‬٦﴿ ‫ود‬ ٌ ُ‫﴾ إِ ْذ ُه ْم َعلَْي َها قُع‬٥﴿ ‫ات الْ َوقُود‬ ْ ُ َْ َ
ِ ‫اْل ِم‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِِ
‫يد‬ َْ ‫﴾ َوَما نَ َق ُموا مْن ُه ْم إََِّّل أَن يُ ْؤمنُوا باللَّه الْ َع ِزي ِز‬٧﴿ ‫ود‬ َ ‫بِالْ ُم ْؤمن‬
ٌ ‫ني ُش ُه‬
 Cursed were the companions of the trench. [Containing] the fire full of fuel. When they sat by it (fire). And they witnessed
what they were doing against the believers (i.e. burning them). They had nothing against them, except that they believed in
Allah, the All-Mighty, Worthy of all Praise! (Al-Burooj: 4-8) (4).

After this the Abyssinian Christians invaded Yemen, with incitement from Byzantine and under the
leadership of Aryat the Abyssinian with Abraha alongside him. The Qur’an Al-Kareem informs us of
Abraha’s intended attack upon Makkah Al-Mukarramah, the failure of this attempted conquest and the
destruction of the aggressing army within Soorah Al-Feel:

ِ‫﴾ وأ َْرسل َعلَْي ِهم طَْي را أَباب‬٢﴿ ‫ضلِ ٍيل‬ ِ ‫﴾ أَ َملْ ََْي َعل َكْي َد ُه ْم‬١﴿ ‫اب الْ ِف ِيل‬
ِ ‫َصح‬ ِ َ ُّ‫ف فَ َعل رب‬
‫يل‬
َ َ ً ْ َ َ َ ْ ‫ت‬
َ ‫ِف‬ ْ َ ْ ‫ك بأ‬ َ َ َ ‫أَ َملْ تَ َر َكْي‬
ٍ ‫ف َّمأْ ُك‬
ٍ‫ص‬ ِ ِِ ِ
﴾٥﴿ ‫ول‬ ْ ‫﴾ فَ َج َعلَ ُه ْم َك َع‬٤﴿ ‫﴾ تَ ْرمي ِهم ِب َج َارةٍ ِّمن س ِّج ٍيل‬٣﴿
Have you not seen, [O Muhammad], how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant? Did He not make their
plan into misguidance? And He sent against them birds in flocks. Striking them with stones of hard clay. And He made
them like eaten straw (Al-Feel) (6).

[(1) History of The Islamic Peoples 16-24: Carl Brockelmann, (2) History of The Islamic Peoples 16, (3) Seerah of Ibn Hisham
1/35, (4) Soorah Al-Burooj 4-8, (5) History of The Islamic Peoples 16 and Seerah Ibn Hisham 1/37), (6) Soorah Al-Feel)].

In the north of the Peninsula the wars between the Roman appointed governors, the Ghassanides in Ash-
Shaam, and the Mundhirites who were governors on behalf of the Persians in Al-Hira and its surrounding
areas in the lands of Iraq, did not calm or abate (1).

The above does not include the attacks and raids that took place in the heart of the Arab Peninsula
between the Arab tribes or internally within a single tribe. These were known in history as being “The
Days of the Arabs”. It is enough for us to understand the state of these attacks, raids and wars in this era
of Jahilliyah (pre-Islam) to know that Abu Al-Faraj Al-Asfahani wrote about the “Days of the Arabs” in a
book consisting of 1700 days (2).
Hence and upon what has been mentioned it can be concluded that the internal local and international
situations prior to Islam were characterised by burning fires of wars that were ablaze upon both fronts.
The flames were not put out, the fire was not extinguished, blood was squandered in the absence of a
noble purpose or any elevated values.

The reasons for the wars prior to Islam:

What were these wars undertaken for, the larger wars and smaller ones and what were their motivating
reasons?

This is what we will discuss in the final lines of this foreword.

We do not mean here the deep causes or reasons which they have named as the generators of the spirit of
collective hostility (3) which develops within different frames or constitutions like those related to housing
(living), or economic, geographic, historical and mental factors (4). That is because these deep causes are
still being discussed in studies and research within a newly found science called “The science of war” (5).
Indeed, we do not mean these numerous reasons or causes which are still under study and research.
Rather, what we intend here is the apparent sensed causes and what lies behind them in terms of real
causes. Those direct apparent causes could be a spark for them or they could represent a cover or veil that
they hide behind.

[(1) History of The Islamic Peoples 24, (2) The Poetry of War in the Jaahiliyah (Pre-Islamic) Era p314 – Dr. Ali Al-Jundi – And
Abu-l-Faraj lived between 284-356 AH, 897-967 CE (3) The Challenge of War – Gaston Boutboul and Rene Carrere –
Translated by Haitham Kailani (4) Wars and Civilisations p314 Gaston Boutboul, Rene Carrere and Louis Annequin from the
French Institute for “War Science” translated by Ahmad Abdul Karim, (5) In the year 1945 the “The French Institute for the
science of war” was founded for the purpose of studying peace, conflicts, collective hostile acts and political violence which
was considered to be the bacteria of wars… (The book Wars and Civilisations) p12.

In the following section, we will mention the reasons and causes which have become apparent to us, after
reading over and going through many Arabic books of history and translated foreign books.

1 – The essential necessity of living:

We will categorise under this cause the attacks or raids of the Bedouin peoples. This was when nature did
not provide them with the necessary elements of life whilst they were living in their deserts. They would
be jealous of the people in the settled civilisations living in the fertile and giving lands. This reason applied
equally whether the attacks were undertaken to obtain what they could related to their needs by way of
looting and plundering, or with the intended purpose of settling down themselves (in those areas), as was
explained earlier.

Similar to this and also within this category were the attacks undertaken by the Arab tribes in their deserts
at the time when fertility existed. This was where some tribes would precede others to fertile pastures and
plentiful water supplies. They then possessed a vital treasure that attracted enemies or contenders. These
areas would become a target for attacks to strip it of what it contained or to take possession of it. One of
the pre-Islamic poets spoke about the hostility that arose amongst the tribes due to that when he said:

“A People, when the spring sprouts (vegetation) for them…

Hostility to them (also) sprouts with the ripening” (1).

[(1) The Poetry of War in the Jaahiliyah (Pre-Islamic) Era p314].

2 – Ambition, coveting and greed:

This was when those who sought war were not driven by need or hunger to fight others. They were rather
driven by their covetousness, greed and desire to increase wealth and their possession of goods. This was
like many of the wars of Egypt in the north and the south undertaken for the purpose of attaining wealth.
History mentions that many of the Pharaohs in Egypt collected tremendous amounts of wealth from Syria
and Nubia with which they built Karnak and huge building structures. In addition, during the wars of the
Pharaohs over the Syrian lands and in their ruling over them that followed, they did not concern
themselves with the presence of security or an organised system. Rather, there only concern was
exploiting the lands wealth and resources to satisfy their greed and covetousness. They use to lead herds
of sheep and goats, caravans of wood, wheat, wine and oil amongst other locally manufactured or
acquired goods (1).

Similarly, when the Assyrians conquered a land they brought ruin to it and would carry the wealth in terms
of sheep, goats, horses, donkeys overloaded with gold and silver to the royal palace in Nineveh! (2).

At-Tabari in his book of history told how Kisraa Anu Shirwan, the King of Persia, coveted the Island of
Seelan of Sarandib to the south of India because it was a land containing jewels. So, he sent an army
which fought ferociously against its king. The king was consequently killed and great wealth and many
jewels were carried back to Kisraa (3).

3 – Deterrence and terrorising:

This refers to when a nation or people ignite a war against others merely to affirm and prove their power
and deter their opponent from thinking about aggressing against them. This was the situation in Jaahiliyah
(pre-Islam) within the Arabian Peninsula. That was because the nature of life at that time used to divide
the people into two groups: Either oppressive and aggressive or oppressed and aggressed upon. Zuhair
Ibn Abi Salmaa talked about the nature of this life in some words within his famous Qaseedah (poem):

“The one who does not defend his basin by his sword would have it destroyed
And the one who does not oppress the people will be oppressed” (4).

This is also portrayed in the following statement of ‘An-Naabigha Adh-Dhubyani’:

“The wolves aggress against the one who has no dogs

And you are protected from attack by emboldening with force” (5).

[(1) Ancient Times: 91 (2) Ancient Times 168, (3) History of Tabari 2/153, (4) The Poetry of War in the Jaahiliyah (Pre-Islamic)
Era p22, (5) The Poetry of War in the Jaahiliyah (Pre-Islamic) Era p21].

4 – Revenge and reprisal:

This happens when an individual from one group aggresses against another from a different group. They
could be from two different tribes or from one single tribe and the people of the one killed refuse to take
blood money or even Al-Qisaas (penal retribution) in respect to the killer alone. They then launch a war
against the group of the killer with the intended purpose of wiping them out or inflict and punish them
severely with death.

This cause from amongst the causes of war was expressed in the words of a woman warning her people
from accepting she-camels as blood money for the one who had been killed from amongst them and
incited them to engage in killing:

“Nay, do not take (accept) milk (from the camels), but rather
Make your people taste the sharp edge of the sword” (1)

The sister of Kulaib Wa’il the leader of Taghlib who was killed by Jassas Bin Murrah Al-Bakriyy also
expressed this. After she heard that her brother had been killed she said:

“Woe to the family (clan) of Murrah, from one attack to another” (2)

Al-Muhalhil, the brother of the killed Kulaib, expressed his state of mind and his determination that he
had become resolved upon in respect to the killing of his brother when he said:

“My condition when an announcer announces the death of Kulaib is like

Sparks flying within me
And I will not put down my shield and sword
Until the night takes away the day
Or until I have eliminated the leaders of Bakr
So that no trace ever remains of them” (3).

5 - Coming to the help of the oppressed:

This cause is exemplified in what was mentioned from the news of the Jaahiliyah (pre[Islamic era) when
the Aws and the Khazraj in Yathrib had been overpowered by the Jews and Al-Kharaaj was imposed
upon them until their situation became dire. So, a delegation was sent to one of the Ghassanide leaders in
Ash-Shaam. They sought his aid and protection from the Jews and he provided it to them. He
accompanied them back to Yathrib, fought the Jews, eliminated their leaders, consolidated the position of
the Aws and the Khazraj, and then returned to where he had come from in Ash-Shaam (4).
[(1) Stories in Islam: p41 by Ahmad Ash-Sharbaasiy (2) Stories in Islam: p42, (3) The Poetry of War in the Jaahiliyah (Pre-
Islamic) Era p196, (4) The Days of the Arabs in Jaahiliyah p 62 by Muhammad Ahmad Al-Mawla Bik, Ali Muhammad Al-
Bajawiy and Muhammad Abu-l-Fadl Ibrahim].

6 - Cleansing the insult made against the guest by blood:

The ‘Day of Haatib’ from the days of the Arabs exemplifies this cause. This can be summarised as
follows: Haatib bin Qais from the Aus, one of the leaders of his people, had a guest come to visit him
from ‘Dhubyan’ and then it happened that the guest went in the morning to the market of Banu
Qainuqaa’. A man from the Khazraj then said to a man from amongst the Jews of Bani Qainuqaa’ who
were (at that time) allies with the Khazraj: “You can have my cloak if you kick this Dhubyani on his
backside”. So the Jew took the cloak and kicked the backside of the Dhubyani (guest from Dhubyan) with
a strike that all who were in the market heard. The Dhubyani then called out: “O Haatib your guest has
been kicked on his backside and been humiliated!”. Haatib then came and struck the Jew with his sword
and severed his head. The Khazraji then lashed out at Haatib Al-Awsiy but missed him. He then found
another man from the Aws and killed him. Because of that war then broke out between the Aws and the
Khazraj! (1).

7 - Fervour in defence of honour:

This manifested in one of the days of the wars of ‘Al-Fijaar’ in the pre-Islam Arab era. It was named as
such because it occurred in the forbidden (sanctified) months which indicates the seriousness of this cause
from amongst their causes for wars in the case where they violated the sanctity of these forbidden months
due to it. The summary of what happened is as follows: Some of the young men belonging to Al-
Khalaa’ah and Al-Majoon from Quraish and Kinaanah wanted a woman from Qais in the market of
‘Ukaazh to reveal to them her face but she refused. So one of them slyly approached her when she was
sitting, undid a part of her cloak and tied it to another place. Then when she went to stand up, her body
was exposed and she cried out: O ‘Aamir! Those who she called then came carrying their weapons and
fighting broke out between Qais and Kinaanah in the forbidden or inviolable month (2).

8 - To obtain slaves to boast about and degrade others:

This cause was demonstrated in what was related about Bustaam Bin Qais the master (or head) of Banu
Shaiban. He said to his mother Laylaa Bint Al-Ahwas: “I have served and provided you with a female
slave from every province and I will not stop until I provide you with a female slave from Bani Dabbah”
(3) (Meaning by raiding Bani Dabbah and taking its women as booty).

[(1) The Days of the Arabs in Jaahiliyah p72, (2) The Days of the Arabs in Jaahiliyah p34, (3) The Days of the Arabs in
Jaahiliyah p382].

9 - To impose control over others by force:

This cause was demonstrated clearly in that which was related about Al-Mundhir Bin Maa’a As-Samaa’,
the king of Al-Heerah. He sent a message to the tribe of Bakr calling them to submit to obedience to him.
They rejected that and so Al-Mundhir swore an oath that he would certainly march to them and if he
defeated them he would certainly slaughter them upon the summit of the mountain of Uwaarah (name of a
mountain of Bani Tameem who use to live in what is today called Al-Buraidah in the Qasim region in Najd) until their
blood reached its bottom. He marched into their midst and they met at Uwaarah where they fought each
other fiercely. Bakr were then defeated and Al-Mundhir captured many of them. He then commanded
that they be slaughtered on the mountain of Uwaarah but the blood congealed. Then it was said to him:
“You have cursed yourself! Had you slaughtered every Bakriy upon the face of the earth their blood
would not have reached the bottom. However, if you were to have poured water upon it!” And so he did
that and the blood flowed to the foot of the mountain (1).
10 - Some of the pre-Islamic (Jaahiliyah) concepts used to incite fighting:

Example: “Support your brother if he is an oppressor or oppressed” and this concept was demonstrated
upon its apparent meaning in the statement of their poet:

“They do not ask their brother when he charges them

In respect to the disasters (he has brought) about what his proof (or evidence) was” (2)

Or like making the source of pride the ability to be unjust or treacherous whilst making weakness or
inability in these two characteristics a source of ridicule, derision and blameworthiness. This pre-Islamic
Arab concept was demonstrated in the statement of An-Najaashi Al-Haarithiy when ridiculing Banu ul-
‘Ajlaan:

“A small (insignificant) tribe who do not betray a covenant

And who do not oppress the people even to the amount of a mustard seed” (3)

[(1) The Days of the Arabs in Jaahiliyah p99, (2) The Dawn of Islam p 10 by Dr. Ahmad Amin, (3) Poetry and the Poets 1/331,
Ibn Qutaibah].

An example demonstrating treachery and injustice can be found within what was mentioned from the
reports of the days of the Arabs about ‘Amr Bin Al-Mundhir. He had convened a treaty with the tribe of
Tay’ stating that they would not contend, attack or to vie in glory and pride. Then,this ‘Amr attacked Al-
Yamamah and when he returned he passed by Tay’. One of his men then said to him: “You are cursed!
Will you take and gain anything from this area?”. ‘Amr replied: “Woe upon you! They have a treaty (or
covenant) protecting them” … Then the man said: “And so what”. And he continued until they raided
them and took women and a herd of camels (1).

11 - The attainment of material benefits and cheap labour by enslaving the conquered:

It was from the well-known customs or norms amongst most of the ancient peoples that when the war
produced victors and defeated, the victors would take possession of the women of the defeated people
and their children as servants. The masters from the victors would then task their female slaves to give
away their honour to those who desired it for monetary recompense. They considered that to be a revenue
from amongst the revenues of wealth that is the right of the victors to take from the defeated enemies.
The Qur’an Al-Karim referred to this shameful disgrace that characterised the pre-Islamic period when it
presented the forbiddance of this sinful act in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫اْلَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا‬
ْ ‫ض‬ ُّ َ‫َوََّل تُ ْك ِرُهوا فَتَ يَاتِ ُك ْم َعلَى الْبِغَ ِاء إِ ْن أ ََرْد َن ََت‬
َ ‫صنًا لِّتَْبتَ غُوا َعَر‬
And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly
life (An-Noor: 33) (2).

As for the strongest men from the defeated people, then they would become slaves; either for hard labour
for their masters or to be hired to others, investing in their efforts (3).

12 - Difference in respect to religion due to mere partisanship or the invitation to a truth:

This difference could be the cause for a criminal sinful war, like the war campaign led by the Jewish
Himyarite leader Dhu Nuwas, from the south of Yemen towards Christian Najran, which was drowned in
pools of blood. That was because they refused to abandon their religion and embrace Judaism. They were
then afflicted with collective extermination through killing by sword and burning by fire, as we have
previously mentioned.
The difference in respect to religion could also be a reason for fighting in the way of Allah like that
mentioned in the Qur’an Al-Kareem about Bani Isra’eel when He Ta’Aalaa said:

‫ث لَنَا َملِ ًكا نُّ َقاتِ ْل ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّ ِه‬
ْ ‫ِب ََّّلُ ُم ابْ َع‬ ِ
ٍّ َِ‫وس ٰى إِ ْذ قَالُوا لن‬
ِ ِ ِ‫أَ َمل تَر إِ ََل الْم ََِل ِمن ب ِِن إِسرائ‬
َ ‫يل من بَ ْعد ُم‬
َ َْ َ َ َ ْ
Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs:
"Send to us a king, and we will fight in the way of Allah" (Al-Baqarah: 246)

Or like that which was mentioned about the fighting of Dawud (as) against Jalut and the conquests of
Suleiman (as) to liberate the people from servitude to other than Allah and to guide them into the
sanctuary of Imaan and blessing of Islam. The Qur’an Al-Kareem transmits to us from Suleiman (as) this
reason that motivated him to fight, as found in the letter that he sent to Bilqis the queen of Saba’ (Sheba)
in Yemen:

‫﴾ أَََّّل‬٣٠﴿ ‫الرِحي ِم‬ َّ ‫﴾ إِنَّهُ ِمن ُسلَْي َما َن َوإِنَّهُ بِ ْس ِم اللَّ ِه‬٢٩﴿ ٌ‫اب َك ِرمي‬
َّ ‫الر ْحَٰ ِن‬ ِ ََّ ِ‫قَالَت يا أَيُّها الْم ََلُ إِ ِِّّن أُلْ ِقي إ‬
ٌ َ‫َل كت‬ َ َ َ َ ْ
ِِ
َ ‫تَ ْعلُوا َعلَ َّي َوأْتُوِِّن ُم ْسلم‬
‫ني‬

She said: "O eminent ones (her council), indeed, to me has been delivered a noble letter. Indeed, it is from Solomon, and
indeed, it reads: 'In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. Be not haughty with me but come to
me in submission [as Muslims].' " (An-Naml: 29-31).

And it explained how Suleiman (as) was concerned about having an extensive army to fulfil that purpose:

ِ ‫ود ََّّل قِبل ََّلم ِِبا ولَنُخ ِرجنَّهم ِّمْن ها أ َِذلَّةً وهم ص‬
‫اغ ُرو َن‬ ٍ ُ‫ارِجع إِلَي ِهم فَلَنَأْتِي نَّهم ِِبن‬
َ ْ َُ َ ُ َ ْ َ َ ُ ََ ُ َُ ْ ْ ْ ْ
Return to them, for we will surely come to them with soldiers that they will be powerless to encounter, and we will surely expel
them therefrom in humiliation, and they will be debased (An-Naml: 37).

How then did the queen of Sheba respond to Suleiman (as) without resorting to war:

‫ني‬ ِ ِّ ‫ب إِ ِِّّن ظَلَمت نَ ْف ِسي وأَسلَمت مع سلَيما َن لِلَّ ِه ر‬

َ ‫ب الْ َعالَم‬َ َْ ُ َ َ ُ ْ ْ َ ُ ْ ِّ ‫ت َر‬
ْ َ‫قَال‬
She said: "My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, Lord of the worlds" (An-Naml:
44).

Also within the category of wars undertaken for the Deen is what the Qur’an Al-Kareem has told us
about in respect to the conquests of Dhu-l-Qarnain in Soorah Al-Kahf (Aayaat 83-99).

13 - A (power) struggle over the authority:

This was clearly demonstrated within the history of the Roman Empire. It was the period in which a
military force under the leadership of Marius in support of popular demands was established and took
over Rome. The leaders of the Senate were killed and he was elected as its leader; the Consul over Rome.

After that another military force was arose in opposition to the first in support of the Senate under the
leadership of Sulla. He was appointed as its head under the restored title of ‘Dictator’ which was followed
by a purge of the opposing party and the seizure of their properties and wealth (1).

[(1) Ancient Times: p56. Like this was the war that took place amongst the Greeks when they divided into two kingdoms; one
military and one civil: Sparta and Athens].
Another example of this cause is found mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham when discussing two
tribal communities from amongst the Arab tribes who had left Yemen and descended in Makkah. A tribal
community led by Madad Bin ‘Amr was located at the top of Makkah whilst the bottom of Makkah was
the location of the second tribal community under the leadership of As-Samayda’. Each of these two
tribes would impose a tax upon anyone entering Makkah from their side, represented in a tenth of the
wealth of traders entering Makkah. Due to this situation competition arose amongst them, a struggle over
the authority and fierce fighting took place between them (1).

14 - The struggle over important (strategic) lands:

This was manifested in the struggle over the land of Palestine which represented the meeting point or
ground of the armies of the expansionist states throughout ancient history. That is due to its strategic
location between its two powerful neighbours; Egypt and the lands between the two rivers. It was the
main bridge between Asia and Africa and it was or that reason that Egypt took control over it for
hundreds of years. The Hebrews then entered and fought against its inhabitants which was followed, not
long after, by the Assyrians taking control over its northern section. The Chaldeans then took over the
southern section at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar which was followed by the Persians marching armies to
it and taking it over. Alexander the Macedonian then conquered it, followed by the Romans (2) who
remained until the Islamic conquest!

15 - To suppress revolutions within the lands and outlying provinces:

Examples of suppressing domestic revolutions include what took place in the history of the Roman
Empire when the slaves of Sicily revolted due to the bad treatment that was practised against them. 60
thousand slaves revolted, killed their masters, took over cities and villages and established a kingdom for
them. Rome then unleashed a Roman army against them and clashed with them in wars for a number of
years (3).

An example of suppressing revolutions in the outlying provinces is demonstrated in the army led by
Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean king from Babylon between the two rivers, to deal decisively with the
revolutions taking place within the lands of Ash-Shaam and Palestine. This was when Egypt was inciting
the inhabitants to revolt against the Babylon authority to weaken it and to inflame it with internal
problems. However, Nebuchadnezzar punished the inhabitants of these land and the Jews in particular.
He destroyed Jerusalem in the year 586 BCE and many of the inhabitants were driven to Babylon (4).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hisham p123-125, (2) Ancient Times p217-234, (3) Ancient Times p549, (4) Ancient Times p180].

16 - Interference in the internal affairs of other states:

This cause manifests clearly within the history of the wars between Assyria and Egypt. This was in the
case where Egypt did not cease inciting the western peoples in Asia to revolt against the Assyrian rule.
The peoples would respond to this and revolt against subservience to the Assyrians seeking to rid
themselves of the Jizyah that was imposed upon them. Assyria realised that Egypt was a thorn in its side a
that it was necessary to discipline it. Consequently, they dispatched army after army towards Egypt and in
the end they were successful in taking possession of Lower Egypt which remained in their grip for a long
period of time (1).

17 - Dominance over the world:

Every expansionist state seeks to dominate over the world if the international situation facilitates that and
the balance of power was on to its side. It was on this basis that the Assyrians sought to gain dominance
and control over the world. This was also what Alexander the Macedonian aspired for when the Persian
king Darwish sent a message to him offering a truce. The dividing line between them would be the
Euphrates, where the west of the river would be for Alexander and East to the Persians. Alexander
rejected this offer and he dismissed those from his men who indicated that it should be accepted. He
decided that he would conquer the world in its entirety (2) and his wars continued upon that objective.

The same applies in respect to the wars between the Romans and the Carthage over a period of 120 years
which represented a war between two states vying for world dominance (3). The Sassanid rule then arose
in the Persian lands and they regarded themselves to be a rival to the Romans and their competitors over
world dominance. The wars that took place between them were motivated by this reason (4).

[(1) Ancient Times p164-166, (2) Ancient Times p422, (3) Ancient Times p526, (4) Ancient Times p632].

18 - Differences in respect to the manner or mode of living:

The secret behind this being a reason or cause for war is that when people in any society continue for a
long period upon a particular mode of living and life, that mode becomes a part of their nature and they
cannot conceive a life in its absence. If another society is then found that lives upon other than their
mode of living, these societies would naturally and mutually be averse to each other. If friction occurs
between these two societies the aversion can turn into hostility, and hostility into war. This is what
happened between the Kingdom of Isra’eel in the north of Palestine and the Judah kingdom in the south.

The northern society had their share of wealth, advancement, manufacturing and trade whilst the southern
society was in a condition of poverty, backwardness, aridity of land and a Bedouin style of living amongst
many of the people. Hatred became consolidated within the breasts of the same single nation due to the
difference in the manner and mode of living. In addition, it appears that the religious concepts differed
between these two societies. The northern people were influenced by the religiousness of the ancient
Canaanites and came to worship their deities whilst they turned their backs on the covenant of Jehovah,
the God of the Jews. They idea arose amongst them that the deities of the Canaanites protected the
inhabitants of the affluent cities who were oppressing the poor whilst Jehovah was the protector of the
simple poor Bedouin shepherds. In this manner, the difference in respect to the manner and mode of life
between these two societies became pronounced and deeply rooted. This was accompanied by the
differences in respect to religious concepts which further consolidated the difference in respect to the
manner of life. It was due to this that many wars broke out between these two societies (1).

19 - To bring about a unity in respect to the people and the state and to eliminate the causes and
factors of division:

We have seen this cause from amongst the causes of war manifested in what Ardashir bin Babik
undertook within the Persian lands when he launched wars against the factional kingdoms, which
Alexander the Macedonian had divided the Persian kingdom into, utilising the policy of ‘divide and rule’.
Ardashir was successful in restoring unity to the people and the lands (2).

[(1) Ancient Times p225, (2) History of At-Tabari 2/38-44].

20 - To liberate the land from foreign occupation:

This cause comprises a chapter of the ancient bloody struggle between the Persians and the Greeks in the
5th century before common era. The Persians were capable of occupying much of the Greek lands. The
armies of Greece consisted of Athens, Sparta and the rest of their allies and they engaged the Persian
armies in numerous wars to liberate their lands. That was until they accomplished their liberation and
defeated the Persians who retreated and were followed by the Greeks until Dardanelles (1).
21 - Ambition in respect to inheriting states:

This cause is the reason behind the bloody wars that took place between the commanders who were allies
of Alexander the Macedonian. Each of them desired to take control over the Macedonian empire in its
totality. Many of those who ardently desired the kingdom perished in those wars and thereafter the empire
was divided into three kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Egypt (2) as we explained previously.

22 – To restore balance with an opponent or enemy:

This cause is demonstrated within a chapter of the Carthage expansionist chapters undertaken through
wars. When the Rome authority, which was the Carthage enemy, expanded until the Alps, Carthage felt
that an imbalance had occurred in the balance of power between it and Rome. It realised that is it did not
act quickly to rectify this imbalance then its survival would remain in danger and under threat. For that
reason, Carthage launched a war against the south of Spain and occupied it under the leadership of
Hannibal. Through this the leader felt that the balance between his lands and Rome had been restored or
that in fact the balance had tipped in the favour of his country. This then led him to think about
surprising Rome in their heartland and so he descended upon it from the north (3).

[(1) Ancient Times p339-346, (2) Ancient Times p434, (3) Ancient Times p521].

23 - To protect the external interests of the land:

That happens in the situation when the nation has interests outside of its borders and builds upon that
responsibilities, the fulfilment of which are attached to what lies outside its lands. It is then inevitable that
it will clash with other nations which have similar interests and similar responsibilities upon them. When
the interests conflict with each other no limits are known in respect to that conflicting. Rather, it is
possible for them to lead to a war followed by (many) wars. This was like the reality of the island of Sicily
which became the spark for a long war that took place between Rome and Carthage when Rome
connected an interest to it. Sicily had been one of Carthage’s possessions and was enabled, due to this
island, to gain control and dominance over the Messina Strait situated between Italy and Sicily. The strait
was also vital to Rome and so it was unable to bear it. Consequently, war broke out for control over Sicily
which went on for 23 years before ending in the year 264 BCE with Rome’s victory and Sicily annexation
to it. In this way Rome came to have external interests when it took control of lands outside of Italy.
Following that step it was unable to look back and began to wage war against Carthage in protection of its
external interests for 120 years which finally ended with the destruction of Carthage in the year 146 BCE
(1).

24 - Breaking of covenants or treaties agreed between the states:

Examples of this cause from amongst the causes of bloody struggles amongst states include the war that
broke out between Rome and Carthage upon the Spanish borders. There had been a treaty between the
two states stipulating that the Carthage military forces would not go beyond the area behind the Ebro
river. Carthage then broke that treaty and crossed that red line (as they say today). That was then a cause
for the war that took place between the two upon the Spanish borders (2).

25 - Coercion to make others enter alliances:

We can see this cause within the Greek history following the era of Alexander the Macedonian when an
alliance was formed between the small Greek provinces in an effort to strengthen itself before its enemy
and out of forced necessity due to the individual weakness of each one. This alliance resembled a military
alliance. It was headed by a yearly commander who was entrusted to oversee the army whilst a number of
officers were delegated to look into defence matters and foreign relations.
It happened that the Spartan government refused to join this alliance and so the allies declared war against
it to compel it to join. Sparta won this war and so the allies sought help and assistance from Macedonia.
Sparta was then defeated and lost its independence and became a subservient state (3).

[(1) Ancient Times p531, (2) Ancient Times p521, (3) Ancient Times p442].

26 - To entangle states with whom treaties have been made, forcing them to break the treaty and
to use that as a pretext to declare war against it:

This cause from amongst the cause of war is demonstrated within the final military battles that eliminated
the Carthage from existence in the year 146 BCE.

When Hannibal’s army was defeated in the battle of Zama by the Roman army inside of the Carthage
territories. A treaty was contracted between the two in which Carthage would have to pay a huge financial
ransom for a period of 50 years and would not wage war against anyone without the Rome’s permission.
After 50 years, the demanded amount had been paid in full and so at that point Rome secretly incited the
Numidians, the western neighbours of Carthage, to commit aggressions against Carthage, which they did.
This led them in turn to defend themselves which is what Rome had wanted to happen. Rome then
announced that Carthage had violated the treaty for waging war against Numidia without its permission
and then declared war against Carthage finally eliminating it for good (1).

27 - Fear of the future power of an opponent and to strike it before it attains that strength or
power (i.e. pre-emptive war):

This cause is exemplified in the war that Rome ignited against Philip the 7th of Macedonia. That was
because Rome had learnt a lesson from what happened during its long wars with Carthage that lasted for
120 years. That lesson was to not allow a power overlooking the Mediterranean to pose a threat to it. For
that reason, when it became aware that Philip, the king of Macedonia had made an agreement with the
King of Asia, Antiochus the 3rd to divide the properties of Egypt, it perceived a future threat in respect to
the increase and build-up of neighbouring Macedonia’s power. Upon this basis, Rome decided to crush
Philip before he could build his power and so it came to pass and Macedonia was annexed into the
Roman State (2).

[(1) History of Mankind 2/555, (2) Ancient Times p533].

28 - To eliminate separatist movements and those who have usurped authority in the outlying
parts of the lands:

This represents one of the reasons for war and it was this that pushed those of the great empires to
engage in battles to preserve the unity and integrity of their empires and crush any attempt to fragment
their states and tear them apart. In the 3rd century after the birth of the history of the Roman empire,
Tatriqus, a member of the Roman senate, managed to take over most of what is France today, Britain and
Spain, and then he separated them from the body of the Roman empire, becoming the master of these
western lands.

Other separatist movements arose in the outlying parts of the Roman state and so Emperor Orilyanus
responded and led an army to wage a war against those separatists and those seeking independence. He
consequently returned matters to what they had been and restored the unity of the Empire (1).

29 - To clean the internal house i.e. cleanse the land of elements of trouble, disruption and
corruption, or from those who have ambition to attain the authority:
We can perceive this reason for war from the dialogue that took place between Saif Bin Dhi Yazan, one of
the leaders of Yemen, and Kisraa, the king of Persia. After Abyssinia took over Yemen through
incitement from the Roman state, Saif Bin Dhi Yazan said: O King, we have been defeated in our lands by
the crows (meaning blacks (Africans) using a metaphor) and so I have come to you so that you support
me and so that the authority of my lands belongs to you!

Kisraa replied: Your lands have become distant (i.e. insignificant) due to the scarcity of its resources!
Consequently, I will not involve and army from Persia within the land of the Arabs… Kisraa then
presented this matter to his consultants and one of them said: O King, there are in your prison men
whom you have imprisoned for killing, and they have numbered 800. So if you dispatch them alongside
him (Saif) and they perish, then that is what you intended for them, and if they are victorious then your
kingdom has been increased!

And so, it came to pass… the army marched to Yemen and was joined by some Yemeni Arabs. War then
took place between their army and the Abyssinian army which Allah destined for the Persian army to win
and Yemen became an extension to the Persian kingdom (2).

[(1) Ancient Times 634, (2) Seerah of Ibn Hisham: 1/66-73].

30 – War by agency:

We observe this cause from amongst the causes of war within the policy of both the Romans and the
Persians towards those who were neighbouring them from among the Arabs. That was in the case where
the Romans took the Ghassanides as agents for them upon the upper part of the desert or nomadic areas
of the lands of Ash-Shaam. They would seek assistance and depend upon the to block the Bedouin attacks
upon the built up or civilised settled areas. That was whilst the Persians took the Munaadharah upon the
border of As-Sawaad (Iraq) as agents for them for the very same reason (1).

Consequently, those Arabs of Ghassan in Ash-Shaam and the Arabs of Al-Munaadharah in Al-Heerah
would engage in wars with the Arab tribes on behalf of the Romans and Persians. For the same reason,
the war between the Ghassanides and the Munaadharah did not cease (2).

At-Tabari reported that the Persians had made a deal with Al-Haarith Bin Amr Al-Kindiy, the King of
Heerah, to discipline the Arabs who raided upon the Persian border. Then when some Arabs raided As-
Sawaad (Iraq), Qubaadh the Persian King learnt about that, and so Qubaadh informed Al-Haarith about
it, as if he was responsible for these raids. So Al-Haarith said: “They are Arab thieves and I cannot keep
the Arabs under control except by money and with soldiers”. The King of Persia then commanded him
with what he wanted to wage war on the Arab tribes neighbouring Persia on his behalf (3).

I say: The above represents some of the causes that use to initiate the wars; the large wars and the smaller
ones, the comprehensive and the limited, internal and external, within the ancient world prior to the
coming of Islam.

A person may well ask: “Is it not possible to revise these causes and motives to a smaller number than
what has been mentioned?” And the answer is: Certainly it can. That is because there is some overlapping
amongst some of these causes, or generalising and specifying, or ambivalence and detailing. However, I
preferred to present it in this manner believing that this style of presentation would bring those wars
closer to our understandings in respect to this era. In addition, it draws to our understanding that many of
its causes are like those of recent wars in our history.

[(1) History of the Islamic peoples p23, (2) History of the Islamic peoples p23, (3) History of At-Tabari 2/95-96].

Reducing and focusing the previous causes:

In spite of the above, one of the contemporary Islamic thinkers focused and reduced the causes of wars,
whether in the ancient past or modern era, to two causes or reasons: 1 – Chasing after material benefits. 2
– Love of dominance/control, whether this related to the dominance of a nation or people as was the case
in Germany, or in respect to the dominance of the ideology, as is the case of the Islamic State (1).

Following this introductory foreword which has taken us quickly through a long journey of time, starting
with what has been named the era of history dated 4000 years (2) before the birth of ‘Iesaa Alaihi-s-Salaam,
and ending at the time of the dawn of the Islamic era. We have looked at some of the wars that used to
break out between states, nations and peoples, and we have seen their effects and what lay behind them in
terms of reasons and motives…

I say: After this journey within the domain of these wars… We now arrive at the domain of the Islamic
Jihaad, so let us stop at its doors (to examine it)…

We now proceed to deal with the first chapter upon the Barakah of Allah.

[(1) Political Concepts, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy-ud-Deen An-Nabahaani: p75, (2) Ancient Times p38)].

First Volume
Chapter One:
The definition of Al-Jihaad

Chapter Two:
The types of Qitaal (fighting) in Islam and which of these does the definition of Al-
Jihaad apply upon?

Chapter One
The definition of Al-Jihaad linguistically, Shar’an (according to the Shar’a), ‘Urfan
(according to the custom) and Istilaahan (according to terminological convention)

The Ta’reef (definition:

- Sources of the definition

- The meanings of the Alfaazh (wordings) within the Arabic language: (Al-Haqeeqah Al-
Lughawiyah, Ash-Shar’iyah and Al-‘Urfiyah Al-‘Aammah and Al-Khaassah).

- Al-Jihaad: In accordance to the linguistic provision.

- Al-Jihaad: In accordance to the Shar’iy provision.

- Al-Jihaad: In accordance to the ‘Urf Al-‘Aamm (general custom).

- Al-Jihaad: In accordance to the ‘Urf Al-Khaass (specific custom): Al-Istilaah Al-Fiqhiy (Fiqhi
terminological convention).

‫بسم اهلل الرحمن الرحيم‬

Chapter One
The definition of Al-Jihaad linguistically, Shar’an (according to the Shar’a), ‘Urfan
(according to the custom) and Istilaahan (according to terminological convention)

The Ta’reef (definition):

Sources of the definition:

The sources that we have referred to for the definition of Al-Jihaad, with its variety and number of
meanings, are of two types:

- There is a type from these sources, which has been brought about by its people, in origin to treat and
deal with the individual words (Mufradaat) in a linguistic manner. That is so that their meanings, that these
words have been provided for within the language of the Arabs, become evident to us. These could also
branch off into other meanings provided by these individual words in a metaphorical manner or due to a
Shar’iy transferal of the meaning, or ‘Urfi (customary) transferal or Istilaahi (terminological convention)
one. These sources include the language dictionaries like Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet, Lisaan ul-‘Arab and
Mukhtaar As-Sihhah.

- Another type of these sources was brought about by its people to treat the terminological conventions
in a subject orientated or contextual manner. That is so that the meanings of the Mustalahaat
(terminological conventions) become evident to us, in terms of it being a terminology provided for
specific concepts or understandings which are not restricted to the mere mention of the linguistic
meaning. Had they been indicative of the linguistic meaning they would not have been treated and dealt
with by way of Mustalahaat (terminologies). Many of the authors of these sources are from the scholars of
the language as well, even if what they brought was not restricted to language areas of study or if they
didn’t specialise any of their knowledge based works in these areas of study and research. These resources
include Al-Bidaayah by Ibn Al-Atheer, At-Tareefaat by Al-Jarjaaniy and numerous books of Usool ul-
Fiqh, Fiqh, Tafseer and Hadeeth.

I say: We will depend upon these two kinds of sources when defining Al-Jihaad with its various or
differing meanings.

The meaning of the Alfaazh (wordings) within the Arab language

The ‘Ulamaa of Usool ul-Fiqh, following the ‘Ulamaa of language, have divided the Lafzh (wording), in
accordance to the meaning that is attained from it, into four categories: Haqeeqah (literal), Majaaz
(metaphorical), Sareeh (explicit) and Kinaayah (metonymy or indirect expression) (1).

What concerns us here in our study and examination of the meanings of Al-Jihaad is the category of the
Haqeeqah (literal), in addition to what comes out from the Haqeeqah and into the Majaaz (metaphorical).
They have defined the Haqeeqah and explained its categories by their statement: “It is the Lafzh (wording)
utilised for that which it has been set or provided for. Consequently, that includes: The linguistic
provision, the Shar’iy, the ‘Urfiy (customary) and the Istilaahiy (terminological)” (2).

We will now define these categories of the Haqeeqah (literal meaning) and then examine which of these
categories the wording “Al-Jihaad” belongs to.

1 - Al-Haqeeqah Al-Lughawiy (linguistic literal meaning):

It is the Lafzh (wording) utilised for what it was provided for by the language. It is like: ‘Al-Insaan’ (the
human) and ‘Al-Faras’ (the horse) (3).

2 - Al-Haqeeqah Ash-Shar’iyah (the Shar’iy Haqeeqah meaning):

It is representative of the Alfaazh (wordings) that Ash-Shaari’ (the Legislator) has utilised for meanings
that the Arab’s did not originally provide for them (4). An example of this includes: ‘As-Salaah’ which was
provided and set by the Arabs with the meaning of ‘Ad-Du’aa’ (supplication). The Shar’a then transferred
it to a new meaning which is: ‘The actions and statements which begin with At-Takbeer and end with At-
Tasleem’.

3 - Al-Haqeeqah Al-‘Urfiyah (the customary Haqeeqah meaning):

This refers to the Lafzh (wording) that has been transferred from its linguistic meaning to other than it
due to the general (widespread) usage within the language in the case where the original meaning is
abandoned. This includes within it two categories:
The first: That the name had been provided for a general meaning and then it was specified by a custom
‘Urf) that the people of the language used for some of its naming (Note: i.e. with a meaning that includes some of
the original meaning but not all of it). That is like the specification of the Lafzh ‘Ad-Daabbah’ to that which
moves upon four legs in accordance to the ‘Urf (customary usage) even though in the origin of the
language it was provided for everything that moves upon the ground including the human and other
animals.

[(1) Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islamiy: Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy 1/292, (2) Irshaad Al-Fuhool,: Ash-Shawkaaniy p20 (3) Usool ul-Fiqh:
Muhammad Abu An-Nur Zuhair 2/52, (4) Usool ul-Fiqh: Muhammad Abu An-Nur Zuhair 2/53].

The second: That the Ism (noun) in the origin of the language has a meaning. Then, the customary usage
became well-known and widespread with a meaning outside of the linguistic subject area, in the case
where nothing else is understood from the Lafzh (wording) when it is spoken. That is like the word
‘Ghaa’it’ because in its original linguistic provision refers to a place of low lying ground. However, it
became well-known in accordance to the ‘Urf (custom) of the people of the language to refer to the
excrement and waste that exits the human body whilst no other meaning is understood from this Lafzh
(wording) when it is spoken (1).

4 - Al-Haqeeqah Al-‘Urfiyah Al-Khaassah which is also known as ‘Al-Istilaah’ (terminology):

It refers to the Lafzh (wording) that has been provided with a meaning by the language and the people of
a specific custom have used it in other than that meaning so that this usage became widespread amongst
them, to the point that it is not understood amongst them except with this (new) meaning). Examples of
this include the terminologies of ‘Ar-Raf’u’, ‘An-Nasb’ and ‘Al-Jarr’ in relation to the scholars of Arabic
grammar (2).

In respect to any category from amongst these four categories of Al-Haqeeqah (the literal), if they (the
people) utilise the Lafzh (wording) for other than the widespread and well-known meaning amongst them
due to a Qareenah (connotation) indicating the intended meaning, then in such a case they would have
used the Majaaz (metaphorical) (3).

Accordingly, if any of the people of the Shar’a (i.e. its scholars) used the word ‘As-Salaah’ with the
meaning of ‘Ad-Du’aa’ (supplication) then it would represent a metaphorical usage (Majaaz). That is even
if the word ‘As-Salaah’, with the meaning of ‘Ad-Du’aa’, represents a Haqeeqah Lughawiyah (literal
linguistic meaning) according to the people of the language (i.e. its scholars). An example of this is what
was mentioned within the books of Ahaadeeth: Abu Usaid As-Saa’adiy related that Maalik Bin Rabee’ah
said: Whilst we were in the company of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬a man approached from Bani Salamah and said:

ُ‫ َوإِنْ َفاذ‬، ‫ َو ِاَّل ْستِ ْغ َف ُار ََّلَُما‬، ‫الص ََلةُ َعلَْي ِه َما‬
َّ ، ‫ " نَ َع ْم‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ي أَبَُّرُُهَا بِِه بَ ْع َد َم ْوِتِِ َما ؟ ق‬
َّ ‫ول اللَّ ِه َه ْل بَِق َي ِم ْن بِِّر أَبَ َو‬
َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ال‬
َ ‫فَ َق‬
‫ص ِد ِيق ِه َما‬ ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِِ
َ ‫ َوإِ ْكَر ُام‬، ‫وص ُل إََِّّل ِب َما‬
َ ُ‫ َوصلَةُ ا َّلرح ِم الَِِّت ََّل ت‬، ‫َع ْهدُهَا م ْن بَ ْعدُهَا‬
O Messenger of Allah! Does there remain any duty in respect to obedience and good treatment to
my parents after their deaths? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Yes! As-Salaah upon them, seeking forgiveness for
them, seeing through their covenants after their deaths, Silat Ar-Rahm (keeping ties of the
womb) which are not connected except though them and honouring their friend” (4).

The word ‘As-Salaah’ in this Hadeeth holds the meaning of the ‘Du’aa’ (supplication) and it is understood
from the angle of Al-Majaaz (metaphorically). That is because the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the conveyor
of the legislation, did not use the word ‘As-Salaah’ with its Shar’iy meaning which is the original position
in respect to him. Rather, he used it with the linguistic meaning metaphorically. In the same way, if the
people (scholars) of the language utilised the word ‘As-Salaah’ in their studies, not with the meaning of the
supplication, but rather with the Shar’iy meaning with a Qareenah (connotation) indicating their intended
meaning, then that would represent a metaphorical usage in respect to them. Likewise, the same applies in
respect to the other categories when other than their meaning has been utilised with a Qareenah indicating
the intended meaning.

[(1) Al-Ihkaam fee Usool il-Ahkaam: Al-Aamadiy 1/28. Also refer to Al-Furooq by Al-Quraafiy 3/85, (2) Usool ul-Fiqh:
Muhammad Abu An-Nur Zuhair 2/52, (3) Ijaabat As-Saa’il, Sharh Bughyat ul-Aamal: As-San’aaniy p262 and Usool ul-Fiqh Al-
Islamiy: Dr. Az-Zuhailiy 1/293, (4) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal 3/498, Abu Dawud 5132, Ibn Maajah 3664, 2/1209 with some
variation in the related worded versions].

Now and at this point we arrive to the word of ‘Al-Jihaad’ to see which of these categories of the
Haqeeqah it belongs to? And whether it also has Majaazi (metaphorical) utilisations)?

A - Al-Jihaad in accordance to the linguistic provision (1):

‘Al-Jihaad’ is the Masdar (infinitive) of a the F’il Ar-Rubaa’iy (the verb consisting of four letters): Jaahada
(ََ‫)جا َهد‬
َ and it is upon the ‘Fi’aal’ Wazn (form) equivalent to the meaning of ‘Al-Mufaa’alah’ (form) from
both sides. For example: ‘Al-Khisaam’ (contestation) is the same meaning as ‘Al-Mukhaasamah’ and is the
Masdar (infinitive) of ‘Khaasama’ (to contest/he contested). Similarly, ‘Al-Jidaal’ (argument/controversy)
holds the meaning of ‘Al-Mujaadalah’ and is the Masdar (infinitive) of ‘Jaadala’. The F’il Ath-Thulaathi
(the original three letter verb) of the word (Al-Jihaad) is ‘Jahida’ (َ‫)ج ِه َد‬.
َ The author of the Qamoos has
provided the three letter Masdar (infinitive) and its meaning saying: “Al-Jahd: At-Taaqah, Wa Yudammu,
Wal-Mashaqqah” (Al-Jahd means the capacity, and it can be written with Dammah as Al-Juhd and it
means difficulty or hardship) (2).

And in Lisaan Al-‘Arab: It is said: “Al-Jahd (with a Fat’hah) meaning Al-Mashaqqah (difficulty/hardship),
and Al-Juhd (with a Dammah) meaning At-Taaqah (capacity) and within it is Al-Jihaad which is: The
utmost exertion with all that one has of ability (or effort) and capacity in relation to a statement (opinion)
or actions” (3).

The author of ‘Al-Munjid’ says: “Jaahada. Mujaahadatan and Jihaadan: Exerting or expending his
capability (effort). And the origin is: Each side has expended its effort in respect to drive off his
companion (i.e. the other)” (Note: This example indicates that the meaning of this word is only fulfilled when there is an
opposite side acting against it i.e. that there is resistance that needs to be overcome) (4).

- In the Sharh of Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Alaa Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: “Al-Jihaad with a Kasrah on the ‘Jeem’ is the
Masdar as found in the statement: Jaahadtu Al-‘Aduwwa Mujaahadatan i.e. Jihaadan (I made Jihaad against
the enemy as a Jihaad ). Its origin is Jeehaad (‫جي َهاد‬َِ ) like Qeetaal (‫ )قيتال‬but has been lightened through the
omission of the Yaa’. It is derived (Mushtaqq) from Al-Jahd (‫َ)الحهْد‬with َ a Fathah over the ‘Jeem’. It means
‘At-Ta’ab’ (labour or exertion) and ‘Al-Mashaqqah’ (difficulty or hardship or toil) due to what it contains
when being undertaken. Or it is derived from ‘Al-Juhd’ with a Dammah which means ‘At-Taaqah’
(capacity). That is because each side has expended his capacity in respect to driving off its companion (i.e.
the other)” (Note: This example indicates that the meaning of this word is only fulfilled when there is an opposite side acting
against it i.e. that there is resistance that needs to be overcome).

- In the Tafseer of An-Naisaabooriy: “And the correct (view) is that ‘Al-Jihaad’ is: Expending Al-Majhood
(exertion/effort) to attain Al-Maqsood (what is intended or sought after) …” (6)

[(1) The one who is recognised in respect to possessing the right to set the language are the Arabs relied upon for their
language. They are a people restricted to specific limits in terms of place and time. The place is the Arbian Peninsula and the
time is 200 years AH for the Arabs of the cities and 400 Ah for the Arab Bedouins – Wahyu Ar-Risaalah – Az-Zayaat 3/175,
(2) Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet by Al-Fairouz Baadi under the article: Jahada (‫)جهد‬, (3) Lisaan ul-Arab, Ibn Manzhoor under the
article: Jahada (‫)جهد‬, (4) Al-Munjid under the article: Jahada (‫)جهد‬, (5) Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Ala l-Bukhaari 5/30, (6) Tafseer An-
Naisaabooriy 11/126].
- In Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: “As for ‘Al-Jihaad’ in accordance to the language, then it is an expression of the
expending of the effort, when with a Dammah (i.e. Al-Juhd). And it means ‘Al-Was’u’ and ‘At-Taaqah’
(capability and capacity) or ‘Al-Mubaalaghah’ (intensification) in respect to the work/action, when it is
with a Fat’hah (i.e. Al-Jahd) (1). As for his statement: “‘Al-Mubaalaghah’ (intensification) in respect to the
work/action …” then this acts as an indication that the form: (‫َ ُم َفا َعلَة‬,‫اع َل‬ َ ‫ ) َف‬could happen with other than
the ‘Mufaa’alah’ (‫ ) ُم َفا َعلَة‬of both sides but rather it could come for the purpose of ‘Al-Mubaalaghah’
(intensification or exaggeration). This is like the example of ‘َ‫ضا َع َفة‬َ ‫فَ ُم‬
َ ‫اع‬
َ ‫’ض‬َ with the meaning of: ‘ََ‫َّف‬
َ ‫ضع‬
َ
َ‫ ’ َتضْ عِيفا‬which indicates intensification and increase. However, this usage is little in comparison to the first
(2).

After all that has been presented from these statements about the linguistic meaning of the word ‘Al-
Jihaad’ we can provide a linguistic definition which represents the Haqeeqah Al-Lughawiyah for the word
‘Al-Jihaad’. Consequently, we say that:

“Al-Jihaad is: The exertion of the utmost capability in respect to mutually struggling between two sides
and even if this by way of At-Taqdeer (implication)”. What we mean by At-Taqdeer (implication) is the
Jihaad of the person to himself when it is implied or appraised that the person is composed of two sides
within himself where two contradictory opposing desires are struggling with each other within him, and
each struggles to defeat and overcome the other. In this definition, we have combined what was
mentioned in ‘Lisaan ul-Arab’ and ‘Sharh Al-Qastalaaniy’ and we have added to that ‘and even if this by
way of At-Taqdeer’ for the purpose of increasing the clarity.

Based upon this linguistic definition: The expended capability (and effort) could be a material action with
a weapon or by other than a weapon, and by expending wealth or other than wealth. It could also be in
speech (Al-Qawl) (3) and it could be by refraining from the action or the speech (4). That could be like
when a person abstains from satisfying a Haraam desire after an inner struggle. The following was
mentioned in ‘Haashiyat ul-Jamal ‘Ala l-Jalaalaini’ regarding this:

“Al-Jihaad: It is the Sabr (patience perseverance) over the hardship; it could be in war and it could be
within the Nafs (self)” (5).

Also, built upon this linguistic definition:

The other side that the Muslim undertakes Jihaad against could be the Nafs, or the Shaytaan, or Al-
Fussaaq (disobedient rebellious people) or the Kuffaar (disbelievers) (6).

[(1) Badaa’i s-Sanaa’i, Al-Kasaa’iy: 7/97, (2) Shadh’dh Ul-‘Urf Fee Fann As-Sarf, Al-Hamalaawiy: p43, (3) Lisaan ul-Arab, Ibn
Manzhoor under the article: Jahada (‫)جهد‬, (4) Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy (Fat’h ul-Qadeer) 4/193, (5) Haashiyat ul-Jamal ‘Ala l-
Jalalaini 3/441, (6) Al-Qamoos Al-Fiqhiy, Sa’diy Bin Abu Habeeb: p71].

And also based upon this linguistic definition:

Al-Jihaad could be Fee Sabeel Illah (In the way of Allah) like the Jihaad undertaken by the Muslim seeking
the pleasure of Allah. The Jihaad could also be in the way of the Shaytaan like the Jihaad of the
disbelievers against others. That is because Al-Jihaad, as An-Naisabooriy has said, is: “Expending Al-
Majhood (exertion/effort) to attain Al-Maqsood (what is intended or sought after)” (1). This then applies
regardless of the nature of the sought after or intended matter that the one expending the effort is
targeting. The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has used the word ‘Al-Jihaad’ to describe the activity of the disbelieving
fathers and to avert their believer sons away from Imaan (belief):

‫َل َم ْرِجعُ ُك ْم‬

ََّ ِ‫ك بِِه ِع ْل ٌم فَ ََل تُ ِط ْع ُه َما ۗ إ‬
َ َ‫س ل‬ ِ ِ ِ َ ‫َوإِن َج‬
َ ‫اه َد َاك لتُ ْشرَك ِب َما لَْي‬
 But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them. To Me is your
return (i.e. all of you) (Al-‘Ankaboot: 8).

ِ ‫ك بِِه ِع ْلم فَ ََل تُ ِطعهما ۗ وص‬

‫احْب ُه َما ِِف الدُّنْيَا َم ْع ُروفًا‬ َ َ َُْ ٌ َ َ‫س ل‬ ِ ِ َ ‫َوإِن َج‬
َ ‫اه َد َاك َعلَ ٰى أَن تُ ْشرَك ِب َما لَْي‬
But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them
in [this] world with appropriate kindness (Luqmaan: 15).

B – Al-Jihaad in accordance to the Shar’iy provision:

The Shar’a in the Kitaab and the Sunnah has transferred the Lafzh (wording) of ‘Al-Jihaad’ from its
general linguistic meaning (according to what has previously been explained) and it restricted it to a
specific meaning which is:

(... ‫ أ َْو َغ ْري ذَلِك‬،‫ أ َْو تَكْثري َس َو ٍاد‬،‫الرأ ِي‬ َ ‫ ُم‬،ِ‫تال ِِف َسبي ِل اهلل‬
َّ ‫ أَ ِو‬،‫ أ َْو ُم َع َاونَةً ِِب ٍال‬،ً‫باشَرة‬ ِ ‫)ب ْذ ُل الوس ِع ِِف‬
ِ ‫الق‬
ُْ َ
(The expending of the effort (capability and capacity) in fighting in the way of Allah; directly or in
assistance via financing, or bolster the masses (i.e. intensify recruitment or conscription) or other than
that) (4).

It appears that this specific meaning for Al-Jihaad was only in the time Al-Madinah. As for the Makkah
period, then the legislation of Al-Jihaad had not yet been revealed. Consequently, the subject of Al-Jihaad
as mentioned within the Makkiy Aayaat indicates to its meaning in accordance to the general linguistic
provision. This includes three Aayaat in Soorah Al-‘Ankaboot:

‫اه ُد لِنَ ْف ِس ِه‬

ِ ‫ومن جاه َد فَِإََّّنَا َُي‬
َ َ َ ََ
And whoever strives, then only strives for [the benefit of] himself (Al-‘Ankaboot: 6).

‫ك بِِه ِع ْل ٌم فَ ََل تُ ِط ْع ُه َما‬

َ َ‫س ل‬ ِ ِ ِ َ ‫َوإِن َج‬
َ ‫اه َد َاك لتُ ْشرَك ِب َما لَْي‬
But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them (Al-‘Ankaboot: 8).

‫َّه ْم ُسبُلَنَا‬ ِ ِ ِ َّ
ُ ‫اه ُدوا فينَا لَنَ ْهديَن‬
َ ‫ين َج‬
َ ‫َوالذ‬
And those who strive for Us - We will surely guide them to Our paths (Al-‘Ankaboot: 69).

And there is a single Aayah within Soorah Luqman:

‫ك بِِه ِع ْل ٌم فَ ََل تُ ِط ْع ُه َما‬

َ َ‫س ل‬ ِ ِ َ ‫َوإِن َج‬
َ ‫اه َد َاك َعلَ ٰى أَن تُ ْشرَك ِب َما لَْي‬
But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them (Luqmaan: 15).

[(1)) Tafseer An-Naisaabooriy 10/126].

As for the Aayah of Al-Jihaad in the Makkiy Soorah An-Nahl, then it has included within it the mention
of the Hijrah which indicates that there are Madaniyah Aayaat included within the Makkiy Soorah. This is
what the Mufassiroon (scholars of Tafseer) have stated and the Aayah in question is:

‫يم‬ ِ ِ ِ َّ‫َّم إِ َّن ربَّك لِلَّ ِذين هاجروا ِمن ب ع ِد ما فُتِنُوا ُُثَّ جاه ُدوا وصب روا إِ َّن رب‬
ٌ ‫ك من بَ ْعد َها لَغَ ُفوٌر َّرح‬
َ َ ُ ََ َ َ َ َ َْ َُ َ َ َ َ
 Then, verily! Your Lord for those who emigrated after they had been put to trials and thereafter strove hard and fought (for
the Cause of Allah) and were patient, verily, your Lord afterward is, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (An-Nahl: 116).

As for the subject of Al-Jihaad within the Madaniyah Aayaat then they have reached the number of 26
words (1). Most these clearly indicate the meaning of Al-Qitaal (fighting). An example of that is the
following Aayah in Soorah An-Nisaa’:

ِِ ِِ ِ ِ َّ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ
ُ‫َّل اللَّه‬ ِ
َ ‫ني َغْي ُر أُوَل الضََّرر َوالْ ُم َجاه ُدو َن ِف َسب ِيل الل ه بأ َْم َواَّل ْم َوأَن ُفسه ْم ۗ فَض‬ َ ‫ََّّل يَ ْستَ ِوي الْ َقاع ُدو َن م َن الْ ُم ْؤمن‬
ِِ ِ ‫اع‬
ِ ‫اه ِدين بِأَمواَّلِِم وأَن ُف ِس ِهم علَى الْ َق‬
ِ ‫الْمج‬
‫ين َعلَى‬ َ ‫َّل اللَّهُ الْ ُم َجاهد‬
َ ‫ض‬ ‫ف‬
َ‫و‬َ ۗ ‫َن‬
ٰ َ ‫س‬
ْ ‫اْل‬
ُْ ُ‫ه‬ َّ‫ين َد َر َجةً ۗ وُك اَل َو َع َد الل‬
َ َ ‫د‬ َ ْ َ ْ َ ْ َ َُ
‫يما‬ ِ ِِ
ً ‫َجًرا َعظ‬ ْ ‫ين أ‬
َ ‫الْ َقاعد‬
Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and
those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those
who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised
good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward
(An-Nisaa’: 95).

It is clear within this Aayah that Al-Jihaad has come with the meaning of going out to fight and the
preference given to over remaining back and not going out for it. Other Aayaat of this kind are present
within Soorah At-Taubah:

‫اه ُدوا بِأ َْم َوالِ ُك ْم َوأَن ُف ِس ُك ْم ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّ ِه ۗ ٰذَلِ ُك ْم َخْي ٌر لَّ ُك ْم إِن ُكنتُ ْم تَ ْعلَ ُمو َن‬
ِ ‫ا ِنفروا ِخ َفافًا وثَِق ًاَّل وج‬
ََ َ ُ
March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your
wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you, if you but knew (At-Taubah: 41).

The command to undertake Al-Jihaad following the command of An-Nafar, which means to go out,
signifies that Al-Jihaad is Al-Qitaal (fighting) and what is connected to it.

Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ
َ ‫ك أُولُو الطَّْول مْن ُه ْم َوقَالُوا َذ ْرنَا نَ ُكن َّم َع الْ َقاعد‬
‫ين‬ ْ ‫ت ُس َورةٌ أَ ْن آمنُوا بِاللَّه َو َجاه ُدوا َم َع َر ُسوله‬
َ َ‫استَأْ َذن‬ ْ َ‫َوإِ َذا أُن ِزل‬
And when a Surah (chapter from the Quran) is revealed, enjoining them to believe in Allah and to strive hard and fight
along with His Messenger, the wealthy among them ask your leave to exempt them (from Jihad) and say: "Leave us
(behind), we would be with those who sit (at home)" (At-Taubah: 86).

And:

ِ َّ ُ ‫الرس‬ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ْ ‫ضوا بِأَن ي ُكونُوا مع‬

ُ‫ين َآمنُوا َم َعه‬
َ ‫ول َوالذ‬ ُ َّ ‫﴾ لَٰك ِن‬٨٧﴿ ‫اْلََوالف َوطُبِ َع َعلَ ٰى قُلُوِب ْم فَ ُه ْم ََّل يَ ْف َق ُهو َن‬ ََ َ ُ ‫َر‬
‫ك ُه ُم الْ ُم ْفلِ ُحو َن‬َ ِ‫ات ۗ َوأُولَٰئ‬
ُ ‫اْلَْي َر‬
ِِ
َ ِ‫اه ُدوا بِأ َْم َواَّل ْم َوأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم ۗ َوأُولَٰئ‬
ْ ‫ك ََّلُ ُم‬ َ ‫َج‬
They were satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and their hearts were sealed over, so they do not understand. But the
Messenger and those who believed with him fought with their wealth and their lives. Those will have [all that is] good, and it
is those who are the successful (At-Taubah: 87-88).

Another example of such an Aayah is found in Soorah As-Saff which mentions Al-Qitaal (fighting) from
the beginnings of the Soorah:
 ِِ ِ ِ َّ ُّ ‫إِ َّن اللَّه ُُِي‬
‫وص‬
ٌ ‫ص‬ َ ‫ين يُ َقاتلُو َن ِِف َسبِيله‬
ُ ‫صفاا َكأَن َُّهم بُْن يَا ٌن َّم ْر‬ َ ‫ب الذ‬ َ
Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly (As-Saff: 4).

Which is followed by the two Aayah which awaken the desire to undertake this Qitaal using the naming of
Al-Jihaad:

ِ ‫﴾ تُؤِمنُو َن بِاللَّ ِه ورسولِِه وُِت‬١٠﴿ ‫اب أَلِي ٍم‬

‫اه ُدو َن ِِف‬ ٍ ‫نجي ُكم ِّمن َع َذ‬ ِ ُ‫يا أَيُّها الَّ ِذين آمنُوا هل أَدلُّ ُكم علَى ِِتارةٍ ت‬
َ َ ُ ََ ْ ْ ََ ٰ َ ْ ُ ْ َ َ َ َ َ
‫َسبِ ِيل اللَّ ِه بِأ َْم َوالِ ُك ْم َوأَن ُف ِس ُك ْم ۗ ٰذَلِ ُك ْم َخْي ٌر لَّ ُك ْم إِن ُكنتُ ْم تَ ْعلَ ُمو َن‬
O you who have believed, shall I guide you to a trade that will save you from a painful punishment? [It is that] you believe in
Allah and His Messenger and strive in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is best for you, if you
should know (As-Saff: 10-11).

This relates to that which connects to the subject of ‘Al-Jihaad’ within the Madaniyah Aayaat and we see
within them, with clarity, that they indicate ‘Al-Qitaal’ (fighting) specifically, alongside that which the
fighting requires, by its nature, in terms of expending the wealth that is necessary to attain the tools of
fighting or that lead to it. They (also) provide the condition for its legality (and legitimacy), which is to
convey the Da’wah (invitation) to the Kuffaar (disbelievers). That is because “this, meaning the
conveyance of the Da’wah), is a Shart (condition) for the origin of Al-Qitaal” as was mentioned in
‘Mughni Al-Muhtaaj’ (1).

In addition to this, the Lafzh (wording) ‘Al-Jihaad’ has been mentioned within the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah
with this Shar’iy meaning as well, which is Al-Qitaal and that which is linked to it.

Included within that are the following:

1 – Abu Hurairah (ra) related:

: ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم‬ ِ ُ ‫ال رس‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ْ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه وسلَّم أ‬ ِ َ ‫ يا رس‬: ‫قَالُوا‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫َخ ِْبنَا ب َع َم ٍل يَ ْعد ُل ا ْْل َه َاد ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه‬ َ ََ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ َُ َ
‫اه ِد ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّ ِه َك َمثَ ِل‬ ِ ‫ مثل الْمج‬: ‫ال‬ ِ ِ ْ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه وسلَّم أ‬
َ ُ ُ َ َ َ َ‫َخ ِْبنَا فَلَ َعلَّنَا أَ ْن نُطي َقهُ ق‬ َ ََ
ِ َ ‫ يا رس‬: ‫ََّل تُ ِطي ُقونَه قَالُوا‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ َُ َ ُ
‫اه ُد َإَل أ َْهلِ ِه‬
ِ ‫ات اللَّ ِه ََّل ي ْفت ر ِمن ِصي ٍام وََّل ص َدقٍَة ح ََّّت ي رِجع الْمج‬
َ ُ َ َْ َ َ َ َ ْ ُ ُ َ
ِ ‫ت بِآي‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ َّ
َ ‫الصائ ِم الْ َقائ ِم الْ َقان‬
They said: “O Messenger of Allah, inform us of an action that is equal to Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah?”
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬replied: “You would not be able to bear it”. They said: “O Messenger of
Allah, inform us of it as perhaps we may be able to bear it”. He said: “The likeness of the Mujaahid in
the way of Allah, is the likeness of the one who fasts, stands (in night prayer) and the obedient to
the Aayaat of Allah. He does not break his fasting or his giving of Sadaqah until the Mujaahid
returns back to his family” (2).

It is clear within the context of the Hadeeth that the question was concerning the Mujaahid, with the
meaning of the Muqaatil (fighter) in the way of Allah. That is whilst the answer also indicates to this
meaning when he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Until the Mujaahid returns back to his family” … i.e. until he returns from
Al-Qitaal (fighting).

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Shireeniy Al-Khateeb. Sharh Al-Minhaaj of An-Nawawi 4/223, (2)
Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah 2787, Fat’h ul-Baari’ 6/6 and Saheeh Muslim no. 1878. 3/1498].

2 – Jaabir (ra) related:

 ِ ِ ِ ُّ ‫ أ‬،‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
َ ‫ َم ْن ُعقَر َج َو ُادهُ َوأ ُْه ِر‬:‫ال‬
ُ‫يق َد ُمه‬ َ َ‫ض ُل؟ ق‬
َ ْ‫َي ا ْْل َهاد أَف‬ َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬:‫قَالَوا‬

They said: “O Messenger of Allah, which Jihaad is the best?” He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “The one whose horse is
hamstrung and his blood is spilt” (1).

3 – Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ ‫اف طٍَْري ُخ‬ ِ ‫ جعل اللَّه أَرواحهم ِِف أَجو‬، ‫ُصيب إِخوانُ ُكم بِأُح ٍد‬ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ال رس‬
‫ تَ ِرُد أَنْ َه َار‬، ‫ض ٍر‬ َْ ْ ُ َ َ ْ ُ َ َ َ ُ ْ َ ْ َ ‫ " لَ َّما أ‬: ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْيه َو َسلَّ َم‬ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َ َ‫ق‬
‫ب َمأْ َكلِ ِه ْم َوَم ْشَرِِبِ ْم َوَم ِقيلِ ِه ْم‬ ِ ِ ٍِ ٍ ِ ‫ وتَأْ ِوي إِ ََل قَنَ ِاد‬، ‫ا ْْلن َِّة وتَأْ ُكل ِمن ِِثَا ِرها‬
َ ‫ فَلَ َّما َو َج ُدوا طي‬، ‫يل م ْن ذَ َهب ُم َعلَّ َقة ِف ظ ِّل الْ َع ْر ِش‬ َ َ َ ْ ُ َ َ
‫ أَنَا أُبَلِّغُ ُه ْم‬: ‫ال اللَّهُ َعَّز َو َج َّل‬ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫ب‬ ِ ‫ لِئَ ََّل ي ْزَه ُدوا ِِف ا ْْلِ َه ِاد وََّل ي نْ ُكلُوا ِِف ا ْْلر‬، ‫ من ي ْبلِ ُغ إِ ْخوانَنَا َعنَّا أَنَّا ِِف ا ْْلن َِّة نُرَز ُق‬: ‫قَالُوا‬
َْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ ُ َْ
‫َحيَاءٌ عِْن َد َرِِّبِ ْم يُْرَزقُو َن‬ ِ ِ ‫َب الَّ ِذ‬
ْ ‫ين قُتلُوا ِِف َسبِي ِل اللَّه أ َْم َواتًا بَ ْل أ‬
َ َّ َ ‫ َوَّل ََْت َس‬: ‫اَل‬ َ ‫ فَأَنْ َزَل اللَّهُ تَ َع‬، ‫َعْن ُك ْم‬

When your brothers were killed in Uhud, Allah placed their souls inside green birds that tend to
the rivers of Paradise and eat from its fruits. They then return to golden lamps hanging in the
shade of the Throne. When they tasted the delight of their food, drink and dwelling, they said,
`We wish that our brothers knew what Allah gave us so that they will not abandon Jihaad or
warfare.' Allah said, `I will convey to them the news from you.') Allah Ta’Aalaa then revealed:

﴾ ‫ند َرِِّبِ ْم يُْرَزقُو َن‬

َ ‫َحيَاءٌ ِع‬ ِ ِ ‫َب الَّ ِذ‬
ْ ‫ين قُتلُواْ ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه أ َْم َوتاً بَ ْل أ‬
َ َّ َ ‫﴿وَّلَ ََْت َس‬
َ
Think not of those as dead who are killed in the way of Allah. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision
(Aali ‘Imraan: 169)

Until Aayah 171 of Soorah Aali ‘Imraan:

ِِ ِ ْ َ‫ْستَْب ِشُرو َن بِنِ ْع َم ٍة ِّم َن اللَّ ِه َوف‬

‫ني‬
َ ‫َجَر الْ ُم ْؤمن‬ ُ ‫َن اللَّهَ ََّل يُض‬
ْ ‫يع أ‬ َّ ‫ض ٍل َوأ‬
They receive good tidings of favour from Allah and bounty and [of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers
to be lost.

Observe here how the desire was awakened for Al-Qitaal and what follows it in terms of martyrdom in
response to the wish of those who martyrs who preceded them who desired for their people to undertake
Al-Jihaad as they had done. This all indicates that when the Lafzh (wording) of ‘Al-Jihaad’ is used within
the Shar’a, then its meaning is Al-Qitaal Fee Sabeelillah (Fighting in the way of Allah and what is
connected to that fighting).

The books of the Sunnah contain dozens of Ahaadeeth mentioning the subject of ‘Al-Jihaad’ with the
meaning of ‘Al-Qitaal’, not to mention the other words which revolve around the meaning of Al-Jihaad
like Al-Harb (war), Al-Ghazw (conquest/battle) and Al-Qitaal amongst others. In this manner, it becomes
clearly evident to us from these Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) and many like them, that ‘Ash-Shar’a’ (The
revealed Islamic legislation) has transferred the Lafzh (wording) of ‘Al-Jihaad’, from the general linguistic
meaning, to a specific meaning. That meaning is ‘Fighting in the way of Allah and what is connected to
that’. Consequently, the Shar’iyah sources have brought that which defines Al-Jihaad as being Al-Qitaal in
the way of Allah. We will now present some of what has been transmitted from the books of Fiqh
because these Fiqhiy Books have only approached the subject from the perspective of the Shar’iy meaning
of Al-Jihaad and the Ahkaam (rulings) connected to it.
[(1) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah 5/290. Sunan Ibn Maajah no. 27, 2/24. Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy classified it as
Saheeh. Refer to: Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah by Al-Albaaniy: no. 2253, 2/128, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah 5/25. Abu Dawud
related similar to this and Al-Haakim said that it is Saheeh Al-Isnaad (in At-Targheeb Wa-t-Tarheeb) 2/136. Sunan Abi Dawud:
no. 2520, 3/22. Ashh-Heikh Al-Albaaniy said about it: ‘Hasan’. Refer to: Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud by Al-Albaaniy: no. 2199.
2/479].

- In the Hanafi Madh’hab: In ‘Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i’ the author said: “As for Al-Jihaad in accordance to then
language, then it is an expression meaning the expending of effort (or capacity)… And in the ‘Urf
(custom) of the Shar’a (divine legislation): It is used to mean the expending of the capability and capacity
in fighting in the way of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, with the life, wealth, tongue and other than that…” (1).

- In the view of the Maalikiyah, in ‘Manh Al-Jaleel’ it was said: “Al-Jihaad: It means the Muslim fighting
the Kaafir who does not have a covenant, to raise the word of Allah Ta’Aalaa, or his attendance to it (i.e.
to fight) or his entering into its land (i.e. the land of the Kaafir) for it (i.e. the fighting). This is what Ibn
‘Arafah said” (2).

- According to the Shaafi’iyyah: The author said in ‘Al-Iqnaa’’ when providing the definition of Al-Jihaad:
“It means: Al-Qitaal in the way of Allah” (3). In addition, Ash-Sheeraaziy said in ‘Al-Muhadh’dhab’:
“Verily Al-Jihaad is Al-Qitaal” (4).

- In the view of the Hanaabilah it was stated in ‘Al-Mughni’ of Ibn Qudaamah: “No other meaning has
been talked about in the book (i.e. subject area) of Al-Jihaad, other than what is connected to war and
fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers), whether that was Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency) or Fard
‘Ain (an obligation upon every individual), or it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy
and the Ribaat upon the borders and frontiers. Related to this is his statement: “Ar-Ribaat (guarding the
frontier) is the origin of Al-Jihaad and its branch” (5) and his statement: “If the enemy comes Jihaad
becomes Fard ‘Ain upon them” … When (or if) this is confirmed then they do not go out (to fight) unless
it is with the permission of the Ameer because the matter of war is delegated (and entrusted) to him” (6).

[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/97, (2) Manh Al-Jaleel. Mukhtasar Sayyidiy Khaleel, by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ulaish,
3/135, (3) Haashiyah Al-Bajeeramy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Khateeb: 4/235, (4) Al-Muhadh’dhab: 2/227, (5) Al-Mughni, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/375, (6) Al-Mughni: 10/30-38].

C – Al-Jihaad in accordance to the provision of the ‘Urf Al-‘Aamm (general custom):

Similarly, the Lafzh ‘Al-Jihaad’ transferred in respect to the ‘Urf Al-‘Aamm (general custom), in the
beginning of Islam, from its linguistic meaning to its Shar’iy meaning, until the word was not understood,
when it was said, by other than the meaning of Al-Qitaal. Consequently, the Shar’iy provision and the
‘Urfi (customary) provision agreed upon one single meaning for the Lafzh ‘Al-Jihaad’.

1 – An example of this is found in what Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah wrote to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab in
reply to a letter that the latter had sent to him: Salaam, thereafter, Verily, Allah Tabaaraka Wa ‘Ta’Aalaa
said:

ٍ ِ ِ ِ
‫َّار‬ َ ‫اخٌر بَْي نَ ُك ْم َوتَ َكاثٌُر ِِف ْاْل َْم َوال َو ْاْل َْوََّلد ۗ َك َمثَ ِل َغْيث أ َْع َج‬
َ ‫ب الْ ُكف‬ ُ ‫ب َوََّلٌْو َوِزينَةٌ َوتَ َف‬ ْ ‫أَََّّنَا‬
ٌ ‫اْلَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا لَع‬
ُ‫اْلَيَاة‬
ْ ‫ض َوا ٌن ۗ َوَما‬ ْ ‫اب َش ِدي ٌد َوَم ْغ ِفَرةٌ ِّم َن اللَّ ِه َوِر‬ ِ
ٌ ‫ص َفارا ُُثَّ يَ ُكو ُن ُحطَ ًاما ۗ َوِِف ْاْلخَرةِ َع َذ‬ ْ ‫يج فَتَ َراهُ ُم‬ ِ
ُ ‫نَبَاتُهُ ُُثَّ يَه‬
‫الدُّنْيَا إََِّّل َمتَاعُ الْغُُروِر‬
The life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase
of wealth and children - like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see
 it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from Allah
and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion (Al-Hadeed: 20).

He (the narrator) said: Then ‘Umar went out with the letter of Abu ‘Ubaidah and read it out to the people
before saying: “O people of Al-Madinah! Abu ‘Ubaidah only wrote this to expose you and to urge you
upon Al-Jihaad…” (1).
Therefore, word ‘Al-Jihaad’ used here has no meaning to it in accordance to the ‘Urf (custom) of the one
using it in his speech and the ‘Urf (custom) of those listening, other than the meaning of ‘Al-Qitaal’
(fighting) Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way).

2 – Related from ‘Ali Bin Zaid Bin Jad’aan who said: Abu Talhah asked about (the statement of Allah):
March forth light and heavy! (At-Taubah: 41) He said (it means): In mature age and as youth. He (‘Ali)
said: I don’t see that Allah has excused anyone. So, they went out to Ash-Shaam and undertook Jihaad
(Jaahada) (2). Therefore, in respect to the statement of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Zaid who was relating from the
Sahaabiy Abu Talhah “They went out to Ash-Shaam and undertook Jihaad (Jaahada)”, then the word
‘Jaahada’ does not mean anything other than going out to fight in the way of Allah, as definitely indicated
by the context and framing of the speech!

3 – A man approached Abu Mousaa Al-Ash’ariy in the Masjid and said: “Ya Abdullah Bin Qais!” And so
he called him by his name. Then he said: “What is your opinion if I was to take my sword and then
undertook Jihaad (Jaahadtu) with it seeking the pleasure of Allah, and then I was killed whilst engaging in
that, where would I be?” He replied: “In Jannah (paradise)” (3). The statement of the man here ‘Jaahadtu’
(I undertook Jihaad) does not mean anything other than Al-Qitaal (fighting).

In this manner it becomes clearly evident to us that the subject of ‘Al-Jihaad’ in the ‘Urf Al-‘Aamm
(general custom) in the beginning period of Islam came to not go outside of the scope of ‘Al-Qitaal’
(fighting) and Al-Ghazw (making conquests), Al-Harb (war) and what resembles these related to that.

[(1) Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah 5/335), (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah 5/341, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah 5/342].

D – Al-Jihaad in accordance to the ‘Urfiy Al-Khaass (specific customary) provision: “Al-Istilaah”

(terminological convention):

The ‘Ulamaa of Fiqh, Hadeeth, Tafseer and Seerah did not provide a specific terminological meaning for
the Lafzh ‘Al-Jihaad’ within the sciences and areas of knowledge that they approached. Rather, they
adopted the Shar’iy meaning and that of the ‘Urfiy Al-‘Aamm (general customary usage), which is Al-
Qitaal Fee Sabeelillah. That is because these areas of Islamic knowledge only explain ‘Al-Jihaad’ by its
Shar’iy meaning and what we previously mentioned regarding the Shar’iy definitions of Al-Jihaad are
suitable to be quoted here as well. In addition to that we can also include what came in ‘Al-Qastalaani
‘Alaa Al-Bukhaari’ in respect to defining Al-Jihaad’: “In the Istilaah (terminological meaning): The fighting
of the disbelievers to give support (victory) to Islam and to raise high the word of Allah” (1).

We will summarise from all that has preceded that the Lafzh ‘Al-Jihaad’ has two meanings:

- The meaning in accordance to the (original) Arabic provision (linguistic): And it means to exert the
utmost effort (capacity) in a struggle between two sides even if they (the sides) are by implication (i.e. like
the struggle within oneself).

- The meaning according to the Shar’iy, ‘Urfiy and Istilaahiy provision: It is Al-Qitaal Fee Sabeelillah
(fighting in the way of Allah) with its (accompanying) Shuroot (conditions). Consequently, when the Lafzh
(wording) ‘Al-Jihaad’ is mentioned within the Shar’iyah texts then it indicates this second meaning as
being a Haqeeqah Shar’iyah, ‘Urfiyah and Istilaahiyah. It could also indicate the first general linguistic
meaning in the presence of an expressed or conditional Qareenah (connotation). In that case, its meaning
would be considered to be Majaaaz (metaphorical) as was previously explained in the discussion about the
definition of the Haqeeqah (literal) and the Majaaz (metaphoric).

An example of this is what has been quoted within the Hadeeth:

ِ ُ‫ ُماه َدة‬:‫ب أَو ِِف ِرواية‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ

ُ‫العْبد َه َواه‬
َ ََ َ ْ ِ ‫اد ال َق ْل‬ ُ ‫ َوما اْل‬:‫ قَالوا‬.‫اْلصغَر اَل اْلهاد اْل ْك َِِب‬
ُ ‫ ج َه‬:‫هاد اْل ْك َِب؟ قال‬ ْ ‫َر َج ْعنا من اْل َهاد‬
We returned from the lesser Jihaad to the greater Jihaad. They asked: What is the greater Jihaad?
He said: The Jihaad of the heart or in another version: It is the servant undertaking Jihaad
against his desires (2).

Regarding the statement of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬here (if it was assumed to be Saheeh), then the lesser
Jihaad means: Al-Jihaad in accordance to its Shar’iy and ‘Urfiy meaning, whilst the greater Jihaad means:
Al-Jihaad in accordance to its general linguistic meaning, referring to the struggle of the heart or the inner
self (Nafs) with the whims and desires, and the person restraining himself to the acts of obedience.

[(1) Al-Qastalaani ‘Alaa l-Bukhaari 5/30, (2) Asraar Al-Marfoo’ah, Al-Mullah ‘Ali Al-Qaariy, p127, Hadeeth no. 480-481. Al-
‘Asqalaaniy said: It is from the speech of Ibraheem Bin ‘Ablah Al-‘Iraaqiy said: Its Isnaad is Da’eef (weak). Also refer to ‘Kanz
Al-‘Ammaal: 4/616, Hadeeth no. 117799, and Haashiyah Al-Baajooriy (2/265), upon the Sharh Ibn Qaasim].

It is affirmed that this linguistic meaning has become metaphoric in respect to those being addressed with
this speech whilst the Shar’iy meaning has come to represent the Haqeeqah (literal meaning) that comes
straight to the mind (when it is mentioned). It is as is said: ‘That which comes to the mind is the sign or
signal that it is the Haqeeqah’. I say: This is confirmed because they found the statement odd, that after
returning to their homes, for the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to describe their return from fighting, to be a return to
Jihaad, and indeed, to the greater Jihaad! This is what provoked them to question the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬to clarify the meaning of ‘Al-Jihaad Al-Akbar’ (The greater Jihaad)!? That is because they knew that
the Shar’iy meaning of ‘Al-Jihaad’ was ‘Qitaal’ (fighting) and this meaning had become widespread and
well-known amongst them. Here they were, having just returned from the Jihaad, being surprised that they
had left the battlefield with the enemy and now returned to Jihaad…and where (was this Jihaad to be
undertaken)? In their homes, houses and with their families (people)! Consequently, the expression ‘The
greater Jihaad’ used here, is a Lafzh Majaaziy (metaphorical expression) requiring an explanation, other
than the well-known explanation that had been firmly established in their minds in accordance to the
Shar’a and the ‘Urf. The explanation then came explaining that it referred to the ‘Jihaad of the Qalb
(heart)’ or the ‘Jihaad of the servant against his desires’. This Tafseer therefore represented a Qareenah
Lafzhiyah (expressed or spoken connotation) for the intended meaning.

It is also possible that their return from fighting the enemies to their homes could represent a Qareenah
Haaliyah (conditional connotation) indicating to the metaphorical meaning whilst the questioning and
enquiring was the sake of reaffirming or being reassured about the intended meaning!

In respect to this subject of the usage of the Lafzh ‘Al-Jihaad’ with its metaphorical meaning and not its
Shar’iy and ‘Urfiy meaning that comes straight to the mind upon its mention, there are some Shar’iyah
texts that have utilised the wording of ‘Al-Jihaad’ and its derivatives upon some acts of piety. An example
of this is ‘Birru-l-Waalidain’ (Obedience and good, kind treatment towards the parents) as mentioned in
both Saheeh Al-Bukhaari and Muslim. It is related from Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr that he said:

ِ ‫ال فَِفي ِهما فَج‬

‫اه ْد‬ َ َ‫ك أَبَ َو ِان ق‬
َ َ‫ال نَ َع ْم ق‬ ِ ‫ال رجل لِلنَِِّب صلَّى اللَّه علَي ِه وسلَّم أُج‬
َ َ َ َ‫ال ل‬
َ َ‫اه ُد ق‬ َ َ ََ َْ ُ َ ِّ ٌ ُ َ َ َ‫ق‬
A man said to the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬: “(Can) I perform Jihaad”. He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: “Do you have
parents?”. He said: “Yes”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “So perform your Jihaad in respect to them” (1).
 Regarding this Ibn Hajar explained the word ‘FaJaahid’ (So perform Jihaad) here, with the linguistic
meaning, which is to expend the effort and capability (Al-Juhd/Al-Jahd). And he added that ‘Al-Jihaad’,
when it is stated, means: Fighting (Qitaal) the enemy. He said the following: “(In respect to) ‘FaFeehimaa
FaJaahid’ (So perform your Jihaad in respect to them), that this means: If you have parents, the extend
your effort in being obedient to them and treating them well and kindly (Al-Birr and Al-Ihsaan). That
would take the place of fighting the enemy in respect to you” (2).

As-San’aaniy clarified the metaphorical meaning in respect to the utilisation of this Lafzh within the
Hadeeth when he said: “They called, exerting oneself in taking care of the interests of the parents, going
out of one’s way to seek that which pleases them and spending wealth for their needs, Jihaad. This is from
the angle of resemblance to what he is seeking permission for in respect to Al-Jihaad, from the angle of
His Qawl (speech) Ta’Aalaa:

‫َو َجَزاءُ َسيِّئَ ٍة َسيِّئَةٌ ِّمثْ لُ َها‬

And the recompense for an evil act is an evil one like it (Ash-Shouraa: 40)

It is possible for it to be representative of a metaphorical use through an opposite relationship and that is
because Al-Jihaad means making harm descend upon the enemies and it is used here regarding making
benefit descend upon the parents (3).

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari no. 5972, 10/403. Saheeh Muslim: no. 254, 4/1975, (2) Fat’h-ul-Baari’, Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy:
10/403, (3) Subul-us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy 4/42].

Following this definition of ‘Al-Jihaad’ with its Shar’iy meaning, I view that it is necessary to distinguish it
from that which resembles it in terms of wars that Muslims engage in; whether these wars are internal or
external.

That is because there are types of internal Qitaal (fighting) that could take place between factions from
amongst the people of the Islamic lands. Some of these types of fighting could be against groups that have
apostatized from Islam whilst some of them could be against groups who have not left the folds of Islam.

Other types could be against groups from amongst the Ahl-udh-Dhimmah (people of contract and
protection) who have breached their covenant or treaty and rebelled against the Muslims. Consequently,
which of these types of fighting (Al-Qitaal) are considered to be Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah, upon which the
Ahkaam (rulings) of Jihaad apply? And which of them are not Jihaad and consequently, the Ahkaam of
Jihaad do not apply in respect to them?

There are in addition, types of Qitaal that take place externally, which could target objectives other than
raising the word of Allah high or alongside seeking to raise high Allah’s word.

Consequently, which of those aims and objectives are (legally) legitimate in the case where they do not
take away the Sharaf (honour) of Al-Jihaad? And what is illegitimate and consequently, not deserving of
that Sharaf (honour)?

The Fuqahaa’ have mentioned some types of Qitaal, other than the well-know Jihaad, and translated (or
termed) them under the category of wars of Masaalih (interests) (1). Under this category, they mentioned
the Qitaal of Ahl ur-Riddah (against people pf apostasy), the Qitaal of Ahl ul-Baghiy (those rebelling
against the legitimate authority), and the Qitaal of the Muhaaribeen (highway robbers).

However, to distinguish Jihaad from other than it, I have pursued within the books of Fiqh, Hadeeth,
Seerah and Islamic history, other types and forms of Al-Qitaal (fighting). Some of these types fall within
the category and naming of ‘Al-Jihaad’ whilst there is difference of opinion in respect to some, and some
others are far away from ‘Al-Jihaad’ (being applied upon their realities).

We will mention these types of Al-Qitaal, shedding light upon them sufficiently to clarify whether they
belong to Al-Jihaad or to another category. However, despite that, I have merely summarised the speech
in respect to some of these types, like the wars of Masaalih (interests), and that is due to the existence of
specific chapters within the books of Islamic Fiqh, which have thoroughly covered them in terms of
examination and study. I have therefore sufficed myself to follow the path that is necessary to treat the
aspects from its subject area that are related to the objective of this study that we have mentioned.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy p55].

From another direction, I have elaborated upon some of the other types of Al-Qitaal, and that is due to
the importance of those types within the time that we are living, according to my evaluation, whilst these
types of Al-Qitaal have not featured prominently within the chapters specified for it within the old
references.

The following are the types of Al-Qitaal (fighting) that we have viewed necessary to be studied in to
realise our aim and purpose (from this study and area of research):

1 - Qitaal of the Ahl-ur-Riddah (fighting the apostates).

2 – Qitaal of the Ahl-ul-Baghiy (fighting those who rebel against the authority).
3 – Qitaal of the Muhaaribeen (fighting the highway robbers).
4 – Qitaal to defend the private sanctities.
5 – Qitaal to defend the public (general) sanctities.
6 – Qitaal (fighting) against the deviation of the ruler.
7 – Qitaal Al-Fitnah (fighting of discord and strife).
8 – Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (fighting the one who has usurped the authority).
9 – Qitaal of the Ahl-udh-Dhimmah (fighting the people of covenant and protection).
10 – The Qitaal of raiding to gain a victory through the enemy’s wealth.
11 – Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State.
12 – Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands.

It is possible for some of these types of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to overlap, however, despite that, I have
preferred to distinguish between them, being eager to and concerned about clarifying the differences that
are found within them. That is because some of them have Shar’iyah texts that have come specifically for
them, even if they fall under others within other general texts.

Before turning to the second chapter to study the types of Al-Qitaal mentioned above, I would like to
remind once again, that we are not addressing those types upon the basis of treating them from the angle
of comparative Fiqh. That is because our fundamental aim and purpose here, for presenting them, as I
have previously pointed to, is to arrive at knowledge and understanding about which of these types is
considered to be Al-Jihaad? And that which is not considered to be Al-Jihaad? That is in light of the
Shar’iy definition of Al-Jihaad that was the subject of the previous chapter.

Yes, it is true that during this study we have been compelled to speak at some length about some of the
issues and realities connected to those types of Al-Qitaal. That was because we felt that it was essential to
do that, due to consideration that they are from amongst the issues and realities that are presented before
us in our current time. We therefore viewed that we should branch into them with some study, not at the
level of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib, but rather only upon the level of the Shar’iyah texts that relate to them.
That is because the scope does not allow for delving into it wider than that, even if we have sometimes
gone into some of the opinions of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib in some of the issues.
Now, upon the Barakah of Allah, we turn to the second chapter.

Chapter Two
The types of Al-Qitaal in Islam
And which of these does the definition of Al-Jihaad apply upon
 According to the Shar’a?

The first study: Qitaal Ahl-ur-Riddah (Fighting of the apostates).

The second study: Qitaal Ahl-ul-Baghi (Fighting rebels).
The third study: Qitaal Al-Muhaaribeen (highway robbers).
The fourth study: Fighting in defence of the private sanctities (Defending against As-Siyaal).
The fifth study: Fighting in defence of the public (general) sanctities.
The sixth study: Fighting against the deviation of the Haakim (ruler).
The seventh study: Qitaal Al-Fitnah (discord/strife).
The eighth study: Fighting the Mughtasib As-Sultah (the usurper of the authority).
The ninth study: Qitaal Ahl-udh-Dhimmah (fighting the people of covenant/protection).
The tenth study: The Qitaal of raiding to gain a victory through the enemy’s wealth.
The eleventh study: Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State.
The twelfth study: Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands.

Chapter Two
The First Subject of Study

Qitaal Ahl-ur-Riddah (Fighting the apostates)

- How does the Riddah (apostasy) take place?

- What is the Hukm related to the Murtaddeen (apostates) when they are from the Ri’aayah (subjects of
the Islamic state?
- What is the Hukm of the apostates rebelling against the (legitimate) authority who are held up in one the
state’s regions or one of its districts?
- Is the fighting (Al-Qitaal) of the apostates considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its
Shar’iy meaning?
 The First Study

Qitaal Ahl-ur-Riddah (Fighting the apostates)

We will restrict ourselves in this subject area to discussing the following angles:

- How does apostasy take place? What is the Hukm in respect to the apostates whilst they are individuals
living under the Islamic authority? What is the Hukm of the apostates rebelling against the authority and
are held up within a region of district of the State?

- Following that: Is the Qitaal (fighting) against the Murtaddeen considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah
in accordance to its Shar’iy meaning?

How does Ar-Riddah (apostasy) take place?

The matters through which apostasy takes place were mentioned by An-Nawawi in his ‘Al-Minhaaj’ within
his definition of it. He said: “It is: Severing or cutting oneself off from Islam by Niyyah (intention) or by a
Kufr Qawl (statement/speech of disbelief) or Fi’l (action), whether the person said it in mockery, out of
stubbornness, or out of belief (I’tiqaad)” (1). The following are some of the matters that the ‘Ulamaa have
mentioned in respect to what takes the Muslim, who engages in them, out of the fold or domain of Islam
and into the fold of Kufr (disbelief).

- Within the scope of belief (Al-I’tiqaad): The Muslim disbelieves (or becomes a disbeliever) if he
disbelieves (or denies) a matter or thing which is known from the Deen Bi-d-Daroorah (by necessity).
This is in the case where the definite evidences (Al-Adillah Al-Qat’iyah) have established that they are
from the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) of Islam or its Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, or if he believes in a thing or matter
from amongst the thoughts that contradict the Islamic Aqeedah.

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj, 4/134].

That is like denying the existence of Allah or is Wahdaniyah (oneness) or the statement that Allah has not
preserved and protected the Qur’aan from being added to or taken away from, or that it is not miraculous.
It could also be by stating that the reward and the punishment of the hereafter are not real, or saying that
Islam is only a message that Allah revealed to the Arabs specifically and not to the rest of the peoples of
the earth (1). It could be by denying definite Shar’iyah rulings like the denial of the obligation (Wujoob) of
As-Salaah (2) or the obligation of Az-Zakaah (3). The same applies in respect to all the Arkaan (pillars) of
Islam and that is because they have been established and affirmed in a definite (Qat’iy) form and are
considered to be from the beliefs (Aqaa’id) from this perspective. Denying them is therefore like denying
anything else from the (definite) Islamic beliefs.

From amongst the thoughts that contradict the Islamic Aqeedah and make the one who believes in them a
disbeliever, is Darwin’s theory, which states that the human being has evolved from an ape, even though
Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

ٍ ‫آدم ۗ َخلَ َقهُ ِمن تُر‬ ِ َ ‫إِ َّن مثَل ِعيسى ِع‬
‫ال لَهُ ُكن فَيَ ُكو ُن‬
َ َ‫اب ُُثَّ ق‬َ َ َ ‫ند اللَّه َك َمثَ ِل‬ َٰ َ َ
Indeed, the example of ‘Iesa to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he
was (Aali ‘Imraan: 59).

Similar to that is the communist theory of the evolution of matter which states: Matter evolves by itself in
an inevitable process and there is nothing else that causes it evolution (changing development) and created
it. That is whilst Allah Ta’Aalaa has said:

ْ ِ‫ض ب‬
‫اْلَ ِّق‬ ِ َّ ‫خلَق اللَّه‬
َ ‫الس َم َاوات َو ْاْل َْر‬ ُ َ َ
Allah created the heavens and the earth in truth (Al-‘Ankaboot: 44).

The historical type of thought also falls under this category where it said that the story of Ibrahim (Alaihi-
s-Salaam) is made up, has no basis and was invented by those who relate history. That is despite the story
of Ibrahim (Alaihi-s-Salaam) being mentioned within the Qur’aan (in 25 Soorahs). This is all in relation to
Al-I’tiqaad (the belief).

- As for within the scope of the actions: Then any action that indicates to a belief that is contrary to
Islaam, then undertaking it would mean apostasy from Islam. That would be like prostrating to an idol (4)
or going to the Churches wearing the specific Christian attire (5).

Like these, are these actions that indicate the belittling and insulting of Islam like throwing the Mus’haf
into a filthy place with the intention of showing disdain and contempt (6).

- Within the scope of statements that make the one saying them a disbeliever then this includes the
insulting of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla or the cursing and insult against any of the Prophets (7) … and other than
that, which falls under the same category.

[(1) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 395, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj 4/135, (3) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaniyah, by Al-Faraa’, 37,
(4) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj 4/136, (5) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’yah 395, (6) Daleel As-Saalik for the Madh’hab of Al-
Imaam Maalik, 146, and Mughni Al-Muhtaaj 4/136, (10) The same as preceding source].

In summary: Apostasy occurs by any intention or action and speech based conduct, that guides to the
denial or doubt in that which Islam has brought. Or it is by criticising and ridiculing it, on the condition
that the issue being attacked or ridiculed has been mentioned in Islam in a Qat’iy (definite manner); Qat’iy
Ath-Thuboot (definite in terms of the transmission) and Qat’iy Ad-Dalaalah (definite in its meaning).
The Hukm (ruling) related to the Murtaddeen (apostates) when they are individuals (living)
under the authority of the State:

These refer to the apostates whom the state is not engage in fighting because they are under its authority
and they have no preventative force (Mana’ah) to protect and guard themselves with. The obligation
(Waajib) in respect to these people is for the state to ask them about the reason for their apostasy and to
then remove the doubts that led them to leave Islam. They are requested to immediately make Taubah
(repent) or are given three days, a month or more than that according to different views (1). My view, in
respect to this time period provided to them to repent, is that it should be according to the nature of the
doubts and questions in terms of them being many or few, simple or complicated, and in accordance to
the intellectual or mental capability of those who have these doubts and questions, or in accordance to the
hope attached to their returning to Islam or lack of hope or expectation, without specifying a particular set
time period for this. That is because a very short amount of time may be sufficient to remove these
doubts just as the matter could take a number of days to resolve. Evidence for this is that Abu Bakr As-
Siddeeq (ra) wrote to Khaalid bin Al-Waleed (ra) and directed him towards Musailamah Al-Kadh’dhaab
(the perpetual liar) and his people from Bani Haneefah, when they apostatised from Islam. He wrote to
him saying: “…Then when you approach them do not begin fighting until you have invited them to the
call of Islam and pay special attention to their weapon…” (2). Paying special care and attention to their
weapon necessarily means expending effort to remove their doubts until they return to the fold of Islam
or refusal and obstinacy becomes evident. Apostates would differ in respect to this according to what we
have mentioned and the estimation and evaluation of time would be determined by those who are
entrusted with this matter and possess the legal authority and jurisdiction (Note: i.e. the Khalifah and who he
delegates).

It may be that this view is also supported by what was related from ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) in respect to
the Murtadd (apostate) being provided with three days to repent (3) just as it has also been related from
him that he sought the repentance of a man from amongst the apostates for a month (4).

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/139, Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 394, Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 55, (2)
Majmoo’ah Al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah (Collection of political documents): 348-349, (3) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: 7/135, (4) Al-
Mughni: 10/77].

If they were then to repent, it would be accepted from them and they would return to the ruling of Islam
(i.e. as being Muslims). Otherwise, their recompense would be death as disbelievers due to the statement
of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

ُ‫َّل ِدينَهُ فَاقْتُ لُوه‬

َ ‫َم ْن بَد‬
Whoever changes (replaces) his Deen then kill him (1).

In addition, they are not washed (Ghusl), they are not prayed over and they are not buried in the Muslim
graveyards (2).

The Hukm related to the apostates rebelling against the (legitimate) authority who are held up in
one the state’s regions or one of its districts

In respect to these they must be engaged in discussion and debate and their doubts must be removed in
the same manner as discussed previously. If they repent, then it is accepted and it good. If they do not
however, then it is obligatory to fight them after having provided them with the opportunity for giving an
excuse and after warning them (of the consequences). That is because Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) fought
the Murtaddeen (apostates) (3). “Their Hukm (ruling) is the Hukm of the Ahl-ul-Harb (people of war),
namely, that the attack may be made by surprise or at night, as well as in open battle-ranks, and either
from the front or from behind (with their backs turned)” (4). If they are defeated, then if they become
Muslim, it is accepted from them, as the Sahaabah (rah) accepted the Islaam of the apostates in the time
of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq following the fighting that took place between them and the subsequent defeat
of the apostates. Examples of those whose Islam was accepted include Tulayhah Al-Asadiy and Abu
SHajarah Bin Abdil ‘Uzza (5). If however they refuse to return to Islam then the Hukm (ruling) of the
death penalty is applied upon them as previously explained.

Is the Qitaal (fighting) of the Murtaddeen (apostates) considered to be Jihaad in the way of
Allah?

Yes, it is Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way) according to its Shar’iy meaning. That is because the
definition of Al-Jihaad conforms to its reality as it is “The fighting of Kuffar to raise the word of Allah
high”. The apostates are Kuffaar (disbelievers) and fighting them is to raise the word of Allah high.
Indeed, Ibn Qudaamah, the author of Al-Mughni, raises the Qitaal against apostates higher than the
fighting of disbelievers in origin. He says: “They (i.e. the apostates) are more deserving to be fought
because their leaving (of Islam) could incite others to nehave similarly to them and apostatise alongside
them” (6).

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: From Fat’h ul-Baari: 6/149, Hadeeth number 3017, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardi: 56,
(3) Al-Muhaddh’dhib, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/224, (4) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardi: 56, (5) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah,
Al-Maawardi: 56-57, (6) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/95].

Ash-Shawkaaniy in his paper: “Ad-Dawaa’ Al-‘Aajil Fee Daf’I l-‘Aduw As-Saa’il” said in respect to the
factions (or groups) of the Muslims who leave Islam: It has been established within the Islamic principles
that the one who denies the Qat’iy (definite), denies (or disbelieves) in it, acting against a Khilafah, in
rebelliousness and obstinacy, or makes that Halaal or belittling, is a Kaafir (disbeliever) in Allah” … And
regarding the Hukm to be applied upon them he states: “
Undertaking Jihaad against them is Waajib (obligatory) and fighting them has been designated until they
accept the rulings of Islam and they are made (compelled) to do that” (1).

The statement or view that the fighting of the apostates is Jihaad in the way of Allah is understood from
the discussion of the Sahaabah (rah) about the subject of the apostates after subduing them. That was
because Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) asked the apostates, following their defeat, for blood money for the
Muslims that had been killed when fighting them. He said: “You will give us blood money for our killed
but we will not give you blood money for yours”. ‘Umar Al-Khattaab (ra) then said: “As for them giving
blood money for our killed, then no. That is because they are a people who were killed Fee Sabeelillah and
were martyred” (2).

[(1) Ad-Dawaa’ Al-‘Aajil, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 34, (2) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/73].
 The Second Subject of Study

Qitaal Ahl-ul-Baghyi (Fighting against the people of rebellion)

- Who are Ahl-ul-Baghyi (the people of rebellion)?

- What is obligatory in relation to the treatment of the Bughaah (rebels)?

- Is the fighting of Al-Bughaah (rebels) Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its Shar’iy meaning?
 The Second Subject of Study

Qitaal Ahl-ul-Baghyi (Fighting against the people of rebellion)

We will restrict our discussion regarding the Bughaah (rebels) to that which concerns us and that is the
subject of Al-Qitaal (fighting) alone in addition to what is necessary for that. We will therefore talk about
the following points:

- Who are the Ahl-ul-Baghyi? What is the obligation in respect to them? And is the fighting of the Ahl-ul-
Baghyi Jihaad in the way of Allah?

Who are the Ahl-ul-Baghyi?

Ahl-ul-Baghyi are: A faction from the people who have gathered or grouped together for one of three
matters which are:

1 - Rebellion against the authority of the state by abstaining from performing or fulfilling the Huqooq
(rights), obey the laws or by working to overthrow the head of state.

2 - The existence of force or power that the Bughaah (rebels) enjoy that has enabled them to gain control
or dominance.

3 - Al-Khurooj (1).

The intended meaning of the word ‘Al-Khurooj’ is what is synonymous today with expressions such as:
“Armed revolution”, “Civil war”, “Internal fighting”, or the use of arms or violence to reach political
aims, for which the revolution took place.
[(1) At-Tashree’ Al-Jinaa’iy Fi-l-Madhaahib Al-Khamsah (The criminal legislation within the five (Fiqhiy) schools of thought):
1/148-150, Crime and Punishment within the Islamic Fiqh: 160].

The Khurooj here does not mean or imply that it is inevitable that they will begin to use weapons (or
force) against the state. It could mean that, just as it could mean the armed resistance resulting from the
state wanting to make them submit to the state’s authority by force.

Regarding this, the majority (Jumhoor) of the Fuqahaa’ stipulated that for those revolting to be considered
to be from ‘Ahl-ul-Baghyi’, that there exists a Shar’iyah Shubhah (doubt or semblance). That means the
presence of a palatable or justifying interpretation, even if weak, that they have relied upon to launch their
revolt (1). Others have not stipulated that and have therefore considered those who rebel for the purpose
of gaining control over the rule (or authority), without an interpretation or Shubhah, to be also be from
Al-Bughaah (2).

An example of those who have rebelled (Al-Khaarijeen) upon the basis of a Ta’weel (interpretation) or
Shubhah, includes those who rebelled against ‘Ali Ibn Taalib (ra) from amongst the people of ‘Al-Jamal’
and ‘As-Siffeen’, when they (falsely) claimed that he knew the killers of ‘Uthman (ra), that he had the
means to deal with but did not seek vengeance due to his conniving and collusion with them (3).

An example of those who have rebelled (Al-Khaarijeen) for the sake of the Dunyaa (life of this world),
like for the purpose of gaining control over the rule and authority, includes what Marwan Bin Al-Hakam
in Ash-Shaam undertook against ‘Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair after the Bai’ah (pledge of allegiance) had been
given to Ibn Az-Zubair in Iraq, Egypt, Al-Hijaz and even a large section of Ash-Shaam (4).

Regarding what is related to the condition of the Shubhah (doubt) or the justifying interpretation, then in
my view, the Aayah that forms the basis in this matter has not mentioned this Shart (condition), rather it is
Mutlaqah (unrestricted) (5). The Aayah states:

‫ُخَر ٰى فَ َقاتِلُوا الَِِّت تَ ْبغِي َح َّ َّٰت‬ ِ ‫ان ِمن الْمؤِمنِني اقْ تت لُوا فَأ‬
ُ ‫ت إِ ْح َد‬
ْ ‫اُهَا َعلَى ْاْل‬ ْ َ‫َصل ُحوا بَْي نَ ُه َما ۗ فَِإن بَغ‬
ْ ََ َ ْ ُ َ ِ َ‫َوإِن طَائَِفت‬
‫تَِفيءَ إِ َ َٰل أ َْم ِر اللَّ ِه‬
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them rebels
(wrongly) against the other, then fight against the one that rebels until it returns to the command of Allah (Al-Hujuraat: 9).

[(1) Al-Umm: 4/216 and Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/52, (2) Al-Muhallaa 11/97-98, Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah:
393, Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/126 and At-Tashree’ Al-Jinaa’iy Fi-l-Madhaahib Al-Khamsah: 1/148-149, (3) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj:
4/123, (4) Al-Muhallaa: 11/98 and Ad-Dawlah Al-Umawwiyah, Al-‘Ishn: 175, (5) In ‘Ad-Dararu Al-Manzhoomaat Fi-l-Aqdiyah
Wa-l-Hukoomaat’ p72 – In the Haashiyah (commentary/nots): “Al-Bughaah: A group from the Muslims who have gone out
(or rebelled) against the Imaam due to an interpretation (Ta’weel) or other than that. That is like the Khawaarij whom Al-
Imaam ‘Ali (Karramallahu Wajhahu) said about: “Ikhwaanunaa Baghaw ‘Alainaa” (Our brothers have rebelled against us)].

The words Baghat (َ‫َت‬ ْ ‫ ) َبغ‬and Tabghi (‫ ) َت ْبغِي‬are Mutlaqah (unrestricted) and not restricted (Muqayyadah) to
a condition of a justifying or palatable interpretation, as is apparent within the Aayah. Indeed it is true that
a faction or group that revolts for the sake of the Dunyaa alone and has no interpretation to justify the
Khurooj (going outside of and against the authority) is sinful. As for the faction or group that revolts due
to a Shubhah (doubt/suspicion) and interpretation which they have believed makes the revolt obligatory
to undertake, then they are Mujtahideen, who are in error and are excused. Indeed, Ibn Hazm said: “They
are rewarded with a single reward due to their good intention (1). And if from each of these two rebelling
factions, there is one with a Ta’weel (interpretation or justification based on text) whilst the other does not
have one, it is obligatory to direct the Qitaal (fighting) towards them both, until they return to obedience.

What is the obligation (Al-Waajib) in respect to dealing with the Bughaah (rebels)?
Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in Al-Umm: On the occasion of Abu Bakr (ra) fighting against those who
withheld the Zakaah due to their avarice to hold on to their wealth or because of a Shubhah
(doubt/question) that it is not being obliged to pay it except to the one whose Salaah is a repose for them,
and he is the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. That he had passed away and hence it was not obliged to pay it to
Abu Bakr. In respect to those Bughaah Ash-Shaafi’iy says the following: “Whoever withholds (or
prevents) what Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made Fard upon him and the Imaam was then not capable of
taking it from him, due to his holding it back (and refusal), he (the Imaam) fights him, even if he has come
by himself… If less than that is withheld or some of it by a Jamaa’ah, and if it said to him: “Pay or give
this” and he said: “I will not give it and I will not initiate the fighting with you, he is fought against (for it).
That is because he is only fought for what he has withheld from the Haqq (right) that is oblige upon him”
(2).

An-Nawawi said in ‘Al-Minjaaj’: “And he (i.e. the Imaam) does not fight until he dispatches a sharp
(astute) and sincere trusted person (to them) asking them what they are avenging (or seeking justice for). If
they mention a Mazhlamah (act of injustice) or Shubhah (question and doubt), then he removes that. If
they persist (i.e. after removing the Shubhah) or if they did not mention a Shubhah (in the first place), but
rather they rebelled for the purpose and sake of the Dunyaa (i.e. material gain of this life), like for the
purpose of taking over the rule for example, he advises them and thereafter declares Al-Qitaal against
them” (3).

Al-Kaasaa’iy said in ‘Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i in relation to the Bughaah: “It is obligatory upon everyone whom
the Imaam calls to fight them to respond to that call and he cannot stay back if he has sufficient wealth
and capability. That is because obedience to the Imaam in other than the Ma’siyah (act of disobedience) is
Fard (obligatory) and so what about in respect to that which is obedience (in itself)” (4).

[(1) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm,: 11:97, (2) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/215, (3) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/126, (4) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i:
7/140].

In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy in respect to this Aayah:

ِِ ِِ ِ
َ ‫َوإِن طَائ َفتَان م َن الْ ُم ْؤمن‬
‫ني اقْ تَتَ لُوا‬
And if two factions among the believers should fight … (Al-Hujuraat: 9).

It was stated: “This is a Daleel (evidence) for the Wujoob (obligation) of fighting the Fi’ah Al-Baaghiyah
(rebelling faction), where its rebellion against the Imaam or one of the Muslims is known, and it is an
evidence for the Fasaad (corruption or incorrectness) of the opinion that forbids fighting against
believers” … He then says: “And it is Fard ‘Ala l-Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency). If some
undertake (or fulfil) it then it falls from the rest. For that reason, a group from amongst the Sahaabah
(rah) stayed back from these situations like Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar and Muhammad
Bin Maslamah amongst others. ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib approved of that in respect to them and every one of
them presented an excuse to him that he accepted from each one of them” (1).

In this way, we see from the above writings of the Fuqahaa’, that the obligatory Hukm (ruling) in respect
to confronting the Ahl ul-Baghyi, is to fight them with the intention and purpose of deterring them and to
make them return to obedience. The purpose is not to kill them and wipe them out. Therefore, fighting
against them is for the purpose of disciplining them and it is not (the same as) the fighting of war (2).

Indeed, some of the Hanaabilah stated that fighting against the Ahl ul-Baghyi is better than Al-Jihaad.
Their proof is that ‘Ali (Karramallahu Wajhahu) was preoccupied throughout his Khilafah with fighting
against them and not in Al-Jihaad. Al-AAaloosiy said in his Tafseer after mentioning this opinion of the
Hanaabilah: “And the truth is: That this is not at all the case. Rather, when he feared that a great Mafsadah
(harm and corruption) would occur by not fighting them, repelling that was greater than the Maslahah
(interest and benefit) of Al-Jihaad” (3). And I say: This comment is in harmony with the well-known
Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle): “Dar’u l-Mafaasid Awlaa Min Jalb il-Masaalih” (repelling the corruption or
harm is more appropriate than acquiring the interests) (4). If however, the Jihaad was to repel the enemy
who had ambitions over the land of the Muslims, then the Jihaad in this situation would be put before the
fighting of the Bughaah. That is if the state is incapable of undertaking both obligations at the same time.
It is because the Mafsadah (harm) of the enemy occupying the Muslim lands is more severe the harm and
corruption (Mafsadah) of the Bughaah (rebels). We are therefore compelled to choose the weaker (or
lesser) of the two evils (Ahwan Ash-Sharrain) in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle: “The lesser of the
two evils is chosen” and another Shar’iyah principle: “If you are exposed to two Mafsadahs then the
greatest of the two in terms of harm is taken care of by perpetrating the lighter (or lesser) of them” (5).

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubi: 16/317-319, within the Tafseer of Soorah Al-Hujuraat, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Faraa’: 39,
Qanoon Al-‘Uqoobaat (Law of punishments), Al-Maalikiy: 83, (3) Rooh Al-Ma’aaniy, Al-AAaloosiy: 26:151, (4) Sharh Al-
Majallah: p32, Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Muhammad Mustafa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (5) Sharh Al-Majallah: p32, Al-Qawaa’id Ash-
Shar’iyah: Numbers 28-30, Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah, ‘Ali Ahmad An-Nadwi: p170-276, Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Muhammad
Mustafa Az-Zuhailiy: p98].

Is the Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl ul-Baghyi considered to be Jihaad in the way of Allah in
accordance to its Shar’iy meaning?

The answer: No, the fighting against the Bughaah (rebels) is not considered to be Al-Jihaad in accordance
to its Shar’iy meaning. That is because:

Firstly: Because Al-Jihaad is fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to make the word of Allah high whilst
fighting the Bughaah (rebels) is fighting Muslims who have exited from obedience (or rebelled against it),
to discipline them and restore them to the rule of obedience.

Secondly: Because a sign or indication of Al-Jihaad is that those killed partaking in it are considered as
Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Dunyaa (life of this world) and of the Aakhirah (hereafter). Ghusl is not
performed upon them, they are not shrouded, thus adding to their clothing as long as it is ample, and they
are buried in that state and condition. That is whilst Muslims who have died or been killed in other than
Al-Jihaad remain upon the original ruling in respect to Ghusl being performed upon them, being
shrouded and prayed over. That is even if they were Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter) like
the one who drowned and the Saahib Al-Hadm (the details of which will be discussed later in the study
about the types of martyrs). The person on the side of justice who is killed fighting the Bughaah (those
who have rebelled) also falls into this category because one of the realities mentioned about the martyrs of
the hereafter applies to him.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن أ َْهلِ ِه فَ ُه َو‬،‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َد ِم ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬،‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬،‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬
‫َش ِهي ٌد‬
Whoever is killed in defence of his property, then he is a Shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed in
defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed, whosoever is killed in defence of his blood (i.e. himself)
then he is Shaheed, and whoever is killed in defence of his people (family) then he is Shaheed (1).

In another Hadeeth:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمظْلَ َمتِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice against him then he is Shaheed (2).
Ibn Hazm said: “It is therefore correct that the one who has been killed by the Bughaah (rebels) has been
killed in one of these realities and as such he is evidently a Shaheed (martyr)” (3). Here he is referring to
the martyrs of the hereafter only and such a person is not treated or dealt with as a Shaheed of the
Dunyaa and the Aakhirah in respect to leaving his Ghusl (washing) and Takfeen (shrouding) beyond his
clothing (that he died in) as long as it covers his whole body (4).

Consequently, as long as those killed have been killed in other than a war against the disbelievers to raise
the word of Allah high, they are not considered to be from the Shuhadaa of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah.
That means: That their war which they were killed in is not Jihaad in the way of Allah and even if they
attain the reward of the martyred Mujaahideen.

This is what we outweigh to be strongest in this subject area as there are also Fiqhiy opinions stating that
they are martyrs like the martyrs of the battle with the disbelievers and they are consequently not washed
or prayed over (5).

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud (no. 4772), 4/339, and in the Saheeh of Abi Dawud by Al-Albaaniy no. 3993. Also refer to Jaami’ Al-
Usool: 2/743, (2) An-Nasaa’i – Jaami’ Al-Usool – no. 1249, 2/744, Sunan An-Nasaa’i: 7:117, Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’i by Al-
Albaaniy no. 3818 and he said: “Saheeh” 3/858, (3) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm: 11/108, (4) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 1/351, (5) Al-
Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 61, Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Faraa’: 40, Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/61,
Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaa’iy: 7/142. And refer to: Ash-Shaheed (martyr) in Islam by Ash-Sheikh Hasan Khaalid: 85].

Indeed, the author of ‘Subul-us-Salaam’ stated that Al-Jihaad in the Shar’a is: “Expending the capacity (or
effort) in fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) or the Bughaah (rebels against the authority)”!! (1).

Also in this regard, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (Karramallahu Wajhahu), used to view the fighting of the Bughaah
as being Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah. A number of speeches were mentioned in ‘Nahj ul-Balaaghah’
establishing that. From amongst them is what he (rah) said in a well-known Khutbah of his:

“Thereafter, virility Jihaad is a doorway from among the doors of Jannah that has been opened specifically
for His Awliyaa’ … So whoever leaves it, not desiring it, Allah will clothe him in a garment of disgrace and
cloak of misfortune … The Haqq will be taken from him through the abandoning of Al-Jihaad … Indeed,
I called you to fight those people day and night, in private and openly and I said to you: Attack them
before they attack you …” (2).

By ‘those people’ ‘Ali (ra) was referring to Mu’aawiyah’s group from amongst the Bughaah (rebels).
Consequently, the reference to Al-Jihaad here refers to the fighting of the Bughaah, as is clear.

In another Khutbah he (rah) made a general call to the people (Istinfaar) to go to fight the rebelling
people of Ash-Shaam and he weighed heavily upon his companions in respect to that when he said:

“Woe to you, I have grown tired of your censure. Have you become content (and satisfied) with the life of
the Dunyaa instead of the life of the Aakhirah? … I recite to you the reasoning (wisdom) and you avert
from it … And I urge you upon undertaking Al-Jihaad against the Ahl -ul-Baghyi (rebels) and I don’t even
reach the end of my words before seeing you dispersing…” (4).

There are also similar statements like this made in other places.

[(1) Subul us-Salaam: 4/53, (2) Nahj ul-Balaaghah: 1/63-64, (3) Nahj ul-Balaaghah: 1/78, (4) Nahj ul-Balaaghah: 1/178].

In respect to this I say: If Al-Imaam ‘Ali (Karramallahu Wajhahu) viewed that fighting the Bughaah is
Jihaad in the way of Allah then another Sahaabiy, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas (ra), viewed that Al-Jihaad is
restricted to fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) and that the Qitaal between Muslims is not Al-Jihaad. We
have understood that from a narration recorded by At-Tabaraani: Ibn Seereen related: When it was said to
Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas, will you not fight? You are from the people of Shooraa (consultation/opinion) and
this matter is more deserving of you than others. So he said: “I will not fight, even if they brought me a
sword with two eyes and two lips that knows the believer from the disbeliever. I have undertaken Jihaad
and I know what Al-Jihaad is!”. The narration was stated in ‘Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id’ and its transmitters are
Saheeh (1).

Regarding his statement: “that knows the believer from the disbeliever” and his statement: “I know what
Al-Jihaad is” are clear in indicating that Al-Jihaad, according to the view of Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas (ra), is
restricted to fighting the disbelievers and this is what we have previously affirmed and outweighed to be
the strongest view!

The Third Subject of Study

Qitaal Al-Muhaaribeen (Highway robbers)

- Who are the Muhaaribeen?

- What is the Waajib (obligation) in respect to how the Muhaaribeen are dealt with?
- Is fighting the Muhaaribeen considered to be Al-Jihaad according to its Shar’iy meaning?
 The Third Subject of Study

Qitaal Al-Muhaaribeen/Quttaa’ At-Turuq (Highway robbers)

We will restrict our study of this subject to the following aspects:

- Who are the Muhaariboon/Qutaa’ At-Turuq (highway robbers)? What is the obligation in respect to
them? Is fighting them considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to its Shar’iy meaning?

Who are the Muhaariboon?

They are a terrorising group or faction from amongst the Muslims, apostates or Ahl udh-Dhimmah (1),
who have gone out relying upon what they possess in terms of force (strength) and weapons, with the
intended purpose of robbing, plundering, murder, terrorising and instigating alarm amongst the people
(2). They are normally situated (to operate) outside of the cities or towns, within the villages, mountains,
plains, deserts and similar areas. Similar to these are the trains, planes and cars outside of the cities, or
where there is no close by help or assistance to come to their aid (3).

It could also include the situation of them taking control of a home or building within the city whilst
preventing its people from seeking help, or they take control of a district or area in the case where the
authority within it is too weak to come to its aid and protect it (4). The name and term of ‘Al-
Muhaariboon’ or ‘Qutaa’ At-Turuq’ (highway robbers) applies and conforms to all these realities however
many or small the number of assailants are (5).

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/180, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardi: 62 and Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/180, (3) Qanoon
Al-‘Uqoobaat, Abdur Rahman Al-Maaliki: 81, (4) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/181, (5) At-Ta’zeez Fi-sh-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah: 16].

What is the Waajib (obligation) in respect to the Muhaaribeen?

The obligation in respect to those Muhaaribeen is to call them to put down their weapons and to
surrender themselves by using exhortation and reminders. They then either return or are fought (1) and it
is obligatory upon the state to send a force to fight them and stop the harm they inflict upon the Muslims
(2).

After they have been taken hold of and detained or surrendered before the fighting or after it had begun,
they have specific Ahkaam (rulings) to be applied upon them which have been discussed within the books
of Fiqh and are not part of the purpose of our examination here.

Is the Qitaal against the Muhaaribeen Jihaad in the way of Allah?

The following was mentioned in ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’ which is from the Fiqh of the
Maalikiy Madh’hab: “And fighting them (i.e. the Muhaariboon) is Jihaad and whoever is killed from
amongst them then his blood is squandered and whomever they have killed is a Shaheed” (3).

In addition the following was mentioned in ‘Al-Fatawaa Al-Kubra’ by Ibn Taymiyah: “And Abu ul-
‘Abbaas (i.e. Ibn Taymiyah) said in relation to soldiers who fought Arabs who had robbed the wealth of
traders to restore it to them, that they were Mujaahideen in the way of Allah” (4).

It appears to me that if the Muhaaribeen were Murtaddeen (apostates), then in that case, the fighting
against them would conform to the definition of Al-Jihaad: “Fighting the disbelievers to raise the word of
Allah high” and consequently fighting them would be considered Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

If, however, they were Muslims, then the definition of Al-Jihaad would not apply upon them.

And if the Muhaariboon were from the ‘Ahl udh-Dimmah from amongst the subjects of the State, then if
it was stipulated upon them, when they contracted the Dhimmah (covenant of protection), that
undertaking terrorising acts like this would be considered as a breaking of the Dhimmah, then fighting
them in such a case, would be fighting against Kuffaar (disbelievers) who do not have a covenant and
consequently it would be Jihaad in the way of Allah.

[(1) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 392, Tafseer Al-Qurtubi: Soorah Al-Maa’idah 6/155, (3) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah: 392, (4) Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa: 4/599.

If, however, that was not stipulated upon them, fighting against them would then be fighting against a
group or faction that has a Dhimmah (covenant of protection). It would be undertaken so that the Hadd
(prescribed) punishment of ‘Al-Hiraabah’ be applied upon them and that is similar to fighting the Muslim
‘Muhaaribeen’ for the purpose of applying the Shar’iyah Hudood (set punishments) upon them … In this
situation, the fighting undertaken against them would not be considered to fall under Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah. Those people possess a Dhimmah (covenant of protection) (1) and the Fuqahaa have stated
that the Dhimmiyoon in the subject area of ‘Al-Hiraabah’ or ‘Qat’u At-Tareeq’ (highway robbery etc…)
are dealt with like the Muslims in terms of Ahkaam (the Islamic rulings). In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubi he
sated that: “The Muslim and the Dhimmi are the same in respect to that” (2).

As for the Musta’mineen (pl. of Musta’min), who are those who entered the Islamic lands with a
temporary residency or permission to remain, then if they were to engage in terrorising and aggressive acts
such as this, then their Amaan (security) would be broken by that. That is because the Amaan (security)
provided to the Musta’min is weaker than the ‘Amaan’ of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. Consequnelty,
terrorising acts such as this would impact the contract of security and breach it. This is as has been
mentioned in the book ‘Al-Muhadh’dhib within the Shaafi’iy Fiqh (3). Fighting them would consequently
be from Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah!
[(1) Al-Mu’jam Al-Waseet: Article ‘Jahada’ (َ‫)جَ َه َد‬, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubi, part 6, Tafseer Soorah Al-Maa’idah: p155, (3)
Takmilah Al-Majmoo’, 19/209].

The Fourth Study

Fighting in defence of the private sanctities: An-Nafs (the life), Al-‘Ird (the honour)
and Al-Maal (property)
“Defending against As-Siyaal”

- Introduction: The definition of As-Siyaal (‫ )الصيال‬and the general Shar’iy Daleel related to fighting in
defence of the private sanctities.

- What are the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities)?

- Fighting (Al-Qitaal) in defence of the private sanctities:

Firstly: Al-Qitaal in defence of An-Nafs (oneself/the life).

Secondly: Al-Qitaal in defence of Al-‘Ird (the honour).

Thirdly: Al-Qitaal in defence of Al-Maal (property).

- Is Al-Qitaal against the people of As-Siyaal in defnce of the private sanctities considered to be Al-Jihaad
according to its Shar’iy meaning?

The Fourth Study

 Fighting (Al-Qitaal) in defence of the private sanctities: An-Nafs (the life), Al-‘Ird
(the honour) and Al-Maal (property)

Introduction about the definition of ‘As-Siyaal’ and the general Daleel Ash-Shar’iy related to fighting in
defence of the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities).

The Fuqahaa’ have mentioned this (form of) Al-Qitaal within the study of ‘As-Siyaal’.

As-Siyaal (‫ص َيال‬

ِّ ‫ )ال‬linguistically means: To become overbearing and to pounce upon the other. Its Shar’a
meaning is: The pouncing upon the protected or inviolable (Al-Ma’soom) without right (1). What is
intended by ‘Al-Ma’soom’ is: An-Nafs (life), Al-‘Ird (honour) or Al-Maal (property), whether these
inviolable protected matters (Hurumaat) were attached to a Muslim who attained this inviolability and
right of protection due to his affiliation to Islaam or these inviolable protected matters were attached to a
Dhimmiy or Musta’min who attained his inviolability (and right of protection) due to his contracting of
the Dhimmah (covenant of protection) or Amaan (security). Consequently, fighting in defence of these
private Hurumaat (inviolable matters or sanctities) is a legitimate (and legal) matter from the one who is
being aggressed against or from a third party which drives the aggressor away from those inviolable
matters or assists the one being aggressed to defend them. The Fuqahaa have mentioned that the Muslim
should defend the Dhimmiy who is being aggressed against, whether the one aggressing was a Muslim or
Dhimmiy (2).

The Shar’iy basis for the legality of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in defence of these mentioned inviolable matters
and sanctities is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫اعتَ ُدوا َعلَْي ِه ِبِِثْ ِل َما ْاعتَ َد ٰى َعلَْي ُك ْم‬

ْ َ‫فَ َم ِن ْاعتَ َد ٰى َعلَْي ُك ْم ف‬
So whoever has aggressed against you, then aggress against him in the same way that he has aggressed against you (Al-
Baqarah: 194).

And the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of his property then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (3).

[(1) I’aanat ut-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4:/170, (2) Haashiyah (commentary) of Al-Bajeeramiy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Khateeb:
4/200, (3) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/742. Its number in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2480 and in Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/123].

And:

‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن أ َْهلِ ِه فَ ُه َو‬،‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َد ِم ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬،‫ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬،‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬
‫َش ِهي ٌد‬
Whoever is killed in defence of his property, then he is a Shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed in
defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed, whosoever is killed in defence of his blood (i.e. himself)
then he is Shaheed, and whoever is killed in defence of his people (family) then he is Shaheed (1).

And his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

 ‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمظْلَ َمتِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬
Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice against him then he is Shaheed (2).

The evidential angle within these Ahaadeeth is that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬made the one who was killed
whilst defending his Hurumaat a Shaheed (martyr). That indicates that he has the right to kill and to fight
(3).

In respect to defending the Ahl udh-Dhimmah the following was mentioned in Al-Bukhaari: Some of
what ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) spoke about at the time of his death included: “I exhort the Khalifah
after me in respect to the Dhimmah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to fulfil (and be loyal to) their
covenant with them and to fight those behind them …” (4) Al-Qitaal (fighting) mentioned here means
defending them and this includes defending them from both external and internal aggression. And it was
related from Ibn ‘Umar: From the last of what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬spoke about was that he said:

‫اِ ْح َفظُوِِّن ِِف ِذ َّم ِِت‬

Stay true to me in respect to my Dhimmah (5).

And ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (Karramallahu Wajhahu) said: “We provided to them what we provided to them
so that their blood becomes like our blood …” (6).

The Fuqahaa have said: From the category of the Siyaal, meaning the aggression against another without
right, which gives rise to the legality of defence by Al-Qitaal, is when someone enters the house of
someone else without his permission and without believing that he has that person’s consent (7)

Ash-Shaafi’iy said in Al-Umm: “And if a man enters a house of (another) man at night or during the day
with a weapon and then he is commanded to leave but doesn’t, then he can strike him even if it comes to
his life” (8) i.e. the life of the one being driven away.

“Similarly, (the same applies) if a man enters his Fustaat (tent) in the open land (Baadiyah) … if it seen
that he has designs upon his life, property or intends evil (Fisq)… Ash-Shaafi’iy said: The same applies
whether the intruder was known to commit theft or Fisq or not know to” (9).

(1) Sunan Abu Dawud (no. 4772), 4/339, and in the Saheeh of Abi Dawud by Al-Albaaniy no. 3993, (2) An-Nasaa’iy: 7/117
and in the Saheeh of the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy, Al-Albaani: no. 3818 and 3/858, (3) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/194, (4) Sharh Al-
Qastalaaniy ‘Ala l-Bukhaari: 5/162 and Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 9/206, (5) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 143 and the
Hadeeth was quoted in ‘Al-Kaamil’, Ibn ‘Adiy 3/1081 with the addition of: ‘The people’ of my Dhimmah, (6) Ahkaam Al-
Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 1/175, (7) Haashiyah (commentary) of Al-Bajeeramiy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Khateeb: 4/200, (8) Al-Umm, Ash-
Shaafi’iy: 6/33, (9) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 6/33].

However, the Fuqahaa have mentioned that the one being aggressed upon defends his Hurumaat
(sanctities) by the lightest manner and then the next lightest, in terms of utilising speech, seeking help or
striking. If the aggressor is not repelled or deterred except by the utilisation of a weapon then the one
being aggressed against can make use of a weapon… And they said: “If the fighting becomes one of close
combat or struggling between the aggressor and one being aggressed upon, and the matter increased
beyond the ability to restrain or control it, then this order (i.e. from the lightest means to the next lightest)
falls from consideration” (1). This means that in such a situation there is no room to utilise the lightest
course and then the next lightest to repel the aggressor. Rather, he is fought in defence of his Hurumaat
(sanctities) or the Hurumaat of someone else.

We will restrict our discussion and examination about the Qitaal undertaken to defend the Hurumaat Al-
Khaassah (private sanctities) to the following matters:
- What are the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah?
- What is the Hukm in relation to defending each of these sanctities by Al-Qitaal (fighting)?
- Is the fighting in defence of the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah considered to be Al-Jihaad?

What are the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah?

The Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities or inviolable matters) are the sanctity (Hurmah) of blood,
the sanctity of Al-‘Ird (honour) and the sanctity of Al-Maal (property). These were mentioned in the
Khutbah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in the farewell speech as recorded by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim:

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ
ِ َ ‫فَإِ َّن د َماءَ ُك ْم َوأ َْم َوالَ ُك ْم َوأ َْعَر‬
َ ‫اض ُك ْم َعلَْي ُك ْم َحَر ٌام َك ُح ْرَمة يَ ْوم ُك ْم َه َذا ِف َش ْه ِرُك ْم َه َذا ِف بَلَد ُك ْم َه َذا فَ ْليُبَ لِّ ْغ الشَّاه ُد الْغَائ‬
‫ب‬
Verily, your blood, your property, your honours are Haraam (inviolable) upon you like the
inviolability of this day of yours, in this month of yours in this land of yours. Let the one who
witnessed (heard) convey to the one who was absent (2).

These Hurumaat are private (Khaassah) because they relate specifically to every individual separately to
distinguish them from the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (the general or public sanctities) which are Ahkam
Shar’iyah related to what is called the general (or public) Adaab (manners) and a breach in them represents
an assault upon the Huqooq (rights) of Allah or what are called the rights of the society; like the drinking
of alcohol and the undertaking of acts of disobedience and debauchery. The subject about fighting to
prevent such Munkaraat will be discussed later in its own section In Shaa’Allah.

[(1) I’aanat At-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4:172, (2) Nasb Ar-Raayah: 4/324. Hadeeth no. 67, Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/157.
Hadeeth no. in Muslim: 16679, 3/1305/1306].

Defending the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah by Al-Qitaal (fighting):

Firstly: Defending the ‘Nafs’ (self/life) by Al-Qitaal:

There are a number of Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm (legal ruling) related to defending the
‘Nafs’ by fighting and killing. They are:

A - Defending An-Nafs (life/self) is Waajib (obligatory):

This is the view of the majority of the Fuqahaa from the Ahnaaf, Maalikiyah and Shaafi’iyah (1). However,
the Shaafi’iyah restricted the obligation to defend the Nafs upon the Saa’il (aggressor) being a Kaafir, beast
or Muslim whose blood is not to be spared (or not protected) like the married Muslim Zaani (adulterer),
the one who has abandoned the Salaah or the highway robber killer (2). From among the Adillah
(evidences) for the Wujoob (obligation) of defending oneself is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction (al-Baqarah: 195).

B - Surrendering to being killed and abandoning the defence of oneself (An-Nafs) is Mandoob
(recommended):

This the opinion of the Shaafi’iyah I the situation when the aggressor is a Muslim whose blood is
protected. Their evidence for that is the Hadeeth that mentioned within it:
 ِ ‫فَإِ ْن دخل علَى أ‬
َ ‫ فَلْيَ ُك ْن َك َخ ِْري ابْ َ ِْن‬، ُ‫َحد ُك ْم بَْيتَه‬
‫آد َم‬ َ َ َََ
If someone enters the house of one of you then be like the best of the two sons of Aadam (3).

And because ‘Uthmaan (ra) forbade his slaves, who numbered 400, from protecting him on Yaum Ad-Dar
(day of the home) when he was besieged by those revolting against him and they were threatening to kill
him. He said to his slaves: “Whoever throws down his weapon then he is free” and that (statement)
became well-known amongst the Sahaabah (rah) and not one of them condemned or spoke out against
(Inkaar) him for that (4). In addition, the Shaafi’iyah did not specify this surrendering to the time of Al-
Fitnah (severe unrest and disorder) however they stated: It is stipulated (as a condition) that harms and
corruptions (Mafaasid) result from his surrendering to being killed in respect to women folk and to
children. Otherwise, it is obligatory upon him to defend himself (5). They also stipulated that by
surrendering himself to being killed no public (or general) Mafaasid (harms and corruptions) result from
that, like when the one being asked to surrender is from the people of authority, or from the ‘Ulamaa and
the Maslahah Al-Aammah (general benefit and interest) is upset and disturbed, in which case it is
obligatory to fight (6).

Some of the Fuqahaa have stated that surrendering to being killed is Mandoob in the time of general
Fitnah in order to reduce or decrease the Fitnah (7).

[(1) Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatihi: 5/755, (2) I’aanat At-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4/172, (3) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/368.
He said: The five narrators (i.e. collectors) apart from An-Nasaa’iy. And reference the Hadeeth in the Sunan of Abi Dawud: no.
4259, 4/141, and in the Saheeh of the Sunan of Abi Dawud, Al-Albaani: no. 3582, 3/802. And refer to the Sunan of Ibn
Maajah: no. 3958, 2/1308, Jaami’ Al-Usool: 10/9 and the Sunan At-Tirmnidhi: 4/486, (4) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/195, (5)
Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/195, (6) Haashiyah (commentary) of Al-Bajeeramiy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Khateeb: 4/200, (7) Al-Furooq, Al-
Quraafiy: 4/184].

C - Surrendering to being killed is Mubaah:

That is when the aggressor goes to the person by himself in the absence of the situation of Al-Fitnah Al-
‘Aammah (general major disorder) (1).

Secondly: Defending Al-‘Ird (the honour):

Al-Imaam An-Nawawi said in his explanation of Saheeh Muslim: “… As for defending the Hareem
(female members of the family) then that is obligatory without any difference of opinion” (2). This
defence could be undertaken by the woman whose honour is exposed to the assault, or her husband,
relatives or (even) any Muslim who is not related to her. That is because the honours (Aa’raad), are from
the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities) of Allah on the earth and there is no way to make them permissible
(to be assaulted) under any circumstances (3). That is due to the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن أ َْهلِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of his Ahl (family/wives) then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (4).

And due to what was recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: A man hosted a person from Hudail
and a women from amongst them (i.e. the household) went to gather firewood. He then wanted to take
her against her will so she threw a rock at him and killed him. This was then raised to ‘Umar (ra) (i.e. for
judgment) and he said: “That one is a killing of Allah and will never receive blood money” (5). Defence
undertaken by others in respect to the honours of others falls under the statement of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ﷺ‬:
 ِ ِ َ ‫ يا رس‬: ‫ال رجل‬ ِ َ ‫انْصر أَخ‬
:‫ال‬
َ َ‫ص ُرهُ ؟ ق‬ َ ‫ت إِذَا َكا َن ظَال ًما َكْي‬
ُ ْ‫ف أَن‬ َ ْ‫ أَفَ َرأَي‬، ‫وما‬ً ُ‫ص ُرهُ إِذَا َكا َن َمظْل‬
ُ ْ‫ول اللَّه أَن‬ ُ َ َ ٌ ُ َ َ ‫وما فَ َق‬
ً ُ‫اك ظَال ًما أ َْو َمظْل‬ َ ُْ
ِ ِ
ُ‫ص ُره‬ َ ‫ََْتج ُزهُ َع ِن الظُّْل ِم فَِإ َّن ذَل‬
ْ َ‫ك ن‬
“Support (help) your brother if he is an oppressor or oppressed”, So a man said: O Messenger of
Allah, I can support him if he is oppressed but what about if he was an oppressor. How do I
support (assist) him? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Prevent him from the act of oppression and in that you are
supporting (aiding) him” (6).

In a narration recorded by Al-Bukhaari it stated in respect to the above narration: “Take hold of his
hands (i.e. restrain him)” (7) and before this Hadeeth Al-Bukhaari related:

ِ ِ ِ ِ
ُ‫َخو الْ ُم ْسل ِم ََّل يَظْل ُمهُ َوََّل يُ ْسل ُمه‬
ُ ‫الْ ُم ْسل ُم أ‬
The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim; he does not oppress (or transgress against) him and he does not
hand him over (to others) … (8). That means that he defends him and does not hand him over to
someone that wants to do something bad to him or assault him.

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Quraafiy: 4/184, (2) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 1/517, (3) Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu:
5/759, (4) Sunan Abi Dawud, no. 4772, 4/339 and it was mentioned by Al-Albaani in the Saheeh of the Sunan of Abi Dawud,
no. 3993 and refer to Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/743, (5) Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: No. 7842. 9/371, (6) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari:
Fat’h ul-Baari: 12/323, (7) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Fat’h ul-Baari: 5/98, (8) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Fat’h ul-Baari: 12/323].

It was stated in Fat’h ul-Baari’: “…The one capable to free the oppressed drives away the oppression with
all that he possesses (of capability). When he defends him, he does not intend to kill the oppressor but
rather he aims to drive him away and repel him. If, however the repelling of the Zhaalim (oppressor)
come to it (I there is no option) then his blood is permitted (i.e. his immunity is lifted and can be killed).
In such a situation, there is no difference between repelling (the aggression) from himself and repelling
from (or defending) someone else” (1).

It was recorded in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫اْلََلئِ ِق‬
ْ ‫وس‬ِ ُ‫ص ْرهُ أَذَلَّهُ اللَّهُ يَ ْوَم الْ ِقيَ َام ِة َعلَى ُرء‬
ُ ‫صَرهُ فَلَ ْم يَْن‬
ِ ِ ِ ِ
ُ ‫َم ْن أُذ َّل عْن َدهُ ُم ْؤم ٌن َوُه َو يَ ْقد ُر َعلَى أَ ْن يَْن‬
If a believer is degraded (or humiliated) before him and he is capable of assisting him and does
not assist him. Then Allah will humiliate (and degrade) him on the day of Judgement above the
heads of the all creation (i.e. before all mankind) … (2).

In addition to this, an aggression or assault upon the honours, is from the vilest Munkaraat (evil
acts/matters) which the following Hadeeth has provided the legitimate legality to remove by force. He
‫ ﷺ‬said:

...ِ‫َم ْن َرأَى ِمنْ ُك ْم ُمنْ َكًرا فَلْيُغَيِّ ْرهُ بِيَ ِده‬

Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar (evil act/matter) then he must change it with his
hand… (3).

This Hadeeth will be discussed in the section: Al-Qitaal (fighting) to remove the Munkaraat and in
defence of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (general public sanctities).

Thirdly: Defending the ‘Maal’ (property) by Al-Qitaal:

The opinions of the Fuqahaa are numerous in respect to this as follows:

A - Defending the property by Al-Qitaal is Waajib (obligatory):

This is the opinion of some of the ‘Ulamaa (4). It is the opinion of the Shaafi’iyah also in certain
circumstances which are: 1) That the property of the one defending it is attached to the Haqq (right) of
another like rent or a security (deposit). 2) That it is property possessing a Rooh (soul) like an animal and
even if the one assaulting the animal in a prohibited manner is the owner of that animal, on the condition
that the one defending is not himself or his honour exposed to danger (5). 3) Or the property is the
property of others in which case it is obligatory upon any capable Muslim to defend the property
belonging to other than him. That is because, if it is permitted for the Muslim to give preference in respect
to his own property so as to give it up, it is not permitted for him to give such a preference in respect to
the right of other than him! That is in the case where he is not inflicted by harm as a result of defending
the property belonging to other than him (6).

[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari: 12/324, (2) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 3/487, (3) Saheeh Muslim: No. 49, 1/69, (4) Nazhriyah Ad-
Daroorah Ash-Shar’iyah, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 149, and the following statement of An-Nawawi was mentioned in Fat’h ul-
Baari :”And those who obliged are rare”: 5/124, (5) I’aanat At-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4:172, (6) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj:
4/196].

B - Defending the property by Al-Qitaal is Mubaah (obligatory):

This is the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa. An-Nawawi said in the Sharh (explanation)
of Saheeh Muslim: “As for the Ahkaam of the chapter (i.e. this issue) then it includes the permissibility of
killing the one aiming to take property without right, whether the money is little or large, due to the
generality of the Hadeeth: “Whoever dies in the defence of his property is Shaheed (a martyr)” (1).
This is the opinion of the majority of the ‘Ulamaa and some of the companions of Maalik (i.e. of his
Madh’hab) said: It is not allowed to kill him if he is seeking something little like clothing or food. This is
not anything and the correct view is that of the Jumhoor (majority) … And defending the property is
permissible (Jaa’iz) and not Waajib (obligatory), and Allah knows” (2).

C - Leaving the defence of property by Al-Qitaal (fighting) is Waajib (obligatory):

That is when the aggressor is the one possessing the legitimate authority ‘As-Sultaan’. Ibn ul-Mundhir
said: That which the people of knowledge are upon is that the man has the right to defend what has been
mentioned if oppression is intended, without details (i.e. in general). However, anyone who has retained
from the ‘Ulamaa of Hadeeth finds that they have a consensus in respect to exempting the Sultaan
(authority), because of the reports that have come commanding patience over their injustice and
oppressiveness and leaving the standing up against it, end” (3).

Included amongst these Ahaadeeth is what has been related in the Saheeh of Muslim:

‫ت‬ُ ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُ ْل‬ ْ ‫ول اللَّ ِه إِنَّا ُكنَّا بِ َشٍّر فَ َجاءَ اللَّهُ ِِبٍَْري فَنَ ْح ُن فِ ِيه فَ َه ْل ِم ْن َوَر ِاء َه َذا‬
َ َ‫اْلَِْري َشٌّر ق‬ َ ‫ت يَا َر ُس‬ ِ
ُ ‫ال ُح َذيْ َفةُ بْ ُن الْيَ َمان قُ ْل‬
َ َ‫ق‬
‫ال يَ ُكو ُن بَ ْع ِدي أَئِ َّمةٌ ََّل يَ ْهتَ ُدو َن‬َ َ‫ف ق‬َ ‫ت َكْي‬ َ َ‫اْلَِْري َشٌّر ق‬
ُ ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُ ْل‬ ْ ‫ك‬ ِ
َ ‫ت فَ َه ْل َوَراءَ ذَل‬ ُ ْ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُل‬
َ َ‫ك الشَِّّر َخْي ٌر ق‬ ِ
َ ‫َه ْل َوَراءَ ذَل‬
‫ول اللَّ ِه‬ ِ ‫ني ِِف جثْم‬
ٍ ْ‫ان إِن‬ ِ ‫ال قُلُوب هم قُلُوب الشَّي‬ ِ ‫ِِب َداي وََّل يست نُّو َن بِسن َِِّت وسي ُق‬
َ ‫َصنَ ُع يَا َر ُس‬ ْ ‫فأ‬ َ ‫ت َكْي‬ ُ ْ‫ال قُل‬
َ َ‫س ق‬ َُ
ِ ‫اط‬ َ ُ ْ ُ ُ ٌ ‫وم في ِه ْم ِر َج‬ ُ ََ َ ُ َْ َ َ َ ُ
‫اْسَ ْع َوأَ ِط ْع‬ َ ُ‫ب ظَ ْه ُرَك َوأ ُِخ َذ َمال‬ ِ ِ ‫ال تَسمع وتُ ِط‬ ِ ‫إِ ْن أَدرْك‬
ْ َ‫ك ف‬ ُ ‫يع ل َْلَم ِري َوإِ ْن‬
َ ‫ض ِر‬ ُ َ ُ َ ْ َ َ‫ك ق‬ َ ‫ت ذَل‬ ُ َْ
Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yammaan related: I said: “O Messenger of Allah, indeed, we had been in evil and
Allah brought us good which we are now living. Will there be a bad after this good?” He ‫ﷺ‬
said: “Yes”. I said: “Will there be good after this bad?” He said: “Yes”. I said: “Will there be bad
after that good?” He said: “Yes”. I said: “How?” Whereupon he said: “There will be leaders who
will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men
who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings”. I said: “What should I do. O
Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time?” He replied: “You will listen to the Amir
and obey him; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched. So listen and obey” (4).

Despite that, some of the ‘Ulamaa did not exempt the Hukaam (rulers) from the permissibility to fight
them if they assault the private property. Rather, they extended this Haqq (right), the right to defend the
property by Al-Qitaal, even against the aggressing rulers.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: Hadeeth no. 141, 1/125, (2) Sharh An-Nawawi of Muslim: 1/516, (3) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/367, (4) Saheeh
Muslim: Hadeeth no. 1847, 3/1476].

It was reported in Saheeh Muslim: That when 'Abdullah b. 'Amr and 'Anbasa b. Abi Sufyan were
preparing to fight against each other. Then Khalid b. 'Aas rode to 'Abdullah b. 'Amr and exhorted him
(not to do so). Upon this Abdullah b. 'Amr said: Are you not aware that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had
observed: “He who died whilst protecting his property is a martyr” (1).

And in Fat’h ul-Baari it mentions a Riwaayah (report) that clarifies what was behind this incident: “An
‘Aamil (governor) of Mu’aawiyah ran a spring of water to irrigate his land. It approached close to the wall
of ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas and he wanted to breach it so that the spring could flow to his land. ‘Abdullah Ibn
‘Amr then approached and his servant with a weapon. They said: “By Allah, you will not breach our wall
to the point where none of us remain (i.e. we will never allow you to do that)”.

The Hadeeth mentions that it was the ‘Aamil (governor i.e. ruler) who was ‘Anbasah Bin Abi Sufyaan as
indicated to in the aforementioned Hadeeth recorded in Muslim. He was the governor on behalf of his
brother over Makkah and At-Taa’if whilst the land mentioned in the Hadeeth was in At-Taa’if (2).

In addition, Ibn Hazm related in Al-Muhallaa: Verily Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq wrote this letter to Anas when
he directed him to go to Al-Bahrain: “In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. This is the
obligation of Az-Zakaah that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made obligatory upon the Muslims and what
Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla commanded the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with. So, whoever from amongst the
Muslims is asked for it according to its right, then he should give of it. And whoever is asked in excess of
that then he should not give it”. Abu Muhammad (i.e. Ibn Hazm) said: “So in respect to this, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commands that the one who is asked for money without right, then he should
not give it and he commanded to fight in defence of it, so that he may then kill with right (i.e. validly) or
be killed as someone innocent and as a Shaheed (martyr). The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not specify one type of
property from another type and here is Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr viewing that the
Sultaan (authority) falls within that just as the non-authority does, equally. And to Allah belongs At-
Tawfeeq” (3).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 141, 1/125, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari: 5/123, (3) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm: 11/209-310].

The opinion I view to be correct is that the right to defend the property came in Nusoos ‘Aammah
(general texts) and the Ahaadeeth exempting and making an exception of the Sultaan (as mentioned
earlier) from the legal legitimacy to defend by Al-Qitaal (fighting) are Saheeh (valid and correct), in the
case when it is the Sultaan (one in authority) who is the aggressor:

ِ ‫اْسع وأ‬ َ ُ‫ب ظَ ْه ُرَك َوأ ُِخ َذ َمال‬ ُ ‫إِ ْن‬

‫َط ْع‬ َ ْ َْ َ‫ك ف‬ َ ‫ض ِر‬
…Even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched. Listen and obey
The general Ahaadeeth have therefore been specified by the Ahaadeeth about patience (As-Sabr) in the
face of the injustice and oppression (Al-Jawr) of the Sultaan. It is possible that these specifying Ahaadeeth
did not reach ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr and his conduct was built upon the basis of the general text, as the
narration makes clear. There is also no evidence that the Sahaabah (rah) heard about the incident and then
did not denounce or deny it. In addition Khaalid Bin Al-‘Aas did rebuke ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr and he was
from amongst the Sahaabah who had embraced Islam on the day of Al-Fat’h (the conquest of Makkah) as
mentioned in ‘Al-Isaabah’ (1).

And finally, we come to the final point:

Is the fighting (Al-Qitaal) of the Siyaal (aggressor) in defence of the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah
(private sanctities), considered to be Al-Jihaad?

The answer is: If the people of As-Siyaal (aggressors) were warring disbelievers (Kuffaar Harbiyeen) then
the definition of Al-Jihaad would apply to the Qitaal (fighting) against them. That is because it the fighting
of the disbelievers to raise the word of Allah high.

Consequently, if a colonialist disbeliever aggresses against the Muslim, within the colonised Islamic world,
wanting his property, life or to attack his honour, and then he fights against him, his fighting would be
considered Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

If however the Ashaab As-Siyaal (aggressing people) were from the Musta’mineen (those granted and
Amaanah (security)), then the contract of the Amaan (security) is not broken by the Siyaal (act of
aggression) as they do not become Harbiyeen (warring people) so as to invalidate their protection (‘Ismah)
and make their blood Mubaah (i.e. lawful). The fighting remains one of defence to repel the aggression or
assault and it is not a Qitaal where the blood has become lawful (i.e. no inviolability). Therefore, if the
aggressor abandons his aggression it is not permitted to kill him but rather he is given a Ta’zeer
(discretionary punishment) by the ruler for his act of aggression and his ruling would be through the
application of the Islamic Ahkaam upon him, like the Muslim (2). This is because the reality of Al-Jihaad
is that it is war against the disbelievers who do not have an Amaan (security) due to their blood holding
no inviolability, whether by way of Imaan (belief) or Amaan (security).

The same is said regarding the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and indeed they are more entitled for their inviolability
not to be invalidated by the act of As-Siyaal (aggression). That is because the contract of Adh-Dhimmah is
stronger than the contract of Amaan (security). In addition, the contract of Adh-Dhimmah is not
invalidated by Qat’I At-Tareeq (highway robbery) (3) which is a greater atrocity. By greater reason it would
not be invalidated by As-Siyaal (aggression against the private sanctities) which is lighter (or lesser).

Based on this, the fighting of the Muslim against the Saa’il (aggressor) from the Musta’minen (people of
Amaanah) or Ahl udh-Dhimmah is not considered to be Al-Jihaad according to its Shar’iy meaning due to
the reality of Al-Jihaad not being applicable to it.

It is therefore also natural for the fighting of the Muslim against a Muslim aggressor (Saa’il) not to be Al-
Jihaad as in this situation the fighting is not taking place against a disbeliever.

It is true that the Muslim defending his private sanctities (Hurumaat) is a Shaheed (martyr) if he is killed,
however, he is the Shaheed of the Aakhirah only. As for the one killed in Al-Jihaad then he is a Shaheed
of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah or the Shaheed of the Dunyaa alone (4) as will be explained in the section
about the Shaheed.
[(1) Al-Isaabah: 1/407, (2) Al-Umm Ash-Shaafi’iy (Al-Musta’min Fee Daar il-Islaam) 7/358, (3) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/180, (4)
Sharh An-Nawawi of Muslim: 1/515].

The Fifth Study

Fighting (Al-Qitaal) in defence of the public sanctities (Al-Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah)

within the Islamic society

- Introduction about the definition of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and the general
Shar’iy Daleel in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of defending them.

- Firstly: The Ahkaam related to denying or denouncing the Munkar in different circumstances.

- Secondly: The legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in relation to denying the Munkar and the levels of
denial (Inkaar) that precede the fighting.

- Thirdly: Is the fighting to remove the Munkar to defend the public sanctities considered to be Al-Jihaad
in accordance to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning?
 The Fifth Study

Fighting (Al-Qitaal) in defence of the public sanctities (Al-Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah)

within the Islamic society

Introduction: About the definition of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and the general
Shar’iy Daleel in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of defending them.

In the previous section we spoke about fighting in defence of the private sanctities; An-Nafs (self), Al-‘Ird
(honour) and Al-Maal (property), or what has been called ‘Daf’u As-Siyaal’ i.e. repelling the aggression or
assault.

There is another type or form of As-Siyaal (aggression or assault) which we will discuss now. That is the
Siyaal (aggression or assault) upon the society, represented in an assault undertaken against the Hurumaat
Al-‘Aammah (the public sanctities). These public sanctities have been named by the Usooliyeen (scholars
of Usool) as being the Huqooq (rights) of Allah whilst modern Islamic authors have referred to them as
being the rights of the society. That is because they have been legislated for the protection of the society
and for the sake of the general common or joint well-being (1).

The aggression here is manifested in the violation of those sanctities and the perpetration of Munkaraat in
a brazen manner. It is where we would find ourselves in a situation of neglected obligations, widespread
Muharramaat (prohibited acts) and suspended Ahkaam Shar’iyah.

Just as Islam has legislated defence by way of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the people of As-Siyaal
aggressing against or assaulting the private sanctities to protect them, Islam has also legislated defence via
Al-Qitaal against the people who assault and aggress against the public sanctities to protect them. This
latter form of defence is what the Fuqahaa have referred to in relation to the use of the hand or weapon
to remove the Munkaraat in accordance to the speech of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ِ ِِ
ِ َ‫اْلمي‬
‫ان‬ ِْ ‫ف‬ُ ‫َض َع‬ َ ‫ َوذَل‬،‫ فَِإ ْن َملْ يَ ْستَ ِط ْع فَبِ َق ْلبِ ِه‬،‫ فَإِ ْن َملْ يَ ْستَ ِط ْع فَبِل َسانِِه‬،‫َم ْن َرأَى ِمْن ُك ْم ُمْن َكًرا فَ ْليُغَيِّ ْرهُ بِيَده‬
ْ ‫كأ‬
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar, then he must change it by his hand. If he cannot then
he must do so by his tongue. If he cannot do that, then it must be by his heart and that is the
weakest of Imaan (2).

[(1) Refer to ‘Al-Manaahij Al-Usooliyah’, Ad-Duraini: 239, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69].

The issue could be unclear in respect to some similar forms and whether they fall under the category of
As-Siyaal (aggression or assault) upon the private sanctities, in which case defending them would represent
a defence of the private sanctities, or under the category of the Siyaal (aggression) or assault upon the
Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah, where defending them would represent defending the public sanctities? This
matter is quite simple and that is because whichever category it falls under, defending the Hurumaat
(sanctities) is legitimate, whether they are private or public. However, from a technical or Fiqhiy angle,
there is a rule or measure to distinguish between one and the other. If the Siyaal was according to its
Haqeeqiy (literal) meaning: An assault (or act of aggression) by one person against another in respect to
his Nafs (self/life), ‘Ird (honour) or Maal (property), then we are faced with an assault upon the Hurumaat
Al-Khaassah (private sanctities). Consequently, the defence here would be a private (or personal) defence.
This would be like if a person assaulted another to spill his blood or a Faasiq assaulted a woman forcefully
to commit an evil act, or a person assaulted the property of another to destroy it or take it without right.

If, however, the Siyaal (assault) was in accordance to its Majaazi (metaphoric) meaning where it referred to
the assault upon the commands of Allah and his forbiddances by going beyond or outside of their
bounds, then in such a case we would be facing an assault upon the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public
sanctities) and consequently the defending here would be a defence of the public (Al-‘Aamm). That is like
a person wanting to commit suicide as there is no assault in such a case upon anyone else but rather it
represents undertaking that which Allah Ta’Aalaa had forbidden when He said:

‫َوََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا أَن ُف َس ُك ْم‬

And do not kill yourselves (An-Nisaa’: 29).

Or a (male) Faasiq wanting to commit an evil indecent act with a willing (female) Faasiqah. This is not
considered to be an assault or act of aggression against the woman because she is volunteering and willing,
however this act represents committing that which Allah Ta’Aalaa has forbidden in His Qawl:

‫َن‬
َٰ ‫الز‬
ِّ ‫َوََّل تَ ْقَربُوا‬
And do not approach (the act of) Az-Zinaa (fornication/adultery) (Al-Israa’: 32).

Or a person seeking to destroy or damage his own property that he owns. In this situation, there is no
assault upon the property of others however it is a violation due to what the Shar’a has forbidden in
respect to the squandering of property within the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫اعةَ الْ َم ِال‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ

َ‫ض‬ َ ِ‫الس َؤ ِال َوإ‬
ُّ َ‫ال َوَكثْ َرة‬
َ َ‫يل َوق‬ َ ‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ َحَّرَم َعلَْي ُك ْم عُ ُق‬
َ ‫وق ْاْل َُّم َهات َوَوأْ َد الْبَ نَات َوَمْن ًعا َوَهات َوَكرَه لَ ُك ْم ثَََلثًا ق‬
Verily Allah has forbidden upon you disobedience to mothers, burying daughters alive, denying
what you owe and demanding what you have no right to, and has disliked for you idle talk and
gossip, excessive questioning, and squandering wealth (2).

The above mentioned forms of the violation of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) could
resemble forms of violating the Hurumat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities) due to the unity of the subject
represented in the Nafs (self/life), ‘Ird (honour) and Maal (property). However, the measure and criteria
that has been mentioned clarifies which of the two categories these forms fall under.

[(1) Refer to ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fi-l-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy’, Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Abdut Tawwaab: 26-85, (2) Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari: 2408, Fat’h ul-Baari: 5/68].

Outside of these forms that resemble one another, every or any sinful suspension or abandonment of a
Fard (obligation) that has been commanded or any sinful committing of a Haraam (prohibition) that has
been forbidden, would represent a violation of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (the public sanctities) and the
perpetration of a Munkar (1). That would be like the suspension of the Salaah, the Sawm (fasting), the
Shar’iy Hijaab in relation to the women and everything like that which the Shar’iyah texts have
commanded. It would also include the drinking of Khamr (intoxicants), dealing with Ribaa (usury) and Al-
Qimaar (gambling) amongst other matters which the Shar’iyah texts have forbidden.

Despite that, we will restrict our study to that which is connected to Al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of
forbidding or denying (Inkaar) the Munkar or what we have called the ‘defence of the Hurumaat Al-
‘Aammah) within the Islamic society. For that reason we will only address the following points:
Firstly: The Ahkaam (rulings) relating to the Inkaar (denial) of the Munkaar in its different circumstances
or conditions.

Secondly: Is the Qitaal (fighting) to remove the Munkaraat fall under Al-Jihaad?

Firstly: The Ahkaam (rulings) relating to the Inkaar (denial) of the Munkaar in its
different circumstances or conditions.

1 – The original position (Al-Asl) in respect to the Inkaar (denying) of the Munkar is that it is Fard
Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency). Consequently, if some are to undertake it and fulfil it, then the
Talab (demand/request) to do it falls from the remainder (of the people). The evidence for that if the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ك ُه ُم الْ ُم ْفلِ ُحو َن‬ ِ

َ ِ‫اْلَِْري َويَأْ ُم ُرو َن بِالْ َم ْع ُروف َويَْن َه ْو َن َع ِن الْ ُمن َك ِر ۗ َوأُولَٰئ‬
ْ ‫َولْتَ ُكن ِّمن ُك ْم أ َُّمةٌ يَ ْدعُو َن إِ ََل‬
And let there be [arising] from you a group inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is
wrong, and those will be the successful (Aali ‘Imraan: 104).

Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy said the following in ‘Al-Ihyaa’ when presenting the deduction of the Hukm of
the obligation of sufficiency from this Aayah: “It includes an explanation that it (the ordering of the
Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar) is a Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) and not a Fard ‘Ain
(individual obligation). That is because if an ‘Ummah’ (group or section of the Muslims) undertakes it
then the Fard falls from the rest. And it specified those who undertake it with Al-Falaah (success) and if
the whole creation was to not engage in it then the sin would (inevitably) encompass them all (i.e. all of
those who are capable)” (2).

[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/194, (2) Ihyaa’ ‘Uloom id-Deen, Al-Ghazaaliy: 2/211].

2 – Despite that, the changing of the Munkar becomes Fard ‘Ain upon the one who witnesses the Munkar
and is from those capable of removing it. That is upon the condition that he does not fear the assault
upon his Hurumaat Al-Khaassah (private sanctities; life, honour and property) and as long as a Mafsadah
(harm and corruption) greater than the Mafsadah of the Munkar that he is confronted with, does not
result from his forbidding it (1). The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ٍ ‫َصاب ُهم اللَّهُ بِ َع َذ‬ َِّ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِِ ٍ ِ ِ

‫اب قَ ْب َل أَ ْن ميَُوتُوا‬ ُ َ َ ‫ فَ ََل يُغريُوا إَّل أ‬، ‫ يَ ْقد ُرو َن أَ ْن يُغريُوا َعلَْيه‬، ‫َما م ْن َر ُج ٍل يَ ُكو ُن ِف قَ ْوم يُ ْع َم ُل فيه ْم بالْ َم َعاصي‬
There is not any man within a people amongst whom acts of disobedience (Ma’aasiy) take place,
and they are capable of changing it and then don’t do so, except that Allah will afflicted them
with a punishment before they die (2).

And in another narration:

ٍ ‫َصاب ُهم اللَّهُ ِمنْهُ بِ َع َذ‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ

‫اب‬ َ ‫ني أَظْ ُه ِره ْم َم ْن يَ ْع َم ْل بِالْ َم َعاصي ُه ْم أ‬
ُ َ َ ‫ إَّل أ‬، ‫َعُّز َوأ َْمنَ ُع َملْ يُغَيِّ ُروا َعلَْيه‬ َ ْ َ‫َما م ْن قَ ْوم يَ ُكو ُن ب‬
There is not a people that have amongst them those who commit acts of disobedience whilst they
are in a strong position and then they don’t change it, except that Allah will afflict them with a
punishment from Him (3).

3 – If a Mafsadah (harm/corruption) greater than the Mafsadah of the Munkar that is taking place results
from denying (or forbidding) it like the perpetration of other Munkaraat as a means to challenge and in
contempt of those denying the Munkar, then the Inkaar (denial/forbidding) of the Munkar is prohibited
in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle: “If two Mafsadahs are in conflict with each other, then the
greatest in harm is observed (i.e. paid attention to) by the perpetration of the lighter (or lesser) of the
two”.

And due to another Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah: “The lesser (or weaker) of the two evils is selected (or
َ َ‫( )ي ُْخ َتارَُأ‬4). However, in such a case, it is obligatory for the Muslims, to work to
ِ َّ‫هْونُ َال َّشر‬
chosen)” (َ‫ين‬
overcome their weakness so that they become capable of removing the Munkaraat without any Mafaasid
(harms and corruptions) being the consequence of it. That is because the removal of the Munkaraat is
Waajib and the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah states:

ِ ‫اجب إََِّل بِ ِه فَ ُهو و‬

‫اجب‬ ِ ‫ما ََل يتِ ُّم‬
َ َ ُ ‫الو‬
َ َ َ
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (obligatory)” (5).

[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/174-175), (2) Abu Dawud, Ibn Maajah (Mushaat Al-Masaabeeh: no.
5143, 3/1423) and it is in the Sunnah of Abu Dawud: no. 4339 and in the Sunnah of Ibn Maajah: no. 4009. Al-Albaaniy said
that it is ‘Hasan’ in (Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud) no. 3646, 3/819, (3) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 4/363, (4) Al-Majallah –
Articled: 28 and 29 pages 14-15 and Usoolul ul-Fiqhu Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (5) Usool At-
Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali Hasaballah, and refer to ‘Al-Ihkaam’, Al-Aamidiy: The seventh issue (Mas’alah): 1/96].

4 – If the occurrence of Mafaasid (corruptions and harms) manifested in other Munkaraat being added to
the original Munkar does not result from denying it but rather this denying results in harm falling upon
those engaged in the denying of the Munkar just like what regularly happens from the people of Fisq and
evil when they seek revenge against calling for rectification, attempt to prevent them from engaging in the
obligation of denying the Munkar and to deter others from following the same course of action, in respect
to cleaning the atmosphere within the lands of deviation and deviants, then in such a situation I say the
following: If the harm befalls those engaged in the forbidding or denying of the Munkar without
extending to their relatives, friends and others who live amongst them , then their Inkaar (denying) of the
Munkar in this situation would be Mandoob (recommended) and if they were to become victims as a
result of it, they would be Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) in accordance to the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (1).

The affirmation of Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) for the one who is killed whilst he is engaged in denying
the Munkaraat (evils) for the sake of the Deen, is a Daleel (evidence) indicating the legal legitimacy of the
action that he undertook and it being rewardable with Allah Ta’Aalaa. As for the denial of the Munkar in
this case not being Waajib (obligatory), then that is because the previous Hadeeth, related by Ahmad Bin
Hanbal, stipulates, in order for it be obligatory, that those undertaking it be stronger and possess a greater
preventative force than the Fussaaq (the disobedient and rebellious to Allah’s commands). The opposite
understood meaning (Al-Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah) of this is that there is no obligation if this condition
is deficient and the Fussaaq are in a stronger position than those denouncing the Munkar. It is evident
here, that what is intended by strength and weakness, relates to the ability or inability of the side of those
committing or involved in the Munkaraat to bring harm, and the presence or absence of security (i.e.
being free of harm) in respect to those undertaking the act of forbidding the Munkar.

This applies to the situation when the denying (Inkaar) of the Munkar results in harm befalling the people
engaged in the action alone.

5 – In the case where severe harm befalls those undertaking the denying of the Munkar and others from
amongst the relatives, friends and other citizens, then we will be faced with two dangers:
- Either being silent over the Munkar and as such fall into the danger or peril of leaving the condemnation
or denial (Inkaar).

- Or undertaking the denial (Inkaar) and falling into the danger or peril of the severe harm that will befall
others.

We have become aware from the previously situation that if harm befalls those undertaking the Inkaar of
the Munkar, as a result of their action, then the Hukm (ruling) transfers from Wujoob (obligation) to
Nadb (recommendation). The same applies if the harm will afflict others and that is because the Sabab
(cause/reason) for the lifting of the Hukm of Wujoob is the occurrence of the harm as a consequence to
the Inkaar (act of denying or forbidding the Munkar).

In this case:

If those upon whom the harm will fall are content with that and have given precedence to their Deen over
their lives and interests (so as to sacrifice them for the sake of their Deen), then the Inkaar (forbidding or
denouncing) would be Mandoob (recommended) and even if the harm reached the extent of death as they
will be from amongst the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter) and the previously mentioned
Hadeeth will apply upon them:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (2).

[(1) Suna Al-Baihaqi: 3/2266 and Sunan Abi Dawud: 4772, 4/339. Al-Albaani mentioned it in: Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud: no.
3993, 3/906. Also, refer to: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/743, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 3/266, Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/743 and the Hdeeth is in
‘Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Ash-Skeikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaani: no. 1148. 2/63].

If, however, they are not content for the harm to befall them as a result of the denouncing of the Munkar,
then in such circumstances Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy views that it is permitted for those undertaking the
forbidding of the Munkar to be lenient in respect to the rights of themselves, seek success and victory in
terms of the reward and recompense and undertake the Inkaar (forbidding) and even if it means bearing
the harm upon themselves. However, (in his opinion) it is not permitted to be lenient with the rights of
others and expose them to harm. Regarding that he says the following in respect to the one who
voluntarily undertakes the Inkaar of the Munkar seeking Allah’s reward within these circumstances: If that
(i.e. the voluntary denouncing of the Munkar of the one seeking Allah’s reward) leads to the harming of
his people then he should leave it. That is like the Zaahid (one distancing himself from the Dunyaa) who
has wealthy relatives and consequently does not fear for his wealth if he accounts the authority but the
ruler then seeks out his relatives to avenge him through them. If the harm was to go beyond him to reach
his relatives and neighbours because of his accounting, then he should leave it as harming the Muslims is a
Mahdhoor (i.e. dangerous or perilous matter) just as remaining silent over the Munkar is …” (1).

6 – It could be that the one undertaking or involved in the Munkaraat is the one possessing the authority
in the land (i.e. the ruler). In respect to this, the Shar’iyah texts have come explaining the details of this
reality as follows:

A – It is obligatory to denounce or forbid (Inkaar) the ruler upon the level of exhortation (Wa’zh) and
Nus’h (advising) by using gentle speech at the beginning of the matter. That is because the denouncing
(Inkaar) in a manner that removes the Munkar is (usually) not possible as long as the power is in the hand
of the one who has the authority. Consequently, the obligation of Inkaar (denouncing and forbiddance)
established in the Shar’iyah texts is directed towards the act of Inkaar (denouncing) with the tongue alone.
That is in accordance to the statement of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:
 ِ ِ ِِ
ِ َ‫اْلمي‬
‫ان‬ ِْ ‫ف‬ُ ‫َض َع‬ َ ‫ َوذَل‬،‫ فَِإ ْن َملْ يَ ْستَ ِط ْع فَبِ َق ْلبِ ِه‬،‫ فَإِ ْن َملْ يَ ْستَ ِط ْع فَبِل َسانِِه‬،‫َم ْن َرأَى ِمْن ُك ْم ُمْن َكًرا فَ ْليُغَيِّ ْرهُ بِيَده‬
ْ ‫كأ‬
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar, then he must change it by his hand. If he cannot then
he must do so by his tongue. If he cannot do that, then it must be by his heart and that is the
weakest of Imaan (2).

It is only obligatory to provide exhortation and advice to the ruler by gentle speech at the beginning of the
matter due to the Shar’iyah texts related to the necessity to preserve the standing and prestige of the ruler
when advice is given to him. For that reason, using harshness or roughness (in speech) with him is not
legally legitimate (Mashroo’) as that would mean belittling him (or his standing) which is a Mahdhoor
(warned about) matter. From amongst the texts related to this is the speech of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ َوإََِّّل َكا َن قَ ْد‬، ‫ فَِإ ْن قَبِلَ َها قَبِلَ َها‬، ‫ َولْيُ ْخ ُل بِِه‬، ‫ َولْيَأْ ُخ ْذ بِيَ ِد ِه‬، ً‫ان فَ ََل يُ َكلِّ ُمهُ ِِبَا َع ََلنِيَة‬
ٍ َ‫صيحةٌ لِ ِذي سلْط‬
ُ
ِ ِ َ‫من َكان‬
َ َ‫ت عْن َدهُ ن‬
ْ َْ
ِ ِ ِ
ُ‫أ ََّدى الَّذي َعلَْيه َوالَّذي لَه‬
Whoever wants to advise a sultan (leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it publicly but let him
take him by the hand and go into seclusion with him. If he accepts it then he has accepted it (and
that is good) and if not, then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that which was obliged upon him (to
do) (3).

[(1) Ihyaa’ Uloom ud-Deen: 2/223, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69. And in the Sharh of An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim:
1/356, (3) Al-Baihaqi: 8/164].

B – It is recommended (Mandoob) to use harshness with the ruler when undertaking the Inkaar
(denunciation and forbidding) against him and that is when the matter requires demonstrating the
significance of the sanctities of Allah and making him comprehend the heinousness of what he is
undertaking in terms of his departure from the Shar’a. That is undertaken in accordance to the previously
mentioned Shart (condition) i.e. that the harm resulting from the utilisation of this style is restricted to the
one undertaking the Inkaar alone (1). This is understood from the Hadeeth recorded by An-Nasaa’iy:
Taariq Bin Shihaab related that a man asked the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬when he was placing his foot in his (horse’s)
stirrup:

ٍ َ‫ َكلِمةُ حق عِْن َد س ْلط‬:‫ضل؟ قَال‬

‫ان َجائِر‬ ِ ِ ُّ ‫أ‬
َ ْ‫َي اْل َهاد أَف‬
ُ َّ َ
Which Jihaad is best? He said: A word of truth before the unjust (oppressive) ruler (2)

He ‫ ﷺ‬called it Jihaad due to the risk and danger to oneself which is similar to what is present in Al-
Jihaad according to its Shar’iy Haqeeqiy meaning. The venture of making the ruler hear the word of truth
(Al-Haqq) in the way of denouncing or forbidding him, rests, in most cases, upon the use of the sharp
word and stinging rebuke!

C – It is prohibited to use crudeness or roughness (Al-Khushoonah) when rebuking or forbidding the

ruler by the tongue if that would result in the harming of others whilst they are not content and accepting
to what may befall them in terms of bad results, in accordance to what was deduced previously in respect
to these circumstances. In relation to this, Ibn ul-Jawziy said: “What is permitted in respect to the ordering
of the Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar with the rulers (Salaateen) is to make them aware and to
exhort (Al-Wa’zh). As for roughness or crudeness and speech like: ‘O Zhaalim (oppressor)’ or ‘O one
who does not fear Allah’, an if that brings about Fitnah and its evil spreads to others, then it is not
permissible. If, however, he does not fear except for himself, then it is permissible according to the
Jumhoor (majority) of the ‘Ulamaa” (3).
D – It is prohibited (Haraam) to use ‘Ad-Darb’ (hitting/beating) in repelling the ruler when he is
perpetrating a Munkar. That is because striking the ruler is an act negating the prestige and standing (Al-
Haibah) that the Shar’a has made obligatory to be provided and afforded to him. That is in addition to
what this style of forbidding the Munkar can bring in terms of inciting the ruler to seek revenge for his
wounded dignity and discredited honour, which would then lead him to commit Mafaasid (corruptions
and harms) that are even worse and more horrendous than the original Munkar that he was being taken to
task for. The result would then be that the original Munkar would not be removed and new Munkaraat
would be added to it accompanied with kinds of inflicting harm and suffering that would afflict those who
are close and even possibly reach those who are far.

[(1) Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/197, (2) Sunan An-Nisaa’iy BiSharh As-Suyootiy Wa Haashiyah As-Sanadiy: 7/186, and Al-
Albaaniy said: (Saheeh) in his ‘Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy’: no. 3925, 3/882, (Al-Adaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/197].

E – It is Haraam (prohibited) to use the Silaah (weapon)and to revolt against the ruler if he has deviated
due to a Fisq (act of rebellious disobedience) that he commits, an act of Zhulm (oppression/injustice) that
he perpetrates or if an illegitimate illegal matter has come from him. In spite of that, he remains as the one
who possesses the right of hearing and obedience (As-Sam’u Wa-t-Taa’ah) in respect to that which is
Ma’roof (good) from Islaam and not in respect to that which departs outside of that scope. That stance is
taken alongside the obligation to work to depose this deviating ruler from the authority utilising peaceful
means. That is if he continues upon his deviancy and his misguidance. It is accompanied by the Inkaar
(denying of his Munkar) by the tongue when possible or by the heart which represents the last matter in
terms of weakness in respect to the levels and stages of denunciation when ordering the Ma’roof and
forbidding the Munkar.

This speech refers and applies to the one who possesses the Shar’iy (legitimate and legal) authority and
who has not reached in his deviation to the grave red line (if it is permitted to use such an expression).
That (red line) is the Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (the clear or explicit disbelief), whether that occurs in respect to
the Aqeedah of the ruler himself or to the Aqeedah that his ruling is established upon.

We will discuss about this grave red line in the following section and so we will not present it now. We
said: It is Haraam (prohibited) to utilise the weapon (i.e. force and bearing arms) to fight against the
deviating ruler for the sake of denying the Munkar, whilst it is obligatory to obey him in respect to the
Ma’roof (what is in conformity with Islaam) and not in respect to the Munkar (that which contravenes
Islaam). In addition, that it is obligatory to deny his Munkar by the tongue and the heart or by the heart
alone if that is all that he (i.e. the Muslim) is capable of and to work to depose him from the authority by
peaceful means. Now we will examine the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (evidences) for these four points:

- As for the Tahreem (prohibition) of utilising the weapon to fight the deviating ruler for the purpose of
denying his Munkar, then that is based upon many Ahaadeeth. They include what Muslim recorded in his
Saheeh from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

‫ يَا‬: ‫ َولَكِ ْن َم ْن َر ِض َي َوتَابَ َع " قَالُوا‬، ‫ َوَم ْن أَنْ َكَر فَ َق ْد َسلِ َم‬، ‫ئ‬َ ‫ فَ َم ْن َك ِرهَ فَ َق َد بَِر‬، ‫إِنَّهُ يُ ْستَ ْع َم ُل َعلَْي ُك ْم أ َُمَراءُ فَتَ ْع ِرفُو َن َوتُْنكِ ُرو َن‬
‫صلَّ ْوا‬
َ ‫ " ََّل َما‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ أَََّل نُ َقاتِلُ ُه ْم ؟ ق‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
َ ‫َر ُس‬
You will have rulers appointed over you, some of whom you approve (i.e. recognise their good)
and some of whom you will disapprove (i.e. deny their wrong). He who hates will be free (of
blame and sin), and he who expresses disapproval (or denounces) will be safe but he who is
pleased and follows them (not be safe and free of sinful)". They (the Sahaabah) asked: “Shall we
not fight them?” He replied: “No, as long as they have undertaken the Salaah” (1).
(This means: the one who hated with his heart and the one who disapproved with his heart) (Translator note:
This may be a mistake by the author and he intended to mean ‘tongue’ as is apparent from the following ). Within the Sunan
of Al-Baihaqi there is that which establishes that what is intended by ‘hate’ (َ‫ ) َك ِر َه‬is the hatred of the heart
and that ‘disapprove or deny’ (َ‫ )أَ ْن َك َر‬means the that which is undertaken by the tongue (2). Therefore, in
this Hadeeth the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the use of fighting when undertaking the Inkaar against
the rulers who mix the Ma’roof with the Munkar in their conduct! As long as they are Muslims performing
the Salaah.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: no. 1854, 3/1482, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158].

Al-Bazzaar related from Zaid Bin Wahb: “He said: In the time of Hudhaifah the people disapproved (and
denounced) something from the Ameer (ruler). So a man headed to the Masjid, the main (or great) Masjid,
passing through the people until he finally reached Hudhaifah whilst he was sitting in a circle. He then
stood over him and said: “O Companion of the Messenger of Allah ‫ !ﷺ‬Do you not order the Ma’roof
and forbid the Munkar?” So Hudhaifah raised his head and was aware about what the man was getting at!
And (so) Hudhaifah then said to him: “Verily, the ordering of the Ma’roof and the forbidding of the
Munkar is (all well and) good and it is not from the Sunnah to unsheathe (or draw) the sword against your
Ameer” (1).

- As for the obligation of obeying the ruler in respect to the Ma’roof (i.e. that which conforms with
Islaam) and not in respect to the Munkar (i.e. what violates Islaam) then this is also understood from the
Hadeeth recorded by Muslim above just as it is understood from the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in
another Hadeeth recorded in Saheeh Muslim stating:

, ‫ضونَ ُك ْم‬ ِ ِ ‫ و ِشرار أَئِ َّمتِ ُكم الَّ ِذ‬، ‫ وتُصلُّو َن علَي ِهم ويصلُّو َن علَي ُكم‬، ‫ِخيار أَئِ َّمتِ ُكم الَّ ِذين َُِتبُّونَهم وُُِيبُّونَ ُكم‬
ُ ‫ضونَ ُه ْم َويُْبغ‬
ُ ‫ين تُْبغ‬ َ ُ ُ َ َ ْ ْ َ َ َُ ْ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ ُْ َ ُ َُ
َّ ‫ َما أَقَ ُاموا فِي ُك ُم‬, ‫ َّل‬: ‫ال‬
‫ إَِّل َوَم ْن‬, َ‫الصَلة‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ ِ
َ ‫ول اللَّ ِه أَفََل نُنَابِ ُذ ُه ْم عِْن َد َذل‬
َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ قُ ْلنَا‬: ‫ قَالُوا‬.‫َوتَ ْل َعنُونَ ُه ْم َويَ ْل َعنُونَ ُك ْم‬
‫اع ٍة‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِّ‫و‬
َ َ‫ َوَّل يَنْ ِز َع َّن يَ ًدا م ْن ط‬، ‫ فَلْيَكَْرْه َما يَأِِْت م ْن َم ْعصيَة اللَّه‬، ‫ فَ َرآهُ يَأِِْت َشْيئًا م ْن َم ْعصيَة اللَّه‬، ‫َل َعلَْيه َو ٍال‬ َُ
The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you, who you invoke Allah’s
blessings upon them and they invoke His blessings upon you. And the worst of your rulers are
those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse and they curse you. It was asked (by those
present): O Messenger of Allah, shouldn't we oppose them when that happens? He said: No, as
long as they establish Salaah among you. One who has a governor (Waali) appointed over him
and he finds that the governor indulges in an act of disobedience to Allah, he should hate what he
has done in disobedience to Allah, but he must not withdraw a hand from obedience (2).

Regarding the absence of obedience in respect to the Munkar then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫صيَ ِة اْلَالِق‬
ِ ‫ََّل طَاعةَ لِمخلُوق ِِف مع‬
َْ َْ َ
There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator (3).

And in the ‘Zawaa’id’ of Al-Bazzar he recorded:

‫صيَ ِة اهلل‬
ِ ‫ََّل طَاعةَ ِِف مع‬
َْ َ
There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah (4).

From these Ahaadeeth it is understood that the Muslim is required to bring together two matters in
respect to his stance towards the deviating ruler. This refers to the ruler who is the subject of our
discussion here and has perpetrated the Munkar despite not having exited from Islaam whether in respect
to his Aqeedah or the ruling system. Regarding this situation I say: It is required for the Muslim to bring
together, in his stance towards the ruler, obedience to him in respect to the Ma’roof and non-compliance
and obedience to him in respect to the Munkar. That applies equally whether that Munkar was an act of
disobedience to Allah committed by the ruler or an illegitimate illegal order that he had issued to the
people. That is because the ruler must bear the responsibility of the Munkaraat that he perpetrates in
respect to his own personal conduct and behaviour just as he must bear responsibility for the commands
and laws that he issues which are contrary to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i. The people are free (blameless)
from bearing that responsibility as long as they do not follow the ruler in each of these two cases and deny
(Inkaar) him to the best of their capability. This was indicated to in the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬:

،‫وإِ ْن أََم ُروُك ْم بِ َش ْي ِء َمَّا ِجْئتُ ُك ْم بِِه‬، ِ ِ ِِ ٍِ ِ ِ ِ

َ ‫ َوأَنْتُ ْم مْنهُ بَراء‬،‫أَطيعُوا أَُمراءَ ُك ْم َم ْهما كا َن فَإن أََم ُروُك ْم ب َش ْيء مَّا َملْ آتَ ُك ْم به فَ ُه َو َعلَْيه ْم‬
‫فَِإنَّ ُه ْم يُ ْؤ َج ُرو َن َعلَْي ِه َوتُ ْؤ َج ُرو َن َعلَْي ِه‬

Obey your leaders whatever the case, so if they command you with a matter that I have not come
to you with, then that is against them and you are free (blameless) from it, and if they command
you with a matter from that which I have brought to you, then they will be rewarded for that and
you will be rewarded (5).

[(1) Kashf ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar: 2/251. Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 5/224, (2) Saheeh Muslim: no. 1855, 3/1482, (3)
Mushkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 2/1092 and Al-Albaaniy said: Hadeeth Saheeh, (4) Kashf ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar: 2/243.
Al-Haithami said: It was related by Al-Bazzaar and At-Tabaraani in Al-Kabeer and Al-Awsat, and the transmitters of Al-
Bazzaar are Saheeh, (5) Kitaab As-Sunnah, Ibn Abi ‘Aasim: 2.485 and Al-Albaaniy said: Hadeeth Saheeh].

- As for the obligation of denying or forbidding (Al-Inkaar) the deviating ruler by the tongue and the heart
or by the heart alone, then this has been indicated to within the aforementioned Hadeeth related by
Muslim:

‫ َوَم ْن أَنْ َكَر فَ َق ْد َسلِ َم‬، ‫ئ‬

َ ‫فَ َم ْن َك ِرهَ فَ َق َد بَِر‬
He who hates will be free (of blame and sin), and he who expresses disapproval (or denounces)
will be safe

The intended meaning of this Hadeeth is clarified further by what was mentioned in the Sunan of Al-
Baihaqi as follows: “Al-Hasan said: So whoever disapproves (or denounces) with his tongue then he will
be free (of sin and blame), and that time has passed by. And the one who hates with his heart, then this
time has come”. He also mentioned another statement that said: “Qataadah said: It means, who denies
(Inkaar) with his heart and who hates with his heart” (1).

I say: It may be that the specification of the hatred to the heart and the Inkaar (denunciation) to the
tongue, as stated by Al-Hasan, is stronger than the view that both the hating and denouncing are
connected to the heart. That is due to the suitability of the application of ‘hatred’ which represents an
internal feeling or emotion and as such relates to the actions of the heart. As such we give the wording
‘Inkaar’ (denouncing/denial) another suitable meaning and that is the Inkaar by the tongue in accordance
to the Qaa’idah (principle: “Founding (something new) is better than confirmation or reiteration” (At-
Ta’sees Khairun Min At-Ta’keed) (2).

- Regarding the obligation to work to depose such a ruler from the authority by peaceful means, then
although this point has been dealt with by the early Fuqahaa and modern Islamic authors and opinions in
respect to it have become many, we will only be approaching it from a specific angle which is: When Islam
forbade fighting the ruler due to a limited deviation that he has proceeded upon, it did not however
prescribe upon the Ummah that it should be a captive to that deviation and with its hands tied towards it.
No, but rather Islam made it obligatory upon the Ummah to work to depose the ruler by peaceful means.
However, the completion of his deposal from the authority may take time, which could be lengthy and
could be short in respect to solving this problem whilst acknowledging that it is not from amongst the
simple problems. In such a situation, do we leave the land in chaos where those who cause and bring
corruption exploit the difficult circumstances so that the people then live in a land of corruption?!

In such a situation do we suspend the Masaalih (interests) of the Ummah under the argument and pretext
of the deviation of the ruler, the obligation to depose him and the non-presence of the one whose
obedience is obligatory?

[(1) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158, (2) At-Ta’reefaat, Al-Jurjaaniy: p71, and Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir, As0Suyootiy: p135].

Islam has dealt with and treated this Mas’alah (issue). It made it obligatory upon the Ummah to obey the
deviating Haakim (ruler) in other than the Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah) and to work to depose him at
the same time. As for obedience to him in other than the Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah), then we have
already presented the texts indicating that. Regarding the obligation to work to depose him by peaceful
means, then that is because his deviation takes him outside of Al-’Adaalah (justice or being just) and
consequently a condition from among the conditions of the validity of his contraction of the authority
would have been violated. That is because it is from the conditions (Shuroot), for the contraction of the
authority to take place, that the ruler is ‘Adl (just) based on the Daleeel (evidence) that Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla has stipulated the Shart (condition) of ‘Adl (justice) in respect to the Shaahid (witness) for his
testimony to be accepted. That is in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ِ َ‫ضر أَح َد ُكم الْموت ِحني الْو ِصيَّ ِة اثْن‬

‫ان ذَ َوا َع ْد ٍل ِّمن ُك ْم‬ ِ ِ ِ َّ
َ َ ُ ْ َ ُ َ َ َ ‫ين َآمنُوا َش َه َادةُ بَْين ُك ْم إذَا َح‬
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
O you who have believed, testimony [should be taken] among you when death approaches one of you at the time of bequest -
[that of] two just men from among you … (Al-Maa’idah: 106).

That is in the case where the Haakim (ruler) is greater than the Shaahid (witness) and it is more befitting
and appropriate that ‘Adaalah (justice) be stipulated as a condition for him. In addition, Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla has stipulated, that the one who judges in respect to the recompense for the act of killing game by
someone in the state of Ihraam, be ‘Adl (just). Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

‫َّع ِم َُْي ُك ُم‬ ِ ِ ِ َّ

َ ‫الصْي َد َوأَنتُ ْم ُح ُرٌم ۗ َوَمن قَتَ لَهُ من ُكم ُّمتَ َع ِّم ًدا فَ َجَزاءٌ ِّمثْ ُل َما قَتَ َل م َن الن‬
َّ ‫ين َآمنُوا ََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا‬
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
‫بِِه َذ َوا َع ْد ٍل ِّمن ُك ْم‬
O you who have believed, do not kill game while you are in the state of Ihraam. And whoever of you kills it intentionally -
the penalty is an equivalent from sacrificial animals to what he killed, as judged by two just men among you … (Al-
Maa’idah: 95).

Therefore, the one who rules and judges over the Ummah as a whole is Awlaa (more deserving and
fitting) to be stipulated by the condition of ‘Adaalah (justice) than the one who judges in the issue of the
killed game of the Muhrim (one in a state of Ihraam)!

Al-‘Adl according to the Fuqahaa as mentioned by Al-Jurjaaniy in his book ‘At-Ta’reefaat’ (Definitions) is:
“The one who avoids the Kabaa’ir (major sins) and does not persist upon the Saghaa’ir (minor sins), his
right conduct (Sawaab) dominates and stays away from the vile or despicable actions (Al-Af’aal Al-
Khaseesah)” (1).

In addition, that which a condition for the validity (Sihhah) of the contraction of the authority initially is
also a condition (Shart) for its continuance. Regarding the Imaam whose ‘Adaalah (justice) has become
deficient by “his committing of prohibited acts and his proceeding upon Munkaraat”, Al-Maawardiy says
about his condition and the obligation in respect to him: “This Fisq (wilful disobedience) prevents the
contracting of the Imaamah (i.e. for him to assume the leadership and authority as the Imaam) and it
prevents his continuance. Consequently, if that happened to someone whose Imaamah (leadership has
been contracted, he would have left it. Then, if he was to return to justice he would no longer be regarded
in the position of leadership unless a new contract was convened. Some of the Mutakallimeen: He returns
to the Imaamah (leadership) by returning to justice (Al-‘Adaalah) without renewing a contract or Bai’ah
(pledge) for him due to the generality of his Wilaayah (ruling responsibility) and because of the hardship
associated with the renewing his Bai’ah” (2).

[(1) At-Ta’reefaat’, Al-Jurjaaniy: 191, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 17].

In ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by Al-Faraa’ he states the opposite to this as follows: “If they attributes are
present, meaning the conditions for the validity of the Imaamah, then they were to cease to be present
after the contraction, I have viewed that: If he was deficient in respect to his justice, by Fisq (wilful
disobedience), then that does not prevent the continuance of his Imaamah (leadership), whether it (the
Fisq) was related to acts of the limbs like the perpetration of prohibited acts and undertaking Munkaraat
in following his desires, or related to the I’tiqaad (belief) where it is interpreted (or understood) due to an
apparent Shubhah (doubt/suspicion) that he has gone in a direction in respect to it in opposition to the
Haqq (truth) (1).

Our opinion is that the ‘Adaalah (justice) is stipulated as a condition for the person of authority initially
and for continuality. That is because the Shar’iy text that we have presented stipulated that the judge
(Haakim) in the small issue of the recompense (or penalty) related to hunting must be ‘Adl (just) for his
judgment to be accepted, whilst the judge or ruler (Haakim) of the Ummah manages her affairs at every
moment as a ruler. Based upon that, it is necessary for him to be characterised by the attribute of being
‘Adl (just) at all times for his rule to be valid and so that he can continue in his post.

Following on from that, by combining the view stating that the ruler goes outside from the authority due
to the dictates of not fulfilling the condition of ‘Adaalah (justice) with the evidences that make obedience
to the ruler obligatory even if he commits Fisq (wilful disobedience to Allah), it is our view, that it is
obligatory to continue to obey him accordance to the previously mentioned Shar’iyah texts indicating that,
whilst also working (at the same time) to depose him from the authority in accordance to what the
violation of the condition of justice (Al-‘Adaalah) requires. His deposal from the authority would be by
peaceful means in accordance to the previously mentioned Shar’iyah texts that guide to the forbiddance of
unsheathing the sword against the ruler who deviates.

The author Muhammad Asad holds the opinion that the direction (or competent authority) that
determines the dismissal or deposition of the Imaam from the authority, if a dispute arises between the
people of Shouraa representing the Ummah, in this regard, is a neutral high ruling body specialising in
constitutional affairs, composed of distinguished judges and leading authorities in Islamic state law (2).

And Ash-Sheikh Taqi-ud-Deen An-Nabahaani views that the direction (or competent authority) that
settles the issue is the ‘Mahkamat Al-Mazhaalim’ (Court of Unjust Acts). That is because when the
Khalifah perpetrates a matter from amongst the matters by which dismissal or deposition from the
authority is deserved, like Fisq, then in such circumstances he would have brought about a Mazhlamah
(act of injustice) from amongst the Mazhaalim (unjust acts) that must be removed. The court of unjust
acts specialises in removing such acts and it is the court that examines and looks into matters of dispute
between the Ummah and the authorities within the state. Determining whether the occurrence or reality is
a Mazhlamah or not requires proof (and evidence to substantiate it. Consequently, the Mazhaalim judge
will be specialise in investigating and examining them and if a Mazhlamah is established in his view, the
court’s decision to depose the Khalifah or anyone holding a position of authority within the state whose
continuation in his post would represent a Mazhlamah (injustice) from amongst the Mazhaalim (acts of
injustice) (1).

We can say that these two opinions are close to each other even if the speech of Ash-Sheikh Taqi-ud-
Deen An-Nabahaani is closer to the Islamic Fiqh in respect to what he has provided and the Ahkaam in
terms of Istidlaal (the manner of evidential deduction).

We have now finished this point which was related to the Ahkaam of Inkaar (denying or forbidding) the
Munkaraat under different circumstances. We will now come to the second point:

Secondly: The Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in relation to

denying (Inkaar) the Munkaraat and the levels or grades of denying or forbidding
that precede Al-Qitaal

There are levels in respect to the Inkaar (denying or forbidding) of the Munkaraat which a Muslim must
observe when he is upon his path of eliminating the Munkaraat that he has come across within his Islamic
society. That is so that he can safeguard and protect the society’s ship and integrity from those who wreck
or ruin it, the people of corruptions and evils, those who if not taken to task will create breaches in that
ship from which Munkar will erupt and cause the ship to finally sink with everyone who is upon it
including the corrupters and the righteous.

This image related to the effects of the Munkaraat within the society was laid out before us in the
Prophetic Hadeeth narrated by Al-Bukhaari from Nu’maan Bin Basheer who said:

ٍ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ
‫ فَ َكا َن‬،‫َس َفلَ َها‬ْ ‫ض ُه ْم أ‬
ُ ‫َلها َوبَ ْع‬ َ ‫ض ُه ْم أ َْع‬
ُ ‫ب بَ ْع‬
َ ‫َصا‬ ْ ‫َمثَ ُل الْ َقائ ِم َعلَى ُح ُدود اللَّه َوالْ َواق ِع ف َيها َك َمثَ ِل قَ ْوم‬
َ ‫ فَأ‬،‫استَ َه ُموا َعلَى َسفينَة‬
ِ َ‫ لَو أَنَّا خرقْ نَا ِِف ن‬:‫ فَ َقالُوا‬،‫الَّ ِذين ِِف أَس َفلِها إِذَا استَ َقوا ِمن الْم ِاء مُّروا علَى من فَوقَهم‬
‫ فَِإ ْن‬،‫صيبِنَا َخ ْرقًا َوَملْ نُ ْؤِذ َم ْن فَ ْوقَنَا‬ ََ ْ ُْ ْ َْ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ َ ْ َ
‫َج ًيعا‬َِ ‫ وإِ ْن أَخ ُذوا علَى أَي ِدي ِهم ََنوا وََنوا‬،‫َجيعا‬ ِ
ْ َ َ ْ َ ْ ْ َ َ َ ً َ ‫وه ْم َوَما أ ََر ُادوا َهلَ ُكوا‬ ُ ‫يَْت ُرُك‬
The likeness of the man who observes the limits prescribed by Allah and that of the man who
transgresses them is like the people who get on board a ship after casting lots. Some of them are
in its upper deck and some of them in its lower (deck). Those who are in its lower (deck), when
they require water, go to the occupants of the upper deck. So they said: “If we make a hole in our
part of the ship, we will not disturb those above us”. If they (the occupants of the upper deck)
were to leave them to carry out their design they all will all perish (i.e. drown). But if they prevent
them they will be saved and everyone will be saved (2).

It is correct to say that there are levels in the path of eliminating the Munkaraat from the Islamic society
and they are as follows:

1 - To identify the Munkaraat without spying due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ‫َوََّل َِتَ َّس ُسوا‬

And do not spy on each other (Al-Hujuraat 12).

And due to the Qawl (speech) of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ت تُ ْف ِس َد ُه ْم‬ ِ ‫َّك إِ ِن اتَّب عت عور‬

ِ ‫ات الن‬
َ ‫َّاس أَفْ َس ْدتَ ُه ْم أ َْو َك ْد‬ ََْ َ ْ َ َ ‫إِن‬
 Verily, if you were to pursue the faults of people you would have brought ruin to them or nearly
accomplished that (1).

It was related that whilst Ibn Mas’ood (ra) was teaching the people matters of their Deen in Koufa, it was
said to him: This person (meaning Al-Waleed Bin ‘Uqbah), his beard drips with alcohol (i.e. the one
speaking about Al-Waleed and his habit of drinking alcohol). If we were to investigate that now we would
find him like that (i.e. drinking). Ibn Mas’ood (ra) then said: Verily, we have been forbidden to spy on one
another but if a matter becomes apparent to us (i.e. visible before us) then we deal with it”! (2).

2 - Identify the people of the Munkaraat in respect to them undertaking an illegal act. Then provide them
with gentle exhortation in speech, then use strong speech if such a style is beneficial in respect to
removing the Munkar which there is no difference amongst the Mujtahideen regarding it being a Munkar.
The following was mentioned in ‘Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah’: “There is no Inkaar (denying or forbidding of
the Munkar) in which there is a difference of opinion within the branches upon the one who may Ijtihaad
in it or made Taqleed to a Mujtahid in respect to it… They gave examples such as drinking a little
Nabeedh (3) and marrying without a Waliy”. He then stated: “Ash-Sheikh Muhyiy-ud-Deen An-Nawawiy
that there is no Inkaar in that which has been differed in respect to it. He said: However, if he
recommends him by way of advice to leave the matter of disagreement then that is well and good and
recommended (commendable) and to follow his action (or opinion) in a gentle kind manner. He
mentioned others from the Shaafi’iyah in respect to this issue of the Wajhaini (two perspectives) and he
mentioned the issue of the Inkaar (denying and forbidding) against the one who reveals his thighs and that
it has two perspectives” (4). The intended meaning of Wajhain (two perspectives) in this speech is that
there is a perspective stating that the Inkaar (forbidding of the Munkar) takes place in issues of
disagreement and difference and there is another view of perspective that states that there is no Inkaar in
such circumstances.

[(1) Al-Ihsaan Bi Tarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 7/506. Sunan Abi Dawud: no. 4888, 4/375 and Al-Albaaniy said: ‘Saheeh’
[Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud. Al-Albaaniy] no. 4088, 3/924, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 320. I say:
And the Hadeeth is in the Sunan of Abi Dawud: no. 4890, 4/375. Al-Albaaniy said: ‘Saheeh Al-Isnaad’ [Saheeh Sunan Abi
Dawud, Al-Albaaniy] no. 4090. 3/925, (3) Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid: “As for Al-Khamr, then they have agreed upon the prohibition
(Tahreem) of a little or a lot. I mean: That which is squeezed from grapes. As for the Anbidhah (pl. of Nabeedh) then they have
disagreed in respect to a little of its consumption that does not intoxicate whilst they held a consensus that intoxication (Al-
Muskir) from it is Haraam” [Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah]: 6/316-317, (4) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn
Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/190-191. And refer to what An-Nawawiy transmitted in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim: 1/359].

The following was also mentioned in ‘Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah’ about the issue of denying the Munkar of
the woman revealing her face upon the road: “Al-Qaadiy Al-‘Iyaad said: In the Hadeeth of Jareer (ra) he
said:

ِ َ ‫سأَلْت ر‬
‫ص ِري‬ ْ ‫ فَأ ََمَرِِّن أَ ْن أ‬- ‫سول اهلل َعن نَظَ ِر ال َف ْجأَة‬
َ ‫َص ِر‬
َ َ‫ف ب‬ َ ُ َ
I asked the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬about the sudden glance and he commanded me to divert
my gaze (1).

And the ‘Ulamaa (May Allah Ta’Aalaa’s mercy be upon them) said: “This contains a proof (Hujjah)
indicating that the woman does not have to cover her face on her way (i.e. upon the path) but rather that
is only Sunnah Mustahabbah (recommended) …” (2). He then states in relation to the Inkaar (forbidding)
of the one looking at the face of the foreign (i.e. non-Mahram) woman: “As for our opinion and the
opinion of a group from the Shaafi’iyah amongst others: Looking at the foreign (non-Mahram) woman is
permitted without desire and seclusion (Khalwah) and so Al-Inkaar is not justified” (3).

Yes it is true that if the head of the Islamic state adopts a specific Hukm Shar’iy in the issues of difference
of opinion, like in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of drinking An-Nabeedh, listening to musical
instruments and playing them and the Hijaab of the woman for example, then this adopted Hukm (ruling)
becomes the basis upon what the Inkaar (forbidding) takes place or does not take place. That is because:
“If the Imaam of the Muslims commands the specification of an action with an opinion from amongst the
Masaa’il (issues) of the Mujtahid that he has selected specifically, it is obligatory to act in accordance to his
opinion” (4). However, if the Imaam has not adopted a particular opinion then the matter is like what Al-
Ghazaaliy said in ‘Al-Ihyaa’: “Everything that is open to Ijtihaad, then there is no Hisbah (reckoning or
being held to account) in respect to it” (5).

3 - Then there is from amongst the levels of denying the Munkar the use of the strike by the hand or the
foot that does not include the drawing of a weapon. Regarding this Al-Ghazaaliy says: “It is permitted for
individuals, upon the condition of necessity (Daroorah), and by restricting (their action) to the (minimum)
required amount to accomplish the repelling (or prevention)” (6). The reality is that this Usloob (style) is
included within the speech of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:
...ِ‫َم ْن َرأَى ِمْن ُك ْم ُمْن َكًرا فَلْيُغَيِّ ْرهُ بِيَ ِده‬
Whoever from amongst you sees a Munkar (evil act/matter) then he must change it with his
hand… (7).

Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy provides an example of that when he said: “It includes a reality like if a Faasiq
took hold of a woman … and between him and the one accounting him lies an obstructing river or
preventative wall, and he takes his bow and says to the man: ‘Let her free or I will shoot you’. Then if he
does not release her, he has the right to shoot but on the condition that he does not aim to kill him but
rather aim at his leg, thigh or somewhere similar. All of that falls under the repelling of the Munkar and
repelling it is Waajib with all that is possible (to be used)” (8).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: no. 2159, 3/1699, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/316, (3) Same page as
previous, (4) Majallah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah: p10, (5) Ihyaa ‘Uloom id-Deen, Al-Ghazaaliy: 2/224, (6) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen:
2/230, (7) Saheeh Muslim: no. 49, 1/69, (8) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230].

4 - Al-Ghazaaliy then tals about the last level from amongst the levels of removing the Munkar when the
one who is zealous about the sanctities of Allah is incapable when he sees the Munkar in front of him of
changing it by himself and “He needs those who will assist him and draw weapons, and perhaps the
Faasiq (transgressor) will also depend upon his assistants (and helpers), thus leading to the two rows
facing each other off” (1).

Regarding such a situation Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy says: “The difference (or dispute) could manifest in his
need for the permission of the Imaam: Some have said: “Individuals from amongst the citizens are not
independent in that (i.e. to decide to undertake such a course of action), because it could lead to inciting
Fitan (pl. of Fitnah, trials and great problems amongst the people), draw corruption and wreck the land!”.
Others have said: “Permission is not needed, and this is the most correct by analogy. That is because if it
permitted for individuals to order the Ma’roof and the first of its levels draws to the second level, and the
second level leads to the third, and it has reached where it is not possible except by conflict, and such
conflict requires cooperation, then (in such a case) it is not necessary to pay heed to the dictates of
commanding the Ma’roof! Its conclusion is: Recruiting soldiers for the pleasure of Allah and to repel the
acts of disobedience to Him. We have permitted individuals from the fighters (Al-Ghuzaah) to gather
together and to fight against whom they will from amongst the disbelieving groups and factions to
suppress the people of Kufr. Similarly, suppressing the people of Fasaad (corruption and evil) is
permitted! That is because there is no problem (or issue) in respect to killing the Kaafir and if he (the
Muslim) is killed he is Shaheed. Similarly, in respect to the Faasiq (corrupt and evil) who fights and
struggles in defence of his Fisq (corruption and evil), there is no issue in killing him and the one who is
accounting is worth of martyrdom if he is killed wrongly or unjustly without right (Mazhlooman) … Then
he says: Anyone who is capable of repelling a Munkar then it is within his right to do so by his hand, by
his weapon, by his life and by his supporters (i.e. those who assist him) …” (2).
In respect to this Mas’alah, the issue of Al-Qitaal (fighting and using force) if the matter makes it
necessary, in order to defend the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities) and remove the Munkaraat,
then is that permissible for individuals without the state’s permission or is the state’s permission necessary
or (even) is the undertaking of this task restricted to the state alone and forbidden for individuals to
undertake?

[(1) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230, (2) Ihyaa Uloom id-Deen: 2/230 and refer to the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy:
1/361-362].

I say: Regarding this Mas’alah (issue) the author of ‘I’aanat At-Taalibeen’ stated the following: “Whoever
comes across a Muharram (prohibited act) then is it for the individuals to prevent it and even by Al-Qitaal
(fighting and use of force)?”.
“The Usooliyoon (scholars of Usool) said: No”. “The Fuqahaa said: Yes! Ar-Raafi’iy said: It has been
transmitted until they said: “Whoever knows of the drinking of alcohol (taking place) … in a person’s
house, has the right to pounce upon (or assail) him and remove that. Then if he refuses he fights him and
if he kills them there is no Damaan (guarantee or surety) upon him and he is rewarded for that. It is
evident that this is Halaal, as long as the Fitnah from an oppressive governor (Waaliy) is not feared
because endangering the life and exposing oneself to the punishment of the unjust (and oppressive) rulers
is forbidden” (1).

Ibn Al-Jawziy outweighed as the strongest opinion that it is forbidden to use weapons to Inkaar (deny or
forbid) the Munkar apart from with the state’s permission and he regarded the opposing view to be a
weak one. He stated the following: “Striking by the hand and the foot and other than that which does not
include drawing a weapon or sword is permitted for individuals on the condition that it is a necessity and
that it is limited to what is required. If he needs supporters (or assistants) to draw weapons due to his
inability to deny or forbid (Al-Inkaar) by himself, then the correct view is that that requires the permission
of the Imaam because (otherwise) it leads to Fitan (discord) and an eruption of corruption. And it is said:
The permission of the Imaam is not stipulated as a condition for that” (2).

Whilst keeping in mind that this discussion is still about an Islamic society and a legitimate (Shar’iy)
Islamic authority where Munkaraat have appeared within the society and individuals have resorted to
using weapons to remove them, I say: The opinion that we view to be correct in this issue is divided into
two case or circumstances:

A - A specific (or special) situation or circumstance (Haalah Khaassah): This is the case when the Munkar
is being attempted and it is not possible to take steps to prevent it (i.e. to plan and prepare for it). This
would be like the example of a man attempting to assault a woman in which case we must repel him from
her according to levels (of the action). Consequently, if the Faasiq was using a weapon to perpetrate his
crime, then it is for us to use a weapon to repel him from the Munkar by force. In such a situation there is
no need for the permission of the state and that is because the Munkar is about to take place and any
attempt to inform the authorities or request a permission to be issued to use force to repel this Munkar,
that is about to take place, would mean that its purpose would not be fulfilled and the object of caution
would take place! From amongst the Adillah (evidences) for the permissibility of Al-Qitaal (fighting) here
is the Hadeeth:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (3).

The angle of deduction is: That when the one killed in such a situation is considered to be a Shaheed
(martyr), that indicates the permissibility to engage in the Qitaal (fighting) that leads to the death. And
there is no doubt that defending a woman from an assault against her represents a defence of the
Hurumaat (sanctities) of the Deen.
[(1) I’aanat At-Taalibeen, As-Sayyid Al-Bakriy: 4/173, (2) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn Muflih Al-Maqdasiy: 1/195, (3) Kanz
ul-‘Umaal: 11180, 4/416 and the Hadeeth is in the Saheeh of the Sunan of At-Tirmidhi, Al-Albaaniy: 1148].

B - Haalah ‘Aammah (general situation or circumstance): This is where the removal of the Munkar
requires the force of those denying the Munkar to meet the force of the people of the Munkaraat by
weapons, which could then lead to Fitan (disorders) and blood being shed. In this case, it is our opinion
that the role of those denying the Munkar be restricted to informing the relevant competent authorities
within the Islamic State to undertake their responsibility in relation to removing the Munkar (1). This
could be like the existence of a shop selling alcohol, casino or club for dancing and corruption (Fasaad). If
the responsible officials within the Islamic state fall short in respect to removing this Munkar, then it
would represent a Mazhlamah (injustice) from among the Mazhaalim (injustices) afflicting the Islamic
society which are raised to the judges of unjust acts. Therefore, either the one in the position of authority
removes this injustice (Mazhlamah) from the society via the force and power of the state or he grants
permission to those who wish for the Munkar to be removed to remove it by force, or the issue of
withdrawing the legal legitimacy (Shar’iyah) from him becomes the subject of investigation. That is from
the angle of the ruler’s incompetence or inability to take care of the affairs of the Ummah according to the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i which falls under what was previously discussed in relation to the violation of the
Shart (condition) of ‘Adaalah (justice) in respect to the person of the Haakim (ruler). In this case, it would
reflect the violation of a condition from among the conditions of the contraction of the authority to the
ruler and that condition is the Qudrah (capability) to undertake the caretaking of the affairs of the Ummah
in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i. the following was mentioned in ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by
Al-Faraa’ when discussing the conditions of the Imaamah (post of leadership): “And thirdly: To be a
(responsible) caretaker of the matter of war and politics, establishing the Hudood and that he is not
characterised by leniency (or weakness) in respect to that and in respect to defending the Ummah” (2).

Therefore, the one who is incapable of establish the Hudood and preventing the Mufsideen (those who
bring corruption) would have violated a condition from amongst the conditions of the validity of the
initial contract of assuming the authority and would have consequently also violated a condition for the
validity of his continuance in that position of authority.

The Mazhaalim judges within the Islamic State are the body specialising in the examination of this issue
and it is this body or institution that issues the verdict.

As for individuals resorting to Al-Qitaal (fighting) by their own accord to prevent the Munkaraat behind
the back of the state, then this represents a matter that by its nature could open the door to fighting
between different groups and factions within the Ummah. This type of fighting is one of the types of the
fighting of Fitnah (disorder) and we have presented many Shar’iyah texts in respect to its forbiddance
within the section of this book entitled: “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” (the fighting of Fitnah) (3).

We will now leave this point to discuss our final point in this section which is:

[(1) Al-Aadaab Ash-Shar’iyah: 1/219, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Faraa’: p4 (3) This will be discussed in the following
section: “Qitaal ul-Fitnah”].

Thirdly: Is the Qitaal to remove the Munkar in defence of the Hurumaat Al-
‘Aammah (public sanctities) considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?

This question relates to the cases where Al-Qitaal is legally legitimate and these are:

- The special or specific case: When an individual repels an attempt to commit a Munkar that he is not
able to take steps for in terms of preparation or planning (because it is taking place right at that time and
needs an immediate solution). An example of that would be an assault against the honour of a woman.
- The general case: This is where the state has provided permission to individuals wanting to deny the
Munkar to oppose the people committing or behind the Munkaraat by force, if that is necessary.

- Or the state has dispatched a military force to undertake this task.

Is this legally legitimate Qitaal (fighting and use of arms) in defence of the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities)
of Allah, Jihaad in the way of Allah in accordance to its Shar’iy meaning?

The reality is that the Shar’iyah texts about the Inkaar (denying and forbidding) of the Munkar in their
unrestricted form, without specification in terms of being Qitaal (fighting) or other than Qitaal, have come
naming it all with the name of ‘Al-Jihaad’, as found within a number of Ahaadeeth:

This includes:

- The Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ٍ َ‫ضل ا ْْلِه ِاد َكلِمةُ ع ْد ٍل عِْن َد سلْط‬

‫ان َجائٍِر أ َْو أ َِم ٍري َجائٍِر‬ ُ َ َ َ ُ َ ْ‫أَف‬
The best Jihaad is the just word before the unjust (oppressive) ruler or leader (1).

- And the his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

ِِ ِ ‫الص ْد ُق ِِف مو‬ ِ ‫ أَمر بِالْمعر‬: ‫ا ْْلِهاد أَربع‬

َ ‫ َو َشنَآ ُن الْ َفاسق‬، ‫الص ِِْب‬
‫ني‬ َّ ‫اط ِن‬ََ ِّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ َونَ ْه ٌي َع ِن الْ ُمْن َك ِر‬، ‫وف‬ُ ْ َ ٌ ْ ٌ َْ ُ َ
Al-Jihaad is (of) four (types): Commanding the Ma’roof, forbidding the Munkar, truthfulness in
the situations of patience and enmity towards the Faasiq (2).

- In Saheeh Muslim it was related by ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (ra) from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that
he said:

‫ف ِم ْن‬ ِِ ِِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ
ُ ُ‫اب يَأْ ُخ ُذو َن بِ ُسنَّته َويَ ْقتَ ُدو َن بِأ َْم ِرهِ ُُثَّ إِن ََّها ََتْل‬
ٌ ‫َص َح‬ ْ ‫ِب بَ َعثَهُ اللَّهُ ِِف أ َُّمة قَ ْبلي إََِّّل َكا َن لَهُ م ْن أ َُّمته َح َوا ِريُّو َن َوأ‬
ٍّ َِ‫َما م ْن ن‬
‫اه َد ُه ْم بِلِ َسانِِه فَ ُه َو ُم ْؤِم ٌن‬ ِ ِِ
َ ‫اه َد ُه ْم بِيَده فَ ُه َو ُم ْؤم ٌن َوَم ْن َج‬ َ ‫وف يَ ُقولُو َن َما ََّل يَ ْف َعلُو َن َويَ ْف َعلُو َن َما ََّل يُ ْؤَم ُرو َن فَ َم ْن َج‬ ٌ ُ‫بَ ْع ِد ِه ْم ُخل‬
‫ان َحبَّةُ َخ ْرَد ٍل‬ ِْ ‫ك ِم ْن‬
ِ َ‫اْلمي‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ
َ ‫س َوَراءَ ذَل‬
َ ‫اه َد ُه ْم ب َقلْبه فَ ُه َو ُم ْؤم ٌن َولَْي‬َ ‫َوَم ْن َج‬
Never a Prophet had been sent before me by Allah to his people but he had, among his people,
(his) disciples and companions, who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there
came after them their successors who proclaimed what they did not practise, and practised what
they were not commanded to do. And (he) who strove (Jaahada) against them with his hand is a
believer; he who strove (Jaahada) against them with his heart is a believer; and he who strove
(Jaahada) against them with his tongue is a believer, and beyond that there is not even a mustard
grain of Faith (3).

In addition, we have previously discussed in the first chapter of this volume that Al-Jihaad according to its
Shar’iy, ‘Urfiy (customary) and Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning is “The fighting (Qitaal) of the
disbelievers to raise high the word of Allah” and what is linked to that. We stated that if the Lafzh
(wording) ‘Al-Jihaad’ has been mentioned with other than this meaning then it would be Jihaad in
accordance to its linguistic meaning which is ‘every effort that is expended in the way of (accomplishing)
something)’ or according to its Majaaziy (metaphorical) meaning as explained earlier. Based upon that,
naming or calling the Inkaar of the Munkar within the Islamic society, to repel the Fussaaq (those
intending evil) from perpetrating the Munkaraat, ‘Jihaad’, is only in accordance to its linguistic or Majaaziy
meaning.

The selection of the wording of ‘Al-Jihaad’ and applying it upon Al-Qitaal or upon other than Al-Qitaal in
terms of Islamic actions in other than the Shar’iy meaning for ‘Al-Jihaad’, is only done to suggest that the
Islamic act is similar to ‘Al-Jihaad’ in respect to its impact and reward. Those who undertake it are similar
to the Mujaahideen in terms of the efforts they have expended, the risks and dangers they have exposed
their lives to and the great victory and success as a result of that. Additionally, in respect to this, it is not
essential for there to be equality between any Islamic action and between Al-Jihaad or between those
undertaking the Islamic action and the Mujaahideen!

The Sixth Study

Fighting (Al-Qitaal) against the Inhiraaf (deviation) of the Haakim (ruler)

- Firstly: The deviation of the ruler, how does it take place?

- Secondly: The opinions of the Fuqahaa and Islamic thinkers in relation to using weapons (i.e. military
force) to bring down or overthrow the deviating ruler?

- Thirdly: Is the fighting against the deviating ruler considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah
according to its Shar’iy terminological meaning?

The Sixth Study

Fighting (Al-Qitaal) against the Inhiraaf (deviation) of the Haakim (ruler)

This type of ‘Al-Qitaal’ (fighting) has taken on a number of names in the classical and modern books
which have dealt with this subject area. These names include:
Al-Khurooj (rebellion against the authority) (1), Al-Khurooj Al-Musallah (armed rebellion (2), Ath-
Thawrah (revolution) (3), Ath-Thawrah Al-Islaamiyah (Islamic revolution) (4), An-Nuhood (uprising) (5),
Al-Malhamah (the great decisive battle) (6), Al-Fitnah (disorder) (7), Qitaal Azh-Zhalamah (fighting the
oppressors/transgressors) (8), Qitaal Al-‘Umaraa’ (fighting the leaders/rulers) (9) Al-Qiyaam ‘Alaa l-
Hukaam (standing up against the rulers) (10), As-Saif (the sword) (11), Al-Inqilaab (coup) (12), Liberation
movement to rectify the situations (13) and Al-Harb Al-Ahliyah (civil war) (14)

[(1) Al-Islam Wa Falsafat ul-Hukm, Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: 6642 and 645, (2) Al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah Wa-l-Idaariyah (Al-
‘Ahd Al-Ummawiy), Hamaadah: 332 (3) Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Muhammad Sayyid Abd ut-Tawab: 471, (4)
Ma’aalim Al-Khilafah, Mahmoud Al-Khaalidi: 327, (5) Al-Islaam Wa-th-Thawrah, Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: 13 (6) Al-Wathaa’iq
As-Siyaasiyah Wa-l-Idaariyah (Al-‘Ahd Al-Ummawiy), Hamaadah: 357, (7) Al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah Wa-l-Idaariyah (Al-‘Ahd
Al-Ummawiy), Hamaadah: 354, (8) Al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah Wa-l-Idaariyah (Al-‘Ahd Al-Ummawiy), Hamaadah: 337, (9) Ar-
Rawdah An-Niddiyah, Sharh Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasatiyah, Zaid Bin Abdul Azeez Fayaad: 481, (10) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh
Muslim: 8/37, (11) Maqaalaat Al-Islaamiyeen, Al-Ash’ariy: 451, (12) Ma’aalim Al-Khilafah, Mahmoud Al-Khaalidiy: 310, (13)
Nizham ul-Hukm Fil Islaam, Taqiy-ud-Deen An-Nabahaani: 111, (14) At-Tashree’ Al-Janaa’iy, Abdul Qaadir ‘Audah: 1/149].

These names and others beside them all guide to one single matter and that is: The use of military force
(with weapons) with the aim of overthrowing or bringing down the deviating ruler, who is deserving of
that (course of action) in the view of those revolting against him.

It is not the purpose of this paper (PHD) to deal with this subject area extensively from all of its angles.
As such, we will restrict it to that which is connected to our subject of discussion, which is Al-Qitaal and
the necessary angles connected to this subject in addition to answering the question of whether this Qitaal
is Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah?

Upon this basis, we will deal with the following points:

- Firstly: The deviation of the ruler, how does it take place?

- Secondly: The opinions of the Fuqahaa and Islamic thinkers in relation to using weapons (i.e. military
force) to bring down or overthrow the deviating ruler?
- Thirdly: Is the fighting against the deviating ruler considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah
according to its Shar’iy terminological meaning?

To begin with, it is best to make clear that the basis upon which we are depending upon to deal with this
subject is not the defence of the ruling system of Islam from the orientalists attacks like: Margolet who
said that ‘the Muslim citizens do not have rights against the ruler’ or McDonald who said that ‘the Imaam
is not a constitutional ruler in accordance to today’s well-knowing’ and Thomas Arnold who said that ‘the
Khilafah is a type of dictatorial oppressive rule’ (1).

I say: The basis that we rely upon to deal with the issue is not these attacks and responding to them. That
is because some of the Islamic thinkers proceed in their Islamic works upon a specific method which is to
examine the doubts (suspicions) or attacks that the orientalists or their students have instigated from the
viewpoint of the western thought. They then searched the Islamic (cultural) heritage in terms of
Ijtihaadaat and opinions that conform to the attackers. That was upon the basis that it was valid to
respond to those casted doubts and attacks due to their correspondence to what they (i.e. the Muslims)
possess in terms of opinions. That is whilst on so many occasions those Ijtihaadaat and opinions are not
based upon a strong Daleel form the acceptable Shar’iyah evidences.

[(1) These attacks and responses to them are found in the book “The ruling system in Islaam” by Dr. Muhammad Yusuf
Mousa, p165].

The result of what these Islamic thinkers undertook reflected extending trust and confidence to the
western thought and making it the measure for the correctness or error of thoughts and opinions. This
then leads to them dealing and playing around with the Islamic thought to make it conform to the western
thought which had enraptured their souls and enchanted their minds (1).

Indeed, this deviant method of study and examination is not the method that we proceed upon to deal
with and treat our subject. Rather, the method that we rely upon to treat is as follows: To examine the
Shar’iyah texts that have come in relation to the Mas’alah (issue), the subject of the study and examination,
to understand them according to the linguistic and Usooliy principles, then apply them to the Juz’iyaat
(partialities) of the Mas’alah (issue), remove what could appear to exist amongst the evidences in terms of
an apparent conflict via the established general Islamic principles, without resorting relying upon certain
evidences whilst brushing others aside or passing the judgement of An-Naskh (abrogation) upon them (2)
or to declare them weak merely because they are in conflict with the opinions which we have relied upon
and adopted.

In relation to dependence upon the Shar’iyah texts to treat the reality in light of them, then how often
have seminars and lectures been held that revolve around the study of the reality and its problems in
respect to the modern Arab thought, during which those attending lament and bemoan the Usooliy
approach in respect to treating the reality (2). By the Usooliy approach they mean the Islamic approach
and so they say: “This approach that examines the reality through old texts and does not examine the
reality directly as it is. For that reason, there is a separation between the witnessed lived reality and the
perception of those who have taken this (Usooliy) approach towards the reality, resulting in a non-realistic
and unsuitable treatment being presented…” amongst similar such statements.

What I want to make very clear her is: That the Islamic method for treating realities is not (as these people
say) to view these realities from the texts but rather it is to view them firstly as they are without alteration
or distortion. Then (after understanding their reality) they are treated by the Islamic texts that apply to
them (4).

[(1) Refer for example to ‘Al-Islam Wa’th-Tharah’ by Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah p239, (2) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm, when he
passed the judgment of An-Naskh (abrogation) upon the Ahaadeeth about having patience with the unjust rulers: 9/362, (3) In
this speech I am pointing to a seminar that took place on Arab television in the evening of 20/05/1989. A number of Arab
thinkers participated, including professors from Arab universities to discuss this subject, (4) The following was mentioned in
‘I’laam Al-Muwaqqi’een’ by Ibn ul-Qayyim about this meaning: “The Mufti or ruler (judge) cannot provide a verdict without
two types of understanding: The first: Understanding the reality, Fiqh (deeper understanding of it) and deducing knowledge of
the true reality of what has happened via connotations, signs and indications until he has comprehensive knowledge of it. And
secondly: Understanding the Waajib (what is obligatory) in respect to the reality and that means understanding the Hukm of
Allah that He has provided in His Book or upon the tongue of His Messenger, in relation to that reality. He then applies one
upon the other…”.: 1/87-88].

It could be said that the intention of those who bemoan the Islamic approach is what you have mentioned
and it is in itself a source of objection for them i.e. for the old (classical) sources to be used as a tool for
treating the current problems. (They would say that) it is possible that this old (classical) text treated old
realities because those who presented the text saw those realities (at their time) and treated them…
However, the realities of today are not the same as the realities of yesterday and consequently that old text
does not possess the potency or a sufficient capability to treat the newly occurring realities, which it had
not witnessed or sensed.

A copious answer to this doubt and questioning could take us out of our subject area however we will
suffice ourselves with a short and concise word. So, we say: Every thought, old or modern, from any
direction, only views the reality (i.e. treats, it as those who attack the Islamic approach intend) through the
text. The distinction between the Islamic thought and other than it, is that the Islamic thought views the
reality through the text that come to us from the One who sees this reality with all of its details and
complications, its origins that have led to it and its current state or condition that it is upon, in addition to
what can possibly emanate from this reality in terms of effects. By this I mean that this Nass (text) has
come to us from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla! And consequently, we treat the reality upon its basis.
As for every other thought, which is not the Islamic thought, then it also views the reality through the text
that the people of that thought have brought. However, the text that the human mind has emitted is
incapable of encompassing the reality with all of its details and complications. It is incapable of seeing the
origins of this reality and what can possibly emanate from it in terms of effects… So, which of the two
texts is the most suitable and valid for the reality to be viewed through? i.e. for the reality to be treated by
it? The text that the Creator of all realities and the Master over them? Or the text that has been brought
forth by the creation who has been incapable of encompassing his own self and gaining mastery over it, let
alone fully encompass knowledge of the realities around him and knowledge of the most valid and suitable
solutions and thoughts to treat them? I say: After demonstrating the Islamic method for treating the
realities of life, we will now move ahead to deal with the points that we mentioned at the beginning of this
section.

Firstly: The deviation of the ruler, how does it take place?

The Inhiraaf (deviation) of the ruler occurs by abandoning adherence to Islaam, whether in his personal
conduct or in his internal and foreign policy, upon the basis of which he takes care of the people’s affairs.

Numerous Shar’iyah texts have come mentioning some of these deviations that the ruler could fall into.
Now we will mention these deviations in addition to the texts indicating to them.

- These deviations include: The ruler committing Ma’aasiy (acts of disobedience to Allah or sins). The
Haakim is supposed to be an example in respect to his adherence to the Shar’a and its application. Such a
deviation draws the hate and resentment of the Ummah to the ruler because of those excesses or
violations. This then leads the ruler to hate the Ummah due to the wave of anger and disapproval that its
directs towards him. In this way, a marked gap and void between the ruler and the Ummah becomes
ingrained which then leads to throwing curses at each other and mutual hatred.

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

, ‫ضونَ ُك ْم‬ ِ ِ ‫ و ِشرار أَئِ َّمتِ ُكم الَّ ِذ‬، ‫ وتُصلُّو َن علَي ِهم ويصلُّو َن علَي ُكم‬، ‫ِخيار أَئِ َّمتِ ُكم الَّ ِذين َُِتبُّونَهم وُُِيبُّونَ ُكم‬
ُ ‫ضونَ ُه ْم َويُْبغ‬
ُ ‫ين تُْبغ‬ َ ُ ُ َ َ ْ ْ َ َ َُ ْ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ ُْ َ ُ َُ
َّ ‫ َما أَقَ ُاموا فِي ُك ُم‬, ‫ َّل‬: ‫ال‬
‫ إَِّل َوَم ْن‬, َ‫الصَلة‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ ِ
َ ‫ول اللَّ ِه أَفََل نُنَابِ ُذ ُه ْم عِْن َد َذل‬
َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ قُلْنَا‬: ‫ قَالُوا‬.‫َوتَلْ َعنُونَ ُه ْم َويَلْ َعنُونَ ُك ْم‬
‫اع ٍة‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِّ‫و‬
َ َ‫ َوَّل يَنْ ِز َع َّن يَ ًدا م ْن ط‬، ‫ فَلْيَكَْرْه َما يَأِِْت م ْن َم ْعصيَة اللَّه‬، ‫ فَ َرآهُ يَأِِْت َشْيئًا م ْن َم ْعصيَة اللَّه‬، ‫َل َعلَْيه َو ٍال‬ َُ
The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you, who you invoke Allah’s
blessings upon them and they invoke His blessings upon you. And the worst of your rulers are
those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse and they curse you. It was asked (by those
present): Shouldn't we oppose them when that happens? He said: No, as long as they establish
Salaah among you. One who has a governor (Waali) appointed over him and he finds that the
governor indulges in an act of disobedience to Allah, he should hate what he has done in
disobedience to Allah, but he must not withdraw a hand from obedience (2).

- Another deviation of the ruler is the perpetrating of Munkaraat which includes taking exclusive
possession of the portions of the Dunyaa. That could be by monopolising properties and wealth,
positions and roles, and by providing special privileges exclusively to himself, his relatives and his group
(or faction), to the exclusion of the remainder of the individuals of the Ummah.

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

 ‫اسأَلُوا اهللَ الَّ ِذي لَ ْك ْم‬ ِ َ َ‫ول اهللِ ق‬
ْ ‫ال أَ ُّدوا اْلَ َّق الَّذي َعلَْي ُك ْم َو‬ ُ ‫ك يَا َر ُس‬ ِ ِ
ْ َ‫َستَ ُكو ُن أَ َثرة َوأٌُمور تُْنك ُرونَ َها قَالُوا فَ َما ي‬
َ ‫صنَ ُع َم ْن أَ ْد َرَك ذَل‬
Verily, there will be selfishness (giving preference to oneself over others) and matters that you
disprove of. They asked: So what should someone who reaches such a time do, O Messenger of
Allah? He said: Fulfil the Haqq (right) that is due upon you and ask Allah in respect to that
which is due to you (3).

- A form of the ruler’s deviation includes: That he assaults individuals of the Ummah with harm in terms
of beating, torture and confiscation of property, declaring by that, his aversion, in respect to the ruling, to
the guidance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his Sunnah!

[(1) Saheeh Muslim (Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158) and its number in Saheeh Muslim is 1855, 3/1481, (2) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim
(Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/156). Its number in Bukhaari: 6725, Fat’h ul-Baari: 13/121-122. Saheeh Muslim: 1839, 3/1469, (3) Al-
Bukhaari and Muslim (Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/157). Al-Bukhaari: 7053 and in Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/5. Saheeh Muslim: 1843,
3/1472].

‫ت‬ُ ْ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُل‬ ْ ‫ول اللَّ ِه إِنَّا ُكنَّا بِ َشٍّر فَ َجاءَ اللَّهُ ِِبٍَْري فَنَ ْح ُن فِ ِيه فَ َه ْل ِم ْن َوَر ِاء َه َذا‬
َ َ‫اْلَِْري َشٌّر ق‬ َ ‫ت يَا َر ُس‬ ِ
ُ ْ‫ال ُح َذيْ َفةُ بْ ُن الْيَ َمان قُل‬
َ َ‫ق‬
‫ال يَ ُكو ُن بَ ْع ِدي أَئِ َّمةٌ ََّل يَ ْهتَ ُدو َن‬
َ َ‫ف ق‬ َ ‫ت َكْي‬ َ َ‫اْلَِْري َشٌّر ق‬
ُ ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُ ْل‬ ْ ‫ك‬ ِ
َ ‫ت فَ َه ْل َوَراءَ ذَل‬ ُ ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُ ْل‬
َ َ‫ك الشَِّّر َخْي ٌر ق‬ ِ
َ ‫َه ْل َوَراءَ ذَل‬
‫ول اللَّ ِه‬ ِ ‫ني ِِف جثْم‬
ٍ ْ‫ان إِن‬ ِ ‫ال قُلُوب هم قُلُوب الشَّي‬ ِ ‫ِِب َداي وََّل يست نُّو َن بِسن َِِّت وسي ُق‬
َ ‫َصنَ ُع يَا َر ُس‬ ْ ‫فأ‬ َ ‫ت َكْي‬ ُ ْ‫ال قُل‬
َ َ‫س ق‬ َُ
ِ ‫اط‬ َ ُ ْ ُ ُ ٌ ‫وم في ِه ْم ِر َج‬ ُ ََ َ ُ َْ َ َ َ ُ
ِ ‫اْسع وأ‬ َ ُ‫ب ظَ ْه ُرَك َوأ ُِخ َذ َمال‬ ِ ِ ‫ال تَسمع وتُ ِط‬ ِ ‫إِ ْن أَدرْك‬
‫َط ْع‬ َ ْ َْ َ‫ك ف‬ ُ ‫يع ل َْلَم ِري َوإِ ْن‬
َ ‫ض ِر‬ ُ َ ُ َ ْ َ َ‫ك ق‬ َ ‫ت ذَل‬ ُ َْ
Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yammaan related: I said: “O Messenger of Allah, indeed, we had been in evil and
Allah brought us good which we are now living. Will there be a bad after this good?” He ‫ﷺ‬
said: “Yes”. I said: “Will there be good after this bad?” He said: “Yes”. I said: “Will there be bad
after that good?” He said: “Yes”. I said: “How?” Whereupon he said: “There will be leaders who
will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men
who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings”. I said: “What should I do. O
Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time?” He replied: “You will listen to the Amir
and obey him; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched. So listen and obey” (1).

And Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yammaan, who used to often ask the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬about the
circumstances conditions to come in respect to the Ummah said:

‫يَ ُكو ُن أَُم َراءُ يُ َعذبُونَ ُك ْم َويُ َعذبُ ُه ُم اهلل‬

“There will Umaraa’ (rulers or leaders) who will inflict punishment (or torture) upon you and
Allah will inflict punishment upon them” (2).

The above represent models and examples of the types of deviations that could occur from the Muslim
ruler whilst he is ruling the Islamic Ummah within an Islamic society.

In respect to this some of the Prophetic Ahaadeeth have indicated to the original position in relation to
the Muslim ruler, is that he leads the Ummah upon the basis of the Kitaab of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, and
the establishment of His Ahkaam amongst them. Just as the original position is that he safeguards the
Salaah and Sawm (fasting) from the prominent rituals and symbols (Sha’aa’ir) of Islaam and that he calls
the people to establish these Sha’aa’ir.
The original position in respect to him is also that he does not permit acts of disobedience (Ma’aasiy) or
Kufr (disbelief) to be brought out openly and clearly without there being reproach and rejection (to that)!

The following are the Ahaadeeth that indicate to these matters:

He ‫ ﷺ‬said:
ِ ‫اْسعوا لَه وأ‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ
‫َطيعُوا‬ َ ُ ُ َْ َ‫استُ ْعم َل َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد يَ ُقو ُد ُك ْم بكتَاب اللَّه ف‬
ْ ‫َولَ ْو‬
And (even) if a slave his appointed over you, leading you by the Book of Allah, you must hear and
obey him (3).

In another (similar) narration:

‫اب اللَّ ِه‬ ِ ِ ْ َ‫َّاس اتَّ ُقوا اللَّهَ َوإِ ْن أ ُِّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌّي ُمَدَّعٌ ف‬
َ َ‫اْسَعُوا لَهُ َوأَطيعُوا َما أَقَ َام لَ ُك ْم كت‬ ُ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الن‬
O People, fear Allah and if a deformed (or mutilated) Abyssinian slave is appointed as an Ameer
over you, then hear and obey him to the best of your ability as long as he has established the
Book of Allah for you (4)

[(1) Saheeh Muslim (Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/157), its number in Muslim: 1847, 3/1475-1476, (2) Al-Mustadrak, Al-Haakim: 4/435
and Adh-Dhahabi classified it to be upon the conditions of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1838, 3/1468, (4) )
Saheeh Muslim: 1838, 3/1468]

And he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ُِ ‫ ومن َُِتبُّونَه‬، ‫ ِخيارهم ِخيارهم لَ ُكم‬: ‫ال‬ ِ َ ‫ ب لَى يا رس‬: ‫أَََّل أُخِِبُكم ِِِبيا ِر ع َّمالِ ُكم و ِشرا ِرِهم ؟ قَالُوا‬
‫ َوتَ ْدعُو َن‬، ‫وُيبُّ ُك ْم‬ ُ ْ َ َ ْ ْ ُ ُ َ ْ ُ ُ َ َ َ‫ول اللَّه ق‬ َُ َ َ ْ َ َْ ُ َ ُْْ
: ‫ َوتَ ْدعُو َن اللَّهَ َعلَْي ِه َويَ َدعُو اللَّهَ َعلَْي ُك ْم فَ َقالُوا‬، ‫ض ُك ْم‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ
ُ ‫ َم ْن تُْبغ‬، ‫ َوشَر ُارُه ْم شَر ُارُه ْم لَ ُك ْم‬، ‫اللَّهَ لَهُ َويَ َدعُو اللَّهَ لَ ُك ْم‬
ُ ‫ضونَهُ ويُْبغ‬
‫ص ُاموا‬ َ ‫ َو‬، ‫صلُّوا‬ َ ‫وه ْم َما‬ ُ ُ‫ َدع‬، ‫ ََّل‬: ‫ال‬َ َ‫ول اللَّ ِه ؟ ق‬
َ ‫أَفَ ََل نُ َقاتِلُ ُه ْم يَا َر ُس‬

Should I inform you of the best of your governors and their worst? They said: Yes, O Messenger
of Allah. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: The best of them are those who are best to you, the one who you love and
he loves you, you supplicate for him to Allah and he supplicates to Allah for you. The worst of
them are those who are worst to you, the one who you hate and he hates you, and you supplicate
to Allah against him and he supplicates to Allah against you. They asked: Should we not fight
them O Messenger of Allah? He said: No, leave them as long as they perform the prayer and fast
(1)

And ‘Ubaadah Bin Saamit (ra) related:

ِ ِ ِ َّ‫السم ِع والط‬ ِ ِ ُ ‫باي عنَا رس‬

َ ‫ َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬، ‫ َوعُ ْس ِرنَا َويُ ْس ِرنَا َوأَثََرٍة َعلَْي نَا‬، ‫اعة ِِف َمنْ َشطنَا َوَمكَْرهنَا‬
‫ع‬ َ َ ْ َّ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْيه َو َسلَّ َم َعلَى‬ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ََ َ
‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬
ً ‫ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬

We gave the Bai’ah (pledge) to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to hear and obey in what we like and
don’t like, in hardship and ease, and when there is preference (or favouritism) against us. And
that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran Bawaahan
(clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (2).
In light of this, what stance or position should the Ummah take against the ruler who falls into these
deviations that have been mentioned in the previous Ahaadeeth? Or if he was to violate the original
position in respect to the Muslim ruler in relation to establishing his rule upon the basis of the Book of
Allah, his commitment to the Sha’aa’ir (main symbols and prominent practises) of Islaam and the Da’wah
to it, or if he was to permit Ma’aasiy (acts of disobedience to Allah) to become open or Kufr Bawaah
(explicit clear disbelief) to appear, without countering that? In such circumstances is it permitted for
weapons to be raised against the deviating ruler to bring him down or is that impermissible? Or are there
(further) details that need to be discussed regarding this subject area?

This is what we will now go to discuss within the following point.

[(1) At-Tabaraani in his ‘Al-Kabeer’ and similar to that in his ‘Al-Awsat’ (Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 5/224). Al-Haithami said: “It
includes (in the Sanad) Bakr Bin Yunus and Ahmad ‘Al-‘Ajaliy said he is trustworthy (Thiqqha)… and the rest of the
transmitters are Saheeh”, (2) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim (Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086). Its number in Al-Bukhaari is:
7055 and in Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/13. In Muslim: 1709, 3/1470-1471)

Secondly: The opinions of the Fuqahaa and Islamic thinkers in relation to using
weapons (i.e. military force) to bring down or overthrow the deviating ruler and our
opinion in this matter

To deal with this point we will mention the opinions of the classical scholars and then mention the
opinions of the modern Islamic thinkers before presenting our opinion on the subject.

The opinions of the classical Fuqahaa:

- The following was mentioned in ‘Maqaalaat Al-Islaamiyeen’ by Abu l-Hasan Al-Ash’ariy:

The people have differed in respect to the ‘Saif’ (i.e. taking up arms against the ruler) into four opinions:

The Mu’tazilah, Az-Zaidiyah and Khawaarij in addition to many of the Murji’ah held that: “It is Waajib
(obligatory) if it is possible for us to remove the people of Al-Baghyi (rebellion) by the sword and
establish the Haqq (truth) basing that upon the Qawl of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

‫َوتَ َع َاونُوا َعلَى الِْ ِِّب َوالتَّ ْق َو ٰى‬

And cooperate in righteousness and piety (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

And the Aayah:

‫فَ َقاتِلُوا الَِِّت تَ ْبغِي َح َّ َّٰت تَِفيءَ إِ َ َٰل أ َْم ِر اللَّ ِه‬
Then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah (Al-Hujuraat: 9)”.

And His statement Ta’Aalaa:

ِِ ِ ُ َ‫ََّل ي ن‬
َ ‫ال َع ْهدي الظَّالم‬
‫ني‬ َ
My covenant does not include the wrongdoers (Al-Baqarah: 124).

And the Rawaafid said: “As-Saif (raising arms against the ruler) is invalid, even if you were killed and even
if the Imaam appears and commands that”.
Abu Bakr Al-Asamm and those who held his opinion stated: “(Regarding ‘As-Saif’ (taking up arms against
the ruler), it is when they are gathered around a just Imaam and go out alongside him to remove the
people of Al-Baghyi (rebellion)”.

And those who said that ‘As-Saif’ is invalid and even if the progeny (children) were killed, stated that the
Imaam could be just and he could be unjust but it is (nevertheless) not for us to remove him, even if he is
Faasiq. They denounced rebelling against the Sultaan (one in authority) whilst they had not seen him. And
this is the opinion of the people of ‘Al-Hadeeth’ … (1).

[(1) Maqaalaat Al-Islaamiyeen, Al-Ash’ariy: 451].

- Ibn Hazm in his Al-Muhallaa mentioned: That which establishes that bringing down the deviating ruler
by force is Waajib (obligatory) if those revolting against him possess the capability to do that, is based
upon the area of commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar which is Fard and has not been
abrogated. And that all of the Ahaadeeth guiding to hearing and obeying the Faasiq and deviating ruler are
abrogated. The proof for judging them to be abrogated is that the absence of fighting, which the
Ahaadeeth of patience towards the Faasiq ruler indicate to, only conform to the reality or situation of the
Deen before the command of Al-Qitaal (fighting) (was revealed). This situation was then abrogated by the
command to fight (of Al-Qitaal), whilst the denial of the Munkar remains and is not abrogated. Therefore,
it (i.e. the denying of the Munkar) abrogates what conflicts with it. He then mentioned that this opinion
was the opinion of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) and those Sahaabah who were alongside him, in addition to
being the view of the Mother of the believers ‘Aa’ishah (rh), Talhah,Az-Zubair and those Sahaabah
alongside them, the opinion of Mu’aawiyah and all of the Sahaabah who were alongside him, and the
opinion of Al-Hussein Bin ‘Ali, of Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair and all those who arose in Al-Harrah from
amongst the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een (1).

In relation to the above, it is clear that the numerous positions in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of the
deviating ruler are restricted only to the one whose deviation has not reached the extent of the appearance
of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (clear or explicit Kufr) and what belongs to that (category). We will now continue
in our presentation of the opinions of the classical scholars about this subject:

- In An-Nawawi’s Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim he stated the following: “As for the Khurooj
(rebelling) against them (i.e. the rulers), then that is Haraam via a consensus (Ijmaa’) of the Muslims and
even if they are Fasaqah (people of Fisq) and oppressors, and the Ahaadeeth have demonstrated the
meaning of what I have stated” (2).

Then An-Nawawi related the opinion of Al-Qaadi Al-‘Iyaad in respect to the contraction of the Imaamah
(leadership) as follows: “He (i.e. Al-Qaadi Al-‘Iyaad) said: It is not contracted to the Faasiq initially. If Fisq
then (later) appears from the Khalifah, then some said that it is Waajib (obligatory) to remove him unless
Fitnah and war would be the consequence of that … (That is while) the majority (Jumhoor) of the Ahl us-
Sunnah of the Fuqahaa, Muhadditheen and Mutakallimeen state that he is not deposed due to Fisq
(rebelliousness to Allah’s commands), Zhulm (oppression) and suspension of rights. He is not removed
and it is not permissible to rebel against him for that. Rather, it is obligatory to exhort him and bring
about fear in him (i.e. of Allah) and that is due to the Ahaadeeth that have come related to that. Al-Qaadi
said: Abu Bakr Bin Mujaahid has claimed an Ijmaa’ in respect to that whilst some (others) have refuted
him based upon what Al-Hussein, Ibn Az-Zubair, the people of Al-Madinah against Bani Umayyah did, in
addition to what a great group from amongst the Taabi’een and the first generation did against Al-Hujjaaj
with Ibn Al-Ash’ath … He then said: And the evidence of the Jumhoor (majority) is that their standing or
rising against Al-Hujjaaj was not only because of the Fisq but rather due to what he changed (and altered)
of the Shar’a (divine legislation)” (3).

[(1) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm: 9/362, (2) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35, (3) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim:
8/36-37].
As for what is related to Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (clear and explicit disbelief) and what relates to that, the
following was mentioned in An-Nawawi’s Sharh of Saheeh Muslim: “Al-Qaadi Al-‘Iyaad said: The
‘Ulamaa have held a consensus (Ijmaa’) that the Imaamah (leadership) is not contracted to the Kaafir and
that if (after) Al-Kufr (the disbelief) occurs from him, he is deposed. He said: The same applies if he
abandons the establishment of the Salaah (Iqaamat As-Salaah) and the Du’aa (call) to it”. He then says: Al-
Qaadi said: So if he overtaken by Kufr (disbelief) or by a changing of the Shar’a (divine legislation) or by a
Bid’ah (innovation) he exits from Hukm of the Wilaayah (the position and responsibility of ruling).
Obedience to him no longer stands and it is obligatory for the Muslims to rise and stand against him,
remove him and appoint a just (‘Aadil) Imaam, if that is possible” (1).

- In the book ‘Daleel Al-Faaliheen Sharh Riyaadh As-Saaliheen’ the following was mentioned in relation to
the explanation of the Hadeeth:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah

He said: “Al-Musannif (i.e. An-Nawawi the compiler of Riyaad As-Saaliheen) said: What is intended by
‘Al-Kufr (disbelief) here is ‘Al-Ma’aasiy’ (acts of disobedience to Allah). Al-Qurtubi understood the
meaning of Kufr upon its apparent meaning (i.e. disbelief) and said: the meaning of ‘unless you see
Kufran Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah’ is
‘Hujjah’ and ‘Bayyinah’ (clear or manifest proof and evidence), a matter about which there is no doubt
through which certainty is established that it is Kufr (disbelief). At such a time it is obligatory to remove
the one to whom the Bai’ah (pledge of allegiance) has been contracted” (2).

The following was also stated in respect to the explanation of the Hadeeth:

َّ ‫ َ"َّل َما أَقَ ُاماو فِي ُك ُم‬: ‫ال‬

"‫الصَلة‬ َ َ‫ أَََّل نُ َقاتِلُ ُه ْم ؟ ق‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
َ ‫يَا َر ُس‬
O Messenger of Allah, should we not fight them? He said: No, as long as they establish the
Salaah amongst you

He said: “It is only forbidden from fighting against them for as long as they are establishing the Salaah
which is the address (i.e. main symbol and practise) of Islaam and that which distinguishes between Kufr
(disbelief) and Islaam (i.e. belief). That is as a warning to beware of agitating Fitan (disorders)and
difference over the word (i.e. disunity) amongst other matters, which could be even more repugnant than
the repugnance of the rulers and more harmful than what they are denying from them” (3).

- And in ‘Fat’h ul-Baari’, the explanation of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari, by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaani he mentioned
a number of Riwaayaat (narrations) for the Hadeeth:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
Unless you see Kufran Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear
proof from Allah

From these is the Riwaayah (narration) that states (َ‫( ) ُك ْفراَ َبراحا‬Kufran Baraahan[plain or manifest]) and
another that states (َ‫ص َراحا‬
َ َ‫( )كفرا‬Kufran Suraahan [explicit]), a narration that stated: "Unless there is
Ma’siyatullah Bawaah” (a clear or manifest disobedience to Allah) and another which mentions: “As
long as he has not ordered you with a Ithm Bawaah” (clear and explicit sin). All of these different
Alfaazh (words): ‘Bawaah’, ‘Baraah’ and ‘Suraah’ have one meaning or are very close in meaning. That
meaning is (evident) appearance, clarity and manifestation or proclamation. Ibn Hajar explains the
meaning of the word ‘Burhaan’ saying: “It means the text of an Aayah or Saheeh Khabar (report) that is
not open to interpretation (i.e. its meaning is definite)” (5). He then says: “That which appears to be
correct to me is to apply the narration of ‘Al-Kufr’ (disbelief) to the situation where there is a dispute in
respect to the authority. (In such a situation) the person in authority is not disputed or contested with (to
remove him) in respect to that which is objectionable in relation to the rule (or ruling) unless he
perpetrates Kufr. He understood the narration that mentioned the ‘Ma’siyah’ (disobedient act/sin) to
apply to when the disputing is about other than the Wilaayah (rule). If he has not done something
objectionable in respect to the Wilaayah (ruling) he is disputed (or contested) with regarding the act of
disobedience by being denied and censored in a gentle manner that leads to the Haqq being established to
him without the use of violence (or force). The context of that is if the person was Qaadir (capable) [to
undertake that] and Allah is All-knowledgeable. Ibn At-Teen related from Ad-Dawudiy who said: “The
opinion of the ‘Ulamaa (scholars) in respect to the unjust (or oppressive) ‘Umaraa (rulers), is that if it is
possible to depose him without the occurrence of Fitnah (discord) or resulting Zhulm (oppression) then it
is obligatory! Otherwise, the obligation is to remain patient (As-Sabr).

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35-36, (2) Daleel Al-Faaliheen: 1/456-457, (3) Daleel Al-Faaliheen: 1/460, (4)
Fat’h ul-Baari’, Ibn Hajar: 13/8, (5) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Ibn Hajar: 13/8].

And some of them (the scholars) said: It is not allowed to contract the Wilaayah 9ruling) to the Faasiq to
begin with. Then if he then becomes characterised by injustice or oppression (Jawr) after having been ‘Adl
(just), then they have differed in respect to the permissibility of rebelling against him. The Saheeh (correct
opinion) is that this is forbidden unless he disbelieves in which case it is obligatory to rebel against him
(and his authority)” (1).

The above is a summary representing the opinions of the classical Fuqahaa (jurists, scholars) in relation to
the issue of revolting against the deviating ruler, whether that relates to the deviation that is less than the
Kufr Al-Bawaah or the deviation that has reached the level of the Kufr Al-Bawaah! The opinions of the
classical Fuqahaa can be narrowed down to three opinions:

- The opinion that armed revolt or rebellion (Khurooj) is obligatory in the case of every (or any) deviation
from the ruler, whether that was Kufr or less than it.

- The opinion that restricts or limits the obligation of Al-Khurooj (revolt) to when the Kufr Al-Bawaah
manifests and what is included within that, and the obligation of hearing and obeying in the case of
deviations that are less than that whilst prohibiting the Khurooj against the ruler due to that.

- The opinion that states the permissibility (Ibaahah) of revolting for deviations that are less than the Kufr
Bawaah. Their argument and proof is based upon some of the Sahaabah not participating in the Khurooj
(rebelling) against the Zhalamah (oppressors) whilst at the same time they did not denounce those who
did revolt (2).

This represents the views of the classical scholars (Al-Fuqahaa’ Al-Qudamaa’) and now we will examine
what opinions are present amongst the modern day Islamic thinkers in respect to this issue?

- The author of the book ‘Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu’ mentions the view of ‘Ad-Dahlawiy’ stating
the obligation of fighting the Khalifah if he disbelieves by denying something essential from the essential
or necessary matters of the Deen (Darooriyaat Ad-Deen). Fighting him at such a time would be Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeelillah. If he has not disbelieved however, then he is not fought (3).

[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 13/8, (2) Ar-Rawdah Al-Buhyah, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanujiy Al-
Bukhaari: 2/520. And ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islamiy, Muhammad Sayyid Abd-ut-Tawwaab: 476, (3) Al-
Fiqh Al-Islamiy Wa Adillatahu’, Dr, Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 6/707].
He also mentions that the opinion of Muhammad Asad was that if the government stands in an open
(flagrant) deliberate challenge against the texts of the Qur’aan then such a stance would be considered to
be Kufr Bawaah (manifest disbelief), a matter which would make it obligatory to wrest the authority from
the one who has it and to bring it down. In other than the situation of the open declaration of Kufr
(disbelief) it is obligatory to not wrest the authority from the government by way of an armed revolution
undertaken by a minority from the society and that is because the Shar’iyah texts have warned from
undertaking that (1).

He then mentions the opinion of Dr. Yusuf Mousaa in that he views the opinion of Ibn Hazm to be the
strongest and that is the revolution against the deviating ruler whether he manifests Kufr Bawaah or less
than that. However, it is upon the condition of the preservation of the unity of the Ummah and the
avoidance of the shedding of blood without necessity… He then says: This opinion is close to the view of
the Mu’talah who obliged the rebellion against the Sultaan when the capability exists and when it is
possible (2).

- In the book ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islamiy’, by Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Abd-ut-Tawwaab, he
states that the deviations perpetrated by the Sultah (authority) are divided into two types:

- Deviations which are merely a violation to the Islamic Shar’iyah and are manifested in that which is less
than the Kufr Al-Bawaah.
- Deviations which represent the abandonment or relinquishment of the Islamic Shar’iyah which is
represented in the Kufr Al-Bawaah and what takes its ruling.

The abandonment of the Islamic Shar’iyah or the Kufr Al-Bawaah and what is like them are represented
in three forms. The first two forms were mentioned by Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Muhammad Jarisha in his
book ‘Al-Mashroo’iyah Al-Islaamiyah Al-‘Ulyaa’ and the third form is what the author saw to be
obligatory to add to the first two forms. Here are the forms that he mentioned:

- The first form: The application of other than the Islamic Shar’iyah and this is based upon the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ك ُه ُم الْ َكافُِرو َن‬

َ ِ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئ‬ ِ
َ ‫َمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِبَا أ‬
And whosoever does not rule (judge) by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the disbelievers (Al-Maa’idah: 44).

- The second form: That is the application of some of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i in some areas alongside the
adoption of other than the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i. In respect to this Allah (swt) says:

َ ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ إِلَْي‬

‫ك‬ َ ُ‫اح َذ ْرُه ْم أَن يَ ْفتِن‬
ِ ‫وك َعن بَ ْع‬
َ ‫ض َما أ‬ ْ ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ َوََّل تَتَّبِ ْع أ َْه َواءَ ُه ْم َو‬
ِ
َ ‫اح ُكم بَْي نَ ُهم ِبَا أ‬
ِ
ْ ‫َوأَن‬
And judge (rule), [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their
desires and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you (Al-
Maa’idah: 49).

[(1) Al-Fiqh Al-Islamiy Wa Adillatahu, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 6/707, (2) Al-Fiqh Al-Islamiy Wa Adillatahu, Dr. Wahbah Az-
Zuhailiy: 6/710].

- The third form: It is when the Muslim ruler befriends or allies with the disbelieving states to commit
aggression against the Muslims. The evidence used for this is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫ين َآمنُوا ََّل تَتَّ ِخ ُذوا َع ُد ِّوي َو َع ُد َّوُك ْم أ َْولِيَاءَ تُ ْل ُقو َن إِلَْي ِهم بِالْ َم َوَّدةِ َوقَ ْد َك َف ُروا ِِبَا َجاءَ ُكم ِّم َن‬
‫اْلَ ِّق‬ ِ َّ
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
 O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have
disbelieved in what came to you of the truth (Al-Mumtahanah: 1).

And the author of the book ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islamiy’ states: “ … It may be that the
correct view is to differentiate between the violation of the Shar’iyah and its abandonment (or
relinquishment). The Ahaadeeth about (maintaining) obedience are adopted in respect to the mere
violation of the Shar’iyah whilst the Ahaadeeth about using force are adopted in respect to the
abandonment of the Shar’iyah and reaching the level of the Kufr Al-Bawaah” (3),

- In the book ‘Minhaj Al-‘Audah Ila l-Islaam’ by Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Boutiy, he said in
respect to the ruler: “As for when (or if) he commands them (the Muslims) with a Ma’siyah (act of
disobedience) or forbade them from fulfilling something in terms of the Shar’iyah Waajibaat (obligations),
then it is not for them to obey him in respect to that as there is no obedience to the created in
disobedience to the Creator … However, his commanding of the people with the Ma’siyah (act of
disobedience or sin) does not justify (or make legitimate) their rebellion against him” (4).

After this presentation of the opinions of the classical scholars and the books of the modern Islamic
thinkers in respect to the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the deviating ruler, and before
presenting my own opinion, I find it necessary to first discuss the opinion of Ibn Hazm regarding his
claim that the Ahaadeeth of hearing and obeying the Faasiq and Jaa’ir (oppressive) have been abrogated
and the opinion of the Mu’tazilah and those who like them hold the view of the obligation to fight the
ruler if he commits Fisq (wilful disobedience) or Zhulm (oppression) based upon the Ahaadeeth of
commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar in accordance to their unrestricted meaning.

- As for the opinion of Ibn Hazm in respect to the abrogation of the Ahaadeeth of obedience to the
Faasiq or Jaa’ir (oppressive, unjust or tyrannical) ruler, using as proof that these Ahaadeeth conform to the
reality that the Deen was upon before the command of Al-Qitaal. Then the legislation of Al-Qitaal came
and abrogated this original position (5).

[(1) Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islamiy’

I say: It appears to me that the weakness of this opinion is apparent and that is because many of the
Ahaadeeth related to the obedience of the ruler if he commits Fisq or Zhulm were revealed following the
legislation of Al-Qitaal (fighting). In addition, some of these Ahaadeeth indicate within their context, that
there intended purpose relates to what will occur in the future in terms of deviations of those in positions
of authority from the Haqq (truth) and ‘Adl (justice), and then in respect to what is obligatory upon the
Ummah towards those deviations in terms of hearing and obeying in some of the Ahaadeeth, and in terms
of rebelling against the ruler in others.

In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah it was related that Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yammaan said:

: ‫ أ ََرأَيْت َه َذا‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬ َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬:‫ قُلْت‬:‫ال‬ َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫َسأَلُهُ َع ْن الشَِّّر‬ ْ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم َع ْن‬
ْ ‫ َوُكْنت أ‬، ‫اْلَِْري‬ َّ ِ‫َّاس يَ ْسأَلُو َن الن‬
َ ‫َِّب‬ ُ ‫َكا َن الن‬
:‫ال‬
َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫ف‬ ُ ‫السْي‬
َّ : ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ص َمةُ ِمْنهُ ؟ ق‬ ِ
ْ ‫ فَ َما الْع‬:‫ قُ ْلت‬، ‫ نَ َع ْم‬:‫ال‬ َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫اْلَْي َر الَّ ِذي ُكنَّا فِ ِيه َه ْل َكا َن قَ ْب لَهُ َشٌّر َوَه ْل َكائِ ٌن بَ ْع َدهُ َشٌّر‬
ْ
‫ فَ َما بَ ْع َد ا َّْلُْدنَِة ؟‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬ َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ قُ ْلت‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ ق‬، ٌ‫ ُه ْدنَة‬، ‫ نَ َع ْم‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ف ِم ْن بَِقيَّ ٍة ؟ ق‬ َّ ‫ فَ َه ْل بَ ْع َد‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
ِ ‫السْي‬ َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬:‫فَ ُقلْت‬
ِ ِ
َ َ‫ب َح ََّّت يَأْتِي‬
‫ك‬ ُ ‫ فَِإ ْن َملْ يَ ُك ْن َخلي َفةٌ فَا َّْلََر‬، ‫َخ َذ َمالَك‬ َ ‫ض ْربًا َوأ‬
َ ‫ك ظَ ْهَرك‬ َ ‫ فَِإ ْن َرأَيْت َخلي َفةً فَالَْزْمهُ َوإِ ْن نَ َه‬، ‫ََّللَِة‬ َ ‫ ُد َعاةُ الض‬:‫ال‬ َ َ‫ق‬
ٍ‫اض َعلَى َش َجرة‬ ٌّ ‫ت َع‬ َ ْ‫ت َوأَن‬ُ ‫الْ َم ْو‬
َ
The people use to ask the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬about the good whilst I used to ask him about the bad (or
evil). He said: I said: O Messenger of Allah! Do you see this good that we are currently in (or
 enjoying) …? Will there be after it evil (or bad)? He said: Yes. I said: So what is the protection
from it? He said: The sword. He (Hudhaifah) said: I said: O Messenger of Allah! Will there be
anything left after the sword? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Yes, Hudnah (a truce). He (Hudhaifah) said: I said:
O Messenger of Allah! So what will be after the truce? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Callers to misguidance. So if
you see a Khalifah, stick to him and even if he wears down your back in strikes (or lashes) and
takes your property. If there is no Khalifah then flee until death overtakes you whilst you are
clinging by your teeth to a tree…” (1).

And it is clear from this Hadeeth that the speech is about what will take place in the future and about
what the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to confronting this future reality is. The speech is not about the
early situation of Islam before the legislation of Al-Qitaal (fighting). We therefore say: That the claim of
Ibn Hazm regarding the Ahaadeeth about hearing and obeying the Faasiq and oppressive ruler being
abrogated, is a claim that is not supported by the Adillah (evidences).

[(1) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15/8 and the Hadeeth is in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 4244, 4/135/136 and Al-Albaaniy said:
‘Hasan’ [Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud]: 3569, 3/798/799].

As for the opinion of the Mu’tazilah and those who hold the same view in terms of the obligation to fight
the ruler, if he commits Fisq or Zhulm (oppression), in accordance to the dictates of commanding the
Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar, then Ash-Shawkaaniy responded to as follows:

“Those who have held the view of the obligation to rebel against the oppressors, oppose them with the
sword and struggle against them by Al-Qitaal (fighting), used as evidence the generality of the texts of the
Kitaab and the Sunnah in respect to the obligation of commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the
Munkar. There is no question and no doubt that the Ahaadeeth mentioned by the compiler in this section
or area (Baab) [i.e. the Ahaadeeth about hearing and obeying the ruler and even if he commits Fisq or
Zhulm, many of which we have mentioned] are absolutely more specific than those generalities. They are
Mutawaatir in meaning as is known by the one who has a familiarity with the ‘Ilm of the Sunnah.
However, the Muslim should not diminish what those of the Salaf As-Saalif amongst others did when they
rebelled against the oppressive Imaams. That is because they did that based upon their Ijtihaad whilst they
are the group which is most fearing and obedient to Allah and most obedient and compliant to the
Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, compared to those who came after them from amongst the
people of knowledge. Some of the people of knowledge went too far like the Karraamiyah and those who
followed them in terms of rigidity over the Ahaadeeth of this section or area [of Hadeeth) (Baab). It
reached the point where they judged that Al-Hussein (ra) rebelled against the drunk alcoholic and violator
of the sanctities of the pure Shar’iyah ‘Yazeed Bin Mu’aawiyah’. How astonishing are these written pieces
that make the skin crawl and make every boulder reverberate (1).

What is intended here is that the Ahaadeeth about hearing and obeying to the sinful and oppressive ruler
are specific Ahaadeeth whilst the Ahaadeeth about denying or forbidding the Munkar by the hand or
repelling the oppressor by fighting are Ahaadeeth ‘Aammah (general). Therefore, the general (Ahaadeeth)
are worked with upon their generality with the exception of those cases which have been taken out of that
generality by those specific Ahaadeeth. Consequently, it is in this way that the general evidences are
worked with within a scope whilst the specific evidences are worked with within another scope. It is like
the scholars of Usool say: “Working with both evidences is better than working with one and discarding
the other”. The following has been mentioned within the books of Usool in respect to when apparently
conflicting evidences have come in relation to one single Mas’alah (issue): “At-Tarjeeh (outweighing)
between two evidences only takes place when it is not possible to work with both of them together. If that
is possible, and even if only from some angles, then working with them both together is designated whilst
it is not permitted to outweigh between them. That is because working with two evidences is better than
abandoning one of them and the original position I respect to the Daleel (evidence) is to work with it and
not to discard it” (1).
Following that, we will now mention the opinion that we outweigh to be strongest in this Mas’alah (issue).
What has been understood from the Shar’iyah texts is as follows:

1 - The obligation of As-Sabr (patience) and the Man’i (prevention or forbiddance) of fighting the ruler if
he deviates by Fisq (wilful disobedience), Zhulm (oppression) or commands a Ma’siyah (act of
disobedience to Allah or sin), in accordance to the many Ahaadeeth that we have presented related to this
issue. However, the exception to this applies to specific cases of deviations in which Al-Qitaal (fighting) is
legislated. Even though these cases have not reached the level of Kufr Al-Bawaah (manifest disbelief), the
Shaari’ (Legislator) has nevertheless considered them to be of the same level or standing as the Kufr Al-
Bawaah in respect to the legality of fighting the ruler. That is due to the danger that is seen upon the
Islamic society if these cases (of deviation) arise!

These deviations are:

1 - The ruler abandoning the Salaah (prayer).

2 - The rule abandoning the Sawm (fasting).

[(1) Nail Al-Awtaar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/186, (2) Usool ul-Fiqh: Muhammad Abu-n-Nour Zuhair: 4/200].

These two cases are indicated to within the Hadeeth that states within it:

‫صلُّوا‬
َ ‫ص ُاموا َو‬
َ ‫وه ْم َما‬ َ َ‫أَََّل نُقاتِلُ ُه ْم يَا َرسول اهلل؟ ق‬
ُ ُ‫ ََّل َدع‬:‫ال‬
Should we not fight them, O Messenger of Allah? He said: No leave them as long as they fast and
pray (1).

3 - The ruler not establishing the Salaah within the Ummah:

This is indicated to within the Hadeeth that mentions:

َّ ‫ َما أَقَ ُاموا فِي ُك ُم‬, ‫ َّل‬: ‫ال‬

‫الصَل َة‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ ِ
َ ‫ول اللَّ ِه أَفََل نُنَابِ ُذ ُه ْم عِْن َد ذَل‬
َ ‫يَا َر ُس‬
O Messenger of Allah, shouldn't we oppose them when that happens? He said: No, as long as
they establish Salaah among you (2).

The Mafhoom (implicit understanding) of the Hadeeth is that you should fight them if they do not
establish the Salaah amongst you. The meaning of the ruler establishing the Salaah amongst the Ummah is
that he calls the people to the Salaah and accounts them for leaving it. That is because the absence of
accounting and taking those who leave the Salaah to task would make the call or invitation to it (if it
existed) and call that is empty of substance, and just an appearance with no true reality attached to it.

Holding the one who abandons the Salaah in today’s language means that the penal code of the state must
contain a specific penalty or punishment for that. Al-Qaadiy Al-‘Iyaad considered the Imaam’s
abandoning of the call to the Salaah to be like his falling into Kufr for which he is deposed from the
Imaamah (position of leadership) (3).

The ruler’s accounting of the people in respect to their abandoning of the Salaah does not mean placing a
guard or monitor to lie in wait to pounce upon such a person if he is discovered to have abandoned the
prayer. Such a style did not exist in the time of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬or the time of the Sahaabah (rah).
Rather, it is sufficient that he does not show to individuals or the society any belittling or indifference to
this Sha’eerah (main symbol) from the main symbols (Sha’aa’ir) of Islaam.
[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id, Al-Haithamiy: 5/224, (2) Related by Muslim in his Saheeh (Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/158, (3) Sharh An-
Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35].

4 - There is a fourth case from among the cases of deviation that are less than the Kufr Al-Bawaah but
take its ruling in respect to the legal legitimacy to use armed force to confront the ruling authority if it
becomes prominent or stands out within the society. This is the Ma’siyah Al-Bawaah (the manifest act of
disobedience to Allah).

This has been indicated to in a Riwaayah (narration) that Ibn Al-Hajar quoted in his ‘Al-Fat’h’ for the
Hadeeth relating to opposing those in authority:

ِ ُ‫صية‬ِ
ً‫اهلل بَ َواحا‬ َ ‫َمر أ َْهلَهُ إَِّل أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن َم ْع‬ َ ‫َوأَََّل نُنَا ِز‬
َ ‫ع اْل‬
And that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless it is a manifest act of
disobedience to Allah (1).

The Mafhoom (implicit understanding) of this narration in respect to disputing or opposing the authority
of its people is: Fighting the people of authority if the Ma’siyah of Allah is Bawaah i.e. Evident and
publicly or openly demonstrated whilst they (the rulers) do not confront it by changing it or by
denunciation!

5 - There is also a fifth case from amongst the cases of deviation that takes the ruling of the Kufr Al-
Bawaah even if it is not itself Kufr Bawaah. This case is demonstrated in the narration:

ِِ
ً ‫َما َملْ يَاْ ُم ْرَك بإ ٍُْث بَ َو‬
‫اح‬
As long as he does not command you with a blatant sin (2).

The Mantooq (expressed or explicit meaning) of this narration is that it is not legitimate to dispute the
people of authority by armed force as long as they refrain from commanding a sin in a pronounced and
evident open or public form and manner. Consequently, if they command the sin and acts of
disobedience, but in a hidden or concealed manner, or in a manner that the commanding of an ‘Ithm
Bawaah’ (open and blatant commanding of sin) does not apply upon, then it is not permitted to contest
and oppose them in such a situation.

As for when those in authority lift the veil of shame and openly challenge the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i and
then issue upon the people what is considered to be a Amr Bawaah (blatant or explicit command) for
sinfulness and wilful disobedience, then the Mafhoom (understanding) of this Aayah provides the
legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in this situation.

These are the five cases or situations in which the Shar’iyah texts have guided to the legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) to utilise armed force to bring down the rule when one of them appears. All of these cases
do not bring the ruler or the regime to the level of the Kufr Al-Bawaah as long as they are not connected
or linked to that which guides to the disbelief of the ruler or the Kufr of the ruler’s regime. However,
despite that, the Shar’iyah texts have provided these cases with the same ruling as the Kufr Al-Bawaah in
respect to revolting against the ruler if they appear or arise. That is due to what they contain in terms of
dangerous effects that threaten the Islamic society similar to how the Kufr Al-Bawaah threatens it.

To clarify the difference between the Fisq (wilful disobedience) of the ruler in which it is not permissible
to revolt against the ruler and the Ma’siyah Al-Bawaah (clear and manifest act of disobedience to Allah) in
which revolting against him is legitimate, then we will liken the aforementioned Fisq to that which takes
place within the walls or confines of the ruler’s palace in terms of the perpetration of Munkaraat (evils)
and violations of the Hurumaat (sanctities of Islaam). This would be like when information about the
occurrence of such matters leaks to the people without that Fisq being apparent and evident before their
eyes. In that situation, there is no place (or legitimacy) to revolt against him.

However, when that takes place in a public function or is transmitted and broadcast through audio and
video devices, without shame or shyness, then in such a situation we are faced with an open and manifest
act of Ma’siyah (disobedience) to Allah. That applies even if the ruler did not attend such an event or
function but gave his permission for it to take place and did not denounce or forbid it (Al-Inkaar). Yes,
indeed in such a situation we would have an open blatant act of disobedience (Ma’siyah Bawaah) and it
would follow what the Shar’iyah texts have indicated to in relation to that. Of course, that would only be
resorted to if all peaceful attempts to change the situation had failed!

[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Ibn Hajar: 13/8, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Ibn Hajar: 13/8].

We have now finished the section about the cases or situations of deviations that do not reach the level of
the Kufr Al-Bawaah (manifest disbelief) but nevertheless take the same Hukm (ruling) as it in terms of
revolting or rebelling against the people of authority.

The Shar’iyah texts have also guided to the obligation of using armed revolution or rebellion upon the
appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah (manifest disbelief). This was indicated within the Hadeeth that
mentioned the following:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (manifest disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (1).

The Mafhoom (understood meaning) of this Hadeeth about disputing the affair of the people of authority
is: Fight the people of authority, to remove the rule from their hands, if you see Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah, for
which you have no doubt. The Kufr Al-Bawaah is manifested in there matters:

1) As for the Kufr (disbelief) of the ruler, then there is no dispute regarding that and the statements of the
Fuqahaa have prevailed in respect to the obligation of disputing the authority in this situation (1).

2) As for the Dalaalah (import and indication) of the previous Hadeeth in respect to disputing the
authority in the situation of the existence of the Kufr Al-Bawaah from individuals by their apostasy from
Islaam, without the ruler’s disavowal, then because this reality is being approved of by the ruler, we view
that it represents Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah. The text of the Hadeeth does not restrict the presence of the Kufr
to the ruler or others whilst the only restriction that this Kufr has been restricted by, is that it is ‘Bawaah’
(manifest and explicit) i.e. that it is apparent and spread in the absence of being disavowed or condemned!

- And of course, the presence of Kufr amongst the Ahlu dh-Dhimmah and Musta’mineen (those granted
security) does not apply here due to this situation not being applicable following the contraction of the
‘Dhimmah’ (protection) or the ‘Amaan’ (security).

[(1) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim (Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086). Its number in Al-Bukhaari: 7055, in Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/5
and in Muslim: 1709, 1470-1471, (2) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35-36 and Fat’h ul-Baari’ the Sharh of Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari, Ibn Hajar: 13/8].

In any case, if some (of the Fuqahaa) have outweighed that the correct evaluation of the speech in the
Hadeeth is that it means “… Unless you see [From the ruler] Kufran Bawaahan (manifest
disbelief)” (i.e. specifically from the ruler), then this matter is easy to deal with. That is because the
situation of the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah from individuals and the subsequent silence (and
acquiescence) of the ruler to that, is considered to (still) be from amongst the cases of the Ma’siyah Al-
Bawaah (manifest act of disobedience), the reality of which was mentioned above (Note: As such the same
ruling would apply to it).

3 - As for the indication (Dalaalah) of the Hadeeth about contesting and disputing (the authority) in
respect to its application upon the situation where the system (or ruling regime) is established upon an
Aqeedah of disbelief, then the Shar’iy text has not limited or restricted the contestation of the people of
authority to the Kufr of the ruler alone. Rather, it stated: “Unless you see Kufr Bawaah” and the sight of
the Kufr applies to the Kufr that is seen from the ruler and it applies to the Kufr that is seen from other
than the ruler just as it applies to the Kufr that is seen within the system of ruling when it is established
upon a Kufr Aqeedah and imposed upon the people. That is like establishing the rule upon the Aqeedah
of “There is no God and the life is matter” followed by the application and implementation of systems of
state and society based upon that Aqeedah (belief). Or, if the ruling system is based upon the Aqeedah of
“The separation of the Deen from life and the state” and then the internal and foreign policy is then built
upon the basis of that Aqeedah.

In other words, the state and its systems are considered to be like a person (in sense or metaphorically)
and hence, what applies to the literal (real) person, also applies to it.

The literal (real) person is described and characterised by Islaam (i.e. belief in it) and Kufr (disbelief) in
accordance to the Aqeedah i.e. by the basis upon which he establishes his behaviours and conduct, and
the basis of his view towards things and actions.

Consequently, the person would be a Muslim when he has believed in Islaam and even if he committed
sinful acts in their consideration as being deviations.

Similarly, the considered metaphorical person, which in our discussion here refers to the state with its
systems, is described or characterised with Islaam or Kufr through examination of the Aqeedah or the
basis upon which it is established. The state would therefore be Islamic, for instance, when it is
established upon the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah, even if deviations appeared within it, as long as the
basis of the state considers these deviations to be illegal!

- In the case of the literal person we would call this person a Kaafir, for instance, because he believes in
“matter” or the “separation of the Deen from life”. Then if he commits actions contrary to Islaam, then
he is not committing them upon the basis that they are deviations that his Aqeedah does not sanction.
Rather, he undertakes them upon the basis of their legitimacy based upon the Aqeedah that he believes in.

Indeed, I say here: I respect to this Kaafir person, then even if abides by the Islamic rulings in his
complete conduct, we would still pass judgement upon with Kufr (disbelief) because he does not
undertake this adherence based upon his Imaan (belief) in the Aqeedah that has provided these Islamic
rulings that he is adhering to. Rather, he only adheres to them, perhaps due to a Maslahah (benefit or
interest), or due to prevailing norms and customs, or due to any other motivational purpose. Whatever the
case it doesn’t matter!

- Consequently, in the case of the considered metaphorical person, in reference to the state and its
systems, we call this state un-Islamic, if it is established upon a basis other than the Islamic Aqeedah, like
the Aqeedah that believes in “Matter” or in the “Separation of the Deen from life”. If there exists within
such a state actions that are contrary to Islaam, then they do not exist upon the basis that they are
deviancies or deviations which the Aqeedah of the state or its system rejects. Rather, they exist within it
upon the basis that they are legally legitimate attaining their legitimacy from the Aqeedah that has been
made the basis of the state and the system that emanates from it. Indeed, I also say here: If an un-Islamic
state such as this was to adhere to the Islamic rulings in many of its systems and affairs (albeit
representative of an imaginary supposition) and if for instance we perceived this to happen in America,
whilst they keep their capitalist Aqeedah as the basis of the state, we would not, in such a scenario, pass
judgment upon it as being an Islamic state, as long as it is established upon other than the Islamic
Aqeedah. That is because this adherence to the Islamic rulings was not based upon the Islamic Aqeedah
but rather upon an Aqeedah that permits the adoption of Islamic rulings just as it permits the adoption of
other than them in accordance to the Maslahah. It is possible for it to abandon this adherence at any time
by legislating new systems contrary to Islaam, the legitimacy of which us based upon the capitalist
Aqeedah which represents the basis of the state.

Based on what we have stated, it becomes very clear to us that the Kufr Al-Bawaah could be seen within
the person of the ruler himself just as it could be witnessed within the ruling system or state that rules by a
particular system, in view of the Aqeedah that the person or the state adopts.

Moving on, the Shar’iyah texts have stipulated that for the Kufr Al-Bawaah to be considered as such,
there must be a Daleel Qat’iy (definite evidence) indicating that it is Kufr Bawaah:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (1).

‘Al-Burhaan’ means the decisive evidence through which certainty is attained in respect to it being Kufr
(disbelief) (2).

Therefore, no person or group of people should rush and be hasty to pass judgement upon a head of state
or his system, in terms of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah appearing from him or within it, without a Daleel Qat’iy
(definite evidence).

As this matter is one where viewpoints could differ and it is from the issues of dispute between the ruler
and the subjects, the Shar’iy text has guided to referring the matter back to the Kitaab of Allah and the
Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

‫ُوَل ْاْل َْم ِر ِمن ُك ْم ۗ فَِإن تَنَ َاز ْعتُ ْم ِِف َش ْي ٍء فَ ُرُّدوهُ إِ ََل اللَّ ِه‬
ِ ‫ول َوأ‬ َ ‫الر ُس‬ ِ ‫َطيعوا اللَّه وأ‬
َّ ‫َطيعُوا‬ ِ
َ َ ُ ‫ين َآمنُوا أ‬
ِ َّ
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
ِ ِ
‫َح َس ُن تَأْ ِو ًيَل‬ْ ‫ك َخْي ٌر َوأ‬ َ ‫ول إِن ُكنتُ ْم تُ ْؤِمنُو َن بِاللَّ ِه َوالْيَ ْوم ْاْل ِخ ِر ۗ ٰذَل‬
ِ ‫الرس‬
ُ َّ ‫َو‬
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over
anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the better and best in final
determination (An-Nisaa’: 59).

Referring to Allah and the Messenger means referring to the Kalaam (speech) of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and
the speech of the Messenger of Allah i.e. Al-Kitaab and As-Sunnah. Referring to the Kitaab and the
Sunnah means referring to the competent body that issues the Ahkaam (legal verdicts and rulings) based
upon these two sources. It therefore represents the referral that resolves the dispute that the Aayah has
indicated to. That is because the non-designation of a competent body, which binds everyone to its
verdicts, would mean that the dispute between the ruler and the subjects would remain without resolution.
Each would rely upon Shar’iyah evidences that supports their view which was understood according to
their perspective and viewpoint. This would mean or lead to the suspension of the Aayah that has
commanded the referral to Allah and the Messenger in a manner that decisively resolves the dispute.
Consequently, it is obligatory for a body to be appointed or designated that the two parties refer to (at the
time of the occurrence of a dispute) and both are bound by its Ahkaam (rulings).
[(1) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim (Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086, (2) Daleel ul-Faaliheen: 1/356-357].

It is well known that the body that issues the Ahkaam (rulings and verdicts) in respect to this type of
dispute within the Islamic state is the: “Wilaayat ul-Mazhaalim” or “Qadaa’ ul-Mazhaalim” (“The
Authority of Injustices” or the “Judiciary of Injustices”) (1).

If this judiciary issues its ruling or verdict in confirmation to the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah then
the ruler is deposed from the authority upon its basis and he will be put on trial for his crime. If he then
clings on to his post and he is assisted by a military force, then it is necessary to mobile another military
force to fight the is ruler and those who support him, until the matter or affair returns to what it should
be.

The same is said in relation to the deviations that the Shaari’ (legislator) has specified to take the same
Hukm (ruling) as the Kufr Al-Bawaah in respect to the legal legitimacy to take up arms (or use military
force) to confront them. Consequently, it is necessary for a Hukm Shar’iy to be issued from the judiciary
of unjust acts explaining whether the deviations are confirmed or not. That is because they are situations
that by their nature relate to dispute and therefore must have a designated body that resolves that dispute
and issues a verdict in respect to them. It is upon the basis of this ruling or verdict that the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of Al-Qitaal is determined.

Before leaving this point, someone may want to ask: In the cases of deviations which do not justify the
use of weapons or military force to rectify the situation like the non Bawaah Fisq, Zhulm (oppression) and
what is similar, then does that mean that the Islamic system protects these oppressive deviating situations
in the case where hearing and obeying is obligatory upon the Ummah and it is Haraam for it to the fight
to correct the situations?

The answer to this line of questioning is as follows:

- There is from amongst the classical and modern Islamic Ijtihaadaat that which obliges fighting the
deviating ruler to rectify the situations (as mentioned previously) in respect to every small and large
deviation.

- However, the Jumhoor (majority) forbade that i.e. in relation to the deviations that are less than the Kufr
Al-Bawaah.

[(1) Refer to the ‘Mandatory powers of the Wilaayat ul-Mazhaalim’ in ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by Al-Maawardiy: 80-83, ‘Al-
Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ by Al-Faraa’: 61-63, Muqaddamat Ad-Dustoor, Asheikh An-Nabahaaniy: 227-228. Ma’aalim Al-
Khilafah, Al-Khaalidiy: 364 and Deewaan Al-Mazhaalim, Dr. Hamdiy Abdul-Mun’im: 122-138].

In Nawawi’s Sharh of Saheeh Muslim he mentioned the following: “The ‘Ulamaa said: And the reason for
not deposing him (i.e. the Faasiq or Jaa’ir (oppressive) ruler) and the prohibition of rebelling (Al-Khurooj)
against him, is the resulting Fitan that arises from that, the shedding of blood and the corruption of
disunity or discord, which would make the Mafsadah (harm) attached to removing the ruler greater than if
he was to remain” (1).

This means: That silence over the oppressive deviating situation (referring to the illegitimacy of Al-Qitaal),
is not due to the acceptance and approval of the Islamic system towards that situation. Rather, it is due to
َ َ‫)أ‬.
choosing between the lesser or less harmful of the two evils (‫هْونُ َال َّشرّين‬

In any case, the sufficient answer covering the angles of this line of questioning, as I see, is as follows:
That the appearance of these deviations, in which fighting has not been legislated, oblige the Ummah to
raise them to the judiciary of injustices or unjust acts so that it can remove them. The judiciary of Al-
Mazhaalim here would examine and look into:

- Whether the ruler responded positively to the judgment of the judiciary in respect to his deposal and left
the post (1).

- And if he did not respond to that, but rather the matter leads to the outbreak of fighting between the
ruler’s supporters and his opposition. In such circumstances, the judiciary weighs between two possible
circumstances:

- Patience over the deviated situation and the harms that result from that
- The ruling of deposing the rulers and the risk of the breakout of Al-Qitaal (fighting) between the
authority’s supporters and those who oppose it, and what results from that in terms of harms.

If the scale of the harms attached to fighting are outweighing (i.e. heavier) or the success in respect to
bringing down the ruler was weak, the judiciary would refrain from issuing the ruling for the deposal of
the ruler and the obligation of obeying the ruler would continue (in other than the disobedience, of
course) (3) alongside the continuation of the obligation to exhort, instil fear within the ruler (of Allah) and
account him (4).

If, however, the scale of harms attached to remaining patient over the deviated situation were outweighing
(i.e. heavier) and that it was thought to be most probable (Ghalabat Azh-Zhann) that the forces opposed
to the authority would be successful in bringing down the ruler, then the verdict of deposing him would
be issued. If the ruler does not then leave the authority by his own accord, he would be considered as an
usurper (Mughtasib) of it and fighting would take place upon the basis of his usurpation of the authority,
just like any usurper is fought to restore and take back that which he has taken without right. And this is
the subject of the next area of study that we will discuss.

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari, Ibn Hajar: 13/8, (3) Sharh
An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/32, (4) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/37].

Therefore, the original position or basis in respect to this outweighing and to decide whether to fight or
not to fight, is the Shar’iyah principle in respect to perpetrating the ‘lesser of two evils’ (1) that has been
previously established.

With this answer we find that we have not discarded or made redundant any text from amongst the
Shar’iyah texts related to this Mas’alah (issue). Rather, all of the texts have been applied, each according to
its specified sphere or area, in line with the Usooliy principle of working with all of the texts being better
than using some and discarding others (2).

Another question that may arise before leaving this point is:

Does the legitimacy to fight due to the Kufr Bawaah and the cases that takes its ruling apply to the
situation of our Islamic lands today?

The answer: Some have viewed that (3). That is due to not distinguishing in judgement in the issue
between those lands that had been ruling by Islaam and then attempts were made to take it away from the
ruling by Islaam so that the Kufr Al-Bawaah appears within it, and those other Islamic lands where a long
period of time had passed over them ruling by other than Islaam and the matters within them had settled
upon that situation. As long as they do not pay attention to this difference between the two realities then
their opinion in respect to igniting revolutions against the deviating rulers to rectify the situations would
continue to apply to both realities (without distinction).
- In contrast, there are other Islamic Ijtihaadaat which don’t hold the same opinion but rather view that
the difference between the two realities is a matter that dictates a difference in respect to the Hukm
(ruling) (4).

[(1) Al-Majallah: Article: 28 and 29 p14015, Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (2) Usool ul-
Fiqh: Muhammad Abu Nour Az-Zuhair: 4/200, (3) Refer to the book: ‘Ad-Difaa’ Ash-Shar’iy Fil Fiqh Al-Islaamiy’, Dr.
Muhammad Sayyid Abd ut-Tawwaab: 485-487, (4) Reference to ‘Al-Wa’iy’ magazine, Beirut, 2nd year issue no. 11, Sha’baan
1409 AH, March 1989 (even though the author did not mention this speech].

The following was mentioned in the Beirut published ‘Al-Wa’iy’ magazine in the context of explaining that
the Ahaadeeth about disputing the authority by the sword, due to the appearance of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah,
are only specified to the lands that had been ruling by Islaam and not others: “So the Ahaadeeth do not
discuss the original Daar ul-Kufr and not the Daar (land) that had transformed into Kufr and settled upon
that for a long period of time. Scrutiny applied upon the context of the Hadeeth makes clear the scope of
the subject that they are discussing” (1). We would have liked from the author of this magazine article to
have presented to us the process of scrutiny that he indicated to so that we could see, through the
scrutinising of the context of the texts, that the Hukm of disputing by the sword, is a specific Hukm for
the lands that had been ruling by Islaam and then began to enter a stage of transformation to the ruling by
other than Islaam accompanied by the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah within them.

In any case, by undertaking our own careful examination and application of scrutiny to what was indicated
to, what do we find?

We find that the previous texts discuss the best A’immah (pl. of Imaam) who will be followed by the
worst. They also talk about the Khulafaa’ acting by what they know and doing what they were
commanded followed by Khulafaa who will act by what they don’t know (or acknowledge) and doing
what they have not been commanded. They discuss the situations in which hearing and obeying is
obligatory to the people of authority and the prohibition of disputation. Then there is that which makes
such disputation or contestation justified or legitimate.

Let us take a text from amongst these Shar’iyah texts representative of the rest in respect to making
distinct the angle of the transformation or moving from one situation to another one … ‘Ubaadah Bin
Saamit (ra) related:

‫ َو َعلَى‬- ‫ َو َعلَى أَثََرةٍ َعلَْي نَا‬، ‫اع ِة ِِف الْعُ ْس ِر َوالْيُ ْس ِر َوالْ َمنْ َش ِط َوالْ َمكَْرِه‬َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬ َّ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم َعلَى‬ ِ َ ‫باي عنَا رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َْ َ
‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم ِم َن اللَّ ِه فِ ِيه بُْرَها ٌن‬
ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ إََِّّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫أَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
We gave our pledge of allegiance to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon hearing and obeying in the
(time of) hardship and ease, what is pleasing and displeasing and when preference is given over
us - and upon that we do not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufr
Bawaah for which you have a Burhaan (decisive proof) from Allah (2).

Here, we are before a situation in which it is not permitted to dispute the affair (authority) of its people
(those in authority) which is then followed by the justification for disputation when it states: “Unless you
see Kufr Bawaah”. That means that we had not seen Kufr Bawaah and then we saw it. In light of this
situation of transformation, the justification for disputation has come, as indicated to by the Hadeeth.

Built upon this, the reality of the Islamic lands in which the Kufr Bawaah is witnessed in our current time,
is that the generations of this time had not previously seen the lands ruling by Islaam followed by the
appearance of the Kufr Bawaah within them. Consequently, the texts of disputation due to the appearance
of the Kufr Al-Bawaah do not apply upon them.
[(1) Majallah Al-Wa’iy: p15, (2) Mutaffaq ‘Alaihi (Mishkaat As-Sabaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086].

Indeed, this transformation in the situation took place and the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah began
amongst the generation that lived during the period of the abolition of the Islamic ruling system. The
Aqeedah of separating the Deen from the state and life was adopted and western systems of life were
imposed upon the lands when Mustafa Kemal “Ataturk” abolished the Khilafah and separated Islaam
from the state in the year 1924 C.E.

Ataturk and the abolishment of the Khilafah

In the book “The Islamic State” by Dr, Abd ur-Rasheed Abd ul-‘Azeez Saalim the following was stated:
“In became clear before all that Mustafa Kemal was on his way towards permanently abolishing the
Khilafah and indeed abolishing all manifestations of the Deen in Turkey. Therefore, two large delegations
from amongst the people of opinion in Egypt and India wanted Mustafa Kemal to appoint himself as the
‘Khalifah’ however he refused adamantly and obstinately. And on the 3rd of March 1924 he presented a
decree to the national assembly declaring the annulment of the Khilafah, the expulsion of the Khalifah
and the separation of the Deen from the state. He addressed the opposition representatives (of the
council) saying:

“We must at all costs safeguard the endangered republic and make her rise upon solid scientific bases. The
Khaleefah and the legacies of the Ottoman Family must go, the dilapidated religious courts and their laws
must be replaced by modern courts and laws, and the clerics’ schools
must concede their place to governmental secular schools” and the national assembly passed the law
without discussion (1) …

Following that, Ahmad Shawqi said about this man who had made the Kufr Al-Bawaah apparent and
whom he had praised prior to his undertaking of this heinous act:

I seek the forgiveness of the good manners (Akhlaaq) for I am not

ungrateful,
For the one who I used to defend and argue for him,
Would I say to the one who revived the community atheist?
And would I say to the one who restored the rights anarchist?

Then he spoke about the change that was brought about in the regime, the people and the society saying:

He transferred the laws and the creeds,

And people like the battalions are carried into the ground (2).

[(1) Dawlat ul-Khilafah, Dr. Abd ur-Rasheed Abd ul-‘Azeez Saalim: 190, (2) Dawlat ul-Khilafah, Dr. Abd ur-Rasheed Abd ul-
‘Azeez Saalim: 188].

This sudden new transformation and change that Mustafa Kemal brought is what the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬expressed in the statement: “Unless you see Kufr Bawaah”.

At that time, it was Waajib (obligatory) in all remaining parts of the Islamic State to rise up to fight the
authority of Mustafa Kemal due to the appearance of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah within it which had not been
present before that. In the case where those who lived in that period did not rise up and that situation
continued where most of the Islamic lands were ruled by colonialism directly with Kufr systems and
continued to be ruled by those systems after the departure of the colonialists from most of the Islamic
lands, until the time that we are currently in, then I say:
In the situation where the Kufr Al-Bawaah existing in the Islamic lands has continued and extended over
a lengthy period of time, then what we witness in terms of Kufr Bawaah (flagrant disbelief) does not
conform to the reality of that which we had not seen and then saw. Rather, we were born in such a time
(when Islaam was absent and the manifestation of Kufr Bawaah was settled). I see that the Shar’iyah texts
support this understanding in accordance to what we observed from the careful examination of their
contexts and worded expressions.

This does not mean that it is not a duty upon the Muslims today to work for the establishment of the
Islamic society, build Daar ul-Islaam, establish the Islamic state and revive the Islamic Khilafah … which
all translates to the resumption of the Islamic life.

Indeed, the illegitimacy or illegality of fighting today against the deviated situations within the Islamic does
not mean that the Muslims do not work for the resumption of the Islamic life. Rather, the work for the
return of the Islamic life represents the most important obligation obliged upon all of the Muslims.
However, its Tareeqah (method) to accomplish that is the method that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
followed to build the Islamic society, establish the Islamic state, regulate all aspects and affairs of life by
the systems of Islaam and convene the pledge to make war in the way of Allah.

The explanation of this Tareeqah (method) is the subject of the following section that deals with the use
of al-Qitaal for the establishment of the Islamic state against those who oppose it. Consequently, we will
leave our discussion of this subject to that time.

We now arrive to the final point in the discussion about the Qitaal (fighting) against the deviation of the
ruler and the Kufr Al-Bawaah.

Thirdly: Is this type of Al-Qitaal considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in the
way of Allah)?

The answer is:

- If the ruler has actually disbelieved and a force has supported him assisting him upon his Baatil
(falsehood), then the Qitaal in the way of removing him and killing him is Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah.
That is because it conforms to the fighting of the Kaafir (disbeliever) to raise the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla high. The following was mentioned in ‘Ar-RAwdah An-Nidiya’: “In sum, if the Khalifah has
disbelieved through his denial of a necessary matter from amongst the necessary matters of the Deen, it is
Halaal to fight him, indeed it is obligatory to do so and if he has not then it is not (permitted). That is
because at that time the benefit (Maslahah) of his appointment has gone and indeed his Mafsadah (harm
and corruption) is feared for in respect to the nation and fighting him would be from Al-Jihaad in the way
of Allah” (1).

The one who is killed from amongst those revolting against the Kaafir ruler would be a Shaheed (martyr)
of the Dunyaa (this life) and the Aakhirah (hereafter) and even if a Muslim who supported the Kaafir ruler
killed him. In respect to this the following was stated in ‘Al-Minhaaj; and its explanation ‘Sharh ul-
Muhtaaj’: “And the Shaheed does not have the Ghusl (washing) made upon him, he is not prayed upon
and he is the one who dies as a result of fighting the disbelievers (Al-Kuffaar)”. The circumstances
surrounding the killing of the Muslim who is considered to be a Shaaheed of the Dunyaa and the
Aakhirah as a result of fighting the disbelievers are detailed in ‘Mughni Al-Muhtaaj’ as follows: “ (It
applies equally) whether he is killed by a Kaafir (disbeliever) or he is struck by the weapon of a Muslim in
error, or by his own weapon, or fell in a well, depression or he was trampled by an animal to death, or a
rebellious Muslim employed by the people of war killed him …” (2).
Accordingly, the Murtadd (apostate) ruler comes to be from the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) and the
Muslims fighting in his ranks become Bughaah (rebels) whom the people of war depend upon for
assistance. Consequently, whoever is killed by their hands has been killed in a war against the Kaafir and is
therefore a Shaheed in the Hukm (ruling) of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah whilst this was would be
considered Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

If, however, the ruler did not apostatise from Islaam but rather committed deviations for which the
verdict of deposing him was issued and then he clings on to his position of authority and fighting takes
place with him and his supporters, then the fighting here, in this case, would be considered to be Al-Qitaal
against the Bughaah (those who have rebelled against legitimacy). It would be like the Qitaal (fighting) of
‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) with Mu’aawiyah Bin Abi Sufyaan after he deposed him from the Wilaayah of
Ash-Shaam (i.e. as the Waali) and Mu’aawiyah refused to step down from his position of authority (3).

Based upon that, this fighting would not be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah in accordance to its
terminological (Istilaahiy) meaning as we outweighed to be the strongest view earlier in the section about
fighting the Bughaah.

[(1) Rawdah An-Nidiyah: Siddeeq Hasan Al-Qanoujiy Al-Bukhaariy: 2/521, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-
Sherbeeniy: 1/350, (3) Taareekh At-Tabari: 5/10 and the pages after].

The Seventh Study

Qitaal ul-Fitnah (Fighting of disorder)

- The meaning of “Qitaal ul-Fitnah”.

- What are the Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of the “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” and what do we
outweigh to be strongest from amongst them?

- Is the Qitaal ul-Fitnah considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?

The Seventh Study

Qitaal ul-Fitnah (Fighting of disorder)

The Masaa’il (issues) that we will be treating in the subject area of Qitaal ul-Fitnah are:

- What is the meaning of “Qitaal ul-Fitnah”?

- What are the Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of the “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” and what do we
outweigh to be strongest from amongst them?
- Is the Qitaal ul-Fitnah considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?
The meaning of Qitaal ul-Fitnah:

Al-Fitnah linguistically means ‘Al-Ikhtibaar’ and ‘Al-Imtihaan’ (examination, trial and test). It has also
come with the meaning of ‘Al-Ihraaq’ (burning), ‘Ad-Dalaal Min Al-Haqq’ (misguidance from the truth)
and meanings similar to these, as have been mentioned in (the dictionary) ‘Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah’ and
others. We will not spend much time in respect to the linguistic meaning and that is because it is the
Istilaahiy (terminological) or Shar’iy meaning of the word ‘Al-Fitnah’ that concerns us when it is
connected or linked to ‘Al-Qitaal’ (fighting). For that reason, we will transmit some of the Shar’iyah texts
that will aid us to clarify the intended meaning from the statement ‘Qitaal ul-Fitnah’ or ‘Al-Qitaal Fi l-
Fitnah’.

1 - The following came in the Noble Hadeeth related by ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (ra) from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ب فِ َيها‬ ِ َّ ‫ و‬، ‫ب‬

ُ ‫الراك‬ َ َّ ‫اشي فِ َيها َخْي ٌر ِم َن‬
ِ ِ‫الراك‬ ِ ‫ والْم‬، ‫اشي‬
َ َ
ِ ‫ وَالْ َقائِم فِيها خي ر ِمن الْم‬، ‫ النَّائِم فِيها خي ر ِمن الْ َقائِ ِم‬، ‫تَ ُكو ُن فِت‬
َ َ ٌَْ َ ُ َ َ ٌَْ َ ُ ٌَ
ِ ِ
:‫ت‬ ُ ْ‫ قُل‬: ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ ق‬، " ‫ك أَيَّ ُام ا َّْلََرِج‬
َ ‫ " ذَل‬: ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ َ ‫ َوَم ََّت ذَل‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ت‬ ُ ْ‫ قُل‬،‫َلها ُكلُّ َها ِِف النَّا ِر‬
ِ
َ ْ‫ قَت‬، ‫َخْي ٌر م َن الْ ُم ْج ِري‬
: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ ِ ‫ول اللَّ ِه فَما تَأْمرِِّن إِ ْن أَدرْك‬ ِ َّ ‫ني َّل يَأْ َم ُن‬ ِ
َ ‫ت ذَل‬ُ َْ ُُ َ َ ‫ت يَا َر ُس‬ ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬: ‫ال‬َ َ‫ ق‬، " ُ‫يسه‬ َ ‫الر ُج ُل َجل‬ َ ‫ " ح‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫َوَم ََّت أَيَّ ُام ا َّْلََرِج ؟ ق‬
‫ك َو ْاد ُخ ْل َد َارَك‬ ِ
َ َ‫ف يَ َد َك َول َسان‬َّ ‫ُك‬
There will be Fitan (trials, tribulations), the one sleeping in them is better than the one standing,
the one standing in them is better than the one walking, the one walking in them is better than
the one riding and the one riding in them is better than the one running, all of their killed will be
in the fire. I asked: O Messenger of Allah, when will that me? He said: That will be in the days of
Al-Harj. He (Ibn Mas’ood) said: I said: And when will the days of Al-Harj be? He replied: When
the man does not trust the one he is sitting beside (and speaking to). He said: I said: O
Messenger of Allah, what do you command me if I was to reach that time? He said: Restrain (or
hold back) your hand and your tongue and enter your home ... (2).

[(1) Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah: Article ‫( فتن‬Faa’ Taa’ Nun), (2) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/302 and he said: Ahmad related it and its
transmitters are trustworthy].

The Fitnah here refers to the sinful fighting amongst the people involving a variety of number of factions
(“There killed will all be in the fire” i.e. from different sides). The best of people in it will be the one
who sleeps away from it, then anyone who is connected or attached to it for a reason shares a portion of
the sin whether smaller or larger depending upon the level of his concern to gather firewood for it and to
blow into its flames! That Fitnah will be the days in which the fear of the people will promise that death
will pounce upon them at any moment and at any time! In such a time, it is obligatory to act in accordance
to what the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Restrain (or hold back) your hand and your tongue and enter
your home”.

2 - From that which mentions the description of ‘Al-Fitnah’ from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬is his statement:

ِ ‫َّرو َن ِم ْن ِد َم ِاء الن‬

‫ َوَّل أ َْم َواَّلِِ ْم َشْيئًا‬، ‫َّاس‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ خي ر الن‬، ‫ظ ِش َداد‬
َ ‫ الذ‬، ‫َّاس ف َيها ُم ْسل ُمو أ َْه ِل الْبَ َوادي‬
ُ ‫ين َّل يَتَ نَد‬ ُ ْ َ ٌ ٌ ‫ت غَل‬
ِ ِ‫ستَ ُكو ُن ف‬
ٌَ َ
There will be harsh and severe Fitan (trials and tribulations). The best people in them will be the
Bedouin Muslim, those who do not become carried away in the blood of the people or in respect
to their properties (1).

3 - And his statement ‫ﷺ‬:

 ...‫املال وال َفَرج‬
ُ ‫َّم َو‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ
ُ ‫ والثَّالثَة يُ ْستَ َح َّل ف َيها الد‬,‫ َوالثَّانيَة يُ ْستَ َح َّل ف َيها الدَّم‬,‫ يُ ْستَ َح ُّل ف َيها الدَّم‬:‫ اْل ُْوََل‬,‫َسيَ ُكو ُن بَ ْعدي أ َْربَع ف َت‬
There will be four Fitan (trials and tribulations) after me. In the first, (the taking of) blood will be
sanctioned, in the second blood will be sanctioned and in the third (the violation of) blood,
property and private parts will be sanctioned … (3).
The Fitan mentioned here would include the spilling of blood, the looting or usurpation of property and
the violation of honours.

4 - From that which has described the changing situation and the disregard or unmindfulness that afflicts
the people within the Fitnah, there is the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ِ ‫ال أ‬ ِ ِ
َ ‫ ُُثَّ يَأْتِ ِيه بَ ْع َد ذَل‬، ‫َخاهُ فَيُ َسلِّ ُم َعلَْي ِه‬
‫ك‬ َ ‫َحد ُك ْم يَأِِْت أ‬
َ ُ َ‫ َما ب‬، ‫ك‬ َ ‫ َملْ ُُِي َّل ِِف الْفْت نَ ِة َشْيئًا َحَّرَمهُ قَ ْب َل ذَل‬، ‫ َعَّز َو َج َّل‬، َ‫إِ َّن اللَّه‬
ُ‫فَيَ ْقتُلُه‬
Verily, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, did not make Halaal in the Fitnah anything that He had made
Haraam prior to that. And what does one of you think about the situation that one of you
approaches his brother to say Salaam to him and then he comes after that to kill him! (4).

The Fitnah here represents a substitution in terms situations or stances and a modification in relations,
where the killing takes the place of peace and the friend of yesterday becomes the enemy of today, violates
his inviolable sanctities and makes his blood permissible!

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/304 and he said: It was related by At-Tabaraani in Al-Awsat and As-Sagheer,
(2) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/308, and he said: At-Tabaraani related it in Al-Awsat and Al-Kabeer and he
did not mention other than the three (i.e. instead of four), (3) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/298 and he said At-
Tabaraani related it].

5 - The description of Ibn ‘Umar (ra) about the condition of the people within the Fitnah when he said:

ِ ‫ِِف‬
ّ‫الفْت نَ ِة ََّل تََرْو َن ال َقْت َل َشْيئا‬
In the (time of the) Fitnah you will not see killing as anything (i.e. it will be a trivial matter)! (1).

The Fitnah here demonstrates the shaping of a people into a form that makes them used to murder (and
killing) and proceed upon it with indifference as if it is nothing or deserving or rebuke or condemnation!

6 -And the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬explained the causes of those Fitan (trials and tribulations) when he said:

ِ ِ ‫ مي‬، ‫ان‬ ِ ‫ت َك ِقطَ ِع الد‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫الس‬

ُ َُ‫الر ُج ِل الْ ُم ْؤم ِن َك َما مي‬
، ُ‫وت بَ َدنُه‬ َّ ‫ب‬ ُ ‫وت ف َيها قَ ْل‬ ُ َُ ‫ُّخ‬ َ ٌَ ‫ ف‬، ‫اعة فتَ نًا َكقطَ ِع اللَّْي ِل الْ ُمظْل ِم‬ َ ْ َ‫إِ َّن ب‬
َ َّ ‫ني يَ َد ِي‬
ٍ ‫يع فِ َيها أَقْ َو ٌام َخ ََلقَ ُه ْم َوِدينَ ُه ْم بِ َعَر‬
‫ض ِم َن الدُّنْيَا‬ ِ
ُ ِ‫ يَب‬، ‫صبِ ُح َكافًرا‬
ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ َّ ‫صبِ ُح‬
ْ ُ‫ َوميُْسي ُم ْؤمنًا َوي‬، ‫الر ُج ُل ُم ْؤمنًا َوميُْسي َكافًرا‬ ْ ُ‫ي‬
Verily, before the final hour there will be Fitan (trials) like the cutting of the dark night, Fitan like
the cutting of the smoke, the heart of the believing man will die in it just like his body dies. The
man will wake up a believer and go to sleep a disbeliever, people will sell their plentiful portion of
good and their Deen for some gain from the Dunyaa (2).

The Fitnah here makes many people attach little importance to their wealth from their honourable past
within the protected domain of the Deen and areas of good. So, they do not care about sacrificing it at the
altar of material benefits, where it (the Fitnah) deceives the dreams and the greed and desires play with the
minds, whilst material benefits of the Dunyaa regarding the leaders (masters) means authority and
influence! Whilst in respect to the lesser followers it represents the cost that is paid corresponding to the
efforts they expend to consolidate their masters, in terms of terror, murder and destruction!

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬revealed the reason for the fighting that we mentioned in respect to the masters or
leaders when he said:

ِ ِ
‫ضا‬
ً ‫ض ُه ْم بَ ْع‬ َ ‫يَ ُكو ُن بَ ْعدي قَ ْوٌم يَأْ ُخ ُذو َن الْ ُم ْل‬
ُ ‫ يَ ْقتُ ُل َعلَْيه بَ ْع‬، ‫ك‬
There will be a people after me who will take the authority and kill each other over it (3).

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/393 and he said Ahmad related it, (2) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/308 and he said: Related by Ahmad
and At-Tabaraani, (3) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/292-293 and he said: Ahmad, At-Tabaraani and Abu Ya’laa related it).

Al-Hasan Al-Basriy portrayed the reason or cause of fighting that we mentioned in respect to the
followers when explaining the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “people will sell their plentiful portion
of good and their Deen for a trivial small gain from the Dunyaa” when he (May Allah be pleased
with him) said: “We have seen them as forms and not minds, bodies and not dreams, moths over fire,
greedy wolves! They go out in the morning with two Dirham and goes out in the evening with two
Dirham, one of them will sell his Deen for the price of a goat” (1).

From these texts the meaning of the Fitnah becomes evident to us and it is:

“The illegitimate (illegal) Qitaal between two groups (Taa’ifataini) or more of the Muslims”.

This Qitaal (fighting) called ‘Qitaal ul-Fitnah’ is ‘Ghair Mashroo’’ (illegitimate or illegal) and it applies
upon realities or situations of fighting that the ‘Ulamaa have mentioned. Ash-Shawkaaniy transmitted two
of these situations from Al-Imaam An-Nawawi:

1 - The situation where the one in the right or truth (Haqq) and the one on falsehood in the fighting is not
apparent.

In such a situation, the ‘Qitaal ul-Fitnah’ would be rightfully applicable upon whoever participates in this
armed conflict whether that was due to ignorance, following of desires, tribalism (or partisanship) or any
other purpose (or reason), whilst he is unaware of the party that is on the right and the party that is upon
what is false. As for the original parties in conflict with each other, then their ruling (Hukm) would be in
respect to being the just party or group, or the rebelling group or party, which is in accordance to the
motivating factor of each resorting to the use of arms or weapons. It could be that the disputing parties
are ignorant and unaware of the causes that led them to fight against each other … Their fighting in such
circumstances would be classified as a Qitaal of Fitnah and it is obligatory for them to desist from it. It
was mentioned in the Hadeeth recorded by Muslim:

: ‫يل‬ِ ِ ِ‫ول ف‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ب الدُّنْيَا َح ََّّت يَأِِْت َعلَى الن‬ ِِ ِ ِ ِ َّ

َ ‫ ق‬، ‫يم قُت َل‬
َ ُ ُ‫ َوَّل الْ َم ْقت‬، ‫يم قَتَ َل‬َ ‫َّاس يَ ْوٌم َّل يَ ْدري الْ َقات ُل ف‬ َ ُ ‫ َّل تَ ْذ َه‬, ‫َوالذي نَ ْفسي بيَده‬
ُ ُ‫ الْ َقاتِ ُل َوالْ َم ْقت‬، ‫ ا َّْلَْر ُج‬: ‫ال‬
‫ول ِِف النَّا ِر‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ ِ
َ ‫ف يَ ُكو ُن ذَل‬ َ ‫َكْي‬
By the one in Whose hand is my soul, the Dunyaa will not go (i.e. perish) until the day will come
to the people that the killer will not know for what he has killed and the one killed will not know
the reason for being killed. It was asked: How will that come to be? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Al-Harj (2)
(disorder) and the killer and the killed will be in the fire (3).

2 - The situation where the two parties in conflict with each other are both oppressors, and there is no
interpretation for one of them (4).
[(1) Majma’ Az-Zwaa’id: 7/308 and he said: Related by Ahmad and At-Tabaraani in Awsat, (2) Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet: 1/220:
“Haraja n-Naas, Yah’rijoon: They fell into Fitnah, confusion and killing!” and in Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah: “Al-Harj: Al-Fitnah
…”, (3) Nail Al-Awtaar: 7/51. Hadeeth no. in Saheeh Muslim: 2908, 4/2231 and refer to Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/31-34, (4) Nail Al-
Awtaar: 5/369. Refer to As-Sail Al-Jaraar: 4/556 and Subul us-Salaam: 4/52].

3 - In Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i a third case was mentioned and this was expressed by Al-Kaasaaniy when he
said:

“It was related from Abu Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, that if (or when) Al-Fitnah takes
place amongst the Muslims, the man must isolate himself from the Fitnah and confine himself to his
house, which is applied upon a particular time and that is that an Imaam has not called him to the Qitaal
(to take part in the fighting). If it like that and he has called him then it is obligatory for him to respond”
(1).

4 - Ash-Shawkaaniy mentioned a fourth case or situation which is: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) seeking the Mulk
(authority)” (2) i.e. the illegitimate struggle against the Sultah (authority).

These are the situations upon which the name ‘Qitaal ul-Fitnah’ applies and these have been summarised
in our statement: “The illegitimate (or illegal) fighting between two or more parties of the Muslims”.

The Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of the “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” and
what do we outweigh to be strongest from amongst them

In relation to this point we will first mention the role of the people of Islaah (rectification or
reconciliation) from those who possess the (weight of) word and influence and then secondly, we will
mention the legal ruling (Hukm) of the Qitaal of Al-Fitnah in line with the different conditions or
circumstances of the people.

Firstly: The role of Ahl ul-Islaah (people of rectification or reconciliation)

When fighting has broken out between two factions from them, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has tasked the
believers to strive to reach a truce between them and to put out the fire that has been set ablaze between
the two sides. That has come in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫َصلِ ُحوا بَْي نَ ُه َما‬ ِِ ِِ ِ

َ ‫َوإِن طَائ َفتَان م َن الْ ُم ْؤمن‬
ْ ‫ني اقْ تَتَ لُوا فَأ‬
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement (Islaah) between the two (Al-Hujuraat: 9).

And At-Tabaraani related from Hameed Bin Hilaal that he said: “When the Fitnah stirred ‘Umraan Bin
Husain said to Hujair Bin Ar-Rabee’ Al-‘Adawiy: Go to your people and forbid them from the Fitnah. He
said: There amongst them those who are immersed (in it) and I will not be obeyed! He said: So inform
them from me and forbid them from it…” (3).

If a truce or reconciliation is subsequently made between them it is all well and good. However, if one of
the two factions or sides is upon the Haqq (truth and right) whilst the other is Baaghiy (rebelling or
aggressing illegitimately), then it is obligatory (Waajib) to support the side that is from amongst the people
of justice over the other side and to fight alongside its ranks. That is Allah Ta’Aalaa has said:

‫ُخَر ٰى فَ َقاتِلُوا الَِِّت تَ ْبغِي َح َّ َّٰت تَِفيءَ إِ َ َٰل أ َْم ِر اللَّ ِه‬ ُ ‫ت إِ ْح َد‬
ْ ‫اُهَا َعلَى ْاْل‬ ْ َ‫فَِإن بَغ‬
But if one of them aggresses against the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of
Allah (Al-Hujuraat: 9).
[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: 7:140 and refer to Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/31, (2) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/370, Al-Qastalaaniy
‘Alaa Al-Bukhaari: 10/174 and Fat’h ul-Baari’: 12/197 and 13/31, (3) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/299 and he
said: Related by At-Tabaraani and its transmitters are Saheeh].

If, however, both factions or sides are illegitimate aggressors and the state is capable of fighting against
them both and of subjugating them both, it is obligatory for it to do that to stop the fighting between
them. That is whilst it is not permissible to cooperate with one of the two over the other because both are
in error.

The author of Al-Muhadh’dhab’ said: “If he was not capable of subjugating them both and was not
assured that they would not join forces together to fight against him, he would then join himself to the
side that is closest to the Haqq. If they are the same in respect to that, he performs Ijtihaad in respect to
his opinion about joining one of them to himself. By that he does not intend to seek to cooperate with
one against the other but rather seeks to seek assistance by it against the other. Then if the other is
defeated he does not fight the one he joined to himself until so that he calls them to obedience and that is
because they came to be in his security through his seeking of assistance by them” (1).

The above relates to when there is an Islamic state in existence and when the state is not one of the two
sides or factions involved in the fighting.

As for the situation when the Islamic state is one of the two parties in the dispute and the leadership in
the position of leadership is Shar’iy (legally legitimate), then it is obligatory to support the one in authority.

The following was mentioned in ‘Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan’: “Related from Maalik: If a rebel rebels against the
Imaam it is obligatory to repel him, (an Imaam) like ‘Umar Ibn Abdul ‘Azeez. As for other than him, then
leave him. Allah will avenge a Zhaalim (oppressor) with a Zhaalim like him, and then avenge both of
them” (2).

By ‘other than ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Azeez’ Al-Imaam Maalik means the one who has usurped the authority
due to his (following) statement: “As for those (meaning the usurpers of the authority), they have no
Bai’ah (pledge) belonging to them and they were given the Bai’ah (pledge) out of fear” (3). And we will
discuss the usurper of the authority later in its section Inshaa’ Allah.

[(1) Takmilah Al-Majmoo’: 19/195, (2) Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan, Ibn Al-Arabiy: 4/1709, (3) Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan: 4/1709].

However, in the situation where there is no Islamic state where there does not exist within the lands a
Shar’iy (legally legitimate) authority according to the Islamic understanding, then the internal fighting, in
this situation, is representative of the third case of the fighting of Fitnah as explained previously. It is the
situation mentioned by that author of ‘Bada’i As-Sanaa’i’ when he said: “It was related from Abu
Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, that if (or when) Al-Fitnah takes place amongst the Muslims,
the man must isolate himself from the Fitnah and confine himself to his house, which is applied upon a
particular time and that is that an Imaam has not called him to the Qitaal (to take part in the fighting). If it
like that and he has called him then it is obligatory for him to respond” (1).

This was also the opinion held by Al-Awzaa’iy in relation to when the Qitaal (fighting) is between two
factions who do not have an Imaam, in which case the fighting is forbidden (2). The impact of the
presence or absence of the Imaam here, becomes manifest in the case where in respect to the fighting
between the two factions, it is only the Imaam who decides and determines which of the two is the
wrongful aggressor who must be repelled and which of the two is on the right and is obligatory to be
supported and fought alongside. If there is no Imaam to determine and decide that, then each of the two
factions will have a group of Muslims joining them and the fighting between the two sides will continue. It
is for this reason that this Qitaal is the Qitaal of Al-Fitnah as there is no judgment from the Imaam; the
one who has the legitimate power and jurisdiction, to define the faction that is obligatory to be fought. In
the situation of such fighting it is not permitted for the person to participate in it unless it was for the
purpose of defending himself (or his life) if something harmful or bad is intended for him, as will be
explained in the next part.

Secondly: What is the Hukm of the Qitaal (fighting) in the situation of the Fitnah, in all of its
circumstances and upon the different realities or conditions of the people?

This Mas’alah (issue) is focused upon two points:

The first point: The Hukm relate to the Muslim participating in the Qitaal (fighting) taking place between
the contesting or struggling sides.

The second point: The Hukm related to the Muslim defending what he has a right to defend if harm or
bad is intended for him from the contesting parties.

We have only focused our discussion upon these two points so that the Fiqhiy opinions can be made clear
before us in respect to each point, separately. That is because the Fiqhiy sources mix between the fighting
of the Bughaah (those rebelling against the legitimate authority), the Qitaal As-Siyaal (fighting against
those aggressing against private sanctities) and the Qitaal ul-Fitnah (3). They also sometimes mix between
the situation of participation in the Qitaal and the case of defending that which the Muslim has the right
to defend in terms of blood, property and honour. For these reasons, it is necessary to distinguish
between all of these matters.

[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: 7/140, (2) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aamiy: 4/39-40. Fat’h ul-Baari’, Al-Asqalaaniy: 13/31, (3) Refer to:
‘Mushkilat Al-‘Unf Fil ‘Amal Al-Islaamiy’, Jawdat Sa’eed: p11-12].

As for the first point relating to the Hukm (legal ruling) of the Muslim participating in the Qitaal taking
place between the fighting factions in the Qitaal ul-Fitnah, then what has been extracted from the
different Fiqhiy opinions compiled by Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy (1) and then by Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy,
from a number of different dispersed sources, is that the opinions are agreed upon the Wujoob
(obligation) to abandon the fighting in the situation of Al-Fitnah. That is if we remove from that fighting
the subject of fighting of As-Siyaal (i.e. the situation of defending the self and what is similar) and the
subject of Qitaal Al-Bughaat (fighting against rebels against the legitimate authority) (2). It is natural for
the Fiqhiy opinions to be in agreement over this point due to the Hurmah (inviolability) of the blood of
the Muslims which has been firmly established within the Shar’iyah texts. That is like the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ِ‫س الَِِّت َحَّرَم اللَّهُ إََِّّل ب‬

‫اْلَ ِّق‬ َ ‫َوََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا النَّ ْف‬
And do not kill the person (life) which Allah has forbidden, except by right (Al-Israa’: 33).

And like the speech of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ِ ِ
ُ ‫ُك ُّل الْ ُم ْسل ِم َعلَى الْ ُم ْسل ِم َحَر ٌام َد ُمهُ َوع ْر‬
ُ‫ضهُ َوَمالُه‬
Every Muslim in respect to the Muslim is Haraam (i.e. prohibited to violate): His blood, His
honour and his property (3).

The circumstances of the Fitnah are not from amongst the justifications for the removal of the sanctity or
inviolability of the Muslim. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said:
 ِ ِ
َ ‫ َملْ ُُِي َّل ِِف الْفْت نَ ِة َشْيئًا َحَّرَمهُ قَ ْب َل ذَل‬، ‫ َعَّز َو َج َّل‬، َ‫إِ َّن اللَّه‬
‫ك‬
Verily, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, has not made Halaal in the (situation or time) of Al-Fitnah, anything
that He had made Haraam (prohibited) prior to that (4).

Indeed, Shar’yah texts have come relate specifically to the circumstance of Al-Fitnah which reiterate that it
is obliged upon the Muslim to abandon fighting within it, in a variety of forms of reiteration.

They include:

- The command to keep away from the battle field of the fighting and to disappear from the sight of
people as much as possible. That is like the person sticking to the confines of home where he is forgotten.
Not a sound or voice of his is heard nor is his opinion mentioned. That is because how often are flames
fuelled, set alight and made to last for longer due to the eagerness or ardent desire of the influential people
who are listened to, to have a voice that is listened to within the domain of the fighting! Within this
context of keeping distance from the Fitnah Ahaadeeth have come like:

‫َْخلوا ِذ ْكَرُك ْم‬

ِْ ‫أ ُْدخلُوا ب بوتِ ُكم وأ‬
ْ ُُ ُ
Enter your homes and make (any) mention of you be forgotten (i.e. make yourself disappear) (5).

- From amongst the styles of reiterating the leaving of the fighting in the Fitnah, is the command to busy
oneself with their private individual matters. It was mentioned in some of the narrations from the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬that:

ِ ِِ
‫ض فَلْيَ لْ َح ْق‬ ْ َ‫ َوَم ْن َكان‬، ‫ت لَهُ غَنَ ٌم فَلْيَ لْ َح ْق بِغَنَ ِمه‬
ٌ ‫ت لَهُ أ َْر‬ ْ َ‫ َوَم ْن َكان‬، ‫ فَ َم ْن َكا َن لَهُ إِبِ ٌل فَلْيَ لْ َح ْق بِإِبِله‬، ‫ت‬ ْ َ‫فَإِذَا نََزل‬
ْ ‫ت أ َْو َوقَ َع‬
‫بِأ َْر ِض ِه‬
So, if it descends or befalls (i.e. Fitnah), then whoever has a camel, then he should attach himself
to his camel, and whoever has a sheep, then he should attach himself to his sheep, and whoever
has a (piece of) land, then he should attach himself to his land (7).

[(1) Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy, author of Subul us-Salaam, born in 1099 and passed away in 1182 AH, Subul us-Salaam: 1/1, and
Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy, author of Nail Al-Awtaar, born in 1172 and passed away in 1250 AH, Nail Al-Awtaar: 1/3, (2)
Subul As-Salaam: 4/39-40 and Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369-370, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 2564, 4/1986, (4) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/298
and he said: Related by At-Tabaraani, (5) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/303 and he said: Related by At-Tabaraani, (6) Mustadrak Al-
Haakim: 4/440-441 and Adh-Dhahabiy said: “I said: It is Saheeh”].

- Another form of reiteration came in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal related from the Sahaabiy
Khath’am who was speaking to a man from Ash-Shaam when he said:

ِ ‫ وِهي فِي ُكم يا أ َْهل الش‬، ‫الصْي لَم‬

‫ فَإِ ْن أ َْد َرْكتَ َها‬، ‫َّام‬ ِ ِ ِ ٍ َ ِ‫يَ ُكو ُن ِِف َه ِذهِ ْاْل َُّم ِة ْخَْس ف‬
َ َ ْ َ َ ُ َّ ‫ َوه َي‬، ٌ‫ت َواح َدة‬ ْ َ‫ت أ َْربَ ٌع َوبَقي‬
ْ‫ض‬َ ‫ فَ َق ْد َم‬، ‫ت‬ ُ
ِ
ِ ‫ أَََّل فَ َّاَت ْذ نَ َف ًقا ِِف ْاْل َْر‬، ‫ني‬ ِ ٍ ِ
‫ض‬ ِ ْ ‫ وََّل تَ ُك ْن َم َع واحد من الْ َف ِري َق‬، ُ‫ت أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن َح َجرا فَ ُكْنه‬
َ َ َ ً ْ ‫فَِإ ْن‬
َ ‫استَطَ ْع‬
There will be five Fitan (pl. of Fitnah) in this Ummah. Four of them have passed and one
remains. They are As-Saylam (1), and this is amongst you O people of Ash-Shaam, so if it is
possible for you to be like a rock then be so and do not be amongst one of the two sides. Indeed,
you should dig a tunnel in the ground (to stay in)!
It was asked: Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ?ﷺ‬He replied: Yes (2).
- Another of these styles of reiteration in respect to distancing and isolating from the Qitaal in the Fitnah
has come in informing of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that both the killer and the killed are in the fire. In a Hadeeth
collected by Al-Bazzaar the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ُ ُ‫إِذَا اقْ تَتَ ْلتُ ْم َعلَى الدُّنْيَا فَالْ َقاتِ ُل َوالْ َم ْقت‬
‫ول ِِف النَّا ِر‬
If you have fought against each other over the Dunyaa then the killer and the killed are in the fire
(3).

The fighting over the Dunyaa is the fighting between two rebellious transgressing factions and that is a
case from amongst the cases of the fighting if the Fitnah, as mentioned previously.

- Another of the styles utilised by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to reiterate isolation from the fighting of
the Fitnah, is the command to damage or break the weapon. This represents an exaggeration in urging the
distancing from the fighting so that the presence of the weapon does not entice it being used in this type
of sinful fighting! Muhammad Bin Maslamah related that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ َّ‫ ُُث‬، ‫ ح ََّّت ي ْن َك ِسر‬، ‫اض ِرب ِِبا‬ ِ

‫س ِِف‬
ْ ‫اجل‬
ْ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ َ‫ ف‬، ‫ص ْخَرة ِف ا ْْلََّرة‬
ِ ِ ٍ َ ‫ك َعلَى أ َْعظَ ِم‬ ْ َ‫َّاس يَ ْقتَتِلُو َن َعلَى الدُّنْيَا ف‬
َ ‫اع َم ْد بِ َسْيف‬ َ ْ‫إِذَا َرأَي‬
َ ‫ت الن‬
ِ َ‫اطئَةٌ أَو منِيَّةٌ ق‬
ِ ‫ك ي ٌد خ‬ ِ َ ِ‫بَْيت‬
ٌ‫اضيَة‬ َ ْ َ َ َ َ‫ك َح ََّّت تَأْتي‬
If you see the people fighting each other over the Dunyaa then take your sword to the greatest
rock in the rocky area and strike it until it is breaks. Then remain (sitting) in your house until the
sinful hand or your destined death comes to you (4).

In some of the narrations that discuss the fighting in the time of Al-Fitnah it is mentioned:

‫َك ِّس ُروا فِيها قِسيَّ ُك ْم‬

Break your bows in it (i.e. the time of Fitnah) (5).

It is said: That the intended purpose of this breaking is literal (Haqeeqiy) in order to close the door to
oneself from the Qitaal (fighting).

And it is (also) said: That it is Majaaz (metaphorical) and the intended meaning is for the fighting to be
left. An-Nawawi said: That the first view is correct (6).

I say: The determination of Al-Imaam An-Nawawi regarding the breaking of the bow and the sword being
Haqeeqiy (literal) and not Mjaaziy (metaphorical) is based upon the linguistic and Shar’iyah principle that
states: ‘Al-Asl Fil Kalaam Al-Haqeeqah’ (The original position in respect to the speech is the literal) (7)
when there are not connotations (Qaraa’in) present diverting it from the literal meaning to the
metaphorical meaning.

[(1) Its meaning is ‫( اِسْ ِت ْئصال‬annihilation or eradication) and the intended meaning is the most severe of Fitan, (2) Musnad
Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 5/73, (3) Nail Al-Awtaar: 7/50, (4) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/300 and he said: It was related by At-Tabaraani
in Al-Awsat and its transmitters are trustworthy or reliable (Thiqqaat), (5)Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/ 369, (6) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369, (7)
Al-Majallah: Article 12, p13 and Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah, An-Nadawiy: p186].

However, it appears to me that there are connotations (Qaraa’in) that divert this expression from the
Haqeeqiy (literal) meaning to the Majaazi (metaphorical) meaning. One of these is that the breaking or
damaging of the weapon means damaging or breaking the property whilst there is a Nahi (forbiddance) in
respect to squandering the property (1).
In addition, it is necessary to hold on to one’s weapon to use it doe Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah and to
defend the Muslims and the Muslim lands if the enemy attacks. It is also to use it in internal or domestic
fighting that is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) like fighting the Muhaarabah (highway robbers), the Baghiy
(one who rebels against the legitimate authority) and to take the Sufahaa’ (impudent criminals looking to
take advantage) to task! At-Tabari said: “If it was Waajib, at the time of every difference (or dispute)
amongst the Muslims, to flee from it, keep to the houses and break the swords, then the Haqq will not be
established and the Baatil will not be falsified, the people of evils will be free to commit the Muharramaat
(prohibitions) in terms of taking property, shedding blood and enslaving women, if they are not fought
and the Muslims hold back their hands. And they say: This is Fitnah and we have been forbidden to fight
in the Fitnah, whilst this is contrary to the command to take the Sufahaa’ (impudent criminals looking to
take advantage) to task” (2).

Consequently, the obligation to use weapons in circumstances in which its usage is legitimate in the Shar’a
is a Qareenah (connotation) that diverts the Haqeeqiy meaning to the Majaaziy (literal to metaphoric).

In respect to what we have quoted from At-Tabari, it should not be understood that At-Tabari is
permitting the Qitaal in the situation of Al-Fitnah but rather that there are types of Qitaal amongst
Muslims which are necessary and consequently it is obligatory to hold onto the weapons and not destroy
them, so that they can be used in the legitimate fighting. This understanding of ours is supported by what
was mentioned in ‘Subul us-Salaam’: “And At-tabari said that denying (Inkaar) of the Munkar is Waajib
upon the one who is capable to do that. Therefore, the one who helps the one who is in the right is
correct and the one who assists the one on falsehood is wrong. If the matter is not, clear then that is the
situation in which fighting has been forbidden in it” (3). We have previously explained that the time of
ambiguity represents one of the situations of the Qitaal ul-Fitnah.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 1477 by the numbering of Fu’aad Abdul Baaqi and in Fat’h ul-Baari’: 3/340, (2)
Nail Al-Awtaar: 7/50-51 and the text of At-Tabari is found within Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/34, (3) Subul us-
Salaam: 4/39-40].

Our understanding in respect to the intended meaning of the command to break or destroy the weapons
being Majaazi (metaphorical) is reaffirmed and strengthened by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬using
another metaphorical style when he guided to replacing the regular normal swords with wooden swords in
the time or situation of Al-Fitnah. It was mentioned in some narrations that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded
Al-Hakam Bin ‘Amr to take up a wooden sword in the days of the Fitan (1). I say: Even if this Saahabiy
had actually taken up a wooden sword, as was mentioned in the report of At-Tabaraani, then that does
not indicate that he broke his sword and destroyed all his fighting equipment which he owned. Indeed, his
statement to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra): “I took a sword made of wood” (2) could be considered to represent
a metaphorical expression reflective of his decision to keep away and isolated from the Qitaal (fighting)
just as it could mean the literal meaning of this speech. Whatever the case, there is no Dalaalah
(indication) within it indicating the destruction of the fighting weapons.

Indeed, styles exaggerating the usage of the Kinaayah and Majaaz (i.e. metaphoric expressions) have come
in some of the narrations about avoiding the Qitaal in the Fitnah. It was related that some of the Sahaabah
said regarding this:

ِ ِ ‫ " تَك‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ول اللَّ ِه ؟ ق‬

‫ فَِإ ْن‬: ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬، " ‫ُخَرى‬
ْ ‫ " تَكْس ُر اْل‬: ‫ال‬
ِ ‫ " تَك‬: ‫ال‬
‫ْس ُر‬ ْ َ‫ فَإِ ْن ُجِِب‬: ‫ت‬
َ َ‫ت ؟ ق‬ ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬، " ‫ُخَرى‬ ْ ‫ " تَكْس ُر اْل‬: ‫ال‬
ٌ‫ أ َْو ِميتَة‬، ٌ‫اطئَة‬
ِ ‫ك ي ٌد خ‬ ِ
َ َ َ َ‫ " َح ََّّت تَأْتي‬: ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ت ؟ ق‬ْ ‫ فَإِ ِن ْاَنَبَ َر‬: ‫ت‬
ُ ْ‫ قُل‬: ‫ال‬َ َ‫ ق‬، " ‫ْس ُر يَ َد َك‬ َ ‫صنَ ُع يَا َر ُس‬
ْ َ‫ف ن‬َ ‫فَ َكْي‬
ِ ِ ‫ " تَك‬: ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ت ؟ ق‬ ْ ‫ فَإِ ِن ْاَنَبَ َر‬: ‫ت‬ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬، " ‫ك‬ َ َ‫ْس ُر ِر ْجل‬ َ َ‫ت ؟ ق‬ ْ َ‫ُجِِب‬
َ َ‫ َح ََّّت َم ََّت ؟ ق‬: ‫ت‬ ُ ْ‫ قُل‬، " ‫ُخَرى‬
ِ
ْ ‫ " تَكْس ُر اْل‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ت ؟ ق‬ ْ َ‫ فَإِ ْن ُجِِب‬: ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬، " ‫ك‬ َ َ‫ِر ْجل‬
ِ َ‫ق‬
ٌ‫اضيَة‬
 So how should we act O Messenger of Allah (i.e. in the time of Al-Fitnah)? He said: Break your
hand. He (the narrator) said: I asked: And if it mends? He said: Break the other. I said: And if it
mends? Break your leg. I asked: And then if it mends? He said: Break the other. I said: Until
when? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Until the sinful hand or the destined death comes to you (3).

I believe that there is no need to make effort to deduce here that what is intended by these worded
expressions is the Majaazi (metaphoric) meaning. That is as there is nothing, as far as I know, that guides
to ways of keeping away from hazards being represented in the act of putting body parts out of service to
avoid falling into those hazards!!!

We therefore find that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬strongly reiterated the leaving of Al-Qitaal in the time
or situation of Al-Fitnah utilising a variety of styles to do that. By that we have come to the end of the
first point which was: The Hukm of the Muslim participating with the fighting factions in the Qitaal of Al-
Fitnah.

As for the second point, then it is:

The Hukm (legal ruling) of the Muslim defending that which he has a right to defend if harm is intended
for him from the fighting factions in the Qitaal Al-Fitnah.

There are two Fiqhiy opinions about this point summarised as follows:

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/301 and he said: At-Tabaraani related it, (2) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 7/301, (3) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id:
7/301 and he said: At-Tabaraani related it in Al-Awsat].

The First opinion: The Tahreem (prohibition) of defending oneself.

The author of Nail-Al-Awtaar (Ash-Shawkaaniy) said: “A group said: He (the Muslim) does not fight in
the Fitan (trials and tribulations) of the Muslims. Even if they enter his house and seek to kill him it is not
permissible to defend himself. That is because the one seeking has a Ta’weel (interpretation or semblance
of a justification). This is Madh’hab (i.e. opinion) of Abu Bakrah, the Sahaabiy, amongst others” (1).

We will now pause to examine the expression “Because the one seeking has a Ta’weel”:

Therefore, this opinion, which is the impermissibility to defend the self is specific to the case or situation
when the aggressor has a Ta’weel (interpretation or reasoning), or a Shubhah Daleel (semblance of an
evidence) in respect to making permissible fighting the one he is aggressing against. In such a case, it is
obligatory to surrender and not to resist by repelling the aggression or assault. The understanding
(Mafhoom) of this reasoning (Ta’leel) is: That the aggressor in the context of the Qitaal ul-Fitnah does not
have a Ta’weel (interpretation or semblance of justification) as the fighting would be the sake of the
Dunyaa (i.e. material gain), ‘Asabiyah (tribalism or partisanship) or some other similar motive.
Consequently, this first opinion does not even say that it is obligatory to surrender and that it is prohibited
to defend oneself.

The author of Subul us Salaam mentioned this first opinion without reasoning that the ‘one seeking’ has a
Ta’weel (interpretation or semblance of a justification). However, despite that, he described the opinion of
the one who states that it is obligatory to surrender to the aggression as a Shaadh (odd) opinion (2).

It was this opinion, related to the prohibition of defending oneself in the situation or time of the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah, that was stated in the Beirut based Al-Wa’iy magazine when it called the Muslims fighting against
each other to leave the Qitaal and even if it was in self-defence because their fighting was the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah (3).
The second opinion: The legal legitimacy to defend oneself in the (time of) the Qitaal ul-Fitnah.

The following was mentioned in Nail Al-Awtaar: “Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Umraan Husain and others said: He (i.e.
the Muslim) does not enter (or involve himself) in it (i.e. the Fitan of the Muslims) however if someone
intends harm to him then he repels that person.

An-Nawawi said: “These two Madh’habs (opinions) i.e. the Madh’hab stating the illegitimacy or illegality
of defending oneself and the Madh’hab stating its legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah), have agreed upon not
getting involved in all of the Fitan of the Muslims” (4).

[(1) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369, (2) Subul us-Salaam: 4/39-40, (3) The title of the article was: “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” addressing the
fighting that took place in Lebanon between Hizb ul-‘Umaal and Hezbollah in 1979, (4) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369-370, Al-
Qastalaaniy ‘Ala ul-Bukhaari: 10/174. And refer to what An-Nawawi said in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim 10/350-351 about the
explanation of the Hadeeth “Verily there will be Fitan…” no. 2887 Saheeh Muslim, 4/2214].

This means that An-Nawawi distinguished between the fighting of Al-Fitnah which is illegal and the
fighting to protect oneself at the time of the Qitaal ul-Fitnah. As such, in this Mas’alah (Shar’iy issue) there
are two Madh’habs (i.e. opinions), as he said.

Ash-Shawkaaniy also mentioned these two Madh’habs or opinions as having been mentioned by Al-
Qurtubi when he said: “And from them there is the one who said: He leaves the fighting and even if it is
intended to kill him he does not defend himself. And from them there is the one who said: He defends
himself (i.e. life), his property and his family. He is excused, whether he kills or is killed” (2).

The Daleel (evidence) for the first opinion in respect to the illegality of defending oneself in the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah are the Ahaadeeth that have come forbidding the Qitaal ul-Fitnah. We have already mentioned
many of these and they include that which was related by Abu Mousaa Al-Ash’ariyَfrom the Messenger of
Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َح ِد ُك ْم بَْيتُهُ فَ ْليَ ُك ْن َك َخ ِْري‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ْ ‫ َك ِّسروا فِيها قِسيَّ ُكم وقَطِّعوا أَوتَارُكم و‬:‫ال ِِف الْ ِفْت ن ِة‬
َ ‫اض ِربُوا ب ُسيُوف ُك ُم اْل َج َارةَفَإِ ْن ُدخ َل َعلَى أ‬ ْ َ ْ ُ َْ ُ َ َ ّ‫أَنَّهُ ق‬
‫آدم‬
َ ‫ابْ َ ِْن‬
That he said in respect to the Fitnah: Break your bows in it, cut your strings and strike your
swords on the rocks. Then if one of your homes is entered into, then be like the best of the two
sons of Aadam (2).

There is in addition to this, that which was related from Khaalid Bin ‘Arfatah as recorded by Ahmad, Al-
Haakim, At-Tabaraani and Ibn Qaani’ with the Lafzh (wording):

‫ فَافْ َع ْل‬، ‫ ََّل الْ َقاتِ َل‬، ‫ول‬

َ ُ‫استَطَ ْعت أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن َعْب َد اللَّ ِه الْ َم ْقت‬ ٌ ‫اختِ ََل‬ ِ ِ
ْ ‫ فَإِ ْن‬، ‫ف‬ ْ ‫اث َو‬
ٌ ‫َح َد‬
ْ ‫ َوأ‬، ‫َستَ ُكو ُن فْت نَةٌ بَ ْعدي‬
There will be a Fitnah after me, incidents and difference (disagreement). So, if you can be the
slave of Allah who is killed and not the killer, then do so (3).

The Daleel for the second opinion, stating the legitimacy of defending oneself in the time or situation of
the Qitaal ul-Fitnah, is found within the Ahaadeeth related to repelling the Saa’il (the one who aggresses
against the private sanctities: life, honour and property). They made these Ahaadeeth specifying to the
Ahaadeeth that forbid the fighting in the time or situation of the Fitnah.

These Ahaadeeth include:

ِ ‫ أَو تُ ْقتَل فَتَ ُكو ُن ِمن ُشه َد ِاء‬،‫ك‬

‫اْلخَرة‬ ِ
َ ‫قَاتِ ْل ُدون َمال‬
َ ْ َ ْ َ َ‫وز َمال‬ َ ‫ك َح ََّّت ََت‬
 Fight in defence of your property until you take possession of your property or you are killed. In
which case, you will be from the martyrs of the Aakhirah (4).

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of his property, then he is Shaheed (5).

[(1) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369-370, (2) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/368. Refer to the Hadeeth in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 4259, 4/141 and
Al-Albaaniy said: Saheeh in his ‘Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud’: 3578, 3/801, (3) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/369 and refer to the Hadeeth in
the Musnad of Ahmad: 5/292 and the Mustadrak of Al-Haakim: 4/17 with different beginnings in their wordings. Al-Haakim
said: This was related by Ali Bin Zaid Al-Qrashiy from Abu Uthmaan Al-Hindi alone or uniquely (Tafarrud) and they (i.e. Al-
Bukhaari and Muslim) did not use him as a source of proof. That is whilst Adh-Dhahabiy was silent over him, (4) Kanz ul-
Ummaal: 11173, 4/415, (5) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2480 according to the numbering of Fu’aad Abdul Baaqi].

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌدَ َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن أ َْهلِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َد ِم ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬
Whoever is killed in defence of his property, then he is a Shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed in
defence of his people (family) then he is Shaheed and whoever is killed in defence of his blood
(i.e. himself) then he is Shaheed (1).

And:

‫يب ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهيد‬ ِ

َ ‫َوَم ْن أُص‬
And whoever is afflicted in defence of his Deen then he is Shaheed (2).

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمظْلَ َمتِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice against him then he is Shaheed (3).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “Ibn ul-Mundhir narrated from Ash-Shaafi’iy that he said: Whoever’s property, life
or womenfolk are being sought, then he can fight and no compensation, blood money or expiation is
obliged upon him. Ibn ul-Mundhir said: And what the people of knowledge are upon, is that the man has
the right to defend himself from what has been mentioned if oppression is sought, without detail (or
restriction). However, all those whom (knowledge) is taken from, amongst the Ulamaa’ of the Hadeeth,
are agreed upon the exception of the Sultaan (legitimate ruler) due to the reports that have commanded
patience in the face of his injustice (or oppression) and not standing up against him…” (4).

Therefore, the Ahaadeeth about repelling the Saa’il (one who aggresses against the private sanctities) are
only specified by the Ahaadeeth about having patience in the face of the Sultaan’s oppression and they are
not specified by the Ahaadeeth that forbid fighting in the time or situation of Al-Fitnah. It is also
understood from their quoting of the Ahaadeeth about As-Siyaal in relation to the subject of the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah, that this indicates that they were specifying the Ahaadeeth of fighting in Al-Fitnah with the
Ahaadeeth of As-Siyaal and not the opposite. The previous statement of Ibn ul-Mundhir: “And what the
people of knowledge are upon, is that the man has the right to defend himself from what has been
mentioned if oppression is sought, without detail (or restriction)” followed by the exception of the Sultaan
(ruler) alone, is an evidence for what we have mentioned.

The opinion that we view to be strongest:

It appears to me that the Ahaadeeth about forbidding the Qitaal (fighting) in the (situation of) Fitnah
contain a statement that the Muslim should take the stance of the better of the two sons of Aadam,
Haabeel who was killed by his brother Qaabeel. That is because it was mentioned in the previous
Hadeeth:
 ِ ‫فَإِ ْن د ِخل علَى أ‬
َ ‫َحد ُك ْم بَْيتُهُ فَلْيَ ُك ْن َك َخ ِْري ابْ َ ِْن‬
‫آدم‬ َ َ َ ُ
Then if one of your homes is entered into, then be like the best of the two sons of Aadam

[(1) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 3/266, (2) the previous references, (3) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 1/305, (4) Nail Al-Awtaar: 5/367
and Subul us-Salaam: 3/262].

In addition, the stance taken by Haabeel has been differed upon in terms of understanding. Was it
surrendering to being killed or was it abstaining from initiating the killing and that he was resolved to
defend himself but was killed by way of assassination (or unawares)? In respect to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ٍِ ِ ِ
َ َ‫ك ِْلَقْ تُ ل‬
‫ك‬ َ ‫ي إِلَْي‬ ََّ ِ‫طت إ‬
َ ‫َل يَ َد َك لتَ ْقتُ لَِِن َما أَنَا ببَاسط يَد‬
ِ
َ ‫لَئن بَ َس‬
If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you (Al-Maa’idah: 28).

In respect to this Aayah, the following was mentioned in the Tafseer of An-Nasafiy: “It is said: That he
(i.e. Haabeel) was stronger and more powerful than the killer but refrained from killing his brother and he
surrendered to him out of fear of Allah Ta’Aalaa and that is because the defence was not permissible at
that time. And it is (also) said: That indeed it (the defence of one’s life) was obligatory and that it (i.e. the
act of surrendering and not defending) included the perishing of his life and sharing in the sin of the killer.
That the meaning of: “I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you” is only that I will not initiate that
like what you (Qaabeel) intend in respect to me. Haabeel had been intent on defending himself if his
brother attempted to kill him and he was only killed by way of assassination at a moment of carelessness
from him” (1).

Consequently, we observe that there is a difference in respect to understanding the stance of Haabeel
which the Hadeeth guided us to emulate him regarding in relation to the fighting of the situation of Al-
Fitnah.

It was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy: “It was related from As-Sayyid Al-Murtadaa that the
Aayah is not in the place of dispute because the ‘Laam’ (‫ )ل‬joined to the verb of killing is the ‘Laam Kay’
(َْ‫ (ال ُمَ َكي‬and it denotes the will and purpose and there is no doubt in respect to the ugliness of that, first
and lastly. That is because the one defending only sees it good to defend against the oppressor in an
attempt to escape from the situation without intending to kill him. It is like saying: If you had not
oppressed (or wronged) me, I would not have wronged you” (2).

The following came in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy:

ِ ٍِ ِ ِ
َ َ‫ك ِْلَقْ تُ ل‬
‫ك‬ َ ‫ي إِلَْي‬ ََّ ِ‫طت إ‬
َ ‫َل يَ َد َك لتَ ْقتُ لَِِن َما أَنَا ببَاسط يَد‬
ِ
َ ‫لَئن بَ َس‬
If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you (Al-Maa’idah: 28).

Mujaahid said: It was Fard (obligatory) upon them, at that time, that none unsheathes a sword and do not
resist the one who wishes to kill him. Our ‘Ulamaa said: … However, in our Shar’a it is permitted to repel
the person, according to an Ijmaa’ (consensus of the scholars). There is a disagreement over its obligation
whilst the correct opinion is that it is obligatory due to what it involves in terms of forbidding the Munkar
… And there are a people (amongst the literalists) who do not permit the one whose private sanctities are
being assaulted against to repel that and they used as evidence the Hadeeth of Abu Dharr and the
‘Ulamaa’s understanding that to mean the abandoning of Al-Qitaal in (the time of) Al-Fitnah and to
restrain the hand at the time of Ash-Shubhah (doubt)” (3).
[(1) Tafseer An-Nafasiy: 1/405, (2) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 6/112, (3) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 6/136].

The Hadeeth of Abu Dharr that Al-Qurtubiy is indicating to was collected by Abu Dawud and At-
Tirmidhi with the wording:

ِ ‫الزي‬
‫ت َما َخ َار اللَّهُ َِل‬ ُ ‫ت بِالدَِّم قُ ْل‬ ْ َ‫ت قَ ْد َغ ِرق‬ ْ َّ ‫َح َج َار‬
ْ‫تأ‬ َ ْ‫ت إِذَا َرأَي‬ َ ْ‫ف أَن‬
َ ‫ال َكْي‬
َ َ‫ك ق‬ َ ْ‫ك َو َس ْع َدي‬
َ ‫ت لَبَّ ْي‬ُ ‫ال َِل يَا أَبَا َذ ٍّر قُ ْل‬َ َ‫ُُثَّ ق‬
‫ت فَ َما‬ُ ‫ت الْ َق ْوَم إِذَ ْن قُ ْل‬
َ ‫ال َش َارْك‬ َ َ‫َضعُهُ َعلَى َعاتِِقي ق‬ ِ
َ ‫آخ ُذ َسْيفي َوأ‬
ِ َ ‫ك ِِبَن أَنْت ِمْنه قُلْت يا رس‬
ُ ‫ول اللَّه أَفَ ََل‬ ُ َ َ ُ ُ َ ْ َ ‫ال َعلَْي‬ َ َ‫َوَر ُسولُهُ ق‬
ِ ‫السْي‬ ِ َ َ‫ت فَِإ ْن ُد ِخ َل َعلَ َّي بَْي ِِت ق‬
ُ‫ك يَبُوء‬ َ ‫ك َعلَى َو ْج ِه‬ َ َ‫ف فَأَلْ ِق ثَ ْوب‬ َّ ُ‫يت أَ ْن يَْب َهَرَك ُش َعاع‬َ ‫ال فَِإ ْن َخش‬ ُ ْ‫ك قُل‬ َ َ‫تَأْ ُم ُرِِّن ق‬
َ َ‫ال تَلَْزُم بَْيت‬
‫ك َوإِِْثِِه‬َ ِ‫بِإِ ِْث‬

Then he said to me: O Abu Dharr. I responded: At your service and pleasure. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: How
would you be if you have seen areas of Al-Madinah drenched in blood. I said: What has Allah and
His Messenger chosen for me (to do at that time)? He said: Sick to those whom you are from (i.e.
family and clan). I asked: O Messenger of Allah, should I not take my sword and place it upon
my shoulders? He said: In that case, you would have partaken (and shared) with the people (i.e.
in the sin). I asked: So, what do you command me to do? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Confine yourself to your
house. I asked: And if my house is entered upon? He replied: If you have feared that the gleam of
the sword has dazzled you then throw your cloak over your face, your sin and his will come back
to him (1).

I say: Whatever has been said regarding the true reality of the stance of Haabeel, the Ahaadeeth indicating
the legality of surrendering at the time of the Qitaal of Al-Fitnah are Sareehah (explicit) in respect to the
legality of not defending oneself in the situation of such fighting. Through that, we are provided with an
idea about the stance of Haabeel which is stronger than what the previously mentioned Mufassireen
(Scholars of Tafseer) deduced.

After quoting some of the Ahaadeeth about this subject area Ash-Shawkaaniy stated the following: “And
the Ahaadeeth mentioned in the category (Baab) indicate to the legality of leaving the fighting and the
non-obligation of defending the self and property” (2).

The statement of Ash-Shawkaaniy: “And the non-obligation of defending the self and property” indicates
that the defensive action falls within the recommended, permissible, disliked and prohibited acts as all of
these Ahkaam comply to the statement “Non-obligation”.

There are a number of opinions of the ‘Ulamaa in respect to the Hukm of surrendering and leaving the
defence of the self in (the time or situation of) the Qitaal ul-Fitnah as follows:

1 - The self-defence is Makrooh (disliked):

As-San’aaniy when commentating upon the narration: “… If you are capable of being the slave of Allah
who is killed and not the killer, then do so” says: And his statement: ‘If you are capable’ indicates that
defence is not prohibited and that the Nahi (forbiddance) is for Tanzeeh and not for Tahreem
(prohibition)”. It is known that the Nahi At-Tanzeeh means Al-Karaahah (dislike) i.e. it is Makrooh.

2 - The self-defence is Mubaah (permissible):

That means that doing and abstaining are equal in accordance to this opinion or to defend or not defend.
[(1) Mustadrak Al-Haakim: 2/157 and he said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the condition (Shart) of the two Sheikhs but they
did not add it to their collections. (2) Nail ul-Awtaar: 5/369, (3) Subul us-Salaam: 4/40].

3 - Abstaining from self-defence is Mandoob (recommended):

As-San’aaniy when explaining these last two opinions (Al-Ibaahah and An-Nadb) stated: “And is
abstaining from defending oneself Mubaah or Mandoob? There is a difference in opinion in respect to
that” (1).

4 - Surrendering and abstaining from defending oneself is Waajib (obligatory):

As-San’aaniy said: “And a group said: It is obligatory to move away from the land of the Fitnah in origin.
And from them there were those who said: He leaves (or abstains from) the fighting. That is the opinion
of the Jumhoor (majority). And the opinion of those who made it obligatory is Shaadhdh (irregular
outside of the norm) (i.e. made abstaining from fighting Waajib) even if one of them (people of Fitnah)
wanted to kill him that he does not defend himself!” (2).

5 - Defending oneself is Waajib (obligatory):

This opinion is understood from what was stated in the book “At-Tadhkirah” by Al-Qurtubiy. He stated
the following: “… And we have mentioned those who remained back from the Fitnah and sat back. They
included: ‘Umraan Bin Al-Husain and Ibn ‘Umar. It was related from them and others including ‘Abeedah
As-Salmaaniy: That, in respect to the one who isolates himself from the two parties (i.e. the two parties
fighting against each other in the Fitnah), then someone comes to him seeking his life, then he must repel
him from himself and if he refuses to repel then he is not correct! That is due to his statement ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ت نَ ْف ُسهُ َوَمالُهُ فَ ُقتِ َل فَ ُه َو َش ِهيد‬

ْ ‫يد‬
َ ‫َم ْن أُر‬
Whoever’s life and property is sought (i.e. without right) and is then killed, then he is a martyr

They said: Therefore, the Waajib (obligation) upon anyone whose life or property is sought after (or
threatened) and then killed in transgression, is to repel that in whatever way he can find (or is available to
him). That is whether the one seeking or threatening (his life and property) has a Ta’weel (interpretation
or semblance of a justification) or is deliberate in his transgression. I said: This is the correct of the two
opinions Inshaa Allah Ta’Aalaa … Abu Bakr (the scholar) said: And this is the view of the majority of the
people of knowledge; that the man must fight to defend himself and his property if they are sought after
in transgression or unjustly (in Zhulm). This is due to the reports that came from the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬which did not specify a specific time from amongst the times or particular situation (or
circumstance) from amongst the circumstances, with the exception of the Sultaan (legitimate ruler). That
is because the Jamaa’ah (group) of the people of knowledge have agreed that in respect to the person who
is unable to protect his life and property unless he rebels against the person in authority and fight against
him, that he does not fight against him or rebel against him. That is due to the reports from the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬indicating the (obligation of) patience when faced with injustice and oppression
that could come from them …” (3).

[(1) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/41, (2) Subul us-Salaam: 4/40, (3) At-Tadhkirah, Al-Qurtubiy: 2/676-677].

I say: In respect to his statement: “then he must repel him from himself and if he refuses to repel then he
is not correct” and “Therefore, the Waajib (obligation) upon anyone whose life or property is sought after
(or threatened) … is to repel that in whatever way he can find (or is available to him)”, then all of that
indicates to the fifth opinion which is: That it is obligatory (Waajib) to defend oneself in the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah. That is because this opinion was presented within the context of the discussion of Al-Fitnah and
attributed to those who isolated themselves from the Fitnah from among the Sahaabah.
The opinion that I outweigh to be strongest:

After reviewing these numerous opinions, we have outweighed as strongest the opinion stating that
surrendering and abstaining from defending oneself in the time or situation of the Qitaal ul-Fitnah takes
the Hukm (ruling) of Ibaahah (permissibility). The reason for outweighing this Hukm is that the Shar’iyah
texts, many of which we presented earlier, all came with the request to abstain from fighting with the
command for (Seeghat ul-Amr): “Break your bows”, “Cut your bow strings”, “Strike your swords upon
the rocks”, “Throw your garment over your faces” and “Be like the better of the two sons of Aadam” etc.

All of this means: The command to abstain from defence in the circumstance or situation of being
assaulted or aggressed against …

This command conflicts with the Shar’iyah texts that have come in the form of a decisive forbiddance
(Nahy Al-Jaazim) to throw oneself into destruction and not exposing oneself to being killed. Such
evidences include the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

And:

‫َوََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا أَن ُف َس ُك ْم‬

And do not kill yourselves (An-Nisaa’: 29).

And:
ْ ِ‫س الَِِّت َحَّرَم اللَّهُ إََِّّل ب‬
‫اْلَ ِّق‬ َ ‫َوََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا النَّ ْف‬
And do not kill the life that Allah has prohibited, except by right (Al-Israa’: 33).

This Nahy (forbiddance) in this last Aayah is applicable to the forbidding of the person killing himself and
enabling others to kill himself just as it conforms to the forbiddance of killing others.

One of the principles of Usool ul-Fiqh is: ‘That the command (Amr) after the forbiddance (Nahy)
indicates to Al-Ibaahah (permissibility)’ (1). However, it is not a permissibility in an absolute unrestricted
form. Rather, it represents a Nahy (forbiddance) restricted to the subject area that it has come for and this
permissibility relates to the subject area of the Qitaal ul-Fitnah, and is specific to it.

In addition, there are Qaraa’in (connotations) indicating that the command to surrender and to leave or
abstain from defence in the time of the fighting of Al-Fitnah, is one of Ibaahah (permissibility).

[(1) Al-Ahkaam Fee Usool ul-Ahkaam, Al-Aamidy: 2/398].

One of these Qaraa’in (connotations) is the Qareenah that came in the narration:

‫ فَافْ َع ْل‬، ‫ ََّل الْ َقاتِ َل‬، ‫ول‬

َ ُ‫استَطَ ْعت أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن َعْب َد اللَّ ِه الْ َم ْقت‬
ْ ‫فَإِ ْن‬
So, if you can be the slave of Allah who is killed and not the killer, then do so (3).

The usage of (‫ )إن‬in this place gives the impression that this matter does not occur often, as the scholars
of the language state (1). Attaching the action of surrendering to a matter that does not happen frequently
or occurs rarely could indicate leaving the matter of the decision to the one being addressed. Here, the
choice is outweighed due to the Qareenah of the previously mentioned Usooliy principle: ‘That the
command (Amr) after the forbiddance (Nahy) indicates to Al-Ibaahah (permissibility)’.

Another of the connotations (Qaraa’in) indicating to the Hukm of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) in relation
to our Mas’alah (issue), is that the Ahaadeeth requested that the person makes himself disappear from the
sights (of the people) before being exposed to an assault or aggression in the situation of the Qitaal ul-
Fitnah. They have stated that the person should: “Attach himself to the nomadic or deserted areas (Al-
Bawaadiy)”, “Attach himself to his camel or sheep or land”, “To dig a tunnel under his land to stay in”
and “to remain confined to his house”. All of this indicates the Talab (request) to not expose oneself to
assault or being aggressed against. I view that this type of Talab (request) breaks (or diminishes) some of
the sharpness (or strength) of the command to surrender when the trial befalls and the assault takes place.
Consequently, this commanded is diverted to the meaning of the permission (i.e. to do that) and to
permissibility (Al-Ibaahah).

Also from the Qaraa’in (connotations) that outweigh the Hukm to be one of Ibaahah (permissibility) in
our Mas’alah (Shar’iy issue) is the Fitnah that took place at the end of the era of ‘Uthmaan (May Allah be
pleased with him). This was when he was besieged and some of the Sahaabah (rah) offered to defend him,
but he refused that (2). If surrendering and abstaining from defending oneself has been Waajib
(obligatory), it would not have been permitted for them to offer to undertake that which was in violation
to the Waajib. Indeed, they would have abstained from offering him that which is contrary to the
Mandoob in respect to those who have said that surrendering is Mandoob (a recommended act).
Consequently, this Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon the permission to act in defence is a Qareenah (connotation
or linking indication) that diverts the request to surrender, from the Wujoob (obligation) and the Nadb
(recommendation) to the permission (Al-Idhn) and Al-Ibaahah (permissibility)! And Allah knows best.

In addition, the stance taken by ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan (ra) in respect to surrendering himself to being
killed and rejecting self-defence, whilst the Sahaabah (rah) did not rebuke him for this stance of
surrendering, represents another Ijmaa’ which helps us to respond to the fifth opinion which we
mentioned for this Mas’alah (Shar’iy issue) stating that it is obligatory to defend oneself. Had the defence
been obligatory then they would not have remained silent over this surrendering position. This indicates
to the outweighing as stronger the opinion stating the permissibility to defend and the permissibility to
surrender as well in accordance to (the ruling of) Al-Ibaahah (permissibility). This relates to when an
assault or aggression happens during the Qitaal ul-Fitnah.

[(1) Tafseer An-Naisaabooriy: 26/83, (2) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/353].

Before leaving this discussion about the Hukm of self-defence during the Qitaal ul-Fitnah, it is necessary
to state that abstaining from self-defence, regardless of the Hukm that the Muslim has adopted in relation
to it, that if it leads to a greater Mafsadah (harm and corruption) than the Mafsadah resulting from self-
defence, then the Hukm in such a circumstance would become one of Wujoob (obligation) to defend
oneself and the prohibition of surrendering. That is in accordance to the general Shar’iyah principles:
“There is no harming and reciprocation of harm” (‫ضَرَر َوََّل ِضَرار‬
َ ‫( )َّل‬1) and “The lesser of two evils is to be
chosen” (‫( )أَ ْه َو ُن الشََّّريْ ِن‬2).

From here, it can be observed that many of the realities have different rulings attached to them in
accordance to the difference in circumstances and conditions through which the realities change and
consequently the Ahkaam change in line with that. Similarly, it is observed that the specific Shar’iyah texts
related to these realities combine with the general Shar’iyah principles, to designate the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy
for them.
This then, is what has been said in respect to the Hukm of participating in the Qitaal ul-Fitnah and what is
connected to that. The final point that remains to be discussed within this subject area of Qitaal ul-Fitnah
is:

Is the Qitaal ul-Fitnah (fighting in the time or situation of Fitnah) considered to be

Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?

It is obvious that the answer to this question will be one of negation and that is because Al-Jihaad is only
the Qitaal (fighting) of Muslims against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) so that there is no Fitnah and the Deen
belongs to Allah.

That is whilst Qitaal ul-Fitnah is restricted to the fighting of Muslims against Muslims so that there is
Fitnah and the Deen is for other than Allah. Wa Laa Hawla Wa Laa Quwwata Illa Billah!

Where then would any Shubhah (question and doubting) enter in respect to this category of Al-Qitaal
being Al-Jihaad come from? This is particularly so in the case where the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬has stated clearly that
both the killer and killed will enter the fire?

Therefore, the Qitaal ul-Fitnah not only does not enter the meaning of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah but
rather they are opposite to one another!

[(1) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 6/69, Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2340 (2/784). Al-Albaani said: (Saheeh) in Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah by Al-
Albaaniy: 1895 (2/39), (2) Majllah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah: Article: 29 p15. Refer to: Usool ul-Fiqh by Dr. Muhammad
Mustafaa Az-Zuhaily: p98].

It is correct that the case of defence is permitted during it (i.e. the Fitnah) in accordance to the Shar’a as
many have stated, and that the one killed whether he defended himself or not is victorious with
martyrdom, however it is a Shahaadah Hukmiyah meaning that it is the martyrdom taking the Hukm of
the Aakhirah (hereafter) alone. That is whilst the one killed in Al-Jihaad, he takes the Hukm of the
Shaheed of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah or the Hukm of the Dunyaa only (1), which will be explained
later Inshaa Allah.

Therefore, in conclusion, defending oneself during the Qitaal ul-Fitnah is not considered to be Al-Jihaad
in accordance to its Shar’iy meaning!

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 1/515].

 The Eighth Study

Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority)

- Introduction about the political contract of authority in Islaam and the paths that accomplish it.
- The evidences used to support the opinion stating that the contract of the Imaamah (leadership) is
contracted by gaining mastery and subjugation and discussion about that.
- The first Daleel (evidence) with discussion: [The statement of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr in respect to the right
of Mu’aawiyah: “Obey him in that which is obedience to Allah …”].
- The second Daleel with discussion: [Hadeeth: If rulers are appointed over you …].
- The third Daleel with discussion: [The command to have patience over the oppressive or unjust rulers].
- The fourth Daleel with discussion: [The legitimacy of fighting the usurper and the exception of the
Sultaan (ruler) in respect to that].
- The fifth Daleel with discussion: [The Maslahah (interest) in respect to remaining silent over the
Mughtasib As-Sultah (the one who has usurped the authority) expecting it to be the lightest of the two
harms!].
- Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority).
- Firstly: What is the Daleel for the legitimacy of fighting the usurper of the authority?
- Secondly: What is the specific Hukm in respect to fighting the usurper of the authority?
- Thirdly: Is fighting the usurper of the authority (Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah) of Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah?
 The Eighth Study

Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority)

Introduction about the political contract of authority in Islaam and the paths that
accomplish it.

The ‘Sultah’ (authority) in Islaam belongs to the Ummah and she passes it to the ruler in accordance to a
contract (‘Aqd) between her and him upon the basis that he rules her by the Kitaab of Allah and the
Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. This what the Shar’iyah texts guide to, in the case where it made the
‘Sultah’ (authority) in respect to the contract of the rule, similar to the commodity in the contract of sale,
and it is the subject upon which the contract is made. Just as the seller owns a commodity and then gives
it up based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bai’ (contract of sale), similarly the Ummah owns the Sultah
(authority) and then gives it up to the ruler based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bai’ah (contract of
the pledge i.e. contraction of the authority). Just as the thing that the purchaser must provide in return of
what he receives in terms of a commodity is mentioned within the contract of sale, which is the price,
similarly, the matter that the ruler must provide in return for taking the authority is mentioned within the
Bai’ah contract, and that is the ruling by the Kitaab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬.

The Shar’iyah texts that indicate this are many and they include the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ِ ِِ
‫اع‬
َ َ‫استَط‬ َ ُ‫َم ْن بَايَ َع إِ َم ًاما فَأَ ْعطَاه‬
ْ ‫ص ْف َقةَ يَده َوَِثََرةَ قَلْبِه فَلْيُط ْعهُ َما‬
Who gives the Bai’ah to an Imaam, so that he gives him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his
heart, then he must obey him to the best of his ability … (1).
This means: As long as the Bai’ah has been concluded, then the Sultah (authority) of the Hukm (rule) and
the commanding of the Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar, possessed by the pledge (Bai’ah) giver,
transfers to the Imaam in accordance to the dictates of the contract. Built upon this, it is then obligatory
upon the one undertaking the contract of the Bai’ah from the Ummah to commit to its effects which are:
The Sam’u and the Taa’ah (hearing and obeying) due to the new possessor of the authority.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim (Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim) 8/43-44].

In relation to the matter that is provided in return, that which the ruler must provide in exchange for the
authority which he has taken in accordance to the dictates of the contract of ruling or the Bai’ah, the
following was related by Al-Bukhaari from ‘Abdullah Ibn Deenaar who said:

ِ ِ‫اع ِة لِعب ِد اللَّ ِه َعب ِد الْمل‬

‫ك أ َِم ِري‬ َّ ِ‫ب أِّن أُقُِّر ب‬ ِ ِ‫ث اجتَمع النَّاس َعلَى َعب ِد الْمل‬ ُ ‫َش ِه ْد‬
َ ْ َْ َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬ َ َ‫ َكت‬: ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫ك‬ َ ْ ُ َ َ ْ ُ ‫ت ابْ َن ُع َمَر َحْي‬
ِ
َ ‫ِن قَ ْد أَقَ ُّروا ِبِِثْ ِل ذَل‬ ِِ ِ ِ ِ ِِ
‫ك‬ َّ َِ‫ َوإِ َّن ب‬، ‫ت‬ ْ ‫ني علَى ُسنَّة اللَّه َو ُسنَّة َر ُسوله َما‬
ُ ‫استَطَ ْع‬ َ ‫الْ ُم ْؤمن‬
When the people gathered upon Abdul Maalik I witnessed Ibn ‘Umar, He said: He wrote that I
affirm the hearing and obeying to Abdul Maalik, the Ameer of the believers, upon the Sunnah of
Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, to the best of my ability, and that my progeny have
affirmed the like of that (1).

The text of the Bai’ah (pledge) includes the affirmation of the hearing and obeying i.e. the affirmation
from Ibn ‘Umar to grant Abdul Maalik Ibn Marwaan an authority that is deserving of hearing and obeying
in exchange for Abdul Maalik establishing the rule upon the basis of the Sunnah of Allah and the Sunnah
of His Messenger i.e. upon the basis of Islaam.

This represents the original position in Islaam in relation to the authority and the manner or way by which
the ruler attains the authority as we have observed within the Shar’iyah texts.

This is the case irrespective of the two other methods of attaining the authority which are: 1 - The way of
Istikhlaaf or Al-‘Ahd (appointment of the successor) by the previous person in the position of authority. 2
- The way of gaining mastery which means taking over control of the authority by force. It is also
irrespective of the method espoused by the Shi’iy Madh’hab based upon the concept of the infallible
Imaam established up the Nass (text), as this method has not been established by an acceptable path.

Similarly, the correct opinion in respect to the method of appointing a successor, is that it merely
represents a nomination from the former Khalifah in respect to the one he puts forward. That is while
that proposed successor does not attain his mandatory powers within the Khilafah until after the Bai’ah
has been fulfilled. If the people do not give him the Bai’ah he does not become the Khalifah by the mere
Istikhlaaf (designation as a successor) (2).

Likewise, in respect to the method of gaining mastery (At-Taghallub), the Mutaghallib (one who takes
over the rule by force) does not become the Khalifah by the mere taking control over the authority.
Rather, he would only become the Khalifah at a time when the people accept him (by choice) and give the
Bai’ah to him. If they refuse to give him the Bai’ah (pledge) he would remain a ruler who has usurped the
authority. That is just like when a person usurps a commodity from another and then if that other accepts
and sells it to him (the usurper) the ownership of the property would be transferred to him. However, if
the owner remains adamant about not selling the commodity to the usurper, then the one refusing
remains the rightful Shar’iy (legal) owner of the commodity. The usurper would remain as such
irrespective of how much time passes over his usurpation.
[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7203 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/193), (2) Ad-Dawlah Wa An-Nizhaam Al-Hisbah according to Ibn
Taymiyyah, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 37].

The following was stated in the book ‘Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatahu’:

“The Fuqahaa’ of Islaam have mentioned for paths (or methods) in respect to the manner of appointing
the highest ruler for the state and these are: An-Nass (the text), Al-Bai’ah (pledge), Wilaayat ul-‘Ahd
(chosen successor) and subjugation and gaining mastery (Al-Qahr and Ah-Ghalabah). We will explain that
the correct Islamic method is in accordance to the principle of Shouraa and the thought related to the
obligations of sufficiency (Furood Al-Kifaa’iyah) represents one method. That is: The Bai’ah (pledge) of
the Ahl ul-Hall Wa l-‘Aqd (the people of solution and contract i.e. people of influence and representation)
joined to the acceptance (or consent) of the Ummah with his selection. In respect all other methods, then
the basis that it relied upon was weak due to an arbitrariness in respect to interpreting the texts or reliance
upon feeble texts, or specific whims, or acceptance of the standing reality where the Muslims do not see
any Hikmah (wisdom) or Maslahah (interest) to revolt against him (i.e. the ruler) or eliminate his presence,
to preserve the blood and prevent chaos in consideration of external conditions, or due to fear of the
voracity of the one holding onto the authority and reached it by illegitimate methods whether that was
through inheritance or another way…” (1).

However, the method which has been most problematic from these is that which relates to the subject or
our discussion and study here and that is: Taking over thru le by way of gaining mastery and subjugation
i.e. usurpation of the authority (Ightisaab As-Sultah). That is because the (written) texts of many of the
Fuqahaa’ of the past and recent times have agreed upon the affirmation of the usurped authority. Based
upon that they state that fighting him is illegitimate whilst they use a number of evidences as proof to
support their opinion. It is therefore necessary to resent them and discuss them before mentioning the
opinion that we view to be correct. Consequently, we will enter the subject area of the fighting against the
usurper of the authority (Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah).

[(1) Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatahu, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaily: 6/673].

The evidences used to support the opinion stating that the contract of the Imaamah (leadership)
is contracted by gaining mastery and subjugation and discussion about that

The legal legitimacy (Shar’iyah) of the rule (Wilaayah) of the usurper of the authority and the prohibition
of rebelling against him (Al-Khurooj), in the view of the Fuqahaa’ who hold that opinion, relies upon five
evidences that we have taken from the statements of those opposed to the idea of fighting those who
usurp the authority.

These are:

1 - The First Daleel: In respect to the contracting of the Imaamah by taking over control of the
authority by force as relied upon those who hold that opinion and discussion about it:

It was mentioned within Saheeh Muslim and related by Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abd Rabb il-Ka’bah from
Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ِ ‫اض ِربوا عنُق ْاْلخ ِر فَ َدنَو‬ ِ ِ ِِ

‫ت‬
ُ ‫ت مْنهُ فَ ُق ْل‬ ُ ْ َ َ ُ ُ ْ َ‫آخ ُر يُنَا ِز ُعهُ ف‬ َ َ‫اع فَإِ ْن َجاء‬ َ َ‫استَط‬ ْ ‫ص ْف َقةَ يَده َوَِثََرةَ قَلْبِه فَلْيُط ْعهُ إِ ْن‬
َ ُ‫َوَم ْن بَايَ َع إِ َم ًاما فَأ َْعطَاه‬
ِ َ َ‫ول اللَّ ِه صلَّى اللَّه علَي ِه وسلَّم فَأَهوى إِ ََل أُذُنَي ِه وقَ ْلبِ ِه بِي َدي ِه وق‬ ِ ‫ت َه َذا ِمن رس‬ ِ ْ‫لَه أَنْ ُش ُد َك اللَّه آن‬
ُ‫اي َوَو َعاه‬ َ َ‫ال َْس َعْتهُ أُذُن‬ َ ْ َ َ ْ َْ َ َ َ ْ َ ُ َ َُ ْ َ ‫ت َْس ْع‬
َ َ ُ
ِ َّ ِ ‫ك معا ِويةُ يأْمرنَا أَ ْن نَأْ ُكل أَموالَنَا ب ي نَ نَا بِالْب‬
ُ ‫اط ِل َونَ ْقتُ َل أَنْ ُف َسنَا َواللَّهُ يَ ُق‬
‫ين َآمنُوا ََّل‬
َ ‫ول يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬ َ َْ َ ْ َ ُ ُ َ َ َ ُ َ ‫ت لَهُ َه َذا ابْ ُن َع ِّم‬ ُ ‫قَلِِْب فَ ُق ْل‬
 ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ ‫اط ِل إََِّّل أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن ِِتارًة عن تَر‬
ِ ‫تَأْ ُكلُوا أَموالَ ُكم ب ي نَ ُكم بِالْب‬
‫ت‬
َ ‫ال فَ َس َك‬ ً ‫اض مْن ُك ْم َوََّل تَ ْقتُلُوا أَنْ ُف َس ُك ْم إ َّن اللَّهَ َكا َن ب ُك ْم َرح‬
َ َ‫يما ق‬ َ َْ ََ َ ْ َْ ْ َ ْ
‫صيَ ِة اللَّ ِه‬
ِ ‫ص ِه ِِف مع‬
َْ
ِ ‫َطعه ِِف طَاع ِة اللَّ ِه و ْاع‬
َ َ
ِ َ َ‫ساعةً ُُثَّ ق‬
ُ ْ ‫ال أ‬ َ َ
Whoever gave the Bai’ah (pledge) to an Imaam, thus giving him the clasp of his hand and the
fruit of his heart, must obey him to the best of his ability. Then if another comes disputing him
(i.e. in respect to the authority), then strike the neck of the other. I (the one relating from
‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr) then moved closer to him and said: I implore you by Allah, did you here this
from the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. He then pointed with his hands to his ears and to his heart
and said: I heard it with my two ears and my mind retained it. Then I said to him: This cousin of
yours, Mu'aawiyah, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one
another, while Allah says:" O you who have believed, do not consume your wealth among
yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves.
Verily, Allah is Merciful to you" (An-Nisaa’: 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b.
'Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in the obedience of Allah; and
disobey him in the disobedience of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla (1).

In the Sharh (explanation) of this Hadeeth An-Nawawi said:

“What is intended in this speech is that when the one relating it heard the speech of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr
Ibn Al-‘Aas mentioning the Hadeeth about the prohibition of disputing the first Khalifah and that the
second (i.e. disputant) is killed, the relator believed that this description applied to Mu’aawiyah in respect
to his dispute with ‘Ali (ra), after the Bai’ah had already been given to ‘Ali. Consequently, he viewed that
Mu’aawiyah’s spending upon his troops and following him in the war against ‘Ali, disputing his authority
and fighting him fell under the description of consuming the wealth unjustly (or in falsehood) and killing
the Nafs (person) (i.e. what was mentioned in the Aayah) because it represents fighting without right (and
legitimate justification) and as such no one has a right to money or finances to fight against him (i.e. ‘Ali)”.

An-Nawawi says: “And regarding his statement: “Obey him in in the obedience of Allah; and disobey him
in the disobedience of Allah” then this contains the obligation to obey those appointed to the Imaamah
(leadership) by (forced) subjugation and not through an Ijmaa’ (consensus) or ‘Ahd (pledge or contract)”
(2).

The context of our discussion of this Daleel is: That the Daleel here, as An-Nawawi views it, is the Qawl
(statement) of the Sahaabiy Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr when he said: “Obey him in in the obedience of Allah; and
disobey him in the disobedience of Allah” whilst he was intending Mu’aawiyah with this speech.

Regarding this, the speech of the Sahaabiy does not represents a Shar’iy Daleel indicating the obligation of
obeying those occupying the Imaamah (leadership) or the authority in general by subjugating force.
Rather, it represents his own opinion in a matter where others have disagreed with him (3). That is while it
appears that this discussion between the relator and ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Aas took place before
‘Ali (ra) was killed and before Al-Hasan handed over the Khilafah to Mu’aawiyah.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: (Sharh An-Nawawi of Muslim: 8/43-44), (2) Saheeh Muslim: (Sharh An-Nawawi of Muslim: 8/43-44), (3)
Refer to the Hujjiyah (proof) of the Qawl of the Sahaabiy: Al-Ihkaam, Al-Aamidy: 4/385 onwards. Also, refer to the following
books of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: ‘Abu Haneefah’: p309 onwards, ‘Maalik’: p259 onwards, ‘Ash-Shaafi’iy’: p321
onwards, ‘Ibn Hanbal’: p256 onwards].

In addition, the validity of the rule of the Mutaghallib (one who has gained mastery over the authority)
over the position of leadership, cannot be extracted from the speech of Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr which guides
the one he is addressing to obey Mu’aawiyah in that which conforms to obedience to Allah. That is
because every person is obeyed in the obedience to Allah and disobeyed in the disobedience to Allah and
even if he was not an Ameer or appointed in a position of leadership. There is no obedience to the
Makhlooq (created) (i.e. anyone) in the disobedience of Al-Khaaliq (the creator).

2 - The Second Daleel: In respect to the contracting of the Imaamah by taking over control of the
authority by force as relied upon those who hold that opinion and discussion about it:

It is what was collected in Saheeh Muslim and related by Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) who
said:

ِ ْ ‫إِ َّن خلِيلِي أَوص ِاِّن أَ ْن أ‬

ِ ‫ وإِ ْن َكا َن عب ًدا ُمدَّع ْاْلَطْر‬، ‫ُطيع‬
‫اف‬َ َ َ َْ َ َ ‫َْسَ َع َوأ‬ َ ْ َ
Verily my close friend instructed me to listen and obey, even if he was a slave whose body had
amputated parts (1).

And in a narration from Umm Al-Husayn:

ِ ‫اْسعوا لَه وأ‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ

‫َطيعُوا‬ َ ُ ُ َْ َ‫استُ ْعم َل َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد يَ ُقو ُد ُك ْم بكتَاب اللَّه ف‬
ْ ‫َولَ ْو‬
And if a slave was to be appointed over you in the position of leadership, leading you by the Book
of Allah, then hear and obey (1).

And in another narration from Umm Al-Husayn:

ِ ‫اْسعوا لَه وأ‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ

‫َطيعُوا‬ َ ُ ُ َْ َ‫َس َو ُد يَ ُقو ُد ُك ْم بكتَاب اللَّه ف‬
ْ‫تأ‬ْ َ‫إِ ْن أ ُِّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد ُمَدَّعٌ َحسْبتُ َها قَال‬
If an amputee slave is appointed over you in the position leadership - I believe she said black -
leading you by the Book of Allah, the hear him and obey (1).

An-Nawawi said: The meaning of ‘Mujaddaa’ Atraaf’ is that they (i.e. body parts) are severed or amputated
and the intended meaning of this is the lowest of the slaves … He then said: “The leadership of the slave
can be envisioned if some of the Imaams have appointed him or if he takes control over a land by his own
power. However, it is not permissible, initially, for the contract of ruling to be given to him based upon
choice, rather its Shart (condition) is Hurriyah (freedom i.e. not owned) …” (2).

Our discussion of this Daleel (evidence) revolves around the texts connected to the leadership of the ‘Abd
(slave) and these are those that mention:

- “Even if he was a slave” - “And if a slave was to be appointed over you” - “If an amputee slave is
appointed over you”.

It is clear from the narrations that mention ‘َ‫ ’اسْ ُتعْ ِم َل‬and ‘َ‫( ’أُم َِّر‬which both indicate the meaning of appoint)
that the Imaam is the one who has appointed them. As for the narration including: “Even if he was a
slave”, then even if it does not indicate to the slave having been appointed by someone else, in light of the
other narrations, it nevertheless indicates that he has been provided the Imaarah and Wilaayah (i.e. rule) by
the Imaam and became an Ameer through that appointment.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim (Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/34), (2) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh
Muslim: 8/34].

The following was mentioned in the Sharh of Al-Qastalaani of Al-Bukhaari:

 ‫استُ ْع ِم َل َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌّي‬ ِ
ْ ‫اْسَعُوا َوأَطيعُوا َوإِ ْن‬
ْ
Hear and obey and even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed over you

“It is said that its meaning is: And if the supreme Imaam (i.e. Khalifah) has appointed him over the people
and it does not mean that the Abyssinian slave is the supreme Imaam as the A’immah (Imaams) are from
Quraish. Or the intended meaning by this is the supreme Imaam, in the way of a supposition and
appreciation to indicate in by way of exaggeration (i.e. reiteration) to the matter of obedience and the
forbiddance to break away from it and go against it … That is whilst a consensus has been formed
regarding the Imaamah (leadership i.e. Khilafah) not being for the slaves. It is possible that he named him
as an ‘Abd (slave) referring to the person’s condition before being freed. Yes! If the real (literal) ‘Abd
(slave) gained mastery and control over the rule by force (i.e. by military power), it is obligatory to obey
him to suppress the Fitnah as long as he has not commanded a Ma’siyah disobedience to Allah)” (1).

Consequently, in respect to these reports urging obedience to any Waaliy (ruler) whom the people may not
be content with have only come in relation to the one who was appointed in his position by the supreme
Imaam (i.e. head of state), as Al-Qastalaaniy stated. These narrations have provided the example of the
slave, in the worst portrayal or image, to guide to the obligation of obeying the one whom the Imaam has
appointed even if they hate him. There is nothing in the wordings (Alfaazh) of these narrations indicating
to the obligation of obeying the one who takes over the rule by force.

Yes, there is a Hadeeth that came with the following Lafzh (wording or worded version):

‫َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌّي‬

And if an Abyssinian slave comes to be the Ameer over you

The Zhaahir (apparent) meaning of this could indicate to hearing and obeying the one who has come to
power (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬with the meaning of gaining control by way of subjugation and gaining mastery, even if he
was not appointed as a leader by someone else! So what is the complete text of this Hadeeth and how can
it be understood?

The following came in Riyaad As-Saaliheen of An-Nawawi:

‫ َكأَن ََّها‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬

َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ فَ ُقلْنَا‬، ‫ت ِمْن َها الْعُيُو ُن‬ ْ َ‫ َوذَ َرف‬، ‫وب‬
ِ َ‫ وجل‬، ً‫ول اللَّ ِه صلَّى اللَّه علَي ِه وسلَّم موعِظَة‬
ُ ُ‫ت مْن َها الْ ُقل‬ ْ ََ َْ َ َ َ ْ َ ُ َ ُ ‫َو َعظَنَا َر ُس‬
ِ ِ ِ َّ‫السم ِع والط‬ ِ ِ َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫ فَأ َْو ِصنَا‬، ‫َم ْوعِظَةُ ُم َوِّد ٍع‬
‫ش‬ ْ ‫ فَِإنَّهُ َم ْن يَع‬، ‫ َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌدَ َحبَش ٌي‬، ‫اعة‬ َ َ ْ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ أُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّه‬: ‫ال‬
ِ َ‫ وإِيَّا ُكم وُُْم َدث‬، ‫ضوا علَي ها بِالنَّو ِاج ِذ‬ ِ ِ َّ ‫اْللَ َف ِاء‬ ِ
‫ات‬ َْ َ َ َ ْ َ ُّ ‫ َع‬، ‫ين‬ َ ‫الراشد‬ ُْ ‫ فَ َعلَْي ُك ْم بِ ُسن َِِّت َو ُسن َِّة‬، ‫اختِ ََلفًا َكثِ ًريا‬
ْ ‫مْن ُك ْم بَ ْعدي فَ َسيَ َرى‬
ِ
ٍ
َ ‫ فَإِ َّن ُك َّل بِ ْد َعة‬، ‫ْاْلُُموِر‬
ٌ‫ض ََللَة‬

Abu Najeeh al-’Irbaad ibn Saariyah (may Allah be pleased with him) related:
The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and
tears came to our eyes. So we said: “O Messenger of Allah! It is as though this is a farewell
sermon, so urge us.” He (‫ )ﷺ‬said, “I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and
obey [your leader], even if an Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you. Verily he
among you who lives long will see great controversy, so you must keep to my Sunnah and to the
Sunnah of the Khulafa ar-Rashideen (the rightly guided caliphs), those who guide to the right
way. Cling to it stubbornly [literally: with your molar teeth]. Beware of newly invented matters [in
the Deen], for verily every Bid’ah (innovation) is misguidance” (2).
[(1) Sharh Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Ala l-Bukhaari: 10/210-211, (2) Riyaad As-Saaliheen - Chapter: The command to protect the tongues
and Adaab, p90].

An-Nawawi said: It was narrated by Abu Dawud and At -Tirmidhi. It appears that Al-Imaam An-Nawawi
means that the Hadeeth of Irbaad was related by Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi even if this (particular)
Lafzh (wording) was not related by them. That is because the text recorded by Abu Dawud does not
contain within it: “َ‫”وإِنْ َ َتأَم ََّرَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬
َ (And if comes to be an Ameer over you) rather the text that he recorded
stated:
َّ ‫َوال َّسمْع ََو‬،َِ َّ ‫َب َت ْق َو‬ ُ
َ ْ‫َوإِن‬،َِ
“َ‫َعبْداَحبشيا‬ ََ ‫اعة‬َ ‫الط‬ ِ َ ‫ىََّللا‬ ِ ‫”أوصِ ي ُك ْم‬
(I urge you to have Taqwaa of Allah and to listen and obey, even if he was an Abyssinian slave) (1).

The Lafzh (worded version) recorded by At-Tirmidhi:

َّ ‫َوالسَّمْ َع ََو‬،َِ َّ ‫َب َت ْق َو‬ ُ

“َ‫َوإِنْ َ َعبْدََحبشي‬،َِ
َ ‫اعة‬ َ ‫الط‬ ِ َ ‫ىََّللا‬ ِ ‫”أوصِ ي ُك ْم‬
(I urge you to have Taqwaa of Allah and to listen and obey, even if he was an Abyssinian slave)
(2).

Consequently, it also does not contain the wording: “َ‫”وإِنْ َ َتأَم ََّرَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬
َ (And if comes to be an Ameer over
you).

In any case, the narration found in Riyaad As-Saaliheen’ is one of many narrated versions of the Hadeeth
of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah, so how is this Hadeeth to be understood as it is? Here, I mean specifically the
wording (Lafzh): “َ‫”وإِنْ َ َتأَم ََّرَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َعبْد‬.
َ Does this Lafzh (wording) represent a Hujjah (proof and evidence)
for those who state the legitimacy of the authority of ‘Al-Muta’ammir’ with the meaning of ‘Al-Mutasallit’
(one who imposes himself by force in the position of leadership) without having been appointed to the
position of the people through the choice of the people or appointed to a position of leadership by the
Imaam (i.e. the Khalifah)?

The answer: Understanding the Hadeeth upon its correct angle occurs by understanding what is
problematic within the wordings in light of what the Hadeeth guides and indicates to as a whole with all of
its parts. It is also understood in light of what has been established in respect to the general Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah related to the subject that is differed (or disagreed) upon, in light of the other narrated worded
versions of the same Hadeeth, and in light of what other Shar’iyah texts have brought in respect to
carrying the Mushkil (unclear or problematic) wording to a specific meaning.

These represent the four angles that light must be shed upon in respect to the Hadeeth that is problematic
or unclear (Mushkil) in some of its recorded worded versions, so that the intended meaning can be
revealed to us upon its correct face or angle.

A - As for understanding the text in light of what the Hadeeth itself indicates as a whole, then the
Hadeeth commands us to hear and obey and if an Abyssinian slave comes to be the Ameer over us (َ‫) َتأَم ََّر‬.
The Hadeeth then mentions that much difference or disagreement will take place amongst the people and
commands us to hold fast, when facing the adversity of this situation, to the Sunnah of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafaa’. It commands us to hold on with extremity to
this and warns about every occurring matter that is not from Islaam because it is a Dalaalah (misguidance).

[(1) Sunan Abi Dawud: Kitaab As-Sunnah: 24, Hadeeth No. 4607 (4/281), (2) At-Tirmidhi - Chapter: 16 ‘What has been
mentioned in respect to sticking to the Sunnah and avoiding the Bid’ah’. Hadeeth No. 2676 (5/44-45)].

Consequently, it contains a command to hear and obey if an Abyssinian slave is in the position of the
ََ ‫) َتَأ َم‬. So, what then is the meaning of ‘َ‫ ’ َتأَم ََّر‬as mentioned in this Nass (text)?
Ameer over us (‫َّر‬
The word ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) can hold one of two meanings:

- Either the meaning of ‘Tasallut’ (gaining leadership by oneself and imposing oneself) without being
appointed as an Ameer (leader) by anybody else.

- Or the meaning of ‘He became an Ameer’ or accepted the position of leadership (Imaarah) when he was
appointed by someone else, upon the meaning of ‘‫( ’مطاوعة‬Mutaawa’ah) (i.e. compliance, obedience, to
yield, submit etc...). It has been mentioned in the books of Nahw (grammar) and Sarf (morphology), that
in respect to the verb form ‘َ‫(َ’ َت َف َّع َل‬Tafa’ala) (i.e. the form that Ta’ammara is upon), one of its most well-
known meanings is the ‘Mutaawa’ah’ (compliance, submission, obedience etc.) of the ‘َ‫(َ’ َف َّع َل‬Fa’ala) form
(with Shaddah on the ‘Ain’) (1). Example: ‘‫طع‬ ّ ‫طعْ ُتهَُ َف َت َق‬
َّ ‫‘ ’ َق‬I cut it and so it was cut’ or ‘ََ‫يرَ َف َت َعوَّ َد‬ َ
ِ ‫ىَالخ‬ َ‫َُعل‬
َ ‫َعوَّ ْد ُته‬
‫‘َ’علَيْه‬I accustomed him to the good and so he became accustomed to it’ or ‘َ‫َعلَ ْي ِه‬ َ
َ َ ‫َّس‬ ِ ‫‘ ’أسَّسْ ُتهَُ َعلىَالص‬I
َ ‫َّالحَ َف َتاَس‬
established it upon what was upright and so it came to be established upon it’ or ‘َ‫رَّب‬ َ ‫دَ رَّ ْب ُتهَُ َعلىَالفُرُوسِ َيةَِ َف َت َد‬
‫‘َ’علَ ْي َِه‬I
َ trained him horsemanship and so he became accustomed (or skilled) in it’ or ‘َََ‫َُعلَىَال َعدُوِّ َ َف َت َجرَّ ا‬ َ ‫َجرَّ ْأ ُته‬
‫’علَ ْي َِه‬ َ ‘I encouraged him against the enemy and so he came to possess courage against it’ … Similarly: ‘َُ‫أَمَّرْ ُته‬
‫َعلَي ِْه َْم‬ َ ‫’علَىَ ُر َف َقائِهَِ َف َتأَم ََّر‬
َ ‘I appointed him as an Ameer over his companions and so he came to be an Ameer
over them’. The meaning of ‘Al- Mutaawa’ah’ ‘‫ ’مطاوعة‬is the attainment of the effect that the doer (Faa’il)
undertook in respect to the thing being done upon (Maf’ool). The meaning regarding the previous
examples is that the ‘Maf’ool’ (matter the act is being done to or upon) has accepted the effect that the
‘Faa’il’ (doer) has undertaken and so the person came to habituate or be accustomed to ‘good’, the
foundation of uprightness, skill upon horsemanship, courage against the enemy and the leadership over
companions. Therefore: There exists a ‘Faa’il’ (doer) who gave the Imaarah (leadership) to this Ameer
(leader) and he did not arrive to it by his own act by way of subjugation and gaining mastery by himself.

In the Saheeh of Al-Bukhaari there is that which came with this meaning as narrated from ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab (May Allah be pleased with him) when he said:

‫إَل ِم ْن أَ ْن أَتَأ ََّمَر َعلَى قَ ْوٍم فِي ِه ْم أَبُو بَ ْك ٍر‬

ََّ ‫ب‬ َ ‫ أ‬، ‫ك َإَل ٍْإُث‬
ُّ ‫َح‬ ِ ِ ‫ضر‬
َ ‫ ََّل يُ َقِّربُِِن ذَل‬، ‫ب عُنُقي‬ ِ
َ ‫َكا َن َواَللَّه أَ ْن أُقَد‬
ُ َ ْ ُ‫َّم فَت‬
For by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the
Ameer (leader) over a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr (2).

The meaning of this is: It is more loved or preferable to me that I do not become an Ameer or accept the
leadership (Al-Imaarah) over a people or nation when Abu Bakr exists amongst them because he is better
than me and even if the people have chosen me for it. The meaning of ‘‫َّر‬ ََ ‫( ’أ َتأَم‬I take the leadership) here is
not the meaning of ‘‫( ’اَ َت َسلَّط‬i.e. At-Tasallut) which is to take control over the authority over a people of
nation by subjugation, force and mastery, in the absence of their choice and consent! This meaning cannot
be applied here because the context of the narration was that Abu Bakr (ra) was presenting to the people
gathered in the courtyard of Bani Saa’idah that they should give the Bai’ah (pledge for leadership) to one
of two men, ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab and Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah, based on their choice (selection) and
consent! There is more detail for this meaning to come.

[(1) Book of An-Nahw and As-Sarf, ‘Aasim Baitaar p320, University of Damascus publishing, 1401-1402 AH, 1981-1982 CE,
(2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari - the Book of Hudood (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 12/145)].

In addition, this meaning of ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) is in agreement with and conforms to what the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded us to hold on firmly to at the time when controversy or disagreement arises i.e.
to stick and hold firmly on to his Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafaa’. That is because
the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, in his Sunnah, has guided to the Bai’ah (pledge) in respect to the Imaarah
(leadership):
 ِ ِ ِِ
َ ُ‫َوَم ْن بَايَ َع إِ َم ًاما فَأ َْعطَاه‬
ُ‫ص ْف َقةَ يَده َوَِثََرةَ قَ ْلبِه فَ ْليُط ْعه‬
Who gives the Bai’ah to an Imaam, so that he gives him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his
heart, then he must obey him (1).

And the Sunnah of the upright rightly guided Khulafaa’ indicates that none of them was appointed over
the people as their leader in accordance to the meaning of imposing themselves over them by subjugation
and gaining mastery. Rather, they took the leadership according to the meaning of becoming Umaraa’
(leaders pl. of Ameer) or that they accepted the position of leadership and rule (Imaarah) when the people
appointed them as such and selected them to the Khilafah by consent from them manifested in Ijmaa’
(consensus) or by their majority.

This is as the opinion that states that it is legitimate to take possession of the Sultah (authority) by ‘At-
Ta’ammur’, according to the meaning of gaining mastery and controlling dominance by force, without the
consent of the people and their choice, using as proof, that the text has commanded that we hear and
obey the one who has ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬over us, and that is because within the language, one of the
meanings of ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬is to take over the authority by force and subjugation without the consent
of the people and their choice.

In respect to this opinion I state: The arrival to the conclusion of this opinion contradicts the rest of the
Hadeeth that commands referring back to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and the Sunnah of
the rightly guided Khulafaa’, of whom not one of them took possession of the authority (Sultah) by taking
it over by subjugation and gaining mastery (over others) by military force. To remove this contradiction in
the Hadeeth it is obligatory to understand the wording of ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫) َتأَم ََّر‬, mentioned within it, in
accordance to its other linguistic meaning. That is the acceptance of the Imaarah (rule and leadership)
when being appointed as the leader by others!

This then represents the understanding of the Hadeeth according to its correct angle in light of what the
Hadeeth indicates itself as a whole (i.e. when the whole Hadeeth and what it contains is examined).

B - As for understanding the Hadeeth in light of what has been established in the general Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah in respect to that which is differed upon, then the general Hukm Ash-Shar’iy establishes that the
Imaarah or Khilafah represents an ‘Aqd (contract) between the people and who they choose by their
consent. Taking the Imaarah (leadership) without a contract (‘Aqd) means the usurpation of the authority
as has been previously discussed and that is a matter that is not legally legitimate (and recognised). Upon
this basis and understanding, it becomes necessary again, to understand the Lafzh (wording) of
‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫) َتأَم ََّر‬, as found within the Hadeeth, in accordance to its linguistic meaning that does not
contradict with the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy which establishes that the Imaarah (leadership) is a contract from
amongst the contracts that is not made legitimate without it. That is whilst we are aware that the other
linguistic meaning of the word ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬is for the person to become an Ameer or accepts the
Imaarah (leadership) when he is appointed to it by others!

C - As for understanding the Hadeeth upon its correct angle in light of the other narrations (or worded
versions) of the same Hadeeth, then let us look at what the author of ‘Daleel ul-Faaliheen, Sharh Riyaad
As-Saaliheen’ stated in respect to the Hadeeth of ‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah when he said: “It has many paths
and there is a difference regarding its Alfaazh (wordings)” (2).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim (Sharh An-Nawawi ‘Alaa Muslim: 8/43-44), (2) Daleel ul-Faaliheen, Sharh Riyaad As-Saaliheen’: 1/402-
405].
In addition to that, I have researched the Hadeeth related by ‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah (ra) within the books of
Hadeeth and found that they all discuss and tell the same single reality. Despite that, there is a difference
in respect to some of the Alfaazh (wordings mentioned within them) and that appears to be due to some
of the narrators having transmitted the Hadeeth by way of narrating its meaning. The following are the
parts of the Hadeeth that concern us as found within the different narrations and sources:

- In Al-Jaami’ As-Sagheer:

‫حبشي‬
ٌ ‫ َوإِ ْن أ ُِّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if an
Abyssinian slave was appointed as an Ameer over you (1).

- In Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave (2).

- In the book ‘As-Sunnah’ by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim:

ً‫اع ِة َوإِ ْن َعْبداً َحبَ ِشيا‬ ِ

َ َّ‫اتَّ ُقوا اهللَ َو َعلَْي ُك ْم بِالط‬
Fear Allah, and you must have obedience, and even if to an Abyssinian slave (3).

- In the Sunan of Abu Dawud there are two related versions of the Hadeeth. The first is:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫َعلَْي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
You must have Taqwa of Allah, and (you must) hear and obey, and even if it to an Abyssinian
slave.

The second:

ً‫اع ِة َوإِ ْن َعْبداً َحبَ ِشيا‬

َ َّ‫َو َعلَْي ُك ْم بِالط‬
You must have obedience, and even if to an Abyssinian slave (4).

- In the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal there are also two narrated versions of the Hadeeth. The first is:

ً‫اع ِة َوإِ ْن َعْبداً َحبَ ِشيا‬

َ َّ‫َو َعلَْي ُك ْم بِالط‬
You must have obedience, and even if to an Abyssinian slave.

And the second:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave (5).

- In the collection of Ibn Hibbaan:

 ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave (6).

- In the Sunan of Ad-Daaramiy:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave (7).

[(1) Saheeh Al-Jaami’ As-Sagheer, Al-Albaaniy: 2546 (1173) 2/346, (2) Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh with verification by Al-Albaaniy:
1/58, (3) As-Sunnah, Ibn Abi ‘Aasim with verification by Al-Albaaniy: 1/19, (4) Ibn Maajah: 24 (1/15-17), (5) Musnad Ahmad
Bin Hanbal: 4/126-127, (6) Al-Ihsaan in the order (or arrangement) of the Saheeh of Ibn Hibbaan: 1/104, (7) Sunan Ad-
Daaramiy: Hadeeth No. 95 (1/57)].

- In Hilyah Al-Awliyaa’:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave (1).

- In Al-Mustadrak of the two Saheehs by Al-Haakim An-Naisabouriy there are four narrated versions of
the Hadeeth of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah. The first:

‫ َوإِ ْن أ ُِّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌي‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if an
Abyssinian slave was appointed as an Ameer over you

The second:

ً‫َطيعُوا َمن َوََّّلهُ اهللُ أ َْمَرُكم َوََّل تُنَا ِزعُوا اْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َولَ ْو َكا َن َعْبداً َحبَ ِشيا‬
ِ ‫وأ‬
َ
And obey those whom Allah has entrusted your affair to as rulers and do not dispute the matter of
its people and even if he was an Abyssinian slave

The third:

ً‫ َوإِ ْن َكا َن َعْبداً حبشيا‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if he was an
Abyssinian slave

The fourth:

ً‫اع ِة َو َستَ َرى بَ ْع ِدي إِ ْختَِلفاً َشديدا‬

َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬ َ َ‫ أَظُنُّهُ ق‬- ‫َعلَْي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َّ ‫ َو‬- ‫ال‬
You must have Taqwa of Allah (I believe he said) and you must hear and obey. And you will see
severe disagreement after me … (2).
As can be seen, in all of these narrations from different sources, in addition to the two narrations related
by Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi that we mentioned previously, that none of them include the Lafzh
(wording): ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬from the phrase: ‫( َتأَم ََّرَ َعلَ ْي ُك َْم‬Become an Ameer over you).

Indeed, the Lafzh ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬was only mentioned in one relation from all of the sources that I
examined in addition to the Riwaayah (narration) in Riyaad As-Saaliheen from the Sunan of Al-Baihaqi,
which stated:

‫ َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌي‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
I urge you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to hear and obey, and even if an Abyssinian slave was to
become an Ameer over you … (3).

It is of some significance to mention that Al-Baihaqi relates the Hadeeth with this Lafzh (wording):
‫َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌي‬
And even if an Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you

That he relates it from Abu Abdullah Al-Haakim the compiler of Al-Mustadrak. That is whilst Al-Haakim,
as we have seen above, has mentioned four narrations for the Hadeeth in Al-Mustadrak and none of these
have the Lafzh (wording): ‫ َوإِنْ َ َتأَم ََّرَ َعلَ ْي َُك َْم‬contained within them (i.e. the word Ta’ammara). Consequently, it
may be that Al-Baihaqi took the narration containing ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬from Al-Haakim by ear (i.e. he
heard it from him) as Al-Haakim did not record it his Al-Mustadrak.

After having gone through these narrations of the Hadeeth of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah (rh), and the vast
majority are free of the wording ‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫) َتأَم ََّر‬, it is most likely that this wording had originated from
some of the transmitters of the Hadeeth by meaning, with the consideration that the meaning of
‘Ta’ammara’ (َ‫ ) َتأَم ََّر‬is to become and Ameer or that he accepted the Imaarah (position of leadership) after
having been appointed as such by other than him. We have outweighed that so that the meaning in this
Riwaayah (narration) is in agreement with the meaning that came in the rest of the related versions of the
Hadeeth of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah (rh).

Consequently, this represents the understanding of this Hadeeth upon its correct angle or face (Wajh) in
light of the other related versions (Riwaayaat) of the Hadeeth.

D - As for understanding the Hadeeth upon its face ( or true angle) in light of what other Shar’iyah texts
have brought in respect to carrying the Mushkil (unclear or problematic) wording to a specific meaning.
To accomplish this objective I referred back to the dictionary index of Hadeeth that quoted the words of
the Ahaadeeth in the Muwatta; of Maalik, The Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal, the two Saheehs (Al-
Bukhaari and Muslim) and the Sunan of Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasaa’iy, Ibn Maajah and Ad-
Daaramiy.

I referred in the dictionary to the (indefinite) article: ‫ أَ َم ََر‬and I researched ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara). I
consequently found that six texts contained the article of ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) and these were:

The first text: That which was mentioned in Al-Bukhaari within the Book of Al-Jihaad in the chapter
heading:

‫الع ُد َّو‬
َ ‫اف‬َ ‫ب ِم ْن َغ ِْري ْامَرةٍ إِذَا َخ‬
ِ ‫من تَأ ََّمر ِِف اْلر‬
َْ َ َْ
“Who takes over the leadership in the war without (appointment in) authority if he fears the enemy”
Under this heading Al-Bukhaari mentions the story of the battle of Mu’tah and the martyrdom of Zaid
Bin Al-Haarithah, Ja’far Bin Abi Taalib and ‘Abdullah Ibn Ruwaahah as was stated within the text until it
said:

... ‫الوليد ِم ْن َغ ْري ْامَرٍة فّ ّفتَ َح َعلَْي ِه‬ ِ

َ ‫ َخال ٌد بن‬- ‫الرايَة‬
َّ ‫ أي‬- ‫َخ َذ َها‬
َ ‫ ُُثَّ أ‬...
… Then Khalid bin Al-Walid took the flag, though he was not appointed as a commander and
Allah made him victorious …

In Fat’h ul-Baari’ the following was stated: “Ibn ul-Mundhir said: It is taken (i.e. understood) from the
Hadeeth of the chapter that the one who is appointed to a Wilaayah (post of leadership or ruling) whilst it
was not possible to refer back to the Imaam, that the Wilaayah (authority) is affirmed to the one who was
appointed, in accordance to the Shar’a, and it is obligatory to obey him as a Hukm. Similarly, he said: It is
not hidden that his position is affirmed, if those present have agreed upon him …” (1).

It is clear from this text that what Al-Bukhaari intended in his section about ‘The one who comes to the
position of leadership’, relates to the one who is chosen by his companions to lead without referring back
to the highest head of state due to the impossibility or extreme difficulty to do that (due to circumstances).
Its meaning is not however related to the one who takes over the authority by subjugation and gaining
mastery by military force or power, without the people choosing him.

[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari’, Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 6/180. Hadeeth no. 3063].

The second text: Al-Bukhaari related in the Book of Al-Maghaaziy (military conquests), under the
chapter heading of ‘Jareer going to Yemen’, the story of one of the kings of Yemen, called Dhu ‘Amr,
who had embraced Islam when he came to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab during the time of his Khilafah. It was
mentioned in the narration of this story that Dhu ‘Amr said the following to Jareer Ibn Abdullah Al-
Bajjaliy:

ِ َ َ‫ب لَن تَزالُوا ِِبَ ٍري ما ُكنْتُم إِذَا هل‬

‫آخَر فَإِذَا‬
َ ‫ك أَم ٌري تَأ ََّم ْرُُْت ِِف‬ َ ْ َ ْ َ ْ ِ ‫ك َعلَ َّي َكَر َامةً َوإِ ِِّّن ُمُِِْبُ َك َخبَ ًرا إِنَّ ُك ْم َم ْع َشَر الْ َعَر‬
َ ِ‫يَا َج ِر ُير إِ َّن ب‬
ِ ُ‫ضا الْمل‬
‫وك‬ ِ َ ‫وك ويَ ْر‬ ِ ِ ‫لسْي‬
َّ ‫ت بِا‬
ُ َ ‫ض ْو َن ر‬ َ ُ‫ب الْ ُمل‬ َ‫ض‬ َ ‫ضبُو َن َغ‬
َ ‫ف َكانُوا ُملُوًكا يَ ْغ‬ ْ َ‫َكان‬
O Jareer! You have done a favour to me and I am going to tell you something, i.e. you, the nation
of 'Arabs, will remain prosperous as long as you choose and appoint another chief whenever a
former one is dead. But if it (i.e. authority) is obtained by the (power of the) sword, then the
rulers will become kings who will get angry, as kings get angry, and will be delighted as kings get
delighted (1).

It is clear from this text that the meaning of ‘َ‫ ’ َتأَمَّرْ ُت ْم‬came in contrast to the statement: ‘If it was by the
(power of the) sword’. It therefore means: If you have established an Ameer by your choice, as was stated
by Ibn Hajar (in his explanation). And it does not mean: That he took control over the authority by
subjugation and gaining mastery by military force, without the choice or selection of the people.

The third text: The following came mentioned in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah in the book of ‘Al-Waasiyah’:

‫ف‬َ ‫ت فَ َكْي‬ َ َ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم بِ َش ْي ٍء ق‬

ُ ْ‫ال ََّل قُل‬
ِ ُ ‫ال قُ ْلت لِعب ِد اللَّ ِه ب ِن أَِِب أَو َِف أَوصى رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ َُ َ ْ ْ ْ َْ ُ َ َ‫صِّرف ق‬
ٍ ‫عن طَلْحةَ ب ِن م‬
َ ُ ْ َ َْ
ِ ‫ أَبو ب ْك ٍر َكا َن ي تَأ ََّمر َعلَى و ِص ِّي رس‬: ‫ال ُهزيل بن ُشرحبِيل‬
‫ول‬ َ َ‫اب اللَّ ِه ق‬ ِ َ‫صى بِكِت‬ َ َ‫ني بِالْ َو ِصيَّ ِة ق‬ ِِ
َُ َ ُ َ َ ُ َ ْ َ ُ ْ ُ ْ َ َ ‫ال طَلْ َحةُ فَ َق‬ َ ‫ال أ َْو‬ َ ‫أ ََمَر الْ ُم ْسلم‬
‫ فَ َخَزَم أَنْ َفهُ ِِِبَزٍام‬- ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ
َ - ‫ َوَّد أَبُو بَ ْك ٍر أَنَّهُ َكا َن َو َج َد َع ْه ًدا م ْن َر ُسول اللَّه‬، - ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْيه َو َسلَّ َم‬َ - ‫اللَّه‬
ِ
 Talhah Ibn Musarrif said: “I said to Abdullah bin Abu Awfa: 'Did the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬make a
will concerning anything?' He said: 'No.' I said: 'How did he command the Muslims to make wills?' He
said: 'He enjoined (them to adhere to) the book of Allah.” Malik said: “Talhah bin Musarrif said: 'Huzail
bin Shurahbil said: “Abu Bakr was granted leadership against the bequest of Allah's Messenger (‫”?)ﷺ‬
(No rather) Abu Bakr wished that he had found a covenant (in that regard) from Allah's Messenger
(‫)ﷺ‬, so he could fetter his nose with a (camel's) nose ring” (2).

It was mentioned in Ash-Sharh (the explanation): In respect to the question in the narration: “Abu Bakr
was placed in the position leadership?” (Then this in the style of a questioning indicating denial or
negation [Usloob Inkaariy]). Did Abu Bakr think that he should take charge of the Imaarah (ruling
leadership) over ‘Ali, if ‘Ali had been granted it (i.e. by bequest of the Messenger ‫ )ﷺ‬as the Rawaafid
(falsely) claim? Far be it that he would have done that. The meaning of ‘Ahdun’ (covenant): It belongs to
someone so that he follows it and is driven along with him like the camel is driven (or steered) in the hand
of its neighbour.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 4359 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/76), (2) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2182 (2/900). Al-
Albaaniy said: ‘Saheeh’ in ‘The Saheeh of Ibn Maajah’ by Al-Albaaniy: 2182 (2/109). This
Hadeeth is agreed upon until the statement: ‘He enjoined them (to adhere) to the Book of Allah’.
Refer to the Hadeeth in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2740 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/356) and in Saheeh Muslim:
1634 (3/1256)].

Consequently, the ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) mentioned in this text carries the meaning of accepting the Imaarah
(ruling leadership) from the people who appointed Abu Bakr (ra). The Hadeeth negates that Abu Bakr
had accepted the leadership of ruling with the existence of a covenant from the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬stating
that ‘Ali (ra) would be the Ameer (leader). As there was no ‘Ahd (covenant) and no Wasiyah (bequest) to
‘Ali, Abu Bakr accepted the people’s appointment of him as their Ameer. He did not take the position of
the Ameer over ‘Ali, meaning that he would not have accepted to be the Ameer over ‘Ali had the Wasiyah
been verified!

Therefore, the word ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) here does not mean gaining mastery and subjugating by means of
military force without the choice of the people.

The fourth text: The following was related in the Chapter heading of ‘Al-Imaarah’ (leadership) in the
Saheeh of Muslim:

Abu Dharr (ra) related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫ال يَتِي ٍم‬ ِ ْ َ‫ب لِنَ ْف ِسي َّلَ تَأ ََّمر َّن َعلَى اثْن‬
َّ ََّ‫ني َوَّلَ تَ َول‬
َ ‫ني َم‬ ُّ ‫ك َما أ ُِح‬ ُّ ‫ضعِي ًفا َوإِ ِِّّن أ ُِح‬
َ َ‫ب ل‬ َ ‫يَا أَبَا ذٍَّر إِ ِِّّن أ ََر َاك‬
َ
Abu Dharr, I find that you are weak and I like for you what I like for myself. Do not rule be
placed as an Ameer over two people and do not take responsibility over the property of an orphan
(1).

The origin of ‘ََّ‫ ’الََ َتأَم ََّرن‬is ‘ََّ‫’الََََت َتأَم ََّرن‬. An-Nawawi said: “This Hadeeth represents a great origin in respect to
avoiding the positions of ruling and particularly in respect to the one who has weakness related to
undertaking the tasks of that ruling position”.

It is clear from the Hadeeth, that what is intended is a warning to the one who assumes the positions or
leadership (Imaarah) or governorship (Wilaayah) over the property of the orphan or what is similar to
that, whilst being incapable of undertaking the tasks (and responsibilities) of that guardianship, as An-
Nawawi mentioned. It therefore means: Do not accept the Imaarah with weakness or incapability (Al-
‘Ajz). The meaning of ‘ََّ‫( ’الََ َت َتأَم ََّرن‬do not take over leadership) is not: Do not take the Imaarah (leadership)
by way of subjugation and gaining mastery by way of military power without the choice or selection of the
people. Additionally, even if did hold that meaning, then this Hadeeth forbids that and does not approve
of it. Even if this meaning was a Hujjah (proof and evidence) for us and a Hujjah for those who say that
At-Ta’ammur with the meaning of At-Tasallut (acquiring the authority) by force without the consent of
the people, we do not however view that any Daleel should be held onto merely because it agrees with our
opinion whilst we are aware that the context of that evidence came for a purpose other than the issue that
we are examining.

The fifth text: In Saheeh Al-Bukhaari in the Book of Hudood it mentioned the narration of ‘Umar ibn
Al-Khattaab (ra) relating the vents of the Bai’ah of Abu Bakr (ra) and how ‘Umar refused to take
leadership (‫ )ََي َتأ َ َّم َُر‬over a people amongst who Abu Bakr (ra) was present, when Abu Bakr (ra) presented to
the people that they should give the Bai’ah to ‘Umar for the Khilafah (1). We have previously quoted the
text that ‘Umar (ra) stated in respect to that occasion.

What was intended in the speech about ‘At-Ta’ammur’ here, was clearly not about taking over the
authority by subjugation and gaining mastery by military force. Rather, what was meant was not accepting
the leadership if the people had chosen him whilst Abu Bakr (ra) was still amongst them as he was better
and more suitable than ‘Umar to assume the leadership.

The sixth text: The followed was related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari about the Tafseer of Soorah At-
Tahreem:

َ َ‫ َح ََّّت أَنْ َزَل اللَّهُ فِي ِه َّن َما أَنْ َزَل َوقَ َس َم ََّلُ َّن َما قَ َس َم ق‬،‫ِّس ِاء أ َْمًرا‬
‫ال فَبَ ْي نَا أَنَا ِِف أ َْم ٍر‬ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ َّ
َ ‫َال عُ َم ُر َوالله إ ْن ُكنَّا ِف ا ْْلَاهليَّة َما نَ ُع ُّد للن‬
ِ ‫ك ولِما ها هنَا فِيما تَ َكلُّ ُف‬ ِ ِ
‫ت َِل َع َجبًا‬ ُ ‫ك ِِف أ َْم ٍر أُ ِر‬
ْ َ‫ فَ َقال‬.ُ‫يده‬ َ ُ َ َ َ َ‫ت ََّلَا َمال‬ ُ ‫ال فَ ُق ْل‬ َ َ‫ت َك َذا َوَك َذا ق‬ َ ‫أَتَأ ََّم ُرهُ إِ ْذ قَالَت ْامَرأَِِت لَ ْو‬
َ ‫صنَ ْع‬
ْ ‫ول اللَّ ِه صلى اهلل عليه وسلم َح ََّّت يَظَ َّل يَ ْوَمهُ َغ‬
‫ضبَا َن‬ َ ‫ك لَتُ َر ِاج ُع َر ُس‬ َ َ‫ َوإِ َّن ابْنَت‬،‫ت‬ َ ْ‫اج َع أَن‬
َ ‫يد أَ ْن تَُر‬
ِ َّ‫اْلَط‬
ُ ‫اب َما تُِر‬ ْ ‫ك يَا ابْ َن‬ َ َ‫ل‬
Then `Umar added: "By Allah, in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance we did not pay attention to
women until Allah revealed regarding them what He revealed regarding them and assigned for
them what He has assigned. Once while I was deliberating over a matter to deal with, my wife
said: "I recommend that you do so-and-so." I said to her: "What have you got to do with the is
matter? Why do you poke your nose in a matter which I want to see fulfilled.?" She said: “How
strange you are, O son of Al-Khattab! You don't want to be argued with whereas your daughter
(Hafsa) surely, argues with Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬so much that he remains angry for a full
day!" (2).

It is apparent that the meaning of ‘ُ‫( ’ َف َب ْي َناَأَ َناَفِيَأَمْ ٍرَأَ َتأ َ َّم ُره‬Once while I was deliberating a matter to deal with)
is that ‘I will consult my own thoughts (i.e. deliberate) and make the matter go around in my mind in
thought’.

In Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet (a classical dictionary) it stated: ‘Al-Amr’ (‫ )األَ ْمر‬and ‘Al-I’timaar’ (‫ )االَِ ْئتِ َمار‬means
‘Al-Mushaawarah’ (consultation and deliberation) like ‘‫ ’الم َُؤا َم َرة‬and ‘‫ ’االِسْ تَِ ْئ َمار‬and ‘‫’ال َّتأَمُّر‬. Then it stated:
َ ‫ َ’و َتأَم ََّر‬means ‘‫( ’ال َّت َسلُّط‬At-Tasallut)َ[i.e. Ta’ammar means to take over the authority (by force or
‘‫َعلَي ِْهم‬
subjugation etc.] (3).

This means that ‘‫( ’ال َّتأَمُّر‬At-Ta’ammur) has come in the Arabic language with the meaning of Al-
Mushaawarah (consultation and deliberation) just as it has come with the meaning of ‘At-Tassalut’ (to take
over the authority [without consent]).
In addition, in respect to the first five Shar’iyah texts that we presented, transmitted from the Al-Mu’jam
Al-Mufahras (Indexed dictionary: That has indexed all of the Alfaazh (worded expressions) in the
Shar’iyah texts), which we went back to their sources for, the meaning of the Lafzh (wording) ‘‫( ’ال َّتأَمُّر‬At-
Ta’ammur) came within them with the meaning of accepting the Imaarah (leadership) whilst not one of
them came with the meaning of ‘At-Tasallut’ (gaining the authority) by force and subjugation without the
consent of the people.

This text related by Ibn Khuzaimah (in his Hadeeth collection) and others in which the wording: ‘َ‫’ َتأَم ََّر‬
(Ta’ammara) was mentioned with the previous meaning (i.e. of At-Tasallut) was not mentioned within ‘Al-
Mu’jam Al-Mufahras’ because it did not index the Alfaazh (wordings) related or collected by ‘Ibn
Khuzaimah’.

[(1) Refer to the whole story or narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 6830 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 12/144), (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 4913
(Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/657), (3) Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet: Article: ََ‫( أَمَر‬Amara)].

The following was mentioned in ‘Kanz ul-‘Ummaal’:

Raafi’ Bin Abi Raafi’ said:

،‫ فارَتلت حَّت انتهيت إَل املدينة‬:‫ صاحِب الذي أمرِّن أَّل أتأمر على رجلني؟ قال‬:‫ملا استخلف الناس أبا بكر قلت‬
‫ وقد وليت أمر‬،‫تأمر على رجلني‬
َّ ‫ َّل‬:‫ أتذكر شيئًا قلته َل‬:‫ قلت‬.‫ نعم‬:‫ أتعرفِن؟ قال‬،‫ يا أبابكر‬:‫ فقلت له‬،‫فعرضت ْلِب بكر‬
،‫ قبض والناس حديث عهد بكفر فخفت عليهم أن يرتدوا وأن خيتلفوا‬- ‫ صلى اهلل عليه وسلم‬- ‫ إن رسول اهلل‬:‫اْلمة! فقال‬
‫فدخلت فيها وأنا كاره ومل يزل ِب أصحاِب فلم يزل يعتذر حَّت عذرته‬

When the people appointed Abu Bakr as Khalifah I said (to myself): My companion, who
commanded me that I do not take command over two people? He said: So, I set off until I
reached Al-Madinah and then presented myself to Abu Bakr and said to him: O Abu Bakr, do you
know who I am? He said: Yes. I said: Do you remember anything that you said to me. That you
said: Do not take command (or leadership) over two men, and (here) you have been appointed to
the matter (i.e. ruling) of the (whole) Ummah! He said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had passed
away and the people were talking about a covenant of Kufr and so I thought to lighten the matter
for them so that they do not apostatise and fall into disputes (or disagreement). So I entered into
it (i.e. the Khilafah) even though I disliked to. And I still have my companions and he continued
to apologise until I pardoned him! (1).

It is clear from this text and its context that the ‘‫( ’ال َّتأَمُّر‬At-Ta’ammur) (the acquiring of leadership) that
Abu Bakr forbade his companion from, was mentioned with the meaning of ‘accepting the leadership’
(Imaarah) and had nothing to the meaning of taking over the authority (At-Tasallut) by subjugation and
force. The evidence for that is that the companion of Abu bakr had taken this understanding from the
word ‘‫( ’ال َّتأَمُّر‬At-Ta’ammur) and it was on that basis that he sought to rebuke Abu Bakr (ra). How could he
(Abu Bakr) advise him (Raafi’) to not take leadership (i.e. At-Ta’ammur) with the meaning of accepting
the leadership (Imaarah) whilst he (Abu Bakr) accepted it when the people chose him for it, as was
mentioned upon the tongue of Abu Bakr’s companion when he said: “When the people appointed Abu
Bakr as Khalifah” and “You have been appointed to the matter (i.e. ruling) of the (whole) Ummah”.
When this man expressed his rebuke to Abu Bakr for acting in contradiction to his own advice when it
came to himself, Abu Bakr (ra) made effort to apologise to him until he accepted his apology!
What we have intended by our pursuance of the article ‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) mentioned within the
Ahaadeeth is to examine the opinion that states: That the Hadeeth of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah with the
version related by Al-Baihaqi and An-Nawawi stating:

‫َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌدَ َحبَ ِش ٌي‬

And if an Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you

That this is open to the meaning of At-Tasallut (taking over the authority) by force linguistically just as it
is open to the meaning of becoming the Ameer or accepting the Imaarah (leadership) through others
appointing him as an Ameer. In respect to this opinion I say: Even if this Lafzh (wording) of ‘َ‫’ َتأَم ََّر‬
(Ta’ammara) revolves linguistically between these two meanings, the other Ahaadeeth (of its category or
subject area) have nevertheless only used the word Ta’ammara in accordance to the meaning of accepting
the leadership and not the meaning of taking over the authority by military power. Consequently, the word
‘َ‫( ’ َتأَم ََّر‬Ta’ammara) in the Hadeeth of Al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah is understood in accordance to the meaning
used in the other Ahaadeeth within this subject matter.

In this way, the Hadeeth is understood in light of the other Shar’iyah texts, so that the Mushkil Lafzh
(unclear or problematic wording) can be designated a specific understood meaning.

By this, we have also come to the end of the discussion of the second Daleel (evidence) from the
evidences of those who hold the view that taking the authority by force is legitimate based on the
Hadeeth:

‫ َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌي‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
“I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if an
Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you (2).
We will now go on to continue to present and examine the evidences of those who hold this view.

[(1) Ibn Raahwaih, Al-‘Adawiy, Al-Baghawiy and Ibn Khuzaimah (Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: no. 14043, 5/586), (2) Riyaad As-
Saaliheen: 90].

3 - The Third Daleel: In respect to the contracting of the Imaamah by taking over control of the
authority by force as relied upon those who hold that opinion and discussion about it:

This Daleel is what was recorded in the Saheeh of Al-Bukhaari and related from Ibn ‘Abbaas from the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ان ِشب را مات ِميتةً ج‬
َ َ َ َ ً ْ َ‫السلْط‬
ِ ُّ ‫من َك ِره ِمن أ َِم ِريهِ َشيئًا فَلْيصِِب فَإِنَّه من خرج ِمن‬
ْ َ ََ ْ َ ُ ْ ْ َ ْ ْ َ َْ
Whoever hates from his Ameer something, then he must be patient, for verily whoever goes
outside of the Sultaan (one in authority) by a hand span, will have died a death of Jaahilliyah (1).

And Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) also related from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ٌ‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ فَإِنَّه من فَار َق ا ْْلماعةَ ِشب را فَمات فَ ِميتةٌ ج‬، ‫من رأَى ِمن أ َِم ِريهِ َشيئا يكْرهه فَلْيصِِب‬
َ َ َ َ ًْ َ ََ َ ْ َ ُ ْ ْ َ ُ ُ َ َ ًْ ْ َ َْ
Whoever sees something from his Ameer that he hates, then he must be patient. For verily,
whoever separates from the Jamaa’ah by a hand span and then dies (upon that), then his death is
one of Jaahilliyah (1).
It was stated in Fat’h ul-Baari’: “ … Ibn Battaal said: This Hadeeth contains a Hujjah (proof) in respect to
abstaining from going outside of the authority of the leader (As-Sultaan) and even if he is unjust or
oppressive. The Fuqahaa have held a consensus over the obligation of obedience to the Sultaan Al-
Mutaghallab (one who assumes leadership by force and subjugation), to fight Jihaad with him and that
obedience to him is better than going out (or rebelling) against him due to the blood that will be preserved
and quelling (or preventing) a disaster (or catastrophe).

Their proof (Hujjah) is: This report (i.e. Hadeeth) and others that support it, have not made an exception
from that (i.e. obedience) except when the Sultaan falls into Kufr Sareeh (flagrant disbelief), in which case
it is not permissible to keep obedience to him. Rather, it is obligatory to make Jihaad against him in
respect to those who have the capability to do that …” (2). What is intended from this, is that the
mentioned Ijmaa’ (consensus) of the Fuqahaa’ upon the obligation to obey the Sultaan Al-Mutaghallib,
has a Hujjah Shar’iyah in the view of those who hold that view. That Hujjah (proof and evidence) in their
view, is this report and others that support it (i.e. those reports that indicate the prohibition of rebelling
against the Sultaan and separating from the Jamaa’ah: “whoever goes outside of the Sultaan (one in
authority) by a hand span, will have died a death of Jaahilliyah” and “whoever separates from the
Jamaa’ah by a hand span and then dies, then his death is one of Jaahilliyah” (4).

We will now discuss the use of these two texts as a proof for the obligation of obeying the Sultaan Al-
Mutaghallib:

- The first text:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ان ِشب را مات ِميتةً ج‬
ِ ُّ ‫من خرج ِمن‬
َ َ َ َ ً ْ َ‫الس ْلط‬ ْ َ ََ ْ َ
“…Whoever goes outside of the Sultaan (one in authority) by a hand span, will have died a death
of Jaahilliyah”.

This texts prohibits going outside of the Sultaan. The speech indicates the meaning of: Going outside
from the obedience to the one in authority (Sultaan). In Al-Qamoos (dictionary) it was stated: As-Sultaan
means Al-Hujjah (proof), the power of the authority and the Waaliy (ruler) (5).

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/5), Hadeeth no. 7054, (2) Same source: Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/7,
(3) Same source: Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7053 and Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/5, (4) Previously referenced, (5) Al-
Qamoos Al-Muheet: Article: ‘َ‫’سلَّ َط‬
َ (Sallata).

The following was mentioned in ‘Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer’ (a dictionary): “And ‘As-Sultaan’: When it refers
to a person, means a ‘male’, and ‘As-Sultaan’ means: Al-Hujjah and Al-Burhaan (proof and clear
evidence), and ‘As-Sultaan’ means: The Wilaayah (ruling) and Saltanah (ruling) … and it could be used for
the feminine where it is said: Qadat Bihi As-Sultaan (The Sultan dealt (in feminine tense i.e. Qadat [َ‫ت‬ ْ ‫ض‬
َ ‫)] َق‬
with him) when the Sultaan is referring to the Saltanah … It could also be used to refer to the plural. It is
like when he (the person) said: … ‘‫س ْلطان‬ ْ ‫( ’إنَلَمَي‬In the case where the master of the Sultaan did
َُّ ‫غثنِيَسبِّدَال‬
not rescue me) when meaning ‘‫( َ’سيّدَالسَّالطين‬Salaateen is the plural of Sultaan) (i.e. the Khalifah who is
‘the master of the people in authority’. And the meaning of: ‘َ‫َ’ َسلَّ ْط ُتهَ َعلىَ َشيءٍَ َتسْ ليطا‬is ‘I enabled him to do
ََ َّ‫( َت َسل‬Tasallata) means to be enabled (Tamakkana) and to gain control (Tahakkama)
it’ (َ‫َ) َم َّك ْن ُتهَُ ِم ْن ُه‬and so ‫ط‬
(1).

Consequently, the Sultaan, in origin, in our subject area, means the Sultah (authority) and the Hukm (rule),
and the Khurooj (going out or exiting) from the Sultaan, mentioned in the Hadeeth, means going outside
and exiting from the obedience to the one in the position of the authority or the one who possesses it.
The one who possesses the authority, in accordance to the Shar’a, is the one whom the Shar’a has
provided with this authority and not just any person who claims it for himself. The Shar’a (divine
legislation) has defined and specified the one who possesses the authority as the one whom the Ummah
has provided that authority to, in accordance to the Bai’ah contract, as was explained at the beginning of
this topic’s study.

Therefore, anyone who claims after that, that he is the possessor of the authority, having breached it by
other than this method that the Shar’a has defined would be a pretender and Mughtasib (usurper) of the
authority (As-Sultah) and not the one who (rightfully) possesses it. Consequently, the warning about going
outside of or exiting from his obedience mentioned in the text is not being addressed within it. That is
because it does not represent a Khurooj (exiting from or rebelling) against the Shar’iy (legally legitimate)
possessor of the authority.

The second text:

ٌ‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫من فَار َق ا ْْلماعةَ ِشب را فَمات فَ ِميتةٌ ج‬
َ َ َ َ ًْ َ ََ َ ْ َ
… Whoever separates from the Jamaa’ah by a hand span and then dies (upon that), then his
death is one of Jaahilliyah

The word ‘Al-jamaa’ah’ here means the Jamaa’ah (collective) of the Muslims who are brought together
under the Shar’iy Sultaan (legally legitimate authority or person in authority). The one who rebels against it
is a Baaghi (rebel against the legitimate authority). He is someone who has departed and separated from
the Jamaa’ah and it is obligatory upon the Ummah to fight against him. Even if the Bughaat (rebels) are
many and represented the majority of the Ummah, the word ‘Al-Jamaa’ah’ would remain as the
description for those who remained in obedience to the Shar’iy Sultaan (legally legitimate possessor of the
authority). The rest of the people, and even if they represent the majority, would remain according to the
perspective of the Shar’a as Bughaat (rebels against the legitimate authority) and who have rebelled against
the Jamaa’ah (collective). That is as long as their Khurooj (departure from obedience or rebellion) was not
due to the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah (flagrant disbelief) and what follows its rule!

Therefore, this is the description of the one who has usurped the authority when he went out or rebelled
against the existing Imaam. It is he who is described as the one who has departed or separated from the
Jamaa’ah. If he then pounces upon the authority without the consent of the Jamaa’ah (collective) of the
Muslims, when the Jamaa’ah does not have a Shar’iy (legally legitimate) Imaam following his death,
withdrawal (from the post) or his removal … Then he would still be the one who is described as departing
and separating from the Jamaa’ah due to this pouncing upon the authority. Consequently, he deserves to
be killed and his death would be one of Jaahilliyah.

[(1) Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer: Article: ‘َ‫( ’ َسلَّ َط‬Sallata) page 108].

In relation to this ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) said in a narration related by An-Nasaa’iy:

ِ ِِ ِ ‫ أَو َغ ِريهِ ِمن َغ ِري م ُش‬، ‫من دعا إِ ََل إِمارةِ نَ ْف ِس ِه‬
ُ‫ني فََل َُي ُّل لَ ُك ْم إَِّل أَ ْن تَ ْقتُلُوه‬
َ ‫ورٍة م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬
َ َ ْ ْ ْ ْ ََ ََ َْ
Whoever calls to the leadership for himself or someone lese without the consultation of the
Muslims, then it is not Halaal for you (i.e. Muslims) other than for you to kill him (1).

We therefore find that the warning about going out and rebelling against the Jamaa’ah only applies to the
one usurping the authority from the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims by taking up arms against it and subjugating
it by power. It does not however apply to those who rise up against the aggressors to restore the rights to
their rightful and legally legitimate people and possessors!
4 - The Fourth Daleel: That has been brought forth to support the view of those who have stated that
the rule of the one who has subjugated and taken over the rule (Al-Mutaghallib) is valid:

This evidence (or argument) is: That in respect to the Mutaghallib over the authority, that it is correct that
he is an usurper! And that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the usurper (Mughtasib) is that he must
return that which he usurped or he is fought so that what he he has taken can be restored to its rightful
owner!

However, they argue that the Mutaghallib (the one who gains mastery) over the authority is exempted
from this ruling. That is because Shar’iyah texts have come exempting the Sultaan (ruler) from the Hukm
(legal ruling) of the Ightisaab (usurpation). As such, it is nor permissible to fight him because of his
usurpation of the authority. Rather, it is obligatory upon the Ummah to adopt the position of patience and
to try and achieve their rights by peaceful means … We have already presented the Ahaadeeth of this
meaning and they include:

I entered upon the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he said to me:

ِ
‫ضَربُوا‬ َ َ‫ َوإِ ْن أَ َكلُوا َمال‬، ‫ك‬
َ ‫ك َو‬ َ ‫ َوأَثََرٍة َعلَْي‬، ‫ك‬
َ ‫ك َوَمكَْره‬ َ ‫َط ْع ِِف عُ ْس ِرَك َويُ ْس ِرَك َوَمنْ َش ِط‬
ِ ‫اْسع وأ‬
َ ْ َْ : ‫ال‬
َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫ك‬
َ ‫ لَبَّ ْي‬: ‫ت‬
ُ ‫ قُ ْل‬، ُ‫يَا عُبَ َادة‬
ِ ِِ ِ
ً ‫ إَّل أَ ْن تَ ُكو َن َم ْعصيَة اللَّه بَو‬، ‫ظَ ْهَرَك‬
‫اح‬
O ‘Ubaadah! I said: At your service. He said: Hear and obey, in your difficulty, in your ease, in
what you like and what you dislike and when preference is given over you, even if he devours
what is yours and beats your back, unless it is a flagrant act of disobedience to Allah (2).

[(1) Related by An-Nasaa’iy: (Kanz ul-Ummaal: 14359) 5/778. However, I could not locate this statement of ‘Umar’s in the
Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy. Perhaps it is also in his Sunan Al-Kubraa, (2) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 14373, 5/781 from “Ibn “Asaakir”. In
addition, the Hadeeth stating the command to hear and obey the Ameer and even if he strikes the back and devours the wealth,
has been recorded in the Saheeh of Muslim in the Hadeeth related from Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yamaan: 1847, 3/1475-1476].

It is understood from what was mentioned in the book: ‘Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu’ under the
heading: “The contracting of the Imaamah by subjugation and gaining mastery (Al-Qahr Wa-l-Ghalabah)”
that the above Daleel has been used as a Hujjah (proof) in respect to the validity of the rule of the
Mutaghallib over the authority. The book states the following: “The Fuqahaa’ of the four Madhaahib
amongst others that the Imaamah is contracted by subjugation and gaining mastery in the case where the
Mutaghallib becomes an Imaam without being given the Bai’ah or the Istikhlaaf (nomination) of the
previous Imaam! But rather he becomes the Imaam by taking it over alone … Ibn ul-Mundhir said: And
that which the people of knowledge are upon is that it is the right of the man to defend his Deen,
property, honour and an injustice against him (Mazhlamah), if injustice is desired (to be undertaken)
[without detailing it]. However, everyone whom knowledge is safe to take from, from amongst the
‘Ulamaa of the Hadeeth, are unanimous upon the exception of the Sultaan (i.e. from this ruling) and that
is due to the narrations that have come commanding patience over his oppression or injustice and to
abstain from standing up against him” (1).

Consequently, the quoting of the statement of Ibn ul-Mundhir in respect to exempting the Sultaan from
being fought when he has usurped, when presenting the deduction of the validity of the contraction of the
Imaamah leadership) by subjugation and gaining mastery, provides the indication that the Ahaadeeth
about patience over the usurpation of the authority by the one who has usurped it and about not going
out against him, represents the evidence for the validity of the contraction of the Imaamah which has
come about by usurpation and subjugation!
We will now discuss this evidence by saying: When the usurper of the authority (Mughtasib As-Sultah)
undertakes the act of usurpation he was not the Sultaan (legitimate ruler), so as to make it valid to remain
silent over him. Rather, he was an aggressing man who had gathered power or force under his control (or
influence) and then used that to usurp the authority. So, when he usurped the authority he was not the
Sultaan and then following the usurpation he did not become the Shar’iy Sultaan (legitimate authority) as
long as the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims had not extended their hands to him by giving him the Bai’ah!
Indeed, he would remain a usurper of the authority and not the Shar’iy Sultaan (legally legitimate ruler)
and upon that basis, it is the right of the Ummah to fight that usurper just as they would fight any usurper
who had refused to return the thing that he had usurped to its rightful Shar’iy owner!

What Ibn ul-Mundhir said and what was mentioned within the Ahaadeeth only applies to the Shar’iy
Sultaan (legitimate person of authority) when the description of usurpation does not apply to him. In
which case, it is not permitted to fight him. The statement (or view) does not apply under any
circumstances upon the one who was not the Sultaan and then usurped the authority! (2).

5 - The Fifth Daleel: That is relied upon by those who hold that the Imaamah is valid by subjugating and
taking over the authority is:

To suppress the occurrence of Fitnah, to save the spilling of blood and to alleviate the catastrophe.

In the Sharh of Al-Qastalaaniy of Al-Bukhaariy, the following was stated from Ibn Hajar in connection to
the contraction of the Imaamah by subjugation and gaining mastery: “… By the Mutaghallib gaining
control over the Imaamah, even if he was not fit for it, like the boy or woman, if he overcomes and
suppresses the people by his power, and that is so that the unity of the Muslims remains in place” (3).

[(1) Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu, Dr. Wahbah Zuhailiy: 6/682, (2) A Treatise of the Islamic thought: Ash-Sheikh Taqiy-
ud-Deen An-Nabhaani: p60 (Printed issue on 20th Sha’baan 1384 Ah, 24th December 1964 CE, (3) Sharh Al-Qastalaani ‘Alaa
Al-Bukhaari: 10/210].

It also stated: “Yes! If a literal slave was to gain mastery and controlling dominance by power, it is
obligatory to obey him to prevent Fitnah from occurring” (1).

This, in reality, represents the fifth Daleel to support the view of the contraction of the Mutaghallib to the
Imaamah or the obligation to obey him and the prohibition of rebelling against him. This Daleel is: The
fear of the Fitnah and to prevent the shedding of blood. This is the Daleel that is used the most by the
classical and modern Fuqahaa’ for this issue.

Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaily states: “Subjugation (Al-Qahr) is an exceptional circumstance which does not
conform to the origin which dictates that the authority be established by choice. Approving or accepting
it, is is based upon giving consideration to a situation that has befallen due to the necessity (Daroorah) and
to prevent the shedding of blood …” (2).

He then mentioned the statement of Ad-Dasouqiy in respect to this: “That is because the one who has
consolidated his footprint by way of gaining dominance (At-Taghallub), it is obligatory to obey him and
regarding this the conditions of the Imaamah are not taken into consideration as the matter revolves
around repelling the Mafaasid (harms and corruptions) and committing the lightest (or least) of the two
harms” (3).

Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, when discussing the paths (or methods) to acquire the
Imaamah, said: “The third method: Taking over by force and gaining mastery”.
He then mentions a reasoning (‘Illah) for contracting the Imaamah by this method when he said: “(Due
to) the strength of the street’s strong desire to protect the Islamic society from the causes of rifts and
Fitnah and to protect it from the factors of disunity and instability” (4).

We will now discus this evidence as follows:

The Ightisaab (usurpation) is a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience to Allah). Killing the Mughtasib
(usurper) to repel his usurpation, if necessary, is not a Ma’siyah. Rather, it is what the Shar’iyah texts have
brought. Whether the Mughtasib (usurper) is killed alone or anyone who supports him in that Ma’siyah,
however many they are, is a legislated upon (and legally legitimate) matter, whilst those who are killed are
in the fire!

[(1) Sharh Al-Qastalaani ‘Alaa l-Bukhaari: 10/211, (2) Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu: 6/682, (3) Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa
Adillatuhu: 6/682, (4) Minhaj Al-‘Audah Ila l-Islaam (The methodology for returning back to Islaam), Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed
Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: 53-54].

It is also Mashroo’ (legall legitimate) for the people possessing the Haqq (right) to fight the Mughtasib
(usurper) to restore and take back their right, if the matter dictates that. If they are martyred, then they are
in Jannah (paradise). It was stated within the Hadeeth that:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمظْلَ َمتِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice (Mazhlamah) against him then he is Shaheed (1).

The usurpation of the Sultaan (authority) from the Muslims is from amongst the greatest Mazhaalim (acts
of injustice). Conseuquently, fighting has been legislated to repel that Mazhlamah (injustice). The one who
is killed from the people possessing the right in this fighting is considered to be a Shaheed from amongst
the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter)!

In addition, the word ‘‫( َمن‬man) in the Hadeeth establishes ‘Umoom (generality) (2). It is used to refer to
the singular or one person just as it refers to many. At the same time, there is no Shar’iy text establishing
that the number of the killed from the side of the oppressors and aggressors, or from the side of the
oppressed and those who possess the Haqq (right), or the fear of that happening, provides legal legitimacy
to the usurper regarding what he usurped or prohibits fighting him in such a situation or circumstance.

I say. No such text has been brought so as to take an understanding or position from it!

Also, it is not the case that in every intellectual weighing between two harms that we face, that we should
choose between them the lightest of these two harms. Rather, if a Shar’iy text has been brought in respect
to an issue, it is obligatory upon us to adhere to it and even if it appears to us that the harm resulting from
adhering to it is greater than the harm of abandoning it!

Regarding this Al-Imaam Al-Ghazaaliy said:

“… That is like repelling the Saa’il (aggressor) against the Muslim’s property, that could lead to killing him
which is permissible! That doesn’t mean that we equate a Dirham of a Muslim’s wealth with the life of a
Muslim! That is inconceivable. Rather, his going out to take the property of the Muslim is a Ma’siyah
(sinful act of disobedience to Allah) and killing him to repel the Ma’siyah is not a Ma’siyah (act of
disobedience to Allah). Rather, all that is intended and sought (by this course of action) is to repel the
Ma’aasiy (acts of disobedience)! (3).

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/244. He said: Ahmad Bin Hanbal related it and Al-Albaaniy said that the Hadeeth is: Saheeh (Refer
to his: Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 3818, 3/858, (2) Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, Ali Hasbullah: 234, (3) Ihyaa’ Uloom id-
Deen, Al-Ghazaaliy: 2/223].
Here, in such a situation, it is permissible for the Muslim whose wealth had been stolen to forgive and
overlook his property and by that, safeguard his blood (and prevent it from being shed), the blood of the
usurper and the blood of those who assist and support thisَside or that side … And may Allah protect
fighting between the believers! A lot of Muslim blood could be saved by giving up demands for property
whether small or large in amount. However, is it obligatory for him to do that? No, rather the Shar’a has
permitted the rightful possessor of the property to fight to protect or defend his right and has permitted
other Muslims to support and assist him to fight until their martyrdom. That is in accordance to the
Hadeeth:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of his property is Shaheed (a martyr) (1).

And the Hadeeth:

َ َ‫ص ُرهُ ظَالِ ًما ق‬

‫ال تَأْ ُخ ُذ فَ ْو َق يَ َديِْه‬ ُ ‫ف نَْن‬
َ ‫وما فَ َكْي‬
ً ُ‫ص ُرهُ َمظْل‬
ِ َ ‫اك ظَالِما أَو مظْلُوما قَالُوا يا رس‬
ُ ‫ول اللَّه َه َذا نَْن‬ َُ َ ً َ ْ ً َ ‫َخ‬ َ ‫ص ْر أ‬
ُ ْ‫ان‬
Support your brother, whether he is a Zhaalim (oppressor) or Mazhloom (oppressed). They said:
O Messenger of Allah: We (know how to) support the one who is oppressed but how do we
support the oppressor? Restrain him (2).

We have already mentioned the two Hadeeth and what they indicate to in terms of meaning in previous
discussions.

If we were to take a superficial glance at the issue, we would see that sacrificing stolen wealth or property
is less in terms of harm than sacrificing the blood of the Muslims, in an effort to regain the stolen
property. Despite that, the Shar’iy Nass (text) here, does not see what the mind sees, as it has permitted
defending the taken property by fighting without specifying an amount or limit for the victims or
sacrifices that are presented upon that path or course of action. The reason for that is what was
mentioned by Al-Ghazaaliy in the statement quoted above: “Rather, all that is intended and sought (by
this course of action) is to repel the Ma’aasiy (acts of disobedience)!” (3).

Consequently, the blood that is shed or flows in an uprising or revolution against the Mughtasib As-Sultah
(usurper of the authority) is not viewed from the angle of balancing between the two harms according to
the perspective of the mind. Rather, it is regarded and looked at from the angle of confronting a Ma’siyah
(act of disobedience to Allah) from amongst the perpetrated Ma’aasiy (acts of disobedience), which in this
case is the crime of usurpation. That is whilst the Shar’iy text has come with the legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) to ignite fighting to prevent it (the usurpation) from occurring or to prevent it from
continuing. That is while no Shar’iy text has come defining or specifying a particular extent or limit for
that fighting!

In addition, even if we were to look at the issue from the perspective of selecting or choosing the lighter
(or lesser) of the two harms, as employed by those who hold the view about arriving to the position of
authority by force, then it is obligatory do not restrict this view to the present time alone (i.e. the time of
its occurrence). Rather, it is obligatory to look at what can possibly arise from choosing the lesser or
lighter of the two harms in terms of harms that could end up being greater and overturn the (original
evaluation of the) balance of harms! In such a situation, the lesser harm, which is to remain silent over the
usurper of the authority, would be the greater harm from the perspective of its repercussions. On the
other hand, that which was originally considered to represent a greater harm, which was to fight the
usurper of the authority, would in comparison to the other, become the lighter or lesser harm, that must
be resorted to to counter the other harm!
[(1) Al-Bukhaari, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasaa’iy: (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/742), The Hadeeth is in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2480, Fat’h
ul-Baari’: 5/123 and in Saheeh Muslim: 141, 1/125, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/98 and Hadeeth no. 2444, (3)
Ihyaa’ Uloom id-Deen: 2/223].

What I mean here is: Neglect or leniency from the Muslims to resist the usurper of the authority,
motivated by choosing the weaker of the two harms, whilst considering the usurpation a method by which
the Imaamah is contracted to the Mutaghallib (one who takes control), has led to the people of ambition,
from those whose Taqwaa is weak within themselves, take the military power and the fighting of the
rightful people of authority, as a method to reach the authority. That is based upon the Hujjah (proof and
argument) that it is a Shar’iy duty upon the Muslims to hear and obey any Mutaghallib who has taken hold
of the leadership over them i.e. has taken control over them by his military force in spite of them (and
what they want)!

For this reason, many civil wars took place amongst the people of ambition for the purpose of reaching
the authority, which they claim to then be legitimate.

Who, then is responsible for this flood of blood that was shed upon the threshold of the slaughterhouse
leading to the authority?

My view: In respect to the ardency upon the probability of the lesser harm, in accordance to a short-term
view, represented in staying silent over the usurper of the authority, and then based upon that, refraining
from aiding the revolutionaries in their confrontation of those usurping the authority, leaving them to
meet their tragic fate at the hands of the murderous usurpers, in respect to that I say: This ardency upon
the probability of the supposed lesser harm is what has attracted afflictions of those harms which were
not paid attention to and foreseen by those who held the idea of choosing between the lesser or weaker of
the two evils in this issue (Mas’alah)

Therefore, in the case where historical experience has proven that the lesser of the two evils (Ahwanu sh-
Sharraini) manifested in being silent over the usurper of the authority, has led to more or greater harms
than what would have occurred had the more severe or greater harm (i.e. fighting the usurper) been
chosen. Based upon that I say: In such a case, then even from the angle of the lesser of the two harms …
fighting the usurper of the authority (Mughtasib As-Sultah) is lighter or lesser than remaining silent over
him, in light of the consequences that will follow on from this silence in terms of harms and Fitan, which
has been attested to within the course of the Islamic history.

In spite of the above point, our proof (Hujjah) in respect to the legal Shar’iy legitimacy to fight the
usurper of the authority is not based upon this principle (i.e. the lesser of the two evils). Rather, we only
presented this discussion to refute those who have used this principle as an excuse or pretext and so that
we can address them with the same language that they use.

The Shar’iyah Hukkah in respect to fighting the Mughtasib As-Sultah (usurper of the authority), in our
view, is the Shar’iy Nass (text) and its explanation is to come.

Following all that we have presented, which was necessary to be discussed in this serious topic, we now
move on to discuss and examine the issue of ‘Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah’ (Fighting the usurper of the
authority). It will be discussed within the following points:

- Firstly: What is the Daleel for the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) to fight the usurper of the authority?
- Secondly: What is the specific Hukm (legal ruling) for the legitimacy of fighting the usurper of the
authority?
- Thirdly: Is the fighting against the Mughtasib As-Sultah considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?
Firstly: What is the Daleel for the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) to fight the
usurper of the authority?

The Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy to fight the Mughtasib As-Sultah (usurper of the authority)
is the same as the Daleel to fight against the usurper of any right from amongst the rights (Huqooq).

In the section discussing the issue of “Fighting in defence of the private and public sanctities” we have
mentioned many Ahaadeeth which consider the Qitaal to defend the Maal (property) as a legally legitimate
matter and that death in the path of that is martyrdom.

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمالِِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of his property is Shaheed (a martyr) (1)

And in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal he recorded the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن َمظْلَ َمتِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice (Mazhlamah) against him, he is Shaheed (2).

The Ightisaab (usurpation) of the authority from the Ummah is a Mazhlamah from amongst the
Mazhaalim (acts of injustice) and it is the Ummah’s right to fight to regain what was usurped from it. And
whoever is killed in that fighting is a Shaheed!

Ahmad Bin Hanbal also related in his Musnad that the Nabi (saw) said:

‫الر ُج ُل ُدو َن َحق ِِّه‬

َّ ‫وت‬ ِ ِ
َ َُ‫ن ْع َم الْميتَةُ أَ ْن مي‬
What an excellent death it is for the man to die in defence of his Haqq (right) (3).

The Sultah (authority) is a Haqq for the Ummah and as such it is her right to fight until death to regain
this right from the one who has taken it without right!

And the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in relation to the usurper in general:

‫ت َح ََّّت تُ َؤِّديَه‬ ِ
ْ ‫َخ َذ‬
َ ‫َعلَى الْيَد َما أ‬
What the hand took is due upon it until it gives it back (4)

And the Lafzh (wording) “‫( ” َما‬Maa) in the Hadeeth establishes generality (Al-‘Umoom) (5) and
consequently includes everything that was taken unjustly and usurped, in terms of property, honour,
authority or anything. The obligation upon this usurping hand is to return what it has taken to its rightful
owner(s). If that is not done, then fighting has been legislated to confront it and to take pack that which
was taken control over! This, therefore represents the Daleel of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬in respect to the Hukm of the Mughtasib (usurper) in general. That includes the Mughtasib As-
Sultah (one who has usurped the authority) because the description of the usurper applies upon him.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 141. 1/125, (2) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/244, (3) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal:
1/184, (4) Related by At-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Maajah, Ahmad Al-Haakim (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 5996, 8/164 with no. 9307,
11/751. It is in the Sunan of At-Tirmidhi: 1266, 3/566. Abu ‘Iesaa said: “This Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh”. In the sunan of Abu
Dawud: 3561, 3/400-401. In the Sunan of Ibn Maajah: 2400, 2/802. In Al-Mustadrak of Al-Haakim: 2/47 and he said: “This
Hadeeth is Saheeh Al-Isnaad upon the conditionality of Al-Bukhaari but he did not add it to his collection”, (5) Usool At-
Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali Hasbullah, p234].

There is also a Daleel of Al-Ijmaa’ (consensus) regarding the usurper of the authority specifically.

It is the Daleel that was found in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari related by Ibn ‘Abbaas in which the public Khutbah
of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) on the occasion of responding to the prominent appearance of a particular
political thought amongst the Muslims was mentioned. It dealt with:

Reaching the (post of the) Khilafah, following the death of ‘Umar, by usurping the authority without
placing the matter before the consultation of the individuals of the Ummah and its representatives, so that
they choose from amongst themselves whom they want for the Khilafah. The Hadeeth is long and the
following are parts from it related to our subject area:

Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) related:

ِ ‫اب ِِف‬
‫آخ ِر‬ ِ َّ‫اْلَط‬ْ ‫ َو ُه َو عِنْ َد ُع َمَر بْ ِن‬، ‫ فَبَ ْي نَ َما أَنَا ِِف َمنْ ِزلِِه ِبِِ ًَن‬، ‫ف‬ ٍ ‫الر ْح ِن بن عو‬
ْ َ ُ ْ َ َّ ‫ين منْ ُه ْم َعْب ُد‬
ِ ‫اج ِر‬ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ُكنْت أُقْ ِر‬
َ ‫ئ ر َج ًاَّل م ْن الْ ُم َه‬ ُ
‫ك ِِف‬ ِِ ِ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫ال لَو رأَيت رج ًَل أَتَى أ َِمري الْم ْؤِمنِني الْي وم‬ ََّ ِ‫ إِ ْذ َر َج َع إ‬، ‫َح َّج ٍة َح َّج َها‬
َ َ‫ َه ْل ل‬: ‫ني‬ َ ‫ال يَا أَم َري الْ ُم ْؤمن‬ َ َْ َ ُ َ ُ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫الر ْحَ ِن‬ َّ ‫َل َعْب ُد‬
ِ ِ ُ ‫فََُل ٍن يَ ُق‬
‫ال‬
َ َ‫ ُُثَّ ق‬، ‫ب ُع َم ُر‬َ ‫ فَغَض‬، ‫ت‬ ْ ‫ت بَْي َعةُ أَِِب بَ ْك ٍر إََِّّل فَ ْلتَةً فَتَ َّم‬
ْ َ‫ فَ َواللَّه َما َكان‬، ‫ت فََُلنًا‬ُ ‫ لََق ْد بَايَ ْع‬، ‫ات ُع َم ُر‬ َ ‫ لَ ْو قَ ْد َم‬: ‫ول‬
ِ ُ ‫ين يُِر‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ ‫ إِ ِِّّن إِ ْن َشاءَ اللَّهُ لََقائِ ٌم الْ َع ِشيَّةَ ِِف الن‬:
‫ورُه ْم‬
َ ‫وه ْم أ ُُم‬
ُ ُ‫يدو َن أَ ْن يَ ْغصب‬ َ ‫َّاس فَ ُم َح ِّذ ُرُه ْم َه ُؤََّلء الذ‬
I used to visit some of the Muhaajireen (emigrants) men, among whom there was `Abdur
Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab
during `Umar's last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the
man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers!
What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of
allegiance to such-and such person (Talhah Ibn ‘Ubaidullah as was mentioned in some reports),
as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which
got established afterwards.' `Umar became angry (Ibn Ishaq added here: With an anger that I
never seen from him before!) and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight
and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question
of rulership).

Then Al-Bukhaari records that Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf convinced ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab to delay this
important address until he reached Al-Madinah so that the people of knowledge and understanding could
hear it alone and would not get a bad understanding of it. And so that happened.

The following was mentioned in that address (or speech):

ِ ُ ‫ يَ ُق‬، ‫َن قَائًَِل ِمنْ ُك ْم‬

ْ َ‫ إََِّّنَا َكان‬: ‫ول‬
‫ت بَْي َعةُ أَِِب‬ َ ‫ يَ ُق‬، ‫ فَ ََل يَغْتَ َّر َّن ْام ُرٌؤ أَ ْن‬، ‫ت فََُلنًا‬ ُ ‫ات ُع َم ُر بَايَ ْع‬َ ‫ َواللَّه لَ ْو قَ ْد َم‬: ‫ول‬ َّ ‫ُُثَّ إِنَّهُ بَلَغَِِن أ‬
، ‫اق إِلَْي ِه ِمثْ ُل أَِِب بَ ْك ٍر‬ ِ
ُ َ‫َعن‬ْ ‫س ِمْن ُك ْم َم ْن تُ ْقطَ ُع ْاْل‬ َّ ِ
َ ‫ َولَْي‬، ‫ َولَك َّن اللهَ َوقَى َشَّرَها‬، ‫ك‬ َ ‫ت َك َذل‬ ْ َ‫ أَََّل َوإِن ََّها قَ ْد َكان‬، ‫ت‬
ْ َّ‫بَ ْك ٍر فَلْتَةً َوََت‬
، ‫ َوََّل الَّ ِذي بَايَ َعهُ تَغَِّرًة أَ ْن يُ ْقتَ ََل‬: ‫ فَ ََل يُبَايَ ُع ُه َو‬، ‫ني‬ ِِ ِ ‫من بايع رج ًَل عن َغ ِري م ُش‬
َ ‫ورةٍ م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬ َ َ ْ ْ َ ُ َ ََ َ ْ َ
I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if `Umar should die, I will give
the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that
the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given and completed suddenly. No doubt, it was
like that, but Allah protected (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the
qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among
 you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the
pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.

‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) then continued his Khutbah and came to the story of the Bai’ah that was
given to Abu Bakr (ra) and how it happened in a sudden manner: That it happened suddenly without prior
consultation, but Allah protected the Muslims from the evil of disagreement in the selection of Abu Bakr
due to everyone’s admission of his favour and merit, his precedence and the fact that he had the most
right to the Khilafah, and so they (thereafter) gave him the Bai’ah out of willing choice … He then
repeated at the end of his speech his previously made warning in respect to some trying to take the
initiative to usurp the Khilafah without presenting the subject (i.e. of who should be Khalifah) before the
people and consulting them in that so that it chooses whom it wants. So, he said:

‫ فَ ََل يُتَابَ ُع ُه َو َوََّل الَّ ِذي بَايَ َعهُ تَغَِّرًة أَ ْن يُ ْقتَ ََل‬، ‫ني‬ ِِ ِ ‫فَمن بايع رج ًَل علَى َغ ِري م ُش‬
َ ‫ورةٍ م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬
َ َ ْ َ ُ َ ََ َ ْ َ
So, if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without
consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest
both of them should be killed (1).

In respect to this narration the following was stated in Fat’h ul-Baari’: “Regarding his statement: “there is
none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr” Al-Khattaabiy said: “So no one could covet for
what happened to Abu Bakr in respect to the Bai’ah that was given to him to happen in respect to them,
firstly regarding the smaller gathering and then when the people gathered around him, as there was no
difference amongst them in respect to him due to what they realised in terms of him being the most
deserving. Therefore, regarding him there was no need for looking into the matter or to further
consultation whilst there was no one equal to him…”.

Then Ibn Hajar says: “In respect to his statement: “lest both of them should be killed” it means: A
warning to beware of being killed. The meaning of the term used here ‘َ‫( ’ َتغِرَّ ة‬Taghirratan) which is derived
from ‘َّ‫ ’أَ ْغ َررْ ُتهَُ َت ْغ ِريرا‬is: That the one does that has deceived himself and his companion and exposed them
both to being killed” (2).

This then is the speech of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab delivered to a gathering of Fuqahaa’ from the Sahaabah
immediately following the Hajj season in relation to the subject of the usurpation of the authority in
addition to what was mentioned in Fat’h ul-Baari in terms of the explanation of Al-Khattaabiy. The
intended purpose of presenting this speech of ‘Umar’s (ra) and the explanation for it, is to show that
‘Umar Ibn ‘Al-Khattaab (ra) warned those who sought to attribute the authority to a particular person,
being content to not present the matter to consultation amongst the individuals of the Ummah and its
representatives. In addition, that the one who does that is exposing himself to being killed just as the one
who wanted to attribute the authority to him would also be exposed to being killed.

The Sahaabah listened to this speech and none spoke out against what was said. Consequently, it
represented and Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon what was mentioned in terms of the obligation to take the
opinion of the Muslims in respect to whom is chosen to be a Khalifah over them. Just as it represented an
Ijmaa’ (consensus) over the matter to beware of those who want to usurp the affairs of the Muslims as
‘Umar expressed in his speech. And it also represents a consensus upon that being killed (i.e. the
punishment of death) lies in wait for those usurpers, those who have gone outside from the method of
Shouraa to arrive to the position of the authority, and that it (i.e. death) applies equally to those who
aspire and have ambition for the Khilafah and those who support them!

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 6830, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 12/144, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’, explanation of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 12/144].

In addition to that, we have already previously quoted the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, recorded
by An-Nasaa’i related to this threat. It stated:
 ِ ِِ ِ ‫ أَو َغ ِريهِ ِمن َغ ِري م ُش‬، ‫من دعا إِ ََل إِمارةِ نَ ْف ِس ِه‬
ُ‫ني فََل َُي ُّل لَ ُك ْم إَِّل أَ ْن تَ ْقتُلُوه‬
َ ‫ورٍة م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬
َ َ ْ ْ ْ ْ ََ ََ َْ
Whoever calls to the leadership for himself or someone lese without the consultation of the
Muslims, then it is not Halaal for you (i.e. Muslims) other than for you to kill him (1).

The above relates to the first point which is the legal legitimacy of fighting against the Mughtasib As-
Sultah (usurper of the authority). We will now move on to the following point:

Secondly: What is the specific Shar’iy Hukm in respect to the Mashroo’iyah (legal
legitimacy) to fight the usurper of the authority?

The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to this legal legitimacy, as I view it, is Al-Ibaahah (permissibility). That
is because it is the right of the possessor of the right (Saahib Al-Haqq) to give up what he owns to the
usurper or to other than the usurper, just as it is his Haqq (right) to fight in defence of that right (2).

Consequently, it is the right of the Ummah to fight the one who has usurped the authority from it, just as
it can abstain from fighting him.

[(1) An-Nasaa’iy: Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 14359, 5/778. That is whilst I was unable to locate the statement of ‘Umar in the Sunan of
An-Nasaa’iy itself and so it may be within the Sunan Al-Kubraa, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-
Sharbeeniy: 4/194-195].

However, in the situation when the Ummah abstains from fighting the usurper of the authority there are
some issues that need to be looked at:

- If the Ummah gives the Bai’ah to the usurper by consent and choice, then the condition of usurpation
would have been removed and the matters would then proceed upon its natural course.

- If the Ummah has not given the Bai’ah to the Mughtasib (usurper), then there are two (possible) cases:

- The first case: The Ummah refuses to fight the usurper despite having the capability to do so. In such a
case, the Ummah would fall into sin after three days of the usurper taking over control of the authority.
That is because the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy states that it is not permitted for the Ummah to remain for more
than here days without the existence of a Bai’ah to an Imaam being upon their necks as long as they had
the capability to do that. The Daleel (evidence) for that Hukm is the Ijmaa’ (consensus of the Sahaabah) as
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) specified the time limit of three days to the people of Ash-Shouraa
(consultation) for them to choose one from amongst them for the Khilafah, in their description as being
representative of the masses of the Ummah. He specified that the Khilafah not go outside of them and
commanded that the one who opposes what the majority have agreed upon should be killed, whilst none
of the Sahaabah spoke out against that, even though it is from amongst the matters that would be spoken
out against (had it been contrary to the Shar’a). Therefore, an Ijmaa’ (consensus) was made over this
Hukm (1).

As such, the Ummah during these three days can:

- Either fight the usurper so that they can give the Bai’ah to whom they wish or they can give Bai’ah to
whom they wish to then fight against the usurper.

- Or they can consent to the usurper and contract the Bai’ah to him.

In respect to this Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani said:

“Based upon that, if a Mutasallit arises and takes over the ruling by force, he does not become a Khalifah
by that and even if he declares himself to be the Khalifah of the Muslims. That is because the Khilafah has
not been contracted to him by the Muslims. If he was to take the Bai’ah from the people by coercion and
force he would not become a Khalifah, in spite of the Bai’ah, because the Bai’ah by way of coercion and
force is not given consideration. The Khilafah is not contracted to him because the Bai’ah is a contract of
consent and choice and is not completed by coercion and force or compulsion. It is therefore not
contracted except by a Bai’ah of consent and choice. However, if this Mutasallit is capable of convincing
the people that it is in the interest of the Muslims to give him the Bai’ah and that the establishment of the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’I depend upon giving Bai’ah to him, and then they are convinced by that and consent
(or content with that), and then give him the Bai’ah based upon consent and choice, he would then
become a Khalifah from the moment that the Bai’ah is given to him in respect to it by consent and choice.
That’s even if he took over the authority initially by way of taking control over it and by force …” (2).

This relates to the first case or situation which is when the Ummah is capable of fighting the usurper of
the authority. In such a situation, the Ummah can either fight this usurper or it can give the Bai’ah to him
by consent and choice.

- As for the second case or situation: It is where the Ummah refuses to fight the usurper because it is
incapable of doing that. In this situation, it is obligatory upon the Ummah to procced upon the path of
gathering the necessary power that would enable it to fight the usurper and oust him. That is in the case
where it does not wish to consent to him and give him the Bai’ah. During the time in which it is working
to gather the necessary power for the purpose of fighting the usurper the Ummah is excused for not
having a Bai’ah upon its neck to an Imaam for a period of more than three days and that is because it is
compelled upon its situation and Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla says:

‫ف اللَّهُ نَ ْف ًسا إََِّّل ُو ْس َع َها‬

ُ ِّ‫ََّل يُ َكل‬
Allah does not charge a person except [with that within] its capacity (Al-Baqarah: 286).

[(1) Taareekh At-Tabari: 4/229, (2) Al-Khilafah: Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 15-16].

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫استُ ْك ِرُهوا َعلَْي ِه‬ ْ ‫َرفَ َع اهللُ َع ْن أ َُّم ِِت‬

ْ ‫اْلَطَأُ َوالن‬
ْ ‫ِّسيَا ُن َوَما‬
Allah has lifted from my Ummah the mistake, the forgetfulness and what they were forced upon
(1)

However, that is upon the condition that they continuously strive to redress their inadequacy and
incapability so that they are enabled to fight the usurper and give the Bai’ah to whom they wish, when it
has the capability to do that.

That is so that their involvement and occupation in the work leading to the appointment of the Khalifah
can be applied to the Ummah, in the situation where they are incapable of appointing him in the current
time, so that the sin is lifted from it. It is that sin that is represented in the statement of the Messenger
‫ﷺ‬:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫من خلَع ي ًدا ِمن طَاع ٍة لَِقي اللَّه ي وم الْ ِقيام ِة ََّل ح َّجةَ لَه ومن مات ولَيس ِِف عن ِق ِه ب ي عةٌ مات ِميتةً ج‬
َ َ َ َ َ َْ ُُ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ ُ ُ َ َ َ َْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ
Whosoever takes his hand away from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Judgement with no
argument for himself and whoever dies whilst there is no Bai’ah on his neck, dies the death of
Jaahilliyah (2).
This therefore establishes the right of the Ummah to fight the usurper of the authority and based upon
that right, Al-Husain Bin ‘Ali Bin Abi Taalib (ra), the grandson of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, undertook
his revolt against Yazeed Bin Mu’aawiyah. And that is because Yazeed took the Bai’ah for himself by way
of coercion whilst the ‘Aqd (contract) by coercion is Baatil (invalid). Upon that basis, he considered
Yazeed as an usurper of the authority and the majority of the representatives of the Muslims rejected (or
refused) the giving of the Bai’ah to him (3).

[(1) At-Tabaraani and Ad-Daaru Qutniy and Al-Haakim with the word ‘Tajaawaza’ (to look beyond) rather than ‘Rafa’a’ (to lift).
The hadeeth in the Mustadrak of Al-Haakim: 2/198 related by Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra). Al-Haakim said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon
the condition of the two Shaikhs but they did not extract it. And Adh-Dhahabiy agreed with him upon that, (2) Muslim:
(Riyaad As-Saaliheen: 394-395) and in Saheeh Muslim: 1851 (1/1478), (3) Taareekh (History of) At-Tabari: 5/338-343].

In the History of At-Tabariy it states that Yazeed’s usurpation of the authority was the first reason for the
people of Iraq rising up for Al-Husain Bin ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with them both), in rebellion against
Yazeed and to restore the authority back to the Ummah that had been usurped from it. The following is
the text of the letter that that the People of Koufa (Iraq) wrote to Al-Husain as recorded in the History of
At-Tabari:

“In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem, to Husain Bin ‘Ali from Sulaimaan Bin Surad, Musayyib
Bin Nakhabah, Rifaa’ah Bin Shiddaad, Habeeb Bin Muzhaahir and party of believers and Muslims from
the people of Koufa. Salaam ‘Alaika and we praise Allah, to you, whom there is no deity other than Him.
Thereafter:

All praise belongs to Allah, who broke your stubborn and tyrant enemy who pounced over this Ummah
and robbed its matter (i.e. usurped its authority) and took over the leadership of it without its consent!
Then he killed the Ummah’s best people and kept its worst. He made the wealth of Allah circulate
amongst its tyrants and rich. So, may he perish like Thamood perished! He is not an Imaam over us, so go
forth, so that Allah may gather and unite us with you upon the Haqq (truth) …” (1).

When the power or force of the people of Iraq was prepared for him and he thought that it was a
sufficient force to fight Yazeed and his supporters, he rose up in this revolt (2).

He then marched towards the people of Iraq to fight with them against the usurper of the authority.

That was in spite of the advice from some of the Sahaabah not to undertake the revolt, like Abdullah Ibn
‘Abbaas and others. They had not advised him with that due to not believing in the legitimacy of the
fighting but rather they advised him because they feared treachery from the people of Iraq and they didn’t
have trust (or confidence) in their support.

It was mentioned in the History of At-Tabari that Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbaas said the following to Al-Husain
when he was resolved to march to Iraq: “I fear for you ruin and elimination in this direction. If the people
of Iraq want you, as they claim, then write to them, for them to expel their enemy and thereafter (say) that
I am coming to you …” (3).

So Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra), who was one of the representatives of the Ummah and one of the prominent
Sahaabah, in this text, at that time, did not oppose Husain in respect to the legal legitimacy of rebelling
against the usurper of the Khilafah (Yazeed Bin Mu’aawiyah) but rather opposed his reliance upon the
people of Iraq, due to prior experience with them in the time of his father ‘Ali (ra) and his brother Hasan
(ra), which indicated that they were a people whom could not be depended on for strength and support!
Consequently, there was no faithfulness to their covenant and no security in their betrayal! Al-Husain later
remembered this advice of Ibn ‘Abbaas and so on the night of Al-Karbalaa’ he said: “How capable Allah
has made Ibn ‘Abbaas regarding what he advised me with” (4).
[(1) Taarekh At-Tabari: 5/252, (2) Wathaa’iq Siyaasiyah Wa l-Idaariyah (Political and administrative documents of the
Ummayah period), Muhammad Maahir Hamaadah: 177, (3) Tareekh At-Tabari: 5/383, (4) Abu Ash-Shuhadaa Al-Husain Bin
‘Ali (The father of martyrs Husain Bin ‘Ali), ‘Abbaas Mahmood Al-‘Uqaad: 130].

This thought concerning the people of Iraq, at that time, was also mentioned by the poet, Al-Farazdaq, to
Al-Husain when he was leaving Makkah and heading to Iraq.

At-Tabari related in his Taareekh that Al-Farazdaq said: “I was making Hajj with my mother … when I
met Al-Husaib Bin ‘Ali on his way out of Makkah … So, he said to me: Inform me about the people
behind you? (i.e. from the people of Iraq). He (Farazdaq) said: I said to him: The hearts are with you and
the swords are with Bani Umayyah, and the Qadaa (decree) is in the hand of Allah. He (Farazdaq) said: He
(Al-Husain) said to me: You have spoken the truth. He said: then I asked him about some matters and he
informed me about vows and the rituals of Hajj … He said: I then continued on my way until I was at a
large well-equipped tent pitched in the sanctuary (Al-Haram). So I approached it and Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr
Al-‘Aas was there. So, he queried me and I told him about the meeting with Al-Husain Bin ‘Ali. Then he
said to me: Woe to you! You should have pursued him with persistence (i.e. to dissuade him from his
resolve to go to Iraq!) By Allah, he will be seized and raising arms against him or his companions is not
permissible. He (Farazdaq) said: By Allah, I was anxious to catch up with him and what he said struck my
heart hard. Then I remembered the prophets and their being killed and that prevented me from catching
up with them!” (1).

We have presented this story because it points to the widespread idea about the treachery of the people of
Iraq, at that time, and that this had been the matter which was the reason for the warning of the Sahaabah
to Husain to not go out and rebel against Yazeed. The reason for the warning was not related to the lack
of legal legitimacy to go out against the usurper of the Khilafah, in their opinion!

From another angle, this story also guides to the opinion of another leader from amongst the leaders of
the Muslims in respect to Husain’s Khurooj (rebellion) and that was Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr. That is because
he did not object to Husain rebelling for any other reason than his belief that it would fail and that Husain
and his companions will be seized and their revolt will not succeed! In addition, he believed that killing
Husain and his companions was a matter that was not permissible as the narration stated: ‘It is not
permissible to use raise the weapon against him!’. Had they been considered to be the people of Baghiy
(illegal rebellion) against the legitimate authority (and far be it from that), then raising arms or fighting him
would have been permissible. However, the fact that Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr believed that fighting them was
not permissible indicates to the legitimacy of their revolt in his opinion and that the Bughaah (rebels
against the legitimate authority) were on the other side of the battle!

In addition, we have already mentioned previously Ash-Shawkaaniy lamenting Al-Karraamiyah who

considered Al-Husain (ra) to be a Baaghiy against the authority of Yazeed and that his undertaking was
based on an Ijtihaad (2)!

Al-Imaam Ibn Al-Jawziy also holds the view in respect to the revolt of Al-Husain (ra) i.e. that his revolt
was legally legitimate and that the usurpation of Yazeed Bin Mu’aawiyah of the Khilafah was the cause
behind the revolt!

[(1) Taareekh At-Tabari: 5/286-287, (2) Nail Al-Awtaar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/186].

The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-AAaloosiy:

“Ibn ul-Jawziy (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) stated in his book: ‘As-Sirr ul-Masoon’:
“From the general beliefs that is prevalent amongst those attributed to the Sunnah is that they say: That
Yazeed was in the right and that Al-Husain (ra) was wrong to rebel against him. Had they examined the
Seerahs they would have become aware of how the Bai’ah was contracted to him and that the people were
compelled with it! And that he did every ugly (or abominable) act. If we would have evaluated the Sihhah
(correctness and validity) of the Bai’ah contract, then there appeared from it all that would oblige the
annulment of the contract. Nobody inclines to that view except every ignorant person, blind in the
Madh’hab who believes that by adopting that opinion he is being harsh against the Rawaafid (i.e. Shi’ah)”
(1).

Consequently, Ibn ul-Jawziy viewed that the contract of the Bai’ah to Yazeed was not valid because it was
a contract which was forced and coerced upon the ones from whom the Bai’ah was taken. This represents
the origin in respect to the illegitimacy of the Yazeed’s authority because it was an usurped authority!
That’s not even to mention all that happened by his hand in terms of deviations that would oblige the
annulment of the contract (if its validity was to be assumed!).

In addition, Al-Aalousiy transmitted this text from the book of Ibn ul-Jawziy as a display of support for
what it contained in terms of opinions. That therefore indicates that Al-Aalousiy also holds the view of
the illegitimacy of the authority of Yazeed i.e. that he usurped the authority through the imposition of the
Bai’ah by force or coercion, alongside other causes which were behind the revolt of Husain (ra) against
Yazeed Bin Mu’aawiyah!

In respect to those who held the view that Yazeed’s usurpation of the authority was the reason and cause
of the revolt of Husain (ra) I say: Those from our recent time who held this view include Dr. Mahmoud
Al-Khalidiy in his book: ‘Ma’aalim Al-Khilafah Fee Fikr il-Islaamiy’ (2) and Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen
An-Nabhaani followed in that in his paper on ‘Al-Fikr Al-Islaamiy’ (the Islamic thought) (3). That is
despite the author of ‘Ma’aalim’ not indicating to his reference or source for this opinion of his!

Before ending this point of discussion in which I have explained that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy that I view to
be correct in respect to fighting the usurper of the authority is ‘Al-Ibaahah’ (permissibility), it might be
that a questioner asks: What about what was directed to in the previously mentioned speech of ‘Umar Ibn
Al-Khattaab (a) when he said:

ِ ِِ ِ ‫ أَو َغ ِريهِ ِمن َغ ِري م ُش‬، ‫من دعا إِ ََل إِمارةِ نَ ْف ِس ِه‬
ُ‫ني فََل َُي ُّل لَ ُك ْم إَِّل أَ ْن تَ ْقتُلُوه‬
َ ‫ورٍة م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬
َ َ ْ ْ ْ ْ ََ ََ َْ
Whoever calls to the leadership for himself or someone lese without the consultation of the
Muslims, then it is not Halaal for you (i.e. Muslims) other than for you to kill him (1).

How does the Hukm of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) conform to the obligation of killing which is
understood from this text?! The answer is that the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab here is in respect to
the situation or circumstance when the Muslims have not accepted to give the Bai’ah to the one who
wants to usurp the authority from them without their consultation and consent. In such a situation it is
not Halaal for them to remain silent over him when abstaining to give him the Bai’ah and being capable of
fighting him.

However, that does not prevent them from conceding their right and giving the Bai’ah to this usurper as
that is Mubaah (permissible) for them. In this way, we see that there is no contradiction or conflict
between the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) and what we have viewed to be correct in terms of
the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to fighting the Mughtasib As-Sultah being Al-Ibaahah (permissibility).

Now we come to our final issue and point of discussion in this section.
Thirdly: Is the Qitaal of the Mughtasib As-Sultah considered to be Al-Jihaad in the
way of Allah?

The Qitaal against the usurper of the authority or the Khilafah falls under a type of fighting against the
people of Baghiy (rebels against the legitimate authority). And we have already explained in the section
discussing the fighting of the Bughaah that there are two Fiqhiy opinions in respect to this Qitaal
(fighting).

- And so there are those who have called or named it as a Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way) and
indeed there are some who have regarded it to be better than the Jihaad against the people of Kufr
(disbelief). The people killed from the side of the Haqq (truth) in this fighting are treated or dealt with as
being Shuhadaa’ of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah. Consequently, they are not washed just like the Ghusl is
not performed over the Shaheed killed in the war against the disbelievers!

In accordance to this view, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib *ra) did not wash those who had been killed from his
companions in his wars against the people of Al-Baghy (rebellion against the legitimate Shar’iy authority).

- There is also another Fiqhiy opinion that does not apply the naming of Al-Jihaad to this fighting. Rather
they say that it is Qitaal At-Ta’deeb (fighting to discipline) against the disobedient rebels. Consequently,
the one who is killed from amongst the people of the Haqq (truth and right) in this Qitaal are not
considered to be Shuhadaa’ of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah, even if he was to be considered from the
Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter) alone, in the case where he was true to his intention in
respect to supporting the cause of the Deen and the people of the Haqq. In accordance to that he would
be treated like the non-martyr dead Muslims and so he would be washed, shrouded and he would be
prayed over as the Shar’a has obliged and is the right of the dead from the people of Islaam.

[(1) An-Nasaa’iy: Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: Hadeeth no. 14359, 5/778. I did not find it within the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy and so it may
be within the Sunan Al-Kubraa as well, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-Shirbeeniy: 1/350].

It was upon this understanding that Asmaa’ Bin Abi Bakr (ra) washed her son ‘Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair
(1) when he met his death when fighting against the usurpers of the authority after the Bai’ah to him was
made validly. This is as was mentioned in Fat’h ul-Baari’ as follows:

“… So most of the horizons (i.e. from most places of the Islamic lands) gave the Bai’ah to Abdullah Ibn
Az-Zubair and the rule of Hijaaz, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the West as a whole and all of the lands of Ash-
Shaam even including Damascus came under his order (i.e. control). None abstained from giving him the
Bai’ah except for Bani Umayyah as a whole and those who followed their desires, and they were located in
Palestine. So, they gathered and came together upon Marwan Bin Al-hakam and gave him the Bai’ah for
the Khilafah. He then went out with those who had obeyed him towards Damascus whilst Ad-Dahaak
Bin Qais had already given the Bai’ah to Ibn Az-Zubair…” (2).

What is important here, is that Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair was killed by the hands of the Bughaah (rebels)
who were usurping the authority. Then his mother, Asmaa’ Bin Abi Bakr (ra) undertook the washing of
his body as she did not consider him to be like the Shaheed that is martyred in the war against the
disbelievers and none of the Sahaabah spoke out against that.

In the section discussing the Qitaah against the people of Al-Baghy we have already outweighed this
second Fiqhiy as being the strongest and that is that this type of Qitaal is not considered to be Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeelillah according to its Shar’iy meaning. And that those killed from the people of the Haqq (truth
or right) and ‘Adl (justice) are Shuhadaa’ of the Aakhirah alone who have their reward and recompense
with Allah. As for the Hukm of the Dunyaa (the life of this world) then the same applies to them as
applies to the dead who were not martyrs from amongst the people of Islaam.
Yes, it is true that historical texts have come which describe the fighting of the usurpers of the authority as
being Jihaad.

Regarding that, then either the intention behind using this Lafzh (wording) was to use it in accordance to
its linguistic meaning which is the exertion of effort and capability to fight against the disobedient and to
resist and oppose the Bughaah and usurpers.

Or those who wrote those historical texts held the other Fiqhiy opinion that establishes that this Qitaal is
Jihaad in Allah’s way according to its Shar’iy meaning.

[(1) Al-Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-Shirbeeniy: 1/350, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’ Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari,
Ibn Hajar: 13/195].

From amongst such historical texts is that which came mentioned in the Taareekh (History) of At-Tabari
upon the tongue of one of those who went out with Al-Husain Bin ‘Ali (ra) to fight the forces of Yazeed
Bin Mu’aawiyah who usurped the Khilafah. He said:

“By Allah, I was engaged in Jihaad against the people of Shirk fervently, and I hoped that the Jihaad
against those who attacked the son of the daughter (grandson) of their Prophet would be easier in reward
from Allah for me than the Jihaad against the Mushrikeen …” (1).

And with that we come to the end of our discussion about the fighting against the usurper of the authority
(Mughtasib As-Sultah) and we will now move on to another topic!

[(1) History of At-Tabari: 5/429].

The Ninth Study

Qitaal Ahl udh-Dhimmah (Fighting the people under contract of protection)

- Introduction:
- The first issue: Who are the Ahl udh-Dhimmah? What are their obligations? And what are their rights?

A - Definition of Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

B - The obligations (Waajibaat) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.
C - The rights (Huqooq) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

- The second issue: What are the violations that make the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in breach of the ‘Ahd
(covenant) in a collective form?

- The opinions of the Islamic Fiqh in respect to the matters that breach the ‘Ahd (covenant).
- What are the consequences resulting from the breaching of the covenant by the taking up arms, in its
different or various circumstances?

1 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims participating alongside the Ahl ul-Baghy
(rebels against the legitimate Shar’iy authority).
2 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims against the Bughaah in support of the
Islamic authority.
3 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims in highway robbery (Qat’u At-Tareeq).
4 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims in an independent manner with the aim of
undertaking a revolt.
5 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims participating alongside the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war).

- The effects resulting from the breach of the ‘Ahd (contract) for reasons other than taking up arms
against the Muslims.

- Does the breaching of the covenant apply specifically to the one who perpetrated the act that breached
the covenant or does its ruling extend to others?

- What is the Huk (ruling) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in our current time in the absence of the Islamic
state?

- What is the Hukm in respect to the rebellion of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah today against the conditions of
the covenant taken from their predecessors (i.e. those who originally made the covenant)? Is their
covenant breached by this rebellion or not?

- The third issue: Is the Qitaal (fighting) of the Muslims against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who have
breached the covenant considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah?
 The Ninth Study

Qitaal Ahl udh-Dhimmah (Fighting the people under contract of protection)

Introduction:

In this introduction, the matter that I am concerned about is the Ahl udh-Dhimmah citizens resorting to
taking up arms against the Muslims for a particular reason which is followed by the break out of fighting
between the two groups or parties … And whether this Qitaal (fighting), in respect to the Muslims, is
from the category of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah or not?

In the following sections or areas of study in this paper we will deal with a number of issues (Masaa’il)
related to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and some detail about their Ahkaam (rulings) connected to the subject
area of this (PHD) paper.

In this introduction, it is designated upon us, in light of what we have intended, to define the issues that
the speech must revolve around to treat this subject area.

The Muslim Fuqahaa, when discussing the Ahkaam of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, looked into what was
related to the matters that breach the covenant (Al-‘Ahd). So, they mentioned the violations that the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah perpetrate and which of them breach the covenant and which do not … They then
explained the Hukm in respect to each of these to circumstances.

From the matters that breach the covenant connected to our subject is that which has a relationship to the
Qitaal (fighting).

The reality of the Qitaal is that it is warring between two sides, each of which has a preventative force
(Mana’ah) by which they pounce and roam (i.e. engage in battle).

Consequently, the Dhimmi (i.e. individual from the people of the Dhimmah) who has afflicted a Muslim
woman by marriage (Nikaah) or Zinaa, the Dhimmi who has insulted the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬or the
Dhimmi who has spied upon the Muslims, for example, do not come into the domain of our study, or
whether such acts would be considered to be a breach and breaking of the covenant or not? That is
because in respect to violations like these, they are violations upon which the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is applied
upon the one who perpetrates them, whether we stated that the covenant was breached by them on an
individual level or we didn’t state that? Rather, the only thing that enters into our study here, is that which
has a relationship to the breach of the covenant by a collective grouping from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah or
from a party (or faction) of them within one of the Muslim lands, where they have a power (Quwwah) and
preventative force (Mana’ah) and they have refused or refrained from submitting to the authority of the
Islamic state, in respect to the subsequent application of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy upon them, as a
consequence of those violations. In such a situation, it is necessary to put an end to the rebellion that the
citizens of the Ahl udh-Dimmah, who possess power and preventative force, have undertaken. That is
whether it was them who initiated the fighting so as to refrain from submitting to the authority of the
state or they were fighting back when the state wanted to use its force to subjugate them to its authority.
In such a case, is the fighting to put an end to this rebellion or insurrection undertaken by the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its terminological meaning or not?
This is subject area of our study and its remit. Consequently, it is necessary to treat this subject area by
examining the following issues:

1 - Who are the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, what are their Waajibaat (obligations) and what are their Huqooq
(rights)?

2 - What are the violations that make them in breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant) in a collective manner and
what is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy built upon that as a consequence?

3 - Is the Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who have breached or broken their ‘Ahd
(covenant) Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning or not?

The First Issue: Who are the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, what are their Waajibaat
(obligations) and what are their Huqooq (rights)?

A - The definition of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah:

Ibn ul-Qayyim, when presenting the categories of the disbelievers (Al-Kuffaar), defined the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah just as he defined anyone from the disbelievers who had an ‘Ahd (covenant). That was to
distinguish the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from others. We will now present what he said which was as follows:

“The Kuffaar (disbelievers): They are either Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) or Ahl ‘Ahd (people of a
covenant). The people of the ‘Ahd are of three categories: Ahl Dhimmah (people possessing a Dhimmah
i.e. protection), Ahl Hudnah (people who have a truce) and Ahl Amaan (people who have a security) …
The Lafzh (worded expression) “Adh-Dhimmah and Al-‘Ahd” applies upon all of them in origin … That
is because the Dhimmah is a type from the word ‘Ahd (covenant) and Al-‘Aqd (contract) (i.e. it falls under
its meaning) … However, within the Istilaah (terminological use and convention) of many of the Fuqahaa
“Ahl udh-Dhimmah” is an expression for those who give the Jizyah. They are the ones who have a
permanent Dhimmah (covenant of protection) and they are the ones who have made a covenant with the
Muslims for the Hukm (rule) of Allah and His Messenger to be applied upon them whilst they reside in
the Daar (land) in which the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger is applied”.

“That is different to the Ahl ul-Hudnah (people of a truce) as they are the ones who have made a treaty
with the Muslims on the basis that they remain in their Daar (land), whether the treaty was made over
wealth or other than wealth (i.e. financial arrangement). The Ahkaam of Islaam are not applied over them
like it is applied over the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. However, they are obliged to refrain from waging war
against the Muslims. These are called or known as: ‘Ahl ul-‘Ahd (people of covenant), Ahl us-Sulh (people
of treaty) or Ahl ul-Hudnah (people of truce).

As for the Musta’min (one provided with a security i.e. Amaan), then he is the one who comes to the
Muslim lands without settling down within them. They include for categories: Rusul (messengers), Tujjaar
(traders) and the Mustajeer (one seeking refuge and protection) until Islaam and the Qur’aan has been
presented to them. Then if the wish, they embrace Islaam and if not they are permitted to return back to
their land and they are those requesting or seeking a certain need from a visit or by other than that.

The Hukm of those, is that they are not forced to emigrate, they are not fought and that the Jizyah is not
taken from them. The Mustajeer from amongst them has Islaam and the Qur’aan presented to him. If he
embraces Islaam, then all is well, and if he would prefer to return to his place of safety and security
(Ma’man i.e. where he came from), then he taken there and he is not opposed before his arrival there.
When he reaches his Ma’man (place of safety) he returns to being a Harbiy (from the people of war) as he
had been prior (to his seeking of refuge or protection)” (1).

This is what Ibn ul-Qayyim said regarding defining the categories of the disbelievers. We transmitted all of
his speech and we did not restrict ourselves to presenting his definition of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah alone,
because it provides us with a complete picture of the Hukm of every type from amongst the types of the
disbelievers, in relation to their relationship between them and the Muslims. In this way, we can perceive
the difference between the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and the other categories.

Consequently, the Ahl udh-Dhimmah are: Non-Muslim Citizens who live with the Muslims in Daar ul-
Islaam. They pay the Jizyah and submit to the Islamic Ahkaam (rulings) in everything except for that
which has been affirmed to them in terms of the Ahkaam of Aqaa’id (beliefs), ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship),
marriage, divorce, foodstuffs and clothing (2). They are like the Jews and Christians who live in the
Islamic lands.

They are therefore distinguished from the Ahl ul-Hudnah (people of truce) as they are non-citizen
disbelievers who have a particular Mu’aahahdah (treaty or arrangement) between their states and the
Islamic state which prevent the state of war between the two states, whether agreements or conventions
upon other matters are joined to that or not. These are called “Ahl ul-Hudnah” or “Ahl ul-Muwaada’ah”.
It applies whether they were in their lands or entered the lands of the Muslims in accordance to the ruling
of the Hudnah (truce) if the covenant permitted the movement of the people of each state to the other
state.

[(1) Ahkaam Adh-Dhimmah, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/475, (2) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 176, Al’umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy:
4/213, Tafser Ibn Katheer: 3/518, Seerah Ibn Hishaam: 4/254 and Al-Amwaal, Ibn ‘Ubaid: 23 in which it was stated: “’Umar
Ibn Abdil -Azeez wrote to Al-hasan asking him: What is the matter of those who continued from the ‘Ulamaa before us
approving of the Majoos marrying the mothers and daughters? And he mentioned some things about them and named them.
He said: Hasan then wrote back and said: And thereafter, I am only a follower and not an innovator, and Salaam”].
Also, via Ibn ul-Qayyim’s comprehensive definition we are able to distinguish the Ahl udh-=Dhimmah
from the Ahl ul-Amaan (people of security). They are individuals from among the citizens of other non-
Islamic states who enter the Islamic lands with a specific security (Amaan) on an individual basis. They are
given what today is called an entry visa for any purpose from amongst the purposes that Ibn ul-Qayyim
mentioned.

After having defined who the Ahl udh-Dhimmah are and how they are distinguished from others: Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war), Ahl ul-Hudnah (people of truce or treaty) or Ahl ul-Amaan (people of security) …
we now come seek to acquire knowledge of the nect point in this Mas’alah (issue) and that is:

B - What are the Waajibaat (obligations) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah?

- As for their obligations in general, then Ibn Qudaamah listed a number of these obligations in ‘Al-
Mughni’ and it is possible to place them into five categories:

1 - That which the contract of the Dhimmah is not completed by except by its mention and this includes
two matters: Adherence to the Jizyah and the application of the Ahkaam of the people of Islaam over
them.

2 - To leave that which includes a harm over the Muslims in respect to themselves and their properties.
That is like assaulting or aggressing against the Muslims by beating (Ad-Darb) or robbing (An-Nahb).

3 - Avoidance of that which brings offence to the Muslims like mentioning Islam, the Qur’aan or the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in an inappropriate manner.

4 - To avoid that which includes the display of a Munkar like the consumption of alcohol in the public
places of the Muslims.

5 - Distinguishing them from the Muslims with a specific sign by which they are recognised. This could be
in the clothing or by another way (1).

In relation to each of these points there are branches, details and differences amongst the Fuqahaa in
respect to the necessity of stipulating them however now is not the place to go mention them … This
then is what has been said regarding the obligation of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/606-618].

C - As for what the rights (Huqooq) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah are?

The Fuqahaa’ have spoken in great detail about these Huqooq (rights) and we will now transmit from the
Fiqhiy sources some of these texts related to this point:

- Al-Maawardiy in ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’ says in respect to what is obligatory upon the Imaam who
has contracted the Dhimmah for them upon the basis that they pay the Jizyah: “He commits to two rights
to be provided to them by their giving (of the Jizyah): The first: To refrain from them (i.e. fighting), and
the second: To provide protection to them. That is so that they are secure through the refraining and
guarded by the protection.

Naafi’ related from Ibn ‘Umar who said: The last of what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬spoke about was that he said:
 ‫اِ ْح َفظُوِِّن ِِف ِذ َّم ِِت‬
Preserve (or safeguard) me in respect to my Dhimmah (1)”.

- And in Al-Minhaaj of An-Nawawi: “And we are bound to refrain from (fighting) them, to guarantee
what he have damaged of their in terms of life and property, and to repel the people of war from them”
(2).

- And in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah the following was mentioned: It is the duty of the Imaam to
protect the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from the Muslims, the Ahl ul-Harb and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (3). And
that if the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) gain control over our Ahl udh-Dhimmah and enslaved them (as
booty) and then we were able to gain mastery over them, it becomes obligatory to return the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah to their Dhimmah (i.e. contract of protection and what it entails) and it would not have been
permitted to enslave them and it is obligatory to ransom them, whether they were within our stronghold
or not (4). And that if the Ahl ul-Harb had taken property from our Ahl udh-Dhimmah and then we were
able to gain the upper hand over them, it is then obligatory to restore their properties to them. That is
because the ruling of their property is the same as the ruling of the Muslim property in terms of Hurmah
(inviolability). The author of Al-Mughni mentions the statement of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) in respect to
this use:

‫ماؤُه ْم َك ِد َمائِنَا َوأ َْموا ََّلُ ْم َكأ َْموالِنَا‬ ِ ِ

ُ ‫إََِّّنا بَ َذلُوا اْلِْزيَةُ لتَ ُكو َن د‬
They only expended the Jizyah so that their blood would be like our blood and their properties like our
properties (5).

Just as it was also mentioned in Al-Mughni: That is a Dhimmiy revives a barren land, then it belongs to
him, there is no difference between him and the Muslim (6).

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 143, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-Sharbeeniy: 4/253, (3) Al-
Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/623, (4) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/497, (5) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/497, (6) Al-
Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 6/150. And there is another opinion in this Mas’alah (issue) and that is the opinion of Ash-Shaafi’iy.
Refer to: Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: 2/262 and Al-Muhadh’dhab: 1/429].

- The following was mentioned in ‘Kitaab Al-Kharaaj’ of Abu Yousuf in his letter to the Ameer ul-
Mu’mineen Haroon Ar-Rasheed:

“Abu Yousuf said: It is necessary O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen (May Allah assist you) to be in the lead in
respect to providing kindness to the people of your Prophet’s Dhimmah and your cousin Muhammad
‫ﷺ‬, and to provide for them so that they are not oppressed (or dealt with unjustly), harmed or burdened
beyond their capacities. And nothing should be taken from their properties except in respect to that which
is obliged upon them. It has been related from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ِ ِِ
ُ ‫اهداً أ َْو َكلَّ َفهُ فَ ْو َق طَاقَته فَأَنا َحج‬
ً‫يجه‬ َ ‫َم ْن ظَلَ َم ُم َع‬
Whoever oppresses a person of covenant or burdens him above his capacity then I am his
opponent (or disputant).

And it was from what ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) spoke about at the time of his death that he said: “That
I urge the Khalifah who follows me, in respect to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah to fulfil their covenant to
them, to fight from behind them (i.e. protect) and to not burden them beyond their capacities”.
Abu Yousuf then quoted the following narration about ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra): “He said: ‘Umar Ibn
Naafi’ related to me from Abu Bakr who said: ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) passed by the door of a people
and there was a beggar begging, of elderly age, blind. So, he (‘Umar) struck his staff behind him (i.e. to let
him know of his presence) and said: From which people of the Book do you belong? He said: I am a Jew.
He (‘Umar) said: What has made you resort to what I am seeing? He said: I am begging to pay the Jizyah
and for my need as I am old. He (the narrator) said: Then ‘Umar took him by his hand and went to his
house. He gave him something from his house and then sent for the treasurer of the Bait ul-Maal
(treasury) and said: Look at this one and those like him, by Allah we have not been just to them. We have
devoured their youth and then abandoned them in their old age:
ِ ِ‫ات لِْل ُف َقر ِاء والْمساك‬
‫ني‬ َّ ‫إََِّّنَا‬
َ َ َ َ ُ َ‫الص َدق‬
Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy (At-Taubah: 60).
The Fuqaraa’ are from the Muslims and the Masaakeen are from the Ahl ul-Kitaab. And he (‘Umar)
relieved him from the Jizyah and from those similar to him (in circumstances). He (the narrator) said: Abu
Bakr said: I witnessed that from ‘Umar and I saw that Sheikh!” (1).

In the book ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah Fil Fiqh Al-Maalikiy’ the following was stated:

“The second issue: In relation to what is obliged for them and upon us. It is to abide by their settling
within our lands apart from Jazeerat ul-‘Arab (Arabian Peninsula) which is Al-Hijaaz and Yemen, and that
we cease fighting them, that we protect them with a guarantee in respect to their lives and properties, that
we do not oppose their churches, their alcohol and their pigs as long as they do not make them apparent
or visible … And if they went out (rebelled) without transgression or violence then they are enslaved and
if they went out (rebelled) with transgression or violence, they are no enslaved. Al-Ash’hab said: They are
not enslaved in origin” (2).

This is in a general what has been mentioned within the Islamic Fiqh related to the obligations of the
people of Adh-Dhimmah and their rights. We have only been concerned with these obligations and rights
due to their relationship with our next Mas’alah (issue) which is: By what is the covenant of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah broken or breached? And what are the resulting consequences of the breaching of the covenant
in terms of Qitaal (fighting)? As this represents the fundamental issue within this study (of ours).

Upon that we will now embark upon:

The second issue: What are the violations that make the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in
breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant) in a collective manner and what are the resulting
consequences of that?

The study of this issue requires that the following points be dealt with:

1 - The opinions of the Islamic Fiqh in respect to the matters that breach the covenant.

2- What is the resulting consequence of this breach of the covenant?

3 - Is the breaching of the covenant restricted specifically to those who broke it or does its Hukm extend
beyond them to others?

Then, following that, to make out study applicable to treating problems of the current time, we will move
on to discuss two further points which are:

- What is the Hukm of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in the absence of the Islamic state after its removal?

- What is the Hukm in respect to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah today going outside of that which their
predecessors made a covenant upon at the time of the Islamic conquest?
The first point: The opinions of the Islamic Fiqh in respect to the matters that
breach the covenant

We have observed that the Islamic Fiqh contains within it three fundamental directions in respect to the
matters that breach the covenant which are:

- The expansive approach (Ittijaah At-Tawassu’).

- The middling approach (Ittijaah At-Tawassut).
- The narrowing approach (Ittijaah At-Tadyeeq).

- As for the expansive or widening approach (Ittijaah At-Tawassu’) in respect to the matters that breach
the covenant, then we find that within the books of the Hanbaliy Fiqh: In Ibn ul-Qayyim’s ‘Ahkaam Ahl
udh-Dhimmah’ he listed eight matters that the Ahl udh-Dhimmah must abandon related to what contains
a harm upon the Muslims and their individuals in respect to the Nafs (life) and the Maal (property):

1 - Assisting fighting against Muslims. 2 - Killing a Muslim or Muslimah. 3 - Highway robbery (Qat’u t-
Tareeq) against them. 4 - Harbouring a spy. 5 - Providing assistance against the Muslims by indication or
writing in respect to informing the disbelievers about the Muslims’ news. 6 - Zinaa with a Muslimah
(female Muslim). 7 - Afflict a Muslimah in the name of marriage (An-Nikaah). 8 - To tempt a Muslim
away from his Deen.

Then Ibn ul-Qayyim transmitted the following from Al-Qaadiy Abu Ya’laa Al-Farraa’ in his book ‘Al-
Mujarrad’: “Due upon him (i.e. the Dhimmiy): To refrain from this whether it was stipulated or not
stipulated. If he violates, then his covenant (‘Ahd) is breached” (1). Then Ibn ul-Qayyim mentions that
attached to the previous eight matters that breach the covenant, and without being stipulated, there are
also four other matters which are: 1 - Mentioning Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, 2 - Mentioning His Book, 3 -
Mentioning His Deen and 4 - Mentioning His Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in an inappropriate manner. Then if they
refuse (i.e. the Ahl udh-Dhimmah) one of these matters they have breached the Amaan (security) whether
it was stipulated in the ‘Ahd (covenant) or not.

Then Ibn ul-Qayyim also mentions that Abu Ya’laa Al-Farraa’ has three books in the Hanbaliy Fiqh which
are: ‘At-Ta’leeq’, ‘Al-Khilaaf’ and ‘Al-Mujarrad’. And that he mentioned the breaching of the ‘Ahd
(covenant) by these actions and statements within all of them.

And finally, Ibn ul-Qayyim explains that there is a report within the Hanbaliy Fiqh (albeit a weak one)
stating that the covenant is not breached for any reason apart from refraining to expend the Jizyah or
refraining from the application of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam over them (2). This represents the
Ittijaah At-Tawassu’ (expansive approach) in respect to the matters that breach the ‘Ahd (covenant).

Then there is the Ittijaah At-Tawassut (middling approach) and this is manifested within what has come
within the Fiqh Ash-Shaafi’iy:

An-Nawawi in his book ‘Minhaaj At-Taalibeen’ presented the matters that are obligatory upon the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah to refrain from like: Bringing new churches, raising the buildings of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah higher than the Muslim buildings neighbouring them, riding horses and expensive mules …
Then An-Nawawi stated the following:

“If these matters were stipulated and then they violated them, they would not have breached their ‘Ahd
(covenant) … And if they have fought us, abstained from the Jizyah or from the application of the ruling
of Islaam upon them, they would have breached it. And if the Dhimmiy commits Zinaa with a Muslimah
or afflicted herby An-Nikaah (marriage), or guided the people of war to the weakness of the Muslims, or
enticed a Muslim from his Deen, or degraded Islaam, or the Qur’aan, or mentioned the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in a bad (derogatory or defaming) manner, then the correct view is that, if these matters were
stipulated, then the ‘Ahd (covenant) would be breached, otherwise, it would not be” (3).

This then represents the middling approach (Ittijaah At-Tawassut) towards the issue of the matters that
breach the covenant.

[(1) ‘Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah’, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/797, (2) ‘Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah’, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/798, (3) Mughni
Al-Muhtaaj Bi Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Al-Khateeb Ash-Sharbeeniy: 4/258].

And there is the narrowing approach (Ittijaah At-Tadyeeq) in respect to these matters breaking (or
invalidating) the covenant and this is represented within the Hanafiy Fiqh: Al-Kaasaaniy stated the
following in ‘Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i’:

“As for the description of the contract (i.e. the contract of the Dhimmah), then it is that it is binding in
respect to us so that the Muslims do not have the right to break it under any circumstances. As for in
respect to them then it is not binding, rather the breakdown is possible as a whole but it is not broken
except in one of three matters:

The first: That the Dhimmiy embraces Islaaam. That is due to what we have mentioned in terms of the
Dhimmah having been contracted as a means to embracing Islam, and indeed its purpose has been
fulfilled.

The second: That he joins to Daar ul-Harb (land of war) and that is because if he has joined the land of
war, he has become like the status of the Murtadd (apostate).

The third: That they take control over a location and wage war. That is because if they were to have done
that, they would have become people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) and their covenant would be breached or
violated by necessity (or default).

And if the Dhimmiy refrained from giving the Jizyah it would not breach his covenant. Similarly, if he was
to insult the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬he would not breach his covenant because it represents an increase of Kufr
(disbelief) upon disbelief and the contract remains upon the original basis of the Kufr and so he remains
(as he was) with the increase (of Kufr). The same applies if he was to kill a Muslim or commit Zinaa with
a Muslim woman. That is because these represent acts of disobedience (or sinful acts) that he has
committed and they are below the Kufr (disbelief) in terms of Qubh (ugliness) and Hurmah (prohibition).
In addition, the Dhimmah remains with Kufr and so by greater reason it remains with the act of
disobedience. And Allah is most Aware” (1).

The above is what has been mentioned within the Islamic Fiqh in respect to the matters that make the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah in breach of their covenant through their perpetration of them. It is not our intended
purpose in this study to outweigh between these approaches or to adopt particular opinions from them
and use them as evidence for deduction (Al-Istidlaal). Rather the intended purpose is: That if the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah breach their covenant, in accordance to any of the approaches that the Islamic State adopts in
respect to the matters that breach the covenant, would such a breach represent a justification to launch or
wage war against them? This is what is intended and this is also the subject area of the second point which
is:

[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/112-113].

- What are the consequences resulting from the breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant)?
The answer to this question differs in accordance to the difference in the violations which breach the
covenant through their perpetration.

- Consequently, the breaching of the covenant could be due to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms
against the Muslims.

- Just as the breach of the covenant could be due to other reasons or causes.

As for the breaching of the covenant due to taking up arms against the Muslims (to fight them), then the
Hukm in respect to this is: To consider those who have taken up arms as being people at war whom it is
obligatory to confront by Qitaal (fighting), just like we confront the enemies of the people of war (Al-
Harbiyoon) when they have attacked the Muslims.

It was mentioned in ‘Al-Minhaaj’ of An-Nawawi: “And whoever breached his covenant by fighting it is
permissible to repel him and kill him”.

And the following was stated in ‘Mughni Al-Muhtaaj’ as a comment upon the previous statement:

“[Point of note] His expression of it being ‘permissible’ (Jaa’iz) dictates that it is not obligatory and that it
is not what is desired. However, indeed it is Waajib as we have already mentioned that the Jihaad, when a
faction or group, from the people of war (Alh ul-Harb), enters Daar ul-Islaam (the land of Islaam) is Fard
‘Ain (an obligation upon every individual), and there is no difference between that faction and between a
faction that used to have a Dhimmah (contract of protection) and then broke it. The expression used in
‘Ar-Rawdah’ (another book by An-Nawawi) is: Therefore, it is necessary to repel them and strive to
eliminate them” (1).

Following on, the taking up of arms by the Ahl udh-Dhimmah against the Muslims could occur in a
number of circumstances or situations and the Hukm differs in accordance to these differences as follows:

1 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah could raise arms against the Muslims to participate alongside ‘Ahl ul-Baghyi’
(rebels) who have rebelled against the Islamic authority. In respect to the Hukm (ruling) in this situation
An-Nawawi stated in Al-Minhaaj:

“And if the Ahl udh-Dhimmah assist them (i.e. the Bughaat), whilst they are aware of the prohibition of
fighting against us, there covenant is breached. If, however they are being coerced into it, then it is not
breached. The same applies if they say: “we believed that it was permissible” or “we thought they were in
the right”, upon the Madh’hab, and they are fought like Bughaat (rebels)” (2).

This means: If the Ahl udh-Dhimmah participate with the Muslim Bughaat (rebels) by raising arms against
the people of justice from amongst the Muslims, they would be considered to be in breach of their
covenant. They would consequently be fought like the warring people, apart from in particular
circumstances. Therefore, they are treated or dealt with like the Muslim Bughaat (rebels). That means that
the fighting against them is a fighting of ‘Ta’dbeeb’ (to discipline) and it is not like the fighting against the
Ahl ul-Harb.

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Ash-Sharbeeniy: 4/259, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj, Ash-Sharbeeniy:
4/128-129].

These circumstances are:

A - If the Muslim Bughaat coerce or force the Ahl udh-Dhimmahto participate with them in the fighting.
B - If the Ahl udh-Dhimmah fighting alongside the Bughaat (rebels) thought (Zhanna) that their fighting
with them was permissible (Jaa’iz) regarding the Islamic Hukm (ruling) and not Haraam.

C - If the Ahl udh-Dhimmah fighting alongside the Bughaat (rebels) thought that the Haqq (truth) was
with the Ahl ul-Baghyi who had gone out against the authority (i.e. they were in the right).

In addition, another circumstance from amongst the circumstances of the participation of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah alongside the Bughaat in the fighting was mentioned in the ‘Sharh Al-Kabeer’ by Ad-Dardeer,
in which their fighting was not considered to breach the covenant. This is:

- If the Imaam, which the Bughaat have rebelled against was not just (‘Adl) due to Fisq (sinfulness) or
Zhulm (oppression or injustice) and even if the rebellion of the Bughaat is not permissible in accordance
to the Shar’a, as was previously explained in an early study. Rather, (in such a case) the obligation upon the
Muslims in respect to him (i.e. the Imaam) is Al-Inkaar (denunciation or to show disapproval) by way of
exhortation and not by rebelling against him.

This then is what connects to the first circumstance from amongst the circumstances of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah taking up arms against the Muslims and that was: Their participation alongside the Bughaat
(rebels against the Islamic authority).

2 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah could from their own accord take up arms against the Muslim Bughaat (rebels
against the authority) in support from them to the Islamic authority. In such a situation, they would not
breach their covenant by their involvement in this Qitaal (fighting). The following was mentioned in An-
Nawawi’s ‘Al-Minhaaj’:

“And if the Ahl udh-Dimmah fought the Ahl ul-Baghyi (people of rebellion) their covenant would not
have been breached, according to the correct opinion, because they are engaged in war against those
whom the Imaam must fight against” (2).

3 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah could also take up arms against the Muslims in the act of highway robbery
(Qat’u At-Tareeq). The Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa, here (in such a case), do not consider that to
break the covenant. Rather, they will have the same ruling as the Muslims applied upon them for this
crime (3).

4 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah could take up arms against the Muslims in an independent form or manner i.e.
not through participation with the Bughaat or participation with the Ahl ul-Harb. In this situation, their
covenant is breached and they are fought against like the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) in accordance to the
view of the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ (4).

[(1) Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer of Ad-Dardeer: 4/299-300, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj,
Ash-Sharbeeniy: 4/253, (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/319, (4) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/608, Mughni Al-Muhtaaj:
4/129, Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer: 2/204, Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: 7/112/113].

However, it has been mentioned within the Maalikiy Madh’hab that if they rebel (i.e. take up arms) due to
a Zhulm (oppression) that has befallen them, that would not be a breach of their covenant. The following
was mentioned in the book ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’:
“And if they go out (rebel) for other than a Zhulm (oppression) or violence (against them), they are
enslaved. However, if they rebel due to a Zhulm or violence then they are not taken as slaves” (1).

The intended meaning of the mention of ‘enslavement’ above is not the specific Istirqaaq (enslavement)
from amongst the Ahkaam related to the breaching of the ‘Ahd in the view of the Maalikiyah which are:
Al-Qatl (to be killed), Al-Mann (to be let free), Al-Fadaa’ (ransom), Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement) or
renewing the contract of the Dhimmah. Rather, what is intended by the mention of ‘enslavement’ is the
consideration of them being in breach of the covenant if they rebel for a reason other than Zhulm
(oppression) having befallen them and not considering them in breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant) if they
rebelled due to oppression afflicting them. That is how it is understood from the Sharh Al-Kabeer of Ad-
Dardeer (2).

5 - The Ahl udh-Dhimmah could take up arms against the Muslims joining with the Ahl -ul-Harb (people
of war). In such a circumstance their ‘Ahd is breached and they are fought like the Ahl ul-Harb are (3).

In any case, when the fighting undertaken by the Ahl udh-Dhimmah against the Muslims is from the type
that invalidates or breached their ‘Ahd (covenant) which is followed by the Muslims then fighting the
Qitaal of war, then those who are killed are killed in those arising battles and the Muslims are overcome
those who remain … What then in such a situation is the Hukm in respect to those who remain?

Ibn Qudaamah stated in Al-Mughniy: “And the one whom we have judged to have breached his covenant
from amongst them, it is up to the Imaam to choose between four matters: to kill them, to enslave, to
ransom or to set free. This is like the warring captive (or prisoner of war). That is because he is a Kaafir
(disbeliever) whom we overcame within our Daar (homeland) whilst he had no ‘Ahd (covenant) or ‘Aqd
(contract) or anything similar to that. He therefore resembles the Harbiy (warring) thief (Liss) (4).

Within the Fiqh of the Maalikiy Madh’hab there is a fifth opinion added to the four previous choices and
it is: To impose the Jizyah upon him i.e. to resume the contract of the Dhimmah for him and to take the
Jizyah which is built upon that (5).

[(1) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 176, (2) Haashiyah Ad-Dasoouqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer, Ad-Dardeer: 2/205,
(3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/608, (4) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609, (5) Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer, Ad-Dardeer: 4/184
and 205].

In addition, also considered to be a breach of the covenant by this cause (i.e. the cause of fighting) is every
circumstance in which the Ahl udh-Dhimmah abstain from submitting to the Islamic rule in respect to
them. It was stated in Al-Mughni: “In every place (o a crime) we have said: The ‘Ahd is not breached (i.e.
of the Dhimmiy) and so if he was to do that which requires a Hadd the Hadd (prescribe punishment) is
implemented upon him or his Qisaas (law of retribution). And if it does not oblige a Hadd he is given a
Ta’zeer (discretionary punishment) and he is dealt with like others like him are restrained from doing it
(i.e. the crimes). So, if anyone of them wants to do that, he is restrained and if he prevents and resists by
fighting (Al-Qitaal) he has breached his ‘Ahd (covenant) (1).

All that has preceded relates to when the cause or reason for the breaching of the covenant was due to the
Ahl udh-Dhimmah fighting the Muslims. As for when however, the breaching of the ‘Ahd is due to
another reason, other than Al-Qitaal, then there are two opinions in this Mas’alah (issue):

1 - The opinion that states: The Imaam is provided with the choice, in respect to them, between four
matters. These are the four matters mentioned previously related to the breaching of the covenant due to
fighting (2).

2 - The other opinion which states: That they are expelled from Daar ul-Islaam. The following was
mentioned in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah by Al-Maawardi:

“And if the Ahl udh-Dhimmah breach their covenant, killing them is not made permissible by that, or to
take their property as Ghanam (booty) or to take their children as slaves (Sabiy) as long as they did not
fight. And it is obligatory to remove them from the lands of the Muslims, in security, until they join to
their place of safety within the closest of the lands of Shirk (i.e. disbelief). If they do not leave voluntarily
then they are forced to leave” (3).
The meaning of this in today’s language is: Their citizenship, subject status or nationality is withdrawn
from them and they are deported to the nearest state from amongst the non-Islamic states that will accept
them.

This is what is to be said in respect to that which we have seen to be necessary within this second point
from this Mas’alah (issue) and that was: What consequences result from the breaching of the ‘Ahd
(covenant)?

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609, (2) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj: 4/259, (3) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-
Maawardiy: 146].

The third point in this Mas’alah which is: Is the breaching of the covenant
restricted specifically to those who broke it or does its Hukm extend beyond them
to others?

The answer: The original position is that the Hukm (ruling) of the breaching applies specifically upon the
one who has breached the covenant. So, whoever has participated with the people of war in fighting
against the Muslims is considered alone to be in breach of the Dhimmah and not his family (Ahl) or
‘Asheerah (tribe, clan). And if a collective grouping of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah break from the obedience
and take up arms against the Islamic authority, they are specified alone with the Hukm (ruling) of
breaching the covenant, whilst others from their people and clans are not included.

However, if there has been found to be acceptance and contentment (Ar-Ridaa’) from the rest of the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah in respect to what their brothers undertook in terms of the fighting, then the Hukm of the
breaching of the covenant will cover all of those who were pleased with this rebellion, insurrection or
sedition.

The following was mentioned in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah by Al-Farraa’:

“If the Ahl udh-Dhimmah come out openly by fighting the Muslims they are in war at that time and their
fighters are killed”. In the commentary of this book it is stated: “Al-Maawardiy said: The case of the non-
combatant is considered in accordance to their approval or disapproval” (1).

This means: If the non-combatants (or those not involved in the fighting) approve of the breaching of the
covenant then they are attached to the fighters in respect to sharing the same Hukm (ruling) as them. If
they disapprove of what the fighters undertook, then those who did not participate in the fighting remain
with the Hukm of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah safeguarded and intact.

The following was stated in Ash-Shawkaani’s ‘As-Sail Al-Jarraar’:

“Their ‘Ahd is breached by a breaching of all of them or some of them if the remainder are not opposed
by speech or action (to the act) … If this breaching of their covenant was from all of them then its matter
is simple. If, however, it occurred from some of them, then the remainder have to show their opposition
… Otherwise, if they don’t do that, then their mere being mixed amongst them would not represent a
breach of the covenant from those who did not breach it unless their approval was apparent regarding the
breaching act and they were in agreement with those who breached it (2).

All of this applies to the mature men from those who breached the covenant. As for the women who
breach the covenant and their children, then An-Nawawi has outweighed as strongest that the invalidation
of the protection in respect to the men does not extend to the women and their children. In ‘Al-Minhaaj’
he states: If the Amaan (security) of men is invalidated, the Amaan of their women and the children is not
invalidated according to the most correct view” (3).

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Farraa’: 145 and he mentioned the text of Al-Maawardi in his Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah: 146,
(2) As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/573-575, (3) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj: 4/359].

There are two further points remaining in respect to our issue connected to the situation of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah in our current time after the cessation of the Islamic State. These two points are:

1 - What is the Hukm (ruling) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in our current time?

2 - What is the Hukm in respect to the Khurooj (rebellion) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from the Shuroot of
the Ahl dh-Dhimmah that was taken upon their predecessors? Is their covenant breached (and
invalidated) by this Khurooj or not?

Regarding what is connected to the first point:

What is the Hukm (ruling) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in our current time?

Then the answer is: They remain preserving their position or status as being Ahl udh-Dhimmah and even
if the Islamic State has ceased to be present and there is no longer an Imaam for the Muslims. That is
because the contract of the Dhimmah contracted by their predecessors represents a permanent contract
applying upon them and their successive generations that follow as long as there is a Dhimmiy left
remaining from amongst them, irrespective of the length of time that passes.

The following was stated in Al-Maawardi’s ‘Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah’: “If he (i.e. the Imaam) undertakes
Ijtihaad in his opinion in respect to the contract of the Jizyah with them, with the approval and acceptance
of the influential people or leaders (Uoli l-Amr) from amongst them, it becomes binding to all of them
and to their successors, century after century” (1).

What is intended by the contract of Jizyah is the contract of the Dhimmah. Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy used
the expression of the ‘Aqd Al-Jizyah’ (contract of Jizyah) when referring to the ‘Aqd udh-Dhimmah’ on
many occasions in his book ‘Al-Umm’ (2).

We also mentioned earlier that in Ibn ul-Qayyim’s definition of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah he stated: “And
these have a permanent Dhimmah” (3). It is clearly obvious that the one who contracts the Dhimmah is
not permanent in this life (or lives for ever) whether that was the Imaam or someone delegated from the
Muslims or if he was from amongst the influential people or leaders (Uoli l-Amr) of the non-Muslims.
Therefore, the meaning of the permanency of the Dhimmah of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah can only mean the
application of the Dhimmah to those who were in the time when the Dhimmah was contracted and to
those who come after them from their following generations.

Therefore, the non-Muslim citizens in the Islamic lands today are the sons of those whom the Imaam or
his delegate contracted the Dhimmah to. As long as the contract of the Dhimmah represents a permanent
contract then that dictates that those sons today, in the time of the cessation of the Islamic State and the
absence of the Imaam of the Muslims, enjoy the status of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and are subject to the
Ahkaam (rulings) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah just as was the situation in respect to their forefathers in the
time of the existence of the Islamic State and presence of the Imaam of the Muslims.

The above relates to the first point in respect to what connects to the situation of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
today.
[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 144, (2) Refer, for example, to the following pages of Ash-Shaafi’iy’s ‘Al-Umm’:
4/182, 183, 186, 210, (3) Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/475].

As for what relates to the second point which is:

What is the Hukm in respect to the Khurooj (rebellion) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from the
Shuroot of the Ahl dh-Dhimmah that was taken upon their predecessors?
Is their covenant breached (and invalidated) by this Khurooj or not?

Before answering this question, it is first necessary to mention that the consequences, in terms of
dangerous effects, resulting from some answers provided in haste, draw dangerous compounding
repercussions, causing problems for the Muslims which they are not currently ready to confront, due to
what they carry in terms of the potential to explode and to spread beyond the local scope to the
international scope. In respect to this I say: The consequences, in terms of dangerous repercussions,
resulting from some rushed or hasty answers, obliges the one providing the Shar’iyah Fatawaa (verdicts)
regarding the ruling (Hukm) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah today, and even in respect to those who take up
arms against the Muslims, to think long and hard about our current reality and situation, to think long and
hard about the texts connected to our current time and about the extent of the application of these texts
upon the reality that we are suffering from. Then after that he should provide the Fatwaa (verdict) and
issue the Hukm (ruling).

The reason for the strong warning about the danger of rushing or being hasty in respect to providing
Shar’iyah verdicts in relation to what we are dealing with, is because it relates to the matter of blood,
honours and properties, that Allah Ta’Aalaa has made protected and inviolable by the contract of the
Dhimmah, and any answer that states the permissibility to take (or violate) these based upon the argument
of the breaching of the covenant, without a strong Shar’iy supporting basis that cancels that protection,
represents a display of gall and insolence against the Deen of Allah. It is as has been related from the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َجَرُؤُكم َعلَى النَّار‬ ِ

ْ ‫َجَرُؤُكم على الفتْ يَا أ‬
ْ‫أ‬
The most daring of you upon giving the verdict are the most daring of you over the fire (1).

[(1) Musnad Ad-Daaramiy: 1/69 (Chapter about the Fatwaa and what it contains of severity) and Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 28961. It
was mentioned in the commentary of Al-Kanz 10/184. Al-Manaawiy in ‘Al-Faid’ (1/159) said: In his Musnad witnessed for
him by verified outweighing because it is called Saheeh. Al-Haafizh said: The Musnad of Ad-Daaramiy is not a lesser level or
grade than the Sunan and indeed if it was included amongst the five, it would have been more worthy than the Sunan of Ibn
Maajah as it is much closer to what is sought].

This in in addition to the dangerous effects that can be a consequence of this kind of response as we have
already indicated to. Upon that basis, we will proceed to answer our question that we are dealing with
albeit with a serious warning and a mighty responsibility. We will now present, before our answer, the
Shar’iyah texts and the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ deduced from the Shar’iyah evidences that deal with our
issue that we have laid forth.

- Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

‫ين‬ ِ َّ ِ ْ ‫قَاتِلُوا الَّ ِذين ََّل ي ؤِمنُو َن بِاللَّ ِه وََّل بِالْي وِم ْاْل ِخ ِر وََّل ُُيِّرمو َن ما حَّرم اللَّه ورسولُه وََّل ي ِدينُو َن ِدين‬
َ ‫اْلَ ِّق م َن الذ‬ َ َ َ ُ ُ ََ ُ َ َ َ ُ َ َ َْ َ ُْ َ
ِ ‫اْلِزيةَ عن ي ٍد وهم ص‬
‫اغ ُرو َن‬ ِ
َ ْ ُ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ ‫اب َح َّ َّٰت يُ ْعطُوا‬ َ َ‫أُوتُوا الْكت‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider Haraam, what Allah and His
Messenger have made Haraam and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Book - [fight] until
they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29)
- Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah related that he said to a soldier of Kisraa on the day of Nahawand:

‫ول َربِّنَا أَ ْن نُ َقاتِلَ ُك ْم َح ََّّت تَ ْعبُ ُدوا اللَّهَ َو ْح َدهُ أ َْو تُ َؤُّدوا‬
ُ ‫أ ََمَرنَا نَبِيُّ نَا َر ُس‬
“Our Nabi the Messenger of our Lord commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah alone
or that you give the Jizyah” [extracted by Al-Bukhaari] (1).

‫ َوِِبَ ْن‬، ‫اص ِة نَ ْف ِس ِه‬

َّ ‫اَل ِِف َخ‬ َ ‫صاهُ بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه تَ َع‬
َ ‫ أ َْو‬، ‫ش‬ ٍ ‫ث أ َِم ًريا َعلَى َس ِريٍَّة أ َْو َجْي‬ َ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم إذَا بَ َع‬ ِ ُ ‫َكا َن رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ َُ
‫اْل ْس ََلِم‬
ِْ ‫ اُ ْدعُ ُه ْم َإَل‬، ‫ث‬ ٍ ‫ إذَا لَِقيت ع ُد َّو َك ِمن الْم ْش ِركِني فَ ْادعهم َإَل إح َدى ِخص ٍال ثَََل‬: ‫ال لَه‬ ِِ ِ
َ ْ ْ ُُ َ ُ ْ َ َ ُ َ َ‫ َوق‬، ‫ني َخْي ًرا‬ َ ‫َم َعهُ م ْن الْ ُم ْسلم‬
‫ فَإِ ْن‬، ‫ف َعنْ ُه ْم‬ َّ ‫ َوُك‬، ‫ فَاقْ بَ ْل ِمنْ ُه ْم‬، ‫َجابُوك‬ ِ ِ ِ ْ ‫ فَِإ ْن أَب وا فَ ْادعهم َإَل‬، ‫ف عنْ هم‬
َ ‫ فَِإ ْن أ‬، ‫إعطَاء ا ْْل ْزيَة‬ ْ ُ ُ َْ ْ ُ َ َّ ‫ َوُك‬، ‫ فَاقْ بَ ْل‬، ‫َجابُوك‬ َ ‫ فَإِ ْن أ‬،
‫استَعِ ْن بِاَللَّ ِه َوقَاتِلْ ُه ْم‬
ْ َ‫أَبَ ْوا ف‬
When the Apostle of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬despatched a Commander over an Army or a detachment or
army, he instructed him to fear Allah himself and consider the wellbeing of the Muslims who
were with him. He then said “When you meet the polytheists who are your enemy, call them to
one of three things. Call them to Islam and if they agree, accept it from them and refrain from
(fighting) them. If they refuse, then call them to give the Jizyah. Then if they agree, accept it
from them and refrain from them. But if they refuse, seek Allah’s help and fight them (2).

- And it was stated in Al-Mughni: “The true reality of the giving (of Jizyah) is not considered nor is the
application of the Ahkaam (over them). That is because the giving of the Jizyah is only done at the end of
the passing of the year and the refraining from (fighting) them initially is at the time of the offer. And the
intended meaning of His Qawl: (‫طوا‬ ُ ْ‫)ح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‘Until they give’ (At-Taubah: 29) is: They commit to the giving
and they offer to give it” (3).

- In the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “The end goal by which the fighting ends is the commitment made
to (give) the Jizyah, not its giving, and the commitment remains, so the Imaam takes it from him (the
Dhimmiy) by compulsion” (4).

- In Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy’s ‘Al-‘Umm’ he stated the following in respect to the meaning of: (‫ص َغار‬
َ )
referring to At-Taubah Aayah 29:

“Ash-Shaafi’iy said: I have heard a number of the people of knowledge saying: As-Saghaar refers to the
application of the rule of Islaam over them” (5).

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/567. Refer to Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/258 Hadeeth: 3159, (2) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/567. Hadeeth is related by Muslim: 1731, (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/572, (4) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/428-429,
(5) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/176].

- The following was mentioned in Al-Muhadh’dhab: “If the Dhimmiy abstains from committing to the
Jizyah or abstains from adherence to the Ahkaam of the Muslims, his ‘Ahd (covenant) is breached (or
invalidated). That is because the contract of the Dhimmah is not contracted except by these two matters
and it is does not remain or continue without them both. And if he (the Dhimmiy) fights the Muslims his
covenant is breached, whether not doing this act was (specifically) stipulated within the contract or not
stipulated. That is because the dictates of the contract of the Dhimmah is that both sides are provided
with Amaan (security) whilst fighting negates the Amaan and consequently the covenant would be
breached by it. If he (the Dhimmiy) was to do other than that … like committing Zinaa (fornication) with
a Muslim woman or afflicting her in the name of marriage … (and here the book lists some matters
breaching the covenant which have been disagreed upon which were mentioned previously in the study
and then he says:). If refraining from these acts was not stipulated in the ‘Aqd (contract) then his covenant
would not be invalidated due to the remaining of what the contract dictates in terms of the fulfilment or
giving of the Jizyah, adherence to the Ahkaam of the Muslims and refraining from fighting against them.
If refraining from that was stipulated within the contract, then there are two views:

The first: That the Dhimmiy does not break the covenant by it. That is because the covenant is not
breached by it in the absence of the condition (Shart) and consequently, it is not breached by it with the
Shart (condition). That is like the open display of alcohol, pigs and the leaving of Al-Ghiyaar (‫)الغيار‬.

The second view: Is that it breaches and invalidates the covenant.

- The following was stated in the ‘Haashiyah’ of Ibn ‘Aabideen in a discussion about the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah and their abstaining from paying the Jizyah: “If they were a collective that had gained
dominance over a particular area and it was their country or another, and sedition and warring manifested
from them, then at such a time it is not possible to take it from them except by Al-Qitaal (fighting)” (2).

This means: If the people of Ahl udh-Dhimmah fought so as to abstain from paying the Jizyah, they
would breach their covenant. For that reason, the following was stated in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah:

“And Abu Haneefah said: The covenant is not breached (or invalidated) except though (their) abstaining
from the Imaam where it is not possible for him to take the Jizyah from them” (3).

- And in the book ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’ the following was stated regarding the Khurooj
(rebellion) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (i.e. their revolt against the Islamic authority: “And if they rebel
(against the authority) without (suffering) Zhulm (oppression) or violence, they are enslaved. And if they
rebel due to oppression and violence they are not enslaved” (4).

In respect to this statement about ‘enslavement’ we have aleady mentioned earlier that is a metaphor
referring to the ruling of the breach of the covenant due to the Khurooj (rebellion outside or against the
authority).

[(1) Al-Muhadh’dhab, Abu Ishaaq Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/257, (2) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/429, (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/608, (4) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 176].

The following was mentioned in ‘Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer’ and the ‘Haashiyah’ (commentary) of Ad-
Daasooqiy upon it, in the discussion about the Dhimmiy participating alongside the Muslim Baaghiy
(rebel) in fighting against the Imaam (i.e. against the legitimate ‘Shar’iy’ authority):

“The Dhimmiy alongside him is in breach of his covenant … All of this relates to the rebellion against the
just (‘Adl) Imaam. As for other than him (i.e. unjust Imaam) and the one rebelling against him in
obstinacy like the one who has some reasoning (Al-Muta’awwil) [Al-Muta’awwil was mentioned in the
‘Haashiyah’ (commentary)]. Meaning: The Dhimmiy who rebels against the Imaam alongside him is not in
breach of his ‘Ahd (covenant)” (1).

The above represent some of the texts and writings that we have seen to cover and elate to the situation
of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah today, and which it is possible to apply upon them and issue the Hukm in
relation to this Mas’alah (issue) upon their basis.

We conclude from these texts and transferred writings, that what the Fuqahaa’ (across the Madhaahib)
have agreed upon, in respect to the matters breaching or invalidating the covenant of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah, is restricted to one matter and that is: The Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up of arms against the
Islamic authority and those Muslims backing the authority.
That is because, in respect to their abstention from the Jizyah or from submitting to the Islamic rule, both
of which are representative of the justification for the Muslims to fight the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, as has
been understood from the previously quoted Aayah of Al-Jizyah (At-Taubah: 29), if that abstention is not
accompanied by the taking up of arms and rebelling against the authority, it would not be in breach of the
covenant. That is because the Islamic authority, through its power, is capable of making them comply to
what they have committed to in accordance to the dictates of the Dhimmah contract. That is just like,
through power, the Islamic authority is capable of making the Muslims, who have abstained from fulfilling
the rights that have been obliged upon them, comply.

However, if the Ahl udh-Dhimmah take up arms in the path of abstaining from what is obliged upon
them, then the issue becomes one of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah fighting Muslims and the Islamic authority.
Here, the Fuqahaa’ have agreed upon the opinion that the covenant has been breached, in such a situation
where they have attained power (Quwwah) and preventative force (Mana’ah) as a result of their taking up
of arms and fighting the authority.

Outside of this issue of fighting, all that has been called invalidators or matters that breach (Nawaaqid) the
covenant, represent a matter of difference of opinion. i.e. it is a place of contestation and disagreement in
respect to whether the covenant of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah is invalidated by it or not? And in respect to
every matter that is disagreed upon Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has commanded that we refer the judgement in
respect to it back to the Shar’a:

‫ْمهُ إِ ََل اللَّ ِه‬ ٍ ِِِ

ُ ‫اختَ لَ ْفتُ ْم فيه من َش ْيء فَ ُحك‬
ْ ‫َوَما‬
And in anything over which you have differed, its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah (Ash-Shouraa: 10).

Referring back to Allah in respect to the Hukm means referring back to the Kitaab and the Sunnah i.e.
referring back to the Shar’a. Referring back to the Kitaab and the Sunnah or the Shar’a means referring
back to the one who has the authority (Sultah) to pass the judgment by the Kitaab and the Sunnah. That is
the Imaam or Khalifah, or the one who has been appointed by the Imaam or the Khalifah in terms of Al-
Hukkaam (the rulers) and Al-Qudaah (the judges). That is because the ruling over the people comes from
the angle of the Wilaayah (legal power) or Sultah (authority) and there is no Wilaayah (legal power or
authority) for the one who has not taken it via the Bai’ah (pledge) to act in accordance to the Kitaab of
Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, as was explained in a previous section. Ash-Shawkaaniy
sated the following: “The one whom the Muslims have not given the Bai’ah (pledge) to has no Wilaayah
(legal power) belonging to him and he does not have the right to carry out what the Imaam carries out, as
a whole or in part. That is because the Sabab (cause) of the Wilaayah (legal power and authority) is the
Bai’ah” (2).

He also said: “The purpose of appointing the A’immah (plural of Imaam) is the implementation of the
Ahkaam (rulings) of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla” (3).

As such, any authority or body that discharges of this matter, other than the Imaam or the one whom he
has appointed to act on his behalf, would only represent an infringement upon the legitimate (Shar’iy)
authority and it would reflect going outside from the obedience to the Imaams whom Allah has obliged us
to obey. Regarding that Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “From the obligatory obedience is that no one assumes a
Wilaayah (legal power or authority) unless it is by their permission (i.e. the Khulafaa’ of the Muslims),
otherwise that would represent a disputation in respect to the matter (Al-Munaaza’ah Fi l-Amr) and the
prohibition of that has been proven (or established)” (4).

[(1) As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaani, Azhar checked version: 4/277, (2) As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaani: 4/507, (3)
Majallah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah: 10, (4) As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaani: 4/276].

In this last statement of his, Ash-Shawkaaniy is referring to the Hadeeth of ‘Ubaadah Bin As-Saamit:
‫ َو َعلَى‬- ‫ َو َعلَى أَثََرةٍ َعلَْي نَا‬، ‫اع ِة ِِف الْعُ ْس ِر َوالْيُ ْس ِر َوالْ َمْن َش ِط َوالْ َمكَْرِه‬َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬ َّ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم َعلَى‬ ِ َ ‫باي عنَا رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َْ َ
‫احا عِنْ َد ُك ْم ِم َن اللَّ ِه فِ ِيه بُْرَها ٌن‬
ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ إََِّّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫أَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
We gave our pledge of allegiance to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon hearing and obeying in the
(time of) hardship and ease, what is pleasing and displeasing and when preference is given over
us and that we do not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufr Bawaah
for which you have a Burhaan (decisive proof) from Allah (1).

The ‘Amr’ (affair or matter) mentioned in the Hadeeth refers to the Sultah or Wilaayah (legal power and
authority) and hence if any action which is from the jurisdiction of the authority was to be undertaken by
any party or authority without having been delegated to do that by the Shar’iy (legally legitimate) possessor
of the authority, would be reflective of a dispute over the authority of its people (as indicated to in the
Hadeeth) and that is a matter that has been established to be prohibited as Ash-Shawkaaniy said.

Based upon this understanding, in the absence of an Imaam for the Muslims today as a result of the
Islamic State being absent from the international community, then the party or authority that decides or
passes judgement in respect to those differed and disagreed upon matters that breach or invalidate the
covenant and are perpetrated by the Ahl dh-Dhimmah citizens, I say, that this authority that has the right
to resolve this matter is non-existent. Consequently, it is not permissible for a ruling (Hukm) to be issued
upon the non-fighting Ahl udh-Dhimmah today, in respect to them having breached or invalidated their
covenant. Therefore, it is not permissible to pass the judgement declaring their blood to be Mubaah or
their properties and honours. That is because the protection of these matters is established in the contract
of the Dhimmah and no Hukm Shar’iy has been issued by a Shar’iy (legally legitimate) authority) to
invalidate that protection, based on their committing this or that action from amongst the disagreed upon
matters that breach the covenant. That is whilst it is worth noting that their violations are not any less
than the violations of many Muslims in respect to the Ahkaam of their Deen and their Shar’a. So, how can
be emboldened in the passing of a Fatwaa against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and demand that they adhere to
the Shar’a of Allah whilst (at the same time) we do not demand that the Muslims do that?

This is what is said in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of the Khurooj (rebellion) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
today from the conditions which were placed upon their predecessors and which we called: The disagreed
or differed upon Nawaaqid Al-‘Ahd (matters that breach or invalidate the covenant).

As for what is said in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) where the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
take up arms against the Muslims, then the texts that we quoted at the beginning of the section have made
the invalidation of the covenant, as a result of fighting, restricted to when that fighting is as a result of
rebellion and sedition against the Islamic rule. Therefore, in the case where there is no existing Islamic rule
today, in the absence of the Islamic State from the international community, the fighting of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah against the existing authority in the Muslim lands, does not fit with the fighting through which
the covenant is breached. Rather, its reality resembles the Qitaal of the Bughaah (rebels) or the Qitaal of
Al-Fitnah which the Muslims confront by raising arms in order to repel and deter the aggressors and in
self-defence.

[(1) Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Maalik and An-Nasaa’iy: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 1/253. Hadeeth Number: 44].

Based upon this, it is therefore our opinion that the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who fight the Muslims in these
days remain with the status of being Ahl udh-Dhimmah intact. Following on from that, the inviolability of
their blood, properties and honours is upheld in addition to their right to remain settled in the lands and
for a permanent security to be provided to them. Their blood is only permitted in the situation of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) alone due to a necessity to repel their aggression and Baghy (rebelliousness) just as that is
permitted from the Muslim Bughaah during the fighting if the situation makes that necessary, whilst it
remains impermissible to meddle with the properties and honours.

- I add to that what we have previously transmitted from the Madh’hab of Maalik Al-Qaadiy, in respect to
the Khurooj (rebellion) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah due to a Zhulm (oppression) befalling them, in which
case the description of it representing a Khurooj (rebellion) that breaches the covenant is taken away, as
was stated in the book: ‘Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’ (1).

This applies to the case where the subjects within the Muslim lands today, whether they are Muslims or
Ahl udh-Dhimmah, are not living under the ruling by what Allah has revealed. That is because holds true,
in respect to all of them, that they are under the authority of regimes that practise a great deal of
oppression over them and devour their rights. That is because every ruling other than the ruling by what
Allah has revealed is an oppressive rule. Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

‫ك ُه ُم الظَّالِ ُمو َن‬

َ ِ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئ‬ ِ
َ ‫َوَمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِبَا أ‬
And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the oppressors (Al-Maa’idah: 45).

So, from this angle as well, there is no room to pass the judgement upon the fighting of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah against the (current) ruling authority in the Muslim lands to be representative of a Qitaal
(fighting) that invalidates or breaks their covenant.

- In addition, it is very rare that we find within the Muslim lands the situation when the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah take up arms against the ruling regimes or authorities and against the Muslims who support
those authorities. I say: It is rare that we find the Ahl udh-Dhimmah taking up arms by themselves but
rather we find that they participate alongside Muslim groups or factions, whether few or many, in revolt
(or revolution) against those authorities, in which case they are of the status of participating alongside the
Bughaah (Muslim rebels). And we have previously mentioned the texts at the beginning of the study of
this current issue, that if the opposing Bughaah (rebels) revolt against the unjust Imaam, then their
rebellion is considered to be a rebellion that has arisen based upon a Ta’weel (interpreted reasoning for
justification) (2). That means that its people (i.e. the Bughaah) are not liable for what they have damaged
or harmed in terms of blood or property, during the fighting, and what applies to the Muslims also applies
to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah regarding the absence of liability and their fighting alongside them is not
considered to breach or invalidate their covenant. I say: This Hukm only relates to those who rebel against
the Shar’iy Imaam who has deviated where he perpetrates injustice or Fisq making him unjust. It is
therefore by greater reason that this Hukm should apply to those who rebel against the one who is worse
than the unjust (legitimate) Imaam.

[(1) Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah: 176, (2) Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer: 4/300].

We conclude from all that has preceded that the fighting of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah today, against the
ruling authority in the Muslim lands, does not breach their covenant, even if it is the right of the Muslims
who are touched by the evil of this fighting to confront those who take up arms by taking up arms
themselves to repel the harm and to defend that which they are obliged to defend in terms of rights and
Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities).

This is what is said in respect to the issue (Mas’alah) of this study; the Mas’alah of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
today departing from the conditions that were agreed with their predecessors and in respect to the fighting
that breaks out between them and the Muslims.

We will now move on to the last Mas’alah (issue) of this study which is:
The third issue: Is the Qitaal (fighting) of the Muslims against the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah who have breached the covenant considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way
of Allah?

The answer is Yes, it is from the Jihaad in the way of Allah as long as the Ahl udh-Dhimmah we are
fighting have breached their covenant and by doing so become Harbiyeen (those at war). That is in
accordance to what has already been detailed regarding the previous Mas’alah. That is because in such a
case the definition of Al-Jihaad would hold true and be applicable upon that fighting. It is the Qitaal
(fighting) of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to raise high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

- However, when the Muslims fighting against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah takes place in the conditions or
scenario of Al-Fitnah or Qitaal (fighting) against the Bughaah (rebels), which does not breach or invalidate
their covenant, then we have already stated in previous study sections that this type of fighting (Al-Qitaal),
according to what we have outweighed to be strongest, does not fall under the category of Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah, in accordance to its terminological meaning.

That is whilst the Fuqahaa have stated that the Qitaal against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in breach of their
covenant is from the Jihaad … Indeed, they considered it to represent one of the most binding types of
Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah and that is because, in such a circumstance, it would take the Hukm of Al-
Fard Al-‘Aini (individual obligation) upon every individual from amongst the Muslim citizens who their
fellow citizens from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah have rebelled against and taken up arms against them, as
explained in the previous issue. Within the study of that issue we mentioned what the author of Mughni
Al-Muhtaaj stated regarding this matter:

“That the Jihaad, when a faction or group, from the people of war (Alh ul-Harb), enters Daar ul-Islaam
(the land of Islaam), is Fard ‘Ain (an obligation upon every individual), and there is no difference between
that faction and between a faction that used to have a Dhimmah (contract of protection) and then broke
it”. Then it quoted from An-Nawawi in his book ‘Ar-Rawdah’ in relation to this situation: “Therefore, it is
necessary to repel them and strive to eliminate them” (1).

Finally point of observation:

Our purpose in this study relates to the Qitaal of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, as has been indicated to, and
that what has been mentioned in the presentation of this study not connected to the Qitaal (fighting) was
only mentioned by us due to the necessity we saw in respect to presenting it … That is because it deals
with either that which leads to the Qitaal or results from the Qitaal. For that reason, we have restricted
ourselves (in accordance to this necessity) to that which we have deemed to be necessary for the study of
the issue … And we did not intend to delve into details or address the issue (of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah)
comprehensively here because that which relates to the contract of the Dhimmah, from angles other than
the angle of Al-Qitaal, has been provided a specific section of study for it within this PHD paper.

We will now move on to another type of Al-Qitaal.

[(1) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj: 4/259].

 The Tenth Study

Qitaal Al-Ghaarah (fighting by raids or attacks) for the purpose of seizing the
property of the enemy

- Introduction around the definition of the subject of the study and the main issues (Masaa’il) that need to
be treated.

- The first issue: Is it permissible for the individual fighter or a small fighting group to oppose large forces
of enemies surpassing their number multiple times over?
- The Hukm (ruling) of taking risks with one’s life in an attack against the enemy?
- The first opinion.
- The second opinion.
- The opinion that we outweigh to be strongest.

- The second issue: Is it permissible to fight without the permission of the Imaam or the Ameer
possessing the (Shar’iy) authority in respect to the fighting?
- Broad outline about the task and mission of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to explaining and making clear that
which he conveyed from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla in a general form and the necessity to refer back to the
Sunnah and Prophetic Seerah to explain the manner of how to undertake the fighting of the enemies.

Firstly: The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬leading the fighting campaigns against the enemies by himself sometimes
whilst he appointed commanders for them on other occasions.
Secondly: Salamah Ibn ul-Akwa’ (ra) fighting the enemy that attacked or raided a low-lying ground before
obtaining a permission from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.
Thirdly: Abu Baseer (ra) fighting against the Quraish during the period of the treaty (of Al-Hudaibiyyah)
because he was excluded from the terms of the contract of the treaty.
Fourthly: The man, Al-Ashja’I,y taking possession of the enemy’s property from Daar ul-Harb (land of
war) as booty without a prior permission from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.
Fifthly: A man fighting the enemy at Khaibar and was martyred after the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the fighting
and so he said in respect to him: Jannah is not Halaal (permissible) for ‘Aas.

The first point: Is the presence of the Imaam a condition for undertaking Al-Qitaal against the enemy,
whether in attack (the offensive) or in defence?

The second point: What is the role of the presence of the Imaam in respect to the permission for fighting?
In the situation or circumstance where he has not issued a command forbidding the fighting?

- The first opinion: Al-Qitaal (fighting) without the permission of the Imaam is Haraam.
- The second opinion: Fighting without the permission of the Imaam is Makrooh.

-The role of the Imaam in respect to the permission of fighting in the situation where he has issued a
command to forbid the fighting.

- In respect to defence fighting.

- The first situation: The forbiddance where harm befalling the Muslims is not consequential.
- The second situation: The forbiddance where harm befalling the Muslims is consequential.

- In respect to offensive fighting.

- The forbiddance due to a legally legitimate interest.
- The forbiddance due to an illegitimate interest.

The third point: What is the Hukm in respect to adhering to obedience of the people in authority in the
Islamic lands today regarding the subject of fighting the enemies when they issue their command to
undertake it or to abstain from it?

- The first issue: The issuance of the command to fight from the people in authority. And does the view
about the illegitimacy of their authority have any impact upon the Hukm?
- And what is those people in authority order the fighting of the enemy in accordance to a scheming plan
that will bring harm upon the Muslims?

- The second issue: The issuance of the command to forbid fighting from the people in authority.
- The first part: Forbidding the fighting due to a Maslahah (interest).
- The second part: Forbidding the fighting for other than a Maslahah (interest)

- The third issue: Is it permitted for the Muslim to fight the enemy for the intended purpose of seizing his
properties?
- Seeking to seize the property of the enemy, within the fighting, for the purpose of applying pressure
upon him, falls under the category of raising the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla high.
- What are the intended purposes that are prohibited to seek in the fighting? And the issue of associating
with Allah in respect to the ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship) whilst Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah is from amongst
them.
- Deeming as permissible the properties of the enemy in the war is a general custom and means from
amongst the means to apply pressure upon the enemy.
- The fourth issue: Does the Qitaal (fighting) to take possession of the property of the enemy fall under
the category of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (according to its Shar’iy Istilaahiy meaning)?

The Tenth Study

Qitaal Al-Ghaarah (fighting by raids or attacks) for the purpose of seizing the
property of the enemy

Introduction around the definition of the subject of the study and the main issues
(Masaa’il) that need to be treated
The Qitaal Al-Ghaarah refers to the fighting of an individual Muslim or a band of Muslim individuals
within the enemy’s land which they have infiltrated into from outside without possessing an Amaan
(security provided by the state) or being from its residents. It applies equally whether the land of the
enemy was the enemy’s in origin or it had previously been the land of the Muslims which the enemy
occupied and thereafter imposed its people, system and authority over it, so that the Muslims became
either displaced or overcome and defeated, and the land then became regarding the Muslims, a land of war
and fighting.

I say: The mentioned Qitaal Al-Ghaarah is this fighting that we have described that takes place in the land
of the enemy and possibly in other than the land of the enemy like the fighting that takes place in a region
that has not fallen under the rule of anyone or upon the high seas for example. All of that is undertaken
with the intended aim of attaining property as a solitary aim or in combination with the aim of
strengthening the Deen and terrorising the disbelievers. That is when a daring Muslim or band of Muslims
venture to target specific centres of the enemy’s properties containing wealth for the purpose of seizing
and taking possession of what is there and then escape with their lives. The daring Muslim or Muslims are
then compelled into engaging in fighting clashes with the enemy and then blood is shed on both sides
which is followed by escape or not. In respect to this reality is this contingent or forced upon fighting
from Al-Jihaad in Allah’s way according to its Istilaahiy (terminological convention) meaning or not?

This is the subject of the study and in order to treat it we have to point to some points which are point of
contention and query in respect to this subject area, so that we can specify the issues that this study is
divided into and then deal with one point after another. At the end of which we will be able to explain and
make clear whether this type of Al-Qitaaal (fighting) is deserving of the honour of falling under the
category of Al-Jihaad to begin with? So, what are these points of query in respect to this issue?

The image that we presented at the beginning of this study about this contingent, forced upon or
emergency (Idtiraariy) fighting raises a number of points of query before us, from which we select that
which is necessary to the subject of our study. These points include:

1 - That an individual or a small number of individuals who do not possess except a very limited power or
force take part in a (daring) venture in which the individual or this small group could be exposed to being
confronted by a large armed force, the consequence of which in most cases is regrettable!

2 - From the points that give rise to questioning is that (daring) ventures such as this are often undertaken
by sporadic or dispersed individuals or individuals grouped together without a being commissioned or
being provided with a permission from the authorities that they belong or are affiliated to.

3 - Also from amongst the points that raise questioning is that the single or most important aim behind
this venture is to gain possession over property whilst considering that ventures like this could include in
respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) or that it is not a cause from amongst the Shar’iyah causes for the
attainment of ownership like hunting or gathering firewood.

These represent the most significant points that give rise to questioning and debate in respect to this
subject are and the issues of this study that need to be treated are divided in accordance to them. These
are:

1 - Is it permissible for the individual fighter or a small fighting group to oppose large forces of enemies
surpassing their number multiple times over?

2 - Is it permissible to fight without the permission of the Imaam or the Ameer possessing the (Shar’iy)
authority in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting)?
3 - Is fighting for the purpose of taking possession over the property of the enemy permissible?

4 - And finally: Is this Qitaal (fighting) deserving of the honour of Al-Jihaad?

The first issue: Is it permissible for the individual fighter or a small fighting group
to oppose large forces of enemies surpassing their number multiple times over?

The answer to this, is that the original reality in respect to this type of raid is that is does not rely upon
having an equivalent force to the enemies. Rather, the reliance in it is upon surprise, making a sudden
attack and taking the enemy off guard, for the purpose of seizing properties and then escaping quickly
before the enemy recovers from its surprise and bewilderment. It is similar to the reality of what has been
named today as ‘guerrilla warfare’ (1). If clashes then take place, even if those engaged in this (daring)
venture did not desire that, then their fighting would be defensive so that they can escape and save
themselves and it would not be, in most cases, fighting that occurs for the purpose of confrontation and
holding one’s ground firmly. That is because the main aim of their raid was not to fight but rather the
objective was to seize the property however they were compelled, according to how matters turned out, to
resort to fighting out of necessity. Consequently, they fight to protect their withdrawal and what they
managed to seize in terms of spoils and material gains.

This is what is intended in origin in respect to launching these types of raids where the reliance within
them is not upon having a certain number of forces capable of confronting the enemy and standing firm
before it. It is for this reason, that Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy disliked female Muslims accompanying these
raids due the absence of a sufficient force to protect them from the enemies. That is whilst he did not see
any problem with the women participating in Al-Jihaad alongside the army which usually meets the
capable force required for protection. Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy stated the following in his book ‘Al-Umm’:
“So, when they attack a people of force (or power) with an army, there is no problem that women take
part in the attack. But if it is a Ghaarah (raid) in which only a small number attack a large number, so as to
make material gains from their lands, where they only take advantage of the element of surprise and then
escape running, then I have disliked (i.e. Makrooh) that the women take part is the attack in such
circumstances” (1).

Regarding most of the raiding parties that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to direct and the expeditions
which he used to command and lead to intercept the Quraishi caravans when they were setting out to
Ash-Shaam (Syria) or returning from there, when the Quraish were at war with the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬, and also the raids that took place against the locations of the tribes at war with the Muslims.
Regarding that I say: In most of those raiding parties and expeditions the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to
restrict himself to dispatching a small number of individuals to undertake their mission or task whilst the
forces they were aggressing against were many times greater than them in number.

[(1) Harb Al-‘Isaabaat (Guerrilla warfare). ‘Imaad Mustafa Talaas: 108, (2) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy - Book ‘The response to
Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan’: 7/352].

For example: In the month of Ramadhaan in the first year after Hijrah the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
dispatched the first Sariyyah (raiding part or small attack party) to intercept a Quraishi caravan returning
from Ash-Shaam (Syria). This Sariyyah consisted of thirty men from amongst the Muhaajireen under the
leadership of his uncle Hamzah Ibn Abdul Muttalib. That was whilst the force guarding the caravan of
Quraish numbered 300 men under the leadership of Abu Jahl” (1).

Indeed, the lack of equivalence in force between the Islamic force undertaking the raid and the target
enemy force could be a very great and that is because the raiding force does not intend to take the stance
of opposition to this enemy force but rather to surprise its dense gathering and pounce upon it like
lightening in circumstances where it does not have the opportunity to gather its forces and recover from
what has befallen it in terms of panic and confusion. In this way, the attacking force strikes, accomplishes
its aim, takes possession of its booty and then withdraws to its bases, leaving the enemy in a state of
terrible panic unable to think about anything apart from fleeing and escape! Examples of that were
mentioned by Ibn ul-Qayyim when he discussed raiding expeditions that took place in the seventh Hijri
year before the ‘Umrah Al-Qadaa’ which included the raiding party of Abu Hadrad Al-Aslamiy which
consisted of only three men. They were Abu Hadrad and two men under his command. Just before setting
off on the expedition Abu Hadrad had contracted his marriage with a woman from his people and he set
200 Dirham as her bridal dowry. He then went to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to seek assistance for what
had been obliged upon in respect to the bridal dowry. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “By Allah, I do
not have that which can help you”. Then, after some days the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched him in this raiding
expedition and motivated him saying that would he would gain would help him to fulfil the dowry that he
was obliged to give to his wife! The following is a report of what took place during this raiding expedition:
“That a man from ‘Jusham Bin Mu’aawiyah’ from amongst the enemies of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
called Qais Bin Rifaa’ah or Rifaa’ah Bin Qais, approached with a large number (i.e. force) until he set
down at Al-Ghaabah (2). He wanted to gather together Qais to fight against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
and he was from the leaders of ‘Jusham’. And so, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched the raiding party of Hadrad to
take them by surprise and to eliminate their evil before they could realise their intent. Abu Hadrad said:
“We proceeded until we reached close to the place (i.e. near to the enemy’s camp) at the time of sunset.
Then I concealed myself at a position and commanded my two companions so that they concealed
themselves at another position near the camp of the people. I said to them: If you hear me making Takbir
(i.e. saying Allahu Akbar) and I have launched an attack from an angle of the camp then also make Takbir
and charge with me. By Allah, we were like that (i.e. in those positions) waiting for the opportunity of
surprise or to see anything (favourable). The (darkness of the) night had covered us until the deep of the
night passed. They had a shepherd had been roaming freely in the land. He was delayed (in his return) so
they were fearful about him (i.e. his wellbeing). So, their leader ‘Rifaa’ah Bin Qais’ took up his sword and
pleased it by his neck and said: By Allah, something bad has happened to him … And then he went out
until he passed by me so when I found the opportunity I let an arrow loose and it stuck him in the heart
the by Allah he did not speak … Then I charged into the area of the camp and made Takbir and my two
companions charged and made Takbir. By Allah, it was only people escaping from those who had come
amongst them, urging themselves on to save whatever they could take in terms of their women and
children and the light properties and so we drove away great camels and many sheep. We then took them
back to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he gave me in exchange for those camels (Ibil) 13 (other) camels
(Ba’eer) for my bridal dowry. I then gathered my family to me and I married a woman from my people
and gave her 200 Dirham as her Dowry…” (3).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/163, (2) ‘Al-Ghaabah’ is the name of a place in Al-Hijaaz and is located close to Al-
Madinah in the direction of Ash-Shaam, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/365-366].

Indeed, a raiding expedition that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to dispatch could have consisted of
only one man who would set off towards an enemy target on a particular mission. It could be to spy upon
that enemy, to take possession of a property of his, to free a captive, take a hostage, kill one of their
leaders or something similar. In all these missions or tasks that individual could be exposed to fighting
even if he had not set off for that purpose. (The question may come to mind) What force could a single
individual bring against those enemies amongst the crowds of whom he had snuck in and infiltrated?
However, this matter is one of subterfuge, of making the most of a given opportunity, the element of
surprise. These represent the weapon of such an individual and it represents the most important weapon
for him to be successful in his task or mission! An example of such a mission consisting of one person
was the Sariyyah of Abdullah Ibn Unais.
- On the 5th of Muharram in the fourth Hijri year, the news reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that one of the leaders
of the enemy who dwelled in the direction of ‘Arafaat’ called ‘Khalid Bin Sufyaan Bin Nubah Al-Hudhaliy’
had gathered together a force to wage war against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. And so the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
commissioned Abdullah Ibn Unais to go to him and outwit or beguile him (employing creative means) so
as to kill him and get rid of his evil. The following is what was reported in respect to what took place in
this Sariyyah. Abdullah Ibn Unais said: “O Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, verily I don’t know him”. S,o he
‫ ﷺ‬replied: “When you see him you will be in awe of him”. That was whilst I was [a person who was]
not in awe of men! So I arrived (in the location) on the night of Jumu’ah … The time for the Salaah came
but I feared that I would be made known if I prayed so I performed it by gestures whilst I was walking …
He (Abdullah) said: I continued until I came to some followers of his and then asked where he (Khalid)
was? They said: “Here he is coming to you now”. …I didn’t have to wait as he approached leaning on a
staff … Then when I saw him I found myself trembling due to being in awe of him. He greeted and then
asked me about my lineage (or tribal links). So, I told him that I was affiliated to Khuzaa’ah and then said:
“I have come to support you, increase your number and to be alongside you!” … He then said to a girl
(servant): “Milk (i.e. an animal)”. She milked and then he passed it to me so I sipped a small amount and
then pushed it to him. He then gulped it down like a camel takes gulps until his nose had disappeared into
the froth and that is when I took aim at him. And I said to the girl: “If you speak (about this) I will kill
you” … And in another narration, he stated: “I struck his neck and took his head and then left in a hurry
until I reached the top of the mountain and entered a cave …” Abdullah Ibn Unais then said: “So I was a
captive of the night and I moved hidden during the day until I reached Al-Madinah. I found the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬in the Masjid and then when he saw me, he said: “Successful is your face!” … And so I replied: “It is
your noble face O Messenger of Allah” and then I informed him of my news. He then handed a stick over
to me and said: Take hold of this O Ibn Unais in Jannah because those who holding on are few in
Jannah” (1) [Translator note: It is said that the stick was a sign between them that would take Abdullah to paradise and that
Abdullah held on to it until he passed away and was buried].

Our intention here in this issue is not to present the reports of the raiding expeditions (Saraayaa) that took
place in the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬but rather our point was to show and reiterate that these types
of raiding expeditions and missions did not rely upon having an equivalent force to the force of the
enemy. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did indeed dispatch these types of expeditions upon this form whilst
they were exposed to the possibility of being involved in clashes with the enemy falling within the domain
of Qitaal (fighting). Consequently: It is possible for us to deduce the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy for the question
that was presented at the beginning of the discussion of this issue which was: Is it permissible for the
individual fighter or a small fighting group to fight against an immeasurably larger force? The answer is:
Yes, that is permissible based upon the dispatching of these expeditions and what they were exposed to in
terms fighting in the situation of necessity. However, we would like to present another step related to
treating this subject area and so we ask: Is it is not allowed for the individual, initially, and not out of
compulsion or necessity to risk his life? What we mean by this risk taking is what Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy
clarified in his book ‘Al-Umm’ when he said:

“Al-Mukhaatir (risk taker/venturesome): The one who advances upon a group of a people of a fortress
(i.e. held up in a stronghold) and is thrown (in) or advances upon a group by himself whilst it is most
likely that he has no capability to do anything against them”.

[(1) As-Siyar Al-Kabeer, Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy: 1/267-269 and Zaad Al-Ma’aad: 3/243-244, (2) Al-Umm,
Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/202].

What we intend by Al-Mukhaatarah (risk taking) here is the meaning mentioned by Al-Alousiy in his
Tafseer, from Al-Balkhiy, when he explained the intended meaning of At-Tahlukah (‫ )التهلكة‬in the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa:
 ‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw yourselves by your own hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

At-Tahlukah here means:

“To plunge or embark into war with indifference or heedlessly” (1).

So, in respect to this one who takes risks with his life, what is the Hukm of his plunging or throwing
himself into this type of fighting against his enemies?

There are a number of opinions in respect to the answer to this question among the predecessors and
Fuqahaa’ as follows:

The first opinion:

It is permitted for the fighter to take risks with his life until he is killed and those holding this view did not
stipulate that the fighter believes it most likely that he will escape with his life or that he believes that he
will inflict grievous damage upon the enemy or the like of that. Rather, they only stipulated as a condition
that this venturous risk-taking act be undertaken with a sincere (pure) intention.

The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of At-Tabari: “Abu Ishaaq said: I said to Al-Baraa’ Bin
‘Aazib: O Abu ‘Ammaarah, in respect to the man that meets a thousand of the enemy and attacks them,
whilst he is alone! Is he from those about whom He said:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw yourselves by your own hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

He replied: No, it so that he fights until he is killed! Allah said to His Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫ف إََِّّل نَ ْف َس‬ ِ ِ
‫ك‬ ُ َّ‫فَ َقات ْل ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه ََّل تُ َكل‬
So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself (An-Nisaa’: 84)” (2).

And the following came in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “The ‘Ulamaa have differed in respect to the act of
the man plunging into the war and launch an attack against the enemy by himself …” He then stated:
“And it is said: If he was seeking Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) and his intention was pure, then he attacks
because his intention is one of them and that is clear in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َّاس من ي ْش ِري نَ ْفسه ابتِغَاء مرض‬

‫ات اللَّ ِه‬ ِ
َ َْ َ ْ ُ َ َ َ ِ ‫َوم َن الن‬
And of the people is he who sells his life, seeking the pleasure of Allah (Al-Baqarah: 207) (3).

The above reflects the first opinion in respect to the Hukm of taking risks with one’s life (Al-
Mukhaatarah).

[(1) Tafseer Al-Aaloosiy: 2/77, (2) Tafseer At-Tabari: 2/118, (3) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 2/361].

The second opinion:

Its details are as follows:

A - If the one venturing and taking risks with his life when fighting the enemy is not capable of escape
and his risk-taking act does not contain that which will bring benefit to the Muslims or inflict harm upon
the disbelievers, then the statements of many of the Salaf (predecessors) and ‘Ulamaa’ in respect to a
situation like this which indicate to the forbiddance of this venturous act from which no benefit or worth
is attained. In respect to the Hukm (legal ruling) for this situation, the following was stated in ‘As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer’:

“… As for if it was known that he would not inflict damage amongst them then it is not allowed for him
to launch an attack against them and that is because he does not accomplish anything from his attack that
strengthens the Deen, rather he is only killed! Whilst Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw yourselves by your own hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195) (1).

The author of ‘Subul us-Salaam’ quoted the speech of Abu Ayoub Al-Ansaariy in respect to his
explanation or interpretation of the following Aayah of Al-Baqarah:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ ِ ِ
ْ ‫َوأَنف ُقوا ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining] (Al-
Baqarah: 195).

He then mentions was ‘Ibn Hajar’ stated in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of one person launching an
attack against a large enemy number. He stated the following: “From the speech of Aslamah Bin Yazeed
Abi ‘Imraan is that he said: We were in Constantinople and a great column of Roman’s came out. Then a
man from the Muslims launched an attack against the Roman column until he was amongst them and
then fell back amongst them turning. Then the people exclaimed: Subhaan Allah: He throw himself into
destruction by his own hand. So, Abu Ayoub said: “O People! You are providing this Aayah with this
interpretation whilst the Aayah was only revealed in respect to us, the kinfolk of the Ansaar. When Allah
honoured and strengthened His Deen and the number of His supporters became many we said amongst
ourselves secretly: Verily, our wealth has been lost. Had we occupied ourselves with it and rectified what
we had lost from it … Then Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed this Aayah and the ‘Tahlukah’ (destruction) was
referring to the preoccupation (i.e. with wealth) that we had desired!”.

As-San’aaniy then mentioned the following text from Ibn Hajar:

“The majority (Jumhoor) stated: If it was due to excessive bravery and his belief that he would terrify the
enemy by that or give courage to the Muslims against them or any other similar valid intended purposes.
That is Hasan (good). And when it is done due to mere heedlessness or irresponsibility then it is
forbidden and especially if the consequences of that is the weakening of the Muslims” (1).

[(1) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/51].

Ash-Shawkaaniy stated the following in respect to the Tafseer of the Aayah of ‘At-Tahlukah’:

“The truth (i.e. correct view), is for the consideration to be given to the generality of the Lafzh (wording)
and not the specificity of the cause (i.e. of revelation). Consequently, everything or matter that conforms
to being a destruction (Tahlukah) in respect to the Deen or the Dunyaa is included within its meaning …
From amongst the host of matters that fall within the meaning of the Aayah is when the man plunges or
hurtles into the war and launches an attack against the army without any ability to escape or without
having any positive effect that benefits the Mujaahideen (Muslim fighters) … And Ibn Abi Haatim
recorded … That they besieged Damascus and then a man rushed to the enemy by himself and the
Muslims found fault in what he did and raised it with ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Aas who then sent for him. He
rebuked him and said: Allah said:

‫َّهلُ َك ِة‬ ِ
ْ ‫َوََّل تُ ْل ُقوا بِأَيْدي ُك ْم إِ ََل الت‬
And do not throw yourselves by your own hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195) (1).

Al-Qurtubiy mentioned in his Tafseer that the power (Al-Quwwah) is stipulated as a condition to exist
within the Mukhaatir (risk-taker or venturous one), for the venturous and risk-taking act (Al-Mukhaatarah)
to be legally legitimate and then he said: “If he does not possess the Quwwah (power or force) then it
would fall under (the category of) the Tahlukah (destruction)” (2).

The above represents that which has been mentioned in respect to the risk-taking or venturous act (Al-
Mukhaatarah) in the case when there is no consequential benefit for the Muslims or harm inflicted upon
the enemy.

B - As for when the Mukhaatarah (risk-taking act) does bring a consequential benefit to the Muslims,
repels a harm from them or brings damage and harm to the enemy, then the views of the ‘Ulamaa
regarding such a circumstance indicate to a favourable and supportive position. In the book ‘Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan’ by Ibn ‘Arabiy, in relation to the discussion about the single individual launching an attack
against a collective grouping of the enemy, the following was stated:

“The correct view in my opinion is that it is permissible and that is because it contains for components:
First: The seeking of martyrdom. Second: The existence of harm or damage. Third: To encourage the
Muslims to run at them. Fourth: To weaken or demoralise the disbelievers - so that they see what one
man can do, so what about all of them together. Consequently, the Fard (obligation) is for one Muslim to
face two (enemy combatants) and to meet other than that (number) is permissible” (3).

[(1) Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy ‘Fat’h ul-Qadeer’: 1/193, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy ‘Jaami’ Al-Bayaan’: 2/361, (3) Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/116].

The following was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy:

“If he knew and thought is most likely that he would kill the one he is attacking and escape then that is
Hasan (all good and well). Similarly, if he knew or thought it most likely that he will be killed but will
inflict damage or tribulation or will have an impact that will benefit the Muslims, then that is also
permitted. It reached me that when a Muslim army met the Persians in war, the Muslim horses fled from
the elephants. Then a man from amongst them took to making an elephant out of clay and he would bring
his horse close to it until it became used to it. When the horse no longer fled from the elephants (due to
this training) he attacked the elephant that was at the head of them (the army and other elephants). It was
said to him: “It will kill you”. He replied: “There is no wrong or harm if I get killed”. And as a result, the
situation was opened up for the Muslims (to win). Similarly, on the day of Al-Yamaamah, when Banu
Haneefah fortified themselves in a garden (with walls) a man from amongst the Muslims (1) said: “Place
me on the shield and throw me over into their midst. They did that, he then fought them (the enemy)
alone and then opened the door (for the Muslims). Another example, is what was related about a man
who said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “What is your view if I was killed in the way of Allah whilst persevering and in
anticipation (of the reward of Allah i.e. with sincerity)?” He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Then you will have Jannah
(paradise)”. Upon that, he immersed himself in the midst of the enemy until he was killed! And in Saheeh
Muslim it was related from Anas Bin Maalik that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud was
left with only seven men from the Ansaar and two men from the Quraish. When the enemy advanced
towards him and overwhelmed him, he said: “Whoever turns them away from me will attain Paradise or
will be my close companion in Paradise”. A man from the Ansaar came forward and fought (the enemy)
until he was killed. The enemy advanced and overwhelmed them again and he repeated the words:
“Whoever turns them away from us will attain Paradise or will be my close companion in Paradise”.
Another man from the Ansaar came forward and fought until he was killed. This continued until all of the
seven Ansaar had been killed (one after the other)” (2).

Following on from the above, we have outweighed from these opinions related to our issue, that the
strongest is the second opinion that looks into the detail of the issue as a whole. It states: If the risk-taking
act (Al-Mukhaatarah) accomplishes a particular benefit, then it is permitted. If, however, it was such that it
did not accomplish or realise any benefit, it would be forbidden. Here, we will widen the scope of benefit
to include any or all harm that is inflicted upon the disbelievers, whether that was material or in respect to
their morale. That refers to anything that would have an impact upon the balance of power in favour of
the Muslims and bringing weakness upon the enemy which consequently reflects a benefit. Therefore, if
the risk-taking venture can hold the meaning of benefit and harm at the same single time then the Hukm
(ruling) would depend upon the meaning from them the two which is dominant (3). Based upon this, it is
necessary for there to be an authoritative body representing the reference point to evaluate this
Mukhaatarah in terms of benefit and harm. If there existed an Ameer (leader) for the fighting group, then
this evaluation would return to him and it is obligatory to abide by his opinion in this matter. If, however,
the situation prevented or made it impossible to take the agreement of the Ameer and the Mukhaatir (risk-
taker) saw that there was a benefit to be realised via the undertaking of the risky and venturous act, then
there is no harm in him undertaking the daring venture, as long as no prior command had been given to
forbid it in any circumstances.

[(1) The person here was Al-Baraa’ Bin Maalik, the brother of Anas Bin Maalik (rah): Taareekh At-Tabari: 3/294, (2) Tafseer
Al-Qurtubiy: 2/263, (3) It was mentioned in the book ‘Al-Hisbah Fil Islaam’ by Ibn Taymiyyah: “When (or if) the Masaalih
(interests) and the Mafaasid (harms or negative consequences) are in conflict with each other, and (likewise) the Hasanaat (good
things) and Sayyi’aat (bad things), or they were in competition with each other. Then the strongest must be outweighed from
amongst them in respect to when the Masaalih and Mafaasid are competing and they are conflicting with each other. If the Amr
(command) and the Nahy (forbiddance) were connected to the attainment of a Maslahah or to repel a Mafsadah, then the
conflicting matter to it is examined. Then, if that which is missed from the Masaalih or attained from the Mafaasid is greater,
then he would not have been commanded with it. Rather, it would be Muharram (prohibited) if its Mafsadah was greater than
its Maslahah” p64-65].

If there was no Ameer however like in the situation where the fighter fought as an individual and not
within a fighting group or unit, then he would be the Ameer of himself in such a circumstance.
Consequently, the evaluation of the situation that he is would fall to him in respect to whether he
undertakings the risky and daring act or not, in accordance to the benefit and harm. Although, here, we
would expand the understanding of the harm as well in the case where it would also include and take into
account the lack of benefit to the Muslims who come after him.

In this case, we do not view the mere martyrdom that the risk taker attains for himself in terms of benefit
as being what is intended here in the case where the act does not bring any benefit to the Muslims. That is
because the benefit of the martyrdom of the one undertaking the act in this situation is in conflict with the
harm that befalls the Muslims due to their loss of this fighter. That is as the Shar’iyah principle states:
“Repelling the harm supersedes the acquisition of the benefits” (1). So, what is the case when that benefit
is Khaass (specific) i.e. attained by the Mukhaatir (risk taker) alone manifested in his martyrdom whilst
that harm was ‘Aamm, where it afflicted the collective of the Muslims, manifested in depriving them of
their full fighting capacity and potential? That is whilst the Shahaadah (martyrdom) in origin takes place
for the Maslahah (interest) of the Deen and the Muslims.

As the evaluation of the benefit and harm differs in accordance to the difference in conditions and
circumstances related to the fighting, and also differs in accordance to the difference of the one whom
this evaluation is being made by, through his Ijtihaad and calculations, then it would only be natural for
the Hukm to proceed upon this risky venturous act to differ, considering it on an occasion to represent a
form of Tahlukah (destruction) whilst on another occasion considering it to be a form of praiseworthy
immersing or plunging into the (midst of the) enemy.

In this way, we reconcile between the texts and reports (narrations) which combined between the
avoidance of the risky venturous act (Al-Mukhaatarah) and encouragement to undertake them, as was
apparent within those texts.

In any case, the one undertaking the evaluation, in respect to permitting the Mukhaatarah of forbidding it,
even if he is the one undertaking the evaluation is the one undertaking the Mukhaatarah (risk taking
venture) himself, must always make the aspect related to the concern for the life of the fighter be
dominant and he must not forsake or be lax towards it due to any gleam of a benefit that is perceived!

[(1) Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah, An-Nadawi: 170, Al-Usool ul-Fiqh, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Az-Zuhailiy: 98].

From this angle, we understand what Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned
in his book ‘Al-Umm’:

“Anas Bin Maalik related that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) asked him: “If you have besieged the city, what
would you do?” He replied: “We would dispatch a man to the city and place leather armour upon him (to
protect from arrows)”. He (‘Umar) said: “What if he has rocks hurled at him?” He replied: “Then he will
be killed”. He said: “Then don’t do it. For by the One in whose hand is my soul, it would not please me
that one single Muslim man’s life is lost to conquer a town containing 4000 fighters”. Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy (May Allah’s mercy be upon him said: What ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab said was due to cautiousness
and concern over the Muslims and I recommend to the Imaam and all of the governors (‘Ummaal) do not
be opposed (or resistant) to this or anything else from that which mostly ends in waste, and this not
prohibited upon the one who is exposed to it …” He then says: “And if someone was to say: What
indicates that there is no harm in advancing upon the group? (i.e. the individual attacking a larger force). It
is said (in response): It reached us that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, what (act) of His servant
pleases Allah? He replied: “To plunge into the midst of the enemy bare”. The man then threw down his
armour that he had been wearing and attacked until he was killed …!” (1).

This is what Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in relation to what must be understood in light of what we
mentioned in terms of a measure for the benefit and the harm and the evaluation of the one to whom
they evaluation returns to in respect to arbitrating that measure. It may be that this is the reason why some
of the Fuqahaa’ did not allocate a Hukm from amongst the five Ahkaam (i.e. Fard, Mandoob … etc.)
when answering the Mas’alah (issue) of the single individual attacking a large number of the enemy. That
is due to what we mentioned in relation to the difference of the evaluation due to the difference in
circumstances and the difference of the size of the benefit and the size of the harm, in addition to the
difference of those undertaking the evaluation in respect to what they conclude and consequently a
difference in the Hukm (legal ruling or verdict). This is a matter that prevents the provision of an absolute
specified Hukm and makes the Hukm subject to different factors and accompanying circumstances.

What ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) said in terms of outweighing the preservation of the life of the Muslim
fighter over the conquering of a town containing four thousand fighters who fall into the grasp of the
Muslims, represents an evaluation from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab that is subject to specific circumstances
that led to that evaluation according to his opinion and Ijtihaad. That does not prevent seeing someone
other than ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab who possesses the authority to make the evaluation to disagree with
the opinion of ‘Umar within the very same circumstances or conditions. Similarly, it doesn’t prevent
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab from differing in his evaluation due to the difference in that situation. He could
view that it is valid to sacrifice a large number of Muslims for the sake of an objective which is less than
what he mentioned in respect to conquering a town containing a large number of soldiers. Indeed, it has
been related from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) that which indicates to his support of the act that risks the
life within situations of Al-Qitaal (fighting).
[(1) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/252].

The following was related in Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: “Al-Mugheerah Ibn Shu’bah said: We were in a military
expedition and a man advanced (into the enemy) and fought until he was killed. They (the Muslims) said:
He has thrown himself into destruction by his own hands. ‘Umar was written to about this and then
‘Umar wrote (back): “If it was like they said he did then he is from those that Allah said about:

ِ ‫َّاس من ي ْش ِري نَ ْفسه ابتِغَاء مرض‬

‫ات اللَّ ِه‬ ِ
َ َْ َ ْ ُ َ َ َ ِ ‫َوم َن الن‬
And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah (Al-Baqarah: 207) (1).

It is worth pay attention to the statement of ‘Umar: “If it was like they said” as this use of words indicates
that the Mukhaatarah (risk-taking act) is not prevented (or forbidden) in every circumstance just as it is
not permitted in every situation. Rather, it submits to a scale of evaluation that either opens the way to it
being undertaken or closes the door to it. This is as the expression indicates that the answer of ‘Umar (ra)
was based upon the description of the reality and its connecting circumstances that surrounded that
Mukhaatarah (risk-taking act in battle) in accordance to what he had been informed of.

Consequently, we can see that the whole matter, is a matter of evaluation of the one who possesses the
authority to undertake it.

With that we conclude the first Mas’alah of this topic of examination which was: Is it permissible for the
individual fighter or a small fighting group to oppose large forces of enemies surpassing their number
multiple times over?

The second issue: Is it permissible to fight without the permission of the Imaam or
the Ameer possessing the (Shar’iy) authority in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting)?

The answer to this question is only arrived at through treating the following points:

1 - Is the presence of the Imaam a condition for undertaking Al-Qitaal against the enemy, whether in
attack (the offensive) or in defence?

2 - What is the role of the presence of the Imaam in respect to the permission for fighting?

3 - What is the Hukm in respect to maintaining obedience to those in the positions of authority in the
lands of Islaam today when they issue a command to fight against the enemies or to refrain from fighting
them?

Before answering these points, we will present the framework that Allah Ta’Aalaa made clear in His Book,
which is: That it was from the tasks of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to explain what he conveyed from
Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. In confirmation to this framework, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ‫ني لِلن‬
‫َّاس َما نُِّزَل إِلَْي ِه ْم‬ ِ ِّ ‫وأَنزلْنَا إِلَيك‬
َ ِّ َ‫الذ ْكَر لتُب‬ َْ ََ
And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them (An-Nahl: 44).
The Bayaan (explanation) of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬could occur through his Qawl (speech), his F’il (action)
or his Taqreer (approval). Examples of this can be found in the statements of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬in respect to the Salaah and the Hajj when he said:

َ ‫صلُّوا َكما َرأَيْتُ ُموِِّن أ‬

‫ُصلّي‬ َ
Pray as you have seen me pray (1)

ِ َ‫خ ُذوا ع ِِّن من‬

‫اس َك ُك ْم‬ َ َ ُ
Take your (practise of) rituals from me (2).

This applies upon all the legislations (Tashree’aat) within the Qur’aan Al-Kareem including the legislation
of Al-Qitaal in accordance to this framework mentioned above.

It is therefore necessary to return to the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to his
explanation of how to fight then enemies, whether that was recorded from him by way of his speech,
action or approval. It is in light of this, that the answer to the questions that we presented above will
become clear. By refrring to the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬related to the Jihaad we observe a number
of matters which include:

Firstly: That the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬used lead fighting campaigns himself against the enemies whom news
had reached him that they were preparing to attack Al-Madinah. That is like what happened in the battle
of ‘Doumat ul-Jundal’ that took place in Rabee’ ul-Awwal of the 5th year Hijri (3), and the battle
(Ghazwah) of ‘Al-Muraysee’’ that also took place in Sha’baan of the 5th year Hijri (4).

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to also sometimes dispatch someone he delegated on his behalf to lead
those (military) campaigns. The same applied in respect to the smaller expeditions (Saraayaa) that he
would despatch for the purpose of attacking the wealth or property of his enemy from the Quraish. That
was like the Sariyyah of ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Haarith in Shawwaal of the first Hijri year (5).

[(1) Al-Bukhaari mentioned in Jaami’ Al-Usool: 5/576. In Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 631 and in Fat’h ul-Baari’: 2/111, (2) Related by
Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nasaa’iy as mentioned in Jaami’ Al-Usool: 3/285. Saheeh Muslim: 1297 with a different wording
(‫ )لتأخذواَمناسككم‬2/943. Sunan Abi Dawud: 1970, 2/272 and in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy: 5/270, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-
Qayyim: 3/255, (4) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/356, (5) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/163].

Or he would despatch them for the purpose of dispersing or breaking-up gatherings of the enemy which
intended to attack Al-Madinah like what happened in the Ghazwah of ‘Dhaat As-Salaasil’ under the
commanding leadership of ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas and the reinforcements that joined him led by Abu ‘Ubaidan
Bin Al-Jarraah in the direction of the lands of ‘Qudaa’ah’ in the North (1) which took place in the 8th year
after Hijrah (2).

Secondly: From the matters, explaining to us a portion of the Ahkaam of Al-Qitaal within the Seerah of
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬is what was recorded in respect to what happened regarding the attack of ‘Uyaynah
Bin Hisn Al-Fazaariy (the Chief) of Bani Abdullah Ghatafaan that took place in the 6th year Hijri, three
months before the Ghazwah of Khaibar, where he raided the camels of the Nabi at Al-Ghaabah (3). He
took the camels away and killed the shepherd and carried away his wife.

The following was mentioned in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah: “Then Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ surprised
them by coincidence as they were exiting Al-Madinah. He then pursued them and fought them without
any prior permission. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬later praised him and said: “Our best footman is Salamah Ibn ul-
Akwa’” (4). The following is some of the information about this expedition as recorded by Muslim:
“There was no camel of the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬created by Allah except that I had made it follow my back and
I managed to snatch back 30 cloaks” (5) and: “Salamah said: We caught up to the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬and the horses at ‘Ishaa time. Then I said: “O Messenger of Allah! The people are thirsty, if you
were to send me amongst 100 men I would retrieve what they still have in their possession … and I would
take the necks of the people”. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬replied: “You have (already) accomplished so now
relax” (6) i.e. be lenient and do well, do not be so severe (or zealous), be lenient and good forbearance
because you have already achieved the bringing of harm or damage to the enemy.

[(1) ‘Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom’, Safiy-r-Rahman Al-Mubaarakfooriy: p339 and also refer to the Atlas of the History of Islam
map: 33, (2) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3.386, (3) Al-Ghaabah: Location on the outskirts of Al-Madinah, (4) Al-Mughni,
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/390, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 1806, (6) Zaad ul-Ma’aad. Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/278/279].

Thirdly: Another example from what the Seerah contains that makes clear to us some of the Ahkaam
(rulings) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) is what was mentioned in respect to the story of Abu Baseer after the
convening of the Treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah between the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and the Quraish. One
of the terms of the agreement was that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would return to the Quraish anyone
who had come to him (in Al-Madinah) as a Muslim. Al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Sunan Al-Kubraa’ recorded some
of this story stating that the Quraish had dispatched two men, one of them was a master of Quraish and
the other was from Bani ‘Aamir. They were sent to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬demanding that he return
Abu Baseer (‘Utbah Bin Aseed) who had slipped away from Quraish to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬as a
Muslim. It was narrated as follows: “The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬called for Abu Baseer and then said to him: “O
Abu Baseer! These are the people whom we have made a treaty with upon the terms that you are
aware of and verily we are not treacherous (to our agreements)! And so the right belongs with
your people”. He said: “O Messenger of Allah! Will you return me to the Mushrikeen (polytheists) so
that they can try me in my Deen? And do what they want with me?” The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬replied:
“Remain patient O Abu Baseer and anticipate the reward as verily Allah will make for you and
the weak and oppressed a way out and escape”. He (the narrator) said: Abu Baseer then left with the
two (from Quraish) and they continued until they reached Dhi l-Hulaifah. They sat by the fence of a wall
and Abu Baseer then said to Al-‘Aamiriy (from Banu ‘Aamir): “Is this sword of yours fine and sharp, O
brother from the tribe of Bani ‘Aamir?” He replied: “Yes”. He (Abu Baseer) then asked: “Can I take a
look at it?”. He replied: “If you wish”. So he took it from him and then struck his neck (i.e. killed him)
and the master left in great haste. He went back to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬who was sitting in the
Masjid and when the Messenger saw him he said: “This man has seen something terrifying”. When he
reached him he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “What is the matter with you?”. He replied: “Your companion has killed mine”.
It wasn’t long until Abu Baseer arrived in a wild sate with a sword, He then stood before the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and said: “O Messenger of Allah! You have fulfilled your trust that Allah had taken from you
and I have kept myself away from the Mushrikeen (of Quraish) by my own doing and volition”. The
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬responded: “Woe to his mother, stirrer up of war! Would that he had someone (i.e.
some kinsfolk to be concerned about)”. Abu Baseer then approached the Messenger of Allah with
what he had taken (from the one he had killed) and said: “A fifth (Khumus) (1) O Messenger of Allah!”
(i.e. of the booty). He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: “If I was to accept the fifth I would not have fulfilled to them that
which I have made a covenant upon. Rather it is your affair what you have taken from you companion
and go wherever you wish”. Abu Baseer then left alongside a band of five who were from the Muslims
who had come with him from Makkah. They continued on (travelling) until they reached an area between
Al-‘Ais and Dhi l-Marwa from the lands of Juhainah which was a caravan route for the Quraish parallel to
Saif ul-Bahr. No caravan of Quraish passed by them except that they took it and killed its people. Then
Abu Jandal Bin Suhail Bin ‘Amr slipped away (from Quraish) amongst seventy riders who had all
embraced Islam, made Hijrah (i.e. left Makkah) and they joined with Abu Baseer …” (2).
The author of Al-Mughni commented upon the story of Abu Baseer and stated the following: “It is
therefore permitted for the one who had embraced from the disbelievers to isolate themselves in an area
and to fight whom they can from the disbelievers, take their wealth (or property) and to not be included
within the treaty. Then if the Imaam was to join them to him with the permission of the disbelievers, they
would then enter under the terms of the treaty and killing the disbelievers and taking their wealth would
become Haraam upon them” (3).

[(1) The Khumus (5th) taken from the booty. A fifth is taken out for those whom Allah has mentioned in the Aayah of Soorah
Al-Anfaal and the remainder goes to the Mujaahid who gained the booty (Ghaneemah). The Aayah of Al-Anfaal in respect to
the people entitled the Khumus (the 5th) is Al-Afaal: 41, (2) Sunan Al-Bayhaqi: 9/227-228, (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/525].

In respect to the Fiqh of the story of Abu Baseer the following was stated in ‘Zaad ul-Ma’aad: “And from
it (i.e. the Fiqh) is: That the two parties of the treaty, if they receive him and have him under their control,
then one of them is killed, that person is not liable to Diyah (blood money) or Qawad (retaliation) and the
Imaam is not liable for him. Rather, the Hukm in respect to that is like the Hukm of his killing them in
their own lands where there is no rule of the Imaam over them. That is because Abu Baseer killed one of
the two men who were under covenant (i.e. protection from the treaty) at Dhi l-Hulaifah and that fell
under the rule of Al-Madinah. However, because they had received him (i.e. he was under their
responsibility) he became separated from the hand of the Imaam and his rule” (1).

We will now continue our pursuance of the incidents and occurrences of fighting within the Seerah of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬which explain the Ahkaam of Al-Qitaal (fighting):

Fourthly: The following came mentioned in ‘As-Siyar Al-Kabeer’ by Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-
Shaibaani: “That a man from ‘Ash’ja’a’ came to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and complained to him about a matter (or
difficult circumstances) and so he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Have patience”. He then left and he managed to acquire a
Ghaneemah (booty) from an enemy … He then brought it to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and so he declared it Halaal
for him. Then Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed:

‫ب‬ ِ ُ ‫﴾ َويَْرُزقْهُ ِم ْن َحْي‬٢﴿ ‫َوَمن يَت َِّق اللَّهَ ََْي َعل لَّهُ ُمََْر ًجا‬
ُ ‫ث ََّل َُْيتَس‬
And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out. And will provide for him from where he does not expect (At-
Talaaq: 2-3)

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaibaaniy says: “This represents the original position of our ‘Ulamaa in respect to what
the individual or pair acquire from Daar ul-Harb if they enter it stealthily without the permission of the
Imaam …” (2).

Fifthly: The following was stated in ‘As-Siyar Al-Kabeer’ and its explanation as well and it provides us
with some Fiqh related to the issue of Al-Qitaal in Islaam: “And we have related that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
forbade fighting in some of the days of ‘Khaibar’ and then one man fought (within them) and was killed
… It was said to him: So and so has been martyred. He ‫ ﷺ‬then asked: (Even) after (engaging) in the
fighting that I had forbidden?” They said: Yes. Then he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ٍ ‫ََّل ََِت ُّل اْلَنَّةُ لِ َع‬

‫اص‬
“Jannah is not Halaal for the one who disobeys”

The following was stated in the explanation: “Even with the degree or rank (Darajah) of martyrdom, he
said in respect to him what he said. That was to make clear that the disobedience in that in which the
mistake is not known for certain from the Ameer is not Halaal at all” (3).
[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/308-309, (2) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 4/1260-1261, (3) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer:
1/63-64. P173].

I say: After presenting these examples from the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬related to the area of fighting the
enemy and what surrounds that in terms of many of the Ahkaam of Al-Qitaal in Islaam, we will now
proceed to answer the points presented at the beginning of the study of the issue that we are dealing with.
That is: Is it permissible to fight without the permission of the Imaam or the Ameer possessing the
(Shar’iy) authority in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting)?

We will now address these points one at a time:

The first point: Is the presence of the Imaam a condition for undertaking Al-Qitaal against the
enemy, whether in attack (the offensive) or in defence?

The answer: The presence of the Imaam is not a condition for undertaking the Fard (obligation) of
fighting against the enemies. That is because the Aayaat of the Qur’aan related to Al-Qitaal have come
Mutlaqah (unrestricted) and not Muqayyadah (restricted) with a condition such as this. That is like His
Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ َ‫ب َعلَْي ُك ُم الْ ِقت‬

‫ال‬ ِ
َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been enjoined upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216).

And His Qawl ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

‫ين يُ َقاتِلُونَ ُك ْم‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ ِ

َ ‫َوقَاتلُوا ِِف َسب ِيل اللَّه الذ‬
And fight in the way of Allah those that fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Then, from the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, from what we extracted from the incidents mentioned above, we
find that Abu Baseer killed the ‘Aamiriy (man from the tribe of ‘Aamir) and took the booty whilst Abu
Baseer was in the situation of having no Imaam over him because he was not under the rule (or authority)
of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬after the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬handed him over to the two Quraishi emissaries. That
was because, as explained by Ibn ul-Qayyim, he had become: “separated from the hand (i.e. authority) of
the Imaam and his Hukm (rule)”.

It is upon this basis that the Muslims proceeded as it has not been related that they used to halt fighting in
a period when the Imaam would die and another would assume the post. The Muslims remained, after the
Abbassid Khalifah had been killed in Baghdad at the hand of the Tatars, for a long period of time without
having an Imaam (1). All that remained was rulers (Umaraa’) within provinces and yet the fighting
continued and did not halt!

The continuation of the fighting in the situation when the Muslims were not under the authority of the
Imaam indicates that the fighting in that situation was both offensive and defensive. That is because Abu
Baseer’s fighting the ‘Aamiriy and killing him was in defence so that he could escape from the hold of the
enemy, whilst his fighting alongside his companions against the people of the Quraishi caravans and
taking them as booty was an offensive act. When undertaking that he was not under the authority of an
Imaam. At the beginning of the matter Abu Baseer was his own Ameer over himself and then he became
the Ameer of a small band of fighters which gave no sleep to the Quraish! This is what relates to the first
point.
[(1) Al-Futoohaat Al-Islaamiyah (Islamic Conquests), As-Sayyid Ahmad Bin Zaini Bin Dahlaan: “The Khilafah perished with
the killing of Al-Mu’tasim and the Dunyaa (life of this world) remained without a Khalifah for three and a half years … The
entry of the Tartars to Baghdad and their killing of the Khalifah Al-Mu’tasim was on the 20th of Muharram in the year 656 Ah
… 2/62 and 2/70 ,,, In the month of Rajab of the same year, meaning the year 659 AH, a man came to Egypt from Bani Al-
Abbaas … Then the Sultaan Baibars, the ‘Ulamaa and the people gave him the Bai’ah over the Khilafah”].

The second point: What is the role of the presence of the Imaam in respect to the permission for
fighting?

The answer: The Asl (original position) in the situation of the existence of the Imaam, is for him to be the
point of reference in respect to the management and disposal of the affairs of Al-Qitaal (the fighting). The
following was stated in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah: “Chapter: And the Amr (matter/affair) of Al-Jihaad
is Mawkool (entrusted) to the Imaam and his Ijtihaad and the Ra’iyah (subjects) are bound to obedience to
him” (1).

Ibn ‘Aabideen in his Haashiyah, when defining the Imaamah (i.e. the Khilafah) stated that it is: “The
general leadership (Riyaashah ‘Aammah) in respect to the Deen and the Dunyaa, in successorship
(Khilafatan) to the Nabi ‫”ﷺ‬. And there is no question that the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemy is from
the matters of the Deen and the Dunyaa. And it was also mentioned in the Haashiyah: “The Riyaasah
(leadership) when realised means none other than the realisation of the entitlement to dispose of affairs.
That is because the meaning of the appointment of the Ahl ul-Hall Wa l-‘Aqd of the Imaam does not
mean other than affirming this entitlement” (2).

Based upon this understanding, the one entitled to dispose of the affairs of Al-Qitaal is only the Imaam
and consequently obedience to the Imaam is obligatory in respect to the matters related to managing the
matter or affair of Al-Qitaal.

The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “Sahl Bin Abdullah At-Tustariy (3) said:
“Obey the Sultaan in seven (matters): Minting of the Daraahim and the Danaaneer (Coinage), measures
and weights (Al-Makaayeel Wa l-Mawaazeen), Al-Ahkaam, Al-Hajj, Al-Jumu’ah, the two ‘Eids and Al-
Jihaad”.

I say: For the management and disposal to belong to the Imaam represents the Asl (origin or original
position) in relation to the Qitaal of the enemies, when he exists, and it is obligatory to obey him in
accordance to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ُوَل ْاْل َْم ِر ِمن ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫ول َوأ‬
َ ‫الر ُس‬ ِ ‫َطيعوا اللَّه وأ‬
َّ ‫َطيعُوا‬ ِ ِ َّ
َ َ ُ ‫ين َآمنُوا أ‬
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you (An-Nisaa’: 59).

(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/373. And in Al-‘Iqnaa’ by Al-Maawardiy it is stated: “And the Fard of Al-Jihaad ‘Ala l-
Kifaayah is assumed by the Imaam as long as he has not appointed …” 175, (2) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 1/571-572, (3) One
of the Imaams of the Soofiyah and its ‘Ulamaa. He has a book in the Tafseer of the Qur’aan and other books (200-282 AH)
(815-896 CE). Al-Aa’laam, Az-Zarkaliy: 3/210. And refer to the speech of At-Tustariy in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 5/259).

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬included this Hukm under an origin (Asl) that was more general and
comprehensive and that is that the jurisdiction to foster and take care of the affairs of the Ummah
generally and as a whole (including the affairs of Al-Qitaal), belongs to the Imaam alone. That was
explained in his statement ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ول َع ْن َرعِيَّتِ ِه‬ ِ ‫(اْلعظًم) الَّ ِذي َعلَى الن‬

ٌ ُ‫َّاس َر ٍاع َوُه َو َم ْسئ‬ ِْ َ‫ف‬
ْ ‫اْل َم ُام‬
And so the (great) Imaam who is over the people is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock
(1).
After this, we now come to answering the question that was presented which was: What is the role of the
presence of the Imaam in respect to the permission for fighting?

The answer: If a command has not been issued from the Imaam forbidding the fighting then that is falls
under the general permission in respect to fighting the enemy. In that situation, it is permitted for the
individual or the group, without an explicit permission from the Imaam, to go out to fight the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war) whether that was an expedition against them in their lands in the day or night which
includes the killing of the enemy and taking their property as booty, or if that was in defence when the
Ahl ul-Harb assault or aggress against the Muslims in respect to their lives, lands or properties.

A clear evidence for that is found in the story of Abu Baseer and his companions, manifested in their
engagement in killing the people of the Quraishi caravans and taking their properties as booty.

And it is also found in the story of Al-Ashja’iy who took booty from the enemy without the permission of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and then the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬consequently declared it to be Halaal for him (according to
the narration of Ash-Shaibaaniy) (2).

Just as it is found within the story of Salamah Ibn Al-Akwa’ who fought against those who aggressed
against the camels of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬without him granting a permission to engage in that fighting, which
was followed by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬praising or commending him for what he had undertaken.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7138, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/111, (2) In the books of Ahaadeeth and Tafseer there are narrations that
differ to some degree from what Ash-Shaibaaniy reported. Refer to Al-Mustadrak of Al-Haakim: 2/49, Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy:
18/160, Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 4/380, Fat’h ul-Qadeer, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 5/243 and Al-AAaloosiy: 28/135].

This relates to when a Nahy (forbiddance) has not been issued from the Imaam to refrain from fighting.
That would consequently fall under the general permission to fight the enemy. However, despite that,
there are two Ijtihaad opinions in respect to this Mas’alah (issue):

1 - The first opinion: The Qitaal (fighting) without the permission of the Imaam is Haraam and the one
who does it is prohibited (or deprived) of its right in respect to what he has gained of the enemy’s
properties by this method or course of action. The following was stated in the book Al-Mughni: “They are
not to go out (i.e. to fight) except with the permission of the Ameer … Unless it is not possible to obtain
his permission due to the enemy surprising them and in such a case it is not obligatory to seek his
permission … due to the incumbent Fasaad (corruption/harm) resulting from not undertaking that” (1).

And it was mentioned in another place (or section): “If a people possessing no preventative force
(Mana’ah) have entered the land of war without the permission of the Imaam and then take booty, then
from Ahmad (i.e. Bin Hanbal) there are three attributed reports (i.e. opinions): The first: That there
Ghaneemah (booty or spoils of war) are like any other Ghaneemah where a fifth is allotted to the Imaam.
The second: It belongs (entirely) to the without a fifth being extracted from it. The third: They have no
right to it … That is because they are disobedient due to what they have done and as such they have no
right in respect to it. And the first opinion is what should be taken” (2).

The above represents the first opinion related to the Hukm of seeking the permission of the Imaam
before departing to engage in Al-Qitaal. This opinion states the obligation of taking the permission and
the prohibition of fighting without the permission unless there is a Daroorah (necessity) such as the
example explained above (i.e. surprise attack by the enemy).

2 - The second opinion: Al-Qitaal (fighting) without the permission of the Imaam is Makrooh (disliked)
and not Haraam. It was stated in Al-Muhadh’dhab: “Chapter: And the Ghazwah (military expedition)
undertaken without the permission of the Imaam or the Ameer appointed by him is disliked (Makrooh).
That is because the Ghazwah is according to the need and the Ameer is the most aware of that. And it is
not prohibited (Haraam) because it does not contain more than an endangering (Taghreer) to oneself and
that is permissible in Al-Jihaad” (3).

And in the Mukhtasar of Al-Muzniy the following was mentioned in relation to this: “And if a group
launched an expedition (or undertook an attack) without the permission of the Imaam, then I have
disliked that (i.e. judged it to be Makrooh) due to what the permission of the Imaam contains in terms of
his knowledge about their Ghazwah and them, where he receives news from them and assists them, and
where he fears that they will perish and killed in waste. Ash-Shaafi’iy said I do not know if that is
prohibited upon then” (4).

I say: It may be that this reasoning for the dislike of Al-Qitaal without the explicit permission being
granted from the Imaam reminds us of the measuring principle mentioned in the previous issue. That
related to the evaluation of the Hukm (ruling) of the Mukhaatarah (risk-taking military venture) in
accordance to the difference of circumstances and conditions in respect to the fighting and the difference
regarding the evaluation of the one who possesses the authority to evaluate a particular situation.
Consequently, it was determined that in the case where the aspect of the harm (Darar) in the particular
operation was evaluated to be greater, then the Hukm (ruling) would be Tahreem (prohibition) and that is
because:
“َ‫َض َر َر ََوالَضِ َرار‬ َ (There is no harm and nor harming) (5).
َ ‫”ال‬

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/390, (2) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/530-531, (3) Al-Muhadh’dhab, Abu Ishaaq Ash-
Sheeraaziy: 2/229, (4) Mukhtasar Al-Muzniy: Al-Umm: 8/272, (5) Al-Muwatta’ related from Yahyaa Al-Maaziniy (Jaami’ Al-
Usool: 6/644). In its commentary: And Al-Haakim said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad upon the Shart (condition) of Muslim. In addition,
Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy classified it as Saheeh in ‘As-Saheehah’: 1/442 and the Hadeeth no. is: 250].

And when the aspect of the Maslahah (interest/benefit) was evaluated to be greater, then the Hukm
would be permissibility. As such, the evidences of the permissibility of the Mukhaatarah are understood
upon that basis. The same applies to our Mas’alah (issue) here. The Hukm of fighting the enemy without
the permission of the Imaam must differ in accordance to the difference in circumstances and conditions
and the difference of the one who has the authority to make the evaluation in a particular circumstance.
Consequently, when the aspect of harm (Darar) is outweighed to be greater in respect to a particular (act
of) fighting then the Hukm is Tahreem (prohibition) and when the aspect of the Maslahah (interest or
benefit) is outweighed to be greater, then the Hukm is one of permissibility (Al-Jawaaz).

It is true that the Imaam is the first and last reference point in respect to the Qitaal and that he is the one
who possesses the right to evaluate in this matter. However, the assumption of the issue here is that the
Imaam had not issued a forbiddance to fighting without his permission. In this situation, it is therefore
like there exists a general implicit permission to engage in Al-Qitaal without going back to him.

If the Imaam evaluated that operations like this, undertaken by fighters without a permission from him,
were leading to a Darar (harm), then it would have been Waajib (obligatory) upon him to issue a
command to forbid or prevent it. As long as he has not done that, then the meaning of that is that
operations like them, in his estimation, do not result in a harm that needs to be guarded against.

In such a situation, the evaluation would be in respect to a specific or particular fighting operation or an
assault upon a centre from amongst the enemy’s centres in its land, with the intention of stirring fright or
alarm, killing some men or acquiring some property … or what is similar to that. The evaluation in this
operation would be for the one undertaking the operation, as an individual or group, to make. When the
aspect of the harm is outweighed to be greater, then that harm is forbidden, and when the Maslahah
(interest or benefit) is outweighed to be greater, then the censure is lifted or removed.
Indeed, it is the Haqq (right) of the Imaam here to previously specify the size of the operations which the
those undertaking the venture are undertaking, whether that is in terms of the number of individuals
participating in them, or the types of weapons that they will use, or the goals that they will be aiming to
accomplish … amongst other matters that the Imaam views that the fighting should be within its limits.
That is without his explicit permission for every operation which do not result in local or international
ramifications that lead to harm befalling or reaching the Muslims.

In this way, we reconcile between the different opinions about the issue of Al-Qitaal without the
permission of the Imaam. The controlling measure that rules over the issue is the measure of the harm
(Darar) and the Maslahah (benefit or interest) in accordance to the evaluation of the one who has the
jurisdiction and legitimate right to make it.

Within the opinions of the Fuqahaa there is that which points to that.

The following came in ‘As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh’: “And if the Sariyyah (small expedition) entered
the land of the enemy and they were close to a great camp of the enemy that was unaware of their
presence. Then a man from amongst the Muslims wanted to attack them, then I have disliked that (i.e.
view it to be Makrooh). That is because, in this action of his, there is a Dalaalah (indication, meaning)
upon the Muslims whilst the Muslims do not have the power to form ranks from themselves due to their
small number and there is no Rukhsah (licence or special exempting permission) in respect to the Dalaalah
(indication, meaning) upon the Muslims so as to be killed or be made captives” (1).

The meaning of his statement: “I disliked that” means Karaahah Tahreem according to the terminology of
the Hanafi Fiqh. The evidence for that is his statement: “there is no Rukhsah (licence or special exempting
permission) in respect to the Dalaalah (indication, meaning) upon the Muslims” that is because that which
has no Rukhsah for it is only the Haraam and not the Makrooh Karaahah Tanzeeh.

By that we come to the end of the issue related to the role of the Imaam in respect to the permission to
undertake fighting in the situation where he has not issued a command forbidding the engagement in the
Qitaal.

We now move on to another point within this issue which is:

What is the Hukm in respect to fighting, if the Imaam has issued an explicit forbiddance to
refrain from fighting, without his permission, whether that fighting was offensive or defensive?

The answer: The Hukm differs depending on whether the Qitaal was defensive or offensive?

As for the defensive fighting (Al-Qitaal Ad-Difaa’iy):

Regarding the defensive fighting (Al-Qitaal Ad-Difaa’iy) there are two circumstances:

- The first circumstance: When the Imaam has issued a command forbidding the defensive fighting and
the enemy has made an attack against the Muslims. And when that command to forbid was for the
purpose of preparing a defence plan with the aim of making the defence productive and effective whilst
no harm was resultant from awaiting his permission to fight. Then in such a circumstance obedience to
the Imaam is obligatory.

- The second circumstance: When the command to forbid the defensive fighting was due to the mere
fear of the enemies, whether that was fear for his own life, his authority or a similar matter, and so he
seeks to appease them with this abstention from fighting.
Or the matter was not like that and the Imaam was sincere, however the resulting consequence of waiting
for his permission to engage in fighting would be harm befalling the Muslims. In both of these cases; the
case of fear and the case of harm as a result of waiting for the permission, it is obligatory upon the leaders
or commanders of the armed troops and upon those who are capable of fighting from the Muslim
volunteers to immediately go forth to defend the Muslims and their lands and fight the attacking enemy
with ferocity. That is because the fighting in such a circumstance has become Fard ‘Ain upon the Muslims
(i.e. the duty of every individual Muslim) whom the enemy has targeted their land. By waiting for the
permission of the Imaam harm would befall the Muslims if he was sincere. Similarly, in obedience to him
in the situation of his betrayal, then on top of what this entails in terms of harm reaching the Muslims, it
also represents a form of obedience in respect to the command that entails a Ma’siyah (disobedience to
Allah). Both of these situations (whether the Imaam was sincere or not) are not permissible as:

“‫ضَرَر َوَّل ِضَرار‬

َ ‫”َّل‬
َ
(There is no harm and nor harming) (1)
and
“‫صيَ ِة اْلَالِق‬ ٍ ‫”ََّل طاعةَ لِمخ‬
ِ ‫لوق ِِف مع‬
َْ َْ َ
(There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator) (2).

The following was mentioned in the Mukhtasar of Al-Khiraqiy and its Sharh (explanation): “It is Waajib
(obligatory) upon the people, if the enemy comes, to assemble to fight, the one who has little and the one
who has a lot (i.e. to fight with), whilst they do not go out to the enemy without the permission of the
Ameer (leader) unless an enemy surprises them and they fear its attack. In such a case, it is not possible to
seek permission and that is because Al-Jihaad has become Fard ‘Ain upon them if the enemy come to
them. It is obligatory on everyone to participate and it is not permissible for anyone to stay back from it.
If that is confirmed, then they do not go out except with the permission of the Ameer because the matter
of war is entrusted to him and he is most aware of the size of the army (if it is large or small) and what the
enemy conceals and schemes. It is therefore necessary to refer to his opinion because it represents a more
protective position for the Muslims. That is unless the attaining of his permission is not possible due to
their enemy surprising them in which case it is not obligatory to attain his permission because the
Maslahah (interest) is realised in fighting them and to go out to them due to the corruption (Fasaad) that
would be the consequence of leaving them. For that reason, when the disbelievers raided the camels of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and then Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ unexpectedly came across them leaving Al-Madinah, he
followed them and fought them without any permission. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬later praised him and said: “The
best of our footmen (i.e. non-riding soldiers) is Salamah Ibn ul-Akwa’”.

This is related to when the fighting is defensive and when the Imaam has issued a command forbidding
the Muslims to undertake it until he has given permission for it.

[(1) In the margin (Haamish) of Jaami’ Al-Usool and Ibn Maajah, Ad-Daaru Qutniy, Al-Haakim and Al-Baihaqi related it. An-
Nawawi said in his ‘Forty’: “An it has paths which add strength to one another: 6/644. Al-Albaaniy said in his ‘As-Saheehah’:
(It is) Saheeh: 1/443 no. 250, (2) In Al-Bukhaari and Muslim with the Lafzh (wording): “There is no Taa’ah in the
disobedience of Allah, the obedience is only in (respect to) Al-Ma’roouf” (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 8/416). The Lafzh (wording)
mentioned is from the report of At-Tabaraani in ‘Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id’: 5/416. And in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari it is no. 7257, in
Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/233. And the Lafzh (wording) here: “There is no Taa’ah in the disobedience of Allah, the obedience is
only in (respect to) Al-Ma’roouf” is in Saheeh Muslim just as it is in Jaami’ Al-Usool. Its number in Muslim is: 1840
(3/1469), in the Sunan of Abu Dawud it is: 2625 (3/56) and in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy: 7/160, (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/389-390].

As for the offensive fighting (Al-Qitaal Al-Hujoomiy):

In respect to this offensive fighting against the enemies whom there is a state of war between us and them
and not a state of peace, meaning that there is no treaty or covenant (Mu’aahadah) between us and them
to cease fighting, then it is their right, according to the international custom or norm, to wage war against
us at any time, just as it is our right, according to the custom and Shar’a, to wage war against them, in
accordance to specific conditions that will be explained.

I say: This offensive fighting is Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency) upon the Muslims; if some of
the Muslims undertake it then the Talab (request) falls from the remainder (1). In this situation, in the case
where the Imaam has forbidden the undertaking of this Fard Kifaa’iy, the following is examined:

If his forbiddance (An-Nahy) returns back to a Maslahah (interest) of the Muslims according to his
evaluation and his Ijtihaad, like if he was to view the Muslims to be weak and therefore waits until the
time that the Muslims have become strong enough whilst preparing the readiness for that, then in such a
scenario he has not abstained from the undertaking of the Fard (obligation) but is rather proceeding along
the path that will enable him to undertake it. And it is known, as will be explained in forthcoming
sections, that the offensive Qitaal is only obligatory when the strength of the Muslims is not less than half
of the strength of the enemy. Consequently, the command of the Imaam to refrain from the Qitaal in
these circumstances does not represent a command to undertake a Ma’siyah (act of disobedience to Allah)
making it permissible for the Muslims to rebel against his command and go out to fight without his
permission!

- The Imaam could forbid the offensive fighting against the enemies (i.e. the fighting that is Fard
Kifaayah) whilst the Muslims have the capability to undertake that and that could be due to a Maslahah
(interest) from amongst the Shar’iyah Masaalih (interests). That could be due to ramifications in the short
or long-term that brings harm to the Muslims despite their capability of winning the war against their
enemy in the current time.

[(1) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm: 4/291].

- The Imaam could also forbid the offensive fighting against the enemies because he views the possibility
response of those enemies to accept the Islamic thought and enter into the folds of Islaam or to accept
the idea of joining their lands to the lands of Islaam and for the Islamic system to be applied over them, if
they did not embrace Islaam.

I say: If the Imaam had forbidden the offensive fighting for an interest (Maslahah) from among the
Shar’iyah interests, including those we mentioned in addition to other we have not mentioned, then in
such a situation it is obligatory to obey him in respect to that. That is because the matter or affair of Al-
Jihaad, as previously noted, is entrusted to his opinion and his Ijtihaad.

The following was stated in ‘As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh (explanation): “And if the Imaam has
forbidden the people from Al-Ghazw (military expeditions) and from going out for Al-Qitaal, then they
should not disobey him unless the Nafeer (call to arms) was ‘Aamm (general and encompassing all) (1).
That is because obeying the Ameer in that which does not include the perpetration of the Ma’siyah
(disobedience to Allah) is Waajib (obligatory)” (2).

And he (Ash-Shaibaaniy) said in another place: “And if he forbade them from Al-Qitaal, then they must
not disobey him unless it was due to a Daroorah (compelling necessity) or Ma’siyah (disobedience to
Allah)” (3).

The following was mentioned in ‘Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer ‘Alaa Matn Al-Muqni’:

“The least that Al-Jihaad is performed within a year is once … If the need called for its delay (from that)
due for instance to a weakness in number or readiness, or due to waiting for reinforcements to depend
upon for assistance, or if there was an obstacle in the route, or there was no fodder (animal feed) or water,
or it was known that the enemy had a positive view towards Islaam and the Imaam coveted their entry
into Islaam through delaying the fighting, or anything like this in which the Imaam sees the Maslahah
being in leaving the fighting, then it is allowed to leave it by way of a Hudnah (truce or ceasefire). That is
because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with Quraish for ten years and delayed fighting them until they
breached the covenant just as he delayed fighting some Arab tribes without there being a Hudnah (truce)
in place …” (4).

This is what is said in respect to the situation where the Imaam has forbidden the offensive fighting
against the enemy from amongst the disbelievers when that forbiddance was in accordance to a Shar’iyah
Maslahah.

As for when the Nahy (forbiddance) of offensive fighting was not based upon a Shar’iyah Maslahah and
only reflected abstaining from undertaking of a Fard from amongst the Furood (obligations), whether that
was motivated by fear that had no justification for it, or the motivation to change the Muslims’ mode or
pattern of living, from a life of struggle and contention for the purpose of carrying the Islamic Da’wah to
the world, to a life that places the value of prosperity and gratification (even if that is legitimate) above the
value of Al-Jihaad in Allah’s way.

[(1) An-Nafeer Al-‘Aam: It is when all of the Muslims are required or needed (i.e. to undertake the duty of Al-Jihaad)
(Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/342, (2) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 4/1457, (3) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 1/178, (4) Al-Mughni
Al-Mughni Wa sh-Sharh Al-Kabeer: 10/367-368].

I say: If the Nahy (forbiddance) from fighting was based on this or that motivating factor or what is
similar, then we would be faced with a Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah) and it is obligatory to prevent the
Sultah (authority) from proceeding in accordance to it. That is because:

“‫صيَ ِة اْلَالِق‬ ٍ ‫”َّل طاعةَ لِمخ‬

ِ ‫لوق ِِف مع‬
َْ َْ َ َ
(There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator) (1).

It is obligatory, in this circumstance, for the armed forces to rise up to perform the Waajib (obligation) of
this Qitaal and to break the will of the Imaam who has forbidden it alongside treating the manner of how
to make the Imaam reverse his decision. That is done via the political struggle (Al-Kifaah As-Siyaasiy)
which is undertaken by giving An-Nus’h (advice to him) whilst depending for assistance in that upon
utilising the pressure card that the Islamic public opinion represents which the leaders of opinion and
thought within the Islamic society are attentive to and deeply concerned about. This is the meaning of
what the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah guides to when he said: “The Ummah is the safeguard for the
Shar’a” (2).

That is in addition to raising the matter (or case) to the court of Justice for Mazhaalim (unjust acts) which
is referred to settle the dispute arising between the Muslims and the rulers, as has been pointed to in
previous discussions (in this book).

That is because there is no Shi’aar (symbolic slogan) within the Islamic society that is above the Shi’aar
(symbolic slogan) of the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah. And there is no voice that is raised higher than
the voice of raising the word of Allah high ‘Azza Wa Jalla. There is no value in the scale of values of the
Muslims that is given precedence over the spread of Islaam and Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah!

All of that is clear from the Qawl (speech) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

 ‫وها َوِِتَ َارةٌ ََتْ َش ْو َن َك َس َاد َها‬ ِ
ُ ‫قُ ْل إِن َكا َن آبَا ُؤُك ْم َوأَبْنَا ُؤُك ْم َوإِ ْخ َوانُ ُك ْم َوأ َْزَو‬
َ ‫اج ُك ْم َو َعش َريتُ ُك ْم َوأ َْم َو ٌال اقْ تَ َرفْ تُ ُم‬
‫صوا َح َّ َّٰت يَأِِْتَ اللَّهُ بِأ َْم ِرِه ۗ َواللَّهُ ََّل‬ ِِ ٍ ِ ِِ ِ ِ
ُ َّ‫ب إِلَْي ُكم ِّم َن اللَّه َوَر ُسوله َوج َهاد ِِف َسبِيله فَتَ َرب‬ َّ ‫َح‬ َ ‫ض ْونَ َها أ‬َ ‫َوَم َساك ُن تَ ْر‬
‫ني‬ ِِ ِ
َ ‫يَ ْهدي الْ َق ْوَم الْ َفاسق‬
Say, [O Muhammad]: "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained,
commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His
Messenger and Jihaad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly
disobedient people" (At-Taubah: 24).

This is what is said regarding the Islamic position in respect to the decision to forbid the Qitaal when it is
issued from the Imaam, whether the Qitaal was defensive or offensive.

By that we come to the end of the second point from our current Mas’alah (issue) and that point was: Is it
permissible for the individual or group to fight without the permission of the Imaam of the Ameer who
possesses the (legitimate) authority in respect to Al-Qitaal?

(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 5/226. From a narration recorded by At-Tabari and it is also in Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawud,
An-Nasaa’iy with the Lafzh (wording): “There is no Taa’ah in the disobedience of Allah, the obedience is only in
(respect to) Al-Ma’roouf” (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 8/416) and we mentioned its sources in detail a few pages before, (2) ‘Ad-
Dawlah Wa Nizhaam Al-Hisbah in the view Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 38].

We now come to the final point in our Mas’alah (issue) and that is:

What is the Hukm of adhering to obedience to the people in authority in the

Islamic lands today within the subject of fighting the enemies when they (the
rulers) issue their command, either to undertake it or to abstain from it?

The answer: It is that this question stimulates two matters:

Firstly: The issuing of the command to fight

Secondly: The issuing of the command to abstain from fighting.

I say: Before going into the answer it is first necessary to make clear the reason that has motivated this
question and whether this reason has a role within the subject of fighting the enemies?

- The reason that prompts some of the people or the majority of them to ask this question is the debate
that has taken place about the legitimacy of the Sultah (authority), the reins of which are being held onto
by those who dispose of the affairs of the Muslim in this current time.

Following on from that: If the conclusion of this debate is not in the Maslahah (interest) of those who
hold the reins of the authority, then does that conclusion have an effect or impact upon the subject of
fighting the enemies, whether that was related to the command to undertake it or the command that
forbids it?

The answer: The main or fundamental question regarding this point that we are treating
stimulates two issues. They are:

Firstly: The issuing of the command to fight from those people in authority.
Secondly: The issuing of the command to abstain from fighting by them.
As for the answer to the first issue related to the command to fight, then the Shar’iyah texts have not
differentiated, in respect to the obligation to respond and comply to this command to fight, between the
one giving the command being the possessor of a Shar’iy (legitimate) authority and the one who possesses
an illegitimate or non-Shar’iy authority. That is because the Adillah (evidences) which have come obliging
Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal are of two types or categories:

- A category of evidences that have Mutlaq (unrestricted) which have not restricted the obligation of Al-
Qitaal to the ruler who is undertaking it being the possessor of the legitimate authority. That is like His
Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫ين‬ ِ َّ ِ ْ ‫قَاتِلُوا الَّ ِذين ََّل ي ؤِمنُو َن بِاللَّ ِه وََّل بِالْي وِم ْاْل ِخ ِر وََّل ُُيِّرمو َن ما حَّرم اللَّه ورسولُه وََّل ي ِدينُو َن ِدين‬
َ ‫اْلَ ِّق م َن الذ‬ َ َ َ ُ ُ ََ ُ َ َ َ ُ َ َ َْ َ ُْ َ
ِ ‫اْلِزيةَ عن ي ٍد وهم ص‬
‫اغ ُرو َن‬ ِ
َ ْ ُ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ ‫اب َح َّ َّٰت يُ ْعطُوا‬ َ َ‫أُوتُوا الْكت‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider Haraam, what Allah and His
Messenger have made Haraam and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Book - [fight] until
they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29)

And His Qawl Subhaanahu:

ِ َّ ‫ين يَلُونَ ُكم ِّم َن الْ ُكفَّا ِر َولْيَ ِج ُدوا فِي ُك ْم ِغ ْلظَةً ۗ َو ْاعلَ ُموا أ‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ َّ
َ ‫َن اللَّهَ َم َع الْ ُمتَّق‬
‫ني‬ َ ‫ين َآمنُوا قَاتلُوا الذ‬
َ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness (severity). And
know that Allah is with the righteous (At-Taubah: 123).

And like in the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ني بِأ َْموالِ ُك ْم َوأَنْ ُف َس ُك ْم ِوأَلْ ِسنَتَ ُك ْم‬ِ ِ

َ ‫َجاه ُدوا املُ ْش ِرك‬
Undertake Jihaad against the Mushrikeen with your properties, your lives and your tongues (1).

And his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

‫استُ ْن ِف ْرُُْت فَانِْف ُروا‬

ْ ‫َوإِذَا‬
And if you are called upon to fight then go out (to fight) (2).

In this way, all of the texts that have come in respect to the command to fight have come in an
unrestricted manner (Mutlaq) and not restricted by any restriction, whether that is a Shar’iyah restriction
related to the authority under the banner of which we fight or any other restriction. This means that the
fighting (Al-Qitaal) is obligatory under the banner of any Muslim ruler whether his authority was
legitimate (Shar’iy) or not, whether he was just or unjust, rules by Islam or rules by other than Islam,
sincere to his Deen or insincere … That is what the unrestricted form of the texts indicates to, as long as
those who have been commanded to fight against are the enemy from the disbelievers.

- And there is another category of Shar’iyah evidences that command Al-Qitaal and Al-Jihaad and they are
the evidences that state the obligation to fight under the banner of any (or every) Muslim Haakim (ruler)
and even if he was a Faasiq or Jaa’ir (unjust). This is in accordance to the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬as related
by Abu Hurairah (ra):
 ِ َ‫الص ََلةُ و ِاجبةٌ علَي ُكم خ ْلف ُكل مسلِ ٍم ب ارا َكا َن أَو ف‬
‫اجًرا َوإِ ْن َع ِم َل‬ ِ ِ ِ ‫ا ْْلِه‬
ْ َ ْ ُ ِّ َ َ ْ ْ َ َ َ َّ ‫ب َعلَْي ُك ْم َم َع ُك ِّل أَم ٍري بَارا َكا َن أ َْو فَاجًرا َو‬
ٌ ‫اد َواج‬
َُ
‫الْ َكبَائَِر‬
Al-Jihaad is Waajib (obligatory) upon you with every Ameer, whether he was pious or impious.
And the Salaah is obligatory upon you behind every Imaam, whether he was pious or impious (3).

And in accordance to his Qawl ‫ ﷺ‬as narrated from Anas Bin Maalik:

ِ ِْ ‫ب َوََّل ُُنْ ِر ُجهُ ِم ْن‬ ِ َ‫اْلمي‬ ِ ٌ ‫ثَََل‬

ُ ‫اْل ْس ََلِم بِ َع َم ٍل َوا ْْل َه‬
ٍ ‫اد َم‬
‫اض ُمْن ُذ‬ ٍ ْ‫ال ََّل إِلَهَ إََِّّل اللَّهُ وََّل نُ َكفِّرهُ بِ َذن‬
ُ َ َ َ‫ف َع َّم ْن ق‬
ُّ ‫ان الْ َك‬ ِْ ‫َص ِل‬
ْ ‫ث م ْن أ‬
‫ال ََّل يُْب ِطلُهُ َج ْوُر َجائٍِر َوََّل َع ْد ُل َعا ِد ٍل َوا ِْْلميَا ُن بِ ْاْلَقْ َدا ِر‬ َ ‫َّج‬ ِ ‫ب عثَِِن اللَّه إِ ََل أَ ْن ي َقاتِل‬
َّ ‫آخ ُر أ َُّم ِِت الد‬ َ ُ ُ ََ
Three matters are from the origin of Imaan (belief): To hold back (in fighting) from the one who
says Laa Ilaaha Illallah and that we do not classify someone as a disbeliever for a sin and we do
not take him out of Islaam because of an act, and Al-Jihaad is continuous from the time that
Allah sent me until the last of my Ummah fights Ad-Dajjaal, the injustice of the unjust one and
the justice of the just one will not invalidate it, and the Imaan in the Aqdaar (plural of Qadr) (4).

Therefore, if the illegitimate possessor of the authority (i.e. ruler) commands the fighting, it is obligatory
to obey him because he is an Ameer (i.e. his reality conforms to being an Ameer) even if he has
committed the major sins, as the Adillah (evidences) have come obligating the Qitaal alongside every (or
any) Ameer.

[(1) Abu Dawud, An-Nasaa’iy (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/564). In the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 2504, 3/16. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh”
(Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud by Al-Albaaniy: 2186, 2/475. And in An-Nasaa’iy: 6/7, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2783 (Fat’h ul-
Baari’: 6/3), (3) Abu Dawud: 3/27, (4) Abu Dawud: 3532 and in Jaami’ Al-Usool: 1/242].

At this point, we would like to remove a doubt that some have concerning this. This is when they say:

It is true that the evidences oblige Al-Qitaal under the banner of every Ameer whether he was Faajir
(impious) or Jaa’ir (unjust). However, that only applies to the Ameer who received the Imaarah
(leadership) via a Shar’iy (legitimate) path but then was unjust and impious. Then, by his injustice or
impious behaviour he is not taken out from being the possessor of the legitimate (Shar’iy) authority as
long as he has not been deposed or steps down. The fact that he has been called an Ameer indicates that
he is a Shar’iy (legitimate) Ameer i.e. the one who possesses the legitimate authority. The one who usurps
the authority for example or assumes it upon the basis of ruling by other than Islaam would not be the
possessor of a Shar’iy authority and consequently it would not be valid to call him an Ameer. That is
because from amongst the Shar’iyah Shuroot (conditions) for the acquisition of authority are the Ridaa
(consent) and Ikhtiyaar (choice) of the Ummah if it was the Ummah that provided the Sultah (authority)
or the appointment made by the Imaam if he is present! Just as it is a condition for its legitimacy to rule by
what Allah has revealed.

Those who bring this doubt or questioning mention that the Daleel (evidence) for the condition of the
consent and choice for the legitimacy of the authority is that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made the Haqq of providing the
authority to its possessor belonging (solely) to the people where they appoint whomever they wish over
them. That dictates that the one who has not been appointed by the people but rather only imposed
himself upon them, does not have the right to the Imaarah (leadership) in accordance to the Shar’a. That
means that the legal legitimacy of his authority does not exist within the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. That is whilst:
“The thing that does not exist according to the Shar’a is like the thing that does not exist by the senses”
(1).
Ibn Taymiyyah said when explaining the subject of appointment and the leadership: “It must be known
that the Wilaayah (leadership) of the people is from the greatest responsibilities of the Deen. Indeed, there
is no establishing of the Deen without it. That is because the children of Aadam (i.e. mankind) will not
have their interests fulfilled except through meeting due to the need they have for one another, and it is
necessary when they come together to have a head. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬even said:

َ ‫إذَا َخَر َج ثَََلثَةٌ ِِف َس َف ٍر فَلْيُ َؤِّم ُروا َعلَْي ِه ْم أ‬

‫َح َد ُه ْم‬
If three go out on a journey (travelling) then they should appoint one of them as an Ameer over
them (2).

And Al-Imaam Ahmad recorded in his Musnad from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Imraan that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ ‫ََّل َُِي ُّل لِثَ ََلثٍَة يَ ُكونُو َن بَِف ََلةٍ ِم ْن ْاْل َْر‬
َ ‫ض َّإَّل أ ََّم ُروا َعلَْي ِه ْم أ‬
‫َح َد ُه ْم‬
It is not Halaal for three to be in an open land except that they appoint one of them as an Ameer
over them (3).

Therefore, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made appointing one person as an Ameer in respect to the small meeting (or
coming together of people), in travelling, obligatory, alerting by that to all types of meeting (i.e. where
people come together for a purpose)” (4).

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/84, (2) Abu Dawud from the Hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed and Abu Hurairah: 2608, 3/50, (3) Sunan
Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 2/177 and in his Musnad he recorded the Lafzh: “ … And it is not Halaal for a group (Nafar) of three to
be in an open land except that they appoint one of them as an Ameer over them”, (4) As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah, Ibn
Taymiyyah: 77 from: ‘The State and the System of Al-Hisbah in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah’, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 27].

The Ibn Taymiyyah explains that the authority is not contracted to its possessor unless it is by the
agreement of the majority of the people whilst the rejection of the minority does not harm the matter. He
explained that the Khilafah of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) was not completed by the ‘Ahd (delegation or
assignment) of the Khilafah to him by Abu Bakr (ra) but rather it was enacted by the Bai’ah of the people
to him. Ibn Taymiyyah stated: “ … Similarly, ‘Umar became the Imaam when they gave him the Bai’ah
(pledge) and obeyed him. And had it been destined that they would not have implemented the ‘Ahd
(delegation) of Abu Bakr in respect to ‘Umar, then he would not have become the Imaam, whether that
was permissible or not. That is because the allowed and prohibited relate to the actions whilst the ruling
and authority represent an expression of the occurring power or capability. And had it been destined that
Abu Bakr gave the Bai’ah to ‘Umar alongside a group whilst the remainder of the Sahaabah refrained from
giving him the Bai’ah, then he would not have become an Imaam by that. He only became an Imaam by
the Bai’ah (pledge) of the majority of the people and for that reason the holding back of Sa’d (i.e. Sa’d ibn
‘Ubaadah from the Ansaar) did not harm that because it does not impair or diminish what is intended in
terms of the Wilaayah (authority, ruling and leadership). As for ‘Umar having rushed to give him the
Bai’ah then there must be a precedent in respect to every Bai’ah. As for his delegation (or nomination) to
‘Umar then that was completed through the Muslims giving the Bai’ah to him after the death of Abu Bakr
after which he became an Imaam” (1).

What is intended from all of this, is that the one who takes the authority without the Ridaa (consent or
approval) of the Jumhoor (majority) does not become an Ameer according to the Shar’a, as was
established by Ibn Taymiyyah.

Similarly, regarding the one who takes the authority upon a basis of ruling by other than what Allah has
revealed, then his authority would not be Shar’iy (legitimate) because the authority represents a contract
(‘Aqd) from amongst the contracts (‘Uqood), and every contract has four Arkaan (pillars): The two
contracting parties (‘Aaqidaini) and two recompenses (‘Iwadaini). If Fasaad (corruption) occurs upon any
Rukn (pillar) from these pillars, the ‘Aqd (contract) is considered to be Baatil (invalid) and the Baatil has
no existence in the Shar’a (2). So for example, whoever sells gold with gold upon the basis of the increase
of one of the two recompenses (‘Iwadaini) over the other in one of the Ribawiy (usury based) properties,
the ‘Aqd would be Baatil (invalid) due to the pillar (Rukn) of the ‘Iwad (recompense) here containing a
Faasid (corrupting) condition according to the Shar’a, which is the increase of one of the two
recompenses over the other in respect to one of the Ribawiy properties. The ‘Aqd (contract) is
consequently Baatil (invalid) because it is Ribaa (usury) due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِّ ‫َح َّل اللَّهُ الْبَ ْي َع َو َحَّرَم‬

‫الربَا‬ َ ‫َوأ‬
And Allah has made trade Halaal and Ar-Ribaa (usury) Haraam (Al-Baqarah: 275).

And due to the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ َّ ‫ب وْزنًا بِوْزٍن ِمثَْلً ِبِِثْ ٍل والْ ِف‬

ْ ‫ضةُ بِالْفضَّة َوْزنًا بَِوْزن مثَْلً ِبثْ ٍل فَ َم ْن َز َاد أَ ِو‬
‫استَ َز َاد فَ ُه َو ِربًا‬ َ
ِ َّ ِ ‫الذ َه‬
َ َ ‫ب بالذ َه‬ ُ َّ
Gold (is to be paid for) by gold with equal weight, like for like, and silver (is to be paid for) by
silver with equal weight, like for like. He who made an addition to it or demanded an addition
dealt in usury (3).

[(1) ‘Al-Muntaqaa Min Minhaaj Al-I’tidaal’, Adh-Dhabiy and ‘Ikhtisaar Minhaaj As-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah: p57 from (‘Ad-
Dawlah Wa Nizhaam ul-Hisbah in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah’, by Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 37), (2) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy:
2/83, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 3/1213, no. 1588 - related by Abu Hurairah].

Similarly, it is said in respect to the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Sultah (authority) or the Hukm (rule), that
whoever has the contract of the Sultah (authority) contracted to him upon the basis of the Hukm (ruling)
by other than what Allah has revealed, and the people obeyed him upon this basis, then the contract
would have been Baatil due to the inclusion of a pillar of the two recompenses (‘Iwadaini) here in this
contract upon a corrupt (Faasid) condition according to the Shara’. That corrupt condition is: The ruling
by other than what Allah revealed which is related to the recompense that the ruler provides to the
people, on one side. And on the other, the submission and obedience to the ruler who rules by other than
what Allah has revealed which relates to the recompense (or matter in return) which the people provide to
the ruler. In this ‘Aqd (contract) (i.e. the ‘Aqd of the Sultah), then in respect to both of them a corrupt
(Faasid) Shart (condition) has entered the two pillars from the pillars of the contract and as such it is
Faasid (corrupted). That is because it is a condition for the Sihhah (validity) of the contract of ruling for
the ruling, by the ruler, to be upon the basis of the Kitaab (Book) of Allah and for the obedience, of the
ruled, to be upon the basis of the Kitaab of Allah as well. All of the evidences related to ruling by what
Allah has revealed and related to the obedience to the ruler within the limits of what Allah has revealed,
indicate to what we are stating and many of these have been presented in the previously covered
discussions or areas of study.

This is what the affair of the ruling was in the time of the Salaf As-Saalih (righteous predecessors):

Al-Imaam ‘Ali Bin Abi Taalib (ra) said: “It is the Haqq (right), due upon the Imaam, to rule by what Allah
has revealed and to be just in respect to his subjects. If he does that, then it is a Haqq (right), due upon
them, to hear and obey and to respond when he invites them. And regarding any ruler who has not ruled
by what Allah has revealed, then there is no obedience to him” (1).

In the Musannaf (compilation) of Al-Imaam Abdur Razzaaq As-San’aaniy he related from Ibn ‘Afeef that
he said:

“I approached Abu Bakr and he was taking the pledge from the people saying: I take the pledge from you
upon hearing and obeying to Allah, to His Book, then to the Ameer. He (the narrator) said: So, I learnt
that. He said: I surprised him by saying: I will give you the Bai’ah upon hearing and obeying to Allah, then
the Ameer. He (the narrator) said: He then fixed his gaze on me as if I had pleased him and then he took
the Bai’ah from me” (2).

Based on what has preceded we say:

Concerning the one who has usurped the authority or taken it upon the basis of ruling by other than what
Allah has revealed, his authority is not Shar’iy (legitimate) i.e. it is as if it does not exist in the view of the
Shar’a and the matter that does not exist in the Shar’a is like that which does not exist in the sensed reality.

[(1) Musnad Al-Imaam Zaid: 322, (2) Musannaf Abdur Razzzaaq: 11/332, Hadeeth no. 20788].

Consequently, in the case where the evidences have come stating the obligation of Al-Jihaad with every
Ameer (i.e. with every person possessing the authority), even if he was a Faajir (impious) or Jaa’ir (unjust),
then that only applies upon anyone who possesses the authority of the ruling in accordance to the Shar’a,
even if he was impious and unjust. As for the one who does not possess it according to the Shar’a,
because his authority is illegitimate, then he is not called an Ameer in origin. Therefore, those evidences
do not deal with the subject of dispute i.e. they are outside of the domain of the study (they as in those
who possess an illegitimate authority). Based upon that, these Adillah (evidences) do not contain within
them that which obliges the Muslims to fight under (or behind) the banner of (illegitimate) rulers such as
these.

This is the argument and doubt that those of this opinion rely upon and I hope that what I have presented
is sufficient to understand it clearly.

Despite that, it is not the intended purpose or objective of this study to discuss this matter of doubt
(Shubhah) and to arrive at a specific opinion regarding it. Rather, what is intended here is to neutralise this
doubt to remove it from the path of the obligation of undertaking Al-Jihaad with the rulers, whether their
authority was legitimate or not. That will be done as follows:

1 - The first category of evidences of the obligation to fight the enemies in an unrestricted form, as we
presented them, make it obligatory upon the Muslims to fight without stipulating that the one the Muslims
fight under his banner being a legitimate ruler or illegitimate one.

2 - The statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ
ُ‫اض ُمْن ُذ بَ َعثَِِن اللَّه‬
ٍ ‫اد َم‬
ُ ‫َوا ْْل َه‬
… And Al-Jihaad is continuous from the time that Allah sent me … (1)

Dictates and makes necessary that the Muslims do not refrain from Al-Jihaad when those illegitimate
rulers exist using their illegitimacy as a pretext or proof for that. Otherwise, the Jihaad being continuous
until the day of judgement would become redundant whilst making the Shar’iy text redundant is not
permissible.

3 - There is a narration recorded by Abu Dawud from Abu Hurairah as mentioned in ‘Nail Al-Awtaar’
that states:

ِ ‫ماض مع الب َّر وال َف‬ ِ

‫اجر‬ َ َ َ ٍ ‫اد‬ ُ ‫اْل َه‬
Al-Jihaad is continuous with the pious and impious (2).
That is without describing that pious one or that impious one as being an Ameer or not an Ameer.
Consequently, the possessor of the illegitimate authority, even if he was a Faajir (impious) and even if it is
not valid to call him an Ameer that falls under this general text, it is not permissible to cease fighting with
him because Al-Jihaad is continuous with the pious and impious. This Hadeeth is in the form of a Khabar
(i.e. it is informative) whilst the intended meaning is the command (Al-Amr). Its meaning is: Continue
undertaking Al-Jihaad with the pious and impious.

4 - Concerning the word ‘Ameer’ in the text that states:

‫ب َعلَْي ُك ْم َم َع ُك ِّل أ َِم ٍري‬ ِ ِ

ٌ ‫ا ْْل َها ُد َواج‬
Al-Jihaad is Waajib (obligatory) upon you with every Ameer (3).

[(1) Abu Dawud: 2532. In Jaami’ Al-Usool: 1/242, (2) Nail ul-Awtaar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/226. And he said Abu Dawud and
Abu Ya’laa collected it as being Marfoo’ and Mawqoof from the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah. I say I did not locate this wording
within the Sunan of Abu Dawud, (3) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3/27, Hadeeth no. 2533].

It has come ‘Aammah (general) and not specified, Mutlaqah (unrestricted) and not Muqayyadah
(restricted) regarding him being a Shar’iy (legitimate) Ameer or non-Shar’iy (illegitimate) Ameer in respect
to his Imaarah (leadership). It is not prevented to call the Baatil (invalid) ‘Aqd (contract) an ‘Aqd
(contract) even though it is Baatil (invalid). Rather what is said is: It is a Baatil ‘Aqd (an invalid contract).
So, upon the opinion of the one who says: That the contract of the authority is not valid for so and so
person, that does not prevent calling him an Ameer. Rather it is said: He is an illegitimate Ameer. The
description of illegitimacy could be an indication of the state or condition (Al-Haal) just as it could be an
indication of Al-Maqaal (what is said). This is just like one is not prevented from calling the invalid trade
as being a trade. It is rather said that it is an invalid trade (Bai’un Baatil). That’s irrespective of the Hukm
(ruling) here and there (or in this case or that) being the obligation to work to remove the invalid contract
or correct (or rectify) it. However, that is another topic of study outside of what we are currently dealing
with.

5 - Some of the Ahaadeeth of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬have come indicating to that which will take place in the history
of this Ummah in relation to the ruling in terms of Fasaad (corruption). Consequently, the texts stating
that Al-Jihaad is continuous or goes on applies upon this corrupt history from the angle of the ruling.

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ ِ ‫اْلس‬
ُ‫الصَلة‬ َ ‫ فَأََّوَُّلُ َّن نَ ْقضاً اْلُ ْك ُم َو‬، ‫اس بِالَِِّت تَل َيها‬
َّ ‫آخ ُرُه َّن‬ ُ َّ‫ث الن‬
َ َّ‫ت ُع ْرَوة تَ َشب‬
ْ‫ض‬َ ‫ فَ ُكلَّما انْتَ َق‬، ‫َلم ُع ْرَوة عُْرَوة‬ ْ ‫ض َّن عَُرى‬
َ ‫لَيُنْ َق‬
The knots of Islaam will be undone one knot at a time. Every time a knot is undone the people
will cling on to the one that follows it. The first of them to be undone is the Hukm (the rule) and
the last of them is the Salaah (1).

Indeed, it is mentioned in some of these Ahaadeeth that which states the command to undertake Al-
Jihaad whilst pointing to the existence of this Fasaad (corruption) in the ruling. That is like the speech of
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬as related from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra):

ِ ِ
ُ ‫أََّو ُل َهذا اْلَ ْمر نُبُ َّوة َوَر ْحَة ُُثَّ يَ ُكو ُن خَلفَة َوَر ْحَة ُُثَّ يَ ُكو ُن ُم ْلكاً َوَر ْحَة ُُثَّ يَ ُكو ُن إِ َم َارة َوَر ْحَة ُُثَّ يَتَ َك َاد ُمو َن َعلَْيه تَ َك‬
‫اد ُم اْلُ ُمر‬
‫فَ َعلَْي ُك ْم بِاْلِ َهاد‬
This matter will begin with prophethood and mercy, then there will Khilafah and mercy, then
there will be a Mulk (kingship) and mercy, then there will be Imaarah (leadership) and mercy
and then they will bite over it like the biting of the donkeys. So, you must undertake Al-Jihaad …
(2).

The meaning of ‘biting’ (Takaadam) is that they will be contending and disputing against each other over
the authority just like some of Allah’s creations do with each other with their mouths when they are
contending on engaged in conflict amongst themselves which then results in wounds and bite marks for
all involved! And it is possible that the meaning is: That the authority like this which is in continuous
dispute or contestation does not remain established to (any)one of the rulers … It is said in the language:
‘That the animal Takaadamat (bit at) the grass’ meaning that he did not manage to get or keep hold of any
(3).

[(1) Musnad Al-Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 5/251, (2) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 4/323, no. 10715, (3) Al-Qaamoos Al-Muheet, Al-
Fairouz Baadiy: Article ‫( َك َد َم‬Kadama)].

Whatever the situation is, it is clear from the description of the Hadeeth about the reality of the authority
in the latter period or stage from amongst the stages of ruling, that the authority in it will be illegitimate
according to the measures that have been agreed upon. That is due to the Dalaalah (indication) of the
Dhamm (rebuke/censure) manifested in the description of instability and lack of consolidation which
dictates the absence of the choice of the masses which in turn means the loss of legitimacy. That is in
addition the implication of linking the Hadeeth with the current reality that we are living today. Regardless
of this authority being free of legitimacy in accordance to some of the measures or all of them, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬nevertheless stated the obligation of Al-Jihaad when such an authority exists. That
is when he said: “… and then they will bite over it like the biting of the donkeys. So, you must
undertake Al-Jihaad …”.

In summary, is that in respect to the illegitimate people of authority, in a situation when the illegitimacy of
their authority has been established (or proven), obedience to them is not obligatory upon the people.
That is because they do not possess the authority in accordance to the Shar’a and the one who does not
possess the authority does not possess the right to be obeyed. However, despite that, Shar’iyah texts have
come obliging obedience to those illegitimate people in authority in a specifically defined matter. That
matter is what is related to Al-Jihaad and consequently it is obligatory to fight the enemy under their
authority when or if they command that or raise its banner.

However, those who pose this doubt (Shubhah) about the legitimacy of the authority of those rulers could
go on, due to the deep rooted doubt inside them in respect to those in the position of the authority, to
generate another Shubhah (doubt) which is: What is those (rulers) commanded to fight the enemy
from the disbelievers but in accordance to a scheming plan, the result of which would be to bring
harm upon the Muslims to secure an interest of the disbeliever enemy or the interest (Maslahah) of other
states outside of the Islamic world?

The answer: This represents another matter and in such a circumstance or situation it is prohibited
(Haraam) to fight with this ruler just as it is Haraam to fight with the Khalifah of the Muslims if
something like this was to happen under his Khilafah. That is because this obligatory Qitaal (fighting) in
this circumstance would represent a Waseelah (means) to the Darar (harm), which is Haraam, whilst the
means to the Haraam is Muharramah (prohibited) as has been established. Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy said:
“That which is well-known in the Sharee’ah is that: The repelling of the Darar (harm) by leaving the
Waajib when a method or path to repel the Harm has been specified (or designated)” (1). In addition,
there is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator.

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123].

And it is stated in another place: “Note: Know that just as the Dharee’ah (pretext/cause) must be blocked,
it must also be opened, and made Makrooh, Mandoob and Mubaah. That is because the Dharee’ah
represents the Waseelah (means). So, just as the Waseelah (means) to the prohibited matter is prohibited,
the Waseelah (means) to the Waajib (obligatory matter) is Waajib (obligatory) and that is like the example
of the effort needed to reach the Jumu’ah or the Hajj …” (1).

Consequently, if the obligatory Qitaal (fighting) becomes a means to a Haraam matter, it becomes
Haraam.

By that we come to the end of the first issue which is: The Shar’iy stance (or position) in respect to the
issuing of the command to fight under an authority that have control over the affairs, however the
Shubhah of the loss of legitimacy is generated against it, in the view of a small of great number of people.

We will now move on to the second issue which is:

What if that authority forbade the Jihaad and Qitaal against the enemies?

The answer has two parts to it:

1- The first part: If this prevention or forbiddance of the obligatory fighting had been dictated to by a
Daroorah (necessity) and the Maslahah (interest), in the case where the Qitaal in this circumstance would
result in bring harm upon the Muslims, then to adhere to this forbiddance or prevention is obligatory.
That is not because of the obligation to obey this authority as the Sultah (authority) here, in the view of
those who doubt its legitimacy, does not deserve or have a right to that obedience. Rather, the obligation
to refrain from fighting here is due to what has previously been explained in respect to the obligation to
repel the Dara (harm) by leaving the Waajib, when a path to repel the harm has been specified (or
designated) (2).

2 - The second part: If that forbiddance to undertake the obligatory fighting is not compelled by an
interest (Maslahah) of the Muslims but rather the opposite of that. Indeed, the forbidding is in opposition
to the interest of the Muslims and merely represents the suspension of the Islamic Jihaad in respect to
fighting the enemies, due to personal interests as perceived by those in authority and their subservience to
the will of others. I say: If that matter is like that then the forbiddance from fighting only represents a
Ma’siyah (act of disobedience to Allah or sinful act) due to what it means in terms of the suspension of
the Shar’iy text which has judged that the Jihaad must go on:
ِ
ُ‫اض ُمْن ُذ بَ َعثَِِن اللَّه‬
ٍ ‫اد َم‬
ُ ‫َوا ْْل َه‬
… And Al-Jihaad is continuous from the time that Allah sent me … (3)

And:

‫صيَ ِة اْلَالِق‬
ِ ‫ََّل طَاعةَ لِمخلُوق ِِف مع‬
َْ َْ َ
There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator (4).

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/33, (2) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123, (3) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3/26, no. 2532, (4) The Lafzh
ِ ‫صي ِة اهللِ إََِّّنا الطَّاعةُ ِف املع‬
ِ
(wording of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim is: “ ‫روف‬ ْ َ َ ‫اعةَ ِِف َم ْع‬
َ َ‫( ”ََّل ط‬There is obedience in the disobedience to Allah.
There is only obedience in respect to the Ma’roof i.e. that which is from Islaam). The Lafzh (wording) mentioned above is one
of the narrations recorded by At-Tabaraani. Refer to ‘As-Saheehah’ by Al-Albaaniy: 1/299].

Consequently, it is obligatory to rebel against this forbiddance and for anyone who is able, to fight the
enemy, and even if it is upon an individual level or militant (or guerrilla) groups as they are named these
days.
The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy when explaining the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫ف إََِّّل نَ ْف َس‬ ِ ِ
‫ك‬ ُ َّ‫فَ َقات ْل ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه ََّل تُ َكل‬
So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself (An-Nisaa’: 84)”.

The following was stated: “It represents an example of what is said to every single person in respect to
himself i.e. You, O Muhammad, and everyone from your Ummah. The statement is to him: “So fight, in
the cause of Allah, you are not held responsible except for yourself” and therefore every believer should
undertake Al-Jihaad and even if it is alone (i.e. by himself). That meaning is found in the speech of the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫َّه ْم َح ََّّت تَنْ َف ِرَد َسالَِف ِِت‬ ِ ِ

ُ ‫َواللَّه َْلُقَاتلَن‬
By Allah, I will certainly fight them until the side of my neck stands alone (1).

And the statement of Abu Bakr at the time of the Riddah (apostasy):

‫اه ْدتُ َها بِ ِش َم ِاَل‬ ِ

َ َ‫َولَ ْو َخالََفْت ِِن َمي ِيِن َْل‬
And if my right (hand, arm or side) was to go against me then I would perform Jihaad against it with my
left (2).

Based upon this some private media in our lands encourage the undertaking of fighting or military
operations on an individual level or guerrilla groups even if that included go outside of the will of the
ruling authority.

In the Beirut based ‘Al-Wa’ie’ magazine, in the issue published in Ramadhaan 1409 AH (April, 1979) in
the page “Word of Truth” under the title: “Another stand with the Infiltrators”, the following was stated:
“Once again the subject of military groups breaching the security fences surrounding the Jews has stirred a
debate amongst the Jewish leaders and the rulers of the entities that guard them … And the Jews are eager
to name the military groups as be saboteurs … As for the guarding rulers then they call them infiltrators
and that is because the use of this wording means: That the breaching of the borders is considered, in the
viewpoint of those rulers to be an illegitimate act which the law in their lands penalise and that the
‘civilised’ society does not agree to it! Consequently, we find them very eager to stain anyone who
breaches the walls of silence and shame with the description of being a “infiltrator” …”

[(1) The word Saalifah (‫ )سالفة‬means the side of the neck whilst the neck is a metaphor for the self (i.e. refers to the person). The
meaning of this is: ‘That even if I was all by myself in the fighting alone’ and the expression also has another meaning which is
not intended here and that is a metaphor for death, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 5/293/5]

Then the editor of the page “Word of truth” stated the following:

“Even though the breaching of the borders is not sufficient to remove the Jewish entity, its continuation
nevertheless means that there is no truce with Jews, no peace and that there is no meeting between us and
them except on the deciding battle field. And that every attempt to make a treaty with them does not
reflect the desire or wish of the sons of this Ummah which thirsts to see realise the truth and remove the
Baatil, in all of its forms. Similarly, the breaching of the borders represents a breaching of the reality and
of the complete silence that blunts the silent fronts with a silence of the Sphinx. These breaches keep the
flame of animosity towards the Jews alive and the flame of the of the fighting spirit remains lit until Allah
destines for this Ummah the one that will take her by her hand upon the path of glory and honour …
And it is obligatory upon those breaching the walls of silence from of An-Naqab, Wadi Araba and South
Lebanon to remind the armies that the Jewish entity still exists. That is undertaken by way of giving
guidance and calling them to that in the case where in every operation you call them (the armies) to
undertake and fulfil their Shar’iy obligation which is to remove this impure entity from this blessed piece
of land. And they need to direct a call to their commanders to close the gaps (in the borders) which those
who recognise the Jewish entity opened within their walls. Do not those who neglect the rights require a
number of operations of ‘infiltration’? (1)”.

This is what has been said in respect to the matter of fighting the enemy under the ruling authorities in the
Muslim lands today and with that we come to the end of the second issue of our study that we are treating
which is: The issue of the Shar’iy stance related to the fighting of the individual or group without the
permission of the Imaam or the Ameer who possesses the authority.

We will now move on to the third Mas’alah (issue) which is: Is it permissible for the Muslim to fight the
enemy with the aim of seizing his property?

[(1) Majallah Al-Wa’ie: Second year, issue 12, p35].

The third issue: Is it permissible for the Muslim to fight the enemy with the aim of
seizing his property?

The answer to this question is made clear from the reality of the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in
respect to his smaller military expeditions (Saraayaa) and larger ones (Ghazawaat) which sought to
intercept the Quraishi caravans setting off to Ash-Shaam (the Syrian region) or returning from there. We
will now mention some reports of these expeditions as stated by Ibn ul-Qayyim in ‘Zaad Al-Ma’aad’
which will make clear their purpose and objective whilst restricting ourselves to that which is connected to
our study so that we can get to the intended point, as is customary in summaries. Ibn ul-Qayyim states:

1 - “The first Liwaa’ (flag of an army unit) that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬tied, was the one provided to
Hamzah Ibn Abdul Muttalib, in the month of Ramadhaan, seven months after the emigration … And he
‫ ﷺ‬sent him at the head of thirty men … to intercept a caravan that had come from Ash-Shaam (Syria) and
was led by Abu Jahl and accompanied by three hundred men. They reached Sayf ul-Bahr from the
direction of Al-‘Ais” (1).

2 - “Then he ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas to Al-Kharraar (2) in Dhu l-Qa’dah in the ninth month
(after the Hijrah … They were twenty riders sent to intercept a caravan of Quraish” (3).

3 - “Then he ‫ ﷺ‬went on a military expedition of the Ghazwah of Al-Abwaa’ himself and it is also called
(the Ghazwah) of ‘Waddan’ … It took place in Safar in the 12th month after Hijrah … it was to intercept a
caravan of Quraish” (4).

4 - “Then there was the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬Ghazwah of Buwaat, in the month of Rabee’ ul-Awwal, thirteen
months after the emigration. He ‫ ﷺ‬went out with 200 of his companions to intercept a caravan of
Quraish led by Umayyah Bin Khalaf Al-Jumahiy and accompanied by one hundred men of Quraish in
addition to 1500 camels” (5).

5 - “The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬then went out in Jumaadaa Al-Aakhirah, 16 months following emigration. He went
out with 150 men and it has also been said: 200 of the Muhaajireen … It was to intercept a caravan of
Quraish which was heading for Ash-Shaam (Syria) … It contained wealth of the Quraish and it reached
Dhu l-‘Ushairah … which is an areas of Yanba’, whilst there is a distance of 9 Burud between Al-Madinah
and Yanba’. It was this caravan that he set out to seek when it was returned from Ash-Shaam” (6). By the
last statement, he means: That this was the caravan that was later the cause of the battle of Badr. It had
passed the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on its return from Syria just as it had got past him on its way to Ash-
Shaam.

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/163. Al-‘Ais is a place between Yanba’ and Al-Marwah, in the direction of the Red Sea
(Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom, Al-Mubaarakfouriy: 219) and the Atlas of the History of Islaam, map no. 32, (2) Al-Kharraar: Is
from the land of Al-Hijaaz (At-Tabari - History of At-Tabari: 3/154). It is a location close to Al-Juhfah (Ar-Raheeq ul-
Makhtoom: 219). And refer to the Atlas of the History of the History of Islaam, Hussein Mu’nis, map no. 32 and p56, (3) Zaad
ul-Ma’aad: 3/164, (4) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/164. Al-Abwaa’: A location close to Waddaan which is located between Makkah and
Al-Madinah (Ar-Raheeq ul-Makhtoom: 219). Refer to Atlas of Islamic History, map no. 36, p60. The locations of: Waddan, Al-
Abwaa’, Al-‘Ais and Waadi Al-Kharraar, are found in map no. 32, p56 in the Atlas of Islamic History by Hussein Mu’nis, (5)
Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/165. Al-Bawaat: Jabalaan Far’aan, their origin is one from the mountains of Juhainah which
follows the route of Ash-Shaam. There is approximately a 4 Burud distance between Buwaat and Al-Madinah. The Atlas of
Islamic History, map no. 53, p77, (6) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/166. Al-‘Ushairah: Location in the area of Yanba’ (Raheeq ul-
Makhtoom: 221)].

6 - “Then the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Abdullah Ibn Jahsh Al-Asadiy to ‘An-Nakhlah’ in Rajab in the 17th
month after the Hijrah (emigration), at the head of 12 men … to undertake surveillance of a caravan of
Quraish (1)”.

7 - “Then in Ramadhaan of that year, news reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬of the caravan returning
from Ash-Shaam (Syria) led by Abu Sufyaan and it was the same caravan that they went out seeking when
it was leaving from Makkah. There was about 40 men and a great amount of Quraishi wealth (or
properties). And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commissioned the people to depart. He commanded those
who were already prepared and ready to arise and did not gather a great number because he departed
quickly and it was at the head of a few over 310 men” (2).

- The following was stated in the ‘Seerah of Ibn Hishaam’ when explaining the reason that led in the end
to the battle of Badr: “When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬heard that Abu Sufyaan was returning from Ash-
Shaam he commissioned the Muslims to go to them and said: This is the caravan of Quraish. It contains
their wealth (properties), so go out towards it. It may be that Allah gives you it as a booty. So, the people
complied. Some of them were light (in weaponry) and others were heavy, and that was because they did
not think that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was going to a war” (3).

- The following was mentioned within the Hadeeth of Ka’b Ibn Maalik about the reason that led to this
Ghazwah (military expedition), within the context of his discussion about his staying behind from the
Ghazwah of Tabuk: “I had not stayed behind from an expedition of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬ever apart
from in the Ghazwah of Badr but that was a Ghazwah that Allah and His messenger did not reproach
anyone from staying behind from. That was because the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had only set out seeking
the caravan of Quraish, but ended up with Allah bringing him and his enemy together in an unplanned
appointment” (4).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/167. An-Nakhlah: A place between Makkah and Taa’if. The Atlas of Islamic History: Map 32, p56, (3)
Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 171/3, (3) Ar-Raud ul-Anf, Sharh of the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: 3/30, (4) Ar-Raud ul-Anf, Sharh of the
Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: 4/180-181].

Following this presentation of some of the Saraayaa (expeditions) in the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬from
the angle of showing the motivation behind them, it may be that the following bewildering question may
come to the mind:

If the matter is like that, then does this not negate what the Shar’iyah texts have demanded in respect to
the Jihaad being in the way of Allah purely for His sake Ta’Aalaa with the intended purpose of raising
high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla?
We will leave the task of answering this question to Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy. In his book ‘Subul us-Salaam’
he states:

“The Mushrikeen (polytheists) could be sought merely to seize their properties just as the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out with those who were with him in the Ghazwah of Badr to seize the caravan of the
Mushrikeen. That does not negate (or contradict with) the raising of the word of Allah high. Rather, that
is part of raising the word of Allah Ta’Aalaa high and Allah approved of them upon that. Indeed, Allah
Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ‫َن َغي ر َذ‬

‫ات الش َّْوَك ِة تَ ُكو ُن لَ ُك ْم‬ َ ْ َّ ‫َوتَ َوُّدو َن أ‬
And you wished that the unarmed one would be yours (Al-Anfaal: 7).

They were not blamed or censured for that even though there is this that which informs of their love for
the wealth without fighting” (1).

And before that he mentioned that Al-Jihaad seeking fame and to show off invalidates Al-Jihaad which is
not the case in respect to undertaking Al-Jihaad seeking Maal (property or wealth). He states the
following: “… Which is contrary to seeking the material gain as that does not negate Al-Jihaad. Indeed,
when the seeking to seize the material gain infuriates or exasperates the Mushrikeen and it is utilised in
obedience (i.e. in Halaal way), it would have Ajr (reward) attached to it. That is because Allah Ta’Aalaa
states:

‫صالِ ٌح‬ ِ
َ ‫ب ََّلُم بِه َع َم ٌل‬
ِ ِ ِ
َ ‫َوََّل يَنَالُو َن م ْن َع ُد ٍّو ن َّْي ًَل إََّّل ُكت‬
Nor do they inflict any injury upon an enemy except that is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness (At-Taubah:
120).

What is intended by ‘infliction’ is that which is permitted in the Shar’a. And also because of his statement
‫ﷺ‬:

ِ
ُ‫َم ْن قَتَ َل قَتيَلً فَلَهُ َسلَبَه‬
Whoever kills someone then he has a right to his property (2)

This statement before the fighting is an evidence indicating that the seeking of the material gain does not
negate Al-Jihaad. Rather, it is what he said: “Unless it is for the hearer to strive in the fighting of the
Mushrikeen” (3).

In addition, the Fuqahaa’ have dealt with this issue under the heading of: “Associating (i.e. with Allah) in
the ‘Ibaadaat” which refers to a person associating in his undertaking of his acts of worship with another
intention other than the performance of the ‘Ibaadah (act of worship) to realise a worldly interest. So, the
issue is: Does this Tashreek (association) invalidate the ‘Ibaadah and sinful, or not?

[(1) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/44, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3142, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/247. The Lafzh (wording) in the
Saheeh is: “ُ‫( ” َم ْن قَتَ َل قَتيَلً لَهُ عَلَْي ِه بَيِّ نَة فَلَهُ َسلَبُه‬Whoever kills someone, then he has a proof over him and so he has a right to his
property), (3) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/44].

They answered this as follows:

1 - If the other aim (or intended purpose) that the person has intended from his ‘Ibaadah is Ar-Riyaa’
(showing off or to be seen by men), Adh-Dhikr (to be mentioned or spoken about) or Ash-Shuhrah
(fame), i.e.to win the pleasure and praise of the people, then that intended purpose is Haraam because it is
from the (category of) Ash-Shirk whilst the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫الر ُجل‬ ِ ‫الرجل لِم‬

َّ ‫كان‬ ِ
َ ُ َّ ‫الش ِّْرُك اْلَف ّي أَ ْن يَ ْع َم َل‬
The hidden Shirk is for a man to act for the position (standing) of the man (1).

And Ash-Shiddaad Bin Aws related:

“In the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬we used to consider Ar-Riyaa’ (showing off) to be from the
Shirk Al-Asghar (minor Shirk)” (2). Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “As for the minor Shirk is like the conduct of Ar-
Riyaa’ (showing off or to be seen of men) … This could be a Shirk Akbar (major Shirk) according to the
situation of the one saying it and his intention” the end (3).

In respect to that the author of ‘Nail ul-Awtaar’ mentioned the Hadeeth that came in Saheeh Muslim
related by Abu Hurairah from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said:

‫يك َح ََّّت‬ ِ ‫ال قَاتَ ْل‬ َ َ‫ت فِ َيها ق‬ ِ َ َ‫استُ ْش ِه َد فَأُِِتَ بِِه فَ َعَّرفَهُ نِ َع َمهُ فَ َعَرفَ َها ق‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫إِ َّن أ ََّوَل الن‬
َ ‫تف‬ ُ َ ْ‫ال فَ َما َعمل‬ ْ ‫ضى يَ ْوَم الْقيَ َامة َعلَْيه َر ُج ٌل‬ َ ‫َّاس يُ ْق‬
... ‫ب َعلَى َو ْج ِه ِه َح ََّّت أُلْ ِق َي ِِف النَّا ِر‬ ِ ِِ ِ
َ ‫يل ُُثَّ أُمَر به فَ ُسح‬
ِ
َ ‫ال َجريءٌ فَ َق ْد ق‬
ِ َ ‫ت ِْلَ ْن يُ َق‬ َ ‫ت َولَكِن‬
َ ْ‫َّك قَاتَل‬ َ ْ‫ال َك َذب‬
َ َ‫ت ق‬ُ ‫استُ ْش ِه ْد‬
ْ
The first to be judged on the Day of Judgement will be a man who had died as a martyr. He will
be brought forward. Allah will make him aware of the favours He had bestowed upon him and
the man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him: “What did you do to express gratitude for
them?” The man will reply: “I fought for Your Cause till I was martyred”. Allah will say: “You
have lied. You fought so that people might call you courageous; and it was (indeed) said” A
command will then be issued regarding him and he will be dragged on his face and thrown into
Hell … (4).

2 - If, however, the other intention that the person was intending, whilst undertaking the act of worship
(Al-‘Ibaadah), was another Maslahah (interest) other than Ar-Riyaa’ (showing off) and Adh-Dhikr (to be
spoken about), then that is permitted. That is because the Shar’iyah texts have come indicating to the
legitimacy of this Tashreek (association) in respect to the intended purpose (Al-Qasd) sought from the
‘Ibaadah.

Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy stated: “As for the unrestricted Tashreeq like the one who performs Al-Jihaad to
attain the obedience of Allah through it and to attain the wealth from the booty, then this does not harm
him and it is not Haraam upon him by Al-Ijmaa’ (consensus). That is because Allah Ta’Aalaa has made
this for him within this ‘Ibaadah (act of worship). There is a difference between undertaking his Jihaad for
the purpose of people saying: he is brave or for the Imaam to extol him so that he given more from the
Bait ul-Maal. That is because this and what is similar to it is Haraam.

[(1) Mustadrak Al-Haakim related by Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy: 4/329. He (Al-Haakim) said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad but they (Al-
Bukhaari and Muslim) did not include it (i.e. in their collections). Adh-Dhahabiy said: Saheeh, (2) Mustadrak Al-Haakim: 4/329.
Saheeh Al-Isnaad but not in their (Al-Bukhaari’s and Muslim’s) collections. Adh-Dhahabi decalred it Saheeh, (3) Fat’h ul-
Majeed Sharh Kitaab At-Tawheed, Ash-Sheikh Abdur Rahman Bin Hasan Aali Ash-Sheikh: 329, (4) Nail ul-Awtaar, Ash-
Shawkaaniy: 7/228 and the Hadeeth is in Saheeh Muslim 3/1514 and its number in the Book (or chapter) of Al-Imaarah
(leadership) is: 152. Its general number is 1905].

There is a difference between that and the one who performs Al-Jihaad to gain Sabaayaa (captives),
horses, and weapons in terms of properties from the enemy. This does not harm him even though he has
associated (Tashreek). The same applies to the Hajj as he associated with his Hajj the aim of trading which
was representative of his main purpose or even the whole purpose was for the purpose of a specific trade
or business and whilst the Hajj was occurring at the same time. This does not dictate sin or an act of
disobedience. The same applies to the one who has fasted to make his body healthy or to remove an
ailment or sickness which is negated by fasting and the treatment was what he intended by it or it
represented some of his intended purpose whilst also intending the fasting, so that the fast takes place
along with those other purposes. In such a situation, these (other) intended purposes Maqaasid) do not
impact his fasting negatively or bring fault to it. Rather, he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded this when he said:

ِ ِ َّ ِ‫اع ِمْن ُكم الْبَاء َة فَلْيَتَ َزَّو ْج وَمن َملْ يستَ ِط ْع فَ َعلَْي ِه ب‬ ِ ‫يا م ْع َشر الشَّب‬
ٌ‫الص ْوم فَإنَّهُ لَهُ ِو َجاء‬ َْ ْ َ َ ْ َ َ‫استَط‬ ْ ‫ َم ْن‬، ‫اب‬َ َ َ َ
O gathering of young men, whoever from amongst you can afford it he should do so and whoever
cannot then he should fast because verily it acts as an inhibitor or cutter (i.e. of the desire) (1).

He ‫ ﷺ‬therefore commanded the fasting for this purpose or intended aim and had that act been at fault
then he would not have commanded it in respect to the ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship).

Then Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy states:

“Yes, it is true that these purposes (or intended aims) mixed with the ‘Ibaadah (act of worship) could
reduce the Ajr (reward) and that if the ‘Ibaadah was free of them, that the reward would be increased and
greater. As for the sin and the invalidation then there is no path or way towards it” (2).

In light of this, as Al-Jihaad is also an ‘Ibaadah from amongst the acts of worship, then it is permitted for
the person whilst undertaking it to seek alongside his undertaking of this ‘Ibaadah, the intended aim of
attaining property or wealth (Al-Maal) and there is nothing forbidden in that. That (other) intended aim
does not negate the sincerity that has been demanded in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِِ ِ ِ
‫ِّين‬ َ ‫َوَما أُم ُروا إََِّّل ليَ ْعبُ ُدوا اللَّهَ ُمُْلص‬
َ ‫ني لَهُ الد‬
And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in the Deen (Al-Bayyinah: 5).

That is because the Shar’a has granted the special permission (Rukhsah) to seek the attainment of the
worldly material benefits alongside the ‘Ibaadah. A special permission (Rukhsah) has however not been
granted to seek the pleasure of the people or their praising and extolling of him, alongside this act of
worship. This indicates that what is in conflict with or contrary to the Ikhlaas (sincerity) is when the
fighter seeks to attain the pleasure of the people in his worship and not when he seeks those benefits,
because the Muharram (prohibited) is only the Riyaa’ (showing off and to be seen by men). That is whilst
the Riyaa’ does not occur unless the people observing the performance of the ‘Ibaadah with their eyes are
being sought (by the one undertaking it) in a way that stirs their admiration and praise.

The Riyaa’ (showing off) does not occur when Al-Maal (wealth or property) is sought alongside the
‘Ibaadah and that is because the wealth does not have eyes through which the one undertaking the act of
worship for its purpose is seen, so as to be praised or his mention (or fame) elevated. This represents the
secret behind the Tahreem (prohibition) of Ar-Riyaa’ just as it is indicated from the word it is derived
from ‘Ar-Ru’yah’ (sight). This means: If alongside the intention of the ‘Ibaadah, the sight of those who see
the worshipper is sought, so that he then increases or is raised in their estimation, then that is Riyaa’ and
that is Haraam.

(1) Related by Al-Bukhaari with this wording in the Book of An-Nikaah (marriage): 5065. Fat’h ul-Baari’: 9/106, (2) Al-Furooq,
Al-Qaraafiy: 3/22-23].
However, if, alongside the intention of the ‘Ibaadah something is sought, in which the sighting of the
worshipper is not realised, like wealth or property (Al-Maal), then the word ‘Ar-Riyaa’’ does not apply to it
in origin and consequently that intended aim or purpose would not be Haraam.

In respect to this Al-Qaraafiy stated: “And the ‘Ru’yah’ (sighting) is not valid except from the Khalq
(creation) and consequently, the one who does not see or observe, it is not said in respect to the action in
relation to him that it is Ar-Riyaa’. Regarding the money that is taken as booty and what is like that, it is
not said that it sees or observes as the word ‘Ar-Riyaa’ does not conform to these intended purposes due
to the lack of sight in respect to them” (1).

Therefore, yes, if the fighter does not seek from the undertaking of his ‘Ibaadah anything other than the
attainment of the property (i.e. material gain) alone without that being a means to kill the spirits of the
enemy, or occupy their life with fear and terror with the aim of bear upon them and weaken them, to
strengthen the Muslims and raise high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, then the Qitaal, such as this in
these circumstances, when it is free of all of these aims, then it would be empty of that which makes it’s a
Qitaal that is in the way of Allah and the reward (Ajr and Thawaab) is not built upon it as a consequence.
The Hadeeth related by Abu Hurairah (ra) would then apply upon it:

‫أع َاد‬
َ َ‫ ف‬.ُ‫َجَر لَه‬
ْ ‫ ََّل أ‬:‫ال‬ ِ ‫ضا ِم ْن َعَر‬
َ ‫ فَ َق‬.‫ض الدُّنْيَا‬ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ول اللَّ ِه! رجل ي ِر‬
ً ‫يد ا ْْل َه َاد ِِف َسبِ ِيل اللَّه َوُه َو يَْبتَغي َعَر‬ ُ ٌ َُ َّ ‫أ‬
َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬:‫َن َر ُجَلً قَال‬
ُ‫َجَر لَه‬
ْ ‫ ََّل أ‬:‫ول‬
ُ ‫كل ذلك يَ ُق‬ ُّ .ً‫َعلَْي ِه ثََلثا‬
That a man said: O Messenger of Allah! (What) If a man seeks to undertake Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah whilst he is seeking a material gain of the Dunyaa (worldly gain)? He ‫ ﷺ‬replied:
There is no Ajr (reward) for him. So he came back to him (about this) three times and every time
he ‫ ﷺ‬said: There is no reward for him (2).

What is understood from this Hadeeth when combined with the other Shar’iyah texts related to the
subject area, is that this man wanted to undertake Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah but he wanted to fight for
the sake of the property and wealth alone! His aspiration and goal was therefore a worldly material gain as
was mentioned in the Hadeeth. It did not mention that it was also from his aims to raise high the word of
Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla. As for what is meant by the expression “that he wanted Al-Jihaad in the way of
Allah”, then the intended understood meaning is that he wanted to fight for the aim that he mentioned to
be his aim, which was to attain the wealth alone, and consequently, there was no Ajr (reward) for him.
This expression or statement must be understood in this way due to what the other Shar’iyah texts have
mentioned in respect to the Ibaahah (permissibility) of seeking the wealth or property from the fighting, as
we spoke about previously. That is because this Hadeeth only mentions that the fighter will be deprived of
the Ajr alone, whilst it did not mention that he had committed a sin or act of disobedience as a result of
only seeking a material worldly gain (from the fighting).

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 3/23, (2) Subul us-Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/44 and he said: It was related by Abu Dawud].

The Daleel (evidence) establishing that the seeking of property or wealth alone does not entail sin, is
found in what Ibn Qudaamah stated in his Al-Mughni, from what ‘Aa’ishah (ra) related:

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ خرج رس‬: ‫قَالَت‬

َ ‫ أَ ْد َرَكهُ َر ُج ٌل م ْن الْ ُم ْش ِرك‬، ‫ َح ََّّت إذَا َكا َن ِبََّرةِ الْ َوبََرِة‬، ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْيه َو َسلَّ َم َإَل بَ ْد ٍر‬
‫ َكا َن يُ ْذ َك ُر‬، ‫ني‬ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َ ََ ْ
‫صلَّى‬ ِ ُ ‫ال لَه رس‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫ فَ ُسَّر الْ ُم ْسلِ ُمو َن بِِه‬، ٌ‫ِمْنهُ ُج ْرأَةٌ َوََْن َدة‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ُ َ ‫ فَ َق‬. ‫يب َم َعك‬ َ ‫ َوأُص‬، ‫ جْئت ْلَتْ بَ ْعك‬، ‫ يَا َر ُسوَل اللَّه‬: ‫ال‬
‫ول اللَّ ِه‬
ُ ‫ضى َر ُس‬َ ‫ ُُثَّ َم‬: ‫ت‬ ٍ
ْ َ‫ قَال‬. ‫ني ِِبُ ْش ِرك‬
ِ ‫ فَلَن أ‬، ‫ فَارِجع‬: ‫ال‬
َ ‫َستَع‬ْ ْ ْ ْ َ َ‫ ق‬. ‫ ََّل‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ { أَتُ ْؤِم ُن بِاَللَّ ِه َوَر ُسولِِه ؟ ق‬: ‫اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم‬
 ‫ أَتُ ْؤِم ُن بِاَللَّ ِه‬: ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم‬ ِ ُ ‫ال لَه رس‬ ِ ِ
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ُ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫الر ُج ُل‬
َّ ‫ك‬َ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم َح ََّّت إذَا َكا َن بِالْبَ ْي َداء أ َْد َرَكهُ ذَل‬
َ
‫ فَانْطَلِ ْق‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫" َوَر ُسولِِه ؟ ق‬
َ َ‫ ق‬. ‫ نَ َع ْم‬: ‫ال‬
She said: The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬went out towards Badr until he reached Harratin Al-Wabrah when a man
from the Mushrikeen caught up with him. He was known for his courage and bravery and so the
companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬were happy when they saw him. Then he said: “I came
to follow you and make again (i.e. materially) alongside you”. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then
asked him: “Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?” He replied: “No”. So he ‫ ﷺ‬said:
“Then return as I will never seek assistance from a Mushrik”. She (‘Aa’ishah) said: He ‫ ﷺ‬then
continued on his way until he reached Al-Baydaa’ where that man caught up with him (again).
Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?”. He
said: “Yes”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “Then go forth (i.e. for battle)” (1).

In this Hadeeth, the intended aim of the man from the fighting was only to gain wealth or property (Al-
Maal) and the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not reproach him upon that. Rather, he prevented him from participating
along with him in the fighting when he was a Kaafir and then permitted that for him when he embraced
Islaam. That is whilst the Hadeeth did not indicate that the man changed his intended aim behind his
participation in the Qitaal (fighting).

Yes, it is true that this fighting of the one who has made his intended aim only the seeking of wealth and
property is not called Jihaad in respect to him and that he does not deserve the reward of the
Mujaahideen. That is because there is no Jihaad unless it is with the Niyah (intention) of raising high the
word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and even if he was to combine alongside this Niyah the intended aim of
acquiring wealth. This is in accordance to the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ‫اهلل ِهي الع ْليا فَهو ِِف سبِ ِيل‬

‫اهلل‬ ِ َ‫من قَاتَل لِتَ ُكو َن َكلِمة‬
َ َُ ُ َ َ َ َْ
Whoever fights for the word of Allah to be the highest, he is in the way of Allah (2).

However, despite that, it is the Haqq (right) of the Muslim to purely make his intended aim (Qasd) the
acquisition of the enemy’s wealth alone and even if that is by way of infiltrating them and shedding their
blood, as long as the Muslim does not enter to them with an Amaan (security). That is because the Daar
(land) of the enemy is a Daar (land) of Qitaal (fighting) and a Daar of Nuhbah (spoils, plunder) (3), and
Daar of Ibaahah (permissibility) and the evidence for that is the permissibility of fighting them and seizing
their properties.

Indeed, Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy has gone beyond that and has stated the following:

“It is permissible for the Muslim entering Daar ul-Harb with an Amaan (security) of its people to take
what he is capable of in terms of their properties and to shed what he is capable of in terms of their
blood” (4). His Hujjah (proof) for that is that the disbelievers providing the Muslim with the security
(Amaan) to enter their lands (i.e. what is called an entry visa in our current times), does not dictate that
they are also secure from him through that Amaan that they granted to him.

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/457. I was not able to find the Hadeeth in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari but I
found it in Saheeh Muslim: 1817, 3/1449-1450, (2) related by Al-Bukhaari: 124, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 1/222, (3)
As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh: 1/355 and 3/915. And As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/551, (4)
As-Sail Al-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/552].
Ash-Shawkaaniy said in response to the opinion of the Fuqahaa’ that states: “And their security (provided)
to the Muslim (also) represents an Amaan (security) for them from him” He says in response to that: “I
say: There is no concomitance (or inseparability) in respect to the two Amaans, whether in accordance to
the Shar’a, ‘Aql (mind/intellect) or ‘Aadah (norm/custom)” (1).

What Ash-Shawkaaniy intends here is: That for the disbelievers to be secure from the Muslim in their
lands, they must take a notice from him stating that they are also secure from him or they must provide
the entry visa (i.e. the Amaan) upon this condition. At that time or in such a circumstance it would be
Haraam for him to inflict him with an injury or something bad and unpleasant (Makrooh). As for them
only providing the Amaan to the Muslim in their lands then they do not benefit in return with him
providing a security to them.

However, the correct view in respect to this (just as it is within the international custom) is that whoever
enters into lands with an Amaan, then those lands are also secure from him. From the Qawaa’id Ash-
Shar’iyah (principles) is: “That the Ma’roof (right) is with the ‘Urf (custom) just as the Mashroot
(conditioned) is with the Nass (text)” (2). In affirmation of this Amaan by the ‘Urf (custom) Al-Imaam
Ash-Shaafi’iy stated: “If a Muslim is captured and the Mushrikoon (polytheists or disbelievers) make him
swear an oath for him to remain in their lands and do not leave it upon them agreeing to let him free in
return, then when he is capable of exiting from the land he should leave and that is because is oath was
taken by compulsion, they had no way to imprison him and he would not be oppressive (or unjust) to
them by his exiting from their hands (i.e. control) … However, it is not a right of his to inflict them in
respect to their properties and lives. That is because if they have provided him with an Amaan, they are
also secure from him. And we do not know of anything that has been related contrary to that” (3).

The following was stated in ‘Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar’: “If a Muslim enters Daar ul-Harb with a security
(Amaan) exposing them to anything in terms of blood, property or women of theirs is Haraam” (4).

[(1) As-Sail ul-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/552, (2) As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh: 5/1721, (3) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy:
4/275, (4) Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar: 3/381].

In conclusion of this Mas’alah (issue), the issue of reaching the property or wealth (Maal) of the enemy
and even if that is by killing and fighting, it is necessary to present a concise word, by which we affirm a
reality and dispel a doubt (Shubhah). It is: That the legal legitimacy (Shar’iyah) of Al-Qitaal for the
purpose of attaining the property of the enemy in respect to the Islamic position, is also the same position
that the enemy takes in respect to the Muslims and their properties. That is clear, as an example, from the
raid of Abu Sufyaan upon the outskirts of Al-Madinah where he destroyed some palm-trees and killed a
man from the Ansaar along with an ally of his, which was two months after the battle of Badr (1).

That is because, the natural state of play between lands governed by a relationship of war and hostility, is
that each of them would represent a Daar of Qitaal and Nuhbah (land of fighting and spoils or plunder) in
respect to the other. Consequently, Islam did not bring anything new regarding this matter. Rather, it
practised that which was already established and approved of within the local ‘Urf (custom) and the
international ‘Urf at that time. However, from the new matters which Islaam did take the reins of the
initiative regarding include: Its Da’wah (invitation) to end this situation, the state of war and what it
included in terms of shedding blood and plundering or looting properties, even if that was by way of Al-
Muwaada’ah (truce) between it and the Quraish and the neighbouring tribes through peaceful treaties, so
that it could be free to engage in the conveying of Allah’s message. However, Quraish refused to sheathe
the sword in the face of the Muslims and refused to allow the Islamic Da’wah to have secure path
provided to it to reach the minds of the people and their hearts.
That which indicates that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was longing for a cessation to the state of war with
his enemies, if only by way of truce and not restricted to their entering into Islaam, was the statement of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬at Al-Hudaybiyyah to Budail Bin Waraqah shortly before the treaty:

ِِ ‫ وأَضَّر‬، ‫إِ َّن قُري ًشا قَ ْد نَه َكْت هم ا ْْلرب‬

‫َّاس‬ َ ْ َ‫ َوُخيَلُّوا بَْي ِِن َوب‬، ً‫ت ِب ْم فَِإ ْن َشاءُوا َم َاد ْدتُ ُه ْم ََّلُ ْم ُم َّدة‬
ِ ‫ني الن‬ ْ َ َ ُ َْ ُ ُ َ َْ
Verily, the Quraish have become consumed by war and it has caused them harm. So if they wish I
will extend for them a period of delay and they will (make the path) free between me and the
people (2).

The meaning of “I will extend for them” means: I would convene a contract (Treaty of peace) with them
to leave fighting for a specific or defined period of time. Ibn ul-Qayyim extracted the following Hukm
Ash-Shar’iy from the Fiqh of this position: “The permissibility of the Imaam initiating the request for a
treaty with the enemy if he saw the interest (Maslahah) of the Muslims in that and that does not rest upon
them initiating the request” (3).

In relation to this, there will be wider scope in forthcoming sections to discuss this subject.

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/189, (2) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/292, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/304].

We presented this brief detour so that the view about the legitimacy (Shar’iyah) of the Qitaal for the
intended purpose of acquiring material gain or wealth (Maal) does not leave any effect within the mind or
self that is far from the inherent true reality behind this legitimacy, which is: That this economic goal from
the goals of Qitaal (fighting) is none other than a means to apply pressure upon the enemy like any other
goal or objective for the purpose of subduing them and to make them respond to the will of their
opponent (1). This also represents a means that both competing or struggling sides utilise against each
other!!

With that, we now come to the conclusion of the fourth and final issue (Mas’alah) of this study and
section which is: Is this Qitaal (fighting) to seize the Maal (property and wealth) of the enemy Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeeillah (in the way of Allah)?

The Fourth Mas’alah (Issue): Is the Qitaal for the sake of seizing the property of
the enemy Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?

I say: It may be that the answer in the positive or affirmation is clear from what has been discussed where
it is not necessary to extend the speech to deal with it.

Yes, the Qitaal (fighting) to seize the property of the enemy is considered to be from Al-Jihaad in the way
of Allah upon two conditions which have previously been explained:

Firstly: That this fighting is linked to the intended aim that it is for the sake of raising high the word of
Allah Ta’Aalaa alongside the intended aim of seizing the wealth of the enemy.

Secondly: That he is free of the intention of Ar-Riyaa’ (showing off and to be seen by men) i.e. the love of
being mentioned, glory, fame and what is similar to that. This means that he is free of the intended aim of
a creation (Makhlooq) from amongst mankind to see what he is undertaking in terms of fighting seeking
man’s pleasure and admiration. As for the intended purpose of acquiring property (i.e. material gain), then
what is intended in respect to being a creation (Makhlooq) is not realised in the Maal (property) that sees
what the fighter is undertaking in terms of fighting so as to praise him and extoll him due to that (2).
[(1) Refer to: “Al-Wajeez Fil Harb”, General Carl Von Clausewitz: p74, (2) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 3/23].

Indeed, if fame resulted and praise existed, whilst that praise was without the intention of the fighter, then
there is no sin or wrong in that. That is in accordance to the Hadeeth related from Sahl Bin Al-
Hanzhaliyah who said:

َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫ َس ِريَة فَالْتَ ُقوا ُه ْم َوالْ َع ُد ّو فَ َح َم َل َر ُج ٌل ِم ْن بََِن ِغفار‬- ‫صلَّى اهللُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّم‬
‫ال ُخ ْذ َها َوأنَا ال َفَّت‬ ِ ُ ‫ث رس‬
َ - ‫ول اهلل‬ ُ َ َ ‫بَ َع‬
‫ ِوِِف‬، ‫أس‬ ِ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، - ‫صلَّى اهللُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّم‬ ِ ِ‫ فَ ُذكِر ذَل‬، ‫ بطَل أَجره‬: ‫ال رجل‬ ِ
َ َ‫ ُسْب َحا َن اهلل ََّل ب‬: ‫ال‬ َ - ‫ك لَر ُسول اهلل‬ َ َ ُُ ْ َ ٌ ُ َ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫الغ َفا ِرى‬
‫ؤجَر‬
َ ُ‫أس أَ ْن ُُْي َم َد َوي‬ َ َ‫ َوَما ب‬: ‫لَْفظ‬
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a expedition and so they met the enemy and a man from
Banu Ghifaar attacked. Then he said: Take it and I am the Ghifaari boy. So, a man said: His
reward is invalidated. That was then mentioned to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. So, he said:
Subhaanallah! There is no problem (in that)! And in another worded version: And there is no
problem that he be praised and rewarded!” (1).

It is noteworthy to mention that there is another opinion in respect to the Hukm upon this fighting for
the purpose of seizing the property in respect to designating the honour of Al-Jihaad to it or not? That
this the opinion which we have seen in the Hanafiy Fiqh and was repeated by Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan
Ash-Shaibaaniy in his book ‘As-Siyar Al-Kabeer’ which was explained by Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy.

This opinion is a follow on to a specific principle in respect to the Qitaal within the land of the enemy
being Jihaad firstly. We can summarize this principle from a number of places within the book indicated
to. It is as follows:

- Every Qitaal (fighting) in which the strengthening of the Deen is realised is Jihaad. The money that is
acquired by its method is a Ghaneemah (booty) and a fifth of it is for the one whom Allah Ta’Aalaa has
specified in the Aayah of Al-Ghaneemah in Soorah Al-Anfaal (2), as was explained previously. Four-Fifths
is divided amongst the Mujaahideen in accordance to the Shar’iy division. For the rider (horseman), there
is two shares (or portions) and for the foot soldier there is one share or portion, as the Hanafi Madh’hab
has stated. Or the rider gets three shares and the foot soldier one according to the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab.
This division is divided equally amongst those who fought and those who did not fight but went out with
the Mujaahideen with the intended aim of Al-Jihaad.

- Every Qitaal (fighting) that does not realise the strengthening of the Deen then it merely represents
fighting the enemy whose blood is expendable and the fighting undertaken to escape from the enemy. The
wealth or property that is attained through it merely represents the attainment of a Mubaah (permissible)
wealth or property similar to the material gain or property that results from hunting, firewood gathering
and cutting grass (or hay) from (amongst) the Mubaah (permissible) properties. This Maal (property) is
not a Ghaneemah (booty) and consequently the fifth is not taken and all of it belongs to the one who has
taken possession over it whether that was an individual or a group. None except the ones who
participated in the action or seizure have a right to the property. Those who did not participate do not
have a right and even if they were accompanying the fighters but did not have any impact in the fighting
or attaining (of the property). In this scenario, the horseman is not preferred over the footman in respect
to the distribution of the property that has been gained amongst the participants. Rather, they are equal in
respect to the division because the giving of preference is a Hukm Khaass (specific ruling) related to the
Ghaneemah (booty) whilst this property is not Ghaneemah!

[(1) Kanz ul-Ummaal, Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi: 4/468, Hadeeth no. 11394. And this Hadeeth came in the Sunan of Abu Dawud:
4089 (4/82-83). Al-Albaaniy b-passed it in his book ‘Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud’ 2/770 except that it was mentioned in the
Haashiyah of ‘Jaami’ Al-Usool’ that: “Its Isnaad is Hasan and An-Nawawi classified it as Hasan in his Riyaad”. Refer to Jaami’
Al-Usool: 2/588. As for the Hadeeth that stated: “Take it from me, I am an Ansaariy boy” then that is another Hadeeth in the
Sunan of Ibn Maajah numbered 2784, 2/931. Al-Albaaniy mentioned it in his book: ‘Da’eef (the weak of) Sunan Ibn Maajah’
no. 614 p116, (2) Soorah Al-Anfaal Aayah 41].

Additionally, that which accomplishes or realises the strengthening of the Deen and the raising high of the
word of Allah from the fighting that takes place in the land of the enemy is of two types:

1 - The Qitaal (fighting) of a Jamaa’ah (group) that has Quwwah (force/power) and Mana’ah (preventative
or protective force) that has entered the land of the enemy for the intended purpose of undertaking Al-
Jihaad, whether that was with the permission of the Imaam or without his permission. That is because as
long as it possesses power then the likelihood to accomplish the strengthening of the Deen through its
fighting is fulfilled and consequently the Qitaal here would be Jihaad because the Manaat (applicational
reality) of Al-Jihaad is that it represents the Qitaal to strengthen the Deen (1).

2 - The Qitaal of an individual or group in which the Quwwah (power/force) and Mana’ah (preventative
force) is not met and fulfilled however they have entered the land of the enemy with the intended aim of
Al-Jihaad with the permission of the Imaam. As long as they went out with the permission of the Imaam
then it is a duty upon the Imaam, as explained by Ibn ‘Aabdinee in his Haashiyah: “To support them in
the case where he has given permission to them, just as it is a duty upon him to support the group
(Jamaa’ah) who possess a Mana’ah (preventative force) if they have entered without his permission, which
is undertaken to protect to the weakening of the Muslims and the Deen. They would not with the support
(Nusrah) of the Imaam be behaving like thieves (or stealthily)” (2).

This then represents the principle for the Qitaal in the land of the enemy to be a Jihaad.

As for when an individual or group that has no Mana’ah (preventative force) or Quwwah (power/force)
enters the land of the enemy without the permission of the Imaam, then their Qitaal is not fighting
directed towards the strengthening of the Deen. Rather, it represents a fighting undertaken to make
material gains and in defence or to escape. It would therefore represent a Qitaal against an enemy whose
blood is expendable and his property is permitted to take.

In a final mention of this principle in respect to the fighting in the land of the enemy being Jihaad in the
way of Allah or not, and what is considered to be Ghaneemah (booty or spoils) or considered merely to
be material gain, we point to that the Ahnaaf (of the Hanafi Madh’hab) have called the Maal (property)
which is merely Iktisaab (a material gain), here, robbery and thievery of a permissible wealth.

[(1) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 4/1590, (2) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/366].

The following was stated in Al-Mughni regarding the Hukm (legal ruling) of the property (Maal) acquired
or obtained by a group possessing no preventative force (Mana’ah) which has entered the land of the
enemy without the permission of the Imaam, according to a weak report from Ibn Hanbal:

“(And the second) I.e. the second mentioned narration concerning the Hukm over the Maal (wealth,
property). It belongs to them and the fifth is not taken from it. This is the opinion of Abu Haneefah. That
is because it represents a Mubaah (permissible) gain that is not from Jihaad and resembles (the gain
attained from) gathering of firewood. That is because the Jihaad only takes place with the permission of
the Imaam or a faction that possesses Mana’ah and Quwwah (power and force). As for this (i.e. with no
permission of the Imaam and no force) then it is only thievery and merely acquisition of a material gain”
(1).
In addition, it may be that the mentioned principle in relation to the consideration of the fighting being
Jihaad or not, and what is built upon that in respect to the Hukm of the property attained or seized in that
way, can be extracted from the Hadeeth:

ِ ‫اهلل ِهي العلْيا فَهو ِِف سبِ ِيل‬

‫اهلل‬ ِ َ‫من قَاتَل لِتَ ُكو َن َكلِمة‬
َ َُ ُ َ َ َ َْ
Whoever fights for the word of Allah to be the highest, he is in the way of Allah (2).

That is because two matters are understood from the Hadeeth in respect to the considering the fighting to
be Jihaad or not. They are:

1 - The intended aim that the fighting be for the sake of raising high the word of Allah.

2 - That which is necessarily required as a result of the fighting being to raise high the word of Allah. That
means that the fighters must actually possess the Quwwah and the Mana’ah (power and force). That is
either through the guarantee of the Imam to provide supplies and reinforcements to them with the
Quwwah and the Mana’ah when they set off with his permission and require reinforcements or assistance.
And it means that without the Quwwah and the Mana’ah, from the fighters, the raising high of Allah’s
word will not be accomplished or realised. Rather, the opposite of that will be true as the Muslims and
(the standing of) their Deen could be weakened as a consequence of their fighting.

Despite that, it appears that Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy does not pay regard to this requirement. Rather, he
pays regard to the intended aim of raising high the word of Allah in the fighting alone as is explicitly stated
in the text of the Hadeeth. That is because, it is permitted in his view, even if it is disliked (Makrooh), but
nor Haraam, for the individual or small group to undertake the risk-taking venture by putting the life at
risk and with the fear of death. For that reason, he considered the fighting of the individual by himself and
the one (or those) who have no force and power to be Jihaad in the way of Allah and that the Maal
(property) taken or obtained from this course of action to be Ghaneemah (spoils of war or booty).

The following was mentioned in the book “Refutation of Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan” by Ash-Shaafi’iy:

“… So, it is that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬established that the single person can undertake an expedition by
himself and more than him (i.e. the one) in number, to inflict the enemy by surprise through a ploy or to
perish where he would have perished in the way of Allah, and Allah has ruled that what the Muslims have
seized has a fifth due upon it whilst the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬has established that four-fifths belongs to
those who seized it (i.e. the property), irrespective if those who seized it were few or many … However,
we have viewed it be Makrooh for a small number to go out against a large number without the Imaam’s
permission whilst the way by which they managed to seize (in terms of property) without the permission
of the Imaam is the same as the way by which they seized it with the Imaam’s permission (i.e. it is the
same in reality and ruling).

And if we were to assume that the one who set out without the permission of the Imaam was in
accordance to the meaning of the thief, then we would have assumed that the armies that set out without
the permission of the Imaam were thieves, and that the fortified people from amongst the Muslims, if an
enemy came to them and then they (the Muslims) waged war against them without the permission of the
Imaam they would be thieves. That is whilst they are not thieves. Rather, they are those who are obedient
to Allah and Al-Mujaahideen in the way of Allah, undertaking that which Allah had made obligatory upon
them in terms of An-Nafeer (answering the call to go out to fight) and Al-Jihaad, and taking the surplus of
good (i.e. booty) from that and merit” (1).
I say: This is the opinion that we outweigh to be the strongest in this Mas’alah (issue) as we had already
concluded from the many evidences that we gathered from the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬which
are considered to represent an explanation of the legislation of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah Ta’Aalaa.

And with this concluding Musk from the speech of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, may Allah’s mercy be upon
him, we conclude this study.

[(1) Book of Refutation of Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan, Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 7/353].

The Eleventh Study

Al-Qitaal (fighting) to Establish the Islamic State

- Introduction about the main issues (Masaa’il) that we will deal with in this study.

- The first (Mas’alah): The opinions of the Islamic writers in respect to the thought of fighting to
establish the Islamic state.

A - The first position: Rejection of the using weapons (or raising arms) to establish the Islamic state:

- Al-Mawdoodiy
- Al-Albaaniy
- Al-Boutiy

B - The second position: The call to Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State:

- Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad in Egypt and their responses to those who reject the use of weapons to establish the
Islamic state.

- The first representation: The Islamic State is only established by a peaceful Da’wah via apolitical party.
- The second representation: The Islamic state is established by seclusion or isolation from the society,
migrating from it to acquire the power, before returning to it, to fight and establish the Islamic state.

- The third representation: Occupation in politics generates a hardness within the hearts …

- The fourth representation: The fear of failure by the attempt to establish the state via Al-Qitaal
(fighting).

- The second Mas’alah (issue): The evidences of those who hold the opinion of the legitimacy of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) or its illegitimacy to establish the Islamic state accompanied by a discussion of the
evidences and an explanation of the opinion that we outweigh to be strongest.

A - The evidences of those who hold the opinion of the illegitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to
establish the Islamic state:

The first evidence: The harm that is expected to result from using weapons (i.e. fighting).

The second evidence: The command of the Shar’a to remain patient over the injustice of the A’immah
(Imaams) and the consideration that the rulers today are like the A’immah who have deviated.

The third evidence: Military coups today are from the modern or contemporary innovations (Bida’).

The fourth evidence: The Shar’iyah method for changing the situations is the changing of what is in the
Anfus (selves pl. of Nafs).

B - The evidences of those who hold the opinion of the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to
establish the Islamic state:

The first evidence: Daleel Ar-Riddah (the evidence of apostasy).

The second evidence: That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib.

The third evidence: The obligation of Al-Jihaad upon every Muslim in every Islamic land that the Kaafir
enemy has occupied.

The fourth evidence: Kufr Bawaah (flagrant disbelief).

C - Discussion of the evidences of the negative position in respect to the issue of fighting to
establish the Islamic state:

1 - Discussion about the issue of Ad-Darar (harm).

2 - Discussion about considering the rulers of today to be like the Shar’iy (legitimate) A’immah who
deviate by way of Fisq (sinful or rebellious acts of disobedience) and Jawr (injustice or oppression).

3 - Discussion about considering military coups to change the situations to be from the modern day or
contemporary innovations.

4 - Discussion about restricting the legitimate change of the deviated or corrupted situations to changing
that which is in the Anfus (selves).
D - Discussion of the evidences of the affirmative or positive position in respect to the issue of
fighting to establish the Islamic state:

1 - Discussion of the Daleel (evidence) of Ar-Riddah (apostasy).

2- Discussion of the Daleel: “That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib”.

3 - Discussion of the Daleel of the obligation of Al-Jihaad at the time of the enemy’s occupation of the
lands and the consideration that the rulers are equivalent to the enemies who occupy the Muslim lands!

4 - Discussion of the Daleel of the Kufr Al-Bawaah (flagrant disbelief).

E - The opinion that we outweigh to be the strongest and its evidence:

- The Bai’ah (pledge) of the Ansaar upon war (Bai’at ul-Harb) on the night of Al-‘Aqabah and the terms
upon the basis of which the pledge was undertaken.
- The method to establish the Islamic state today in our current time.

The third Mas’alah (issue): Is the Qitaal (fighting) undertaken for the purpose of establishing the
Islamic state and its protection Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its terminological (Istilaahiy)
meaning?
 The Eleventh Study

Al-Qitaal (fighting) to Establish the Islamic State and Protect it

Introduction about the main issues (Masaa’il) that we will deal with in this study:

We will enter the subject without (lengthy) introductions as we have had enough of the introductions that
the writers begin their subjects with and particularly in respect to the sensitive subjects or topics as there
introductions generate exasperation and grievance, on occasions, more that they generate longing and
pursuance (or continuation). That is at a time when the self is in a state of anxiousness to acquire
knowledge of a particular thought and a precise or accurate answer for every issue from among the issues
that have been proposed in respect to those topics of great sensitivity.

Out of fear that my words here will resemble those introductions which generate exasperation and
annoyance I endeavour to cut its rope contrary to those writers who prefer to elongate is rope whilst the
writer reasons that he is shedding more light upon the subject that he is about to delve into before actually
delving into it! Let alone, that the reader does not find in that supposed extra shedding of light except an
increase in obscurity covering the issues of the topic that he longs to know the intellectual position that
the writer has taken in respect to the issues of the topic that he is dealing with.

I said: We will enter the subject without (lengthy) introductions. As such, let us do that and be truthful to
what we have said. We will enter into the study of this subject through examining three issues (Masaa’il)
which in my view cover the important points of this important study within the scope of what is linked to
Al-Qitaal (fighting) which represents our main focus in this chapter of this first volume that we are
currently in.

These three Masaa’il (issues) are:

Firstly: The opinions of the Islamic writers in respect to the thought of fighting to establish the Islamic
state.

Secondly: The evidences of those who hold the opinion of the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) or its
illegitimacy to establish the Islamic state accompanied by a discussion of the evidences and an explanation
of the opinion that we outweigh to be strongest

Thirdly: Is Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic state, in respect to those who have upheld it,
considered to be Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah according to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning?
Firstly: The opinions of the Islamic writers in respect to the thought of fighting to
establish the Islamic state.

The opinions of the Islamic writers in respect to this first issue are divided into two positions. These two
positions are:

A - The position that rejects the thought of “Al-Qitaal (fighting) or revolutionary violence or the
use of weapons” to establish the Islamic state.

It is worth noting here that the proponents of this position do not necessarily use the expression “Islamic
State” when presenting the evidences for their opinions. Many of them have preferred to avoid this
expression for some particular reason. Instead, they have used the expression “The Islamic society” or
“Changing the situations or circumstances” or expressions that are similar to these. There is no great
problem in this however, as these statements and those resembling them, when used by those working
within the Islamic Da’wah field, are restricted in their implications in our current time to the meaning of
the expression of “The Islamic state” i.e. the Hukm (ruling) established upon the basis of Islaam, that
applies its Ahkaam and carries its message.

B - And there is another position that calls to the thought of “Al-Qitaal (fighting) or revolutionary
violence or the use of weapons” to establish the Islamic state.

We will restrict ourselves in the study of this first issue to present the opinions of a number of Islamic
writers who support this position or the other one. We will quote some parts from their writings that will
make clear the opinion they view to be correct and call to. We will leave the discussion of what we believe
needs to be discussed in respect to their opinions to when we examine the second issue.

A- The first position: Rejection of violence and forbidding the use of weapons to establish the
Islamic state:

A number of Islamic writers have adopted this position. They include:

1 -Al-Ustaadh Abu l-‘Aalaa Al-Mawdoodiy:

This Islamic writer, who was the Ameer of Jamaat-i Islami in Pakistan, said the following in the
conclusion of his lecture titled: “The duty of young Muslim men today” in Makkah Al-Mukarramah, in the
days of Al-Hajj in the year 1381 AH:

“O honourable brothers … In conclusion, I would like to give you some advice. That is: Do not
undertake secret associations to accomplish the goals and to avoid using violence and weapons to change
the situations. That is because this way also represents a kind of hurrying that does not avail anything and
is an attempt to arrive to the objective by the shortest possible path … The sound and correct radical
change … is that your spread your Da’wah openly and work to reform the hearts and minds of the people
as widely as possible … However, if you hurry in this matter to radically overturn the situation by violent
means and then succeeded to a certain extent in this, then it would only be like the air that enters through
the door to then leave through the window. This is the advice that I wanted to give to everyone engaged
in the Islamic Da’wah” (1).

Another Islamic writer who held this opinion was:

2 - Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy:

This opinion was presented in his comment upon what was mentioned in the “Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyah”
paragraph 72 which stated: “And we do not hold the opinion that our A’immah (leaders) and Wulaat Al-
Umoor (rulers) should be rebelled against, even if they are unjust (or oppressive) and we do not supplicate
for them, and that we should not take our hand away from obedience to them …”. Ash-Sheikh Al-
Albaaniy said commenting upon this:

“I said: Within this there is an explanation for the path to be removed from the oppression of the rulers
who are from our own people and speak our language. That is for the Muslims to repent to their Lord, to
rectify their Aqeedah and to raise themselves and their families upon the correct Islaam so as to fulfil the
speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ ََّل يُغَيِّ ُر َما بَِق ْوٍم َح َّ َّٰت يُغَيِّ ُروا َما بِأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم‬
Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves (Ar-Ra’d: 11).

[(1) Lecture with the title: “The duty of the young Muslim men today”: p26-27].

This was indicated to by one of the contemporary callers to Islaam when he said: “Establish the Islamic
state in your hearts, (then) it will be established for you upon your land (i.e. in reality)”. The way to get rid
of this situation is not as some of the people have falsely imagined manifested in an armed revolution
against the ruler via military coups. In addition to this being from amongst the innovations (Bida’) of this
current time, it is also in contravention to the Sharee’ah texts which include the command to change that
which in the Anfus (selves). Similarly, it is necessary for the base (or foundation) to be reformed for the
building to be established upon it …” (1).

Also from among the Islamic writers proceeding upon this same position and calling to it is:

3 - Doctor Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy:

We can understand his position from many indications mentioned within his book: “And in this way let us
call to Islaam” and from these is his affirmation: “That the establishment of the society upon the pillars of
Islaam, its rule and its system, is nothing other than a reward from Allah Ta’Aalaa that Allah brings into
being for them Himself, in the case where they anticipate it or are not anticipating it, as a recompense for
them applying Islaam upon themselves first and then upon their wives, children and those under their
shelter secondly, and then for making much remembrance (Dhikr) of Allah, being devoted to Him and
supplicating to Him, thirdly” (2).

This limitation to establishing the Islamic society in respect to it being a recompense from Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla that he brings into being for the Muslims in return for their application of Islaam u
upon themselves and others, and in return for their making a lot of Dhikr of Him and being devoted to
Him, acts as an evidence indicating to his rejection of the thought of fighting to correct the situations and
to establish the Islamic society.

This position rejecting the idea of fighting to establish the Islamic society is reiterated and confirmed in
the author’s exhortation to the Muslim to restrict his concern to the Da’wah and do not preoccupy his
mind with changing matters. That is because (in his view) the causes for that change lie only in the hands
of Allah alone. In respect to that he said: “If the Muslim fulfils what is obliged upon him, in respect to the
Da’wah, leaving the results to Allah Ta’Aalaa, and delegates the matter to Him, whilst not exhausting
himself with matters that Allah has not made him responsible for, and not proceeding in the matter like
the one who falsely imagines that the reins of the matters are all in his hand, where he is the one who
steers the causes, brings the results and changes the matters or affairs…” (3).
This then represents the first position in respect to the idea of fighting to establish the Islamic state in our
current time or as some say: “To establish the Islamic society and change the situations”.

[(1) Al-Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyah - Explanation and commentary Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy: p47, (2) And in this
way let us call to Islaam, Ustaadh Doctor Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p49, (3) And in this way let us call to
Islaam, Ustaadh Doctor Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p48].

B - The second position: The call to fight to establish the Islamic state:

It may be that “Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad”, in Egypt, is the most prominent of those representing this position
from amongst the Islamic movements in recent years. Writings have been published clarifying its opinions
and defending them with evidences that they present whilst attacking the other position that rejects the
thought of fighting to establish the Islamic state, accusing them of one of two matters: Either ignorance
of Islaam or cowardice … which will be seen in what follows.

Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah said: “And because this issue, the issue of the sword, and the use of violence
and revolt … in respect to founding the Islamic state or restoring its establishment, because this issue is
from the matters of disagreement … (Because of that) the Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad has been concerned to
search for refutations for all of the objections that have been stirred in respect to adopting Al-Qitaal
(fighting) and violence as a path towards establishing the Islamic state and restoring Islaam to the Muslim”
(1).

There is no harm here to present some of those objections and their responses to them in summary which
will enable us to gain further clarity of these two positions in respect to this issue:

- The first objection: This comes from a movement that calls to Islamic work within a “Hizb Islaamiy”
(Islamic political party) that undertakes its Da’wah within the remits of the prevalent laws within the
society whilst rejecting the thought of fighting to take the authority and then placing Islaam in the position
of implementation through that.

The ‘Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad’ group responded to this movement by arguing that the regime (or system), any
regime, would never permit for effective action to take place (within it) that will destroy that regime (or
system). If the destruction of the current corrupt system (or regime) is the goal and objective, then there is
no way or means to accomplish that through the legal routes, whether as a political party or through
parliament. Indeed, those who say: “We must establish a political party that is part of the (legally
registered) list of existing political parties”, then this effort or theirs will never lead to anything more than
an increase of “Charitable associations” and their political party will never be able to reach “the goal that
they were established to fulfil which is to demolish the state of Kufr”. Rather, the opposite is the case.
Their effort will contribute to the “building of the state of Kufr (disbelief)! That is because they are
participating with their opinions and with their membership of the legislative parliaments in which the
legislating is for other than Allah!” (2).

[(1) Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah’ (The Absent Obligation), presentation and evaluation by Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: p29-30,
(2) Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah’ (The Absent Obligation), presentation and evaluation by Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: p35].

I say: Al-Mawdoodiy previously warned about following a path similar to that which ‘Al-Jamaa’ah Al-
Jihaad’ warned of, when he stated: “So our participation, for example, within a ministry, is not valid (or
correct) and our principles do not believe in that, where it is hoped that by our participation within it we
will get closer to our objective. This is incorrect (and wrong) that is because experimentation of this
process has reaffirmed that a course of action like this does not produce good or wholesome fruits. That
is because those who have control (or dominance) over the ruling are the ones who are in charge of
drawing out the internal and foreign policies and they implement them according to what their interests
and desires dictate. As for those who participate with them with aiming to accomplish noble goals that
they have placed before their eyes, then it becomes inevitable that they go along with them. That means
that in effect they become in the end mouthpieces for them and a tool in their hands, doing with them as
they please, and using (or exploiting) them as they want” (1).

- The second objection: It is presented by a group, as the writer puts it, which claims that they are
currently in a stage of weakness and consequently call to separating and isolating from the society and
making Hijrah from it. That is with the hope that they will attain and gather strength (or power) before
returning to fight to establish the Islamic state.

‘Al-Jama’ah Al-Jihaad’ responded to this by saying that those people should save their effort by
establishing the Islamic state in their own land and then go out from it as conquerors. “They are like the
one who says that he will migrate to the mountains and then return to meet with Fir’aun like Mousaa ( ‫عليه‬
‫ )السَلم‬and then Allah will cause the earth to swallow up Fir’aun and his soldiers. All of that represents
unbridled excesses of the imagination which have not come about except as a result of abandoning the
only correct Shar’iy method for the establishment of the Islamic state”. The method that Allah Ta’Aalaa
specified in His Qawl:

‫ِّين ُكلُّهُ لِلَّ ِه‬ ِ

ُ ‫وه ْم َح َّ َّٰت ََّل تَ ُكو َن فْت نَةٌ َويَ ُكو َن الد‬
ِ
ُ ُ‫َوقَاتل‬
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah (Al-Anfaal: 39) (2).

- The third objection: This has been put forward by a grouping which doesn’t take Islaam beyond the
limits of righteous conduct, Taqwaa, the acts of ‘Ibaadah and rituals or rites. They say that “As-Siyaasah
(politics)” generates hardness in the hearts that distracts them from the remembrance of Allah!

[(1) The duty of the young Muslim men today, Al-Mawdoodiy, p25026, (2) The Absent Obligation (Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah),
Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: 35-36].

‘Al-Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad’ responds to them by saying that Al-Jihaad, meaning the Qitaal (fighting) against
the rulers of the Islamic lands and wresting the authority from them to then apply Islaam, that it is “a
political action” representing the summit of ‘Ibaadah in Islaam: “And whoever truly wants to be occupied
by the highest degrees of obedience and to be at the summit of ‘Ibaadah, then he must undertake Al-
Jihaad in the way of Allah”. That is without neglecting the remainder of the pillars of Islaam and the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬described Al-Jihaad as being “Sanaam ul-Islaam (i.e. its highest part) (1).

They are like the ones who say that: Occupation in politics hardens the heart and distracts from the Dhikr
(remembrance) of Allah. It is as if they are ignoring the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ٍ ‫ضل اْلِه ِاد َكلِمةُ ح ٍّق عِْن َد س ْل‬

‫طان َجائٍِر‬ ُ َ َ َ ُ َ ْ‫أَف‬
The best Jihaad is a word of truth before the unjust ruler (2).

The one who speaks by these philosophies either does not understand Islaam or he is a coward that does
not want to take a firm stance with the ruling of Allah!” (3).

- The fourth objection: This has been raised by a group that do not adopt the view of fighting to
establish the Islamic state out of fear of failure.

‘Al-Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad’ responded to this group with two angles:

The first: It means falling short in respect to implementing the command of Allah to establish the state
whilst the Muslim has been requested to implement this command irrespective of the results!

The second: That it has not fully comprehended the magnetism or appeal of the justice of Islaam that will
draw many supporters to its state and even from those who had no prior knowledge of Islaam!

ِْ ‫ودهِ وذُروةِ سنَ ِام ِه‬

ِ ِ ‫ُخِِبَُك بَِرأ‬
[(1) Ibn Maajah and the text of the Hadeeth is: “‫اد‬ ُ ‫اْل َه‬ َ َ ْ َ ‫ْس ْاْل َْم ِر َوعَ ُم‬ ْ ‫( ”أَََّل أ‬Should I not inform you what the head of
the matter, its pillar and its highest part: Al-Jihaad” no. 3973, 2/1314. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his [Saheeh Sunan Ibn
Maajah] no. 3209, (2) Ibn Maajah: 4011-4012, 2/1329-1330 and Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his [Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah]
no. 3240 and 3241, 2/369, (3) Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah (The absent obligation), Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: p36-37].

In response to those who say, “We fear that we will establish a state and then after a day or two days there
will be an opposing reaction that eliminates what we accomplished”, ‘Al-Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad’ said:

“The establishment of the Islamic state represents the implementation of the command of Allah whilst
results have not been demanded from us. And the one who speaks loudly about this opinion, the one who
has no benefit to his opinions except to impede the Muslims from performing their Shar’iy obligation
through the establishment of the Shar’a of Allah, he has forgotten that by mere fall of the Kaafir’s rule,
that everything will come to be in the hands of the Muslims that will then make it impossible for the
Muslim state to fall. In addition, the laws of Islaam are not deficient nor weak in respect to being able to
subdue every corrupter on the earth who acts outside of the command of Allah. Added to this is that the
laws of Islaam in their entirety are representative of ‘Adl (justice) and you will never find anything other
than being welcomes and even from the one who does not know about Islaam” (1).

The above represents the most significant objections made against ‘Al-Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad’ and their
thought that they call to which is: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State” and their responses
to these objections.

We hope that through this presentation of the statements of both positions in respect to this issue we
have been able to realise the ramifications of the thought represented by each position.

At this point we now come to the second issue in this study which is:

Secondly: The evidences of those who hold the opinion of the legitimacy of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) or its illegitimacy to establish the Islamic state accompanied by a
discussion of the evidences and an explanation of the opinion that we outweigh to
be strongest

A - The Adillah (evidences) of those who hold the opinion that the fighting to establish the
Islamic state is illegitimate:

Those who hold this position use a number of evidences for the deduction of their opinion. These
evidences include:

1 - The first Daleel (evidence):

They use the Darar (harm) that results from the use of weapons as evidence i.e. in respect to Ad-Darar
(harm) being forbidden in the Shar’a based on the statement of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ضَرَر َوََّل ِضَرار‬

َ ‫َّل‬
 There is no harm and no harming (2).

After warning about the use of violence to change the situation Al-Mawdoodiy said: “Verily, this path has
the worst consequences and the most harm compared to any other form” (3).

Al-Mawdoodiy provides a mere indication to the harm of following this path represented in the fear of
opposing forces standing in confrontation to the change that is being undertaken upon the basis of force.
It is as if he is referring to the Fitan (trials) and spilling of blood that would arise from that!

[(1) ‘The absent obligation’, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: p38-39, (2) Al-Muwatta’ and in the commentary of ‘Jaami’ Al-Usool’.
And it was related by Ibn Maajah, Ad-Daaru Qutniy, Al-Haakim and Al-Baihaqiy. Al-Haakim said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad upon the
Shart (conditionality) of Muslim. Al-Jaami’ Al-Usool: 6/644. Hadeeth no. 4929 and it is in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah: 2340. Al-
Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his [Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah]: 1890, 2/29, (3) The duty of the young Muslim man today, Al-
Mawdoodiy: p26].

And he also indicated that the success in bringing change by way of force, if it was to be achieved, would
only represent a temporary success. If we want further clarification of what Al-Mawdoodiy was pointing
to whilst he was silent in this regard, then we say: That the opposing forces at the time of that success
would never remain silent! Consequently, that success would be followed by a failure and the yield of that
in relation to the field of the Islamic Da’wah would not be anything other than the killing of its men, the
pursuit of its youth and young men, a strangulation of its Da’wah, a wasting of its efforts, and a regression
in respect to its path taking it back many years! That is if the matter doesn’t go beyond that to extend to
shameful and disgraceful acts perpetrated by the opposing forces against the private sanctities of the
people who undertook the change by force which would lead to stripping them from the will to stand firm
and be resolute!

2 - The second Daleel (evidence):

This is established upon the basis of considering the people currently in the position of authority today as
being legitimate Imaams (A’immah) who have deviated though Fisq (wilful disobedience) or injustice.
(They say) that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to them is to remain patient with them in accordance to
what was explained in the previous study (1). This Daleel is what Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen
Al-Albaaniy has adopted as explained in his commentary of what came in ‘Al-Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyah’ in
respect to its statement: “And we do not view (i.e. hold the opinion) that is permitted to rebel against our
A’immah (Imaams) and our rulers (Wulaat ul-Amr) and even if they are unjust (or oppressive)”.

Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said in his commentary to this statement: “Indeed, in the patience over their
injustice there is an expiation of the Sayyi’aat (bad deeds). That is because Allah did not put them in
authority over us except due to the corruption of our acts whilst the recompense comes from the type of
action (i.e. if you are bad you will get bad in return). We must therefore strive in seeking forgiveness,
Tarbiyah (education) and reforming the action. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ‫ضا ِِبَا َكانُوا يك‬ ِِ ِ

َ ‫َوَك َٰذل‬
‫ْسبُو َن‬ َ َ ‫ض الظَّالم‬
ً ‫ني بَ ْع‬ َ ‫ك نُ َوَِّل بَ ْع‬
And thus will We make some of the wrongdoers allies of others for what they used to earn (Al-An’aam: 129).

And so if the subjects wish to rid themselves of the Zhulm (oppression) of the oppressive Ameer, then
they must abandon Azh-Zhulm (oppression) themselves” (2). The speech of the Sheikh in this comment
is only referring to the rulers of our current day and the evidence for that was that the context of his
discussion was the military coups that had taken place against the rulers in our current period, in the case
where he forbade them, using the argument of the obligation to remain patient in respect to the rulers.

3 -The third Daleel (evidence):

This is manifested in the consideration that the military coups undertaken to change the situation
represent Bida’ (innovations) of this contemporary age. This is in the case where (in their view) the Shar’a
has forbidden the Bida’ and Muhdathaat (innovations) in accordance to the Qawl of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ٍ ٍ ِ
َ ‫ َوإِ َّن ُك َّل بِ ْد َعة‬، ٌ‫ فَإِ َّن ُك َّل ُُْم َدثَة بِ ْد َعة‬، ‫إِيَّا ُك ْم َو ُُْم َدثَات اْل ُُموِر‬
ٌ‫ضَللَة‬
Beware of the newly invented matters as verily every newly invented matter is a Bad’ah and verily
every Bid’ah is a Dalaalah (misguidance) (1).

4 -The fourth Daleel (evidence):

This is that the Shar’a has defined the manner of how to change the situations by a specific method, which
is the changing of what is in the Anfus (selves):

‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ ََّل يُغَيِّ ُر َما بَِق ْوٍم َح َّ َّٰت يُغَيِّ ُروا َما بِأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم‬
Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves (Ar-Ra’d: 11).

Seeking change by other than this method (in their view) is in contravention to the Shar’iy text (2).

The above are the most significant evidences of those who have adopted the position of rejecting Al-
Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of establishing the Islamic state.

B - The evidences of those who hold the view of the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish
the Islamic state:

Those who uphold this position use a number of evidences (Adillah) to support their deduction. These
include:

1 - The first evidence:

It is the Daleel of Ar-Riddah (apostasy) and that is because: “After the passing of the Khilafah finally in
the year 1924, the removal of the Ahkaam of Islaam as a whole and replacing them with Ahkaam (rulings
and laws) that the West had set” apostasy occurred in respect to the state and the rulers. “That is in the
case where the state apostatised from the Shar’iyah when it replaced it with the laws of the Kaafir West
and likewise the Muslim rulers today came to apostatise from Islaam as they are ruling by other than what
Allah revealed”. “They were then raised upon the colonialist tables, whether crusader or communist, and
did not hold onto bathing from Islaam except the names, even if they prayed, fasted and claimed to be
Muslims”. “In this way, the “Daar” (land) came to raise high the Ahkaam (rulings and laws) of Kufr
(disbelief), even if the majority of its people were Muslims. Consequently, peace (As-Silm) belongs to the
Muslims whilst Al-Harb (war) and Al-Jihaad (with the meaning of Al-Qitaal) needs to be undertaken
against the disbelieving state and the Daar (home) of the apostate rulers! The Muslims must come out (on
mass) and rise up to fight in order to change this miserable disbelieving reality!” (3).

[(1) Abu Dawud: (Jaami’ ul-Usool, Hadeeth no. 67, 1/279). In the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 4607, 4/281. Al-Albaaniy said:
“Saheeh” in his [Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud]: 3851, 3/871, (2) Al-Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyah: Sharh and Ta’eeq (commentary) of
Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy: p47, (3) The Absent Obligation (Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah), Dr.
Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: 21-22].

It is like those who use this evidence want to say that it can be said that the Islamic lands today and its
rulers fall under the same ruling (Hukm) that was issued at the time of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (May Allah
be pleased with him) in respect to those lands in which the rulers apostatised and ceased the application of
the Ahkaam of Islaam (1). Just as many of the people apostatised under their rule. And in the case where
the majority of the Muslims today have not apostatised, then each (reality) needs to be given its own ruling
(i.e. according to its reality). Consequently, the Muslims are not fought but rather just the apostate state is
fought and the apostate rulers for the purpose of restoring the land (Ad-Daar) to being a Daar of Islaam
and to restore the state to being an Islamic state.

2 - The second evidence:

This is the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah (i.e. Shar’iyah principle) that states:

ِ ‫اجب إََِّل بِ ِه فَ ُهو و‬

‫اجب‬ ِ ‫ما ََل يتِ ُّم‬
َ َ ُ ‫الو‬
َ َ َ
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except by it, is Waajib (obligatory)” (2).

That is because Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made Ahkaam Shar’iyah obligatory upon us and they cannot be
implemented except via the Islamic state. Therefore, the Hukm (ruling) of the Islaamic state is Waajib
(obligatory) as what the Waajib cannot be fulfilled except by it, is Waajib (obligatory). Then, the
establishment of the Islamic state is not completed except by Al-Qitaal and consequently the Hukm of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic state is Waajib (obligatory) based upon the Daleel (evidence) of
the Shar’iyah principle: “That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except by it, is Waajib (obligatory)” (3).

3 - The third evidence:

This is the Daleel that Al-Jihaad is Fard upon every Muslim in every Islamic land that the enemy has
occupied: “That is because the enemy in respect to Islamic regions is established within their lands and
indeed the enemy has come to own the reins of matters (i.e. has control over them). And that enemy is
manifested in those rulers who have taken away the leadership of the Muslims. Consequently, undertaking
Al-Jihaad against them is Fard ‘Ain (an obligation on every individual) just like the performance of the
Salaah and the fasting. Just as Allah Ta’Aalaa has said:

‫الصيَ ُام‬
ِّ ‫ب َعلَْي ُك ُم‬ ِ
َ ‫ُكت‬
Fasting has been prescribed upon you (Al-Baqarah: 183).

He Ta’Aalaa has also said:

ُ َ‫ب َعلَْي ُك ُم الْ ِقت‬

‫ال‬ ِ
َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been prescribed upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216) (4).

Meaning: It is obligatory to fight this enemy that has occupied the lands to take the leadership (i.e.
authority) from him and establish the Islamic state.

4 - The fourth Daleel:

This is the Daleel of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (flagrant disbelief) which if it appears means that the ruler no
longer has the right to be heard and obeyed. That is in accordance to the Hadeeth:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
 And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (5).

[(1) Al-Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashidoon, Abdul Wahhaab An-Najjaar: p48-49, (2) Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘ali Hasbullah: p318,
(3) The Absent Obligation: Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: p23-24, (4) The Absent Obligation: p27, (5) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim
(Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 2/1086), Hadeeth no. 36666. The Hadeeth in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7056, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/13 and in
Saheeh Muslim: 1709, 3/1470].

Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah said: “Al-Jamaa’ah Al-Jihaad views that Al-Kufr (disbelief) is Al-Ma’aasiy
(acts of disobedience) and that has spread. Therefore, it is no longer a duty upon the subjects to hear and
obey the rulers of today. In respect to this they drew upon the statement of Al-Qaadiy ‘Iyyaad (476-544
AH/1083-1149 CE): “If he overtaken by Kufr or a change to the Shar’a or a Bid’ah (innovation) he exits
from the Hukm of the Wilaayah (leadership and authority), obedience to him no longer applies and it is
obligatory upon the Muslims to rise up (i.e. by revolt and armed rebellion by violence) against him,
remove him and appoint a just Imaam, if they are capable of doing that” (1). And in the case where it is
not possible to remove the rulers who possess power (or force) and have established their government
upon that without ‘violent revolution’, then there is no way or path left apart from it to remove those
rulers and establish the Islamic state” (2).

These are the Adillah (evidences) for those who hold the position of the legitimacy of fighting to establish
the Islamic state. With that, we have come to the end of our presentation of the evidences of the two sides
about this issue and we will now leap into the section discussing these evidences.

C - Discussion of the negative position towards fighting to establish the Islamic state:

1 - Discussion about the Daleel of “Ad-Darar” (harm):

What is wondrous in respect to the affair of those who hold fast to this Daleel is that they are a people
who have drowned in the sea of pessimism and despair. It has become difficult for anyone of them, as a
result of the depths that they have submerged themselves into, to sense a pulse of will power and
determination or resolve to change that which he witnesses in terms of corrupt and deviated situations or
even the feeling of hope for an escape and way out (from it). That is a will power, resolve and hope that
(only) comes from men who have believed in their Lord, sold themselves to Allah and readied themselves
to support His Deen so that Allah writes the glory and honour of Islaam upon their hands and the
establishment of His state. Those of this argument are those who refrain from the work using “Ad-Darar”
as the pretext and by the same argument they wish to prevent others from engaging in the work!

There is no objection to the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle):

‫ب املنَافِع‬
ِ ‫ض ِّار ُم َق َّدم َعلَى َج ْل‬
َ ‫َدفْ ُع امل‬
َ ُ
“Repelling the harmful matter has precedence over the bringing of the benefits” (3).

Or to the Noble Hadeeth:

‫ضَرَر َوَّل ِضَرار‬

َ ‫ََّل‬
There is no harm and nor harming (4).

May we seek refuge in Allah from making an objection to it and whoever rejects a matter that Islaam has
brought has failed, lost and disgraced himself. Rather, the objection relates to applying the Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah in other than its correct places and then placing them within the wrong contexts. Similarly, the
objection relates to inflating the whispers of fear and fright within some people until they imagine that the
Darar (harm) is a ferocious beast hidden from the sights but is ever ready and present to pounce upon
anyone who wishes to engage in activity that those who object fear.

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Mus;im: 8/35, (2) The Absent Obligation, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ammaarah: 28-29, (3) Usool ul-
Fiqh, Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p290, Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (4) Related by
At-Tabaraani, Ad-Daaru Qutniy, Al-Haakim and Al-Baihaqi. It is in An-Nawawi’s 40 Hadeeth no. 32 related from Abu Sa’eed
Al-Khudriy and he (An-Nawawi) said: Hadeeth Hasan related by Ibn Maajah, Ad-Daaru Qutniy and others with a complete
Isnaad. (Al-Ibtihaaj BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Minhaaj, Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Bin As-Siddeeq Al-Ghamaariy: p242)].

The fear of the harm is a reason for the adoption of a negative position towards the issue of fighting to
establish the Islamic state. If that is the case and premise, then if the benefit (Naf’u) and interest
(Maslahah) were deemed to be most probable in relation to adopting the affirmative position towards this
issue, it would then mean that this affirmative position should be legitimate.

In that case, the matter would return back to the judgement of the contextual measures related to the issue
(Mas’alah). Therefore, if the aspect of harm is evaluated to be strongest, then the action would be
illegitimate. And if the aspect of benefit and interest evaluated to be strongest, then the action would be
legitimate.

In respect to that I say: If the one who used the evidence of “Ad-Daraa” (harm) to forbid the fighting in
this issue would have directed this evidence in this manner then it would have been closer to conforming
to the logic of the evidence itself that he was using. However, to pass the judgement generally and
continuously that unsheathing the weapon in this way has been decreed to be forever harmful is contrary
to the reality!

Yes, it is true that if a Shar’iyah text had come that we fully accept to have been revealed upon this issue
forbidding the unsheathing of the weapon, we would have said: There is no question that the Maslahah
(interest) of every interest is found in what the Shar’a has brought and that the Darar (harm) of every
harm is found in that which the Shar’a has come with. That’s even if our limited and deficient minds view
the matter different to that! That is because we believe that our view in respect to the Masaa’il (issues) is a
limited view whilst the view of the Shar’a in respect to them is not limited. This is expressed in the
statement of the Sahaabiy Raafi’ Bin Khadeej in relation to another in which he said: “The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬forbade us from a matter that was beneficial to us however obedience to Allah and His
Messenger is more beneficial for us, and the most beneficial!” (1).

That is not even to mention that presenting the issue simply and only upon the Daleel of “Ad-Darar”
(harm) alone without any other Shar’iy Daleel leads to what was previously mentioned. That is: The
forbiddance of using weapons when the expectation of harm associated to its utilisation is dominant and
the legality or indeed the obligation of using weapons when the expectation of Maslahah (interest) is
dominant or when the expectation of harm (Darar) resulting from not using it is dominant! There is no
dispute in respect to that rather it means dispossessing this evidence by employing it always to forbid the
use of weapons. It is this in particular that we want to confirm here.

[(1) The Hadeeth was related in respect to the Nahy (forbiddance) of ‘Al-Muzaara’ah’. It was related by Abu Dawud with this
Lafzh (wording): 3395, 4/353. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his ‘Saheeh of Abu Dawud’: 2899, 2/651].

We do not want it to be understood now that we hold the view of the permissibility of using weapons in
respect to this Mas’alah (issue) if the beneficial aspect dominates over the aspect of harm in relation to its
use. That is because we have our own opinion in respect to this issue that we will present at the
conclusion of the discussion of the evidences Inshaa Allah.

2 - The discussion about considering the authority in the Islamic lands today to be like the legally
legitimate A’immah (Imaams) [of the past] who deviated by Fisq (wilful disobedience) or Jawr (injustice or
oppression) … And that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to them is the Wujoob (obligation) to have
patience over them. It is like what was mentioned in the Sharh (explanation) of An-Nawawi of Saheeh
Muslim concerning the Hadeeth:

‫ال تُ َؤُّدو َن ا ْْلَ َّق الَّ ِذي َعلَْي ُك ْم‬

َ َ‫ك ق‬ ِ
َ ‫ف تَأْ ُم ُر َم ْن أ َْد َرَك ِمنَّا ذَل‬ ِ َ ‫إِنَّها ستَ ُكو ُن ب ع ِدي أَثَرةٌ وأُمور تُْنكِرونَها قَالُوا يا رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه َكْي‬ َُ َ َ ُ ٌ َُ َ َْ َ َ
‫َوتَ ْسأَلُو َن اللَّهَ الَّ ِذي لَ ُك ْم‬
Verily, there will be after me the giving of preference (i.e. nepotism) and matters that you
disapprove of. They asked: How do you command the one that reaches that time from us. He ‫ﷺ‬
said: Fulfil the right that is upon you and ask Allah in respect to that which is due to you.

An-Nawawi said in his Sharh: “This contains an urging to hear and obey and even if the one entrusted
with the rule was an oppressor and tyrant. He is given his right in terms of the obedience and he is not
rebelled against or removed. Rather, supplication to Allah is undertaken in respect to disclosing his harm,
repelling his evil and rectifying him” (1).

I say: The obligation of having patience over the legally legitimate A’immah (rulers) when they deviate by
Fisq (wilful sinfulness) or Jawr (oppression) and forbidding rebellion against them is only established upon
a Shar’iy evidence and we have dealt with this issue in the previous study (2). However, do we consider
the rulers of the Islamic lands today, whilst they ruler by other than what Allah revealed, to be like the
legitimate rulers in respect to the obligation of having patience over them and the prohibition to
unsheathe the weapon against them?

Indeed, I view the matter between these and them to be different and consequently the Hukm (legal
ruling) regarding them must also differ.

I mean that the Daleel (evidence) that makes patience obligatory and made rebellion against him in the
situation of Fisq or Jawr Haraam (prohibited) has only come in respect to those rulers or leaders
(A’immah) who have assumed the leadership (Imaarah) via a Shar’iy method and thereafter the deviation
occurred from him. Assuming the leadership by a Shar’iy method means that it must have been taken by
the Bai’ah, based on consent and choice, upon the Kitaab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬,
as was explained in a previous study (3). If these two matters are not realised and they are: The consent
and choice in respect to the taking of the rule and the establishment of the Hukm (rule) upon the Kitaab
of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, then the authority would not be Shar’iy (legally legitimate).
Consequently, the one who possesses that authority does not have due to him what the possessor of the
legally legitimate possessor of the authority has.

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/41, (2) Refer to the study: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the deviation of the ruler”,
(3) Refer to the study: “Fighting against the Usurper of the authority”].

That relates to the Haqq (right) of being heard and obeyed, the obligation to have patience over him and
the forbiddance of unsheathing the sword against him. That is because the Shar’iy text has provided this
right to the rulers that they have called “A’immah” as was mentioned in the Hadeeth:

‫اي‬ ِ ِ ِ
َ ‫يَ ُكو ُن بَ ْعدي أَئ َّمةٌ ََّل يَ ْهتَ ُدو َن ِبُ َد‬
There will be after me A’immah (leaders) who will not be guided by my guidance … (1).

That is whilst the Hukkaam (rulers) are not called A’immah in accordance to the Shar’a unless they take
the authority of the Imaamah (leadership) in the manner that we described (i.e. through the Bai’ah).
It may be that the r++eason for making the hearing and obeying obligatory in the view of those who
follow this Daleel (evidence) is indeed another Hadeeth that states:

‫ َوإِ ْن تَأ ََّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌدَ َحبَ ِش ٌي‬، ‫اع ِة‬ َّ ‫ َو‬، ‫ُوصي ُك ْم بِتَ ْق َوى اللَّ ِه‬
َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬
ِ ‫أ‬
“I urge you to have Taqwa (fear) of Allah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if an
Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you …” (2).

This Hadeeth oversteps, as is understood from the apparent meaning of the text, the issue of consent and
choice, just as it does not state the attachment of hearing and obeying to the ruling by what Allah has
revealed.

The answer to the first point is explained in detail in the study “The Mughtasib As-Sultah” (Usurper of
the authority) in which we said: That the “Ta’ammara” (Becoming of the Ameer) here (in this Hadeeth)
means: That he becomes an Ameer by the Imaarah (leadership) being given to him by other than himself
whether that is by the Imaam or by the consent and choice of the people. And its meaning is not “At-
Tasallut” (gaining mastery of the authority by himself) by force and gaining dominance.

The answer to the second point is explained in detail in the study: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the
deviating ruler” and it can be referred back to without the need to repeat it. In addition, the Usooliy
Qaa’idah (principle) in respect to understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) text by the Muqayyad
(restricted) text (3) obliges restricting the hearing and obeying to the Ameer who rules by what Allah has
revealed. That is because if the text: “even if an Abyssinian slave was to become an Ameer over you”
was to be understood as being unrestricted and absolute (Mutlaq) then it would be obligatory to
understand this unrestricted text in line with the Hadeeth in which a restriction has been mentioned for
this unrestricted understanding, like the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫اب اللَّ ِه‬ ِ ِ ِ ْ َ‫َوإِ ْن أ ُِّمَر َعلَْي ُك ْم َعْب ٌد َحبَ ِش ٌّي ُمَدَّعٌ ف‬
َ َ‫اْسَعُوا َوأَطيعُوا َما أَقَ َام في ُك ْم كت‬
And if a deformed (or mutilated) Abyssinian slave is appointed as an Ameer over you, then hear
and obey him as long as he has established the Book of Allah amongst you (4).

I.e. if he has not established amongst us the Book of Allah, then there is no hearing and no obeying! I say
(in respect to this): It is enough for us in the discussion of the evidence for the obligation of hearing and
obeying the A’immah and ‘Umaraa and the prohibition (Tahreem) of rebelling against them, it is enough
for us to point to the angle of the Daleel so that it is understood to apply to those who rule by what Allah
has revealed. That is without providing the Hukm about the legality of rebelling against them or using
weapons (or military force) to depose them for the purpose of establishing the Islamic state. That is
because we have our own view and opinion in respect to that Mas’alah which will be discussed in the
conclusion following our discussion of all the evidences.

[(1) The Hadeeth was mentioned previously in the study: “Fighting in defence of the private sanctities” and Muslim related it in
his Saheeh: 1847, (2) Sunan Al-Kubraa, Al-Baihaqi: 10/114, (3) Rawdat An-Naazhir Wa Jannat ul-Munaazhir, Ibn Qudaamah
Al-Maqdasiy: 230, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1838, 3/1468].

3 - Discussion of the Daleel (evidence) stating that military coups to change the situation are
from the Bida’ (innovations) of the current age i.e. its falls under: “The worst of the matters, are
its newly brought ones and every innovation is a misguidance” (1).

I say: We will not be dragged into making this issue related to the topic of Bid’ah (innovation) or not
being related to it:
What is the definition of Al-Bid’ah (innovation) in the Shar’a? And does that apply upon the use of
military force or power to establish the Islamic state or not?

Indeed, we will not be dragged into that line of questioning because the issue does not fall within that
context.

The true reality of the military coup is that it is the use of weapons (or military strength) to reach the rule
to accomplish a specific aim or purpose from taking the authority. In our issue the aim of receiving the
authority is to rule by what Allah has revealed and to establish the Islamic state. This is the true reality of
the issue so why should we delve into something unrelated and unnecessary by bring the subject of Al-
Bid’ah (innovation) into this issue of ours?!

Consequently, the issue is: The use of weapons to apply the Ahkaam of Islaam which will not reach the
place of application except by this path or method. Has a Shar’iy Daleel come providing a green light in
respect to this path so that the proceeding in it towards Al-Qitaal (fighting) is legitimate? Or does it
provide a red light making this path towards fighting forbidden? This is our issue and as long as the one
who holds this evidence or argument about Bid’ah does not address the issue within its correct context,
then we do not have anything, in relation to this argument, for the discussion to revolve around. Let us
therefore move on to the discussion of another Daleel (evidence and argument).

[(1) Muslim: 867, 2/592].

4 - Discussion of the evidence of the one who says that the Shar’a has defined a method for
changing the circumstances or situation with a specific method. That is the changing of what is
in the selves based on the Qawl of Allah:

‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ ََّل يُغَيِّ ُر َما بَِق ْوٍم َح َّ َّٰت يُغَيِّ ُروا َما بِأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم‬
Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves (Ar-Ra’d: 11).

Based upon this, seeking to change the situation by other than this method contravenes or violates this
Shar’iy text. I say: Preventing the scope of some of the Shar’iyah texts from taking on board the legislated
wider extension of their meanings, leads to incorrect Ahkaam in respect to the contexts of these texts to
treat that which is intended to be treated in terms of issues … that is one matter.

Another matter is: Seeking the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah for the actions of the human must be by the way of
the specific texts related to the particular actions which it is desired to deduce the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy for.
Consequently, if we have not found a specific text encompassing that action, if there is no ‘Illah (legal
reasoning) for the specific text applicable to that action and no Ijmaa’ dealing with that action specifically,
then at that time we would resort to the general text (An-Nusoos Al-‘Aammah) like this Noble Aayah.

Additionally, how is it even understood from this Noble Aayah that establishes a great foundation from
the foundations of change and the most applicable to the world of the Nafs and societies, that the
removal of the material obstacle standing in the way of the desired change, by a force sufficient enough to
break that obstacle and cast it far away from its path, is forbidden? How is that understood?

Indeed, the existence of this incorrect concept within a particular society, which is: “Forbidding the
breaking of the power by a power to rectify the situation which the people are demanding”, the existence
of an incorrect concept like this is what prevents that desired change from occurring. Consequently, if the
people of a particular society changed what had become established within them of incorrect concepts like
this and then replaced it with the correct concept which is: “The necessity to break the material power
obstructing the path to the sought changed via a capable material force” and this concept then regulated
their conduct causing them to move to demand or seek the material power that is capable of removing the
material obstacle that has imposed the unjust and oppressive circumstances over them which they reject
and then this power supports those demanding the correction of the situation … I say: If that change in
the concept happened within the world of the Nafs (self) and then mobilised and motivated it upon its
way, then the change of the external situation will then be realised and achieved in accordance to the Qawl
of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ ََّل يُغَيِّ ُر َما بَِق ْوٍم َح َّ َّٰت يُغَيِّ ُروا َما بِأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم‬
Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves (Ar-Ra’d: 11).

Consequently, when this Noble Aayah takes on board the natural wider extension of its meaning,
according to the principles of language and the Sunan (natural laws) of Allah in respect to the creation, it
would call to another approach regarding our issue: “The use of weapons (or force) to establish the
Islamic state and change the situation”. That is because in respect to this Aayah:

‫إِ َّن اللَّهَ ََّل يُغَيِّ ُر َما بَِق ْوٍم َح َّ َّٰت يُغَيِّ ُروا َما بِأَن ُف ِس ِه ْم‬
Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves (Ar-Ra’d: 11).

In respect to it, the word “‫”ما‬

َ (Maa) establishes generality (Al-‘Umoom) (1) however that is within the
limits of the natural relationship between that which is within the Nafs (the self) and what is external to
the Nafs in terms of situations, which are required to be brought into being, in their description as being
results of those maters present within the Nafs.

The external situations are not of one single type but rather are many types governed by different laws.
Being resultant from matters within the Nafs, which bring them about or motivate generating them,
dictates that those Nafsiyah matters will also be different.

- So, whoever seeks to change a deteriorating situation of ignorance amongst the people to one of
knowledge, whilst they represent two external realities or situations, then he must first change what exists
within the Nufoos (selves) of the people in respect to their acceptance of their reality so that they are
disgusted by the reality of ignorance and see the necessity to attain the necessary knowledge. Then, if that
change within the Nafs takes place, then the drive would be towards attaining the knowledge in the
centres where it is provided and as a consequence the change of the external situation from ignorance to
knowledge would have taken place!

- And whoever seeks to change the situation of bad health and illness spread amongst the people to a
situation of health, whilst they represent two external situations, then he must first change what exists
within the Nufoos (selves) of the people from their acceptance of their reality to being disgusted about the
reality of bad health and illness and see the necessity to attain the required health. Consequently, if that
change took place within the Nafs then the drive will be towards attaining health within the health centres
and towards the means of delivering it whilst combating those matters which are in opposition to that. In
this way, the external change from bad health to good health and recovery would take place as a
consequence.

In summary: Every matter is reached through its natural causes that lead to it and that is what the Noble
Aayah guides to in relation to connecting between the world of the Nafs (self) and the external world.
And in respect to the external world regarding the political and ruling matters (or affairs), there are two
matters that lay the foundation for deviation:

The first matter: Acceptance of the deviated situation or lack of concern or care in respect to changing it.
The second matter: A power that protects that reality.
[(1) Al-Manaahij Al-Usooliyah Fee al-Ijtihaad Bir-Ra’y Fee At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Fathi
Ad-Durainiy: 510].

The changing of this external world (or reality) only occurs by way of the natural causes leading to the
change i.e. via two matters in the world of the Nafs (self) which have a natural relationship with what
exists in the external world.

Firstly: The change would occur by generating distaste upon a corrupted or deviated reality accompanied
by concern to change it and awareness about the alternative in addition to commitment to it.

Secondly: It is necessary to have Imaan (belief) in the necessity to make available the power supportive of
the change that is sufficient to remove the oppressing power and to defend the reality that is wanted to be
changed to accompanied by efforts to make that power available and to use it in the process of change or
to place it at a state of readiness to use it if the situation requires or necessitates that.

- Consequently, if we were to restrict ourselves to the first matter in respect to changing that which is
within the Nafs which is: Changing the acceptance of the reality to resentment towards it and a yearning
for an alternative to replace it, then only that which corresponds to that in respect to changing the reality
would take place i.e. there would be a change in the opinions, demands and the commitment of
individuals, in their individual capacity, regarding what they can commit to in respect to the desired or
sought after situation.

- Then if the second matter in respect to changing what is within the Nafs (self) occurred which is: The
Imaan (belief) in the necessity of making available the force supportive of the change which is sufficient to
remove the opposing force from its path, and then that power was in fact made available, then the other
change would take place. That is:

- Either by the opposing power stepping aside from the confrontation, out of fear of the new power, just
like what happened in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah when the forces of Shirk (polytheism) were quashed
by the power of the Ansaar and then consequently transformed into a group of hypocrisy in respect to the
new power out of fear of their strength if they were to openly express their animosity, hostility or oppose
them!

- Or a confrontation could occur and Allah would judge between the two sides according to His Hikmah
(wisdom) Ta’Aalaa. If then the victory was for the people of change, then it would be by the power of
Allah and His Tawfeeq, in addition to their following of what He had commanded, that Allah had written
for them and destined that victory!

- If that didn’t happen (i.e. victory for those wanting the change) then due to a matter that Allah has willed
that change was delayed. And those who had attempted the change and met their Lord (by death), then by
their Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) they would be the happiest! That is whilst it is a duty upon the
remainder to resume their proceeding upon the legislated and rewarded path until Allah permits the
victory. And every appointed event has been written!

This is what is to be said regarding the discussion of the evidences of those who forbid the use of
weapons (or force) to establish the Islamic state and change the situation.

We will now move on to a new discussion.

D - Discussion of the evidences of the affirmative position in the issue of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to
establish the Islamic state.

1 - Discussion about the Daleel of Ar-Riddah (apostasy):

This relates to the consideration that the Islamic lands today along with their rulers are in a condition or
state of Riddah (apostasy) with the exclusion of the ruled over Muslims (who are not considered to be in
such a state). Consequently, the people of apostasy are fought to establish the Islamic state in accordance
to the manner that we detailed previously when we first mentioned this Daleel (evidence and argument).

I say: The discussion of this Daleel deals with two points which are:

- Are the Muslim rulers considered to be Murtaddeen (apostates) is they rule by other than what Allah has
revealed?

- Is it permissible for a group from the Muslims to kill or fight against the apostates whilst they do not
possess a Shar’iy (legally legitimate) authority?

The answer to the first point:

This is based upon the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ك ُه ُم الْ َكافُِرو َن‬

َ ِ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئ‬ ِ
َ ‫َوَمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِبَا أ‬
And whoever rules by what Allah has revealed then those are the disbelievers (Al-Maa’idah: 44).

The correct view: Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed have been given three descriptions
by Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla within the Aayaat that follow each other in Soorah Al-Maa’idah:

‫ك ُه ُم الْ َكافُِرو َن‬

َ ِ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئ‬ ِ
َ ‫َوَمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِبَا أ‬
And whoever rules by what Allah has revealed then those are the disbelievers (Al-Maa’idah: 44).

‫ك ُه ُم الظَّالِ ُمو َن‬

َ ِ‫َنزَل اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئ‬ ِ
َ ‫َوَمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِبَا أ‬
And whoever rules by what Allah has revealed then those are the Zhaalimoon (oppressors, transgressors) (Al-Maa’idah:
45).

ِ ‫ك هم الْ َف‬ ِ َّ َ ‫َوَمن َّملْ َُْي ُكم ِِبَا أ‬

‫اس ُقو َن‬ ُ ُ َ ‫َنزَل الل هُ فَأُولَٰئ‬
And whoever rules by what Allah has revealed then those are the Faasiqoon (wilfully sinful and disobedient) (Al-Maa’idah:
47).

Detail has been mentioned by the Sahaabah and ‘Ulamaa allocating each of these three descriptions to
those categories which rule by other than what Allah has revealed. Its summary is as follows: That the one
who rules by other than what Allah has revealed denies or disavows what Allah has revealed or doubts its
viability or suitability for ruling, or believes that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is more
appropriate (or better) than ruling by it, then in such a case the ruler like this would be a disbeliever and
would be considered to be a Murtadd (apostate), if before that he was categorised as being a Muslim.

- If, however the ruler who ruled by other than what Allah has revealed is not linked to the above but was
rather motivated by another factor, like the following of his desires or due to weakness or fear from
opponents or enemies, then in such a case the ruler would be a Faasiq and Zhaalim (wilfully disobedient
and oppressive or transgressing) but not a Kaafir (disbeliever) (1). Consequently, the ruler such as this
from the Muslims would not be considered to be a Murtadd (apostate) from Islaam if he was to practise
the ruling upon this basis. In all circumstances, however, it is necessary for there to be a Qat’iy (definite)
Daleel (evidence) that provides certainty in respect to a particular ruler of the Muslims ruling by other
than what Allah has revealed based upon his doubt about the suitability or soundness of Islaam to be in
the place of ruling or to establish that he believes that ruling by other than Islaam is better than Islaam, or
any other matter by which he would be considered to have left the Millah (i.e. Deen of Islaam). That is
necessary for such a ruler to be considered to be a Murtadd. In the absence of such a definite evidence, it
is not permitted to declare people or a ruler to be a Kaafir based upon a mere doubt or outweighed
presumption. That is in accordance to what the noble Hadeeth guided to:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تَ َرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (2).

And Al-Burhaan means: Ad-Daleel Al-Qaati’ through which certainty is attained (3).

As for the answer to the second point which was: Is it permitted for a Jamaa’ah group from amongst the
Muslims to kill or fight the people of apostasy whilst they do not possess the legitimate legal authority
(As-Sultah Ash-Shar’iyah)? The answer is: That the establishment of the Hudood (prescribed set
punishments) and from them the Hadd (prescribed punishment) for Ar-Riddah (apostasy) represents the
killing that is in accordance to the dictates of the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ َ ‫من ب د‬
ُ‫َّل دينَهُ فَاقْ تُلُوه‬ َ َْ
Whoever changes his Deen then kill him (4)

The same applies to the fighting of the apostates until they are killed or repent. I say: All of that is only the
right of the Imaam (and his jurisdiction alone). Therefore, it is not permissible for them to undertake the
application of these Ahkaam (rulings) over the people (5).

[(1) Refer to: “Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/92-94, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/13. Related by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim:
(Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086). In Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7056 and in Saheeh Muslim: 1709, 3/1470, (3) Daleel Al-
Faaliheen, Sharh Riyaad As-Saaliheen: 1/457, (4) Al-Bukhaari: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 1801, 3/481) and in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3017,
Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/149, (5) Al-Muhadh’dhab: 2/269].

That is because in respect to the Ri’aayah (guardianship) of the affairs of the Ummah according to the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, including the application of the Hudood and the affairs of fighting, a Shar’iy text
has come to specify them to the Imaam exclusively. The Daleel (evidence) is the statement of the
Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ول َع ْن َرعِيَتِه‬ ُ ‫فَا ِْل‬

ٌ ‫مام َر ٍاع َوُه َو َم ْس ُؤ‬
Consequently, the Imaam is the shepherd and he is responsible over his flock (i.e. subjects) (1).

That includes everything apart from that which the Shar’iy Daleel has come with which grants the
permission for individuals to undertake some of that Ri’aayah (guardianship or caretaking) in the absence
of the Imaam or needing to return back to him. That is like, for example, what has been mentioned in
respect to the application of the Hadd (prescribed punishment) for Zinaa and other than it, by the master,
over his male or female slave, without raising the matter to the legitimate legal authority (2).
However, nothing has come related to the matter of applying the Hadd of Ar-Riddah (apostasy) and
fighting the Murtaddeen (apostates) that permits the undertaking of that by individuals and consequently
the matter of its application remains restricted to the legitimate legal person in authority.

Therefore, in respect to a group from amongst the Muslims raising arms to apply the ruling of apostasy
against those in authority, in their description as being apostates, and even if there is a definite evidence
(Daleel Qat’iy) to affirm their consideration as being apostates, I say the following: That their undertaking
of that whilst they do not possess a Shar’iy authority or before assuming the authority making their
authority legitimate, is considered to represent an infringement upon the mandatory powers or jurisdiction
of the Imaam. That is because it is the Imaam alone who can implement these Ahkaam or the one whom
the Imaam has delegated to do that.

From this discussion about the evidence of Ar-Riddah (apostasy) we extract two true realities:

- That rushing or being hasty to pass the judgment of apostasy upon those ruling by other than what Allah
has revealed without a Daleel Qat’iy (definite evidence) is a matter that is not permitted.

That the fighting of the apostates (Murtaddeen) is a Hukm (ruling) that the Shar’iy (legally legitimate)
Imaam who possesses the authority carries out and it does not represent a method from amongst the
methods to assume the rule and establish the Islamic state.

2 - Discussion about the Daleel (evidence or argument) based upon the Shar’iyah principle:
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except by it, is Waajib” (3).

This is based on the argument that the ruling by what Allah has revealed is an obligation and that is not
completed or fulfilled except by the establishment of the Islamic state. Consequently, its establishment is
an obligatory matter based on the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle):

ِ ‫اجب إََِّل بِ ِه فَ ُهو و‬

‫اجب‬ ِ ‫ما ََل يتِ ُّم‬
َ َ ُ ‫الو‬
َ َ َ
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (obligatory)”

I say: In respect to the use of a Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) to reach a particular Hukm in a particular
Mas’alah (issue) without paying regard to the specific texts that govern that issue when those texts exist or
without paying regard to other Shar’iyah principles when there are no specific texts governing that issue.
In respect to that I say: Following this methodology or path to deduce the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah for
Masaa’il issues) leads to chaos. Indeed, it leads to contradictory Ahkaam (rulings) for the same single issue.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2409 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/69, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/245, (3) Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali
Hasbullah: 318].

For example, in relation to this issue of ours: “The issue of using weapons to establish the rule of Allah” it
is possible for some to say: Unsheathing the weapon against the Muslims is Haraam due to the evidence
of the statement of the Messenger of Allah:

‫س ِمنَّا‬
َ ‫َلح لَْي‬
َ ‫الس‬
ِّ ‫َم ْن َحَ َل َعلَْي نَا‬
Whoever raises a weapon against us is not from us (1).

And the establishment of the Islamic state is Waajib. However, it is not fulfilled except by drawing
weapons which is Haraam according to the above deduction (based upon the Hadeeth). Therefore, the
Haraam and the Halaal come together in respect to one single issue whilst the Shar’iyah principle states:
“The Halaal and the Haraam do not come together except that the Haraam dominates or takes
precedence over the Halaal” (2) i.e. it is obligatory to implement the Hukm of Haraam and that is the
prohibition of drawing weapons (or using fighting force).

Similarly, it is possible for some to also say:

Undertaking the Waajib which is the application of the Hukm of Allah represents a Maslahah whilst the
perpetration of the Haraam which is the shedding of blood of the Muslims represents a Mafsadah
(harmful or corrupting matter). That is whilst the Shar’iyah principle states: “Repelling the Mafaasid
(harmful matters) takes precedence over attaining the Manaafi’ (benefits)” (3). It is in this way that
instability and chaos spreads regarding the process of deducing the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and the reason
for that is a number of matters. They include:

- The presence of a previous Hukm (Judgement) that had previously been formulated in the mind,
amongst some, and then an attempt is made to hunt for evidences that provide (or support) that
judgement or ruling (Hukm).

- The lack of ability and competency to extract and deduce the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah from the Adillah
(evidences).

[(1) Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and At-Tirmidhi (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 7517, 10/57). The Hadeeth in Al-Bukhaari: 6874, Fat’h ul-Baari’:
12/192, Muslim: 100, 1/98, (2) Nihaayat As-Saul Fee Sharh Minhaaj Al-Usool: 4/503. In ‘Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy’, Az-
Zuhailiy: “And Al-Aamidiy and Ibn ul-Haajib said: The Muharram (prohibited) is given precedence over the Moojib (obliged):
That is because the concern of the Shar’a and the ‘Uqalaa’ (rational people) is do repel the Mafaasid is more affirmed than their
concern for the acquisition of the Maslaalih”: 2/1196. Refer to the extraction of the Shar’iyah principle in ‘Al-Ibtihaaj Bi
Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Minhaaj’: p264, (3) Majallah Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah, Article: 30 p15. And Usool ul Fiqh Al-Islaamiy,
Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98, (4) The following came in the book “Al-Hisbah Fil Islaam” by Ibn Taymiyyah
pages 64-65: “If the Masaalih and the Mafaasid clash (or in conflict with each other) … or jostle with each other, then it is
obligatory to outweigh the strongest of them … However, the evaluation of the measures of the Masaalih and the Mafaasid is
the Sharee’ah measure. So, whenever the person is capable of following the texts he does not divert away from them otherwise
he would perform Ijtihaad by his Ra’y (opinion, examination) to understand the Ashbaah and Nazhaa’ir (which resemble and
are equal or comparable) …And it is rare that the Nusoos lack in respect to providing an indication to the rulings…”.

- Just as the reason could be in the views of others, the difference of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib (schools of
thought) in respect to the Usooliy principles and paths of deduction which leads to a difference in the
Hukm upon a single issue.

In spite of that, it doesn’t concern us here to present or list the reasons for Ikhtilaaf (difference or
disagreement) amongst the Fuqahaa’. All that concerns us here is that the example of the principle of
“That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except by it, is Waajib” is only used when there
is no difference regarding it. That is when a particular matter has been requested to be fulfilled but it is
not arrived at except by a matter which is in origin from the Mubahaat from amongst the matters that
have been decreed (1). So, in such a reality it is said: “That which the Waajib (obligation) is not
fulfilled except by it, is Waajib” i.e. The Mubaah that specifies the path or way of accomplishing the
Waajib (obligation) becomes Waajib.

However, if the matter that the Waajib is not fulfilled except by it, is in origin forbidden, like the drawing
of the weapon in the issue that we are addressing, do we then make it permissible to fulfil that Waajib
using the Hujjah (proof and pretext) of that Shar’iyah principle? No, of course not, as long as that Waajib
is not covered by another Shar’iyah principle: “The Darooraat (necessities) make the Mahzhooraat
(prohibited matters) Mubaah (permissible”! (2).

Indeed, if a Shar’iy text had come exempting this circumstance of fighting to establish the Islamic state
from falling under this forbiddance of drawing the weapon, then the Daleel (evidence) here would
represent the exempting text and not the Shar’iyah principle: “That which the Waajib (obligation) is
not fulfilled except by it, is Waajib”

Despite that, we are not currently discussing that issue, the issue of fighting to establish the state, but
rather here we are discussing the evidences only and the soundness of using them as evidences for
deduction.

In summary: Reliance upon the principle: “That which the Waajib (obligation) is not fulfilled except
by it, is Waajib” in isolation, in respect to the legitimacy of fighting to establish the Islamic state, without
basing the deduction upon specific evidences related to the Mas’alah (issue) represents a matter that
cannot be accepted from those who advocate it!

3 - Discussion of the Daleel (evidence) that Al-Jihaad is Fard upon every Muslim whose land has
been occupied by the enemies accompanied by the consideration that the rulers of the Muslims
today are the enemies of the Ummah and that the rulers have occupied the land and seized the
authority within them, making it necessary to declare Al-Jihaad against them.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam Fee Usool Al-Ahkaam, Al-Aamidiy: 1/97, Raudat An-Naazhir Wa Junnat ul-Manaazhir: 36, (2) Majallah Al-
Ahkaam Al-‘Adliyah, Article: 21 p14. And Usool ul Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98].

I say: This speech is built by its proponents upon the basis that the rulers of the Muslims have become
Murtaddeen (apostates) due to their ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, according to the same
viewpoint as those we discussed previously who have adopted that view. However, even with the reliance
upon this basis and viewpoint, is the situation in the lands of the Muslims the situation of enemies seizing
control over the lands? And following that: Is it obligatory to declare a general call to arms to cleanse or
purify the land from this occupation?

i.e. Has the situation of this land or that land from amongst the Muslim lands become like the situation of
Palestine that is occupied by the Jews? In the case where the fighting to purify (and liberate) the land from
the occupying Jews represents a matter that no one disagrees upon?

The answer to this question in the view of those whose Daleel (evidence and argument) we are discussing
is yes! According to what is apparent in their speech.

That is whilst my answer is that the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i are more precise than to make two issues or
situations into one and then consequently provide the same ruling to them, which in this case is the ruling
of the legal legitimacy to fight to purify the lands from the occupation of those enemies.

The furthest that the situation of the Muslim lands can reach when the ruler disbelieves after being
Muslim, if we have accepted that, is that he must be deposed as has been indicated in the Shar’iy text
related to disputing the authority of its people when flagrant disbelief (Kufr Bawaah) manifests. And that
is like what Al-Qaadiy ‘Iyaad stated as quoted earlier:

“If Kufr (disbelief) overtakes him (i.e. the ruler) … Then it is obligatory upon the Muslims to stand up
against him and remove him … if it is possible (or within their capability) to do that” (1).

However, no one has said that the lands of the Muslims have come to take the Hukm of having been
taken over (or seized) by the disbelievers and that the Tareeqah (method) to liberate them from this
occupation is: Declaring Al-Jihaad, in its description as being Fard ‘Ain (an individual obligation) upon
every Muslim in those lands in which the authority has been taken over by a man who rules by other than
what Allah has revealed. Rather, the reality in such a case differs from the reality in the lands which have
fallen under occupation of the colonialist enemies. That is because the lands in this case, where the ruler
has become a Kaafir, still remain lands that the Muslims own (or possess) and lands which the Muslims
defend from foreign aggression. That is even if violations have taken place in respect to non-Muslims
taking some of the ruling posts. That is because these violations have their (own) Hukm within the Shar’a
according to what they are, whilst these lands do not transform from being independent Islamic lands to
occupied Muslim lands or falling under the Hukm of colonialism! As for the lands which have actually
been occupied by the enemies then they are no longer lands that the Muslims possess (or own), in
accordance to the reality, and they no longer defend the Muslims against the foreign enemy. Rather, they
have become an acquisition, according to the reality, of those occupying enemies and they are the ones
who assume the defence of their occupation against others, whether it is from the Muslims or other non-
Muslims! In that case, the fighting here against those occupiers would be Qitaal (fighting) against the
disbeliever colonialists which is from Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim: 8/35].

In summary: Considering the Islamic lands today to be lands occupied by the enemies due to those in
authority within them ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and then consequently Al-Jihaad is an
obligation upon every Muslim whose land has been occupied by the enemy … In respect to this I say:
That considering the situation of the Islamic lands in this way represents an inaccurate description of the
reality!

We will now move onto the discussion about the final Daleel (evidence or argument) of those who have
adopted the affirmative position in respect to the issue of fighting to bring down the authority ruling by
other than what Allah has revealed and establish the Islamic state in its place.

4 - Discussion of the Daleel of Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah (flagrant disbelief):

It may be that out of all the evidences (or arguments) used by the proponents of the idea of fighting to
establish the Islamic state, that this represents the strongest from amongst them. That is due to the
explicitness of the legality of disputing the authority when Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah manifests. That is like the
Daleel:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof from Allah (1).

That is amongst other evidences that were previously presented in the study: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against
the deviation of the ruler” and consequently there is no need to repeat them. However, in that study we
have discussed this Daleel and we viewed that this text: “unless you see Kufran Bawaahan (flagrant
disbelief)” does not apply to the Islamic lands today in which the Kufr Al-Bawaah has manifested. That
is because the Siyaaq (context) of the Ahaadeeth indicating the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal due to the
appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah, and what takes its Hukm (ruling), in addition to its expressions, only
indicate to a specific situation or case in relation to the legitimacy of that fighting. That situation is the
changing and moving from the Hukm (ruling) proceeding upon the Ahkaam of Islaam which then
undergoes a change or transformation through the appearance of the Kufr Al-Bawaah. It is this specific
circumstance that the Shar’iyah texts related to the legal legitimacy of fighting have come for.

(1) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim (Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh: 3666, 2/1086). Fat’h ul-Baari’: 13/8. In Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7056 and in
Saheeh Muslim: 1709, 3/1470].

However, in the situation where the Hukm (ruling) of disbelief has become settled, the manifestation of
the Kufr Al-Bawaah has continued and it no longer represents a situation of transformation and change,
then the texts about fighting due to the Kufr Al-Bawaah do not apply to this settled and continuous
situation of the state of the manifestation of Kufr Al-Bawaah. This is according to its details that we
previously explained in the special study related to this issue and consequently we will not repeat what we
have already said here (1).

By that, we have come to the end of our discussion of the evidences of both positions: The affirmative
and the negative in respect to the issue of fighting to establish the Islamic state.

The general observation in respect to them all is that they are Adillah (evidences) that have stretched out
their hand to address this Mas’alah but were incapable of taking hold of it because they were far away
from it. Consequently, they were not able to deal with the issue like someone who was not able to take
hold of it in his hands, to examine it, turn it about between his palms and then issue a Hukm (judgement)
in respect to it! That is despite representing one of the most serious issues upon which Islaam is
established in the society and the rule. That is: The issue the issue of the Islamic state and the method to
establish it within the realm of life for the ruling to be by what Allah has revealed.

Now we enter into providing the opinion that we outweigh to be strongest in respect to this Mas’alah
(issue) accompanied by a presentation of the Daleel that deals with this issue directly and which has been
detailed in the Prophetic Sunnah to become like an item of clothing that perfectly fits this issue, in the
case where the Daleel and the issue were made for each other.

E - The opinion that we outweigh to be strongest and its Daleel (evidence):

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫صلُّوا َك َما َرأَيْتُ ُموِِّن أ‬

‫ُصلِّي‬ َ
Pray as you see me pray (2).

And he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ َ‫خ ُذوا ع ِِّن من‬

‫اس َك ُك ْم‬ َ َ ُ
Take from me your rituals (i.e. in Hajj) (3).

And Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, in a general text that encompasses the Salaah and Hajj just as it encompasses
other than them in respect to all of the remaining Ahkaam of Islaam said:

‫ُس َوةٌ َح َسنَةٌ لِّ َمن َكا َن يَْر ُجو اللَّهَ َوالْيَ ْوَم ْاْل ِخَر َوذَ َكَر اللَّهَ َكثِ ًريا‬ ِ ِ
ْ ‫قَ ْد َكا َن لَ ُك ْم ِِف َر ُسول اللَّه أ‬
There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose
hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often (Al-Ahzaab: 21).

(1) The study: “The Qitaal against the deviation of the ruler”, Study 6, (2) Al-Bukhaari (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 3820, 5/576). In
Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 631, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 2/111, (3) Muslim, Abu Dawud and An-Nasaa’iy: 1083, 3/285 and in Saheeh Muslim:
ِ ‫ ”لتَأخ ُذوا‬2/943].
1297 with the wording: “‫مناس َك ُك ْم‬ ُ

Based upon this introduction we say: Just as we must perform our Salaah (prayer) like the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬performed it and we must undertake our Hajj just as the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertook it,
likewise we must establish the Islamic state just as the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬established it. That is
because the Shar’iy text has specified for us the direction of the example and model in respect to every
issue from amongst the issues of our lives and included amongst them is the issue (Mas’alah) of the
establishment of the Khilafah.

So how did the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬establish it? And did he permit war and fighting for the sake of its
establishment or not? This is the issue, its context and from here its Daleel is looked for.

- As for the talk about the legal legitimacy of the establishment of the Islamic state in origin, before
discussing the manner of how to establish it, then there is no need to examine it in depth or take time on
it. That is because the legal legitimacy is a matter that has been firmly settled and nobody with rational
speech or an acceptable Daleel (evidence) debates that!

Al-Ustaadh Dr. Fathi Ad-Durainiy responded to the doubts raised by some of the modern writers
regarding this issue and stated: “Politics within Islamic law is not a temporary passing matter where
circumstances have compelled for it to be taken to manage the affairs of the Muslims in their new society
in ‘Al-Madinah’ after the Hijrah (migration). Rather, it represented a continuation of what initially began in
Makkah before the Hijrah, during the manifestation of the Da’wah. The first and second pledge of
‘Aqabah confirms this as both represented a truly historical contract between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the
delegations of Al-Madinah. The Islamic state was established upon its foundation and the Hijrah was one
of the consequences built upon them, by the command of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla … As for after the Hijrah
then we saw the manifestations of the sovereignty of the state from the practical perspective which proves
the actual real establishment of the state. There is nothing that indicates that more than the fact that its
components were fulfilled: In terms of the society, legislation, citizenry and ruling authority. That is whilst
it has not been established that anyone other than the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬possessed authority within
that new society or undertook the managing of ruling affairs within it …” (3).

Therefore, the legal legitimacy of the Islamic state is a matter in which there can be no debate or
disagreement and it is not the topic of our study! Rather, our study here relates to the method (Tareeqah)
of establishing the Islamic state and whether it is legally legitimate to use Al-Qitaal or to make
preparations to use Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of establishing it, or not?

[(1) He was the Egyptian Shar’iy judge in the time of King Fouad ‘Ali Abdur Raaziq’ in his book: (Al-Islaam and Usool ul-
Hukm’ (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam and its explanation: Ar-Rawd Al-Anf: 184-210, (3) Khasaa’is At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy Fis
Siyaasah Wa l-Hukm, Dr. Fathi Ad-Duraini: 323-324].

The speech of Dr. Fathi Ad-Duraini indicates that the Islamic state was established upon the basis of ‘Al-
Bai’ah’ (the pledge) describing it as an ‘Aqd (contract) between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the delegations of
Al-Madinah at Al-‘Aqabah.

And he states in another book of his when discussing the text of ‘Al-Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah Al-Kubraa’ (the
great pledge of Al-‘Aqabah): “It is deduced from the contents of this text that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬approved
of. It represented a firmly establish legislation by the Sunnah At-Taqreeriyah (1) - principles of the most
importance and seriousness which we present in the following: … (Then he says): Sixth: The Bai’at ul-
‘Aqabah Al-Kubraa proved to be a key to the victory … and for the establishment of the Islamic state
after a short space of time following it. It made this contract and charter a right upon the neck of every
Muslim throughout the ages and generations until the Day of Judgement …” (2).

Consequently, if the ‘Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah Al-Kubraa’, as Dr. Fathi Ad-Duraini says, was a key to the victory
and a key for the establishment of the Islamic state, then the meaning of that is that the Daleel (evidence)
for the Tareeqah (method) of the establishment of the Islamic state is found within what came within this
Bai’ah (pledge). Based upon that, we must examine what was mentioned within it and whether it indicates
to the use of war and Qitaal or not?
We must therefore refer back to the exchanges that took place at the Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah and the terms
upon the basis of which the Bai’ah was completed, so that we can search within that for the Hukm Ash-
Shar’iy related to this issue of ours.

1 - The following was stated in Zaad ul-Ma’aad by Ibn ul-Qayyim:

ٍ ‫ وع َك‬، َ‫ وَمنَّة‬، ‫ث ِِبَ َّكةَ ع ْشر ِسنِني ي تَّبِع النَّاس ِِف منَا ِزَّلِِم ِِف الْمو ِاس ِم‬ َ ِ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم لَب‬
‫ َم ْن‬: ‫ول‬ ُ ‫ يَ ُق‬، ‫اظ‬ َُ َ َ ََ ْ َ َ ُ ََ َ َ َّ ِ‫إِ َّن الن‬
َ ‫َِّب‬
ِ َّ ‫ َح ََّّت إِ َّن‬، ‫ص ُرهُ َوََّل يُ ْؤِو ِيه‬ ِ ِ
‫ضَر‬ َ ‫الر ُج َل لَيَ ْر َح ُل م ْن ُم‬ ُ ‫َح ًدا يَْن‬ َ ‫ فَ ََل ََي ُد أ‬، ُ‫ص ُرِِّن ؟ َح ََّت أُبَلِّ َغ ِر َس َاَّلت َرِِّب َولَهُ ا ْْلَنَّة‬ ُ ‫يُ ْؤِو ِيِن ؟ َم ْن يَْن‬
‫وه ْم إِ ََل اللَّ ِه َعَّز‬ ِِ ِ َ ‫ش ََّل يَ ْفتِْن‬ ِِ ِ ِِ ِ
ُ ُ‫ني ِر َجاَّل ْم يَ ْدع‬ َ ْ َ‫ َوميَْشي ب‬، ‫ك‬ ْ : ُ‫ فَيَأْتيه قَ ْوُمهُ فَيَ ُقولُو َن لَه‬، ‫أَ ِو الْيَ َم ِن إِ ََل ذي َرحه‬
ٍ ْ‫اح َذ ْر غُ ََل َم قَُري‬
‫ب إِ ََل أ َْهلِ ِه‬ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ُّ ‫ فَيأْتِ ِيه‬، ‫ ح ََّّت ب عثَنَا اللَّه ِمن ي ثْ ِرب‬، ‫ وهم ي ِشريو َن إِلَي ِه بِ ْاْلَصابِ ِع‬، ‫وج َّل‬
ُ ‫ فَيَ نْ َقل‬، ‫الر ُج ُل منَّا فَيُ ْؤم ُن به َويُ ْق ِرئُهُ الْ ُق ْرآ َن‬ َ َ َ ْ ُ ََ َ َ ْ ُ ُ ْ َُ َ َ
، ‫ َوبَ َعثَنَا اللَّهُ إِلَْي ِه‬، ‫اْل ْس ََل َم‬ِْ ‫ني يُظْ ِهرو َن‬ ِِ ِ ٌ ‫ ح ََّّت َمل ي بق دار ِمن دوِر ْاْلَنْصا ِر إََِّّل وفِيها ره‬، ‫فَيسلِمو َن بِإِس ََل ِم ِه‬
ُ َ ‫ط م َن الْ ُم ْسلم‬ َْ َ َ َ ُ ْ ٌ َ َ َْ ْ َ ْ ُ ُْ
‫ فَ َر َحلْنَا َح ََّّت قَ ِد ْمنَا َعلَْي ِه ِِف‬، ‫اف‬ ُ َ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم يُطََّرُد ِِف ِجبَ ِال َم َّكةَ َوَخي‬ ِ ُ ‫ ح ََّّت مَّت رس‬: ‫فَائْ تَمرنَا واجتَمعنَا وقُلْنَا‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ََ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ َْ
‫ إِ ِِّّن ذُو َم ْع ِرفٍَة‬، ‫وك‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ ِ َ ‫ فَ َق‬، ‫اع َدنَا بَْي َعةَ الْ َع َقبَ ِة‬ ِ
َ ُ‫ين َجاء‬ َ ‫ يَا ابْ َن أَخي َما أ َْدري َما َه ُؤََّلء الْ َق ْوُم الذ‬: ‫ال لَهُ َع ُّمهُ العباس‬ َ ‫ فَ َو‬، ‫الْ َم ْوس ِم‬
ِ ِ ِ ‫ فَلَ َّما نَظَر العباس ِِف وج‬، ‫ني‬ ِ ْ َ‫اجتَم ْعنَا َعْن َدهُ ِم ْن ر ُج ٍل ور ُجل‬
‫اث‬ٌ ‫َح َد‬ ْ ‫ َه ُؤََّلء أ‬، ‫ َه ُؤََّلء قَ ْوٌم ََّل نَ ْع ِرفُ ُه ْم‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫وهنَا ق‬ ُُ َ ََ َ َ ْ َ‫ ف‬، ‫ب‬ َ ‫بِأ َْه ِل يَثْ ِر‬
‫ َو َعلَى النَّ َف َق ِة ِِف الْعُ ْس ِر‬، ‫اط َوالْ َك َس ِل‬ ِ ‫َّش‬َ ‫اع ِة ِِف الن‬ َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬َّ ‫ " تُبَايِعُوِِّن َعلَى‬: ‫ال‬ َ َ‫ك ؟ ق‬ َ ُ‫ول اللَّ ِه َع ََل َم نُبَايِع‬ َ ‫ يَا َر ُس‬: ‫ فَ ُقلْنَا‬،
ِ ِ ِ
‫ص ُروِِّن إِذَا‬ ُ ‫ َو َعلَى أَ ْن تَ ْن‬، ‫ َو َعلَى أَ ْن تَ ُقولُوا ِِف اللَّه ََّل تَأْ ُخ ْذ ُك ْم لَ ْوَمةُ ََّلئ ٍم‬، ‫َّه ِي َع ِن الْ ُمْن َك ِر‬ ْ ‫ َو َعلَى ْاْل َْم ِر بِالْ َم ْع ُروف َوالن‬، ‫َوالْيُ ْس ِر‬
ِِ ِ ِ ِ
‫َس َع ُد بْ ُن‬ْ ‫َخ َذ بِيَده أ‬ َ ‫ فَأ‬، ُ‫ فَ ُق ْمنَا نُبَايِعُه‬، ُ‫ َولَ ُك ُم ا ْْلَنَّة‬، ‫اج ُك ْم َوأَبْنَاءَ ُك ْم‬ َ ‫ َوَتَْنَعُوِِّن مَّا َتَْنَعُو َن مْنهُ أَنْ ُف َس ُك ْم َوأ َْزَو‬، ‫ت َعلَْي ُك ْم‬ ُ ‫قَد ْم‬
‫ َوإِ َّن‬، ‫ول اللَّ ِه‬ ُ ‫ب إِلَْي ِه أَ ْكبَ َاد الْ َم ِط ِّي إََِّّل َوََْن ُن نَ ْعلَ ُم أَنَّهُ َر ُس‬ ْ َ‫ إِنَّا َملْ ن‬، ‫ب‬
ْ ‫ض ِر‬ َ ‫ ُرَويْ ًدا يَا أ َْه َل يَثْ ِر‬: ‫ال‬ َ ‫ني فَ َق‬ ِ َّ ‫ وهو أَصغَر‬، َ‫زرارة‬
َ ‫السْبع‬ ُ ْ َ ُ َ َ َُ
ِ َّ ‫ َوأَ ْن تَ َع‬، ‫ َوقَ ْت ُل ِخيَا ِرُك ْم‬، ً‫ب َكافَّة‬ ِ ‫إِ ْخراجهُ الْي وَم م َفارقَةُ الْ َعر‬
‫َج ُرُك ْم‬
ْ ‫ َوأ‬، ُ‫ك فَ ُخ ُذوه‬ َ ‫صِِبُو َن َعلَى ذَل‬ ْ َ‫ فَإِ َّما أَنْتُ ْم ت‬، ‫وف‬ ُ ُ‫السي‬ ُّ ‫ض ُك ُم‬ َ َ ُ َْ َ َ
‫ فَ َواللَّ ِه‬، ‫ يَا أسعد أ َِم ْط َعنَّا يَ َد َك‬: ‫ فَ َقالُوا‬، ‫ فَ ُه َو أ َْع َذ ُر لَ ُك ْم عِْن َد اللَّ ِه‬، ُ‫ َوإِ َّما أَنْتُ ْم ََتَافُو َن ِم ْن أَنْ ُف ِس ُك ْم ِخي َفةً فَ َذ ُروه‬، ‫َعلَى اللَّ ِه‬
ِ ِ ِ ِِ
َ‫ك ا ْْلَنَّة‬َ ‫ يُ ْع ِطينَا بِ َذل‬، ‫َخ َذ َعلَْي نَا َو َشَر َط‬ َ ‫ فَأ‬، ‫ فَ ُق ْمنَا إِلَْيه َر ُج ًَل َر ُج ًَل‬، ‫ َوََّل نَ ْستَقيلُ َها‬، َ‫ََّل نَ َذ ُر َهذه الْبَ ْي َعة‬
On the authority of Jabir: That the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬spent ten years in Mecca pursuing the people in their
homes in the seasons, Majannah (3), and ‘Ukaazh. He would say: “Who will help me, who will
give me support so that I can proclaim the message of my Lord, and for him there will be
Paradise (in return)?” But he would not find anyone to help him, nor to strengthen him, until it
reached the extent that a man would travel from Mudar or Yemen to visit his relatives and then
his people would approach him saying “Be wary of this man of Quraish so that he may not
seduce or enchant you". And he ‫ ﷺ‬would walk amongst their men calling them to Allah ‘Azza
Wa Jalla and they would just point to him with their fingers. This continued until Allah sent us
from Yathrib a man who would come to him and believe in him. The Prophet would read and
teach him the Quran. Then this man returned to his people to his family who became Muslim
through his Islaam. This went on until there was no Daar (household) from amongst the
households of the Ansaar except that it had a group of Muslims manifesting their Islaam within
them. Allah sent us to him and so we got together to hold a conference and said: "Until when will
the Prophet of Allah be driven to the outskirt mountains of Mecca in fear of his life". Then we
travelled to him in the Hajj season and we convened the pledge of ‘Aqabah with him. His Uncle
Abbas said to him: “Oh son of my brother, I do not know who these people who came to you are?
I am one who knows the people of Yathrib?” So, individually and in pairs or two of us gather
before him. When Abbas saw our faces, he said: “These are a group we do not know. These are
 new people!” So, we said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Upon what shall we give allegiance to you?”
He said “That you give the pledge that you will hear and obey, in periods of activity and rest, and
in aiding me be it in times of ease or difficulty. That you will support me if I come to you and you
will prevent from me (i.e. protect) what you prevent in terms of yourselves, your wives, and
children. Then if you do that, for you is paradise”. So, we all got up to give him the pledge when
As’ad Bin Zuraarah took hold of his (the prophets) hand and he was the youngest of the seventy
and said: “Patience O people of Yathrib! We will not give him all that we have until we all realise
that he is the Messenger of Allah and that his departure today will result in the split from the
Arabs completely, the killing of the best of us and the swords will bite into you. So, either you
persevere over that you and take him and your reward from Allah, or you fear for yourselves. In
which case, you should leave him as this will be a better excuse for you with Allah”. They said:
“O As’ad remove your hand from us, for by Allah we will not leave this pledge, nor break free
from it”. Then we arose one man after another and he took the pledge from us and stipulated that
he will give to us paradise by it (i.e. the Bai’ah)”.

The following has been mentioned in respect this text: Ahmad and Al-Baihaqi recorded it whilst Al-
Haakim classified it as Saheeh and Adh-Dhahabi corroborated that. Ibn Katheer said in the Seerah that
this Isnaad (chain) is Jayyid (good) and upon the conditionality of Muslim. Ibn Hibbaan also classified it as
Saheeh (1).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim with verification by Shu’aib Al-Arnaa’oot and Abdul Qaadir Al-Arnaa’oot: 3/45-46].

2 - The following was stated in the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬by Ibn Hishaam:

‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم ) ِِف الْ ِقتَ ِال ُش ُروطًا ِس َوى َش ْر ِط ِه‬ ِِ ِ ِ ‫ ِح‬، ‫ب‬ ِ ‫ت ب ْي َعةَ ا ْْلر‬
َ ( ‫ني أَذ َن اللَّهُ لَر ُسوله‬ َ َْ َ ْ َ‫ َوَكان‬: ‫اق‬
َ ‫إس َح‬ ْ ‫ال ابْ ُن‬ َ َ‫ق‬
‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم ِِف‬ ِِ ِ ِ َ ‫َن اللَّهَ تَ َع‬َّ ‫ك أ‬ ِ ِ ‫ُوَل علَى ب ي ع ِة الن‬ َ ‫َعلَْي ِه ْم ِِف الْ َع َقبَ ِة ْاْل‬
َ ‫اَل َملْ يَ ُك ْن أَذ َن لَر ُسوله‬ َ ‫ َوذَل‬، ‫ِّساء‬ َ َ َْ َ َ ‫ت ْاْل‬ ْ َ‫ َكان‬، ‫ُوَل‬
، ‫َس َوِد‬ ِ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه وسلَّم ِِف الْ َع َقب ِة ْاْلَ ِخريِة َعلَى حر‬ ِ ُ ‫ وباي عهم رس‬، ‫ فَلَ َّما أ َِذ َن اللَّه لَه فِيها‬، ‫ب‬ ِ ‫ا ْْلر‬
ْ ‫َحَ ِر َو ْاْل‬
ْ ‫ب ْاْل‬ َْ َ َ َ ََ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ْ ُ ََ ََ َ ُ ُ َْ
ِ ِ ِِ ِ ‫أ‬.
َ ‫ َو َج َع َل ََّلُ ْم َعلَى الْ َوفَاء بِ َذل‬، ‫َخ َذ لنَ ْف ِس ِه َوا ْشتَ َر َط َعلَى الْ َق ْوم لَربِِّه‬
َ‫ك ا ْْلَنَّة‬ َ

‫ َوَكا َن‬، ‫ت‬ ِ ‫الص ِام‬

َّ ‫ِّه عُبَ َادةَ بْ ِن‬ ِ ‫ عن جد‬، ‫يد‬ ِ ِ‫ عن أَبِ ِيه الْول‬، ‫ت‬ِ ‫الص ِام‬
َّ ‫يد بْ ِن عُبَ َادةَ بْ ِن‬ ِ ِ‫ فَح َّدثَِِن عبادةُ بن الْول‬: ‫اق‬
َ َْ َ َْ َ ُ ْ َ َُ َ َ ‫إس َح‬ ْ ‫ال ابْ ُن‬
َ َ‫ق‬
‫ين بَايَعُوهُ ِِف‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ َ ‫ باي عنَا رس‬: ‫ال‬ ِ
َ ‫ َوَكا َن عُبَ َادةُ م ْن اَّلثْ َ ِْن َع َشَر الذ‬- ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْيه َو َسلَّ َم بَْي َعةَ ا ْْلَْرب‬ َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ ْ َ َ َ َ‫ ق‬، ‫َح َد النُّ َقبَاء‬
َ‫أ‬
ِ ِ ِ َّ‫السم ِع والط‬ ِ ‫ُوَل علَى ب ي ع ِة الن‬ ِ
َ ‫ َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬، ‫ َوأَثََرةٍ َعلَْي نَا‬، ‫ ِِف ُع ْس ِرنَا َويُ ْس ِرنَا َوَمنْ َشطنَا َوَمكَْرهنَا‬، ‫اعة‬
‫ع‬ َ َ ْ َّ ‫ َعلَى‬- ‫ِّساء‬ َ َ َْ َ َ ‫الْ َع َقبَة ْاْل‬
‫اف ِِف اللَّ ِه لَ ْوَمةَ ََّلئِ ٍم‬ُ َ‫ ََّل َُن‬، ‫ول بِا ْْلَ ِّق أَيْنَ َما ُكنَّا‬
َ ‫ َوأَ ْن نَ ُق‬، ُ‫ْاْلَ ْمَر أ َْهلَه‬
Ibn Ishaq narrated: In the pledge of war - when Allah gave permission to his Messenger in respect to Al-
Qitaal) fight, there where conditions that he stipulated other than the conditions of the first pledge of Al-
‘Aqabah ... That was because Allah Ta’Aalaa had not given permission to His Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to
undertaking war. Then when He gave permission to him regarding this and the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
took the pledge from them at the last pledge of Al-‘Aqabah upon war against the red and the black, he
took it upon himself and put the condition upon the community to his Lord and he gave them upon their
faithfulness to that, the promise of paradise.

Then he narrated from ‘Ubaadah Bin Saamit, who was one of the representatives in the second pledge of
‘Aqabah, that he said: We gave the pledge to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the pledge of war (Bai’at
ul-Harb)... upon hearing and obeying, in difficulty and ease, in what we liked or hated, and when
preference is given over us. And that we do not dispute the affair of its people (i.e. ruler) and say
 the truth wherever we may be, not fearing in Allah the blame of the blamer (i.e. consequences)!
(1).

3 - It was mentioned in some of the related reports that what As’ad Ibn Zuraarah said at this Bai’ah when
he was addressing the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬included:

ِ
َ ْ‫عم َامهُ َوتِل‬
‫ك ُرتْ بَة‬ ِ ِ ِ
َ َ‫اعة ِِف عّز َوَمنَ َعة ََّل يَطْ َمع فينَا أَ َحد أَ ْن يُْرأَس َعلَْي نَا َر ُج ٌل م ْن َغ ْرينَا قَ ْد أَفْ َرَدهُ قَ ْوَمهُ َوأَ ْسلَ َمه أ‬
َ َ‫َوَد َع ْوتَنَا َوََْن ُن ََج‬
ِ
َ ‫اك إِ ََل ذَل‬
‫ك‬ َ َ‫ص ْعبَة فَأَ َجْب ن‬
َ
You have called upon us, whilst we are a group in a position of honour and the ability to withstand
(anyone). None from amongst us covets that a man from outside of us should be given leadership over us,
someone whom his people have singled out and his uncles have submitted to. That is a position and
standing that is extremely difficult (to reach) but we have responded to you towards that (with acceptance)
(2).

The above represents some of what has been mentioned in respect to the Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah and its terms
connected to our Mas’alah (issue) which is: “The method to establish the Islamic state and the Hukm
regarding using Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish it?”

From these we draw the following conclusions:

1 - That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in the Makkan period used to seek the Nusrah (support) from the
heads of the Arab tribes and its leaders who were coming to perform Hajj. He requested that support
from them so that he would be able to convey the Islamic Da’wah to the people and so that they would
embrace it without fear of Fitnah (trials) and tyranny.

2 - That the seeking of the Nusrah (support) for the Islamic Da’wah was responded to from some of the
people of Quwwah (power) and Mana’ah (deterrence) from the people of Yathrib. Consequently, they
provided support to the Islamic Da’wah in their land whilst the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬remained in
Makkah. Islaam then quickly spread in Al-Madinah and its atmospheres were harmonised with the Islamic
Da’wah (and responded to it) “Until there did not remain a household from the households of the Ansaar
except that there was a group within them manifesting Islaam” as was reported in the first narration
above. Statements like this do not establish that the people of Al-Madinah had all become Muslim or even
that the Muslims had become the majority. Rather, it indicates that the atmosphere in Al-Madinah had
become an atmosphere in clear harmony with the Islamic Da’wah.

[(1) Seerah An-Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd Al-Anf: 2/206), (2) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal Fee Sunan Al-Aqwaal Wa-l Af’aal:
1/326, Hadeeth no: 1525].

3 - The feeling of the Muslim representatives in Al-Madinah from the people of Al-Quwwah
(power/force) and Al-Mana’ah (deterrence) that they were capable of bringing the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to their
land, extend protection to him, provide the Nusrah (support) for the Da’wah and establish the Islamic
state upon their land, even though they were not from the most prominent or well-known and established
leaders. Rather, they were like the uncle of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬Al-‘Abbaas, who was an expert of the people
of Yathrib and their chiefs, described, when he said: “We do not know (or are familiar with) those, they
are new!”. However, despite that he sensed the truthfulness of their word in their speech and the current
of resolve running through them in addition to their faithfulness and loyalty regarding what they had
come to do and even if that had to be done over the killing of their main chiefs and noble men!

4 - That the implementation of the covenant of the Nusrah (support) provided to the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, in his
description as being the head (or leader) of Al-Madinah i.e. as the leader of the Islamic state established
upon the rule of Islam which would only begin upon the arrival of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Al-
madinah: “And that you support me (Nusrah) if I come to you” i.e. from the time of his establishment of
the Islamic state in Al-Madinah.

5 - The naming of the is Bai’ah (pledge) with the name of ‘Bai’at ul-Harb’ (the pledge of war) which states
the obligation of war and Qitaal (fighting) against any one or force that threatens the new situation that
will be established in Al-Madinah and even if this force opposing this new situation comprised of the red
and black of the people (i.e. everyone). In relation to this it was mentioned in As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah:
“This means: War upon who engaged them in war from the non-Arabs and Arabs” (1).

6 - The taking of the covenant upon the people of power and deterrence (Al-Quwwah Wa l-Mana’ah) who
were ready and prepared to raise arms in the way of protecting the new situation. I say: The covenant was
taken upon them to hear and obey the new leadership and to not dispute the authority of its people, from
those the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬appointed, or whom the Muslims had chosen to rule and assume the posts of
ruling, and even if they were from other than the Ansaar. That means: That they would not dispute the
people of authority using the argument that they were more deserving or better to assume it, because it
was by their Nusrah that the Islamic state was established, and by their readiness to die that the Islamic
Da’wah was victorious:

‫ َوأَثََرٍة‬، ‫ ِِف عُ ْس ِرنَا َويُ ْس ِرنَا َوَمْن َش ِطنَا َوَمكَْرِهنَا‬... ‫اع ِة‬ َ َّ‫الس ْم ِع َوالط‬ َّ ‫ب َعلَى‬ ِ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه وسلَّم ب ْي َعةَ ا ْْلر‬
َْ ََ ََ
ِ َ ‫باي عنَا رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ ُ َ َْ َ
َ ‫ َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬، ‫َعلَْي نَا‬
ُ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَه‬
We gave the pledge to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the pledge of war (Bai’at ul-Harb) ... upon
hearing and obeying, in difficulty and ease, in what we liked or hated, and when preference is
given over us. And that we do not dispute the affair of its people (i.e. ruler) … (2).

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah, Ibn Burhaan ud-Deen Al-Halabiy: 2/18-19, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd Al-Anf: 2/206)].

These are the most significant matters upon which the Islamic state was established in the time of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and from them the legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) is explicitly clear
and the use of weapons against anyone who stands in the way of its establishment by the mere
arrival of the one who has taken the Bai’ah upon the leadership of this state, to the land in which
it has been decided to establish the state.

It is true that not a single drop of blood was spilt at the time of the establishment of the Islamic state
however that was not due to the reason of forbidding the fighting for the establishment of the Islamic
state. That is because the Shar’iyah texts related to the Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah have confirmed the legal
legitimacy of fighting (or using material force) for the sake of this objective in a manner that leaves no
room for the least amount of doubt in respect to that legal legitimacy.

Rather, what happened was that when the opposing forces had seen that the rug had been pulled from
under them in a manner that was unanticipated and they had not perceived and saw that the new leaders
of the land were adamant and resolved to eliminate any suspicious activity or opposing revolution, and
indeed were determined to stand firm even if that meant splitting from all of the Arabs and even to make
war against the Red and Black from mankind, if they were to oppose the Islamic Da’wah and the Islamic
state …

In respect to that I say: When the people of opposing force sensed this resolve from the new leaders of
the land, they surpassed their will, retreated into themselves whilst concealing their malice within the folds
of the sick black hearts. Indeed, they went on to be hypocrites before the new Da’wah and the new
authority. The authority knew about them and what they concealed within their hearts however with
generous forbearance, respect and patience was extended to them, as long as they did not make apparent
what they concealed and did not undertake any activity that threatened the Da’wah and state!

Built upon that, the method of establishing the Islamic state today, after its absence and continuation of
its absence for a lengthy period of time, is therefore the same method that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
followed for the purpose of establishing it. That is realised and accomplished by a number of matters:

1 - The generation of atmospheres within a land from amongst the Islamic lands that harmonise (and
interact positively) with the Islamic Da’wah until there comes to be a public opinion for it that believes in
this Da’wah and demand what the Da’wah calls for in terms of thoughts and systems! Accompanied by
the readiness to support it and sacrifice for it.

2 - If that happens or the harmonisation with the Da’wah is present in any land that fulfils the necessary
components of a state, like the situation of Al-Madinah at the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in
relation to the conditions of that time, then at that time the search for the (Ahl un-Nusrah) people of
support is undertaken, those who are capable of handing over the authority to the one to whom the Bai’ah
will be taken for in his capacity as the head of the Islamic state. That is in the case where the power held
by the Ahl un-Nusrah is capable of eliminating any rebellion or dissension to the new situation internally
and confront any potential external power that attempts to strike or deal a blow to this new situation.

3 - If those Ahl un-Nusrah are gathered the Bai’ah is then taken for the one who is chosen to be the head
of the authority and the establishment of the Islamic state is announced in addition to the change of the
standing system and making it an Islamic system. The forces or power possessed by the Ahl un-Nusrah is
placed at high alert and readiness to deal a destructive blow to anyone who lets himself be enticed to fight
against the rule of Allah which the public opinion is demanding in the land.

And in such a situation:

- If the rest of the forces are silent over this new situation and give their loyalty to it, the coup (or radical
change) would have been peaceful just like it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and
consequently all will remain in his position from those who hold positions in accordance to the Ahkaam
of Islaam and the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic state.

- However, if some of the forces rebel to strike at this state, then the text of the Second Bai’ah of Al-
‘Aqabah affirms the legal legitimacy of fighting to protect the new situation. In such a case the coup
would be bloody for which the text has come approving of it (i.e. if necessary).

This represents the method for the establishment of the Islamic state today and this is the Hukm Ash-
Shar’iy in respect to the Mas’alah of fighting to establish the Islamic state in accordance to what the
Second Bai’ah of ‘Aqabah guided to upon the basis of which the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬established the
Islamic state.

At this point a question could arise:

Military regiments (or sections of the army) could oppose the establishment of the Islamic state and its
commanders could command them to fight. There will inevitably be Muslims amongst them and so what
is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to fighting in its ranks or against its ranks?

The answer: Fighting within its ranks is Haraam because it represents a rebellious (Baaghiyah) force that
has rebelled against the authority of the Islamic state. Consequently, it is the duty of every Muslim of
those military regiments to withdraw from it and if he is coerced or forced into remaining then he must
not practise any role that leads to the spilling of the blood of the Muslims from amongst the people of
justice and stand in the ranks of the Islamic state. That is because of the Hurmah (inviolability and
prohibition) of the blood of the Muslims without a Shar’iy reason making that permissible.

ِ ِ ِ
ُ ‫ُك ُّل الْ ُم ْسل ِم َعلَى الْ ُم ْسل ِم َحَر ٌام َد ُمهُ َوع ْر‬
ُ‫ضهُ َوَمالُه‬
Every Muslim in respect to the Muslim is Haraam (i.e. prohibited to violate): His blood, His
honour and his property (1).

- As for the Qitaal (fighting) against these military segments then it is an obligatory Qitaal because it is
fighting the Bughaah (rebels) who have exited from obedience to the Imaam as was explained in the study
concerning the Qitaal of the Ahl ul-Baghyi.

- If there was no danger posed in negotiating with them to draw them into obedience messengers of
reconciliation would be sent between them and the Islamic state. If, however, there was a danger in
delaying the resolution of the matter, the matter is resolved by Al-Qitaal (2). The Muslim who are killed
from amongst them is still a Muslim but a sinful one if he was aware of the Haqq and fought against it.
And whoever is killed from the supporters of the newly established Khilafah, then they are Shuhadaa’ of
the Aakhirah as was established in the study about the Qitaal of the Bughaah (rebels).

By that we conclude the second issue of the study: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic state”. We
now come to the final Mas’alah of this study and that is:

Thirdly: Is the Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic state and to protect it from Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah in accordance to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning?

The answer to that question differs in accordance to the difference of the elements that mobilise or move
to attack or strike the Islamic state upon its establishment.

- If this element was from the internal elements (i.e. forces) of the state and were Muslims, then the Qitaal
against them would fall under the category of Qitaal Al-Baghyi (fighting against rebels). We previously
discussed the difference of opinion in relation to the description of this Qitaal in terms of it being Jihaad
or not and outweighed as strongest the view that it is not Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah in accordance to its
Istilaahiy (and Shar’iy) meaning.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 2564, 4/1986. Jaami’ Al-Usool: 6/523. This meaning was related by Al-Bukhaari in another Hadeeth that
stated within it: “… For verily their blood, their properties and their honours are Haraam upon you …” (Saheeh Al-BukhaariL
1739, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 3/573], (3) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/54].

- If the parties which moved to strike the Islamic state were internal non-Muslim elements from the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah citizens of the Islamic state who have separated obedience (to the authority) from their
necks and gone on to fight the new state to restore the situation of the land to what it was in terms of
ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, then we have already discussed that in the study about the
Qitaal of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah i.e. “Al-Qitaal against those revolting against the Islamic state from the
non-Muslim citizens”.

- As for if this Qitaal (fighting) was launched against the Islamic state by foreign elements or directions:

- Then, if these elements were from the states of the Islamic world (i.e. Muslim lands), then he Hukm in
respect to them is the same as the Hukm of those who rebel against the state internally i.e. the same as the
Muslims who rebel against their rule and non-Muslims who rebel against their rule. That is because the
Islamic state considers the Muslim lands or counties all to be one land just as they consider the subjects of
those lands to be subjects of the Islamic state. Its policy is to work to incorporate these lands and its
subjects to the sphere and domain of the newly born Islamic state. That is because Islaam has made it
obligatory upon the Muslims, regardless of the difference of their lands, for there to be a Bai’ah to a
Khalifah of the Muslims upon their necks, due to the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ومن مات ولَيس ِِف عن ِق ِه ب ي عةٌ مات ِميتةً ج‬
َ َ َ َ َ َْ ُُ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ
And whoever dies whilst there is no Bai’ah on his neck, dies the death of Jaahilliyah (1).

As such, they must send forth the Bai’ah or declare their allegiance and loyalty to the new Khalifah which
signifies there joining to the Islamic state. Consequently, those lands which refuge to join are dealt with
like the Ahl ul-Baghyi which means that messengers (or ambassadors) of reconciliation will be sent
between them and the new Islamic authority before the Islamic state resorts to the military resolution
against them.

- As for when the external elements who undertake fighting against the Islamic state are only from the
states outside of the Islamic world (i.e. from the lands of the disbelievers and colonialists), then the Qitaal
against them is Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah in accordance to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning. That is
because the Shar’iy definition of Al-Jihaad applies to its reality: “The fighting against those disbelievers
who have no Dhimmah (covenant of protection) for them to raise high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla”.

[(1) Muslim: 1851, 3/1478. Jaami’ Al-Usool: 4/78, (2) Al-Mu’jam Al-Waseet: Article ‫]ج َهد‬.
َ

The Twelth Study

Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands

- Foreword about the aspects that this study encompasses and the fundamental issues that it deals with.

The first Mas’alah (issue): The Islamic position regarding the subject of unity between the
Islamic lands.

- The first part: The Islamic position in respect to the unity between the Islamic lands within the Shar’iyah
texts.

Firstly: The Prophetic Ahaadeeth that relate specifically to the subject of unit.

Secondly: The angle of deduction using the preceding texts upon the subject of unity and what the
Fuqahaa’ have established regarding this in light of those texts.

- The second part: The position represented in some of the Islamic Ijtihaadaat in respect to the issue of
unity and a discussion of these Ijtihaadaat.
Firstly: The opinion of some of the early generations:

- The irregular (Shaadh) opinion that Al-Maawardi pointed to.

- The opinion of Al-Imaam Al-Juwainiy.
- The comment of Al-Imaam An-Nawawi upon the opinion of Al-Juwainiy.
- Discussion about the opinion of Al-Juwainiy.

Secondly: The opinion of some of those who came in the latter generations:

- The opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy and the opinion of Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy.
- Our discussion about the opinions of Ash-Shawkaaniy and Al-Qanoujiy.

Thirdly: The opinion of some of those from our recent time:

- The opinion of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah

- Our discussion about the opinion of Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah.

The second Mas’alah (issue): The Shar’iy position towards Al-Qitaal (fighting) to impose unity
between the Islamic lands.

- Cases of war in the past:

- The first case: Al-Qitaal (fighting) in response to removal of obedience to the Khalifah from some of the
provinces and the formation of an independent (separate) state.

- The second case: Al-Qitaal (fighting) to bring down an attempt of a revolting (pretend) Khalifah, who
calls to himself, within a separate province or region, to take the place of the standing Khalifah whilst
remining within the Khilafah state.

Cases of war in the current time:

- The first image: The undertaking of a revolution in a province from the provinces of an independent
state to form a separate state and the fighting that is undertaken to eliminate that attempt to separate.

- The second image: The separation of a region or province from the mother land and the formation of an
independent state without a revolution, the shedding of blood or following a revolution and the spilling of
blood, and Al-Qitaal (fighting) undertaken to restore the previous unity.

- The third image: What if a state from amongst the states of the Islamic world today took advantage of a
local opportunity and a favourable international and joined some of the Islamic regions to it via Al-Qitaal
(fighting)?

Cases of fighting in the expected future:

What if the Islamic state returned in the future and then went about joining Islamic regions to it through
force after the failure of peaceful means to accomplish that?

The third Mas’alah (issue): Is Al-Qitaal for the sake of accomplishing unity between the Islamic
lands considered to be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to its Istilaahiy meaning?
 The Twelth Study

Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands

Foreword about the aspects that this study encompasses and the fundamental issues that it deals with.

The subject of this study, in respect to the Muslims, deals with the past, the present and the future.

As for the past: There had been an Islamic state and some of the regions of the Islamic lands broke off
or away from it. Therefore, what is the Hukm in respect to fighting those who have broken away and
what is the Shar’iy regulation or designation in respect to this Qitaal?

As for the present: Indeed, how many are the problems that the Islamic world lives through today
including the problems related to the issue of division and unity. From these that which relates to the
subject area of our study concerns us here and that is the subject of Al-Qitaal. In this regard, we find that
our Islamic world has a number of problems related to our subject by a strong connection. That is as
follows:

- There are internal revolutions within the lands of Islaam which are led by revolutionaries demanding
separation of their province that they belong to from the sum of the land that incorporates them and from
the authority that gathers them together so that they can form an independent state. Consequently, they
add to the cutting of the joints of these Islamic lands into scattered ruptures and divisions above what
they are and raise arms in the path of accomplishing what they want.

- There are Islamic lands ruled by a single authority where a province from amongst its provinces
separates to form an independent state and new authority. Fighting could break out between the mother
land and the new independent land to restore the unity to what it was. It may also be that fighting does
not break out and no acknowledgment or recognition occurs in respect to the reality. That is like what
took place in some of the states of the Islamic world including Arab and non-Arab lands.

- There are slogans that are raised in the Islamic lands today calling to unity whether upon the level of the
peoples or upon the level of the people in authority. What if that happened and arms were taken up in
order to implement those slogans if particular regions refused to respond affirmatively to the call to unity
or unification?
These are some of the problems that the Islamic world is suffering from today which fall under the
subject area of the study that we are dealing with and are connected to the present day that we are living.

As for the expected future: When time takes its blessed turn by the permission of Allah and a state from
the lands of Islaam adopts the Islamic ideology, establishes its authority upon its basis, rules by it in its
internal and external relationships, raises the Raayah (banner) of the Islamic Khilafah once again and
demands that the remaining regions of the Islamic world join to it under its banner, at such a time, what is
the Hukm of raising arms to annex those regions under the Raayah (banner) of this Islamic Khilafah?

This is the topic of our study: Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands; in the past,
present and future. Is it Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning or
not?

Before beginning to address this subject, it is first necessary to explain the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to
the unity or unification of the Islamic lands i.e. their unification into one single entity and bringing them
together within one single state; under one authority and one head (of state). Is this unity in accordance to
this understanding a Fard (obligation) from amongst the Islamic Faraa’id (obligations) like the Salaah, the
Sawm and Al-Jihaad … in the case where the Muslims are sinful if they neglect to strive seriously to
accomplish it? Or is it just a Mustahabb and Mandoob (recommended) matter? Or is it just left to the
choice of the Muslims where they accomplish it by consent and agreement if that is facilitated for them or
they don’t accomplish it if there was no consent and agreement amongst the Islamic regions for it,
whether that rejection to realise the unity was upon a level of the citizens inhabiting those regions or on a
head of state level, in the case where they find just a unity to be in conflict with their own interests or the
interests of those internal or external elements that push them to adopt such a position of rejection?

I say: Is the acceptance of the unity (Al-Wahdah) or its rejection, left to the matter of choice, irrespective
of the underlying motive behind that acceptance or rejection?

This is what we must explain the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy for before approaching the subject of Al-Qitaal
(fighting) for the sake of unity or unification in the past, present and future. That is because this subject
area can only be solved and answered in light of the clarification of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy concerning the
issue of the unity amongst the Islamic lands.

Based upon that the study before us is divided into three issues (Masaa’il):

1 - The Mas’alah (issue) of the Islamic position in respect to the subject of the unity between the Islamic
lands.
2 - The Mas’alah of Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity; in the past, present and future.
3 - The Mas’alah: Is Al-Qitaal for the sake of unity (or unification) between the Islamic lands Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeelillah according to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning or not?

The first issue: The Mas’alah (issue) of the Islamic position in respect to the
subject of the unity between the Islamic lands

The discussion about this Mas’alah is divided into two parts:

The first part: The explanation of the Islamic position in respect to the unity between the Islamic lands as
has come in the Shar’iyah texts specifically related to this subject.
The second part: The explanation of the position in the view of some Islamic Ijtihaadaat in relation to this
accompanied by a discussion about these Ijtihaadaat.

The first part:

The Islamic position concerning the unity between the Islamic lands as a whole and within one state in
accordance to what the Shar’iyah texts guide to is: That it is Waajib (obligatory) to bring about this unity
(Wahdah) just as it is obligatory to preserve it whilst its division into separate entities and numerous states
is prohibited. This is the Islamic position or the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy that we have understood from
numerous Ahaadeeth narrated from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. We will now present the Ahaadeeth first and then
explain the angle of deduction (Wajh ul-Istidlaal) secondly regarding the subject of unity in addition to
what the Fuqahaa’ have established in light of those Ahaadeeth.

Firstly: The Ahaadeeth specifically related to the subject of unity:

The include:

1 - The narration that was mentioned in Saheeh Muslim from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas (ra) from
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in which he said:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ومن مات ولَيس ِِف عن ِق ِه ب ي عةٌ مات ِميتةً ج‬
َ َ َ َ َ َْ ُُ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ
And whoever dies whilst there is no Bai’ah on his neck, dies the death of Jaahilliyah (1).

[(1) Muslim: 1851, 3/1478. Jaami’ Al-Usool: 4/78].

2 - Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫اْلخ ُر ِمنْ ُه َما‬ ِ ْ َ‫إِذَا بُويِ َع ِْلَلِي َفت‬

ِ ‫ني فَاقْتلوا‬
If two Khalifahs are given the Bai’ah (pledge) then kill the latter of them (1).

3 - Abu Hurairah (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫ِب بَ ْع ِدي َو َسيَ ُكو ُن ُخلَ َفاءُ فَيَكْثُُرو َن قَالُوا فَ َما تَأْ ُم ُرنَا‬ َّ َِ‫ِب َوإِنَّهُ ََّل ن‬
ٌّ َِ‫ِب َخلَ َفهُ ن‬ َ َ‫وس ُه ْم ْاْلَنْبِيَاءُ ُكلَّ َما َهل‬
ٌّ َِ‫ك ن‬ ُ ‫يل تَ ُس‬
ِ ِ
َ ‫ت بَنُو إ ْسَرائ‬
ْ َ‫َكان‬
ِ ِ
‫اه ْم‬ ْ ‫َّه ْم فَِإ َّن اللَّهَ َسائلُ ُه ْم َع َّما‬
ُ ‫استَ ْر َع‬ ُ ‫وه ْم َحق‬ ُ ُ‫ال فُوا بِبَ ْي َعة ْاْل ََّوِل فَ ْاْل ََّوِل أ َْعط‬
َ َ‫ق‬
The children of Isra’eel had their political affairs looked after them by the Prophets. Every time a
Prophet perished another succeeded him. And verily there is no Prophet after me and there will
be Khulafaa’ who will be numerous. They (the Sahaabah) said: So what do you command us? He
said: Fulfil the Bai’ah to them one after the after. Give them their right for verily Allah will ask
them about what He entrusted them with (2).

4 - ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas related from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ِ ِِ
َ َ‫اع فَإِ ْن َجاء‬
ْ َ‫آخ ُر يُنَا ِز ُعهُ ف‬
‫اض ِربُوا عُنُ َق ْاْل َخ ِر‬ ْ ‫ص ْف َقةَ يَده َوَِثََرةَ قَلْبِه فَلْيُط ْعهُ إِ ْن‬
َ َ‫استَط‬ َ ُ‫َوَم ْن بَايَ َع إِ َم ًاما فَأ َْعطَاه‬
Whoever has given the Bai’ah to an Imaam and given him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of
his heart, then he must obey him as much as he was able. Then if another came disputing him
then strike the neck of the other (3).
5 - ‘Arfajah related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫ف َكائِنًا َم ْن َكا َن‬

ِ ‫السْي‬
َّ ِ‫اض ِربُوهُ ب‬
ْ َ‫يع ف‬ ِ ِ ِ ِِ ٌ َ‫إِنَّهُ َستَ ُكو ُن َهن‬
ٌ ‫ات فَ َم ْن أ ََر َاد أَ ْن يُ َفِّر َق أ َْمَر َهذه ْاْل َُّمة َوه َي ََج‬
ٌ َ‫ات َوَهن‬
Verily there will be events and tribulations and so whoever wants to divide the affair (Amr) of this
Ummah whilst it is together (or unified), then strike him with the sword whoever he may be (4).

6 - Jundub Bin ‘Abdillah said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ٌ‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫من قُتِل ََتت راي ٍة ع ِّميَّ ٍة ي ْدعو عصبِيَّةً أَو ي ْنصر عصبِيَّةً فَِقْت لَةٌ ج‬
َ َ َ ُُ َ ْ َ َ ُ َ ُ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ
Whoever is killed under a blind banner, calling to ‘Asabiyah (tribalism) or supporting ‘Asabiyah,
then his death is one of Jaahiliyah (Days of ignorance pre-Islam) (5).

The meaning of ‘Ummiyah (blind) is the blind matter where clarity about is not sought. That is the
opinion of the majority whilst Ishaaq Bin Raahoowaih said that it refers to the fighting of the people
undertaken for reasons of tribalism (6).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1853, 3/1480, (2) Al-Bukhaari: 3455, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/495. Saheeh Muslim: 1842, 3/1471, (3) Saheeh
Muslim: 1844, 3/1473, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1852, 3/1479 and ‘Hanaat’ is the plural of Hanatun and it is applicable upon
anything and what is intended here is the Fitan (tribulations) and incidents or events, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 1850, 3/1478, (6)
Margin of Saheeh Muslim: 3/1476].

7 - Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yamaan related:

‫ول اللَّ ِه إِنَّا‬

َ ‫ت يَا َر ُس‬ ُ ‫َسأَلُهُ َع ْن الشَِّّر َُمَافَةَ أَ ْن يُ ْد ِرَك ِِن فَ ُق ْل‬ْ‫تأ‬ ْ ‫صلَّى اللَّهُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم َع ْن‬
ُ ‫اْلَِْري َوُكْن‬
ِ َ ‫َكا َن النَّاس يسأَلُو َن رس‬
َ ‫ول اللَّه‬ َُ َْ ُ
‫ال نَ َع ْم‬ َ َ‫ك الشَِّّر ِم ْن َخ ٍْري ق‬ ِ َ َ‫اْلَِْري ِم ْن َشٍّر ق‬ ْ ‫اهلِيَّ ٍة َو َشٍّر فَ َجاءَنَا اللَّهُ ِِبَ َذا‬
ْ ‫اْلَِْري فَ َه ْل بَ ْع َد َه َذا‬ ِ ‫ُكنَّا ِِف ج‬
َ ‫ت َوَه ْل بَ ْع َد ذَل‬ ُ ْ‫ال نَ َع ْم قُل‬ َ
ٌ‫ال نَ َع ْم ُد َعاة‬ َ َ‫اْلَِْري ِم ْن َشٍّر ق‬
ْ ‫ك‬ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ال قَوم ي ه ُدو َن بِغَ ِري ه ْديِي تَع ِر‬ ِِ
َ ‫ت فَ َه ْل بَ ْع َد ذَل‬ ُ ‫ف مْن ُه ْم َوتُْنك ُر قُ ْل‬ ْ َ ْ ْ َ ٌ ْ َ َ‫ت َوَما َد َخنُهُ ق‬ ُ ‫َوفيه َد َخ ٌن قُ ْل‬
ِِ ِ ِ ِ َ َ‫ول اللَّ ِه ِص ْفهم لَنَا ق‬ ِ ِ
‫ت‬ُ ْ‫ال ُه ْم م ْن جلْ َدتنَا َويَتَ َكلَّ ُمو َن بِأَلْسنَتنَا قُل‬ ُْ َ ‫ت يَا َر ُس‬ ُ ‫َجابَ ُه ْم إِلَْي َها قَ َذفُوهُ ف َيها قُ ْل‬
َ ‫َّم َم ْن أ‬
َ ‫َعلَى أَبْ َواب َج َهن‬
‫ك الْ ِفَر َق‬ َ ْ‫اعتَ ِزْل تِل‬
ْ َ‫ال ف‬ َ َ‫اعةٌ َوََّل إِ َم ٌام ق‬ َ َ‫ت فَِإ ْن َملْ يَ ُك ْن ََّلُ ْم ََج‬ ُ ‫ني َوإِ َم َام ُه ْم قُ ْل‬
ِِ
َ ‫اعةَ الْ ُم ْسلم‬ َ َ‫ال تَلَْزُم ََج‬ َ َ‫ك ق‬ ِ
َ ‫فَ َما تَأْ ُم ُرِِّن إِ ْن أ َْد َرَك ِِن ذَل‬
ِ
‫ك‬َ ‫ت َعلَى ذَل‬ َ ْ‫ت َوأَن‬
ُ ‫ك الْ َم ْو‬ َ ‫َص ِل َش َجَرةٍ َح ََّّت يُ ْد ِرَك‬ ْ ‫ض بِأ‬ َّ ‫ُكلَّ َها َولَ ْو أَ ْن تَ َع‬

The people used to ask Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬about good, but I used to ask him about evil for
fear that it might overtake me. Once I said, "O Allah's Messenger (‫ !)ﷺ‬We were in ignorance and
in evil and Allah has bestowed upon us the present good; will there by any evil after this good?"
He said, "Yes." I asked, "Will there be good after that evil?" He said, "Yes, but it would be
tainted with Dakhan (1)." I asked, "What will its Dakhan be?" He said, "There will be some
people who will lead (people) according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their
actions and disapprove of them." I said, "Will there be any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes,
there will be some people who will invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their
invitation to it will be thrown in it (by them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (‫ !)ﷺ‬Describe those
people to us." He said, "They will belong to us and speak our language" I asked, "What do you
order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the collective
(Jamaa’ah) of Muslims and their Imaam." I asked, "If there is neither a collective (Jamaa’ah) nor
an Imaam (what shall I do)?" He said, "Keep away from all those different groups, even if you
had to bite (i.e. eat) the root of a tree, till you meet death while you are still in that state" (2).
This, to begin with, are some of the Shar’iyah texts connected to the topic of “Al-Wahdah (unity) between
the Islamic lands”.

Secondly: We will now discuss that which relates to the angle of deduction (Wajh ul-Istidlaal) in respect to
those texts upon the subject of unity and what the Fuqahaa’ have determined regarding that in light of
those texts.

It is clearly evident from these Noble Ahaadeeth that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a number of
matters obligatory upon the Muslims which include:

1 - That there is a Bai’ah upon the neck of every Muslim i.e. Obedience to an Imaam whom the Muslims
have given the Bai’ah to. That is whether all of the Muslims participated in providing the Bai’ah or only
the majority or only those who represent the majority. That is because by the mere validity of the
contraction of the Bai’ah to an Imaam that Bai’ah has become binding upon the neck of every Muslim
even if a particular individual or grouping did not participate in the actual proceedings of the contracting
of the Bai’ah to him. That is just like the Bai’ah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) which the majority of the
Sahaabah convened for him was binding upon ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) even if he held back from giving
the Bai’ah for a short or longer period of time as indicated in different reports (3).

[(1)Ad-Dakhan: Its origin relates to a murky colour of an animal towards blackness and the intended meaning here is that the
hearts are not cleansed by each other (i.e. bad atmosphere) (margin of Saheeh Muslim: 3/1475, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1847,
3/1475, (3) Kanz ul-Ummaal: 14079, 5/613 and: 14124, 5/638. And refer to: ‘Al-Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashidoon’ bt Abdul Wahhaab
An-Najjaar: p364 about Ali’ Ibn Abi Taalib holding back the Bai’ah fro a period of days or 70 nights based on a difference in
respect to that. And refer to: ‘Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’ by Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his mention of the report that
indicates that he held back for six months i.e. until the date that Faatimah (ra) passed away: p167-171. In spite of that there is
recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari a narration from ‘Aa’ishah (ra): “That Faatimah (Peace be upon her) the daughter of the Nabi
‫ … ﷺ‬lived after the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬for six years … then when she passed away they reproached ‘Ali and the people put pressure on
him so he sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave the Bai’ah to him whilst he had not given him the Bai’ah during those
months …” Hadeeth no: 4240-4241, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/493].

Just as it was binding upon the neck of Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah (ra) even if he held back absolutely from giving
the Bai’ah (in person) (1).

2 - That the Bai’ah upon the neck of all Muslims be to only to one single Imaam i.e. one Khalifah as
indicated to by the two Ahaadeeth: “

‫اْلخ ُر ِمْن ُه َما‬ ِ ْ َ‫إِذَا بُويِ َع ِْلَلِي َفت‬

ِ ‫ني فَاقْتلوا‬
If two Khalifahs are given the Bai’ah (pledge) then kill the latter of them (2).

َ َ‫فَإِ ْن َجاء‬
ْ َ‫آخ ُر يُنَا ِزعُهُ ف‬
‫اض ِربُوا عُنُ َق ْاْل َخ ِر‬
Then if another came disputing him then strike the neck of the other (3).

This address is directed to all of the Muslims for their not to be two Khalifahs over them, whether this
second Khalifah came about through the consent and agreement of the Muslims by their Bai’ah to him
whilst the first was present or the second Khalifah came about by way of gaining mastery and disputing
(or challenging) the authority of the first Khalifah. Irrespective of whether the second Khalifah who came
by way of consent or by disputing and challenging the authority, did so upon the basis of sharing with the
first Khalifah in his full authority over all of the Islamic soil in the world, in what resembles what has been
called today ‘collective leadership’, or he came upon the basis of separation where each of the two
Khalifahs rule a part of the Islamic world and two separate states are formed where each Khalifah takes
charge of his own state …
Regarding this I say: The Hadeeth about the Bai’ah being given to two Khalifahs and the Hadeeth about
another Khalifah disputing or challenging the authority of the first, both of these have stated the Tahreem
(prohibition) of having more than one Khalifah and the obligation for the Khalifah of the Muslims to be
one and singular. Just as they stated what process or course of action that the Muslims are obligated to
undertake regarding the second Khalifah whether he was given the Bai’ah by consent or by gaining
dominance and disputation. This course of action is Al-Qatl (to kill): “Kill the latter of them both” and
“Strike the neck of the other”.

This is what the Shar’iyah texts establish with full clarity and the statements of the Fuqahaa’ in explanation
of these Ahaadeeth corroborate that.

[(1) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 14107, 5/627, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1853, 3/1480, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1844, 3/1473].

An-Nawawi stated in the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim: “If a Khalifah is given the Bai’ah after a
Khalifah, then the first Bai’ah is valid and it is obligatory to be faithful to it whilst the second Bai’ah is
Baatil and it is Haraam to be faithful to it. And it is Haraam upon him to seek it whether they contracted
the second whilst knowing about the contract of the first, whether they were in two lands, or one land, or
one of them was in the land of the separated Imaam and the other was in other than it … And the
‘Ulamaa have agreed that it is not permitted for two Khalifahs to be contracted within a single era (time)
whether the Daar (land) or Islaam was wide and expanded far or not …” (1).

The following was mentioned in Fat’h ul-Baari’: “And the meaning: If the Khalifah is given the Bai’ah
after the Khalifah then the Bai’ah of the first is Saheeh (valid) and faithfulness to it is obligatory whilst the
second Bai’ah is Baatil (invalid)”. Ibn Hajar then quoted the speech of An-Nawawi mentioned above
before stating: “And Al-Qurtubiy said: In respect to this Hadeeth i.e. the Hadeeth: “Fulfil the Bai’ah one
after the other …” (2) the Hukm (legal ruling) of the first Bai’ah is that it is obligatory to be faithful to it
and it was silent about the second Bai’ah, which was stated in the Hadeeth of ‘Arfajah in Saheeh Muslim
where it said: “Strike the neck of the other” (3)” (4).

3 - Also from the matters established by these Shar’iyah texts is that the “single Khalifah” is a metaphor
(Kinaayah) for a “single Amr (matter or affair)” in the case where the ‘Amr’ here is: the Sultah (authority)
and Imaarah (leadership). The following was stated in Fat’h ul-Baari’ in respect to the Sharh explanation
of the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “And that we should not dispute the Amr of its people …” (5) i.e.
Al-Mulk and ‘Imaarah (authority and leadership)” (6).

If the ‘single Khalifah’ over all of the Muslims is a Kinaayah (metaphor) symbolising the single authority
over all of the Muslims whilst the single authority is a Kinaayah (metaphor) about a single state, then the
meaning of that is that the Muslims in all of their lands are one single Jamaa’ah (collective) and subjects
with allegiance to a single state. Consequently, any attempt to divide and separate the Amr (matter or
affair) of the Muslims (i.e. their authority) represents an attempt to divide and separate the Jamaa’ah
(collective) of the Muslims by scattering them across numerous authorities i.e. many states. This reality is
what the Shar’iyah texts have coming warning about whilst also explaining the decisive course of action
required in respect to confronting anyone who makes those sinful and criminal attempts.

(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawi: 8/40, (2) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim (Jaami’ Al-Usool: 4/48-49, (3) There are Saheeh
Muslim two narrations from ‘Arfajah in Saheeh Muslim: “Strike him with the sword whoever he may be” and the other “Kill
him”: 1852, 3/147901480. As for the text that Al-Qurtubiy mentioned, then that is from the Hadeeth of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr:
1842, 3/1473, Saheeh Muslim, (5) A part of the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Bukhaari: 7056, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 5/13, (6) Fat’h ul-
Baari’: 8/13].

It was recorded in Muslim from ‘Arfajah from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:
 ُ‫اعتَ ُك ْم فَاقْ تُلُوه‬
َ َ‫صا ُك ْم أ َْو يُ َفِّر َق ََج‬ ُ ‫اح ٍد يُِر‬
َ ‫يد أَ ْن يَ ُش َّق َع‬
ِ ‫َجيع علَى رج ٍل و‬
ِ
َ ُ َ َ ٌ َ ‫َم ْن أَتَا ُك ْم َوأ َْم ُرُك ْم‬
Whoever comes to you whilst your Amr (matter or affair) is unified upon a single man wanting to
undermine your ‘Asaa (staff) and divide your Jamaa’ah, then kill him (1).

Al-‘Asaa (staff/stick): Is a Kinaayah (metaphor) for the Sultah (authority) because the Sultah (authority) is
an expression of the Jihhah (authority) which compels the people to obey it by the use of power whilst the
staff or stick (Al-‘Asaa) symbolises that feared power. The following expression is based upon that:

‫العصاء‬
َ ‫يد‬ُ ِ‫َّاس َعب‬
ُ ‫الن‬
The people are slaves to the stick (2).

It is a Kinaayah (metaphor) for the overbearing authority that the people are in fearful awe of because it
harms anyone who opposes it.

So whoever wants to split the staff, meaning the single authority into two or more authorities, and then as
a result divide the single Jamaa’ah (collective) to two or more Jamaa’aat, where each follows a different
authority, then the recompense for that is as the Hadeeth has stated: “Then kill him!”.

In addition, it is the same whether the dividing of the Sultah and the Jamaa’ah or those divisions of states
and the Ummah, are motivated by calls to specific thoughts which are not from Islaam or by regional or
ethnic partisanships or what is similar to them … That is because all of these fall under the meaning of the
splitting of the staff i.e. the splitting or division of the single authority and the division of the single
Islamic Jamaa’ah (collective) which is all Haraam for the Muslims to respond affirmatively to. It is
obligatory upon us to deter those who make these attempts even if that leads to their elimination and
ridding the Muslims of their evils. Indeed, Ahaadeeth have come specifically warning about the splitting
and division of the authority, state and dividing the collective of the Muslims upon the basis of a thought
alien to Islaam, as we have pointed to. In the Hadeeth of Hudhaifah in Saheeh Muslim it mentioned: “…
I said, "Will there be any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes, there will be some people who will
invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their invitation to it will be thrown in it (by
them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (‫ !)ﷺ‬Describe those people to us." He said, "They will
belong to us and speak our language" I asked, "What do you order me to do if such a thing
should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the collective (Jamaa’ah) of Muslims and their
Imaam." I asked, "If there is neither a collective (Jamaa’ah) nor an Imaam (what shall I do)?"
He said, "Keep away from all those different groups …” (2).

In his Hadeeth there is a warning about the people who have calls and invitations based on thoughts;
those who raise slogans and calls that are not from Islaam, in order to divide the Ummah into disparate
collectives (Jamaa’aat), each Jamaa’ah falling under a call from amongst these calls with the aim of
contesting the ‘Amr’ (authority) of its people i.e. each of these groups aiming to take over control of the
authority, even if only over a particular region from the Islamic regions and to separate it from the body
of the single Islamic body, then forming what they call states enjoying independence or autonomy and a
specific state entity.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1852, 3/1480, (2) Asaas Al-Balaaghah, Az-Zamakhshariy: Article: ‫‘( عصا‬Asaa):31475], (3) Saheeh Muslim:
1847, 3/1475].

Similarly, Ahaadeeth have come related to warning about the fragmenting of the authority and the state
and dividing the Ummah upon the basis of ‘Asabiyaat (tribalism or partisanship) whether those were
regional, ethnic or something like that. That is like what was mentioned in the Hadeeth of Jundub Bin
Abdullah Al-Bajaliy from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said:
 ٌ‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫من قُتِل ََتت راي ٍة ع ِّميَّ ٍة ي ْدعو عصبِيَّةً أَو ي ْنصر عصبِيَّةً فَِقْت لَةٌ ج‬
َ َ َ ُُ َ ْ َ َ ُ َ ُ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ
Whoever is killed under a blind banner, calling to ‘Asabiyah (tribalism) or supporting ‘Asabiyah,
then his death is one of Jaahiliyah (Days of ignorance pre-Islam) (1).

In this manner, the Islamic position in respect to the issue of the unity of the Islamic lands becomes
clearly evident from these Shar’iyah texts that we have presented. To reinforce this position, we will add
the following words to define it. It is:

For the Islamic lands to be one state, under the authority of one Imaam and for the Muslims in the
Dunyaa to be under that authority as one single Jamaa’ah (collective) and one single group of subjects
carrying one citizenship. They are not distributed and spread across a number of authorities in states that
are separated from each other.

That is what the Shar’iyah texts have dictated which have come prohibiting the existence of two
Khalifahs, even if by consent and the process of the Bai’ah, prohibited the disputation of the authority,
responding positively to the calls to the division of the Muslims into Jamaa’aat (collectives) under different
authorities and the obligation for the Muslims to be one Jamaa’ah under the leadership of one man.

In light of this, Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) warned about the division of the authority that rules the
Muslims because that means the division of the Muslims themselves. That was when he warned about the
Muslims having to Imaams where each would have the final word and Abu Bakr listed the matters to
beware of that arise from that, in addition to issuing the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to that division:

ِ ِ ِ ِ
‫ َوتَظْ َه ُر‬، ُ‫السنَّة‬
ُّ ‫ك تُتْ َرُك‬
َ ‫ ُهنَال‬، ‫يما بَْي نَ ُه ْم‬
َ ‫ َويَتَ نَ َازعُوا ف‬، ‫اعتُ ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫ َوتَتَ َفَّر ْق ََج‬، ‫َح َك ُام ُه ْم‬
ْ ‫ َوأ‬، ‫ف أ َْم ُرُه ْم‬ َ ‫فَإِنَّهُ َم ْه َما يَ ُك ْن ذَل‬
ْ ‫ك َخيْتَل‬
‫ص ََل ٌح‬ ِ ٍ ‫ ولَيس ِْل‬، ُ‫ وتَعظُم الْ ِفْت نة‬، ُ‫الْبِ ْدعة‬
َ ‫ك‬ َ ‫َحد َعلَى ذَل‬ َ َ َْ َ ُ ْ َ َ
For verily, however that will be, their Amr (affair) will differ and their Ahkaam (rulings), their Jamaa’ah
will be divided and they will dispute in respect to that which is between them. In that, the Sunnah will be
abandoned, the Bid’ah (innovation) will appear, the Fitnah will become great and there is no good in that
for anybody (2).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1850, 3/1478, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 8/145].

In addition to that we have already quoted from Al-Imaam An-Nawawi the opinion that the majority of
the Fuqahaa’ affirmed, based upon the Shar’iyah texts we have mentioned, in terms of the Tahreem
(prohibition) of there being two Khalifahs in a single time period, whether they were in two different
lands or in one land, and whether the Daar ul-Islaam had expanded far and was vast or not (1).

“Chapter: And if the Imaamah (leadership) is contracted to two Imaams in two lands there Imaamah
(leadership i.e. Khilafah) is not contracted to them and that is because it is not permissible for the Ummah
to have two Imaams at the same time” (2).

Similarly, the following was stated in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah of Al-Farraa’: “And it is no permissible to
contract the Imaamah to two Imaams in two lands …” (3).

With that we conclude the first part of the issue of the Islamic position towards the unity of the Islamic
lands in accordance to the dictates of the Shar’iyah texts which have dealt with this subject in a specific
manner. We now come to the second part in this Mas’alah (issue):
About this second part: The following is included in this Mas’alah (issue): The Ijtihaadiy opinions about
the subject of the unity of the Islamic lands within one state or their division into numerous states
according to the subject to the singularity of the Imaam or the plurality of the Imaams.

We can categorise these Ijtihaadiy opinions into three opinions in accordance to their appearance within
the history of the Islamic Fiqh:

Firstly: The opinion of some of the earlier generation of Fuqahaa’.

Secondly: The opinion of some of the later generation of Fuqahaa’.
Thirdly: The opinion of some of the modern day Fuqahaa’ or writers.

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawi: 8/40, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 9, (3) Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah, Al-Farraa’: 9].

Firstly: The opinion of some of the earlier generation (of Fuqahaa’) about the subject that Al-
Maawaradiy indicated to when he stated:

“And it is not permissible for the Ummah to have two Imaams at one time even if a people have held an
irregular view and consequently permitted it” (1). Similarly, Al-Imaam An-Nawawi transmitted this
opinion when he said: “And the ‘Ulamaa’ have agreed that it is not permissible for two Khalifahs to be
contracted in one period of time, whether the Daar (land) of Islaam was vast or not. And Imaam ul-
Haramaini (i.e. Al-Juwainiy) said in his book ‘Al-Irshaad’: Our companions have said: It is not permissible
to contract it to two people. He said: And in my view: It is not permissible to contract it to two within a
single region and that is agreed upon. He said: But if the distance between the two Imaams is far and there
are vast areas between them, then there is room for its possible occurrence and it is outside of the definite
matters. (An-Nawawi continues) And Al-Maazariy (2) narrated this opinion from some of the later people
of Usool and he meant by him Imaam Al-Haramaini. And it is a Faasid (corrupt or false) opinion
regarding what the Salaf and the Khalaf are upon in addition to what is apparent in the unrestricted nature
of the Ahaadeeth, and Allah knows best” (3).

We are able to extract and summarise the following from what we have transmitted:

1 - The existence of an opinion permitting the plurality of the Imaamah (leadership) within a single time
period (or at the same time). This is what Al-Maawardiy mentioned and it appears that this permission is
attached to it applying to two lands where each is independent within a land based on the Daleel of what
Imaam Al-Haramaini stated in respect to the Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon the impermissibility of contracting
the Imaamah to two people within one region. It is worth mentioning here that Al-Maawardiy was living
at the same time as Imaam ul-Haramaini (Al-Juwainiy) (4). Consequently, the Ijmaa’ (consensus)
transmitted by Al-Juwainiy applies upon his time and the times that preceded it. It therefore includes what
Al-Maawardiy transmitted in terms of opinions and he defined or specified its understanding.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: p9, (2) Al-Maazariy: 453-536 AH (1061-1141 CE), Muhammad Bin ‘Ali Bin
‘Umar At-Tameemiy, Abu Abdullah, who was a Muhaddith from the Maalikiy Fuqahaa’. He is attributed to ‘Al-Maazar’ in the
Island of Sicily, (3) Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawi: 8/40-41 and what was mentioned in Al-Irshaad (by Al-Juwainiy) as
indicated to by An-Nawawi was as follows: “Our companions have adopted the forbiddance of contracting the Imaamah to
two people in two parts of the world! Then they said: If the contract of two contracting parties of the Imaamah (leadership and
rule) agreed upon two people then that would be equal to two Waliy marrying a woman to two husbands …! And my view on
this is: The contracting of the Imaamah to two people in one region which are narrow in dimension and neighbouring is not
permitted and an Ijmaa’ (consensus) has been formed upon that. However, if the distance was far and there was a large gap
between the two Imaams then there is room for this possibility to occur and it falls outside of the definite matters!” p425, (4)
Al-Maawardiy, 364-450 AH (974-1087 CE), ‘Ali Bin Muhammad Ibn Habeeb, Abu l-Hasan Al-Maawardiy. His books include:
Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Haawiy in the Shaafi’iy Fiqh [Al-‘A’alaam, by Az-Zarkaliy: 5/146]. And Imaam Al-Haramaini
419-478 AH (1028-1085 CE) Abdul Malik Bin Abdillah, Al-Juwainiy, Imaam ul-Haramaini, from followers of Ash-Shaafi’iy [Al-
Aa’laam, Az-Zarkaliy: 4/306]].
In addition, Al-Maawardiy judged the opinion permitting the contracting of the Imaamah to two people,
where each has a different land, as indicated to by what Al-Juwainiy transmitted, as being Shaadhdh
(irregular)!

2 - The Ihtimaal (possibility) of the permissibility of contracting the Imaamah (leadership and rule) to two
people on the condition of there being a distance between the two Imaams and a vast gap between them.
This refers to the situation of vast distances separating between two regions or more than two that each of
the two Khalifah rules. Al-Juwainiy did not specify the amount of the vast separating distance by which it
is possible to permit the contracting the Imaamah to two Khalifahs. It appears that this returns back to
that which the Sultah (authority) and caretaking of the Imaam cannot possibly reach in those regions that
are far away from him. In this situation, these distant regions should not be left without an authority that
rules them and takes care of their affairs. Therefore, it is possible for the Imaamah to be contracted to
another Khalifah whose authority is specific to those regions under his control.

It is however important to note that Al-Imaam Al-Juwainiy did not actually affirm the permissibility of
contracting the Imaamah to two people in the situation of there being a distance between the two
Imaams, according to the text that we quoted from An-Nawawi and what might be presumed. Rather, he
affirmed the possibility of the permissibility of that! That is where the text stated: “And the Ihtimaal
(possibility or probability) of their being room (for that)”. It is as if, by his statement, he is leaving the
door open before the Fuqahaa’ so that they can discuss this Mas’alah (issue) within the scope that he had
set without having settled himself upon a specific opinion. However, Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy was not
content to leave this door open for the Mas’alah (issue) to be discussed (like Al-Juwainiy wanted) but
rather blocked it firmly in his comment upon Al-Juwainiy’s opinion, by saying: “And it is a Faasid (corrupt
or false) opinion regarding what the Salaf and the Khalaf are upon in addition to what is apparent in the
unrestricted nature of the Ahaadeeth, and Allah knows best” (1).

Hence, if it is permitted for us to discuss Al-Imaam Al-Juwainiy’s affirming of the possibility that he
mentioned, without quoting the speech of those ‘Ulamaa who have responded to him, then we will
discuss it in respect to his negation or denial of there being texts prohibiting the plurality of the Khalifah
that cover the situation in a definite manner i.e. the situation of there being a distance between the two
Imaams.

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawi: 8/40/41].

Here we ask in respect to the opinion of Al-Imaam Al-Juwainiy: What is the Daleel (evidence) or
semblance of the evidence (Shubhat Ad-Daleel), from which that situation is extracted via the indication
or import (Dalaalah) of the texts in respect to it?

We do not find that which can be an answer to this question apart from that we mentioned before when
providing a reasoning (Ta’leel) for the permission of contracting the Imaamah (rule and leadership) to two
people upon the condition of there being a distance between them, according to those who are
proponents of that view. That reasoning is: The impossibility of the Imaam’s authority and caretaking
reaching the distant and far off regions, and the necessity (Daroorah) of these regions being under an
authority that rules over them and takes care of them all. Upon this reasoning: It is possible for the
contraction of the Imaamah to be undertaken for another Khalifah due to the necessity of establishing
that authority and Ri’aayah (caretaking).

The answer to this Shubhah (speculation) is: That the texts of Tahreem (prohibition) of contracting the
Imaamah to two people are Mutlaqah (unrestricted) as An-Nawawi stated i.e. they cover all situations or
circumstances and from amongst them is the situation of there being a distance between two Imaams.
That is one angle.
From another angle, it is not necessary for the authority of the Khalifah and his caretaking to encompass
the remote and distant regions in a direct manner for those areas to effectively be under the authority of
the Khalifah. Rather, it is valid for them to fall under the Khalifah’s authority and even if that authority
does not connect to them in a direct manner. That would be by the way of Wulaah (governors) and
‘Umaraa (leaders) whom the Khalifah dispatches to those regions and provides them with the right to
undertake the caretaking of the affairs of their regions according to the system upon the basis of which
the state and the authority is established in addition to the plans and guidelines that are provided to them
within this scope. Thereafter, the Khalifah pursues and follows up upon the conditions and circumstances
of those regions through his messengers and assistants (Mu’aawineen) and in accordance to his ability:

‫ف اللَّهُ نَ ْف ًسا إََِّّل ُو ْس َع َها‬

ُ ِّ‫ََّل يُ َكل‬
Allah does not charge a person except [with that within] its capacity (or ability) (Al-Baqarah: 286).

Indeed, it is the original position for the Wulaah (governors) to deal with the politics or policies of the
lands according to the Islamic Ahkaam (rulings) without referring back to the Khalifah apart from in
respect to the matters that have not been entrusted to him. In that case, he seeks the opinion of the
Imaam in respect to them before proceeding upon dealing with them. That is unless there existed the fear
of Fasaad (corruption) resulting from waiting for the opinion of the Khalifah. He would then handle it in
an appropriate manner and inform the Khalifah after about what took place (1).

It was for this reason that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (ra) rejected from his Wulaah and ‘Umaraa that they
refer every small and large matter to him and he mentioned to them that the one witnessing sees that
which the absent does not see (2), thus encouraging them by that to adopt wise and suitable policies for
the realities and newly occurring matters that they come across. And of course, within the confines of
what the Islamic Ahkaam dictate.

In any case, we do use the argument of the absence of the Shubha (doubt or speculation) of the inability
of the Sultah (authority) to reach the remote regions directly, we do not use this argument in our current
day which has advanced in the means of transportation and communications. That is because the
discussion here is the opinion of some of those who came earlier in respect to the possibility of the
permissibility of contracting the Imaamah to two people due to the Shubhah (doubt) of the inability of the
authority, in the centre of the Khilafah, to reach the far off and distant regions, in the past, when these
modern means of transportation and communication did not exist.

This is what is said in respect to the presentation of the opinion of some of the earlier generations (of
Fuqahaa’) in relation to the discussion about the plurality of the Khilafah and plurality of states within the
Islamic world as a consequence of that. That is because, as we have already stated, the unity of the
Khilafah is a metaphor for the unity (or oneness) of the Islamic state whilst its plurality into two or more,
similarly, represents a metaphor for the plurality of states.

Secondly: The opinion of some of the latter generations (of Fuqahaa’) in respect to the issue of
unity and plurality in relation to the Imaamah (leadership and rule) which would then
accordingly dictate the unity of the Islamic state or its plurality within the Islamic world.

We find this opinion being held by Ash-Shawkaaniy in his book ‘As-Sail ul-Jarraar’. He was followed in
that view by Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy Al-Bukhaari, the author of ‘Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah’ as he
quoted the same text stated in ‘As-Sail ul-Jarraar’ by Ash-Shawkaaniy, when presenting his opinion about
the issue.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: p33, (2) ‘Abqariyah (the genius of ) ‘Umar, ‘Abbas Al-‘Aqqaad: p106, (3) and (4)
It was mentioned in the introduction of “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiya”: p5, Qatari administration of religious affairs. Muhammad Bin
Ali Bin Muhammad Al-Yamaniy Ash-Shawkaaniy, who passed away on 1255AH and the Shaarih, (explainer of Ash-
Shawkaaniy’s book), As-Sayyid As-Siddeeq Hasan Khan Bahaadir, who passed away on 1307AH, both came together upon a
single plain … Each of them abandoned Taqleed and struggled in respect to it after preparing themselves for unrestricted
(Mutlaq) Ijtihaad …”].

The following is the text which we quote exactly as it was. Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “ … As for after the
spread of Islaam, the expansion of its area and the furthering distance between its edges or sides, then it is
known that in every region or regions, the Wilaayah (rule and authority) came to belong to an Imaam or a
Sultaan, and this happened in another region or other regions as well. And that is I whilst a command or
forbiddance of some was not implemented in another region and the regions that returned to his
Wilaayah. Consequently, there is no issue (or problem) in having a plurality of Imaams and Sultaans where
it is obligatory to obey each of them after the Bai’ah has been given to each by the people of that region
which implements his commands and forbiddances.

The same applies in respect to the one in authority of the other region. Therefore, if someone comes
disputing (or contesting) him in the region where his Wilaayah (authority and rule) has become established
in and where he was given the Bai’ah by its people, then the Hukm in respect to him is that he is killed if
he does not repent. (That is whilst) it is not obligatory upon the people of another region to obey him or
enter under his Wilaayah (rule and authority) due to the distance between the regions. That is because the
news of its Imaam or Sultaan may not reach that which is far away from it whilst it is not known who is
currently standing from them and who has died. Therefore, the legal responsibility (Takleef) is to obey
whilst the circumstance or this legal responsibility is beyond the capability (or capacity). This is well
known to anyone who has examined the conditions (or circumstances) of the people and the lands. So,
the people of China and India do not know who holds the Wilaayah in Al-Maghrib (i.e. Moroccan region)
let alone being able to obey him. The opposite is true as well. Similarly, the people behind the river do not
know who holds the authority and rule in Al-Yemen just as the opposite is true. So, be aware of this as it
represents the Manaasib (i.e. places of appropriate application) of the Shar’iyah principles and it is in
conformity to what the Adillah (evidences) indicate to. And one should leave what has been said contrary
to it as the difference between what the Islamic rule was upon at the beginning of Islaam and what it is
now, is clearer than the sun in the day. Whoever denies this, then he is flabbergasting and does not
deserve to be addressed by Al-Hujjah (evidence or proof) because he will not comprehend it!” (1).

This is the text in which Ash-Shawkaaniy presented his opinion about the unity of the Islamic lands in
consequence to the unity (or oneness) of the Khalifah or Imaam. He adopted this opinion and Siddeq Bin
Hasan Al-Qanoujiy quoted it word for word in ‘Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah’ except he added to the end of
the text: “Wallahu ul-Must’aan!” (And Allah (alone) is relied upon for help) (2).

[(1) As-Sail ul-Jarraar, Hadaa’iq Al-Azhaar checked version: 4/512, (2) Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah Sharh Ad-Darar Al-Bahiyah:
2/518].

The text is clear in respect to what it indicates however before discussing it we wish to pinpoint, in
focused points, the thoughts that he indicated to so that the discussion revolves around specific matters.
The thoughts contained in the text were as follows:

1 - The existence of a difference between the situation of the Wilaayah (rule and authority) at the
beginning of Islaam and its current situation i.e. at the time of Ash-Shawkaaniy. Before making his
statement, he affirmed what the majority of the Fuqahaa’ (before him) had affirmed in respect to the
obligation of the Wahdah (unity) of the Khilafah. In addition, he affirmed the Hukm in respect to the one
who disputes and challenges the authority of the Khalifah which is that he is killed if he has does not
repent, just as he affirmed the permissibility of contracting the Khilafah to two men. Consequently, he
was in agreement with what the majority of the Fuqahaa’ had established regarding the Wilaayah (rule and
authority) in the beginning of Islaam whilst he specified this period to the first three centuries (1).
2 - The permissibility of having multiple Imaams or Sultaans after the spread of Islaam, the expansion of
its area and the distance between its edges or sides.

3 - The obligation to obey upon the people of every region to the Shar’iy Imaam in authority in that
region alone (where they are) based upon their Bai’ah to him whilst stating that it is not obligatory for the
people of every region to obey the Imaam of another region.

4 - If an Imaam of a region attempts to annex another region from amongst the Islamic regions to his
own, then that action would be considered to be an aggression against the one in authority of that other
region just as it would represent disputing (or challenging) him in respect to his authority that had been
established for him by the Bai’ah in that region which is being aggressed upon. In that situation, the
Hukm in respect to the Imaam who is attempting to unify the other Islamic regions by force and annex
them to fall under his authority without the consent and acceptance of the rulers of those regions and
their people, the Hukm in respect to him is to be killed if he does not repent!

5 - The ‘Illah (reasoning) for the permissibility of the plurality of Imaams within the Islamic regions as
indicated to, after the first three centuries (of Islaam), is the distance between the Islamic regions like the
distance between China and Morocco, in the case where the news related to the Imaam does not reach the
far off and distant regions, regarding who stands (i.e. rules) and who has died. Based upon that, then the
Takleef (legal responsibility) upon the distant or remote regions, for example, to obey the new Imaam
who has assumed the authority, whilst they are not aware of the new authority that has come to assume
the rule, represents a Takleef (legal responsibility) to obey a matter that is unknown in respect to them.
That is whilst the Takleef (being legally charged and responsible) over an unknown matter is beyond the
capability (or capacity). And the Takleef that is beyond the capability is lifted from the Ummah as the
‘Ulamaa of Usool ul-Fiqh have established (2). That is in accordance to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ف اللَّهُ نَ ْف ًسا إََِّّل ُو ْس َع َها‬

ُ ِّ‫ََّل يُ َكل‬
Allah does not charge a person except [with that within] its capacity (or ability) (Al-Baqarah: 286).

[(1) As-Sail ul-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/512, (2) Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam Al-Qur’aan, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/430 and Usool At-Tashree’
Al-Islaamiy, Al-Ustaadh ‘Ali Hasbullah: p38].

Based upon the lifting of the Takleef (legal responsibility) from a matter that is Majhool (unknown) he
establishes that the people of the distant and far off regions are not Mukallifeen (legally responsible
persons) regarding obeying the distant Imaam because he is unknown to them. Then, as the Imaarah
(leadership and rule) is obligatory upon the Muslims and the presence of a Bai’ah upon the neck of every
Muslim is a Fard upon each of them, then due to that, it is for the people of the far-off regions to be
independent in giving the Bai’ah to an Imaam specific to them, to whom they will fulfil obedience in
accordance to the obligation of the Imaarah (leadership and authority) over them and in accordance to
bringing about the Bai’ah to an Imaam upon the neck of every Muslim from amongst them. In this way
(and according to this reasoning), the reality of the vastly spread Islamic world today compels the plurality
of Imaams (i.e. it is necessary for there to be more than one).

In addition, the Qawaa’id Ash-Shar’iyah (principles) establish this opinion in the manner that we have
explained.

The above represents what we have been able to elucidate from the reasoning of Ash-Shawkaaniy for the
opinion permitting the plurality of Imaams and as a consequence, the plurality of Islamic states within the
Islamic world.

We well now discuss what needs to be discussed in respect to the above mentioned thoughts of Ash-
Shawkaaniy. It is likely that the last thought, related to the ‘Illah (reasoning) for the permissibility of the
plurality of Imaams, represents the most important thought requiring discussion. That is because the
opinion permitting the plurality of Imaams is established upon its basis and consequently the
permissibility of having multiple states within the Islamic world in addition to the remainder of the
thoughts which are built upon this reasoning as a consequence to it.

We will discuss this ‘Illah (reasoning), upon which the opinion of the permissibility of having multiple
Imaams is based, from a number of angles:

A - It is true that the Takleef (being charged with legal responsibility) beyond one’s capability or capacity
is lifted in the Islamic Sharee’ah. However, applying this Usooliy principle upon the subject that we are
addressing means applying it to other than its correct place or context! That is because the Muslims are
Mukallifoon (legally charged) to obey the Imaam regarding that which has reached them from him and
not in respect to that which has not reached them from him, even if it had actually been issued from the
Imaam. Consequently, the Takleef of the people of the distant Islamic regions is restricted to obeying the
Imaam in that which reaches them in terms of his news, commands and forbiddances. That is because it is
from the Shuroot (conditions) of the Takleef to have knowledge of the news of the Takleef (2).

(1) Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam Al-Qur’aa, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/430. Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p389, (2) Manaahij Al-
‘Uqool Fee Sharh Minhaaj Al-Usool, Al-Badakhshiy: 1/170. Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p401. Ussol ul-
Fiqh, Muhammad Abu Zahrah: “Al-Jahl (ignorance) of the Daleel (evidence) makes the Takleef fall as the address has not been
directed” p351. And refer to: Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 1/178].

Therefore, the Takleef only relates to the Ma’loom (what is known) alone regarding what the Imaam
issues in terms of orders and Ahkaam. It is only a Takleef in respect to that which is within one’s capacity
whilst that which is beyond the capability does not have any Takleef attached to it! Even if the Imaam had
issued 1000 new decrees whilst the people of distant regions did not know except a few of them, they
would not be legally charged (Mukallaf) in accordance to the Shar’a except with the little that they were
aware of. And if they were not aware of anything at all they would not be Mukallafeen according to the
Shar’a except in that which had been convened upon them previously and that would continue until they
became aware of a new matter that changed what they had previously been upon … Regarding this we
ask: Where in all of this is the Takleef (being charged with legal responsibility) beyond the capacity or
capability?

B - When an Imaam goes and a new one comes, then by the mere coming of the new Imaam to whom the
Bai’ah has been validly given, this Bai’ah has become binding upon the neck of every Muslim in the
Islamic world. It is not a condition for his Bai’ah to be binding upon the neck of this Muslim or that, that
every one of them participates himself in the Bai’ah or that he is aware of it as soon as it happens (1). That
is clear from the Bai’ah that took place with the Khulafaa’ in the time of the Sahaabah. The Khalifah died
or was killed whilst the Muslim armies were occupied in the fronts of struggle with the enemy in distant
regions and the death of the former Khalifah and appointment of the next did not reach them until after a
period of time which could be long or not so long according to the particular circumstances. It could also
be that a number of the Muslims are martyred in those battle fronts after the death of the Khalifah who
died and before the news of the one who succeeded him reached them … This used to happen in the days
of the Sahaabah (rah) and nobody said that the one who was martyred in that period had died whilst not
having a Bai’ah on his neck and +consequently died a death of Jaahilliyah, may refuge be sought in Allah
from such a statement! That would be based on the argument that their neck had become free of a Bai’ah
to the Khalifah which disappeared alongside his death, whilst the Bai’ah to the new Khalifah did not fill its
place because the Muslim did not know of his coming. In relation to this I say: None of the Sahaabah
(rah) said that and their approval of this reality represents an Ijmaa’ (consensus) from them indicating that
the Muslims in the distant regions, whether they were fighters or settled, were not legally charged
(Mukallaf) with being aware of the new Khalifah until the news of him reached them. This represents a
reality and context contrary to that which the principle of the Takleef being lifted due to being beyond the
capacity or capability has been applied to! (i.e. by Ash-Shawkaaniy).
C - In respect to the people of the distant regions, being upon the obedience to the Khalifah applies upon
them however far away he is from them and even if they knew nothing about him. That is in the case
where they are obeying the Ameer who was appointed by the Khalifah or whom he had approved to be in
authority over them and had been delegated to undertake the caretaking of heir affairs.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: 15].

That is clear in what was related by Muslim from Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said:

ِ ِ َ‫من أَطَاع ِِن فَ َق ْد أَطَاع اللَّه ومن عص ِاِّن فَ َق ْد عصى اللَّه ومن أَط‬
َ ‫صى أَم ِريي فَ َق ْد َع‬
‫ص ِاِّن‬ َ َ‫اع أَم ِريي فَ َق ْد أَط‬
َ ‫اع ِِن َوَم ْن َع‬ َ ْ ََ َ َ َ َ َ ْ ََ َ َ َ َْ
Whoever has obeyed me then he has obeyed Allah and whoever has disobeyed me, then he has
disobeyed Allah. And whoever obeyed my Ameer then he has obeyed me and whoever disobeyed
my Ameer, then he has disobeyed me (1).

Therefore, it is not said that obedience to the Khalifah is an impossible or unattainable matter if he is far
away, whilst obedience to the Khalifah is Fard, making it then necessary to bring about another Khalifah
who is near so that obedience can be fulfilled to him. That is not said because the obedience to the Ameer
of the Imaam is obedience to the Imaam (himself) and in such a case obedience to him is not an
impossible matter. Consequently, it is not permissible to build upon that the view of bringing about
another near Khalifah for the sake of fulfilling obedience to him. Indeed, if that happened, and a distant
region did not have an Ameer of the Imaam there, for one reason or another, then it is obligatory upon
the people of that region to appoint one from amongst them as an Ameer in accordance to the obligation
related to appointing an Ameer mentioned within the texts that we have already presented in the previous
study: “That is because it is not permissible to leave the Muslims in a futile state without anyone being
over them managing their affairs” (2). This Ameer who has been agreed upon is considered to be
obligatory to obey just like the Ameer who the Imaam has appointed. That is until there comes from the
Imaam approval (or ratification) or a command to change him. Indeed, obedience to him is considered to
represent obedience to the Imaam himself and even before approval has come from the Imaam
confirming his leadership or another person is appointed in his place. This conforms to that which was
mentioned in the Hadeeth recorded by Muslim and related by Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

‫ص ِاِّن‬ ِ ِ ‫ومن ي ِطع ْاْل َِمري فَ َق ْد أَطَاع ِِن ومن ي ع‬

َ ‫ص ْاْلَم َري فَ َق ْد َع‬ َْ ْ ََ َ َ ْ ُ ْ ََ
And whoever obeys the Ameer then he has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the Ameer then he
has disobeyed me (3).

That is because the word “Ameer” in this text applies upon the one whom the Imaam has appointed just
as it applies upon the temporary Ameer whom the Ameer have agreed upon until the Imaam affirms him
or changes him. This text has considered this obedience to the Ameer as being obedience to the Imaam
himself! So, can it be said after this that the Takleef (legally charged responsibility) of the Muslims in the
distant or remote regions to obey the Imaam represents a Takleef upon that which is beyond their
capacity or capability.

This is therefore our view in response to the basis upon which the opinion permitting the plurality of
Imaams is based. That basis is the reasoning that the Takleef of obeying the Imaam in the distant regions
represents a Takleef that there is no capacity or capability to fulfil. We have seen the non-conformity of
that upon the sensed reality and the Shar’iy reality. Consequently, the opinion permitting the plurality of
Imaams is not acceptable due to the invalidity of the basis that it is established upon.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1835, In the book of ‘Imaarah (leadership) hadeeth no: 33, 3/1466, (2) As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh:
2/803, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1835, In the book of ‘Imaarah (leadership) hadeeth no: 32, 3/1466].
The opinion that is the Haqq (i.e. true and correct) is the opinion that Al-Imaam An-Nawawi affirmed
when he said: “And the ‘Ulamaa’ have agreed upon it not being permissible to contract two Khalifahs in a
single period of time, whether the Daar (land) of Islaam was expanded far or not” (1).

Before leaving the opinion of Ash-Shawkaaniy that we presented and discussed, it is necessary to discuss
the dispositional effect and impact that his opinion leaves upon the Islamic sentiment today. I mean, that
which relates to the call of the people of every region for them to obey the Ameer of their region alone
whilst considering any Ameer who attempts to unify the lands by force, to be an aggressor and disputer of
another in respect to his legal (Shar’iy) authority, whose judgment (Hukm) is that he should be killed.
Similarly, we must be fair to Ash-Shawkaaniy and prevent the exploitation of his opinion to consolidate
the division and fragmentation that we are currently experiencing in our present time. In light of that we
say:

It may be that this opinion of Ash-Shawkaaniy clashes with the Islamic sentiment across a large segment
of the Muslims. It is that sentiment that has deeply rooted in the Muslims feelings for unity as they long
for the day in which they see the Islamic world which was divided by colonialism into small states,
restored by the honourable (men and women) from the Muslims, to being once again provinces of one
single state, ruled by the leader and head of the unified Islamic provinces i.e. the Khalifah of the Muslims!

Just as the Ummah yearns and looks forward to the day that they will see the Islamic Ummah, which was
divided and partitioned by colonialism into peoples, large or small, who ignore each other and do not
familiar themselves with each other, they look forward to seeing those having been moulded into the
melting pot of the united Islamic Ummah by those honourable men and women. That is when they will
be one single collective of subjects under the shade pf pone single state, holding what today is called a
single citizenship.

I say: Perhaps the mentioned opinion of Ash-Shawkaaniy clashes with the Islamic sentiment as we have
mentioned, however it is only fair to mention that Ash-Shawkaaniy does not affirm or approve of the
plurality of Imaams that represents an expression of division except within the limits that he mentioned
alone, in terms of the far distance between the Islamic regions, regarding which he presented the example
in his statement: “For verily the people of China and India are not aware of who has authority in the land
of the Maghrib (i.e. Moroccan region)” (2).

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawi: 8/40-41, (2) As-Sail ul-Jarraar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/512].

As such, Ash-Shawkaaniy does not approve of the reality of the division and partition that we are
experiencing and living through today. Rather, all that he has affirmed is only within the limits of what is
related to the distance between the far-off or distant lands as we described. The ‘Illah (reasoning) for this
approval according to his Ijtihaad is the interruption or cutting off of the news of the Imaam from
reaching those distant regions in a manner like we detailed earlier. In addition, in accordance to the
Usooliy Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) that states that “the Hukm revolves with its ‘Illah (reason) in
presence and absence” (1), we can say that the opinion of Ash-Shawkaaniy does not provide a Shar’iy
covering (based on his Ijtihaad) to the reality of the division and partition that the Islamic world is living
through today and it does not approve of it under any circumstances. That is because the ‘Illah,
establishing it, in accordance to the Ijtihaad of Ash-Shawkaaniy, has disappeared. That is because the
modern means of communication today makes it possible for the news or information from the Imaam to
be delivered to all regions of the Islamic world, by sound and visually, immediately as soon as it happens.
As such we affirm: That regarding the Ijtihaad of Ash-Shawkaaniy and Siddeeq Hasan Al-Qanoujiy who
followed him in that in addition to Imaam Al-Haramaini (Al-Juwainiy) before them, we affirm that the
Ijtihaad of those A’immah (Imaams) returns to being in agreement with what the majority of the ‘Ulamaa
established in respect to the Wahdah (unity) of the Islamic lands and the Wahdah (unity) of the Islamic
state accordingly. That is based upon the disappearance of the ‘Illah (reasoning) that those justifying the
division, partition and plurality of Imaams relied upon. That is due to what the current modern age has
brought in terms of advancements in the means of communication which have removed that ‘Illah
(reasoning). In this way, the word of the Islamic Fiqh has unified once again, in spite of the difference of
its considered Ijtihaadaat, upon the obligation of the Wahdah (unity) of the Islamic Khilafah and
consequently, the unity of the Islamic lands under the shade and authority of the Khilafah state.

With that we conclude our presentation of the opinion of some of those Fuqahaa’ who came later in
respect to the issue of the plurality of Imaams and consequently the permissibility of Islamic states. We
now come to the presentation of the opinion of some of those of our current age in respect to this issue:

Thirdly: The opinion of some of the modern day Fuqahaa’ or writers.

We find this opinion being held by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah which he presented in his book:
“Islamic Unity” (Al-Wahdah Al-Islaamiyah) (2). He initially mentioned that it is obligatory to establish the
unity between the Islamic lands upon the five obligations upon which there is no disagreement or
difference (Khilaaf), and for all of the Muslims to cooperate upon their undertaking.

[(1) Usool ul-Fiqh, Muhammad Zakariyaa Al-Bardeesiy: p268, (2) The first edition of : “Series of Islamic Culture” issued by the
Maktab Al-Fanniy Li-n-Nashr in Cairo under the supervision of Al-Ustaadh: Muhammad Abdullah As-Sammaan and this
booklet was issued in September 1958].

They are:

1 - To settle the disputes (or conflicts) between the Islamic regions.

2 - To consider the aggression against any Islamic region to represent an aggression against all of the
Muslims.
3 - Cooperation between the Islamic regions to expel the colonialism from the occupied Islamic lands.
4 - To restrict the cooperation and loyalty (Muwaalaah) to that which is amongst the Islamic regions alone
and to sever it from the non-Islamic states.
5 - That no policy or political planning of any Islamic region is handed over to non-Muslims (1).

However, what then is the political form that will realise and accomplish the “Unity between the Islamic
lands” and consequently guarantee the realisation of these five meanings or matters?

Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah says the following under the title: “The political form for the Wahdah (unity)”:

“The political form for the unity must realise these meanings within it (i.e. the five obligations mentioned
previously). That is because they represent the overall objective that is sought from the formation of the
unity. It is not necessary (or required) to realise these meanings (or matters) for the state to be one state.
Indeed, it could be accomplished in a powerful manner if the state is not one. For that reason, it is not
viable for our intended aim of unity to be manifested in the formation of a unified Islamic state, within
which all Islamic regions enter to become part of it. That is because the Islamic regions are spread across
every part of the world, they are not neighbouring and there is no capital in the middle that is viable to be
the central point that the Ahkaam revolve around and the commands and forbiddance are broadcast out
from, or for a single harmonic and consistent system to be applied from. That is because every state has a
particularly geometric form for which it is possible to lay down outlines and draw out that which will
make it a controlled, congruous and harmonious form from all sides. And to form a state such as this
across this locational distance (i.e. of the Islamic lands) could not possible be like that (i.e. fulfil these
necessary requirements of the state).

On top of that, the distance between the regions and their remoteness has made each region have customs
and traditions which represent the frame of its civilisation and the main elements of its entity. It is
therefore necessary for the systems that are set to be consistent with its civilisation and in harmony with
its customs and traditions, as long as they are good and not in violation to Islaam.

And on top of this and that, it is not valid for us to call to one state so that the kings and presidents are
not distressed (by such a call)! That is because each of them will fear for what he possesses and his tyranny
(or control), and the kings will fear that their crowns will be stripped from above their heads.
Consequently, they focus their efforts single-mindedly to fight against the thought, kill it in its infancy and
the hostility towards it will be confused.

Therefore, it is not possible for the political unity to be manifested in a single state. That is not possible.
And if it was possible in itself, then it is not easy to accomplish. And if it was easy to accomplish, then it is
not from the Maslahah (interest) …!

[(1) Al-Wahdah Al-Islaamiyah (Islamic Unity), Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abi Zahrah, p61-63].

Let us leave the idea of forming an Islamic state which has a unified (single) leadership and let us move
towards another form or model of union. And some of the writers said: “It is valid for the form of unity
to be upon the form of the states of the British Commonwealth (1). Upon that model each region will be
ruled by its government whilst there will exist a bond that joins them”.

Abu Zahrah commented upon this suggestion of these writers he quoted regarding the form of unity
amongst the Islamic lands, saying: “That opinion could in itself be good and it is not for us to object to it
except that some of the Islamic states are tied to the British Commonwealth (2) and we respond to that by
saying that this connection that binds these states with that state which does not desire anything but ruin
for the Muslims, must be removed …” (3).

This then is the opinion of Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah in respect to the subject of unity amongst the Islamic
lands which is evident upon reading the text that we provided. It is summed up as follows:

- No to the single unified Islamic state and yes to the division of the Islamic world into numerous states,
each one separate from the other, whilst they are combined by a bond or league that supervises over the
five matters that were mentioned previously.

[(1) Commonwealth: “Political organisation in which a number of states or provinces participate with the goal of realising
shared interests. The British Commonwealth refers to what replaced the British Empire since 1948 and it represents a
collection of independent states in addition to some provinces who do not have complete sovereignty, which have formed a
connecting bond making the one sitting upon the British throne a symbol for it and consequently the high leader of this
political organisation … And from amongst the states included in this commonwealth are: Pakistan (Political dictionary:
Ahmad ‘Atiyatullah: p1011), (3) Pakistan is from the states of the Islamic lands in the British Commonwealth, (Political
dictionary: Ahmad ‘Atiyatullah: p1011), (3) Islamic Unity, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p64-66].

In spite of that, we do not wish to go into a detailed discussion about what he mentioned as that would
take us away from our main subject, which is: The legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of
bringing about the unity amongst the Islamic lands within the form of one single (unified) state. However,
because the legitimacy of fighting or its illegitimacy for the sake of that objective rests upon the Hukm
Ash-Shar’iy about that unity, it became necessary to present the Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat about the issue.
Regarding that, we have arrived at the presentation of the opinion of some of the modern or current day
writers and Fuqahaa’, which has been represented in the opinion of the Sheikh, as explained above.

Even though Abu Zahrah has listed the reasons that led to the adoption of his position towards to issue
of unity, we have not however found amongst his reasons a single Shar’iy text that he relies upon to justify
the idea of having multiple states within the Islamic lands and to justify moving away from the thought of
the single (unified) Islamic state or the Khilafah state.
What he mentioned in terms of the distance between the Islamic regions has already been discussed
previously and so we will not repeat our opinion about this. As for what he mentioned in respect to the
difference of customs and traditions amongst those regions or the absence of a capital viable to form a
consistent and harmonious geometric shape of the Islamic world, then we do not believe that the eminent
Sheikh has made of that a reason that is strong enough to suspend the previously mentioned Shar’iyah
texts making the unity of the Khilafah and consequently the unity of the Islamic state amongst the regions
of the Islamic world, obligatory. In addition, our eminent Sheikh (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) was
more aware than us, that the Islamic Khilafah, whether in the era of the rightly guided or in the eras of the
Umawiyeen, the ‘Abbasiyeen and then ‘Uthmaaniyeen, represented a powerful major unified state between
the states of the world during many periods of history of its long history. It held the position of the being
the first or number one state in the world (1) whilst it was not harmed by the differences in customs and
traditions that existed between its provinces as long as these remained within the confines of the
permissible in the Shar’a. Just as it was not harmed by the capital moving from one place to another and
its being located sometimes on the edges of that vastly spread world!

In addition, why was it possible for the non-Islamic world to form major and powerful states comprising
of numerous regions and provinces which spread far and wide in spite of the difference in customs and
traditions existing amongst those regions and provinces and in spite of the existence of capitals of those
states not being upon a detailed geometric shape and form? Just as we can observe from the examining
the maps of those states and the customs of their people?

Regarding that I say: Why was it possible for the non-Islamic world to form major states whilst they had
these two matters which negate the political unity between regions according to the Sheikh? Whilst the
Islamic world is not capable of bringing about that major unified state due to the argument that there are
different customs amongst its regions and the absence of that which can be a capital for that unified state?

[(1) Political Concepts, Ash-Sheikh Taqi ud-Deen An-Nabhani: 39].

So, are the concepts of unity within that non-Islamic world strong and powerful enough to overcome the
factors of division whilst the Islamic concepts related to unity within the Islamic world are too weak to
stand up against the factors of division? Subhaanallah! Indeed, does there exist in this entire existence a
thought that unifies between all those who embrace it anything that compares to the thought of Islaam!
Have we not seen in the beginning of this study some of the Shar’iyah texts concerning unity, which make
the thought of unity and the sentiments and feelings towards this unity take a deep-rooted role within the
depths of the Islamic Aqliyah (mentality) and Nafsiyah (disposition) of the Muslims? Does there exist
within the intellectual heritage of humanity as a whole anything that compares to these Shar’iyah texts?
“Perhaps the Sheikh and those similar to him were affected by the reality of the Muslims since centuries
until today, with the utilisation of the Muslim Aqliyah (mentality) within a narrow scope … and by the
issues of political, intellectual and legislative independence …” (*).

Despite this, we do not wish to stay long on this point as it is not fitting for us to make what Ash-Sheikh
Abu Zahrah mentioned, in an incidental manner, the reason that he depends upon in respect to suggesting
the idea of there being a league between the states of the Islamic world instead of the thought of a single
unified Islamic state, and to then go on to discuss it upon this basis.

It is apparent to us, and to every reader we believe, that the most significant reason for the Sheikh
adopting this position regarding the issue of unity is really the last reason that he mentioned. This was
found within his words: “… it is not valid for us to call to one state so that the kings and presidents are
not distressed (by such a call)! That is because each of them will fear for what he possesses and his tyranny
(or control), and the kings will fear that their crowns will be stripped from above their heads.
Consequently, they focus their efforts single-mindedly to fight against the thought, kill it in its infancy …”
(1).
I say: Just as we were fair to Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy before regarding the opinion that he adopted
about the plurality of Islamic states in accordance to the plurality of A’immah (leaders), likewise we will be
fair to the eminent Sheikh Bu Zahrah. Consequently, we say: After the second reading or may be third or
fourth of his speech, it is seen that he is not a proponent of the idea of the Islamic world remaining
divided and fragmented (or partitioned) into tens of states and that their bond should only be restricted to
that of an Islamic league (of nations) based upon that being representative of the final Hukm Ash-Shar’iy
which his Ijtihaad had led him to the conclusion of. Rather what he is intending to say is: That any form
from among the forms of cooperation that can possibly be accomplished, between the Muslims and the
Islamic regions, must be brought about.

[(*) That which is between the speech marks is a comment made by overseer (of the book/study) upon what came before it, (2)
Al-Wahdah Al-Islaamiyah (Islamic Unity), Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah: p65].

And in the situation where the thought or idea of the independence of the states, each one from the other,
whilst being bound by a joining bond, represents a possible matter (as that does not agitate the fear of the
Kings and the presidents), then it is obligatory, in that case, to work to accomplish that bond, which
represents no more than a form from amongst the forms of unity and cooperation which fall under the
speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوتَ َع َاونُوا َعلَى الِْ ِِّب َوالتَّ ْق َو ٰى‬

And cooperate in righteousness and piety (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

And:

‫َو َج َع ْلنَا ُك ْم ُشعُوبًا َوقَبَائِ َل لِتَ َع َارفُوا‬

And We made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another (Al-Hujuraat: 13).

It is true that the speech of Ash-Sheik Abu Zahrah indicates to an objection to the complete unity
amongst the Muslim lands in the form of one single state, however, he bases that objection upon the basis
that the idea of the single state is not possible and against the Maslahah (interest).

- As for it not being possible (in his views), then that is because the Kings and the Presidents (i.e. rulers),
within the Islamic world), due to the fear of what they may lose, will not leave any avenue open for the
Da’wah (call) for that unity for it to be successful I respect to what it wants to achieve. Consequently (in
his view), what then is the benefit of calling to a matter when the path to accomplishing it is closed by the
command of the Kings and Presidents of the Muslims!?

- As for it being against or contrary to the Maslahah (interest), then that is because the Kings and
Presidents, motivated out of fear of the ramifications of such a call for complete unity, will dedicate
themselves to fighting that idea and killing it off in its infancy … as he said …

As it was well known what kind of means the kings and heads of state adopt to fight against thoughts
which they believed to pose a danger to them and their rule, in terms of violent oppression, suppression
and torture inflicted upon those carrying those thoughts and their loved ones, then regarding this reality,
in the estimation of the Sheikh, as it appears, he has applied upon it that which the Fuqahaa’ mentioned in
respect to Al-Fitnah, Ad-Darar (harm) and Al-Mafaasid (unbeneficial matters), which result from
undertaking that which is the Waajib (obligatory act). Consequently, in such a situation, the Maslahah
(interest) lies in leaving the Maslahah of the obligatory complete unity in order to repel the greater
Mafaasid (negative effects) which the people in authority will not hold back from practising in order to
prevent that which threatens their personal interests. That is in accordance to the principle: “Repelling the
Mafaasid (negative or harmful effects) supersedes the acquiring of the Masaalih (interests)” (3). That is
particularly so because the proposed call for the unity, as understood from the speech of the Sheikh,
represents a call from the people of the Islamic thought who do not possess executive power by which
they would be capable of enforcing the obligatory complete unity. It was therefore in the Maslahah
(interest) for the leaders of opinion (and thought) to be eliminated upon a path that will not be met with
acceptance from those who possess the power to violently oppress and suppress those whom they
imagine to represent a threat towards them. Based upon this, Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah, adjusted his call
from a call for the one single state to a call for a kind of union, which he says is in line with the
cooperation that has been commanded by the Shar’a.

This represents the orientation of the speech of Sheikh Abu Zahrah in respect to the subject of “unity”
which is dictated by the reality of the biting authority in our Islamic world today, which is passing through
a stage of transformation, a matter which does not give that reality the description of permanency and
consequently the opinions depending upon that reality do not represent conclusive Ahkaam Shar’iyah.

I say: This orientation for the speech of Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah is fitting with his Fiqhiy standing which
could not possible take the position of being in opposition to the Shar’iyah texts that provide the
judgment dictating the complete unity between the Muslims and the Islamic lands through the unity of the
Khilafah!

As for what relates to the fear brought up by Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah exhibited from the people in
authority in the Islamic lands i.e. that they will cause the call for the one single Islamic state to fail before
it sees the light (of day), then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬has already dealt with this expected fear from the
kings and heads of state whilst he was proceeding to annex and incorporate regions into the Islamic state.
That was by affirming the people of authority within them upon that which they had been in terms of
authority as long as they enter into Islaam and accept alongside that a system to rule their regions thus
joining them to the single unified Islamic state upon its basis.

The following was stated in Zaad ul-Ma’aad by Ibn ul-Qayyim: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Al-
‘Alaa Bin Al-Hadramiy to Al-Mundhir Ibn Saawaa and he wrote to him inviting him to Islaam. And so Al-
Mundhir wrote back to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬: “Thereafter, O Messenger of Allah! I read your letter
addressing the people of Al-Bahrain. From amongst them are those who love Islaam, are delighted by it
and embraced it, whilst others dislike it. And in my land, there are Majoos (fire worshippers) and Jews and
so inform me of what your command is in respect to that”. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then wrote back to
him saying:

‫َحَ ُد إلَْيك اللّهَ الّ ِذي ََّل إلَهَ ّإَّل ُه َو‬ ْ ‫ك فَِإ ِّّن أ‬ ِ
َ ‫ول اللّ ِه َإَل الْ ُمْنذ ِر بْ ِن َس َاوى َس ََل ٌم َعلَْي‬ ِ ‫بِس ِم اللّ ِه الر ْحَ ِن الرِحي ِم ِمن ُُمَم ٍد رس‬
َُ ّ ْ ّ ّ ْ
ِ ِ ِ ‫وأَ ْشه ُد أَ ْن ََّل إلَه ّإَّل اللّه وأَ ّن ُُمم ًدا عب ُده ورسولُه أَما ب ع ُد فَِإِّن أُذَ ّكرَك اللّه عز وجل فَإِنّه من ي ْنصح فَإَِّّنَا ي ْن‬
ُ‫ص ُح لنَ ْفسه َوإِنّه‬ َ َ ْ َ َ ْ َ ُ ّ َ َ َّ َ ُ ّ ْ َ ّ ُ ُ َ َ ُ ْ َ ّ َ َ ُ َ َ َ
ِ ِ ِ
‫ك ِِف‬ َ ُ‫ك َخْي ًرا َوإِ ِّّن قَ ْد َش َف ْعت‬ َ ‫ص َح َِل َوإِ ّن ُر ُسلي قَ ْد أَثْنَ ْوا َعلَْي‬ َ َ‫اع ِِن َوَم ْن ن‬
َ َ‫ص َح ََّلُ ْم فَ َق ْد ن‬ َ َ‫َم ْن يُط ْع ُر ُسلي َويَتّبِ ْع أ َْمَرُه ْم فَ َق ْد أَط‬
‫ك َع ْن َع َملِك‬ ِ ُ‫وب فَاقْ بل ِمْن هم وإِنّك مهما ت‬
َ َ‫صل ْح فَلَ ْن نَ ْع ِزل‬ ْ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ ُ ْ َ ِ ُ‫ت َع ْن أ َْه ِل ال ّذن‬
ِ
ُ ‫َسلَ ُموا َعلَْيه َو َع َف ْو‬
ْ ‫ني َما أ‬
ِِ ِ
َ ‫قَ ْومك فَاتْ ُرْك ل ْل ُم ْسلم‬
ِ

ُ‫وسيّ ٍة فَ َعلَْي ِه ا ْْلِْزيَة‬ ِ

ِ ‫ودي ٍة أَو َم‬
ُ ْ ّ ‫َوَم ْن أَقَ َام َعلَى يَ ُه‬
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad the Messenger
of Allah to Mundhir bin Sawa. Peace be on you! I praise Allah to whom there is no deity other
than Him. I bear witness that there is no Ilaah (deity) other than Him and I bear witness that
Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. Thereafter, I remind you of Allah, the Mighty, the
Glorious. Advice is provided to one for his own sake. Whoever obeys my messengers and follows
their command, he has obeyed me and whoever provides advice to them has provided advice to
me. Indeed, my messengers have spoken well of you and I have placed you (in authority)
amongst your people. Leave the Muslims to that which they have embraced Islaam upon and I
have pardoned the people who have committed sins (prior to there Islaam) and so accept it from
them. As long as you continue to do well in your work you will not be removed from it. And the
Jizyah is due upon those who remain upon Judaism and Majoosiyah” (1).

In this way, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dealt with the fear of the kings and heads of state in respect to the incorporation
of their regions as Wilaayaat (provinces) within the single unified Islamic state. That was through keeping
them as they were at the head of those regions (in the positions of authority and ruling). Instead of being
subservient and submissive to the sovereignty of the Persians in the East and the Romans in the West and
North, where they were subjected to being degraded, they came to be in a new situation where they would
provide their loyalty to the sovereignty of Islaam and in doing would become honoured and elevated!

In this manner, the people in authority in the Islamic lands today, will be reassured, when the new Islamic
situation invites them to join and be incorporated under the banner of the single unified Islamic state.

Yes, indeed it is true that this matter may not be as simple and easy as this in respect to some of the
people in authority when they are invited to this blessed unity. Matters could develop and escalate, in
respect to those, to the point of using military force and that represents the basis of the problem that we
have presented in this study, which is: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity of the Islamic lands”.
The time has now come to treat this problem after having finished dealing with the first issue and so we
now move on to our second issue of this study.

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/692-693].

The Second Mas’alah (issue):

This issue concerns the Shar’iy position in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) to impose the Wahdah (unity)
amongst the Islamic lands. We became aware at the beginning of this study that this issue is manifested in
different forms as seen in the past, the present and future.

- In respect to the past: This issue was manifested in the form of the separation splitting of some of the
regions of the Islamic world and the removal of obedience from the Khalifah. In this case, this form was
divided into three situations which were:

- The first situation: Removal of obedience from the Khalifah upon the basis of the abolition of his
authority from that part of the region that was separated alone and the formation of an independent state
that did not enter under the obedience of the Khalifah.

- The second situation: Removal of obedience from the Khalifah completely accompanied by the call to
rebel against him whilst taking the region that had removed its obedience as the focal point to launch
from so as to annex and incorporate all of the regions of the Islamic lands under the new authority.

- The third situation: The obedience to the Imaam is not removed from the region that has separated or
split but rather an usurper has taken control over it against the will of the Khalifah whilst it is still
considered to be a region from amongst the regions of the single unified Islamic state.

- As for the present: Then at the beginning of the study we presented a number of forms or images
related to the issue and they were:

- Where within the single unified Islamic lands, a region from amongst them undertakes an internal
revolution where those igniting it demand separation and the formation of a new state.
- Where within the single unified Islamic lands, a region within them separates from the them forming an
independent state (1).

- The reality of a land making and expressing calls for unity, under the assumption that those calls fall
outside of the scope in their description as being calls to take possession of the practical implementation
and to draw the sword to impose the Wahdah (unity) by force.

This is what relates to the present in respect to that which connects to the issue of: “Al-Qitaal (fighting)
for the sake of unity”.

- As for the future: This relates to the expectation we have for the return of the time in which there will
take place a blessed turn of events by Allah’s permission. That relates to when a state from amongst the
Islamic lands adopts the Islamic ideology as the basis of its authority, as the basis for its ruling internally
and externally, and the basis of the message that it carries to the world, announcing through that the
rebirth of the Islamic Khilafah State and demanding that the rest of the Islamic lands join under the wing
of that state. In such a situation, matters could develop between some of the regions and the Islamic state
to the point of raising arms (i.e. using military force).

[(1) Refer to: “Pakistan: Its past and its present”, Dr. Ihsaan Haqqi: p287].

Concerning this I say: These represent the forms that could manifest in relation to the Mas’alah (issue) of
Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of unity … What is required here, is to know the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy for
this issue in all of its forms or situations.

The situations of fighting in the past:

As for the first situation, which is the removal of obedience due to the Khalifah upon the basis of the
abolishment of his authority from that separated region alone and the formation of an independent state
that does not enter under the obedience of the Khalifah, then the Ahaadeeth mentioned at the beginning
of this study apply to it, such as the Hadeeth:

ُ‫اعتَ ُك ْم فَاقْ تُلُوه‬

َ َ‫صا ُك ْم أ َْو يُ َفِّر َق ََج‬ ُ ‫اح ٍد يُِر‬
َ ‫يد أَ ْن يَ ُش َّق َع‬
ِ ‫َجيع علَى رج ٍل و‬
ِ
َ ُ َ َ ٌ َ ‫َم ْن أَتَا ُك ْم َوأ َْم ُرُك ْم‬
Whoever comes to you whilst your Amr (matter or affair) is unified upon a single man wanting to
undermine your ‘Asaa (staff) and divide your Jamaa’ah, then kill him (1).

Just as the reality of contestation or disputation over the Khalifah’s authority, and even if that is only in
respect to a single region from amongst the Islamic lands, applies to this situation, in the case where its
Hukm (legal ruling) is that he killed if he does not rescind his attempt.

In this situation, if those involved in this disputation become fervently attached to it and gather a force to
oppose the force of the state, then in such a case we are dealing with Bughaah (rebels) who have raised
the sword against the Imaam and refused to join under his obedience. Concerning this, we have already
stated within the prior study of “Al-Qitaal against the Ahl ul-Baghy” (Fighting against the people of
rebellion against the legitimate Islamic authority), that it is obligatory for the Imaam to fight them until
they return to obedience and their region enters or returns to being a part of the Islamic state and not
separate from it. That is as long as the state’s army is capable of doing that and when peaceful means to
restore them to being under the flag of obedience to the Khalifah have not been productive or yielded
results. Just as we stated that in such a case it is obligatory upon the Muslims to support the Imaam
regarding what he undertakes in relation to this (2).

As for the second situation, and that is when a revolting Khalifah calls to himself so as to remove the
authority of the current Khalifah whose authority has been affirmed to be legally legitimate. He (the
pretender Khalifah) then takes some of the regions to act as the focal point to launch from into the
Islamic world as a whole in an attempt to unify them under his authority. In this situation, the same is said
as was stated regarding the first case and its Hukm (legal ruling) is the same. In addition, the following
Hadeeth would apply to it:

‫اْلخ ُر ِمنْ ُه َما‬ ِ ْ َ‫إِذَا بُويِ َع ِْلَلِي َفت‬

ِ ‫ني فَاقْتلوا‬
If two Khalifahs are given the Bai’ah (pledge) then kill the latter of them (1).

Al-Qitaal (fighting) against this person who is revolting is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate), as explained
earlier, in the case where it represents fighting against the people of Al-Baghy (rebellion against the
legitimate authority).

[(1)

Consequently, if the affair of this Baaghiy (rebel) comes to an end and the separated or split region returns
to the unity, then that is all well and good. But, if the fighting continues against him and it happens that
the revolt led by this (pretender) revolting Khalifah is successful, where he is then capable of winning the
support of the public opinion and the representatives of the majority of the Ummah give him the Bai’ah,
then he will become, at that time only, the Shar’iy (legitimate) possessor of the authority. His success that
he attained, however, would not pardon him from carrying the burden of responsibility of undertaking the
rebellion against his Shar’iy (legally legitimate) Imaam and the burden of responsibility for the blood that
was spilt, before Allah! They will be held to account in the hereafter even if the people of Baghy
(rebellion) are not held to account in the life of this world for the damage and harm that they brought
during their rebellion, in the case where they had a Shubhat Ad-Daleel (semblance of an evidence) for the
revolt that they declared (1), as was explained previously in the section about the Qitaal of the Bughaah
(rebels).

In this situation, it becomes obligatory upon the supporters of the old authority to give the Bai’ah (pledge)
to the new authority and it is not permissible for them to continue to fight. That is when the old authority
was incapable of holding onto the authority and lost the support of the majority who turned away from it.
It would then be applicable that the Bai’ah given to the Imaam by the majority or those who represent the
majority would then be contracted upon the necks of those supporters and it would then be obligatory for
them to be obedient to him. As for the Bai’ah that was upon their necks to the previous Khalifah, then
the subjugation that enveloped him would make that abolished. It should also be mentioned that the
masses would not be free from being held accountable for falling short and neglecting to come to the
support and aid of the previous Shar’iy (legally legitimate) Khalifah, thus providing the opportunity for the
rebel forces to be victorious and followed by their subsequent Bai’ah and providing of loyalty to him. That
is in the situation where the former authority had not perpetrated violations or deviations that took away
its right to be obeyed (2).

[(1) Al-Muhadhdhib, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/220. Ash--Sharh Al-Kabeer, Ad-Dardeer: 4/299, (2) Al-Maawardiy, Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah: 17-20].

This is what relates to the second situation from the cases of revolt against the one possessing the
authority and the splitting away or withdrawal of some of the regions from his obedience.

- As for the third situation: This is when someone dominates over and seizes control over a region from
amongst the regions of the Islamic state. He does not seek to form an independent state which he
separates from the body of the state so as to be from amongst those working to divide the Islamic state.
He also does not seek to change the Imaam and gain control over the entire Islamic state and to keep it
within one single unified block. Rather, all that he seeks is to gain control over that region o province
alone whilst keeping it within the unity of the Islamic state. This is what happened in the second half of
the ‘Abbasiyah (Abbasid) era. That was when the authority of the Khulafaa’ weakened and it became
normal for the Khalifah to affirm the one who gained dominance and control over a region, in an attempt
to incline him towards obedience and rectify the situation of that region or province from the Shar’iy
perspective. This is what was called ‘Imaarah Al-Isteelaa’’ (The rule or authority acquired through gaining
control and dominance) in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah (1). However, this lenience of the Khulafaa’ with
those who gained control over and usurped the authority from one angle and the remaining of the Ameer
for a long time as a Waaliy (governor) over a particular region or province until that Waaliy began to feel
the consolidation of his authority within his province and the inclinations of sovereignty were stirred
within him from another angle, represented one of the host of causes that weakened the authority of the
Khalifah over the provinces until they came to resemble separate mini-states during some periods of the
Islamic history. That is whilst the Khalifah should have had the resolve to dispatch the necessary force to
discipline the Bughaah (rebels) and sever the path of those who coveted the authority and acted to divide
the unity of the state.

Yes, it is permitted for the Khalifah to remain silent over that Baaghiy (rebel) and appease him by
appointing him to the position of authority as long as that appeasement and appointment make him
submit to the authority of the Khalifah and through that prevent infighting amongst the Islamic regions.
However, in this case we would only be repelling a limited Mafsadah (harm and negative consequence) to
then open the door to a Mafsadah which is greater in its ramifications and consequences. That is the
Mafsadah (harm and negative consequence) of the division and partition of the state which then leads to
its weakness and its inability to stand firm before the enemies who attack it. And that is what actually
came to pass in our Islamic history.

As such, the silence of the Khalifah over every usurper who leaps into the position of authority within the
(Islamic) regions and then appeasing him by way of (official) appointment, makes of those regions a
theatre for a continual struggle over the authority by those who covet it. That is from one angle, whilst
this approach also makes the lands as a whole incapable of standing against the enemy who attacks them,
from another angle.

It was therefore obligatory to strike the hand of every sinful rebel in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy
related to the fighting of the Bughaah (rebels) and to eradicate the illegal endeavour being made towards
the acquisition of the authority and to eradicate it from the inner souls of the people of those ambitions.
Rather, they should have been brought into obedience and to seeking authority through its legally
legitimate paths and means, if they were fit for that. The greatest concern should have been upon
maintaining the unity existing between the Islamic lands within one single powerful state that is far
removed of the ambitions of those who covet and from the aggressions of those who wish to aggress!
This is what is said in respect to the Qitaal for the sake of unity in relation to the past.

[(1) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah, Al-Maawardiy: p33].

As for the present: We have been aware of three forms in which Al-Qitaal takes place for the sake
of Al-Wahdah (unity).

- The first form: This is manifested in a civil revolt or revolution within one of the regions or provinces
of a state from amongst the states currently standing in the Islamic world which has been undertaken with
the objective of separation from the body of the mother state and to form an independent state
possessing its own independent international entity. Consequently, the armed forces subservient to the
mother state oppose that revolt and subdue its leaders whilst fighting takes place between the two sides.
One side fights for independence whilst the other fights to maintain the unity of the land and the state.

The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to this fighting is only based upon the unity being an obligation from
amongst the general Islamic obligations whilst partition and separation is from the prohibited crimes as
the Shar’iyah texts mentioned at the beginning of this study have guided to. When a group or collective
rises wishing to disrupt the continuation upon this obligation and perpetrates what the Shar’a has made
Haraam, then the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in that case is to deter those from attempting that. If they are not
deterred except by Al-Qitaal (fighting and use of military force) then it is obligatory to fight them
according to the ruling of Islaam. The Shar’iy manner of how to undertake this fighting is to be viewed
from the same angle of the fighting undertaken against those who commit a Munkar from among the
Munkaraat, which in this case is the separation (of a section of Muslim land), or those who commit an
aggression against an inviolable sanctity (Hurmah) from amongst the Shar’a Hurumaat (sanctities), which
in this case is represented by the unity that is intended to be aggressed against. We have previously
explained the details of this in the study “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the aggression against the Hurumaat
Al-‘Aammah (public sanctities)” regarding the legal legitimacy of this type of fighting.

We have taken this direction in respect to this fighting and did not include it within the category of the
fighting of the Bughaah (rebels) because the Qitaal of the Bughaah is specified, in the view of the majority
of the Fuqahaa’, to those who have gone out (in rebellion) against the Imaam of the Muslims who rules by
Islaam. In the case where there is no Imaam of this description in our present time we do not want to fall
into the problematic matter of whether the description of Al-Bughaah (rebels against the legitimate
authority) applies upon those who rebel against the people in authority today or doesn’t apply? A matter
which does not fall into the core of our study. Just as we don’t want to delve into whether they fall under
the category of those who dispute the authority of legally legitimate rulers or not? In respect to this I say:
To avoid falling into this problematic area whilst it was clear that the purpose of the fighting of those
taking part in the revolt represents the perpetration of the Munkar (un-Islamic act) of separation and
partition just as it is clear that the preservation of the unity represents an obligation upon the people in
authority in the state, then due to all of that, the Shar’iyah manner of how to deal with this situation is as
follows: The obligation to fight those in revolt who are calling to division and separation and even if that
fighting is undertaken under the banner of those rulers or people in authority who do not rule by Islaam.
That is because it represents a Qitaal (form of fighting) undertaken to prevent a Munkar and to preserve
an obligation. Regarding the one who fights against the separatists with the intention of preventing the
Munkar being committed in the Deen and is then martyred, the speech in the Hadeeth of the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬would apply to him:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (1).

He would consequently be from amongst the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter) in this case.

- The second form: Another form or example of the fighting undertaken for unity’s sake in our current
age is: It is when a province from the Islamic lands ruled by a single authority separates from it to form a
separate independent state. This could occur without undertaking a revolt (or revolution) and without
shedding blood, or it could occur after a revolt and bloodshed.

In this situation, it is obligatory to fight the separatists to restore the unity and even if they did not
undertake a revolt (or revolution) and did not spill blood to bring about that separation. That is for the
same reason that we mentioned in respect to the previous form as the separation represents a Munkar
whilst the unity represents a Waajib (obligation) from amongst the Shar’iyah obligations. The Qitaal in this
scenario represents an obligatory and legally legitimate fighting, as long as the international circumstances
or conditions are favourable and the ability to undertake it exists. That is for the purpose preventing the
continuation of that Munkar and to restore the obligation to what it was. That is the unity between two
parts from the lands of Islaam.

- The third form: Another example related to fighting for the sake of unity amongst the Islamic lands in
our current day is a suppositional example represented in one of the states of the Islamic world today
taking advantage of the opportunity, presented by local and international conditions, to attack a
neighbouring state, which is also from amongst the lands of Islaam, so as to annex it to itself, whether that
is by light or heavy fighting against those who oppose this process to bring unity.

- Is it permissible in this situation to oppose this state that is calling to unity, to fight it and prevent it from
imposing that unity by force?

- And is it permissible to fight in the ranks of the state calling to the unity or unification against those who
reject it and are stubbornly attached to the reality of division?

The reality in this situation differs from the two previous realities discussed. That is because in those
realities a unity (of kinds) already exists and then an attempt is made to impose the Munkar of separation
via a revolt or separation actually takes place through the utilisation of armed force or without it, whilst we
witness that Munkar happening before us. It was therefore obligatory to stand against it and prevent its
occurrence or to remove it after it happened!

[(1) Sunan At-Tirmidhi: 1421, 4/30. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh”. Refer to his: Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhi: 1148,
2/63].

As for this situation, in our suppositional (or hypothetical) example, then the matter that stands out is not
the engagement in the Munkar of bringing division and separation, which takes place before our eyes, as
that Munkar represents the prior Munkar. Rather, what stands out and is prominent in this scenario, is the
attempt to undertake the obligation of unity or unification. That is the reality that we are dealing with here
now whilst on the other side of this attempt there exists another force standing in opposition that resists
and refuses the undertaking of this obligation (according to this hypothetical supposition).

Consequently, what is the Hukm (legal ruling) of fighting alongside the force that has arisen to fulfil the
obligation of unity or unification? And what is the Hukm of fighting against that force?

The answer to that differs in respect to the difference of the reality of the two lands between which it is
intended to bring about unification and the difference in respect to the consequences resulting from the
unity between them. That is as follows (1):

1 - If the two lands are free of colonialism and the consolidated influence of the foreigner, then the Hukm
of the unity here is Wujoob (obligation) as it means undertaking an obligation without any harm resulting
from that and the Qitaal to bring about that unity is Fard. Those who stand in opposition to the
establishment of this obligation are committing a Munkar as they are preventing others from establishing
that which is Fard upon the Muslims to undertake, The Qitaal against them would fall under the category
of the fighting against the people of Munkar, those whose Munkar is not repelled unless it is done by
fighting, the reality of which has been previously explained. In addition, it is a category of fighting where
the one undertaking it is considered to be fighting for the sake of the Deen as in this scenario he is
fighting for the sake of the implementation of a Hukm (ruling) that the Deen has made obligatory. That
obligation is the “Wahdah” (unity) whilst the Hadeeth stated:

‫َوَم ْن قُتِ َل ُدو َن ِدينِ ِه فَ ُه َو َش ِهي ٌد‬

And whoever was killed in defence of his Deen, then he is Shaheed (a martyr) (2).

[(1) In respect to treating the following five points that we are about to mention, we benefited from the study of Ash-Sheikh
Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani in respect to the subject area of unity amongst the Islamic lands. It was published on the 16 th of
Dhu l-Hijjah 1382 (10/05/1963), (2) At-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and An-Nasaa’iy: From Sa’eed Ibn Zaid (Jaami’ Al-Usool: no.
1248. 2/743). Al-Albaaniy classified it as Saheeh in his Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhi: no. 1148, 2/63. The Hadeeth in Sunan At-
Tirmidhi: 1421, 4/30 and he said: This Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh. In Sunan Abi Dawud: 4782, 4/339 and in Sunan An-Nasaa’iy:
7/116].
2 - If the two lands were both subservient to colonialism or both were subservient to the consolidated
foreign influence through economic control for example or through an international treaty which makes
them subservient to the state possessing the influence … and what is similar to this, then the Wahdah
(unity or unification) between them is legally legitimate as it represents the undertaking of a Waajib
(obligation) whilst there is no harm upon either of the two lands resulting from the unification. That is
because the harm of the colonialism is already settled upon them both or the harm of the consolidated
foreign influence over them existed prior to the unity (or unification).

However, undertaking the act to bring unity and fighting for the sake of this unity, does not pardon the
Muslims from the obligation to fight for the sake of expelling the colonialism and to uproot the foreign
influences and controls. Undertaking one of these two obligations first is not a condition to undertake the
other. Consequently, whatever obligation can be undertaken it is proceeded upon irrespective of which
one of them it is and then preparation is made so that the other obligation can be taken. If there is
capability to undertake both obligations together at the same time, then it is necessary to undertake them
both.

3 - If one of the lands was under colonialism whilst the other was under consolidated foreign influence,
then the Hukm to bring about the unity between these two lands is as follows:

- If the unification between them liberates the land under colonialism from the control of that colonialism,
then the Wahdah (unity or unification) is Mashroo’ah (legally legitimate). That is because it represents the
undertaking of a Waajib without any harm being the consequence of that. Indeed, the opposite would be
true as the consequence would be liberation from the colonialism. Undertaking this act to bring unity
would therefore mean the undertaking of a Waajib (obligation) and the Qitaal (fighting) undertaken in the
way of undertaking the Waajib is also Waajib. That is if a method (or way) is specified or found to
undertake it and no harm results from it greater than the harm of leaving it. The Qitaal in this situation
also represents fighting which leads to the expulsion of colonialism as a consequence of it whilst Al-Qitaal
in the way of expelling colonialism is also from the obligatory acts.

- In the case where the unity between the two designated lands would make the land under the foreign
influence enter under colonialism due to the unity with the state that is subservient to colonialism, then in
such a situation it would be Haraam to undertake this unity, due to the repercussions of undertaking it,
manifested in the bringing of harm upon the Muslims. That is because the Darar (harm) of colonialism
brought on by the unification is greater than the harm of being under the foreign influence which existed
prior to the unity, in one of the two lands the unity is intended to be brought about between.

The established Shar’iyah principle in respect to this is: “Undertaking of the Waajib is refrained from (or
prevented) when the consequences of undertaking it brings harm upon the Muslims” Or like Al-Qaraafiy
said: “It is established in the Sharee’ah, that the Darar (harm) is repelled by leaving the Waajib, if a way has
been specified (or designated/found) to repel the harm” (1). Upon this basis, the attempt at unity is
forbidden due to the harm whilst fighting is legitimate to prevent that harm because in that case it would
represent fighting against the colonialism.

4 - If one of the two lands was under colonialism or under the consolidated foreign influence whilst the
other was free from all of that, then in this situation the same is said in respect to the Hukm of bringing
unity between these two lands as was stated in the previous situation explained above.

- If the unity between them liberated the land under colonialism or the land subservient to the foreign
influence, then the Wahdah (unity) is legitimate as it represents the undertaking of an obligation upon
which no harm results. Indeed, the benefit of liberation from colonialism or foreign influence is the
consequence. As such, the undertaking of this unity would mean the undertaking of an obligation whilst
the Qitaal (fighting) to fulfil that Waajib is also Waajib, just like we explained previously. Similarly, this
Qitaal would also be fighting undertaken to expel the colonialism and influence and therefore it would be
Waajib from this context as well.

- If, however, the unity between them would make the liberated land (or one free of any foreign influence)
fall under colonialism or the influence of the foreigner, then the unity (or unification) is forbidden due to
the harm that is a consequence built upon it. The fighting to prevent that harm would consequently be
legitimate because it would represent a Qitaal to prevent a Munkar from amongst the Munkaraat. In this
situation, it would represent fighting of colonialism to prevent it from making the Islamic land submit to
its colonialism or to its influence.

5 - If one of the lands was completely liberated or free (of colonialism or foreign influence) whilst the
other was subservient to the foreign influence which was not consolidated meaning that the foreign state
had no way or path open to it over the land whether that was through control over its economics or via
control regarding its army or something similar to that, due to the lack of sincere followers (or agents) of
that foreign power having penetrated those mediums or something similar to that within the Islamic land.
Rather, the reason for its influence in that land is only because the ruler in that land is personally
subservient to that foreign state and implements what that foreign power wants him to implement in that
land. He is unable to free himself from this subservience at any time whilst that state has no means or
power against him or over that land, from an international perspective.

[(1) Al-Furooq, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123].

In this scenario, what is the Hukm of the unity between the liberated or free land and this land which is
subservient to the foreign state in the manner that we described? That is based upon the assumption of
that ruler who is inclined towards the foreigner remaining in the position of authority following the
unification between the two lands?

The answer differs in accordance to the difference of the kind of rule within the lands.

- The situation where people possess the authority in the ruling where they appoint whom they wish and
take away the authority of whom they wish from a reality and official perspective according to the regular
election system.

In this situation, the unity between the lands would be Mashroo’ah (legally legitimate) because it
represents the undertaking of a Waajib; the obligation of unity. As for the harm resulting from that unity
represented in that ruler being in the position of authority, then that is only a temporary harm which is
removed at the time of the end of his ruling term or by the people deposing him, whilst the unity remains
and represents and obligation from amongst the obligations. That is because the harm or remaining in the
state of division is greater than the harm of having a ruler like this within such a system of ruling that was
mentioned. That is due to the Shar’iyah principle stating: “The least or lightest of the two harms is
perpetrated” (1) or “The most severe harm is removed by the lighter harm” (2) or “If two Mafsadahs are
in conflict with each other, the one with the greatest harm is paid attention to by perpetrating the one
which is lighter (or lesser) in harm” (3).

- However, if the people in the land of that ruler do not possess the authority in respect to the ruling or
only possess it from an official perspective alone but not from an actual or practical perspective, where
they are incapable of removing the ruler or preventing him from renewing his term of ruling and
leadership, then in such a case, it would be feared that this ruler, via his consolidation of the authority,
would pull the land towards the real influence of the foreigner which it achieves through enabling its
agents to penetrate the centres of power within the land. Here, the binding of the liberated land with this
land in a unification between them leads to a harm, in the case where it is this rule who will take hold of
the authority within the unified state. That is whilst it has been previously stated: That the obligatory unity
if forbidden if that leads to a harm because: “There is no Darar (harm) and no Diraar (harming) in
Islaam” (1).

In those circumstances, fighting to prevent that harm, if it is wanted to impose it by force, is legitimate
(Mashroo’). That is because it represents a Munkar (evil or Haraam matter) and fighting to prevent the
Munkaraat is an obligation from amongst the obligations, in the case where it cannot be repelled except by
it, as previously explained.

With that we conclude our discussion of the Mas’alah of Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of unity (or
unification) in our current time in which the Khilafah is absent from the international arena. As for when
it realises its presence in the expected future, by Allah’s permission, then the Qitaal for the sake of the
Wahdah (unity and unification) at that time has a different reality attached to it and that is the subject of
the following section.

The fighting for the sake of unity in the expected future: When time takes a blessed turn, the Khilafah is
established and the Muslims within the Islamic regions are called to enter under the shade and authority of
the Khilafah state, what is the Hukm of the Qitaal that it could be drawn into, due to developments
related to the issue of unity, whilst it is the Khilafah state that is calling and inviting to that unity?

The answer to this is as follows: When this Khilafah state is established via the Bai’ah (pledge) of the
Muslims of a particular region from the Islamic regions to a Khalifah, upon the basis that he is the Imaam
of all of the Muslims in the Dunyaa (world) who has been given the Bai’ah to establish the ruling of
Islaam in all internal relationships, to make Islaam the pivot upon which the foreign relations are regulated
and to carry it as a message to the world, then in this situation, the Bai’ah (pledge) would have become
binding upon the neck of every Muslim and even if that Muslim had not actually given the Bai’ah in
person. That is because the Imaam had been brought into existence and the Bai’ah of contraction had
been completed in a Saheeh (valid and correct) manner to him. It is then not allowed for any Muslim to
not consider him as an Imaam and he (the Khalifah) has the right of obedience due to him. This is in
accordance to the Hadeeth of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

ً‫اهلِيَّة‬
ِ ‫ومن مات ولَيس ِِف عن ِق ِه ب ي عةٌ مات ِميتةً ج‬
َ َ َ َ َ َْ ُُ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ َ
And whoever dies whilst there is no Bai’ah on his neck, dies the death of Jaahilliyah (2).

Therefore, it is a duty upon all of the rest of the Islamic regions, once the validity of the Bai’ah of
contraction of the Khalifah has been realised, to present the Bai’ah of obedience to him and to join the
Khilafah state as Wilaayaat (provinces) of it. As for the people in authority (i.e. the rulers) in those lands
and regions, then they will remain in their positions as long as they fulfil what is required for them to be
able to maintain them. That is like what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to do in respect to the people in
authority in those regions which were joined to the Islamic state, in the case where the Maslahah dictated
that.

[(1) At-Tabaraaniy in his Mu’jam Al-Awsat, related from Jaabir Bin Abdullah from the Messenger of Allah ‫( ﷺ‬Nasb Ar-Raayah:
4/386). Discussion about this Hadeeth (i.e. its soundness) and its narrations can be found in: ‘Al-Ibtihaaj BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth
Al-Minhaaj’ by Al-Ghamaariy p242. The Hadeeth is also in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah with the last words “in Islaam” omitted,
no. 2340 and 2341. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his ‘Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah’ no. 2340 and 2341, 2/39, (2) Saheeh Muslim:
1851, 3/1478].

Naturally, the Islamic system will take the place of the standing man-made or imported systems governing
in the Muslims in all of the Wilaayaat.

However, it may be that negotiations will need to take place for them to join the Khilafah state.
Conditions may be presented and those which are acceptable can be accepted whilst those which are
unacceptable are rejected. That is like the negotiations that took place between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the
people of At-Taa’if. They presented to him demands upon which they would enter into obedience and
join the Islamic state. A deal was then made regarding this matter where the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬accepted what
was acceptable, like the request to not destroy their idols by their own hands, whilst he rejected that
which was unacceptable like pardoning them from the duty of the Salaah or to leave their idol ‘Al-Laat’
for a certain period of time before its destruction.

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not accept anything from them that was rejected in Islaam based upon a
desire for At-Taa’if to join his state and enter into obedience to him, upon the basis of those conditions
that Islaam rejects or refuses to accept. That was evident when he ‫ ﷺ‬refuse to given in to the request of
the people of At-Taa’if to leave their idol ‘Al-Laat’ before its destruction for a period of three years. The
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬rejected this condition of theirs and so they compromised upon this period. They even
went down as low as the request to leave it for a period of one month. What they had intended to
achieve from that, as it seems, from the leaving of the idol for that period, was to be secured from the
trouble makers from their people, their women and dependents. They disliked alarming their people by
the destruction of ‘Al-Laat’ before they had embraced Islaam. However, regardless of that, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was committed to the rejection of this demand (1). That is because maintaining a
sign from among the signs of disbelief is not allowed to be approved and consented to within the state of
Islaam or in any Wilaayah (province) from amongst its provinces after they have become a part of that
state. That excludes all that Islaam has approved of and consented to relation to how the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah and the Musta’mineen (those who have been granted a security to enter the state) are dealt
with (within the Islamic State).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/499-500].

In this way, when the Khilafah state is established in the expected future and negotiations are held with
the Islamic regions about their entry into obedience (to the Khalifah), joining under the banner of the
Khilafah and replacing their other systems (or governance) with the Islamic system … and then
complications occur as some of the regions of the Islamic world completely refuse to enter into that unity
or accept to enter upon specific conditions that are rejected by Islaam … then the situation develops from
there to the point that the Khilafah state uses military force to subdue that region, or more accurately, to
subdue the power or force that controls that region, then in this situation, what is the Hukm (legal verdict)
in respect to this Qitaal (fighting)?

The answer to this is that the Qitaal is Waajib (obligatory) due to a number of matters (or reasons):

1 - As that region or the people of power in it are abstaining from giving obedience to the Shar’iy
(legitimate) Imaam, then in that situation they are Bughaah (rebels) and they are fought just as the
Bughaah are fought against!

2 - Because Al-Wahdah (unity) is from the Islamic obligations whilst the people of authority in that region
refuse to fulfil that obligation and indeed they stand against its establishment. They are therefore
perpetrating a Munkar in respect to the Shar’a and consequently they are fought like the people of the
Munkaraat are fought against to prevent them from the continuation of this perpetration in terms of
Munkaraat and sins.
3 - If that region has established its rule upon other than Islaam and Al-Kufr Al-Bawaah is apparent, then
fighting the people in authority would also be Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) for the purpose of establishing
the rule of Islaam, acting in accordance to the Hadeeth:

‫احا عِْن َد ُك ْم فِ ِيه ِم ْن اللَّ ِه بُْرَها ٌن‬

ً ‫ع ْاْل َْمَر أ َْهلَهُ َّإَّل أَ ْن تََرْوا ُك ْفًرا بَ َو‬
َ ‫َوأَ ْن ََّل نُنَا ِز‬
And that we should not dispute the affair (i.e. authority) of its people unless you see Kufran
Bawaahan (clear or explicit disbelief) in respect to which there is a clear proof (Burhaan) from
Allah (1).

The reasons that concern us are those related to our issue in this study which is: Al-Qitaal (fighting) for
the sake of unity between the Islamic lands. The first and second reasons both fulfil this relationship.

Consequently, we come to the conclusion of the second issue of our study and now move on to the third
and final Mas’alah.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: Number 7056 according to the numbering of Muhammad Fou’aad Abdul Baaqiy. Fat’h ul-Baari:
13/5].

The third issue:

Is Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of unity between the Islamic lands from the category of Al-Jihaad
according to its Istilaahiy meaning?

The answer to this question does not require more than a reminder about the definition of Al-Jihaad so
that it becomes the scales by which we measure all of the types of Al-Qitaal. That which conforms to this
measure is Al-Jihaad whilst what doesn’t conform to it is not Al-Jihaad according to its Istilaahiy
(terminological) meaning. In spite of that, a (form of) Qitaal could be legitimate (i.e. accepted) and Waajib
even if it does not fall under the name of Al-Jihaad, and the one who is killed participating in it is
considered to be from the Shuhadaa’ of the Aakhirah. Conversely, a type of fighting could be Haraam
whilst it is not permissible to be involved in it or assist it.

The definition of Al-Jihaad (as previously stated) is: The Qitaal of the Kuffaar who do not possess an
‘Ahd (covenant) or Dhimmah, to raise high the Kalimah (word) of Allah Ta’Aalaa (1).

This Kalimah (word) of Allah means: The word that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla throw upon His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬,
entrusted upon his shoulders to convey to the people and commanded the Muslims to fight in its way.
This Kalimah only means Al-Islaam whilst Al-Islaam applies to everything that it encompasses in terms of
Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam just as it applies to the single Islamic Hukm (ruling) from the host of
Ahkaam. The evidence for that, is what the Ahaadeeth have mentioned in terms of using the term of
Islaam to apply upon a number of matters that it has come with. Sometimes, more matters are mentioned
and sometimes less, just like some Ahaadeeth have come using the word ‘Islaam’ to refer to a single
matter from among the matters that the Deen has brought. Examples of this include that the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬was asked about Islaam and he said: “Five prayers during the day and night” (2), the statement of
Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra): “Al-Islaam is thirty portions …” (3), his statements ‫ﷺ‬: “Islaam is ten portions
(As’ham) …” (4) “Islaam is eight portions …” (5) and his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “Islaam is good manners”
(6).

Therefore, the Muslims who fights to fulfil or undertake the Waajib (obligation) of unity (or unification)
between the Islamic lands is only deemed to be fighting for Islaam. That is because the obligation of
establishing the unity represents a Hukm from among the Ahkaam of Islaam. Consequently, the Qitaal
(fighting) to establish it, represents a Qitaal that is undertake to raise high the Kalimah (word) of Allah
‘Azza Wa Jalla.

[(1) Al-Mu’jam Al-Waseet: Article: ‫ج َه َد‬,

َ (2) Al-Bukhaari: 47, 1/106. Saheeh Muslim: 11, 1/41. Jaami’ Al-Usool: 1/222, (3) Al-
Mustadrak ‘Alaa As-Saheehaini, Al-Haakim: 2/552, (4) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 43, 1/33, (5) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 32, 1/30, (6) Kanz
ul-‘Ummaal: 5225, 3/17].

- Consequently, if the those the Muslim fights for the sake of that (unity) are Kuffaar who do not have
covenant or Dhimmah (contract of protection), then that Qitaal represents a Jihaad in the way of Allah.
That is because the definition of Al-Jihaad conforms to it.

- And if those the Muslim is fighting for that purpose are Muslims who are holding on to the ‘Asabiyah
(partisanship or tribalism) of Jaahilliyah (ignorance) whether that is in the form of regionalism or racism
and because of that they are resisting that unity or unification, or they are from those who have taken the
Kaafir colonialist as a means to accomplish that, so that they prevent what Allah has commanded from
reaching the Islamic lands seeking the favour of the colonialist, consolidate the Muslims’ weakness and
keep them under the control and influence of the Kaafir, then in such a situation, the fighting of the
Muslim for the sake of unity or purpose of unification is not Jihaad according to its Istilaahiy
(terminological) meaning. That is even if that Qitaal was justified and leaving it, whilst having the ability to
counter it, represented a prohibited matter. As for the other party or side who are fighting, then they are
only fighting the Qitaal of Baghyi (rebellion) or the Qitaal of Fitnah (strife and disorder) whilst their
account is with Allah.

- As for when those who are standing against those fighting in the way of establishing the unity are
disbelievers from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then in this situation:

- If the Imaam judges that the Ahl udh-Dhimmah have breached their contract of Adh-Dhimmah by
taking up arms against the establishment of unity, then by that they have come to take the Hukm (ruling)
of warring disbelievers (Kuffaar Harbiyeen) who do not have a covenant for them and no Dhimmah
(contract of protection). The fighting of the Muslim against them is therefore Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in
the way of Allah).

- If the Imaam has not however considered their taking up of arms against the establishment of unity to
be a breach of their contract of Dhimmah due to one reason or another, as was mentioned in detail
previously in the study “Qitaal Ahl udh-Dhimmah” (Fighting against the people of the contract of
protection), then in this situation, the Muslim’s fighting against those, for the purpose of unity or
unification, would not be Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to its Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning.
That is even if it represents a Qitaal (fighting) that Islaam has commanded to be undertaken and blessed
those who partake in it whilst the one killed is considered to be from amongst the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of
the hereafter (Al-Aakhirah).

In respect to this, we should not forget to remind that when the Qitaal is from the category of Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeelillah, that it would be an ‘Ibaadah (act of worship) from the acts of ‘Ibaadah. As such, for the
act of ‘Ibaadah to be valid from the one undertaking it and for its reward to be written, it must be
connected to the righteous Niyah (intention) (1). That means that its performer must undertake it with the
intention of complying to the command of Allah and rising up to fulfil the a Shar’iy obligation from
amongst the Islamic obligations.

… And with an upright intention we reach the conclusion of this study and by reaching its end we also
arrive to the last stroke in this volume in which we have examined many realities from amongst the
realities of internal and external fighting to arrive at the knowledge of which of these realities is Al-Jihaad
in the way of Allah and which of them do not fall under the category of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah,
whether they are justified (and legitimate) or warned about to stay clear from.
And to the next volume we proceed …

Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal
Fee
 As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume Two
The Legal Legitimacy of Al-Jihaad

Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Um Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.
Volume 2
The Legal Legitimacy of Al-Jihaad

Chapter One: The stage prior to Al-Jihaad “The Islamic Da’wah (invitation) in the Makkiy period”
before Al-Hijrah.

Foreword: About the areas of study that will be included in this chapter and about the conclusion and
what it contains in terms of clarifying the connection of the chapter to the subject of Al-Jihaad.
The first study: The Islamic Da’wah in the concealed stage.
The second study: The Islamic Da’wah in the open declaration stage.
The third study: The Islamic Da’wah in the stage of presentation to the tribal leaders and the contraction
of the Bai’ah with the Ansaar over war.
Concluding word: Violence in this stage and the Shar’iy position concerning it.

Chapter Two: The stage following the legislation of Al-Jihaad: “The Islamic Da’wah in the Madaniy
period” after Al-Hijrah.

The first study: The permission to engage in Al-Qitaal (fighting).

The second study: A brief presentation of information about the wars and their cessation by
Mu’aahadaat (treaties) within the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the most prominent Ahkaam deduced
from them.
The third study: The Da’wah (invitation) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to the heads of states to Islaam
and its relationship with Al-Jihaad.
The fourth study: The motivating factors for declaring Al-Jihaad upon the remaining fronts in the era of
the Khilafah Ar-Raashidah.

Chapter One

The stage prior to Al-Jihaad “The Islamic Da’wah (invitation) in the Makkiy
period” before Al-Hijrah

Foreword: About the areas of study that will be included in this chapter and about the conclusion and
what it contains in terms of clarifying the connection of the chapter to the subject of Al-Jihaad.

Al-Jihaad according to its Shar’iy Istilaahiy (terminological) meaning: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the
Kuffaar to raise the world of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla high” was not Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) in Makkah
Al-Mukarramah prior to the Hijrah (emigration) to Al-Madinah. The Aayah of permission to fight is
sufficient evidence of that as it was revealed on the way of the Hijrah from Makkah to Al-Madinah as will
be explained in detail in the second chapter of this volume Inshaa Allah.

In the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy and An-Nasaa’iy it was reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said: When
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬left Makkah Abu Bakr said: “They harmed their Nabi until he left, may they
perish. And then Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed:

َ‫َۚوإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ َعلَ ٰىَ َنصْ ِر ِه ْمَلَ َقدِير‬ ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َظلِمُوا‬ ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫أُذ َِنَلِلَّذ‬
َ ُ‫ِينَ ُي َقا َتل‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is all
capable of providing them victory (Al-Hajj: 39)”.

Abu Bakr said: “I knew (then) that there would be Qitaal (fighting)” and in another narration, he said: “So
I knew that there will be fighting”. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “It is the first Aayah revealed in respect to Al-Qitaal
(fighting)” (2).
It is clear from the worded expression of the Qur’aan of providing ‘permission’ in respect to Al-Jihaad
and from the expression of Abu Bakr about what he expected for the Da’wah in terms of it entering into
the battlefield of armed struggle whilst he was on his way emigrating to Al-Madinah alongside the
Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. It is clear from that the domain of Al-Qitaal (fighting) had been closed shut throughout
the previous period of the life of the Islamic Da’wah.

The meaning of that is that the life of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah from its inception to its conclusion
was a peaceful life from their side; no sword was raised or any weapon drawn in spite of what befell the
carrier of this Da’wah and the first generation of believers, in terms of all types and forms of harm and
persecution undertaken by the leaders of the Mushrikeen. Indeed, the Islamic Da’wah adhered firmly,
from its side, to the peaceful aspect for the greater portion of its life during the era and lifetime of the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. That is as it the Da’wah in Makkah lived peacefully for a period of thirteen years in Makkah
(1). Then when it moved to Al-Madinah and came to have an entity and state, it raised arms (i.e. adopted
the military and material aspect). It then launched into the fields of Qitaal (fighting) and struggle for a
period of ten years (2) until the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬at the conclusion of this period came in contact with Ar-
Rafeeq Al-Aalaa (i.e. he ‫ ﷺ‬passed away). However, how did the Islamic Da’wah move from peace to
war?

And how did that stage live, the stage of adherence to peace, holding the hand back and refraining from
using weapons? What are the circumstances that prepared for it (i.e. the Da’wah) until it was enabled to
impose its presence as a state and then began to fight those aggressing and conspiring against this
presence and against the Da’wah that its presence was established upon? This is what we will discuss in
this first chapter of this volume. It is worth pointing out that it is not from the main purposes of this
doctorate to provide a historical account or examination of the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah,
the phases that it included and how each phase was distinguished from the other. Indeed, this is a worthy
and important subject for an independent doctorate to be dedicated to, that delves deeply into its details,
so that lessons of this stage can be extracted from it and benefit the Islamic Da’wah in our current time,
so as to take from them lamps that light up the way and the features that define the path in addition to
keeping it away from deviation and tripping up!

Indeed, it is not one of the main aims and purposes of our study to provide a historical account or
examination of the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah. However, despite that, it is still necessary to
cast some views upon this stage due to it representing the peaceful stage that preceded the stage of Al-
Jihaad (with its meaning of Al-Qitaal). That is so we can move naturally into the subject of Al-Qitaal
following that, just as the conclusion follows its introduction and outcomes of matters follow on naturally
from their starting points.

[(1) Ar-Rawdah Al-Unuf: 1/281. Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3851 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/162) and Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa As-Saheehaini, Al-
Haakim: 2/627].

Consequently, we will cast three quick views upon the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah:

- A view of it in its first years before it was consolidated or its followers multiplied.
- A view of it after its followers became many and was strengthened (or given might) by its men.
- A view of it when it was seeking Ansaar (supporters) from outside of its Daar (homeland) after giving up
hope on those who were near hoping that it might find those who will open the door before it from a
distant place and open up their homeland to it!

After these three views, there will be a conclusion in which we will present the aspect of violence and Al-
Qitaal (fighting) concerning this stage as a whole. This will include the violence that the Mushrikoon
directed towards the carriers of this Da’wah and what the stance of the men of the Da’wah was
throughout that? In addition, it will include a discussion about the Shar’iyah texts that regulated the
relationship between the Muslims and the Mushrikeen in Makkah in respect to that which relates to this
Mas’alah (issue) i.e. the issue of violence and Al-Qitaal?

In this conclusion, the connection of this chapter with the subject of Al-Jihaad, with its meaning of Qitaal
(fighting), will become clearly apparent.

Accordingly, this chapter will go through three studies and a conclusion as follows:

The first study: The Islamic Da’wah in the concealed stage.

The second study: The Islamic Da’wah in the open declaration stage.
The third study: The Islamic Da’wah in the stage of presentation to the tribal leaders and the contraction
of the Bai’ah with the Ansaar over war.
Conclusion: The violence in this stage and the Shar’iy position towards it.

The First Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the concealed stage

- Understandings related to the implied meaning of being secret or concealed.

- The first understanding: Secrecy of the Da’wah, of organisation, of those affiliated and of the
undertaking of ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship).
- The second understanding: Secrecy related to performing the ‘Ibaadaat alone.
- The third understanding: Secrecy of organisation.
- What we outweigh to be strongest in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of the secrecy or concealment in this
stage.
 The First Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the concealed stage

To begin with, we should define the understanding of concealment or secrecy when we are describing the
Islamic Da’wah by it regarding this first stage in its like in Makkah Al-Mukarramah.

Understandings about the indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment:

1 - The first understanding: It is that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬remained three years in this stage from the stages of
the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah, calling to it secretly from those he was close to in terms of relatives and
companions. And he did not proclaim openly before the public the Da’wah to the new Deen, in terms of
worshipping Allah alone and discarding the worship of idols. That was to avoid surprising the Quraish
with that which is contrary to their idol worship which they were extremely emotionally attached to in that
place! Those who embraced Islaam did so secretly and they met with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬secretly so that he
would culture them with the new Islamic culture, represented in the divine revelation that descended upon
the heat of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬from the heavens. They would also practise their acts of worship
in secrecy in their homes if they were empty or in the mountain paths far away from the watching eyes!
In summary, the indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment in the Islamic Da’wah, according to this
understanding, encompasses the secrecy of the Da’wah itself, the secrecy of practising that which this
Da’wah came with in terms of worships and the secrecy of organisation as well. What we mean by
organisation is: To make those who enter the Islamic Da’wah a single Jamaa’ah (group), separate from the
society which lives by its own Aqeedah (belief), values and leadership. The individuals of this group are
connected (or bound) to each other upon the basis of this Aqeedah and values whilst they abide by the
direction that comes from the leadership. By secrecy of organisation we mean: That the matter of this
organisation according to this understanding, the matter of the individuals from whom this organisation is
formed and the matter of the meetings held between the individuals with each other or with their
leadership regarding that which is related to the affairs of the Da’wah, in terms of time and place, that all
of this remains within the scope of secrecy and concealment.

This is the first understanding related to the indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment in respect to
the Da’wah in its initial stage, as has been extracted from a host of writings that have addressed this issue
(Mas’alah).

From the earlier writings that guide to the aspects of this understanding is the following statement of Ibn
ul-Qayyim:

“And he ‫ﷺ‬, after that, spent three years calling to Allah Subhaanahu in a concealed (or hidden)
manner. Then the following was revealed:

ِ ‫َُوأَعْ ِرضْ َع‬

ََ‫َنَا ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬ َ ‫َبمَاَ ُت ْؤ َمر‬
ِ ْ‫َفاصْ دَع‬
Then proclaim what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists (Al-Hijr: 94)

And so he ‫ ﷺ‬proclaimed the Da’wah and openly addressed his people with antagonism. The harm then
became severe against him and upon the Muslims until Allah permitted for the the two Hijrahs
(emigrations)” (1).

From the modern writings indicating to this understanding is what came in the book “Diraasah Fee As-
Seerah” (A study of the Seerah) in which the author stated: “The number of Muslims did not exceed forty
in this period. They were all whom had embraced Islaam during this period of time, three of four years,
and each represented ammunition for Islaam and its preparation or the future. It represented a long time
period, and it had been possible for many multiples more than this number to have embraced Islaam had
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬undertook the Da’wah openly. However, he had not been charged at that time with
the obligation of proclaiming Islaam openly and to convey, except to those whom he found within their
hearts the inclination towards (accepting) Islaam. For that reason, the Muslims, at that time, did not
exceed that mentioned number which was few in comparison to the resident population of Makkah which
numbered thousands … In addition, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had commanded his followers to be cautious, to
beware, to conceal and to not announce their Islaam until Allah had decided the matter …” (2).

[(1) Meaning: The first Hijrah and the second Hijrah to Al-Habashah (Abyssinia). Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 1/86. Also
refer, in respect to this understanding, to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 1/285 and 2/3). And also: Fiqh As-
Seerah, Dr. Muhammd Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p80, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom, SafiurRahmaan Al-Mubaarakfooriy: p85-
88, Al-Minhaj Al-Harakiy Lis Seerah An-Nabawiyah, Muneer Muhammad Al-Ghadbaan: p17, (2) Diraasah Fee As-Seerah, Dr.
‘Imaad ud-Deen Khaleel: p62-63].

In addition, it may be that from amongst the evidences relied upon, by those holding this understanding,
is what was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Some of the people of knowledge mentioned that when
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬attended to the prayer he would go out to the Shi’aab (mountain paths) of
Makkah and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib would go out with him hiding from his father ‘Abu Taalib’, all of his
paternal uncles and the rest o his people. They would both perform their Salaah (prayer) there and when
evening came they would return. They remained like that for as long as Allah wished for them to remain.
Then Abu Taalib discovered them one day whilst they were praying. And so he said to the Messenger of
Allah ‫ﷺ‬: O nephew! What is this Deen that I see you following? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: My uncle! This is the
Deen of Allah, the Deen of his angels, the Deen of his Prophets and the Deen of our father Ibrahim (or
he said ‫ ﷺ‬something like that) … Allah has sent me as a Messenger to the ‘Ibaad (servants i.e. people).
And you O uncle! Are of more right that I extend to you, advice and invite you to the guidance and you
are of more right to respond to it and support me upon it (or he said something like that). Abu Taalib
then said: O nephew! I cannot separate and leave the Deen of my forefathers and what they were upon.
However, by Allah I will not allow something bad to befall you whilst I am still living!” (1).

Also, in respect to some of the narrations about ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab’s (ra) embracing of Islaam, Al-
Imaam Ibn ul-Jawziy in his book ‘Taareekh ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab’, mentioned that ‘Umar said the
following when discussing how he first became Muslim: “So I said: I bear witness that there is no Ilaaha
(deity) other than Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah! He said: O ‘Umar! Conceal it. He said:
So I said: By the One who has sent you with the Haqq (truth) I will declare it openly just as I declare the
Shirk (polytheism)!” (2).

The above represents that which is related to the understanding of the indicated meaning of secrecy and
concealment in the Da’wah in its first phase or initial stage.

2 - The second understanding: The indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment that we are
addressing is manifested in what Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah said in his book ‘Khaatim An-
Nabiyyeen’. He stated the following: “The narrators could say that the concealment lasted for about three
years and that they used to conceal it in respect to their ‘Ibaadah (acts of worship) and their study. And
they said: It took place in Daar il-Arqam Bin Abi l-Arqam. However, we must be aware that the
concealment in this period was not a concealment of the Da’wah. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to
announce what came to him in terms of warning and glad tidings. However, that which was hidden was
the establishment of the ‘Ibaadah (worship) that the Lord of the worlds had called to be performed. For
that reason, the persecution of the believers from amongst the weak and the persecution of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
took place before Hamzah and ‘Umar embraced Islaam” (3).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 1/285). Seerah An-Nabiy, Ibn Hishaam with verification of Muhammad Muhyi
ud-Deen Abdul Hameed: 1/2650, (2) Taareekh ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Jawziy: p9, (3) Khaatim An-
Nabiyyeen, Muhammad Abu Zahrah: 1/324].

This means: That the indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment according to this understanding is
represented in the secrecy of undertaking the symbolic acts of ‘Ibaadah alone. This understanding that
limits the secrecy and concealment to that (i.e. ‘Ibaadah), dictates that there was no concealment in respect
to the other matters of the Da’wah. Consequently, as the Sheikh stated, there was no concealment in
respect to the Da’wah itself and there was also, for example, no concealment in respect the one who had
entered into this Da’wah to make known that he had embraced Islaam. That was as long as what was
undertaken did not provoke or incite the feelings or sentiments of the Mushrikeen by announcing openly
the ‘Ibaadah before the masses which would represent an open challenge to the prevalent Aqeedah
(belief).

This then is what can be said concerning the second understanding about what secrecy and concealment
means in respect to the Da’wah in its initial phase.

3 - The third understanding: This understanding for the meaning indicated by secrecy and concealment
in respect to this Mas’alah (issue) is found to have been held by the writer of the book ‘The Islamic State’
(Ad-Dawlah Al-Islaamiyah). The following was stated in the book: “The matter of the Da’wah was
apparent from the first day that he ‫ ﷺ‬was sent with it. In Makkah, they were aware that Muhammad
‫ ﷺ‬was inviting to a new Deen and they knew that many had embraced Islaam alongside him. They
were aware that Muhammad had structured his companions into a bloc and stay up late with them (i.e.
teaching and culturing them). They were also aware that the Muslims were concealing from the people in
respect to their bloc and who has embraced the new Deen. This knowledge notifies that the people had
sensed the new Da’wah and had sensed the presence of those who believed in it, even if they were not
aware about where they use to meet to gather and who those were gathering from amongst the believers
were” (1).

This means: That the indicated meaning of secrecy and concealment in the Da’wah according to this third
understanding meant the concealing of the organisation (or organisational aspect of the Da’wah). That
meant concealing the individuals of that organisation and concealing the time and place in which the
individuals of that organisation would gather together and meet. That was whilst keen attention was given
at the same time to make the Da’wah to Islaam apparent before the masses and that was the Da’wah that
this organisation was undertaking.

The above represents what we have been able to extract in terms of the understandings that have been
provided about the meaning indicated by the secrecy and concealment that took place in this initial stage
of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah Al-Mukarramah … as has been extracted from the writings of the
authors and researchers of the Prophetic Seerah.

[(1) Ad-Dawlah Al-Islaamiyah (The Islamic State), Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani: 10].

However, what is the reason for these differences in understanding about the meaning of secrecy and
concealment regarding this issue we are addressing? It appears that the reason for that is the reliance upon
what has been mentioned within the accounts of Seerah when they have described the Da’wah with
concealment and secrecy in the initial years of its life in Makkah Al-Mukarramah. That is like what was
mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬hid his affair and concealed it
for three years, as far as what I have been informed, from the beginning of his being sent (i.e. with Islaam
and Prophethood), until Allah Ta’Aalaa commanded him to proclaim His Deen. Then Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ‫َُوأَعْ ِرضْ َع‬

ََ‫َنَا ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬ َ ‫َفاصْ دَعْ َ ِبمَاَ ُتؤَْ َمر‬
Then proclaim what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists (Al-Hijr: 94)

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

َْ ‫ك‬
ََ‫َاأل ْقرَ ِبين‬ َ ‫َوأَنذِرْ َعَشِ يرَ َت‬
And warn, [O Muhammad], your close kinfolk (or people of clan) (Ash-Shu’araa: 214).

…Then he said: “Ibn Ishaaq said: Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬presented Islaam to his people
and proclaimed it (openly), as Allah had commanded him, they did not keep away from him or respond
against him, as far as I have been informed, until he mentioned their idols or deities and denounced (or
expressed fault) in them” (1).

From this text, mentioned by Ibn Hishaam and from texts similar to this, which have been quoted within
the sources of Seerah, in addition to what these texts have relied upon in respect to the different incidents
of the Prophetic Seerah, which all make evident, from one angle or more, that a concealment took place
within the first years of the Islamic Da’wah …

I say: From these texts and from those incidents there arose these different understandings concerning the
extent of secrecy and concealment in respect to the Da’wah in its initial period.
That is in terms of:
- The understanding that inclines to the expansion of the sphere of that secrecy.
- The understanding that inclines towards narrowing its scope or sphere.
- The understanding that inclines to somewhere between the above two.

That is according to what each understanding relies upon regarding the incidents or events which support
the understanding they have adopted.

Regarding this, the one who researches the Prophetic Seerah concerning the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah,
in its initial stage, finds difficulty in respect to defining the distinguished characteristics of this stage and
the length of time that they lasted for. That is due to the existence of conflicting narrations related to this
Mas’alah (issue).

One of the researchers of the Prophetic Seerah expressed that when he said: “… And there does not exist,
in the books of reports of the Seerahs and histories, a precise date for the time that the Messenger and the
Muslims remained concealed in Daar ul-Arqam. That is because the Riwaayaat (narrations) are conflicting
… And the reports are in conflict about the length of time of the concealment in Daar ul-Arqam, as there
are some who have stated that it only lasted one month … Similarly, they are in conflict regarding the
manner (or nature) of concealment. Was it a complete concealment from the people in that Daar where
none would exit from it? Or did it represent a concealment for short periods during the day? These
questions relate to the times of their meeting and gathering with the Nabi for example, for the purpose of
the Salaah, clarifying Islaam, propagating it from Allah or someone embracing it?” (1).

The view that we ascertain to be strongest is that which has been indicated to by the sum of incidents or
events that have been confirmed to have taken place in that initial blessed stage of the life of the Da’wah,
without restricting them to a particular time with a precise specification.

The view that we ascertain to be strongest is summarised in the following four points:

1 - Proclamation of the Da’wah (invitation) to Allah from the time that Allah commanded His Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
to undertake the matter of the Da’wah. That was in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َْ‫﴾َقُ ْمَ َفأَنذِر‬١﴿َُ‫يَاَأَ ُّيهَاَا ْل ُمد َِّّثر‬

O you who covers himself [with a garment]. Arise and warn (Al-Mudath’thir: 1-2).

The following was related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari about the Sabab (cause) of the revelation of the
beginning of Soorah Al-Mudath’thir: “Abu Salamah said: I asked Jaabir Bin Abdullah about which of the
Qur’aan had been revealed first? He said: “O you who covers himself” (Al-Mudath’thir). So I said: I was
informed that it was “Read in the name of your Lord” (Al-‘Alaq). So he said: I do not inform except with
that which the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: I had spent time (in
seclusion) in Hiraa. When I had completed my stay of seclusion I descended and reached the centre of the
valley. Then I was called and so I looked in front of me, to my right and to my left. And then, all of a
sudden, there he was (Angel Jibreel) sitting upon a throne between the sky and the earth. I then arrived to
Khadijah and said: Cover me and pour cold water over me. And the following was revealed upon me:

َْ‫﴾َقُ ْمَ َفأَنذِر‬١﴿َُ‫يَاَأَ ُّيهَاَا ْل ُمد َِّّثر‬

O you who covers himself [with a garment]. Arise and warn (Al-Mudath’thir: 1-2) (2).

The following was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: In respect to: “Rise and Warn”. Frighten the
people of Makkah and warn them about the punishment if they do not embrace Islaam” (3).
We have seen in the Hadeeth of Jaabir, as was recorded in the Saheeh of Al-Bukhaari, that Soorah Al-
Mudath’thir, which contained the command to warn the people of Makkah, was the first Soorah to be
revealed. And that appears to be the case after there was a gap of some time following the revelation of:
“Read in the name of your Lord” (Al-‘Alaq). Then after that the divine revelation continued to descend
(regularly) as is understood from other relations in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari (4).

[(1) Diraasah Fee As-Seerah, Dr. ‘Imaad ud-Deen Khaleel: p64. Also refer to As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/319, (2) Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari: 4924, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/677, (3) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 19/59-60, (4) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3 and 4926, Fat’h ul-Baari’:
8/679].

The following was mentioned in ‘Haashiyah Al-Jamal ‘Ala l-Jalaalaini’: “The first of the Qur’aan to be
revealed was: “Read in the name of your Lord Who created” (Al-‘Alaq), then “Nun. By the pen and what they
inscribe” (Al-Qalam), then “O you who covers himself [with a garment]. Arise and warn” (Al-Mudath-thir) and then
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he” (Al-Masad) (1) … and he continued until he had
listed the order of 81 Soorahs.

Al-Quturbiy mentioned in his Tafseer of “May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he” (Al-
Masad) what he attributed to the two Saheehs, whilst mentioning the Lafzh (worded version) of Muslim,
the following:

َ‫َ َف َقالُواَ َمنْ َ َه َذاَالَّذِي‬.َ"َْ‫احاه‬ َ ‫ص َب‬ َ َ‫فَ"َ َيا‬ َ ‫ص َفاَ َف َه َت‬ َّ ‫ص ِعدََال‬ َ َ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَح َّتى‬
َ ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬
‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫َخ َر َج‬
َ‫ِيَع ْبدَِ َم َنافٍَ َيا‬ َ ‫َ َفاجْ َت َمعُواَإِلَ ْيهَِ َف َقا َلَ"َ َياَ َبنِيَ ُفالَ ٍنَ َياَ َبنِيَفُالَ ٍنَ َياَ َبنِيَ ُفالَ ٍنَ َياَََبن‬.َ‫َي ْهتِفُ َ َقالُواَ َُم َحمَّد‬
َ‫اَال َج َب ِلَأَ ُك ْن ُت ْم‬
ْ ‫َُب َس ْفحَ َه َذ‬
ِ َِ ‫َخيْالَ َت ْخ ُرج‬ َ َّ‫ُطلِبَِ"َ َفاجْ َت َمعُواَإِلَ ْيهَِ َف َقا َلَ"َأَ َرأَ ْي َت ُك ْمَ َل ْوَأَ ْخ َبرْ ُت ُك ْمَأَن‬ َّ ‫َِالم‬
ْ ‫َبنِيَ َع ْبد‬
َ‫َ َقا َلَ َف َقا َلَأَبُو‬.َ"ٍَ‫َ َقا َلَ"َ َفإِ ِّنيَ َنذِيرَلَ ُك ْمَ َبي َْنَ َيدَىْ َ َع َذابٍَ َشدِيد‬.َ‫كَ َكذِبا‬ َ ‫َ َقالُواَ َم‬.َ"َ َّ‫ص ِّدقِي‬
َ ‫اَجرَّ ْب َناَ َعلَ ْي‬ َ ‫ُم‬
َ ‫َّتَ َي َداَأَ ِبيَلَ َهب‬
ََّ‫ٍَو َق ْدَ َتب‬ ْ ‫ُّورةَُ َتب‬
َ ‫تَ َه ِذهَِالس‬ ُ ‫كَأَ َماَ َج َمعْ َت َناَإِالََّلِ َه َذ‬
ْ َ‫اَث َّمَ َقا َمَََف َن َزل‬ َ َ‫لَ َهبٍَ َت ّباَل‬
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬set off till he climbed Safaa and called loudly: Be on your guard!
They said: Who is it calling aloud? They said: Muhammad. They gathered round him, and he
said: O sons of so and so, O sons of so and so, O sons of 'Abd Manaf, O sons of 'Abd al-Muttalib,
and they gathered around him. He (the Apostle) said: If I were to inform you that there were
horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me? They said: We have
not experienced any lie from you. He said: Well, I am a warner to you before a severe torment.
He (the narrator) said that Abu Lahab then said: Destruction to you! Is it for this you have
gathered us? He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed: “May the hands
of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he” (2).

In respect to what has preceded, the command found in “Arise and warn”, the reason of revelation of
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined and ruined is he”, whilst they are from the first five Soorahs to
have been revealed in Makkah, and what happened on the occasion of their revelation in terms of the
deliverance of a loud warning and open Da’wah to the people of Makkah upon the mountain of Safaa …

Then all of this indicates that the Islamic Da’wah in its initial stage was an open Da’wah and not a secret
Da’wah. That is in accordance to what has been expressed in these sound and explicit texts.

2 - The issue of the Muslim announcing that he had embraced Islaam or concealing that, only went back
to that Muslim himself. It was only natural for the majority who feared for their lives (or well-being), if
they were to make their Islaam known, to hide that they had become Muslim and not announce it. Whilst
the one who did not fear for his life, due to his strength and power or due to the presence of a deterrent
force protecting him, would not be worried about announcing that he had embraced Islaam. Rather, he
would take a challenging stance by announcing his Islaam out in the open and before the masses.

[(1) Haashiyah Al-Jamal ‘Alaa Al-Jalaalaini: 1/3, (2) Tafseer Al-Qutubiy: 20/234. Refer to the narrations of the Hadeeth in l-
Bukhaari and Muslim: Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2.286-287. In Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 4971, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/737. In Saheeh Muslim: 208,
1/194].
From the famous story of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) embracing Islaam, (and there is no requirement to
present it) we see that ‘Umar did not know about a number of Islamic personalities who had embraced
Islaam prior to that. These personalities were: Nu’aim Bin Abdullah An-Nahhaam from Bani ‘Adiy, who
was from the very group of people ‘Umar himself belonged to, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas, Khabbaab Bin Al-
Aratt and Sa’eed Bin Zaid, the paternal nephew of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab and wife of his sister Faatimah,
whilst she was the other Islamic personality from these personalities who had concealed their Islaam, as
was evident from this story (1).

From another angle, Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) was from amongst those first Islamic personalities who did
not conceal their Islaam. The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “When Abu Bakr (ra)
embraced Islaam, he displayed his Islaam and called to Allah and His Messenger” (2). This indicates that
what has been mentioned in respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanding some of the early Muslims to hide
their Islaam did not represent a binding command. That is based on the evidence that Abu Bakr
announced his Islaam and other announced their Islaam whilst the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not rebuke that.
That indicates that the command to conceal was only due to compassion for the Muslim out of concern
that harm or something bad would befall him whilst it was not a command that was binding. That is clear
from the story of Abu Dhar Al-Ghifaariy when he embraced Islaam which was recorded in Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari and Abu Dhar was from amongst the earliest and foremost in Islaam (3). The following parts
extracted from the long Hadeeth related by Al-Bukhaari about Abu Dharr embracing Islaam are sufficient
to indicate to what we mean:

[(1) Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother Naajiy At-Tantaawiy: p29-35, (2) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf: 1/287), (3) Noor ul-Yaqeen Fee Seerah Sayyid il-Mursaleen, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadariy
Bik: 32].

Abu Dhar said: ‘Ali (ibn Abi Taalib) passed by me and asked: What is your business? What has brought
you to this town?' I said to him, 'If you keep my secret, I will tell you.' He said, 'I will do,' I said to him,
'We have heard that a person has appeared here, claiming to be a Prophet. I sent my brother to speak to
him and when he returned, he did not bring a satisfactory report; so I thought of meeting him personally.'
‘Ali said (to Abu Dhar), 'You have reached your goal; I am going to him just now, so follow me, and
wherever I enter, enter after me. If I should see someone who may cause you trouble, I will stand near a
wall pretending to mend my shoes (as a warning), and you should go away then.' ‘Ali proceeded and I
accompanied him till he entered a place, and I entered with him to the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to whom I said,
'Present (the principles of) Islam to me.' When he did, I embraced Islam immediately. He said to me, 'O
Abu Dhar! Keep this matter secret and return to your town; and when you hear of our victory,
return to us'. I said, 'By Him Who has sent you with the Truth, I will announce my conversion to Islam
publicly amongst them (i.e. the infidels),' Abu Dhar went to the Masjid where some people from Quraish
were present and said, 'O people of Quraish! I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except
Allah, and I (also) testify that Muhammad is Allah's Slave and His Messenger.' (Hearing that) the Quraishi
men said, 'Attack this Sabi (i.e. Muslim)!' They got up and beat me nearly to death. Al `Abbas saw me and
threw himself over me to protect me. He then faced them and said, 'Woe to you! You want to kill a man
from the tribe of Ghifaar, although your trade and your travelling routes are through the territory of
Ghifaar?' They therefore left me… (1).

This context of this story found in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari reveals the atmosphere of concealment or secrecy
that the Islamic Da’wah was living through which was manifested in the secrecy around the base that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was residing in and where he would meet his companions and those who wanted
to meet him so that he could explain the Islamic thought that he was inviting to. However, what concerns
us about this story here is that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had ordered Abu Dhar to hide that he had embraced
Islaam when he said to him: “Keep this matter secret”.
Abu Dhar (ra) understood that the context of this command related to warning him about the possibility
of harm befalling him from the Quraish disbelievers if they were to become aware that he had embraced
Islaam whilst he was a stranger in Makkah and did not have anyone protecting him … And that the
context of this command was not one indicating to the obligation of the secrecy of the Da’wah itself
within this stage, or the obligation of secrecy in respect to those who had embraced Islaam. The Daleel
(evidence) for this is what was mentioned in a second narration found with Al-Bukhaari also about this
story. It stated the following: “Return to your people and inform them until my command comes to you”
(2). The informing here came in the command form and that included the informing of his people “The
tribe of Ghifaar” about the matter of the Da’wah and the matter of his acceptance of Islaam …
Consequently, from this Abu Dhar understood the command of secrecy in Makkah being due only to
compassion upon him and that it did not represent a command that he must stick to. For that reason, he
saw no issue to declare to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬his resolve to openly display and announce his Islaam
before the Quraishiy public whilst the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not rebuke him for that. Abu Dhar then
deliberately headed to the place where the idols of the Quraish were erected whilst the Quraish were
under those supposed idols and then raised his voice loud with the words of Tawheed. That was followed
by the events relayed in the narration of the story or incident.

Indeed, it is true that this does not prevent the Islaam of an individual or more than individuals to be kept
within the realm of secrecy in a decisive manner according to the dictates of the Maslahah (interest) of the
Da’wah and in accordance to the evaluation of the one in charge of the Da’wah. That does not prevent
that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬issue his command at that time in respect to this in a binding form … However,
this relates to another issue to the one that we are addressing here.

[(1) Al-Bukhaari from Ibn ‘Abbaas: 3522, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/549-550, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3861, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/173].

We summarise what we have presented by saying that the initial phase of the Da’wah which has been
described as the phase of concealment and secrecy, was secret in respect to the Muslims who feared the
consequences of their declaration of Islaam.

That means that not all the individuals of the Islamic organisation used to conceal that they had become
Muslims. Yes, it is true that most of the individuals of this organisation sought shelter under the cover of
concealment as they were from amongst the weak and not from the people of Quwwah and Mana’ah
(strength and power of protection and deterrence). Indeed, the logic of the situation dictated that even the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬himself be concealed in circumstances where danger to his life was feared. The following
was mentioned in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: “Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) related concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َب َهَا‬ ْ ‫َو َالَ ُت َخاف‬

ِ ‫ِت‬ َ ‫ك‬َ ‫َبص ََال ِت‬
ِ ْ‫َو َالَ َتجْ هَر‬
And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly (Al-Israa’: 110)

He said: It was revealed whilst the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was concealed (or hidden) in Makkah. When
he used to pray with his companions he would raise his voice when reciting the Qur’aan, then if the
Mushrikeen heard it they would insult the Qur’aan, Who revealed it and who came with it. So Allah
Ta’Aalaa said to His Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫ك‬ َ َ ‫َبص‬
َ ‫َال ِت‬ ِ ْ‫َو َالَ َتجْ هَر‬
And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer (Al-Israa’: 110)

i.e. in respect to your recitation where the Mushrikeen would hear and insult the Qur’aan.

‫َبهَا‬ ََ ‫الَ ُت‬

ْ ‫خاف‬
ِ ‫ِت‬ َ َ ‫َو‬
And do not recite it (too) quietly (Al-Israa’: 110).
i.e. not too quiet that your companions cannot hear what you recite. (Rather):

َ ِ‫َوا ْب َت ِغَ َبيْنَ َ ٰ َذل‬

َ‫كَ َس ِبيال‬
But (rather) seek between that an [intermediate] way (Al-Israa’: 110) (1).

From this narration, it becomes clear that the understanding of concealment does not mean the secrecy of
the Da’wah. That is because the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬used to conceal and hide himself when he sensed danger
upon his life whilst at the same time he used recite openly and aloud his prayer so that the people of
Makkah would hear the Aayaat of the Da’wah. This means that the Da’wah was open and not secret,
accompanied by the description of concealment or hiding in respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in specific
circumstances that arose which was reflected in the statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas when he said: “Whilst the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was concealed (or hidden) in Makkah”.

In addition, the forbiddance mentioned in the Aayah about reciting aloud in the Salaah does not indicate
the forbiddance of proclaiming the Da’wah openly. Rather, it represents a specific forbiddance related to
the manner of how to practise the act of worship (Al-‘Ibaadah) or the conveyance of the teachings of the
Da’wah when that manner fulfils a particular ‘Illah (reasoning), which in this case was that it (i.e. the
recitation) provoked the disbelievers and led them to resort to insulting the sanctified values that Islaam
had brought. This is what we will discuss in the following point Inshaa Allah.

3 - The ‘Ibaadah (worship) in this stage was subject to the punishment of the Quraish if it was undertaken
in an open manner and represented a challenge to the Aqeedah (belief) of Shirk that prevailed in Makkah.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 4722, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/404-405].

For this reason, it was performed in most cases in secret as we saw in the story of the prayer of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬and ‘Ali which Abu Taalib happened across. It is also evident when ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra)
urged the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to end the stage of secrecy and concealment when he said: “What is holding
you back, by my father and mother, for by Allah there is not a gathering that I used to sit in with disbelief
except that I have displayed Imaan (belief) within it, without dread or fear. We will not worship in secret
after this day!” (1).

And Ibn Mas’ood (ra) said: “I saw us whilst we were not able to pray at the House (i.e. in the vicinity of
the Ka’bah) until ‘Umar embraced Islaam. Then when he became Muslim he fought against them until
they left us and then we prayed” (2).

Despite that, in this stage, the stage of concealment, the Muslim did not use to hide his ‘Ibaadah except
for when he feared that some bad would inflict him. However, if he felt secure then he would display his
‘Ibaadah without a problem!

Al-Haakim related in his ‘Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa As-Saheehaini’ from ‘Afeef Bin ‘Amr that he said: “I used to
be a trader and friend of Al-‘Abbaas Bin Abdul Muttalib in the time of Jaahiliyyah (time of ignorance
before Islaam). So I was undertaking trade and met with Al-‘Abbaas in Minaa. Then a man came and
performed the prayer, then a woman came and performed the prayer, then a boy approaching the age of
maturity came and performed the Salaah. So I asked Al-‘Abbaas: Who is this? So he said: This is
Muhammad my nephew who claims to be a Prophet and none follow him in this matter except his wife,
and this is Khadijah Bint Khuwailid, and his paternal cousin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib. ‘Afeef said: How I
wished that I had become Muslim on that day! So that I would be the fourth in Islaam. (the end). Al-
Haakim said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad and they (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) did not record it” (3).
Based on what we have presented, we observe that the stage of concealment in relation to the
performance of the ‘Ibaadah was characterised in most cases with being hidden whilst it was displayed
(openly) rarely, which was in accordance to fear and security!

4 - As for the meeting and gathering place of the one leading the Da’wah with the individuals of the
Islamic organisation, what was provided in the meetings in terms of the culture linked to the Da’wah, the
manner of carrying it to the people, in addition to the dispatching of individuals from the organisation,
who had already obtained the culture of the Da’wah, to houses of those who had recently embraced
Islaam, to culture them with that culture … Then all of this remained secret in this stage of concealment
that we are discussing. This is demonstrated in the incident of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) embracing
Islaam.

(1) Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother Naaji At-Tantaawiy: p40-41, (2) Seerah ‘Umar
Ibn Al-Khattaab, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother Naaji At-Tantaawiy: p40, (3) Al-Mustadrak, Al-Haakim: 3/183
and Adh-Dhahabiy said: “Saheeh”].

It was related that ‘Umar came to the house of his sister Faatimah and her husband Sa’eed Bin Zaid and
was surprised to find that this house was a place from amongst the places in which the Halaqaat (cultural
circles) of this organisation were being helf! The Mushrif (supervisor) of this Halaqah (circle) was
Khabbaab Bin Al-Aratt (ra). Then when Islaam had entered into his heart he said to Khabbaab: “Guide
me to the whereabouts of Muhammad so that I may go to him and embrace Islaam”. Then Khabbaab said
to him: “He is in the house by As-Safaa in the company of some of his companions” (1). That was whilst,
he had been shortly before that, in a frenzied state carrying his sword wanting to eliminate the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬whist he was unaware of the location that he ‫ ﷺ‬had taken as a base for the affairs of the
Da’wah and convene meetings with the members of his organisation!

In summary, from all that we have discussed, the stage of concealment, what was concealed within it and
what appeared in terms of Da’wah matters, only revolves around maintaining the well-being and safety of
the Islamic Da’wah to prevent it being made to fail in its initial stages. That was whilst at the same time
there was an eagerness and keen attention applied to making apparent that there was a Da’wah that was
being carried by people who wanted for their lives, society and for all the people, a form that was better
than the form of living that they were upon. That was by reforming that life, as a whole, upon the basis of
the Aqeedah that the Islamic Da’wah was established upon, in respect to the values and systems that it
held!

By that we come to the end of our first study which concerned the Islamic Da’wah in the stage of secrecy
and concealment. We now move on to the second study which relates to the Islamic Da’wah in the stage
of openness and proclamation.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/96). And the Seerah of
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, At-Tantaawiy: 30-34].
 The Second Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the stage of open declaration

- The prior stage of concealment and secrecy did not prevent the voice of the Islamic Da’wah from being
heard in Makkah and outside of Makkah.
- Wishes (or desires) and the first attempts to transfer or move the Da’wah to the stage of open
declaration and the reasons for that.
- The reports of the Seerah indicate that the move to the open declaration stage did not take place in one
go.
- ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab embracing Islaam after Hamzah Ibn Abdul Muttalib and the final entry into the
stage of manifestation and open declaration.
- The effects of entering the stage of manifestation and open declaration.
 The Second Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the stage of declaration

It became clear to us in the previous study how the first stage of the life of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah
did not represent a stage that concealed the breaths of the Da’wah, in the case where the society of
Makkah did not sense the temperature of that breaths!

Similarly, it did not reflect a stage of holding back the tongue of this Da’wah within its mouth in the case
where the ears of the people of Makkah were not reached by this Da’wah and what it contained in terms
of glad tidings and warning!

No, the initial stage in the life of the Da’wah in Makkah was not a stage of concealment and secrecy upon
this understanding. Rather, it represented a stage where the reach of the Da’wah reverberated in all
corners of Makkah and indeed it went beyond them to reach the ears of Arab tribes which were distant
from Makkah. That is like what we observed in the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Bukhaari (1) which related
the story of Abu Dhar Al-Ghifaariy embracing Islaam, Abu Dhar whom the author of the book “Noor ul-
Yaqeen” categorised to be from amongst those who embraced Islaam within that initial stage of the
Islamic Da’wah.

It appears, that the atmosphere of being on one’s guard and hiding one’s Islaam, by most of those who
had embraced it, in addition to the Quraishi tyrants standing in opposition to the Da’wah with the threat
of harm being present against anyone who interacted positively with it … that all of this had a major role
in delaying winning over new people to this Da’wah.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari, related by Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra): 3522 and 3867. Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/549-550 and 7/173, (2) Noor ul-Yaqeen,
Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadariy Beik: 32].

Consequently, the number of Muslims after the efforts of three years of calling the people to Islaam stood
at the limits of close to forty people, as was previously stated (1).

It appears that wishes for the Da’wah to move to the new phase of openness and declaration appeared
within the midst of the Islamic Da’wah. That meant, that many who had been hiding their Islaam
previously began to announce it publicly before the people openly, that they are from an Islamic collective
(Jamaa’ah), in a blatant challenge to the Quraishi arrogance and haughtiness and in preparation to enter
the intellectual clash and struggle with the people of the idolatrous Aqeedah (belief)!

It appears that it was the evaluation of the people of those wishes that this open declaration according to
this understanding and entering into the battleground of the intellectual clash and struggle between the
thoughts of Islaam and the idolatrous thoughts, that it would naturally have a major effect in respect to
manifesting the Islamic thoughts, making them the pivotal topic of discussion amongst the people,
exposing the superstitious pagan thoughts and exposing their defects and faults! This would then lead to
the result of the correct thoughts of Islaam defeating and prevailing over the false pagan thoughts and
consequently the people entering into this Da’wah and leaving the idolatrous belief which would face its
inevitable fate (i.e. of being eliminated).

These were the wishes that appeared within the midst of the Da’wah. It may have been that they desired
this because continuation in a fixed position of the Da’wah without sensing progress to new situations,
whilst being subjected to continuous persecution, could have negative emotional ramifications upon those
believing in this Da’wah, where it would be feared that it would lead to some responding to the pressures
of the Fitnah that the disbelievers were practising upon the Muslims (2).

In such a situation, the venture of a small believing group confronting a large disbelieving host in the
arena of the intellectual clash and struggle, when that small group’s belief is firmly consolidated in its
thought, clear in its expression, powerful in argument, fully aware of the knowledge required to fight
against the opposing thought, clever in respect to presenting its flaws and exposing its shames, and
possessing the resolve and determination to stand firm in continuance in the arena of this struggle … In
such a situation I say: In most cases the confrontation of this believing small group of this large
disbelieving host, in the context we have mentioned, represents a greater benefit to the Da’wah and those
believing in it in respect to winning the positions and people over the long term or in the long run, than
remaining in concealment, out of a deep concern for the safety of the Da’wah and the safety and well-
being of its carriers, irrespective of the consequences resulting from that in the short term, in terms of
hardships, trials, losses and sacrifices!

[(1) The book: ‘Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy: p40, (2) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/334].

It also appears that the Wahi (divinely inspired revelation), which was drawing out the steps of how the
Da’wah proceeded, made the permission to enter the stage of the clash and confrontation reliant upon
that resolve to manifest openly becoming great within the midst of the Da’wah, upon the existence of a
sufficient number of Muslims to undertake this bold step and upon powerful personalities joining the
blessed movement, providing it and the Muslims with a level of might and awe, so as to break what would
be anticipated to be faced in terms of harm and persecution that would be greater than before as a result
of undertaking such a new step.
Similarly, it appears that this stage, the stage of manifestation and open declaration, in accordance to the
understanding that we have explained, did not take place in one go, even if this gradual transition came to
its climax when ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) declared, after having been in the trench of the Kuffaar, with
a certain heart and mind, that he had moved into another trench of the battle, transforming what he had
carried in respect to this Da’wah in terms of a storm of hatred and violent vigour, transforming that all to
the opposing side, to become the strongest of believers in backbone and firmness and most challenging in
the face of the disbelievers.

A number of matters are indicative of this and they include:

1 - That which was mentioned in ‘As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah’: “That when the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
entered Daar ul-Arqam to worship Allah Ta’Aalaa along with those of his companions who were with
him, in secret … whilst they numbered thirty-eight men, Abu Bakr (ra) requested the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬with urgency in respect to manifestation i.e. going out to the Masjid (in a show of strength). So he
said: O Abu Bakr, verily we are few (in number)! He continued to urge this until the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬went out with his companions to the Masjid. Abu Bakr stood amongst the people addressing them,
whilst the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was sitting, inviting to Allah and His Messenger. He was therefore the
first Khateeb (one address the people and give speeches) who invited to Allah and Ta’Aalaa. The
Mushrikeen then erupted against Abu Bakr and the Muslims beating them and stamping upon Abu Bakr
with their feet … ‘Utbah Bin Rabee’ah began striking Abu Bakr with his sandals directing his strikes to
Abu Bakr’s face until you could not make out his nose from his face. Banu Taim (Abu Bakr’s people) then
came to fight them and they removed the Mushrikoon from Abu Bakr and then carried him away in a
cloak to his house whilst not having any doubt that he would die … They then returned and entered the
precincts of the Masjid and said: By Allah, if Abu Bakr dies we will definitely kill ‘Utbah!” (1).

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/321-322].

This what was mentioned in As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah about the first attempt to manifest the Islamic blob
(Kutlah) publicly and to announce the Islamic organisation, in a manner that contains a lot of challenge
and boldness in addition to the consequences that resulted from this attempt in terms of serious harm and
severe punishment!

Ash-Sheikh Ali At-Tantaawiy, when commentating upon this stance in his book ‘Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’
said: “As-Siddeeq was the first to urge the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬for the public manifestation and that
took place before ‘Umar (ra) became Muslim, even if the people thought that ‘Umar was the first to
manifest it publicly and the first who beat the Mushrikeen and was beaten by them, due to what became
famous in the Seerah of ‘Umar and what became hidden from the Seerah of Abi Bakr” (1).

2 - Also from that which indicated the entering into the new stage, the stage of public manifestation and
announcement, according to the understanding that we mentioned previously, is what took place directly
following the revelation of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َُوأَعْ ِرضْ َع‬

ََ‫َنَا ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬ َ ‫َبمَاَ ُت ْؤ َمر‬
ِ ْ‫َفاصْ دَع‬
So proclaim openly what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists (Al-Hijr: 94).

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer: “Abu ‘Ubaidah related from ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood: The Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
continued to remain concealed until this Aayah was revealed:

ِ ‫َُوأَعْ ِرضْ َع‬

ََ‫َنَا ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬ َ ‫َبمَاَ ُت ْؤ َمر‬
ِ ْ‫َفاصْ دَع‬
So proclaim openly what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists (Al-Hijr: 94).

And then (after that) he went out with his companions!” (1).
Ash-Shawkaaniy said in his Tafseer of this Aayah: “Al-Farraa’ said: It means: Make manifest your Deen
(i.e. make it publicly visible)” (2).

Therefore, the command to proclaim openly was explained by the practical and approving Sunnah of the
Messenger of Allah ‫( ﷺ‬As-Sunnah Al-‘Amaliyah Wa Taqreeriyah), when he went out with his
companions publicly. Just as this manifested clearly by his ‫ ﷺ‬accomplishment of the command
following the revelation of the Aayah “So proclaim openly what you are commanded …” (Al-Hijr: 94).
Just as it was manifested as well in his ‫ ﷺ‬going out with his companions to the Masjid and Abu Bakr
giving a speech (Khutbah) calling the Mushrikeen to Allah and to His Messenger.

In addition, the wording “َ‫( ”الص َّْد ُع‬As-Sad’a i.e. proclaim openly) has been given the interpretation
(Tafseer) of ‘Izh’haar ud-Deen’ (making the Deen manifest or prevail). That is whilst the Izh’haar of the
Deen is not the same as the Izh’haar (manifestation) of the Da’wah. That is because the Da’wah itself had
been directed towards the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in an open and apparent manner from the very first days
of the Takleef (being charged) with the conveyance and delivery of the Risaalah (message), as we have
already explained. However, the Izh’haar of the Deen here includes the manifestation of the main symbols
(Sha’aa’ir) of this Deen which had been concealed prior to that due to the circumstances of fear and being
on one’s guard.

[(1) Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali AT-Tantaawiy: p41, (2) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/559, (3) Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy
(Fat’h ul-Qadeer): 3/143-144].

A result of embarking upon this stage of openness and open declaration (according to the understanding
that we have mentioned) was:

That many of the Muslims announced their Islaam (i.e. that they were Muslims), went out with the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to the Ka’bah in a flagrant challenge and made visible and apparent the Sha’aa’ir of the
‘Ibaadah and the Deen, which the Quraish viewed as a provocation to their sentiments. It meant clashing
with the Mushrikeen in the arena of the intellectual clash and struggle, between the Islamic thought and
the pagan or idolatrous thought (1) which would bring forth the distinction between the Haqq (truth) and
the Baatil (falsehood). This all falls under the indicated meaning (Madlool) of the word “َ‫( ”الص َّْد ُع‬As-Sad’a
i.e. proclaim openly) that had been commanded (in Aayah 94 of Soorah Al-Hijr). This is like what was
mentioned in the Tafseer of An-Naisaabooriy in respect to the Aayah “Proclaim openly…” (AL-Hijr: 94)
when he said that it means: Proclaim openly what you are commanded, make it manifest and separate
between the Haqq (truth) and the Baatil (falsehood) (2).

I say: A result of embarking in this stage of openness and announcement or declaration, according to the
previously mentioned understanding, was that the Quraish would be infuriated when they see dignity they
ascribed to their values and their idols being dragged in the mud and stepped upon. They therefore arose
in defence of their idols, pouring their anger and discontent upon the new Islamic Da’wah and upon those
they were able to assault from amongst the followers of the Da’wah.

It was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ibn Ishaaq said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
proclaimed Islaam to his people and came out openly with it as Allah had commanded him to, the people
did not keep distance from him and they did not respond to him (as far as it has reached me), until he
mentioned their idols and found fault in them. Then when he did that, they made attached great
importance to him, rejected him and gathered together in unison in opposition and hostility to him …
And his Uncle Abu Taalib took care of him, protected him and rose in defence of him and so the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬continued on upon the command of Allah making his matter manifest and
nothing deterred him from it” (3) …
Then he said: “Ibn Ishaaq said: Then the Quraish complained amongst themselves about whom from
their tribes were from the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬who had embraced Islaam and
accompanied him. Every tribe then rushed upon those who had embraced Islaam from them to torture
and punish them to make them leave their Deen whilst Allah protected His Messenger from them
through his uncle Abu Taalib” (4).

[(1) Look, for example, to the discussion about the thought related to the resurrection and the creation in Soorah Al-‘Ankaboot
Aayaat: 1-65 which is from the Makkiyah Soorahs. And also refer to Soorah Yaseen: 78-83 which is also a Makkiy Soorah (i.e.
revealed before Al-Hijrah) (2) Tafseer An-Naisaabooriy (Tafseer Gharaa’ib Al-Qur’aan Wa Raghaa’ib Al-Furqaan) which is
found in the commentary of the Tafseer of At-Tabariyy: 14/36, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-
Seerah An-Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/3-4, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-
Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/9].

At this point, it was necessary for an exit from this trial that befell the Muslims to be found due to the fear
upon them from the danger of Fitnah or the danger of being wiped out. Therefore, the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬recommended that those who were capable should emigrate to Al-Habashah (Abyssinia).

“Ibn Ishaaq said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saw what the trials that his companions were being
afflicted with … and that he was not capable of protecting them from the trials that they were suffering,
he said to them: If you were to leave, to go to the land of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia), you would find a king
who does not wrong anyone. It is a land of honesty and Allah can make it an escape (or way out) for you
from what you are currently facing. Therefore, at that, the Muslims from amongst the companions of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬left to go to the land of Al-Habashah due to the fear of Al-Fitnah and fleeing to
Allah with their Deen. That was therefore the first Hijrah (emigration) in Islaam” (1).

We therefore find that one of the meanings behind the Hijrah to Al-Habashah was that it represented a
cost for entering the new stage of the Islamic Da’wah, the stage of manifestation and open declaration,
which had to be entered to advance the message of this Da’wah (invitation) to Islaam.

3 - Another matter indicating to the beginning of the entrance into this new stage and some of the
Muslims viewing the necessity of moving to the phase of manifestation and open declaration, is what was
related concerning the story or events surrounding Hamzah Ibn Abi Muttalib, the uncle of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬,
embracing Islaam. He had set off towards the chiefs of Quraish in their meeting spot around the Ka’bah
and who included amongst them Abu Jahl. That was after he had found out that Abu Jahl had harmed his
nephew Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬and insulted him. It was then not for Hamzah to do anything apart from raise
his bow and strike Abu Jahl with it whilst he was in the midst of the Quraish. “He struck him hard on his
skull in an unforgiving manner and then said: Di you insult him? Whilst I am upon his Deen and say what
he says, so respond to me if you are able!” (2). Then Hamzah returned to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
and entered into discussion with him and the result of which was the transformation of the meaning of
the new stance that he had adopted in respect to the Da’wah and transforming its follower (i.e. Hamzah)
from an Imaan that had been motivated by anger and tribalism to an Imaan that was based on conviction
and certainty! And here Hamzah said to his nephew ‫ﷺ‬: “I bear witness that you are truthful! So make
you Deen manifest openly my nephew!” (3)

The declaration of Hamzah’s Islaam in this blatant manner, before all, without any daring to respond to
him, had a far-reaching impact upon the Nafs of the one carrying the Da’wah, at a time when he is taking
his first steps to move from one Da’wah stage to another.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/70, (2) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam (Ar-Rawd Al-‘Unuf, As-Suhailiy: 2/34, (3) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/333].
The following came mentioned in As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was extremely
happy by Hamzah becoming Muslim and that was because he was the mightiest man (of youth) amongst
Quraish and the strongest in vigour” (1).

In this way, in the midst of the Islamic Da’wah in these times, a new voice was heard, related to moving
onto the stage of openness and announcement!

4 - The final entrance into the stage of manifestation and open announcement followed by the continual
proceeding within this stage took place when ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) declared his Islaam and declared
his desire and wish to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to move the Da’wah, by strength, into the new stage. That was when
he said to the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “We will not worship secretly after this day!” (2). And when he said: “O
Messenger of Allah! Are we not upon the Haqq (truth) if we have died or lived? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Indeed, by
the One in whose hand is my soul, you are upon the truth, if you have died or lived? He (‘Umar) said:
Then why the concealment? By the One who sent you with the truth you must go out (i.e. openly. So,
after that, they went out in two rows (or lines), ‘Umar was in one and Hamzah in the other. The ground
moved until they entered the Masjid and then the Quraish looked at ‘Umar and then Hamzah and were
afflicted by a depression that they had not been afflicted with ever before. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬called him
(‘Umar) on that day Al-Farooq” (3).

When describing this final move into this new stage Suhaib Bin Nisaan said:

“When ‘Umar embraced Islaam Islaam manifested and was called for in open. And we sat around the
House (Ka’bah) in a circle, we walked around the House (Ka’bah), we responded in kind to those who
were harsh to us and we responded to him with some of what he brought” (4).

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/333-334, (2) Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother
Naajiy At-Tantaawiy: 40, (3) Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, At-Tantaawiy: 36, (4)History of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Ibn ul-
Jawziy: p11].

Ibn Mas’ood (ra) said: “I saw us when we were unable to pray by the House (Al-Ka’bah) until ‘Umar
became Muslim. Then when he became Muslim he fought them until they left us and then we prayed” (1).

It was narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari from Ibn Mas’ood (ra) that he said: “We have continued to be in a
position of strength since the time ‘Umar became Muslim” (2).

The above represents some of what has been said in respect to the final move into openness in this
second stage of the life of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah directly following the Islaam of ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab which happened three days after the Islaam of Hamzah (May Allah be pleased with them) (3).

However, we should not understand from narrations like this about the impact of ‘Umar’s announcement
concerning his joining of this blessed bloc, auspicious organisation and Islamic Da’wah, we should not
understand from them, that the harm had been removed from the Muslims by his becoming a Muslim.

No, rather the stage of malice and hostility against the Muslims flared up more and more when ‘Umar
embraced Islaam as a result of the increasing fear of the Mushrikeen about this new force that the Islamic
side possessed. Consequently, the opposing side increased in magnitude to defend the values of Jaahiliyah
(pre-Islaam ignorance) and their polytheist sanctities in line with that fear and to counter that new force
carrying that advancing Islamic wave along with it.

Even ‘Umar himself witnessed first-hand that hostility whilst he was standing beside his new Muslim
brothers after he became Muslim. The honour of Islamic brotherhood made him refuse to be in a place of
refuge from the hostility due to the protection that his uncle ‘Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmy’ provided him,
whilst his brothers were being inflicted with the worst forms of punishment!

[(1) Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, the two At-Tantaawiys: 40, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3863, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/177, (3) Seerah
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, the two At-Tantaawiys: 41, (4) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3864, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/177].

For that reason, he wanted to be afflicted by what the rest of the Muslims were afflicted by in terms of
suffering. This was expressed when he related about himself: “So I said (to myself): The people are being
beaten and I am not beaten! So when the people sat in ‘Al-Jahr’ (which is a place that the Quraish gather
in under the shade of the Ka’bah) I approached my uncle and said: Do you hear? He asked: What should I
be hearing? I said: Your protection offered to me has been returned to you! He replied: Don’t do that. So
I refused. He said: As you wish! He (‘Umar) said: Then (after that) I continued to be hit and to hit back
until Allah made Islaam prevail” (1).

Therefore, what is understood from the events of this transitional period from the stage of concealment
to the stage of manifestation and open proclamation, is that one of the meanings of the manifestation of
Islaam following the embracing of Islaam by Hamzah and then ‘Umar, is that the Muslims prior to that
were not empowered to defend themselves against what they were inflicted with in terms of being beaten
and harm … Or they saw that refraining from defence and patient perseverance over the harm was safer
for them than defence. That could have been based on the view that resorting to defence whilst they were
few and their number was not sufficient to intimidate the Quraish, could lead to the disbelievers taking
that defensive position as a pretext and excuse to launch a real armed war against the Muslims which
would lead to their elimination.

Consequently, the position of the Muslims, generally, in the concealment stage, in respect to the campaign
of persecution that the Mushrikeen launched against them was one of holding fast upon patience and
refraining from making a response. However, that stance had given an impression of weakness and
insignificance in respect to the Da’wah and the Muslims in that stage. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was therefore
longing for Islaam to be strengthened and given might (and honour) by the one of the two ‘Umars
embracing Islaam: “’Umar Ibn Hishaam (Abu Jahl) or ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab” (2).

Then when Hamzah embraced Islaam followed by ‘Umar, the morale of the Muslims was lifted and they
began to feel empowered to meet the beats with beats in return, or in the least, there came to exist from
amongst the groups of the Muslims, some who would respond to being beaten with strength. This
represented a new development, in general, which removed from the Muslims the weight of the feelings
of weakness and planted within them the sense of might and strength. This is what Ibn Mas’ood (ra)
declared as related by Al-Bukhaari: “We continued to be honoured or mighty (i.e. our heads were held
high) since ‘Umar became Muslim” (3). That is therefore one meaning from the meanings of the
manifestation of Islaam which occurred following the Islaam of ‘Umar in this new stage.

[(1) Taareekh ‘Umr Ibn Al-Khattaab, Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Jawziy: 8, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/96), (3) Saheeh
Al-Bukhaari: 3863, Fat’H ul-Baari’: 7/177].

This meaning also appears to have been indicated to in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam when he described the
impact of ‘Umar embracing Islaam after Hamzah amongst the Muslims which drove them to exit the
place they had been concealing themselves in. After mentioning ‘Umar’s embracing of Islaam he said:
“Then the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispersed from the place they had been in. They
were given a boost within themselves when ‘Umar and Hamzah became Muslims and they knew that they
(‘Umar and Hamzah) would be a force of protection for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and that they would
be able to get back at their enemy through them” (1).

This new stage continued in this manner however without any real progress in respect to transforming the
Jaahiliy society towards Islaam. That was because the oars of the Chiefs of Shirk (polytheism) steering that
society towards its old direction were tens of times greater than the few oars that the Muslims held in their
hands … It is in light of that, that we understand the speech of ‘Umar when he addressed the disbelievers
of Quraish saying: “I swear by Allah! If we were three hundred men, we would have left it for you or you
would have left it for us” (2).

In this way, the stage continued without any significant gain in respect to new positions in relation to the
Islamic Da’wah. For that reason, the Da’wah moved on to search for new supporters (Ansaar) from
outside the borders of Makkah who would be prepared for the ship of their society to be transformed in
the direction that the Islamic thought invited to following their belief in it.

This represents the subject and topic of our third study in this chapter. It is:
The Islamic Da’wah in the phase of presentation before the chiefs of the tribes and the contracting of the
Bai’ah (pledge) with the Ansaar upon war.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/96, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/98).
 The Third Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the phase of presentation before the chiefs of the tribes and
the contracting of the Bai’ah (pledge) with the Ansaar upon war

- Foreword: Concerning the circumstances leading the Islamic Da’wah to seek the Nusrah (support) from
outside of Makkah.

- The first Mas’alah (issue): Presenting the Islamic Da’wah to the chiefs of the tribes as a request for
Nusrah (support).

The specificities that the Nusrah and the seeking of it was distinguished by in this phase of the Da’wah:

1 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬seeking the Nusrah following the increased severity of harm that was faced.

2 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬presenting himself to the tribes was only as a result of compliance to the
command of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla to undertake that.

3 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬limiting and restricting his request of Nusrah amongst the chiefs of the tribes that
held honour and standing.

4 - Imaan (belief) in the Da’wah is a Shart (condition) stipulated in those from whom the Nusrah is
accepted and the difference between the personal protection of the Da’wah carrier and his acceptance of
that from the disbeliever and between the Nusrah for the Da’wah and the necessity of Imaan existing in
those who extend it.

5 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬requested or sought the Nusrah for two purposes:

Firstly: Protection for the conveyance of the Da’wah.

Secondly: To take over the reins of ruling and authority upon the basis of the Da’wah.

6 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬refusal to grant the forces or powers prepared to provide the Nusrah any
guarantees in respect to anything of the rule and authority belonging to their people, whether in terms of a
cost or reward.

7 - It is stipulated in respect to those from whom the Nusrah is accepted that they are capable of
confronting the enemies of the Da’wah at the time of the establishment of its state.

8 - It is stipulated in respect to those from whom the Nusrah is accepted that their land is not tied to
international treaties (or treaties between states) that they are unable to break free from and which are
contradictory to the Da’wah.

9 - The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not seek the Nusrah from outside of Makkah except after despairing
from being able to attain it internally and the lack of having a sufficient number of Muslims to take the
rule.

- The second Mas’alah (issue): The contraction of the Bai’ah (pledge) upon war with the Ansaar.
- Foreword: Concerning the stages in which the meeting between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the Aws and
Khazraj took place until the Bai’ah with them over war was undertaken.

- The first point: What was the role of the third meeting of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with the group
of the Khazraj following the war of Bu’aath in respect to laying the groundwork for the Ansaar to enter
into Islaam and to give the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah?

- The second point: What was the role of the first pledge (Bai’ah) of Al-‘Aqabah in relation to the
requesting the Nusrah and seeking its realisation or fulfilment?

- The third point: Upon what was the second pledge of Al-Aqabah undertaken?

The Third Study

The Islamic Da’wah in the phase of presentation before the chiefs of the tribes and
the contracting of the Bai’ah (pledge) with the Ansaar upon war

- Foreword: Concerning the circumstances leading the Islamic Da’wah to seek the Nusrah (support) from
outside of Makkah.

We became aware in the prior study of how the Islamic Da’wah reached a dead end in Makkah. That was
because the leaders of disbelief remained upon their ancient obstinacy and so you had this Abu Jahl
announcing to the Quraish of his despair in respect to turning the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬away from his Da’wah when
he said: “Continue upon the Deen of your forefathers until Allah passes judgment between you and him”
 (1). Those men of the Islamic Da’wah were either from the oppressed of Makkah or from those who had
fled with his Deen from the Fitnah to the foreign land of Al-Habashah (2). Even if in this second stage of
the Da’wah in Makkah there was a form of open appearance that manifested and there was some requital
for some of its men from those disbelievers who were persecuting them, as has been mentioned
previously, this however was not all that the Islamic Da’wah had wanted for its followers and this did not
represent the aim of the appearance that it wanted to accomplish for itself.

Rather, what it wanted for its followers is that which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla wanted for the righteous from
amongst the followers of His Messenger, as found in His statement:

َ ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
‫ض‬ ْ ‫َوَُن َم ِّكنَ ََلَ َُه ْمَف‬ َ
ِ ‫َو َنجْ َعلَ ُه ْمَأ ِئمَّة ََو َنجْ َعلَ ُه ُمَا ْل َو‬
َ َ‫ارثِين‬ َ ‫ض‬ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
ْ ‫َو ُن ِريدَُأَنَ َّنمُنَّ َ َعلَىَالَّذِينَ َاسْ ُتضْ ِعفُواَف‬
And We wanted to confer favour upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them
inheritors. And establish them in the land (Al-Qasas: 5-6).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/167), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/211)

That is just as the Da’wah wants for itself to appear and manifest in a way in which nothing manifests
over and above it. That is what Allah Ta’Aalaa made clear in His statement that was revealed in Madinah:

ِ ‫ِينَا ْلحَ ِّقَ ِلي ُْظ ِهرَ هَُ َعلَىَالد‬

‫ِّينَ ُكلِّ َِه‬ ِ ‫يَأََرْ َسلََرَ سُولَه‬
َ ‫َُبا ْل ُه َد ٰى‬
ِ ‫َود‬ َ ‫ه َُوَالَّ ِذ‬
It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of truth to make it manifest (or prevail) over all religion (Al-
Fat’h: 28).

So where were these two matters in relation to the situation of the Muslims in the second stage of the
Islamic Da’wah?

One of the matters that increased the difficulties that confronted the leader of the Da’wah ‫ ﷺ‬during
this stage of the Da’wah, was the death of Khadijah (ra) the wife of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. She (May Allah be
pleased with her) had been the best of emotional supports to him and her death was followed by the death
of his paternal uncle Abu Taalib, who had been his societal support and had protected him from the
Quraish. “Ibn Ishaaq said: Then Khadijah Bint Khuwailid and Abu Taalib perished within the same year.
Successive calamities afflicted the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬by the death of Khadijah (ra). She had been a
faithful and truthful assistant to him in Islaam whom he could express his worries and concerns to. And
Abu Taalib died and he had been a pillar of support for him … That was three years before the
emigration to Al-Madinah. Then when Abu Taalib died the Quraish then went after the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in a manner that they could never have wished for during the life of Abu Taalib” (1).

In this situation, it was necessary to search for a way out from this dilemma that the Da’wah, its leader and
followers had reached. Due to that, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬set off to the town of Taa’if (2) (which was close to
Makkah) hoping to find amongst its leadership those who will extend to him Al-Mana’ah (deterrent force
to protect) and An-Nusrah (support), so that he could carry on in his conveyance of the Message of his
Rabb (Lord). However, he did not find anything except for resistance from them and incitement to insult
and harm him (3). Later, on one day after the Da’wah had been victorious and had become a state and
was expanding, ‘Aa’ishah (ra) asked him: Has there been any day harder upon you than the day of Uhud?
So he ‫ ﷺ‬replied to her saying:

َ‫تَ َن ْفسِ يَ َعلَىَاَْب ِنَ َع ْبدَِ َيالِي َل‬ ُ ْ‫َإِ ْذَ َع َرض‬،‫َال َع َق َب َِة‬ ُ َِ‫انَأَ َش َّدَ َماَلَق‬
ْ ‫يتَ ِم ْن ُه ْمَ َي ْو َم‬ َُ ‫ِيتَمِنْ َ َق ْومِكِ َ ََماََلَََقَْي‬
َ ‫تَ ََو َك‬ ُ ‫لَ َق ْدَلَق‬
َّ ‫َب َقرْ ِن‬
َِ ‫َالث َعا ِل‬
‫ب‬ ِ ‫َ َفَلَ ْمَأَسْ َتف ِْقَإِ َّال‬،َ‫ىَوجْ ِهي‬
َ َ‫َ َعل‬-َ‫ت ََوأَ َناَ َم ْهمُوم‬ ََ ‫َ َفا ْن‬،َ‫ت‬
ُ ‫طلَ ْق‬ ُ ‫َ َفلَ ْمَ ُي ِج ْبنِيَإِلَىَ َماَأَ َر ْد‬،‫ل‬ ٍَ ‫ْنَ ُك َال‬
ِ ‫ب‬
I was afflicted by your people with that which I was afflicted with and the severest of what I was
afflicted with from them was the day of Al-‘Aqabah when I presented myself to Ibn Abd YaLail
 Bin Kulaal. He did not respond positively to what I wanted and so I left in a distressed state and
did not regain myself until I reached Qarn Ath-Tha’aalib (4).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/166), (2) That took place in Shawwaal of the tenth year after the mission: (As-
Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/392), (3) Refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/172) and The History of At-Tabariy:
2/344, (4) The distance between it and Makkah is a day and night which is the measure of time of the people of Najd (As-
Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/395). It is also called Qarn ul.Manaazil. The Hadeeth is quoted in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3231 (Fat’h ul-
Baari’: 6/312-315].

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬returned after this punishing journey to Makkah and he was not able to enter it
without the protection being provided by one of the Mushrikeen leaders and that was Mut’im Ibn ‘Adiy
(1).

“Ibn Ishaaq said: Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬returned to Makkah and his people were more severe
against him in terms of opposition … The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would present himself, in the seasons
(i.e. Hajj), when they occurred, to the Arab tribes. He would invite them to Allah (and to support him);
inform them that he was a Nabi (Prophet) who had been sent and would ask them to believe in him and
offer protection to him to enable him to make clear from Allah that which he had been sent with” (3) …
“And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬proceeded upon this course whenever the people gathered for the
season (of Hajj) … He did not hear about anyone coming to Makkah from the Arabs who held a name
and position of honour (or standing) except that he would address him, call him to Allah and present to
him what he had …” (4).

In this way, the trip of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Taa’if seeking the Nusrah and the persistent
tireless activity searching for Ansaar (supporters) from the leaders of the Arab tribes and their nobles in
the seasons of the Hajj, following that journey to Taa’if, represented a new phase from the phases of the
Islamic Da’wah in Makkah Al-Mukarramah before the Hijrah to Al-Madinah.

Despite this, it is not from the intended purposes of our paper (i.e. PHD) to delve into the details of the
Da’wah in Makkah within its here stages just as it is not our purpose to present all of the meetings and
negotiations that took place between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the leaders or chiefs of those tribes whom he
sought for the purpose of the Nusrah. That is because delving into such matters requires an independent
paper (i.e. PHD) to be written and dedicated to it, a matter which we have indicated to previously.
Consequently, we have restricted ourselves to that which essential from these matters for the sake of
providing a general perception of each stage, where we only examine that which is linked to our study and
that is the Mas’alah (issue) of “Al-‘Unf (violence) and Al-Qitaal (fighting)” within the Makkiy stage of the
Islamic Da’wah. That represents the issue that we have made the conclusion to the discussion about the
three stages of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah prior to the Hijrah.

We will therefore restrict ourselves to providing a general picture of this third stage from the stages of the
Da’wah in Makkah so that we can deal with the two issues that have been indicated to in the title of this
study.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 2/347-348, (History of At-Tabariy: 2/348, Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/173), (4)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf: 2/174].

- The first Mas’alah (issue): Presenting the Islamic Da’wah to the chiefs of the tribes as a request for
Nusrah (support).

- The second Mas’alah (issue): The contraction of the Bai’ah (pledge) upon war with the Ansaar.
The first Mas’alah (issue): Presenting the Islamic Da’wah to the chiefs of the tribes
as a request for Nusrah (support).

By referring back to the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in the stage of that Da’wah that we are addressing, we
observe that he ‫ ﷺ‬used to present himself to the chiefs of the tribes in his capacity as a carrier of the
Da’wah to Allah, for the sake of his protection, so that he would be enabled to convey it to the people
and for the sake of providing support to him in respect to which he was seeking to accomplish in terms of
the establishment of an authority for that Da’wah, that would provide for the Da’wah and its followers
protection and security, followed by enabling that Da’wah to launch out into the world, inviting every race
and colour to respond to the command of Allah.

However, the Nusrah that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬went out seeking from At-Taa’if or from the chiefs of the tribes,
did not represent an absolute or unrestricted Nusrah … without certain considerations being required to
be fulfilled, whether that was in terms of time, place, number, power or purpose … or any matter similar
to that. Rather, it represented a Nusrah (support) of a specific quality and that is as follows:

1 - The seeking of the Nusrah, by the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, outside of Makkah, only began in a noticeable
manner after the harm upon him intensified and after the death of his uncle Abu Taalib who used to
protect him from Quraish. That was because the one who carries the Da’wah will never be able to move
or mobilise in an effective manner in the carrying of the Da’wah and gain a positive response, within an
atmosphere of violence, pressure and terrorising. That is clear in what was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “When Abu Taalib died the Quraish went after the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to bring harm
upon him in a manner that they had not done previously … And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬set off
to At-Taa’if seeking the Nusrah from Thaqeef …” (1).

Just as it mentioned the following in respect to his activity following At-Taa’if: “Then the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬returned to Makkah and his people were more severe against him in terms of opposition …
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would present himself, in the seasons (i.e. Hajj) … to the Arab tribes …. He
would ask them to believe in him and offer protection to him …” (2).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/172), (2) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah li Ibn Hishaam: 2/173)].

2 - The Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬presenting of himself to the tribes to request the Nusrah from them was only in
compliance to the command of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla for him to do that. It was not merely an Ijtihaad
which he made dictated by the circumstances that the Da’wah had reached. The Daleel for that is what
was related in Fat’h ul-Baari’ the explanation of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari which stated: “Al-Haakim, Abu
Na’eem and Al-Baihaqiy recorded with indications of a Hasan Isnaad from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) who said: ‘Ali
Ibn Abi Taalib said: “When Allah commanded his Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to present himself to the tribes, he went out
accompanied by myself and Abu Bakr to Minaa …” (1) This is an explicit text indicating that the
Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬presentation of himself before the tribes was only in accordance to the command of
Allah. And he mentions in this long Hadeeth how the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and his two companions set off to
the gatherings or councils of the Arabs in Minaa during the Hajj season … until he mentioned there
setting off to the Majlis (seated gathering) of Rabee’ah, then the Majlis of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj for the
purpose of seeking refuge and the Nusrah!

3 - The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬restricting the Talab An-Nusrah (seeking or requesting of support) to the chiefs
of the tribes and those of a position of honour (or nobility) and standing who have followers that listen to
them and obey them. That is because they are those who are capable of providing the protection to the
Da’wah and its leader. That is demonstrated clearly in this text that has been recorded in the Seerah:
“When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reached At-Taa’if he went to a group from Thaqeef and they were
the leaders of Thaqeef at that time and their nobles … So, he sat before them and invited them to Allah
and spoke to them about what came for in terms of giving Nusrah (support) to Islaam and to stand
alongside him against those who oppose him from his people (i.e. Quraish) …” (2).

4 - The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to request from those he would seek the Nusrah (support) from for Islaam that
they believe in him first and affirm him, as was stated earlier in some of the previously mentioned texts,
like: “And he asked them to believe in him and to protect him” (3). Through this condition, the difference
between requesting the protection for himself ‫ ﷺ‬without the protection of the Da’wah that he is
carrying, and the protection of him in his description as a carrier of the Da’wah i.e. with the protection of
the Da’wah that he is carrying as well as himself. That would be by standing in the face of its enemies and
preventing them from bringing harm to it and its followers.

As for the personal protection: Then that could be from a non-Muslim and could be requested from a
non-Muslim.

[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/220, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/172). History of At-Tabariy: 2/344, (3) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/173)].

In respect to the protection of Abu Taalib (1) provided to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, his requesting it from Mut’im
Ibn ‘Adiy (2) so as to allow him to safely re-enter Makkah, the protection of Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy
(3) extended to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab and the protection of Ibn Ad-Daghinnah to Abu Bakr As-
Siddeeq, whilst all of those protectors were from the Mushrikeen (polytheists), then all of that indicates
the permissibility of protection and for the Muslim individual to request it from non-Muslims.

As for the seeking of protection in respect to the Nusrah (support) provided to the Islamic Da’wah, then
all of the previous texts indicate that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬used to present to those he was seeking it from,
to enter into Islaam first and then request the Nusrah from them secondly! This is what logic dictates, as
how can sincerity and continuation in respect to the Nusrah be guaranteed from parties for a particular
Da’wah and for them to support it, if that supporting party does not believe in that Da’wah itself?

Having said that, it is true that it is possible for certain circumstances to arise which push an opponent of
a Da’wah from the Da’wahs to make a truce with it or become prepared to support it without actually
adopting that Da’wah themselves as an Imaan (belief) or embracing its idea!

In that circumstance, it would be naïve to believe that this represents an opportunity that must be grabbed
and thereafter throw the carriers of that Da’wah into the embrace of that party requesting it to support the
Da’wah and assist it, based upon that belief. That is because as long as the motivation of that party
supporting the Da’wah whilst not believing in it, is based upon a certain circumstance and particular
Maslahah (interest), then it is only natural for circumstances to change, for the Masaalih (interests) to alter
and move from one opposite to another. Then, that party may see it in its interest to strike that Da’wah in
accordance to its interest and then turns its back against it without there being anything to deter or
prevent it!

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was therefore resolute in all of his negotiations related to the seeking of the Nusrah,
that those people of Nusrah enter into Islaam before any other matter!

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/166), (2) History of At-Tabariy: 2/247-248. Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-
Albaaniy said: I did not find a Sanad (line of transmission) (In the commentary or footnotes of Fiqh As-Seerah, by Ash-Sheikh
Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p133, (3) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3864, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/177].
5 - It is also observed within the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in relation to the Talab un-Nusrah that he used
to request it for two matters:

The first: He ‫ ﷺ‬used to seek the Nusrah for the sake of protecting the conveyance of the Da’wah so
that he could proceed amongst the people protected and away from bad treatment towards him and his
followers!

The second: He ‫ ﷺ‬used to seek the Nusrah for the purpose of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬receiving the reins of the
rule and authority upon the basis of that Da’wah. And this represents a natural ordering of the affairs or
matters.

That is because the protection of the conveyance (of the Da’wah) firstly, is so that what is called a popular
platform or base (Al-Qaa’idah Ash-Sha’biyah) can be generated or brought into existence that supports
the thought upon which the Da’wah is established. That occurs via those who have embraced the thought
under the shade of what has been provided to them in terms of an atmosphere of protection. Then when
those believing in the idea become many and are prepared to sacrifice in its way, then a firm grounding
would have been found and brought about in addition to a broad base or platform upon which the ruling
and authority will rest upon. At this point, the transition to the seeking of the Nusrah for the sake of
assuming the rule upon the basis of that Da’wah takes place.

The seeking of Nusrah by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬for the purpose of protecting the conveyance was
evident in the Ibn Ishaaq’s description of the activity of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬following his journey to
Taa’if which we quoted earlier just as it is clearly apparent in the narration related by Al-Haakim in his Al-
Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini: “Jaabir (ra) related: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬present himself before
the people at Al-Mawqif. He would say: Is there a man who will take me to his people for verily Quraish
have prevented me from conveying the speech of my Rabb (Lord)? He (Jaabir) said: So a man from Bani
Hamdaan approached him and said: I (will)! He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: And do your people have Mana’ah
(protective or preventative force)? He replied: Yes! He ‫ ﷺ‬then asked about him: Where is he from? He
(the answerer) said: From Hamdaan. Then the Hamdaaniy feared that his people will breach his covenant
(i.e. not follow through). So he went to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and then said: I will return to my
people and inform them. Then, I will meet you in the following year. He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: Yes!” (1).

Therefore, the necessary that was being sought here was only for the sake of protecting the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in his description as the leader or possessor of a Da’wah to enable the conveyance of the
message of Allah to the people in an atmosphere of protection, security and assurance. It is the matter
that will consequently enable the generation of the popular platform or base that believes in this thought
so that the transition can be completed after that to another kind of seeking of the Nusrah. That is the
Talab un-Nusrah (request of support) for the purpose of assuming the rule and the authority within the
land which provided the Nusrah, so that the Islamic state is established upon the basis of the Islamic
Da’wah.

[(1) Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini, Al-Haakim: 2/612-613 and he (Al-Haakim) said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the
condition of the two Sheikhs but they did not record it].

This is also clear from the negotiations that took place between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the Notables of
Bani ‘Aamir Bin Sa’sa’ah, in respect to the request that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬presented to them. Following
that the men of Bani ‘Aamir told a Sheikh of theirs about the nature of the request when they said: “A
young man of Quraish came to us claiming that he is a Nabi (Prophet). He called us to give him Mana’ah
(to protect or provide preventative force), and to stand by him and to bring him to our land” (1).
Banu ‘Aamir had understood that the result of responding affirmatively to the request of this Nusrah
would be that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would become the one who assumes the ruling and authority over all of the
Arabs when Allah makes him prevail over them as a result of his using the Nusrah (support) that they
were to provide to him. Upon this understanding, they wanted for this matter (i.e. the ruling and
authority) to belong to Bani ‘Aamir following the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. They wanted this is a legal form (i.e.
agreement) as the price for the sacrifices that they would provide! The negotiator of Bani ‘Aamir,
Bayharah Bin Firaas said: “What is your view if we were to give you the Bai’ah upon your matter and then
Allah made you prevail over those who oppose you, would the matter then belong to us after you?” He
‫ ﷺ‬replied: “The matter belongs to Allah, he places it where he wills”. He (Bayharah) said: “Should we
fight against the Arabs (2) in protection of you and then when Allah makes you prevail, the matter
(authority) would belong to other than us?! We have no need for your matter (then)!” i.e. no need for your
Da’wah and so they refused him” (3).

It is evident from this text that there was no disagreement in respect to the authority belonging to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬during his lifetime and that means that the Nusrah was only going to be extended to the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬upon this basis. However, the disagreement lay in respect to whom the authority would belong to
after him?

The answer of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was that in respect to this matter then the Hukm (judgement) of it would
belong to Allah and that it is not subject to bargaining. Allah then did rule upon that matter in the
legislations that came later explaining that the Sultah (authority) belongs to the Ummah and she give its to
who she wishes via the Bai’ah (pledge) in accordance to the Ahkaam of Islaam. That is as we have
explained in detail in previous studies of this paper.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/174). Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/350, (2) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/3, (3) Seerah
Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/174). Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/350].

6 - Also, from what has been observed in the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬concerning the Talab un-Nusrah, is
that he ‫ ﷺ‬refused to give the forces who were prepared to provide him with the Nusrah any guarantees
regarding anything from the rule and authority belonging to their people as a cost or reward for the
Nusrah they provide and their support of the Islamic Da’wah. That was made evident in the previous
point regarding the negotiations that took place between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and Bani ‘Aamir Bin Sa’sa’ah! (1).

That is because the Islamic Da’wah represents a Da’wah to Allah and consequently, the fundamental
condition in respect to those who believe in it and who are ready to support it, is pure sincerity to be to
Allah and the seeking of His pleasure. These two matters (i.e. sincerity and seeking His pleasure) represent
the aim that is sought from that Nusrah in addition to sacrifice. It is not to covet influence or a desire for
authority. That is because the aim or objective that a person sets for a matter is what shapes the activity of
the person when he works towards it; it defines the extent of the preservation over it and the amount of
sacrifice that is made upon its way or course! It is therefore necessary then, for the aim that is being
sought behind the provision of the Nusrah to the Da’wah, to be stripped from any material interest to
guarantee the continuation of the support for it, to guarantee its preservation from any deviation and to
assure the greatest possible amount of support be provided to it in addition to the sacrifices upon its path!

7 - It is also noticed or observed within the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to the Talab An-Nusrah, is
that he ‫ ﷺ‬did not seek the Nusrah from people merely because they were leaders of the tribes or those
who held honoured positions or standing alone. Rather, he was looking to what those leaders held in their
lands in terms of a power that was capable of standing in the face of the enemies of the Islamic state, if
they were to have believed in it (i.e. the Da’wah) and handed leadership to it. Consequently, if he ‫ ﷺ‬did
not find that power capable of protecting the Da’wah, he would not go to seek Nusrah from them and in
respect to them he would suffice to remind them about Allah.

This has been indicated to by what has been mentioned in some of the books of Seerah stating the
following: “When Bakr Bin Waa’il came to Makkah for Hajj, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to Abu
Bakr. Bring me to them so that I may present myself to them. So he went to them and presented himself
to them. He said to them: How is your number? They replied: Numerous like the earth (i.e. soil). He ‫ﷺ‬
asked: And how is your Mana’ah (protective or preventative force)? They replied: There is no Mana’ah!
Horseman overtake us and we do not prevent them or force ourselves over them” (2). Consequently, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sufficed himself in reminding them about Allah and informing them that he was
the Messenger of Allah.

[(1) Seerah ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf: 2/174) and History of At-Tabariy: 2/350, (2) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/5].

The Hadeeth related by Jaabir which we mentioned earlier also indicates to this in respect to the
Hamdaaniy man who showed his readiness to the take the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to his people whilst the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬stipulated that his people must have Mana’ah (protective or preventive force) to
protect him!

8 - From the description of the Nusrah that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to request to be provided
to his Da’wah from the leaders of the tribes, was that the people of the Nusrah not be tied or bound
treaties with other states that is contrary to the Da’wah, whilst they are unable to free themselves from
them. That is because their embracing of the Da’wah and this situation (i.e. of being bound by a treaty)
exposes it to the danger of being eliminated by the states that the treaty has been made with, those states
which find a danger posed by the Islamic Da’wah against them and a threat to their interests!

Consequently, he ‫ ﷺ‬used to look for those people of the Nusrah who were capable of taking hold of
Islaam and encompassing it from all of its angles without there being the least amount of a gap for the
enemies to penetrate through to bring harm upon the Da’wah and its followers!

This is indicated to by what came in “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf” in the Tafseer of the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam, in
relation to the dialogue that took place about the seeking of Nusrah between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and
Abu Bakr on one side and the leaders of Bani Shaibaan on the other.

These following sentences from that elevated and aware dialogue that took place guide indicate to this
point that we are discussing:

Abu Bakr said to one of the leaders of Banu Shaibaan called Mafrooq: How many do you number? He
replied: We number (well) over a thousand and a thousand will never be defeated by a fewer number! Abu
Bakr then asked: And how is the Mana’ah amongst you? He replied: We strive (i.e. do our utmost) and
every nation has its share (of wins and losses). Abu Bakr asked: How is the war between you and your
enemies? (i.e. its outcome). He replied: We are in the most severe in anger when we meet (in battle) and
we are the most severe in our meeting (in battle) when we are angry. And verily, we prefer horses over
(our) children) and weapons over our milk camels! And the victory is from Allah, sometimes it is in our
favour and sometimes it goes against us! … (He [Mafrooq] then asked) It appears that you are a brother
from Quraish? (Here he means: Are you Muhammd the Quraishiy carrying a Da’wah?) Abu Bakr then
said: Has it reached you that he is the Messenger of Allah? This is him (whilst pointing to the Messenger
of Allah). Mafrooq then said: It has reached us that he mentions that! (Mafrooq then faces towards the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and says): To what are you calling O Quraishiy brother? The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
then advanced forward and said: I invite to bearing witness to that there is no Ilaah (diety) other than
Allah alone Who has no partner and that I am the Messenger of Allah. And that you provide me with
refuge and support me. That is because Quraish have gone against the command of Allah, disbelieved in
His Messenger and kept away from the Haqq by sticking to the Baatil. And verily Allah is Al-Ghaniy ul-
Hameed” (1).

It appears that the man of Banu Shaibaan became at ease towards the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and was
impressed and pleased by the Da’wah that he was carrying after asking further questions about it. He
found in the answers of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬that which quenched his thirst! Then, the man of Bani
Shaibaan broke out saying: “By Allah! A people who have disbelieved in you and opposed you have lied!”.

He ‫ ﷺ‬then spoke with Haani’ Bin Qubaisah a Sheikh (elder) of Bani Shaibaan and the one who was
knowledgeable about their Deen. He said: “I have heard what you have said O Quraishi brother and it is
my view that if we were to have left our Deen and followed you upon your Deen due to one sitting that
you have given us, it would not be the first or last (time), that a slip or error may occur in opinion (or
judgement) accompanied by a lack of examination in respect to its consequences. Rather, it would be an
error made in haste! And behind us there is a nation whom we dislike to make a contract with …
However, (I advise) that you return and we return, that you look into the matter and we look into it …”.

He ‫ ﷺ‬then spoke with Al-Muthanna Ibn ul-Haarithah who was also from the Shuyookh (elder leaders)
of Bani Shaibaan and the one responsible for their war. He mentioned that Banu Shaibaan are located in a
land between the rivers of Kisraa (i.e. Persian kingdom) and the Arab waters i.e. upon the Persian border.
And he presented what was within the capability of his people to provide to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬regarding the
matter of the Nusrah that he had requested from them in view of the location of his land and the
relationship that his people had with the Persian state. He said: “As for the side of the Kisraa rivers (i.e.
Persian side) then transgressing against its owner is not forgiven and its excuse is not accepted1 As for the
side of the Arab waters (i.e. Arabian Peninsula), then its transgression is forgiven and its excuse is
accepted! We have submitted to a covenant that Kisraa (ruler of Persia) has taken upon us, that we do not
bring about an incident and that we do not give shelter to one that will make an incident (i.e. cause trouble
against them). And verily, I see that this matter that you are inviting us to is from those matters which the
Kings detest! Therefore, if you wish for us to give you refuge (or shelter) and support you regarding that
area that follows the Arab waters, then we would do that!

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then said in response: You have not responded in a bad way in the sense
that you have clearly spoken honestly (i.e. about your reality). And verily the Deen of Allah will never be
supported except by the one who encompasses it from all of its aspects (i.e. takes it unconditionally
without any restrictions)” (2).

[(1) Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah, Ibn Hishaam: 2/181, (2) Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah
An-Nabawiyah, Ibn Hishaam: 2/182].

It therefore appears that the penetrating influence of the personality of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his Da’wah,
within the leaders of Bani Shaibaan led them to respond positively to the request of the Nusrah made by
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he presented to them. As such, they offered in response to that request
all that they had and possessed even if that did not meet the requirement of what was sufficient to protect
the Da’wah and establish a new state upon its basis. That was in a location neighbouring the major Persian
state at that time which had only just exited from a painful war with the major Roman state, whilst it was
it (i.e. the Persian state) that had been victorious, as indicated to in the first Aayaat (1-6) of Soorah Ar-
Room in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem.

That was especially because there was an international treaty between Bani Shaibaan, which presented a
small statelet and the major Persian state, which stipulated that they would not create any trouble or
shelter a trouble maker.
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬praised their honesty and then explained to them that the required Nusrah
goes beyond the borders (that they were willing to provide the Nusrah within) when he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َج َوان ِِب ِه‬

َ ‫ِيع‬ َّ ‫ََّللاَلََنْ َ َي ْنص َُرهَُإِالَ َمنْ َأَ َحا َطه‬
َ ْ‫ََُّللاَُمِن‬ ِ َّ ‫ِين‬
ِ ‫َجم‬ َ ‫َوإِنَّ َد‬
And verily the Deen of Allah will never be supported except by the one who encompasses it from
all of its aspects (i.e. takes it unconditionally without any restrictions)! (1).

9 - And finally we understand from the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in respect to the seeking of An-Nusrah,
in its description as being the way by which the Da’wah reaches the ruling and authority, that he ‫ ﷺ‬did
not seek it outside of Makkah except after he had given up hope from attaining it internally and as a result
of there not being a sufficient number of the people attached to the Da’wah from amongst the people of
Mana’ah (protective or preventative force) and from those people whose word is obeyed amongst their
clans, in a manner that the Da’wah would be able to depend upon them in order to take hold of the reins
of matters and to take hold of the reins of the authority!

The leaders of Quraish had been fully aware that by preventing the provision of their Nusrah (support) to
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was what delayed the victory of the Da’wah and its reaching the rule and authority.
However, at the same time, they were afraid that the base believing in the Da’wah would expand and draw
to it a more capable number of those like Hamzah and ‘Umar. At such a time, the leaders of the Quraish
expected fearfully, that the Muslims would be enabled to pull the rug of the authority from underneath
them in a manner that they anticipated or did not anticipate! Or, in the words that they used (as will be
discussed later): “We are not safe from them stealing away our affair (i.e. authority and influence)” i.e. that
the authority changes hands and goes to the Muslims, regardless of who the leaders of Quraish were!

[(1) Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah, Ibn Hishaam: 2/182].

It may be that the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab to those leaders pointed to this when he said to
them: “I swear by Allah, that had we (i.e. the Muslims) been 300 men (in number) we would have left it
for you (i.e. Makkah) or you would have left it to us” (1).

This matter that we have explained is also clear in what was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam:

“Ibn Ishaaq said: When they (Quraish) complained to Abu Taalib and its weight reached the Quiraish they
said amongst each other: Verily, Hamzah and ‘Umar have become Muslim and the matter of Muhammad
has spread amongst all the tribes of Quraish. So, set off with us to Abu Taalib so that he can control his
nephew and spare us from him! By Allah, we are not safe from them stealing away our affair (i.e. authority
and influence)” … And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: Yes, if you provide me with one word, by it
you will take control of the Arabs and the non-Arabs will submit to you! He (ibn Ishaaq) said: Abu Jahl
said: Yes, by my father, we will give you ten words! He ‫ ﷺ‬said: You (need to) say: Laa Ilaaha Illallah
and cast aside all that you worship besides Him! He (ibn Ishaaq) said: They then clapped their hands and
said: Do you desire O Muhammad that we make all of the Gods into One single God? Indeed, your affair
is a strange (or wondrous) one! He (Ibn Ishaaq) said: They (i.e. Quraish) then dispersed” (2).

What we bring attention to here is that the encouragement given by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the leaders of
Quraish, by saying that if they were to become Muslim, they would possess the authority over the Arabs
and non-Arabs, did not represent a cost or price in exchange for support provided by them to the Da’wah
via their becoming Muslims. That is because such a cost or price is rejected within the Islamic Da’wah as
was made clear in the negotiations of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬with Bani ‘Aamir Bin Sa’sas’ah that took place after,
which we have discussed the details of previously.
It appears that the intention of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬behind saying that was only from that angle that Abu Bake
As-Siddeeq mentioned, after that, in the Saqeefah (courtyard) of the Ansaar in relation to the Hukm (rule)
and Sultah (authority) (i.e. the Khilafah) to follow the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. He said: “The Arabs
would not acknowledge this matter (i.e. authority) except in the tribe of Quraish as they are in the heart of
the Arabs in terms of location and lineage” (3).

Therefore, the above represent some of the outlines that became apparent to us in respect to the meetings
that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬held with the chiefs and heads of the Arab tribes to seek from that to
bring about the Nusrah (support) for the Da’wah, to secure its protection and to then move on to
establish the Islamic state upon its basis.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/98), (2) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/166-167), (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam:
(Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/174). History of At-Tabariy: 2/350, (4) History of At-Tabariy: 3/502-506].

These mentioned outlines are sufficient to provide a general picture of the situation of the Islamic Da’wah
in its the third and final stage in Makkah Al-Mukarramah before the Hijrah (emigration) to Al-Madinah.
That is the stage of presenting the Islamic Da’wah to the leaders of the Arab tribes seeking the Nusrah. By
that we have come to the end of this first Mas’alah (issue) and now we will proceed to the second
Mas’alah in this study.

The second Mas’alah (issue): The contraction of the Bai’ah with the Ansaar upon
war (Harb)

Foreword: About the meeting stages that took place between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the Aws and the
Khazraj until the Bai’at ul-Harb (pledge upon war) was convened.

It was mentioned within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah that the meetings of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with
the people of Makkah from the Aws and the Khazraj, within the Hajj seasons, at the time when he was
seeking the Nusrah from the tribal leaders, went through five stages:

1 - His meeting with a leader from amongst the leaders of the Aws, who his people had named ‘Al-
Kaamil’ due to patience, poetry, honour and lineage. His name was: Suwaid Bin As-Saamit. He came to
Makkah for Hajj or ‘Umrah and the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬addressed him; calling him to Allah, to Islaam and
recited the Qur’aan to him. He responded by saying: Verily, this is a good speech. He then left to return to
Al-Madinah. It wasn’t long after that, that he was killed by the Khazraj and his death was the cause of the
war of Bu’aath (1) between the Aws and the Khazraj. The men from his people would say: We view that
he was killed whilst he was Muslim (2) (i.e. that he had embraced Islam due to his meeting with the
Messenger ‫)ﷺ‬.

[(1) Bu’aath: It is a location close to Al-Madinah, two nights’ distance from it and close to Banu Quraizhah. That is where the
fighting between the Aws and the Khazraj took place (As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/6-7). The victory went first to the Khazraj
and then after to the Aws, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/175). History of At-Tabariy: 2/351. Zaad ul-Ma’aad,
Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/44. As-Seerah Ah-Halabiyah: 2/7].

2 - After the killing of Suwaid Bin As-Saamit from Al-Aws at the hands of Al-Khazraj, a delegation of the
Aws went to Makkah seeking an alliance with Quraish against their people from the Khazraj tribe. At the
head of the delegation was Abu l-Haysar Anas Bin Raafi’ and amongst them was a young man called Iyaas
Bin Mu’aadh. When the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬heard that they were coming and for what reason, he went to
them and said: “Have you found goodness in what you have come for?” And he presented Islaam to them
as a result of which Iyaas Bin Mu’aadh said: “O people, by Allah, this is better that what you came for”.
Then Abu l-Haysar responded to the young man saying: “Don’t bother us with this! For verily we have
come for a reason other than this!” The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬then left them and the delegation of Al-Aws
returned back to Al-Madinah. They failed to gain an alliance from the Quraish against the cousins from
Al-Khazraj and the war of Bu’aath broke out between the two tribes. It was then not long until Iyaas Bin
Mu’aadh died whilst those of his people who had been present at his death mentioned that: “They
continued to hear him say Laa Ilaahah Illallah, Allahu Akbar, Al-Hamdu Lillah and Subhaanallah until he
died and so they had no doubt that he died as a Muslim” (1).

3 - In the Hajj season that followed the war of Bi’aath a small group of the Khazraj came to Makkah and
they were either six or eight in number (2). The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬met with them, presented Islaam to them
and recited the Qur’aan: “Then when they heard his speech they were silent and their souls became
content to his Da’wah. They were aware of what they used to hear from the Ahl ul-Kitaab (people of the
book) when they described him (i.e. the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬by his description (or attributes) and by what he was
calling them to. They therefore accepted him, believed in him and they were from the causes of goodness
(i.e. to come). Then they said: You are aware of the situation that exists between the Aws and the Khazraj
in terms of blood (i.e. fighting and killing), whilst we love what Allah has guided your affair with, we
(now) dedicate our efforts to Allah and to you. “We will advise you according to our view (of matters). So,
remain upon the name of Allah (i.e. as you are) until we return to our people and inform them about your
affair and invite them to Allah and His Messenger. It may be that Allah reconciles between us and unites
our affair because verily we are far apart from each other and hold hatred for one another today. If you
were to come to us today whilst we have not rectified our affair, then we will not possess a group for you.
(Therefore) Let us agree to meet with you in the (Hajj) season of the coming year”. The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was pleased with what they said and so they returned to their people and called them (to the
Islamic Da’wah) secretly! And they informed them about the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and that which
Allah had sent him with … That continued until it was rare that a household (Daar) from amongst the
households of the Ansaar remained except that people had embraced Islaam within them … inevitably!!”
(3).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/175-176). Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/352-353. Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim:
3/44 and the Isnaad (chain of narration) was classified as Hasan (good) by the verifiers: Shu’aib Al-Arnaa’oot and Abdul Qaadir
Al-Arnaa’oot in the commentary upon Zaad ul-Ma’aad, (2) As-Seerah Al-halabiyah: 2/6, (3) related by At-Tabaraani from
‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair - Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id by Al-Haithami: 6/40-41].

And the following was mentioned by Ibn Hishaam and At-Tabariy about the meeting of the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬and this small Khazrajiy group: “Some of them said to others: O people! You know well by Allah!
That he is indeed the Nabi (Prophet) whom the Jews have been threatening you about, so make sure that
they do not beat you to him. And so they responded positively to what he called them to and they
believed in him … And they said: Verily, we have left our people (in a certain state) and there are no
people who have as much hostility and rancour between them (as we do). And so it may be that Allah
brings them together through you! We will head back to them and invite them to your matter (i.e. Islaam)
… Then if Allah brings them together upon you then there will be no man mightier (or with greater
honour) than you! … Then when they returned to Al-Madinah … they spoke about the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to their people and called them to Islaam until it spread amongst them until no household
remained from amongst the households of the Ansaar except that there was the mention of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬within them” (1).

4 - And then in the following year, in the Hajj season, twelve men of the people of Al-Madinah came, ten
from the Khazraj and two from the Aws. It included the majority of the small group that had become
Muslim in the previous year. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬met with those Aws and Khazraj in Minaa and convened the
first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah (Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah Al-Uolaa).
“’Ubaadah Ibn As-Saamit said: I was amongst those who were present at the first ‘Aqabah (pledge). We
were twelve men. So we gave our Bai’ah (pledge) to the Messenger of Allah, Bai’at un-Nisaa’ (The pledge
of the women) (2). And that was before fighting had been made obligatory upon us. We pledged to not
associate partners with Allah in worship, to not cheat or fornicate, to not kill our children, to not come up
with a falsehood that we fabricate between our hands and feet, and to not disobey him in respect to a
Ma’roof (a good which he commands us). And (he ‫ ﷺ‬said): If you fulfil that faithfully, then you will
have Paradise. But if you fail in that in any manner, then your affair is with Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.
If He wills, He will punish (you) and if He wills He will forgive” (3).

Ibn Ishaaq said: “Then when the people departed he dispatched Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair with them and
commanded him to teach them the Qur’aan, teach them Islaam and make them knowledgeable about the
Deen. He came to be called the Muqri’ (reciter or Qur’aan teacher) in Al-Madinah …” (4).

And Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair, may Allah be pleased with him, was exceptionally successful in respect to guiding
many of the people of Al-Madinah to Allah and was able to win over a number of their leaders to Islaam,
like Usaid ibn Hudair and Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh.

[(1) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/176-177). Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/353-355. Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/45, (2) Ash-Sheikh
Muhammad Abu Zahrah said: “This naming (i.e. Bai’at un Nisaa) was not given, as may be thought, at the time of the Bai’ah
but rather it was given after that due to its resemblance to what was mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem concerning the
Bai’ah of the Nabi of the women (An-Nisaa’) regarding its Ahkaam and even if its time and subject area was different. That is
because that was related to the Nisaa’ (women) and this was with the men, whilst it applied equally to both the men and
women” (Khaatim An-Nabiyeen: 1/493. Refer to the text of the Bai’at un-Nisaa’ as mentioned in the Qur’aan within Soorah
Al-Mumtahanah Aayah 12, (3) Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/185). And it is observed that the Hudood had not yet been
obligated (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 1/66), (4) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/176)].

5 - Then, in the year following that, within the Hajj season, seventy-three men and two women came from
the people of Al-Madinah and they were part of a larger group of their people who were Mushrikeen and
had come to perform the Hajj. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬set an appointed time to meet with the
Muslims of the people of Al-Madinah, secretly from Quraish and their own Mushrik people. That took
place in the middle of the days of At-Tashreeq after three nights at ‘Aqabah.

Ka’b Bin Maalik (ra) said: “… Then when we had completed the Hajj and the night which the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had set as an appointment time to meet came … We slept that night alongside the men of
our people until a third of the night had passed at which time we left … to our appointed meeting time
with the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. We snuck out stealthily like the stealth of a Qataa (a bird the size of a
pigeon) and in a concealed secret manner. That was until we gathered together at the mountain paths of
Al-‘Aqabah and we were seventy-three men and two women … We gathered together … waiting for the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬until he came to us … He had Al-‘Abbaas Ibn Abdul Muttalib accompanying
him and he was at that time still upon the Deen of his people. However, he wanted to attend the affair of
his nephew and make sure of it. Then when he sat, the first to speak was his uncle Al-‘Abbaas Ibn Abdul
Muttalib and he said: “O people of the Khazraj (Ka’b said: And the Arabs used to name this region of the
Ansaar as the Khazraj whilst referring to both the Khazraj and the Aws). Verily, Muhammad is from us as
you are aware. And we have protected him from our people who think as we do about him. He is
therefore currently in a place of honour amongst his people and protection in his land but he has refused
except to turn to you and join you. So, if you believe that you can be faithful to him regarding what he
invites you to and that you will protect him from his opponents, then assume the burden you have
undertaken. But if you think that you will betray and fail him after he has gone out with you, then
immediately, right now, leave him be in the position of honour and protection that he currently enjoys
from his people and in his land”! He (Ka’b) said: We then said to him (Al-‘Abbaas): We have indeed heard
what you have said, so now you speak O Messenger of Allah! For verily we are men of war possessing
weapons” (i.e. experience and skill). So, take (or choose) for yourself and your Rabb (Lord) that which you
wish!

He said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬spoke after reciting the Qur’an supplicating and exhorting about
Islaam commended Islam and said: “I wish to take your Bai’ah (pledge) upon the basis that you protect
me as you would protect your women and children”. He (Ka’b) said: Al-Baraa’ Bin Ma’roor took his hand
and said: “Yes, indeed, by the One who has sent you with the Haqq, we will indeed protect you from what
we protect our women and selves. We give our allegiance to you O Messenger of Allah, for verily by Allah
we are men of war possessing weapons which have been passed on from father to son”.

He (Ka’b) said: Then Abu l-Haytham Bin At-Tayyihaan interrupted Al-Baraa’ and said: O Messenger of
Allah! Messenger of Allah, we have ties (i.e. treaties and arrangements) with other men (meaning the Jews)
and if we sever them perhaps it will be that when we have done that and Allah has given you victory, you
will return to your people and leave us?”

He (Ka’b) said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then smiled and said: “Rather, my blood is your blood (i.e.
you have a demand of blood from me and I of you). I am of you and you are of me. I make war against
those you make war against and I make peace with those you make peace with …” (i.e. our affair is joined
together completely) (1).

It was mentioned in the Hadeeth related by Jaabir Bin Abdullah: “And so then we stood before him, one
man after another. And so he took that (i.e. the pledge), so that he would give us Jannah (paradise) in
return” (2).

It is not our intention here to present all that took place in this Bai’ah (pledge) but rather our intention
here in only to confirm that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬met with the people of Al-Madinah on a number of
occasions regarding the Nusrah which he had been active in seeking from the chiefs or leaders of the
nearby regions, during this phase from amongst the phases of the Islamic Da’wah I Makkah.

Following this introduction or foreword in which we have presented the meetings of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with the Aws and the Khazraj, over five stages, within the context of his efforts to seek the
Nusrah from the leaders of the Arab tribe, we now come to dealing with the Mas’alah (issue) of the
contracting of the Bai’ah (pledge) with the Ansaar over Harb (war). That will be done by addressing and
treating the following points:

1 - What was the role of the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬third meeting, undertaken with the small Khazrajiy group
in the Hajj season, following the end of the Bu’aath war between the Aws and Khazraj, regarding laying
the ground for the beginning of the Ansaar entering into Islaam and pledging the first Bai’ah of Al-
‘Aqabah?

2 - What was the role of the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah in respect to the Talab un-Nusrah?

3 - Upon what was the second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah contracted?

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/189). Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/42-44. Ash-Sheikh Naasir wrote in the notes of
Fiqh us-Seerah by Al-Ghazaaliy: Hadeeth Saheeh. P159, (2) Al-Mustadrak, Al-Haakim: And he said: Saheeh ul-Isnaad and Adh-
Dhabaiy concurred: 2/625].

1 - The first point: What was the role of the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬third meeting, undertaken with the
small Khazrajiy group in the Hajj season, following the end of the Bu’aath war between the Aws
and Khazraj, regarding laying the ground for the beginning of the Ansaar entering into Islaam
and pledging the first Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah?
 This meeting took place following the end of the war of Bu’aath and it was a war from amongst the civil
wars that took place between the cousins, the Aws and the Khazraj, which have been said to have gone on
for 120 years (1). It appears, that one of the causative factors for the continuation of the civil wars, was
that the elders from the two side had remained living and used to alight the flames of war through what
was stored in their long history in terms of vengeance and revenge. Another factor was the coveting of
leading positions which used to be in opposition to the cessation war and the inclining towards peace.
However, it was by the Tawfeeq of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla, that in this war of Bu’aath most of the elder
notables of both sides, who had an interest in the continuation of the wars, were killed. There arose in the
immediate aftermath of that a new group who had been burnt by its fire (i.e. the wars) whilst they did not
have in their breasts that emotional store that would push them to continue in the wars. The war ground
had been emptied of the elders, those who carried whips by which they would enflame the backs of the
young to drive them forth into the path of death and destruction so as to satisfy their crazed impulse and
made thirst for vengeance!

In this way, this new generation of younger men from the two tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj began to
gather their wounded and search for a way out from the situation … The meeting that took place with the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was upon that path and so they found in the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that
which they had been searching for just as the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬found in them that which he had
been searching for!

This is the meaning ‘Aa’ishah (ra) understood as was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari:

َ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬ ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬ ََّ ‫اثَ َي ْوماَ َق َّد َمه‬

َ ‫ََُّللاَُل َِرسُو ِل َِهَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َف َق ِد َم‬ َ ‫انَ َي ْو ُمَ ُب َع‬
َ ‫تَ َك‬ ْ َ‫َقال‬
َّ ‫َ َف َق َّد َمه‬،‫َوجُرِّ ُحوا‬،
َ‫ََُّللاَُل َِرسُولِهَِصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَفِيَ َُد ُخول ِِه ْمَفِي‬ َ ‫تَ َس َر َوا ُت ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َو َقدَِا ْف َت َر َقَ َم َلؤُ ُه ْم‬
ْ َ‫َوقُ ِتل‬،
‫اإلسْ الَ َِم‬
ِ
She said: The day of Bu'aath was (a situation) presented by Allah to His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. So, that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬came at a time when their leaders had become divided (weak), their chiefs had
been killed and they had been wounded. So, Allah presented it (i.e. the situation) to His Messenger so that
they (i.e. the Ansar) may embrace Islaam (2)

In addition to that, the Jews of Al-Madinah and its surroundings, every time war would break out between
them on one side and the Aws and the Khazraj on the other side, would threaten their opponent (the Aws
and the Khazraj), saying that they would slaughter them in the near future alongside a Prophet the arrival
of whom they were anticipating at that time, whom the Jews would believe in and no one else! So when
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬met with the small group from Al-Khazraj, this group that the one who was
speaking to them was the awaited for Prophet that was found within the Jewish scriptures and who the
Jews would threaten them about in respect to his coming … And so they rushed to believe in him!

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/6-7, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3777, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/110].

This meaning was indicated to within what was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam. He said:

“And it was from Allah’s planning for them in respect to Islaam that the Jews used to be with them in
their land and that they were people of the book and knowledge whilst they were the people of Shirk and
idols. They had become established in their land and they used say to them any time a problem arose
between them that: Verily, there is a Nabi (Prophet) who will be sent now and his time has come, we
follow him and we will kill you like ‘Aad and Iram were killed (1). Then when the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬spoke to that group and invited them to Allah, they said amongst each other: O people! Know that
by Allah he is the Nabi (Prophet) that the Jews threaten us with and so do not let them beat you to him.
So they responded positively to what he invited them to …” (2).

Just as the one wandering lost in the desert seeks an escape so that his spirit can return to him and wishes
to grab hold of anything that will aid him! And just like the one drowning in the sea looks for a lifeline to
save him, so that the hope of life and survival returns to him! Then in a similar way, that small group of
the Khazraj grabbed hold of that Islamic Da’wah that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬presented to them, as
a way for them to escape and as a lifeline! They then proceeded, as explained in the previously discussed
Mas’alah (issue), reining in the war horses, working to purify the atmospheres and gathering the hearts
around the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his Da’wah … Their blessed efforts then produced their fruits and Islaam
spread in Al-Madinah until: “There no longer remained a household from the households of the Ansaar
except that the mention of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was present within them” (3).

This above explanation represented the role of the meeting of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with that
small Khazrajiy group which laid the ground for the spread of Islaam in Al-Madinah just as it laid the
ground for the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah which is the subject of the next point.

[(1) Iram refers according to the Tafseer Al-Jalaalaini p797 in the Tafseer of Soorat ul-Fajr to the original people of ‘Aad whilst
the ‘Aad here refers to Arabs that were wiped out. Refer to the book: Risaalat ul-Islaam (The Message of Islaam) by ‘Imaad
Mustafa Talaas: p53, (2) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/176) and History of At-Tabariy: 2/353-354, (3) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/177) and Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/355].

2 - The second point: What was the role of the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah in respect to the Talab
un-Nusrah?

We are already aware that the meeting of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with the Aws and the Khazraj only took
place within the context of the search for the Nusrah that he had been seeking from the leaders of the
Arab tribes and those of a position of honour, nobility and leadership amongst them.

However, we notice in respect to the previous meeting of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with the small Khazrajiy
group, that he did not present to them any request for the Nusrah from them, just as we saw in respect to
his meetings with the leaders of the tribes.

Similarly, we notice that the text of the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah does not contain a reference to this
Nusrah as well …

- Consequently, was the meeting of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬that took place with the small group of the
Khazraj merely for the purpose of guiding them to Islaam and for that reason alone?

- And was the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah that took place in the following year only for the purpose of
taking a covenant upon them that they would adhere to the teachings of Islaam and for no other purpose?

- And did the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬really stay silent over the Talab un-Nusrah from the people of Al-Madinah
in these two meetings?

The answer to this is that the absence of an explicit text in respect to the Talab un-Nusrah in the two
prior meetings with the people of Al-Madinah does not indicate that he did not investigate or look into
this matter with them. Rather, there exists that which indicates to the occurrence of such a request and
even if it did not come within an explicit text related to it.
From amongst the evidences for that is what was previously quoted in relation to the meeting of the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with the small Khazrajiy group. They said to him after declaring their Islaam: “We will
advise you according to our view (of matters). So, remain upon the name of Allah (i.e. as you are) until we
return to our people and inform them about your affair and invite them to Allah and His Messenger. It
may be that Allah reconciles between us and unites our affair because verily we are far apart from each
other and hold hatred for one another today. If you were to come to us today whilst we have not rectified
our affair, then we will not possess a group for you (i.e. to support you). (Therefore) Let us agree to meet
with you in the (Hajj) season of the coming year” (1).

[(1) Related by At-Tabaraani from ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair: Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/40-41].

Therefore, their statement: “If you were to come to us today whilst we have not rectified our affair, then
we will not possess a group for you (i.e. to support you)” indicates that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had requested
from them that he emigrates to their land and that means that he had requested the Nusrah from them.
That is just like the request that took place in his meetings with the leaders and chiefs of the tribes as we
have previously mentioned! However, this small group of the Khazraj advised the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to wait
some time before taking this step regarding going to their land so that they could prepare the atmospheres
within Al-Madinah for that step and then be enabled to provide the Nusrah to him. That would be when
they were able to take hold of the reins of the affairs within their hands and that is what actually took
place!

And it appears that the result of the year that passed between the meeting with the Khazrajiy group and
the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, in relation to the Da’wah, was that it was restricted mainly to the
generation and preparation of atmospheres for the Islamic thought and its source (i.e. the Messenger
‫)ﷺ‬. The meaning of this is that the Da’wah became the subject of discussion in houses and sittings in
Al-Madinah even though the number that had embraced Islaam remained few!

Some imagine that this conflicts with what was stated in the narration of Ibn Ishaaq: “Then when they
returned to Al-Madinah … they spoke about the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to their people and called them
to Islaam until it spread amongst them until no household remained from amongst the households of the
Ansaar except that there was the mention of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬within them” (1) and the
narration of At-Tabariy: “That continued until it was rare that a household (Daar) from amongst the
households of the Ansaar remained except that people had embraced Islaam within them … inevitably!!”
(2).

However, in respect to this, it is my view that these two narrations indicate to there being a small number
of Muslims in relation to the people of Al-Madinah at large. That is because the word ‘Daar’ (household),
when stated in the old texts within a context such as this, only means and refers to the Qabeelah (tribe) or
the ‘Asheerah (clan) as a whole and all who belong to it (3). It does not mean the house or residence nor
does it mean the small family as would come to our mind in our current day when this word is used! As
such, people becoming Muslim from every clan indicates to the small number of those Muslims in relation
to the clans as a whole, just as it indicates, from another angle, to the small number of leaders or chiefs of
Al-Madinah who had embraced Islaam. That is because it was usual that when a chief of a tribe embraced
Islaam, that the whole clan or the majority from among them would follow him in embracing Islaam.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/177, (2) At-Tabaraaniy from ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair: (Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id:
6/42, (3) Ad-Daar means Al-Qabeelah (tribe): Ma’aalim As-Sunnah: 4/15: The Daar of so and so went passed us i.e. their tribe
(Al-Munjid: article: ‫])دور‬.

That is like what happened when Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh embraced Islaam following the first pledge of Al-
‘Aqabah at the hand of Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair. After embracing Islaam Sa’d set off to his clan ‘Banu Abdil
Ash’hal’ and said to them: “O Bani Abdil Ash’hal! How do you see my affair (i.e. position) amongst you?”
They said: “You are our Sayyid (master), the best of us in opinion and most trustworthy of us in mind and
nature”. He then said: “In that case I have made the speech of your men and women Haraam (prohibited)
to me until you believe in Allah and His Messenger! They (i.e. Usayd Ibn Hudayr and As’ad Ibn Zuraarah
who related the narration) said: Then by Allah! No man or woman from the tribe (Daar) of Bani Abdil
Ash’hal reached that evening except as a Muslim or Muslimah!” (1).

Based upon that, as long as we have established that the number of Muslims in each clan (or tribe) were
few, in that year which we are discussing, then this indicates to the small number of leaders from the
people of Al-Madinah that had embraced Islaam during that period of time.

We have already become aware that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬used to seek or request two types of the Nusrah:

- A Nusrah to protect the conveyance of the Da’wah to the people.

- A Nusrah for the purpose of taking or assuming the authority upon the basis of that Da’wah.

Therefore, what the small Khazrajiy group took upon themselves in their meeting with the Messenger
‫ﷺ‬, before the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, was to work to provide Nusrah (support) to the Da’wah with
the meaning of protecting its conveyance to the people, according to what has previously been explained,
in its description as representing a first step upon the path leading to the Nusrah (support) with the
meaning of handing over the authority to the Islamic Da’wah.

It was explained in the previous point how the Khazrajiy group were successful in laying the ground for
the beginning of the spread of Islaam within Al-Madinah and that means that it was successful in respect
to providing the Nusrah according to its meaning of protecting the conveyance of the Islamic Da’wah.

It appears that in respect to the first kind or type of the Nusrah, manifested in the protection of the
conveyance, that it was not stipulated that those providing and expending it be from the main leaders or
chiefs, even if at the same time, it was stipulated that they not be from amongst the inexperienced and
most insignificant (in society)! That reflects the reality of the second type of the Nusrah which means
handing over the rule and authority to a particular person or to a particular thought. That type of Nusrah
cannot be fulfilled except from a Sayyid (person of influence and leadership) whose word or voice is heard
and listened to by the masses or from a number of such leaders whom through their coming together
form a dominant force or power that is capable of imposing its opinion over everyone else!

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/187). Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/359].

This is what the logic of matters dictates in respect to this subject area and this appears to have been what
was revolving in the minds of the small Khazrajiy group when they indicated to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬that
he should bide his time before coming to them in Al-Madinah until they had been able to arrange the
circumstances in that land that would pave the way for such an arrival (1). That was by working in the
direction of the first type of the Nusrah which is protecting the conveyance until the Da’wah became
known and familiar within the mediums of Al-Madinah and was not confronted with disapproval. The
number of Muslims increased as a result and they proceeded alongside the first work in the direction of
the second type of the Nusrah which is the Nusrah for the purpose of handing over the authority in Al-
Madinah to the Islamic Da’wah. That would be by winning over a number of the leaders of Al-Madinah to
this Da’wah in the case where they form, when joined together, a dominant power or force capable of
imposing its view upon others. Therefore, even if there remained a number of leaders of the Mushrikeen
outside of this, they would nevertheless not represent a force that is capable of dominating the joint
Islamic force that had been formed!

Therefore, in the case where the Khazrajiy group had been successful in respect to the provision of the
Da’wah according to the meaning of protecting its conveyance, it would then begin to proceed upon the
path of attaining the Nusrah for the Da’wah according to the meaning of the rule and authority being
handed over to this Da’wah alongside the continuation of the protection of the conveyance and
expanding the Islamic base. This then is the role that the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah played as indicated by
the actions that were undertaken following that Bai’ah (pledge).

That is because the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, after that pledge, dispatched Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair to call the
people in general (or the masses) to Islaam under the wing of the Nusrah i.e. the protection of the
conveyance that the Khazrajiy group had been able to provide and make available to the Da’wah. At the
same time Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair and those from the Ansaar who were working alongside him, sought to win
over the leaders or chiefs of Al-Madinah. As a consequence a number of the leaders of Al-Madinah
embraced Islaam during that period like Usayd Ibn Hudayr and Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh (2).

Then when the number of leaders who had embraced Islaam from the people of Al-Madinah had reached
a sufficiency to provide the Nusrah to the Da’wah according to the meaning of handing over the authority
to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬there, the Ansaar of Al-Madinah held a conference amongst themselves
and decided to provide the Nusrah to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬so that he would assume the rule and
authority within Al-Madinah.

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/40-41, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/187) and Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/359].

Directly following the conference, a delegation of those Ansaar and leaders, consisting of seventy-three
men and two women, came to Makkah in the season of Hajj, and contracted the second pledge of Al-
‘Aqabah in which they gave the reins of the rule to the Islamic Da’wah and the one who had come with it!
That took place in the same appointment that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had (previously) set to meet
with them. This means: That the meeting with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was only for the purpose of
giving the Bai’ah upon the matter that they had agreed upon previously and that was to provide the
Nusrah to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬according to the understanding of Nusrah that we have already made clear.

A number of matters indicates this which are understood from the Hadeeth of Ka’b Ibn Maalik (1) in
relation to the Bai’ah that took place:

1 - That Al-‘Abbaas Bin Abdil Muttalib, who was the first to speak in the meeting at ‘Aqabah, when he
said to the Ansaar:

“Verily, Muhammad … has refused except that he turns to you and joins with you!” (1).

Therefore, this was a matter that has been decided upon and this meeting was not for the purpose of
entering into discussions about it for the sake of deciding over it first. Rather, the meeting from the side
of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and from the side of the Ansaar was only for the sake of contracting the Bai’ah
(pledge) to him! This meeting, from the perspective of Al-‘Abbaas, who had not yet embraced Islaam, was
to be assured about the resolve of those Ansaar in respect to them expending all that they had, to
guarantee the protection of his nephew!

2 - The one speaking on behalf of the Ansaar initiated the discussion to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬,
following the words of Al-‘Abbaas, saying:

“Speak O Messenger of Allah! Take for yourself and for your Rabb (Lord) that which you wish for (or
like)!” (1).
This also indicates that the matter of giving the Nusrah to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had been a matter that had
already been decided and finished with! Rather, they had only come for the sake of giving the pledge to
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon every matter that he would stipulate upon them.

And in the Riwaayah (narration) of Jaabir Ibn Abdullah (ra) about the second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah (2).
The Ansaar quickly were quick to say: “Upon what do we give you our pledge?” (2).

The matter therefore concerned the giving of the Bai’ah upon a matter that had already been decided and
it was not related to negotiating about that matter.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/89 (Hadeeth Saheeh as previously referenced), (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/9
(Hadeeth Saheeh as previously referenced)].

3 - That when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬spoke after the one speaking on behalf of the Ansaar,
according to the narration of Ka’b Bin Maalik about the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, he recited
something from the Qur’aan Al-Kareem firstly, and then exhorted them about Islaam secondly, before
thirdly stating to them: “I take your Bai’ah …” (1) until the end of the text of the Bai’ah that he ‫ﷺ‬
mentioned.

That is whilst the following was stated in the previous meetings that he ‫ ﷺ‬had with the leaders of the
tribes:

“He called them to Allah and to support him (Nusrah) …” (2) “He sought the Nusrah from Thaqeef …
He spoke to them about what he had come for in terms of supporting him upon Islaam” (3) … “He
asked them to believe in him and protect him” (4) … “I call (you) to bear witness that Laa Ilaaha Illallah,
Alone with no partner and that I am the Messenger of Allah, and to provide me with sanctuary and
support me (Nusrah)” (5).

- Within these meetings, we observe a Da’wah (invitation), the enquiry about the Nusrah and then asking
for the Nusrah.

- That is whilst the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah concerned entering into the Bai’ah (pledge) upon the
Nusrah immediately without the need for it to be sought, enquired about, requested or asked for prior to
the giving of the Bai’ah upon it, as is clear from what has been stated above.

It could be said in respect to this: That the reason for the difference between the previous meetings with
the tribal men (leaders) and this meeting with the Ansaar at the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, is that those
men, in the previous meetings had not been Muslims. Consequently, it was natural to invite them to
Islaam first, then enquire with them regarding the Nusrah before calling them to provide it. That is whilst
the Ansaar attending the meeting at Al-‘Aqabah were Muslims already and as such the matter went
straight to the Bai’ah (pledge)!

The answer to this, is that the small Khazrajiy group who had met with the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
following the war of Bu’aath had already declared their Islaam (6) and despite that, they did not give the
Bai’ah to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon the Nusrah. Rather, what was understood from that meeting
was that he ‫ ﷺ‬had requested from then the Nusrah like he used to request it from others. However, as
they were incapable at that time to provide that Nusrah (i.e. the provision of the rule and authority to
Him), they firstly gave their word to him that they would work in respect to providing him Nusrah
(support), with the meaning of protecting the conveyance of the Da’wah, to spread Islaam and gather the
people around him. And that is what took place between the time of that small group of Al-Khazraj
becoming Muslim and the time of the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah.
[(1) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/189) and the Hadeeth is Saheeh and has been previously referenced, (2) Taareekh At-
Tabariy: 2/348, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/172), (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/173), (5)
Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/181, (6) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/40, Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/176-177), Taareekh At-
Tabariy: 2/353-355 and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/45].

Thereafter, the work to win the power or force capable of extending the Nusrah according to its meaning
of providing the authority to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would take place. That is what took place between the first
pledge of Al-‘Aqabah and the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah. And that is the matter which brought the
Ansaar in that Hajj season to provide the Nusrah to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and give him the Bai’ah. That was after
they had decided to undertake that in the conference that they held in Al-Madinah prior to their arrival in
the Hajj season.

This is what has been indicated in the narration collected by Al-Bayhaqi and related by Jaabir Bin
Abdullah (ra), regarding the conference that they held in Al-Madinah: “… And so seventy men from
amongst us gathered in conference. We said: Until when will the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬be expelled (or
driven out) to the mountains of Makkah … and in fear … And so we set off until we reached him …
(Then) He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Do you give me the Bai’ah … We said: We give you the Bai’ah (pledge)!” (1). At this
point a question may come to mind and that is: In the case where this Bai’ah had been taken upon a
decided matter, which is the Nusrah, then when did the Talab (request) of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬take place
in respect to this Nusrah, which led the meeting of Al-Aqabah to proceed directly to the giving of the
Bai’ah upon that Nusrah?

- Was the Talab un-Nusrah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬which was understood from his meeting with
the small Khazrajiy group, two years prior to the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, considered to represent a
continuous request until the capability was attained to answer the request? That could be understood from
the statement of that group: ““We will advise you according to our view (of matters). So, remain upon the
name of Allah (i.e. as you are) until we return to our people and inform them about your affair and invite
them to Allah and His Messenger …”? (2).

[(Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 9/9. And he said in the commentary (or margins) of ‘Zaad ul-Ma’aad’ 3/46 recorded by Ahmad, classified
as Saheeh by Al-Haakim and corroborated by Adh-Dhahabiy. Ibn Katheer said: This Isnaad (chain) is Jayyid (good) upon the
Shart (condition) of Muslim. It is in Al-Mustadrak: 2/624-625. Al-Haakim said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh ul-Isnaad covering the
Bai’at ul-‘Aqabah but they (i.e. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) did not record it. Adh-Dhahabiy said: Saheeh, (2) Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id: 6/40-41].

- Or had the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬charged Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair with the task of requesting the Nusrah
from the leaders of the clans in Al-Madinah after they had embraced Islaam? That could be understood
from what the following statement found in some of the books or accounts of the Seerah has indicated to:
“Then Mus’ab Bin ‘Umair returned to Makkah … And informed the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬about those who had
embraced Islaam and he ‫ ﷺ‬was consequently pleased with that”? (1).

- Or did the initiative to provide the Nusrah to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬come from the Ansaar during the
conference they held in Al-Madinah (prior to the second pledge)? (2).

I say: All of that has evidence to support it!

However, that which concerns us in the point that we are fundamentally addressing and that is: That the
act of answering that sought after Nusrah, according to the meaning of the rule and authority being
handed over to the Messenger, and the work or effort to realise that, was only undertaken after the first
pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, over the period of one whole year of tireless efforts within the Islamic Da’wah field
within Al-Madinah … Then that answering of this Nusrah was crowned by the second pledge of Al-
‘Aqabah.

With that, we come to the conclusion of this point related to the role of the first pledge of Al-‘Aqabah in
respect to the Ta;lab un-Nusrah and the work to realise and achieve it. We now come to the third point
which is:

3 - Upon what was the second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah contracted?

A number of narrations have been recorded in the books of the Sunnah and the Seerah An-Nabawiyah
concerning the events and realities of the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, the words and statements spoken
during the meeting and the text which the Bai’ah was contracted upon.

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah says regarding the large number of narrations: “There is no conflict
amongst them, rather they complete each other. If one narration did not mention some wordings, then
the others completed them” (2). It is not our aim to present all that took place in the second pledge of Al-
‘Aqabah and it is not to quote all of the texts that have come related to this Bai’ah. Indeed, we have
already mentioned a number of these texts within this current study in addition to the previous study “Al-
Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of establishing the Islamic State” in the first volume. It is enough for us
here to establish and verify what the contract in this Bai’ah (pledge) was contracted upon and to present
some narrations related to it, so as to provide a complete and clear picture of this Bai’ah!

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/15, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 9/9, (3) Khaatim An-Nabiyyeen, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu
Zahrah: 1/501].

- Concerning this subject area Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy stated the following: “It was the night of Al-
‘Aqabah that was mentioned by Ibn Ishaaq and others from amongst the people of Al-Maghaaziy (i.e.
those who recorded the Seerah and battles) in respect to that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to those Ansaar who
were present: I take the Bai’ah from you upon (the basis) that you protect me from that which you protect
your women and sons (children) from. And so they gave him the Bai’ah upon that and upon that he
would travel to them, he and his companions” (1).

- Ibn Hajar mentions what ‘Ubaadah Ibn As-Saamit said to Abi Hurairah before Mu’aawiyah in Ash-
Shaam in relation to the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah as relate by Ahmad. He said:

“O Abu Hurairah, you were not with us when we gave the Bai’ah to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon
hearing and obeying in respect to activity and laziness, upon ordering the Ma’roof (right) and forbidding
the Munkar (wrong), upon us saying the Haqq (truth) and not to fear the blame of the blamer, and that we
give Nusrah (support) to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬when he comes to us in Yathrib! So we would
protect him as we would protect ourselves, wives and children, and that we would have Al-Jannah
(paradise) in return. That was the Bai’ah (pledge) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he pledged us upon
…” (2).

- And the following was mentioned in the Sunan of Al-Baihaqi about the Bai’ah:

“Give me the Bai’ah upon hearing and obeying in activeness and laziness and upon An-Nafaqah
(spending) in hardship and ease …” (3).

- In a narration recorded by Az-Zuhriy from As’ad Ibn Zuraarah who was one of the Ansaariy men
present at the meeting: He said:
[(1) Fat’h ul-Baari’ Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 1/66, (2) Fat’h ul-Baari’ Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 1/66. Refer to the text
quoted by Ibn Hajar in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 5/325, (3) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/9].

“O Messenger of Allah! Verily, every Da’wah has a path, whether it is light or severe! And you have called
us today to an invitation that people may frown upon and be difficult for them (to accept). You called us
to abandon our Deen and follow you upon your Deen. That was a difficult matter and yet we answered
you in that. And you called us to sever that which existed between us and our neighbours, those who are
linked by the womb and the one who is close and the one who is far. That was a difficult matter and yet
we answered you in respect to that. You invited us whilst we were a group in a position of ‘Izz (honour
and might) and Mana’ah (deterrent force) and none from amongst us desired for someone to lead us from
outside of us whom his people had singled out and his uncles delivered. That was a difficult matter and
yet we answered you in that. All of these matters were disliked amongst the people with the exception of
the one whom Allah has made his guidance and thinking firm and right and was searching for the good in
its consequences. We answered you in that with our tongues and our breasts (hearts)… We give you the
Bai’ah upon that, we pledge ourselves to Allah your Rabb (Lord), the Yad (hand) of Allah is above our
hands (witnessing) and our blood is sacrificed for your blood …” (1).

- At-Tabaraani related from Abu Mas’ood (‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir), the youngest of the Ansaar who attended
the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, that he said:

“We had made an appointment to meet the Messenger of Allah at Al-‘Aqabah … So we he came to us …
And then he said: Make your speeches short (and concise) because I fear for your well-being from the
disbelievers of Quraish. So we said: O Messenger of Allah: Ask us (what you wish) for your Rabb (Lord),
and ask us for your companions and inform us the reward awaiting us with Allah Tabaarak Wa Ta’Aalaa
and you?

He said: As for what I ask you in respect to my Rabb (lord), then that is to believe in him and to not
associate anything with Him. As for that which I ask you for myself, then I ask you to obey me so that I
guide you upon the paths of right guidance. And I ask you in respect to my companions and I, that you
support us regarding that which you possess, to protect us from that which you protect yourselves from.
Then if you have done that, then you will have due from Allah Al-Jannah (paradise) and (it will be) due
upon me! He (the narrator) said: And so we stretched out our hands and then we gave him the Bai’ah” (2).

- At-Tabaraani related from ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair that Abu l-Haitham Bin At-Tayyihaan addressed this
meeting saying:

“O people! This is the Messenger of Allah. I bear witness that he is truthful and that he is today in the
sacred precinct of Allah and its security and amongst his people and his clan. So, know that if you take
him out the Arabs will oppose you from one bow! Therefore, if Al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of Allah is
agreeable to you! And the loss of your properties and your children … Then invite him to your land for
verily he is truly the Messenger of Allah. And if you fear that you will let him down. Then immediately
decline! At that they said: We have accepted from Allah and from His Messenger what they have provided
us and we have given from the Messenger of Allah that which we have been asked (to provide), O
Messenger of Allah! (i.e. we are at your service)” (3).

[(1) Kanz ul-‘Ummaal Fee Sunan Al-Aqwaal Wal Af’aal: 1/326. Hadeeth no: 1525, (2) Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id and Al-Haithamiy classified it as Hasan: 6/47, (3) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/47].

- Similarly, Al-‘Abbaas Bin Nadlah, one of those present at the Bai’ah, stood to speak and said:

“Do you know upon what you are giving the Bai’ah to this man? They replied: Yes. He said: You are
giving the Bai’ah upon declaring war upon the red and the black from the people (i.e. against everyone in
this Dunya)” (1).
Regarding these selections from the realities that took place in the meeting of Al-‘Aqabah and the words
and speeches that were delivered there, in respect to the second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah, we extract from
them, that the Bai’ah was undertaken upon the following matters:

1 - Commitment to and reiteration upon the ordering of the Ma’roof (good), the forbidding of the
Munkar (bad or wrong) and to speak the Haqq openly (and frankly) without fearing the blame of the
blamers (i.e. the consequences).

2 - That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬emigrates to Al-Madinah along with his companions and that the
Ansaar will expend their properties (i.e. wealth) in the way of supporting and assisting the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and
his companions who will emigrate to them.

3 - Provision of protection to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions when they reach Al-Madinah and
to defend them from anyone intending harm against them just as they defend their own selves and
families (i.e. wives and children).

4 - To provide the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with the keys to the authority in Al-Madinah and that is by making
him the head (or leader) over them and by pledging to obey him in all circumstances.

5 - To make the bond of Islaam, that binds together the Muslims, above all other bonds and to sever (i.e.
cut off) all other bonds that oppose that whether they are of protection, lineage or the close and the far!

6 - To prepare to confront the hostility and animosity of the Arabs in their entirety following the Hijrah
(emigration) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions to Al-Madinah and the establishment of the Islamic
state. And to be ready for the sake of that for Al-Qitaal (fighting) Fee Sabeelillah by their own willing
volition! That is irrespective of what that may cost them in terms of sacrifices in lives and properties
(wealth), for the purpose of confronting that expected hostility from all of the Arabs!

The above therefore represents that which the second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah was undertaken upon as
understood from all of the texts related to this Bai’ah.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/191). As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: (The red and the black): “Meaning: Against those
who war against him from them i.e. the Arabs and non-Arabs. That is because he did not give permission to initiate the war
until a period of time after he made Hijrah to Al-Madinah (as will be discussed later). And before that he had been commanded
to make Du’aa to Allah Ta’Aalaa, to have patience in the face of the harms and to overlook the ignorant”: 2/18-19].

This Bai’ah has become known in the books of the Sunnah and the Seerah with the name of Bai’ut ul-
Harb (the pledge of war) (1). That is because this Bai’ah approved of the use of war to accomplish the
Mana’ah (protective and deterrent force) upon which the Bai’ah was made. That was to protect against
anyone who wished bad for the Islamic Da’wah however the permission to implement it was held back
until after the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had arrived in Al-Madinah.

It was called the ‘Pledge of War’, even though it included other matters, from the angle of naming a
matter by its most prominent aspect!

After the completion of this Bai’ah the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded his companions to emigrate
to Al-Madinah when he said:

َ‫َب َهاَ َف َخ َر ُجواَأَرْ َساال‬ َ ‫اَو َداراَ َتأْ َم ُن‬

ِ ‫ون‬ ْ ‫َج َع َلَلَ ُك ْم‬
َ ‫َإخ َو َان‬ َ َّ َّ‫إن‬
َ ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َجلََّ َق ْد‬
 Verily, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, has made brother from you and a homeland (Daar) for you to be
secure in. And so they left in groups (2).

Al-Bukaari collected in his Saheeh the Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

- And he was in Makkah at that time:

َ‫َو َر َج َع‬،ِ ْ ‫اج َرَ ِق َب َل‬

َ ‫َال َمدِي َنة‬ َ ‫اج َرَ َمنْ َ َه‬ َ ‫َ َف َه‬،‫ان‬ ْ ‫ْنَ َو ُه َم‬
ِ ‫اَال َحرَّ َت‬ َ َ‫اتَ َن ْخ ٍلَ َبي َْن‬
ِ ‫ال َب َتي‬ َ ‫َذ‬َ ‫ارَهِجْ َر ِت ُك ْم‬ ُ ‫إِ ِّنيَأ ُ ِر‬
َ ‫يتَ َد‬
ْ َ‫َال َح َب َش َِةَإِل‬
‫ىَال َمدِي َن َِة‬ ْ ‫ض‬ ِ ْ‫َبأَر‬
ِ ‫اج َر‬
َ ‫انَ َه‬ َ ‫َعا َّم ُةَ َمنْ َ َك‬
“I have been shown the homeland (Daar) of your Hijrah, a land of date palm trees, between two
mountains, the two stony tracts”. So, those who migrated, migrated towards Al-Madinah, and
most of those who had previously migrated to the land of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia), returned to
Al-Madinah (3).

It is therefore evidently clear that the Hijrah to Al-Madinah did not representing fleeing from harm but
rather it was to establish an entity for the Muslims that would enable the Muslims to carry their message
to the world. Regarding this Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Shaltoot, in his book: “Al-Islaam and international
presence for the Muslims” stated the following:

“The (pivotal) point of transformation for the Muslims was the Hijrah (emigration) … which laid the
ground to substantiate the Islamic building and the birth of a state, entering a domain of power …!

The Hijrah was not a fleeing from harm … nor was it in search of Rizq (sustenance) … It was only
representative of the Imaan (belief) in Allah … That refused to remain eternally silent in the one
possessing it or to be content to be subservient under the authority of suppression …

This is the context in which the Hijrah took place and it was the starting point of international presence
for the Muslims … and … The essential elements of international presence amongst them was completed,
amongst each other in respect to the internal legislation and between them and others in respect to the
foreign (or external) legislation” (4).

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/40, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/211), (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 3905, Fat’h ul-
Baari’: 7/231, (4) Al-Islaam and International Presence for the Muslims, Ash-Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot: 46-53].

By that we come to the end of addressing the second Mas’alah (issue) in this study and that was: The
contraction of the Bai’ah with the Ansaar upon war (Harb) and Al-Qitaal (fighting).

We have consequently ended of the third study and now come to the conclusion of this chapter which
revolves around ‘Al-‘Unf (violence) and Al-Qitaal (fighting’ within the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in
Makkah Al-Mukarramah prior to the Hijrah (emigration).
 Conclusion

The violence (‘Unf) and fighting (Qitaal) in the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in
Makkah Al-Mukarramah within the three phases

The first point: The hostile stance of the Quraish against the one who brought the Islamic Da’wah and
his men.

The second point: The stance of the one who brought the Da’wah and its men in relation to the
aggression and hostility of the Quraish against them.

A - The stance of abstaining from defence:

- The stance of abstaining from defence whilst possessing the capability to do so.
- The stance of abstaining from defence in the absence of the means to do that.
- The fruits built upon the abstention of defence.

B - The stance of defence and responding to violence with its like.

C - The stance of deterrence.

The third point: The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) that regulated the relationship between the Muslims
and the Mushrikeen (polytheists) before the Hijrah, in respect to the issue (Mas’alah) of violence and
fighting.
 Conclusion

The violence (‘Unf) and fighting (Qitaal) in the stage of the Islamic Da’wah in
Makkah Al-Mukarramah within the three phases

This subject will be dealt by addressing the following points:

Firstly: Providing a general picture of the aggressive and hostile position that the Quraish directed
towards the one who came with the Da’wah and those who believed in it, within the stage that took place
before Al-Hijrah and what that stance encompassed in terms of harm, torture, murder and fighting.

Secondly: The stance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions in respect to the hostility and aggression
undertaken against them by the Quraish.

Thirdly: The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) that regulated the relationship between the Muslims and the
Mushrikeen (polytheists) before the Hijrah, in respect to the issue (Mas’alah) of violence and fighting

The first point: The hostile stance of the Quraish against the one who came with the Islamic Da’wah and
its men.

The books of the Seerah An-Nabawiyah are full of reports about that despicable hostile confrontational
stance adopted by the Quraish against this Da’wah, the one who came with it and those who had believed
in it! It is not our purpose to list all of these reports and yet it is still necessary to provide a quick general
picture about that confrontation so that we can move on after that to examine the stance and position of
the Muslims taken in the face of that.

What concerns us in relation to that hostile confrontation is that which is connected to the physical
(material) aggression and assault against the Muslims in terms of beatings, strangulation, killing and being
fought … and what is similar. That is without focusing upon the other forms of harm like the campaigns
of distortion, ridicule and the boycott measures amongst other similar forms of harm. Ibn Ishaaq said:
“Then, they (i.e. the disbelievers of Quraish) aggressed against those who became Muslim … Every tribe
pounced upon the Muslims whom they had amongst them. They took to imprisoning them, torturing
them through beating, hunger, thirst and with the rocks of Makkah when the heat was intense. They did
those to those who were weak from amongst them (the Muslims) and they would attempt to take them
away from their Deen. There were from them some who were enticed from their Deen due to the severity
of the trial that afflicted them, there were some who remained firm and whom Allah protected from
them” (1).

It was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari related by ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas: “He said: I saw ‘Utbah
Bin Abu Mu’ait approaching the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was praying and then he placed his cloak around his
neck and strangled him with it severely. Then, Abu Bakr came and pushed him away off him. And he said:

َ‫َب ْال َب ِّي َناتَِمِنََْ َر ِّب ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َجا َء ُك ْم‬
َ ‫ََّللاُ ََو َق ْد‬ َ ‫َرجُالَأَنْ َ َي ُقو َل‬
َّ ‫َرب َِّي‬ َ ُ‫أَ َت ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫ون‬
Will you kill a man just because he says my Lord is Allah and who has come to you with clear proofs and
signs (Bayyinaat) from your Lord? (2)” (3).

The following was stated in Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf by As-Suhaily:

“Abu Jahl said to Sumayyah the mother of ‘Ammaar Bin Yaasir: You have not believed in Muhammd
except because you were drawn to his beauty and then he stabbed her with a spear in her front (i.e. private
parts)”. He said: “And the reports like this are many” (4). The following example portrays the extent of
the represent and punishment that the disbelievers of Quraish inflicted upon the Muslims in Makkah due
to their Islaam:

“Sa’eed Ibn Jubair said: I said to ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbaas: Did the punishment inflicted by the Mushrikeen
against the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reach the extent that they were excused for
leaving their Deen? He said: Yes! By Allah. They used to beat a person and deprive of food and water to
the point that he would not be capable of sitting up straight due to the severity of harms that had been
inflicted upon him, until he would give in to what they were asking of him in terms of Fitnah (i.e. to
declare disbelief), until when they would say: “Are Al-Laat and Al-‘Uzzah your Gods without Allah?” So,
he would respond: “Yes!” Even if a small animal would pass by they would ask him: Is this small beast
you God instead of Allah? And he would say yes and that was to only to save themselves from what they
had reached in terms of affliction” (5).

In the answer of Ibn ‘Abbaas to the questioner in this narration there is an indication towards the ‘Udhr
(excuse) that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed in respect to the Muslim who had given in to the demands of
the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in relation to the disbelief that they had been forced and coerced into as a result
of the practices of violence and torture. That is found in the Qawl (speech) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ِ‫َِولَ ُه ْمَ َع َذابَ َعظ‬

‫يم‬ َ ‫ََبا ْل ُك ْف ِرَص َْدراَ َف َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َغ‬
َ ‫ضبَمِّنَ َاللَّـه‬ ِ ‫َولَ ٰـكِنَمَّنَ َشرَ ح‬
َ ‫َان‬ ِ ْ ‫َب‬
ِ ‫اإليم‬ ِ ٌّ‫ُط َمَِئن‬ َ ‫َباللَّـهَِمِنَبَعْ دَِإِيمَا ِنهَِإِ َّالَمَنْ َأ ُ ْك ِره‬
ْ ‫ََو َق ْل ُبهَُم‬ ِ َ‫مَنَ َك َفر‬
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief ... except for one who is forced [to renounce his Deen] while his heart is secure in
faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great
punishment (An-Nahl: 106).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/67), (2) Refer to Soorah Al-Mu’min (Ghaafir) Aayah: 28, (3) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaari: 3678, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/22, (4) Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/48, (5) Seerah In Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/69].

However, what was the stance taken by the Muslims during this violence that the disbelievers of Quraish
were inflicting upon them?

- Was their stance one of refraining from defence and making oneself meet the harm with one’s utmost
capability with Sabr (patience) and Ihtimaal (persevering through and bearing it)?

- Or was their stance one of being proactive in defence and replying in kind (to what they faced or were
afflicted with).

- Or was their stance one of deterrence or a pre-emptive one? i.e. to initiate the confrontation against one
of the disbelievers who is about to engage in hostility or aggression before he undertakes it! This is where
the aggression is repelled before its occurrence!

Which one out of these three stances was the stance of the Muslims towards that which they were being
inflicting with in terms of harm and hostility from the Mushrikeen?

This represents the subject are of the next point:

The second point: The stance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions in respect to the hostility and
aggression undertaken against them by the Quraish.
The realities and incidents that took place between the Muslims and the disbelieving aggressors of Quraish
in the stage before the Hijrah indicate that the Muslims adopted all of those mentioned stances and they
were not restricted to one single stance that they stuck to. That was in accordance to the difference in
circumstances and so they would choose a suitable stance for each circumstance in line with the
protection of the Islamic Da’wah and its followers from the danger of complete elimination or from a
devastating blow that would stop the continuation of the Da’wah!

A - As for the stance of abstaining from defence, then there are two types that fall under this
category:

The stance of abstaining from defence whilst not being capable of doing anything.
The stance of abstaining from defence whilst having the capability to undertake it.

- As for the first type manifesting in abstention from defence whilst being incapable then this represents
the reality of the Mustad’afeen (weak and defenceless) from amongst the Muslims. They were those who
had no Mana’ah (protective or preventative force) that would support them if they had wanted to defend
themselves. This was the reality of Aali (the family of) Yaasir (1), Bilaal (2) from amongst those who were
owned and ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood from those who were free.

The following was recorded in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam as related by Az-Zubair Ibn Al-‘Awwaam (rh)
who said:

“The first to recite the Qur’aan aloud and openly in Makkah after the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was
Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood: The companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬met together one day and said:
“By Allah, the Quraish have not heard this Qur’aan openly (recited) before them at all. So, who is the man
who will make them hear it?” So, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood said: “I will”. They said: “Verily, we fear that they
will harm you and we only want a man who has a clan that will protect him from the people if they wish
to cause him harm!” He (Abdullah) said: “Let me, for verily Allah will protect me” He (the narrator) said:
“So, Ibn Mas’ood went out in the morning until he reached the Maqaam (before the Ka’bah) at the time
of Duhaa (later morning) and the Quraish were in their clubs (i.e. where they gathered). He continued
until he reached the spot of the Maqaam and then recited:

َِ ‫ِبسْ ِمَاللَّـهَِالرَّ حْ َم ٰـ ِنَالرَّ ح‬

‫ِيم‬
ََ‫﴾َ َعلَّ َمَا ْلقُرْ آن‬١﴿َ ُ‫الرَّ حْ َم ٰـن‬
In the name of Allah Ar-Rahmaani r-Raheem
Ar-Rahmaan (the Most Merciful). (He) taught the Qur’aan (Ar-Rahmaan: 1-2).

He turned towards them and recited. He (the narrator) said: They deliberated (or pondered) and began to
say: “What did Ibn Umm Abd (i.e. Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood) say?” He (the narrator) said: Then they said:
“He is reciting some of what Muhammad has come with”. Then they stood up and began to beat him in
the face whilst he continued to recite until he reached that which Allah willed for him to reach. He then
returned to his companions and they had visually damaged his face. So, they (the Sahaabah) said to him:
“This is what we feared what happen to you!” Then he replied: “The enemies of Allah have never been as
feeble (and weak) over me as they are now! And if you wish, I will set of early and do the same again
tomorrow morning” they replied: “No, you have succeeded in making them hear that which they hate (to
hear)!” (3).

- As for the stance of refraining from defence whilst possessing the capability to engage in that, then this
is evident in the stance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬when he met the Quraishi aggression with patience and
forbearance (or disregard) whilst being capable of retaliating and revenge. That would be through using
his own strength and by relying upon the Mana’ah (preventative force) that he enjoyed from Bani
Haashim and Bani Al-Muttalib, if he had wished! Regarding this preventative force (Mana’ah) he ‫ﷺ‬
said: “Banu Haashim and Banu Muttalib are only one single thing (or matter)” (4) … “They did
not separate from us in Jaahilliyah or in Islaam” (5).

[(1) Refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/68), (2) Refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/67), (3)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/47), (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 3140, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/244, (5) He intends by this the
meaning that Bani Al-Muttalib did not separate or depart from their support to Bani Haashim … (Sunan Al-Baihaqi: 6/341)].

Had the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬acted upon that and relied upon his Mana’ah (preventative force), then that
would have prevented the daring hands from inflicting harm upon him just as nobody was capable of
inflicting bad upon his uncle Hamzah Ibn Abdul Muttalib due to his own strength and Mana’ah
(preventative force) that he possessed amongst his clan! However, when the Mushrikeen came to know
that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬preferred to remain patient and persevere in the face of their harm and
was not inclined to defend himself whether through his own strength or the power of the Mana’ah that he
held in his clan, then some of the wretched disbelievers found an open door to be insolent against the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and harm him.

However, why did the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬prefer the stance of constraint and abstention from
defence over the stance of defence?

If we were to examine the fruits resulting from the adoption of this stance that he ‫ ﷺ‬preferred, we
would observe some of what explains to us the reason for that preference:

1 - Those fruits include: To demonstrate the example of the one who has come with the Da’wah to his
followers, so that they bear what is imposed upon them when proceeding upon the path of the Da’wah, in
terms of the types of torture, punishment and forms of persecution. That is because this represents the
path of the Da’waat (i.e. with all messages and Da’wahs) until victory is written for them in addition to
what patience perseverance over the consequences of carrying the Da’wah contains in terms of great
reward!

2 - Another fruit is manifested in the feelings of sympathy and comfort that the weak and helpless find
within themselves when they witness the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬being harmed in the way of Allah.
Consequently, he refrains from defending himself eager for reward and eager to realise the Maslahah
(interest) of the Da’wah. That was despite having the support of strength and force (Mana’ah) within his
tribe and indeed he despite being supported from the heavens if he wanted! Just as the Malak Al-Jibaal
(angel of the mountains) offered to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, by command from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla,
to level the Mushrikeen between the Akhshabaan (two mountains) (1) but he refused that.

In respect to this I say: This stance adopted by the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in spite of possessing the capability of
defence had he wished, makes the weak feel comforted in respect to what they face at the hands of the
Mushrikeen. As a consequence, the sense of suffering is lightened and the will to patiently persevere and
overcome the conditions and circumstances is charged within them!

[(1) The Hadeeth is in Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 3231, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/312-313. Al-Akhshabaan are the two mountains which
Makkah lies between (As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 1/395)].

3 - Also included within the fruits of this stance is what is built upon this stance of patience adopted by
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions in terms of consequences regarding generating an alertness and
awareness amongst the Mushrikeen to the fact that had it not been for the certainty (Yaqeen) of the
Da’wah carriers in the truthfulness of the message that they were carrying, they would not have adopted
such a firm stance before the challenges and confrontations. That would therefore invite them to think
about investigating the truthfulness of the one who has come with this Da’wah in respect to that which he
came with instead of depending upon a rejection based on blind partisanship to an inherited idolatry! This
alone represents a gain for the Da’wah and from its nature it leads to people embracing it and join to its
ranks. It may be that within the conversion of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, we
can find evidence for what we have stated (1).

4 - Additionally, the stance of patience (or patient perseverance) adopted by the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and his
companions, from its nature, generates the sensation amongst some of the Mushrikeen, about the extent
of oppression that the leaders of disbelief bear down upon a human where they inflict upon him torture
merely due to an Aqeedah (belief) that he has believed in! This is a matter that makes them sentimentally
and emotionally separate and disassociate from those leaders as a result of the human’s natural abhorrence
to oppression.

It also leads to them becoming emotionally compassionate towards the oppressed and persecuted
Muslims due to the instinctual inclination towards those who are weak and helpless. If that does not lead
them to join the ranks of the Da’wah it would still assist to make sure that they do not bringing harm
against the Da’wah themselves, and in that alone there is undeniable benefit for the Da’wah.

5 - To prevent the hostile and aggressive stance taken by the Mushrikeen against the Muslims from
developing into an armed confrontation that would lead to the Islamic Da’wah being threatened with
eradication within that stage of the Da’wah in which it does not have an entity or an army through which
it can confront the Quraish upon the battle field.

The above represent some of the blessed fruits resulting from the stance of holding firm upon patience
and being disinclined to turn to defence, the stance which was adopted by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and some of his
Sahaabah in the face of the hostility and aggression that the Quraish directed against the source of this
Da’wah and those working within its domain. It may be that within this some explanation is contained
that encourages and inclines one to depend and rely upon this stance and to give it preference over the
stance or reacting to violence with violence, or like with like, within this stage of the Islamic Da’wah
within Makkah prior to the Hijrah.

[(1) Here we are referring to the breaking of the rage of ‘Umar (ra) when faced with the firm position of his sister and her
husband which represented the beginning of the turning point regarding his stance towards the Da’wah. Refer to the story of
the conversion of ‘Umar in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/95-96)].

Based upon that, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to encourage his companions to adhere to this stance
and would provide them with examples of the followers of previous prophets and generate the hope of
victory within them as a result of adhering to this stance of patience.

The following was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari:

َُ‫الََ َتسْ َت ْنصِ ر‬َ َ‫َقُ ْل َناَلَهَُأ‬،ِ‫َِّال َكعْ َبة‬

ْ ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَوهْ َوَ ُم َت َوسِّدَبُرْ َدةَلَهَُفِيَظِ ل‬
َ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫ىَرس‬ َ َ‫َش َك ْو َناَإِل‬
َ َ َّ ‫لَ َناَأَالََََت ْدع‬
َ،‫ار‬ ِ ‫َُب ْال ِم ْن َش‬
ِ ‫َ َفي َُجاء‬،ِ‫ضَََفيُجْ َعلَُفِيه‬ ِ َْ‫ِيَاألر‬ ‫انَالرَّ ُجلَُفِي َمنْ َ َق ْب َل ُك ْمَيُحْ َفرَُلَهَُف‬ َ ‫ُوََّللاَلَ َناَ َقا َلََ"َ َك‬
ْ ِ‫َبأ َ ْم َشاط‬ ْ َ َ‫ضعَُ َعل‬
َِ‫ونَلَحْ ِمه‬ َ ‫َ َماَ ُد‬،‫َال َحدِي َِد‬ ِ ‫ط‬ُ ‫َو ُي ْم َش‬،ِ
َ ‫كَ َعنْ َدِي ِنه‬ َ ِ‫ص ُّدهَُ َذل‬
ُ ‫َو َماَ َي‬،
َ ‫ْن‬ ِ ‫َب ْاث َن َتي‬
ِ ‫ىَرأسِ هَِ َف ُي َش ُّق‬ َ ‫َفيُو‬
َ‫صَْن َعا َء‬
َ َ ْ‫يرَالرَّ اكِبُ َمِن‬ َ ِ‫َح َّتىَيَس‬ َ ‫َّللاَلَ ُي ِتمَّنَّ َ َه َذ‬
َ ‫اَاألم َْر‬ ِ َّ ‫َو‬،ِ
َ ‫كَ َعنْ َدِي ِنه‬ َ ‫ص ُّدهَُ َذ ِل‬ُ ‫َو َماَ َي‬،ٍ َ ‫صب‬ َ ‫ظ ٍمَأَ ْوَ َع‬
َْ ‫مِنْ َ َع‬
ََ ُ‫َو َل ِك َّن ُك ْمَََتسْ َتعْ ِجل‬،ِ
‫ون‬ َ ‫بَ َع َلىَ َغ َن ِمه‬ ِّ ‫ََّللاَأَ ِو‬
َ ‫َالذ ْئ‬ َ َّ َّ‫َالََ َي َخافُ َإِال‬،‫ت‬ َ ‫ىَحضْ َر َم ْو‬ َ َ‫إِل‬
We complained to Allah's Messenger (‫( )ﷺ‬of the persecution inflicted on us by the infidels)
while he was sitting in the shade of the Ka`ba, leaning over his Burd (i.e. covering sheet). We said
to him: "Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us?" He said: "Among the
nations before you a (believing) man would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw
would be put over his head and he would be cut into two pieces; yet that (torture) would not
make him give up his Deen. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his
 flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his Deen. By Allah, this
Deen will prevail till a traveller from Sana (in Yemen) to Hadramawt will fear none but Allah, or a
wolf over his sheep, but you (people) are hasty (or rushing matters) (1).

The above relates to the stance of refraining and holding back from defence, as adopted by the source of
the Da’wah (i.e. the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬and those who believed in him, when faced with the aggression and
hostility of the Mushrikeen of Quraish in Makkah prior to the Hijrah (migration).

B - As for the stance of defence and responding to blows with blows and acts of violence with
similar acts. Then that is manifests in the following incident related by Ibn Ishaaq who said:

“The companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to go to the mountain paths when they performed
their Salaah (prayer). Therefore, they sought to conceal and hide their prayer from their people (i.e.
Quraish). Then, (on an occasion), Sa’d Bin Abi Waqqaas was amongst a group of the companions of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬at one of the mountain paths when a group of the Mushrikeen came across
whilst they were performing the Salaah. So, they (the Mushrikeen) denounced them and criticised them
for what they were doing until they fought them. And so on that day Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaaas struck a man
of the Mushrikeen with a bone from the mouth of a camel and consequently split his head. As such that
was the first blood to have been shed in (the era of) Islaam” (2).

The Qitaal (fighting) here, in this incident, means exchanging blows with Mushrikeen who initiated it and
then Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas responded to it in self-defence resulting it what took place.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 6943, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 12/315-316, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/3) and Taareekh At-
Tabariy: 2/318].

Another example of this is what Ibn ul-Jawziy recorded about ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) when he said:
“When the man embraced Islaam, other men targeted him and would strike him with blows and he would
strike them (back in return)” (1).

The above relates to the stance of defence.

C - As for the stance of deterrence or pre-emption: This means confronting the one who intends bad
against the Muslim with the like of what he was going to undertake before that enemy was enabled to
undertake his action. This stance is also a type of self-defence. However, if someone intended to kill me
with a weapon and I held back from him so that I wouldn’t be the first to start the fighting but rather
await the first blow so that I respond in self-defence, when would that defence take place? After the Nafs
is sent to the world of the dead following that blow or in a state of contestation? Consequently, the
position or deterrence and pre-emption, within the scope of what we have demonstrated, is plainly one
face from amongst the faces of defence.

This has been indicated to within the report narrating how ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) embraced Islaam.
Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Jawziy related the following from Anas Bin Maalik (ra):

“… So, ‘Umar then set off until he reached the Daar (i.e. Daar ul-Arqam). He (Anas) said: And Hamzh
Ibn Abdul Muttalib, Talhah and some others from the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬were
at the door. When Hamzah saw that the people were apprehensive (or fearful) from ‘Umar, he (Hamzah)
said: Yes, indeed this is ‘Umar. And so if Allah wishes good through ‘Umar he will become Muslim and
follow the Messenger and if he wishes other than that, then killing him will be a simple matter (or a
mercy) …” (2).
And the meaning of Hamzah’s statement: “And if he wishes other than that” is: If he wishes to raise his
sword against us and not just hitting or some harm. That is because it was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam that one of the Sahaabah in Daar ul-Arqam had seen tough a gap in the door and saw ‘Umar. He
then returned in alarm and said: “This is ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab armed with his sword”. Then Hamzah
Bin Abdul Muttalib, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Grant him permission to enter and if he wants
good then we will extend it to him and if he desires evil we will kill him with his sword …!” (3).

That is whilst it is well-known what the intended meaning of evil is in respect to the one who sets out with
his sword ready to be used!

[(1) History of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, Ibn ul-Jawziy: p7, (2) History of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, Ibn ul-Jawziy: p10, (3) Seerah
Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/96).

Following on:

These therefore represent the stances that the Muslims adopted when the Mushrikeen were inflicting a
variety of punishments and tortures upon them as manifested in the realities and incidents that took place
in that period of time of the life of the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah prior to the Hijrah:

- The stance of patience over the harm and abstention from defence.
- The stance of defence.
- The stance of deterrence and pre-emption.

We now arrive to the final point of this conclusion:

The third point: What are the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) that regulated the relationship between the
Muslims and the Mushrikeen (polytheists) and which defined the three previous stances in the face of the
violence that the disbelievers used to confront those of the Islamic Da’wah?

The answer:

Firstly: Evidences for this include the Sunnah Al-‘Amalaiyah and the Sunnah At-Taqreeriyah (i.e. actions
and consent).

- The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬adopted the stance of Sabr (patience), Al-‘Afw (overlooking or pardoning) and
restraint or abstention from responding back to the aggression, as we have previously explained.

- Similarly, he ‫ ﷺ‬approved of the defensive stance and repelling the aggression or assault in kind
undertaken by the Sahaabah who would respond to blows with blows of their own, whilst he did not
disapprove of that act from them.

- He ‫ ﷺ‬also did not disapprove when Hamzah (ra) declared that he would kill ‘Umar if he saw from
him that he was intending evil against the Muslims!

Secondly: There are Suwar (pl. or Soorah) of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem, revealed in Makkah which dealt
with the Mas’alah (issue) of the oppression and aggression befalling the Muslims and explain the stance
that the Muslims should take in the face of that. The Qur’aan Al-Kareem specified two ways or
approaches that it is permitted for the Muslims to proceed upon in respect to this issue.

- The first way or approach: The way of revenge (Intisaar) and dealing justice back (Intisaaf) which
means the meeting of violence with violence and self-defence in addition to (pre-emptive) deterrence as it
 represents one face from the faces of acting in defence and repelling the aggression, as explained
previously.

- The second way or approach: This is the manner or approach of patience and pardoning. The Qur’aan
Al-Kareem encouraged this second approach and it may be that the blessed fruits that this approach
produces which we examined earlier explain this encouragement.

- Allah Ta’Aalaa said in the Makkiy Soorah Ash-Shouraa’:

َِ ‫﴾َولَم‬
َ َ‫َنَانََتصَر‬ َ ٤٠﴿َ َ‫َالظالَِمِين‬َّ ُّ‫َُالَ ُيحِب‬ َ ‫اَوأَصْ لَ َحَ َفأَجْ ُرهَُ َعلَىَاللَّـ ِهََۚإِ َّنه‬ َ ‫﴾َوجَ َزاءَُ َس ِّي َئةٍَ َس ِّي َئةَم ِّْثلُهَاََۖ َفمَنْ َ َع َف‬
َ ٣٩﴿َ َ‫َوالَّذِينَ َإِ َذاَأَصَا َب ُه ُمَا ْلب َْغ ُيَ ُه ْمَيَن َتصِ رُون‬
َ﴾٤٢﴿َ‫ع َذابَأَلِيم‬ ُ
َ ‫َب َغي ِْرَا ْلحَ ِّقََۚأولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
ََ َ‫كَلَ ُه ْم‬ َ ْ ‫َو َي ْب ُغونَ َف‬ َ َ‫َظلِمُونَ َال َّناس‬ ْ ‫﴾َإِ َّنمَاَالس َِّبيلَُ َعلَىَالَّذِينَ َي‬٤١﴿َ‫يل‬ ٍ ‫كَمَاَ َعلَي ِْهمَمِّنَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫َظ ْل ِمهَِ َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
ُ ‫بَعْ َد‬
ِ ‫ض‬ ِ ْ‫ِيَاألر‬
‫ُور‬ ُ ْ
َِ ‫عز ِمَاألم‬ ْ َ
ََ َ ْ‫كََلمِن‬ َ ٰ َ
َ ِ‫صبَرَ ََو َغفرَ َإِنَّ َذل‬ َ َ‫َولمَن‬ َ
And those who, when tyranny (or oppressive practise) afflicts them, they defend themselves. And the retribution for an evil act
is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah. Verily, He does not
like wrongdoers. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].
The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a
painful punishment. And whoever is patient and forgives - indeed, that is of the matters [requiring] determination (Ash-
Shouraa: 39-43).

The following came in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “And those who, when tyranny (or oppressive
practise) afflicts them …” means the tyranny or oppressive practise (Baghyi) of the Mushrikeen
(polytheists) (1). Then he said: “Al-‘Afwu” (pardoning) is Mandoob (recommended) to him and the matter
could be reversed in some circumstances where leaving the pardon returns to being Mandoob for him …
That is if it is required to prevent an increase of the tyrannical and oppressive practise and to cu the fuel
of the harm” (2).

According to Al-Hasan, ‘Ikramah, ‘Ataa and Jaabir the whole of Soorah Ash-Shouraa is Makkiyah whilst
Ibn ‘Abbaas and Qataadah excluded four Aayaat from Aayah 23 to Aayah 26 which they said were
revealed in Al-Madinah (i.e. after the Hijrah) (3) and these Aayaat are outside of those which we are
discussing.

Consequently, these Aayaat make it permissible for the Muslims to avenge (and stand up for) themselves
in confronting the tyranny and oppression of the Mushrikeen against them and to meet the bad with its
like, within the Makkiy stage of the Islamic Da’wah prior to the establishment of the Islamic state, even if
they recommended pardoning and patience whilst making it from the ‘Azm il-Umoor (i.e. the adoption of
a high position, something commended and praiseworthy).

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 16/38, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 16/44, (3) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 16/1].

As for giving preference to standing up and avenging (or exacting justice), then Al-Qurtubiy an incident
that took place in Al-Madinah as evidence for that. That was when Zainab Bin Jahsh, the wife of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬made ‘Aa’ishah (ra) hear, in the company of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, speech that she hated! … And the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said to ‘Aa’ishah: “You can defend and stand up for yourself” (i.e. to respond in like in
defence of yourself). This incident was recorded in Saheeh Muslim with this meaning (1).

In the Tafseer of At-Tabariy the following was mentioned: “(Related) from Ibn ‘Abbaas in respect to His
statement (Ta’Aalaa):

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَمَاَاعْ َت َد ٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َنَاعْ َت َد ٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َتدُواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
ِ ‫َفم‬
So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).
That this and what is similar to it were revealed in Makkah when the Muslims were few in number and did
not have an authority to overcome the Mushrikeen. The Mushrikeen used to deal with the Muslims by
insult and harm and so Allah commanded the Muslims to retaliate against them with similar to what he
was afflicted with or that he should remain patient and pardon (or overlook) which is better (or more
fitting). Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬migrated to Al-Madinah and his authority gave might to
the affair of the Muslims so that their injustices could be referred to their authority and they would no
longer seek to undertake acts of aggression against each other (i.e. seeking justice) like the people of Al-
Jaahillyah (pre-Islamic era)” (2).

It appears that the statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas: “This and what is similar to it were revealed in Makkah”
intends the meaning that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy to meet the aggression or assault with aggression and
assault, was revealed in Makkah, even if these specific Aayaat are from Soorah Al-Baqarah which was
revealed in Al-Madinah (i.e. after Hijrah).

The remainder of the speech of Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) includes an approval or affirmation (Taqreer) for the
Hukm Ash-Shar’iy that governs the relationship between the Muslims and others in Makkah prior to the
Hijrah in respect to the violence that the Mushrikeen (polytheists) used to use against the Muslims.

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 16/44. The Hadeeth indicated to by Al-Qurtubiy is in Saheeh Muslim: 2442 (4/1891-1892). Within it
‘Aa’ishah said regarding Zainab: “Zainab went on until I came to know that Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬would not disapprove if I
countered. Then I didn’t give her a chance until I made her quiet. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬smiled and said: “She is
the daughter of Abu Bakr”” (2) Tafseer At-Tabariy: 2/116].

One final observation remains and it is that initiating the fighting against the Mushrikeen in Makkah,
meaning the fighting which was not undertaken in self-defence against the aggression or linked to
preventing it, has no basis or evidence for it at all. In accordance to that, we can understand the stance
taken by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in response to the offer of Al-‘Abbaas Ibn Nadlah, who was amongst those
present at the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, when he expressed his readiness to attack the Mushrikeen (i.e.
Quraish) at Minaa, to which he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫ىَر َحالِ ُك ْم‬ َ ِ‫َب َذل‬

ِ َ‫ك ََولَكِنَارَْ َجعُواَإِل‬ ِ ْ‫لَ ْمَ ُن ْؤ َمر‬
We have not been commanded with that. Rather, return back to your belongings (i.e. place of
camping) (1).

With that final concluding observation, we have reached the end of the conclusion of this first chapter in
which we have addressed the matter of the Islamic Da’wah in the Makkiy stage. That is the stage before
the legislation of Al-Jihaad in accordance to its fighting (Qitaaliy) meaning. We now move forward to
stand at the threshold of the second chapter of this volume and that is the chapter dealing with the stage
that followed the legislation of Al-Jihaad.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/192].

 Chapter Two

The stage after the legislation of Al-Jihaad “The Islamic Da’wah in the Madaniy
era” following Al-Hijrah

The first study: The permission to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting).

The second study: A brief presentation of the accounts of wars and halting them by treaties within the
Seerah of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, in addition to the prominent Ahkaam (rulings) extracted from them.

The third study: The Da’wah (invitation) of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to the heads of states to embrace Islaam
and the relationship of this invitation to Al-Jihaad.

The fourth study: The motivating factors for declaring Al-Jihaad upon all fronts during the era of the
rightly guided Khilafah.
 Chapter Two

The stage after the legislation of Al-Jihaad “The Islamic Da’wah in the Madaniy
era” following Al-Hijrah

The first study: The permission to fight (or to undertake Al-Qitaal).

Foreword concerning what will be covered in this study.

The first point:

- What was the situation of the Muslims prior to the permission to fight?
- What is the indicated meaning (Madlool) of that forbiddance to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting) prior to
the issuance of the permission to undertake it?
- What are the Adillah (evidences) that made the Muslims refrain from fighting the disbelievers who
aggressed against them with persecution and maltreatment (i.e. torture and abuse)?

The second point:

- When did the permission to undertake Al-Qitaal come?

- What was intended by the Qitaal that had been permitted?
- What was intended by the permission issued in relation to Al-Qitaal (fighting)?

The First Study

The permission to fight (or to undertake Al-Qitaal)

Foreword concerning what will be covered in this study:

If we wish to make this subject area as clear as possible then we must examine it in an enlightened
manner. By that, I mean an examination that covers what was before the permission to fight; why that
permission (Idhn) occurred after the Man’u (forbiddance? What is intended by the Idhn (permission)?
And what is intended meaning of Al-Qitaal Al-Ma’dhoon Bihi (Fighting that has been permitted)? That is
in addition to looking at matters that revolve around this subject area whilst not exceeding that by
examining matters that are going to be dealt with individually in specific studies within this PHD.

In light of that, I view that this sought-after clarity within this study and its mentioned context, requires
the following two points to be addressed and ealt with:

1 - What was the situation of the Muslims prior to the permission to fight?
- What was the Madlool (indicated meaning) of that Man’u (forbiddance) attached to fighting prior to the
issuance of the permission?
- What are the Adillah (evidences) that led the Muslims to refrain from fighting the disbelievers who used
to inflict them with persecution and torture or punishment (i.e. suffering)?

2 - When did the permission to fight occur? And what are the evidences that came with this permission?
- What is intended by Al-Qitaal Al-Ma’dhoon Bihi (the fighting that has been permitted)?
- What is the intended meaning of the permission issued in respect to Al-Qitaal?

1 - The first point:

What was the situation of the Muslims prior to the permission to fight?

We have already become aware of the situation of the Muslims in Makkah before the Hijrah and prior to
the issuance of the permission to fight (Al-Qitaal).

Al-Imaam Ibn ul-‘Arabiy summarises that situation in his book “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by his statement:
“The disbelievers used to intentionally seek to bring harm against the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the believers … The
Mushrikeen strangled him to the point that his life nearly left him before Abu Bakr intervened (to prevent
that) … And indeed it (i.e. the harm) did reach to the point of death with his companions. Abu Jahl killed
Sumayyah the mother of ‘Ammaar Bin Yaasir and Bilaal was tortured … And after that there was nothing
except vengeance by Al-Qitaal (fighting …

In respect to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, then following the pardoning and forbearance over what they (the
Mushrikeen) did, Allah permitted fighting to him at the time when he was settled in Al-Madinah, and so
the (military) dispatches commenced (i.e. from that point) ….” (1).

Ibn ul-‘Arabiy continued: “The ‘Ulamaa, may Allah’s mercy be upon them, said: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬before the Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah (i.e. the second pledge) was not permitted to engage in war and
blood (i.e. its shedding) was not Halaal for him. Rather, he was only commanded to make Du’aa to Allah,
to have Sabr (patience) over the harm and to overlook the ignorant … That is whilst the Quraish had
persecuted those Muhaajiroon (emigrants) who followed him so that they be seduced (or taken) away
from their Deen and they banished them from their land. They were either from those who were afflicted
to leave the Deen and were tortured, or they were those who fled to foreign lands including those who
went to Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) … And from them were those who persevered patiently upon the harm
… Then when acted wickedly (or did harm) against Allah … and tortured those who believed in Him,
Allah gave permission to His Messenger to fight …” (2).
This then reflected the situation of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and that of the Muslims before the Hijrah and before
the permission to engage in Al-Qitaal (fighting) descended.

As for the Madlool (indicated meaning) of the forbiddance (Man’u) in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting)?

- Did that include surrendering to torture and refraining from self-defence regardless of what the Muslim
was afflicted with in terms of trials and calamities undertaken at the hands of Shirk in Makkah?

- And did that include abstaining from fighting the Mushrik who raises a weapon against the Muslim with
the intent to kill him?

- Or is what is intended by the Qitaal (fighting) that is not Ma’dhoon Bihi (permitted):
That the Muslims rally together in Makkah and form from themselves a fighting division where they
would carry out an armed struggle and bloody war, against the disbelievers of Makkah, until decided and
judges between them?

[(1) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 3/1285, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 3/1285-1286. Also refer to ‘Al-Jaami’
LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan, Al-Qurtubiy: 12/69].

- Or is the intended meaning of Al-Qitaal that is not Ma’dhoon Bihi (permitted):

Undertaking assassination campaigns targeting the leaders of disbelief in Makkah who had been afflicting
the Muslims with torture and suffering with the aim of exacting revenge and realising justice?

The answer to these questions is:

We have already established in the first chapter of this volume that the stance of the Muslims, in the face
of what the Quraishi disbelievers subjected them to, varied between the stance of patience and
overlooking and the stance of avenging and countering, meeting blow with blow and self-defence,
including being prepared to kill the Mushrik (polytheist disbeliever) if he had raised his weapon against a
Muslim with the intention to kill him! (1).

In that chapter, we mentioned the incidents and evidences that indicated to these various stances and it is
upon that basis that the we must understand the statement made by Al-Jassaas:

“The Ummah has not differed (or disagreed) upon the fighting (Al-Qitaal) being Mah’zhoor (prohibited)
prior to the Hijrah” (2). It must be understood from this statement about the Qitaal being prohibited
before the Hijrah, that the meaning of this Qitaal (fighting) is not that of exchanging of blows or meeting
violence with violence.

Just as its meaning does not refer to seeking to kill in self-defence against the one who wants to kill. That
is according to what has been indicated by the evidences mentioned in the previous chapter.

Consequently, all that remains is the type of Qitaal (fighting) that was prohibited, the type which was not
Ma’dhoon Bihi (permitted) in Makkah before Al-Hijrah and that is the Qitaal according to two other
meanings, which are:

- Muslims rallying together to encounter the Quraish in the battlefield.

- Undertaking of campaigns to physically eliminate the leaders of Quraish through assassinations
undertaken by venturous Muslims under the pretext of avenging the persecution that these leaders subject
the Muslims to!
[(1) Refer to: Story of the conversion of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab in: “Dalaa’il An-Nabuwah” by Al-Baihaqi: 2/215-222, (2)
Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 1/319].

These are the two meanings of Al-Qitaal (fighting) which were prohibited and not Ma’dhoon Bihi
(permitted) within the Makkah stage of the Da’wah before the establishment of the Islamic state in Al-
Madinah.

This has been indicated to within the Sabab An-Nuzool (circumstance of revelation) of this following
Ayah:

َ ‫واَالز َكاةََ َفلَمَّاَ ُكتِبَ َ َعلَي ِْه ُمَا ْلقِ َتالَُإِ َذاَ َف ِريقَ ِّم ْن ُه ْمَي َْخ َش ْونَ َال َّناسَ َ َك َخ ْش َيةَِاللَّـهَِأَ ْوَأَ َشد‬
ََۚ‫ََّخ ْشي ََة‬ َّ َ ‫َوأَقِيمُواَالص ََّالة‬
‫ََوآ ُت‬ َ ‫أَلَ ْمَ َترَ ََإِلَىَالَّذِينَ َقِيلََلَ ُه ْمَ ُك ُّفواَأَ ْي ِدََي ُك ْم‬
‫ِيال‬ َ
َ ‫َوالَتظلمُونَ َفت‬ َ ْ ُ َ ٰ َ َّ
َ ‫َنَاتقى‬ ِّ َ ُ
ِ ‫َواْلخِرَ ةَخيْرَلم‬ ْ َ ْ َ
َ ‫بََۗقلَْ َمتاعَُال ُّدنيَاَقلَِيل‬ ُ َ َ ٰ َ َ َ َّ َ
ٍ ‫َو َقالُواَرَ َّب َناَلِ َمَ َك َتبْتَ َ َعلََْي َناَالقِتالََل ْوالَأخرْ تناَإِلى ََأجَ ٍلَق ِري‬
َ َ َ ْ
Have you not seen those who were told: “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give Zakaah”? But
then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or with [even] greater fear.
They said: “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time”. Say:
“The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to
you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed]”. (An-Nisaa’: 77).

The following was mentioned in respect to the Sabab un-Nuzool (cause or circumstance of revelation) of
this Aayah by Al-Imaam Al-Waahidiy An-Naisaabouriy: “This Aayah was revealed regarding a small group
from among the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬which included: Abdur Rahmaan Bin ‘Auf,
Al-Miqdaad Bin Al-Aswad, Qudaamah Bin Mazh’oon and Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas. They used to receive
from the Mushrikeen a great deal of harm and they would say: “O Messenger of Allah, grant us
permission to fight them!” He would then reply: “Restrain your hands from them for verily I have not
been commanded to fight them!” Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made Hijrah (emigration)
to Al-Madinah, Allah Ta’Aalaa commanded them to fight the Mushrikeen. Some of them disliked it, and it
was hard upon them, so Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed this Aayah” (1).

An-Nasaa’iy related: “Ibn ‘Abbaas related that Abdur Rahmaa Bin ‘Auf and some of his companions
approached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in Makkah and said: “O Messenger of Allah! We were in a position of honour
(and might) when we were Mushrikeen. Then, when we believed we became the lowly!” He ‫ ﷺ‬then
replied: “Verily, I have been commanded with Al-‘Afw (to pardon or overlook) and so do not
fight” (Then (later) when Allah transferred him to Al-Madinah, he was commanded with Al-Qitaal
(fighting)). And so they desisted (i.e. in Makkah) and Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed:

َ ‫خ ْش َيةَِاللَّـهَِأَ ْوَأَ َشد‬

ََۚ‫ََّخ ْشيَة‬ ََ ‫واَالز َكاةََ َفلَمَّاَ ُكتِبَ َ َعلَي ِْه ُمَا ْلقِ َتالَُإِ َذاَ َف ِريقَ ِّم ْن ُه ْمَي َْخ َش ْونَ َال َّناسَ َ َك‬
َّ َ ‫َوَأَقِيمُواَالص ََّالة‬
‫ََوآ ُت‬ َ ‫أَلَ ْمَ َترَ ََإِلَىَالَّذِينَ َقِيلََلَ ُه ْمَ ُك ُّفواَأَ ْي ِد َي ُك ْم‬
ْ
َ ‫َو َالَ ُتظلَمُونَ َ َفت‬
‫ِيال‬ ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّم‬
َ ‫َنَا َّت َق ٰى‬ َ ُ‫َو ْاْلخِرَ ة‬ َ ‫بََۗقُلَْ َم َتاعَُال ُّد ْنيَاَ َقلِيل‬ َ َ
ٍ ‫َو َقالُواَرَ َّب َناَلِ َمَ َك َتبْتَ َ َعلَ ْيََناَا ْلقِ َتالََلَ ْو َالَأ َّخرْ َت َناَإِلَ ٰىَأجَ ٍلَََق ِري‬
Have you not seen those who were told: “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give Zakaah”? But
then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or with [even] greater fear.
They said: “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time”. Say:
“The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to
you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed]”. (An-Nisaa’: 77) (2).

This indicates that some of the Muslims asked the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to provide them with the permission to
confront the disbelievers of Makkah by Al-Qitaal (fighting) before the establishment of the Islamic state in
Al-Madinah. It indicates how the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬refused their request by stating: “Restrain your hands from
them for verily I have not been commanded to fight them!” and “Verily, I have been commanded
with Al-‘Afw (to pardon or overlook) and so do not fight”.

[(1) Asbaab un-Nuzool, Al-Imaam Abi l-Hasan ‘Ali Bin Ahmad Al-Waahidiy An-Naisaabouriy: p111, (2) An-Nasaa’iy and Al-
Haakim in his Mustadrak (2/307) and he said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the Shart (conditionality) of Al-Bukhaari although
neither of the two Sheikhs recorded it. Adh-Dhahabiy corroborated. Al-Baihaqi also recorded it in his Sunan: 9/11 and refer to:
Jaami’ Al-Usool: 2/94 and in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy: 6/3. Al-Albaaniy said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad in his ‘Saheeh Sunan An-
Nasaa’iy’: 2891, 2/646].

The intended meaning of Al-‘Afw (pardoning or overlooking) which has been commanded here is the
‘Afw (pardoning) related to beginning the fighting against the disbelievers in response to their hostility and
aggression. It does not intend the absolute ‘Afw (pardoning) including refraining from defence. That is
because we have already explained that the command for Al-‘Afw, with this meaning (i.e. defence),
represented a command from the angle of preference, in light of the Maslahah (interest) that was built
upon it. The evidence for that was the approval or consent (Iqraar) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to the
Sahaabah who use to defend themselves in the face of what they were being afflicted with in terms of
harm and they would meet what was meted out to them with something similar in return (1), as was
explained in the previous chapter of this study.

The above relates to the prohibition or interdiction (Hazhr) that Islaam obliged upon the Muslims in the
Makkah stage of the Da’wah prior to the establishment of the Islamic state, in respect to engaging in
armed confrontation with Quraish and facing them upon the battlefield.

As for what relates specifically to the interdiction or prohibition (Hazhr) imposed upon the act of
undertaking assassinations targeting the criminals of Quraish who used to subject the Muslims with harm,
suffering and torture, then the following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Qurturbiy regarding it:

“Concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ٍَ ُ‫انَ َكف‬
‫ور‬ َ ‫َنَالَّذِينَ َآ َم ُنواََۗإِنَّ َاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ََالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكل‬
ٍ َّ‫ََّخو‬ ِ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـهََ ُيدَافِعَُع‬
Verily, Allah defends those who have believed. Verily, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful. (Al-Hajj:
38).

It has been related that this was revealed due to the believers when they became numerous in Makkah and
the disbelievers harmed them whilst those who emigrated did so to the land of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia).
Some of the believers of Makkah wanted to fight whom they could from the disbelievers, to assassinate,
employ treachery (deception) and trickery. This Aayah was then revealed and within it Allah Subhaanahu
promised protection and forbade in the clearest manner treachery and betrayal” (2).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/3) and Dalaa’il An-Nabuwah, Al-Baihaqiy: 2/215-222, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy:
12/67].

The following was mentioned within the Tafseer of At-Tabariy:

“Qataadah said in respect to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

‫َظلِمُوَا‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلَِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against (Al-
Hajj: 39).

He said: It is the first Aayah to have been revealed in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting) and consequently
permission to fight was granted to them. Some of them used to claim that Allah only said: “Permission
has been given to those who are being fought …” (to fight), because the companions of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬use to seek the permission of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to fight the disbelievers, in the
case where they were harming them and becoming more severe against them in Makkah, prior to
the Hijrah, by employing assassination and secrecy! Then Allah revealed:
ٍَ ُ‫انَ َكف‬
‫ور‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ََالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكل‬
ٍ َّ‫ََّخو‬
Verily, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful. (Al-Hajj: 38).
Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions emigrated to Al-Madinah, killing and
fighting against them (i.e. disbelievers) was allowed for them due to His Qawl:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

‫َظلِمُوَا‬ ِ َ‫أ َِذنَََلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against (Al-
Hajj: 39) (1).

These numerous texts and reports as a whole indicate in respect to the Muslims in Makkah, prior to the
establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah, that Al-Qitaal (fighting) had been Mahzhoor
(prohibited) upon them which covered the interdiction or prohibition (Hazhr) upon the general
contention and struggle (i.e. battling) between the Muslims and the Mushrikeen, just as it included the
interdiction or prohibition (Hazhr) over undertaking a war (or campaign) of assassinations targeting the
Mushrikeen (polytheists) in general, in terms of regular individuals or the leaders who would inflict harm
and suffering upon the Muslims.

The above represents what relates to the first point of this study and we now move forward to

The second point: And that is:

- When did the permission for Al-Qitaal occur?

- And what are the Adillah (evidences) in which this permission (Idhn) came?
- What is the intended meaning of Al-Qitaal Al-Ma’dhoon Bihi (the fighting that has been permitted)?
- What is intended by the issued permission in respect to Al-Qitaal?

The answer to this:

The permission (Idhn) to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting) was revealed upon the journey of the Hijrah
(emigration) to Al-Madinah. That is in accordance to the Saheeh Hadeeth that was recorded by At-
Tirmidhi and An-Nasaa’iy:

“Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬left Makkah Abu Bakr said: They harmed their
Prophet until he left, may they be destroyed! Then Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

َ ‫َظلِمُواَ ََۚوإِنَّ َاللَّـهََ َعلَ ٰىَ َنصْ ِر ِه ْمَلَ َقد‬
‫ِير‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against. And
verily, Allah is Al capable of granting them victory (Al-Hajj: 39) (2).

Abu Bakr said: I then knew that there will be Qitaal (fighting)”.

(1) Tafseer At-Tabariy: 17/123, (2) Al-Qurtubiy said: This includes Idmaar (a word which is understood but is missing) i.e.
Permission has been given to those who “suitable” for Al-Qitaal. The word was omitted because the speech indicates to it:
Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 12/67-68].

That is the Riwaayah (narration) recorded by At-Tirmidhi and in the narration recorded by An-Nasaa’iy he
said: When they made the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬leave Makkah, Abu Bakr said: They made their Prophet leave, Innaa
Lillahi Wa Innaa Ilaihi Raaji’oon (Verily to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return)! Then this was
revealed:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

َ ‫َظلِمُواَ ََۚوإِنَّ َاللَّـهََ َعلَ ٰىَ َنصْ ِر ِه ْمَلَ َقد‬
‫ِير‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against. And
verily, Allah is Al capable of granting them victory (Al-Hajj: 39).
And so I knew that there will be Qitaal (fighting).

Ibn ‘Abbaas said: It was first Aayah that was revealed concerning Al-Qitaal (fighting) (1).

This relates to the issue of the permission to undertake fighting, when it occurred and what the Daleel
(evidence) for it is. However, there are other opinions in relation to the first evidences providing the
permission for Al-Qitaal (fighting).

In his “Tafseer Aayaat ul-Ahkaam” Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali As-Saayis stated: “Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

َ ‫َظلِمُواَ ََۚوإِنَّ َاللَّـهََ َعلَ ٰىَ َنصْ ِر ِه ْمَلَ َقد‬
‫ِير‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against. And
verily, Allah is Al capable of granting them victory (Al-Hajj: 39).

“This is the first Aayah that was revealed in respect to Al-Qitaal” … He then mentioned the former
Hadeeth Ibn Jareer recorded from Abu l-‘Aaliyah that the first Aayah revealed in relation to it was:

َ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

And in Al-Ikleel of Al-Haakim: The first Aayah to be revealed concerning it (i.e. Al-Qitaal) was:

‫إِنَّ َاللَّـهََا ْش َترَ ٰىَ َِمنَ َا ْلم ُْؤ ِمنِينَ َأَنفُ َس َُه َْم‬
Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives (At-Taubah: 111).

He states: “And what is apparent (Zhaahir) is that the first (is correct) i.e.

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

‫َظلِمُوَا‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against (Al-
Hajj: 39).

Which was revealed during the Hijrah and many of the Salaf held that view including Ibn ‘Abbaas,
Mujaahid, Ad-Dahhaak, ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair, Zaid Bin Aslama, Muqaatil and Qataadah amongst others.
This is also supported by its mention following the promise of defence and victory (2) (3).

After that what is the intended meaning of Al-Qitaal for which the door of permission was opened to
engage in?

The answer:

It is the Qitaal that had been forbidden prior to that. We have known previously that what had been
forbidden in Makkah was the confrontation against the aggressors from the Mushrikeen by fighting in
rows against rows (or a force against another), just as it was forbidden to undertake assassinations
targeting those Mushrikeen.

Then following the revelation of that Aayah that forbidden matter or act became permitted (Ma’dhoon
Bihi).

[(1) Jaami’ ul-Usool (2/244). In the commentary or margin, he said: At-Tirmidhi said: Hadeeth Hasan and recorded by Ahmad
in Al-Musnad. Its Isnaad is Saheeh and Al-‘Alaamah Ahmad Shaakir verified it as Saheeh. I say: Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-
Albaaniysaid: Saheeh Al-Isnaad in his Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 3/79. The Hadeeth in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy is: 6/2 and
Al-Albaaniy said: Saheeh Al-Isnaad in his Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 2890, 2/46, (2) I.e. referring to the previous Aayah:
TMQ: “Verily, Allah defends those who have believed. Verily, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful” (Al-
Hajj: 38), (3) “Tafseer Aayaat ul-Ahkaam” Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali As-Saayis: 3/89. And refer to the Tafseer of Al-Aaloosiy:
17/162].

Therefore, following that, it became permitted for the Muslims to combat the disbelievers in the battle
field or fighting zone (Maidaan ul-Qitaal), face to face! Just as it became permissible for the Muslims to
undertake assassination operations to seek revenge against the disbelievers according to what the
Maslahah (interest) dictates, by undertaking stealth missions, to take them by surprise, to eliminate them
and clear the arena or field of their persons due to the great danger they posed to the Da’wah and those
who believed in it.

It was upon this basis that the military excursions (Saraayaa) and expeditions (Ghazawaat) took place
targeting the disbelievers of Quraish (1).

Similarly, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched someone to assassinate Abu Sufyaan Bin Harb whilst he was in his
home in Makkah! Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy related that in his book ‘Al-Umm’ within the context of the
deduction that Makkah in its description as being a inviolable (Haraam) land: “Does not prevent (or
forbid) someone from a matter that is obligatory upon him” (2). Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (in his style of
dialogue) stated the following: “And if it was said (or asked) what has guided you to what you have
described? It is said: The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬ordered, when ‘Aasim Bin Thaabit, Khubaib and Ibn Hassaan were
killed, that Abu Sufyaan be killed in his house in Makkah, in an assassination, if a way can be found to do
that!” (3).

Despite that, it still remains to be asked: What is intended from the mentioned permission in the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa?:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

‫َظلِمُوَا‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against (Al-
Hajj: 39).

I say:

Ibn ul-Arabiy stated the following:

“The meaning of ‘Idhn’ (permission): permitted (Ubeeha). It has been provided or set in the language to
make every forbidden matter Mubaah (permissible) and it represents a Daleel (evidence) that the Ibaahah
(permissibility) is from the Shar’a and that there is no Hukm before the Shar’a; no Ibaahah (permissibility)
and no Hazhr (prohibition), except for that which the Shar’a has provided judgement with and explained
…” (4).

[(1) Al-Haawiy Lil Fataawaa, Al-Imaam As-Suyootiy: 1/236, (2) Kitaab ul-Umm, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/290. For the report
refer to Ar-Raheeq ul-Makhtoom, Al-Mubaarakfouriy: 376, the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/243) and
Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/542, (3) It was mentioned in the margins or commentary (Haamish) of Al-‘Umm: In respect to the
version stating ‘Hassaan’ it has not been mentioned that a Hassaan or Ibn Hassaan was with ‘Aasim and so it needs to be
rectified”. I say: What has been mentioned in the books of Seerah that it was Zaid Bin Ad-Dathanah. Refer to ‘Yaum Ar-Rajee’’
in Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/224), (4) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan. Ibn ul-Arabiy: 3/1284].

The following was stated in Al-Umm by Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy:

“After a period of time had passed for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬from his Hijrah, Allah Ta’Aalaa
bestowed blessings in it (the Hijrah) upon a group by following him. Through it, by Allah’s help, there was
generated for them a power (or force) that they had not held prior to that. And so Allah made Al-Jihaad
obligatory upon them after it had been Ibaahah (permissible) and not Fard (obligatory). Allah Tabaaraka
Wa Ta’Aalaa said:
 ‫اَوه َُوَ َشرٌّ َلَّ ُك َْم‬ ِ ‫َۖو َعس َٰىَأَنَ ُت‬
َ ‫حبُّواَ َشيْئ‬ َ َ‫َخيْرَلَّ ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َُوه َُوَ ُكرْ هَلَّ ُك ْمَ ََۖو َعس َٰىَأَنَ َت ْكرََهُواَ َشيْئ‬
َ ‫اَوه َُو‬ َ ‫ُكتِبَ َ َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَا ْلقِ َتال‬
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and
perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you (Al-Baqarah: 217) (1)”.

In “Al-Haawiy Lil Fataawaa” by Al-Imaam As-Suyootiy, in respect to the discussion about the Aayah:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬ ُ

‫َظلِمُوَا‬ ِ َ‫أذِنَ َلِلَّذِينَ َ ُي َقا َتلُون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were transgressed (or oppressed) against (Al-
Hajj: 39).

In respect to it he states: “This Aayah brings permissibility and not obligation. And Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy (May Allah be pleased with him) stated that the Qitaal (fighting) prior to the Hijrah was
forbidden, it was then permitted (made Mubaah) after the Hijrah and then it was made Waajib (obligatory)
through the Aayaat of Al-Amr (command). And so it may be that the obligation came at the end of the
first year or second year (Hijriy) …” (2).

It therefore becomes clear from all that has preceded, that the permission that was issued in respect to Al-
Qitaal (fighting) was only with the meaning of Ibaahah (permissibility) and then the Wujoob (obligation)
of Al-Qitaal came after that …

It appears that this gradualism in respect to the Hukm of Al-Qitaal was only required due to the condition
of the emerging Islamic State and the condition or state of the Islamic army, which had begun to be
formed in terms of its number, preparations and training etc. It was therefore necessary for a certain
period of time to pass in which the opposition to the enemies of the Islamic Da’wah, from the
disbelievers of Quraish, who had harmed and persecuted the Muslims, and driven them from their homes
… it was necessary for some time to pass in which that opposition to the enemies of the Da’wah take
place upon a voluntary basis alone and not one of compulsion. That was until the Islamic State became
strongly built and sturdy and the Islamic power (or force) strengthened, so that it would be capable of
withstanding and standing firm before the forces of Kufr (disbelief) within the Arabian Peninsula if the
Quraish were to rally and gather forces against it, like what happened later (i.e. in the battle of Ahzaab)! At
that time (when strength is attained), the obligation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) comes, in the situation when
the circumstances of the Islamic State and the Islamic army are fully prepared to confront all probabilities
(or possibilities).

[(1) Kitaab Al-Umm, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/161. Dalaa’il An-Nabuwah, Al-Baihaqiy: 2/581, (2) Al-Haawiy Lil Fataawaa,
As-Suyootiy: 1/246].

The above is in connection to Al-Qitaal (the fighting) against the disbelievers of Quraish undertaken by
the Muslims, regarding which the text came with the permission (Al-Idhn) for i.e. Al-Ibaaahah
(permissibility) and not Wujoob (obligation).

However, in the situation where the Muslims are exposed to an attack made by enemies against them,
whilst they are in their own state in Al-Madinah, then the Qitaal (fighting) in this situation is Fard
(obligatory). There is no room for choice and it is not only Ma’dhoon Bihi (i.e. permitted or Mubaah).
That is in application of the Bai’at ul-Harb (pledge of war), the second pledge of Al-‘Aqabah, which made
it obligatory upon the Ansaar to make war against the red and the black from among the people (i.e.
everyone) in the way of protecting the Islamic Da’wah, its leader and followers; the details of which were
explained earlier (1).

It is also in application of the Saheefah (document) of Al-Madinah in which the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬regulated
the relationships between the Muslims amongst themselves from one angle and between them and the
Jews and Mushrikeen of the people of Al-Madinah from another angle. That took place a very short time
after the arrival of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in Al-Madinah. Ibn Hishaam related the news (i.e. occurrence) of this
Saheefah (document) after the occurrence of the building of the Prophet’s Masjid in Al-Madinah but
before the news (or occurrence) of the instituted brotherhood between the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar.
That indicates that the matter of the protection of the Islamic State and its defence, held the utmost
importance or highest degree upon the scale of priorities regarding the concerns of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in
respect to consolidating this emerging state. That was as he hastened to write down this charter
(Meethaaq) which made Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal obligatory upon the people of this Saheefah (document)
from the people of Al-Madinah, if they were to be exposed or subjected to an attack. Indeed, it made its
protection from enemies that the state views to represent a threat or danger upon them, by their entry into
their lands, an obligation. It forbade providing them with an ‘Amaan’ (security) (i.e. to enter) and this is
like what today is known as an entry visa!

Within this long Saheefah (document) the following was mentioned in relation to our subject area:

َ‫ْش ََوأَهْ ِل‬ َ ‫ِينَ َو ْالمُسْ لِم‬

ٍ ‫ِينَمِنْ َقُ َري‬ َْ ‫َِو َسلَّ َمَ َبي َْن‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ َّ َّ‫صل‬
َ ‫ىََّللاَُ َعلَ ْيه‬ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
َ َ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫َرس‬ َ ِّ‫َه َذاَ ِك َتابَمِنْ َم َُح َّمدٍَال َّن ِبي‬
...َ‫اس‬َِ ‫ونَال َّن‬
ِ ‫َوا ِح َدةَمِنْ َ ُد‬ََ ‫َأَ َّن ُه ْمَأُمَّة‬،َ‫َ َف َحلََّ َم َع ُه ْم ََو َجا َهدََ َم َع ُه ْم‬،َ‫َب ِه ْم‬
ِ ‫َو َمنْ َ َت ِب َع ُه ْمَ َفلَح َِق‬،َ
َ ‫ب‬ َ ‫َي ْث ِر‬
This is a written document from Muhammad, the Nabi, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬between the
believers and Muslims of Quraish, the people of Yathrib and those who followed them and joined with
them, where they resided with them and undertook Jihaad alongside them, that they are one Ummah to
the exclusion of the people (i.e. mankind or everyone else) …

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/187-192), Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar: 2/307-308, Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/40-49 and
Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/45-46].

In addition to these selections:

And the one who follows us (i.e. submits) from the Yahood (Jews) then he will be helped and treated
justly …

No Mushrik will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection or a
life and no Mushrik will intervene in favour of a Quraysh over a believer … And it is not Halaal for a
believer, who has affirmed this document and has believed in Allah and the Last day, to support a
Muhdith (i.e. someone who has committed a crime from amongst the crimes) or provide him with shelter
…

That the Jews spend alongside the believers as long as they are in war …

That there is mutually support (or coming to assistance) between the people of this document against the
one who makes war against them …

That Quraish and their allies will not be given protection …

That they (those of this document) mutually support each other against the one who attacks Yathrib …”
(1).

We hope that what we have presented in terms of texts and evidences are sufficient to shed light upon the
aspects of this study “The permission to fight or to engage in Al-Qitaal” in respect to distinguishing the
concept or understanding of the permission (Al-Idhn) from other than it … in addition to the
understanding of the Qitaal (fighting) that had been prohibited for which a permission then came and
then, after that, the command for its obligation was issued, as has been detailed.
By that we have reached the conclusion of this study and now proceed on to the following study …

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/230-242). Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy said upon the margins (or in
commentary) of ‘Fiqh us-Seerah’ by Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy: “This document was related by Ibn Ishaaq without an Isnaad”.
And Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy in his book ‘Fiqh us-Seerah’ said: “It was mentioned by Ibn Khaithamah
and he provided the Isnaad … And Al-Imaam Ahmad mentioned it in his Musnad …” And he quoted (or presented) both
Sanads (chains) … Refer to: Fiqh us-Seerah, Al-Ghazaaliy: 197, Fiqh us-Seerah, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy:
181, At-tahaaluf As-Siyaasiy Fil Islaam, Muneer Muhammad Al-Ghadbaan: 97-105].

The Second Study

A brief presentation of information about the wars and their cessation by

Mu’aahadaat (treaties) within the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the most
prominent Ahkaam deduced from them

Foreword: About the main points included in this study

The first point: The situation of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah, at the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in respect
to its relationship with what was around it within the Arabian Peninsula and outside of it.

- The Yahood (Jews) and the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬making a treaty with them.
- Quraish and its declaration of war against the Islamic State in Al-Madinah.
- The Mushrikoon (polytheists) in the Arabian Peninsula (Al-Jazeerat ul-Arabiyah) and the states
surrounding them.
The second point: The most significant events related to armed conflict and treaties (Mu’aahadaat)
recorded in the Seerah An-Nabawiyah; its causes and some discussion about the Ahkaam derived from
them.

1 - The first Islamic Sariyyah (military excursion) and what is deduced from it.
2 - The first Ghazwah (military expedition or battle) of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and what is deduced from it.
3 - The first Badr and what is deduced from it.
4 - The treaty with Bani Mudlij and Bani Damrah, and what is deduced from it.
5 - Intercepting the caravan of Abi Sufyaan, the Ghazwah of Badr and what is deduced from that.
6 - Banu Sulaim and Ghatafaan declare war against Al-Madinah and what is deduced from that.
7 - Banu Qainuqaa’ breach the ‘Ahd (covenant)
8 - Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf breaches the ‘Ahd (covenant).
9 - The Ghazwah (military expedition or battle) of Uhud and what is deduced from it.
10 - Banu Asad Bin Khuzaimah declare war against Al-Madinah.
11 - Hudhail declare war against Al-Madinah.
12 - The tragedy of ‘Ar-Rajee’’ and then Bi’r Ma’oonah.
13 - Banu An-Nadeer breach the ‘Ahd (covenant).
14 - Doumat ul-Jandal declare war against Al-Madinah.
15 - The Ghazwah of Bani Mustaliq and its cause.
16 - Ghazwat ul-Khandaq (Battle of the trench) or Al-Ahzaab.
17 - Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah and the purpose of convening it.
18 - Ghazwat of Khaibar and its cause.
19 - The Saraayaa (military excursions) following the Ghazwah of Khaibar.
20 - Ghazwah (battle) of Mu’tah and its cause.
21 - Ghazwah of Dhaat As-Salaasil and its cause.
22 - The Quraish breach of the treat of Al-Hudaibiyah and the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah.
23 - Ghazwah Hunain and its cause.
24 - Ghazwah Tabook and its cause. And the Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with some of the Northern powers
(i.e. of the Arabian Peninsula) and Far’wah Bin ‘Amr Al-Judhaamiy, the governor of Ma’aan, embracing
Islaam and his murder at the hands of the Romans.
25 - Thaqeef embracing Islaam and the revelation of the beginning of Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah).

- The Persians declare war against Al-Madinah, the governor of Persia over Yemen embraces Islaam and
Yemen becomes part of the Islamic State.
- The Romans and the command of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, before his death, concerning the dispatch of the
army of Usaamah to the province of Ash-Shaam (Levante) that was subservient to the Roman state.

The third point: A presentation of some of the opinions of the A’immah (Imaams i.e. major scholars)
and some of the recent Islamic writers concerning the reasons for the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and whether
they were in defence (Difaa’) or offensive (Hujoom)?

- The opinions of the Qudamaa’ (classical scholars): Firstly: The opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. Secondly: The
opinion of Ibn Katheer.
- The opinions of the recent or modern writers and scholars: Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy and
some Islamic writers and thinkers including Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani.
- The opinion that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were defensive: (1) Ash-Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, (2) Dr.
Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy, (3) ‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy.
- The opinion that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were not restricted to defence: (1) Dr. Muhammad Hasan,
(2) Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadaan Al-Boutiy, (3) Al-Muqaddim Yaaseen Suwaid.

The fourth point: Our opinion in respect to the reasons or causes of the wars of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.
- The study here is restricted to the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and its causes, and to Al-Jihaad in a general
manner and its causes.

1 - The Saraayaa (military excursions) and Ghazwaat (military expeditions or battles) against Quraish and
what was linked to that: They were defensive and offensive.
2 - The Ghazwat (battle of) Badr - the will of both sides or parties coincided to fight.
3 - Uhud and Al-Khandaq: There cause or reason was defensive.
4 - Quraizhah: The cause was the breaching of the ‘Ahd (covenant).
5 - Khaibar: Its cause was Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy (offensive defence).
6 - The Saraayaa (military excursions) and Ghazwaat (military expeditions or battles) to other than
Quraish, their cause was offensive defence (Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy) i.e. Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy
(preventative war).
7 - Fat’h (conquest of) Makkah: Its cause was the breaching of the covenant (Al-‘Ahd).
8 - The Ghazwah of Mu’tah and then Tabook followed by the command to march the army of Usaamah
to Ash-Shaam: The reason for all of that was offensive defence (Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy).
9 - Warning to the Mushrikeen who break the covenant (An-Naakitheen) following the revelation of
Soorah Al-Baraa’ah (At-Taubah): Its cause was the breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant).
10 - Non-specification of the ‘Ahd (covenant) with the Mushrikeen who do not break their covenant
(non-Naakitheen): Its reason was the necessity of vacating the Islamic base within the Arabian Peninsula
of a permanent presence of non-Muslims.
 The Second Study

A brief presentation of information about the wars and their cessation by

Mu’aahadaat (treaties) within the Seerah of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the most
prominent Ahkaam deduced from them

Foreword: About the main points included in this study:

We have undertaken this (specific) study for the purpose of explaining the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad
and the causes (or reasons) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) which have been indicated to by the Seerah of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬in his wars (i.e. his Ghazawaat and Saraayaa) and in his Mu’aahadaat (treaties). This is what we have
intended and sought in relation to the Ahkaam (rulings) deduced from what is mentioned, whilst it is not
our intention to deduce all of the Ahkaam that these wars and treaties have guided to. That is because the
study is governed by the subject which this volume (of this doctorate) is addressing and this volume
intended to only address the subject area of the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad. For that reason, it was
necessary for this study to be restricted to that which is connected to the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy)
of Al-Jihaad and what is linked to that in terms of the causes or reasons behind the wars and treaties
included within the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

It is hoped that the treatment of this study will be completed by revolving the discussion around the
following four points:

1 - To illustrate an image of the situation of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah, in the time of the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in relation to its relationships with those surrounding it, within the Arabian Peninsula and
outside of it.

2 - To indicate to the most significant Saraayaa (military excursions), Ghazawaat (military

expeditions or battles) and Mu’aahadaat (treaties) within the Prophetic Seerah, in respect to what is
apparent from them regarding the reasons or causes that led to or motivated them. That is in addition to
mentioning some of the Ahkaam (legal rulings) deduced from them, regarding that which revolves around
the issue of the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad. As for the Ghazawaat and Saraayaa in which those reasons
and Ahkaam are repeated, then we will not extend the study by mentioning them.

3 - A presentation of some of what the Islamic writers said regarding the reasons and causes of
the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to them being defensive or offensive?

4 - A summary of what we view to represent the reasons for the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the impact of
the treaties (Mu’aahadaat) in respect to them, based upon the reality indicated to by the Prophetic Seerah.
The first point: An image of the situation of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah, in the
time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in relation to its relationships with those surrounding it,
within the Arabian Peninsula and outside of it.

- The heads and leaders of Al-Madinah who had been resolved upon the establishment of the Islamic
State in Al-Madinah within their land had expected that the consequences of the Hijrah of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
to them and the establishment of that state, would be that most if not all the tribes of the Arabian
Peninsula, would declare war against this newly emerged state, whether that would happen sooner or later.
That is because the Da’wah (call) that this state is established upon and which all the people are invited to,
represents a Da’wah to a complete overturning of the life of the people, their societies and states. It
addresses their beliefs (Aqaa’id), values, thoughts, systems and modes of living that proceed upon them …
And it provides, as an alternative or replacement for all of that, a new form for life established upon
Imaan in Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, that He is the Creator alone in whose hand rests every matter and thing,
that He alone is the One whom we must take our legislation from, in addition to our values and systems
which govern how we proceed in this life, from the divinely inspired revelation that has descended upon
the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. And that all of the people will stand before their Creator on the day of
standing and be accounted regarding the extent of their adherence to the Ahkaam (rulings) that were
revealed to them. Then after that, it will be either to Jannah (paradise) or to the Naar (fire)!

I say: Those men involved in the establishment of the Islamic State expected that once this Da’wah had
become embodied within a state in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, the Arabian Peninsula, in its greater
part, would declare war, sooner or later, against it. That is because the leaders of the old Jaahiliy (pre-
Islam) situation would see within this newly emerged state a danger (and threat) to their interests and
beliefs. They would lose (or sacrifice) followers in the igniting of wars one following another with the aim
of eliminating this state before its roots became firmly consolidated and before its branches extended!
Indeed, the men of this Islamic State expected even more than that and even expected that the major
powers, which surrounded the Arabian Peninsula, would intervene with the aim and objective of bringing
down this state, thus forcing the Muslims to engage in wars with those powers.

Evidences of that include:

- What Abu l-Haitham Ibn At-Tayyahaan, one of the leaders of the Ansaar, said at the second pledge of
Al-‘Aqabah. In respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬moving from Makkah to Al-Madinah, which means the
establishment of the Islamic State, he addressed the Ansaar saying: “Know that if you take him out (i.e.
from Makkah to Al-Madinah), the Arabs will come at you from a single bow! (all together)” (1).

- In addition, another of the men attending the Bai’ah (pledge), ‘Al-‘Abbaas Bin Nadlah, spoke about what
he expected in terms of an inevitable clash with the Arabs and non-Arabs, if the Bai’ah was to be
concluded, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬moved to Al-Madinah and established the Islamic State within it. He said
addressing the Ansaar: “Do you know upon what you are giving the Bai’ah to this man?” They replied:
“Yes”. He said: “You are giving the Bai’ah upon declaring war upon the red and the black from the
people (i.e. against everyone in this Dunyaa)” (2). This demonstrates what had been expected amongst the
Ansaar in relation to the stance of the Arabian Peninsula and the international powers around it, as a
result of the establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah.

How then did matters between this state and the powers surrounding it develop? Ibn ul-Qayyim said:

“When the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬arrived in Al-Madinah, the disbelievers came to be divided into three categories in
respect to him:
- A category whom he made treaties and truces with so that they would not declare war against him,
support others against him or ally with his enemy against him, whilst they remained upon their disbelief
and their blood and property secure (and safe).

- A category that made war against him and opposed him with hostility and animosity.

- A category who left him neither making a treaty with him or fighting against him. Rather, they waiting to
say how matters would develop in respect to his affair and the affair of his enemies” (3).

[(1) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id, Al-Haithamiy: 6/47, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/191). It was also mentioned
within As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah. Its meaning is: Against those from them who make war against him i.e. the Arabs and non-
Arabs: 2/18-19, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/126].

This is what Ibn ul-Qayyim said when summarising the situation of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in his
capacity and description as the one possessing the Da’wah and the head of the Islamic State.

The details of that is as follows: That those whom the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with
(Muwaada’ah) immediately upon his arrival in Al-Madinah were the Jews of Bani Qaynuqaa’, Bani Nadeer
and Bani Quraizhah. They were like small states around Al-Madinah with which the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬contracted a treaty with, resembling that which today is called a good neighbourly treaty, between
them and the Islamic State. Each party of them had an independent entity and specific regime. They were
not subservient to the Islamic system and they were not residents within the citizenry of the Islamic State.
They were therefore not like the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who were subservient to the Islamic system and
considered to be citizens within the citizenry of the Islamic State, even if they had not embraced Islaam.

This is contrary to the view of ‘Muhammad Shadeed’ in his book “Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam” in which he
considered them to be like the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from the citizenry or subjects of the Islamic State. He
stated the following: “It is an oversight or error, to consider what took place between him (i.e. the
Messenger ‫ )ﷺ‬and the Jews of Al-Madinah to represent military battles and that is because they were
subjects of the Islamic State and then separated from obedience and betrayed the state in the worst of
circumstances” (1).

It is our view that the shaping of the relationship between those Jews and the Islamic State was closer to
the type of relationship that exists between states that are tied together by a particular Mu’aahadah (treaty).
Our view is supported by what was mentioned in the “Mukhtasar” of ‘Al-Muzaniy’ which stated: “Al-
Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (rh) said: We do not know of someone holding a contrary view from amongst the
people of the science of the Seerah, regarding that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, upon arriving in Al-Madinah, made a
treat (Muwaada’ah) with the Jews as a whole upon other than the (basis of the) Jizyah. Also, that the
following Qawl (statement) of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla was revealed in respect to them:

َ‫كَ َفاحْ ُكمَ َب ْي َن ُه ْمَأَ ْوَأَعْ ِرضْ َ َع ْن ُه ْم‬

َ ‫َفإِنَجَ اءُو‬
So if they come to you, [O Muhammad], judge between them or turn away from them (Al-Maa’idah: 42).

In addition, it has not been established that the Hukm (rule) was applied over them {i.e. it has not been
established that they were Ahl Dhimmah who were subject or subservient to the Islamic rule]. He said:
And the Imaam does not have a choice in respect to anyone from those who have a treaty (Mu’aahideen)
whom the Hukm (rule) is applied upon [i.e. Ahl udh-Dhimmah) if they come to him in relation to a Hadd
(prescribed set punishment) of Allah Ta’Aalaa, and he must establish it due to what I described regarding
the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa (i.e. regarding the Jizyah and submission):

ََ‫َو ُه ْمَصَا ِغرُون‬

While they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29) (2)” (3).
[(1) Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam, Muhammad Shadeed: p134, (2) In respect to this Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy states that he doesn’t not
know of anyone who states that the Hukm of Islaam dominates over the Hukm of Shirk and is applied upon the Saghaar (i.e.
those mentioned in Aayah 29 of At-Taubah who accept the Jizyah), (3) Mukhtasar Al-Muzaniy: p280 within the collection of
Al-Umm of Ash-Shaafi’iy part or volume 8. And refer to: Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/867].

Regarding this Muwaada’ah (treaty) contracted by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬between the state of Al-
Madinah and its neighbouring Jewish tribes, Ibn ul-Qayyim stated the following: “And so he ‫ ﷺ‬made a
treaty with the Yahood (Jews) of Al-Madinah and a document of security was written between them” (1).

This demonstrates the affair of those whom the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬convened a treaty with (Sulh or
Muwaada’ah).

- As for those who opposed him with hostility and animosity and declared a state of war against the
Islamic State and its people, then they were the Quraish and that occurred immediately upon the move of
the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to Al-Madinah and the establishment of the state within it.

As for the tribes spread out across the Arabian Peninsula then they followed the steps of Quraish in
respect to their hostility towards the new state in the period that followed.

Regarding the declaration of war by Quraish against Al-Madinah we do not mean that which the Quraish
had been undertaking in terms of inflicting harm, suffering and torture upon the Muslims whilst they were
in Makkah until they were compelled to migrate from it … We do not intend that here. Rather, what we
mean is, regardless of the abuses of Quraish preceding the establishment of the state, that what the
Quraish suddenly overcame the heads of Quraish in terms of conduct and behaviours following the
establishment of the state in Al-Madinah, indicate to the impulsiveness of Quraish to declare war upon the
new state in Al-Madinah and to regard its people as people of war (Ahl ul-Harb).

The evidence for that is what has been recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari as related by ‘Abdullah Ibn
Mas’ood (ra). He spoke about Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh and said: “Sa’d bin Mu`adh was a friend of Umaiyah bin
Khalaf and whenever Umaiyah passed through Al-Madinah, he used to stay with Sa’d, and whenever Sa’d
went to Makkah, he used to stay with Umaiyah. When Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬arrived at Medina, Sa`d
went to perform `Umrah and stayed at Umaiyah's home in Makkah. He said to Umaiya, "Tell me of a time
when (the Masjid) is empty so that I may be able to perform Tawaf around the Ka`ba." So Umaiyah went
with him about midday. Abu Jahl met them and said, "O Abu Safwaan! Who is this man accompanying
you?" He said, "He is Sa’d." Abu Jahl addressed Sa’d saying, "I see you wandering about safely in Makkah
in spite of the fact that you have given shelter to the people who have changed their religion (i.e. became
Muslims) and have claimed that you will help them and support them. By Allah, if you were not in the
company of Abu Safwaan, you would not have returned back to your family safely." Sa’d, raising his voice,
said to him, "By Allah, if you should stop me from doing this (i.e. performing Tawaf) I would certainly
prevent you from something which is more valuable for you, that is, your passage through Al-Madinah
…” (2).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/126 and refer to Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah also by ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/869, (2) Saheeh
ul-Bukhaari: 3950, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/282].

And in another related version recorded by Al-Baihaqi it stated: “By Allah, if you were to prevent me
from making Tawaaf around the House (i.e. Ka’bah) I would surely cut of your trade to Ash-Shaam” (1).

This incident indicates that Abu Jahl considered Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh to be from the people at war (Ahl ul-
Harb) in relation to Quraish. Had he not entered Makkah under the security and protection of one of its
leaders his blood would have been shed! This new conduct from the heads of Makkah towards the people
of Al-Madinah did not occur prior to the establishment of the Islamic State within it. It had not been
necessary for any of the people of Al-Madinah to attain a security of protection (Amaan) allowing them to
enter Makkah! Indeed, Quraish used to hate to think about the occurrence of a state of war between them
and the people of Al-Madinah prior to this new situation. In this regard, they stated the following when
addressing the people of Al-Madinah: “By Allah, there is no region of the Arabs that is more hateful to us
for war to break out between us and them, than the one belonging to you” (2). This narration also
indicates that the trade caravans of Quraish heading towards Ash-Shaam (the Levante i.e. Syrian region)
were in security prior to this incident and the Islamic State had not subjected it to harm i.e. the Islamic
State, up until that point, had not treated the people of Makkah with the treatment of the people at war
(Ahl ul-Harb) and as such it did not impose upon them an economic blockade, confiscate any caravan or
attack them in any way!

The meaning of this is that the hands holding the reins of matters in Makkah are those which initiated and
declared war against the Islamic State in Al-Madinah and considered the Muslims to be from the people at
war (Ahl ul-Harb) whom they would not allow to enter into Makkah unless it was as Musta’mineen (i.e.
under an agreement of security of protection)!

[(1) Dalaa’il An-Nabuwah, Al-Baihaqi: 3/25, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf): 2/192].

- Another evidence indicating that the heads of Makkah were first to declare war against the Islamic State
in Al-Madinah or hastened to do that, is what has been recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: “Abdur
Rahman Bin Ka’b related from a man from the companions of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) of Quraish had written to ‘Ibn Ubayy’ and those who worshiped idols from amongst the
Aws and the Khazraj, whilst the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was in Al-Madinah before the occurrence of Badr! (They
wrote) “Verily, you have given sanctuary (or refuge) to one of our own and we swear by Allah, that you
must fight him and drive him out or we will surely march upon you with all and everyone that we have,
until we kill your fighters and enslave your women”. Then when that reached Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and
those with him from those who worshipped idols, they met and gathered to fight against the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.
Then when news of that reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬he met them and said: “The exaggerated threat of
Quraish has reached you. They are not plotting against you more than what you wish to plot by your own
selves… do you wish to fight against your sons and brothers!” When they heard that from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
they dispersed …” (1).

The above then demonstrates what the Quraish hastened to do in terms of declaring a state of war
between them and Al-Madinah, irrespective of the hostility that they inflicted upon the Muslims and the
injustices that they made befall upon them prior to the establishment of the Muslims’ state in Al-Madinah.

- As for the affair of the non-Quraish tribes located within the Arabian Peninsula and the affair of the
states surrounding the Peninsula, then they did not practise regarding the state of Al-Madinah their
aggressive and hostile activity against it, immediately upon the establishment of the state, as Quraish had
done! Rather, that hostility manifested after that as will be explained within the following points:

The second point: The most significant incidents relating to armed conflict and
treaties recorded in the Prophetic Seerah, from those which make clearly apparent
the causes that motivated them, whilst also mentioning some of the Ahkaam that
are deduced from them related to the subject of the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad.

- After the Quraish initiated the declaration of the state of war between it and the Islamic State, in the
manner explained above, it became natural for the state in Al-Madinah to deal with Quraish according to
the dictates of this state of war.
The activity of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬for the sake of consolidating the standing of this state and in response
to Quraish declaring a state of war against Al-Madinah he ‫ ﷺ‬was directed towards sending out Saraayaa
(military sorties or excursions) and going out on Ghazawaat (military expeditions) towards locations west
of Al-Madinah targeting three matters:

1 - To threaten the trade route towards Ash-Shaam (greater Syria) that the Quraish travelled upon
which posed an economic threat upon Makkah.

[(1) Sunan Abi Dawud: 3004, 3/213. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh ul-Isnaad” in his [Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud] 2595, 2/582].

2 - Convening Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with tribes spread across that region to neutralise them in
respect to the conflict taking place between Makkah and Al-Madinah, if it was not possible to win them
over to its side of the conflict. “That is because the original position is for those tribes to incline and lean
towards Quraish and cooperate with it. That is based on historic alliances between them which the
Qur’aan Al-Kareem named ‘Ielaaf’ (‫( )إيالف‬in Soorah Quraish) through which the Quraish sought to
secure its trade with Ash-Shaam and Yemen” (1).

3 - To display or manifest the Islamic power emerging in Al-Madinah and to make prominent its
challenge to Quraish, the leader of the Arab tribes in the Peninsula. This was a matter that made the Jews
and the Mushrikeen of Al-Madinah, in addition to those living around it, feel a threat against them if they
were to engage in any hostile activity against the emerging Islamic power or incline towards Quraish in
their struggle and conflict against the Muslims.

In line with this we will now point out the most significant military actions and peace treaties that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertook to accomplish these goals and objectives mentioned above:

1 - The first Islamic Sariyyah (military sortie or excursion) targeting Quraish was the Sariyyah of
Hamzah (ra) that took place in the seventh month following the Hijrah however when the two sides
were prepared to fight Majdi Bin ‘Amr Al-Juhaniy, who was an ally to both sides, acted as intermediary
between them, prevented them and consequently there was no fighting (2).

That which can be derived from what was reported about this Sariyyah includes:

A - The external activity of the Islamic State in respect to convening Mu’aahadaat (treaties) or peace with
neighbouring tribes preceded the military actions that the state undertook. The evidence for this is that the
Sariyyah (military excursion) of Hamzah (ra) represented absolutely the first military action undertaken by
the Islamic State. It was directed against the Quraish at a time when the tribe of Juhainah, situated on the
Red Sea coast, was already in a peace treaty with the state of Al-Madinah, as it was this tribe which acted
as an intermediary to prevent the fighting between the Muslims and their enemies.

B - That it is permissible for the Islamic State to convene a peace treaty with another state which is in
itself bound by a peace treaty to the enemies of the Islamic State, upon the condition that this treaty (with
the enemy state) by the state the Muslims have a treaty with, does not extend to an agreement to support
that enemy state, in the case where clashes between it and the Muslims takes place in warfare!

[(1) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p27, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/20) and Zaad
ul-Ma’aad: 3/163].

C - It is permissible for the Islamic State to leave fighting against its enemies after it has prepared and
readied itself to do that, responding positively to the mediation of another state as long as harm upon the
Muslims is not a consequence built upon that.
2 - The first Ghazwah (military expedition) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was the Ghazwah of
“Waddaan” and it has also been called “Al-Abwaa’u” (1) which took place at the beginning of the
12th month after Al-Hijrah. It targeted a caravan of Quraish however it missed it and during this
expedition he ‫ ﷺ‬made a treat (Muwaada’ah) with Makhshiy Bin ‘Amr Ad-Damriy who was the leader
of Bani Damrah (2). The following was stated within the treaty:

“Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem. This is a letter (document) from Muhammad the Messenger of Allah to
Bani Damrah. They are secured (i.e. have an Amaanah) over their properties and lives and they have
support (from the Muslims) against those who attack them unless they make war in a manner that is
against (or negatively impacts) the Deen of Allah! And if the Nabi calls them to support him, they must
respond positively and through that they have the Dhimmah (contract of protection) of Allah and His
Messenger …” (3).

That which can be derived from what was reported about this Ghazwah includes:

A - That it is permissible for the Islamic State to contract a defensive treaty between it and another state if
the Maslahah (interest) of the Muslims requires that and as long as no harm results from such a treaty. In
such a situation, it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to support this allied state if it is called upon to
provide it against the aggressing disbelievers, just as it is permissible for the Islamic State to request from
the allied state to support it via weapons or men to fight beneath the Raayah (banner) of the Islamic State
against the disbeliever enemies!

3 - And it was mentioned within the Seerah: That “Kurz Bin Jaabir Al-Fihriy” stole some cattle
from the grazing pastures of Al-Madinah. And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, along with some of the
Muslims, in the 13th month following the Hijrah (emigration). They reached a side of Badr however they
did not catch up with him (i.e. he escaped their grasp). They then returned (to Al-Madinah) and this hunt
and chase was known as the “Ghazwah of Al-Badr Al-Uolaa” (the first Badr) (4).

[(1) Two locations neighbouring each other with 6-8 miles distance between them. Al-Abwaa’ is 24 miles from Al-Madinah.
Look to map 36 on p60 of ‘The Atlas of Islamic History’ by Dr. Hussein Mu’nis, (2) Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/18), (3)
Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf, As-Suhailiy: 3/28, (4) Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/22) and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/166].

What can be extracted or deduced from this Ghazwah:

A - The legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of defending the property of the Muslims if the enemy aggresses
against them and of the attempt to recover them.

B - The permission to leave the Qitaal for a Maslahah if the Muslims were unable to recover their
properties.

4 - The Seerah mentions: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a Muwaada’ah (treaty) with
Bani Mudlij and their allies from Bani Damrah in the 16th month following the Hijrah. That was when
they targeted a caravan of Quraish in Dhi l-‘Ushairah in the area of Yanba’, in the direction of Ash-Shaam,
however they missed it. This was the same caravan that he ‫ ﷺ‬went out to intercept on its return from
Ash-Shaam but it escaped him once more and it represented the cause for the battle of Badr (1).

From what was reported about this and what preceded it the following is deduced:

That the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬restricted his military activity against the Quraish whilst he did not target the
neighbouring tribes to Al-Madinah which were spread upon the caravan route. Rather, his activity in
respect to these tribes was directed towards contracting peace treaties with them or defence treaties.
The explanation for that, is that Quraish had initiated the declaration of the state of war between them
and Al-Madinah. As for the other tribes, then there did not appear from them, until that time, any hostile
activity against the Muslims. Therefore, he refrained his hand from fighting them with the exception of
Kurz Bin Jaabir Al-Fihriy, as previously mentioned.

Indeed, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬restricted his military activity to target the Quraish specifically alone and he
pursued a policy of pressure against them in accordance to the state of war that they had initiated by
declaring it against him.

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬only did that in accordance to the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah. That is
because Quraish at that time was the master of the Arabian Peninsula and held the highest word within it.
Consequently, it represented the material barrier or obstacle preventing the spread of the Da’wah within
the Peninsula. Therefore, if this barrier was to be broken or if Quraish were to enter into Islaam, then the
rest of the tribes of the Peninsula would quickly enter into the new Deen without major difficulties.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: )Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/21) and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/166-167]

That is supported by what was mentioned in Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: ‘Amr Bin Salimah said:

“… And the Arabs (other than Quraish) delayed their conversion to Islaam till the Conquest (of Makkah).
They used to say: "Leave him (i.e. Muhammad) and his people Quraish. If he overpowers them then he is
a true Prophet. So, when Mecca was conquered, then every tribe rushed to embrace Islam, and my father
hurried to embrace Islam before (the other members of) my tribe …” (1).

Based on this the greatest concern of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in this stage can be listed in the following matters:

A - To not clash with other than Quraish from the Arab tribes to prevent the dispersal of the Islamic
strength or power over a number of fronts, from one angle. And from another angle, to prevent those
tribes from joining with Quraish in its conflict against the Muslims.

B - To increase the strength (or power) of the Islamic State with the aim of consolidating it in terms of the
capability to engage in major wars that it was expected to face against its enemies and also to cast fear in
the hearts of the Jews of Al-Madinah and the Mushrikeen residing within it. That is so that they do not let
themselves be seduced into having ambitions in respect to the Islamic State or causing it trouble.

C - That the one close and far off understands that the fundamental and main reason for the struggle
between the new Islamic State and the leaders of Quraish was only “The Islamic Da’wah”.

- That is because it was Quraish who initiated the declaration of war against this Da’wah, before the
establishment of the state and after its establishment, wanting to extinguish its light and wipe out its
followers or carriers.

- And it was not the Muslims who initiated the hostility but rather only responded to that hostility which
the Quraish had begun. And based upon that state of war that was declared against them, the Muslims
fought against it with the aim of removing this obstacle from the path of the Islamic Da’wah. The
targeting of the caravans of Quraish represented no more than a weapon from amongst the weapons
utilised in this conflict to weaken that obstacle that stood in the way of the spread of the Da’wah (i.e. the
Quraish in Makkah). If that obstacle was to be weakened and was to surrender, then the tribes of the
Arabian Peninsula would rush to enter into Islaam, in a manner indicated to previously.
[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 4302, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/22. The following was recorded in ‘Al-Isaabah’ no. 5859, 2/533: “’Amr Bin
Salimah (with a Kasrah on the (letter) ‘Laam’) Al-Jaramiy, his Kinaayah was Abu Yazeed … He related from his father the story
of how he became Muslim and his return to his people (i.e. tribe) and it spoke about how ‘Amr Bin Salimah was put forward as
the Imaam despite his young age because he knew the most Qur’aan amongst them …”].

And in respect to the reasoning for why the Muslims’ targeted or sought to intercept the trade caravans of
Quraish, then most of the books written by Muslim writers have indicated within them that they were
equal to exacting compensation for the properties of the Muslims that the Mushrikeen (polytheists) in
Makkah had confiscated when the Muslims migrated to Al-Madinah and left them behind (1). However, I
do not see the need for such reasoning because the state of war that existed is sufficient to make
permissible, in respect to both sides of the conflict, to take whatever their hands can fall upon from the
properties of their adversary.

Ustaadh Ali Ali Mansoor said: “Was it not the international law that permits the one who is in a state of
war to take as much booty from his adversary as he is able to?” (2).

Evidence supporting that the state of war is sufficient to target the properties of the adversary and to take
them as booty, is that when the Arab tribes later declared war against the Muslims and the Islamic military
sorties and expeditions went out to discipline those tribes, the Muslims use to take what they could from
the properties of those tribes. That was whilst there were amongst those tribes which had declared war
against the Muslims, those which had yet to incur any material loss to the properties of the Muslims
(whether that was silent or non-silent wealth)! (3) so that what the Muslims took could be considered to
be a compensation for what they had taken from the Muslims in terms of wealth and properties (4).

In respect to the refusal of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to place the properties of the Muslims which they had left
behind in Makkah at the time of the Hijrah a subject of discussion or examination following the conquest
of Makkah, after some of the Muhaajir (emigrant) Muslims requested that their old properties be returned
to them, in respect to this I say: It may be that the refusal of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to discuss this issue give
strength to our opinion in respect to the properties of the Muslims which were confiscated by the Quraish
having any part to play in the Muslims targeting the trade caravans of Makkah.

[(1) Refer for example to: Tafseer ul-Qur’aan ul-Kareem, Ash-Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, p30, International relations (Al-
‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah) Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy, p128 and Majallah Hadaarat ul-Islaam, year 4 edition 9, article by Dr.
Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy entitled: ‘The objectives of the Islamic conquests’ p50, Dhu-l-Qa’idah, April 1964, and Al-Mujtama’ Al-
Madaniy (The civil society) by Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy p30, (2) Ash-Shree’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-
‘Aamm, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor, p357, (3) Al-Maal As-Saamit (silent wealth/property): This is like gold, silver and goods. Al-Maal As-
Saa’it (non-silent property): That which has a voice like the sheep, cow and camel, (4) For example: The Ghanaa’im (booties)
which the Muslims attained in the Ghazwah of Al-Mustaliq (Seerah Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/6) and the Ghanaa’im
(booties) that they attained in the Ghazwah of Doomat ul-Jandal (Seerah Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/258)].

The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬opened (and
conquered) Makkah Abu Ahmad (1) spoke to him in respect to their homes and the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬kept him waiting (i.e. for an answer). So the people said to Abu Ahmad: O Abu Ahmad! Verily, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dislikes for you to go back to a matter in terms of your properties that you had
been inflicted with for the sake of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla …” (3).

5 - It was mentioned in the Seerah: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out to intercept the
caravan of Quraish which had escaped him on its way to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) at Dhaat ul-
Ushairah in Yanba’. He went out against it this time upon its return from Ash-Shaam to Makkah in
Ramadhaan of the second year of Hijrah. It was led by Abu Sufyaan and he missed it this time as well.
However, Quraish learnt of the danger posed against its caravan and so went out with 1000 fighters to
protect it without knowing that it had escaped and was safe. The meeting between the two sides was
therefore not in accordance to a set appointment (or agreed time) (3). It was in this way that the battle of
Badr came to pass and the victory belonged to the Muslims Alhamdu Lillah. Ibn ul-Qayyim described the
effect and impact of this victory in respect to Al-Madinah and around it saying:

“And he Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬entered Al-Madinah triumphant and victorious which led every enemy inside and
around Al-Madinah to be fearful of him. Consequently, a large number of the people of Al-Madinah
embraced Islaam and it was at that time that ‘Abdullah Ibn Ubay’ the Munaafiq (hypocrite) outwardly
entered into Islaam alongside his companions …” (4).

From the targeting of the caravan of Abu Sufyaan and what followed in terms of the battle of Badr, the
following can be extracted:

A - It became clearly evident from the Muslims outweighing, following consultation, to abandon the
caravan and continuing in its pursuance and to prepare to fight Quraish (4), it is clear from that, that the
main objective of the Muslims for intercepting the caravans of Quraish was not to attain the property and
wealth, even if that was legitimate in itself! Rather, the long-term objective from this course of action was
to weaken that obstacle standing in the way of the Da’wah and obstructing it, through effecting that
obstacle economically through those consecutive campaigns targeting the caravan of Quraish. That is in
addition to what that continuous targeting brings about in terms of the collapse of the adversary in the
end of the matter, as a result of the state of distress, anxiety and fear that the Quraish live through in
continuously regarding every caravan that sets off and every caravan that returns!

[(1) Abu Ahmad Bin Jahsh, his name was Abd Waqeel and it is said Thimaamah. He died after his sister Zainab Umm ul-
Mu’moneen in the time of the Khilafah of ‘Umar (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/240), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf:
2/240), (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/33) and As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/159,(4) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-
Qayyim: 3/188 and refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 4418, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/113].

B - The affirmation of the previously mentioned view is clearly evident within the battle of Badr, in terms
of the focus of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬when undertaking the military operations against Quraish specifically, being
because they (i.e. the Quraish) represented the obstacle in the way of the Islamic Da’wah and the spread
of Islaam, more than any other tribe within the Arabian Peninsula. Consequently, if this obstacle was
weakened and began to be broken down, the path of the Da’wah would be opened up before it and the
people would enter into Islaam in accordance to the level that this obstacle is removed from its path. That
is just as Ibn ul-Qayyim expressed in the aforementioned statement: “Consequently, a large number of the
people of Al-Madinah embraced Islaam” i.e. following the victory of the Muslims at Badr. Based on this,
it becomes clear that Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah (Fee Sabeelillah), supremacy over the opposing force
and removing it from the path, represents the ideal method of carrying the Da’wah and spreading the
word of Islaam!

It is worth pondering about what it was that made many people enter into the folds of Islaam in the
aftermath of the battle of Badr as Ibn ul-Qayyim mentioned.

It is Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah and victory over the force or power that stood as a rock in the way of
Islaam. It is a matter that makes the carriers of Islaam feel that they are being supported by a force and
power capable of protecting them and disciplining any force of Kufr that dares to challenge them!

Just as it makes the people who are being invited feel that it is not easy for those disbelieving forces to
harm them if they were to enter into the Deen of Allah. That is because Al-Jihaad lies in wait for anyone
who attempts to take the people away from their Deen!

Based upon this, we comprehend that the legal legitimacy of Islaam is dependent, fundamentally, in
representing a Tareeqah (method) for carrying the Da’wah to the people (or mankind). That is by
removing the material obstacle or barrier in the way between them and Islaam so that it shapes their lives
as the Creator of life has willed for them! This is a matter, that by its nature, makes the person, in the
shade of this Islaam, feel those feelings that the one who has found himself after being lost feels! After
that, the one who prefers to remain in the lost world and in darkness, then that is his affair and there is no
Ikraah (compulsion) in respect to the Deen. However, he will not have the right to impose his being lost
and being in darkness upon others and it will never be permitted for him to be an obstacle in the path of
regulating the life!

C - As for the reasoning provided for the battle of Badr and the portrayal “that Quraish had made an
open call to arms and left Makkah with all the men they had, seeking out Al-Madinah to fight the Muslims
and eliminate them in their homeland” (1) … And that the Muslims in this battle were not in “Other than
a position of self-defence and the war from its perspective was a defensive one and not offensive …” (1).

Then in respect to that I say: Regarding this portrayal of the battle of Badr which seeks to dispel the
accusation that it was the Muslims who initiated the fighting against Quraish, I see no call or reasoning for
it. That is in the case where we have already become aware that it was Quraish who initiated and declared
the state of war against Al-Madinah following the establishment of the Islamic State within it.
Consequently, the commencement of fighting, within this state of war, from the other side in the conflict,
represents a matter that is established to take place at any time, as long as the two sides have not agreed
upon a treaty that abolishes or cancels that prior state of war between them. It is our view that the reason
for the occurrence of the battle of Badr itself was as a result of the meeting of wills of the two sides
during it as I will be made clear when addressing the final point of this study Inshaa Allah.

6 - And it was mentioned in the Seerah: That Bani Sulaim and Ghatafaan declared war against Al-
Madinah following Badr. They were situated East of Al-Madinah (2) and they undertook gatherings at
the water of Bani Sulaim called “Qarqarat ul-Kudr” for the purpose of marching towards the Islamic
State. When the news of this reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬he pre-empted them with his army in
the area of their gathering, however they fled when they sensed that he was coming (2).

And we understand from this occurrence: That the Arab tribes had begun to support in its declaration
of war against the Muslims even though the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had been eagerly seeking to make peace with
them and convene treaties with them. However, what was the cause and reason for this new hostility and
animosity from the direction of the Arab tribes?

It may have been as a natural response to what was usual and customary amongst the Arabs in respect to
launching attacks against each other in the period of Jaahiliyyah in their description as representing a
means from amongst the means of life!

[(1) Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa-l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aam: ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p258. Also, Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam,
Muhammad Shadeed, p129-130, (2) Majmoo’ah al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah Lil-‘Ahd An-Nabawiy, Al-Khilafah Ar-Raashidah:
Muhammd Hameedullah: p257, (3) Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d: 2/31 (Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p60].

And perhaps, as some have said, they felt that the Muslims striking of the trade route, use by the caravans
of Quraish, could detrimentally impact them and as such they mobilised and acted against this economic
siege (1).

In any case, Ghatafaan and Banu Sulaim were of the forerunners from the tribes that declared war against
the Muslims (i.e. after Quraish).

7 - Following Badr the Jews around Al-Madinah began to breach or break their covenants with
the Islamic State. The following was mentioned in the Taareekh (history) of At-Tabariy: “Then the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬resided in Al-Madinah after leaving Badr. He had (prior to that) made a treaty or
agreement (Muwaada’ah), when he had first arrived in Al-Madinah, with the Jews, upon that they would
not assist anyone against him and that if an enemy was to attack they would [provide support to him.
Then when the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had killed those whom he had killed from Quraish at Badr the
Mushrikeen of Quraish began to display envy and animosity towards him. They said: Muhammad did not
face those who were good (or capable) at fighting and had he met us, he would have met a fighting that
resembles the fighting of none other and they displayed a breaching of the ‘Ahd (covenant) …” (2)

It was also stated in the History of At-Tabariy: “That Banu Qaynuqaa’ were the first (tribe) of the Jews to
breach what they had agreed between them and the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and they were fought
between Badr and Uhud” (3).

In this manner, it was these Jews who were the first to declare war against Al-Madinah through the
breaching of the ‘Ahd (covenant) and the affair came to an end via their forced evacuation from their
homes as a consequence of that.

8 - It was mentioned within the Seerah in respect to the events following the battle of Badr that
Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf broke the ‘Ahd (covenant) and he was from a collective or group of Jews that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had made an agreement or treaty (Muiwaada’ah) when he first arrived in Al-
Madinah.

The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “When the people of Badr were afflicted … Ka’b
Bin Al-Ashraf, who was a man from Tayyi’ whilst his mother was from Bani Nadeer, said: By Allah, If
Muhammad had afflicted (i.e. defeated) those people, the surely the underside of the ground is better than
its upper side. Then when the enemy of Allah became certain of the news he departed until he reached
Makkah … and he began to incite (them) against the Messenger of Allah …” (4).

[(1) Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p60, (2) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/479 and Dalaa’il An-Nabuwah, Al-
Baihaqi: 3/173, (3) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/479 and examine the incident of their breaching of the covenant in the Seerah of
Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/137) and As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/220, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf:
3/139)].

Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf had entered into agreement or treaty (Muwaada’ah) with the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬amongst the collective of the Jews of Al-Madinah who had made a treaty … Then when the
people of Badr were killed, that was unbearable upon him and so he went to Makkah and bewailed them
… Then when he returned to Al-Madinah he took to reciting poetry and talk about the Muslim women
until it harmed them and to the point that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: Who is Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf? For verily he
has harmed Allah and His Messenger!” (1).

Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf had been withdrawn from the people (or tribe) of his mother ‘Banu Nadeer’ within a
fortress of his close to their fortresses (2). He was eliminated one night within his hold up at the hands of
a group from the Ansaar as was detailed within the books of Seerah (3).

This incident indicates clearly that the killing of Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf was due to his breaching of the ‘Ahd
(covenant) and his declaration of war against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬.

9 - Then came the battle of Uhud and it is clear in respect to it that in addition to the resolve and
determination to continue the state of war which it had initially declared against the Muslims, it had come
this time alongside its allies (Ahaabeesh) (4) and those who obeyed them from amongst the tribes of
Kinaanah and Tihaamah (5). They marched towards the Muslims amongst three thousand fighters (6) and
when the news reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬he presented his opinion regarding the matter to the
Sahaabah and said: “It is my opinion that we should stay in Al-Madinah leaving them where they set
down. Then if they stay they will be in the worst position and if they enter upon us (i.e. inside Al-
Madinah) then we would fight them inside it …” (7).
[(1) Ahl udh-Dhimmah, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/845, (2) Muhammad Al-Qaa’id (The leader), Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibrahim:
p92, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/139), Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/487-491, Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/191-192, (4) The
allies of Quraish: Banu ul-Mustaliq, Banu ul-Hawn Bin Khuzaimah who had gathered together at Hubshiy which is a mountain
south of Makkah. They formed an alliance that they stand with Quraish as a single hand against others … They were therefore
called Ahaabeesh taken from the name of the mountain and it is also said that they were called that due to their coming
together (Tahbbushihim): As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/230, (5) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3.148), (6) As-Seerah Al-
Halabiyah: 2/230, (7) Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/149)].

It was mentioned in reports related to this Ghazwah after the war had broken up and Abu Sufyaan had
journey towards Makkah … After the Mushrikeen had been victorious in the second round of this war,
there came that which indicates that the Mushrikeen had been resolved to return and exterminate the
Muslims … “Some of them said to others: You have not accomplished anything, you struck (or afflicted)
their power and sharpness and then you left them whilst there remains amongst them the heads leaders)
who have gathered against you! So return so that we wipe them out completely. That (discussion) reached
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and so he called to the people and encouraged them to march out to meet
their enemy … And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims marched alongside him until they
reached “Hamraa’u l-Asad”. (At that time) Ma’bad Bin Abi Ma’bad Al-Khazaa’iy approached the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and embraced Islaam. And so he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded him to catch up with Abu
Sufyaan and to delay him (or send him away). And so he (Ma’bad) caught up with him (Abu Sufyaan) at
“Ar-Rawhaa” whilst he did not know that he had embraced Islaam. And so he (Abu Sufyaan) asked:
“What lies behind you od Abu Ma’bad?” He said: “Muhammad and his companions consumed by fire
against you and they have gone out with a collective number like that which has never gone out before,
whilst those who stayed back from his companions are regretful (that they didn’t join the army)” … Abu
Sufyaan then said: “By Allah, we have gathered one again to eradicate them!” He (Ma’bad) said: “Don’t do
that and I am a sincere advisor to you” And so they returned back to Makkah …” (1).

The following can be deduced from the news of this battle:

A - That the Ahaabeesh (allies of Quraish) who were the tribes of Bani Mustaliq and Banu Al-Hawn Bin
Khuzaimah in addition to the tribes of Kinaanah and Tihaamah (2), all declared war against Al-Madinah
by joining Quraish in this battle.

B - That when or if the enemies of the Muslims call the Muslims to fight, that it is not essential for the
Muslims to respond affirmatively to them. Rather, they can refrain from fighting their enemies in
accordance to what is in their interest.

C - That enabling the fighters of the enemies to enter the lands of the Muslims, if through that, under
special circumstances, opportunities were realised to defeat the enemy, without their being harm resulting
from that, is a matter that is justified in the Shar’a!

D - Muslims can resort to intermediaries to stop the war between them and the enemy if that was in the
interest (Maslahah) of the Muslims.

10 - In the aftermath of Uhud, Talhah and Salamah the two sons of Khuwailid began, amongst
their people and those who obeyed them, calling Banu Asad Bin Khuzaimah (3) to war against
the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬.

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/241-242 and similar to it in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/174), (2)
They were numerous tribes spread south of Makkah until Yemen, (3) They were located north east of Al-Madinah].

As such it was the tribe of Bani Asad that initiated the declaration of war against the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and
consequently the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬took the stance of Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy (Offensive defence) (1)
against them. And so he sent Abu Salamah at the head of 150 Muslim fighters “So they took possession
of a camel and sheep whilst they did not encounter a plot (i.e. evil)” (2).

11 - Similarly, the news reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that Khaalid Bin Sufyaan Al-
Hudhaliy had gathered a host together to attack Al-Madinah and through that ‘Al-Hudhail’ (3)
declared was against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬therefore sent those who
killed them, dispersed their collective and sufficient was Allah for the believers in battle (4).

12 - In the aftermath of Uhud the tragedy of ‘Ar-Rajee’ (5) occurred and then ‘Bi’r Ma’oonah (6)
in which there was treachery from the tribes of the Arabs of Al-Hijaaz and Najd against the
Islamic Da’wah carriers after he ‫ ﷺ‬had been sent to them based upon a request from the leaders of
those tribes and after they had agreed with the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to provide them with security and
protection.

And it was in this way that a number of tribes in Al-Hijaaz and Najd initiated the declaration of war
against the Muslims (7).

13 - Then there was the breaching of the ‘Ahd (covenant) of Bani Nadeer with the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬by the Jews residing around Al-Madinah. That was when they attempted to kill him ‫ﷺ‬
as narrated in the books of history and Seerah (8).

As such it was Banu Nadeer who initiated the declaration of war against the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and
the consequence of their betrayal was there forced evacuation from their homes.

[(1) Muhammad Al-Qaa’id: Lis-Saagh (Arkaan Harb) Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibrahim: p61, (2) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-
Qayyim: 3/243, (3) They were located to the south east of Al-Madinah, (4) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/243-244, (5) An area or region
close to the red sea coast between Yanba’ in the north and Jaddah in the south whilst it is closer to Jaddah, (6) South East of
Al-Madinah from the lands of Najd, (7) For the reports about Ar-Rajee’ refer to: Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/224-226
and the news of Bi’r Ma’oonah: Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/231-232), (8) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf:
3/240-241 and Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/550-553].

14 - In Rabee’ ul-Awwal of the 5th year of Al-Hijrah the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬received news
that in Doumat ul-Jandal, north of Al-Madinah (1), host had begun to gather together wanting to
attack Al-Madinah. And so he ‫ ﷺ‬went out at the head of 1000 Muslims. They learnt of that and
dispersed allowing the Muslims to take possession of some spoils before returning to Al-Madinah. And
during that Ghazwah (expedition) the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty (Muwaada’ah) with
‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn Al-Fazaariy (2).

The following was stated in Taareekh At-Tabariyy: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty
(Muwaada’ah) with ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn, for him to graze at Taghlamain (name of a place) and what lies in
line with it … That was because the land of ‘Uyaynah was barren and so the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
made an agreement (Muwaada’ah) with him that he would graze at Taghlamain up to Al-Maraad (a place
at the bottom of the plain that holds water) and what was there had become fertile due to rainfall.
Therefore, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made an agreement for him to graze there …” (3).

Consequently, we observe the following from the news of this Ghazwah:

A - That Doumat ul-Jandal had declared war against Al-Madinah and had begun to mobilise against the
Muslims. As such the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬adopted in response to it what is called a position of Ad-
Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy (the offensive defence) (4) and consequently caused that opposing hostile movement
to fail.
B - We also gain from the news of this Ghazwah that whoever wishes to make peace from the
disbelievers, then Islaam does not constrict or try and prevent that but rather it convenes with them
Mu’aahadaat (treaties) so as to release them from them constraints and crises that surround them, within
the limits set by what is in the Maslahah (interest) of the Da’wah, the Muslims and naturally free of any
harm. That is like the case of the Muwaada’ah (agreement) that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made with
‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn Al-Fazaariy.

15 - That was followed by the Ghazwah of Bani Al-Mustaliq (5).

[(1) In the middle between Ra’s Al-Khaleej Al-‘Arabiy (the top of the Arab Gulf) and the Ra’s Khaleej Al-‘Aqabah (Top of Gulf
of Aqabah), north east of Tabook and it is five nights from Damsacus, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/258),
Taareekh At-Tabariyy: 2/564 and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/255-256, (3) Taareekh At-Tabariyy: 2/564, (4) Muhammad Al-Qaa’id (the
leader) Lis-Saagh (Arkaan Harb [Pillars of war]), Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibrahim: p61, (5) This was in Sha’baan in the 5th
Hijri year before Al-Khandaq (trench) which was in Shawwaal of the 5th year Hijri as well. Ibn Hishaam related this Ghazwah as
being after Al-Khandaq (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/6). However, the correct view is that it took place before Al-Khandaq. That is
because Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh disputed with Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah regarding the people of Al-Ifk following the Ghazwah of Bani
Mustaliq whilst it is known that sa’d ibn Mu’aadh passed away after passing judgement upon Bani Quraizhah which was right
after Al-Khandaq. That indicates that the Ghazwah of Bani Mustaliq preceded the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq. Refer to Zaad ul-
Ma’aad: 3/256 (The margins or commentary)].

Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “And its cause: … Was that Al-Haarith Bin Diraar the Sayyid (leader) of Bani Al-
Mustaliq, with his people and those whom he could gather or influence from the Arabs, came to want to
wage war against the Messenger of Allah …” (1)

That is whilst we have previously known that when Quraish marched to Uhud with its Ahaabeesh (those
allied to it) who were Banu Mustaliq and Banu ul-Hawn Bin Khuzaimah … Consequently, Banu Mustaliq
had already declared war against Al-Madinah and joined the Quraish in waging war against the Muslims at
Uhud. It was them again in this case mobilising now to pounce upon Al-Madinah and when the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬became sure about the news he marched towards them.

At-Tabariy said: “And so the people marched forward and they fought a fierce battle between them. Then
Allah defeated Bani Mustaliq and who was killed from them was killed …” (2).

This haste from the Muslims to fight those who were preparing to wage war against them represents a
form from amongst the forms that is called Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomy (Offensive defence) and the affair of
Bani Mustaliq came to an end and they entered into Islaam (3).

16 - Then came the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Khandaq (the trench) and what happened during it in
terms of the Jews of Bani Quraizhah breaching their ‘Ahd (covenant) with the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
and their declaration of war against him by joining the Ahzaab (confederates).

The reason for this Ghazwah was that the Jews from Bani Nadeer who had been forced to leave their
homes due to their breaching of their covenant and their declaration of war against Al-Madinah had
settled in Khaibar whilst their leaders set up base there. They then went left Khaibar to go to Makkah and
they incited the Quraish to wage war against the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “SO they called
them to wage war against the Messenger of Allah. They said: We will be alongside you against him until
we eradicate him! … Then that group went again until they reached Ghatafaan …” (4).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/256, (2) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/605, Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/258, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf: 3/258-259)].

In this manner, ten thousand fighters were gathered from a number of Arab tribes who declared war
collectively against Al-Madinah. They were: The tribes of Bani Asad, Ashja’, Bani Murrah, Bani Sulaim,
Ghatafaan, Fazaarah and its leader ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn whom we had already mentioned that he had
convened an agreement or treaty (Muwaada’ah) with the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, which he was breaking here by
joining forces with the hostile Ahzaab (confederates).

In addition, Khaibar had also come to be in a state of war with Al-Madinah as a group of their leaders
were those who had incited this war.

Then Banu Quraizhah broke their covenant with the Messenger of Allah and joined the Ahzaab who had
encircled Al-Madinah.

That is whilst he Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had attempted to break this encirclement of Al-Madinah by
contracting a treaty to break the siege from it.

The following was stated in the book “Maghaaziy An-Nabawiyah” (Battles of the Prophet) by Ibn Shihaab
A-Zuhariy:

“The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn Bin Badr Al-Fazaariy who was at the head of the
Mushrikeen of Ghatafaan on that day and was with Abu Sufyaan:

What is your opinion if I were to give you a third of the fruits (harvest) of the Ansaar, would you return
(back home) alongside those with you from Ghatafaan and abandon the Ahzaab (confederates)?” (1).

The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to the following to the Ansaar explaining the reasoning behind this act:

“I have not done this except that I have seen that the Arabs have come to you from a single bow (i.e.
altogether as one) and are ready to pounce upon you from every side. So I wished to break their strength
from you by a particular means …” And the Ansaar responded by saying: “We are not in need of this, by
Allah we will not give them anything apart from the sword until Allah passes judgement between us and
them …”

The treaty therefore did not take place, the Muslims remined firm and resilient and the siege was broken
from Al-Madinah by the help of Allah Ta’Aalaa … and Quraizhah were then made to taste the
consequences as detailed in the books of Seerah and Taareekh (history) (2).

[(1) Al-Maghaaziy An-Nabawiyah, Az-Zuhariy: p79, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/258-275) and Taareekh At-
Tabariy: 2/564-594]

The following can be deduced from what took place in this Ghazwah:

A - That it is permissible for the Islamic State, at the time of need (Haajjah) and necessity (Daroorah), to
pay money (or property) to the enemies to repel a harm from the Muslims which is greater than the harm
(Darar) of giving money (or property) to the disbelievers. That is based upon the negotiations of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬with Ghatafaan in respect to a making a peace treaty (Sulh) upon that. Even if that Sulh (peace
treaty) did not actually take place, the negotiations over it nevertheless represents an evidence for its
permissibility. That is as the Fuqahaa’ of the Madhaahib have stated and its details will be discussed In
Shaa Allah during the forthcoming discussion about the Mu’aahadaat (treaties) within the Islamic Fiqh.
That is whilst one of the contemporary scholars has denied the validity of reliance upon the negotiation of
the Sulh (treaty) during Al-Khandaq in respect to considering it as a Daleel (evidence) for the
permissibility of giving money or financial amount to the disbelievers if a Haajjah (need) of Daroorah
(necessity) calls to that!

Doctor Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy stated the following:

“As the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Khandaq did not take place and that which has not taken place is not
considered a Daleel by any Madh’hab from amongst the classical Madhaahib of the Muslims nor (is it
considered to be) a Hadeeth …”. Then he asserts: “That if amongst the Muslims one is made to resort out
of complete necessity to give up any of his property or wealth to the Mughtasib (usurper), whether
Muslim or Kaafir (disbeliever), then the Mas’alah (issue) is one of usurpation and nothing lesser or greater
than that …” (1).

I say: I don’t know the reason for denying that the mentioned negotiations of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, even if they
did not end with the treaty, as a Daleel for the permissibility of this matter at the time of need or necessity
and then restrict the matter, if it was to take place, to one of usurpation (Al-Ghasb) alone! That is whilst
the statements of the Fuqahaa’ amongst the four Madhaahib indicate to the permissibility of giving
property or money to the disbelievers based on the negotiations upon the treaty, even if some of them
have tied the permissibility of this to the Haajjah (need or requirement) and others to the Daroorah
(necessity) whilst others have tied the permission to fear from the Mushrikeen.

The following are statements of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to this:

- Al--Jassaas from the A’immah (Imaams) of the Hanafi Madh’hab said: “And if they (i.e. the Muslims)
cannot repel the enemy from themselves except by what they offer (i.e. in terms of a material benefit) then
that is permitted for them. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had engaged ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn and others in a
peace treaty on the day of Al-Ahzaab over half of the fruit (produce) of Al-Madinah … He then said: This
therefore indicates that if they fear the Mushrikeen, it is permissible for them to repel them by a payoff”
(2).

[(1) Hadaarat ul-Islaam, year 4 Issue 4, Jumaadaa Al-Aakhirah 1383 Hijri, November 1963 CE and the article was titled: Dass
Khateer, p52, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 4/255].

- Ibn ul-‘Arabiy who was from among the Maalikiy A’immah said: “And it is permitted at the time of the
Haajjah (need) of the Muslims to contract a Sulh (peace treaty) where they would pay off the enemy. And
the origin for that is the Muwaada’ah (treaty or agreement) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn and
others on the day of Al-Ahzaab upon offering half of the fruits (produce) of Al-Madinah …” (1).

- And Al-Qurtubiy who is also from the A’immah of the Maaliky Fiqh said: “It is permitted at the time of
need for the Muslims to convene a Sulh (treaty) of paying off the enemy and that is due to the
Muwaada’ah (treaty or agreement) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬with ‘Uyaynah Nin Hisn … And what was said (i.e.
between them) was in the form of a proposition and it was not an ‘Aqd (contract)” (2).

- In Al-Muhadh’dhab of Ash-Sheeraaziy in the Shaafi’iy Fiqh said: “… If they are called to that (i.e.
making a payoff to the disbelievers) as a necessity in the case where the disbelievers have encircled the
Muslims and they fear that they will be cut from the roots or that they make captive a man from the
Muslims whilst it is feared that he will be tortured, then it is permissible to pay money to save him from
them. That is due to what Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated when he said that Al-
Haarith Bin ‘Amr Al-Ghatafaaniy, the chief of Ghatafaan, said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “You have offered me
half of the produce (fruits) of Al-Madinah otherwise I would fill it with men and horses against you!”. The
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “(Wait) until I consult the Sa’ds (i.e. Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh, Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah and As’ad Ibn
Zuraarah)”. Then he (Ash-Sheeraaziy) said: “If it had not been permissible under necessity (Daroorah) he
would not have referred back to the Ansaar in order to pay it, if they were to agree to that …” (3).

- And in the Fiqh of Ash-Shaafi’iy in respect to the Hukm (verdict) of the permissibility paying money to
the disbelievers at the time of the Daroorah (necessity) in relation to whether it fell under Ibaahah
(permissibility) or Wujoob (obligation), the following was stated in Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: “If the Daroorah
(necessity) called for it to be paid in the case where they were torturing the captives to ransom them, or if
they (i.e. the enemy disbelievers) had surrounded us and we feared that they would cut us from the roots,
then it is permissible to pay, indeed it is obligatory according to the correct opinion …” (4).

- Ibn Qudaamah from the A’immah of the Hanbali Fiqh said: “As for if he makes a peace treaty (Sulh)
with them (i.e. the Imaam with the disbelievers) upon the basis that he pays them, then Ahmad
pronounced: The opinion of it being forbidden and that is the Madh’hab of Ash-Shaafi’iy because it
would mean or signify the Saghaar (being brought low, humiliation or degradation) for the Muslims and
that applies to other than the situation of the Daroorah (necessity). However, if the Daroorah (necessity)
calls to it being undertaken and that is where it is feared that the Muslims will perish or made captives,
then it is permissible …

[(1) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/865, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/41, (3) Al-Muhadh’dhab: 2/260, Al-
Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/188. The hadeeth of Abu Hurairah is related by Al-Bazzaar with a Hasan Isnaad (Kashf ul-
Astaar:2/332), (4) Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: Al-Khateeb Ash-Shirbeeniy: 4/261].

Then he (Ibn Qudaamah) said: Abdur Razzaaq related in Al-Maghaaziy from Mu’mar from Az-Zuhriy
that he said: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn who was with Abu Sufyaan, meaning on the day
of Al-Ahzaab!: “What is your opinion if I were to give you a third of the fruits (harvest) of the Ansaar,
would you return (back home) alongside those with you from Ghatafaan and abandon the Ahzaab
(confederates)?” Then he said: “Had that not been permitted the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would not have offered it”
(1).

I say: After this look at the statements of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to their reliance upon the negotiations
around the Sulh (peace treaty) at Al-Khandaq in relation to the issue of repelling the evil of the
disbelievers via a payoff at the time of the Haajjah (need) or Daroorah (necessity). That is alongside the
obligation to the work that must naturally be undertaken to strengthen the Muslims so that they are not
compelled out of necessity to adopt such a humiliating position.

I say: After that presentation of statements, let us return to what can be deduced from the events of Al-
Ahzaab and what followed it regarding the incident with Quraizhah.

B - It is deduced from the incident of Quraizhah that it is permitted to pass judgement over those who
have broken the ‘Ahd from those who are in treaty with the punishment of death apart from those who
separated themselves from the covenant breakers denouncing them for it. Those would remain with their
covenant (‘Ahd) intact and would not be killed.

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy in his book Al-Umm said: “This is what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did with
Bani Quraizhah. He contracted a peace treaty with their leaders for them. Then the leader broke the treaty
and they did not separate themselves from him. So the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬marched towards them … Then
their fighters were killed … And not all of them had participated in providing assistance against the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬and his companions however all of them remined in their hold ups (fortresses) and consequently
those who were separate did not separate from them apart from a small group whose blood was spared
…” (2).

C - It is also deduced from the Ghazwah of Al-Ahzaab that most of the well-known Arab tribes around
the centre of the Arabian Peninsula had declared war against Al-Madinah as a result of the incitement
undertaken by the Jews residing at Khaibar, and that Quraish were the at the forefront of them. They had
resolved themselves to uproot and eradicate the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, the Muslims and the Islamic Da’wah.

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/519, (2) Al-Umm Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/186. And it was mentioned in Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer by
Al-Imaam Shams ud-Deen Bin Abi ‘Umar Bin Qudaamah Al-Maqdasiy: “In respect to the breaching (of the covenant) by some
and not others where the remainder remained silent over the breach and did not denounce it or inform the Imaam or
disassociate themselves from it, then they are all considered to be in breach” … “And if those who did not breach did
denounce the others by an evident word or deed or isolated themselves or informed the Imaam that they are denouncing what
the one who breached the covenant did and that they were still upon the covenant, then the covenant would not be breached
regarding them and the Imaam commands them to disassociate … If they refrain from disassociating or handing over the one
in breach they become in breach themselves” (10/575)].

It consequently became imperative for the Islamic State of Al-Madinah to adopt a different direction for
its war policy that was fitting for this new situation that was imposed upon the Muslims by the Arab tribes
and the Yahood (Jews) of the North. This new situation was where the Islamic State in Al-Madinah had
become like an Island surrounded by a sea of enemies!

And in respect to the new direction for the war policy of the Islamic State the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬stated following
the break of the siege of the Ahzaab from around Al-Madinah:

As recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari:

َ‫َ َنحْ نُ َ َنسِ يرَُإِلَي ِْه ْم‬،‫الَ َي ْغ ُزو َنََنا‬

َ ‫اْلنَ َن ْغ ُزو ُه ْم ََو‬
َ
From now onwards we will go to attack them and they will not attack us, (rather) we will march
to them (1).

However, how can we understand and reconcile this statement about taking the offensive position whilst
the reality, as we have seen, indicated an increase against the Islamic State which would suggest a
contradiction with such a statement!?

What did this huge military display against Al-Madinah indicate to so as to make the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
express such a statement?

What was going on in respect to the thinking of the Islamic leadership, from what it was resolved to
undertake, that would make it see, in light of it, that the time had come to change the war strategy of the
Islamic State from a defensive (Difaa’iy) stage, even if it was characterised by an offensive aspect at times
against some of the fronts, to an offensive or attacking (Hujoomiy) stage against all of the opposing and
hostile fronts to the Islamic State?

The answer: What occurred during this show or display of opposition and hostility, what it produced in
terms of failure and what took place after it in terms of the external activity of the Islamic State, explains
for us the above-mentioned statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫َ َنحْ نُ َََنسِ يرَُإِلَي ِْه ْم‬،‫الَ َي ْغ ُزو َن َنا‬

َ ‫اْلنَ َن ْغ ُزو ُه ْم ََو‬
َ
From now onwards we will go to attack them and they will not attack us, (rather) we will march
to them

The following represent some evidential or indicative matters related to this issue:

A - It became evident to the Islamic leadership that the Ahzaab (confederates or hosts) of this military
demonstration were not of a single heart (i.e. unified). This is was shown by that Ghatafaan were prepared
to break up this military demonstration at the first glimpse of a material gain offered before it reflected in
when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬alluded that it could have a certain quantity of the produce of Al-Madinah.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 4110, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/405].

B - And it became apparent to the Islamic leadership that the front in Al-Madinah is too strong for the
Arab hosts and that Jewish treachery to defeat it and that was demonstrated when the Ansaar refused to
offer any of the produce (fruits) of Al-Madinah to their enemies, that would indicate to weakness!

C - The failure of the siege that the Ahzaab enforced around Al-Madinah came without the Muslims
offering any concession which is an extra evidence indicating the firmness of the front in Al-Madinah and
its capability to withstand and remain resolute from one angle and to break up the opposing hostile forces
and constrain their attacks and siege from another angle.

D - The Islamic leadership in Al-Madinah, following the battle of Al-Khandaq made effort to neutralise
Quraish via a truce treaty that they contracted with them in spite of the concessions that were made from
the Islamic side and that was so that they would be freed up to subdue the other hostile opposing forces.
In respect to this I say: The neutralisation of Quraish had the greatest impact in respect to eliminating
some of the hostile opposing fronts and making other fronts join to the strength of the Islamic State. That
weakened Quraish by isolating it from its allies and by making the balance of powers lean towards the
interest of the Islamic State. This is what led Quraish to surrender in the end and then enter into the fold
of Islaam.

This is what happened upon the ground in reality following Al-Khandaq and it represented a translation
of the new policy that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬announced in the aftermath of the Ghazwah of Al-Ahzaab when he
‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َ َنحْ نُ َ َنسِ يرَُإِلَي ِْه ْم‬،‫الَ َي ْغ ُزو َن َنا‬

َ ‫اْلنَ َن ْغ ُزو ُه ْم ََو‬
َ
From now onwards we will go to attack them and they will not attack us, (rather) we will march
to them

Let us now examine how the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬proceeded within his new policy:

17 - The treaty (Sulh) of Al-Hudaybiyyah that the Messenger convened with the Quraish for a period of
ten years (2). He ‫ ﷺ‬accepted within it harsh conditions upon the Muslims and that was for the sake of
the benefit of this treaty in respect to isolating Quraish from coming to the aid of their allies from
amongst the enemies of the Muslims if the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was to direct his attention towards them. The
benefit of which was greater than the harm that afflicted the Muslims from those harsh conditions not to
mention what it contained in terms of other benefits that were accomplished for the Islamic Da’wah
during the period of the treaty or truce.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 4110, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 7/405, (2) Refer to the Sulh of Al-Hudaybiyah and its conditions in: Ibn
Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/24+), Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/620+ and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/286+].

The following was mentioned in ‘Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer’ indicating to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬taking
advantage of Quraish’s isolation from its allies following the treaty of Hudaybiyyah:

“The people of Makkah stipulated upon him that he returns (or sends back) anyone who had come to him
as a Muslim from among them and he was faithful to them in respect to this condition until it was
abolished. That was because it (the treaty) contained benefit for the Muslims. That was due to the
collusion and secret agreement between the people of Makkah and Khaibar against the Messenger of
Allah ‫ﷺ‬, that if he was to target and head towards one of the two the other one would attack Al-
Madinah. He therefore made a treaty with the people of Makkah so that he would make their side secure
(from attack) when he went towards Khaibar! …” (1).
18 - After the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬marched to Khaibar after securing his
back from the direction of Quraish and the guarantee that they would not come to the support and
assistance of their ally Khaibar. That was in accordance to the treaty that he had convened with Quraish.

This was whilst Khaibar had already been in a state of war with the State of Al-Madinah, as explained
previously, as the leaders of the Jews residing their had incited the Arab tribes against the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
which led to the Ghazwah of Al-Ahzaab. In addition, Khaibar was an ally of the Mushrikeen in general
and they (the Mushrikeen) were in a state of war with the Muslims. Ash-Shaafi’iy said in Al-Umm:
“Khaibar was in the middle of the Mushrikeen and their Jewish peoples were allied to the Mushrikeen”
(2). And the following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Then he (i.e. the Messenger ‫ )ﷺ‬set
down between them (i.e. the people of Khaibar and Ghatafaan) to prevent them from providing supplies
or support to the people of Khaibar whilst they were allied to one another to give support against the
Messenger of Allah ‫( ”ﷺ‬3). And it appears that this (i.e. alliance) existed before they (Khaibar) had
thought about gathering the allied forces together for the aim of attacking Al-Madinah.

The following was stated in Zaad ul-Ma’aad: “’Al went out at the head of 100 men to Fadak (4) to an area
of Bani ‘Sa’d Bin Bakr’. That was because news had reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that there was a
collective grouping who had wanted to provide supplies or support to Khaibar … And so they captured a
spy who confirmed that they he had dispatched him to Khaibar as they had offered them support in
exchange for the fruits (or produce) of Khaibar (5).

[(1) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer, As-Sarakhsiy: 1/298, (2) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/189, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf: 4/40), (4) Two days from Al-Madinah (Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/284) and it is a little north of Khaibar. Rwefer to the map in
‘Atlas At-Taareekh Al-‘Arabiy’ by Shawqiy Abu Khalil: p37. He mentioned that its modern name is ‘Al-Haayit’, (5) Zaad ul-
Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/284].

This alliance between Khaibar and Quraish, as mentioned above in Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer, which
stipulated that they support one another if the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬moves against them, represents an
evidence on top of the many evidences that affirm the existence of a state of war between Khaibar and
the Muslims and their wanting to strike the Islamic State for that arises.

Based upon that, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬hastened to Khaibar following the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah and
brought to an end the final stronghold of the Jews within the Arabian Peninsula that threatened the State
in Al-Madinah, in the manner that has been mentioned within the books of history and Seerah An-
Nabawiyah (1).

19 - And following Khaibar the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a number of Saraayaa (military sorties) in a number
of different directions of the tribes which the state was at war with. That was like the Sariyah (military
expedition) of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq to Bani Fazaarah which was from amongst the tribes that had
participated in the battle of Khandaq or Al-Ahzaab against Al-Madinah. This was recorded in Saheeh
Muslim as related by Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ who said: “We undertook a military expedition (Ghazwah)
against Fazaarah and Abu Bakr was appointed (as the Ameer) over us” (2).

And like the Sariyah (expedition) of Basheer Bin S’ad to Bani Murrah at Fadak which was also from
among the tribes that had taken part in the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq against Al-Madinah (3).

[(1) For the reports about the battle or expedition (Ghazwah) of Khaibar refer to: Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/39+),
Taareekh At-Tabari: 3/9+ and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/316+. The conquest of Khaibar was in the 6th year Hijri according to Maalik
and Ibn Hazm whilst the majority said that it was in the 7th year. In Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/316: “Maalik said: The conquest (Fat’h
of Khaibar was in the 6th year and the majority said that it was the 7th. That is whilst Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm said that it was
definitely without doubt in the 6th year. It may be that the difference in opinion relates to how the beginning of the dating takes
place, does it begin from the month of Rabee’ ul-Awwal, the month that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬arrived in Al-Madinah or from
Al-Muharram at the beginning of the year? The people have two methods in respect to this. The majority view that it begins
from Al-Muharram whilst Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm views that it begins from Rabee’ ul-Awwal when he ‫ ﷺ‬arrived (in Al-
Madinah)”.
It was mentioned in Fat’h ul-Baari’ in respect to this: 7/393: “A Jamaa’ah (group_ from the Salaf used to calculate the date
from Al-Muharram that took place after the Hijrah! And they annulled the months preceding that up to Rabee’ ul-Awwal! That
was the position of Ya’qoob Bin Sufyaan in his history. And so he mentioned that the Ghazwatu Badr Al-Kubraa (Great battle
of Badr) took place in the first year! And the battle of Uhud in the second and Al-Khandaq in the fourth. That is correct
according to his approach however it is a weak basis because the majority have calculated the date to begin from Al-Muharram
in the year of the Hijrah. Upon that basis, Badr took place in the second year, Uhud in the fifth and Al-Khandaq in the fifth.
And this is the relied upon approach”, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1755, 3/1375, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/360].

20 - Then there was the Ghazwah (battle) of Mu’tah in the month of Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa in the 8th
year of Al-Hijrah. Ibn ul-Qayyim says:

“Its cause (or reason) was that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had dispatched Al-Haarith Bin ‘Umair Al-
Azadiy to Ash-Shaam with a letter from him (greater Syria) to the King of the Romans or Busraa.
However, Shurahbeel Bin ‘Amr Al-Ghassaaniy intercepted him and bound him. He then killed him and
no one else of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had been killed apart from him. When he received the news of that it
was a major issue and so he sent out the dispatches (i.e. prepared the military) …” (1).

21 - Then came the Ghazwah of Dhaat As-Salaasil. Ibn ul-Qayyim said:

“And it was located behind Waadi Al-Quraa and there was ten days distance between it and Al-Madinah.
Ibn Sa’d said: News reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that a collective grouping from Qudaa’ah had
gathered together wanting to draw close to the outskirts of Al-Madinah. The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
then called for ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Aas and dispatched him at the head of 300 of the foremost of the
Muhaajireen and the Ansaar …(2).

22 - Then Quraish breached the Treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah, in the manner that has been explained in
the books of Seerah, and that was the cause of the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah (3).

23 - That was followed by the Ghazwah of Hunain and regarding the reason for this Ghazwah Ibn
Hishaam stated the following:

“Ibn Is’haaq said: When Hawaazin heard that Allah had opened Makkah to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬,
they were brought together by Maalik Bin ‘Auf An-Nasriy. He met with the Hawaazin and Thaqeef, all of
them, and Nasr with Jusham met, all of them, and Sa’d Bin Bakr and (some0 people from Bani Hilaal (met
together) (4).

As such, it becomes evident that these Arab tribes are the ones who initiated the declaration of war against
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and gathered together for the purpose and sake of fighting the Muslims. The
affair of Hawaazin was brought to an end in the battle of Hunain and then it became necessary to pursue
and chase Thaqeef who had participated in the war to their homeland ‘At-Taa’if’ (5).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/381, (2) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/382, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf: 4/84+ and Taareekh At-Tabariy: 3/42+, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/121), (5) Seerah Ibn Hishaam:
(Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/148)].

And when they (Thaqeef) withstood the Muslims they left … Then (after that) Hawaazin came and
declared their entry into Islaam and then Thaqeef came to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬after and their affair came
to an end by their embracing of Islaam (as well) (1).

24 - It appears that the news of this victory for Islaam and this forward marching Islamic
expansion reached the Romans upon the edges of the Arabian Peninsula and so they wanted to stop
this progressive expansion so that it would not pose any danger or threat to them. The following was
stated in Zaad ul-Ma’aad:

“And he mentioned that Ibn Sa’d said: “News reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that the Romans had
gathered a large force in Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) and that Heraclius had provided provisions to his
people for a year, and that he had brought with him (the tribes of) Lakhm, Judhaam, ‘Aamilatu and
Ghassaan and that their front forces had proceeded to Al-Balqaa’ (2)” … Then he said: “When the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reached Tabook the head of Aylah came to him and made a treaty with him and
gave him the Jizyah and then the people of Jarbaa’ and Adhruh came and gave him the Jizyah” (3).

Doumat ul-Jandal was located north east of Tabook and they had previously declared war against the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and it represented a centre where hostile groups to the Islamic State groups or hosts
would gather as mentioned in number (14). For that reason, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Khaalid Bin
Waleed to Ukaidir Doumah and he was Ukaidir Bin Abdil Malik, a man from Kindah, who was Christian
and a King over it … Then Khaalid brought Ukaidir to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, spared his blood
and made a treaty with him upon the payment of the Jizyah before letting him go and return to his town
(4).

No clashes however actually took place between the Romans and those forces loyal to them of the Arab
tribes on one side and the forces of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬on the other side. The Arab Kings in those
regions preferred instead to sever their subservience to the Roman state and declare their loyalty to the
Islamic State in Al-Madinah, as explained above.

And it appears that the Romans had resolved to not permit the Islamic Da’wah to spread within the
provinces of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) which they controlled. They were infuriated by some of their
provinces casting off subordination to them and consequently they used violence to confront that reality
and to stand in the face of the Islamic Da’wah.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/182+), (2) Al-Balqaa’: From the lands of Ash-Shaam and it is located today
inside Jordan: Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq: ‘Ali At-Tantawi: p181-182, (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/527, (4) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/178), Taareekh At-Tabari: 3/108-109 and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/538].

The following was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ibn Is’haaq said: Farwah Bin ‘Amr
dispatched An-Naafirah Al-Judhaamiy to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬as a messenger with the news of
his embracing Islaam and he gifted him with a white mule. Farwah had been the ‘Aamil (governor) for the
Romans over those Arabs which followed them. His place of residence was in Ma’aan and the
surrounding areas of the land of Ash-Shaam. When news of his embracing Islaam reached the Romans,
they sought him until they took him and imprisoned him … Then when the Romans decided to crucify
him by the water they held which was called ‘Afraa’u’ in Palestine … He said:

“Convey to the leaders of the Muslims that I have submitted to my Lord (who has) honoured me and
made me stand upright”

They then struck his neck and crucified him over that water, may the mercy of Allah ta’Aalaa be upon
him” (1).

Based upon this reality, it became necessary for the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to be concerned with the Roman
front in the north. Consequently, shortly before his death he commanded Usaamah Bin Zaid with the
leadership of an army to set foot in the land of Palestine and to fight the Roman enemies of the Muslims
and Christian Arabs who were loyal to them (2).
25 - “Ibn Is’haaq said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬returned to Al-Madinah from Tabook in
Ramadhaan and it was in that month that the delegation of Thaqeef came to him” (3).

“Some of what they spoke about was … that they would perform ‘Umrah amongst them and they saw
that they had no power or ability to wage war against the Arabs around them as they had given the Bai’ah
and embraced Islaam …” (4)

“Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬resided the rest of the month of Ramadhaan, Shawwaal and Dhu l-
Qa’dah before dispatching Abu Bakr as the Ameer (leader) over the Hajj in the 9th (Hijri) year …” (5).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/216-217) and Zaad ul-Ma’aad: 3/646, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf: 4/246), (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/182), (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/184), (5)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/986)].

Soorah Al-Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) was then revealed and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib to convey
it to the people in the season of Al-Hajj:

َََ‫ّللَم ُْخ ِزىَٱ ْل ٰ َكف ِِرين‬ َََّ ‫َوأَنَّ َٱ‬ َ َ‫ّلل‬ََِّ ‫ج ِزىََٱ‬ ِ ْ‫ضَأَرْ َب َع َةَأَ ْشه ٍۢ ٍُرَوََٱعْ لَم ُٓوَ۟اَأَ َّن ُك ْمَ َغ ْيرَُمُع‬ َ ِ ْ‫ُواَفِىََٱ ْألَر‬ ۟ ‫ّللَ َورَ سُولِ َِهۦَٓإِلَىَٱلَّذِينَََ ٰ َعهَد ُّتمَمِّنَ َٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِينَََ َفسِ يح‬ ََِّ ‫بَرَ آء ٌَۭةَمِّنَ َٱ‬
َ‫َۖوإِنَ َت َولَّ ْي ُت ْمَََفٱعَْلَم ُٓوَ۟اَأَ َّن ُك ْمَ َغ ْي ُر‬ َ ‫َورَ سُولُ َُهَۥََۚ َفإِنَ ُت ْب ُت ْمَ َفه َُو‬
َ َ‫َخي ٌْۭرَلَّ ُك ْم‬ َ َََ‫ّللَب َِر ٓى ٌۭءَمِّنَ َٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬ َََّ ‫َرَأَنَّ ََٱ‬ َ ْ ‫جََٱ‬
َِ ‫أل ْكب‬ َِّ َ‫اسَي ََْو َمَٱ ْلح‬
َِ ‫ّللَ َورَ سُولِ َِه َۦَٓإِلَىَٱل َّن‬ ََِّ ‫َوأَ ٰ َذ ٌۭنَمِّنَ ََٱ‬
َ‫ُواَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَأَحَ ٌۭداَ َفأ َ ِتم ُّٓو ۟اَإِلَي ِْه ْمَ َع ْه َد ُه ْم ََإِلَ ٰى‬۟ ‫ٌۭاَولَ ْمَ ُي ٰ َظ ِهر‬
َ ‫ِيمَإِ َّالَٱَلَّذِينَََ ٰ َعهَد ُّتمَمِّنَ َٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِينَََ ُث َّمَلَ ْمَيَنقُصُو ُك ْمَ َشيْـ‬ ٍَ ‫َب َع َذابٍَأَل‬ ۟ ‫ّللََۗوََ َب ِّش َِرَٱلَّذِينَََ َك َفر‬
ِ ‫ُوا‬ ََِّ ‫ج ِزىََٱ‬ِ ْ‫مُع‬
۟ ‫ص ٍۢ ٍدََۚ َفإِنَ َتاب‬
َ‫ُوا‬ َ ْ‫ُواَلَ ُه ْمَ ُكلََّمَر‬ َ۟ ‫صرُو ُه َْمَوََٱ ْق ُعد‬ُ ْ‫ْث ََوجَ د ُّتمُو ُه ْم ََو ُخ ُذو ُه ْمَوَََٱح‬ ُ ‫واَٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِينَََحَ ي‬ َ
َ۟ ُ‫خَٱ ْأل ْش ُه َُرَٱ ْل ُح ُر َُمَََفَٱ ْق ُتل‬ َََّ ‫ُم َّدت ِِه ْمََۚإِنَّ َٱ‬
ََ َ‫ّللَ ُيحِبُّ َٱ ْل ُم َّتقِينَََ َفإِ َذاَٱن َسل‬
۟ ُّ‫لز َك ٰوََةَ َف َخل‬
َََّ ‫واَ َس ِبيلَ ُه ْمََۚإِنَّ ََٱ‬ َّ ‫صلَ ٰوََةَ َوءَاََتوُ ۟اَٱ‬ ۟ ‫َوأَ َقام‬
‫ِيم‬
ٌَۭ ‫ورَرَّ ح‬ ٌۭ ُ‫ّللَ َغف‬ َّ ‫ُواَٱل‬

[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among
the polytheists. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V. 2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know
that you cannot escape Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to
mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all)
obligations to the Mushrikun and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn
away, then know that you cannot escape Allah. And give tidings of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. Except those
with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported
anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the
polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But
if they should repent, establish prayer, and give Zakaah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful
(At-Taubah: 1-5).

This notice included within these Aayaat in respect to the declaration of war against the Mushrikeen
(polytheists) was specific only to those who broke their treaties with the Muslims.
The Daleel (evidence) for that is that the Aayaat exempted from this proclamation those who continued
to uphold the treaties. That is found in the Qawl (statement) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

۟ ‫ٌۭاَولَ ْمَ ُي ٰ َظ ِهر‬

‫ُواَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَأَحَ ٌۭداَ َفأ َ ِتم ُّٓو ۟اَإِلَي ِْه ْمَ َع ْه َد ُه ْمَإِلَ ٰىَ ُم َّدت َِِه َْم‬ َ ‫إِ َّالَٱلَّذِينَََ ٰ َعهَد ُّتمَمِّنَ َٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِينَََ ُث َّمَلَ ْمَيَنقُصُو ُك ْمَ َشيْـ‬
Except those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in
anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term

And in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫جدَِا ْلحَ رَ ِامََۖ َفمَاَاسْ َت َقامُواَلَ ُك ْمَ َفاسْ َتقِي َُمواَلَ ُه َْم‬
ِ ْ‫إِ َّالَالَّذِينَ َعَاهَد ُّت ْمَ ِعن َدَا ْلمَس‬
Except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be
upright toward them (At-Taubah: 7).
The command to fulfil and be true to the covenants of these Mushrikeen indicates that the declaration of
war in Soorah Baraa’ah is specific only to those who initiated the declaration of war against the Muslims
through their breaking of treaties (or covenants) with them.

The following was stated in the Tafseer of An-Naisaabouriy in his explanation of these Aayaat:

“Allah had permitted making treaties with the Mushrikeen and so the Muslims agreed with the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and made treaties with them. Then when they broke their covenant Allah made it obligatory
to throw it back to them (i.e. announce that it is forfeited) … It has been realted that they used to make
treaties with the Mushrikeen of the people of Makkah and other Arabs. Then they broke it apart from
some tribes and they were Damrah and Banu Kinaanah. Therefore, the covenant was cast aside in respect
to those who had broken it … And ‘Ali came on the Day of sacrifice (Yaum un-Nahr) to the Jamrat ul-
Aqabah and said: “O People! I am the messenger of the Messenger of Allah sent to you”. They asked:
With what (have you been sent)?” He the recited to them thirty or forty Aayah (i.e. from Soorah Al-
Baraa’ah [At-Taubah]) and according to Mujaahid: Thirteen Aayah. He then said: “I have been
commanded with four matters: That no Mushrik (polytheist) approaches the House (Al-Bait i.e. Al-
Ka’bah) after this year, and no one will go around the Ka’bah naked, none except every believing person
will enter Jannah and that everyone who has a covenant his covenant will be fulfilled”. They then said at
that: “O ‘Ali! Inform your cousin that verily we have cast aside our covenants behind our backs! And that
there is no longer any covenant between us and him except the stabbing of the spear and the striking of
the sword! …”

- Then An-Naisaabouriy said: “What was intended from this delay was for them to think within
themselves, to fully take in the matter and know that after this period or term they will not have except
one of three matters before them: Al-Islaam (i.e. become Muslim), accept the Jizyah or receive the sword.
This therefore acted as a motive for them to accept Islaam outwardly …” (1).

He then said: “... Then it made clear (or explained) the Hukm (legal ruling) related to the termination of
the time limit or period of those who broke (the covenant or treaty). Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

‫خََٱ ْألَ ْش ُه َُرََٱ ْل ُح ُر َُم‬

ََ َ‫َفإِ َذاَٱن َسل‬
And when the sacred months have passed

Which represents the time in which the Mushrikeen are permitted to travel freely …

َ۟ ُ‫ََفٱ ْق ُتل‬
ََ‫واََٱ ْل ُم ْش ِركِين‬
Then kill the polytheists

i.e. those who have broken the covenant or treaty.

ُ ‫حَ ي‬
‫ْثَ َوجَ د ُّتمُو ُه َْم‬
Wherever you find them

i.e. those who are in Ihraam or not and at any time (thereafter) …” (2).

And the following was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Aaloosiy: “The address in ‫( ٰ َع َهد ُّتم‬Those you have made a
treaty with) is addressed to the Muslims and they had made treaties with the Mushrik (polytheist) Arabs
including the people of Makkah and others beside them … Then they breached their treaty or covenant
apart from Bani Damrah and Bani Kinaanah.. The Muslims were commanded to throw back or discard
the treaties with those who had broken the whilst they were given four months to travel freely as they
wished (i.e. in safety and without fear) … That was to provide them time to think, take in the reality fully
and prepare for what they wanted to do. That was whilst they knew that they had no choice now apart
from becoming Muslim or being killed! That perhaps through that they would be carried towards
embracing Islaam. That is because had the Muslims fought against them straight (or shortly) after the
occurrence of their breaching of the covenant or treaty it may have been seen to be a form of treachery
and consequently the grace period closes the door such thinking or suppositions and it also manifests their
(i.e. the Muslims) strength and not being over bothered by them and their preparations” (3).

[(1) Tafseer An-Naisaabouriy: 10/36-37. (2) Tafseer An-Naisaabouriy: 10/40, (3) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/42-43].

And it was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam:

“Ibn Is’haaq said: And when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬opened (or conquered) Makkah, completed the
(expedition of) Tabook and Thaqeef embraced Islaam and gave him the Bai’ah (pledge), the delegations of
the Arabs (i.e. tribes) came to him from every direction …

The Arabs had only been waiting in respect to this matter related to this region of the Quraish and the
matter of the Messenger ‫( ﷺ‬i.e. what was between them and how it developed) and that was because
Quraish represented the leader of the people, their guide, the people of the Bait ul-Haraam, the pure
descendants of Isma’eel Bin Ibrahim (‘Alaihima-s-Salaam), the chiefs of the tribes, which none denied!

It had been Quraish who had declared war against the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and opposed him. Then when
Makkah was opened (conquered), Quraish were subdued, embraced Islaam and the Arabs knew that they
no longer had any power of ability to wage war against the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬or show hostility
against him, they then embraced the Deen of Allah ‘Afwaajan’ (in droves or crowds) as Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla said and they came to him from every place and direction. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

﴾٣﴿َ‫ك ََواسْ َت ْغفِرْ هََُۚإََِّنهَُ َكانَ َ َتوَّ ابا‬ ِ ْ‫﴾َ َف َسبِّح‬٢﴿َ‫ِينَاللَّـهَِأَ ْفوََاجا‬
َ ‫َبحَ ْمدَِرَ ِّب‬ ِ ‫﴾َورَ أَيْتَ َال َّناسَ َي َْد ُخلُونَ َفِيَد‬
َ ١﴿َُ‫َِوا ْل َف ْتح‬
َ ‫إِ َذاَجَ اءََ َنصْ رَُاللَّـه‬

When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest. And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in
multitudes. Then exalt [Him] with the praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of
repentance (An-Nasr)” (1).

This consequently marked how the matter of the Arabs within the Arabian Peninsula was concluded.

As for relates to outside of the Arabian Peninsula in respect to the Romans and the Persians:

Then, Persia declared war against the Islamic State and that occurred when the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
sent a letter to “Kisraa” the King of the Persians inviting him to Islaam. “Then when Kisraa read it he
tore it up” as was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari (2). In the Taareekh (History) of At-Tabariy it
mentioned: “That Kisraa sent a message to Baadhaan, his governor (‘Aamil) over Yemen to send to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬those who will bring him to him. So (later) one of the two envoys of Baadhaan said to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬after he had requested him to go with him to be represented before the Kisraa! “…If you
refuse, then he (i.e. Kisraa), is whom you have known him to be and as such he will destroy you and
destroy you people and ruin your land!” (3).

However, in response the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬informed the two envoys of Baadhaan that Kisraa had been
pounced upon by his son Shirawaih who killed him! And so they returned to Baadhaan and the news
reached Yemen that affirmed what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had informed them of, through the divine revelation
(Wahi). Consequently, Baadhaan and those with him embraced Islaam and Yemen joined the (lands of
the) Islamic State (4).
[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/194), (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 2939, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/108, (3) Taareekh At-
Tabariy: 2/655, (4) Taareekh At-Tabari: 2/565].

This related to the mater of the Persians in respect to declaring war against the Islamic State. That was
manifested in the brazen gall of demanding that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to present himself before
Kisraa so that he could be punished by him! In addition to the resolve to destroy him, the Muslims and
bring ruin to the land if he refused to!

As for the Romans, then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had commanded the preparation of the army of
Usaamah Bin Zaid to march towards them in Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), however the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
returned to Allah before the army set off towards Ash-Shaam. Then as soon as Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq
assumed the affair of the Khilafah he dispatched him and his army towards the Romans (1).

The third point: A presentation of some of the opinions of the A’immah (Imaams
i.e. major scholars) and some of the recent Islamic writers concerning the reasons
for the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and whether they were in defence (Difaa’) or offensive
(Hujoom)?

The views of these Islamic writers can be summarised into two opinions:

Firstly: The opinion that states: That all of the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were defensive in response to the
aggression or hostility of the disbelievers. That is according to a broad meaning of the term hostility that
includes the hostility against the Islamic Da’wah, its followers, the Muslims and their properties (2).
They hold that the initiation of fighting (Al-Qitaal) against the disbelievers did not occur but rather on
every occasion he undertook the defensive role (or position) in respect to Qitaal (fighting) that the
disbelievers had initiated themselves!

Secondly: The opinion that states: That the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬only represented the undertaking of
the obligation of Al-Jihaad, whether an aggression occurred from the Mushrikeen
(polytheists/disbelievers) or not. And that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in many of his Ghazawaat and
Saraayaa (battles and military expeditions) initiated the Qitaal (fighting) against the disbelievers and he did
not wait for them to initiate it so as to respond against them!

[(1) Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy: p181-182, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p76].

We will now present statements representing the first opinion followed by statements supporting the
second opinion Inshaa Allah.

The Classical opinions:

Firstly: The opinion of those who said that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were defensive.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: “His Seerah ‫ ﷺ‬was that he did not fight anyone from the disbelievers who made a
truce with him and the books of Seerah, the Hadeeth, Tafseer, Fiqh and Al-Maghaaziy (battles) conform
to that. This is Mutwaatir (established through [decisive] consecutive reports) from his Seerah ‫ ﷺ‬and
consequently he did not initiate anyone in fighting (Qitaal)” (1).

And he also said: “As for the Nasaaraa (Christians) then he did not fight any of them until he sent his
Messengers to all of the Kings inviting them to Islaam, following the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaybiyyah. He
sent to Caesar (ruler of Rome), to Kisraa (ruler of Persia), to the Muqawqis (ruler of Egypt), An-Najaashiy
(ruler of Abyssinia) and the Arab kings of the east and of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria). As a result, those of
the Christians and others who embraced Islaam did so. Then the Christians of Ash-Shaam went out and
killed some of those who had become Muslim. It was therefore the Christians who had attacked the
Muslims first and killed those who had embraced Islaam from amongst them in tyranny and oppression.
So when the Christians began to kill the Muslims he sent out a Sariyyah (military expedition) and placed
Zaid Bin Al-Haarithah as the Ameer over it, to be followed by Ja’far and then Ibn Rawaahah. It was the
first fighting that the Muslims engaged in against the Christians and it took place at Mu’tah which is from
the lands of Ash-Shaam. A great number of Christians gathered against his companions and the Ameers
(leaders), may Allah be pleased with them, were martyred and Khaalid Bin Waleed took hold of the
Raayah (banner i.e. the leadership of the army)” (2).

This is what Ibn Taymiyyah from amongst the classical Muslim Imaams said and it represents the opinion
stating that the wars of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬were all defensive.

Secondly: The opinion of those who said that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬only represented the
undertaking or fulfilling of the Fareedah (obligation) of Al-Jihaad. And those wars, mentioned within the
Seerah An-Nabawiyah, could be defensive according to the above-mentioned meaning, just as they could
also be offensive. That is where the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬initiated the Qitaal (fighting) against the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) without it being a response to a prior aggression or assault or anticipated assault. That was
naturally following the invitation to Islaam, in a manner that realises and accomplishes the manifest and
clear conveyance (Balaagh Mubeen), the rejection of their leaders to embrace Islaam or hand over the
authority to the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬so as to be ruled by Islaam, in the case when the State is capable of
undertaking that. That is what happened regarding “Najraan” which kept their Deen (Christianity) and
handed over its ruling authority to the state in Al-Madinah. They became Ahl udh-Dhimmah and
consequently became subjects of the Islamic State (3) …

[(1) Risaalat ul-Qitaal, Ibn Taymiyyah: p125 (Refer to: Ibn Taymiyyah by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p381), (2)
Risaalat ul-Qitaal, Ibn Taymiyyah: p126 (Refer to: Ibn Taymiyyah by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p382). Ash-
Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa-l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: 277, (3) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaaniy:
7/111-112, Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/199, Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/575. Sunan Al-Baihaqi: Ash-Shaafi’iy (rh) said: I
Muslims and from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from the people of Najraan mention that the amount which was taken from each of
them was more than a Deenaar i.e. referring to the amount of Jizyah that was imposed upon every individual from amongst
them: 9/195. Also in this Sunan (i.e. of Al-Baihaqi) it was recorded: From Ibn ‘Abbaas (rah) that he said: The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with the people of Najraan … upon that no church would be demolished, no priest brought out or
them and that pressure would not be applied upon them to leave their Deen as long as they do not bring an incident (i.e.
contrary to treaty of Dhimmah) and that they do not devour usury (Ribaa): 9/202].

The reason for Al-Qitaal (fighting) according to this opinion is: To remove the obstacle that stands in the
way of the Da’wah whilst considering the mere existence of a state or authority in a given land that rules
by other than Islaam to represent in itself an obstacle in the way of the Da’wah reaching the people of that
land and even if no aggression or hostility against the Muslims has originated from that state or authority,
or any banning of Islamic activity has taken place within it. Upon this basis, the continuation of Al-Jihaad
is legislated against this state (as it is capable of) to weaken it until it is removed from being in the way of
the Da’wah, the Muslims assume the reins of ruling and rule it by Islaam, when it is capable of that, and
even if its people did not enter into this new Deen.

This is the summary of the opinion that the wars of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬only represented the undertaking
of the obligatory act of Al-Jihaad irrespective of whether an aggression or hostility occurred from the
disbelievers or did not occur from them. Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy mentions that Al-Haafizh Ibn
Katheer, who was from the historians and the classical Imaams of the Muslims, held this view and that
came during his discussion about the battle of Tabook. Dr Al-Umariy says: “Even though the historians
… attempted to find a direct cause for it, like when Ibn Sa’d mentioned that Heraclius had gathered a
large host together from Rome and the Arab tribes which were loyal to him, and that the Muslims had
learnt about this news and so marched out to Tabook … However, the correct view is that is represented
a natural response to the obligation of Al-Jihaad and that had been pointed to by Al-Haafizh Ibn Katheer
when he said:

“So the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was determined (or resolved) to fight the Romans because they were the
nearest people to him and the most suitable of the people for the invitation to the Haqq to be made to
and that is due to their closeness to Islaam and its people. And Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ََ‫َۚواعْ لَمُواَأَنَّ َاللَّـهََمَعَ َا ْل ُم َّتقَِين‬

َ َ‫جدُواَفِي ُك ْمَ ِغ ْل َظة‬
ِ ‫ارَوََ ْل َي‬ َ
ِ ‫يَاَأ ُّي ََهاَالَّذِينَ َآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذِينَ َ َيلُو َن ُكمَمِّنَ َا ْل ُك َّف‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that
Allah is with the righteous (At-Taubah: 123)” (1).

[(1) Al-Bidaayah Wa-n-Nihaayah, Ibn Katheer: 2/5. Also refer to: Al-‘Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/168 and Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy,
Al-‘Umariy:227].

From what has been mentioned, it becomes clearly evident to us that Ibn Taymiyyah viewed that the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not initiate Al-Qitaal (fighting) but rather it was the Kuffaar (disbelievers) who
initiated the war against the Muslims whilst the Muslims adopted the stance of defence.

And that Ibn Katheer viewed (at least) some of the wars of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬as being in response to
the undertaking of the Fard (obligation) of Al-Jihaad for the sake and purpose of spreading the Islamic
Da’wah, irrespective of the existence of an act of aggression or hostility from the disbelievers or its non-
existence.

Opinions of the contemporary Islamic thinkers and scholars:

The contemporary Islamic writers have divided into two groups in respect to this issue in a similar manner
as Ibn Taymiyyah were.

These two directions within the modern Islamic thought are portrayed by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-
Ghazaaliy in his book “Jihaad Ad-Da’wah”. He said:

“I will comment upon what I read within a book that has appeared in modern times from one of the
‘Ulamaa, in which he mentions what happened in respect to Mu’tah saying:

“The historians attempt to mention reasons for the fighting (Al-Qitaal) that took place whilst there is no
necessity to mention these reasons or causes (Asbaab)! Why do we provide reasoning for every war that
the Muslims took part in? It is sufficient to know the nature of Islaam in respect to expansion!! For us to
know the secret of Al-Qitaal (the fighting)!!”

The writer, may Allah forgive him, forgot the message directed to the Roman governor, he forgot the
killing of its carrier, and he forgot that the Romans (who were originally based in Europe) had gathered
together 100 thousand within the heart of Al-Hijaaz (in the Arabian Peninsula) in a military display to
strike the new Deen and prevent the Da’wah from spreading north of the Arabian Peninsula. The author
did not pay any attention to all of that and all that he paid attention to was the expansive nature of Islaam!
…” (1).

Then Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy expresses his disapproval of the representation of the motive of the wars
of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with that representation that he quoted from whom he described as one of the
‘Ulamaa:
“When we write the Seerah of our Nabi with this style, then what is left for the missionaries and
orientalists (to write about)?”

We believe that Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy was referring to the book “Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy” by Dr.
Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy, in his comment when he described a book that had appeared recently. The
following is what Al-‘Umariy mentioned in respect to the discussion about the battle of Mu’tah:

[(1) Jihaad Ad-Da’wah Baina l-‘Ajz Ad-Daakhil Wa Kaid ul-Khaarij, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p20, (2) The same
reference as prior one].

“The search for the direct reasons for the expeditions against the Arab tribes in the outskirts or fringes of
Ash-Shaam do not have a great impact upon the explanation of the events. That is because the legislation
of Al-Jihaad dictates the continuation in subduing the Arab tribes and expanding the territory of the
Islamic State, regardless of the direct causes. It was necessary to subdue the small Arab Christian states
which were loyal to the Romans and as a consequence Rome proceeded to mobilise to the region to
counter the young Islamic State” (1).

This is what Dr. Al-‘Umariy mentioned and it is what we believe Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy was referring
to in his comment in relation to the battle of Mu’tah.

Al-Ghazaaliy continues his opposition to anyone who adopts this direction in respect to the portrayal of
the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and states the following: “The head of an Islamic party writes, in a long article
(2) to the members of his party, that Islaam initiates the Qitaal (fighting) and sets a plan of attack against
its opponents. Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani, may Allah’s mercy upon him, says: “Indeed, the
Qawl (spoken word) of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and his Fi’l (action) both indicate with a clear indication that
Al-Jihaad is initiating the Qitaal (fighting) with the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to raise high the word of Allah
and to spread Islaam”. And he says: “The Messenger’s going out to Badr to take the caravan of Quraish
represent a going out for Al-Qitaal (fighting) and it represents the initiation of the Qitaal. That is because
Quraish represented a state and it had yet to aggress against the Messenger or against Al-Madinah so as to
make it defensive, rather he ‫ ﷺ‬initiated the Qitaal with them!”.

Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy continues saying: “And the head of Hizb ut Tahrir Al-Islaamiy goes on saying:
“The Prophet’s sending of the army to Mu’tah to fight the Romans and his going to Tabook close to the
Roman borders to fight them, reveals completely that it represented an initiation of fighting”.

Ash-Sheikh Al-Ghazaaliy comments upon this speech saying: “And this speech is from the strangest that
could be said!” (3).

[(1) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p165, (2) This publication was quoted as a whole by Dr.
Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan in his book: “International relation in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah” without indicating to the quote and
it is found between pages 121 and 132 in his book, (3) Jihaad Ad-Da’wah, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: 22-23].

From what we have quoted from the book of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy ‘Jihaad Ad-Da’wah”,
it becomes clear to us that the contemporary Islamic writers are divided into two groups regarding the
Mas’alah (issue) of the reason or cause lying behind the wars of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as we had stated earlier.

- A group that views the wars and being defensive and to repel the aggression according to the meaning
that we have explained.

- A group that views it as the undertaking (or fulfilling) of the Fard of Al-Jihaad regardless of it being a
response to an aggression or the Kaafir’s initiation of the fighting, for the sake and purpose of ruling them
by Islaam, in the case where it represents the Islamic Tareeqah (method) for undertaking the Da’wah to
them!

- The following are some of the statements of those who hold the first opinion representing their
direction:

1 - The following was mentioned by Ash-Sheikh Mahmood Shaltut in his doctorate “Al-Qur’aan Wal-
Qitaal”:

“And it is evidently clear that the Messenger did not fight except against the one who fought him and
except to repel oppression, repel the transgression and aggression and to eliminate the Fitnah in respect to
the Deen” (1).

2 - The following was stated in the book “Aathaar ul-Harb” by Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy:

“The defensive stance (or position) is what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims after him proceeded upon”
(2).

3 - And the following was stated in the book “Fundamentals of international relations in Islaam” by
‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy:

“All of the Ghazawaat of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬were purely defensive in character” (3).

- In contrast, the following are some of the statements of those who hold the second opinion which
represent the direction that they took:

1 - It was stated in the book “International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah” by Muhammad ‘Ali
Hasan, that:

“The wars of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, even if they included amongst them defensive war, like the battle of
Uhud and the battle of Al-Ahzaab, the majority of them nevertheless represented an initiation of Al-Qitaal
to spread Islaam. It could be a defensive war however it was mostly an offensive war …

[(1) Al-Qur’aan Wal-Qitaal, Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot: p126, Aathaar ul-Harb, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p93,
Fundamentals of international relations in Islaam, ‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy: p77].

Then he says: … The Muslims in respect to their carrying of the Islamic Da’wah, when they were inviting
the people to embrace Islaam they were not coercing the individuals to embrace it. Rather, they were only
coercing the peoples and nations in respect to accepting its application and submission to its rulings” (1).

2 - And in the book “Fiqh us-Seerah” by Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadaan Al-Boutiy:

“And Al-Bazzaar recorded with a Hasan (good) Isnaad (chain of narration) from the Hadeeth of Jaabir
that when a large host had gathered against him on the day of Al-Ahzaab he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َالَ َي ْغ ُزو َن ُك ْمَ َبعْ دََ َه َذاَأَ َبدا ََولَكِنْ َأَ ْن ُت ْمَ َت ْغ ُزو َن ُه ْم‬
They will not attack you after this ever but (rather) you will be attacking them

And this was an announcement representing the end of the defensive stage of war.
As for the stage that followed it, then that was the stage of calling the people generally (on mass) to Islaam
accompanied by fighting against anyone who stood in its way and prevented the Da’wah from reaching
where it needed to reach …” (2)

I say: It may be that this speech meets with those who say that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were only
undertaken for defence according to its wider meaning i.e. including the defence against those who stand
in the face of the Da’wah and who prevent its spread. As such, the writer of “Fiqh us-Seerah” (Al-Boutiy)
later elaborated upon his thought by saying: “Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬began to dispatch
military expeditions (Saraayaa) consisting of his companions to the different Arab tribes scattered across
the Arabian Peninsula so as to fulfil the role of the Da’wah to Islaam. Then, if they did not respond, due
to hostility and stubbornness, they were fought upon that” (3).

In relation to this, it is necessary to understand these two specifications mentioned in this text, ‘hostility’
and ‘stubbornness’, as being two explanatory specifications and not ones of reservation. That means that
the rejection of responding positively to the Da’wah following its conveyance and making it clear in a
sufficient manner that removes all doubt, cannot be explained except by hostility to that Da’wah or a
stubbornness to submit to the truth that has become apparent. Consequently, the response to that
rejection is Al-Qitaal (fighting).

[(1) International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p127-128. It is worth mentioning here
that what was mentioned in his book was taken almost word for word from the written piece about Al-Jihaad by Ash-Sheikh
Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani which Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy indicated to. However, I did not find any indicating
note for that within the book of Dr. Hasan or reference at the back of the book! (2) Fiqh us-Seerah: p270, (3) Fiqh us-Seerah:
p296].

Despite this, I would have preferred for the statement to be free of these two specifications so that the
thought could be freed from any ambiguity and to prevent it being used as an excuse by claiming that the
motive or reasoning for the rejection was not because of hostility or stubbornness but rather just because
of the lack of conviction in the thought that the Da’wah (invitation) is based upon!

In any case, Dr, Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy views that the wars (or warfare) of the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬passed through two stages: The first stage that remained defensive until the end of the
battle of Al-Khandaq (Al-Ahzaab): “Then when he concluded the treaty of Hudaybiyyah … The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬became free to enter into a new stage … That was none other than the stage of fighting those whom
the Da’wah had reached and then they became aware of it and understood it but were too arrogant to
believe in it and submit to it out of malice and hostility (animosity) …” (1).

I say: If only he had not used these two other specifications as seen above! (i.e. malice and hostility).

[(1) Fiqh us-Seerah, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p300. I say: The discussion here is
specific to the vision of Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy about the wars of the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬in respect to whether they were merely defensive or also represented an initiation of fighting against
the disbelievers if they did not respond [positively (i.e. accept) the Da’wah (invitation)? … As for the
vision of the Doctor in relation to Al-Jihaad in general, is it legally legitimate only in defence against the
aggression? Or has it also been legislated to make the other peoples and states submit to Islaam? In his
book “Al-Islaam Mulaadh Al-Mujtama’aat” on p229 he mentions that which indicates that Al-Jihaad is
only for the protection of the Muslims and their lands … That is when he stated: “Al-Jihaad that Allah
legislated and settled as a subject from amongst the most serious and important subjects of the Islamic
Fiqh, does not represent more than what any peaceful democratic state has legislated today in respect to
the protection of its peace and the safeguarding of its security”. He then supports that by what was
mentioned in Mugni Al-Muhtaaj: 4/210: “And the Fard Al-Kifaayah (i.e. in respect to Al-Jihaad) is
fulfilled by the Imaam by filling the frontiers (i.e. places where the disbelievers can attack the Islamic land)
sufficiently to repel the disbelievers, by making the fortresses and trenches strong and by appointing the
army leaders …”
That is what Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Al-Boutiy mentioned and what he relied upon to support his view.
Regarding it I say: We will discuss later, when discussing the reasons or causes for the declaration of Al-
Jihaad, that just as Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’ (legislated and legally legitimate) in defence against aggression
and hostility, it is also legislated for the sake and purpose of applying the Islamic system over the people
and states, when it is capable of that, even if they (i.e. peoples and states) remain upon their previous
religions. It is apparent in respect to that what was mentioned in Mughni Al-Muhtaaj, which is from the
Shaafi’iy Fiqh, that it must be understood in light of what has been established within this Fiqh and which
is also established by the majority, regarding the obligation of sufficiency in respect to Al-Jihaad not being
met or fulfilled unless the disbelievers are engaged in battle at least once within the period of a year, as
long as it has the capability of undertaking that of course. Consequently, that which was mentioned in
Mughni al-Muhtaaj is only referring to when the frontiers have been protected and military skirmishes or
clashes have taken place with the enemy, as was the normal situation in respect to the history of the
Muslims. And if it took place at least once in the year, the Fard Al-Kifaa’iy (duty of sufficiency) would be
fulfilled. And as mentioned we will discuss this issue in more detail later Inshaa Allah].

3 - And from the writers who held the opinion that the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were only for the purpose
of spreading Islaam and not restricted to defence against aggression, even in accordance to its wider
meaning, was Major Yaseen Sweid who stated the following in his book: “The Battles of Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed”: “The primary objective of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam is: Al-Jihaad Fe Sabeelillah (in the way
of Allah) and to spread His Deen. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to instruct the commanders of the Ghazawaat
(military expeditions) by saying: “Undertake your expedition in the name of Allah and fight those
who have disbelieved in Allah …” (1), just as he would instruct them to invite the Mushrikeen
(polytheists/disbelievers) to Islaam; if they were to respond positively (and accept), then that is what is
aimed for and the overall objective but if they do not accept, then it is Waajib (obligatory) to fight them
…” (2).

The above section therefore represents some of what has been stated in respect to the battles, military
expeditions (Ghazawaat) and sorties (Saraayaa) undertaken by the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬according to the views
of the classical scholars and contemporary Islamic thinkers and writers who have written upon this issue.

They represent:

- An opinion that states that it is only defensive against the aggression that befalls the Muslims from the
enemies, their lands and Da’wah which includes standing in the way of the spread of this Da’wah!

- And another opinion stating that in addition to being defensive as mentioned above, which was apparent
in the first stage of the life of the Islamic State, that after that, after Al-Khandaq (the battle of the trench)
and particularly after the revelation of Soorah Al-Baraa’ah (At-Taubah), it represented the initiation of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) by the Muslims against the disbelievers. That was of course following the conveyance of
Islaam to them in a manner that removed any excuse to reject the acceptance of the call. That was for the
sake and purpose of applying the Islamic system over them so that they could take in the qualities and
merits of Islaam in a live (and practical) manner even if they were not forced or compelled into accepting
Islaam.

This Qitaal (fighting) of the disbelievers for the sake of this aim is what some have named as being
offensive war or expansionary war (3)!

As for our opinion in this Mas’alah (issue)? Then that is the subject of the next point of discussion:
[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 3/1357, (2) Battles of Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, Major Yaseen Sweid: p37, (3) Jihaad Ad-Da’wah, Ash-
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p22. Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p165, and International
Relations, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p127].

The fourth point: Our opinion in respect to the wars of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬

I say: For the sake of precision in a study, when we issue an opinion upon a particular issue, it is important
to restrict the study to the issues related to that issue and to not mix between another issue and the issue
that we are addressing, which in this case is: “The wars that the Prophetic Seerah recorded and the treaties
that were made between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the Mushrikeen (polytheists/disbelievers), in addition to
what all of that indicates to in terms of Ahkaam in relation to what connects to the reason of those wars
and whether they represent an intrinsic defensive nature and character, according to the wider meaning of
defence against aggression, or represent an intrinsically offensive and expansionist nature, according to the
understanding that we have previously provided?

This is the Mas’alah (issue): The actual wars that the Sahaabah waged or engaged in within the Seerah An-
Nabawiyah and the treaties (Mu’aahadaat) that the Seerah recorded. The issue is not however the subject
of “Al-Jihaad in Islaam” in a general form, in respect to whether it represents initiation of Al-Qitaal
(fighting) against the Kuffaar (disbelievers), even if no aggression came from them, for the sake of
spreading Islaam, after conveying it to them and following their rejection of the invitation, or if it merely
represents a defence against aggression?

That is because the Hukm (judgment) upon the nature of “Al-Jihaad” in a general form occurs through
gathering together all of the Adillah (evidences) that the sources of the Islamic legislation have provided in
relation to this subject area and those sources are the Kitaab, the Sunnah Al-Qawliyah, Amaliyah and
Taqreeriyah (Speech, action and consent or approval), Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions)
and Al-Qiyaas (analogy). That is followed by passing judgement upon “Al-Jihaad” in respect to it being
defensive alone or defensive and offensive at the same time? And that is not the subject of this particular
study.

Rather, the study here only relates to the Daleel (evidence) of the Sunnah Al-Amaliyah (action and
practical application) concerning this subject area which is represented in the wars of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and
the cessation of those wars by Mu’aahadaat (treaties). This Daleel (evidence) provides specific information
related to the source of the difference or disagreement in respect to whether his Qitaal was defensive only
or offensive as well?

As for the other Adillah (evidences) then then they could have information in a limited manner and other
information could be added to join with the former information … It could be this and it could be that,
but we are not dealing with this topic now and so we will delay its discussion to its place within the study
of the reasons for the declaration of Al-Jihaad in Islaam.

We will now restrict ourselves to the information that the practical (i.e. action-based) Prophetic Seerah has
provided us in relation to this area.

And upon this basis:

We summarise our opinion in the following matters:

1 - It is permissible to describe the Saraayaa (smaller military expeditions) and Ghazawaat (battles and
larger expeditions) that targeted the caravans of Quraish, and what was like that from what we have
mentioned earlier, as being defensive against aggression or hostility just as it is permitted to describe them
as representing the initiation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the disbelievers. That is arrived at through two
considerations:

A - That is because it represents a defence against aggression or hostility (‘Udwaan) under the
consideration that it had been already established that Quraish had initiated the declaration of war against
the Muslims in Al-Madinah following the establishment of the Islamic State in it, irrespective of their
aggression against the Muslims prior to the establishment of their state, as was explained within the first
point of this study.

As such, the stance of the Muslims, in this situation and circumstance, became one of defence in the face
of an aggression that Quraish had declared against them (1).

B - It is correct (or valid) to describe those Saraayaa and Ghazawaat (smaller and larger military
expeditions) against the Quraish as representing an initiation of fighting against the disbelievers by the
Muslims. That is under the consideration that Quraish, even if they had initiated the declaration of the
state of war against the Muslims, they however did not use this state of war to initiate the direction of
military operations against the state of Muslims. Rather, it was the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬who initiated those
operations to intercept the Quraish caravans. However, it is more accurate to say, that the Saraayaa and
Ghazawaat represented, according to the reality that the books of Seerah have recorded, an initiation of
fighting by the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬against the Quraish, whilst the state of war was existing between the state
in Makkah and the state in Al-Madinah, and that it was Makkah who had initiated and declared war against
Al-Madinah. Consequently, such a state of war permitted the side that war had been declared against (i.e.
the Muslims) to initiate the actual fighting against the other side, in its description as being representative
of a kind of defence against aggression (2).

2 - In the Ghazwah (battle) of Badr, the wills of the two sides met and came together upon the utilisation
of the state of war existing between them and to clash in Qitaal. The evidence for that is, that when
Quraish went out to protect the caravan of Abu Sufyaan from being intercepted by the Muslims, and then
that caravan escaped and was safe whilst the Quraish became aware of that, Al-Akhnas Bin Shuraiq
returned along with Bani Zahrah just as the brother of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (ra), Taalib Bin Abi Taalib
returned, and so they were not present at the fighting. As for the remainder, then their stance, as
mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam was as follows: “Abu Jahl Bin Hishaam said: By Allah, we will
not return until we reach Badr (and Badr was a seasonal meeting place of the Arabs, in which they would
gather for a market every year). We will stay there for three nights, slaughter the camels, feast and drink
alcohol. Then the songstress’s will play about us and the Arabs will hear about us, our march and our
gathering, and they will be in awe of us for ever after that, so march on …” (3).

[(1) Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p257-258, (2) Ash-Sharee’ah Al-
Islaamiyah Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p256-257, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd al-Unuf:
3/35)].

This indicates that Quraish initially intended to protect the caravan and then when that caravan escaped
safely from harm, they intended or sought to exploit this existing demonstration for two matters:

Firstly: To utilise it for amusement and play.

Secondly: To use it as propaganda for Quraish amongst the Arabs to preserve their stature, awe and
standing just as Abu Jahl spoke of. The intention was not to attack Al-Madinah and it was not in their
calculations that they would encounter the Muslims following the safe escape of their caravan. However,
in any case, the continuation of the army of Quraish in its march towards Badr, whilst its caravan was safe,
indicates implicitly to their will to fight if the matters were to develop or escalate towards fighting.

The above relates to the perspective of Quraish.

As for the Muslims, then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬became aware that the Quraish had gone out
from Makkah to defend the caravan, he consulted the Sahaabah about whether they should chase after the
caravan so as to catch up with it before it escaped completely from their grasp or Quraish were able to
protect it, or if they should prepare for the army that had gone out from Makkah seeking to protect the
caravan, so as to engage in warfare with it?

Some of them (i.e. the Sahaabah) said: “If only you would have mentioned fighting (Al-Qitaal) to us, we
would have prepared for it but we went out (equipped) to seek a caravan” and in another narration: “O
Messenger of Allah! Stick to the caravan and leave the enemy!” (1).

Then the opinion that preferred to meet with the enemy became predominant like it has been mentioned
in the (books of) the Propehtic Seerah (“). Here, we find that the thought or idea of fighting at Badr
represented an idea that was new in respect to the position of the Muslims as a result of the development
of matters and as a result of the opinion that had become dominant in the consultation that had been
convened in respect to this matter!

Consequently, we observe in respect to the Ghazwah of Badr that in the end of the matter the wills of
both parties met and came together upon fighting, even if this thought had been clearer regarding the
Muslims following the consultation, than it had been in respect to the Mushrikeen.

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/159, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/33)].

3 - In respect to the Ghazwah of Uhud and then the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq, it is clear that the stance
and position of the Muslims in these two battles was a defence stance according to the meaning of being
constrained or being put in a tight spot i.e. defending Al-Madinah and the Muslims within it against the
will or desire of the disbelievers which they had declared in terms of wiping the Muslims out of existence
(1).

4 - It is clear that the Sabab (reason or cause) for the Ghazwah of Quraizhah was because the Jews broke
their treaty (Mu’aahadah) and participated with the Ahzaab in the effort to eliminate the Muslims from
existence (2).

5 - The cause or reason for the Ghazwah of Khaibar, as explained earlier in the second point of this study,
was that the leaders of the Jews of An-Nadeer had become leaders there and had taken it as a base to
incite the Arab tribes against Al-Madinah and the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Ahzaab represented no more
than the fruits of their dirty plotting (3).

That is in addition to the news that reached Al-Madinah regarding them mobilizing to wage war against
the Muslims and that a gathering (of forces) in Fadak were ready to reinforce Khaibar in their war which
they were on the verge of undertaking against Al-Madinah (4). And also because of the prior treaty
between it and Quraish to support it in its war against the Messenger of Allah ‫( ﷺ‬5).

6 - As for the Ghazawaat and Saraayaa (Battles and expeditions) that were directed towards the Arab
tribes other than Quraish, then the reason for them was to foil and counter an aggression or act of
hostility that those tribes were mobilising and preparing to undertake i.e. they were undertaken from the
angle of defence even if they were shrouded by the dress of being offensive or they could be described by
the name of offensive defence or preventative war (6). It was evident in this war that the Muslims initiated
the fighting against the disbelievers however that was after those tribes had declared war against the
Muslims first.

7 - As for the Fat’h (opening or conquest) of Makkah, then the cause (Sabab) for it was the breaching of
the peace treaty by the Quraish (7) as was mentioned previously.
[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/134 and 261), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/261), (3) Seerah
Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/258), (4) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/284, (5) Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer, As-
Sarakhsiy: 1/298, (6) Al-Madrasah Al-Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah (The Islamic Militray School), Muhammad Faraj: p176, (7)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/84)].

8 - As for the Ghazwah of Mu’tah, then Tabook and the command for the army of Usaamah to march
forth to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), and the clashes with the Romans and the supporting tribes in the
north upon the border of Ash-Shaam, then the reason for that was because those Romans and those
tribes had declared war against Al-Madinah before that when they killed the envoy of the Messenger of
Allah ‫( ﷺ‬1) and they killed some of those who had embraced Islaam within their regions (2) … That
was what led the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to initiate the march to fight against them (3).

This initiation of Al-Qitaal:

- Call it, if you wish, a defence against the aggression undertaken against the Muslims through the
indication of the reality that we explained.

- Call it, if you wish, the removal of a material obstacle that stood in the way of the Islamic Da’wah, as is
clear in respect to the interdiction (or banning) that the Roman authorities and the Arab tribes subservient
to them imposed against the spread of the Da’wah.

- Call it, if you wish, an offensive or expansionary war, because it represents an attack against the
aggressing or hostile disbelievers within their own homelands, with the aim of weakening their authority
within those regions as a prelude to bringing down that authority in the end, spread Islaam within them
and join or annex them to the Islamic State which expands via this method or in this manner!

However, despite the difference of these names, we must continue to bear in mind that it was the Romans
and those tribes which supported and were loyal to them who were the ones to initiate and declare war
against the Muslims, even if it was the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬who took the initiative and initiated the attack and
Qitaal (fighting) as a response to their initiation of the declaration of war against him.

9 - As for after the revelation of Soorah Al-Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) and the general proclamation or notice
provided to the Mushrikeen in the Arabian Peninsula from those who had broken their treaties
(Mu’aahadaat) with the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and providing them with a choice between: Submission to the
Islamic system whilst remaining upon their Shirk (polytheism and disbelief) and paying the Jizyah,
according to one view (4).

- Or accepting Islaam alone without accepting from them that they remain upon Shirk and pay the Jizyah,
according to the opinion of the majority (5).

- Or Al-Qitaal (i.e. that they are fought against).

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul Qayyim: 3/381, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/216-
217), (3) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/381, (4) Tafseer An-Naisaabouriy: 10/36-37, (5)
Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/42-43].

- Or they leave the land, far away from the grasp of the Muslims just as Sufyaan Bin Umayyah (1) and
‘Ikramah Ibn Abi Jahl (1) did when Makkah was conquered, or just like ‘Adiy Bin Haatim At-Taa’iy did
later, even if they later returned and embraced Islaam purely based upon their choice after that!
In respect to this I say: As for after the revelation of Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) and the provision to
them of four months as a grace period so that they could choose for themselves what they preferred from
the choices available, then the reality of those Mushrikeen (polytheists) who had broken their treaties, is
that they declared war against the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬by their breaching of those Mu’aahadaat (treaties). And
the state that the people of the ‘Ahd (covenant) have declared war against, have the right to fight them
and to eliminate them before they are eliminated by them, without notice, just as was the affair with Bani
Quraizhah before that.

However, the Islamic State did not do that with those Mushrikeen who had broken their covenants and
treaties (Mu’aahadaat) with it. Instead, they gave them the opportunity to choose from a number of
choices and left the opportunity of four months for them to make up the minds related to what they
wanted to do by themselves!

It appears that the polytheists who had broken their covenants or treaties with the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬appreciated that great courtesy or generosity in respect to the triumphant Islamic State’s treatment
and dealing with them which made them want to embrace Islaam and so they began to enter the Deen of
Allah in crowds as a consequence following that (2).

This relates to the matter of the Mushrikeen (polytheists) who had breached their covenants or treaties
and the Hukm (legal ruling) of Soorah Baraa’ah in respect to them.

10 - As for the Mushrikeen who maintained their faithfulness to their treaties with the Muslims, what is
the stance taken in respect to them following the revelation of Soorah Baraa’ah?

- Muhammd ‘Izzah Darwazah views the following if they request to renew their treaty (Mu’aahadah) at the
time of its end whilst remaining upon their Shirk (polytheism and disbelief): “It is not the right of the
Muslims to refuse or reject that. That is because they have been command to fight those who fight and
aggress against them” (4) i.e. those Mushrikeen have not aggressed against the Muslims because they have
maintained their faithfulness to their treaties and consequently the command of Allah to the Muslims to
“fight them” does not include them.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/105), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/211), (3) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/194), (4) The book “Naqd LiAqwaal Ad-Darwazah” (Critique of the views of Darwazah), by
Ash-Sheikh Fadl ‘Abbaas: p345 and quoted from: “International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali
Hasan: p105].

- That is whilst the majority view (1) is that those Mu’aahadaat (treaties) are not renewed when their term
has come to an end. The same then applies to them as that which applies upon those who broke their
treaties in terms of being provided with the choice mentioned above. In relation to this Sayyid Qutb said:

“Whoever had a covenant with the Mushrikeen, then nothing was breached in respect to it and they did
not assist or support the enemies of the Muslims against them, then it remains in continuance until the
expiration of its term. His covenant is maintained and safeguarded until its term. However, it is not
renewed because the Islamic camp must permanently get rid of the suspicious or doubtful foreign
elements …” And then he said: “That relates to the Mushrikeen of the Arabian Peninsula alone, in its
description as representing the base of the Aqeedah (belief) … As for the Mushrikeen outside of it (i.e. the
Peninsula) then the matter between them and the Muslim Ummah, is that they do not stand in the way of
the Islamic Da’wah with force, that they do not seduce the Muslims or put them on trial to take them
away from their Deen and that they do not fight the Muslims, assist others against them or expel them
from their homes. Islaam did not want to compel the people to embrace Islaam by this, but rather it
wanted to secure the Islamic camp or base … And to confront its enemies outside of the Peninsula whilst
they were amassing for it and whilst it was content with its rear (i.e. that it was secure) …”.
He then states: “In Communism, which is a thought of a man who can err or be correct, its adherents do
not permit the individual to live amongst them whilst he does not believe in an earthly thought, the
originator of which, can err or be correct! (i.e. a thought of a man with all his inherent deficiencies) That is
in the 20th century and after freedom of thought has become widespread …” (2).

My opinion is that the issue of the declaration to efface idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula by the force
of the sword (i.e. military power) relates to of two matters:

Firstly: In respect to the presence of Al-Wathaniyah (idolatry or paganism) as entities like that which was
present in Makkah, At-Taa’if or within the tribes which resembled small states within the Arabian
Peninsula, there is no room to permit that such a presence remains following the revelation of Soorah
Baraa’ah and even if that concerned a tribe that had maintained its treaty or covenant with the Muslims
and wished to renew the treaty with them. That is because such a tribe would come under one of two
cases or situations.

[(1) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/42-43, Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-Arabiy: 2/889 and Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan, Al-Qurtubiy:
8/71, (2) Fee Zhilaal il-Qur’aan, Sayyid Qutb: 10/38-39. I say: What Sayyid Qutb, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, mentioned
represents a description of the reality that existed prior to the recent developments in many of the lands of the communist
camp … The matter which lightened the siege over those who did not believe in communism].

- The first situation: That the tribe opens the path within its homelands for the Islamic Da’wah and gives
up the authority to the Muslims in the case where the majority of the regions of the Arabian Peninsula are
in submission to the victorious or conquering Islamic authority. That is in accordance to the natural reality
in any region where there exists a group which is more powerful than others, the rule would naturally
belong to the most powerful group or party and based upon that there is no room left for an irregularity
of a tribe remaining outside of this submission to this authority that has already subdued most of the
tribes within the region of the Arabian Peninsula. This is the first situation.

- As for the second situation: That the tribe stands in the way of the Da’wah or refuses to submit to the
new authority. In this situation, they are classified as being an obstacle in the way of the Islamic Da’wah.
Consequently, they must be fought just like any obstacle that stands in the way of the Da’wah is fought
against. In addition, with this method, no non-Islamic entity remains within the Arabian Peninsula.

This is what actually occurred when many of the tribes of Shirk (idolatry) within the Peninsula declared
their Islaam and sent delegations to Al-Madinah for that purpose. In this way, they were joined to the
Islamic State whilst a small number of those tribes attempted to rebel against the authority in Al-Madinah
which had become the unrivalled master of the Peninsula. However, they quickly returned and submitted
to the Islamic system that encompassed the Arabian Peninsula in its entirety. This is what happened in
respect to some of the tribes in Yemen as was recorded in the books of the Seerah (1).

This is what relates to the elimination of Al-Wathaniyah (idolatry or paganism) in terms of it being
representative of an entity of the Arabian Peninsula, by armed or military force.

Secondly: As for the notice to efface idolatry on an individual level from the Arabian Peninsula following
the revelation of Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah), then we have previously quoted from An-Naisaabouriy, in
his Tafseer, that the Mushrikeen residing in the Peninsula do not have following the grace period: “Except
one of three choices; Islaam, or accept the Jizyah or the sword” (2).

We also quoted from Al-Aalousiy, in his Tafseer, that they do not have after the grace period except:
“Islaam or the sword” (3) and this represents the opinion of the majority (of the scholars).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/215) and Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, Sheikh As-Saadiq ‘Arjoun: p113, (2) Tafseer
An-Naisaabouriy: 10/36-37, (3) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/42-43].
The Mas’alah (issue) is therefore one of difference of opinion and or discussion here does not relate to
discussing this use and outweighing one opinion over the other. However, that which the Hukm (ruling)
of Islaam finally concluded upon in relation to this issue was: The prevention (or forbiddance) of the
Mushrikeen remaining within the Arabian Peninsula and that is according to what was recorded in Saheeh
Al-Bukhaari from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) who said:

َ‫تَأ ُ ِجي ُز ُه ْم‬

ُ ‫ََب َنحْ ِوَ َماَ ُك ْن‬ ْ ‫َوأَ ِجي ُز‬،ِ
ِ ‫واَال َو ْفد‬ َ ‫َِال َع َرب‬ ْ ‫يرة‬ َ ‫َج ِز‬ ََ ْ‫ِينَمِن‬ ْ ‫َب َثالَثٍَ َقا َلَ"َأَ ْخ ِر ُج‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬ َ ‫َوأَ ْو‬
ِ ‫صا ُه ْم‬
‫َأَ ْوَ َقا َلَ َف َنسِ ي ُت َها‬،ِ‫َالثالِ َثة‬
َّ ‫تَ َع ِن‬َ ‫َ َو َس َك‬."
And he (i.e. the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prior to his death) gave three instructions: “Expel the Mushrikeen
from the Arabian Peninsula and reward the delegations just as I rewarded them”. And he was
silent over the third or he said it and I forgot it (1).

This Hadeeth represents a declaration of the end of the presence of the idolaters, and even upon the
individual level, within the Arabian Peninsula, in a manner that indicates settling down or setting up
residence. However, this is not undertaken by way of killing but rather by way of expulsion as indicated to
in text of the Hadeeth.

In addition, the word “Mushrikeen” firstly covers the people of idol worship before takin in to its
meaning the Ahl ul-Kitaab, even if they also fall under the name of “Al-Mushrikeen” as well (2).

This Hadeeth also came in the final stage of the life of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Lafzh (wording) of the
Hadeeth indicates to the presence of Mushrikeen in their description as individuals following the
revelation of Soorah Baraa’ah in the 9th Hijri year which came before the command to expel them in the
end of the 11th Hijri year (3). That’s even if there were no narrations indicating to the presence of those
individuals at the time when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded the expulsion of the Mushrikeen from Al-
Jazeerah (Peninsula).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 3053 and 4432, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 6/170 and 8/132-135, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/889. It
was stated in Tafseer Aayaat ul-Qur’aan by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali As-Saayis: 3/22: “The majority hold the opinion that
the Lafzh (wording) ‘Mushrikeen’ is specific to the worship of idols whilst some said: It includes all of the Kuffaar
(disbelievers)”, (3) In ‘Al-Mu’tasir Min Al-Mukhtasir” the following was recorded: “That ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬said: I were to live (for longer), I would surely expel the Yahood (Jews) and the Nasaaraa (Christians) from the Jazeerat ul-
‘Arab (Arabian Peninsula) and so none but the Muslim remains within it … And was related from Ibn ‘Abbaas that he said:
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬instructed three matters and so he said: Expel the Mushrikeen from Jazeerat ul-Arab (Arabian
Peninsula) … There is an error in this (narration) according to Ibn ‘Uyaynah, because he was speaking from memory and so it
is possible that he made the Jews and the Christians in the place of Al-Mushrikeen in the case where he did not have the
understanding that would allow him to distinguish between that. That is whilst what the collective has memorised is given
precedence when a one has differed with them … That is because he ‫ ﷺ‬was instructing this during his illness that he later
died in. That is whilst Allah had effaced Shirk and its people (i.e. Mushrikeen), so how could he be instructing the expulsion of
those who do not exist? Rather, he instructed the expulsion of those who were present and they were the Jews and the
Christians”. And in the commentary or margins of the book an additional comment was made upon the description (of Ibn
‘Uyaynah) in respect to the non-distinction between the Jews and Christians and the Mushrikeen: And that is what he said and
Ibn ‘Uyanah is an Imaam. Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: “I have not seen anyone having more knowledge in him that Ibn ‘Uyaynah”
… Wallah ul-Musta’aan” (2/204-205)].

In any case, if Islamic opinions exist that state the use of force from the angle of the Aqeedah within a
narrow (or limited) form, which is to force the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists) specifically (1) (according to
one opinion) or the Wathaniyeen (pagans and idolaters) in general (2) (according to another opinion), to
embrace Islaam or face the sword, then Islaam left the opportunity of four months for them to leave the
lands that compel them in respect to that, without any of them being subjected to any harm, in the case
where they have not voluntarily entered by their own wills to enter into that which the people have
entered into (i.e. Islaam).
That period of time or grace period was sufficient enough for them to arrange their affairs, complete their
business, sell their properties and take their rights. The state, during this period of time, as the
responsibility to assist them to attain all of their rights. Such a situation or reality cannot be said to
represent coercion to embrace Islaam and does not conflict with the Noble Aayah:

َِّ‫ِّينََۖ َقدَ َّت َبيَّنَ َالرُّ ْشدَُمِنَ َا ْلغَي‬

ِ ‫َالَإِ ْكرَ اََهَفِيَالد‬
There is to be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong (Al-Baqarah:
256).

It is worth noting that the most powerful state of our current age, which boasts about freedom including
the freedom of belief, could resort to interference regarding that freedom by placing restrictions and bans,
by military force, for an interest that it perceives and outside the scope of its state. However, we do not
see this as being in conflict with the freedom of belief which they raise and carry the flag of. Here I am
talking about the United States of America and the following was stated in the book: “Hiroshima Diary”:

“From amongst the developments that the Americans inserted into Japan following the defeat was to
compel the emperor to declare that he did not descend from a strain of gods and that he was no more
than a man like the rest of the people and he should not be worshipped. Consequently, the worship of the
emperor was abolished in a conclusive and final manner in the year 1946” (3).

I say: If America’s use of force or power to abolish the worship of men was considered to be as a
praiseworthy human act, then Islaam’s use of force to abolish the worship of stones (according to the
opinion of those who hold it) would be considered to represent an act which is even more praiseworthy
and human! Or, does the judgement upon one single issue change depending on whether it is the Muslims
who pass judgement upon it or if it is the Americans?!

Now, it is time to rest the pen in respect to this area of study and move on to a new study.

[(1) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 4/270, (2) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/174, (3) “Hiroshima Diary”, Dr. Michihiko Hachiya:
p242 and translated into Arabic by Dr. Ra’ouf ‘Abbaas Haamid].

The Third Study

The Invitation to Islaam made by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to the Heads of
State and its Relationship to Al-Jihaad

In this volume “The Legitimacy of Al-Jihaad” which we are currently in and are occupied in treating its
areas of study, it was necessary to dedicate an area of study to the letters that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched to
the kings and heads (or rulers) inside of the Arabian Peninsula and outside of it, for the sake of inviting
them to Islaam. That is due to the relationship of the invitation made to these leaders to enter into this
new Deen and the legitimacy of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (In the way of Allah).
As such, the issues in this study that we are dealing with will focus upon the following matters:

The first Mas’alah (issue): The reason for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatching the messengers to the kings and
heads (or rulers).

The second Mas’alah (issue): The doubts that have been raised about the issue of the soundness of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sending the letters to the kings and heads and a refutation of those doubts whilst establishing
the soundness of those letters.

The third issue: What the letters of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent to the kings and heads contained in terms of
content, its implications and the relationship of that with Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah.

The first Mas’alah (issue): The reason for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatching the
messengers to the kings and heads (or rulers)

The cause or reason for that is that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla commissioned the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬with the
responsibility to convey this Rissalah (message of Islaam). From amongst the evidences for that is the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ َ
ِ َ‫َۖوإِنَلَّ ْمَ َت ْف َعلَْ َفمَاَ َبلَّ ْغت‬
‫َرسَالَ َت َُه‬ َ َ‫ك‬ ِ ‫يَاَأ ُّيهَاَالرَّ سُولَُ َبلِّ ْغَمَاَأ‬
َ ‫نزلََإِلَ ْي‬
َ ‫كَمِنَرَّ ِّب‬
O Messenger, convey that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His
message (Al-Maa’idah: 67).

The Risaalah (message) that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was commanded to convey, is the message of Islaam and it is
directed towards all of mankind. It is not specified to one people to the exclusion of another, or to the
people of a certain land to the exclusion of people from another land.

The universality of this message is an issue that has been established since the earliest time of the life of
the Islamic Da’wah. That was before it had an entity and before it was embodied within a state in Al-
Madinah. The evidence for that is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa in Soorah Saba’ which was one of the
Suwar revealed before the Hijrah i.e. before the establishment of the Islamic State:

ََ‫َالَيَعْ لَمُون‬ ِ ‫اَولَ ٰـكِنَّ َأَ ْك َثرَ َال َّن‬

َ ‫اس‬ َ ‫اَو َنذِير‬
َ ‫اسَبَشِ ير‬ َ ‫َومَاَأَرْ َس ْل َنا‬
ِ ‫كَإِ َّالَ َكا َّفةَلِّل َّن‬
And We have not sent you except to mankind as a whole (in its entirety) as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But
most of the people do not know (Saba’: 28).

This clearly refutes the statement that falsely claims that the Islamic Da’wah was fundamentally only a
local Da’wah that came specifically for the Arabs and only put on the cloak of a global Da’wah after it
succeeded in gaining control over the local situation within the Arabian Peninsula. Then it became
ambitious to expand its scope and adopted a global character (1). From amongst that which refutes this
claim is that the Shar’iy text indicating to the generality (or universality) of the message of Islaam to the
whole of mankind came at a time when the Islamic Da’wah in Makkah prior to the Hijrah still represented
a forbidden or banned Da’wah and those undertaking it were still considered to be acting outside of the
law! Then, even after the establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah and when the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
dispatched diplomatic envoys to the kings and heads (or rulers) outside of the Arabian Peninsula, we ask
those who have made this claim: Where was this supposed dominance that the Islamic State was meant to
have realised over the domestic situation within the Peninsula which then, according to their claim, stirred
within it the ambition to make the regional Da’wah a global one, in line with the expansion of the political
influence of the Islamic State?
It is well known, as was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari (2), that the message of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to
Heraclius inviting him to Islaam, a matter which represents, as they say, a transition of the Da’wah from
the local or domestic description to the global description, that this letter was only dispatched shortly after
the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyyah, whilst Makkah, which was the leader of the Arab tribes, was still under the
control of the Mushrikeen then, and the Islamic State was not in control, at that time, over anything apart
from Al-Madinah and its surroundings. As for the rest of the expansive areas of the Arabian Peninsula,
then they either represented regions that were subservient to the leaderships of Shirk or subservient to
Rome or the Persians via their agents from the Arab leaders.

[(1) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p151 where he mentioned this statement and refuted it
completely, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7 and Saheeh Muslim: 1773].

Therefore, the dispatching of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬of his envoys to the kings and heads at this time does
not have any explanation for it apart from that it was the implementation of the command of Allah ‘Azza
Wa Jalla to His Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to invite the people and mankind as a whole to Islaam.
In the book “Nasb Ar-Raayah” by Al-Imaam Az-Zaila’iy the following was stated: “It has been related
that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬undertook the obligation of the Tableegh (conveyance) by expression on occasions
and also by way of writing to those who were absent. I said: As far as his conveyance by expression (i.e.
vocally and by direct speech) then its occurrence is well-known and relation to undertaking it by writing to
the one who is absent, then it is recorded with the Saheehaini (i.e. Two Saheehs of Al-Bukhaari and
Muslim) that Ibn ‘Abbaas related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to the Caesar (Roman emperor)
inviting him to embrace Islaam (1) …” (2).

It is also logical that any Da’wah, even if it was from its beginning a human global Da’wah, that it would
have to start initially through a Da’wah made to those who are close or near, until it was able to become
strongly established and its thought became embodied within a state capable of protecting that Da’wah
and spreading it. At such a time, it would be able to demonstrate and make prominent its universality and
global objective which had been established from the beginning.

This global aspect, which became prominent in the form of international activity undertaken by the state,
represents an inherent characteristic of the Da’wah and not an extraneous one. And that has been
indicated to by the Shar’iyah texts revealed in Makkah, as has been previously demonstrated.

However, due to logical considerations and the nature of the Islamic Da’wah, it had not been possible to
make that global aspect of the Da’wah prominent and at the forefront, in the same way that became
evident in respect to the envoys that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched to the kings and heads (of state), except
after the embodiment of the Da’wah within a state and the preparation of the necessary power required to
confront what may come from those kings and heads, or some of them, in terms of negative reactions.
The consequences of which may dictate that the armed forces of the Islamic State be at a level of
preparedness capable of standing in the face of any aggression or any obstacles placed in the path of
Allah.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7 and Saheeh Muslim: 1773, (2) Nasb Ar-Raayah, Al-Imaam Az-Zaila’iy: 4/417].

However, what logic dictates, according to what we have pointed to, does not mean that the Islamic
Da’wah was a local or domestic Da’wah and then transitioned to make from itself a global Da’wah, after it
felt powerful and wanted to expand its influence. There is a big difference between proceeding upon a
natural path towards the declaration or announcement of the Da’wah to the world as a whole, as has been
previously established, and that falsely claimed statement, as is clear in all that has preceded in terms of
explanation. (i.e. the claim that the Da’wah was only inherently local in origin or nature and only
expanded due to ambition after accomplishing dominance over the local reality).
The second issue: The doubts that have been raised about the issue of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬sending the letters to the kings and heads for the purpose of inviting them to
Islaam and establishing what has been validated in respect to those letters.

Firstly: What are those doubts?

Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy transmitted the following doubts regarding the discussion about the letters
of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the Kings and heads of state (or leaders). He said:

“Most of the orientalists cast doubt upon the validity of the sending of messengers (or envoys) as a whole
and their objection can be summarised as that Islaam is a Deen specific for the Arabs and that the Islamic
State was weak and was not capable of challenging the global powers of the time. Also, that Ibn Ishaaq
did not mention them, that they contain mythical details and that some of the letters contained an Aayah
from the Qur’aan whilst it was said that it was revealed two years after the date of the letters”. Dr. Al-
‘Umariy says: “And these observations are not strong enough to demolish the historical basis of the
existence of the letters …” (1).

This is what Dr. Al-‘Umariy said when he listed the objections of the orientalists and refuted them.
Despite that, it is still useful to respond to those objections with some detail rather than in a general
manner. Upon that basis, we say:

- The first objection is based upon the claim that Islaam is a Deen that is specific to the Arabs. The
clarification of this objection related to the doubt that is casted in respect to the letters that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
dispatched to the Kings and heads of state is as follows:

[(1) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy Fee ‘Ahd An-Nabuwah - Al-Jihaad against the Mushrikeen: p155-156].

According to the orientalists, as long as Islaam is a Deen that is specific to the Arabs, then that contradicts
with the sending of letters of invitation to the kings and heads of state outside of the Arabian Peninsula.
That is because those kings and heads of state or ruler, according to this reasoning, are not subject to the
Da’wah which is specific to the Arabs. There is therefore no reason for letters to be sent to them to invite
them to a matter which is not designated for them or they are not subject to comply to. Otherwise, the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would have violated that which he had been commanded with, which was to restrict this
Da’wah to the Arabs and through the dictates of submitting to that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not violate what he
had been commanded with in this regard, it must be said that those letters were not sent, that those
envoys were not dispatched and that those narrations that mention that are rejected from the angle of the
content of the text and its meaning (Diraayah) due to their contradiction with the fact that the Islamic
Da’wah was specific to the Arabs alone.

The answer to this objection has already been provided within the definite evidences (Adillah Qat’iyah)
that we presented in the study of the first Mas’alah (issue) which indicate that the universality and global
nature of the Islamic Da’wah and its encompassing of mankind as a whole, was an established matter
from the beginning since the time of this Da’wah in Makkah before the Hijrah and before the
establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah. As such, there is no need to repeat that here in respect
to this Mas’alah (issue).

- As for the second objection then it states: That the Islamic State was weak and was not capable of
challenging the global powers of that time.
This objection is built upon a false and erroneous depiction and that depiction is that the mere sending by
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬of Messengers and their conveyance of the Da’wah to the kings and heads of state was
equal to the Islamic State declaring war against those kings and heads of states (or rulers), if they did not
accept to enter into Islaam or did not submit to (authority of) the Islamic State.

Based upon that depiction, the view that those letters encompassed all or most of the kings and heads of
state (or rulers) inside of the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding it, would mean (in their view) that the
Islamic State was in a state of preparedness to confront all of the material powers inside of the Arabian
Peninsula and all of the global powers in a comprehensive war on all fronts. However, (they argue) the
Islamic State had not in reality at that time reached to this position of power within the balance of
international powers. Based on that it is deduced that those letters, which have been pointed to, sent to
the kings and heads of state and which would provoke the whole world against the Islamic State,
contradicts with the situation of the Islamic State at that time. Upon that basis, the opinion is outweighed
to indicate that those letters were not sent and that the narrations about that are not Saheeh!

The above represents the argument behind the second objection in relation to the issue of the sending of
letters to the kings and heads of state!

The answer to this objection is that the basis in establishing or proving a matter, or its non-occurrence, is
only what the reports have transmitted. If those reports or narrations (Riwaayaat) have fulfilled and met
the conditions of Sihhah (validity and soundness) in respect to the occurrence of a particular incident,
then we say that it occurred. On the other hand, if a report fails to meet the conditions of validity (As-
Sihhah) that includes the mention of the occurrence of a particular matter, we do not say that it happened.

This represents the basis in respect to the acceptance or rejection of what has been reported of events,
incidents and realities that have been found mentioned within the reports! As for passing judgement upon
the events and realities upon the basis of what the mind accepts or rejects, in terms of perceiving its
occurrence or non-occurrence based upon circumstances surrounding them, then this represents a matter
that could lead to establishing matters that did not take place and denying matters that did actually take
place. That is in accordance to the differences or disparities found within those examining those matters
in terms of desires, inclinations and comprehension.

It may be that some are more articulate than others in respect to presenting their perception and analysis
and consequently their judgement is viewed as being correct! When the truth is actually with the one who
opposes his opinion but his capability to explain the analysis and perception was not capable of drawing in
the listeners of readers and incline them towards his opinion …

Therefore, the judgement upon the occurrence of realities or the denial of their occurrence is not allowed
to be left to the oratory aptitudes or abilities of portrayal that strike out what they wish to or prove what
they wish to. Rather, it is necessary, in respect to this judgement, to refer back to a subjective measure and
this is what the ‘Ilm ul-Hadeeth’ (Science of Hadeeth) has established in relation to the conditions of
accepting the Khabar (report) and rejecting it. Yes, it is valid to examine the conditions and circumstances
regarding rejecting the news or incident that an acceptable report has come with, from the angle of the
Sanad (chain), if that news, reality or incident completely clashed with the sensed reality. In such a case,
we attribute an error in transmission to the ones who related the Khabar (news or incident) and this is a
matter that could occur, in which case we outweigh that which has been established by certainty from the
sensed reality over it. However, this not apply to our current issue of study, which is the dispatching of
letters by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the kings and heads of state (or rulers) inviting them to Islaam. That is because
there is nothing within these letters or within this invitation that clashes with the sensed reality in any way.

In explanation of that, we will present the narrations, that have been verified to be Saheeh (sound)
according to the measure of the scholars of Hadeeth (Muhadditheen), connect3ed to the issue (Mas’alah)
of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sending those letters to the kings and leaders, to see whether they are contrary to the
sensed reality in terms of the conditions and circumstances of the Islamic State, which led most of the
orientalists to deny them, or that the matter merely represents a portrayal or depiction that a hand of
desires or imagination has weaved, producing such a perceived contradiction as a result?

1 - The following was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra):

Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to Caesar and invited him to Islam and sent him his letter with
Dihya Al-Kalbi. Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬ordered him to hand it over to the Governor of Busra
who would forward it to Caesar …

Then Al-Bukhaari quoted the text of the letter which stated:

In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad,
the slave of Allah, and His Messenger, to Heraclius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon
the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam
and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you
reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding those who work upon the
Al-Areesiyyeen (farmers/workers i.e. the people) (1).

ِ ‫ض َناَبَعْ ضاَأَرْ بَاباَمِّنَد‬

َ‫ُونَاللَّـ ِهََۚ َفَإِنَ َت َولَّ ْوا‬ ُ ْ‫خ َذَبَع‬
ِ ‫اَو َالَ َي َّت‬
َ ‫َبهَِ َشيْئ‬
ِ ‫ك‬ َ ‫اَو َب ْي َن ُك ْمَأَ َّالَ َنعْ ُب َدَإِ َّالَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ََو َالََُن ْش ِر‬ َ ‫قُلَْيَاَأَهْ لََا ْل ِك َتابَِ َتعَالَ ْواَإِلَ ٰىَ َكلِ َمةٍَس ََواءٍَ َب ْي َن َن‬
ََ‫ُواَبَأ َ َّناَمُسْ ِلمُون‬
ِ ‫َفقُولُواَا ْش َهد‬

Say: "O People of the Book, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah
and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah." But if they turn away, then say:
"Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]" (Aali ‘Imraan: 64) (2).

2 - The following was also related by Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) and recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari:

That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a letter from him to Kisraa (Persian emperor) and
then when Kisraa read it he tore it up. (The narrator Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhriy said): I thought that Sa’eed
Ibn ul-Musayyib said: Then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬supplicated against them (i.e. Kisraa and his supporters)
that they be torn up completely (3).

3 - And it was recorded in Saheeh Muslim from Anas (ra):

That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to Kisraa (Persian emperor), to Qaysar (Caesar i.e. Roman emperor), to
An-Najaashiy (Ruler of Abyssinia) and to every Jabbaar (someone powerful in the land), inviting
them to Allah Ta’Aalaa. And it was the Najaashiy (Abyssinian ruler) that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed
over (i.e. upon his death) (4).

[(1) This refers to those who work on the land and farms and its meaning is: That you bear the sin of your subjects who follow
you and are led by your lead. These people are indicated to, so as to refer to all of the subjects because they represent the
majority (of the people) and because they are the quickest to follow; if he was to become Muslim they would become Muslim
and if he refrained, they would also refrain” Commentary of Saheeh Muslim: 3/1396, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7 and Saheeh
Muslim: 1773, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 64 and 2939, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 3/108, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1774, 3/1397].

These are the Saheeh narrations that have come in relation to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sending letters to the kings
and heads. As for other than them then Dr. Al-Umariy says in respect to that: “… As for the texts of the
letters that were sent to Al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt, and they were two letters, in addition to the
responses of Al-Muqawqis, which were also two letters, then their soundness (Sihhah) was not
established. The same applies to the texts of the letters sent to “Al-Haarith Bin Abi Shamir Al-
Ghassaaniy”, the ruler of Damascus, “Haudhah Bin ‘Ali Al-Hanfiy”, the ruler of Al-Yamaamah, “Jaifar”
and “Abd” the two sons of Al-Julandaa, the two rulers of Oman, from the recent perspective. That does
not mean the negation of the sending of those letters to those kings and rulers just as it does not mean a
historical discrediting of those texts. That is because it is possible for them to be Saheehah (sound and
valid) in terms of the form and content, however they do not rise to the level of proof to be used as
evidence within the Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah. Consequently, the text of the letter of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent to
Heraclius is the only one that is Saheeh as a Hadeeth (1) and it is possible for it be considered as a model
through which the rest of the letters can be compared …” (2).

I say: Based upon that, what was contained in the letter of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to Heraclius and what was
similar to it in form from the letters that were sent to other Kings and rulers, even if the texts of the latter
did not reach us through a Saheeh (sound or validated) path?

What was in the letter sent to Heraclius and the letters sent to other than him that contradicts with the
situation or position of the Islamic State within the international balance (of states) in comparison to the
major states of that time? Did this type of letter contain a declaration of war from the Islamic State against
the Roman empire if Heraclius did not respond positively to what that letter contained?

In this recent age of ours, Al-Imaam Al-Khomeini sent a message to the Soviet leader Gorbachev inviting
him to Islaam and to cast aside the communist school of thought that the state of the Soviet Union was
established upon (3). So, did this type of message represent a declaration of war by the state of Iran
against the Soviet Union?

If we were to use the logic of the orientalists which they employed to deny the reports and to affirm them,
we would make the statement: That Al-Khomeini did not actually send that letter because his sending of it
signifies waging war against the Soviets whilst Iran at that time did not have the strength and capability to
do that. Therefore, it is inconceivable to involve itself in a war against the second most powerful state in
the world. Here, if we were to pass judgement by it, the logic of the orientalists would deny the incident of
Al-Imaam Al-Khomeini ever sending that letter, irrespective of the news agencies and global media,
including what is listened to and read, having published this news and regardless of the existence of the
text of the letter being present and before the people to read. That is because the logic of the orientalists is
more truthful than the eyes of the readers and the ears of those listening!!!

[(1) We will demonstrate soon, Inshaa Allah, that the text of the letter of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Kisraa is of the level of Al-Hasan,
even if the report about the sending of the letter itself, irrespective of its text, is from the level of the Saheeh and recorded in
Al-Bukhaari and Muslim, (2) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy Fee ‘Ahd An-Nabuwah: “Al-Jihaad against the Mushrikeen”: p154, (3)
The Cultural Chancellor of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued the text of the correspondence in the Persian language and it
was translated into Arabic on the 23th of Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa 1409 AH just as it was published in the Lebanese newspaper As-
Safeer on 10/11/1979 CE].

I say: It is regrettable, that despite this gaping hole in the logic of the orientalists, there are still those who
depend for their intellectual supply upon what these orientalists provide in terms of opinions and
portrayals that contradict the established truths of our Islamic heritage.

The above, therefore, relates to the second objection that the orientalists have presented for their denial of
the validity or soundness of the letters sent by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the kings and rulers.

- As for the third objection, then it is that Ibn Ishaaq did not mention these letters.

We say: We have already previously mentioned that the origin of the sending of the letters to the kings
and rulers has been established by a Saheeh path as found in the narration related by Anas (ra) in Saheeh
Muslim (1).
And that the letter sent to Kisraa (the Persian emperor) has also been established in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari
and Muslim (2).

As for the texts of those letters, then the text of the letter to Heraclius has been recorded in Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari (3). In addition, Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy judged the narration of the text of the
letter sent to Kisraa as being a Hasan Hadeeth (4). This is its text as was recorded by At-Tabari:

“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. From Muhammad the Messenger of Allah to Kisraa the
leader of the Persians. Peace upon the one who follows guidance and has believed in Allah and His
Messenger, and has testified to Laa Ilaaha Illallah Who is Alone with no partner, and that Muhammad is
His slave and Messenger. I call you with the invitation of Allah for verily I am the Messenger of Allah to
mankind in its entirety, to warn the one who is living and to make the truth prevail over the disbelievers.
So embrace Islaam and you will be safe and if you refuse then the sin of the Majoos (fire worshippers) is
upon you” (5).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1774, 3/1397, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 64 and 2939, Fat’h ul-Baari’: 3/108, Saheeh
Muslim: 1774, 3/1397, (3) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 7, (4) Fiqh us-Seerah, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-
Ghazaaliy (commentary): 388, (5) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/654-655].

If the orientalists have trust and confidence in what Ibn Ishaaq mentions in relation to the texts of these
letters, then the text of the letter of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Heraclius has come in the History of At-Tabari. In
addition, the text that Al-Bukhaari and Muslim mentioned in their Saheehs, the text of that letter was also
recorded in the History of At-Tabari by way of Ibn Ishaaq as well (1).

Ibn Ishaaq also mentions within the History of At-Tabari the text of the letter sent to An-Najaashiy
(Abyssinian king) albeit without mentioning the Isnaad (chain) (2).

At-Tabari mentions a narration of Ibn Ishaaq as well for the text of the letter that was sent to Kisraa
which we have quoted above (3).

In any case, the objective here is not to establish the authenticity of the narration of the text of this letter
or another. Rather, the aim is only to refute the denial of the orientalists of the sending of those letters in
origin based upon the considerations that they mentioned, one of which was that Ibn Ishaaq did not
confirm the texts of those letters.

And yet, here we have Ibn Ishaaq mentioning some of the texts of those letters as was stated within the
Taareekh of At-Tabariy, which destroys the false claims and allegations of the orientalists.

We now come to the fourth objection and that relates to the reports, related to the dispatching of the
envoys (with the letters to the kings), containing mythical details.

I say: It seems that what is intended from this speech is the quoting of narrations (Riwaayaat) which have
not been affirmed about some matters like the envoys that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent becoming like the disciples
of ‘Iesaa (‫ )عليهَالسالم‬who were sent out to the nations i.e. it refers to that each Sahaabiy (companion) from
amongst those who were dispatched to the Kings and rulers came to (be able to) speak the language of the
people they had been sent to (4).

I say: We have already presented the explanation in respect to what is accepted from the narrations and
what is not accepted.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 2/646-649, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 2/652, (3) History of At-Tabariy: 2/654-655, (4) ‘Makaateeb
Ar-Rasool’, ‘Ali Bin Husseinali Al-Ahmadiy: 31].
Had this occurrence or reality, which has been pointed to, been recorded by way of a definite path (i.e.
chain of transmission) then there would be no room to deny it and it would then be considered to be
from the miracles of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬which appeared upon the tongues of those envoys. However, the
report about this supernatural occurrence has not been authenticated and consequently there is no room
to believe in it (and make it part of the Aqeedah).

Also, if a report comes by an acceptable path but some of the details within it are unacceptable within that
report or narration, according to the measure of the scholars of Hadeeth, then by what logic do we reject
the Hadeeth as a whole whilst is has been authenticated in its soundness, due to those details, the validity
of which, are not affirmed or validated?

Is it not equitable to [pass the judgement of affirmation upon that which affirmed and to restrict the
denial to that which has not been affirmed and validated?

Finally, we come to the fifth objection, and that is that some of the messages contained an Aayah from
the Qur’aan which was said to have been revealed following the date of the letters by two years.

The Aayah which has been pointed to is the Aayah found mentioned within the letter sent to Heraclius
and that is:

ِ ‫ض َناَبَعْ ضاَأَرْ بَاباَمِّنَد‬

َ‫ُونَاللَّـ ِهََۚ َفإِنَ َت َولَّ ْوا‬ ُ ْ‫خ َذَبَع‬
ِ ‫اَو َالَ َي َّت‬
َ ‫َبهَِ َشيْئ‬
ِ ‫ك‬ َ ‫اَو َب ْي َن ُك ْمَأَ َّالَ َنعْ ُب َدَإِ َّالَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ََو َالََُن ْش ِر‬ َ ‫قُلَْيَاَأَهْ لََا ْل ِك َتابَِ َتعَالَ ْواَإِلَ ٰىَ َكلِ َمةٍَس ََواءٍَ َب ْي َن َن‬
َّ َ
ََ‫ُواَبأَناَمُسْ لِمُون‬ ْ
ِ ‫فقولواَاش َهد‬ ُ ُ َ

Say: "O People of the Book, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah
and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah." But if they turn away, then say:
"Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]" (Aali ‘Imraan: 64).

It has been recorded that this Aayah was revealed upon the occasion of the Christians of Najraan coming
to Al-Madinah in the year of the delegations and that was in the ninth year of the Hijrah (1). That is whilst
the letter sent to Heraclius was sent at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, following Sulh Al-
Hudaybiyyah (2).

The answer: In respect to this ambiguity, then there are recorded narrations mentioning that this Aayah
was revealed in relation to the Jews who used to live around Al-Madinah i.e. before they were made to
leave. That is whilst it is known that the matter of those Jews residing around Al-Madinah came to an end
when Banu Quraizhah were dealt with in the fifth year of the Hijrah (3) i.e. before the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent his
letter to Hiraql or Hirqil (i.e. Heraclius the Byzantine emperor).

Just as there are recorded narrations mentioning that the Aayah descended on the occasion of the
Christians of Najraan coming to Al-Madinah i.e. after the sending of the letter to Hiraql (Heraclius) by the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

[(1) Ar-Raheeq ul-Makhtoom, Al-Mubaarakfouriy: 506, (Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/644, (3) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 2/564].

In relation to this At-Tabariy stated in his Tafseer: “The people of ‘Ta’weel’ (interpretation) differed in
respect to whom this Aayah was revealed concerning. Some of them said: It was revealed in respect to the
Jews of Bani Israa’eel who used to reside around the Madinah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ … ”ﷺ‬And
then he quoted the narrations mentioning that …
Then he said: “Others said: Rather, it was revealed in respect to the delegation of the Christians of
Najraan”. He then quoted the narrations mentioning that. He then said: “And there is no Saheeh report!
Therefore, it is obligatory for all people of the Book to be included in its meaning …” (1).

Consequently, in the case where there is no Saheeh report regarding the cause of revelation (Sabab un-
Nuzool) and in the case where the Aayah was found mentioned within the letter of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Hiraql (Heraclius), then the meaning of this is that the Aayah had been revealed before that
and upon that basis the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬included it in his letter or it was revealed at the time when the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬had the letter written.

There is nothing Saheeh (authenticated) that establishes or proves other than that and therefore there is
nothing problematic or ambiguous. Consequently, there is no place for the doubt of the orientalists in
respect to the soundness of the sending out of the letters which contained that Aayah, based upon this
falsely claimed ambiguity (or suspicion).

By that, we have reached the end of this second issue and we will now move on to the third Mas’alah
(issue) of this area of study that we are in.

The third issue: What the letters of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent to the kings and heads
contained in terms of content, its implications and the relationship of that with Al-
Jihaad in the way of Allah

It is possible to focus the contents of these letters, which have been established to be authentic, in relation
to what we are studying, into the following matters:

1 - The global nature of the Risaalah (message) of Islaam: That is because it is addressed to the whole of
mankind in its entirety and not to one nation to the exclusion of another. We have already presented the
evidence for that.

2 - The Wujoob (obligation) of conveying the message of Islaam to the Umam (nations pl. of Ummah), to
their leaderships and to invite those leaderships to Islaam. And that they would have a double or multiple
reward, in the case where if they accepted, their acceptance of Islaam would, in most cases, be a cause for
those under their authority also embracing Islaam.

3 - A warning to the leaderships of the nations about not responding affirmatively to the Da’wah and that
the sin resulting from that would be multiplied because it would mean blocking their people from Islaam
by force or through example!

[(1) Tafseer At-Tabari: 3/213-214].

4 - The Mustashaar (title) ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor mentioned the following is respect to what these letters
indicated to:

“These letters, in addition to representing an invitation to Imaan (belief) in Allah and worship to Him
alone, they also represent an announcement from the side of the Islamic State concerning its
establishment and presence. This represents a matter that is followed within the current international law.
When a state is established, if that is by separation from another or by any other means, then it informs
the other states of its establishment as if to see recognition for it … He then said: The responses of the
rulers and kings … differed. Most of them were affable in reply, sent a gift to him or by providing loyalty
to him, as if they had given recognition to Islaam as a Deen and to the Islamic State within the Arabian
Peninsula. Others did not reply to the letter of the Messenger as if they were binding their time whilst one
tore up the message of the Messenger and that was Kisraa Anusharwan … That means that Kisraa of
Persia did not recognise Islaam as a Deen nor Muhammad as the head of a state …” (1).

As for the relationship of these letters with Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah)?

Then the answer to that is that the letters represented the implementation of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy (legal
ruling) in relation to the obligation of conveying the Islamic Da’wah to all of the people as peoples and
leaderships, in a manner that stimulates the thought and catches the attention, before arising to undertake
Al-Jihaad against those whom stand in the way obstructing that Da’wah.

Upon that basis, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬delegated those diplomatic emissaries carrying the letters of invitation to
Islaam, to be delivered to the kings and heads of state or rulers.

Through that, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬produced a media campaign that was wide in scope and caught the attention
of the world towards the Islamic thought which reverberated over the expanses of the known
international plain of that time. The international public opinion was occupied with that new thought
which invited to freeing humanity from the worship of servants (i.e. other men) to the worship of Allah
(the Creator of man), from the tyranny of the other religions (or codes) to the justice of Islaam, and from
the systems of the earth (man-made) to the system of the sky (i.e. from the creator and His revelation)!

As a result of this huge media campaign, all of the peoples and nations consequently came to understand
that there was a state behind this thought that carried its banner and makes Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah for its
accomplishment and that it did not just represent a dream to tempt a tortured humanity or oppressed and
down trodden peoples!

[(1) Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa-l Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm (The Islamic legislation and the general international
law): p275].

If we were to place under consideration that Al-Jihaad in Islaam was legislated for the purpose of
removing the obstacles that stand in the path or way of the Da’wah and that these letters, which have
been established or authenticated to have been sent by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the peoples and nations via the
path of their kings and rulers, did not carry a warning or notice of war against them in the case of non-
acceptance, whilst the Islamic State at that time was not capable of opening all (battle) fronts against them
… Then I say: If we were to place all of that under consideration, we would have comprehended and
realised that the aim behind those letters was only to generate the presence of the Islamic thought
amongst the medium of those lands of those leaderships and peoples. That was in order to provide them
with sufficient time to study the matter and become aware of it whilst leaving it to have its effect upon the
public opinion within those lands.

- That is so that a change in public opinion could be brought about in some of those lands or a leadership
within respond positively to the Da’wah. That is just like what happened in Yemen, which was a province
subservient to the Persians, when its leadership, following the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬sending of his letter to
Kisraa, announced their separation from the Persians and their joining to the Islamic State, as we
mentioned previously.

- As for when there is no positive response from the public opinion or from the high leadership within
that land towards Islaam, then it was of the nature of those letters which had been sent to them, that in
the least, some of the people would respond positively or some of the lower leaderships, so that they
would take to embracing the Islamic thought, gaining awareness of it and to spread it. Then if the high
authority in those lands stood in opposition to them, it would represent standing in opposition to the
Da’wah, a matter which would be considered as a declaration of war by that authority against the Islamic
State. That would then allow for the Islamic State, in such a case, when the conditions are favourable and
the necessary power or strength is available, to begin a war against that hostile authority that stood in the
way of Islaam. That would be with the purpose of bring down that authority, joining the land to the
Islamic State and enabling the people to embrace Islaam without pressure of coercion.

This is what actually happened in some of the provinces of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) that were
subservient to Rome. That was when people within them became Muslim just as the ruler of Ma’aan
accepted Islaam and he had been the Waali (governor) appointed by the Romans in that region. The
Roman authority then stood in the path of Islaam and killed the governor of Ma’aan, Farwah Bin ‘Amr
Al-Judhaamiy (1), as was mentioned previously in our study.

Thereafter, consecutive Muslim armies waged war against the Romans in the lands of Ash-Shaam until
they were finally expelled from them all!

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/216-217].

The above therefore demonstrates the relationship of those letters sent to the kings and leaders with Al-
Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah. This relationship had been comprehended by Hiraql (Heraclius) who received a
letter from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬inviting him to Islaam, even though that letter did not indicate to Al-Jihaad,
which is the consequence of refusing or rejecting the invitation or a consequence of standing in its way.
For that reason, Hiraql (Heraclius) held a conference inviting the leaderships of Rome to discuss what was
mentioned within the letter of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬and to adopt an official and unified stance in respect to
the Islamic Da’wah. It appears, as indicated to within the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Bukhaari, that Hiraql
himself was inclined to respond positively to this Da’wah and pledge allegiance to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and
consequently joining the Roman lands to the Islamic State. However, when he saw the rejection to that
invitation prevailed and was dominant amongst the leaders surrounding him, the love of kingship
dominated over him and he submitted to those leaders. That was then followed by the Romans adopting a
stance of war against the Islamic Da’wah and persecution of those who had become Muslim … Despite
that, Hirqal, had the foresight to see how affairs would turn out with the Islamic State, that was ascending
in stature via its carrying of the Islamic Da’wah and Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah. He therefore said the
following, as was related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari, when speaking about the extent of that which the
authority of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬will reach, on the occasion of receiving the letter that had been sent to him:
“And his authority will surely reach that which is under my feet!” (1) … And what he said came to pass.

By this, we come to the conclusion of this study and now move on to the final study in this chapter.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 4553 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 8/214-215)].

 The Fourth Study

The motivating factors for declaring Al-Jihaad upon the remaining fronts in the era
of the Khilafah Ar-Raashidah

Foreword about the Masaa’il (issues) that this study includes within it.

The first Mas’alah (issue): Historical accounts of the Jihaad of the Sahaabah in the era of the
Raashideen (Rightly guided Khulafaa’) and the reasons or causes that motivated them.

1 - The Persian front.

2 - The Roman front.
3 - The Egyptian front and Nubian front.
4 - The North African front.
5 - The Cypriot front.

The second Mas’alah (issue): What has been said by the Islamic writers in respect to the motivating
factors behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad upon the remaining fronts in the time of the rightly guided
Khulafaa’.

- The motivating factors according to the Colonel Muhammad Faraj.

- The motivating factors according to ‘Umar Ridaa Kahaalah.
- The motivating factors according to Ash-Sheikh ‘Al At-Tantaawiy.
- The motivating factors according to Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy.

- Summary of the motivating factors that the Islamic writers mentioned.

1 - The economic motive.

2 - The political motive.
3 - The protective and defensive motive.
4 - The humanitarian motive.
5 - The liberation motive.
6 - The motive of the Deen.

The third Mas’alah (issue): Our opinion in relation to the motives behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad
in the era of the rightly guided Khulafaa’ (Ar-Raashideen) based upon the reality of what was issued in
terms of official statements, what took place in terms of negotiations and what was convened in terms of
covenants and treaties with the opposing states.

- Three truths or true realities upon the basis of which judgement is passed upon the above-mentioned
motives.

The first truth or true reality: The three choices prior to the declaration of Al-Jihaad represents a Daleel
(evidence) that the main motive for it was: The Islamic Da’wah.

The second truth or true reality: The difference between the motive towards undertaking a particular
matter and between benefiting from that matter to realise and accomplish other purposes or objectives.

The third truth or true reality: The motive for undertaking any activity that the state undertakes, is only
reflective of the fundamental aim that the State seeks from it and it not the purposes or objectives that
some of those whom the state uses in that activity pursue and seek.

1 - A discussion around the economic motive.

2 - A discussion about the political motive.
3 - A discussion about the protective or defensive motive.
4 - A discussion about the humanitarian motive,
5 - A discussion about the motive of liberation.

- Our summary of the discussion of the previous motives.

 The Fourth Study

The motivating factors for declaring Al-Jihaad upon the remaining fronts in the era
of the Khilafah Ar-Raashidah

Foreword about the Masaa’il (issues) that this study includes within it:

We have placed this study within the volume of the legitimacy of Al-Jihaad because the war acts
undertaken by the Sahaabah during this era (of the rightly guided Khulafaa’), due to one motivating factor
or another, whilst none of them rebuked those acts, comprise a Hujjah (proof and evidence) for their
legitimacy. That is because the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions) represents a source
from among the sources of the Islamic legislation, as is established in Usool ul-Fiqh.

The title of this study that we are engaged in guides to two points which are:

- The Sahaabah in this period (or era) advancing to undertake Al-Jihaad upon all fronts.
- The presence of specific motives that were behind that Jihaad which encompassed all the fronts.

We will therefore proceed to treat this study by making the discussion revolve around three Masaa’il
(issues) which are:

The first issue: Presentation of examples mentioned in the historical sources about the wars that took
place between the Sahaabah and their enemies and what lay behind them in terms of the causes or reasons
that motivated them.

The second issue: That which has been said in respect to the reasons of the wars of the Sahaabah with
their enemies according to the Islamic writers.

The third issue: Deduction of the motives behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad in the era of the rightly
guided Khilafah upon all fronts, based upon the reality of the official statements that were issued, what
took place in terms of negotiations in relation to this and what was convened in terms of Mu’aahadaat
(treaties) with the opposing states!

The First Issue:

Historical examples of the Jihaad undertaken by the Sahaabah (‫ )رضي هللا عنهم‬in the era of the
rightly guided Khulafaa’ and what lay behind them in terms of the causes or reasons that
motivated them to undertake it.

In this Mas’alah (issue) we will present examples which have been mentioned in historical sources
concerning the wars that we are examining. We will present them with the text that has been recorded
within the books of history, whilst paying attention to restrict ourselves to that which provides a sufficient
portrayal without presenting every detail, in respect to what had been taking place on every fighting front
upon the frontiers of the Islamic State.

1 - The Persian front:

The following represents sections from what was mentioned in the Taareekh (History) of At-Tabariy
concerning the events and meetings that occurred upon the eastern front between the armies of the
Islamic Da’wah and the armies of the Persian empire.

- The Taareekh (History) mentioned that when Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed completed the wars of Ar-Riddah
(apostasy), Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq commanded him to head to Iraq. Then when he reached Al-Hira, its
leader came out to receive him and from among them was “Abdul Maseeh Bin ‘Amr”.

The following has been recorded concerning this meeting that took place:

“And so Khaalid said to Abdul Maseeh: … Is it peace that you desire of war? He replied: Indeed, it is
peace. Then Khaalid said to them: Verily, I invite you to Allah, to His worship and to Al-Islaam. If you
accept, then you have a right to our property (or wealth) and are bound by what we are bound. If you
refuse (i.e. Islaam) then the Jizyah is due upon you. If you then refuse that, then we have come to you
with a people who love death like you love to drink wine! They said: We have no need (or desire) to
engage in war with you. And so he made a treaty with them that they would pay 190 thousand Dirham.
That was the first Jizyah taken to Al-Madinah from Iraq” (1).

- It was stated in the History (of At-Tabariy): “Khaalid wrote to Hurmuz … And Hurmuz was in charge
of the frontier at that time:

[(1) Taareekh (History of) At-Tabariy: 3/345 and in another report recorded by At-Tabariy it stated 90 thousand Dirham only
(3/344)].
“Thereafter (‘Amma Ba’d …), embrace Islam and you will be safe or establish for yourself and your
people the Dhimmah (contract of protection and citizenry) and affirm the payment of Al-Jizyah. If not
(i.e. he did not accept), then he would have nobody to blame apart from himself because a people have
come to you who love death as you love life”. “… And he said: When the letter of Khaalid reached
Hurmuz … he gathered his group … Hurmuz was one of the worst of the governors of that frontier in
his treatment of the Arabs, so that all the Arabs were enraged
at him. He had become a proverbial paragon of wickedness to them, so that they would say for instance
(within their speech amongst each other) “More wicked than Hurmuz” and “More ungrateful than
Hurmuz”. And he was from the worst commanders of that frontier neighbouring the Arabs. … And the
people of Persia were defeated and the Muslims and the Muslims rode in pursuit of them until night …
Khalid and his commanders did not move the peasants during any of their conquests, because Abu Bakr
had instructed him beforehand [not to
do so]. Khaalid set up camp in Ath-Thinaa (river close to Basra) and took the children of the fighters
captive but left alone those of the peasants. Whoever responded to the Kharaaj from all of the people
after they had been invited to it, then they responded, held back and became (people of) Adh-Dhimmah
(covenant of protection) and their land was theirs (to hold on to) …” (1).

- The History of At-Tabariy also mentioned: “And Khaalid stood before the people addressing them
awakening within the desire to go forth in the foreign lands and arousing a dislike towards the land of the
Arabs. He said: Do you not look at the food as a fertile soil? By Allah, If Al-Jihaad for Allah’s sake did not
compel us and the invitation to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, and there was nothing else apart from living (i.e. the
Dunyaa and its benefits), then the sound opinion would still be to strike this countryside until we possess
it whilst we leave hunger and less to those who have stayed back from what you are engaged in” (2).

- It was stated that Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed wrote the following letter to the leaders of the Persians:

“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem. From Khaalid bin al-Waleed to the kings of Persia.
Ammaa Ba’d (thereafter) … Praise be to Allah Who dissolved your order, made your plotting weak, and
divided you among yourselves … Therefore, enter into our matter (i.e. Islaam) and we will leave you and
your land alone and will then pass beyond you to others. If not, that will happen [anyway], even if it is
against your wish, by force, at the hands of a people who love death just as you love life” (3).

[(1) Taareekh (History of) At-Tabariy: 3/347-352, (2) Taareekh (History of) At-Tabariy: 3/354, (3) Taareekh (History of) At-
Tabariy: 3/370].

The History of At-Tabariy also mentioned:

“The first thing that ‘Umar undertook, before the Fajr prayer on the night in which Abu Bakr, may Allah
be pleased with him, died., was to call the men alongside Al-Muthannaa bin Haarithah Ash-Shaybani to go
to the people of Persia (to fight). Then, when he arose, the people pledged the Bai’ah (oath of allegiance)
to him, whereupon he repeated his call to the men to go to fight in Persia. The people came in succession
to give the Bai’ah. Every day, he would make the call to them, but no one would heed the call to go
against Persia. The Persian front was among the most disliked warfronts for them, because of the strength
of the Persian’s authority and their (military) might … Al-Muthannaa Bin Haarithah spoke and said: “O
People, this front is not at all too much for you. That is because we have already gone through the middle
of the countryside of Persia and wrested the best two parts of the Sawaad from them, dividing it equally
with them and attaining [our goal]. Those who went before us took risks in respect to them and it will
have by Allah’s will that which lies after it”.

‘Umar, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, then stood before the people and said: “The Hijaz is not a home
for you except for foraging; its inhabitants do not survive in it except by that. Where are the Muhaajireen
who are impatient for the sake of Allah’s promise? Go forth in the land that Allah has promised you in the
Book that you will inherit it. That is because He said:
 ِ ‫لِي ُْظ ِهرَ هَُ َعلَىَالد‬
‫ِّينَ ُكلِّ َِه‬
To make it (the Deen) prevail over every Deen (Al-Fat’h: 28).

Allah makes His Deen prevail, and honours His supporter and assists the people who are the inheritors of
the nations. Where are the righteous servants of Allah?” Then the first to come forward and respond was
Abu ‘Ubaid Bin Mas’ood …” (1).

- It was mentioned in relation to this:

“… (‘Umar) said when the army of Al-Bajeelah had gathered … “Which of the fronts do you prefer?”
They said: “Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) because our predecessors are there”. He (‘Umar) replied: “Rather,
(you should prefer) Iraq because Ash-Shaam has a sufficient number!” He continued to urge them and
they refused until he was resolute about it and he allocated for them a quarter of the fifth of the booty
that Allah bestowed upon the Muslims in addition to their share …” (2).

It is worth pointing to that the Persian front was a wide and expansive front that encompassed all of the
lands that had been subject to the Persian control including the lands in which the Turkish people resided
and the Armenians in the north like Azerbaijan, Armenia and lands beyond them both.

That front was continuously active and the wars in it were consecutive, one following the other. Every
time a particular area or region was conquered, the kings of the regions mobilised armies behind them to
stand in the way of the Islamic advance, until they were (all) subdued, wither by force or by treaty.

[(1) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 3/444-445, (2) Taareekh (History of) At-Tabariy: 3/462].

The peace treaties that were convened between the Muslims and others in those regions were of two
kinds of types:

- The first type: The treaties upon the incorporation or annexing of those lands to the Islamic State and
making their people, from those who wish to remain in the lands and maintain their religion, subjects of
the Islamic State, holding what is called an Islamic citizenship (Jinsiyah) or Taabi’iyah (subject status).
Through that, they would consequently submit to the Islamic system that would be implemented in the
lands. They would have what the Muslims have in terms of Insaaf (justice) and they will be obliged with
what the Muslims are in terms of Intisaaf (taking justice) (i.e. they are bound by the rights, obligations and
accountability that the Muslims are under the law).

- The second type: The treaties (Mu’aahadaat As-Sulh) made upon the preservation of the independence
of the lands which preferred to make a treaty instead of continuing in war, and to be tied or connected to
the Islamic State by a foreign peace treaty upon specific conditions!

The Muslim Ameer (Commander), via a delegation provided to him by the Khalifah, would be the one to
determine the kind of treaty that would take place in the lands of those fronts, based upon his evaluation
of what is in the Islamic Maslahah (interest), in accordance to a number of considerations.

In the following section, we will present a model representing these two types of treaties that have been
indicated to:

1 - The permanent treaties (‘Aqd udh-Dhimmah):

- It was mentioned in the History of At-Tabariy that the region of Armenia was under the control of a
king from the Persian people called “Shahrbaraz” whilst the overall Islamic army commander in that front
was “Suraaqah Bin ‘Amr” and he had one of the Sahaabah under his command and his name was “Abdur
Rahman Bin Rabee’ah Al-Baahiliy”. Abdur Rahman Bin Rabee’ah had penetrated the region that the king
“Sharbaraz” had control over. Consequently, this king approached Abdur Rahman and sought a peace
treaty with him. The following was part of what the king said to him as recorded by At-Tabariy: “

You have conquered my land and my nation. So, today I am one of you, my hand is with your hands and
my inclinations are with you. And may Allah bless us and you and our Jizyah to you represents support to
you and an undertaking of what you like. So, do not humiliate us by the Jizyah and consequently weaken
us before your enemy. Abdur Rahman replied: “There is a man superior to me who has already taken you
into his protection so go to him that he may approve of it”. So, he went to Suraaqah and he responded
similarly. Suraaqah said: “I have accepted this in respect to those with you in this matter, as long as they
continue to keep to it. However, the Jizyah is necessary for the one who is resident and does not leave to
go elsewhere”. He (Shahrbaraz) accepted this, and it became the practice in respect to those Mushrikeen
(polytheists) who made war against the enemy and in respect to those who did not have the Jizyah. If they
were ready to fight the Jizyah would be exempted from them for that year. And Suraaqah wrote to ‘Umar
Ibn Al-Khattaab about that and he permitted it and regarded it well …
A document was then drafted from Suraaqah Bin ‘Amr (to the Armenians) stating:

“In the name of Allah, Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem.

This is what Suraaqah Bin ‘Amr, the ‘Aamil (governor) of the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, 'Umar bin Al-
Khattaab, has agreed with Shahrbaraz, the inhabitants of Armenia and Armenian people and those of Al-
Abwaab and At-Turraa’ who are residing in them and around them. We have agreed with them that they
go out for every battle and implement every command that has been delegated or if they have not been
delegated but the governor sees it as being correct or fitting. That is in exchange for the Jizyah being
exempted from those who respond to that apart from Al-Hashr (their gathering and being called to fight)
as a compensation for their Jizyah.
religion lest they be harmed and so that nothing be taken from them. [The following is imposed] upon the
people of Armenia and al-Abwab, those coming from distant parts and those who are local and those
around them who have joined them: that they should participate in any military expedition, and carry out
any task, actual or potential, that the governor considers to be for the good, providing that those who
agree to this are exempt from Jizyah but (perform) military service. Military service shall be instead of their
paying tribute. But those of them who are not needed for military service and who remain inactive have
the same Jizyah obligations as the people of Azerbaijan [ in general). [These include] guiding and showing
hospitality for a whole day. If they perform military service, they are exempt from it (i.e. the Jizyah)” (1.)

[(1) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 4/156-157].

In respect to the treaty that was convened with Azerbaijan the following letter (or document) was drafted:

“In the name of Allah, Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem. This is what ‘Utbah bin Farqad, the governor of 'Umar
bin al-Khattaab, Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, has granted to the people of Azerbaijan, mountains and plains,
borders and frontiers, all people of whatever religion, in respect to security for their persons, their
possessions, their religion and laws, on condition that they pay the Jizyah
according to their capacity (to do so]. There is no [such] obligation for minors, or women, or the
chronically poor who possesses nothing of this Dunyaa (world), or religious devotees remaining in
isolation who have no relationship to the Dunyaa. All this [is granted] to them and to those
who live with them. But they are obliged to give hospitality to Muslim soldiers for the period of a day and
a night and to guide them. Those who are recruited for military service in any one year are exempt from
the Jizyah of that year. He who remains [from now on] shall be granted the same and have (the same
obligations) as he who has remained (permanently], whereas he
who leaves has safe-conduct until he finds his place of refuge” (1).
The above relates to the peace treaty (Mu’aahadat As-Sulh) that stipulates the lands entering into the
sphere of the Islamic State and the entry of the people of those lands as citizens of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
who are subjects of the Islamic State.

2 - As for the second type of the peace treaty (Mu’aahadat As-Sulh):

These are those which stipulate that the independence of the lands who are party to the treaty
(Mu’aahadah) is maintained. An example of this is found recorded in the Taareekh (History of) At-Tabariy
when “Suwaid Bin Muqarrin” made a treaty with the king of Tabaristan which was a Sulh of Muwaada’ah.
That is a Sulh (treaty) dictating that Tabaristan remained as a state independent from the Islamic State
whilst being connected to it by a foreign treaty (Mu’aahadah) for the purpose of peace, upon specific
conditions. The following is the text of the document that recorded this treaty:

In the name of Allah, Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem.

This is a document from Suwayd b. Muqarrin addressed to al-Farrukhan, ruler of Khurasan in authority
over Tabaristan and to the ruler of Jeelaan, from the people of our enemy.

You will be secure under the security of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla, on condition that you restrain your robbers
and the people on the borders of your territory. You will not provide sanctuary to anyone who is
rebellious against us and you will be protected (from others) by [paying] the one governing your border
territory 500,000 dirhams from the Dirhams of your land. If you do that, then none of us will have a right
to attack you, or to traverse on your territory, or [even] enter you without your permission. Our path to
you, via permission, will be secure (and safe) just as your way (to us) will be secure (and safe). To not
provide sanctuary to anyone who is rebellious against us, you will not allow our enemies to slip through to
us and you will not exceed the bounds (i.e. break the treaty). If you were to do that (i.e. contravene the
treaty), then there would be no covenant between us and you” (2).

This represents a model of the foreign treaties (Mu’aahadaat) that the Muslim commanders or leaders use
to convene with some of the lands whilst they were undertaking the Islamic conquests in the time of the
rightly guided Khilafah.

[(1) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 4/155, (2) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 4/153].

Consequently, these represent some examples connected to the Persian front in relation to commissioning
people to go there, awaken the desire of the people in respect to that, the invitation made to the
disbelievers within those fronts to embrace Islaam and what was agreed upon in terms of treaties and
agreements that dictated the annexing or joining of those lands to the Islamic State or the preservation of
their independence whilst being connected to the Muslims via a foreign peace treaty, upon specific
conditions. Let us now move to another front related to the Islamic conquests.

2 - The Roman front:

The following also represents extracts that were recorded in the “History of At-Tabariy” concerning the
events and meetings that took place upon the northern front between the armies of the Islamic Da’wah
and the Roman armies, which provide us with a picture of what happened upon that front.

- “Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq said: When completed the Hajj of the 12th year (of Al-Hijrah), he readied the
armies to go to Ash-Shaam. And so he sent ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas towards Palestine … and he dispatched
Yazeed Bin Abi Sufyaan, Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah and Shurahbeel Bin Hasanah …” (1).
- Then Abu Bakr urged the people upon the undertaking of Al-Jihaad to provide support and
reinforcements to those commanders that he had dispatched to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria).

At-Tabari said: “Abu Bakr stood to address the people. And so he praised Allah and made prayers upon
His Messenger.

And from that which he said was: “Verily there is no Deen for the one who has no Imaan (belief) for it
and there is no reward for the one who has no sense of accountability ... Verily, the reward in Allah’s book
for Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (In Allah’s path) is something for which a Muslim should love to be
dedicated to. It represents a trade that Allah has guided to, by which Allah has saved [people] from
humiliation (and disgrace), and to which He has attached dignity in this world and the next”. And so he
(Abu Bakr) reinforced ‘Amr with some of the those who responded to what they had gathered for and he
made him the Ameer over Palestine …” (2).

- “And that (news) reached the Romans and so they wrote to Heraclius and Heraclius set out (i.e. with his
army) until they reached Homs where he prepared (and ordered) the soldiers (to face the Muslims) …”
(3).

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/378, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 3/390, (3) History of At-Tabariy: 3/392].

- When the Muslims had camped at al-Yarmuk and requested reinforcements from Abu Bakr, he said:
“Khalid is right for it”. Thereupon he sent a message to him while he was in Iraq, asking him and urging
him to get going. Khalid therefore implemented that. As such it was that Khalid who appeared before
them while it was Bahan came to the Romans, having sent ahead before him the deacons, monks, and
priests to incite desire (for victory] in the Romans and to incite them to fight. The arrival of Khalid
coincided with the arrival of Bahan. Bahan led his forces out like a powerful [leader]. Khalid took charge
of fighting him, while the (other) commanders fought those in front of them. Bahan was defeated, and the
[other] Romans followed one another successively into defeat … and the Muslims rejoiced in Khalid…”
(1).

- It was mentioned within the news and accounts of events upon the Roman Front, that in one of the
battles, one of the Roman commanders called Jarajah (Jurjah) requested to meet with Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed to learn more about the affair of the Muslims and the affair of the Da’wah that they were fighting
for the sake of. The following was stated in the History of At-Tabariy:

“O Khalid, inform me about what you are inviting me to”. Khalid answered: “To bear witness that there
is no god other than Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger, and to affirm that
which he brought from Allah” The Roman continued: “And what about the one who does not accept
[your religion]?” Khalid replied: “Then [they must pay] the Jizyah payment, and we will protect them”.
The Roman went on: “And if he does not pay it?” Khalid said: “We give him warning (or notice) of war;
then we fight him”. Jurjah asked: “What is the rank (or standing) of the one who joins you and responds
positively to you regarding this matter?” Khalid answered: “Our standing is one (i.e. equal and the same),
in respect to what Allah has imposed on us, both the noble among us and the one from humble origins,
applying equally to the first of us and the last of us” … He then turned his shield over and inclined toward
Khalid, saying: “Teach me Islam!” [Extension by translator of discussion for the benefit of the reader: “So,
Khalid brought him to his tent and poured water skin over him. Then Jurjah performed two Rak’ah of prayer (i.e.
embraced Islaam)”].

- And it was mentioned in respect to the last news of Heraclius in Ash-Shaam: “That whenever Heraclius
would make pilgrimage to Bait ul-Maqdis, leaving Ash-Shaam behind and departing for the lands of
Rome, he would turn and say: “Peace be upon you, O Syria! This is the farewell of a man who takes leave
of you without fulfilling his desire and who will return”. Then when (later) the Muslims advanced upon
Homs he crossed the Euphrates river … When he had separated from it in the direction of Rome he
ascended to an elevated place, turned, looked in the direction of Syria, and said: "Peace be upon you, O
Syria! This is a farewell after which there will be no further reunion!” (3).

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/393-394, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 3/399, (3) History of At-Tabariy: 3/603].

- A man from amongst the Romans who had been a captive of the Muslims before he managed to escape
reached him (i.e. Heraclius) and so Heraclius said to him: “Tell me about those people?” So, he said: “I
will tell you as if you are looking directly at them. They are knights (i.e. warriors) in the day and (like)
monks during the night. In the area under their responsibility they do not eat unless they pay its price and
they do not enter a house except with a greeting of peace. They stand up to those who fight them until
they defat them”. Heraclius said: “If you have spoken the truth, they will indeed inherit the land upon
which these two feet of mine stand” (1).

These represent some brief images of what took place upon the Roman (battle) front. We will now move
on to discuss a third military front.

3 - The Egyptian front and the Nubian front in the south of Egypt: Extracts taken from “An-
Nujoom Azh-Zaahirah” and “The History of At-Tabariy”:

- The following was stated in “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah”: “When ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) reached
‘Al-Jaabiyah’ (2), ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas said to him when he was alone with him: “O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen!
(Leader of the believers). Grant me permission to march to Egypt”. And he continued to urge him upon it
and said: “Verily, if you conquer (or open) it, it will represent a source of power or the Muslims and a
support for them. It is the richest land and the least competent in fighting and warfare!” Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab was fearful for the Muslims and disliked that. ‘Amr (however) continued to raise the matter with
him, talking about it and making its conquest appear easy until ‘Umar inclined to him and placed him in
command over 4000 men who were all from ‘‘Akk’ (3) …” (4)

- “… ‘Amr then continued his march towards Egypt and there was a Coptic priest in Alexandria called
‘Abu Mayaameen’. When the news reached him that ‘Amr was heading for Egypt he wrote to the Copts of
Egypt informing them that Rome no longer had a state and that their authority had been interrupted (or
cut), and he commanded them to meet ‘Amr.

And it was said: That the Copts who were in Al-Faramaa (5) assisted ‘Amr on that day.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/602-603, (2) Al-Jaabiyah: It is a village from amongst the precincts of Damascus. Its location can
be seen in the map: ‘The Atlas of the History of Islaam’ p111, map number: 59, Dr. Hussein Mu’nis and also map number 65
on p119, (3) ‘Akk: An Arab tribe. There lodgings are located between Tihaamah of Yemen to Jeddah in the North. They were
of the first from the people of apostacy and they assisted ‘Amr in the conquest of Egypt, (4) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/5, (5)
Al-Faramaa: An ancient city between Al-‘Areesh and Al-Fustaat. Its location can be seen on map 30 on page 46 in ‘The Atlas of
the History of Islaam’ by Dr. Hussein Mu’nis and it is also on map number 65 p119].

Then ‘Amr took to not defending except with what was lighter … Then a man from Lakhm heard a group
of Copts saying amongst each other: “Are you not pleased with that people, they are coming upon hosts
of the Romans but they only number a small number of people!” then a man from amongst them
answered them by saying: “Verily, those people do not go towards anyone except that they prevail over
them!” (1).

- In the accounts of the conquest of Egypt it was recorded that “Al-Muqawqis” (ruler of Egypt) had sent a
delegation to ‘Amr to find out what the Muslims wanted to achieve from this war. And so ‘Amr Bin ‘Al-
Aas said to the delegation:

“There is nothing that can be arranged between us and you except one of three matters:
Either you enter into Islaam and by doing so you become our brothers and you will have what we have
(i.e. in terms of rights and responsibilities). Or if you refuse, then Al-Jizyah will be due by your hand
whilst you are Saaghiroon (made to submit). And if not, we will undertake Al-Jihaad against you with Sabr
(patient perseverance) and Al-Qitaal (fighting) until Allah passes His judgement between us and you, and
He is the best of Judges”.

Then when the envoys of Al-Muqawqis returned to him he asked: “What is your opinion?” They
responded: “We saw a people to whom death is more beloved to them than life. Humility is more beloved
to them than high standing. None of them have a desire of the Dunyaa or a craving for it. They only sat
upon the ground and their food was on their rides. Their Ameer was just like anyone from among them
and their noble men are not known from their lowly men. There is no master and no slave and if the time
of Salaah (prayer) comes not one of them stands back from it” … At that Al-Muqawqis said: “By the one
whose name oaths are made in, if these people were to face a mountain, they would remove it and no one
has the power to fight against them! …”.

It was reported that ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Aas sent a delegation from him to Al-Muqawqis to meet with him and
amongst them was ‘Ubaadah Bin As-Saamit, May Allah be pleased with him. Al-Muqawqis offered a treaty
(Sulh Muwaada’ah) to the Muslims. That meant a peace treaty where Egypt would maintain its
independence from the Islamic State and in return for an amount of money it would not be conquered,
instead of a treaty of Dhimmah which dictates that Egypt would join to the Islamic State (and become
part of it). Al-Muqawqis stated the following:

[(1) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/7, (2) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/11].

“We are happy to make a treaty with you upon the giving of two Deenars for every man from amongst
you, 100 Deenar to your Ameer (commander) and 1000 Deenar to your Khalifah. You would take that
into your possession and then leave to return to your land” … ‘Ubaadah responded saying: “What is this!
Do not deceive yourself or your companions (or people) …” (1). He then presented him with the three
choices: Either Islaam, or Al-Jizyah or Al-Harb (war)!

The matter then came to an end by the acceptance to pay the Jizyah and the entering of Egypt under the
authority of the Muslims.

- And Al-Muqawqis stipulated to the Romans that they choose. Whoever from among them wished to
reside upon this then he would reside upon that and it would be necessary and imposed upon him,
including those who live in Alexandria and the surrounding lands of Egypt. And whoever wanted to leave
to return to the land of the Romans he would do so. And that to Al-Muqawqis the choice was specifically
in Rome until he writes to the King of Rome informing him about what he had done. Then if he accepts
that and is content with him, it would be permissible for them. Otherwise, they would all be upon what
they had been upon (previously)” (2).

- The following also came reported regarding the conquest of Egypt: That ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas said to his
the two envoys who had been sent to him by Al-Muqawqis: “Verily Allah sent Muhammad with the Haqq
(truth) and commanded him with it, and the Muhammad commanded us with it (i.e. to abide by it) …
And included within that which he commanded is to provide excuses to the people. Therefore, we invite
you to Islaam and then whoever responds to us positively with acceptance then he is just like us. And in
respect to the one who does not accept, then we offer upon him the Jizyah and we would then extend
protection to him. And he has informed us that we will be conquering you and he instructed us deal with
you in a manner preserving our ties of the womb with you. You would have, upon responding positively
to us, a Dhimmah (covenant of protection) added to another. From that which our Ameer made binding
upon us is: “To treat the Copts well”. That is because the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬instructed us to deal
with the Copts in a good manner and that is because they have a Dhimmah (covenant) and connection to
the womb. They said: “A distant relation who is not connected except to the Anbiyaa (Prophets)! The
well-known and honourable one. Haajar (Peace be upon her), the mother of Isma’eel the son of Ibrahim.
The father of the assimilated Arabs (3). She was the daughter of our king from the people of ‘Manf’ and
the king was from them. Then the people of ‘Ain Shams’ gained the upper hand over them, killed them
and seized their kingdom. They were forced to emigrate and it was this reason that Haajar came to be with
Ibrahim (‫)عليهَالسالم‬. Welcome, be at ease and in security until we return back to you”. ‘Amr said: “I am
not the type of person to be deceived however I will give you three days … However, after that we will
fight you” … The two envoys then returned to Al-Muqawqis but (the Roman military commander) “Al-
Artaboon” (4) refused to answer them (the envoys) and commanded that they (the Muslims) be resisted
…

[(1) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/14, (2) An-Nujoom Az-Zaaihrah: 1/18-19 and also ‘Majmoo’ah Al-Wathaa’iq As-Siyaasiyah’
by Muhammad Hameedullah: p504, (3) Nur ul-Yaqeen: Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadariy Bik: p5, (4) Al-Artaboon: He was
a commander over the Roman armies in Bait ul-Maqdis and he fled to Egypt when the Muslims took it].

Then a group (from amongst the council or people of influence) said: “How will we fight against a nation
who killed Kisraa and Qaisar (Caesar) and defeated them in their homelands?!”. Al-Artaboon then insisted
that they sleep over the matter of the Muslims and so they did that but achieved nothing from it. Indeed,
(what happened) was that Al-Artaboon ended up killing a group from amongst them …” (1) They then
responded affirmatively to accept the treaty (Sulh), the Jizyah, to enter into the Dhimmah (covenant of
protection) and Egypt was annexed to become part of the Islamic State.

The following was also recorded in respect to what took place upon the Egyptian (military) front: “That
when the Muslims opened (or conquered) Egypt, they undertook military expeditions against Nubia of
Egypt (2). However, they returned having sustained injuries and with many people having been blinded
because of the Nubians' superior archery skills. That is why the Nubians were nicknamed "the eye
shooters." When 'Abdallah bin Sa'd bin Abi Sarh governed Egypt, over which 'Uthman bin 'Affaan had
appointed him, he concluded a peace treaty with the Nubians on the condition that they offer a gift,
namely a number of people from among them (i.e., to be used as a labour force), whom they were to
deliver into the hands of the Muslims. In exchange, every year the Muslims would present them with a
certain quantity of foodstuffs and a specified quantity of clothing or garments… That treaty was kept by
‘Uthmaan and by the governors and leaders that came after him. And it was affirmed by ‘Umar Ibn Abdul
‘Azeez out of consideration and concern for the well-being of the Muslims” (3).

The above concerns what took place upon the Egyptian front and Nubia in the south. We will now move
on to discuss another front.

4 - The North-African front:

It was mentioned in the book “Riyaad un-Nufoos” that the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen “Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan”
received news from his Waaliy (Governor) over Egypt “Abdullah Ibn Sa’d” that the Muslims were
undertaking attacks (or raids) on the edges of Africa, were causing their enemy losses and were close to
falling under the hold of the Muslims. In response to that, ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan expressed to Miswar Bin
Makhramah his wish to send the armies to undertake military expeditions in Africa. The following was
related regarding this: “So, what is your opinion O Ibn Makhramah?” I (i.e. Ibn Makhramah who was
relating the dialogue) said: “Launch military expeditions against them”. He said: “I will gather today the
senior companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and consult them. Whatever they agree upon I will do
or I will do what the majority agree upon … Bring to me ‘Ali, Talhah, Az-Zubair, Al-‘Abbaas and he
mentioned some (other) men”. He then met with each of them individually inside the Masjid and then
called for Abu l-A‘awaar (Sa’eed Bin Zaid). ‘Uthman then said to him: “Why have you disliked, O Abu l-
A‘awaar, the (idea of) dispatching of the armies to Africa?” He replied: “I heard ‘Umar saying: “I will not
send anyone from the Muslims there to fight as long as my eyes hold water”. And so I do not see that you
should disagree with ‘Umar”. Then ‘Uthmaan said: “By Allah, we do not fear them whilst they are content
to remain settled in their locations without being attacked!”.

[(1) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/24, (2) Nubia: A land in the north-east of Africa and its borders are with the Egyptian region,
the Red Sea, the Libyan desert and the lands of Khartoum (i.e. Sudan). “Maraasid Al-Itilaa’”: 3/1394: … “Nubia (An-Noubah)
is a vast and wide land in the south of Egypt”, (3) History of At-Tabariy: 4/111].

None from amongst those he consulted disagreed apart from him (Sa’eed)! He then addressed the people
and commissioned them to go forth to Africa to undertake military expeditions (Ghazawaat). And so they
went out and amongst the Sahaabah who went were ‘Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair and Abu Dharr Al-
Ghifaariy …” (1).

- The following is also from the accounts recorded concerning the expeditions of Africa:

“We camped for days where envoys were sent between us and “Jarjeer” (2) their king. We invited him to
Islaam but every time we invited him to Islaam he snorted and was arrogant. He said: “I will not do that
ever”. So, we said: “Then pay the Jizyah annually”. He replied: “If you were to ask me for a single Dirham
I would not give it!” And so the people prepared for battle … Abdullah Bin Sa’d prepared the people …
And we plunged into battle with the Romans. They had raisd the cross and they had weapons which only
Allah was aware of … The Muslims attacked them from every place and many of them were killed and
made captive … Then after they had been afflicted with captivity and death, they requested to make a
treaty … (3).

We now move on to discuss another front from the military fronts that the Sahaabah engaged in warfare
during the time of the rightly guided Khulafaa’.

5 - Cyprus:

The following was recorded in ‘The History of At-Tabariy’ concerning the events of the 28th year of Al-
Hijrah:

“Mu’aawiyah wrote to ‘Umar concerning undertaking the military expeditions by sea … And so he
(‘Umar) wrote to ‘Amr asking him to describe the sea … And so he wrote back: “O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen,
verily I have seen a great creature [that is, the sea] ridden by a small one [that is, man]. There is nothing
but the sky and water. Those who are on it, are like a worm on a twig; if it bends he is drowned, and if he
is saved he is amazed and in a state of bewilderment!” (4)

- It has been recorded that ‘Umar responded to that and wrote to Mu’aawiyah saying: “No, by Him who
sent Muhammad with the truth, I shall never take any Muslim in it” (5).

[(1) Riyaad un-Nufoos: 1/8-9, (2) related by ‘Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair: “’Uthmaan tasked us to conquer Africa and there was a
road (or path) called Jurjeer and its authority was between Tripoli and Tangier” (Riyaad un-Nufoos: 1/12), (3) Riyaad un-
Nufoos: 1/11, (4) History of At-Tabariy: 4/259, (5) History of At-Tabariy: 4/259].

It was also recorded that ‘Umar said: “By Allah, one Muslim is dearer to me than all that the Romans
possess. Take care not to oppose me. I have given you a command” (1).

The following was recorded concerning the Ghazwah (military expedition) of Cyprus:

“The first to conduct naval warfare was Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyaan at the time of 'Uthman bin 'Affaan.
When Mu'awiyah attacked Cyprus, he convened a treaty with its people… It was (made) upon a Jizyah of
7,000 dinars, to be paid to the Muslims every year. That was whilst the same amount was being paid to the
Romans and the Muslims were not able to prevent that. And it (i.e. the treaty) was made upon that they
would not attack them, that they would not fight against them or those who were behind them (i.e. allies)
and that they must alert the Muslims of the movements of their Roman enemies and that the Imaam of
the Muslims would appoint the Patriarch over them choosing one from amongst them” (2).

The above represented some selected extracts from the reported accounts of the Islamic conquest upon
the different fronts surrounding the Islamic State.

And by that we come to the conclusion of this first Mas’alah (issue) in this study and noe proceed on to
the second.

The Second Mas’alah (Issue):

What has been said by the Islamic writers in respect to the motivating factors behind the
declaration of Al-Jihaad upon the remaining fronts in the time of the rightly guided Khulafaa’.

Many Islamic writers approached this subject matter when discussing the objectives of the Islamic
conquests and explaining its spread and the incredible speed in which its expansion took place (3).

What concerns us here within this subject area is that which is related to the motives behind the
declaration of Al-Jihaad across the breadth of the borders of the Islamic State and the subsequent
annexing or joining of every state or province, in which the enemy was defeated, to the Islamic State
which began to expand as a result of the movement of Al-Jihaad that encompassed all of the fronts.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 4/259, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 4/260-262. ‘Al-Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen’, An-Najjaar: p287 and
‘Mu’aawiyah’ by Ibrahim Al-Abyaariy: 134, (3) The following was mentioned in the book: ‘Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab’ by
Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother Naajiy At-Tantaawiy on page 109: “The Islamic conquest … It expanded in 12
years alone from Tripoli of the West to the last lands of the foreigners (or non-Arabs) and Egypt, Syria and Persia were all
seized!”].

This is what concerns us within this Mas’alah (issue) that we are dealing with, from the subject area of the
Islamic conquests and we will now present some of what has been said regarding it:

- Al-‘Aqeed (Colonel) Muhammad Faraj, when discussing the reasons for Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq
directing the Muslim armies to the land of As-Sawaad (Iraq), mentions a number of reasons connected to
our subject which we will summarise as follows (1):

1 - It diverted the Arab tribes from fighting against each other, as they had become used to doing in Al-
Jaahiliyah (pre-Islamic period) seeking old reprisals and so forth. That was by directing their fighting
energies and potencies towards undertaking Al-Jihaad against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in that which leads
to the realisation of good for Islaam and the Muslims, instead of wiping one another out.

2 - To restore the Arab lands from the land of Iraq. They were lands which the Persians had taken
possession of at an earlier time in history and expelled its inhabitants comprising of the tribes of Lakhm,
Taghlab, Iyaad, An-Namir and Banu Shaibaan

3 -To secure the Arabian Peninsula from the intrigues of the Persians and their hostility.

4 - The Delta of the two rivers; the Euphrates and Tigris, had abundant agricultural benefits and animal
life. The rulers of Persia had monopolised those natural benefits and resources and they did not leave
anything to the Arab inhabitants except crumps. It was therefore necessary to expel the Arabs and for the
natural resources of the land to return to its people; the Arabs!
The above is what Colonel Muhammad Faraj mentioned in terms of motivating factors for the declaration
of Al-Jihaad upon the eastern front in the time of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra).

- ‘Umar Ridaa Kahhaalah (2) mentions what he views to generally represent the motives. He mentions
the spread of Islaam upon the earth and the fertility of what the Persians and Romans possessed in terms
of lands, like those of Iraq, Ash-Shaam (Syria) and Egypt, at a time when the poverty and barrenness was
spread across the lands that the Muslims possessed within the Arabian Peninsula.

[(1) The book: “Al-Muthannaa Bin Haarithah”, Al-‘Aqeed Muhammad Faraj p63-64, (2) The book: “Saifullah Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed”, ‘Umar Ridaa Kahhaalah: p86].

- Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy (1) discusses the Islamic conquests and mentions that the objective of
every conquest that took place throughout history was only: “To incorporate the conquered lands into the
acquisitions or possessions of the conquerors and to attain the benefits of their natural resources and
benefits”. That is apart from the Islamic conquest as this was not is goal aim or objective. Rather, its
objective was the spread of Islaam without coercing anyone to embrace it.

- Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy also discusses this subject matter and states the following: “The aim of the
Islamic conquest, then, is not to annex the lands to the lands (Diyaar) of Islaam based on an economic
desire or coveting. Rather, it is for the purpose of consolidation to enable the acceptance of the Islamic
Da’wah and to block or prevent assault. Just as that was the aim of the war against the Persians and
Romans or to encircle the Romans and free the weak and oppressed from the Roman oppression and just
like the war in Egypt and North Africa” (2).

The above represents some of what the Islamic writers mentioned connected to those motivating factors
behind the movement of the Islamic conquests and behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad upon all fronts of
the Islamic State against its enemies from the states and provinces that surrounded it.

It is possible to summarise these motivating factors as follows:

1 - The economic motive: That is evidentin the poverty of the regions that the Muslims possessed and
the richness of the regions that the Persians and Romans held in their possession.

2 - The political motive: That is evident in the diversion of the Arab tribes from their old vengeances
and transferring their fighting potencies and energies away from internal struggle amongst themselves and
towards the struggle against the foreign enemy.

3 - The protective and defensive motive: That is represented in the Muslims’ attack against those
surrounding them due to the motive of defending the Islamic State when faced with powerful opponents.
Those opponents were of two cases:

- Either they had already undertaken hostility against the Muslims.

- Or there were indications or signs indicating that if the Muslims refrained from initiating an attack
against their enemies, then it would be those enemies who would hasten to attack the Muslims.

[(1) The book: “Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy and his brother Naajiy: p108-109, (2) The book:
“International relations in Islaam - A Comparison of the Contemporary International Law”: p129. Also refer to an article also
written by Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy concerning “The Islamic Conquests” in the magazine: “The Islamic Civilisation” issue no.
9, year: 4, Dhu-l-Qa’dah: 1383 (April 1964) p45-46].
4 - The humanitarian motive: This is represented in the freeing of the downtrodden and oppressed
peoples from the oppression of their despot rulers; whether those rulers were people of the same land (as
the people) or foreigners to them.

5 - The motive of liberation: This is reflected in the restoration of the Arab lands and liberating them
from Persian and Roman occupation.

6 - The motive of the Deen: This motivating factor focuses upon the spread of the Islamic Da’wah. That
means: That the motive for the declaration of Al-Jihaad was to take it as a means for the sake of Al-Fat’h
(Opening and conquest). And the meaning of Al-Fat’h, as is clear, is the incorporation of the conquered
or opened lands into (the lands of) the conquering state. It is to then consider such a land to be a
Wilaayah (province) from amongst its provinces and to apply the ruling system of the mother land upon
the new Wilaayah (province). From there, this conquest (Fat’h) represents a means for the spread of the
Islamic Da’wah. The meaning of that is: That the non-Muslims live under the Islamic system whilst their
seeing of Islaam alive within the relationships, the society and embodied within the conduct and
behaviour of the Muslims, accompanied by the Da’wah undertaken by the tongue (speech) and the
clarification of Islaam to them, all of that, by its nature, makes the non-Muslims desire Islaam and to enter
into it.

Al-Imaam Al-Kaasaaniy stated the following in his “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”:

“The Ahl ul-Kitaab are left in the Dhimmah (covenant of protection) and by the acceptance of the Jizyah,
not because of what can be taken (and gained) from them or any coveting or desire in respect to that (i.e.
any material gain). But rather, it is for the purpose of the Da’wah to Islaam, so that they can mix with the
Muslims and can ponder upon the qualities of Islaam and its legislations… So that they can see it as an
being founded upon what the minds can encompass and accept. This makes them incline to Islaam and
desire (to enter into) it. Therefore, the contraction of the covenant of the Dhimmah was based on the
hope that they would embrace Islaam!” (1).

Following on …

This is what has been said concerning the motivating factors for the declaration of Al-Jihaad against all
fronts in the time of the Raashideen (the rightly guided Khulafaa’) and now we move on to the final
Mas’alah (issue) of this current area of study.

[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/111].

The Third Mas’alah (issue):

The motives behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad in the era of the rightly guided Khilafah upon all
fronts, based upon the reality of the official statements that were issued, what took place in terms
of negotiations and what was convened in terms of Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with the opposing
states

In the second issue of this study we were focusing upon what was said about the motivating factors for
the declaration of Al-Jihaad during the time of the rightly guided Khulafaa’ which were summarised into
six matters. Consequently, we will now proceed to discuss these motives or motivating factors in light of
what we presented previously in the first Mas’alah (issue) of this study. Meaning: In light of the official
statements that were issued, official negotiations that took place and the treaties (Mu’aahadaat) that were
convened with the opposing states of the different fronts upon the frontiers of the Islamic State. Through
this discussion, the true motive behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad upon all fronts, in the time of the
rightly guided Khulafaa’, will become evident to us. In addition, it will address the role, as mentioned by
the Islamic writers, of other motives, which they said were reasons behind the Jihaad movement that
spread across all of the fronts of the Islamic State.

However, before discussing the motives that the Islamic writers mentioned, we see that the following
truths need to be established to enable the passing of judgement upon those mentioned motives upon
their basis:

1 - The first truth: It has been established, from the extracts that we quoted from historical sources in the
first issue of this study, that the Sahaabah used to present to all of the peoples that they encountered upon
all of the fronts, the following three options: The Islamic option (i.e. to embrace Islaam), the option to
join to the Islamic State and for the Islamic System to be applied upon them reflected in the Aqd Adh-
Dhimmah (contract of protection) in addition to the payment of the Jizyah, and then finally the military
option.

If they were to accept the first option or the second option, the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of waging
war against the land that accepted either of those options, would be lifted or no longer exist. If they
however rejected them all, then the military option would be resorted to for the sake of imposing the
second option by force whilst the first option would have no relevance.

This indicates that the motivating factor behind the movement of Al-Jihaad in the era of the Sahaabah
was always: Inviting the people to Islaam so that they embrace it and to apply the Islamic system upon
them even if they did not believe in it or embrace it.

2 - The second truth: There is a difference between the motivating factor for undertaking a certain
matter and between the benefit that is attained from this matter that the (original) motive brought about
or generated, in the path of realising other goals.

In our issue here, the matter that motivated the people towards it was Al-Jihaad.

And the motivating factor towards Al-Jihaad was the spread of the Islamic Da’wah and the application of
the Islamic system upon the people, as was established in the first truth.

Whilst the legally legitimate interests or objectives that are possible to be benefited from the carrying out
of Al-Jihaad are many.

- They include the realisation or accomplishment of economic benefits, diverting the people from the
internal struggles and directing their energies and potencies towards the foreign enemy, and repelling the
aggression or hostility that is occurring or is anticipated to take place against the Muslims or their lands.

- They could also include the liberation of the lands and the peoples from the despots, tyrants and
oppressors.

However, all of these objectives or interests that Al-Jihaad realises are the fruits which Al-Jihaad produces,
whether the one who went forth in the path of Al-Jihaad or paid for someone else to take that path
intended the realisation of these interests or they were not intended. That is because they are fruits which
are generated automatically as a result of undertaking this Fard (obligation), the Fard of Al-Jihaad,
regardless of whether they are observed or not. That is whilst they do not represent the motive for
undertaking Al-Jihaad which has been established to be the spread of Islaam and the application of its
system over the people.
At this point the following question could arise: In the case where the results accomplished by Al-Jihaad
represent fruits generated from it, whether they were intended or not, then why were they indicated to, as
we have seen, within the Khutbah of Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed when he was awakening the desire of the
Mujaahideen (those engaged in Al-Jihaad) to launch into the foreign lands due to their abundant
resources? Or like we observed in the speech of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, when he was alerting the people
to the difficult living in their homelands of the Hijaaz and enticing them with the luxurious life and
comforts that are to be found in Allah’s vast earth which in the possession of other nations?

If the enticing of Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed regarding the foreign lands and the alerting of ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab to the luxurious life of the lands of other nations, if all of that was from the angle of the
attainment of the outcome i.e. from the perspective of bringing attention to the matters that would be
accomplished, whether intended or not, then is the enticement of the Yemeni tribe “Bajeelah” with a
quarter of the Khumus (fifth) of the spoils or booty (Ghanaa’im), resulting from the fighting upon the
Persian front, in addition to what there right is to take like the rest of the people, considered to be from
this angle? Does this extra material inducement not represent a financial motive and incentive for this
tribe motivating it to undertake Al-Jihaad?

The answer to this questioning is as follows:

Firstly: Concerning the indication towards the material benefits that are the resulting consequence of
undertaking the Shar’iyah obligations, then this form of indication is a well-known (Ma’roof) matter in the
Shar’a. It is from the angle of explaining that the Islamic Ahkaam (rulings) accomplish or realise the legally
legitimate Masaalih (interests) of the people and satisfy their natural needs, and that there is not conflict
with those interests or these needs. This indication, in respect to the Muslim, represents an incentive for
him to comply and closer to accepting the Ahkaam (1). That is like what was mentioned in the Hadeeth:

‫َْر ِح َم َُه‬ َ َّ ‫َع ْنهَُ َم ْي َت َةَالسُّو ِءَ َف ْل َي َّت ِق‬

َ ‫ََّللاَ َو ْليَصِ ل‬ َ ‫ِيَر ْزقِه‬
َ ‫َِو َي ْد َف َع‬ ِ ‫َِوي َُوس َِّعَلَهَُف‬ َّ ‫َمنْ َ َسرَّ هَُأَنْ َ ُي ِم َّد‬
َ ‫ََّللاَُلَهَُفِيَ ُعم ُِره‬
Whoever would be pleased that Allah extends his life for him, expands his Rizq (sustenance) and
repels from him a bad death, then he should have Taqwaa (fear and obedience) to Allah and
should keep the ties of the womb (2).

Consequently, the blessing in respect to an extended lifespan, the expansion of the Rizq, and being
protected from a bad death, are all matters which are desired from the human, whilst indicating to them in
the context of urging the keeping of the ties of the womb is from the angle that what the human desires
by his nature has been assured by the Shar’a through commitment to its rulings (Ahkaam).

Secondly: In respect to providing a surplus or extra (material benefits) to some of the Mujaahideen of
those whom it is expected to witness bravery and a good undertaking from, then this extra incentive also
represents a legally legitimate (Mashroo’) matter. It represents a kind of material reward or recompense for
undertaking that which the Shar’a demands, whilst the principle of reward and punishment rests upon the
adherence and commitment to what has been demanded. The perpetration of the Mah’dhoor (that which
has been warned not to undertake) is from the Shar’iyah, Aqliyah (rational), social, educational and
military established matters, that no one denies. However, no one can say that the Thawaab (reward) and
‘Iqaab (punishment) represent the latent or hidden motive behind the command to undertake was has
been demanded and the Nahi (forbiddance) from undertaking the Mah’dhoor (warned about matter). That
is because there are specific objectives and interests that the Shaari’ (legislator) has specified behind its
request or demand (Talab) or its Nahi (forbiddance, and what we are dealing with here is from that
perspective.

The crux of the issue in respect to affirming this truth that we are discussing is that the motive for Al-
Jihaad is one matter, whilst the benefiting from the Jihaad in respect to realising other interests, external to
the original purpose or objective representing the true motive for Al-Jihaad, represents another matter. It
is therefore not permitted to mix or confuse between that which is the motive for the matter and that
which is represents the fruits that are generated from undertaking that matter.

[(1) Usool ul-Fiqh: Abu un-Noor Az-Zuhair: 4/35, (2) Related by ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmad, Al-Bazzaar and At-Tabaraaniy in Al-
Awsat. The men (narrators) of Al-Bazzaar are Rijaal As-Saheeh (i.e. meet the conditions of the Saheeh Isnaad [chain]) apart
from ‘Aasim Bin Hamzah and he is Thiqqah (trusted). Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 8/152-153. It was mentioned in the Majma’ about
the meaning of the Hadeeth, that it does not mean the extension of the life but rather that a man has righteous offspring that
follow him who then make Du’aa for him after his passing and that reaches him: 8/153].

3 - The third truth: That the motivating factor for the activity undertaken by the Islamic State was only
for the purpose or objective that was being sought from it. If the State then used certain elements from
the people to undertake that activity whilst their motive for participating in it contrasted with the motive
of the State, then it is true to establish and affirm that the motive for that activity is representative of the
motive of the state itself and not the motive of those elements from the people. That is just like the
situation if the Islamic State was to make use of non-Islamic elements in its fighting against the enemies as
was discussed previously in the first Mas’alah (issue) of this study. That is because the motive for those
elements to undertake the fighting, was, as mentioned, to be pardoned or exempted from the financial
obligations and commitments imposed upon them (i.e. the Jizyah) or to lift the deficiency that they feel,
from them, in respect to the giving of the Jizyah. They therefore participate in the military activity due to
the motive of being exempted from the Jizyah and to preserve their internal dignity.

However, does this represent the motive of the State in its steering of the wheel of Al-Jihaad and seeking
assistance from the elements in relation to activating its military movement?

By taking these three truths into consideration we can pass judgment upon the motivating factors
mentioned by the Islamic writers through which they explained the mobilisation of Al-Jihaad and the
Islamic conquests.

1 - The economic motive:

- It is possible for this motive to be behind the acts of fighting in respect to the non-Muslims who fight
under the Raayah (banner) of the Islamic State and that is because fighting to carry the Islamic Da’wah
and to raise the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla does not apply to them.

- And it is possible for this motive to be observed alongside the motive of carrying the Islamic Da’wah in
respect to the Muslim Mujaahideen and there is no objection to that. This was explained in the first
volume within the study concerning the Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of attaining wealth (Maal).

- However, this economic motive, in respect to the remainder of the Muslims, represents nothing more
than a fruit from the fruits of Al-Jihaad, that is represented when a reality from the realities of providing
support to Islaam and raising the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla high is realised. Such fruits would be
desirable under such a consideration as long as the person does not become attached to it in a manner
that diverts him from the true and real motive for undertaking Al-Jihaad. This was expressed by ‘Ubaadah
Bin As-Saamit (May Allah be pleased with him) in his statement to Al-Muqawqis: “Our fighting of an
enemy from those who have declared war against Allah has not been for any desire or coveting for the
Dunyaa nor has it been to seek an abundance of wealth from it. Rather, Allah, Azza Wa Jalla, has made
that Halaal for us and made that which we take in booty from that (i.e. Al-Jihaad) Halaal!” (1).

It was the wish of this elevated class of Muslims for their enemies to embrace Islaam, the result of which
would mean that they would not attain from the pains of Al-Jihaad and its sacrifices any booty or material
benefit. This was indicated to in the statement of the delegation of the Muslims to Rustum before the
battle of Al-Qaadisyah: “By Allah, your embracing of Islaam is more beloved to us that your booties!” (2).
- As for the Islamic State, then it did not occur during the era of the rightly guided Khilafah, which is the
subject of our study, that a war was launched against its enemies where its primary motive was to secure
and realise material interests and gains. Yes, it is true that an observation of the economic benefits took
place in their consideration as representing a fruit from amongst the fruits of Al-Jihaad, as previously
mentioned, however not in their consideration as being representative of the true or real motivation which
explains the movement of Al-Jihaad and the conquests.

Similarly, an observation of the economic benefits in their consideration as representing a means from
amongst the means of applying pressure upon the enemy takes place. This is called an ‘economic war’
which serves the true motive of undertaking Al-Jihaad in the long-run.

As the Da’wah (invitation) to non-Muslims to accept Islaam is the first option that is presented to them,
that reaffirms this truth and reality (i.e. that the true motive for AL-Jihaad is to spread Islaam).

2 - The political motive:

This motive likewise cannot be considered to represent the primary motive explaining the undertaking of
the Jihaad and conquests that took place in the period of the Raashideen (Rightly guided Khulafaa’).
Evidence for this is that Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (May Allah be pleased with him) issued his command to
the commanders of the Islamic armies to not seek assistance from a Muslim who had previously
apostatized from Islaam (3). That was despite there being a dire need, during this period of Abu Bakr’s
rule, to activate those tribes who had apostatized before returning to Islaam, to engage in the Jihaad upon
the frontiers of the Islamic State to quell any troubles originating from their seeking to undermine the
(Islamic) authority by destabilising the security and shaking the internal situation.

[(1) Nujoom Az-Zaahirah, Tagray Bardi Al-Ataabakiy: 1/3, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 3.528, (3) History of At-Tabariy: 3/341].

In spite of that situation and need, Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq nevertheless prevented and forbade those tribes
from participating in the Jihaad. By that he accomplished two matters:

Firstly: He made the Muslims and former apostates that Al-Jihaad is an honour and those who have
whose page has been stained by his former apostacy is not worthy of it. Consequently, this deprivation in
respect to those who were forbidden from Al-Jihaad had the appearance of a punishment. That is a matter
that by its nature would motivate those who had apostatised previously to undertake sincere repentance
and return to being worthy of proceeding amongst the marches of the Mujaahideen.

Secondly: A pure Islamic model was presented to the non-Islamic peoples upon the battle fronts so as to
provide a shining image of Islaam that would make the peoples upon those fronts desire to enter this
Deen.

What we have stated does not mean that it is not permitted for the Islamic State to open the door to Al-
Jihaad to particular elements of fighters from whom the internal situation is feared if they were left
without dispatching their fighting energies and potencies within the battle fronts.

The decision in this Mas’alah (issue) returns to the evaluation of the one in authority upon the basis of
examining all of the considerations. That is whilst on many occasions activating the military segments or
sections and leaders within the battle fronts represents the best treatment for the deviancy of those who
have deviated, the best investment of their energies and potencies and brings the most beneficial return to
itself and to Islaam and the Muslims. That is because (human) nature dislikes the vacuum or absence of
activity and as the one who is not busy and occupied with the Haqq (truth) can become occupied with the
Baatil (falsehood). Opening the fields and avenues that occupy the people with the Haqq is from amongst
the matters that the state must make one of its priorities.
Consequently, we see that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) dispatched 4000 fighters, who were all from ‘Ukk,
which was from among the Yemeni tribes who had rushed to apostacy in the apostacy that took place
following the death of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, dispatching them under the leadership of ‘Amr Ibn
Al-‘Aas to conquer Egypt and open it to Islaam (1).

The reality not far from the minds of those in positions of responsibility in the era of the rightly guided
Khilafah was the thinking about political treatments such as this during the times of Titan (strife and
unrest) and instability.

[(1) An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah: 1/5 and History of At-Tabariy: 3/320].

Concerning this, when the opposition began in the era of ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan (May Allah be pleased
with him), troubling the authority with its demands and its stirring and inciting of the people, ‘Uthmaan
gathered his advisors and said the following to them: “Every person has assistants and advisors and you
are my assistants and advisors and the people of my trust (or confidence). And the people have done what
you have seen and so strive your utmost to provide your opinion and to counsel me!”. The ‘Abdullah Ibn
‘Aamir said: “My opinion for you of Ameer ul-Mu’mineen! Is to command them with Al-Jihaad, so as to
preoccupy them from you!” (1).

Indeed! This kind of treatment could be resorted to as a solution for some of the problems on some
occasions however it retains the description of being a temporary treatment, as is normal in respect to
treatments generally.

Consequently, the political motive does not represent a motive that explains the mobilisation for Al-Jihaad
and making conquests. That is in contrast to the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah that carries a permanent
quality and character making it valid to be described as the true motive for the mobilisation for Al-Jihaad
and undertaking the Islamic conquests.

3 - The preventative and defensive motive:

Dr Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy accuses those who explain the mobilisation for Al-Jihaad and the Islamic
conquests by this motive, and they represent most Muslim and Arab historians of this contemporary
period, he accuses them of resorting to this explanation as a result of their submission to the intellectual
attack and due their lack of understanding of the true reality of Al-Jihaad.

The following is a summary of what he said:

That the western civilisation spread concepts of peace and they set up international institutions concerned
with reconciling between interests of conflicting nations for the purpose of establishing international
peace and replacing wars with negotiations and dialogue to solve problems.

That generated a hatred of war amongst the people due to its bad and negative consequences.

At the same time the orientalist studies have persisted upon the thought of connecting between Al-Jihaad
and the imposition of the Islamic Aqeedah upon people by force and consequently they have erased the
true reality of Al-Jihaad through this misrepresentation (or pretence).

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 4/333].

At this, the educated amongst the Muslims sensed the contradiction between Al-Jihaad according to how
the orientalists portrayed it to them and the western civilisation and what they call to in terms of peace
slogans.

Facing this contradiction and from a position of a sense of weakness before the West and its civilisation,
those educated Muslims set off in an attempt to justify all that contradicts with the western culture and its
concepts in respect to what Islaam came with. They then went out to the people with this explanation for
the movement of Al-Jihaad: “That the conquests have a defensive character and that it used offense (or
attack) to defend the Islamic State in the face of its powerful opponents”.

This is the effect or result of the intellectual attack or onslaught and what it contained in terms of
distorting the thought of Al-Jihaad in respect to explaining the Islamic conquest activity to be for the
purpose of defence which includes the preventative war (Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy).

Dr. Al-‘Umariy then explains that the absence of understanding the true reality of Al-Jihaad amongst
those educated Muslims, who had submitted to the intellectual attack, was from amongst the factors
leading to this explanation of the conquests to come out. And he (Dr. Al-Umariy) affirms that “Al-Jihaad
absolutely does not aim to impose the Aqeedah (belief) upon the people. Rather, it aims to remove the
obstacles before the spread of Islaam upon the earth, whether that is by weakening the contemporary
political power or eliminating it. That is where the Muslims take over control of the land and nobody is
pressured away from Islaam wherever he may be” (1).

The above is a summary of what Dr. Al-‘Umariy said in respect to his criticism of those who have said
that motive of the Jihaad is preventative, that it is to repel the aggression or hostility whether it is
occurring or is anticipated, that this motive was behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad upon all of the fronts
and that it is explains the activity and movement of the Islamic conquests.

It is worth noting here, that Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabahaani, in his publication about Al-Jihaad
which was indicated to by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy and mentioned in the second study of
this chapter, that he affirmed the view of Dr. Al-Umariy, regarding this matter.

[(1) Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madanaiy Fee ‘Ahd An-Nabuwah “Al-Jihaad Did Al-Mushrikeen”, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p21-22].

In the book “International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah” he quotes from Ash-Sheikh Taqiy
ud-Deen An-Nabahaani that which he stated in his publication about Al-Jihaad: “This represents the
origin in respect to where the thought that Al-Jihaad is a defensive war has come from: ‘It is the result of
an attack from the orientalists to disfigure the Hukm of Al-Jihaad and as a result of a defensive position
adopted by the Muslims that Al-Jihaad is a defensive war’. We don’t have that which indicates that this
defence from the Muslims had been instilled or inserted in them by the West so that they adopt it.
However, we do not find it unlikely that some of the orientalists in their attacks had indeed inserted and
instilled it through their attempt to be fair to Islaam, to deceive the Muslims. That is because the
orientalists, in their cultural attacks, have divided themselves into two types: A group that attacks Islaam
and a group that defends it using the pretext of being fair and just. It is therefore not unlikely that some of
the orientalists had said that and then Muslims imitated them. In any case, whether this meaning (i.e. of
defensive Jihaad) was instilled and inserted within the Muslims or they adopted it by themselves, it did not
exist prior to the cultural invasion” (1).

The above is what was mentioned in the book “International Relations” (Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah) in
respect to what the author quoted from Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabahaani. There was also stated
in the book “Fiqh As-Seerah” by Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, that which reaffirms what
Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen established in respect to this matter.

[(1) International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p131.
The following was stated in “Fiqh As-Seerah”: “Many erroneous conceptions were spread or slipped in by
many of the orientalists in relation to the concept of Al-Jihaad and these erroneous conceptions
proceeded upon two paths: The first path: The view that Islaam did not spread except at the point of the
blade and that the Nabi and his companions adopted the path of coercion with the people. The Islamic
conquests were therefore conquests of subjugation, compulsion and violent force, and they were not
conquests of culture and thought. The second path: Those of this path adopt the call that Islaam is the
Deen of love and peace and that Al-Jihaad is not legally legitimate (or legislated) except to protect against
aggression … Firstly they broadcast that Islaam is a Deen of violent force … they then wait until this
broadcast has brought its fruits in terms of reactions from the Muslims and the denial of this injustice
attributed to Islaam. Then whilst the Muslims are involved in responding to this falsehood, those very
same people who cast the doubts in the first place, produce and come out with the Islamic defence …
refuting the accusations (that they initially) spread saying: Islaam is nothing other than a Deen of love and
peace and Al-Jihaad is not legally legitimate (or legislated) in it except under the necessity of repelling the
aggression of the one who invades … Then the simple-minded from the Muslims cheered for a long time
at this defence … They then began to support it and reiterate and reaffirm it … That Islaam is truly what
they said it is: Deen of peace and making peace and that it has no concern with others unless they invade
your homeland! … And those simple-minded people said that this represents the required conclusion to
be attached to Islaam within everyone who had propagated the first broadcast and so consequently they
(end up) propagating the second false broadcast or propagation …” (1).

The above is what was stated in “Fiqh As-Seerah” by Dr, Al-Boutiy which reiterates what was mentioned
in the book “International Relations” concerning this Mas’alah (issue) in relation to what was quoted from
Ash-Sheikh An-Nabahaani in his publication about Al-Jihaad issued in the early sixties … So, what then is
our view and opinion in relation to this Mas’alah (issue)?

I say: As the study that we are in is only concerned with treating the matter of the motives behind the
declaration of Al-Jihaad upon all fronts during the era of the rightly guided Khilafah, which means
explaining the movement of the Islamic conquests during the first period of the history of the Muslims …
In consideration of this, we sought recourse within the first issue (Mas’alah) of this study to presenting a
sufficient number of examples of the statements of those in responsibility, official negotiations that took
place and treaties that were convened between the Muslims and others, whilst they were in occupied in
the activity of Al-Jihaad. That was so that we would be able to present opinion in respect to this issue and
by returning to those examples and pertinent extracts, we have reached the following conclusions:

A - The states neighbouring the Islamic State did not actually launch an attack against the Islamic State
which called for the Islamic armies to repel such an attack by undertaking a counter attack under the
pretext of defence against this type of aggression.

B - From another angle, these neighbouring states were in a state of war with the Islamic State since the
time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and it was those states that initiated it and declared war against the Islamic State.
That is whilst no peace treaties were convened between the Muslims and those states that would cancel
that prior position of a state of war between them.

The details of that are as follows: The Romans had already declared war against the Islamic State since the
time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬as was explained previously. That declaration permitted the Islamic State to initiate
Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the Romans in all of their provinces. That is if we were to adopt the logic of
defence which includes within it the attacking or offensive defence (Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy). In light of
that, Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), Egypt and North Africa until the Atlantic Ocean were all provinces
subservient to the Romans, just as Cyprus was under the influence of Rome and used to provide Jizyah to
it.
[(1) Fiqh us-Seerah, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: 151-152].

Simlarly, the Persian state had already declared war against the Islamic State at the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
and that permitted the Islamic State to initiate fighting against the Persians in all of the provinces that
were subject to them, in accordance to the logic of defence as explained previously (i.e. attacking defence
or pre-emptive defence). In light of that, the regions upon the western front from the north where
Azerbaijan, Armenia and their surrounding lands are situated … to the south where the regions which
were known as the Persian Gulf (i.e. the Arab Gulf) is situated, all of these regions were provinces which
were subservient to the Persians. That made it permissible for the Islamic State to launch war against them
according to the aforementioned logic.

C - However, we have not observed within the recorded historical examples and extracts, concerning what
took place upon the battle fronts, that the Muslims used to refer to the state of war that the Persians and
Romans had previously declared against the Islamic State, as a basis for their declaring of Al-Jihaad against
them upon all fronts.

That is whilst the question was explicitly posed and directed to the Muslims from the officials of those
non-Islamic states to the Muslim official asking: What brought you here? (i.e. why did you come to fight
us?).

The answer to that was not: “You were the ones who initially declared a state of war against us Muslims
and consequently we are only responding to that by undertaking a stance of offensive defence” or
something carrying this meaning whether clearly or implicitly. Rather, the answer was like that which was
recorded in the History of At-Tabariy when Rustum, the leader of the Persians, asked Rib’iy Bin ‘Aamir:
“What brought you here? And Rib’iy Bin ‘Aamir answered stating: “Allah dispatched us, Allah brought us
to bring whom He wills out from the worship of the slaves (i.e. people) to the worship of Allah, from the
constraints of this Dunyaa to its vastness and from the injustice of other religions to the justice of Islaam.
And so, He sent us with His Deen to His creation so that we call (and invite) them to Him. Whoever,
then, accepts that from us, we accept it from him and we retreat from him, leaving him and his land
without taking from it. And whoever refuses (to accept that), then we fight him for ever until it leads to
what Allah has determined” (1).

… He then presented him with the three options or choices (i.e. Islaam, Jizyah or the sword)

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/520].

It is therefore clearly evident that motivating factor for the declaration of Al-Jihaad during the era of the
rightly guided (Raashideen), in every direction (or upon all fronts), was only the carrying of Islaam to the
people and it was not undertaken to repel an occurring aggression or expected one!

D - It could be said: Yes, indeed, the carrying of Islaam represents the original motive for the undertaking
of Al-Jihaad and conquests, however, it is necessary, before that, for there to exist a state of war between
the Muslims and others, just as it is necessary for that state of war to have been initiated by the non-
Muslims against the Muslims. And consequently, it is that declaration of war by others, that provides the
justification to the Muslims to undertake the following: To respond to the state of war declared against
them by Al-Jihaad and Al-Fat’h (conquest) and that is in line with the logic of Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy
(attacking or offensive defence) that we explained earlier.

The reality of the existence of the declared state of war by the Persians and Romans against the Islamic
State was therefore taken to support such a view.

That is because the Persians and Romans had resorted to the initiation of a state of war against the Islamic
State in response to the Islamic activity that the State was undertaking. That is a matter that could lead to
an intellectual struggle, then a political struggle, the existence of what has been called a “cold war”, and
the straining of relations between the two states, which invites an act of aggression or hostility by the state
of Kufr against the Muslims, whether those Muslims were from its own subjects or from others. That
would then represent a declaration by that state of war against the Muslims and would provide the
justification for the Islamic State, following that, to respond to that state that had aggressed against the
Muslims, by declaring Jihaad against it.

The answer to this is that this speech is correct or valid (Saheeh) as a whole (or in general). That the
Da’wah (invitation) to peoples and states to Islaam and to embrace it or to accept the application of the
Islamic system over them, even if they were not to enter Islaam, that this obligatory Shar’a invitation,
accompanied by the preparation of the force to support that, is sufficient to guarantee that it leads to the
state or condition that has been indicated to and which those holding this opinion reiterate its necessity,
prior to the declaration of Al-Jihaad against the states that refuse this (Da’wah) invitation and aggress
against the Muslims that carry it.

However, this will never benefit much those who hold the logic of the preventative or protective war (Al-
Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy) or the attacking defensive war, in respect to dropping this logic over the case or
situation that we are discussing. That is because this case or situation that is intended to be brought about
and then taken as a pretext and justification to declare Al-Jihaad, will be considered, according to the
viewpoint of the opponent who also hold the view of offensive or attacking defence, this situation will be
considered by them to represent a case of initiating the declaration of the state of war by the Islamic State
itself against the State that the Da’wah is being accrued to. That is due to its interference in the affairs of
those other states by spreading the Islamic thought within them in a manner that is in conflict with the
thought that the system in those states is established upon. It would then be natural for that state to resort
to striking or attacking any thought that threatened its thought and its system just as the Islamic State,
itself, would resort to attacking every thought that contradicted the Islamic thought propagated by others
within it.

Consequently, the view stating that it is necessary for it to be the other states which initiate the declaration
of the state of war against the Muslims so that it becomes justified for the Muslims to mobilise the armies
for Al-Jihaad against those states, based upon the argument of offensive defence … This view will never
benefit those who hold it before those who adopt the same logic to prove that it was the Islamic State that
initiated the declaration of the state of war against the other states, whether that was by using the
argument of the Islamic State’s interference in the affairs of other states when it propagated the Islamic
thought that conflicted with the prevalent thought and the ruling system in those lands.

Or that those states themselves propagated their thoughts within the Islamic State, making this state resort
to striking or attacking those thoughts, confronting them and punishing those who propagate them, due
to considering them to be thoughts of Kufr. That then could represent a matter that the other states
consider to be an initiation of a declaration of a state of war against them by the Islamic State, just as the
Islamic State could consider it in the same way if its Da’wah was confronted in a similar manner as it
confronts other Da’wahs.

Based upon this I say: The opinion stating that it is necessary for the other states to first declare a state of
war against the Muslims, so as to provide them with a pretext to declare Al-Jihaad against them, using the
argument of offensive (or attacking) defence, in the manner that has been detailed … This opinion will
never benefit those who hold it much because the opponent will use the same weapon to confront the
Muslims, as has been explained.

As for relying for evidence upon a particular reality within the era of the rightly guided Khilafah to state
that the Muslims only declared Al-Jihaad against all fronts that had initiated the declaration of a state of
war against them, and even if that is from the viewpoint of the Muslims alone, and whilst all of those
fronts were under the controlling authority of the Persians and Romans…

Then in respect to this I say: Relying upon this reality for evidence is refuted by the fact that the examples
and extracts which recorded that reality the battle fronts were upon and which we presented in the
discussion of the first Mas’alah (issue), included within some of them, that which indicates to the non-
necessity of the existence of a prior declaration of a state of war against the Muslims, so as to then make
that a justification for Al-Jihaad to be undertaken against them or for the three options to be presented
before them.

We will not repeat those examples and extracts as we have already presented them. Rather, it is enough to
refer to them and their indications.

- From amongst those examples was that Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed marched to the Persian front in Iraq. He
advanced to Al-Heerah and the leaders of Al-Heerah came out to receive him desiring that war did not
take place. It is true that Al-Heerah was subservient to the Persian state which had been in a state of war
with the Muslims and consequently Al-Heerah itself was also (by default) in a state of war with the
Muslims. However, the setting out by the leaders of Al-Heerah, in the manner that was mentioned by At-
Tabariy, to meet and receive Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed as people desiring peace, is considered to represent a
declaration of the separation of Al-Heerah from the Persian state and consequently the absence of a state
of war between them and the Muslims.

‘Abdul Maseeh, one of the leaders of Al-Heerah expressed the stance of his land towards the Muslims in
relation to peace and war. That was when Khaalid asked him: “Is it peace that you want or war?” ‘Abdul
Maseeh responded: “Indeed, peace!” (1). Despite that, Khaalid presented to him and the people of Al-
Heerah the three options: Al-Islaam, or Al-Jizyah, or war. This all indicates that it is not necessary for the
other countries to be in a state of war with the Muslims, for the Muslims to wage Al-Jihaad against them if
they do not accept Islaam or submit to the Islamic system.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/345].

- Another example from amongst the previous examples, indicating to what we are addressing, is what
Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed wrote to the kings of Persia: “Enter into our matter (i.e. Islaam) and we will leave
you, your land and we will go past you to others” (1).

In this example, if we were to concede the prior existence of a state of war with the kings of Persia and
that it was due to this state of war that the armies were mobilised against them and were then presented
with the three options or choices, if we were to concede that in respect to the Persian kings, then what
about the affair of those behind the kings of the Persians in terms of peoples and nations, whom Khaalid
wanted to go past the lands of the Persians to reach. That is whilst there was nothing beyond the lands
that were under the control of the Persian kings apart from the lands of the Afghans, India and then
China, in respect to whom we have not heard that any friction had occurred between the Muslims and
them at that time, let alone that they had attacked the Muslims or declares a state of war against them!?

Despite that, Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed wanted to go directly beyond the kings of Persia, if they were to
accept Islaam or accept to submit to the Muslims (and their system), to reach those peoples and nations,
that lay behind them, for the sake of presenting the three options to them, just as he had done upon every
fighting front that he had engaged in.

This indicates the non-necessity of the prior existence of a declaration of a state of war by those states
against the Muslims, for the Muslims to direct the armies towards them and present the three options to
them.
- The third example we now mention also indicates to the argument that we are presenting. That is
because the Nubian lands, in the south of Egypt, did not appear to be a province under the control or
authority of the Romans, like Egypt and North Africa were, for it then to be said that it was consequently
in a state of war with the Islamic State. In addition, the lands of Nubia, had not initiated any act of
aggression or hostility against the Muslims nor had they declared war against them.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 3/370].

Despite that, the Muslims directed their military operations towards them. Then when the Muslims saw
that they were unable to make the Nubians submit to the Islamic rule or that making them submit would
cost the Muslims to sacrifice a large amount of its military forces, a matter which would weaken the
Muslims upon that front resulting in significant harms afflicting them, the Da’wah and the Islamic State,
when they saw that, the Ameer of Islamic Egypt convened a peace treaty with the leaders of the land of
Nubia, which stipulated the exchanging of gifts between the two sides to symbolize the confirmation of
the state of peace between them and its continuation, as was explained in our presentation of the first
Mas’alah (issue) of the study (1).

This example therefore contains an evidence for the non-necessity of the prior existence of a declaration
of a state of war initiated by the other lands against the Muslims, for the Muslims to then declare Al-
Jihaad against them.

4 - The humanitarian motive:

This motive, as mentioned earlier, is represented in freeing the oppressed and downtrodden peoples from
the oppression of their despotic rulers, whether those rulers were from the original people of those lands
or foreigners to them.

I say: This motive does not represent an independent motive from the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah and
the application of the Islamic system upon the lands which the armies of Al-Jihaad were directed to.

That is because when the oppressed and downtrodden peoples enter into Islaam or submit to its
authority, it is this Islaam itself that frees them from the oppression of their despotic rulers, whether those
rulers were from the people of that land or foreigners to it.

Therefore, this humanitarian motive that acted as an incentive for the Muslims to liberate the peoples,
from the oppression and repression, represents a fruit from among the fruits of the motive of carrying the
Islamic Da’wah which moves the Mujaahideen to demolish the systems of despotism and eliminate the
symbols tyranny.

Or it is as Rib’iy Bin ‘Aamir (May Allah be pleased with him) said: “Allah brought us to bring whom He
wills out from the worship of the slaves (i.e. people) to the worship of Allah, from the constraints of this
Dunyaa to its vastness and from the injustice of other religions to the justice of Islaam” (2).

5 - The motive of liberation:

This motive, as has been stated, is represented in the restoration of Arab lands and liberating them from
the Persian and Roman occupation.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 4/111, (2) History of At-Tabariy: 3/520].

I say: Those who hold the opinion that this represents the motive behind the movement of Al-Jihaad and
conquests, launched in the period of the rightly guided Khilafah, were affected by the modern concepts of
nationalism when explaining Al-Jihaad and the conquests that we are addressing, whether they were aware
of that or not.

There are a number of matters that invalidate this being the motive behind the movement of the
campaigns of Al-Jihaad declared during the time of the Raashideen (righty guided Khulafaa’).

Included amongst these matters are the following:

- That the lands of Egypt and North Africa were not from the Arab lands for it to then be argued that
freeing them from the Roman control and their influence was for the purpose of liberating the Arab lands
from foreign occupation.

- That after the Muslims liberated the Arab lands which had been occupied by foreigners, it did not expel
those foreigners from the lands. Rather, they provided them with the choice to remain in the lands under
the shade of the Islamic rule like the Arabs or to depart to wherever they wished.

In the treaty letter written by Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah to the people of Ba’labak the following was
stated:

“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem. This is a letter of security for so and so person and the
people of Ba’labak; its Romans. Persians and Arabs, over their lives, properties, churches and places of
worship inside of the city and outside of it… The Romans can graze their animals between them and a
distance of 15 miles and they are not to descend upon the town of ‘Aaimrah. Then when the months of
Rabee; and Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa have passed they can go wherever they please. And whoever embraces
Islaam from amongst them, then he has what we have and it is due upon him that which is due upon us.
And their traders can travel to wherever they wish to within the lands that we have made a treaty with and
those who stay to reside then the Jizyah and Kharaaj is due from them. Allah has witnessed and Allah is
sufficient a Witness” (1).

I say: This indicates that the claim stating that the motive to liberate the Arab lands from the foreigners
was behind the movement of Al-Jihaad and the conquests during the era of the Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen,
is a claim that is only the result of the effects of the nationalistic concepts that became prevalent in our
recent time.

[(1) Saifullah (the word of Allah) Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, ‘Umar Ridaa Kahhaalah: p177-178].

The falseness and invalidity of this claim is confirmed further by the fact that there is no prevention in
Islaam, for the authority in the Arab lands which had been occupied by foreigners, to remain in the hands
of those foreigners themselves if they were to declare their Islaam, join with the Muslims and separate
from their mother lands (as long as they were suitable for that), just as what happened in the era of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to Yemen Arabia. It had previously been under Persian occupation and then the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬kept the authority in Yemen in the hands of its Persian ruler ‘Baadhaan’ after he
declared his Islaam (1). This confirms that there was no role or place for the motive of nationalism within
the movement of Al-Jihaad and the undertaking conquests in the first part of the history of the Muslims.

In conclusion, we summarise our discussion concerning what has been suggested to be the motives
behind the declaration of Al-Jihaad in the period of the Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen, within the following
points:
1 - That the primary and real (or true) motive behind the movement of Al-Jihaad during the era that we
have been discussing, was only the motive of carrying the Islamic Da’wah. The other suggested motives
either represented a fruit from among the fruits of this primary motive, which is the carrying of the
Islamic Da’wah, or they represented objectives which were permissible to aim for alongside the carrying
of the Islamic Da’wah, or finally, they represented unacceptable motives, according to what was explained
previously.

2 - We also conclude from this study that the declaration of Al-Jihaad during the era of the rightly guided
Khulafaa’ due to the motive of the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah could be preceded by a state of war
declared by the disbelievers against the Muslims, like what happened upon most of the fronts.

- Similarly, the declaration of Al-Jihaad could not be preceded by a state of war. Rather, the Muslims
initiate it by carrying the Da’wah to other lands and presenting three options to them, like what took place
on some of the fronts.

3 - We also conclude from this study that the Sahaabah, whilst carrying the Islamic Da’wah and
dispatching the armies of Al-Jihaad, used to adopt different stances towards different lands according to
what the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah and the Islamic State dictated, in accordance to the
difference in conditions and circumstances.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 2/656].

- Consequently, in respect to some of the lands, the Muslims made them submit, by truce or by force, to
the Islamic system and by joining them to the Islamic State, which is what occurred on most occasions.

- In respect to other lands, the Muslims convened a foreign peace treaty with them upon the basis that
they would pay a particular Jizyah (financial recompense) to the Islamic State.

- And in some lands, the Muslims used to share influence over them with their enemies where those lands
would pay a Jizyah to them and their enemies (at the same time).

- There were also some lands regarding which the Muslims convened with them a peace and good
neighbour treaty upon the basis of mutuality and equality which was expressed by the exchanging of gifts
between the two sides, as was the case in respect to the Nubian lands in southern Egypt.

Therefore, the motive behind adopting these different stances in all of the lands which the armies of Al-
Jihaad invaded or stood at their doors, was only the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah, provide protection for
it and to adopt all that was possible to adopt in terms of means to spread it in the lands of the world,
whilst observing the available power at their disposal or the power that could possibly be made available
to the Islamic State, taking into account the power that it was confronting. That is in the case where the
adoption of one stance and not another, does not lead to a shortcoming in respect to the right of the
Da’wah, in circumstances where the path is traversable, the conditions favourable and the power or force
is available! And from a different angle, it does lead to carelessness, in circumstances where the path is
blocked, the conditions are unfavourable and the available force or power is deficient and the sacrifices
fall outside of the scope of endurance.

The way that the Sahaabah (May Allah be pleased with them) proceeded during the era of the rightly
guided Khulafaa’, in respect to the movement of Al-Jihaad upon all fronts, indicated that they were upon
the highest level of sincerity, readiness to sacrifice and step forward, and that they possessed the best
capabilities of evaluation and astuteness in their wars when they fought them and in their treaties when
they convened them. Therefore, Allah Ta’Aalaa blessed the path that they trod and wrote victory for them
over their enemies. And so, may Allah reward them and make us of those who seek light in the same light
that lit their way, so that we proceed upon the same path that they proceeded upon and then accomplish
what they accomplished!!

With those words, we come to the end of the fourth and final study of this second chapter of this second
volume from this paper (PHD) and we will now move on to the third volume by the help of Allah and
His Tawfeeq.
 Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal
Fee
As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume Three
The Asbaab (reasons) for the Declaration of Al-Jihaad in Islaam

Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Um Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.
 Volume 3
The Asbaab (reasons) for the Declaration of Al-Jihaad in Islaam

Introduction to the Third Volume

The First Chapter:

Repelling the aggression

The Second Chapter:

Standing in the Way of the Islamic Da’wah

Introduction to the Third Volume

The Introduction:
Firstly: Why have we dealt with the Mas’alah (issue) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) and its Asbaab (reasons)
during the era of the Prophethood and the rightly guided Khulafaa’ in the previous volume, before dealing
with it upon the basis of the Shar’iyah texts within this volume?

Secondly: The method of the Islamic writers in dealing with the subject area of “The Asbaab (reasons)
for Al-Qitaal in Islaam”.

Thirdly: The Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal according to the Islamic writers (Quotes of their opinions
concerning this subject area).

Fourthly: Deductions and observations.

Firstly: Why have we dealt with the Mas’alah (issue) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) and its Asbaab
(reasons) during the era of the Prophethood and the rightly guided Khulafaa’ in the previous
volume, before dealing with it upon the basis of the Shar’iyah texts within this volume?

In the second volume of this thesis, we became aware of the stages that the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad
passed through. That began with the permission to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting) after it had been
prohibited and continued until the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬were engaged in battle
across the plains of the earth whilst they carried with them torches of light and lamps of guidance to
humankind of every variety and colour.

- That then made it necessary for us to demonstrate the practical activity of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in the field of
Al-Jihaad, in terms of when he used to fight and when he would cease the Qitaal (fighting), whether that
was by way of a treaty or without one?

- We then became aware of the relationship of the invitation to Islaam made by the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to the
heads of states with the subject of Al-Jihaad.

- Just as we finally presented the practical activity of the companions of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬within the
field of Al-Jihaad during the era of the rightly guided Khilafah, in respect to why they were fighting and
when they used to resort to peace treaties with their neighbours?

- We also became familiar, through all of that, with a host of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Al-Jihaad, and
particularly that which is connected to the Asbaab (reasons or causes) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. Its
source was the practical (or action based) Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the
companions), considering them to be representative of two sources from the sources of the Islamic
legislation.

- We also tried as much as possible for the Jihaad within the field of application, whether in the era of the
Prophethood or the era of the Khilafah Ar-Raashidah, to be that which indicates to the Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah in relation to the subject of Al-Jihaad and the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for declaring it. That is
because that practical application represents from an angle a Shar’iyah Hujjah (proof and evidence) in its
consideration as a source from the sources of legislation, as has been explained previously. And from a
second angle, it represents the best Tafseer (explanation) for the Shar’iyah texts of the Kitaab (Qur’aan)
and the Sunnah mentioning the subject area of Al-Jihaad, in the case where that Jihaad manifested in the
theatre of application representing the live translation of those texts and a practical and active
embodiment of them. It restricts the room for disagreement in respect to explaining those texts when the
texts are explained in light of that practical actual activity of the Jihaad that took place. For that reason, we
presented a demonstration of Al-Jihaad within the field of the activity and reality before studying it within
the field of the Shar’iyah texts, all in harmony with the path that we are following in this thesis.
Despite that, we have restricted the third volume, that is before us now, to the study of the Asbaab
(reasons or causes) of declaring Al-Jihaad in Islaam. They are Asbaab which have been mentioned in many
Shar’iyah texts within the Kitaab and the Sunnah. The early Fuqahaa’ and the modern Islamic writers have
differed in respect to the issue of “An-Naasikh Wa l-Mansookh” (The abrogating and abrogated) and the
“’Aamm and the Khaass” (General and specific) or the “Mutlaq and Al-Muqayyad” (Unrestricted and
restricted), representing an old and reoccurring story within the Islamic studies.

One of the factors to outweigh between the opinions that have been presented concerning this issue, is to
take into account the actual practical practises that took place within the Prophetic Seerah and particularly
the last phase of the Seerah in addition to the Seerah of the rightly guided Khulafaa’. That is because those
practical practises shed light revealing which opinion is outweighed to be strongest from amongst the
opinions. As mentioned earlier, it is for that reason that we discussed the practical reality of Al-Jihaad in
practise during the era of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the era of the Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen before dealing
with the study of the Shar’iyah texts related to the issue. We also hope that it will be beneficial to conclude
this volume by presenting a number of Masaa’il (issues) connected to the Asbaab (reasons) for the
declaration of Al-Jihaad which may include some which have already been dealt with or partially dealt
with, whether that was in this volume or the previous one. However, due to their appearance as being
issues of disagreement or difference, a lot of debate has revolved around them and the points of view
became numerous, where each outweighs as strongest the opinion that he holds. The appearance of these
issues in such a description or manner has led us to separate and place them under independent headings
before dealing with that which we had not dealt with previously. As for what we have already dealt with,
completely or partially, we will restrict the discussion of them to the provision of a condensed picture of
them and an indication to the places where they were studied within the studies that preceded this one.

Secondly: Before beginning our treatment of the study areas of this volume, which will study the Asbaab
(reasons or causes) for the declaration of Al-Jihaad in Islaam, it would be useful to review the method of
the Islamic writers in respect to the presentation of those Asbaab which revolve around two matters:
Responding to or repelling the aggression and carrying the Islamic Da’wah. That is according to the
majority of those writers even if some of them have restricted it to the Sabab (reason or cause) of
“responding to and repelling the aggression and eliminating oppression Azh-Zhulm) considering the
Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of carrying the Da’wah to the peoples to fall under the angle of “repelling the
aggression and oppression” from those very same peoples!

- Some others have restricted it to the Sabab (reason or cause) of “Carrying the Islamic Da’wah” whilst
considering that the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah to the peoples represents a continuous and permanent
obligation upon the Islamic Ummah to undertake, irrespective of whether an aggression takes place
against the Muslims or does not take place.

- Others still have brought further details or divisions in respect to the manifestations of this cause or that
cause and consequently, the number of reasons (Asbaab) for Al-Qitaal) have become numerous in their
view.

- In addition, we find some writers who have adopted a narrow understanding of the causes that they have
relied upon.

- Whilst others have expanded in terms of the understanding or conception of those reasons (Asbaab).

We will nevertheless, in this introduction, become acquainted with and examine models of the methods of
the Islamic writers in how they addressed the issue of the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in
Islaam, which some of them presented under the heading of “Circumstances for the legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) of Al-Jihaad” or “The incentive (or motive/cause) for Al-Qitaal”. Some of them would
mention these reasons or causes when they presented the definition of Al-Jihaad, or explained its rulings
(Ahkaam) or portrayed its purposes or objectives.

We have also mentioned, in this introduction, the Asbaab that we rely upon within this Mas’alah (issue)
and we will point to the basis upon which we have built that determination or delineation, from the
Shar’iyah texts and the historical reality during the period of the Prophethood and the Khilaafah Ar-
Raashidah, when addressing those Asbaab (causes) within the areas of study that have been specifically
selected to be addressed.

It is worth declaring, that during our presentation of the statements of the Islamic writers concerning the
reasons for Al-Qitaal in Islaam, that we will adhere to presenting the text that they mentioned whilst
restricting ourselves to what is required from their speech that explains their opinion. That means that we
will not present the evidences that they relied upon, in most cases, and that has been done seeking to
summarize and to prevent repetition, whilst bearing in mind that those Adillah (evidences) will be
presented and discussed when we enter the study areas of this volume.

Thirdly: The Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam according to the Islamic writers
(quotes from their statements related to this subject area).

1 - Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf said:

“Islaam founded the relationships of Muslims with others upon making peace and (establishing) security
and not upon war and fighting (Al-Qitaal). However, if they seek to turn them from their Deen
maliciously or to block their Da’wah, then Al-Jihaad is obligatory upon them, to repel the evil and protect
the Da’wah… If, however, the non-Muslims refrain from attempting to take them from their Deen and
leave them (the Muslims) to be free in respect to their Da’wah, then the Muslims do not draw a sword or
undertake war” (1).

2 - Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut stated the following in his paper “Al-Qur’aan and Al-Qitaal”:

“The Sabab (reason) for Al-Jihaad is restricted to responding to or repelling the aggression and protecting
the Da’wah and freedom of religion. It is within this sphere alone that Allah has legislated Al-Qitaal” (2).

Even though Ash-Sheikh Shaltut limited the scope of Al-Qitaal to these reasons mentioned above, he
nevertheless broadened this scope to add a further reason for it that he mentioned in his book “Tafseer
Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem”. That reason was: “To eliminate the Zhulm (oppression) in the world”. He stated
the following: “The Sabab (reason) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam in restricted to responding to the aggression,
protecting the Da’wah and the freedom of religion, and purifying the land from tyranny and oppression”
(3).

[(1) “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah or Nizhaam Ad-Dawlah Al-Islaamiyah”, Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p76-77, (2) “Al-Qur’aan Wa
l-Qitaal”, Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut: p89, (3) “Tafseer Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem” in ten parts the first of which was written
by Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut: p540].

3 - Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Diraz said:

“The legally legitimate (or legislated) war in Islaam is the defensive war and we would like to point out
that the word ‘defensive’ contains two types:

1 - Ad-Difaa’ (defence) of the Nafs (life).

2 - The obligatory aid or help due to the Muslim people or an ally which is incapable of defending itself”
… He then states:

“The wars in the view of Islaam are evil and none except the one who is compelled out of necessity
resorts to it. Muslims may conclude an unfair or unjust peace by negotiations in terms of (losing) its rights,
however, at the same time, the preservation of blood is better than the splendid victory, in respect to the
right, in which lives are lost” (1).

4 - Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah under the heading: “The motive for war in Islaam” said:

“The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬fought for two matters:

The first matter: To repel the aggression …
The second matter: To secure the Islamic Da’wah because it represents the Da’wah of Al-Haqq (the
truth)” (2).

5 - ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor, under the title of: “Declaring war in Islaam” said:

“Islaam does not approve of offensive war with the objective of making conquests or expansion … The
legally legitimate (or legislated) war in Islaam is the defensive war, to respond to or repel the aggression
that the enemy has initiated or to defend an established right in accordance to a covenant or treaty that the
adversary has breached, or to secure the Da’wah” (3).

6 - And Major “Muhammad Faraj” said:

“Islaam made was permissible under two circumstances alone and they are:
- Against the aggression and to repel it.
- Then to protect the Da’wah until it reaches to mankind in its entirety” (4).

[(1) Nazharaat Fil Islaam”, Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Diraz: p119-120, (2) “Al-‘Alaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam” (International
relations in Islaam), Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p92, (3) “The Islamic Shar’iyah and the general international law”,
‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p296, (4) ‘The Islamic Military”, Major Muhammad Faraj: p78].

He then states: “The Harb (war) which the Islamic Shar’iyah made permissible … Does not seek to
impose influence (or intrigues) or extending (or expanding) the borders … Rather, it only represents a
defensive war, in defence of the Deen, the life and the Aqeedah (belief)” (1).

7 - “Muhammad ‘Izzah Daroozah” said:

“Al-Jihaad: It is defending the Nafs (life), defending Islaam and defending the Muslims and their lands”
(2).

8 - Colonel “Mahnoud Shait Khattaab” said:

“The Muslims undertaking Al-Qitaal (fighting) against non-Muslims has been legislated to repel (or
respond to) the aggression, to protect the Da’wah and freedom of religion” (3).

9 - Dr. Hasan Ibrahim Hasan and his brother Dr. ‘Ali in their book: “Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah” stated:

“Islaam gave permission for Al-Qitaal for a number of matters including:

1 - Ad-Difaa’ (defence) of the Nafs (life.
2 - To secure the Da’wah and defend it.
Against those who stand in its way or path until the one who wants to enter Islaam does not fear that he
will be pressured to leave it” (4).
10 - Dr. Mustafaa As-Sibaa’iy said:

“Al-Jihaad … in Islaam has been legislated (or been made legally legitimate) for two purposes:
- To repel the aggression against the freedom of the Ummah in respect to its Watan (homeland) and its
Deen …
- To rescue or save the persecuted from the authority of the oppressors …” (5).

[(1) “Al-‘Askariyah Al-Islamiyah”, Muhammad Faraj: p85-86, (2) Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah Fil Qur’aan Wa-l-Hadeeth”,
Muhammad ‘Izzah Daroozah: p93, (3) “Ar-Rasool Al-Qaaa’id”, Mahmoud Shait Khattaab: 22, (4) “An-Nuzhum Al-
Islaamiyah”, Dr. Hasan Ibrahim Hasan and ‘Ali Ibrahim Hasan: p 78, (5) Ishtiraakiyat ul-Islaam”, Dr. Mustafaa As-Sibaa’iy:
p245].

11 - As-Sayyid Saabiq in his book “Fiqh us-Sunnah” under the heading: “When is Al-Harb (war)
legislated?” said:

“And if the principle base is As-Salaam (peace) and war is the exception, then there is no justification for
this war in the view of Islaam, whatever the circumstances, apart from in one of two cases:

The first case: The case of defending the life (Nafs), the honour (‘Ird), the property (Maal) and the
homeland (Watan) when they are aggressed against.

The second case: The case of defending the Da’wah to Allah if anyone stands in its way by torturing
those who have believed in it or by preventing those who have wanted to enter into it or by preventing
the one calling to it from conveying it” (1).

In addition, As-Sayyid Saabiq, in his book “’Anaasir al-Quwwah Fil Islaam” (Elements of power in
Islaam), added a new additional Sabab (reason) from the Asbaab (reasons or causes) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam
and that is: “The elimination of Azh-Zhulm (oppression) in the world”. He stated: “The peace in Islaam
will not happen except by Quwwah (force) and Iqtidaar (power). As such, Allah did not make it
unrestricted but rather restricted it by the condition that the enemy refrains from or stops the aggression,
by the condition that Zhulm (oppression) no longer exists upon the earth and that nobody is pressured to
leave his Deen. If any of these reasons are found to exist, then Allah has permitted Al-Qitaal (fighting)”
(2).

12 - Dr. Ahmad Shalabiy said:

“It is necessary for the Muslims to engage in fighting battles and to undertake Al-Jihaad when any of the
following causes take place:

Firstly: In defence of the Muslims against any aggression that befalls them.
Secondly: In defence of the Mazhloomeen (oppressed) Muslims who live under the authority of an
oppressive and unjust non-Muslim state …

Secondly: When religious persecution occurs and the absence of religious freedom … Therefore, it is
necessary for the Muslims to be actively involved in the Da’wah to Islaam in every time and place. If they
are prevented from that or the one who is wants to embrace Islaam is prevented from doing so, then it is
necessary for this prevention to be repelled by force or power … Al-Jihaad, at that time, would be
undertaken for the purpose of remove the obstacles and barriers preventing the Da’wah reaching the
people or preventing their embracing of Islaam …” (3).

[(1) “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, As-Sayyid Saabiq: 2/613, (2) “’Anaasir Al-Quwwah Fil Islaam”, As-Sayyid Saabiq: p222, (3) “Al-Jihaad
Wa-n-Nuzhum Al-‘Askariyah Fi-t-Tafkeer Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Ahmad Shalabiy: p58-60].
13 - Dr. Hussein Al-Haaj says:

“Al-Qitaal (fighting) was for the protection of the Islamic Da’wah, to keep the word of Allah the highest
and to repel the aggression from the slaves of Allah; the believers the Muslims” (1).

14 - Dr. Abdul Hameed Bakheet said:

“Al-Kitaab (Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem) explained … the Sabab (reason or cause) for the purpose of which
the believers have been granted permission to undertake Al-Qitaal and that returns to two matters:

Firstly: Defending the Nafs (life) when it is being aggressed against.

Secondly: Defence of the Da’wah if someone stands in its path by pressurising the one who has believed
in it to take him away from it … by forms of torture or by preventing the one who wishes to embrace
Islaam from doing so, or preventing the Da’wah carrier from conveying his Da’wah …” (2).

15 - Al-Ustaadh Dr. “Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy” in his book: “Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”
(International relations in Islaam) said:

“The most important cases for the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad are the following:

1 - To repel the aggression from the Muslims, their lands and their properties …
2 - To assure the freedom of Al-Aqeedah (belief), the spread of the Islamic Da’wah and to prevent the Al-
Fitnah in respect to the Deen (i.e. the pressure to take people away from the Deen or from embracing it)
… Then if the conveyance is prevented from reaching the people, the required matter is obligatory to be
realised by Quwwah (force and power) when the Islamic power is ready and available. That is so that the
people can be free to embrace Islaam and this situation demands the existence of hostility or aggression!
…
3 - Al-Harb (war) to support the oppressed in the form of an individual or group (Jamaa’ah) … And it is
possible to call it a disciplining war that the interests of general peace dictate” (3).

[(1) “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr. Hussein Al-Haaj: p 476, (2) “Zhuhoor ul-Islaam Wa Siyaadah Mabaadi’ihi”, Dr. Abdul
Hameed Bakheet: p287, (3) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p30-32].

Dr. Az-Zuhailiy also said in his book: “Aathaar ul-Harb”:

“The reason for Al-Qitaal is not Al-Kufr (disbelief) and conflicting in respect to the Deen (i.e. difference)
but rather it is only aggression (or hostility). And the aggression is: The situation of the direct act of
aggression against the Muslims and the Dhimmis (Ahl udh-Dhimmah) or against their properties and
lands, or against the Du’aat (those carrying the Islamic Da’wah), those who guide (Murshideen), or against
a weak and oppressed group, or against a treaty, whilst the evaluation of that returns back to the people in
authority (Wulaat Al-Amoor)” (1).

- He then states: “As for the base principle of providing the option or choice between accepting Islaam or
Al-‘Ahd (I.e. the contract of Adh-Dhimmah), or Al-Qitaal (i.e. being fought against), which was prevalent
in the wars that the Muslims undertook, then they are not from the principles of the general system.
Rather, they are considered to be representative of a case from among the cases of providing a final
warning or notice to the enemy before the breakout of war. That is in the case where none of these
demands was responded to after the establishment of the Sabab (cause) from amongst the Asbaab
(causes) of Al-Jihaad that we mentioned previously were responded to … The principle of providing the
choice or option from what was mentioned (i.e. three options) is not that it is directed to every non-
Muslim state. Rather, the point that matters relates to the establishment of the Sabab (reason or cause) for
Al-Qitaal (fighting)” (2).
16 - ‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy, whilst specifying the reasons or causes for Al-Qitaal in Islaam, stated
three matters, which are:

“Firstly: To repel the oppression and the aggression (or hostility) … Whilst Islaam did not specify the
scope of the place in which it is specified for the Muslim to intervene to remove the oppressive acts or
acts of injustice but rather left it without placing limits (I say: It is clear that the author means: That the
Qitaal in Islaam is legally legitimate (or legislated) to remove the oppression from the Muslims and non-
Muslims and even if it occurs within states of the non-Muslim world).
Secondly: Defence of the Nafs (life).
Thirdly: Protection of the Da’wah and the freedom for it to be spread or propagated” (3).

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p747, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy:
p749, (3) “Usool ul-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, ‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy: p87-88].

17 - Dr. Mustafaa Ar-Raafi’iy said:

“As for the reasons for Al-Qitaal in Islaam, then they are:

1 - Defence of the Aqeedah (Islamic belief).

2 - Defence of the Nafs (life), Maal (property) and the Watan (homeland).
3 - To discipline the betrayers and conspirators.

18 - ‘Uthmaan Jumu’ah Dameeriyah said:

“The Asbaab (reasons) that the Muslim undertakes Al-Jihaad for their sake are:

1 - Defence to repel the aggressive or hostile act that has befallen the Muslims or is befalling them …
2 - To protect the Islamic Watan (homeland) and to save or rescue the weak and oppressed Muslims
(Mustad’afeen), in whatever state (i.e. country) that takes place …
3 - To secure the freedom to propagate or spread the Islamic Da’wah.
4 - To preserve the covenants and treaties.
5 - To repel the Fitnah and prevent the rebels internally and externally.

19 - Dr. Ihsaan Al-Hindiy lists the reasons for Al-Qitaal under the heading of: “The cases for the legal
legitimacy for Al-Harb (war) in Islaam” as follows:

“ A - To respond to and repel the aggression from the Watan (homeland), the land, the life, the honour
and the property …
B - To defend the freedom of the Aqeedah (Islamic belief) and its practise …
C - To repel Fitnah, prevent its occurrence. And the intended meaning of Fitnah here is: Taking the
Muslims away from their Deen and attempts to misguide them into leaving it … He then said: It is
warranted to launch war against any Ummah (nation) that attempts to pressure Muslims to leave their
Deen, whether that was through means of enticement or terrorising (i.r. carrot or stick).
D - To discipline the Murtaddeen (apostates) and those who break their covenant.
E - To come to the aid of the incapable and weak ally (3).

[(1) “Al-Islaam Nizhaam Insaaniy”, Dr. Mustafaa Ar-Raafi’iy: p189, (2) “Minhaj Al-Islaam Fil Harb Was Silm”, ‘Uthmaan
Jumu’ah Dameeriyah: p128-130, (3) “Al-Islaam Wa-l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy”, Dr. Ihsaan Al-Hindiy: p122-127].

20 -Sayyid Qutb explained the reasons for the undertaking of Al-Qitaal whilst discussing the Sabab
(reason) for the Muslims being legally charged with the undertaking of Al-Jihaad. He stated under the
heading: “Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah”:
“This Deen … Did not legally charge the Muslims to compel or coerce others to embrace their Deen…
Rather, it charged them (i.e. made them legally responsible) to:

Firstly: Protect the believers so that they are not seduced or pressured away from their Deen. And Islaam
charged them:
Secondly: To realise and accomplish the greater justice upon the earth and make humanity enjoy this
justice (i.e. live under it and benefit from it) … And this charging of legal responsibility requires that the
Muslims struggle against the oppression and tyranny wherever it may be … Al-Islaam is in a continuous
Jihaad … to realise and accomplish the word of Allah upon the face of the earth. I.e. to realise the upright
system (An-Nizhaam As-Saalih) … It is legally charged to not make peace with an oppressive power upon
the face of the earth … Unless it is when it is gathering itself (i.e. its strength and capability) to struggle
against it … Wherever Zhulm (oppression) exists, then Islaam has been entrusted to remove it and repel
it, whether it has afflicted the Muslims or the Dhimmiyeen (Ahl udh-Dhimmah) … Or afflicted others
who are not connected to the Muslims by a covenant or agreement” (1).

21 - Major “’Afeef Al-Bazariy” in his book “Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam”, in the second chapter entitled:
“Aqeedat ul-Jihaad” stated:

“Al-Jihaad: It is the repelling of Al-Fasaad (corruption) and At-Tughyaan (tyranny)” (2) … “Al-Jihaad: It is
for the sake of Al-Insaan (the human or humanity), for the sake of removing a Fasaad (corruption) from
the earth, which most of the people (or mankind) suffer from its harm” (3) … “Al-Jihaad is against the
enemies of man (Al-Insaan) until they stop their aggression and are removed, as a system, from existence -
It is a Fard (obligation) from among the Faraa’id (obligations) of Islaam” (4).

22 - Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidaan said:

“The Qitaal (fighting) of the Muslims against the people of war is to make them submit to the political
authority of the Islamic State and to make the Islamic Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah be applied amongst them.
That is whilst the intended aim is not … To force any individual to change his Deen … and the Fuqahaa’
are agreed upon this …” (5).

[(1) “As-Salaam Al-‘Aalamiy Wal-Islaam”, Sayyid Qutb: p130-133, (2) “Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam”, Major ‘Afeef AlBazariy: p63, (3)
The same reference: p64, (4) The same reference: p 59, (5) “Majmoo’ Buhooth Fiqhiyyah”, Abdul Karim Zaidaan: p 56].

23 - Ash-Sheik Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy said:

“Know, that Al-Jihaad is of two categories:

The first: Fard ‘Ain (obligation upon every individual) and that is to block or prevent the enemy attacking
some of the Muslim lands like the Yahood (Jews) currently, who are occupying Palestine. Consequently,
all the Muslims are sinful until they are expelled.

The other (category): Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency). If or when some of the Muslims fulfil it,
the obligation falls from the remainder. This is the Jihaad in the way of carrying the Islamic Da’wah to the
rest of the lands until they are ruled (or governed) by Islaam. Whoever becomes Muslim from their people
(i.e. of those lands) then they have become part of it. And whoever stands in the way of it, then they are
fought until the word of Allah is the highest. This Jihaad is continuous or remains until the Day of
Judgement, in addition to the first (category). And it is regrettable that some of the writers today deny it,
and not only that, but rather portray that to be from the attractive qualities of Islaam! (i.e. that there is no
Jihaad to spread Islaam)” (1).

24 - Dr. Diyaa’ ud-Deen Zinkiy said:

“Al-Islaam did not direct its force (or power) toward the individuals except in according to the amount
that the individuals resist or oppose the Shar’a of Allah. As for the systems (or regimes) and the rulers,
then they were the objective of the Islamic Jihaad. As for the people of the society of these regimes, then
they have the choice between Islaam or giving the Jizyah” (2).

25 - Dr. ‘Aarif Khalil Abu ‘Eid said:

“The Muslims have been interested in (or concerned with) the issues related to wars and explaining its
reasons. In our opinion, they do not go beyond five reasons:

First: The spread of the Islamic Da’wah and the protection of freedom of belief.
Second: To repel the aggression from the lands of the Muslims and their properties.
Third: To protect the general system (or regime) of the state [The author here, concerning this reason,
intends what the Fuqahaa’ have called the wars of Masaalih (interests) and they include: The fighting of
the apostates, the people of rebellion and the highway robbers].

[(1) “Al-Aqeedah At-Tahtaawiy: Sharh Wa Ta’leeq, Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy: p49, (2) “Tadhkirah Ash-
Shaheed”, Dr. Diyaa’ ud-Deen Zinkiy: p33].

Fourth: The protection of the Muslim minorities living outside of the Islamic borders (The author
mentions another reason under this one and says): And it is also legally legitimate to be in defence of
humanity in the situation where a state persecutes a minority from amongst its subjects.
Fifth: To preserve the covenants and treaties … If those who have a treaty expressed the breaking of the
covenant or treaty, or acted in a manner that breaks the treaty, it is obligatory to fight them” (1).

In addition to the above, the author wrote a foreword for the reasons for Al-Qitaal that he mentioned. He
stated:

“Every state is established for the purpose of spreading (or propagating) a particular Aqeedah. It is
necessary for it to constantly be expanding. Consequently, the Islamic State, whose main task was the
carrying of the Da’wah of Islaam to the other nations and apply the Islamic Shar’iyah upon the earth,
strove to make the supporting pillars of Islaam firm and to propagate the Aqeedah to cover the world as a
whole. For that reason, it refused coexistence with non-Islamic entities because, by its nature, as a global
state, it cannot accept the existence of another state other than it. Therefore, the Muslims went forward in
Al-Jihaad as a means to spread and propagate the Raayah (banner) of the Deen within the world” (2).

26 - Abu l-‘A’alaa Al-Mawdoodiy said:

“Al-Jihaad, if its true reality is being sought, is both: Hujoomiy (offensive) and Difaa’iy (defensive).

Hujoomiy (offensive and attacking), because the Islamic party is at odds and in conflict with the
kingdoms (or ruling regimes) established upon principles contradicting Islaam. It wishes to root them out
and it does not avoid using war (or military) force to accomplish that.

Difaa’iy (defensive), because it is compelled to construct the building of a Kingdom [he means the
Islamic State] and make its supporting pillars firmly established, so that it will be enabled to work
according to its programme and its drawn-out plan … And it cannot be absent from your mind that it
does not want by this campaign to compel the one who opposes it in thought to leave its Aqeedah …
Rather, the Islamic party only wants to the wrest the reins of the matter from those who believe in false
principles and systems, so that the matter stabilises in favour of the flag of the Haqq (truth), there is no
Fitnah (remaining) and the Deen belongs to Allah” (3).
[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Fee Dawlat ul-Khilafah”m Dr. ‘Aarif Khalil Abu ‘Eid: p132-135, (2) “Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah”, Abu ul-A’alaa Al-Mawdoodiy: p41 (Quoted from “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Al-‘Aammah Fil Islaam”),
Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p211-212].

27 - As for the dominant viewpoint within the Islamic Fiqh concerning the issue (Mas’alah) that we are
addressing then “Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy” summarises it as follows:

“As for the Ghazwah (military expeditions) against the Kuffaar (disbelievers), fighting against Ahl ul-Kufr
(the people of disbelief) and bringing them into Islaam or to submit to the Jizyah or be killed (fought),
then it (this matter) is known from the Deen by Daroorah (necessity) … And the evidences of the Kitaab
and the Sunnah in respect to this and it does not provide space and not even in relation to some of it (i.e.
to oppose it). And what has been reported in terms of making treaties with them (Muwaada’ah), or leaving
them be if they leave the fighting then that is Mansookh (abrogated) by the agreement of the Muslims.
That is due to what has been stated in terms of the obligation to fight them upon every circumstance,
when the capability against them arises and to undertake war against them and target them in their
homelands” (1).

28 - Finally, we will quote some extracts from what Dr. Haamid Sultaan stated, concerning our topic,
and that is due to what his speech contains of that which was not mentioned from those whom we have
already quoted extracts from.

Dr. Haamid Sultaan said:

“The one who examines the Qitaal of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬finds that it was undertaken for one of two
matters:

The first: A prior aggression that actually took place from the Mushrikeen (polytheists).

The second: That the kings and rulers being obstacles against the Islamic Da’wah … Then he sates: The
Harb (war) and Fat’h (conquest) represented the only media apparatus that guaranteed the propagation of
the Islamic Da’wah in a global manner of portrayal … This means of media is what the spread of Islaam
in a wide and expansive manner in the first century after Hijrah was built upon … And when other media
means came to exist within human society to propagate and spread the Islamic Da’wah across all parts of
the world, there came to no longer be any need for war and conquests to spread the global Da’wah. That
is because the other means of media were sufficient to guarantee this propagation!

[(1) “As-Sail Al-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/518-519. The text itself was quoted by Sadeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoojiy without the
word military expedition (Ghazw) in “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah”: 2/479-480. The affirmation or approval of this Hukm can be
found within the Islamic Fiqh within the following references: A - Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/337, B - Haashiyah Ad-
Dasooqiy: 2/173, C - Al-Mughniy, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/365-368, D - Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd (Al-Hidaayah Fee
Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Hidaayah: 6/43-44), E - Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj: 4/209].

Then he states: Therefore Al-Qitaal or Al-Harb or Al-Fat’h (conquest) represent what Islaam has not been
permitted in Islaam … for the opposition in respect to the Deen … Rather, it has only been made
permissible to repel the aggression …” (1). He then states:

“Islaam has permitted the Fat’h (conquest), however it stipulated as a condition, in its form, for the state
to have aggressed against Islaam or it has been proven by the Muslims that it has undertaken preparations
to aggress” … He then states: “And the Fat’h (conquest) joins the conquered land to the Daar (homeland)
of Islaam, upon the basis that those who submit to this state have what the Muslims have (in terms of
rights etc.) …” (2). And then he says:
“In accordance to the Ahkaam Al-Kulliyah (comprehensive or encompassing rulings) within the Islamic
Sharee’ah, it is not possible to accept the Harb (war) unless it was the only means to convey the Islamic
Da’wah and to propagate it within the human societies …” (3).

Fourthly: Conclusions and observations:

After this tour within the pages of the Islamic books which addressed the Mas’alah (issue) of the reasons
(Asbaab) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam, we now present the following conclusions and observations
concerning what has been presented:

1 - There is an agreement upon the aggression against the Muslims being a Sabab (reason or cause) from
amongst the Asbaab (reasons) of Al-Qitaal.

2 - Many of the writers mentioned that the aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (non-Muslim
subjects of the Islamic State) is like an aggression against the Muslims and those who did not mention
that, then it is as though they considered the aggression against the Muslims to cover the aggression
against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. That is because they are under the protection of the Muslims and it is
obligatory upon the Islamic State to defend its subjects of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah just as it defends the
Muslims (4).

3 - Some of the writers mentioned that the aggression or Zhulm (oppression) occurring upon non-
Muslims from among the allies, who are not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, is considered to represent a
Sabab (reason or cause) from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal in Islaam.

[(1) “Ahkaam Al-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Fee Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr. Haamid Sultaan: p16-162, (2) The same reference:
p232, (3) The same reference: p248, Refer to 1Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 10/80].

4 - Some of the writers mentioned that the aggression or oppression befalling non-Muslims from other
than the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and from other than the allies (of the Islamic State), is considered to
represent a reason from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal in Islaam.

5 - Many of the writers restricted or limited the understanding of Al-Qitaal, for the sake of carrying the
Da’wah or for the sake of protecting the propagation of Islaam, they limited that understanding to the
case when an aggression takes place against the carriers of the Da’wah or those who have responded
positively to it, or to the case where Da’wah to non-Muslims has been prevented.

6 - A few of the writers have mentioned that which leads to the understanding that annexing or joining
non-Islamic states to the Islamic State and applying the Islamic system over the, when the capability exists
for that, represents a Sabab (reason) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) for the legally legitimate Qitaal
(fighting) in Islaam, as is well-known in terms of being representative of the dominant view within the
Islamic Fiqh (i.e. traditional sources). That occurs following the invitation (Da’wah) made to those lands
to embrace Islaam or to join to the Islamic State and then their rejection to respond affirmatively to that.
Consequently, the Qitaal against those states is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) and this case is for the sake of
the mentioned objective or purpose even if the people of those states remain holding on to their beliefs
and religions. In respect to this I say: The Qitaal (fighting) is legally legitimate (Mashroo’) against those
states and even if nothing has occurred from those states in terms of any aggression against the Muslims
or any prevention (or obstacle) placed before the Islamic Da’wah where (for instance) they have left
Islaam to spread amongst its subjects whilst providing security to the carriers of the Da’wah and those
who have accepted it.

7 - Some of the writers have stated that the modern media means including that which is written, heard
(i.e. radio) and visual (i.e. television etc.) by their nature cancel the legitimacy of Al-Qitaal for the purpose
of propagating or spreading the Islamic Da’wah. It is understood, based upon this speech, that as long as
there are newspapers that are read, or broadcasts that are heard or watched and heard, which the Muslims
can utilise to propagate Islaam and as long as these means of media can reach the non-Islamic world,
without being interfered with in terms of monitoring by way of deletion and distortion, whilst no
aggression has occurred from those states against those who have accepted the Islamic Da’wah that has
reached them through these (media) means, then if the matter is like that, there is no room (or excuse) to
fight these states under the pretext or reason of carrying the Islamic Da’wah to them and propagating or
spreading Islaam amongst them. This applies even if the Muslims were prevented or forbidden from
entering their lands for the purpose of carrying the Da’wah to Islaam, as long as the media means, and
even if it was an Islamic radio broadcast alone, reached those lands! This explanation above represents
that which is built upon the opinion of Dr. Haamid Sultaan, in terms of the consequences of his
statements that we mentioned previously which include:

“It is not possible to accept war unless it was the only means to convey the Islamic Da’wah” (1).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Fee Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr Haamid Sultaan: p248].

8 - Some of the writers were not precise in defining the cases of the legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal in Islaam
and even from the perspective of the writer himself who specified those cases:

For example, Dr ‘Aarif Khalil Abu ‘Eid specified five Asbaab (reasons) for the legally legitimate Qitaal
(fighting) in Islaam and they did not include within them the joining of other states to the Islamic State
and the application of the Islamic system over them. Rather what he mentioned in terms of the legitimate
reasons included the “spread or propagation of Islaam” and the “protection of the freedom of belief”
whilst this reason is different from the Qitaal to join or annex non-Islamic states to the Islamic State. That
is because the propagation of the Islamic Da’wah and the protection of the freedom of belief could occur,
according to what the writer has stated, within certain states without joining those states to the Islamic
State. That is despite the view of the writer being that the joining of the states and the imposition of the
Islamic system upon them is considered to be from the Asbaab (reasons) for the legally legitimate Qitaal.
That was understood from the introduction that he presented before mentioning the reasons (Asbaab)
when he said: “Every state is established for the purpose of propagating a particular (or specific) Aqeedah
and it is necessary for it to be in a continuous state of expansion and as such, the Islamic State …
refused to coexist with non-Islamic entities because by its nature as a global state, it cannot
tolerate the existence of another state other than it. Therefore, the Muslims went forth upon Al-Jihaad
as a means to spread the Raayah (banner) of the Deen within the world” (1).

Upon that basis, the writer should have added this reason (Sabab) to the reasons (Asbaab) of Al-Qitaal
understood from his above-mentioned introduction. That it because he went on to limit the reasons when
he listed them by his statement: “That they (i.e. the reasons) do not go outside of the five reasons
(Asbaab)”. However, if he had not mentioned this restriction or limitation and then not gone on to
include the reason that he pointed to within the introduction amongst his list of reasons, the matter would
have been less significant!

- Another example concerning the lack of accuracy or precision in respect to defining the legally legitimate
situations of Al-Qitaal in Islaam, amongst some of the Islamic writers, is found in the following which
falls outside of the extracts that we quoted previously:

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fee Dawlat il-Khilafah” (International relations in the Khilafah State”, ‘Aarif Abu ‘Abd: p132].

Within the book “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Al-‘Aammah Fil Islaam” by Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-
Qaasimiy the following was stated:
“The opinion of Abdul Haafizh Abd Rabbuh: He is from amongst the lecturers of Al-Azhar and he
authored a book called: “The Philosophy of Al-Jihaad in Al-Islaam” and the following was mentioned
within the chapter that he entitled: “Sabab Al-Jihaad Wa-l Harb” the following that we have summarised:

‘We literally affirm that the legally legitimate war in Islaam is the defensive war, alone and there is no other
(legitimate war)!

We would like to point to that the word ‘defensive’ has two kinds that fall under it and the Qur’aan has
indicated to them both:

1 - The defence of the Nafs (life) …

2 - The obligatory aid or relief provided to the Muslim people, or Arab state, or ally who is incapable of
defending itself … Based upon this we view that the war, according to the Islamic viewpoint, is an evil
that is not resorted to except by way of compulsion (i.e. absolute necessary). For the Muslims to reach an
unfair peace treaty by way of negotiations, where they forgo some of their rights, whilst at the same time
they prevent the spilling of blood, is better than an impressive victory in which lives are lost and blood is
spilt within its massacres!”

I say: This is the very same text that we quoted earlier within the previous extracts from Dr. Muhammad
Abdullah Diraz in his book “Nazharaat (views) Fil Islaam” (2)! Indeed, the author of the book “The
philosophy of Al-Jihaad” added to the next that was quoted from Dr. Diraz by adding the words: “We
literally affirm” and the phrase: “Alone and there is no other (legitimate war)” with an exclamation mark
following it. Just as he added the wording: “or Arab state” and the final addition he made: “And blood is
spilt within its massacres”.

That is despite I have not found within the book “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad” any signs indicating that
he has quoted, any indication to citation, or mention of a reference, whether in the margins of the book or
at the end of the book.

It appears that Ustaadh “Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy” had not read the book of Dr. Diraz or dint remember if he
had come across it. As such, he missed mentioning the real owner of these words that he quoted in the
book “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad”.

[(1) p45 from “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad”, (2) Refer to “Nazharaat (views) Fil Islaam”: p119 and the pages following that. It
is worth mentioning that the first edition of “Nazharaat” was in Jumaadaa Al-Aakhirah 1377 AH or January 1957 whilst the
author of “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad” at the back of his book dated it as follows: The beginning of Rabee’ ul-Awwal 1392
AH or 15th April 1972].

In any case, this is not what concerns us here. Rather, the important matter is the reliance upon a lack of
precision or accuracy in respect to specifying the legally legitimate cases of Al-Qitaal in Islaam amongst
some of the Islamic writers. Another example of this is that the author of “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad”
also cited, without any sign or indication for the quote or citation or mention of a reference, the subject
“Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah” in its complete form from Sayyid Qutb in his book “As-Salaam ‘Al-Aalamiy
Wa l-Islaam” (Global peace and Islaam) (1). We have already become aware from the previous extracts
that Al-Jihaad according to the understanding of Sayyid Qutb is the declaration of war against all entities
and systems (or regimes) in the world as they represent systems (regimes) in which the Zhulm
(oppression) is manifested as long as the Islamic system is not applied, and that Al-Jihaad is legally
legitimate (or legislated) to bring them down. That is whilst we have seen that Al-Jihaad according to the
understanding of Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Diraz is limited or restricted to two matters:

- Defence against the aggression.

- To help or come to the aid of a Muslim people or an ally that is incapable of defending itself.
The author of “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad” then further reiterated this restriction to the understanding
of Al-Jihaad to these two matters by the additional phrase: “Alone and there is no other (legitimate war)!”.
That reflected the strong aim or intention to bind Al-Jihaad to these two matters (alone) so that it does
not get taken outside of their scope.

Therefore, it is blatantly clear that there is a huge disparity between these two concepts or understandings
of Al-Jihaad (i.e. between his thought and Sayyid Qutb’s) which is quite astonishing to the reader … How
can one conception of Al-Jihaad be formed from these two (conflicting) understandings within the mind
of a writer who is conscious and aware about what he is writing and citing?

What brings even more astonishment is that the one who wrote the introduction for the book “The
Philosophy of Al-Jihaad” and commended it did not notice the lack of consistency amongst its topics in
terms of its thought and style. That is because the honourable Imaam Al-Akbar Dr. Muhammad
Muhammad Al-Fahaam, Ash-Sheikh of Al-Azhar university, wrote within his introduction: “I present to
the world as a whole, the possessor of great merit, the author, scholar, critical investigator and lecturer,
As-Sayyid Abdul Haafizh Abd Rabbah, through his enjoyable and worthy book “The philosophy of Al-
Jihaad in Islaam” … I present (before you) a new kind of author and a unique class from amongst the
‘Ulamaa …” (2).

[(1) refer to “As-Salaam Al-‘Aalimiy Wa l-Islaam”, Sayyid Qutb: p130-136 and “The philosophy of Al-Jihaad”, As-Sayyid Abdul
Haafizh Abd Rabbah: p56-61. Note: The first edition of “As-Salaam Al-‘Aalimiy Wa l-Islaam” was issued in 1951 CE, (2)
Introduction by The Sheikh of Al-Azhar to the book: “The Philosophy of Al-Jihaad”: p10].

Another example of the non-observation of precision and accuracy, in relation to specifying the legally
legitimate cases of war in Islaam and the non-existence of a clear and defined conception of “Al-Jihaad in
Islaam” is found in the book “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islaamiy” by General Dr. “Yaseen Suwaid” who
stated the following under the heading: “The Islamic military Aqeedah (doctrine), an offensive doctrine”:

“The Qitaal (fighting) of the Muslims against the Ahl ul-Kitaab of the Christians and the Jews does not
end except by their entering into Islaam or by their payment of the Jizyah whilst the Muslims’ fighting
against the Mushrikeen (i.e. other than the Ahl ul-Kitaab and the Majoos) does not except by their
entering into Islaam. That is in compliance to the Qawl (speech) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
ََ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ َِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

And His Qawl:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َفا ْق ُتلُواَ ْال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
Then kill the Mushrikeen (polytheists) wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).

This contains a clear and explicit extension to the concept of the protective and pre-emptive war (1) to the
concept and understanding of the purely offensive war (2) … He then states, reiterating this conceptual
direction of the understanding of Al-Jihaad that he holds: “Some of the historians view that the Islamic
Aqeedah is an Aqeedah possessing a naturally defensive character and some of them have limited the
permissibility of war to two cases which are: The case of defence of the life, the Deen and the freedom of
the Aqeedah (belief), and the case of repelling the aggression or hostile act. That is in accordance to their
consideration that the legally legitimate war in Islaam is the defensive war. However, when we disagree
with those historians in respect to limiting the legally legitimate war in Islaam to the defensive war … we
view that the Islamic Aqeedah represents an Aqeedah with a naturally offensive character (or disposition)
…” (3).

[(1) “The protective war (Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy) is fundamentally the same as a defensive war (Harb Difaa’iy) … However, the
protective war is considered to be pre-emptive undertaken in anticipation of an enemy attack. That is indicated to by the
gathering of enemy forces upon the borders of the threatened land and in a manner that poses a dangerous and serious threat
to that land. It represents a threat that cannot be repelled except by launching a protective of pre-emptive war” “Al-Fann Al-
‘Askariy Al-Islamiy” General Yaseen Suwaid: p359, (2) “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islamiy” General Yaseen Suwaid: p359-360, (3)
“Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islamiy” General Yaseen Suwaid: p361].

Concerning this I say: To this point, the lines of this speech (above) weave for us a singularity of
perception concerning Al-Jihaad, the Sabab (reason) for its declaration and the end-point or overall aim
that that it ends at. Consequently, there are two options in relation to the Ahl ul-Kitaab and those who are
attached to them or fall under their category and that is either Al-Islaam (i.e. its acceptance) or Al-Jizyah
which signifies the submission to the authority of the Islamic State and the acceptance of the Islamic rule.
Otherwise, there will be war.

And there is only one single choice in respect to other than them and that is Islaam (i.e. its acceptance)
alone or they will be killed. However, three pages following this and within the same topic of discussion
the author states the following:

“It was sufficient for the Da’wah to reach its end-point of final aim and that is the entry into Islaam, or
Mu’aahadah (making of a treaty) or the financial (material) commitment (i.e. the Jizyah), for the Muslims
to refrain from Al-Qitaal (fighting) …” (1).

Therefore, within this text we find that there is a third option provided to the other states for the Muslims
to cease their fighting against them and that is the option of “Al-Mu’aahadah” (treaty) with the Islamic
State. What is intended by this “Mu’aahadah” is the peace treaty or good neighbourly treaty which dictates
that the non-Islamic entities maintain their independence from the Islamic State, in respect to their
political authority and ruling system. However, that is contrary to what he had previously stated.

The author goes on to reiterate that the Muslims refrain from fighting the disbelievers if those disbelievers
refrain from aggressing against the Muslims and leave the Islamic Da’wah to spread without reproach (i.e.
without prevention or counter policies) … This is the same speech that many of those who hold the view
of war in Islam being defensive speak of, encompassing the (concept of the) Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy
(preventative war) which guarantees the protection of the conveyance of the Da’wah. That is despite that
being representative of a viewpoint that the author disapproves of in terms of limiting the legal legitimacy
(of Al-Qitaal) to it whilst affirming the legitimacy of the Harb Al-Hujoomiy (offensive war) as well. The
author then goes on to continue upon this line of thought when he says:

“It must not escape our minds that the war is not the basis in the efforts or work to spread the Deen of
Islaam or the basis in the relations between the Muslims and others. Consequently, if these relations lead
to the accomplishment of the hoped or sought after aim, which is the spread of the Islamic Da’wah, the
repelling of oppression from the Muslims and the repelling of aggression from them, then war no longer
has a justification” (1).

[(1) “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islamiy” General Yaseen Suwaid: p364]

Indeed, the intended meaning of the author could have been to say: That the decision maker in respect to
deciding peace or war within the Islamic State examines all considerations during the decision-making
process in respect to setting the options or choices to be presented to a particular state from among the
non-Islamic state … As such, he could restrict the scope of choice before a state or expand it with
another state, in accordance to the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic State, whilst observing and taking
into account different circumstances and keeping it within the legally legitimate boundaries of choice.
Indeed, this could be what the author intended and if that was the case then the unity or singularity of the
perception of Al-Jihaad in respect to the reasons for its declaration and the final aim that it ends at would
be retained or preserved. However, the choice of expression used by the author does not help to make
this intention clear, if indeed that was what the author of the book “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islaamiy”
intended.

Despite this, it is not denied that this book contains a beneficial scope within the field that it is addressing
(i.e. the art or field of the Islamic military), although that is not the topic that we are specifically dealing
with.

We will suffice ourselves with what we have quoted in terms of extracts, deductions and observations
concerning the legally legitimate (or legislated) reasons for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam, according to the
opinions of the Islamic writers. That’s whilst bearing in mind that our speech here is not intended to be a
critical study where we talk at great length about what the writers have produced in terms of academic
works about this subject area. Indeed, the brief observations that we presented above were not intended
to be a critique or correcting process, rather the whole purpose was to provide an image and portrayal of
the manner of how the Islamic writers addressed that which we in the process of dealing with. That is so
that we begin to live within the atmosphere of the subject area before delving into it and so that we are
better prepared and ready to study that which we are moving onto next.

By coming to an end of what we have selected in terms of extracts that we have recorded as written by the
pens of their authors and to the end of what we have found in terms of their consequences from a
focused summary of what was mentioned within them and in terms of conclusions deduced from them
and passing observations around them …

I say: By coming to the end of all that, the time has come to say farewell to this introduction and move on
to the chapter the volume that we have dedicated to address the Asbaab (reasons) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam.
Therefore, we now turn our attention to the first chapter of this volume.
 Chapter One

Repelling (or responding to) the Aggression

Foreword: The aggression or hostile act against the Muslims represents the first Sabab (reason) for the
obligation of declaring Al-Jihaad within the history of the Islamic legislation.

The first study: The aggression against the Muslims in respect to it being a reason from amongst the
reasons of Al-Qitaal.

1 - Concerning the meaning of aggression.

2 - the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) for the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to repel
the aggression.

3 - Concerning the ‘Aamm (general) and the Khaass (specific), the Mutlaq (unrestricted) and the
Muqayyad (restricted), the Naasikh (abrogating) and the Mansookh (abrogated) in respect to the Nusoos
(texts) related to Al-Qitaal (fighting).

4 - Justifying factors of Al-Qitaal against the aggression; between Al-Jazaa’ (retaliation) and Ad-Difaa’
(defence):

A - The retaliation upon the aggression that has taken place.

B - The defence against the aggression that is taking place.
C - The defence against the expected or anticipated aggression (Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iyah i.e. preventive or
pre-emptive war).

The second study: The aggression against the Muslims from the perspective of its forms i.e. the manner
and form of how the aggression took place.

1 - The occupation of a part of the Muslim lands irrespective of the reason.

2 - The aggression against the persons of the Muslims for any reason.
3 - The aggression against the honours of the Muslims.
4 - The aggression against the properties of the Muslims.

The third study: The aggression against the Muslims from the angle of the citizenship held by the
aggressors - Citizenship of Daar ul-Islaam or Daar ul-Kufr

1 - The specific Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) related to Al-Qitaal against the aggression taking place
against the Muslims by people not from Daar ul-Islaam (the homeland of Islaam).

2 - What is Daar ul-Islaam? And what is Dar ul-Kufr (homeland of disbelief)?

3 - The Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Hijrah (emigration) from Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam?

The fourth study: The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic
state), those who carry the same Hukm (legal verdict) as them and against the Muslim allies outside of the
category of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, is considered to be an aggression against the Muslims.

1 - The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and those who share the same Hukm (ruling).
2 - The aggression against the allies who are not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

The fifth study: Is the aggression or Zhulm (oppression) falling upon certain groups of disbelievers from
other than the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and other than the allies, considered to be a Sabab (reason or cause)
from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal in Islaam?

Chapter One

Repelling (or responding to) the Aggression

Foreword: The aggression or hostile act against the Muslims represents the first Sabab (reason) for the
obligation of declaring Al-Jihaad within the history of the Islamic legislation.

Ibn ul-Qayyim discusses the stages related to the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad and the realities
accompanying each stage. He discussed how it has been prohibited in Makkah i.e. before the
establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah and before the existence of the necessary military force
to undertake the Qitaal (fighting). Then, it was permitted for him following the establishment of the State
in the form of a mere permission. Then, defensive Jihaad was made obligatory alone when the disbelievers
aggress against or assault the Muslims. And then Al-Jihaad was made obligatory against all of the Kuffar
without restriction (i.e. Mutlaq). The following is what Ibn ul-Qayyim said whilst limiting ourselves to that
which is related our issue and with the aim of being concise:

“Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬settled in Al-Madinah and Allah had supported him with His
victory through His servants the Ansaar … And the Arabs and the Jews targeted them together and
gathered against them upon the stance of hostility and war … And Allah ‫ سبحان َه‬was commanding them
(the Muslims) with Sabr (patience) and Al-‘Afw (forbearance) until their strength became stronger …
Then Allah permitted for them at that time Al-Qitaal (fighting) but did not make it obligatory upon them.
Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫َۚوإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ َعلَ ٰىَ َنصْ ِر ِه ْمَلَ َقدِير‬ ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َظلِمُوا‬ ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫أُذ َِنَلِلَّذ‬
ََ ُ‫ِينَ ُي َقا َتل‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is Capable
to give them victory (Al-Hajj: 39).

Then Allah made Al-Qitaal obligatory upon them after that against those who fight them and not those
who don’t fight against them. He said:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

And then He Ta’Aalaa made the Qitaal against the Mushrikeen in their totality obligatory” (1).

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/69-71].

After this Ibn ul-Qayyim returns to mention, in some words, the stages that Al-Jihaad [passed through in
terms of its legal legitimacy. He said:

“And it (Al-Qitaal) was Muharram (prohibited), then permitted, then commanded to be undertaken
against those who initiate the fighting against them and then (finally) commanded to be undertaken
against all of the Mushrikeen. It is either Fard ‘Ain (an obligation upon each individual) according to one
opinion, or Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency) according to the well-known view” (1). This is
what Ibn ul-Qayyim said when summarising the stages of the legal legitimacy (or legislation) of Al-Jihaad,
which includes the stage of the obligation to declare Al-Jihaad when an aggression takes place against the
Muslims by way of fighting.

However, we have an observation in respect to some of the steps that Ibn ul-Qayyim drew out in relation
to the order of these stages. It relates to his mentioning that the permission to fight only occurred
following a period of being settled in Al-Madinah and after the power had been strengthened … That is
whilst we have become aware within a previous study, (of this doctorate), that the permission for fighting
came during the Hijrah from Makkah to Al-Madinah. This was affirmed by Ibn ul-Qayyim himself when
he discussed the stage of the permission to fight and quoted a Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) concerning
that. He said: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬left from Makkah Abu Bakr said:
They have expelled their Nabi! Verily, we belong to Allah and to Him we are returning. May they be
destroyed. Then Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬

َ‫َظلِمُوا‬ َ ‫أُذ َِنَلِلَّذ‬
ََ ُ‫ِينَ ُيََقا َتل‬
ِ ‫ون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged (Al-Hajj: 39).
And this was the first Aayah to be revealed in respect to Al-Qitaal (fighting)” (1).

Following this beneficial summary of the stages related to the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad and the
explanation of the place of the stage of the obligation of the declaration of Al-Jihaad to defend against the
aggression, within the context of this legal legitimacy, we will now begin to address the study topics of this
chapter that we are in.

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/69-71].

The First Study

The aggression against the Muslims in respect to it being a reason from amongst
the reasons of Al-Qitaal

We view that this topic of study will be clarified by addressing the following Masaa’il (issues):

1 - What is the intended meaning of “aggression” against the Muslims?

2 - The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) concerning the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of Al-Qitaal to repel
the aggression.
3 - Concerning the ‘Aamm (general) and the Khaass (specific), the Mutlaq (unrestricted) and the
Muqayyad (restricted), and the Naasikh (abrogating) and the Mansookh (abrogated) in relation to the texts
of Al-Qitaal.
4 - Justifying factors of Al-Qitaal against the aggression; between Al-Jazaa’ (retaliation) and Ad-Difaa’
(defence):

A - The retaliation upon the aggression that has taken place.

B - The defence against the aggression that is taking place.
C - The defence against the expected or anticipated aggression (Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iyah i.e. preventive or
pre-emptive war).

The first Mas’alah (issue): What is the intended meaning of “aggression” against
the Muslims?
Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy has said concerning this:

“We can, as a general principle, specify the meaning of the “aggression”, which provides the justification
for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam, as follows: Al-‘Udwaan (aggression): It is the situation or circumstance
of the direct or indirect assault against the Muslims, or their properties, or their lands, in the case where it
has an effect or impact in respect to their independence, or relates to their persecution or being pressured
to leave their Deen, or their security and safety are threatened, their Da’wah is constrained or the
occurrence of that which indicates to their bad will or intention against the Muslims …” (1).

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb” (Effects of war), Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p75-76].

Concerning this I say: This definiotion provided by Dr. Az-Zuhailiy, sheds light upon the comprehensive
meaning of “Al’Udwaan” (aggression), as found within the different manifestations that he presented,
which represent that which conforms to be representative of an aggression against the Muslims.

Having said that, it should not be understood that the aforementioned definition is comprehensive
encompassing every manifestation of aggression and that it prevents any other manifestations to be
included within it … No, rather, it should be understood that those manifestations mentioned within the
definition have only been provided as examples and to clarify the meaning of aggression and they have
not been provided for the purpose of limitation.

That is because the word “aggression” linguistically carries a general meaning that is not restricted or
limited to specific manifestations.

In (the dictionary) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” it states: Al-‘Udwaan (aggression): “Azh-Zhulm As-Suraah”

(the unambiguous or pure transgression) (1).

It also stated: “And the origin of Azh-Zhulm: Is to place a matter in other than its correct placing. And it
is said: ‘Whoever resembled his father, then he has not oppressed (Zhalama)’. And in the example:
‘Whoever attracts the wolf has transgressed (Zhalama)” (2).

In addition, the root of “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) indicates to the exceeding from one condition or
circumstance to another. It is said: “ُ‫”عداَ َط ْو َره‬
َ (‘Adaa Tawrahu) with the meaning of: “He exceeded his (or
its) limit”. Similarly, placing the thing in other than its place, which is the meaning of the Zhulm
(transgression), indicates to the exceeding in a matter beyond its established or settled place.
Consequently, these two words: “Al-‘Udwaan” and Azh-Zhulm” revolve around a single pivot in respect
to the meaning.

Based upon this understanding, Ash-Shirk (associating partners with Allah) is a Zhulm because it
represents exceeding the condition that the created must be upon in respect to having Imaan in His
creator alone. That is because this Imaan (belief) is what is described in line with the placing of the matter
in its (right) place, in the case where it represents an affirmation of the truth that conforms to the reality.
Exceeding that is then considered to be a Zhulm (transgression). That conforms to what came in the
Qur’aan Al-Kareem:

ُ َ‫كَل‬
َ‫ظ ْلمَعَظِ يم‬ ِّ ‫إِنَّ َال‬
َ ْ‫شر‬
Verily, association [with him] is great Zhulm (injustice or transgression) (Luqmaan: 13).

Similarly, “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) or transgression applies to Al-Kufr (disbelief) and denial of the
Messengers of Allah. That is because it represents exceeding and going beyond the condition that the
people are obliged to be upon in terms of Imaan and affirmation of the Messengers … That is confirmed
in that Allah Ta’Aalaa has named those who deny His Messengers as “Mu’tadeen” (transgressors) when
He said:

َ َِ‫واَب َماَ َك َّذبُواَ ِبهَِمِنَ َق ْب ُلََۚ َك ٰ َذل‬

َ‫ك‬ ِ ‫ُث َّمَ َب َع ْث َناَمِنَ َبعْ ِدهَِ ُرسُالَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْوم ِِه ْمَ َف َجاءُوه‬
ِ ‫ُمَب ْال َب ِّي َناتَِ َف َماَ َكا ُنواَلِي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ْ ‫َن ْط َبعَُ َعلَ ٰىَقُلُوب‬
ََ ‫َِالمُعْ َتد‬
‫ِين‬
Then We sent after him messengers to their peoples, and they came to them with clear proofs. But they were not to believe in
that which they had denied before. Thus, We seal over the hearts of the transgressors (Younus: 74).

In addition, the “Zhulm” (transgression) or “Udwaan” (aggression) which represents a Sabab (reason or
cause) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for the legally legitimate (Mashroo’ah) Qitaal
(fighting) in Islaam, does not refer to the mere involvement of the disbelievers in any type of “Zhulm” or
“Udwaan”.

Rather, what is intended by “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) which we are concerned with, is the “‘Udwaan”
coming from the disbelievers and directed against the Muslims. That which indicates to this specification
for the meaning of the aggression, in terms of it being directed against the Muslims, is the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُدواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
So, whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).

Just as it is indicated to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬

َ‫َظلِمُوا‬ ََ ‫أُذ َِنَلِلَّذ‬
َ ُ‫ِينَ ُي َقا َتل‬
َِ ‫ون‬
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged (Al-Hajj: 39).

The first text states: (َ‫“ )اعْ َت َد ٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬Has assaulted you” which means that it is an assault or act of aggression
against the Muslims who are being addressed (in the text). And the second text informs about the
Muslims being permitted to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting) because they have been oppressed or
transgressed against (Zhulimoo) due to the fighting that has taken place against them.

Therefore, if the “Zhulm” or “Udwaan” emanates from the disbelievers and is directed against non-
Muslims from amongst those whom the protection of the Muslims does not extend to, it would not enter
within the understanding of the “Udwaan” (aggression) that we are discussing.

Consequently, in relation to the “Zhulm” (transgression) or “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression), according to the

unrestricted (Mutlaq) meaning that is connected to the disbelievers due to their disbelief, which represents
a “Zhulm” (transgression) or assault (I’tidaa’) according to the previously mentioned meaning as found
within the Aayah:

ُ َ‫كَل‬
َ‫ظ ْلمَعَظِ يم‬ ِّ ‫إِنَّ َال‬
َ ْ‫شر‬
Verily, association [with him] is great Zhulm (injustice or transgression) (Luqmaan: 13).

And the Aayah:

َ ‫َِالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ِ‫ُواَبهَِمِنَ َق ْب ُلََۚ َك ٰ َذل‬
ْ ‫كَ َن ْط َبعَُ َعلَ ٰىَقُلُوب‬ ِ ‫واَب َماَ َك َّذب‬
ِ ‫َف َماَ َكا ُنواَلِي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
But they were not to believe in that which they had denied before. Thus, We seal over the hearts of the transgressors (Younus:
74).
Then, in relation to this “Zhulm” (transgression) and this “I’tidaa’” (assault or aggression), neither of these
meanings represent what is intended by the “Udwaan” (aggression) that is a Sabab (cause) from amongst
the legally legitimate Asbaab (causes) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam (1). Rather, that which is intended by Al-
‘Udwaan (aggression) in this subject area of study, as mentioned previously, is the “‘Udwaan” that is
emanates from the disbelievers and happens against the Muslims.

[(1) Some of them (i.e. scholars) have interpreted the Zhulm with the meaning of Kufr (disbelief) and the Zhaalim is the one
who refuses to say: Laa Ilaahah Illallah (Tafseer At-Tabariy: 2/113].

This ‘Udwaan came in the dictionary with the meaning: “Azh-Zhulm As-Suraah” (unambiguous or pure
transgression) i.e. that which Zhaahir (clearly apparent or evident), Waadih (clear) and Khaalis (pure) from
ambiguity or uncertainties, which would take it away from being a pure or unambiguous transgression.
Consequently, if this ‘Udwaan (transgression) was to befall the Muslims from the disbelievers, then the
Sabab (cause or reason) from amongst the reasons for the legally legitimate fighting in Islaam would come
into existence or be present.

By that, we come to the end of the first Mas’alah and now move on to the second.

The second Mas’alah (issue): The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) concerning the
Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of Al-Qitaal to repel the aggression

We will suffice ourselves by presenting the Shar’iyah texts that have come related to this. As for the
Sunnah Al-‘Amaliyah (practical or action-based) in terms of what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬undertook in his Qitaal
(fighting) against the Kuffaar in response to their aggression (‘Udwaan), then we have already previously
presented many of his military expeditions and battles in which the response to the aggression was
manifested. That included the likes of the Ghazwah of Uhud, Al-Khandaq, Tabook and others …
Consequently, we will not extend our discussion here by mentioning them again.

As for the Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) related to this:

1 - Then they include the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190) (1).

2 - And His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َح َّت ٰىَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْمَفِي ِهََۖ َفإِنَ َقا َتلُو ُك َْمَ َفا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ََال َمسْ ِجد‬
َ ‫َِال َح َر ِام‬ ْ ‫الَ ُت َقا ِتلُو ُه ْمَعِ ند‬
َ َ ‫َو‬
And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haraam until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them (Al-
Baqarah: 191).

3 - And:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُدواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
So, whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).

This means: “Repel the aggression from yourselves. So, whoever fights against you in Al-Haram or in the
Haraam (inviolable) months, then fight them and retaliate against them with the like (of what they did to
you)” (2).
4 - And the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َۚوأُولَ ٰـ ِئ ُك ْم‬
َ‫َج َع ْل َنا‬ َ ‫َفإِنَلَّ ْمَ َيعْ َت ِزلُو ُك ْم ََوي ُْلقُواَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّسلَ ََمَ َو َي ُك ُّفواَأَ ْي ِد َي ُه ْمَ َف ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
ُ ‫َحي‬
َ َ‫ْثَ َث ِق ْف ُتمُو ُه ْم‬
‫لَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَس ُْل َطاناَم ُِّبينا‬
So, if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you
overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization (or authority) (An-Nisaa’: 91).

[(1) Soorah Al-Baqarah: 190. Refer to: Al-Kashaaf: 1/177, Haashiyah Al-Jamal ‘Alaa l-Jalaalaini: 1/173, Tafseer Al-Maraaghiy:
2/88 and Safwat At-Tafaaseer, As-Saabooniy: 1/126, (2) Safwat At-Tafaaseer, As-Saabooniy: 1/126].

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer: “If they do not isolate or withdraw from you or offer you peace” means
making a truce (Muhaadanah) and peace (Sulh) and: “restrain their hands” means that they refrain from
fighting, “then seize them” means to take them as captives. “And kill them wherever you overtake them”
means: Wherever you meet or encounter them and: “And those - We have made for you against them a
clear authorization (or authority)” means: Clear and evident” (1).

5 - These Shar’iyah texts (Nusoos) also include within them the Qawl (statement) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ ََك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّفة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36).

Ibn Katheer says: “i.e. Just as they gather together to wage war against you, then you also should gather
together if you are waging war against them and fight them corresponding to what they do. It can mean
(as a possible meaning) that it provided the permission to the believers to fight the Mushrikeen within the
Shahr ul-Haraam (sacred month) if they (the Mushrikeen) initiated it” (2). And the following was stated in
“Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “Ath-Thawriy says: Al-Qitaal (fighting) with the Mushrikeen is not Fard (obligatory)
unless the initiation was from them. At such a time, it is obligatory to fight them as a bloc due to the
Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of His Qawl:

‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّف َة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36) (3).

The above are some of the Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) in which the declaration of Al-Jihaad against the
disbelievers is made clear due to their aggression (‘Udwaan) and their initiation of Al-Qitaal against the
Muslims. They include within them texts which were revealed in the stage of Al-Jihaad for the purpose of
defending against the aggression and in response to the disbelievers initiating the fighting against the
Muslims. That is like the Aayah in Soorah Al-Baqarah:

َ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّ ِذَي َنَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

They also include that which was revealed in the stage of the declaration of Al-Jihaad against the
disbelievers in general when they stand in the way of the Da’wah (as an obstacle to it) and refuse to accept
it or to accept to submit to the Islamic rule. That is like the Aayah in Soorah At-Taubah:

‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّف َة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َْ ‫واَال ُم‬
َ ‫ش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36).

That is according to the second meaning that the Aayah can be understood to hold as mentioned by Ibn
Katheer and Ath-Thawriy which indicates that Al-Jihaad for the purpose of defence against the aggression
is a separate or independent reason or cause (Sabab) observed within the legislative texts, within this final
stage of the stages related to the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad.

With that, we have reached the end of the second Mas’alah (issue) of this subject area of study and we
now come to the third Mas’alah.

[(1) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/534 and refer to: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 1/496, (2) Tafseer Ibn
Katheer: 2/356 and refer to: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/102, (3) “Siyar Al-Kabeer and its
Sharh”: 1/187].

The third Mas’alah (Issue): Concerning the ‘Aamm (general) and the Khaass
(specific), the Mutlaq (unrestricted) and the Muqayyad (restricted), the Naasikh
(abrogating) and the Mansookh (abrogated) in respect to the Nusoos (texts)
related to Al-Qitaal (fighting).

This basis of this Mas’alah (issue) is: That there are Aayaat Khaassah (specific) that only command
fighting the aggressing disbelievers alone and they are those who have initiated the fighting against the
Muslims. They therefore forbid fighting the non-aggressors who have not initiated the Qitaal (fighting).
That is like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم ََو َالَ َتعْ َت ُدواََۚإِنَّ َالَلَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah:
190).

Just as there are also Aayaat ‘Aammah (general) that command fighting the disbelievers without restriction
(Mutlaqan), whether they were aggressors or not. That is like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ار ََو ْل َي ِج ُدواَفِي ُك ْمَغِ ْل َظ َة‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬

ِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent (or close) to you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you (At-
Taubah: 123).

The Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of these two texts is that they are conflicting. That is because the first
text forbids fighting the non-aggressing disbelievers who do not initiate the Qitaal, whilst the second text
is a command to fight the disbelievers who are neighbouring the Muslim lands, in an unrestricted (Mutlaq)
manner and even if they were non-aggressors. This is the issue that we are addressing here:

The ‘Ulamaa’ have discussed them and from among them there are those who have said: That the Aayaat
of Soorah Al-Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) which command the Qitaal (fighting) against the Kaafir (disbeliever)
generally (‘Aammah) without specifying (Takhsees) that they be aggressors, have abrogated the Aayaat
that specify the command to fighting only the aggressors who initiated the Qitaal against the Muslims
alone. That includes the Aayah in Soorah Al-Baqarah:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

- There are also those who have said: There is no Naskh (abrogation) in respect to the Aayaat. That is
because the specific (Khaassah) Aayaat are Muhkamah (the highest level of clarity in meaning), not
abrogated and they work (or are applicable) within their scope, which is the fighting against the
disbelieving aggressors who initiate Al-Qitaal against the Muslims. This Hukm (legal ruling) remains and is
not abrogated. That is whilst the general (‘Aammah) Aayaat are also Muhkamah (the highest level of
clarity in meaning) and they work (or are applicable) within their scope, which is fighting the disbelievers
generally and even if they were not aggressors.

That is whilst some of them made the Mas’alah (issue) revolve around the Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah (Usooli
principle) in respect to understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) by the Muqayyad, when the Hukm is
unified in the unrestricted and restricted texts alongside the unification of the Sabab (cause) of the Hukm
(ruling). For that reason, we will study this Mas’alah (issue) from two angles:

- From the angle of the general (‘Aamm) and specific (Khaass) texts and whether they include the Naasikh
(abrogating) and the Mansookh (abrogated)?

- From the angle of the unrestricted (Mutlaq) and restricted (Muqayyad) texts and whether the Mutlaq is
understood according to the Muqayyad?

A - The first point:

The general (‘Aamm) and specific (Khaass) texts and whether they include that which is Naasikh
(abrogating) and that which is Mansookh (abrogated)?

The following was stated in the Tafseer Al-Aalousiy:

“
َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

This means: Those fighting you in Al-Qitaal from amongst the disbelievers and this was before they were
commanded to fight the Mushrikeen altogether (Kaaffah) including both those who fought and those who
refrained from fighting. Therefore, that represented at that time a general application following the
specification that was extracted from this command, affirming its Mantooq (i.e. what is expressed literally
in the words) but abrogating its Mafhoom (what is understood from the words without it being directly
expressed). i.e. Do not fight those who refrain and that is the Mantooq (what is literally stated or
expressed) within the Aayah [i.e. and no not transgress or aggress ‫ َ]و َالَ َتعْ َتدُوا‬as upon this face it also
encompasses the forbiddance of fighting against them…” (1).

Based upon that, the specific Aayaat related to fighting the aggressing disbelievers, who initiate the Qitaal
against the Muslims, are not completely abrogated. Rather, what has been abrogated is the Mafhoom Al-
Mukhaalafah (opposite meaning understood from the wording). The opposite meaning was not to engage
in fighting against the non-aggressors just as the Mantooq (literally expressed meaning) of His Qawl
(statement) “and no not transgress or aggress ‫”و َالَ َتعْ َتدُوا‬
َ was Mansookh (abrogated) from it, if we had
understood this forbiddance according to the meaning of: And do not initiate by fighting those
disbelievers who had not initiated the fight against you.

However, if we were to understand its meaning as: And do not aggress (or transgress beyond the limits)
by fighting those whom We have forbidden you to fight in terms of women, the elderly, children, those
you have a covenant (‘Ahd) with, or do not transgress by undertaking acts of mutilation or by attacking
your enemy by surprise without first making the invitation (Da’wah) to Islaam to them (2).

Concerning this, I say: If the Nahy (forbiddance) of “‫( ” َو َالَ َتعْ َتدُوا‬And do not aggress or transgress) was
understood according to this latter meaning, then there would be no abrogation of this text in its Mantooq
(literally expressed meaning) and the abrogation would be restricted to the Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah
alone as understood from the Lafzh (wording): “َ‫ِينَ ُي َقاتِلُو َن ُك ْم‬
َ ‫( ”الَّذ‬Those who fight you), according to those
that uphold ‘Al-Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah’ (in respect to the meaning of this Aayah). As for those who
do not uphold ‘Al-Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah’ (The opposite understood meaning) here, then in their view
there is silence over the disbelievers who do not fight (i.e. it does not mention those who are not fighting
you but just those who are). Then the general text came commanding that they (i.e. those who do not
fight you) be fought. Consequently, based upon this understanding, there is absolutely no Mansookh
(abrogation) within the Aayah at all, referring to the Aayah:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم ََو َالَ َتعْ َت ُدوا‬ ِ ‫َو َقاَِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress (Al-Baqarah: 190).

There is no abrogation for the Mafhoom of “Those who fight you” as there is no Mafhoom (implicit
understanding) for it within this Madh’hab and indeed there is a silence over those disbelievers who do
not initiate the fighting (i.e. it is not understood and does not exist in their view). And there is no
abrogation for the Mantooq (directly expressed meaning) of “‫”و َالَ َتعْ َتدُوا‬
َ (And do not transgress) because
this Madh’hab (i.e. school of understanding) has understood this Nahy (forbiddance) to be referring to the
second meaning that we explained and not the meaning: Do not initiate the disbelievers with Al-Qitaal
(fighting).

[(1) Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy, Fee Tafseer Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem Wa s-Sab’a Al-Mathaaniy, ‘Alaamah Shihaab ud-Deen, Abi l-Fadl,
Mahmood Al-Aalousiy: 2/74, (2) Tafseer Gharaa’ib Al-Qur’aan Wa Raghabaat ul-Furqaan, An-Naisaabouriy: 2/228].

Concerning this, the following was mentioned in “Tafseer Aayaat Al-Ahkaam” by Ash-Sheikh
Muhammad ‘Ali As-Saayis:

“That is whilst Al-Fakhru Ar-Raaziy viewed in respect to the Aayah:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

That, submitting to the obligation of fighting the fighters (i.e. those fighting you) only, does not
necessitate that it has been abrogated by His Qawl:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْثَ َث ِق ْف ُتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
And kill them wherever you overtake them (An-Nisaa’: 91).

That is if the generality of this Aayah was assumed. That is because what is intended by His Qawl “Fight in
the way of Allah those who fight you” indicates fighting against combatants or those who are engaged in
fighting only, without seeking to fight others. That is whilst His Qawl (statement) “And kill them wherever
you overtake them” establishes generality in the Hukm following the Takhsees (specification). And the
mention of the ‘Aamm (general) after the Khaass (specific) affirms the addition of a Hukm upon a specific
Hukm without abrogating it” (1).

An-Naisaabouriy stated: “He commanded Al-Jihaad in the first Aayah upon the condition (Shart) that the
disbelievers come forward to fight and in this Aayah He increased or added to the Takleef (legal
responsibility) by commanding Al-Jihaad against them, whether they fought or did not fight …” (2).

In “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Ibn ul-‘Arabiy, when establishing that the Aayaat which establish the
specification of Al-Qitaal to the aggressing disbelievers are not abrogated and that their Hukm (ruling)
remains following the command to fight the disbelievers generally, he states the following: “And a group
(i.e. of scholars) said: That this Aayah:
 َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِاَلَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Is abrogated by the Aayah of Soorah Al-Baraa’ah:

ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬

َ ‫واَال ُم ْش َِرك‬
َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفة‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively (At-Taubah: 36).

And this is not correct because here (in the first Aayah) it is commanded to fight those who fight and
similarly that has been commanded after that, as Allah Ta’Aalaa states:

‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّف َة‬ َْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36)” (3).

We summarise from this view that the Hukm of fighting against the disbelieving aggressors or
transgressors (Mu’tadeen), who initiate the fighting against the Muslims, is a Hukm that remains and is not
abrogated.

Indeed, it is true in respect to the one who has understood the Hukm of Al-Qitaal to be restricted to the
aggressing disbelievers alone and that (through the opposite understanding) it is not permissible to fight
those who do not aggress, that he would say that this understanding was abrogated by the command to
fight the Mushrikeen generally (which came after).

- As for the one who does not hold this understanding, then the matter, in respect to him, is that there
was a silence concerning the Hukm of non-aggressors and then the command came to fight them, as the
Aayaat related to fighting the disbelievers generally indicate to without the condition that they are the
aggressors by (initially) fighting the Muslims.

By that, we have come to the end of this point and now move on to discuss the second point of this
Mas’alah (issue).

B - The second point:

The restricted (Muqayyad) and unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts and whether the unrestricted
(Mutlaq) are understood in accordance to the restricted (Muqayyad)?

This issue is clarified as follows:

The command within the Shar’iyah texts came first to fight the disbelievers restricted to those disbelievers
being aggressors against the Muslims, like what came in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

In addition to other Aayaat that mentioned the restriction of the disbelievers initiating the Qitaal or
aggression for the Muslims to have the legal legitimacy to engage in fighting against those disbelievers.

Then there came the Shar’iyah texts that commanded the fighting against the disbelievers in an
unrestricted (Mutlaq) manner without any prior restriction represented in the disbelievers having been
involved in aggression against the Muslims.
- Consequently, do we understand the Shar’iyah texts that are nor restricted by that restriction in
accordance to the prior texts which have been restricted by that restriction? Meaning: That the legislator
has intended from the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts that they be restricted Muqayyad) by the restriction that
was found within those restricted texts? And that is in accordance to the Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah (Usooliy
principle) in respect to understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) in accordance to the Muqayyad (restricted)
if the Hukm (ruling) is unified, where the Hukm here is the obligation of Al-Qitaal, and when the Sabab
(cause) of that Hukm is unified, and that is that those who we fight against are Kuffaar (disbelievers) who
have not accepted Islaam nor have they submitted to the Islamic rule? (1).

[(1) Refer to “Al-Fuhool” by Ash-Shawkaaniy: p154, “Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh” by Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf: p228 and “Usool ul-
Fiqh” by Abu An-Noor Zuhair: 2/327].

If we were to understand the Mutlaq (unrestricted) in accordance to the Muqayyad (restricted), the result
would be as follows:

To limit and restrict the legal legitimacy of fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers), when they refuse to accept
Islaam and to submit to the Islamic rule, to only when they are aggressing alone.

However, if they had not aggressed against the Muslims and permitted the Islamic activity to take place
amongst them without any transgression or assault against the Da’wah carriers or those who had accepted
the Islamic Da’wah from amongst their people … Then, in such a case, it would not be permitted to fight
those disbelievers to seize the authority from their hands and make it submit to the Islamic rule.

This is what the opinion of understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) in accordance to the Muqayyad
(restricted), in respect to the texts of Al-Qitaal (fighting), establishes.

- If the Mutlaq (unrestricted) was not carried to be understood in line with the Muqayyad (restricted). That
is where the Muqayyad (restricted) in this situation, which is fighting the disbelievers because they are
aggressors, would be considered to be a case from among the cases of the Mutlaq (unrestricted, which is
the fighting of the disbelievers with no restriction (Mutlaq), whether they were aggressors or not, in the
case where they have not accepted Islaam or submission to the rule (or authority) of the Muslims.

Concerning this I say: If we have not understood the Mutlaq (unrestricted) by the Muqayyad (restricted)
the result would be: The legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of fighting all the disbelievers, whether they were
aggressors, according to the Mantooq (literally expressed meaning) of the restricted (Muqayyad) texts, or
non-aggressors, in accordance to the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts. And fighting them would continue until
they declare their Islaam or the fall of their authority and their subsequent submission to the Islamic rule
was declared. Fighting against them would remain legally legitimate and even if they permitted Islamic
activity to take place without any aggression or assault upon it.

However, in this case, the decision-maker still has the right to hasten the fall of the Kufr regime and
establish the Islamic rule within the lands of the disbelievers or he can delay making this step to see what
the affair of Islaam leads to within those lands (i.e. the fruits of the Islamic activity and Da’wah). That
decision will be made according to what the decision-maker views to be in the interest of the Islamic
Da’wah (1).

After this opening clarification, that needed to be made for this Mas’alah, we now return to the question:
Are the Mutlaq (unrestricted) texts related to Al-Qitaal understood in line with the Muqayyad (restricted)
texts? Or do the Mutlaq remained unrestricted whilst the Muqayyad (unrestricted) texts fall within its
scope, according to what their Mantooq (literally expressed meanings) have restricted, in light of what we
have explained above?
[(1) The following was stated in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas: “… And it is permissible for the
Muslims to leave the Qitaal against those disbelievers who do not fight them … And we do not know any
from among the Fuqahaa’ who have prohibited fighting those who have refrained from fighting us from
the Mushrikeen. Rather, the difference of opinion is in respect to the permissibility of leaving fighting
them and not in respect to prohibiting it …!”: 3/191].

- To answer this question, we will first present the speech of some of the Islamic writers who have held
the opinion of understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) in accordance to the Muqayyad (restricted) in
relation to the texts of Al-Qitaal i.e. which leads to the Hukm of the prohibition of fighting against the
disbelievers if they have not aggressed against the Muslims …

- We will then present the speech of some of those who have held the view of not understanding the
Mutlaq (unrestricted) in accordance to the Muqayyad (restricted) i.e. that which establishes the legal
legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers to make them submit to the Islamic rule, even if they have not
undertaken any aggression against the Muslims …

- We will then explain our opinion concerning this Mas’alah (issue).

- The opinion stating that the Mutlaq is understood in accordance to the Muqayyad in respect to
the texts of Al-Qitaal:

From among the writers holding the opinion that the Mutlaq is understood according to the Muqayyad
within this Mas’alah (issue) is Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf (1) and he states the following in his
book “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah”:

“Why is there no reconciliation between the Mutlaq (unrestricted) Aayaat and the Muqayyad (restricted
Aayaat by understanding the Mutlaq according to the Muqayyad, upon the meaning that Allah
Subhaanahu has made Al-Qitaal (fighting) permissible to repel the Fitnah, protect the Da’wah, whilst on
occasions He mentioned it linked to its Sabab (cause) and on occasions He has mentioned it in an
absolute manner, whilst sufficing with the knowledge of the Sabab (cause) within other Aayaat? If there
had been a conflict between the Aayaat then the latter in date (i.e. those which were not restricted by the
mention of the cause [Sabab] of Al-Qitaal, meaning the aggression) would abrogate those that came (or
were revealed) before them (i.e. those restricted by the mention of the Sabab (cause) of Al-Qitaal which is
the aggression). So why was the Sabab (cause) for the sake of which the fighting was permitted not
mentioned in the latter just as it had been mentioned in the former?

And how can the restricted (Muqayyad) Aayaat be Mansookh (abrogated) whilst the obligation to fight to
repel the aggression is agreed up (i.e. consensus made upon it) and nobody has said that this obligation
has been abrogated?” (2).

[(1) And from among the writers who understood the Mutlaq according to the Muqayyad include Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-
Zuhailiy in his book “Aathaar ul-Harb”: p101-102. And in the margins he pointed to the opinion of Ash-Sheikh Khallaaf and
before it he mentioned what came in “Tafseer Al-Manaar”: 10/167 in respect to supporting the opinion of understanding the
Mutlaq in accordance to the Muqayyad in this issue. I add: From those who inclined to adopt this principle (Qaa’idah Al-
Usooliyah) in respect to this Mas’alah was Sh-Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlullah in his book “Al-Islaam Wa Mantiq Al-
Quwwah”: p202, (2) “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p77].

- We will now set out to answer the questioning of Ash-Sheikh Khallaaf connected to the Mas’alah (issue)
of An-Naskh (abrogation) and the Sabab (cause or reason) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) so that we do not have
to return to it later. We will postpone the issue of understanding the Mutlaq according to the Muqayyad
until we reach the point of explaining our opinion concerning it.
He (Ash-Sheikh Al-Khallaaf) said: “So why was the Sabab (cause) for the sake of which the fighting was
permitted not mentioned in the latter (i.e. the Mutlaq texts) just as it had been mentioned in the former
(i.e. the Muqayyad texts)?”

I say: The texts that came first command us to fight the disbelieving aggressors. Therefore, there are two
descriptions which the command to fight are connected to and they are that those we fight against be
Kuffaar (disbelievers) from one angle and from another angle, that they be aggressors.

Then texts came commanding us to fight the Kuffaar (disbelievers) irrespective of them being aggressors
or not. The meaning of this is that the command to fight is connected or attached to the Sabab (cause or
reason) of them being disbelievers alone who have not accepted Islaam or to submit to the Islamic rule, as
has been indicated to by the texts.

Therefore, the command to fight was attached to two descriptions or causes (Sababain) together which
were: Al-Kufr (disbelief) and Al-I’tidaa (aggression).

Then the command to fight came attached to one description or one Sabab (cause) and that was Al-Kufr
(disbelief) (1) in an unrestricted manner whether it was accompanied by an aggression or not. That takes
place if or when those who are described by this description (i.e. disbelief) refuse to submit to the Islamic
rule.

Upon this basis or understanding there is no place or room to ask the question asked by Ash-Sheikh
Khallaaf: “So why was the Sabab (cause) for the sake of which the fighting was permitted not mentioned
in the latter (i.e. the Mutlaq texts) just as it had been mentioned in the former (i.e. the Muqayyad texts)?”

This is no place for this questioning, so as to arrive, through it, to the conclusion that Al-Qitaal (fighting)
free of the Sabab (cause) must have a Sabab mentioned for it. In this circumstance, it refers to that Sabab
(cause) mentioned in the previous restricted (Muqayyad) Aayaat, which was the Sabab of “aggression”. I
say: There is no place for this questioning nor for those conclusions. That is because the Sabab (cause) is
mentioned in the later Aayaat. It is Kufr (disbelief) and the refusal or rejection to submit to the Islamic
rule as stated in the Aayah of Al-Jizyah:

َ ‫الَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬

َ َ ‫َُو‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقاَِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي ََةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: 2/354 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/110].

And Ash-Sheikh Khallaaf also said: “And how can the restricted (Muqayyad) Aayaat be Mansookh
(abrogated) whilst the obligation to fight to repel the aggression is agreed up (i.e. consensus made upon it)
and nobody has said that this obligation has been abrogated?”.

The answer: Yes, indeed, nobody has said that the obligation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to repel the aggression
has been abrogated. However, the Naskh (abrogation) that the majority spoke of is not concerning the
abrogation of the obligation to repel the aggression, but rather, it is concerned with the limitation of this
obligation to the repelling of the aggression alone. That is what it had been at first and then his limitation
or restriction was abrogated and another matter was legislated to make the fighting obligatory beside that
of the aggression and that matter was: The rejection of the disbelievers to submit to the Islamic rule.
We will now move on to the views of other Islamic writers who did not understand the Mutlaq
(unrestricted) in line with the Muqayyad (restricted) in relation to this Mas’alah. From amongst was Ash-
Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani:

We will quote, in brief, from what he published about Al-Jihaad whilst restricting ourselves to the issue we
are dealing with. He said:

“The Adillah (evidences) of Al-Jihaad are Adillah ‘Aammah and Mutlaqah (general and unrestricted) …
Let us examine the Aayaat of Al-Jihaad which came in Soorah At-Taubah because Soorah At-Taubah was
from the last of what was revealed, so that there remains no room for claims of Takhsees (specification)
or Taqyeed (restriction) … Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫الَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬

َ َ ‫َُو‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقاَِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ َْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

And Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ْ ‫س‬
‫َال ََمصِ ي َُر‬ َ ‫َۖو ِب ْئ‬ َ ‫اغلُ ْظَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ ََۚو َمأْ َوا ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َج َه َّن ُم‬ َ ‫ار ََو ْال ُم َنافِق‬
ْ ‫ِين ََو‬ َ ‫َِال ُك َّف‬ َ ُّ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَال َّن ِبي‬
ْ ‫َجا ِهد‬
O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched
is the destination (At-Taubah: 73).

And:

ْ ‫َۚواعْ لَمُواَأَنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ َم َع‬

َ ‫َال ُم َّتق‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ َ‫ار ََو ْل َي ِج َُدواَفِي ُك ْمَغِ ْل َظة‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬
ِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ َ ‫ََياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. And know that
Allah is with the righteous (At-Taubah: 123).

In respect to these three Aayaat, the command of fighting has come within them ‘Aamm (general) and
Mutlaq (unrestricted). All of them are Zhaahir (apparent or evident) in respect to their generality or being
unrestricted. They therefore represent a Daleel (evidence) that Al-Jihaad is: Fighting the Kuffaar
(disbelievers), whether the Qitaal (fighting) was initiated against the enemy or it was in defence of the
Muslims. As for His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

And what is similar to that (i.e. he means the Aayaat which restrict the legitimacy of fighting the
disbelievers to the aggressors), then all of them are not valid to be used to specify the generality of the
Aayaat of Soorah At-Taubah or to restrict there being unrestricted. That is because they were all revealed
before the Aayaat of At-Taubah and that which comes before does not specify that which comes later nor
does it restrict it. That is because the Takhsees (specification) is equal to the abrogation of a part of the
‘Aamm (general) because it diverts the Hukm away from its generality by making it redundant in respect
to part of it and placing another Hukm in its place. And as long as the Takhsees (specification) is equal to
the Naskh (abrogation), then it is stipulated as a condition in respect to it for the Naasikh (abrogator) to
be after the Mansookh (abrogated). That is whilst the Aayaat of At-Taubah are from the last of what was
revealed related to Al-Jihaad and hence the specification (At-Takhsees) does not occur in respect to it.
And what has been said in respect to the specification (At-Takhsees) is also said regarding the Taqyeed
(restriction) as the restricting (Muqayyad) text must be later that the Mutlaq (unrestricted) text or
accompanying it (in time), for it to act as a restriction to it … Therefore, the ‘Aamm (general) remains
upon its generality and the Mutlaq (unrestricted) remains upon its unrestricted state” (1).

The above therefore represents an opinion stating that the Mutlaq (unrestricted) is not restricted by the
Muqayyad (restricted) in relation to the Nusoos (texts) of Al-Qitaal (fighting).

Now, what is our opinion in relation to this Mas’alah (issue)?

I say: I will quote a certain amount from the book “Usool ul-Fiqh” which will assist us in respect to this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and that is because the subject of “understanding the Mutlaq according to the
Muqayyad or (restricting the Mutlaq by the Muqayyad)” is a long subject area. Therefore, we will
summarise according to the amount that is needed in relation to the study of the Mas’alah that we are
addressing.

The following was stated in “Usool ul-Fiqh” by Abu Noor Az-Zuhair:

“And the Hanafiyah (Scholars of the Hanafiy Madh’hab) said: … If it is known that the Muqayyad came
first and the Mutlaq came later, then the Mutlaq abrogates the Muqayyad” (2). We see that this Usooliy
principle applies to the particular Mas’alah (issue) that we are addressing. That is the texts of fighting the
disbelievers which are restricted (Muqayyad) to “aggression” in respect to some of these texts and are
Mutlaq (unrestricted) from any restriction in respect to others. Upon that basis, the texts free of any
restriction (Mutlaq), like those which have come in Soorah At-Taubah, are considered in accordance to
the ruling or judgement (Hukm) that they came later than the texts which are restricted to the
“aggression”. Those later unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts are considered to be Naasikh (abrogating) to the
earlier Muqayyad (restricted) texts. As such, the Hukm of the obligation of fighting the disbelievers is
affirmed in an unrestricted (Mutlaq) manner, whether an aggression from the disbelievers against the
Muslims took place or not. The limitation or restriction of the obligation of fighting the disbelievers by
the condition of them being aggressors is consequently abrogated.

[(1) “Al-‘Alaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Qur’aan Wa s-Sunnah”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Hasan: p121-122. And we have already
indicated to what the author of this book mentioned under the heading: “Our opinion in the subject of Al-Jihaad in Islaam”
(Tafseer Mawdoo’iy)” when he quoted from p121 to the end of p132 the speech of Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy,
even if he did not indicate that, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu Noor Zuhair: 2/328].

The following was also stated in the book “Usool ul-Fiqh”:

“And the Shaafi’iyah said: Understanding the Mutlaq (unrestricted) according to the Muqayyad (restricted)
is considered to represent a Bayaan (explanation) in respect to the Mutlaq being intended to be Muqayyad
initially, whether the date was known, where one of them came early and the other later, or they were
interconnected or the date was not known” (1).

I say: This text equalises between the Mutlaq coming after the Muqayyad and its opposite …

Irrespective of which came first and which came later, the Mutlaq is understood according to the
Muqayyad (i.e. the Muqayyad restricts the Mutlaq). Upon this understanding or basis, the Mutlaq
(unrestricted) texts, which in our Mas’alah (issue) are those texts which oblige the fighting against the
Kuffaar (disbelievers), whether they were aggressors or not, must be understood by the Muqayyad
(restricted) texts, which in our Mas’alah are those texts that dictate the fighting of the disbelievers if they
were aggressors.

However, we must not be hasty in this matter. That is because it has also been mentioned within the
books of Usool ul-Fiqh that there are conditions for understanding the unrestricted by the restricted (o
making the Mutlaq follow or be restricted by the Muqayyad). From amongst these conditions is: “That no
Daleel is established preventing the Taqyeed (restriction) and if a Daleel is established upon that, there is
no Taqyeed (restriction)” (2).

I say: Concerning the Mas’alah (issue) that we are currently addressing, a Daleel is established preventing
the restricting of the Mutlaq by the Muqayyad i.e. to prevent the restriction and limitation of the
obligation of fighting the disbelievers to the situation of their aggression against the Muslims alone. That
is because a Daleel preventing the Mutlaq from being restricted by the Muqayyad has made the
unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts proceed upon their unrestricted meaning in respect to fighting the disbelievers,
even if they are non-aggressors, and that is to make them submit to the Islamic rule. This Daleel that is
being indicated to is: Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions) as was observed in the last topic
of study within the second volume. That is because the Sahaabah waged war upon war fronts against
disbelievers who had not aggressed against the Muslims. That was for the purpose of carrying Islaam to
them so that they embrace it, by their choice willingly or submit to its rule, and nothing else! (3).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu An-Noor Zuhair: 2/328, (2) “Irshaad ul-Fuhool”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: p156, (3) Refer back to the
fourth study of the second volume: “The motivating factors for declaring Al-Jihaad upon all fronts at the time of the Khulafaa’
Ar-Raashideen”].

Therefore, the Mutlaq is no restricted by the Muqayyad in this Mas’alah (issue) of ours but rather the
Mutlaq (unrestricted) remains as such.

In addition, it was also mentioned in the book “Usool ul-Fiqh” that included amongst the Shuroot
(conditions) of restricting the Mutlaq by the Muqayyad, is that it is not possible to combine between them
unless it is done by restricting the former by the latter. If it is possible to combine (their meanings)
without restricting the Mutlaq by the Muqayyad, then that is better than suspending what one of them has
indicated to (1). [i.e. the Muqayyad should only restrict the Mutlaq when the meanings cannot coexist
simultaneously].

The clarification of this condition (Shart) will be made through its application upon our Mas’alah (issue)
that we are addressing as follows:

- If we were to restrict the Mutlaq (unrestricted) texts by the Muqayyad (restricted) texts the result would
be: Making use of the restricted texts i.e. Restricting or limiting the Qitaal against the disbelievers to those
who aggress alone and suspending or discontinuing the indicated meaning of the unrestricted meaning
within the Mutlaq (unrestricted) texts. That would mean: That the non-aggressing disbelievers are not
fought against and this is because this manner of reaching an understanding means that what is intended
from the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts, is for them to be restricted by the restricted (Muqayyad) texts and
not to leave them as being unrestricted.

Consequently, based upon this understanding, the indicated meaning of the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts, in
respect to fighting the disbelievers for the purpose of carrying Islaam to them, if they do not aggress
against the Muslims, would be discontinued or suspended and not acted in accordance with.

- As for when the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts are not restricted by the restricted (Muqayyad) texts, the
result would be: That the restricted (Muqayyad) texts would be worked with according to their Mantooq
(literally expressed meaning) i.e. the legal legitimacy of fighting the aggressing disbelievers.

And the Mutlaq (unrestricted) texts would be worked with or employed as well, according to their
unrestricted meaning i.e. the legal legitimacy to fight the disbelievers with no restriction, whether they
were aggressors or not.
Upon this understanding, that which the Muqaayyad texts have indicated to i.e. fighting the aggressing
disbelievers, would represent a case from amongst the unrestricted cases of fighting the disbelievers,
whether they were aggressors or not.

At this point, the question arises: Which of these two (understandings) is more correct from the
perspective of “Usool ul-Fiqh”:

- Understanding the Mutlaq according to the Muqayyad which means abandoning the unrestricted
indicated meaning?

- Or combining (Jam’u) between the Mutlaq and the Muqayyad by working with or utilising them both
without abandoning the indicated meaning of the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts or the Madlool (indicate
meaning) of the Muqayyad texts according to what their Mantooq (literally expressed meaning) indicate?

The answer is upon the basis of what we mentioned in terms of the last Shart (condition) in respect to
understanding the Mutlaq upon the Muqayyad (i.e. according to its restriction). That is the Jam’u
(combining) between the Mutlaq and the Muqayyad, whilst not restricting the first of them by the latter.
That is in accordance to the other Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah (Usooliy principle) which states: “That putting
both evidences to use is better than putting one to use and neglecting the other” (2).

[(1) “Irshaad ul-Fuhool”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: p156, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu An-Nooh Zuhair: 2/303-327].

Concerning this, it is accurate to say: That the Jam’u (combining) between the Mutlaq and the Muqayyad
and putting both into use together leads to making the “Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah” (opposite
understanding) redundant which is indicated to by the Muqayyad (restricted) text, according to the
Madh’hab (school) of those who hold the view of the “opposite understanding”. That is because the
Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah (opposite understanding) of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َوََقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Is: Do not fight those who do not fight you.

- As for understanding the Mutlaq according to the dictates of the Muqayyad, then that leads to making
the Mantooq (literal expressed understanding), which indicates to it being unrestricted as found in the
َ ‫”جا ِهدَِا ْل ُك َّف‬
speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa “َ‫ار‬ َ (Fight or undertake Al-Jihaad against the disbelievers) from the
Aayah:

ْ ‫س‬
‫َالمَصِ ي َُر‬ َ ‫َۖو ِب ْئ‬ َ ‫اغلُ ْظَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ ََۚو َمأْ َوا ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َج َه َّن ُم‬ َ ‫ارَ َو ْال ُم َنافِق‬
ْ ‫ِين ََو‬ ََ ‫َِال ُك َّف‬ َ ُّ‫َياَأَ ُّي ََهاَال َّنَِبي‬
ْ ‫َجا ِهد‬
O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched
is the destination (At-Taubah: 73).

That is in the situation or case where they are not aggressors. In the face of this conflict between what the
Mafhoom (understanding) of the Muqayyad (restricted) text indicates and what is indicated to in the
Mantooq (literally expressed understanding) of the Mutlaq (unrestricted) text, the ‘Ulamaa of Usool have
established that: The Mantooq is stronger than the Mafhoom and therefore the Mantooq is worked with
and even if that leads to making working with the Mafhoom redundant which is preferable to working in
accordance to the Mafhoom when that leads to making the Mantooq redundant.

The ‘Ulamaa of Usool detail that saying:

The majority of those who hold the opinion of “Al-Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah” (The opposite
understanding), say in respect to the conflict between the Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah and the Mantooq (1),
that in such a situation, working according to the Mantooq over working with the Mafhoom Al-
Mukhaalafh preponderant (i.e. stronger). The Mantooq must be worked in accordance with and the
Mafhoom made redundant. In accordance to this Madh’hab (Fiqhi view) of the majority, expressed here,
the following must be stated: The obligation of fighting the Kuffar with no restriction (Mutlaq) because
that is what working according to the Mantooq dictates which is to fight the disbelievers without
restriction and even if that leads to making the Mafhoom, which is the prevention of fighting the non-
aggressing disbelievers redundant, as is understood from the Muqayyad (restricted) text.

- However, in respect to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf (Hanafiyah), who do not hold the view of the
“Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah” (opposite understanding), then there is no conflict between the unrestricted
(Mutlaq) texts and the Muqayyad (unrestricted) texts. That is because the prevention of fighting the non-
aggressing disbelievers it is not understood from the restricted (Muqayyad) texts. Rather, the Hukm of
those (i.e. the non-aggressing disbelievers) is not addressed within the restricted (Muqayyad) texts (i.e. it is
silent about that).

[(1) “Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf: p187].

Therefore, as long as the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts have come indicating within their Mantooq (i.e. what
has been expressed and understood literally in terms of meaning) that the Qitaal (fighting) of the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) is Mutlaq (unrestricted), including the aggressors and the non-aggressors, then in accordance
to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf, from among the scholars of Usool, the following must be stated: The
obligation of fighting the Kuffaar without restriction (Mutlaq), whether they were aggressors or non-
aggressors (1).

In this way, our opinion becomes evident concerning this Mas’alah (issue) of understanding the Mutlaq
according to the Muqayyad in relation to the texts of Al-Qitaal, as we have explained it, according to the
utilisation of the principles (Qawaa’id) of Usool ul-Fiqh in respect to it. The summary of that is as follows:

- That the Daleel of the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions) concerning the Qitaal
(fighting) against the disbelievers, to make them submit to the Islamic rule and even if they were not
aggressors, that this Daleel (evidence) prevents the Mutlaq from being restricted by the Muqayyad i.e. it
prevents restricting or limiting the obligation of fighting the disbelievers to those who aggress (against the
Muslims) alone.

- In addition, the “Jam’u” (combining) between the Mutlaq and Muqayyad texts, by utilising or putting
both to use (simultaneously), is better or more correct than some of these texts making others redundant.
And we have combined or brought together these texts as was detailed previously.

That brings us to the end of the third issue of this study area and we now move on to the fourth.

The fourth Mas’alah (issue): The justifications for Al-Qitaal against the aggression;
between retaliation and defence.

- The aggression can either have already taken place in the past.
- Or it could be taking place in the present.
- Or it could be expected (or anticipated) to take place in the future.

These represent the three circumstances of aggression or hostility which provides the justification to the
party upon which the aggression is being taken against, to mobilise to defend against that aggression.
A - The Jazaa’ (retaliation) for the aggression that has already taken place:

This represents defence against the aggression that has actually taken place in retaliation to the assault or
act of aggression that the enemy perpetrated.

[(1) “Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p187].

There are examples of this within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah: They include the Ghazwah (military
expedition) of Zaid Bin Haarithah to “Al-Judhaam” (1). Its summarise is as follows: That when “Dihyah
Al-Kalbiy” returned from Caesar after delivering the letter of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to him, inviting him to
Islaam, when Dihyah retuned from the Caesar he was targeted by “Al-Hunaid Bin ‘Aus” and his son
“‘Aus Bin Al-Hunaid” from the tribe of “Judhaam” and they stole all the property that he had in his
possession. However, some men from “Judhaam” had embraced Islaam and they were able to rescue or
recover the stolen property and return it to its owner. The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “Then Dihyah set off until he reached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he informed him of his
news and sought the blood (i.e. retaliation) against Hunaid and his son! So, the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
dispatched Zaid Bin Haarithah to them … The army of Zaid Bin Haarithah approached … And raided
Al-Maaqis from the direction of Al-Hirrah. They then collected what they found in terms of property or
people and they killed Al-Hunaid and his son …” (2).

B - Defence against the aggression that is taking place in the present:

This defence against the occurring and continuing aggression, is that in which defence is manifested in its
clearest forms. It is undertaken to sever or stop that aggression, or in the very least, for the purpose of
continue upon the path of continuing to strike the enemy with the aim of working to stop that aggression.

There is incitement or urging in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem to undertake this kind of defence and that came
in its inciting of the Muslims during the era of the Prophethood in Al-Madinah to fight to rescue the weak
and oppressed Muslims (Mustad’afeen) from the people of Makkah upon whom the Mushrikeen practised
different forms of Fitnah, whilst they were unable to migrate to Al-Madinah. Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َ‫َر َّب َنا‬ َ ُ‫ِينَ َيقُول‬

َ ‫ون‬ َ ‫انَالَّذ‬ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل ََد‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬ َ ‫َِو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
‫كَ َنصِ يرا‬ َ ‫اَواجْ َعلَلَََّناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬ َ ‫ك ََولِ ّي‬ َ ‫َِالظال ِِمَأَهْ لُ َه‬
َ ‫اَواجْ َعلَلَّ َناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬ ْ ‫أَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬
َّ ‫َِال َقرْ َية‬
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah whilst the oppressed among men, women, and
children say: "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and
appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (An-Nisaa’: 75).

[(1) It is an Arab Qahtani tribe and they are Banu ‘Amr Bin ‘Adiy Bin Al-Haarith. And ‘Amr is Judhaam. They are located
behind the valley of Al-Quraa, north of Al-Madinah towards the outskirts of Ash-Shaam towards the red sea, close to Tabook.
Refer to “The Atlas of Islamic History” (Atlas Taareekh Al-Islaamiy), Dr. Husain Mu’nis: p79-92. And also: “Al-Munjid”, in the
section of Al-A’alaam (flags): p: 132 under the word: ‘Judhaam’. And refer to “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/202, (2) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam (Ar-Rawd Al-Unuf: 4/235) and “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/202].

C - The defence against the expected aggression:

This aggression against the expected aggression is what has been called “Al-Harb Al-Wiqaa’iy” (preventive
war) and it is a kind of defence (or falls under its category). It is also called “Ad-Difaa’ Al-Hujoomiy” or
“Al-Hujoom Ad-Difaa’iy” (Attacking or offensive defence or defensive attack i.e. a form of pre-emptive
war).
In the prior studies, we have discussed some of the Ghazawaat (military expeditions or battles) of the
Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, in which this kind of defence was clearly evident, just like what took place in respect to
the Ghazwah of “Bani Mustaliq”

The following was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “The news reached the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬that Bani Mustaliq were gathering (forces) for him … When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬heard
about what they were doing, he set out towards them until he met them … and then killed from them
those whom he killed …” (2).

It is worth pointing out here, that in respect to the enemy, from whom there are indications or signs
indicating that he is preparing to undertake an aggression against the Muslims, whilst at the same time the
enemy is tied to them through a peace treaty, then in such circumstances, it is not permitted for the
Muslims to surprise him by way of Qitaal (fighting), under the pretext of defending against an aggression,
until after they have renounced the treaty with him and declared that it over. That is because the treaty still
remains in appearance to be convened between it and the Muslims and applies as long as a blatant
aggression hasn’t been undertaken from the enemy against them … Then after renouncing the treaty
(officially), the Muslims have the right to declare war against the enemy according to what the Maslahah
(interest) dictates. The Daleel (evidence) for the necessity of renouncing the treaty before initiating the
Qitaal (fighting) against the enemy due to an expected or anticipated aggression is the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َال َخا ِئن‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫انب ْذَإِلَي ِْه ْمَ َعلَ ٰى‬
َ ‫َس َوا ٍءََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫َوإِمَّاَ َت َخا َفنَّ َمِنَ َق ْو ٍمَ ِخ َيا َنةَ َف‬
If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Verily,
Allah does not like traitors (Al-Anfaal: 58).

The following was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “If the signs of treachery have appeared and its
indications have been established, renouncing the covenant is obligatory, so that the continuation in it
does not fall into destruction and it is permissible for certainty to be dropped here as a necessity.
However, if it was known by certainty (Yaqeen) [i.e. the treachery from the enemy whom you have a
covenant or treaty with, is known in a certain manner], then renouncing the treaty is not necessary, The
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬marched to the people of Makkah, in the year of the Fat’h (conquest), when there breaking of
the treaty by them had become well-known, without renouncing the treaty with them. The “Nabdh”
(renunciation) means throwing (away or out) and rejection … And the meaning of: “If you [have reason to]
fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them” is: Say to them I have thrown back your treaty and I
am going to fight you, so that they know that and are aware of it (the new situation) with you, equally,
whilst you do not fight them whilst there is an ‘Ahd (covenant or treaty) between you and them, and they
have trust in you. That would then be a form of treachery and betrayal. He Ta’Aalaa then made that clear
by His Qawl:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َال َخا ِئن‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
Verily, Allah does not like traitors (Al-Anfaal: 58) (1).

We have not reached the end of the first study of the chapter we are in and now arrive at the second
study.

[(1) Tafseer ul-Qurtubiy: “Jaami’ Al-Bayaan LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: 8/32].

 The Second Study

The aggression against the Muslims from the perspective of its forms i.e. the
manner and form of how the aggression took place.

The aggression that can be taken against the Muslims has many forms from the perspective of how the
aggression occurs against them:

1 - It includes the aggression against the Muslim lands undertaken through their occupation.

2 - And the aggression undertaken against the persons of the Muslims for any reason.

3 - And the aggression undertaken against the honours of the Muslims.

4 - And it includes the aggression undertaken against the properties of the Muslims.

We have made each of the above forms and manners by which the enemies target their aggression as a
separate Mas’alah (issue) from the issues of this study and that is to distinguish between the different
forms of aggression that can befall the Muslims.

The first issue: The occupation of a part of the Muslim lands irrespective of its aim.

There are a number of points in this issue that must be addressed to give the issue its full right in terms of
study. These points are:

1 - The meaning of the occupation of a part of the Muslim lands.

2 - What are the aims of the enemy occupying any part of the Muslim lands?
3 - The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy (legal ruling) concerning the occupation of the enemy of any part of the
Muslim lands.

1 - The meaning of the occupation of a part of the Muslim lands

The occupation of any part of the lands of Islaam represents the most blatant manifestation from among
the manifestations of aggression against the Muslims. However, what is occupation?

In “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The political dictionary) the following definition for military occupation was
provided:

“Military forces being established or residing within a foreign land, to consolidate its colonialism against
the will or approval of its people …” (1).
Upon this basis or understanding the occupation that we are in the process of addressing is: The incursion
or invasion of military forces, aligned to the aggressing disbelievers, of any region from the Muslim lands
and seizing control over them for any aim from amongst the (possible) aims (behind it).

2 - What are the aims of the enemy occupying any part of the Muslim lands?

Regardless of the aim of the enemy behind its occupation of any part or piece of land from the Muslim
lands, this occupation represents an aggression against the Islamic lands.

In spite of that, history has indicated to a host of aims behind the disbelievers occupying the Muslim lands
although it doesn’t fall under our study to present all of those aims. However, it may be beneficial to
quickly point to some forms of occupation that the Muslim lands have been subjected to during the
course of our distant and near history, which were undertaken to accomplish a particular aim or more
than one, from among the aims that we will indicate to in the following:

- Included within those aims is: That the disbeliever enemies seeking to restore the colonies that the
Muslims had expelled them from.

[(1) “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The political dictionary), Ahmad ‘Atiyullah: p22 and also refer to “Qissat ul-Isti’maar Fil ‘Aalam
Al-‘Arabiy”, Dr. Nuqoolan Ziyadah: p5-7].

The following was stated in the book “Al-Madrasah Al-‘Askariyah Al-Islamiyah” (The Islamic military
school) by Major Ahmad Faraj:

“After the treaty between ‘Amr Bin ‘Al-‘Aass and Theodore the commander of the Roman forces was
contracted following the defeat of the Romans at Alexandria, the Roman empire readied a huge fleet of
300 warships. That was so that they could return to Alexandria and expel the Muslims from it and restore
it to its rule … And Manuel was the commander of the campaign … The forces then mobilised towards
Alexandria and the Muslims were surprised by the Romans occupying Alexandria. Then they began to
move south and the news reached the Khalifah ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan and so he commanded ‘Amr Bin
Al-‘Aas to block and confront the campaign. They met (in battle) at Naqyoos (1) and the meeting was
ferocious in which the Romans were defeated and their evacuation from the land was completed” (2).

- And from among the aims of the enemy in respect to its occupation of the Muslim lands is to eliminate
Islaam and the Islamic civilisation.

The following was stated in the book “Documentations of the Crusader wars and the Mongolian invasion
of the Islamic world”:

“The lands of Islaam witnessed the most vicious civilizational attack that any nation (ummah) from
amongst the nations was subjected to and that was during a period of over two centuries. By that I am
referring to: The Crusader attack that Europe launched in the name of the cross against the western
Islamic lands over two centuries (5th and 6th century Al-Hijri, 11th and 12th CE). And the Moghul attack
upon the eastern Islamic lands which lasted for more than two centuries (the 6th and 7th century Al-Hijri,
12th and 13th CE). The objective of this attack was jointly to eliminate Islaam as a Deen and as a
civilisation, and to uproot the Islamic Deen completely and destroy the flourishing Islamic civilisation …”
(3).

[(1) Naqyoos is a town in Egypt at the top of the Delta opened by ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas in the year 641 AH and its name today is
Shaiheer ([Dictionary] Al-Munjid, Qism Al-A’alaam [section of names] p540). And in “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”, Abdul Mu’min Al-
Baghdaadiy: 739 AH: “An-Naqyoos: Town located between Al-Fustaat and Alexandria”: 3/1388], (2) “Al-Madrasah Al-
‘Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Major Muhammad Faraj: p216, (3) “Wathaa’iq Al-Huroob As-Saleebiyah Wa l-Ghazw Ul-Maghouliy
Lil-= Aalam Al-Islaamiy” (Documentations of the Crusader wars and the Mongolian invasion of the Islamic world): Dr.
Muhammad Maahir Hamaadah: p8].
- And from among the aims of the enemy in respect to its occupation of Muslim lands is: The exploitation
of the of resources of the occupied and colonised land. Al-Ameer Mustafaa Ash-Shihaabiy, when
discussing the means that the enemy uses to occupy the lands and colonise them, and the objective that it
is targeting from that in addition to the examples that embody that objective, he said: “And a tool of
colonisation: To gain dominance and mastery (At-Tasallut) … And the means to gaining this dominance
or control is Al-Quwaah (force/power) i.e. by invading the land that is wanted to be colonised, occupying
it militarily, eliminating the warring forces within it, strip its authority, bring down its government and
then establish a government from men of the conquerors followed by utilising its facilities in the interests
of the conquerors, in most cases. The land which its affair has been overcome is called a colony; it loses
the internal and foreign sovereignty, and is subordinate to the conquerors in all affairs … This kind of
gaining dominance is considered to be one of the harshest and most terrible of its forms and that is
particularly the case if the colonies are filled with immigrants to replace the original inhabitants, cutting
them of by blocking the means of life before them” … Then he says: “Colonialism in its true reality, is
nothing other than gaining mastery and dominance over a weak people, robbing its independence with the
aim of gaining control over the resources of the land and desiring to occupy its individuals as soldiers, in
agriculture and manufacturing for the interest of the colonialist” … The author then went on to present
examples of the occupation and colonialism to accomplish those purposes. He said: “And examples of
this … France taking over Algeria and Senegal … and from them (examples) is what England did in Egypt
and Sudan .. and from them is what Italy taking over Somalia, Tripoli and Al-Barqa (in Libya) …” (1).

The Lieutenant General “’Afeef Al-Bazariy” discusses this aim from among the aims of the colonialist
states in respect to the occupation of the Islamic lands saying the following: “Islam will never remain
silent over the establishment of the two arms of America: Israel and rapid deployment forces, around our
Arab land surrounding the oil region and our main resources, to choke progress and life within them and
to suck dry our blood, resources and values. The powers that America gathers around us must increase
our resolve and determination to rebel against its global system that stretches to reach our land, so that an
end is put to this system, by all forms of struggle …” (2).

[(1) Article: “European colonialism of the Eastern world”, Al-Ameer Mustafaa Ash-Shihaabiy, Latakia Al-Arab 29/3/1948.
And from the book: “The Arab world, articles and studies in some of its political and academic affairs - Book 1”, issued by the
University of Arab States, the Cultural department, Cairo, published by the committee of authoring, translation and publishing
1368 AH, 1949 CE: p17-21, (2) “Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam”, Lieutenant General ‘Afeef Al-Baraziy: p57].

- And from among the aims of the enemy in respect to occupying the Muslim lands, as Ahmad ‘Atiyullah
said, is: “To open the doors of migration to the subjects of the colonialist state for them to settle down in
them (i.e. colonised states), whilst creating conditions or circumstances to facilitate the lowering of the
living standards amongst the people of the lands, which pushes them to leave the region (or province), or
work to wipe them out them in the end” (1).

This aim is reflected in occupation of the colonialist states, in our modern age, of Palestine which was
followed by enabling Jewish subjects or citizens of their lands to migrate to it, whilst extending to them
the provision of the means of life and power, in addition to the following of a policy that led, in the end
of the matter, to the expulsion of the original people of the land from it or working to eradicate them.
That is what came to pass until the Jews in Palestine became the majority … And what has made things
worse, is what we hear in the news these days, is the enabling of the Soviet Union of its Jewish citizens to
migrate to Palestine to settle within it in large numbers, in batches that will reach, at the end of it, close to
one million Jews.

That is whilst it is not hidden, that behind this short-term aim sought from this occupation of some of the
Muslim lands, is another longer-term aim and that this short-term aim has been taken as a means to arrive
to it. That aim is for the Jewish occupation of Palestine and consolidating them within it by the major
disbelieving states, is for it to represent the main bridge to colonise the Islamic world and to keep it in a
continuous state of internal and external struggles around the Palestinian issue. And for it to be
submissive and compliant to the influence of those colonial states, which work to increase the complicity
of that issue in the name of the work to solve it, for the sake of setting the foundations of their influence
and consolidating their foothold within this region of the world. This is a matter that makes the hope, for
freeing the Islamic world from the hegemony and control of the colonialist states, further away and
distanced. That is as long as the leaders of the Islamic world continue to make the adversary the judge, the
enemy the friend (2) and the wolf the shepherd (over the flock) ...! That is despite the Arabs having said in
their proverbs, as was mentioned earlier: “Whoever seeks to make the wolf a shepherd has transgressed”
(3).

And it is despite Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla saying in his Kitaab Al-Kareem:

َ‫مَب ْال َم َو َّد ِة‬ َ ُ‫يَو َع ُد َّو ُك ْمَأَ ْو ِل َيا َءَ ُت ْلق‬
ِ ‫ونَإِلَي ِْه‬ َ ِّ‫واَالَ َت َّتخ ُِذواَ َع ُدو‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection (Al-Mumtahinah:
1).

[(1) “Al-Qammos As-Siyaasiy” (The political dictionary): Ahmad ‘Atiyullah: p22, (2) Refer to “Aafaq As-Stratajiyah As-
Sahyooniyah” (Strategic Horizons of Zionism), Major Gneeral Talaas: p115, (3) Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah (dictionary): article: َ‫ظَل‬
‫]م‬.

- Also from among the aims of the enemy in respect to its occupation of some of the Muslim lands which
it occupies, is to impose a government over that land from the people of the land itself who are loyal to it
in its doctrinal and political direction. For the purpose of securing this aim the enemy remains in the land
that it occupies and it undertakes military operations to eradicate resistance elements and consolidate the
force that is loyal to it. That is until it is reassured over its supporters, those sincere to it from the agents
and traitors, concerning the realisation of the complete grip over the land, its people, resources and
military forces. Then it announces that it wants to withdraw its forces from the land because it does not
want to colonise the land or occupy the land. Rather, its only concern was to assist the authority in the
land to establish security and deal with instabilities.

As such, it takes place like this in this flaunting, insolent and brazen manner portraying innocence of any
wrong doing! This is what happened to the Islamic lands in Afghanistan in the context of its occupation
by the Soviet forces followed by their withdrawal.

The above represents some of the aims of the disbelieving states in respect to their occupation of Muslim
lands. There are also other aims, however, as explained earlier, it is not or objective to mention them all
and as it is said (in the saying): “The necklace is enough, that which encompasses the neck!” (i.e. There is
no need to delve further than what is needed for your purpose) (1).

We now come to the final point of this Mas’alah (issue) and it is:

3 - What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy (legal ruling) concerning the occupation of the enemy of any
part of the Muslim lands?

The word of the Muslim Fuqahaa’ across the different Madhaahib (schools of Fiqh) have agreed upon the
obligation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to repel the aggression taking place upon the Muslim lands. That this
obligation is Fard ‘Ain (an obligation upon the neck of every individual) upon the people of the land that
has been occupied or is on the verge of being occupied. If the Kifaayah (sufficiency) is not met to repel
the aggression then the Qitaal becomes obligatory upon those who are closest to them and then those
who are next and so on until the sufficiency is met and the enemy is expelled from the Muslim lands.
We now present some of the statements of the Fuqahaa’ concerning this as they shed light upon some of
the dimensions related to the Hukm (legal ruling) of this Mas’alah (issue).

[(1) “Majma’ Al-Amthaal” (Collection of proverbs): no. 1035, 1/196].

- Al-Kaasaaniy said: “If the general call to arms (Nafeer ul-‘Aamm) (1) takes place, where the enemy
attacks a land, then it is Fard ‘Ain, obliged upon every one of the individuals of the Muslims who are
capable to undertake it” (2).

- And the following was stated in “Durr ul-Mukhtaar” and the “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”:

“Kitaab (chapter of) al-Jihaad … It is Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency) initially and even if they
(i.e. the enemy) has not initiated … And it is Fard ‘Ain if the enemy attacks. Therefore, everyone goes out
(i.e. for Al-Jihaad) even if it is without permission and the husband and his like is sinful by abstaining”.
And he said in “Al-Haashiyah”: “His statement: ‘Fard ‘Ain’ means: Upon those who are near or close to
the enemy. Then if they are not capable or sluggish (i.e. fall short in responding to the obligation) then it
(the obligation) falls upon those who are the next closest until it is fulfilled, and continues in this way, in
the direction of the East and West … And it is obligatory for the one who must go out to fight to not fall
into sin and refrain because the people do not go out, or due to their sluggishness, or the sitting back of
the one in authority or his preventing it”. And he also said in “Al-Haashiyah”: “And his statement:
‘Everyone goes out’ means: Everyone in terms of the woman, ‘Abd (slave), indebted and others (note: i.e.
those who normally need prior permission). As-Sarakhsiy said: And even the Ghilmaan (boys) who have not
reached the age of puberty if they have the capability to fight. There is no problem in them going out to
fight and to fight in the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (general call out), even if the fathers and mothers dislike that”
(3).

- The following was mentioned in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: And it is designated (i.e. Al-
Jihaad becomes Fard ‘Ain) for three reasons: … And the second is: That the enemy surprises some of the
Muslim lands and so it is designated until the enemy is driven back or away” (4).

- And in “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh (explanation “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj” the following was stated: “And
the second is when the disbelievers enter a rural town (Baldah) of ours, or descend upon (i.e. occupy)
islands or a mountain within Daar ul-Islaam and even if it is far from the land. Its people must repel it
with what they can and the Jihaad at that time (or in those circumstances) is Fard ‘Ain and it is said:
Kifaayah (one of sufficiency) … Then if the people can prepare: i.e. for Qitaal (fighting) it is obligatory
upon every one of them who can (i.e. is capable). That means: To repel the disbelievers according to the
capability. It means even the Faqeer (impoverished) according to his capability (or means), a boy, an
indebted … a slave, without the permission of his parents, the one whom he owes money to, the master
(owner) … That is because their (the disbelievers) entry into Daar ul-Islaam is a grave (and great) matter
and there is no way (or excuse) for neglecting it. There must be as much seriousness as possible to repel it.
In respect to the meaning of: Their entry into a Baldah (rural town) is even if they are over-looking it (at a
vantage point). And the women are like the slaves if they have defensive capability within them, otherwise
they do not attend (the fighting)! Ar-Raafi’iy said: It is permissible that the women does not need the
permission of her husband …

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “If the enemy attacks” means: He enters the Baldah (town or rural town)
by surprise, And this scenario or situation is called: An-Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (where there is a general call to
arms for everyone to come out to fight). The Nafeer ul-‘Aamm: It requires all of the Muslims (to
participate): 3/342, (2) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/9, (3) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/334-
342, (4) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Juzayy Al-Ghranaatiy Al-
Maalikiy: p163].
… However, if the people of the town were not able to prepare for Qitaal (fighting) as the disbelievers
attacked them by surprise. Who is meant by this … He (the Muslim) repels the disbelievers from his as
much as possible (or according to his capability), if he has come to know that if he is taken he will be
killed! And if both captivity and death is warranted, then he can fight to repel from himself or he can
surrender! That is if he has come to know that by refraining from surrender he will be killed, otherwise he
cannot surrender” (1).

- And in “Al-Mughni”, of Ibn Qudaamah, he states: “If the Kuffar descend upon a land, fighting them
and repelling them is designated (i.e. obligatory) upon its people” (2).

- In “Al-Muhallaa” of Ibn Hazm he states: “And Al-Jihaad is not permitted except with the permission of
the two parents unless the enemy descends upon a people of the Muslims. In which case it is Fard
(obligatory) upon anyone who can assist them to set off to aid and assist them, whether the parents have
given permission or not, unless they will suffer (or perish) or one of them after him! It is therefore not
Halaal (permitted) for him to leave the one from them who will suffer (or perish)” (3).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy wrote: “If it is feared that the disbelievers will uproot a region from among the regions
of the Muslims … The defence of that region, which it is feared will be uprooted, becomes obligatory
(Waajib) upon every Muslim and inevitable (i.e. obligatory) upon everyone who has the capability to
undertake Al-Jihaad, to undertake it with his wealth (Maal) and his life (Nafs)” (4).

- In “Subul us-Salaam”: “If it said: Birr ul-Waalidaini (looking after ones’ parents) is also Fard ‘Ain (an
individual duty upon the neck of every Muslim), and Al-Jihaad when it is designated is also Fard ‘Ain, then
they are equal! And so what is the angle for giving preponderance to Al-Jihaad? I have said: Because its
Maslahah is more general (i.e. wider), because it is for the preservation of the Deen and defence of the
Muslims. That is because the general Maslahah (interest and benefit) is given precedence or comes before
other than it …” (5).

[(1) “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Minhaaj At-Taalibeen”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb, 4/219, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/366, (3) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 4/292, (4) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar Al-Mutadaffiq ‘Alaa Hadaa’iq Al-Azhaar”,
Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/520, (5) “Subul us-Salaam”, Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy: 4/42].

In addition to the above statements, we have already previously mentioned the Shar’iyah evidences that
make the fighting to repel the aggression obligatory in the first study of this chapter and therefore we will
not extend the discussion by repeating that …

Continuing … When the Kaafir enemy occupies a land from amongst the Muslim lands, where the reality
is that the enemy is from the closest or nearest disbelievers, then the following Aayah applies upon it:

ً‫ين يَلُونَ ُكم ِّم َن الْ ُكفَّا ِر َولْيَ ِج ُدوا فِي ُك ْم ِغ ْلظَة‬ ِ َّ ِ ِ َّ
َ ‫ين َآمنُوا قَاتلُوا الذ‬
َ ‫َ أَيُّ َها الذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent (or close) to you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you
(At-Taubah: 123).

Also, when the enemy occupies a land of the Muslims that occupied land becomes the land of battle.
Consequently, the withdrawal of the Muslim, in this situation, from the battle obliged upon him,
represents the fleeing from the march (i.e. battle) (Firaar min Az-Zahf) and that is one of the major sins.
That is because it was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said:

َ‫سَالَّتِي‬
ِ ‫َ َو َق ْتلَُال َّن ْف‬،َُ‫َوالسِّحَْر‬،َ ِ َّ َ ‫َُبا‬
َ ‫ّلل‬ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬
ِّ ‫ََّللا ََو َماَهُنَّ َ؟َ َقا َلَال‬
ِ ‫شرْ ك‬ َ ‫َقِي َلَ َي‬،َِ‫ُوب َقات‬
ِ ‫َالم‬ ْ ‫اجْ َت ِنبُواَال َّسب َْع‬
َِ‫ص َنات‬َ ْ‫َو َق ْذفُ َ ْالمُح‬،َ َ ِ‫َالزحْ ف‬ َ ‫َوأَ ْكلَُالرِّ َب‬،َ
َّ ‫َوال َّت َولِّيَ َي ْو َم‬،َ‫ا‬ ْ ‫ال‬
َ ‫َال َيت ِِيم‬ ِ ‫َوأَ ْكلَُ َم‬،َ
َ ‫َب ْال َح ِّق‬ َّ ‫َحرَّ َم‬
َّ ُ‫ََّللا‬
ِ ‫َإال‬
ْ ‫ْال َغاف َِالت‬
َِ ‫َِالم ُْؤ ِم َنا‬
‫ت‬
 "Stay away from the seven fatalities or dooming sins. “It was asked: “What are they, O
Messenger of Allah?” He (‫ )ﷺ‬replied: “Associating anything with Allah in worship (i.e.,
committing an act of Shirk), sorcery, killing one whom Allah has declared inviolable without a
just cause, devouring the property of an orphan, the eating of usury (Ribaa), fleeing from the
battlefield (1) and accusing innocent chaste believing women” (2).

We have now reached the end of the first issue of this study and now move on to the second.

The second Mas’alah (issue): The aggression undertaken against the persons of the
Muslims for any reason.

In this issue (Mas’alah) there are also a number of points. We will summarise the discussion about them
due to their clarity and they are:

1 - What do we mean by “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) against the persons of the Muslims?

2 - What are the aims of the enemy in respect to aggressing against the persons of the Muslims?

3 - What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the aggression against the persons of the Muslims?

1 - What do we mean by “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) against the persons of the Muslims?

By the aggression against the persons of the Muslims we mean everything that conforms to it representing
an aggression against their bodies whatever this type of aggression against the bodies is. Included within
this are various categories of persecution, torture, punishment and harm in terms of beatings,
imprisonment, death, burning, drowning and exploitation … and what is similar to these.

[(1) The fleeing from the Zahf means: Fleeing from the fighting on the day that the two parties or sides gather to fight, (2)
Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 2766 (Fat’h ul-Baari’, Al-Asqalaaniy: 5/393)].

2 - What are the aims of the enemy in respect to aggressing against the persons of the Muslims?

The aims of the enemy for undertaking this aggression are many and the reason or motive for all of them
is the animosity existing between the Muslims and the disbelievers.

- The most prominent aim from among the aims of the enemy, for undertaking this type of aggression at
the beginning of the Islamic period in Makkah, was the Fitnah from the Deen (i.e. to pressurise them to
leave the Deen). This meant: Practising and applying pressure upon those being assaulted from the
Muslims to compel and coerce them to leave Islaam and to prevent those who were inclined to think
about entering this Deen to think about embracing it. This is in conformity and affirmation with the Qawl
of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫ونََُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬

َُ ‫َح َّت ٰىَ َي ُر ُّدو ُك ْمَ َعنَدِي ِن ُك ْمَإِ ِنَاسْ َت َطا‬
‫عوا‬ َ ُ‫َو َالَ َي َزال‬
They will continue to fight against you until they turn you back (or make you apostatise) from your Deen, if they are can
(Al-Baqarah: 217).

- And the enemy’s aim behind its aggression against the persons of the Muslims could be to make them
leave their lands so that the enemy can gain influence over them.
- One of its aims behind the aggression, against specific personalities from the Muslims, could also be that
they are political, leadership and creative personalities that the enemy has seen to be successful in terms of
gathering the people around them or successful in influencing the public opinion within the lands of Kufr
(disbelief) which represents a threat and danger upon it. Or they could be from the personalities that have
an exceptional intelligence in the field of sciences and technology (1) from whom it is expected or
anticipated from them that new horizons of discovery will be opened up before them. That could then
lead to Muslims making major inventions in the area of power and weaponization. Therefore, the enemy
will rush to eradicate such personalities in any manner that will maintain the monopolisation of that
strength for itself and to keep the Muslims in a state of backwardness in comparison to them within these
fields.

I say: Whatever the aim of the enemy behind its aggression against the persons of the Muslims, the
Muslims must not remain silent over it. As long as the response to the aggression is quick and decisive, as
much as possible, then their image before the enemy will be in a standing of weight and respect
accompanied by a fear from harassing them and assaulting them.

[(1) Refer to: The assassination of the Egyptian scientist by Mossad. (The Lebanese) Al-Wa’ie Magazine, issue: 29, the third
year, Safar 1410Ah, September 1989].

3 - As for the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the aggression against the persons of the Muslims?

It is the general Hukm Ash-Shar’iy before any aggression befalling the Muslims and that is the obligation
to repel and defend, as much as is possible (or according to capability), as was explained previously.

And in the Seerah An-Nabawiyah there is that which indicates that the aggression against Muslims by the
enemy could call for the Islamic leadership to target the biggest head or chief of Kufr (disbelief) who is
responsible for the aggression, in the form of retribution and retaliation. It has been reported that “Abu
Sufyaan” and a group of Quraish, after they attended the killing of Zaid Bin Ad-Dathinnah and Khubaib
Bin ‘Adiy, who were from the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and Da’wah carriers, and who
were made captives and led to Makkah whilst it was still upon Shirk (polytheism) after their other
companions had been killed on the day of Ar-Rajee’ as a result of treachery of the disbelievers against
them.

I say: After Abu Sufyaan, who was the chief of Makkah, and a group of Quraish attended the killing of
these two Muslim captives, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched ‘Amr Bin Umayyah Ad-Damriy to kill
Abu Sufyaan “within his homeland of Makkah, if he was able to accomplish that” (1). And he dispatched
alongside him Jabbaar Bin Sakhr Al-Ansaariy, to accomplish this mission (2). It was recorded in “As-
Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: That the reason for the mission was that Abu Sufyaan had sent to Al-Madinah
someone to attempt to assassinate the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. And in any case, the incident reflects a response to an
aggression, irrespective of whether it succeeded or failed!” (3)

We have now reached the end of the second Mas’alah (issue) and move on to the third.

The third Mas’alah (issue): The Aggression against the honours (A’araad) of the
Muslims

- What do we mean by the aggression against the honours (A’araad) of the Muslims?

- The following came stated in (the dictionary) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: Al-‘Ird (‫)العِرْ ض‬: The scent of the
body and other than it, whether it is Tayyib (pleasant/fragrant/nice) or Khabeeth (unpleasant/impure).
[(1) “Kitaab Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/290, (2) Refer to the report of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬dispatching to Abu Sufyaan Bin
Harb someone to kill him in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf: 4/243) and the report of the martyrs of “Ar-
Rajee’” in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf: 3/114), (3) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/208].

It is said: So and so is Tayyib (good) Al-‘Ird … and so and so is Naqiy (pure) Al-‘Ird i.e. he is free of being
insulted or fault being found in him. And it is said: ‘Ird ur-Rajul: Hasabuh (‫)ح َسبُه‬
َ (1).

And in “Al-Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” in respect to the meaning of Al-Hasab (‫)الح َسب‬:

َ What a man regards
himself as based on the pride of his forefathers. And it is said: Hasabuh Deenuhu (the Hasab is his Deen)
(2).

And in (the dictionary) “Al-Munjid” in respect to the meaning of Al-‘Ird: That which the person has pride
in in terms of Hasab (regard for himself) or Sharaf (honour) and what the person upholds in terms of
himself or his predecessor or the one whom he is attached to or a place of praise or blame from him (3).

We summarise this by saying that “Al-‘Ird”, in its most general meaning, is the object or anchor of the
person’s praise/commendation or blame/censure (Al-Mad’h and Adh-Dhamm) and that which the
person is compelled to protect and defend (i.e. it is linked to his honour).

And numerous Ahaadeeth have been recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaari:

- Example:

َ ‫َف َم ِنَا َّت َقىَال ُّش ُب َهاتَِاسْ َتب َْرأََلِدِي ِنه‬

َ‫َِوعِ رْ ضِ ِه‬
Therefore, the one who protects himself from the doubtful matters has cleared himself in respect
to his Deen and his honour (4).

- Example:

َ ‫َفإِنَّ َ ِد َما َء ُك ْم ََوأَمْ َوالَ ُك ْم ََوأَعْ َرا‬

َ ‫ض ُك ْمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم‬
َ‫َح َرام‬
Verily! Your blood, property and honour between you are inviolable (Haraam) (5).

Example:

َ‫َُال َي ْو َم‬ َ ِ ‫ظلَ ََمة‬

ْ ‫َألخِيهَِمِنْ َعِ رْ ضِ هَِأَ ْوَ َشيْ ٍءَ َف ْل َي َت َحلَّ ْلهَُ ِم ْنه‬ َْ ‫تَلَهَُ َم‬
ْ ‫َمنْ َ َكا َن‬
Whoever has an injustice against another person concerning his reputation (Al-‘Ird) or anything
else, then he must absolve himself of it from him today … (6).

And in “An-Nihaayah” of Ibn Atheer: When explaining what is intended by “Al-‘Ird” in these Ahaadeeth
he says: The ‘Ird is the object of the praise/commendation and censure/blame (Al-Mad’h and Adh-
Dhamm) of the person, whether it is related to himself, his predecessor or the one to whom is affair is
attached to” (7).

The above is therefore what is connected to the most general meaning of the word “Al-‘Ird” (‫)العِرْ ض‬.

[(1) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: Article: (‫)عَرَض‬, (2) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: Article: (‫)حَسَب‬, (3) “Al-Munjid”: Article: (‫)عرض‬,
(4) Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 52 (Fat’h ul-Baari’: 1/126), (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 67 (Fat’h ul-Baari: 1/157-158), (6) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaari: 2449, Al-Fat’h: 5/101, (7) “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn Atheer: 3/209].

As for the more specific ‘Urfiy (customary) meaning of this word, then it is that which is attached to the
“Hurmah” (inviolability) of the woman specifically and in respect to this more specific meaning, the
following has been stated by the Fuqahaa’:
“Al-A’araad (pl. of ‘Ird) are the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities) of Allah on the earth, there is no way for
making them permissible (i.e. to infringe) under any circumstance, whether it is the ‘Ird (honour) of the
man or the ‘Ird (honour) of others” (1).

- As for what is intended by an assault or aggression (‘Udwaan) upon the “A’araad” (honours) of the
Muslims which is considered to be a cause or reason (Sabab) from among the causes or reasons (Asbaab)
of Al-Qitaal (fighting), where by such an aggression peace treaties between the Muslims and the
disbelievers are undone, if an individual or a group from amongst them aggresses against or assaults an
‘Ird (honour) from amongst the A’araad (honours) of the Muslims whilst they have nor condemned (or
taken a position against) it? (i.e. the disbelievers do not disown themselves from the act of aggression or
do not deal with it).

I say: What is the intended meaning of this aggression against the honours of the Muslims which is
regarded to represent a reason from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal as we have mentioned?

The answer: There does not exist in the Shar’a a specific outline for a specific sphere of this aggression,
through which an aggression justifying the declaration of war enters and what comes out of it is likewise is
not considered. Therefore, the evaluation of that is left to the valid ‘Urf (custom) that does not come out
of the scope of the Shar’a. That is whilst the one who possesses the authority to evaluate is the one who
has the final say within the Islamic state.

It is worth mentioning that within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, there has been recorded a specific kind of
aggression against the honours (A’arad) of the Muslims that was a justification for the declaration of war
against the one who undertook the aggression.

That was the incident that was the cause behind the expulsion of the Jews of Banu Qaynuqaa’ from
around Al-Madinah.

- The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “In respect to the affair of Banu Qaynuqaa’,
there was an Arab woman who came bringing an item to trade and so she sold it in the market of Banu
Qaynuqaa’ and she sat near a jeweller. They then wanted her to expose her face but she refused. Then the
jeweller took an edge of her garment and tied it to its back. Then when she stood up her nakedness was
revealed and then they laughed at her and she cried out. And so a man from the Muslims rushed at the
jeweller and killed him whilst he (the jeweller) was a Jew. Therefore, the Jews attacked the Muslim and
killed him. Then, the family of the Muslim made a call to the Muslims for help. The Muslims were then
angry and then what happened between them and Banu Qaynuqaa’ came to pass” (2). The matter
consequently ended with the forced evacuation or expulsion of the Jews from Al-Madinah …

[(1) “Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhaa”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 5/759, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf:
3/137). And also refer to: “Fiqh As-Seerah”, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Bouti about the face of the woman not
being ‘Awrah according to the majority and that the reason for the woman covering her face in the market of Banu Qaynuqaa’,
whilst bearing in mind that the Shar’iy Hijaab had yet to been legislated at that time, was because of the behaviour of Jews in
terms of badness and misgivings which were confirmed in their behaviour towards the woman: p203].

In this incident, a blatant act of aggression took place against the honour of a Muslim woman by exposing
her ‘Awrah (nakedness). The Sahaabiy (companion), who heard the cry of the Muslim woman, understood
that this represented a form of aggression against the honours (A’araad) of the Muslims by the Jews, that
is represents the breaking of the treaty with them and that it was a justification for declaring war against
them, or in the least, that this aggression was considered to be a breaching of the covenant by the one
who perpetrated it specifically. Upon that basis, he rushed to kill the one who perpetrated the crime of
aggressing against the honour (‘Ird) of the Muslim woman.
The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not condemn this response to the aggression and the martyred companion died in the
way of Allah in defence of the honour (‘Ird) of a Muslim woman.

The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬then declared war against those Jews because they had killed the Muslim who had
been defending the honour of the Muslim woman. That provided the Daleel (evidence) that they had not
condemned that aggression against the honour of the Muslims and instead they backed and supported the
aggressor in his perpetration of the aggression.

When the Jews in the end accepted to stand before the verdict of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, their ally, the chief
of the hypocrites, Abdullah Bin Ubayy, feared for his allies that they would be wiped out in retribution for
the aggression that they had perpetrated and so he continued to speak to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
concerning them until he granted them to him and he expelled them from Al-Madinah.

- There is also another occurrence within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah that clarifies the concept of the
aggression undertaken against the honours of the Muslims, which then justifies the declaration of war as a
against those who commit that aggression.

Ibn ul-Qayyim relates: “That Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf was amongst those who had a treaty with the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬from the Jews of Al-Madinah … Then when the people of Badr (i.e. Quraish) were killed,
that was difficult for him to accept. He went to Makkah, he bewailed them (for their loss) and expressed
preference for the Deen of Jaahiliyah (i.e. the idolatry of Quraish) over the Deen of Islaam … Then when
he returned to Al-Madinah he began to recite poetry and began to use inappropriate and degrading
language with the Muslim women until they (the Muslims) were abused, whereupon the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:
“Who is for Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf? For verily he has abused Allah and His Messenger” (1).

[(1) “Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/845].

Based upon this narration, we see that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not set out to kill Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf due
to his lamenting the Quraish, nor due to his giving preference to the Deen of Jaahiliyah over the Deen of
Islaam, just as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not embark to have him killed when he spoke inappropriately with or
about the Muslim women … That was until that speech reached the level of abuse i.e. far reaching harm.
The mere speaking about women inappropriately represents an abuse or bringing of harm, however the
unabated continuance upon doing this, as was the case with Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf, represented a great
harming or abuse. This is when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬assigned the killing of Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf considering him
to have invalidated the peace treaty between him and the Muslims.

This reality reaffirms to us what we mentioned earlier. That in respect to evaluating and determining the
aggression that takes place against the honours of the Muslims which justifies the declaration of war
against its perpetrator, this evaluation and determination returns to the one who holds the authority and
jurisdiction within the Islamic State. This relates to the aggressive behaviours that stir debate and are open
to difference points of view concerning them.

Therefore, if the states of Kufr (disbelief) compel the Muslim women, from amongst their subjects or
those who have been given security to reside within them, to expose their ‘Awrah (i.e. that which they
have been forbidden to reveal of their bodies), that would represent an aggression against the honours of
the Muslims providing the justification for the Muslims to declare war against those states (1), according
to this consideration, just as has been understood from the incident of Banu Qainuqaa’.

- Similarly, if one of the citizens of the Kufr states publishes prose in which he talks inappropriately about
Muslim women in a dishonourable, shameful or scandalous manner, or publishes stories or any kind of
read, heard or visual expressed material that addresses the honours of the Muslims, whether it relates to
the past or present in a manner of slander or defamation, which causes a great harm or injury, that would
be considered to be an aggression against the Muslims justifying their response to it (when they have the
capability to do so), in a manner that they see accomplishing prevention, deterrence and the defence of
the honours (2).

In addition, it is clear from the incident of Bani Qaynuqaa’ and the incident of Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf, that
the response to the aggression against the honours (A’araad) could be specifically directed to the
perpetrator of that aggression just as it could encompass the state that the perpetrator belongs to, in
accordance to the stance and position that the state adopts concerning the aggression!

[(1) Refer to the Lebanese Al-Wa’ei magazine concerning the prevention of Muslim women from wearing the Khimaar (head
covering) in one of the English schools: Issue number: 34, 3rd year, Rajab 1410, 1990: p18 and page 35: “The final word”, (2)
Refer to Al-Wa’ei magazine concerning “Salman Rushdi” and his story “Satanic verses”: Issue: 34 p25 in “The final word”. In
addition, refer to issue: 11, Sha’baan 1409, March 1989: p4-5. And in general, refer to the book “Satanic whispers and Salman
Rushdi” by Dr. Nabeel As-Sammaan].

We have now reached the end of the discussion of the third Mas’alah (issue) and now come to the final
Mas’alah (issue) of our study which is:

The fourth Mas’alah (issue): The aggression against the Amwaal (properties) of the
Muslims

The Amwaal (properties) of the Muslims: They are either Amlaak Khaassah (private ownerships) of
individuals, or Amlaak ‘Aammah (public ownerships) or belonging to the state administering them in
accordance to the Masaalih (interests) of the Muslims. An aggression or assault upon any type of these
properties represents an aggression against the Muslims in respect to their Amwaal (properties). It
represents a matter that calls for Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of recovering what can be recovered
of that property and responding to that aggression in kind.

There are many manifestations in which the aggression against the private ownerships of the properties of
the Muslims is evident. That includes the disbelievers’ seizure of the properties of the Muslims, whether
those Muslims were subjects of the Islamic State or subjects of the Kufr states. It also includes the
destruction of their homes, expelling them from their lands or disposing their factories or trading outlets
and what is similar to that. There are also many manifestation in which the aggression against the public
ownerships or the ownerships affiliated to the state, from the properties of the Muslims, is evident. That
includes the aggression against their ships (or boats), aircraft, war and non-war factories, bombing their
nuclear reactors (1), striking their airports, destroying their ports and demolishing their different types of
installations and infrastructures. All of that and what is similar represents an aggression against the
properties (Amwaal) of the Muslims.

We have already discussed, within the previous studies, that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Zaid Bin
Haarithah at the head of an army to punish those who assaulted “Dihyah Al-Kalbiy” when they robbed
him of his property. Even though the property had been returned to the owner, the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
nevertheless dispatched the army to punish those aggressors, to affirm the standing of the Muslims and to
deter anyone to think about aggressing against their properties (in the future) (2).

We also discussed previously how when ‘Uyaynah Bin Hisn Al-Fazaariy or his son Abdur Rahman raided
the camels of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in Al-Ghaabah, he ‫ ﷺ‬set out at the head of an army to recover them …

[(1) Like the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactors of Iraq with the American green light. Refer to: “The horizons of the
Zionist strategy”, Major General Mustafaa Talaas: p253-254, (2) Seerah Ibn Hisham: (Ar-Rawd ul-‘Unuf: 4/235) and As-Seerah
AnHalabiyah: 3/202, (3) Al-Ghaabah: Forest and it is a place where the properties of the people of Al-Madinah were located, a
day’s distance from Al-Madinah. As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 3/3. In can be seen in the “Atlas Taareekh ul-Islaam” (The Atlas of
Islamic History) by Dr. Hussein Mu’nis, to lie north of Al-Madinah towards the west a little above where the streams come
together. Map numbers: 42.43 and 45].

And how Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ was put to trial in respect to (chasing and) fighting the aggressors and
recovering the properties or what he was able to recover. He was put to trial with a good trial in respect to
that to the point that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said concerning him: “Our best foot soldier is Salamah Bin Al-
Akwa’” (1).

By that we have come to the end of the fourth Mas’alah (issue) of this topic of study and have also
subsequently reached the conclusion of this second study. We now move on to the third study.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1806 and “Al-Mughni”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/390].

The Third Study

The aggression against the Muslims from the angle of the citizenship held by the
aggressors - Citizenship of Daar ul-Islaam or Daar ul-Kufr

Introduction: Around the Masaa’il (issues) that this study includes.

The first Mas’alah (issue): The specific Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) related to Al-Qitaal against the
aggression taking place against the Muslims by people not from Daar ul-Islaam (the homeland of Islaam).

The second Mas’alah: What is Daar ul-Islaam? And what is Dar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb (homeland of
disbelief or war)?

The third Mas’alah: The Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Hijrah (emigration) from Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-
Harb to Daar ul-Islaam or other than Daar ul-Islaam?

The Third Study

The aggression against the Muslims from the angle of the citizenship held by the
aggressors - Citizenship of Daar ul-Islaam or Daar ul-Kufr

Introduction: Around the Masaa’il (issues) that this study includes

In the first study of this chapter we presented the Adillah (evidences) for the Mashroo’iyah (legal
legitimacy) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) to repel the aggression. Included among them was the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُدواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
 So, whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).

The act of aggression against the Muslims which must be met by repelling or defence came ‘Aamm
(generally) without specifying whether the Muslims who are being aggressed against are from the people
of Daar ul-Islaam to the exclusion of others. The meaning of this is that any aggression that falls upon the
Muslims, whether they were from Daar ul-Islaam (i.e. carrying what has been called the Islamic citizenship
(Taabi’iyah) or the citizenship of the Islamic state or from its subjects), or they were from other than Daar
ul-Islaam (i.e. carrying the citizenship of other states or subjects of them), that any aggression befalling the
Muslims from these or those would represent an aggression against the Muslims making it obligatory to
be repelled and defended against.

If the defence of the Muslims was in Daar ul-Islaam, then there is nothing problematic in that. That is
because the texts of Al-Qitaal to repel the aggression are texts addressing, in origin, the Muslims, after
they had established Daar ul-Islaam and settled in it. That is like His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفَِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

I say: If the defence of the Muslims was in Daar ul-Islaam has nothing problematic in respect to it, the
defence of the Muslims in other than Daar ul-Islaam however requires clarification and some special
discussion concerning it. For that reason, specific Shar’iyah texts have come related to the Wujoob
(obligation) of defending against the aggression befalling Muslims who are not from the people of Daar
ul-Islaam albeit within the scope of specific conditions. This requires that we first present those texts and
then define that which is Daar ul-Islaam and that which is Daar ul-Kufr so that we can know when it is
obligatory to defend the Muslims who are not in Daar ul-Islaam and when it is not obligatory to do so?
This also requires that we know what is Waajib (obligatory) upon the Muslims in Daar ul-Kufr when they
are victims to aggression and when their Muslim brothers have not come to their aid or support or were
not enabled to do so: Is it then obligatory for them to migrate from Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb or not?
Therefore, it is also necessary to study the Mas’alah (issue) of the Hukm of Al-Hijrah (emigration) from
Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam or to other than Daar ul-Islaam?

Consequently, this study branches into the three issues that we have mentioned above … And we will
now begin with the first Mas’alah:

The first Mas’alah (issue): The specific Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) related to Al-
Qitaal against the aggression taking place against the Muslims by people not from
Daar ul-Islaam (the homeland of Islaam).

The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) concerning this are manifested in what has come mentioned in the
Qur’aan Al-Kareem and in the fighting of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬against Quraish.

- As for what has come mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem that is specifically related to our Mas’alah
(issue), then it is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َر َّب َنا‬ َ ُ‫ِينَ َيَقُول‬

َ ‫ون‬ َ ‫انَالَّذ‬ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا َِءَ َو ْال ِو ْل َد‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـ َِهَ َو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
‫كَ َنصِ يرا‬ ََ ‫اَواجْ َعلَلَّ َناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬ َ ‫ك ََولِ ّي‬ َ ‫َِالظال ِِمَأَهْ لُ َه‬
َ ‫اَواجْ َعلَلَّ َناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬ ْ ‫أَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬
َّ ‫َِال َقرْ َية‬
And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among
men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us
from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help” (An-Nisaa’: 75).
- The following was stated in the Tafseer of At-Tabari as related from Mujaahid in respect to the meaning
of this Aayah: “He commanded the believers to fight on behalf or in defence of the weak and oppressed
(Mustad’afoon) believers, (who) were in Makkah” (1).

- And in the Tafseer of An-Naisabouriy: “(In respect to) “And what is wrong with you don’t fight”: Its meaning
is that you have no excuse to leave the fighting whilst the situation has reached the condition that it has
reached” (2).

[(1) “Jaami’ ul-Bayaan Fee Tafseer Al-Qur’aan, At-Tabariy: 5/107, (2) “Tafseer Gharaa’ib Al-Qur’aan Wa Raghaa’ib Al-
Furqaan”, An-Naisabouriy: 5/100].

- In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “(In respect to) “And what is wrong with you don’t fight”: It represents an
urging to undertake Al-Jihaad and it includes freeing the Mustad’afeen (weak and oppressed) from the
hands (or grip) of the disbelieving Mushrikeen who inflict them with the worst punishment and put
[pressure upon them to leave the Deen. Therefore, He Ta’Aalaa has made Al-Jihaad obligatory to raise His
word the highest, make His Deen prevail and to rescues the weak believers from His servants and even if
that means injury to the lives (i.e. loss of life and injury) …” (1).

- And in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy: “ … Ibn ‘Abbaas related: I and my mother were from the
Mustad’afeen (weak and oppressed) … “and raise for us from You one who will protect” means: One who will
take care of our affair until he frees us from the hands of the oppressors … “and raise for us from You one
who will help” … Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The intended meaning is for Allah to provide for us a protector from
the believers who will take care of us and fulfil our interests, protect our Deen for us, our Shar’a and
support us against our enemies. Allah Ta’Aalaa answered their Du’aa when He facilitated for some of
them to leave and go to Al-Madinah and provided for those who remained of them with the best Waliy
(protector) and most honourable helper or supporter (Naasir. And so, Makkah was opened at the hands
of His Nabiy ‫ ﷺ‬and took care of their affair completely and supported them with the best support. He
then appointed over them ‘Attaab Bin Usaid who was 18 years of age. He then protected them and
supported them until they became the most honoured of their people. And it is said: The intended
meaning of providing for them a Waliy (protector) and a Naseer (supporter) is: You be our protector
(Waliy) and our Naseer (supporter)” (2).

We summarise the above by stating that Allah made it obligatory upon the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam to
provide Nusrah (support and help) to the Mustad’afeen (weak and oppressed) Muslims of Makkah and to
repel the aggression from them by any means from the means of providing the Nusrah (support and help)
and repelling the aggression. And that it is not permissible to fall short in providing them with support
whilst possessing the capability to do that using the pretext or argument that they are not citizens of the
Islamic State i.e. that they are not from the people of Daar ul-Islaam.

In addition, the obligation (Wujoob) of providing support to them and the prohibition (Tahreem) of
leaving them to their painful fate is understood from the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬

َ‫ون‬ َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
And what is wrong with you that you do not fight (An-Nisaa’: 75).

That is because the aim or purpose of the style of ‘Istifhaam’ (questioning) used here is to incite and urge
the going to provide them with support (3) or it represents a reprimand (4) for falling short from
undertaking this. And both these angles establish what we have mentioned. In addition, the meaning
mentioned by the Mufassireen: “There is no excuse for you” (i.e. for not undertaking this) also establishes
that.
 [(1) “Al-Jaami LiAhkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 5/279, (2) “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy Fee Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-Kareem Al-
‘Azheem Wa-s-Saba’a Al-Mathaaniy”, Al-Aaloousiy: 5/81-82, (3) “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 1/525, (4)
“Tafseer ul-Jalaalain”: p118].

Also, the Qitaal (fighting) against the aggression befalling the Muslims who are from outside of Daar ul-
Islaam is not specific to those weak and oppressed Muslims who were in Makkah… Rather, the Nusrah
(provision of support) by the Islamic State must encompass all of the Muslims in the non-Islamic world if
or when oppression, injustice or aggression befalls them … The Daleel (evidence for that is the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ك‬ َ ‫صرُواَأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬ َ ‫واَو َن‬

َّ ‫َآو‬ َ ‫َِوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِين‬ ِ ‫واَبأ َ ْم َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ ِ ‫ُواَو َجا ََه ُد‬ َ ‫اجر‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
َ ‫واَو َه‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َالَّذ‬
َ َ‫َحََّت ٰىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬
َ‫َۚوإِ ِن‬ َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬
َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِجرُواَ َماَلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬ َ ‫َۚوالَّذ‬
َ َ‫ض‬ ٍ ْ‫ض ُه ْمَأَ ْولِ َياءَُ َبع‬
ُ ْ‫َبع‬
َ﴾٧٢﴿ََ‫ونَبَصِ ير‬ َ ُ‫َُب َماَ َتعْ َمل‬
ِ ‫َۗواللَّـه‬
َ َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫صرُو ُك ْمَفَِيَال ِّد‬ َ ‫اسْ َتن‬
َ‫ض ََو َف َسادَ َك ِبير‬ َ ْ ‫ضََۚإِ َّالَ َت ْف َعلُوهَُ َت ُكنَفَِْت َنةَف‬
ِ ْ‫ِيَاألر‬ ٍ ْ‫ض ُه ْمَأَ ْو ِل َياءَُ َبع‬ُ ْ‫ِينَ َك َف ُرواَ َبع‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who
gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you in respect to the Deen, then you
must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do. And those
who disbelieved are allies of one another. If you do not do so, there will be fitnah on earth and great corruption (Al-Anfaal:
72-73).

There are numerous points within these two Aayaat that concern us in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) that
we are addressing:

1 - Affirmation of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar being protectors and allies of one another: i.e. the people
of Daar ul-Islaam in Al-Madinah.

2 - The negation of this between the Muslims in Al-Madinah and the Muslims who did not emigrate to
Daar ul-Islaam.

3 - However, of aggression by the disbelievers befalls the Muslims who have not migrated to Daar ul-
Islaam and then they sought the help and support of their Muslim brothers from the people of Daar ul-
Islaam, then it is a duty upon those Muslims to rise up to provide support to their brothers who are living
outside of the Islamic State.

4 - It is a condition in respect to the mentioned Nusrah (provision of support), that the aggressing
disbelievers not be in a peace treaty with the Muslims from the people of Daar ul-Islaam. If such a treaty
exists, then it is not permitted to provide the Nusrah (support) to those Muslims who are being aggressed
upon until that treaty comes to an end.

5 - If the Muslims from the people of Daar ul-Islaam fall short, neglect or refrain from providing Nusrah
(support) to their Muslim brothers residing in the other lands, the result of refraining from providing
support to them will be trials and calamities that encompass or engulf the Muslims and Fasaad (corruption
and evil) that will prevail over all parts of the world.

This is concerning the meaning of alliance and protection mentioned in the first and second points i.e. the
affirmation of the Muhaajireen and Ansaaar being allies and protectors to one another and the negation of
that between the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam and the Muslims from outside of Daar ul-Islaam. In respect
to the meaning of Al-Muwaalaah (alliance and protection), mentioned in these two points, some of the
Mufassireen have explained it with the meaning of: “An-Nusrah” (support and help) over this. The
meaning of the Aayah about al “Muwaalaah” (alliance and protection) is consequently:
The Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar support (Nusrah) one another against any aggression that befalls them
or when any call or need for that Nusrah arises. As for those who have embraced Islaam but did not make
Hijrah (emigrate), then it is not obligatory upon the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar to provide them with
Nusrah. That is because they did not migrate to the Islamic State. However, if those Muslims who did not
make Hijrah request their brothers from the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar to arise to support them against
the aggression befalling them, then they have to respond to the call seeking their support immediately.
That is upon the condition that there is no peace treaty between the Muslims of the Muhaajireen and the
Ansaar and the disbelievers who are aggressing against the Muslims who have not made Hijrah
(migration).

- That is whilst another group of Mufassireen (Scholars of Tafseer) have explained the meaning of “Al-
Muwaalaah” (alliance and mutual protection) in the Aayah with the meaning of inheritance. The meaning
of the Aayah according to this meaning is therefore as follows:

The Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar inherit from each other due to the brotherhood that the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬convened between them, whilst there is no inheriting between the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar
on one side and their Muslim relatives who did not migrate to Daar ul-Islaam. If they migrated then the
inheritance is affirmed for them from their relatives in Daar ul-Islaam. However, the non-affirmation of
inheritance between the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam and the Muslims outside of Daar ul-Islaam does not
negate the Nusrah (provision of support) between them, if the matter requires it. Rather, if the Muslims
who did not make Hijrah (migration) seek the Nusrah from their Muslim brothers in Al-Madinah against
the aggression that has befallen them, the it is obligatory upon the Muslims in the Islamic State to arise to
provide the Nusrah (support, help and assistance) to their brothers in other lands.

Despite this, whatever the meaning of “Al-Muwaalaah” (alliance and protection) that we are addressing
means, there is nevertheless no disagreement amongst the Scholars of Tafseer in respect to the Qawl of
Allah:

‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ َُر‬

ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek help of you in respect of the Deen, then you must help [provide Nusrah] (Al-Anfaal: 72).

And that it means the obligation of providing Nusrah in the situation where Muslims outside of Daar ul-
Islaam seek support and help from their brothers inside Daar ul-Islaam. The following are some of the
statements of the Mufassireen concerning the meaning of the two Aayaat which clarifies the issue that we
are addressing.

- In the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer: “And if they seek your help”, those Arabs, who did not make Hijrah
(emigrate), in respect to fighting related to the Deen against an enemy of theirs, then provide them with
support (Nusrah). That is because it is obligatory upon you to provide them with Nusrah (help and
support), because they are your brothers. That is unless they seek your help and support against a people
of the disbelievers whom you have a treaty (Meethaaq) with i.e. a treaty upon a specified time limit…” (1).

- And Al-Jassaas stated: Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬

‫َح َّت ٰىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬ َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِج ُرواَ َماَلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they
emigrate (Al-Anfaal: 72).

And so he made them believers despite being resident in Daar ul-Kufr, after they had become Muslim,
and made it obligatory to provide Nusrah (help and support) to them by His Qawl:
 ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ َُر‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek help of you in respect of the Deen, then you must help [provide Nusrah] (Al-Anfaal: 72)” (2).

- Concerning the intended meaning of the Muwaalaah (alliance and protection) between the Muhaajireen
and the Ansaar, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said:

“(In respect to the Aayah):

ٍ ْ‫ض ُه ْمَأَ ْولِ َياءَُ َبع‬

َ‫ض‬ َ ‫َأ ُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
ُ ْ‫كَ َبع‬
“They are allies of one another” (Al-Anfaal: 72).

There are two opinions concerning this: The first: Concerns the Nusrah and the second: concerns
Meeraath (inheritance).

َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬

َٰ ‫َح َّت‬
‫ىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬ َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِج ُرواَ َماَلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they
emigrate (Al-Anfaal: 72).

It is said: From providing Nusrah due to the distance from their Daar (homeland).

And it is said: It is in terms of inheritance because of the interruption or severing of their Wilaayah
(protection and support).

‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ َُر‬

ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek help of you in respect of the Deen, then you must help [provide Nusrah] (Al-Anfaal: 72).

Its intended meaning is: If they call from the land of war for your assistance by a call to arms or wealth to
save them then you should aid them. That is Fard upon you unless it is against a people whom you have a
covenant or treaty (‘Ahd) with as you do not fight against them. It means: Until the treaty reaches its term
or it is mutually rescinded (or cancelled)” (3).

- An-Naisabouriy stated:

“(Concerning the Aayah):

َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬

‫َح َّت ٰىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬ َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِج ُرواَ َماَلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َمَُن‬
But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they
emigrate (Al-Anfaal: 72).

Allah Ta’Aalaa made the Hukm of those believers a middle Hukm between the forerunners or those who
came first [i.e. the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar] and between the disbelievers. That is where He negated
the Wilaayah (protection and support) before they make Hijrah (migrate) whilst affirming the Nusrah
(provision of support) to them when they seek it, apart from against the disbelievers who are bound by
treaty, because they did not initiate the Qitaal (fighting) …” (4) …

[(1) Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem, Ibn Katheer: 2/329, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 3/219, (3) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan,
Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/875, (4) Tafseer Al-Gharaa’ib Al-Qur’aan Wa Raghaa’ib Al-Furqaan, An-Naisabouriy: 10/29].

He then said (in respect to): “ُ‫( ”إِ َّالَ َت ْف َعلُوه‬Unless you do so) i.e. if you do not do what I have commanded you
in terms of alliance and protection (Al-Muwaalaah) of the Muslim Muhaajieen (emigrants), the non-
alliance and protection (Al-Muwaalah) to the non-Muhaajireen, except in the case where they seek your
support (Nusrah) and in terms of the absence of Al-Muwaalaah with the disbelievers in origin … “َ‫” َت ُكنَفِ ْت َنة‬
ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
(There will be Fitnah) i.e. there will be great Mafaasid (corruptions) “َ‫ض‬ ْ ‫( ”ف‬in the earth) i.e. in terms of
division of the word and the mixing of the believer with the Kaafir and the befalling of Al-Harj and Al-
Marj (i.e. killing and instabilities)” (1).

- And Al-Qurtubiy stated:

“(In respect to) “There will be Fitnah”: i.e. Al-Harb (war) and what accompanies that in terms of raids, being
driven out and being made captive. And: “There will be a great Fasaad (corruption)”: The appearance of Shirk”
(2).

And Al-Aalousiy stated:

“The Muhaajir used to be inherited from his brother the Ansaariy in the case where he did not have a
Waliy (ally/protector) in Al-Madinah whilst there was no inheritance between him and his Muslim relative
who was not a Muhaajir (i.e. who had not emigrated to Daar ul-Islaam). Their affair continued upon this
until the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah. Thereafter, they inherited from each other by way of lineage (or
relation) as there was no Hijrah (i.e. after that) and the Wilaayah (protection and support) is upon this -
inheriting from each other … And Al-Asamm said: The intended meaning is: Al-Wilaayah (protection and
support) by way of providing Nusrah and assistance (over the enemy) …

(And concerning) “And if they seek help of you in respect of the Deen, then you must help [provide Nusrah]” it means:
It is therefore Waajib (obligatory) upon you to provide support against the Mushrikeen, the enemies of
Allah and your enemy … “If you do not do so” means: … What you have been commanded to do within the
two Aayaat (Al-Anfaal 72 and 73) … “There will be Fitnah upon the earth” means: There will be great Fitan
(trials and tribulations) in the earth and that is: The division in the word (i.e. division), weakness of Imaan,
the appearance of Kufr (disbelief). And “Great Fasaad (corruption)” means: The shedding or spilling of
blood …” (3).

I say:

We summarise what has been mentioned, in respect to what can be understood and gained from the two
Aayaat, that the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam enjoy the full Wilaayah amongst or between one another
which includes the Nusrah (supporting one another) against the aggression, or inheritance due to relation,
or in respect to all of the rights of citizenry which the citizens affiliated to a single state enjoy or single
Daar (homeland).

- As for the Muslims who do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam, but rather live in non-Islamic homelands, then
they do not enjoy the full or complete Wilaayah between them and the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam, in
accordance to the different viewpoints of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the limits of what they are deprived
of from that Wilaayah, which do not enter the remit of our current Mas’alah (issue).

[(1) Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet (dictionary): Articles: َ‫ هرج‬and ‫( مرج‬Haraja and Maraja), (2) Jaami’ Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-
Qurtubiy: 7/57, (3) Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy Fee Tafseer Al-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem Wa-s-Sab’a Al-Mathaaniy: 10/39).

However, despite that, they are in agreement amongst each other concerning the obligation of a kind of
Wilaayah existing between the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam and the Muslims of non-Islamic homelands
(Diyaar Ghair Islaamiyah). And this kind or type of Wilaayah (protection and support) is: The provision of
Nusrah (support) by the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam to the Muslims of the other homelands if they seek
and ask help and assistance from them against that which is befalling them in terms of repression,
oppression and aggression by the state that they are subjects of or by the citizens of the lands that they are
living in, or from other states and peoples. And this obligatory Nusrah (provision of support) is only
provided upon the Shart (condition) that there is no existing peace treaty between the Islamic State or the
Daar ul-Islaam which assistance and help is being sought from, and the entity that is aggressing against the
Muslims within the non-Islamic homelands.

Consequently, if there such a treaty (Mu’aahadah) existing, it is obligatory to delay providing support or
coming to the assistance of the Muslims, who are being aggressed against within the non-Islamic states,
until the term of the treaty expires or it is breached and invalidated by the other side … At such a time,
the Muslims will move to provide Nusrah (support) to their brothers within the constraints of capabilities
that are available to them. If, however, the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam turn away from providing assistance
and support to their brothers, who are living in other than Daar ul-Islaam, whilst they had the capability to
do that and there are no excuses to prevent them from providing that Nusrah (support), then the result of
that will be to give courage and confidence to the disbelievers against the Muslims in the parts of the earth
by perpetrating massacres against them, expelling them from their homelands, throwing them into prisons
and detention centres, exploiting them in hard labour and keeping them in a state of weakness and
humiliation, which all means the prevailing of the word of Kufr over the word (Kalimah) of Islaam. This
is what Allah Ta’Aalaa warned us about if the call of our brother Muslims for support and help is not
responded to in practise and implementation:

ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
َ‫ض ََو َف َسادَ َك ِبير‬ ْ ‫إِ َّالَ َت ْف َعلُوهَُ َت ُكنَ ِف ْت َنةَف‬
If you do not do so, there will be fitnah on earth and great corruption! (Al-Anfaal: 73).

This is therefore what is related to the texts found in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem in respect to what indicates
to the obligation of providing Nusrah (support) to the Muslims in other than Daar ul-Islaam.

- As for the Daleel (evidence) concerning this Mas’alah in respect to the Qitaal (fighting) of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
against Quraish which used to practise Fitnah and persecution against the weak and oppressed
(Mustad’afeen) Muslims living amongst them. Concerning this, it is clear in many of the military actions
that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to undertake against the Quraish, it was clear in many of them, that the aim of
them was to weaken the strength and power of the Quraish and bring down their stature and standing
amongst the Arabs so that they disperse from their master (i.e. Quraish) … That is because it had
represented the protector of the sanctuary of Kufr (disbelief) within the Arabian Peninsula, the one at the
forefront of opposition to the Islamic Da’wah and the bearer of the whips of punishment and Fitnah that
they would unleash against the weak and oppressed (Mustad’afeen) Muslims. And it happened that
Quraish became exhausted as a result of those military actions and consecutive wars that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
waged against them and that was portrayed in the statement of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬when he said:

َ ‫اَو ْي َحَقُ َريشَأَ َكلََْت ُه ُم‬

‫َالحرْ ب‬ َ ‫َي‬
“Woe to Quraish for war has devoured them” (1).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/25)].

That was until they gave in and surrendered in the end as is well-known in the Seerah An-Nabawiyah
within the narrative of Al-Fat’h (conquest of Makkah) (1).

We have not reached the end of the discussion of the first Mas’alah (issue) which was: The Shar’iyah
Adillah (evidences) concerning the obligation of the Muslims from the people of Daar ul-Islaam providing
support (Nusrah) to their persecuted brothers residing in Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb (land of disbelief
or war), according to specific conditions which will be discussed later.

We now move on to the second Mas’alah (issue) of this study:

The second Masalah (issue): What is Daar ul-Islaam and what is Daar ul-Kufr or
Daar ul-Harb?

It our introduction about the Masaa’il (issues) of this third study from this chapter that we are in we
stated: The provision of Nusrah (support) by the Muslims from the people of Daar ul-Islaam to their
aggressed against brothers who are affiliated to other than Daar ul-Islaam, makes it necessary for us to
know what Daar ul-Islaam is and what Daar ul-Kufr is? That is whilst taking into account that this
particular Nusrah is not obligatory in this situation except within the scope of specific conditions which
will be discussed later. That is whilst the Nusrah (provision of support) to the Muslims of Dar ul-Islaam, if
they were to fall under an attack, is obligatory upon the Islamic State and upon all of the Muslim subjects
or citizens. Indeed, it is obligatory upon all of the Muslims in the world without paying regard to those
conditions that restrict the Nusrah (support) to be provided to the other Muslims (i.e. those outside of
Daar ul-Islaam).

It was therefore necessary to understand what Daar ul-Islaam is and what Daar ul-Kufr is, so that we can
become aware of the following: When is it obligatory to defend these or those?

For this purpose, we will focus when dealing with this issue “Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-
Harb” upon the pints that concern us in this chapter that we are in, and it is the chapter that addresses the
issue of the aggression befalling the Muslims in its description as representing a Sabab (reason or cause)
for the declaration of war against the aggressors. As for the other Ahkaam connected to the Mas’alah
(issue) of Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr, we will not occupy ourselves with its study here. That is so
that we do not go outside of the subject area that we are addressing. Such Ahkaam include: Are the
Hudood (set punishments) applied in Daar ul-Harb or are they not applied? Are there Mu’aamalaat
(transactions or dealings) that are permitted in Daar ul-Harb with the disbelievers of Daar ul-Harb which
are not permitted in Daar ul-Islaam? … And other issues which the books of Fiqh have expanded upon
and which relate to expanding the scope of Ahkaam or restricting that scope which differs in accordance
to the difference of the two Daars (homelands).

[(1) Refer to what has been recorded about the Fat’h (conquest of Makkah) in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf:
4/84 and the pages that follow)].

We will now specify the matters that we will address represented in the following points:

1 - What makes the Daar Daar ul-Islaam and what is it that defines a Daar of Kufr and a Daar of war?

2 - Who are the Muslims who belong to Daar ul-Islaam and those who belong to Daar ul-Kufr?

3 - What is the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to defending Daar ul-Islaam and the people of Daar ul-
Islaam?

4 - If Muslim lands are not Daar ul-Islaam, from a terminological (Istilaahiy) perspective, what is the
Hukm in respect to defending them and those belonging to them?

5 - What is the Hukm of defending the Muslims residing in Daar ul-Kufr which are the lands of the
disbelievers?

6 - What is the Hukm if the Muslims leave, for one reason or another, providing Nusrah (support) to their
brothers residing in Daar ul-Kufr within the lands of the Kuffaar (disbelievers)?
These are the points that we have seen to be connected to the Mas’alah (issue) that we are dealing with
and which require study. We begin with the first point:

The Istilaah (terminology) of Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb:

The word “Daar ul-Islaam” is a Shar’iy Istilaah (terminology) indicating to a specific reality in relation to
the lands.

Similarly, the word “Daar ul-Kufr” or “Daar ush-Shirk” or “Daar ul-Harb”, which all hold one meaning
(1), represents a Shar’iy Istilaah (terminology) indicating to a specific reality of the lands which is contrary
to the first reality.

These terminologies have been found within what has been related in the Prophetic Sunnah and the
narrations (Aathaar) of the Sahaabah.

- Al-Maawardiy recorded from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ِّ ‫تَ َدارَُال‬
‫شرْ كَُ َماَ َفيها‬ َ ‫اَوأَ َب‬
ْ ‫اح‬ ْ ‫َم َن َع‬
ِ ْ‫تَ َدارَُاإلس‬
َ ‫المَ َماَفِي َه‬
Daar ul-Islaam has forbidden what is in it and Daar ush-Shirk has made permissible what is in it
(2).

[(1) Refer to the Kitaab “Al-Umm” by Ash-Shaafi’iy: p270-271 from the fourth part or volume, (2) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah,
Al-Maawardiy: p60. Note: And I was not able to find this Hadeeth within the Books of Sunnah available to me].

This means: Daar ul-Islaam grants protection and safeguarding (‘Ismah) to those residing within it in
respect to their blood and properties … Therefore, it is not made permissible unless there is a Shar’iy
reason that obligates making it Halaal. Whereas Daar ush-Shirk makes those residing within it a place or
context of permissibility or making Halaal in respect to their blood and properties … unless there is a
Shar’iy Maani’ (prevention) that obligates the protection or safeguarding (‘Ismah) (of these).

This what has been related in the Prophetic Sunnah concerning the utilisation of this Istilaah
(terminology).

- As for what has been related from the Sahaabah: Then the following was mentioned within the treaty
document written by Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed to the people of Al-Heerah: “ … And I have made for them
[i.e the people of Al-Heerah whom he contracted the Dhimmah to], that any Sheikh (elderly person) who
is too weak for work, or has been afflicted by an illness, or someone who was wealthy and then became
impoverished so that the people of his religion provide him with Sadaqah, then the Jizyah is removed
from him and he is supported from the Bait ul-Maal (treasury) of the Muslims along with his dependents,
as long as they are resident in Daar ul-Hijrah and Daar ul-Islaam. If, however, they were to leave to go to
other that Daar ul-Hijrah or Daar ul-Islaam, then it is no longer a duty of the Muslims to financially
support their dependents …” (1).

Here, “Daar ul-Hijrah” refers to Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah where the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬established the
Islamic State and represented the first Daar (homeland) of Islaam in the history of the Muslims. The
whole Dunyaa (world) outside of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah was a Dar of Kufr (disbelief) and Daar
(homeland) of Harb (war). Then, after that, the Daar of Islaam began to expand by way of the conquests
and through other lands and regions joining to it, until the Daar of Islaam encompassed three-quarters of
the old world. Ibn Hazm said: “And every location other than the Madinah of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬represented a frontier, Daar of Harb (land of war) and place for expeditions of Jihaad to take place
in …” (2).
It becomes clear from the Hadeeth mentioned above and the treaty document of Al-Heerah that the word
“Daar ul-Islaam” and “Daar ush-Shirk” or “Other than Daar ul-Islaam” as Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed
expressed it, all indicate to a land with a specific or particular description and that due to this specific
description of a land its Hukm differs from other than it, in respect to the protection and safeguarding
(‘Ismah) of its people or in terms of granting permission to violate them or make them Halaal (Istibaahah)
(i.e. blood and property), unless there exists a Shar’iy Maani’ (prevention) that prevents the ‘Ismah
(protection) or Istibaahah (non-protection). Just as the Hukm differs between the two Daars (homelands)
in respect to the granting rights of citizenship to the residents or this land and not the other.

[(1) Kitaab ul-Kharaaj, Abu Yousuf: p155-156. Refer to: Saifullah (The sword of Allah) Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, by ‘Umar Ridaa
Kahaalah: p93, (2) Al-Muhallaa, Ibn Hazm: Masl’alah no: 7/353 (969)].

The Fuqahaa’ then came after that explaining in detail the Ahkaam of Daar ul-Islaam and its people and
the Ahkaam (rulings) of Daar ul-Harb or Daar ul-Kufr and its people, with all the differences that exist
amongst them in respect to those Ahkaam, as has been presented extensively within the books of Islamic
Fiqh … Consequently, the Istilaah (terminology) of Daar ul Islaam and the terminology of Daar ul-Harb
or Daar ul-Kufr became firmly fixed and established when indicating to those Ahkaam which are specific
to this land (Daar) or that Daar.

It is therefore necessary for us to know what the specific description (Wasf) is which makes the Daar
(homeland) a Daar of Islaam. Consequently, if anything is missing from this Wasf (description) the
homeland would not be a Daar of Islaam but rather one of Harb (war) or Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk
(polytheism/disbelief).

The Wasf (description) of Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr:

The classical and modern or recent Fuqahaa’ and Islamic writers have addressed this Mas’alah. We will
first present a summary of statements which have been made concerning this issue and then secondly
present what we have found to be preponderant or strongest from all of the statements accompanied by
an explanation of the reason for what we have weighed to be strongest.

We will not be discussing what has been presented in terms of opinions that cover this Mas’alah or what
some have defended due to his viewpoint or view of his Madh’hab that he has adopted in this issue. That
is so that we are not diverted from the original subject area which has dictated that we examine the issue
related to Dar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr and that is: The obligation to defend the Muslims in Daar ul-
Islaam without conditions and the obligation to defend the Muslims in other than Daar ul-Islaam with
specific conditions.

Firstly: Some of what has been said concerning the issue of Daar ul-Islaam Wa
Daar ul-Kufr:

1 - The following was stated in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: “There is no disagreement amongst our companions
in respect to Daar ul-Kufr becoming Daar ul-Islaam by the appearance of the Islamic rulings (Ahkaam)
within it. And they differed in respect to by what Daar ul-Islaam becomes Daar ul-Kufr? Abu Haneefah
said: It does not become Daar ul-Kufr except by three conditions:

The first: The appearance of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Kufr within it. The second: That it is adjacent or
neighbouring to Daar ul-Kufr. Thirdly: That there is no longer remaining within it a Muslim or Dhimmiy
under the security of the first and that is the Amaan (security) of the Muslims.
And Abu Yousuf and Muhammad (Rahimuhumallah): It becomes Daar ul-Kufr through the appearance
of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Kufr within it” (1).

[(1) Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/130].

2 - The following came in the “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen ‘Alaa Ad-Dar ul-Mukhtaar Sharh Tanweer Al-
Absaar):

“His statement: Daar ul-Islaam does not become a Daar of Harb etc. Means: By the people of war (Ahl
ul-Harb) becoming dominant over a Dar from our homelands or the people of a region apostatise and
become dominant and apply the Ahkaam (rulings) of Kufr, or the Dhimmah breach the covenant and
they become dominant over their Daar - Consequently, in all of these examples it does not become a Daar
(homeland) of Harb unless it is by these three conditions. And they (i.e. Yousuf and Muhammad) said
only one condition and no other condition and that is: the appearance of the rule of Kufr and it is (or
represents) Al-Qiyaas” (1).

3 - Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah said: “It may be that the fruits of the disagreement between the
two opinions is apparent in our current time. According to the application of the opinion of Abu Hanifah:
The Islamic regions from the furthest west to the plains of Turkestan and Pakistan are Islamic homelands
(Diyaar ul-Islaam). That is because, even if the inhabitants of these regions do not apply the Ahkaam of
Islaam, they live in the Amaan of Islaam firstly and by that the Diyaar (homelands) would be Islamic
Diyaar.

And according to the application of the opinion of Abu Yousuf, Muhammad and the Fuqahaa’ who share
their view, the Islamic regions would not be considered to be a Daar of Islaam but rather a Daar of Harb.
That is because the Ahkaam of Islaam to do appear in them and are not applied or implemented” (2).

4 - Al-Imaam Abu l-Hasan Al-Ash’ariy spoke about the opinion of the ‘Ibaadiyah of the Khawaarij in
relation to the Mas’alah (issue) of the Daar (home land) and said: “They claimed that the Daar (meaning
the Daar of those who oppose them) is a Daar of Tawheed unless the authority has been militarised and
then it is a land (Daar) of Kufr …” (3).

5 - In his “Qamoos (dictionary) Al-Fiqhiy” Al-Ustaadh Sa’diy Abu Jaib stated the following about Daar ul-
Islaam and Daar ul-Harb (land of war): “The Daar ul-Harb in the view of Ash-Shaafi’iy is: The lands of
the disbelievers which have no treaty with the Muslims” (4)

“Daar ul-Islaam according to Ash-Shaafi’iy is: Every land that the Muslims have built (or constructed) like
Baghdad and Basra or its people embraced Islaam like Al-Madinah, Yemen, or was opened by force like
Khaibar, Egypt and the lands of Iraq, or was opened by treaty (Sulh) where the land belongs to us and the
disbelievers within it pay the Jizyah.

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/390, (2) “Al-Jareemah Wa-l-‘Uqoobah Fee il-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy” (Crime and punishment in
Islamic Fiqh): p343, (3) “Maqaalaat Al-Islaamiyeen”: p104, (4) “Al-Qamoos Al-Fiqhiy”: Sa’diy Abu Jaib: p84].

- According to the Hanaabalah: It is every land that the Muslims have constructed like Basra or opened by
conquest like the cities of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria)” (1).

6- In the letter of “As-Saif Al-Battaar” to Al-‘Allaamah Abdullah Bin Abdil Baariy Bin Muhammad Al-
Ahdal [who passed away in the year 1271AH] the following was stated: “The Hukm of a town that the
disbelievers have gain control over from the lands of Islaam, according to what Ibn Hajar Al-Makkiy said
in “At-Tuhfah” and other than it, is that its Hukm remains as a Daar (land) of Islaam even if in image it
was a Daar (land) of Harb (war). It is therefore a Daar of Islaam Hukman (in ruling) and that is due to his
statement ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ُ‫اإلسَْال َُمَ َيعْ ل‬

‫وَوالَيُعْ لَى‬
Islaam is the highest and is not surpassed (by anything) (2).

And if it was a Daar (land) of Islaam, it is a Fard (obligation) and Haqq (right or duty) for the people of
Islaam (i.e. Muslims) to seek to save it from the clutches of the disbelievers …” (3).

7 - The following was stated in “Mughni Al-Muhtaaj”: “If he is capable of Al-Imtinaa’ (protection i.e. of
his Deen and practice) in the Daar of Harb (land of war) or Al-I’tizaal (seclusion), then it is obligatory for
him to remain resident in it. That is because his location is a Daar (land) of Islaam and if he was to migrate
it would become a Daar of Harb and that is Haraam” (1).

8 - It was mentioned by Ash-Shawkaaniy: “The consideration is in the appearance or manifestation of the

Kalimah (word). Therefore, if the commands and forbiddances in the Daar belonged to the people of
Islaam in the case where none within it, in terms of disbelievers, can manifest and demonstrate his Kufr
unless that was permitted for him by the people of Islaam (i.e. Muslims), then that is a Daar (land) of
Islaam. The appearance or manifestation of aspects (Khaslah) of Kufr within it does not harm this
because it did not manifest by the strength or power of the disbelievers or by their force, just as is
witnessed among the Ahl udh-Dhimmah of the Jews, Christians and those under treaty or covenant
(Mu’aaahideen) within the Islamic cities. If, however, the matter was the opposite, then the Daar (land)
would be the opposite … He then says: And know that the consideration of the mention of a Daar of
Islaam and Daar of Kufr brings very little benefit due to what we have presented in respect to the speech
about Daar ul-Harb and that the disbelievers are Mubaah (permissible) in respect to blood, property in
every circumstance as long as he hasn’t been provided with security (Amaan) by the Muslims [meaning
whether he was in Dar ul-Harb or Daar ul-Islaam]. And that the property of the Muslim and his blood are
both inviolable by the ‘Ismah (protection of sanctity) of Islaam in Daar ul-Harb and other than it …” (5).

[(1) “Al-Qamoos Al-Fiqhiy”, Sa’diy Abu Jaib: p181, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 6/205, (3) “Al-‘Ibrah Bimaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazw Wa-sh-
Shahaadati Wa l-Hijrah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qaanoujiy Al-Bukhaari: p240, (4) “Mughni Al-Muhtaaj”, Muhammad As-
Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/239, (5) “As-Sail Al-Jarraar Al-Mutadaffiq ‘Alaa Hadaa’iq Al-Azhaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/575-576].

9 - As-San’aaniy mentioned a number of opinions related to the Mas’alah (issue) of Daar ul-Islaam and
Daar ul-Kufr which we will summarise:

The first opinion: Daar ul-Islaam: That in which the Shahaadataani (two Shahaadahs) have manifested
and the Salaah whilst the Khaslah (aspects) of disbelief has not manifested … accept through the security
(Jiwaar) and Dhimmah provided by the Muslims …

The second opinion: Daar ul-Islaam: That in which the Shahaadataani and the Salaah has manifested and
even if the aspects of Kufr has manifested without Jiwaar (security and covenant)!

The third opinion: The important point of determination is in respect to the dominance (Ghalabah) and
power (Quwwah). So if the power belonged to the Kuffaar (disbelievers), from the Sultaan (authority) or
the Ra’iyyah (subjects or citizens), then the Daar would be a Daar (land) of Kufr (disbelief) and if the
Quwwah (power) belonged to the Muslims then it would be a Daar of Islaam.

The fourth opinion: The important point of determination is in the number. Therefore, if the majority
are Muslims then it is a Daar of Islaam and if the majority is disbelievers then it is a Daar of Kufr
(disbelief).
The fifth opinion: The Hukm (judgement) rests in the Sultaan [i.e. the one in authority and ruler of the
land]. If he was a Kaafir (disbeliever), then the Daar (land) would be a Daar of Kufr, and even if all the
citizens or subjects (Ra’iyyah) were believers. And if he was a Muslim, then the land would be a Daar
(homeland) of Islaam and even if all the citizens were disbelievers …

Then Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy, when answering a question that was directed to him concerning the land of
“Aden” (in Yemen) which had been occupied by the British colonialists (1) and the Ahkaam (rulings) of
Kufr (disbelief) manifesting in it, and asked about the status of it in terms of it being Dar ul-Islaam or
Daar ul-Kufr, said: “The lands of Aden and India are a Daar of Islaam i.e. despite what has manifested in
terms of the aspects of disbelief and the Franks (i.e. Europeans) gaining dominance”. He then reiterates
that saying: “(In respect to) Aden and what is under it, then if the two Shahaadahs and the prayers have
manifested, even if aspects of Kufr (disbelief) have manifested within it, without Jiwaar (security), then it
is a Daar of Islaam. Otherwise [i.e. if the two Shahaadahs and the prayers do not manifest except with a
Jiwaar (protection of right) from the disbelievers and their permission], then it is a Daar of Harb”.

[(1) Britain occupied Aden in the year 1839, “History of the Islamic Peoples”, Karl Brukelman, translated by: Nabeeh Ameen
Faaris and Muneer Al-Ba’labakiy: p556].

In this regard, As-San’aaniy also states: “When we know with certainty that the Kuffaar (disbelievers) have
taken control over a land from the lands of Islaam … and dominate over them and suppress its people,
where they can no longer make the word of Islaam prominent except with the Jiwaar (security) of the
disbelievers, then the land has become a Daar of Harb (war), even if the Salaah is established within it” (1)

10 - Abdul Qaadir ‘Audah said:

“Daar ul-Islaam: The lands in which the Ahkaam of Islaam manifest or its Muslim inhabitants are capable
of manifesting the Ahkaam of Islaam within it. Therefore, every land in which all or the majority of the
inhabitants are Muslims enters into the classification of Daar ul-Islaam and every land which the Muslims
control and rule, even if the majority of the inhabitants are non-Muslims. Also included within Daar ul-
Islaam is every land that non-Muslims rule and control as long as there exists within it Muslim inhabitants
who manifest the Ahkaam of Islaam or there does not exist within it that which prevents the
manifestation of the Ahkaam of Islaam” (2).

11 - And in the book “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah” Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf states:

“Daar ul-Islaam: It is the Daar (land) upon which the Ahkaam of Islaam are applied and those in it are
secured by the Amaan (security) of the Muslims, whether they (the population) are Muslims or
Dhimmiyeen (Ahl udh-Dhimmah).

And Daar ul-Kufr: It is the Daar (land) in which the Ahkaam of Islaam are not applied and those residing
in it are not secured by the Amaan (security) of the Muslims” (3).

12 - And Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani elaborated upon what was mentioned in “As-Siyaasah
Ash-Shar’iyah” by Ash-Sheikh Al-Khallaaf when he said:

“To consider the land as being Daar ul-Islaam or Daar ul-Kufr, two matters must be looked into: Firstly:
The Hukm (ruling) by Islaam. And secondly: That the Amaan (security) is by the Amaan of the Muslims
i.e. by their authority. If these two fundamental elements are met within the Daar (land) … it would be
Daar ul-Islaam and it would have transformed from being Daar ul-Kufr to be Daar ul-Islaam. If, however,
one of these two matters are missing, it would not become Daar ul-Islaam. Consequently, if the Daar ul-
Islaam did not rule by the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam it would then be Daar ul-Kufr., just as if it was ruled
by Islaam but its Amaan (security) was not secured by the security of the Muslims [i.e. by their authority]
where its Amaan (security) was secured by the Amaan (security) of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) [i.e. by their
authority], it would likewise be a Daar of Kufr (disbelief) …

[(1) In respect to point 9 refer to: “Al-‘Ibrah Bimaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazw Wa-sh-Shahaadati Wa l-Hijrah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-
Qaanoujiy Al-Bukhaari: p34-237, (2) “At-Tashree’ Al-Jinaa’iy Al-Islaamiy”, Abdul Qaadir ‘Audah: 1/421, (3) “As-Siyaasah Ash-
Shar’iyah”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p69].

Ash-Sheikh An-Nabhaani then affirms what we stated previously from Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah in respect
to the Islamic lands today represent a Daar (land) of Kufr or Daar of Harb (war), based upon the opinion
of Abu Yousuf and Muhammad. He states: “Upon this basis, all of the lands of the Muslims today are
Daar Kufr (lands of disbelief) because they do not rule by Islaam. Similarly, they remain as being a Daar of
Kufr if the disbelievers establish within them a Muslim who rules by the Ahkaam of Islaam but remains
under their authority, and his Amaan is secured by their Amaan (security). It remains a Daar of disbelief
(Kufr) (1).

13 - Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy says: “The consideration that is relied upon to classify and distinguish the
Daar (land) is: The presence of the Sultah 9authority) and the application of the Ahkaam. If this was
Islamic then the Daar would be a Daar of Islaam and if they were un-Islamic then the land would be Daar
of Harb (war)” (2)

14 - Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy said: “The Baldah (city or country) becomes a Daar of
Islaam if it enters into the protective force (Mana’ah) of the Muslims and its Siyaadah (sovereignty) where
they are capable of manifesting their Islaam and be protected from their enemies”. He then states: “That
which is relied upon in respect to classifying the land as Daar ul-Islaam is that the Muslims possess the
Siyaadah (sovereignty) in them for themselves where the Muslim is capable of manifesting the Ahkaam
(rulings) of Islaam and its Sha’aa’ir (prominent rituals, signs and practises). This classification does not
disappear it, after that, due to any symptom, in terms of an aggression or weakness or something similar
to that” … He then says: “The application of the generalities (‘Umoom) of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah is
an obligation resting upon those whom the Daar ul-Islaam are comprised of and it is not an indispensable
condition (Shart) for the Daar (land) to be named as being a Daar of Islaam” (3).

15 - Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan stated: “Daar ul-Islaam according to the Fuqahaa’: It includes all of the
lands that the Muslims rule and apply the Islamic Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah within them … It is permissible
for the land to be a Daar of Islaam even if there was no Muslim civilian within it as long as its ruler is
Muslim and applies the Ahkaam of Islaam. In line with this meaning the Shaafi’iyah Fuqahaa’ said: It is
not a Shart (condition) of Daar ul-Islaam for there to be Muslims within it. Rather, it is sufficient for it to
be in the hand of the Imaam (i.e. under his authority) and his Islaam” (4).

[(1) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani: 2/215-216, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh
Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p155, (3) “Hakaadha Nad’u Ila l-Islaam” (In this way, we invite to Islaam”, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed
Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p91-93, (4) “Fat’h ul-‘Azeez: Sharh ul-Wajeez”, Ar-Raafi’iy: 8/14 (Majmoo’ah Buhooth Fiqhiyah”, Dr
Abdul Kareem Zaidaan: p51].

Dr. Zaidaan continues and says:

“It is observed in this opinion, that the condition (Shart) of the application of the Ahkaam of Islaam has
not been cited for the land to be considered a Daar of Islaam. The reason for that, is that the application
of the Ahkaam of Islaam is an obvious matter in the view of the Fuqahaa’ in the case where the Daar
(land) is ruled by a Muslim ruler. That is because it is the nature of the Muslim rulers that thet apply the
Islamic Sharee’ah.

As for Daar ul-Harb: Then it is the other lands in which the Ahkaam of Islaam are not applied and are not
ruled by Muslims” … He then states: “And the Daar ul-Harb (land of war0 becomes a Daar of Islaam
through the application of the Islamic Ahkaam (rulings) within it and its entering into the political Sultaan
(authority) of the Daar ul-Islaam … And the Daar ul-Islaam becomes a Daar of Harb (war) through the
manifestation of appearance of the Ahkaam of Kufr (disbelief) within it i.e. the application of other than
the Ahkaam of Islaam. This is what Al-Imaam Abu Yousuf and Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-
Shaibaaniy stated in addition to the Fuqahaa’ of the Zaidiyah” (1).

I say:

The above reflects snippets from a variety of opinions concerning the Mas’alah (issue) of “Daar ul-Islaam
and Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb”. We may now understand the bewilderment that afflicted “Siddeeq
Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy” the author of “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah” in respect to this issue, when he
declared his difficulty in respect to adopting a specific opinion in it and to apply what he adopted upon
the Islamic lands which had been occupied by the disbelievers in his time, in India, and the manifestation
of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Kufr (disbelief) within them. He says:

“This Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) is from the Mushtabihaat (unclear matters) from which its Hukm does not
manifest in a manner that reassures or comforts the breast … For that reason, you see that I have written
in “Hidaayah As-Saa’il Ilaa Adillah Al-Masaa’il” restricting myself to the presentation of the view of the
Hanafiy Madh’hab which indicates that they are Diyaar Kufr (lands of disbelief) … That is whilst I have
not adopted a decisive opinion in respect to that. It is possible to say: That the Mas’alah has two opinions
and that they are both strong and equal, even if their being representative of a Daar of Kufr (disbelief) is
more apparent, in view of what is apparent in the evidences …” (3).

In conclusion, the above represents some of what has been said concerning Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-
Kufr. And the truth of what can be said is: Some of what has been stated casts light upon this Mas’alah
whilst some of the other statements are overshadowed by over generalisation and our study here does not
relate to discussing these opinions … We have only presented these extracts concerning what has been
said, in relation to the Mas’alah of the Daar, so as to take in the various and differing opinions that have
been proposed regarding it. That is so that the adoption of the strongest of these views can be built upon
an examination of numerous different statements which have participated in terms of providing an
opinion concerning the Mas’alah.

After having said that, we will now move on to the explanation of the opinion that we have viewed to be
strongest in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and an explanation of the basis upon which we have
undertaken this outweighing to arrive at the strongest or most preponderant opinion.

Secondly: The preferred or chosen opinion concerning the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)
of Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr or Daar ul-Harb

Daar ul-Islaam: It is the lands in which the ruling system within them is the Islamic system. At the same
time, the internal and external Amn (security) is in the hands of the Muslims from its sons. This means
that the military power that establishes the security internally and protects the borders of the lands from
the enemy externally, that this power is controlled by the Muslims. Even if non-Muslims participate in it
their participation would be secondary whilst the control or controlling dominance would be to the
Muslims.

The necessity of the existence of these two conditions together: the ruling by Islaam and the Islamic
power that protects the lands and its people, internally and externally … The (essential) necessity of the
existence of these two conditions together, for the lands to be validly described as being Daar ul-Islaam,
are deduced from the reality of Makkah and the reality of Al-Madinah following the Hijrah (emigration).
Before the Hijrah, Makkah and the rest of the lands of the Dunyaa (world) were lands of Kufr and there is
no doubt or question concerning that. Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims
undertook the Hijrah to Al-Madinah and he established the Islamic State within it, the first Daar of
Islaam, in Islamic history, came into being, whilst Makkah remained as it was, a Daar of Kufr (disbelief).

Based upon this, we can comprehend the reality of Makkah and other lands which were a Daar of Kufr,
and the reality of Al-Madinah which was alone in being Daar ul-Islaam. We are capable of comprehending
these two realities and the distinguishing differences between them so as to deduce the elements upon the
basis of which a Daar would be a Daar of Kufr or a Daar of Islaam. So what was the reality of Makkah
and the other lands of the world (at that time)? And what were the changes that took place to the reality
of Al-Madinah following the establishment of Daar ul-Islaam within it?

It is clear that from the perspective of Islaam and the Muslims the reality of Makkah and the other lands
was radically different and opposite to the reality in Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, in respect to the
transformation that had taken place.

- In Makkah and the other lands, Islaam was naturally not in a position or level where its Ahkaam were
being implemented even if some of its symbols and practices like the Salaah appeared on occasions in the
precincts of the Ka’bah. That was not due to an inherent strength of the Muslims allowing the Muslims to
impose this Islamic practise in a permanent manner. Rather, that only occurred via the permission of the
people of power from the disbelievers or as a result of their silence over that grudgingly. Had they wanted
to deal decisively with the matter they would have done so.

- From another perspective, the Muslims had not been secure in respect to themselves except by the
amount of security that was granted to them by the disbelievers. That was either through direct protection
as happened with some … Or through silence over them, that silence which was interrupted by their cries
when the whips of Fitnah and torture were being let loose upon them when the disbelievers desired that
… There were also many Muslims who were living under a permanent state of persecution and persistent
threat.

This is what the reality of Makkah was where the Muslims were living: There was no manifestation of
Islaam within it and if some of their symbolic practise did appear then it was only by the permission of the
disbelievers. There was also no security (Amaan) for the Muslims within Makkah and if Amaan (security)
did exist then that was via the protection of the Kuffaar (disbelievers).

What is said in respect to the reality of Makkah can also be said regarding the reality of the other places
where Muslims existed like Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) for instance. That is because the reality of Al-
Habashah to which the Muslims made Hijrah (emigrated) was that there was no manifestation of Islaam
within it upon the land or country level. If some of its symbolic practises did manifest then it was by the
permission of the non-Islamic power which held the reins of power and authority in that land … Just as
the Amaan (security) that the Muslims enjoyed in Al-Habashah was an Amaan provided by a non-Islamic
power i.e. it was an Amaan by way of Jiwaar (covenant of security) and protection.

Then when the Muslims migrated to Al-Madinah … the reality was different.

Islaam had manifested upon the level of the land or country and had reached the place of the Hukm (rule)
and Sultaan (authority) via the power of the Muslims themselves. The Kufr (disbelief), if some of its
manifestations appeared in Al-Madinah, only came to manifest due to the permission of the Muslims and
in accordance to the Dhimmah (covenant of protection) afforded to them, within the legislative set remits.
It was therefore the opposite of the situation in Makkah and the other places.
- Similarly, the Amaan (security) that the Muslims enjoyed in Al-Madinah was an Amaan based and reliant
upon the Islamic power which protected them internally and externally. The Amaan of the disbelievers
came to be an Amaan (security) granted to them by the Muslims by way of the Dhimmah and covenant.
Again, that was the opposite to the situation in Makkah and other places.

As such, we perceive from the distinguishing differences between the reality of Makkah and other places
prior to the Hijrah (emigration) and the reality of Al-Madinah following the Hijrah, that there are two
matters, which through their fulfilment, Al-Madinah became Daar ul-Islaam and they are: First: The
manifestation of Islaam (1) meaning that the ruling system in the land was the Islamic system. Second:
The Muslims enjoyed the Amn (security) which was reliant upon the power of the Muslims themselves.

In summary, is that Al-Madinah, after the Hijrah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was Daar ul-Islaam alone to the
exclusion of all the other parts of the world. It was distinguished from all of the other lands of the Dunyaa
by the ruling by Islaam and by the Amaan (security) which is self-produced (i.e. it is in their hands
themselves). This matter is sufficient as an evidence to indicate that any land does not become a Daar of
Islaam, and is not described as being a Daar of Islaam, unless it is by that which made Al-Madinah
become a Daar of Islaam. Consequently, the land does not become a Daar of Islaam except by fulfilling
these two conditions: The ruling by Islaam and the self-produced or emanating power belonging to the
Muslims. That power by which they are enabled to accomplish two matters:

- The first: To impose the ruling by Islaam over the land (Daar).
- The second: To extend protection over it and provide the security (Amn) within it.

- As for the opinion that the land can be described as being a Daar of Islaam if it only rules by Islaam,
even if the condition of the Amaan being secured by the Muslims themselves …

- Or that the power controlling the land is held in the hands of the Muslims and even if they have not
ruled by Islaam …

In respect to these opinions, then all of them are contrary to the reality of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah
which did not become a Daar of Islaam except by fulfilling two matters: The Hukm (ruling) by the whole
of Islaam completely and the Islamic security which is self-produced (or emanating from the Muslims).

Therefore, the meaning of this is that if one of these matters is absent within a land, then it would not be
a Daar of Islaam.

[(1) The meaning of ‘Zhuhoor’ (manifestation) is: Gaining dominance, power and rule (“Al-‘Ibrah Bimaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazw Wa-
sh-Shahaadati Wa l-Hijrah”: p236).

Indeed, it is obligatory upon the Muslims in the occupied land or in the land in which a faction of non-
Muslims from the sons of the land have control over its military power or it is held by Muslims but they
refuse to make Islaam the ruling system in the land … In all of these realities, it is obligatory upon the
Muslims in these lands for there to be Muslim judges from them to judge in their affairs and to declare
(openly) the symbols of their Deen like the Jumu’ah, the two ‘Eids and Salawaat (prayers), as much as
possible (1). However, that does not mean that the land would be a Daar of Islaam through that.

In addition, what has been established, in terms of the necessity of the presence of the ruling by Islaam
and the presence of the Amaan (security) in the hands of the Muslims, for the land to be a Daar of Islaam,
is what has been understood from the speech of the Fuqahaa’ who spoke in detail about this Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy issue).

The following is a summary of what was mentioned in “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer and its Sharh”, restricting
ourselves to what is needed whilst seeking to be concise:
“If Muslim soldiers were to enter Daar ul-Harb (land of war) … And descend upon a town from its towns
… Then if they refuse to embrace Islaam, the Muslims then invite them to give the Jizyah … And then
they accepted … But refuse for their land to be transformed … And they said: We will remain in our
(current) situation (or location) and will not leave. Then if the Muslims, when they stand with them (i.e.
those who responded) are stronger than the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) who were those who were
holding back from them. Then there is no problem for the Ameer to make them (i.e. those who accepted)
a Dhimmah (people under covenant i.e. non-Muslim subjects) and to appoint an Ameer over them from
the Muslims whole rules by the ruling of the Muslims and to provide alongside the Ameer Muslims who
are capable of staying with them in their Daar (homeland). That is because the acceptance of the Jizyah is
Waajib (obligatory. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

And by applying the Hukm (rule) of Islaam over them they become Dhimmah (i.e. Ahl udh-Dhimmah)
and their town or city becomes a town or city (Madeenah) of Islaam. That is because Daar ush-Shirk
only becomes Daar ul-Islaam by the application of the Hukm (rule) of the Muslims amongst
them. And the people of Shirk only become Ahl udh-Dhimmah by the application of the Hukm
(rule) of the Muslims over them … If the Muslims leave amongst them people from amongst the
Muslims who are stronger than the Mushrikeen of Ahl ul-Harb, if the Ahl udh-Dhimmah assist them …
Then, in such a case, the Ameer should not do that due to two angles: The first: This would expose the
Muslims to death in the case where the Ahl udh-Dhimmah are disbelievers and the Muslims are not
secure or safe from them betraying them and killing them”.

- “And if the Muslims were not capable of applying the rule of the Muslims except by the acceptance and
approval of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then it will be the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who will be (in effect) applying
the Ahkaam of the Muslims, whilst the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Muslims are not implemented or applied
except by the Muslims” (2).

[(1) Refer to “Haaashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/391, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its explanation”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-
Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/2190-2193].

This Fiqhiy text establishes a number of matters related to our Mas’alah (issue):

1 - That the lands of the disbelievers become a Daar (land) of Islaam by the mere application of Islaam
over them and even if its people were from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. This means that it is necessary to
make the lands submit to the Islamic system for it to become a Daar of Islaam. Therefore, if the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) were to stipulate, for instance, that the Islamic Ahkaam not be applied over them and not
over their lands, so as to become Ahl udh-Dhimmah and hand over their lands, upon that basis, to
become a part of the Daar of Islaam, that condition will not be accepted from them, they would not
become Dhimmah by that and their land would not become a Daar (land) of Islaam. That is because the
Aayah of the Jizyah (At-Taubah: 29) has stipulated, for the state of war to end with the disbelievers, which
means for their lands to be changed from being A Daar of Kufr to a Daar of Islaam… the Aayah has
stipulated that they give the Jizyah “willingly” (‘An Yad) whilst they are “humbled” (Saaghiroon) i.e. that
the Islamic rule be implemented over them and over their lands. If this condition is not fulfilled those
disbelievers will remain as “Harbiyyeen” (those at war) and their Daar (homeland) will remain as a Daar of
Kufr (disbelief) and Harb (war.

2 - Another matter understood from the text of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” quoted above, is that
it is a Shart (condition) of the Islamic rule, when it is implemented upon the land which is desired to make
into a Daar of Islaam, for there to be behind it a Quwwah (power) that implements it and that this power
is the power of the Muslims. That is so that if the Ahl udh-Dhimmah rebel against the Islamic rule, the
Islamic power would be sufficient to subdue them.

3 - The third matter understood from the text of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, is that the Shart
(condition) of the Amn (security) extended over the land that is desired to make a Daar of Islaam, is for
the main power (Quwwah), that is provided to the people of the land, is the power of the Muslims. That is
where if non-Muslims participated in this power or force, then they would represent a secondary power or
force that is subservient to the primary or main power and force. That is where it would not affect the
Muslim force’s capability to provide protection and to enforce the Amn (security) if this secondary force
was to withdraw from its participation or even if it was to rebel against the Muslims. The Islamic force
would be capable, in this case, to deal with it and subdue it.

In summary, we understand from the text of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, is that a number of
Shuroot (conditions) are necessary (if we wanted detail) for it to be valid to describe a land as being a Daar
of Islaam. They are:

- That the Hukm in the land is the Islamic Hukm (ruling).

- That there exists a power (Quwwah) that implements this Islamic ruling.
- That the power of force (Quwwah) that implements the Islamic rule is a power of the Muslims.
- That there is Amn (security) extended over the land.
- That there is a Quwwah (force or power) that provides this security (Amn).
- That the Quwwah (force) which extends security over the land is a force of the Muslims in an
independent form or in a main and primary form.

If one of these Shuroot (conditions) was absent it would not be valid to describe the land as being a Dar
of Islaam.

Now, if we were to return back to the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to his last steps related to the
establishing and founding of a Daar of Islaam in Al-Madinah until he established it i.e. the Islamic State
(1) … If we were to return to that, we would see an affirmation of what we have understood from the text
that we quoted from “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”.

- The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not move to Al-Madinah and establish Daar ul-Islaam within it except
after he took hold of the reins of the controlling power over Al-Madinah by his hand, as realised in the
second Bai’ah of Al-‘Aqabah.

Through that, he ‫ ﷺ‬guaranteed the internal security for his Madinah and the implementation of the
Islamic rule within it as a result of this power.

- Similarly, he took a pledge from the people at the second pledge (Bai’ah) of Al-‘Aqabah to wage war
against “The red and the black of mankind” (i.e. anyone) who let themselves think about attacking Al-
Madinah … In that way, he also assured and guaranteed the external protection for Al-Madinah due to
this Quwwah (power or force).

- Then when he moved to Al-Madinah and established Daar ul-Islaam within it, he only established it
upon the basis of the Islamic rule alone and even in respect to the foreign relations and the resolving of
disputes that arose between Daar ul-Islaam and the independent Jewish entities located around Al-
Madinah. The basis of the Hukm (ruling) in its was the Islamic system alone in accordance to what Allah
‘Azza Wa Jalla judged and what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬judged. The following is some of what had
been indicated to within the text of the “Saheefah Al-Madinah”: “… And what happens between the
people of this Saheefah (document) in terms of incident or dispute, and its corruption (or ill-effects) are
feared, then its reference point for resolution is to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and to Muhammad the Messenger
of Allah ‫( ”… ﷺ‬2).

By that, we have come to the end of the first point of the Mas’alah of Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr.
We now move on to the second point.

[(1) The Islamic State is what the Fuqahaa’ have expressed to be Daar Islaam (“Majmoo’ah Buhooth Fiqhiyah”, Dr. Abdul
Kareem Zaidaan: p50), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/242)].

The second point: Who are the Muslims who belong to Daar ul-Islaam and those
who belong to Daar ul-Kufr?

The answer: The Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Islaam are those who have taken Daar ul-Islaam as their
homeland that they are affiliated to and reside in it permanently, even if it is permitted for them to travel
to other lands for any purpose like trade, to receive medical care, to make a visit or an excursion or to seek
knowledge amongst other such purposes. That is regardless of the length of time they are away from the
Daar of Islaam during this travel as long as the affiliation to it is not broken or disrupted and as long as
the stay of the traveller in other than Daar ul-Islaam is a temporary stay irrespective of its length and he
has not taken the other land as a permanent homeland where he holds its citizenship and belongs to it.

Likewise, the Muslims who belong to Daar ul-Kufr are those who have taken other than the Daar of
Islaam as a permanent homeland (Watan) which they are affiliated to and even if they leave to visit the
Daar ul-Islaam before returning to their lands, whether that visit was lengthy or short.

The affiliation to Daar ul-Islaam or he non-affiliation to it, is understood from the Hadeeth related by
Buraidah in which it is said: “Call them to Islaam. If they respond positively, then accept that from
them and refrain from (fighting) them. Then call them to move from their Daar (land) to the Daar
of the Muhaajireen (emigrants i.e. Daar ul-Islaam). And inform them, that if they do that, then
they will have what the Muhaajireen have and it will be due upon them what is due upon the
Muhaajireen. If they refuse to transform (i.e. their land), then inform them that they will be like
the Muslim Arabs (i.e. Bedouins). The Hukm (ruling) of Allah that applies upon the Muslims
applies upon them and they will not share anything in terms of the Ghaneemah and Fay’ (spoils
and booty) unless they undertake the Jihaad with the Muslims …” (1).

In this text, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬requested from the people of Daar ul-Kufr, if they accepted Islaam, to move
from their land to the Daar of the Muhaajireen which was the Daar of Islaam. That was so that they could
enjoy the rights of the citizens that those affiliated to that Daar (land) enjoyed. However, it did not force
that upon them and explained to them that they will be deprived of those rights if they have not affiliated
themselves to the Daar of Islaam by moving from their land to it and permanently residing within it.

In addition, the Sahaabah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to travel outside of Al-Madinah, which
was Daar ul-Islaam, to the lands of Kufr; either for the purpose of Al-Qitaal (fighting) or for the purpose
of trade … The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions also travelled to Makkah for the purpose of performing
the ‘Umrah whilst it was still Daar ul-Kufr. They were not however able to enter it and the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬convened the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyyah with the Quraish …

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1731 (3/1357)].

They then travelled to it again in the following year, according to what was stipulated in the treaty, whilst
it was still Daar ul-Kufr, and he remained within it for some days. Consequently, these travels and the
temporary staying in Daar ul-Kufr did not break off their affiliation or belonging to the Daar of Islaam.
From the previously quoted Hadeeth related by Buraidah and from the reality of the travel of the Muslims
of Al-Madinah to Daar ul-Kufr and their temporary stay within it … from this Hadeeth and this reality,
we comprehend that the Muslims were of two categories:

- A category that belonged to Daar ul-Islaam and they are those who took Daar ul-Islaam as a Watan
(homeland) for themselves, even if they travelled and resided in other than it temporarily. They are called
citizens (Muwaatinoon) of the Islamic State in the convention of speech enjoying the Islamic citizenship
(Jinsiyah or Taabi’iyah).

- A category that does not belong or is not affiliated to the Daar of Islaam. They are those who have taken
other than Daar ul-Islaam as a homeland for them … And even if they travelled to Daar ul-Islaam for
temporary residence before returning to their lands which they are affiliated to. They are called, according
to the conventions of speech, citizens of the foreign states in which they live and for which they hold
citizenship.

With that we have reached the end of the discussion of the second point concerning this Mas’alah (issue)
and now move on to the third.

The third point: What is the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to defending Daar ul-
Islaam and the people of Daar ul-Islaam?

The answer is that defending Daar ul-Islaam is Waajib against any aggression or assault that threatens it
and we have already presented the Adillah (evidences) concerning the obligation of responding to (or
repelling) the aggression generally, in addition to the evidences for the obligation of responding to the
aggression against Daar ul-Islaam specifically and we also presented many of the texts of the Fuqahaa’
related to this.

It is likewise an obligation to defend the people of Daar ul-Islaam according to the dictates of the general
texts concerning defending the Muslims as a whole and he specific texts about the people of Daar ul-
Islaam specifically … according to how this was explained earlier.

It is worth mentioning that the aggression against the people of Daar ul-Islaam is realised whether that
aggression took place whilst they were in Daar ul-Islaam or in other than Daar ul-Islaam, where they were
Musta’mineen (granted security) in the other lands and had entered them for temporary residence, for any
purpose from amongst possible purposes, or if they were upon the high seas or higher stratums of the
atmosphere which are not subservient to the rule of anyone … Therefore, in any location or place in
which the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam are aggressed against, it would represent an aggression that would
oblige a response.

This is in addition to the Shar’iyah texts concerning the defence of the people of Daar ul-Islaam and their
lands. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬included an article in the “Saheefah” (document) of Al-Madinah concerning the
people if Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Islaam, and rising to support and assist them against any aggression.
The following was stated in the “Saheefah”:

“… And that between them is (the duty to) support against those who make war against the people of this
Saheefah (document) ... and that (the duty of) Nasr (support) exists between them if Yathrib is attacked”
(1).
The fourth point: If Muslim lands are not Daar ul-Islaam, from a terminological
(Istilaahiy) perspective, what is the Hukm in respect to defending them and those
belonging to them?

Concerning this point, we will first establish some concepts just as we will revisit some of what has been
established previously about the description that the land in which Muslims live deserves in accordance to
different considerations … That is to prevent any ambiguity that may arise from mixing or confusing
between those different lands and then I respect to the stance or position that must be taken when
aggression takes place upon this or that land of the Muslims … Those concepts are the following:

1 - Daar ul-Islaam: It is the land that rules by Islaam and its Amaan is fulfilled by the Amaan (security) of
the Muslims.

2 - Daar ul-Kufr: It is the land that does not rule by Islaam and even if the Amaan (security) was fulfilled
by the Amaan of the Muslims. Or it rules by Islaam but its Amaan is not realised by the Amaan (security)
of the Muslims. Or it does not rule by Islaam and its security (Amaan) is not in the hand of Islaam or
Muslims.

3 - Islamic lands that do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam: Such a land is Daar ul-Kufr from the
perspective of the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention). It is that land in which a Shart (condition)
of ruling by Islaam is missing or a Shart (of) self-produced Amaan is absent, or both of them together.
These lands are not called Daar ul-Islaam but rather they are called “Bilaad Islaamiyah” (Islamic lands).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 2/242)].

That is if one of two cases is affirmed in respect to them:

- The first case: That previously in history the land entered into the territory of the Muslims o submitted
to the Islamic rule. That’s even if the disbelievers gained possession over it after that and all of its
population or most of them came to be non-Muslims like in Andalus. The term “Islamic lands” is applied
to them due to what they were and due to the consideration of what they must be. That is because
regaining them from the hands of the occupying disbelievers has been a Fard (obligation) upon the
Muslims since the time that they were occupied. This Hukm Ash-Shar’iy does not fall from the Muslims
due to the time that has elapsed.

- The second case: If all of the inhabitants of the land or the majority are currently Muslims. And
applying the word or term “Islamic lands” upon them in this situation is a clear matter. That is because
the lands are a property or possession of those who inhabit them and they are Muslims in their entirety or
in majority.

Therefore, in respect to the Muslims in the world:

- They either belong to Daar ul-Islaam, irrespective of its presence today or its absence according to the
different views concerning that.

- Or they belong to Daar ul-Kufr from the lands (or countries) of Kufr i.e. non-Islamic lands.

- Or they belong to Daar ul-Kufr from the Islamic lands.

Our discussion here relates to this third category of Muslims.

i.e. Concerning the Muslims belonging to “Islamic lands” other than Daar ul-Islaam and what is the
Hukm in respect to defending them and the Islamic lands?
And the answer, is that these Islamic lands, even if they are from the perspective of their rule or their
security called Daar ul-Kufr according to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention), they
nevertheless remain a possession (or dominion) of the Muslims. The Hukm in respect the Milk (property
or possession) of the Muslims, is that it is obligatory to defend them from any assault or aggression that
befalls them by the disbelievers, whether that attack was against their property or land and countries. That
is because the Nusoos (texts) related to the obligation to repel the aggression are general texts that cover
and encompass everything that is a Haqq (right) or Milk (possession) of the Muslims. The Muslims are not
excused from the obligation of defending the lands because they have been named or categorised as a
Daar (land) of Kufr or a Daar of Harb (war) in accordance to the terminological convention (Istilaah).

That is whilst there are some Islamic thinkers who believe that naming these Islamic lands as Daar ul-
Harb or Daar ul-Kufr, leads to the Muslims excusing themselves from the responsibility to defend them
against the aggression … just as leads to the neglect of other obligations.

Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy said concerning this:

“Which of these two invites the most to the undertaking of the Waajib (obligation) of this Deen upon our
necks (i.e. in terms of responsibility)?

- That we say: That these lands have become Diyaar Harb (homelands of war) upon which we would relax
from all responsibility and we will not burden ourselves with the obligation of restoring the land, or with
responding to and repelling the enemy or rise up to undertake the obligation of Al-Hisbah (accounting)
i.e. ordering the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar, or gather the people together as a collective or to
seek council and opinion concerning the affair of Islaam and the Muslims.

- Or we say: (As the Salaf have agreed upon by consensus!) That these lands are still Diyaar (homelands)
of Islaam! That is because they entered, one day, under the control of the Muslims and their authority …
It is therefore a duty upon us, in such a case, to restore and regain that which the enemy has stolen or
usurped from us like Palestine and other lands, and to liberate what has fallen under the authority of the
colonialists and usurpers (Mutasalliteen) …?” (1).

I say: It is hoped that the distinction that we presented between Daar ul-Islaam and the Daar of Kufr
(disbelief) which is in the lands of the disbelievers and the Daar ul-Kufr that is in the Muslim lands which
has been called as such from the perspective of its systems and Amaan (security) …

- It is hoped that the distinction between these categories of lands answers the question found in the
speech of Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy and eradicates the fears that he expressed and
provides comfort to him in terms of the alleviating the concerns of reaching the warned about
conclusions that he pointed to. That is because, as we have established, it is obligatory to defend the
Islamic lands because they are lands belonging to the Muslims and even if they are called and classified as
being representative of a Daar of Kufr (disbelief) or Harb (war).

[(1) “In this way let us invite to Islaam” (Hakaadha Falnad’u Ilaa l-Islaam), Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p95].

Just as it is obligatory upon the Muslims in these lands, as we pointed to earlier as well, to manifest as
much as they can in terms of the Sha’aa’ir (symbols and practices) of their Deen and to practise as much
as they possibly can of that which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made obligatory upon them in terms of
Waajibaat (obligations) (1). From among those Waajibaat obligated upon them is the defence of the
Muslims and the lands of the Muslims.

In respect to the one who reads the like of the following statement mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa
Sharhuhu”:
“By the mere appearance (or manifestation) of the Ahkaam of Shirk (polytheism or disbelief) in the land
(or town/city/province etc.) when the people of Harb (war) dominate over it, it becomes a Daar of Harb
(homeland of war)”.

I say: If someone reads a Fiqhiy text like this and then imagines “Palestine” or other lands as an example
of what he is reading, it is not possible for it to come to his mind that the Faqeeh and writer of this
statement intends from this statement, or that it is permitted to understand from his speech, that the
Muslims are excused from defending “Palestine” or other similar lands because of it having become a
Daar of Harb, due to an understanding taken from this Fiqhiy text, as a result of the manifestation of the
Ahkaam of Shirk (disbelief) and the dominance of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) over these lands.

In addition, concerning the one who says that it is obligatory for the Muslims to fight the enemies in the
original Daar ul-Kufr and Daar ul-Harb, whilst those enemies are the people of that land, but yet it is still
obligatory upon the Muslims to fight them for the purpose of making them submit to the rule of the
Muslims …

Would not such a person say, by greater reason, in light of this logic, that it is obligatory upon the
Muslims to fight the enemies within the Islamic lands which used to be Daar ul-Islaam and then became a
Dar of Harb (homeland of war), for the sake of restoring the Hukm (rule) of the Muslims?

As long as it is obligatory to fight the enemies in their own lands, then fighting them in the Muslim lands
which they have occupied or want to occupy, is of greater right to be done and worthier.

And saying other than that means: That when the crimes of the enemies become greater, the Muslims
judgement upon them lightens or lessens, which is the opposite to the simplest logic of matters.

I mean: The crime of the enemies when they occupy the lands of the Muslims is more terrible than them
being held up in their own lands, whilst they are disbelievers or whilst they are aggressing disbelievers.

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/391, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-
Shaibaaniy and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 1/251].

Consequently, if the Fuqahaa’ have stated the obligation of fighting them whilst they are within their own
lands and not mobilising or moving towards the Muslim lands to occupy them … Then is it possible for
those same Fuqahaa’ to say that the obligation has fallen in respect to fighting them when they assault or
aggress against the Muslim lands by way of occupation?

Based upon this, what is understood from the speech of some of the Islamic thinkers in respect to if the
Islamic lands are called a Daar of Kufr or Harb, that the consequence resulting from this naming, is the
opinion that it is not obligatory to defend these lands against the aggression, then this speech and view
merely represents a fear emanating from the earnest Islamic emotion which is praised in the one who
possesses that. However, there is no justification for such a fear, as I view it, within the scope of the
Fiqhiy Ijtihaad in respect to naming some of the lands as being a Daar of Islaam or a Daar of Kufr, in the
manner that has been explained.

This is what relates specifically to the issue of defending the Islamic lands which are a Daar of Kufr from
the perspective of their (applied) systems or security, or both together.

As for what relates specifically to the defence of Muslims in these lands, then the defence of the Islamic
lands from aggression taking place against it is also at the same time a defence of its Muslim people and
indeed a defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah as well. The Adillah (evidences) for the obligation of
defending against the aggression apply upon the Islamic lands and upon those Muslims and Ahl dh-
Dhimmah within them.

The fifth point: What is the Hukm of defending the Muslims residing in Daar ul-
Kufr which are the lands of the disbelievers?

Here in this point we are addressing Daar ul-Kufr which is the land of the disbelievers and there is a
Muslim minority living and residing within it.

In this case, the aggression against a Dar of Kufr, in the form of it being occupied for example, by another
disbelieving state, would not constitute an aggression against the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam.

Similarly, it does not constitute an aggression against the Muslims residing in this Dar of Kufr, in their
description as Muslims (i.e. being specifically targeted because they are Muslims). Whatever the situation,
they are living under a disbelieving authority, whether it represented a natural authority from the people of
the land or it was an occupying authority from outside of the land. That is whilst the Walaa’ (loyalty) of
the Muslims within the land would not be to the disbelieving authority under any circumstances or
situation.

These lands which the disbelievers have gained control over are not a Daar of Islaam nor are they Islamic
lands which in the past had entered into the Islamic territories, for the aggression against them to then
represent an aggression against the Muslims in their Diyaar (homelands) or their Bilaad (lands), which
would make it obligatory to rise up to defend.

This is what relates to the aggression against the Daar of Kufr of the lands of the disbelievers (Bilaad ul-
Kuffaar).

As for what relates to the aggression against the Muslims residing within the Daar ul-Kufr of the lands of
the disbelievers, then this aggression could originate from the state that those Muslims belong to. And it
could originate from the people of the lands that they are residing in just as it could come from a foreign
state. In all of these cases, the aggression against those Muslims represents an aggression against the
Muslims which obligates the provision of aid and support (Nusrah) to them. Those Muslims who
undertake the provision of Nusrah (support) are of two kinds or categories:

- The first category: The Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Islaam and residing within it.
- The second category: Those Muslims who do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam but rather reside within Daar
ul-Kufr.

- As for the first category: They are the Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Islaam and residing within it. It is
obligatory or them to provide the Nusrah (support) to the Muslims who belong to Daar ul-Kufr and are
being aggressed against.

That is within the following Shuroot (conditions):

1 -That the aggressed against Muslims request the Nusrah (support) from the people of Daar ul-Islaam.
2 - That the subject area that they have requested the support for is a matter related to the Deen.
3 - That there does not exist between Daar ul-Islaam and the Daar ul-Kufr which is aggressing against the
Muslims, a peace treaty that obliges the cessation of fighting between them.
4 - That there does not exist a Maslahah (interest) in leaving the provision of Nusrah to the Muslims in
Daar ul-Kufr that is stronger than the Maslahah (interest) of providing that Nusrah.
The first three conditions are understood from the Aayah of An-Nusrah in Soorah Al-Anfaal which was
discussed at the beginning of this study section that we are. Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َ‫ك‬ َ ‫ص َُرواَأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬

َ ‫واَو َن‬
َّ ‫َآو‬ َ ‫ِين‬َ ‫َِوالَّذ‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ِ ‫واَبأ َ ْم َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬ ِ ‫ُواَو َجا َه ُد‬ َ ‫اجر‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
َ ‫واَو َه‬ َ ‫َإِنَّ َالَّذ‬
َ‫َۚوإِ ِن‬
َ َ‫ىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬ َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬
َٰ ‫َحََّت‬ َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِجرُواَ َماَلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬ َ ‫َۚوالَّذ‬ َ َ‫ض‬ ٍ ْ‫ض ُه ْمَأَ ْولِ َياءَُ َبع‬
ُ ْ‫َبع‬
َ‫ونَبَصِ ير‬ َ ُ‫َُب َماَ َتعْ َمل‬
ِ ‫َۗواللَّـه‬
َ َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫صرُو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬ َ ‫اسْ َتن‬
Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who
gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you in respect to the Deen, then you
must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty
(Al-Anfaal: 72).

The fourth condition is understood from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertaking the Sulh (treaty) of Al-
Hudaibiyah which stipulated leaving the provision of Nusrah (support) to the Mustad’afeen (weak and
oppressed) in Makkah which was Daar ul-Kufr. That is because he viewed the Maslahah (interest) of the
treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah in relation to the Islamic Da’wah to be stronger or greater that the Maslahah
(interest) of continuing the provision of Nusrah to the weak and oppressed of Makkah by continuing to
fight Quraish and attempting to save the Muslims amongst them through that, as will be elaborated upon
later.

The Aayah of An-Nusrah (in Soorah Anfaal) is therefore an address to the Muslim Muhaajireen i.e. those
who belong to Daar ul-Islaam; the Daar of the Muhaajireen in Al-Madinah. It establishes the cutting of
Muwaalaah (protection and alliance) between the Muslims in Daar ul-Hijrah (i.e. Dar ul-Islaam) and the
Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Kufr, except in respect to one matter. That is the provision of Nusrah from
the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam to the Muslims of Daar ul-Kufr, according to the previously stated
conditions:

- The first condition that the Nusrah has been requested: “َ‫صرُو ُك ْم‬ َ ‫”وإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
َ (And if they seek help of you) and
the second condition that the matter that they are requesting assistance and support for is a matter related
َِ ‫صرُو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
to the Deen: “‫ين‬ َ ‫( ” َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬And if they seek help of you in respect to the Deen) i.e. if they seek your
help and support because for example their states have forbidden them from opening Masaajid or have
forced their women to take off their Shar’iy Hijaab, amongst other matters related to the Deen … then it
is Waajib (obligatory) to provide the Nusrah (support and help) to them in respect to these matters.

That is in contrast to the case when the subject over which the call for support was made is a matter that
is a Munkar (evil and denounced matter) in the Deen. That is like if they were to have requested support
because their states have not provided them with licenses to open bars or alcohol shops or that they
haven’t recognised their nationalistic roots within the nationalities of the land … or any matter that the
Deen denounces. Consequently, there is no provision of Nusrah in respect to such matters.

- And the third Shart (condition) for the obligation of responding to the call for Nusrah, is the condition
َ ‫إِ َّال‬
of the absence of a peace treaty between the Daar of Islaam and the Daar of Kufr (disbelief): “َ‫َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍم‬
‫( ” َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty).

- And the fourth condition is indicated by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬agreeing to leave the Qitaal (fighting) against the
Daar of Kufr (disbelief) in Makkah according to the provisions of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, even
though the disbelievers had been persecuting some of the Muslims in Makkah before the treaty and
continued to do so following it.

- As for the condition of there being a request from those who are being aggressed upon, then this is a
Shart Mafhoom (understood condition), upon the basis that they are the people who are facing the
problem and they are the most qualified to evaluate the situation or circumstances and the danger of what
is befalling them in terms of oppression and assault which may call for the Nusrah to be requested and for
the intervention of the Islamic State to take place with its military forces to apply pressure upon the
aggressors, which by its nature will remove the aggression from them. Or they may see that presenting the
request for Nusrah be delayed … Therefore, the matter is assigned to them to decide and so this was the
condition that was stipulated.

- As for the Shart (condition) that the matter, upon which the call for Nusrah was made, be a matter of
the Deen, then this is also a Shart Mafhoom (understood condition). That is because the Qitaal (fighting)
against the Kuffaar is only the Qitaal in the way of Allah to make the word of Allah high … And “the way
of Allah” does not exist in supporting a matter which Allah, who legislated this Qitaal, has made a
Munkar. And raising Allah’s word high does not take place except by supporting people who are seeking
to accomplish that which Allah has commanded.

- As for the condition of the non-existence of a peace treaty between the Daar of Islaam and the Daar of
Kufr, then that is because faithfulness and abidance to the treaties and covenants with the disbelievers is a
sacred obligation in Islaam and this matter will be discussed in the forthcoming studies of this paper.

- As for the condition that the Maslahah of leaving the provision of support to the Muslims in Daar ul-
Kufr being greater or stronger than the Maslahah of providing that support, then this is also a Shart
Mafhoom (understood condition). That is because the “Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah”
represents the pivot upon which the relations of Daar ul-Islaam with the Daar ul-Kufr revolves around, in
respect to both peace and war. Therefore, if peaceful relations were greater in the scale of interest, then it
must be followed. In this there is a Nusrah (support) for the Islamic Da’wah and the Muslims as well, in
the long-term if not in the short-term. This is where the loss of a short-term interest is delayed for an
expected interest which brings greater good (in the long -term) and an interest which is outweighed to be
greater in the scale of interests rather than prioritising the short-term interest without paying regard to the
consequences! That was affirmed in the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, where the result of that was the
abandonment of the provision of support to the weak and oppressed (Muslims) in Makkah, according to a
superficial short-term view. However, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was aiming, through the treaty, to isolate Makkah in
respect to the ongoing struggle between the Daar of Islaam and the other Mushrikeen in addition to the
remaining Jews in the Arabian Peninsula. That was until the struggle came to an end with this front by
their acceptance of Islaam, surrender or eradication. Then, the attention would be turned to Makkah
which would certainly feel, in such a situation, that it was now alone in this struggle with Daar ul-Islaam,
and that perhaps this would invite them to enter into what the other people had entered in to (1).

[(1) This is indicated to in the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “What prevents them (Quraish) from freeing the path between
me and the rest of the Arabs. If they (the Arabs) defeat me, then that is what they (Quraish) desired and if Allah makes me
prevail over them, they would enter into Islaam in crowds …” Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/25)].

And if that did not take place like that (i.e. the people of Makkah did not embrace Islaam by themselves),
then the struggle of Daar ul-Islaam, in this case, with Makkah by itself without the support of its old allies
whose affair had come to an end, would be easier and more assured of accomplishing the final victory
against them. That would also as a result accomplish and realise the provision of the Nusrah to the
Mustad’afeen (weak and oppressed Muslims) within Makkah and support the Islamic Da’wah at the same
time. Therefore, the convening of the Sulh (treaty) with Quraish, did not then contain the meaning of
abandoning the Mustad’afeen (weak and oppressed) but rather, in truth, it meant drawing a better map or
plan for mobilisation that would in the end of the matter lead to the provision of Nusrah to Islaam that
guaranteed the Nusrah to the weak and oppressed in Makkah. That is exactly what actually came to pass
as is well-known from the narrative of the events of the conquest of Makkah, by providing the Nusrah to
the weak and oppressed and as an answer to their call for support and help:
 َ ‫اَواجْ َعلَلَّ َناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬
‫كَ َنصِ يرا‬ َ ‫َواجْ َعلَلَّ َناَمِنَلَّ ُدن‬
َ ‫ك ََو ِل ّي‬
And bring for us from Yourself a protector and bring for us from Yourself a helper?" (An-Nisaa’: 75).

It is worth pointing out here that the discussion in this study is still within the scope of the Qitaal
(fighting) against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) due to the ‘Udwaan (aggression) undertaken against the
Muslims. However, that does not cancel the right of Daar ul-Islaam in respect to fighting Daar ul-Kufr to
make it submit to the Islamic rule, when the circumstances and possibilities permit that, even if the
Muslims residing in those lands have not requested their Nusrah (support) against the aggression befalling
them, or even if aggression had not befallen them within the Daar of Kufr. That is because the Muslim’s
fighting against Daar ul-Kufr for the purpose of making it submit to the Islamic rule represents another
Sabab (reason) for the legally legitimate Qitaal other than the reason of defending against the aggression,
as will be explained in greater detail later. The above the, is what is connected to the Muslims of Daar ul-
Islaam providing Nusrah (support and assistance) to the Muslims of Daar ul-Kufr.

- As for the second category of Muslims who provide Nusrah to their Muslim brothers of Daar ul-Kufr,
then they are those Muslims who do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam. These are also Muslims addressed and
charged with the Shar’iyah legal responsibilities (Takaaleef) like the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam. Those
responsibilities include Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah and the Mustad’afeen (weak) and oppressed men.
Women and children … The Daleel for that is what was mentioned within the Hadeeth related by
Buraidah, in respect to the Muslims who do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam being deprived of the rights of
citizenship, including the right to have a share of the Ghaneemah and Fay’ (spoils and booty). The
Mujaahideen were excluded from that as they deserve a right to their share of the booty and spoils due to
their participation in the Jihaad and even if they did not belong to Daar ul-Islaam. The following was
stated in the Hadeeth of Buraidah:

“They will not have anything of the Ghaneemah and the Fay’ unless they undertake Al-Jihaad
with the Muslims” (1).

However, because these Muslims do not belong to the Daar ul-Islaam they are not restricted by the peace
treaties between Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr. They are therefore free of this restriction in the case
where it is their right to fight in defence of the Muslims who are being aggressed against within Daar ul-
Kufr. Indeed, that is the case even if those being aggressed against belong to the same land that the
Muslims defending them belong to and in doing so they fight against their state that they belong to. The
evidence for that is found in “Abu Baseer” and his group who were of the people of Makkah and (yet)
fought against the disbelievers of Makkah whilst it was a Daar of Kufr during the period of the treaty of
Al-Hudaibiyah. They did not consider themselves as being bound to and restricted by the peace treaty that
was made between Daar ul-Islaam (Al-Madinah) and Daar ul-Kufr (Makkah) … That is whilst the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not rebuke that act of theirs (2).

Based upon this we understand that the provision of Nusrah (support and help) to the Muslims, wherever
they may be located under different nationalities, and defending them from any aggression befalling them,
is one of the Shar’iyah obligations due to the general evidences concerning repelling the aggression from
the Muslims within the scope of the conditions that we explained earlier.

The sixth point: What is the Hukm if the Muslims abandon the provision of the
Nusrah (support) to their brothers residing in Daar ul-Kufr?

The answer: It is that if those Muslims who belong or are affiliated to the Daar ul-Kufr are abandoned by
the other Muslims or those other Muslims fail to provide them with support whilst they (the Muslims in
Daar ul-Kufr) were not able to fulfil the Deeniy obligations that Allah had made obligatory upon them, or
they were coerced or forced to undertake the Munkaraat (deplorable acts) which Allah had made Haraam
(prohibited) for them … then in such a case, they must make Hijrah (migration) from Daar ul-Kufr to
Daar ul-Islaam or to any other land in which they are capable of fulfilling the (Waajibaat) obligations and
keeping away from the Muharramaat (prohibitions). That is if they are capable of doing that. If they were
not capable or it was not possible for them to make this Hijrah then they are considered to be coerced
and excused: “And the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Ikraah (compulsion or coercion) upon that which is less than
Kufr is the Hukm of Al-Ikraah upon the Kufr (disbelief)” (3).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, (2) Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/31 and 38). Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/141-143, (3)
“Al-‘Ibrah Feemaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazw Wa-sh-Shahaadah Wa-l-Hijrah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy: p252].

And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said according to what Ibn ‘Abbaas (‫ )رضيََّللاَعنهما‬related:

َ ‫ِيَعنَأ ُ َّمت‬
َ ‫ِيَالخ َطأ َ ََوال ِّنسْ َي‬
َ‫ان ََو َماَاسْ ُت ْك ِرهُواَ َعلَ ْي ِه‬ َ ‫َّللاَ َت َج َاو َزَل‬
َ َ َّ‫إِن‬
Verily Allah has overlooked for me from my Ummah the mistake, forgetfulness and what they
were coerced upon (1).

And the issue of Al-Hijrah (migration) is the subject area of the third and final issue of this current study.

The third issue:

What is the Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Hijrah (migration) from Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam or other
than it?

The Hijrah (migration) from Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam or to other than Daar ul-Islaam, where the
Muslim is enabled to establish (or fulfil the requirements of) his Deen, does not have one Hukm (legal
ruling) for it. Rather, there are many Ahkaam (rulings) according to the difference in circumstances and
conditions which surround it. We will now gather these different Ahkaam mentioned by the Fuqahaa’ in
the following:

1 - The Hijrah is Fard (obligatory) and abandoning the Hijrah (migration) is Haraam dictating
sinfulness. That is in one of three cases or situations:

A - The inability to undertake the Shar’iyah responsibilities (Takaaleef) (2).

B - The fear of Al-Fitnah from the Deen (i.e. that you will be taken away from your Deen or pressured to
abandon it) and even if the capability exists to undertake the Shar’iyah responsibilities (Takaaleef) (3).
C - Or if the Imaam requests it from him so as to strengthen his authority (4).

[(1) An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadeeth: Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy: Hadeeth no. 39, p85. An-Nawawiy said: “Hadeeth Hasan”. Related
by Ibn Maajah, Al-Baihaqiy and others. The Hadeeth was also verified as Saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and it is in “Mawaarid Azh-
Zham’aan”: 1498, p360. In the Sunan of Ibn Maajah: 2043 (1/659) and no. 2045 is similar to it on the same page. Al-Albaaniy
said: “Saheeh” [Saheeh Ibn Maajah] 1662 and 1664, 1/347-348, (2) Al-Mughniy, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/514, (3) Mughniy Al-
Muhtaaj, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/239, (4) Nail ul-Awtaar, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/29].

The Daleel (evidence) for the Wujoob (obligation) of Al-Hijrah and the Tahreem (prohibition) of
abandoning it, is understood from the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ضََۚ َقالُواَأَلَ ْم‬ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬

ْ ‫ِينَف‬ َ ‫َال َم َال ِئ َك ُةَ َظالِمِيَأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَ َقالُواَفِي ََمَ ُكن ُت ْمََۖ َقالُواَ ُك َّناَمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ْ ‫ِينَ َت َو َّفا ُه ُم‬
َ ‫إِنَّ َالَّذ‬
َ ‫كَ َمأْ َوا ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َج َه َّن ُم‬
ْ ‫َۖو َسا َء‬
‫تَ ََمصِ يرا‬ َ ‫َِواسِ َعةَ َف ُت َها ِجرُواَفِي َهاََۚ َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
َ ‫َت ُكنْ َأَرْ ضُ َاللَّـه‬
Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were
you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land". The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough]
for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination (An-Nisaa’: 97).
- The author of “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah” said:
“It is said: The intended meaning of this “earth” (i.e. in the statement: “was not the earth spacious
[enough] for you”) is Al-Madinah whilst “Al-‘Umoom” (generality) is preferable because the consideration
is given to it (i.e. the generality of the wording) and not to the Khusoos (specificity) of the Sabab (reason),
as is the truth (i.e. correct). Therefore, the intended meaning of “the land” is every place from the places
of the earth that is suitable for Hijrah to be made to” (1).

- And the following was stated in Al-Mughniy by Ibn Qudaamah:

“
َ ‫كَ َمأْ َوا ُه ْم‬
َ َ‫َج َه َّن ُم‬
ْ ‫َۖو َسا َء‬
‫تَمَصِ يرا‬ َ ‫َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
(For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination)

This is a severe threat (or promise of punishment) indicating to the obligation (Al-Wujoob). And it is
because the undertaking of the obligation of the Deen is an obligation upon the one who is capable of
undertaking it whilst the Hijrah is a necessity of the Waajib to complete it - And that which the Waajib is
not completed (or fulfilled) except with it, is Waajib (an obligation)” (2).

- And in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy:

And in respect to the opinion that:

ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
َ‫ض‬ ْ ‫ِينَف‬
َ ‫ُك َّناَمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
“We were oppressed in the land”

Means: The people of Makkah. It would be an invalid excuse if they were capable of finding the means
and a path was made available to them. Then the angels took a stand against them in respect to their Deen
when they said:

َ ‫أَلَ ْمَ َت ُكنْ َأَرْ ضُ َاللَّـه‬

َ‫َِواسِ َعة‬
"Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough]? …”

This question and answer establishes that they died as Muslims transgressing against themselves due their
abandonment of the Hijrah (i.e. for not emigrating) …” (3).

- And in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy:

َ ‫“( ”أَلَ ْمَ َت ُكنْ َأَرْ ضُ َاللَّـه‬Was not the earth of Allah spacious
“‫“( ” َقالُوا‬They said”): i.e. the Malaa’ikah (Angels). “َ‫َِواسِ َعة‬
[enough]?”) … i.e. to leave to go to another region or place of the earth that you are capable of establishing
the matters of your Deen within just like those who migrated to Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) did and to Al-
Madinah …” (4).

There are also some rejected opinions that mention that leaving the Hijrah, when having the capability to
undertake it, is considered to be a Riddah (apostacy) from Islaam.

[(1) “Al-‘Ibrah Feemaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazw Wa-sh-Shahaadah Wa-l-Hijrah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy: p216, (2) Al-
Mughniy, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/514, (3) Jaami’ ul-Bayaan LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan: Al-Qurtubiy: 5/346, (4) Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy Fee
Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-Azheem Was Sab’a Al-Mathaaniy, Al-Al-Aalousiy: 5/126].

- In “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas the following was stated: “Al-Hasan Bin Saalih: … If the Harbiy
(i.e. someone from Daar ul-Harb) embraces Islaam and resides in their land (i.e. Daar ul-Harb) whilst
being capable of leaving, then he is not a Muslim …” (1). He then said: “… As for the statement of Al-
Hasan Bin Saalih in respect to the Muslim being a Murtadd (apostate) if he joins or is attached to Daar ul-
Harb, then that is contrary to the Kitaab (i.e. Al-Qur’aan) and the Ijmaa’ (consensus). That is because
Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫ِّنَو َال َيت ِِهمَمِّنَ َشيْ ٍء‬

‫َح َّت ٰىَ ُي َها ِجرُوا‬ َ ‫واَولَ ْمَ ُي َها ِج ُرواَ َماََلَ ُكمَم‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no Wilaayah (protection and support) for them until they
emigrate (Al-Anfaal: 72).

He therefore classified them as believers even though they resided in Daar ul-Harb after having embraced
Islaam and He made it obligatory for us to provide them with assistance and support:

‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ ر‬

ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek help of you in respect to the Deen, then you must help (Al-Anfaal: 72)” (2).

In addition, the Hadeeth of Buraidah contains within it: “Then invite them to move from their lands
to the Daar of the Muhaajireen … Then, if they refuse to move from them, then inform them that
they will be like (i.e. of the same status as) the Arabs (i.e. Bedouins) …” (3). This Hadeeth
establishes that not undertaking the Hijrah, in spite of the capability to do so, is not considered to be
Riddah (apostasy) or Kufr (disbelief).

The Haqq (truth or correct view) is that when the Hijrah was made obligatory in the mentioned
circumstances and then the Muslim leaves that which was made obligatory upon him, he would be sinful.
Then if leaving that Hijrah led to the Fitnah and being stripped of the Deen, then in such a case it would
represent Riddah (apostacy) and Kufr (disbelief).

It is upon these situations, in which making Hijrah is obligatory and not undertaking it is Haraam, that the
Ahaadeeth that prohibit the Muslim residing within Daar ul-Kufr, are understood. That is like the
statement of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬related by Samurah Bin Jundab:

َ‫ك ََو َس َك َنَ َم َعهَُ َفه َُوَم ِْثلُ ُه‬

َ ‫َمنْ َجأ َم َعَال ُم ْش ِر‬
Whoever associated with the Mushrik and lives with him is like them (4).

And in another related version:

َ‫َجا َم َع ُه ْمَ َفه َُوَم ِْثلُ ُه ْم‬

َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِر ِكَي َن ََو َالَ ُت َجا ِمعُو ُه ْمَ َف ََمنْ َ َسا َك َن ُه ْمَأَ ْو‬
ْ ‫َالَ ُت َسا ِك ُن‬
Do not live among the Mushrikeen, and do not assemble with them, because whoever lives
among them or associates with them, then he is like them (4).

And like the statement of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬as related by Jareer Bin Abdullah:

ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬
َ ‫ََّللا ََو ِل َمَ َقا َلَ"َالََ َت َرا َياَ َن‬
‫ارا ُه َما‬ َ ‫َ َقالُواَ َي‬.َ"َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫أَ َناَ َب ِريءَمِنْ َ ُكلَِّمُسْ ل ٍِمَ ُيقِي ُمَ َبي َْن ََأَ ْظه ُِر‬
َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬
“I am free from every Muslim that lives among the idolaters” They said: “O Messenger of Allah:
How is that?” He said: “They should not see each other's campfires” (5).

[(1) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 3/216. Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 5/126. Nail ul-Awtaar: 8/29, (2) Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-
Jassaas: 3/219, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, (4) At-Tirmidhiy: 1605, 4/156. Jaami’ ul-Usool: 6/667. Adh-Dhahabiy said: Its Isnaad
is ‘Muzhlim’ (murky), Al-Hujjah (proof) is not established by the like of it. Nail ul-Awtaar, Ash-Shawkaani: 8/27-28, (5) Abu
Dawud and At-Tirmidhiy but Al-Bukhaari, Abu Haatim, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhiy and Ad-Daaru Qutniy verified its Irsaal
(reaching) to Qais Bin Abi Haazim. Nail ul-Awtaar: 8/27-28. Refer to: Jaami’ ul-Usool: 4/445. Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 4/155 and
the Sunan of Abi Dawud: 3/122 (2787)].
In respect to this it was said: “It means: It should not be in a place or situation where the fire of each of
the two (i.e. Muslims and Mushrikeen) opposite to the other in a manner where if one was seen the other
would also be seen (at the same time) by the eyes. The affirmation of seeing the fire is therefore Majaaz
(metaphorical)” (1).

“And it is said: “Its meaning is that it is referring to the Naar (fire) of war. He says: Their two fires are
different; this one calls to Allah and this one calls to Shaytaan, so how can they come together and how
can they (i.e. Muslims) live with or amongst them in their lands, whilst this is the condition of those and
this is the condition of these (i.e. they are opposite to one another)” (2).

2 - The second Hukm (ruling) from among the Ahkaam of Al-Hijrah is that it is Mandoob
Mustahabb (recommended) and not Waajib. That is in respect to the one who is capable of
undertaking the Hijrah and is enabled or capable of manifesting his Deen within the Daar of Kufr
(disbelief).

- When explaining the reason for the recommendation of the Hijrah here and not its obligation Ibn
Qudaamah states in his “Al-Mughniy”: “To enable their Jihaad, to increase the number of the Muslims,
their support, to reduce the numbers of the disbelievers, and their mixing with them and seeing the
Munkar (evil acts) amongst them. And it is not obligatory upon him due to the possibility of establishing
the obligation of his Deen without the Hijrah” … He then goes on to say: “And we have related that
when Nu’aim An-Nahhaam wanted to migrate, his people of Banu ‘Adiy approached him and said to him:
“Stay residing amongst us and you can remain upon your Deen. We will protect you from the one who
wishes to harm you and suffice us with what you used to suffice us”. (He used to look after the orphans
and widows of Bani ‘Adiy). As a result of that, he put off undertaking the Hijrah for a period of time
before eventually undertaking it. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬then (at that time) said to him: “Your people treated you
better than my people treated me. My people drove me out and desired to kill me, whilst your people kept
you safe and protected you!” And so he (Nu’aim) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Rather, your people
expelled you to the obedience of Allah and to the Jihaad against His enemy whilst my people kept me
from making the Hijrah and from the obedience to Allah! Or he said something similar to that” (3)

3 - The third Hukm from the Ahkaam (legal rulings) of Al-Hijrah:

The dropping of the Wujoob (obligation) and Istihbaab (recommendation). This relates to the one
is “incapable of undertaking it (as the author of Al-Mughni stated), either due to illness, or being coerced
or forced to stay, or a weakness connected to women and children or what is similar to them. In respect
to this person there is no Hijrah for him due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫ُونَحِيلَة ََو َالَ َي ْه َت ُد‬

َ‫ونَ َس ِبيال‬ َ ‫َالَ َيسْ َتطِ يع‬ ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل َد‬
َ ‫ان‬ ْ ‫إِ َّال‬
َ ‫َالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬
Except for the oppressed among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan nor are they directed to a way (An-
Nisaa’: 98) (1).

4 - The fourth Hukm from the Ahkaam (rulings) of Al-Hijrah:

Istihbaab (recommendation) of a Muslim residing in Daar ul-Kufr and that is in the situation where there
is hope that Islaam will manifest via its establishment within the Daar of Kufr (2) or if a Maslahah (interst)
from amongst the Masaalih (interest) of the Muslims will result from his remaining within the Daar ul-
Kufr. The author of “Al-Mughni Al-Muhtaaj” related: “That the Islaam of Al-‘Abbaas (i.e. his embracing
of Islaam), May Allah Ta’Aalaa be pleased with him, was before “Badr” but he kept is concealed and
would write to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬about the news of the Mushrikeen whilst the Muslims had confidence (or
trust) in him. He had desired to go to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬but the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to him saying: “Your
staying in Makkah is good”. He then manifested his Islaam openly on the day of the conquest of Makkah”
(3).

5 - The fifth Hukm from the Ahkaam of Al-Hijrah:

The Tahreem (prohibition) of undertaking Al-Hijrah from Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam and
the Wujoob (obligation) of remaining in Daar ul-Kufr. That is “If he possesses the capability to
change or transform the Daar ul-Kufr that he resides in. into Daar ul-Islaam … That applies equally
whether he possesses the capability in himself, or within his being part of a bloc with other Muslims
within his land, or through seeking support and assistance from Muslims outside of his land, or through
cooperation with the Islamic State, or any means from amongst the different and various means … In
such a reality, it is obligatory upon him to work to make the Daar of Kufr a Daar of Islaam whilst it is
Haraam (prohibited) for him to make Al-Hijrah from it” (4). The evidence for this Hukm is that as long as
he capable of fighting the disbelievers and making the land that he is in submit to the Islamic rule, then
the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa applies to him:

ْ ‫ِينَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬

ِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬
َ‫ار‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent or close to you of the disbelievers (At-Taubah: 123).

[(1) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/514, (2) “Al-Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj BiSharh Al-Minhaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb:
4/239, (3) “Al-Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj BiSharh Al-Minhaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/239, (4) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-
Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani: 3/231-232].

- And it was mentioned in “Al-Mughni Al-Muhtaaj”: “If he is capable of Al-Imtinaa’ (protection i.e. of his
Deen and practice) in the Daar of Harb (land of war) or Al-I’tizaal (seclusion), then it is obligatory for him
to remain resident in it. That is because his location is a Daar (land) of Islaam and if he was to migrate it
would become a Daar of Harb and that is Haraam. Yes, if hoped to provide Nusrah to the Muslims by his
undertaking of Al-Hijrah, then it is better for him to undertake it. Al-Maawardiy said: “Then by his staying
in it he fights them upon Islaam and he calls them to it, if he is capable, otherwise, then no”” (1).

These are therefore the Ahkaam of undertaking Al-Hijrah from Daar ul-Kufr to Daar ul-Islaam or other
than Daar ul-Islaam (i.e. to another place) … according to the differences in conditions and
circumstances.

Consequently, concerning the Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Kufr, whether they were secure within that
land (Daar) or were falling under pressures by the actions of the disbelievers, whilst the other Muslims did
not undertake the provision of Nusrah (support and assistance) to them, they, as a whole or some of
them, fall under one of these Ahkaam that the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned in respect to the Hijrah
(migration) from a Daar of Kufr to other Daar.

By that, we have come to the end of the third issue and consequently we have reached the conclusion of
the third study in this chapter in which we have spoken about the “‘Udwaan” (aggression) in its
description as being a cause or reason (Sabab) from among the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in
Islaam. We now move on to the fourth study or topic.

[(1) “Mughni Al-Muhtaaj BiSharh Al-Minhaaj”, As-Sherbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/239].

 The fourth study

The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic
state), those who carry the same Hukm (legal verdict) as them and against the
Muslim allies outside of the category of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, is considered to be
an aggression against the Muslims.

Introduction: Concerning the Masaa’il (issues) included within this study.

The first issue: The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and those who are treated or dealt with
like the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

The second issue: The aggression against the allies of the Muslims of other states which have come
under the protection of the Islamic State.
 The fourth study

The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic
state), those who carry the same Hukm (legal verdict) as them and against the
Muslim allies outside of the category of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, is considered to be
an aggression against the Muslims

Introduction: Concerning the Masaa’il (issues) included within this study.

In this study, we want to establish that the “‘Udwaan” against the Muslims covers or includes, within its
Mafhoom (understanding), the aggression against those whom the Muslims have extended protection to,
even if they are not Muslims. The aggression or hostility against them, in this situation, represents a
violation of the Islamic Jiwaar (protection) that they have entered into and the security that they have
trusted in, within its sanctuary or area of protection (Rihaab). It is no wonder, then, that the Muslims to
oppose anyone who attempts to aggress against this Islamic protection, or attempts to belittle it or violate
its sanctity. It therefore opposes the one who dares to aggress against this protection in respect to their
blood or properties … It is no wonder, that the Muslims oppose anyone who aggresses against their
Jiwaar (protection) and those who have entered into their Dhimmah (covenant of protection as citizens)
and their Amaan (security). And so the Muslims defend them just as it defends their own lives and
properties.

Those whom the Muslims extend their protection to are of two types or categories:

1 - Ahl udh-Dhimmah: Meaning: The non-Muslims who are from the people of Daar ul-Islaam and like
them are those who are treated with according to the treatment offered to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. They
include the Musta’mineen (those granted security and safety) and the Muwaadi’een (those of treaty).

2 - Al-Hulafaa’ (allies): States and independent entities which have entered into a defensive alliance with
the Islamic State which stipulates that the Muslims protect those states and entities against the foreign
aggression that threatens them.

Based upon what we have introduced we will divide this study into two Mas’alah’s (issues):

The first issue: The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and those who are treated like the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah.
The second issue: The aggression against the allies of the Muslims from the states and entities which
have entered under the protection of the Islamic State.

The first issue: The aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and those who are
treated like the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

This issue does not concern the detailed discussion about the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and those who are
treated as they are like the Musta’mineen (those possessing security) and Muwaadi’een (those of treaty).
Rather, this issue specifically relates to addressing the issue of defending all of those from the aggression
that takes place against them from other states, under the consideration that such an aggression represents
an aggression against the Muslims that must be met by a response, be repelled and defended against.

This issue branches into three points:

1 - Defending the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, absolutely without restriction, whether they were in the Daar of
Islaam or in other than Daar ul-Islaam.

2 - Defending the Muwaadi’een (those of treaty) inside of Daar ul-Islaam.

1 - The first point: Defending the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, absolutely without restriction,
whether they were in the Daar of Islaam or in other than Daar ul-Islaam

The basis upon which the Muslims defend the Ahl udh-Dhimmah is: The ‘Aqd (contract) of the
Dhimmah that was made with them upon the basis of the payment of the Jizyah and their becoming a
part of the people of Daar ul-Islaam, which must be defended alongside everyone who belongs to it,
naturally.

- As for defending them due to the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah upon the basis of the payment of the
Jizyah, then this is guided to in the statement of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (May Allah be pleased with him):
“They only paid the Jizyah so that their properties become like our properties and their blood like our
blood” (1) i.e. Just as it is obligatory to defend the properties and blood of the Muslims it is likewise
obligatory to protect the properties and blood (or lives) of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

[(1) “Al-Mughni”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/623. “Ad-Darr ul-Mukhtaar BiSharh Tanweer Al-Absaar”: 3/344].

In respect to what the Jizyah is given in exchange for, the following was stated in the Tafseer of “Al-
Aalousiy”:

“… It could be answered (i.e. why is the Jizyah given) is that it is instead of the Nusrah of the fighting
undertaken by us and due to this difference or disparity (i.e. to make up for it). That is because it is
obligatory upon everyone from the people of Daar ul-Islaam to provide Nusrah (material support) by life
and property. And in the case where it (the Nusrah) is not suitable for the disbeliever due to his
inclination towards the people of war due to the (shared) Aqeedah (belief), (in this case) the taken Jizyah is
directed towards those fighting, in place of it (i.e. the non-participation of the non-Muslims subjects of
Daar ul-Islaam)” (1).

This is in the case where the Jizyah, from which the contract (‘Aqd) of Dhimmah results, represents the
basis of defending the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.
- As for defending them due to them being from the people of Daar ul-Islaam then that is due to the
Aayah of Al-Jizyah:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرَِّم‬ ِ ِ ‫َباللَّـهَِ َو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

This Aayah has stipulated, for the fighting to stop against the disbelievers, that they give the Jizyah by
hand (or willingly) whilst they are “Saagiroon” (humbled) (2). This means that their Daar (homeland)
becomes a part of Daar ul-Islaam as a result of their giving the Jizyah and their submission to the Islamic
rule. It is then not allowed to fight against this land (Daar) but rather it then becomes obligatory to defend
it, just like it is obligatory to defend any part of the Daar of Islaam. It also means that the people of Al-
Jizyah have become part of the citizens or subjects of Daar ul-Islaam whom it is obligatory to defend juts
like it is obligatory to defend the Muslims of Daar ul-Islaam.

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: “Daar udh-Dhimmah is part of the
whole if Daar ul-Islaam” (3) and it was also mentioned in the book: “Ahl udh-Dhimmah are from the Ahl
(people) of our Daar (homeland)” (4).

In addition, the Aathaar (reports) and the texts of the Fuqahaa’ have affirmed the obligation to defend the
Ahl udh-Dhimmah just like the defence of the Muslims. It was related that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (May
Allah be pleased with him) said: “I exhort the Khalifah who comes after me to treat the Dhimmah of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬well, to be faithful to them in respect to their covenant, to fight behind them
(i.e. in support and defence of them) and to not overburden them above their capacities” (5).

[1) “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”, Al-Aalousiy: 10/80, (2) “‫صغَار‬

َّ ‫( ”ال‬As-Saghaar): “It means to apply the Hukm of Islaam over them”, As-
Shaafi’iy, “Al-Umm”: 4/207. And “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/346, (3) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, Al-Imaam
Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy and Al-Imam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1703, (5) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid: p62. “Al-
Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: p135 and “Al-Kharaaj” by Yahyaa Bin Aadam Al-Qarshiy: p71].

The meaning of “Fighting from behind them” is: That you provide them with Nusrah (support) and
defend them against any assault or aggression that befalls them.

- The following are also some of the statements of the Fuqahaa’ related to this:

- Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in his book “Al-Umm”:

“The Imaam should make evident to them (i.e. the Ahl udh-Dhimmah), that if they are in the lands of
Islaam or between the backs of the people of Islaam individually or collectively (i.e. in their security and
protection), that is then a duty of his to protect them from being made captive by the enemy or being
killed by him, that he (the nemey) is prevented from that by the Muslims” (1).

And it was stated in “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: “And if the Ahl ul-Harb attack the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and take
their properties and then the Imaam (i.e. of the Muslims) defeats them and takes back what they took
from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then it is obligatory upon the Imaam to return that to them” (2).

- And in Al-Maawardiy’s “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”:

“Two rights must be adhered to as a result of their giving it (I.e the Jizyah): The first: To refrain from
fighting them. The second: To provide protection to them so that they are safe and secure by the
refraining and guarded by the protection. An-Naafi’ related from Ibn ‘Umar: It was from the last of what
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬spoke about that he said:

ُ ‫اِحْ َف‬
‫ظواَفِيَ ِذمَّتي‬
Preserve (and take care) of my Dhimmah (i.e. covenant with the Ahl udh-Dhimmah) (3).

And in “Al-Mughni” of Ibn Qudaamah:

And if he (i.e. the Imaam) contracts the Dhimmah, then he must protect them from the Muslims, the Ahl
ul-Harb and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, because he has committed himself to their preservation and
safekeeping by the covenant” (4).

We will now quote some extracts from “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” related to defending the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah:

“It is obligatory to provide Nusrah (material support) to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah if they are subjugated if
we are strong enough to do so” (4).

“And the Ahl udh-Dhimmah … are like the Muslims … And so the Hukm (ruling0 in respect to their
properties if they are seized is just like the Hukm of the Muslims” (6).

[(1) Al-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 5/207, (2) Al-Muhadh’dhab, Abu Is’haq Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/256, (3) Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah,
Al-Maawardiy: p143. The hadeeth is in the book “Al-Kaamil”, Ibn ‘Adiy: 3/1081, (4) Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/623, (5)
“As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 2/688, (6) As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer and its Sharh”: 4/1299].

“The Ahl udh-Dhimmah become from us in respect to the Daar (homeland) and they have committed
themselves to the Ahkaam of Islaam in respect to that which returns to the Mu’aamalaat (societal
transactions). It is therefore obligatory upon the Imaam to provide Nusrah (material support) to them just
as it is obligatory to provide the Nusrah to the Muslims” (1).

“If those who gain the upper hand against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah come across the people of preventative
force (Ahl ul-Mana’ah) of the Muslims in Daar ul-Harb, then it is a duty upon them (Muslims) to rescues
the Ahl udh-Dhimmah from their grasp and they cannot do except that and even if the upper hand is
gained against the Muslims … And if they (i.e. the Muslims) were in the Amaan (covenant of security) of
the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war i.e. Daar ul-Kufr) … They must cancel the covenant and fight to protect
the children or descendants of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah just as they fight in defence of the Muslim children
or progeny” (2).

The above reflect some of the texts of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Mas’alah (issue) of defending the
Ahl udh-Dhimmah in respect to their lives and properties.

That is while the aggression against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah could occur from enemies whilst they are
inside Daar ul-Islaam and it could occur whilst they are Musta’mineen (granted a security) in other lands,
just as the aggression could take place against them in regions which do not fall under the rule (or
authority) of anyone, like upon the high seas and the high mountain tops etc. In all of these circumstances
or situations this aggression against them represents an aggression against the subjects of Daar ul-Islaam
which makes it obligatory upon the Muslims to adopt measures to defend them just as they are obliged to
defend the Muslims, in exactly the same manner without difference.

As for abandoning the provision of defence whilst possessing the capability to provide it, then that would
represent a negligence in relation to their preservation and safekeeping and would represent assisting the
enemy in its oppression of them, whilst Islaam has warned against both of these matters.
That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬has commanded that they be preserved (protected) and safeguarded:

ُ ‫اِحْ َف‬
‫ظواَفِيَ ِذمَّتي‬
Preserve (and take care) of my Dhimmah (i.e. covenant with the Ahl udh-Dhimmah) (3).

Just as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬warned about oppression (Zhulm) against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah when he said:

َ َ ‫َمنََْ َظلَ َمَ ُم َعا َهداَأوَ َكلَّ َفهَُ َف ْو َقَ َطا َق ِتهَِ َفأ‬
‫ناَح ِجي ُجهَُ َي ْو ُمَال ِق َيا َمة‬
Whoever oppresses (or transgresses against) a Mu’aahad (someone under covenant), or burdens
him beyond his capacity, then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgement (4).

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1854, (2) “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 5/1755-1756, (3) “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p143. The Hadeeth is from the
book “Al-Kaamil” of Ibn ‘Adiy: 3/1081, (4) “Al-Kharaaj”, Ibn Yousuf: p135. “Al-Kharaaj”, Yahyaa Bin Aadam Al-Qarashiy:
p71. And it was related by Abu Dawud in his Sunan: 3052, 3/231 and the statement ‘Anaa Hajeejuhu” means I will dispute
with him and bring evidence against him].

We hope that it will be beneficial to transmit some paragraphs from “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah” (Cyprus
letter) that Ash-Sheikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah wrote to the Christian King of Cyprus concerning the
good treatment of Christian captives from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah whom the Tatars had made captive. Ibn
Taymiyah, after inviting the King to Islaam said: “It is most strange that the Christians take captive a
people by betrayal or without betrayal, when they have not fought them. That is whilst Al-Maseeh (‘Isa
(as)) said: “Whoever strikes you on the right cheek then turn your left towards him and whoever takes
your cloak, then give him your shirt” (1). “… How can you seek to make lawful that you gain control over
those who were taken by betrayal and you feel secure upon this in respect to the Muslims retaliating for
some of this and you are deceived, whilst Allah is their support and helper? … Then in addition, the
Muslims have men who sacrifice themselves to assassinate kings in their beds! And upon their horses …!
And those Tatars, in spite of their numbers … when the Muslims unleash their anger upon them, they will
be surrounded in the land in a manner great than what can be described …” (2). “And all of the Christians
have come to know, that when I address the Tatars in respect to releasing the captives and to set free
Ghaazaan (3) …and then they set free the Muslims, he said to me: But we have with us the Christians
whom we took from Al-Quds and those will not be released. So I said to him: rather, you must release all
those you have of the Jews and the Christians who are from the people of out Dhimmah. That is because
we will surely have them freed and we will not leave a (single) prisoner, not from the people of our belief
and way (Millah) and not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. We have (already) freed of the Christians whom
Allah has willed and this is our (chosen) action and seeking of what is the best conduct, and the
recompense is from Allah” (4).

This is what is related to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in respect to providing them with the Nusrah, defending
them and rescuing them from the grasp or hand of oppression and aggression whilst they are treated and
dealt with exactly like Muslims are.

[(1) “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah” (The Cyprus letter), Ibn Taymiyyah within “A collection of beneficial and important letters”:
p254, (2) Same reference: p252, (3) “Ghaazaan Mahmoud” (1295-1304) the Sultaan of the Mongols (Mughals) who embraced
Islaam (Al-Munjid in the section of names), (4) “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah”, Ibn Taymiyah: p247, (5) “As for the Musta’min”:
He is the one who comes to the lands of the Muslims without residing in it” (i.e. as a permanent resident or citizen). “Ahkaam
Ahl udh-Dhimmah”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/475].

2 - The second point: Defending the Musta’mineen (5) in Daar ul-Islaam against
the foreign aggression.
The Musta’min (someone granted security) is treated, as long as he is in Daar ul-Islaam, according to the
treatment of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in respect to the obligation of defending them. That is because when
they are in Daar ul-Islaam they fall under the Wilaayah (protection and guardianship) of the Imaam. That
is because it is a duty upon the Imaam to defend everyone who is under his Wilaayah (guardianship_. The
following are some of the Fiqhiy texts explaining this Hukm (ruling):

- The following was stated in different places in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “The original
position is that it is obligatory upon the Imaam of the Muslims to provide Nusrah (material support) to
the Musta’mineen as long as they are in our Daar (homeland) … That is because they are under his
Wilaayah (guardianship and protection) as long as they are in Daar ul-Islaam. Consequently, their Hukm is
the same as the Hukm of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah” (1).

“And if a people from the Ahl ul-Harn who have Mana’ah (preventative or military force) enter our land
with an Amaan (security) and they stipulate that we protect them with that which we protect the Muslims
and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then we must abide by and be faithful to this condition” (2).

“And if the Musta’mineen (those granted security) in our Daar (homeland) are a people who possess no
Mana’ah (military power or force) … Then the Imaam must repel from them in terms of Zhulm
(oppression and transgression) that which he repels from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah …” (3)

“And if those who have come out against them are from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) … come across
a Mana’ah (preventative or military force) belonging to the Muslims in Daar ul-Harb, then they must rise
to provide support (Nusrah) to them and rid them of them just like the right of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
…” (4).

The above is related to defending the Musta’mineen within Dar ul-Islaam.

3 - The third point: Defending the subjects of citizens of the states who have a
treaty or covenant (Mu’aahadah (1)) in Daar ul-Islaam against the foreign
aggression.

Those subjects are also treated and dealt with in accordance to the treatment of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah in
respect to the obligation of defending them. That is because they are in realty Musta’mineen according to
the dictates of the peace treaty that has been made with their states. As long as they have entered Dar ul-
Islaam according to that treaty that dictates that, then they are under the Wilaayah (protection and
guardianship) of the Imaam and it is obligatory upon him, in this case, to protect them just like he protects
anyone who is under his Wilaayah.

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, Al-Imaam Muhammad bin Al-Hasana dn Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1853, (2) The
same source: 5/1857, (3) The same source: 5/1858, (4) The same source: 5/1859, (5) These are called: Al-Muwaadi’een or Ahl
ul-Hudnah, or Ahl us-Sulh or Al-Mu’aahideen … They are those who have made a treaty (Sulh) with the Muslims upon the
basis that they are in their lands, whether it is a Sulh (treay) over Maal (property/finance) or other than that. The Ahkaam of
Islaam are not applied over them. If they enter Daar ul-Islaam for a temporary residence in accordance to the dictates of that
treaty they come to fall under the Wilaayah (protection and guardianship) of the Imaam (Ibn ul-Qayyim -“Ahkaam Ahl udh-
Dhimmah”: 2/475) and “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 5/1891].

Concerning this, the following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”:

“We have already explained that in respect to the Musta’mineen amongst us, that if they are not from the
people of Mana’ah (preventative or military strength), then their situation or case is the same as the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah concerning the obligation of the Ameer (leader) of the Muslims to provide them with
Nusrah (material support) and to repel the Zhulm (oppression and transgression) from them, because they
are under his Wilaayah (guardianship and protection). Do you not see or view that it was obligatory upon
the Imaam and the Muslims to follow them to save them from the hands of the Mushrikeen who have
overpowered them before they have reached their strongholds and towns, just like it is obligatory for
them to do that if the Muslims were to be overcome or the Ahl udh-Dhimmah …? The same applies if
those Musta’mineen were from the Daar ul-Muwaada’ah (land of treaty) who had entered our land upon
the premise of that treaty” (1).

This is what has been said concerning the right of the citizens or subjects (Ri’aayaa) of the states which are
bound with the Islamic State by a peace treaty if they enter Daar ul-Islaam according to the Hum (ruling)
of that treaty and concerning their treatment in respect to providing Nusrah (material support) to them
and defending them against the foreign aggression just like the Muslims and Ahl udh-Dhimmah of Daar
ul-Islaam are treated and dealt with. With that we have come to the end of the first Mas’alah (issue) of this
current study and we now come to the second Mas’alah (issue).

The second Mas’alah (issue): The aggression against the allies of the Muslims from
other states and their citizens from those who enter under the protection of the
Islamic State.

The discussion about the Mu’aahadaat (treaties) and Ahlaaf (alliances) that can be made between the
Islamic State and others, and what is permitted in respect to them and what is not permitted, will be
discussed later within its own volume of this doctorate or thesis.

However, what concerns us here, is that if the Islamic State saw that it was from the Maslahah (interest) of
the Islamic Da’wah to enter into an alliance with some other non-Islamic states, which dictates that the
Muslims defend those states against the foreign aggression against them … and then the aggression falls
upon those allied states, then is it obligatory upon the Muslims to rise up to defend those states which are
being aggressed against?

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1891-1892].

The answer: We have already explained that the aggression against those whom the Muslims have
extended their protection to, actually represents an aggression against the Muslims themselves, a violation
of the sanctity of their provided protection (Jiwaar) and a contempt against their covenants (or promises).

Due to that, defending those states and their citizens upon aggression has fallen, represents a defence of
the inviolable sanctities (Hurumaat) of the Muslims. That is because the contracts of the treaties between
the Muslims and others are from the sacred inviolable sanctities which the Muslims are no permitted to
have any neglect in or abandon their preservation and protection:

ِ ُ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَأَ ْوف‬

َ‫واَب ْال ُعقُو ِد‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَاَلَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fulfil [all] contracts (Al-Maa’idah: 1).

In addition, some Mu’aahadaat (treaties) have been recorded in the Prophetic Seerah which the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
contracted with non-Islamic entities and which dictate that the Muslims undertake Nusrah (material
support) for those entities in defence of them if they were to be subjected to a foreign aggression.

- Included in those treaties was the treaty the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made with Bani Damrah:

The following is what came in the Muwaada’ah or Mu’aahadah (treaty) as recorded in the books of the
Seerah:
“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. This is a document from Muhammad, the Messenger of
Allah concerning Bani Damrah in which he has established for them safety and security in respect to their
wealth and lives. They can expect support from the Muslims against those who target them unless they
oppose the Deen of Allah. And that if the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬calls them to support him they will respond. They
have by that a Dhimmah (protection) of Allah and a Dhimmah of His Messenger ‫( ﷺ‬i.e. their security
[Amaan])” (1).

Ash-Sheikh Muneer Muhammad Al-Ghadbaan commented upon this alliance between Al-Madinah and
Bani Damrah saying:

“And even though Damrah was upon their Shirk (polytheism), the treaty stated the possibility of mutual
provision of support between the two sides. It was a commitment for protection from the side of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬if Bani Damrah were to be attacked whilst it included the possibility from the side of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬that they would require or ask for their support if Al-Madinah was to be attacked” (2).

[(1) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 2/134. Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/28. Banu Damrah were Banu Damrah Bin Bakr Bin ‘Abd Manaat Bin
Kinaanah. They were situated on the route between Makkah and Al-Madinah, closer to the coast. Refer to As-Seerah Al-
Halabiyah: 2/133-134 and the Atlas of Islamic History p85 map number 36, (2) “At-Tahaaluf As-Siyaasiy Fil Islaam” (Political
alliance in Islaam), Muneer Muhammad Al-Ghadbaan: p129].

- Also included among the treaties contracted by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to defend other non-Muslim entities, is
the Mu’aahadah (treaty) that was made between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and Khuzaa’ah and that was included
within the Sulh (treaty of) Al-Hudaibiyah which was contracted between Makkah and Al-Madinah. It was
an open treaty which allowed whoever wanted from the tribes of the Arabs to enter into it on the side of
Makkah or the side of Al-Madinah. Banu Bakr decided to enter with Makkah in alliance with it whilst
Khuzaa’ah chose to enter alongside Al-Madinah in alliance with it.

There had been old bad blood, retaliations and blood feuds between Bani Bakr and Khuzaa’ah, then when
this treaty took place, it dictated that all acts related to retaliation cease and all aggression from any party
of the two sides towards the other. Based upon that, any aggression from Makkah or its ally Bani Bakr
against Khuzaa’ah which was an ally of Al-Madinah would be considered to be equal to an aggression
against Al-Madinah itself which would oblige the Muslims in Al-Madinah to rise up to defend Khuzaa’ah
against that aggression.

Ibn ul-Qayyim discussed the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah and its two main parties; the people of
Makkah and the people of Al-Madinah and who joined to the side of these or the side of those. He also
discussed what was dictated by this treaty and stated the following: “It was his guidance and his Sunnah
‫ ﷺ‬that when he made peace with a people and made a treaty with them and then an enemy other than
them took sides with them and entered with them in the contract whilst another people took his ‫ ﷺ‬side
and entered alongside him in his contract - (that when this happened) - the Hukm of those who wage war
against those who entered with him in the contract of the disbelievers becomes like the Hukm (ruling) of
the one who wages war against him! And it was for this reason that he attacked the people of Makkah.
That is because when he made a peace treaty with them for war to stop between him and them for ten
years, Banu Bakr were enthused by it and so joined on the side of the Quraish and their covenant and
contract, whilst Khuzaa’ah were keen and so entered upon the side of the covenant and contract of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬.

Then Banu Bakr aggressed against Khuzaa’ah, they plotted against them and killed some of them whilst
Quraish assisted them with weapons under cover. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬considered
Quraish to be in violation of the covenant or treaty by that and deemed it permissible to attack Bani Bakr
Bin Waa’il due to their attack upon his allies …” (1).

And in another place, he stated: “It has been verified from him ‫ ﷺ‬that he made a treaty with the people
of Makkah to cease war between him and them for ten years and their allies of Bani Bakr entered
alongside them whilst his allies Khuzaa’ah entered alongside him in the treaty. Then the allies of Quraish
aggressed against his allies and betrayed them. Quraish approved and were content with that whilst they
did not denounce it.

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/138].

They therefore became in breach of the covenant (i.e. peace treaty) and it became Halal to attack them
without needing to throw back the treaty to them (i.e. officially declare its end) because they had become
of those who were engaged in war against him, breaking the covenant by their contentment and approval
to their allies in respect to their betrayal of his allies and (directly) provided assistance to them in that (act
of betrayal) (1).

The Nusrah (provision of material support) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to his allies of Khuzaa’ah who had been
aggressed against by Bani Bakr was clear following the conquest of Makkah when he ‫ ﷺ‬enabled his
allies who had been aggressed against to take retaliation and retribution themselves against those of Bani
Bakr, the allies of Quraish, who had attacked them.

It was recorded in the books of Seerah that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed on the day of
the conquest of Makkah: “Why did you fight and I had forbidden fighting? He replied: O Messenger of
Allah, they initiated the fighting, shot arrows and placed weapons between us. And I tried to hold back
and refrain as much as possible and called them to Islaam but they refused, until I found no choice except
to fight them and then Allah made us victorious over them and they fled in every direction … Then the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: Allah has decided the matter! He then said: refrain from the use of
weapons except for Khuzaa’ah in respect to Bani Bakr until Salaat ul-‘Asr! And it was the hour which has
been made Halaal for the Messenger of Allah” (2). And this hour which has been indicated to in the text,
is the hour which was mentioned in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said: “Allah has made
Makkah Haraam (i.e. an inviolable sanctuary) and it was not men who made it inviolable. And so it is not
Halaal for any person who believes in Allah and the Last Day to spill blood in it or cut down a tree. If
anyone provides a permission (i.e. to break that inviolability) due to the fighting of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬in it, then say: Verily, Allah gave permission to His Messenger and He did not give permission to
you. It was made permissible for me for only an hour (or few hours) of the day and then it returned to its
inviolability today just as it was the day before …” (3).

And the author of the book “At-Taahaluf As-Siyaasiy Fil Islaam” discusses the Nusrah of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
to his allies of Khuzaa’ah based upon the defensive alliance that was contracted between them within the
treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah. He says: “Waging war with Quraish is not a light or easy matter and yet despite
that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬proceeded in response to the covenants … And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬considered the
breaching of the covenant by its aggression against its ally sufficient to attack Quraish and conquer
Makkah …

[(1) Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 5/93, (2) As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 3/97, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 104].

… And the understanding of this stance is that the Muslim State could engage in war upon its widest
scope to protect an ally from its allies and even if this ally was Mushrik (polytheist). And similarly, if an
assault or aggression is confirmed against the non-Muslim and providing support existed based on the
agreement of alliance … However, the most powerful stance, we find it in the revenge or retribution
process for the Mazhloomeen (oppressed) via the permission to Khuzaa’ah to exact revenge or retaliate
against Bani Bakr, in the heart of Makkah … It represents a more far reaching meaning in respect to the
scales of faithfulness to the contracts than the conquest of Makkah. That is because the conquest
represented the accomplishment of a direct Maslahah for the Muslims without accomplishing the curing
of the breasts of the oppressed upon whom the aggression had befallen. As for the process of retaliation,
then it occurred as follows: … Then he said: O gathering of Muslims hold back your weapons except for
Khuzaa’ah against Bani Bakr until Salaat ul-‘Asr. And so they (Khuzaa’ah) struck against them for an hour
and that was what had been made permissible for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and had not been made
Halaal for anyone before him …” (1).

Following on, the defensive alliance that dictates that the Islamic state commits to defending other states
and their citizens could be free of any commitment or financial compensation provided by the state under
protection to the Islamic State in exchange for that protection. That is like what we saw in respect to the
alliance between Al-Madinah and Khuzaa’ah, just as it could also be provided in exchange for some
compensation.

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”:

“And if a people from the people of Harb (war), who possess Mana’ah (protective or military force) enter
our Daar (land) via an Amaan, then stipulated upon us that we provide them with protection …Then we
must abide by this condition … Similarly, if they made a treaty with us [i.e. they made a treaty with us
whilst remaining in their lands and not entering Daar ul-Islaam] upon a particular financial (remuneration)
with this condition [i.e. the condition that we protect them from their enemies]. It is the duty of the
Imaam to be faithful to them in respect to what has been stipulated over them, if he is capable of that.
And if he is not capable of doing that then he has no right to request anything from them in terms of a
financial remuneration that was stipulated. That is because they committed to that in return for protection.
Therefore, if they were unable to protect them they do not have the right to take anything financial from
them …” (2).

[(1) “At-Tahaaluf As-Siyaasiy Fil Islaam” (Political alliance in Islaam), Muneer Muhammad Al-Ghadbaan: p156-157, (2) “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1857].

And the book also stated:

“And if a people of Daar ul-Haarb made a treaty (Muwaada’ah) with the Muslims according to a known
annual Kharaaj (financial remuneration) upon the basis that the Muslims do not apply their Ahkaam
(rulings) over them and upon the basis of the Muslims protecting them from their enemies. And then
(after that), they are overcome by the Ahl ul-Harb and their women and children are taken as booty. And
then the Muslims come to their rescue after that. If rescuing them took place within the years of the
treaty, they would then return them (i.e. those they rescued) as free people as they had been. If, however,
it was after the time of the treaty, they would represent a booty for the Muslims … If the enemy fought
them within the years of the treaty whilst the Imaam was unable to support them materially, then he has
no right to take from them the stipulated Kharaaj (i.e. the financial remuneration). If he had already taken
it, then he must return what they gave to him unless he rescued that from them in the years of the
Muwaada’ah (treaty) … That is due to what we have explained in respect to the Kharaaj only being taken
in return for the Nusrah (provision of material support). If he was unable to provide the Nusrah (support)
in a sensed manner (Hissan) or according to the ruling (Hukman), he must return what he has taken from
them” (1).

The above represents what was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu” concerning our issue.

And the following was mentioned in “Mughni Al-Muhtaaj”:

“In respect to those who reside in Daar ul-Harb, if they give the Jizyah, whilst they do not have a Muslim
with them, then we do not have defend them decisively, unless defending them has been stipulated as a
condition. We are therefore obliged to abide by the condition and if we have failed to defend them when
we were obliged to do that, then there is no Jizyah due for the period in which there was no defence.
Then if the Imaam defeats those who attacked them and takes (or recovers) their properties, that which
has been found of their properties is returned back to them (i.e. to those who paid the Jizyah)” (2).

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah, concerning the stance of the Islamic State in respect to the fighting
that takes place between two non-Islamic states when one of those states is a defensive ally of the
Muslims, said the following:

“… In this circumstance or situation, it is not possible for the Muslims to take a position of neutrality.
The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬declared war against Quraish when they breached the treaty and attacked Khuzaa’ah who
had (previously) joined themselves to the treaty of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. Therefore, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬moved to
attck Quraish and conquered Makkah. And he said three times:

‫َألَ ْغ ُز َونَّ َقُ َريش‬

َ ‫َّللا‬
ِ ‫َو‬
By Allah, I am certainly going to undertake a military expedition against Quraish

Therefore, the obligation of abiding by and being faithful to the treaty or covenant is what made it
necessary for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to provide the Nusrah (material support). The same applied in respect to his
companions who came after him and those who followed them with Ihsaan (perfection). Silence, in such a
situation is considered to represent a breach of the ‘Ahd (covenant) and consequently neutrality is
forbidden. Indeed, there is no place for it because neutrality only exists when the stance in respect to the
two disputing sides is equal” (3).

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan and Al-Imaam As-Sarkhasiy: 5/1862-1863, (2)
“Mughni Al-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj”, Al-Khateeb Ash-Shirbeeniy: 4/253, (3) Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”: Ash-
Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p86].

The above represents what has been said in respect to the Muslims defending other states and their
subjects when the Islamic State is bound to them in a defensive alliance which the interests of the Islamic
Da’wah have called for.

By that, we have reached the end of the discussion concerning this Mas’alah (issue) and consequently we
have also come to the end of this fourth study of this chapter. We will now move on to the fifth study In
Shaa’a Allah.
 The fifth study

Is the aggression or Zhulm (oppression) falling upon certain groups of disbelievers,

from other than the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and other than the allies, considered to be a
Sabab (reason or cause) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal in
Islaam?

Introduction: A summarised determination of the categories of people which the aggression against them
is considered to be a Sabab (cause or reason) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam
… Then what the Masaa’il (issues) of this study are?

The first Mas’alah (issue): The position of the Islamic writers concerning the issue of defending the
disbelievers who are not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, those who carry their rule and also not from the
allies.

The second issue: The Adillah (evidences) of those who hold the opinion that the aggression against the
disbelievers, other than the Ahl ul-Kitaab, those who follow their ruling and other than the allies,
represents a Sabab (reason or cause) from among the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

The third issue: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this issue.
 The fifth study

Is the aggression or Zhulm (oppression) falling upon certain groups of disbelievers,

from other than the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and other than the allies, considered to be a
Sabab (reason or cause) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal in
Islaam?

Introduction: The categories of people upon whom an aggression against them is considered to be a
Sabab (cause) from amongst the Asbaab (causes) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam … and what are the
Masaa’il (issues) related to this study?

We have up until now become aware of the specific categories of people, whom if aggression befalls
them, that would represent a reason from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. Those
categories whom we have discussed in the prior studies were:

1 - The Muslims belonging to Daar ul-Islaam, whether the aggression befell them in this Daar (homeland)
of theirs or outside of it.

2 - The Muslims who do not belong or are not affiliated to Daar ul-Islaam according to particular Shuroot
(conditions) that we have mentioned within the third study of this chapter.

3 - Ahl udh-Dhimmah who belong or are affiliated to Daar ul-Islaam, whether the aggression took place
within this Daar or outside of it.

4 - Al-Musta’minoon (those granted security) from the disbelievers as long as they are present within Daar
ul-Islaam.

5- The Muwaadi’oon (those of treaty) as long as they are inside Daar ul-Islaam i.e. the subjects of non-
Islamic states which are tied to the Islamic state by Mu’aahadaat (treaties) of peace, if they enter Daar ul-
Islaam according to the dictates of those treaties.

6 - The non-Islamic states and entities along with their subjects or citizens from among the disbelievers
who are tied to the Islamic State by a defensive alliance obliging the Islamic State to defend them against
foreign aggression.

After having discussed these categories, there only remains for us to become aware of the Hukm (ruling)
in respect to these two categories which do not belong to the aforementioned ones. And they are:
A - The situation of a group of people, a minority or majority, over whom usurping rulers have taken
control, whether those rulers were from the people of the land or foreigners to the land. They then take to
ruling that group by a terrorising rule established upon arbitrariness, repressions, oppression and
aggression, letting out their deep malice or implementing an inhumane policy by which they hope to
accomplish particular interests which are specific to those usurper rulers and those affiliated to them.

B - The case of a weak or powerful state that is being attacked or aggressed against by a more powerful
state that desires to occupy it and plunder its natural resources or wealth and eliminate its men who stand
against its designs.

These two cases or scenarios fall outside of the six cases that we have spoken about. Concerning them:

- What is the Hukm in respect to the aggression befalling upon the people of these two situations?

- Does that aggression represent a case from among the cases where Al-Qitaal is legitimate in Islaam,
which obliges the Islamic State to declare Al-Jihaad in the name of lifting or removing the oppression
from the oppressed and to defend those being aggressed against, in confrontation to those aggressors?

The answer is that these two cases, which are the subject of our study, fall under one single case and that
is: The aggression falling upon non-Muslims who are not tied or connected to the Muslims. Those who
have no Dhimmah or take the same ruling and those who are not connected by an alliance dictating that
the Muslims support them against oppression and aggression. In respect to them, does the aggression,
that has been indicated to, represent a cause (Sabab) from amongst the causes or reasons (Asbaab) of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam which causes the Muslims to rise up in defence of those groups or people or
states which are victims of such an aggression?

This is the subject area of our study and discussion which we will deal with and address within the
following Masaa’il (issues):

1- The first Mas’alah (issue): The position of the Islamic writers concerning the issue.

2 - The second issue: The Adillah (evidences) of those who hold the opinion that the aggression against
the disbelievers, other than the Ahl ul-Kitaab, those who follow their ruling and other than the allies,
represents a Sabab (reason or cause) from among the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

3 - The third issue: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this issue.

The first Mas’alah (issue): The position of the Islamic writers concerning this issue
i.e. the aggression against disbelievers who are not Ahl udh-Dhimmah, or those
who follow their rule and are not from the allies. Does this aggression represent a
cause or reason from amongst the Asbaab (causes) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam?

The Islamic writers in respect to this issue fall under categories:

1 - Those who have failed to mention this Mas’alah and consequently have neither presented a negation or
affirmation for it, whilst discussing the legally legitimate cases of Al-Jihaad in Islaam (1).

2 - Those who spoke generally and not explicitly about the specific issue that we are addressing and as
such it is possible for anyone with a particular direction on this issue to interpret the speech of these with
an interpretation to support the direction or position that he has taken. That is like the opinion of Ash-
Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot “The Sabab (reason/cause) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam is restricted (or limited to)
repelling the aggression, protecting the Da’wah, freedom of religion or worship and purifying the land of
tyranny and injustices” (2).

- That is because it is possible for the one who supports intervention or interference in the affairs of other
states to remove the oppression against those of the subjects who are being persecuted, for example, to
say: “Purifying the land of tyranny and injustices obliges this intervention”.

- Just as it is possible for the one who does not support that intervention or interference to say: “The
author intended to say: That in respect to Al-Jihaad, when it is declared, based upon its legally legitimate
causes, leads to the purification of the earth from tyranny and injustices. Whilst it is not intended to mean
that the Islamic State acts like an international policeman raising the stick of Al-Jihaad against every state
that it views to be persecuting a group of its citizens, to cease that persecution and aggression and enforce
the aspect of justice within its policies with all of their citizens” (3).

3 - And from the writers are those who mentioned in a place that which asserts the opinion of defending
the oppressed and weak in a general manner and in another place restricted defending them due to them
being from amongst the allies (of the Muslims).

[(1) Refer for example to: “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah” by Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p75 and “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr.
Hussein Al-Haaj Hasan: p476, (2) “Tafseer Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem - The first ten parts” by Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot:
p540, (3) Also refer to: “Ishtiraakiyah Al-Islaam” by Dr. Mustafa As-Sabaa’iy: p245 and “‘Anaasir Al-Quwwah Fil Islam”, As-
Sayyid Saabiq: p222].

As an example of this category of writers we make mention of Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Diraaz. He
questioned in the form of rebuke: How can Islaam prevent the right of defending the life, ally, weak and
oppressed? Concerning this he stated: “And so is it intended from it [i.e. Islaam] … To erase the right of
defending the life, the ally and the obligation of defending the weak and oppressed? Certainly not …” (1).

That which springs to mind from joining the defence of the weak and oppressed following the defence of
the life and the defence of the ally, is that the intended weak and oppressed are those who do not have an
alliance or Dhimmah (contract of protection) or treaty (covenant) with the Muslims that dictates
defending them. Rather, it merely represents an initiative from Islaam to remove the Zhulm (oppression)
from the oppressed in an absolute and unrestricted manner.

However, Dr. Diraaz specifies after that, numerically, the legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal in Islaam to two
reasons, which bare: “1 - Defending the Nafs (life) …. 2 - Providing relief to the Muslim people or an ally
who is incapable of defending himself” (2).

Through that specification and restriction, the weak, oppressed and incapable are excluded from the
category of defending the life, as long as they are not allies, and they have been excluded from their
situation being representative of a reason from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal in Islaam.

4 - From amongst the writers are those whose expression was closer to supporting the intervention to
provide support to the oppressed of the states or their citizens from among those who are not tied or
connected to the Muslims by any alliance that dictates the provision of such support (Nusrah). That is like
what was mentioned within the legally legitimate circumstances of Al-Jihaad as presented by Dr. Wahbah
Az-Zuhaily. Concerning this he said:

“1 - Repel the assault (or aggressive act) from the Muslims … 2 - To guarantee the freedom of Al-
Aqeedah … 3 - The war to provide Nusrah (support) to the Mazhloom (oppressed), whether on an
individual level or collective … And it is possible to name this as a war to discipline that the interest of
general peace dictates” (3).

[(1) “Nazharaat Fil Islaam”, Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Diraaz: p116, (2) The same reference: p119, (3) “International relations
in Islaam”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p30-32].

And we have said: That the expression here is closer to supporting intervention to provide Nusrah
(support) to the oppressed of the states and their citizens, to lift or remove the Zhulm (oppression) and
aggression from them. That is whilst we do not consider this expression to be explicit because the
evidences that Dr. Az-Zuhailiy presented, for this reason from amongst the reasons for Al-Qitaal in
Islaam, are specific to the Muslims or those who are in a defensive alliance with the Muslims.

- That is because he mentioned amongst the evidences the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َر َّب َنا‬ َ ُ‫ِينَََيقُول‬

َ ‫ون‬ ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل َد‬
ََ ‫انَالَّذ‬ َ ‫َِو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
َ‫َِالظال ِِمَأَهْ لُ َها‬ ْ ‫أَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬
َّ ‫َِال َقرْ َية‬
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah whilst the oppressed among men, women, and
children say: "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people …" (An-Nisaa’: 75).

This relates specifically to the persecuted Mustad’afoon (weak and oppressed) due to them being
pressured to leave the Deen whilst they supplicate to their Lord to save them from the city of oppressive
people. And this was referring to Makkah where its people oppressed them due to their entering into the
folds of Islaam, wanting to pressurise them to leave their Deen, as was explained earlier in the third study
of this chapter.

- Dr. Az-Zuhailiy also mentioned amongst the evidences for the Sabab (cause or reason for Qitaal) that
we are addressing, the provision of support by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Khuzaa’ah against Al-
Quraish within the truce or treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah (1). We have already discussed how that support was
based upon a defensive alliance made between the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and Khuzaa’ah, whilst it represents a
case outside of what we are currently addressing.

In any case, it is understood from Dr. Az-Zuhailiy, that he inclines towards supporting those who fall
under this case or circumstances that we are studying and towards the intervention to remove the
aggression from them. That is because when he was displaying support for this reason for the undertaking
of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam and when defending this position, he stated: “And if it said: That this
situation represents an intervention in the affairs of others whilst intervention (or interference) represents
an assault or act of aggression. (If that is said) we say: The intervention (or interference) is Mashroo’
(legally legitimate) today for the sake of the collective or universal well-being, to accomplish the Haqq
(truth or right) and destroy the Baatil (falsehood). And it is also Mashroo’ (legitimate) in defence of
humanity in the situation of a state persecuting minorities from its citizens or subjects” (2).

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p78, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p78. Also
refer to his “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam” (International relations in Islaam): p33 and to “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah”
(Foreign relations), Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel Abu Abd: p135].

5 - There is another group of writers who have expressed the legitimacy of Muslims or the Islamic State
intervening in the internal and external affairs of other states. Therefore, the Qitaal in Islaam has been
legislated or made legitimate, in respect to them, against any state that oppresses a group of its subjects
and even if that group were non-Muslims, in an attempt to remove that oppression from them. Similarly,
Al-Qitaal (fighting) has been legislated, in respect to them as well, in the form of providing Nusrah
(support) to a weak state which has been aggressed against in an act of aggression and oppression from
another state. That is because Islaam has been designated to remove the oppression wherever it may be.
The following are some of the statements of the proponents of this clear or explicit position:

A - Abdur Rahman ‘Azaam said:

“The Islamic State is legally charged and responsible to repel the oppression, indeed to fight to provide
Nusrah (support) to the oppressed … whether that (oppressed) was an individual or a collective, Muslim
or non-Muslim” (1).

And he said: “It is the right of the Muslim state to declare war, whilst it is within the limits of the
Sharee’ah, as long as its aim is justice and to repel the oppression from others”.

And he states: “And in my view, that this represents the only case in which war is legally legitimate and
even if it was not defensive in relation to the collective of the Muslims …”.

He then states: “The basis of the legally legitimate war is the defensive war, whether this war was in
defence of the Nafs (life) or in defence of any third party that deserves Nusrah (support). And it is
Mubaahah (permissible) in the situation when it non-committal and it is Waajibah (obligatory) if it was in
support of an oppressed Mu’aahad (one under treaty or covenant)” (2).

The above is some of what Abdu Rahman ‘Azaam said in his “Ar-Risaalah Al-Khaalidah” under the
heading of “The War to provide Nusrah to the Mazhloom”.

B - Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah who also adopted this position stated:

“Islaam regards the subjects who are ruled or governed by oppression and who are restricted in their
freedoms according to a view of mercy and compassion. It provides support to them when they seek it
and it removes the yoke of tyranny from them if they seek its help…

[(1) “Ar-Risaalah Al-Khaalidah” (The eternal message), Abdur Rahman ‘Azaam: 79 and the pages after, (2) The same reference
and also refer to “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah”, Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p177-179].

… The conquest of the Arabs of Egypt took place upon this premise because the ruler of Egypt saw that
they were suffering under the tyranny of the Romans, their exploitation of their lands and the imposition
of pressure over their freedoms. He therefore welcomed the Islamic army to lift that tyranny from the
necks of the Egyptians” (1).

- And he said the following in relation to the Qitaal (fighting) that takes place between two states, neither
of which are tied to the Muslims via a defensive alliance, whilst one is aggressing over the other and that
other is being oppressed and aggressed against:

“… That those two states at war with each other are both not tied or connected to the Muslims by an
‘Ahd (covenant/treaty) or Dhimmah (contract of protection) that obliges faithfulness (i.e. to commit) …
In this situation one of two suppositions could apply:

The first supposition: That one of the two warring states is defending justice or in reality it is being
aggressed against and is defending itself from the oppressor. In such a situation, does the Islamic State
provide its support to it and exit from its neutrality? We say: In such a supposition, it could be permissible
to assist the Mazhloom (oppressed), upon the condition that the Islamic interest regarding that is
considered … The just (‘Aadil) and rectifying (Muslih) Waliy ul-Amr (ruler) studies the subject matter
from all of its angles whilst the most prudent or cautious position, without doubt, is to maintain the
neutrality”. And Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah also says in respect to the situation of one of the two states
being weak whilst the other wishes to devour it, he says in such a case:

“The second supposition: That one of the two sides is weak and the other powerful one wishes to
devour it, whilst it is within the capability of the Islamic State to repel the oppressive aggression from the
weak state. In this situation, we view that the Islamic principles oblige the provision of Nusrah (material
support) to the weak. Islaam has called to providing aid and relief to the one who is troubled, to repel
aggression, to always support the weak and that repelling the Zhulm (oppression) is undoubtedly from the
Islamic fundamental principles. This takes place if the weak requests the Nusrah (support) and it is Waajib
(obligatory) to respond affirmatively to its request. That is because the State of the Qur’aan is the State of
Al-Haqq (the truth). As such, it is obligatory for it to be the helper of every Haqq (right and truth) and
supporter of it” (2).

C - Some of the Islamic writers support intervention into the affairs of states to lift or remove the
oppression and aggression. “’Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy” says: “Islaam did not limit the locational scope
determining where the Muslim intervenes to remove the oppression, but rather it left it without limitations
…”

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam” (International relations in Islaam), Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p83, (2)
Same reference: p86-87].

… He then quotes the statement of Abdur Rahman ‘Azaam: “And if it is said: This permits the situation
of continual interference in the affairs of others whilst interference represents an assault or act of
aggression being undertaken by the Islamic State. And it is said: That the purpose and aim of the State is
itself and it is not for it to establish itself as being an international or global policeman. We said: This case,
it is the only one in our view and it is justified. And the world senses from its depths the need for the one
that will be fair and just to the weak and oppressed and that the European states, 1300 years after the Hilf
ul-Fudool and the Hilf (alliance) of Khuzaa’ah, attempted to establish the Charter of the League of
Nations to represent what Islaam had intended in respect to providing Nusrah (support) to the
Mazhloom” (1).

The above reflects some of what has been said concerning the Mas’alah that we are addressing which is:

Is the aggression against the disbelievers who are not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, those who follow their
ruling or from the allies, a Sabab (reason or cause) from among the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal
(fighting) in Islaam? We now come to the second Mas’alah (issue)

The second Mas’alah (issue): The Adillah (evidences) of those who support the
view of intervening in the affairs of others to remove the Zhulm (oppression) from
the Mazhloomeen (oppressed) with some discussion around them.

These evidences are summarised as follows:

1 - The approval of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to the Hilf ul-Fudool (2).

2 -The Nusrah provided by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Khuzaa’ah against Quraish in relation to the
treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah after they sought support based upon the dictates of the treaty (3).

3 - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

 َ‫َر َّب َنا‬ َ ُ‫ِينَ َيقُول‬
َ ‫ون‬ ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل َد‬
ََ ‫انَالَّذ‬ َ ‫َِو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
َ‫َِالظال ِِمَأَهْ لُ َها‬ ْ ‫أَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬
َّ ‫َِالََقرْ َية‬
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah whilst the oppressed among men, women, and
children say: "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people …" (An-Nisaa’: 75).

[(1) “Usool ul-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, ‘Umar Ahmad Al-Farjaaniy: p 87-88. And the quote from “Ar-Risaalah Al-
Khaalidah”: p117-118, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p77 and also “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah” also by Az-
Zuhailiy: p32, (3) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p77. And “Usool ul-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah”, ‘Umar Ahmad Al-
Farjaaniy: p88].

4 - The legal legitimacy of intervention, within the modern international custom, in defence of the Haqq
(truth or right) and to demolish the Baatil (falsehood), and in defence of humanity in the case where a
state is persecuting its minority citizens or subjects (1).

5 - The opening or conquest (Fat’h) of Egypt by the Sahaabah because it had been suffering under the
tyranny of the Romans (2).

We will now move onto clarifying those evidences and discussing them:

1 - The approval of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to the Hilf ul-Fudool.

This Hilf (alliance) according to what was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam and its explanation
“Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf” and also in “Al-Mu’tasar Min Al-Mukhtasar” is summarised as follows:

The Hilf ul-Fudool was twenty years before the Messengership of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and it represented the
most honourable alliance that the Arabs had been known for. The first to call for it was “Az-Zubair Bin
Abdul Muttalib” and its cause was: That a man from among the traders from Zubaid (3) of Yemen came
to Makkah with his goods. They were purchased from him by “Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy” who was
somebody of respect and honour in Makkah. He then held back from him his right. Therefore, the
Zubaidiy, the wronged trader resorted to the “Ahlaaf” (allies) and they represented the inner circle of
Quraish: (Abd ud-Daar, Makhzoom, Jumah, Sahm and ‘Adiy Bin Ka’b). These had been, prior to the birth
of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, made an alliance between themselves against other inner circles of Quraish and they
were: (Abd Manaaf, Asad, Zuhrah, Taim and Al-Haarith Bin Fihr. Those others, when they made their
alliance, submerged their hands in perfume and wiped the walls of the Ka’bah with them to ratify their
alliance and they were known as the “Al-Mutayyabeen” (scented or perfumed ones). As for their
opponents, the first group, then they were known as “Al-Ahlaaf” (the allies). So, when the Zubaidiy, the
wronged trader, went to the Ahlaaf to seek justice for him from “Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy”, they
refused to assist him and drove him away. That was because “Al-‘Aas” was from “Bani Sahm” who were
from “Al-Ahlaaf” (the allies). For that reason, they refused to help him against the one who was from
their alliance. The Zubaidiy wronged trader then ascended upon the “Abu Qais” (4) mountain
overlooking the Haram whilst the men of Makkah were around the Ka’bah…

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p78, “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah” also by Az-Zuhailiy: p33 and “Al-‘Alaaqaat
Al-Khaarijiyah”, Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel: p135, (2) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah:
p83, (3) It is a city or town in North Yemen. It can be seen in “The Atlas of Islamic History” between Sana’a in the north and
Ta’az in the south towards the red sea a little. Map number: 32, (4) Refer to map number: 48 of the “Atlas of Islamic History”
by Dr. Hussein Mu’nis].

… He then implored the nobles of Makkah with some lines of poetry, imploring them to support him
against “Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy Al-Ahlaafiy” who wronged him in respect to his right. So “Az-
Zubair Bin Abd ul-Muttalib” arose and called to convene “and alliance to provide support to the
oppressed or wronged” and he was responded to positively by the old “Hilf Al-Mutayyabeen” (alliance of
the perfumed ones): “Banu Haashim from Ban Abd Manaaf, Zuhrah and Taim”. They gathered together
in Dhul Qa’dah in the inviolable month in the house of “Abdullah Ibn Jud’aan At-Taimiy”. Then they
convened together and made a covenant in Allah’s name: “To act as one hand with the oppressed (or
wronged) against the oppressor (or transgressor), until his right is fulfilled to him … And so the Quraish
named that alliance as “Al-Hilf ul-Fudool” and they said: Those entered into the surplus of the matter.
Then they walked to “Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy Al-Ahlaafiy” and took the goods of the Zubaidiy
from him and returned it to him.

Ibn Hishaam mentioned in respect to the Hilf (alliance): “They made a covenant (i.e. contracted
agreement), that there would not be found within Makkah a Mazhloom (wronged or oppressed person)
from amongst its own people or others who had entered from the rest of the people, except that they
would stand with him and against the one who oppressed or wronged him until the injustice was
reversed” (1).

This Hilf (alliance or pact) was also mentioned in some of the Prophetic Ahaadeeth which included his
statement ‫ﷺ‬: “I witnessed in the Daar (household) of Abdullah Bin Jud’aan an alliance or pact
(being made). If I was to be invited to it in (the time of) Islaam, I would have responded
positively to it. They made a covenant to restore the Fudool (2) to its people and to not allow a
Zhaalim (oppressor) to get his way over a Mazhloom (oppressed or wronged)”. And in another
related version: “I witnessed in the house of Abdullah Bin Jud’aan, an alliance that was more
beloved to me than a herd of red camels. If I was invited to it in (the time of) Islaam, I would
have responded positively to it” (3).

- And the following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baari’ the Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari”: “It was
recorded by Ahmad and Abu Ya’laa and was verified as Saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and Al-Haakim from the
Hadeeth of Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf, Marfoo’an (raised to the Prophet ‫)ﷺ‬: “I witnessed with my
uncles the Hilf (alliance) of the Mutayyabeen that I would not like to violate” (4). What is intended
here by the “Hilf ul-Mutayyabeen” id the “Hilf ul-Fudool” that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬witnessed and those who
entered into this alliance were the “Hilf ul-Mutayyabeen” who had come together (as an alliance) some
time before the birth of the Messenger ‫ … ﷺ‬It was for that reason that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬called it “Hilf ul-
Mutayyabeen” (the alliance of the scented or perfumed ones).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 1/153-156), (2) It was stated in (the dictionary) “Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet” under
the article: (‫)فضل‬: … And the “Hilf ul-Fudool” (was named as such) because they made an alliance that they would leave with
anyone a Fadl (surplus) that he has wronged from somebody except that they would take it for him (the wronged) from him
(the transgressor), (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 1/153/156, (4) Fat’h ul-Baari’: 10/502 and also refer to 4/473].

The following was stated in “Al-Mu’tasar Min Al-Mukhtasar”: “And so the Quraish called it “Hilf ul-
Fudool” … And it is this which was intended in his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “I witnessed, with my uncles Hilf ul-
Mutayyabeen”. It was the Hilf ul-Fudool that the Mutayyabeen made an alliance upon, whom the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had not witnessed initially. As such, the ignorance of the one who says: “He
‫ ﷺ‬was born after so how could he have witnessed it?” becomes clearly evident Al-Hamdu Lillah. He
said: “I witnessed an alliance in the Daar (household) of Ibn Jud’aan, Banu Haashim, Zuhrah,
Taim, and I was amongst them. And If I was to be invited to it I would respond positively (i.e.
accept) and I would not like to violate it and if I had a herd of red camels”. He said: Their alliance
was upon the commanding of the Ma’rouf (right) and the forbidding of the Munkar (wrong) and that
nobody would be left with a wrongfully taken surplus (Fadl) except that it would be taken from him. And
due to that it was called “Hilf ul-Fudool” … And it was also called “Hilf ul-Mutayyabeen” because its
people were all Mutayyabeen” (1).

The above is a summary of what has been mentioned in relation to the “Hilf ul-Fudool” which has been
used as an evidence to support the legal legitimacy of interfering or intervening in the affairs of other
states for the purpose of removing oppression from the oppressed disbelievers who do not have an ‘Ahd
(covenant or agreement) with the Muslims.

Concerning that I say: The angle of deduction based upon this alliance (i.e. Hilf ul-Fudool) in relation to
this Mas’alah (issue) that we are addressing is not clear as far as it appears to me. That is because the
subject area of the alliance, according to what has been understood, was: The provision of support by
those of the alliance to the one upon whom oppression befalls him within Makkah, applying equally,
whether the wronged was from the people of Makkah or someone who had come to it from somewhere
else. And to compel the oppressor or the one who has wronged from the people of Makkah, regardless of
his rank, to be just and fair to the wronged, and to use force in the way of accomplishing that if the matter
made it necessary.

In addition, all that this alliance indicates to, is that the excesses or abuses that used to take place from
some of the leaders of Makkah due to what they enjoyed in terms of authority or standing amongst their
clans, like what occurred in many lands and in every age, that these excesses or abuses perpetrated by
these people of authority or standing, would be stood up against by an alliance made up from other
leaders in Makkah. And that this alliance would hold the people of excess or transgression to task and
make them submit to the law of justice and fairness that all must equally abide by.

[(1) “Al-Mu’tasar Min Al-Mukhtasar Min Mushkil Al-Aathaar”, Al-Qaadiy Abu l-Mahaasin, Yousuf Bin Mousaa Al-Hanafiy:
2/376].

Also, the approval of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to this alliance is from the angle of approving some matters
which occurred in Al-Jaahiliyah (the period prior to Islaam) which then gained their legal legitimacy via
Islaam’s approval over them, like some of the main rites of Hajj for example. Included within those
matters, is taking the oppressor (Zhaalim) to task, for the oppressed to gain justice from him and to
provide him with support and assistance against the one who wronged or oppressed him. It may be that
the reason for the Nabi’s ‫ ﷺ‬commendation of the alliance was because it represented the opposite of
the well-known practise in the time of Jaahiliyah in terms of the provision of support to the ally and even
if he was in the wrong and transgressing. That was in accordance to the Jaahiliyah principle stating: “Help
or support your brother if he is the Zhaalim (oppressor/transgressor) or the Mazhloom
(oppressed/wronged)” (1). This reality was also seen in the stance taken by the “Ahlaaf” towards the
Zubaidiy, the wronged trader, and his oppressor, the “Ahlaafiy” Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy”. It is here
that the contents of this alliance, “Al-Hilf ul-Fudool”, meets with what was mentioned in the Hadeeth of
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬as recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaari:

َ:‫ص ُرهَُ َظالِما؟َ َقا َل‬ َ ‫َ َف َكي‬،‫ص ُرهَُ َم ْظلُوما‬

ُ ‫ْفَ َن ْن‬ َ ‫َ َقالُواَ َي‬.‫كَ َظالِماَأَ ْوَ َم ْظلُوما‬
ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬
ُ ‫ََّللاَ َه َذاَ َن ْن‬ َ ‫ا ْنصُرْ َأَ َخا‬
َِ‫ َتأْ ُخ ُذَ َف ْو َقَ َيدَ ْيه‬Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Support your brother, whether he is an oppressor or
he is an oppressed one. They asked: "O Allah's Messenger ‫ !ﷺ‬We provide support to him
when he is oppressed, but how do we support him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said:
“By taking hold of his hands (to prevent him oppressing others)” (2).

Concerning providing support and help to the Mazhloom (oppressed or wronged), preventing or
constraining the hand of the Zhaalim (oppressor or transgressor) and using force in relation to that, then
we have already discussed this within its own specific study within the first volume of this thesis under the
heading: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the purpose of defending the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (the public
inviolable sanctities)”.

In any case, the subject of the Hilf (alliance or pact) and the approval provided by the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬to it, both indicate that it relates to the internal relations amongst the people and not to foreign
relations with other states and entities. That is whilst, the issue that we are addressing here, is related
specifically to the matter foreign relations that the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah regulates.

The above therefore represents that which relates to the use of the Hilf ul-Fudool as an evidence for our
issue.

2 - As for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬provision of support to “Khuzaa’ah” against Quraish within the
truce or treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah after they sought assistance from him, then this falls outside of our issue
that we are addressing. That is because that provision of support was only built upon the defensive
alliance that was made between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and Khuzaa’ah, whilst out subject matter here is: The
intervention or interference of Muslims in the internal and external affairs of other states and providing
support to the oppressed, in the absence of an alliance with them that stipulates or dictates such a
provision of support.

3 - As for the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َر َّب َنا‬ َ ُ‫ِينَ َيقُول‬

َ ‫ون‬ ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل َد‬
ََ ‫انَالَّذ‬ ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬َ ‫َِو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
َ‫َِالظالَِ ِمَأَهْ لُ َها‬ ْ ‫أَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬
َّ ‫َِال َقرْ َية‬
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah whilst the oppressed among men, women, and
children say: "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people …" (An-Nisaa’: 75).

[(1) “Fajr ul-Islaam”, Dr. Ahmad Ameen: p10, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari related by Anas (ra): no. 2312].

As for this Aayah, then we have already discussed, in the third study of this chapter, that its subject area is
providing support to the oppressed Muslims who live in Daar ul-Kufr, in Makkah, prior to the conquest,
against the disbelievers who are aggressing against them.

That is whilst the issue that we are addressing here is the support provided to those disbelievers who are
being oppressed and don’t have a covenant between them and the Muslims stipulating the provision of
support to them. Therefore, the Aayah falls outside of our subject area.

4 - As for using today’s international custom (‘Urf) as evidence for t intervention or interference in the
affairs of other states, for the sake of defending the Haqq (right/truth), demolishing the Baatil (falsehood)
and defending the persecuted minority subjects in other states … Then this use of evidence could lead to
some troublesome results including: If the international custom (norm or tradition) dictated non-
interference in the affairs of other states, irrespective of what was taking place within them in terms of
oppression and persecution against certain groups from the citizens, then based upon taking the
international ‘Urf (custom) as a Hujjah (proof or argument), it would not be permitted to interfere in the
affairs of those states for the sake of removing the whips of oppression from those citizens being
tortured, and even if they belonged to the same Aqeedah (belief) as those who wanted to defend those
who were being tortured or punished. This is a matter that I do not believe those who advocate the legal
legitimacy of intervening or interfering in the affairs of others say. In any case, it appears that the bringing
of legal legitimacy to interfere in the affairs of others, according to the international custom, did not occur
via deduction (Istidlaal). Rather it has come from the angle, that what Islaam has brought in terms of this
intervention must not be considered to be an aggression against another state just as the interference or
intervention in the affairs of others, in accordance to today’s international custom, for the aforementioned
purposes or reasons, is not considered by its proponents to be an aggression.

5 - As for using the Sahaabah’s (May Allah be pleased with them) conquest of Egypt as evidence in
respect to this issue, because its (i.e. Egypt) had been suffering under the tyranny of the Romans … Then
this deduction or use of evidence would be valid had the Sahaabah decided to conquer Egypt based upon
what had reached their ears concerning that grievous suffering that had risen from under the tyranny of
the Romans! However, history has no relayed to us that the Muslims’ decision for opening and
conquering Egypt was based upon that suffering! And if that had actually taken place!

Rather, history mentions that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab had given permission to ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas to march
towards Egypt. He then prayed Salaat ul-Istikhaarah after the army had left. After which he viewed it best
to change his decision about the conquest. As such, he dispatched a letter to ‘Amr to hold back from the
conquest of Egypt if he had not yet entered into any of its territories … ‘Amr received the letter after
entering the land of Egypt … And it was in this manner that the matter towards the conquest proceeded
(1).

Therefore, had the original decision of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab to open and conquer Egypt been based
upon the removal of oppression befalling it from the Romans, he would not have stood after than in
Istikhaarah (consultation of Allah in prayer) to see whether he should stay upon his decision, by removing
the oppression of the oppressed, or leave then suffering under the tyranny of the Romans?

Rather, what is clear from the conduct of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (May Allah be pleased with him) in
respect to this issue, is that the Muslims were made responsible to undertake Al-Jihaad upon all fronts,
whether the subjects of the lands were enjoying luxuries and pleasures or suffering under the tyranny of
painful punishment. That was for the sake and purpose of carrying Islaam to them so that they embrace it
or submit to its rule. That is so that the former (i.e. those who embrace Islaam) can then taste the true
meaning of bliss under its shade and the latter (i.e. those who do not accept Islaam but live under its rule)
can find comfort living in the midst of the blessings of divine justice. To remain upon the decision of Al-
Jihaad or to stop it, only returns back to the decision maker’s evaluation of the Islamic force or strength in
respect to its ability to undertake the responsibilities of Al-Jihaad and implement the tasks that have been
designated to it, without that force being subjected to devastating harm or losses … This is what the
conduct of ‘Umar indicated to when facing the conquest of Egypt and it is what explains the hesitation
that occurred. Whilst there is nothing within it indicating that the issue of the Roman oppression against
the people of Egypt had been placed upon the table of discussion when making the decision to undertake
the conquest.

And after this presentation of the evidences of those who support the idea of intervening in the affairs of
other states for the purpose of removing the oppression from the oppressed states or citizens … After
this presentation of those evidences and discussing them, we now come to the last issue of this study.

The third issue: The opinion that we view to be strongest in this issue

I say: The original position is that the Imaam of the Muslims is responsible over his subjects and every
Muslims is responsible over his own flock (or area of responsibility) as was recorded in Saheeh Al-
Bukhaari and related by Ibn ‘Umar who said:

َ‫اع‬
ٍ ‫َر‬
َ ‫اإل َما ُم‬
ِ ‫َو‬،ِ َ ْ‫اع ََو َمسْ ُئولَ َعن‬
َ ‫َرعِ َّي ِته‬ ٍ ‫َر‬ ِ َّ ‫َرسُو َل‬
َ ‫ََّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َيقُولَُ"َ ُكلُّ ُك ْم‬ َ ‫ت‬ُ ْ‫َقا َلَ َسمِع‬
َ ْ‫َو َمسْ ُئولَ َعن‬
‫َرعِ َّي ِت َِه‬
I heard Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬saying: “All of you are guardians and responsible for your
charges: The Ruler (i.e. Imam) is a guardian (Raa’iy) and responsible for his subjects … (2).

[(1) Refer to “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah Fee Mulook Misr Wa l-Qaahirah”, Ibn Tagriy Bardiy Al-Ataabkiy: 1/6-7 and the news
of the conquest of Egypt in “The History of At-Tabariy”: 4/104 and the pages after that, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 893].

The following was stated in “Subul us-Salaam”: “Ar-Raa’iy: He is responsible over the interests of those
whom he is a guardian (or shepherd) over” (1).
The Ra’iyah (flock or subjects) of the Imaam are the Muslims and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who belong to
Daar ul-Islaam and they are the ones whom the Imaam will be questioned about undertaking their
interests. For that reason, the Muslims who do not belong to Daar ul-Islaam are not from the Ra’iyah
(subjects) of the Imaam and so he does not undertake the caretaking of their interests unless they seek his
support against their enemy in which case he must support them according to the conditions that we have
previously mentioned in the third study of this chapter.

The same applies in respect to the subjects or flock (Ra’iyah) of every Muslim as they are whom the
Muslim will be questioned about their caretaking and undertaking their interests. Included in that
caretaking is the lifting or removal of injustices against the oppressed and wronged from among them and
to provide them with support and defend them against the oppressors or transgressors. However, the
disbelievers who are not under covenant are not from the Ra’iyah (subjects), just as they are not from the
Muslims who are not subjects and they are also not from those who are tied or connected to the Muslims
by a treaty that stipulates the removal of oppression from them, in the case where the Muslims or their
Imaam are responsible for defending them against oppression and aggression befalling them.

The commitment to defend non-Islamic entities or their subjects against an aggression befalling them
based upon a defensive alliance or pact which connects the Muslims with them, this commitment in such
a case indicates that if there is no such alliance, then the Muslims are not responsible to defend them
against any act of hostility.

Indeed, in addition to that, the Fuqahaa’ have stated that concerning the state connected to the Muslims
by a peace treaty but without the stipulation of defending it against foreign aggression, the Muslims are
not charged with the responsibility to defend them if they were afflicted by such an aggression. That is
even the case if the state joined by treaty with the Muslims, which is be aggressed against, pays the Jizyah
to the Muslims, as long as the condition of defending it has not been stated within the text of that treaty.
The following was mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” concerning this: “We have only
bound ourselves in commitment towards the Muwaadi’een (those we have made a treaty with) to not
target them with aggression and we have not committed to providing them with support (Nusrah) against
their enemies. This is contrary to if some of them enter our land (Daar) by the Hukm (ruling) of the
Muwaada’ah (treaty)” (2) i.e. it is obligatory upon us to provide Nusrah (support) to the Muwaadi’een if
they are aggressed upon when they are present within our Daar (homeland) and not if they are attacked or
aggressed against whilst they are in their own land. This is like what we have explained in detail in the
previous study.

[(1) “Subul us-Salaam”, Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy: 4/190, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-
Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/1894].

- After establishing that it is the duty of the Imaam to repel the Ahl ul-‘Adl and the Khawaarij also from
oppressing the Muwaadi’een (those people under treaty), whilst they are in the Muslims’ Daar according to
the ruling of the treaty (Muwaada’ah), after establishing this Hukm (ruling) the following was stated in
“As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: “This is not the case in respect to the Ahl -ul-Harb (the people of
war) as it is not a duty upon the Imaam to repel the oppression of the Ahl ul-Harb from them [i.e. from
the Muwaadi’een as long as they are in their own lands] due to the Muwaada’ah (treaty), because it did not
commit to that with them” (1).

Yes, it is permitted for the Muslims to fight the state that oppresses or transgresses against its subjects or
citizens, just as it is permitted to fight the state that aggresses against other states and peoples, if that
transgressing and aggressing state was not in a Mu’aahadah Silmiyah (peace treaty) with the Muslims.
However, the basis of this Qitaal (fighting), is that this state represents a non-Islamic entity which after
presenting and offering Islaam to it and after its rejection or refusal to enter into it, it must be made to
enter under the ruling of Islaam voluntarily or against their will by the force of the sword, as long as the
Islamic State is in a position that it is capable of undertaking that, in light of the interest (Maslahah) of the
Islamic Da’wah, as will be elaborated upon in more detail in the following chapter. The fact that a state
oppresses its subjects or does not oppress them, or aggresses against other states and peoples are does not
aggress against them, is not the basis in respect to the Muslims declaring Al-Jihaad against this state or that
one, or in respect to contracting a peace treaty with this state or that one. Rather, the basis is firstly and
before anything else is the undertaking of Al-Jihaad according to the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic
Da’wah and the Maslahah of the Islamic State in its description as being a carrier of that Da’wah. The
evidence for this is that there was within Makkah a group of its subjects who were suffering under the
tyranny of its disbelieving leaders. The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has recorded the oppression of the oppressors
and the cries of the oppressed in Makkah and the Du’aa (supplication) that they made:

َ‫َِالظال ِِمَأَهْ لُ َها‬ ْ ‫َر َّب َناَأَ ْخ ِرجْ َناَمِنْ َ َه ٰـ ِذه‬

َّ ‫َِال َقرْ َية‬
Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people (An-Nisaa’: 75).

- The Muslims had been charged with the responsibility to fight the disbelievers of Makkah to lift the
oppression from the oppressed Muslims:

ِ ‫ال ََوال ِّن َسا ِء ََو ْال ِو ْل َد‬

َ‫ان‬ َ ‫َِو ْالمُسْ َتضْ َعف‬
ِ ‫ِينَم َِنَالرِّ َج‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ُ‫َالَ ُت َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ‫َو َماَلَ ُك ْم‬
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah whilst the oppressed among men, women, and
children … (An-Nisaa’: 75).

Yet despite all of that, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬viewed that the interest of the Islamic Da’wah dictated the
convening of a Sulh (treaty) with Makkah which had been punishing the Islamic collective from among its
subjects to pressurise them to leave their Deen. That treaty was signed and the fighting with Makkah
ceased based upon that.

Concerning this I say: If the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did do that in the case where the oppressed minority in Makkah
from its subjects were Muslims and his basis for declaring war or stopping it was the interest of the
Islamic Da’wah, then this indicates, by greater reasoning, that the Muslims are not compelled to remove
the oppression or repel the aggression from the oppressed minorities from the subjects of the disbelievers
in other states. However, when the force and power is readily available within the Islamic State, where it is
capable of fighting the disbelievers and subduing them, then it fights those who stand in the way of the
Muslims including the oppressors and oppressed equally so as to make them all submit to the Islamic rule,
if they have refused or rejected to enter into Islaam. And when the Islamic rule is applied that is sufficient
to guarantee that justice is established, oppression is removed and that all prosper under its shade!

This then represents my view concerning the Mas’alah (issue) that we are addressing.

The summary of this, is that defending the oppressed disbelievers from the subjects of other states does
not represent an independent Sabab (cause or reason) from among the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for Al-
Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. Rather, the Sabab (reason) for fighting those states is for the sake of making
them submit to the rule of Islaam if they reject embracing it or reject handing over the authority to it.

In this case the lifting of the oppression from the oppressed would be from the results of the application
of the Islamic system over the land after subduing it via Al-Qitaal (fighting) and it would not be a reason
from the reasons of causes of the Qitaal. And I do not view that engaging in war against states which
oppress their subjects to merely be representative of a disciplinary war. That is because the meaning of it
being a disciplinary war is that when this disciplining action reaches its end point and the oppressive state
refrains from oppressing its citizens as a result of it, that the Muslims then hold back and refrain from
fighting that state based upon that premise and the legitimacy of fighting in that case would no longer
exist.
However, the reality, as will be discussed in the forthcoming chapter, is that the legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) of Al-Qitaal against the non-Islamic states does not cease to exist except by their entering
into Islaam or by their submission to the Islamic system unless there is a temporary peace treaty with it,
which the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah dictated.

This concerns the Qitaal (fighting) against the states which persecute their subjects or citizens and inflame
their backs with the whips of oppression, subjugation and servitude.

As for the case of the weak or powerful states being aggressed against by a more powerful state which
wants to occupy it, plunder its wealth and resources and eliminate its men that stand in opposition to its
designs, then concerning this case when there is no prior agreement to defend such a state:

- Does the Islamic State hasten to provide support to that state which is being aggressed against?

- Or does it respond to the states appeal for intervention to prevent the Qitaal (fighting) or stop it? Or to
stand by its side?

The answer requires a foreword, even if we have already repeated what is in it, because it is necessary here
to repeat it to build the answer upon it … and it is:

That when the Islamic State takes any decision related to war, peace, adopting a stance of neutrality,
allying with any other party and not another, or intervening in a war that is taking place or is expected to
take place where one side benefits from it against the other, then such a decision is only made in
accordance to the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah which the Islamic State carries and works to
spread.

And when it engages in war it only does so in the name of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah)
and to raise high the word of Allah. That means that the objective of the Qitaal (fighting) is to annex and
join the lands to the Islamic State and to apply the Islamic system over them, whether the subjects of that
land have embraced Islaam, which represents the desired objective of the Muslims, or they have remained
upon their religions whilst submitting to the Islamic rule. That is whether this objective was accomplished
via Qitaal (fighting) and a comprehensive and conclusive war with the enemy or it was accomplished by a
repetitive limited war operation that sought to deplete and exhaust the enemy’s strength until it finally
surrendered.

This then represents the aim and objective of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

- This happens either by other lands entering into Islaam, without compulsion, and joining in such
circumstances to the Islamic State, in a natural manner. And this objective is expressed in the Prophetic
Hadeeth related by Al-Bukhaari: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َوي ُْؤَُتوا‬،
َ ‫َو ُيقِيمُواَالص ََّال َة‬،
َ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ََّللاُ ََوأَنَّ َم َُحمَّد‬
ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬ َّ ‫َإال‬ َ ْ‫َح َّتىَ َي ْش َه ُدواَأَن‬
َّ ‫َالَإلَ َه‬ ََ ‫ت ََأَنْ َأ ُ َقا ِت‬
َ ‫لَال َّن‬
َ ‫اس‬ ُ ْ‫أُمِر‬
َّ
‫الز َكاََة‬
I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish the
Salaah and pay the Zakaat … (1) i.e. until they enter into Islaam.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: Hadeeth no. 25 related by Ibn ‘Umar].

- Or it could take place by annexing other lands to the Islamic State and making them submit to the
Islamic rule by way of a treaty (Sulh) i.e. by their consent or forcibly. This objective is expressed in the
Aayah of Al-Jizyah:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو َُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْزََي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِكََت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

i.e. until you submit to the Islamic rule and commit to what results from that in terms of legal
responsibilities.

This objective or that one, are what Islaam declares Al-Jihaad for against any state from among the states.
Even the objective of the defensive war against the aggression is not merely to repel that aggression,
discipline the aggressors and that’s sufficient … Rather its objective is: Either, for the enemy to embrace
Islaam or that it submits to the Islamic rule, whenever it is possible to accomplish that. This is in the case
where a state from amongst the enemy states wages an aggressive war against the Islamic State and the
Islamic State responded to that aggression. Then there would be consequences as the result of such an
aggression in terms of the destruction and ruin of the lands of Islaam in addition to many victims from
the martyrs of the army of the Muslims … Then after that, it would happen that the authority of the
enemy state would announce its entering into Islaam or its entering into obedience to the Islamic State
and its acceptance of the contract of Adh-Dhimmah. In either of these two circumstances, the Islamic
State has no choice except to halt this war and it I absolutely not permitted for it to continue to fight
seeking to satisfy its thirst for revenge just as it is not permitted for it to impose upon the subjects or
citizens who entered into Islaam or accepted to enter into the Dhimmah, ay form of compensation for the
damages or harms incurred against the Muslims in respect to their properties and lives in their aggressive
war! In light of this foreword we will now return to the situation or case that we are currently addressing
i.e. the case of the weak or powerful state which is being aggressed against by a more powerful state.

- What is the stance or position of the Islamic State towards this war?

- Does it provide support to the state being aggressed against and even if there did not exist a prior
agreement to defend it?

The answer: The Hukm (judgement) for this case or situation, in respect to providing support to the
aggressed against state or not providing support, is not provided until the various and numerous
surrounding circumstances and associated factors related to it are examined. This would make from it a
number of differing cases and not one single case, a matter which would make the Hukm (judgement)
differ in accordance to the difference in those surrounding circumstances.

We will, for example, mention some of these surrounding circumstances within the scope of the
mentioned case or situation and the Hukm (judgement) that we view to be related to it:

1 - If the Islamic State is not capable of opposing an aggressing powerful state or it was capable but there
will be heavy costs for the Muslims as a result of providing support to the state being aggressed against,
then here, in such circumstances, it is not allowed for the Islamic State to intervene in this fighting due to
the absence of the Islamic Maslahah (interest) in this intervention and due to the harms that would befall
the Muslims. This case or situation is judged in accordance to a number of principles which include:

“The Darar (harm) is removed but nor via a Darar” (1) and “The (choice of) conduct or behaviour of the
Imaam in respect to the subjects is dependent (or conditional) upon the Maslahah” (2).
2 - If the Islamic State was capable of opposing the aggressing state and the conditions or circumstances
were favourable, then here, in such a reality, we view that it is a duty of the Islamic State to prevent the
Zhaalim (oppressor) from its oppression and to protect the Mazhloom (oppressed) from the oppression
afflicting them. However, this is undertaken according to the Islamic method of preventing the Zhulm
(oppression) and protecting from it. This method is: To present Islaam again to both states, the aggressing
and aggressed against, for them to enter into it or to submit to its rule and join (its lands) to the Islamic
State. Then, if those two states were to accept that, all would be good and well … Otherwise, then
whichever state would accept this or that offer or choice, the Islamic State would annex it to itself and
then it and the state that had joined to it would embark and set off towards the other state to fight it until
it enters into Islaam or submits to its rule, as explained previously. In this way, the Islamic State prevents
the oppressor from perpetrating his oppression just as it protects the oppressed from be afflicted by
oppression as a result of the application of the just Islamic rule. A just rule like that proclaimed by the
Noble Sahaabiy who was sent to Rustam (of Persia) when he said: “Allah brought us to bring out, whom
He wills, from the worship of the servants to the worship of Allah and from the constraints of the
Dunyaa to its expanses and from the tyranny of the other Deens to the justice of Islaam …” (3).

[(1) “Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p86, (2) The same reference: p121, (3) Taareekh At-Tabariy: 3/520].

- As for the case when both of the states, the aggressor and aggressed against, refuse to accept Islaam or
the application of the Islamic system, and they take an aggressive and hostile stance towards Islaam, then
in such a scenario, the Islamic State should not let the blood of the Muslims be spilt in defence of a Kufr
entity which has taken Islaam as an enemy to it, as long as no Maslahah returns to Islaam and the Muslims
as a result of that.

This situation differs from the scenario of the Muslims defending an entity of disbelief which is connected
to the Islamic State by a defensive pact or alliance. That is because in the case of the presence of such an
alliance or pact, the Muslims are only giving their blood in defence of a contract that Allah had
commanded them to be faithful to when He Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ُ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَأَ ْوف‬

َ‫واَب ْال ُعقُو ِد‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fulfil [all] contracts (Al-Maa’idah: 1).
That’s even if it results in the prevention of the disbelievers’ oppression as a consequence.

In addition, the Islamic State is not bound by a defensive alliance or pact to defend an entity of disbelief
except with the condition of the presence of the outweighing Islamic interest represented in convening
that alliance. It could be, for example, that the entity is inclined towards Islaam and the Islamic thought
had begun to spread amongst its citizens whilst it is hoped that it would join the Daar of Islaam just like
what happened in respect to the tribe of “Khuzaa’ah” which the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬connected to via a
defensive alliance.

3 - In the case of the rejection of both the aggressor state and aggressed against state refusing Islaam or
submission to the Islamic rule, along with the expectation that the more powerful state will engulf the
other state, which would lead to an increased danger and threat posed against the Muslims … In this
situation, it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to fight that aggressor state as long as it has the capability
to undertake that. It does not do that from the basis that it is defending the aggressed against state but
rather upon the basis of declaring Al-Jihaad against the state which poses the greater danger or threat to
Islaam and the Muslims than others and even if it is located geographically further away from the Muslims
than many other non-Islamic lands neighbouring the Muslim lands. Concerning this reality Al-Imaam
Ash-Shaafi’iy said in his book “Al-Umm”: “It is obligatory upon the Khalifah if the condition of the
enemy was the same or of an equivalent level (i.e. the enemies were equal in standing and in terms of the
danger they posed) or the Muslims had the power (or force), [to] start with the nearest enemy to the lands
of the Muslims because they are those who are adjacent (and nearest) to them and to not target those
behind them … That is until the matter of the enemy is dealt with through their becoming Muslim or
provision of the Jizyah … If the condition of the enemy differed where some of them were more grievous
or fearsome than others, then the Imaam should begin with the most fearsome or grievous enemy and
there is no problem in doing that even if its land was further away if Allah Ta’Aalaa wills that … And this
could reach the level of necessity (Daroorah) because it is permitted in respect to the “Daroorah”
(necessity) [to undertake] that which it is not permitted [to undertake] in other than it. And the news
reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that “Al-Haarith Bin Abi Diraar” had started to gather a force against him and so
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬attacked him whilst there were enemies located closer than him…!” (1).

[(1) Kitaab ul-Umm, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/168].

The thought with this Fiqhiy text is: That the Islamic State could leave some of its neighbours from
among the states of the disbelievers and not declare war against them even if they were within easy reach
but rather declare war against a further away state due to the danger or threat expected from it. And that
this does not conflict with the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ار ََو ْل َي ِج ُدواَفِي ُك ْمَغِ ْل َظ َة‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬

ْ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّ ِذَي َنَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬
ِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent (or close) to you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you (At-
Taubah: 123).

That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬indicated in his actions to leaving the nearer enemy and declaring war
against the further enemy in the case where a more severe danger or threat is expected from the further
one. That choice of action indicates that the Aayah which commands fighting the disbelievers who are
closest is when the situation between the enemies is equivalent (i.e. in terms of the threat and danger they
pose). Therefore, in relation to the situation that we are currently addressing and in line with the Maslahah
(interest), the Islamic State could leave this weak state that is being aggressed against and not hasten to
annex or join that state to it, so as cause the aggressing state to lose the opportunity to swallow that
weaker state, if the Islamic state was capable of undertaking that. That would be with the aim of
preserving its power and force to utilise it to launch a war against the state that poses a greater danger and
threat to Islaam and the Muslims than the weaker state that is closer to it and its grasp. In such a case, the
waging of war against the aggressing powerful state would not be undertaken with the objective of
providing Nusrah (help and support) to the state that is being aggressed against. Rather, it would be to
repel the danger and threat of that more powerful state from Islaam and the Muslims, even if that weaker
state which was being aggressed against benefits from that as a consequence.

The above therefore represents some of the different surrounding circumstances or conditions related to
the case of the aggression of other states taking place against each other and the difference in respect to
the Hukm (judgment) in respect to the Islamic State intervening or not.

It is not however our intention to delve into all of the possible surrounding circumstances related to the
aggression of those states amongst each other and what we view the Hukm (judgment) to be in respect to
all of those surrounding circumstances concerning whether the Islamic State intervenes or not by
engaging in Al-Qitaal (fighting) against this state or that one. That is not the issue that we are intending to
address now and it is enough for us to know that the blood of the Muslims is precious and that it must
not be spilt unless it is in defence of the Muslims or those whom Allah has made it obligatory upon the
Muslims to defend according to the dictates of the contract of Dhimmah (protection as a non-Muslim
citizen) or Amaan (security) or Muwaada’ah (treaty) that obliges such a defence. In addition, the blood
should not be spilt except in the way or path of the (vital) issue that the Islamic State carries and that is
the Da’wah to Islaam.
It is not the Islamic State’s issue to remove or lift the aggression from the weak or powerful states and
then leave them as they are after that as independent states that govern and rule their subjects by other
than Islaam.

Yes, indeed, removing the aggression and oppression from the nations and the peoples does represent an
aim from the aims that Islaam seeks to accomplish, however, this aim is only realised, in the view of
Islaam, through entering into Islaam or submitting to its rule, whilst it is not realised or accomplished by
any way other than that. Allah Ta’Aalaa states:

َ‫ُون‬
َ ‫َالظالِم‬ َ ‫نز َلَاللَّـهَُ َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
َّ ‫كَ َُه ُم‬ َ َ‫مَب َماَأ‬
ِ ‫َو َمنَلَّ ْمَ َيحْ ُك‬
And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the Zhaalimoon (transgressors or
oppressors) (Al-Maa’idah: 45).

And if it is said: The nations and peoples are in need of those who will relieve them of the Zhulm
(oppression) and aggression and remove it, and that they represent two Munkars (evils) that Islaam does
not approve of or accept, and as such the Qitaal (fighting) to remove the oppression and aggression from
the nations and peoples falls under the legally legitimate cases of Al-Qitaal in Islaam.

If that is said, then why is it not also said: Are the nations and peoples not also in need of that which will
remove from them the systems and rulers which drive them into the depths of depravity and cesspit of
vices? Whilst these represent the evil matters that Islaam does not accept at all like the Zhulm
(oppression) and aggression. Indeed, it is probable that the nations and peoples are in greater need of
protection from the danger of these matters than their need for the Islamic State’s protection from those
who aggress against them by plundering their natural resources and wealth or who restrict their freedom.

So, why do we not make, in this case, from the reasons for Al-Qitaal, the elimination of the legality of
fornication or the opening of brothels in other states which leads to an aggression taking place against the
citizens of those elands in respect to their lives, dignity, honour and their health and material conditions
… if we have already made from the reasons of Al-Qitaal in Islaam, the removal of persecution and
aggression from the citizens of other states?

The truth and correct view is that neither that or this represents an independent cause or reason from
amongst the reasons of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. It is true that the Islamic State could actually
undertake military operation against another state that persecutes some groups of its citizens with the aim
of removing the persecution from them. However, that would not be undertaken upon the basis that
lifting or removing the persecution from disbeliever citizens of disbeliever states, represents a reason
(Sabab) from amongst the reasons (Asbaab) for Al-Qitaal in Islaam, like the reason of repelling the
aggression from the Muslims or from those who are under the protection of the Muslims or like the
carrying of the Islamic Da’wah (invitation) to the nations and peoples, in the case where these represent
reasons for Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. Indeed, the removal of persecution from those disbelievers does
not fall under this category of reason in my view, even if it is permitted for the Islamic State to undertake
it. Rather, its reason alone, according to my view, if the Islamic State undertook it, is the legitimate
(legislated) Sabab (reason) for Al-Jihaad and that is: Carrying Islaam to the other states for the sake or
purpose of them entering into Islaam or submitting to its Hukm (rule).

However, the internal or foreign circumstances or conditions may not permit the Islamic State to
undertake the Jihaad sometimes with the objective of making some of the other states submit to the
Islamic system as a whole and make them join to Daar ul-Islaam. However, it may nevertheless be capable
of making states submit to specific or particular Ahkaam (rulings) of the Islamic system. That is in the
case where the Islamic State views that there is a Maslahah (interest) for the Muslims and the Islamic
Da’wah that is realised by those states adhering to these particular Islamic Ahkaam. Upon that basis, the
Islamic State declares Al-Jihaad against those states to make them adhere to those Ahkaam and refrain
from fighting them if or when they abide by them … That is until the Muslims are capable, according to
their strength and internal and external circumstances, to make those states submit to the Islamic system
as a whole and attach them to the Daar of Islaam, according to the specific Ahkaam related to that.

Those particular Ahkaam which we could see the Islamic State declaring Al-Jihaad against some states for,
to make them adhere to them, could include for example:

- Abolishment of its system of deal with usury (Ribaa).

- Or abolishing the legality of prostitution or fornication in the land.
- Or preventing the persecution of minorities from the citizens and even if they were non-Muslims.
- Or imposing more severe punishments or penalties upon those who trade in drugs within their lands.
- Or to prevent the media within those lands, whether read, audio or visual media, from spreading or
showing anything that insults human values or high morals, like those films obscene and immoral films
that are shown on their screens in an age where limits have disappeared to prevent this type of
presentation and media.
- Or the Islamic State could wish to make some states commit to permitting the opening of Islamic
Da’wah offices within them or to license the founding of an Islamic political party from its citizens …

Or anything that is similar to this in respect to what it views it can make others abide by which will realise
a Maslahah (interest and benefit) returning to the Muslims, their Da’wah and their state … And which
also in the end brings the Maslahah to those lands themselves as the intention is for them to be guided to
Islaam and for the Islamic system to be applied over them completely, when the circumstances and
conditions permit that to be sought practically.

Therefore, the Islamic State could declare war for the purpose of making some states abide by a Hukm
(ruling) from the Ahkaam of Islaam according to the Maslahah that it sees within that. However, do we
say in light of this, that from the legally legitimate cases (or reasons) for Al-Qitaal in Islaam is to abolish
the Ribaa (usury) based system for instance? … Or to abolish laws permitting immorality and debauchery
in those lands? … Or to prevent the persecution of minorities from the citizens of other states?

If that was the case, then the cases for the legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam would be
innumerable!

The closest matter bringing all of that together is that we say: From the legitimate cases of Al-Jihaad in
Islaam is: To carry Islaam to the states and peoples to apply the Islamic system upon them as a whole
within the scope of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to that and that this represents the origin of the
matter, when the capability exists and the circumstances or conditions are favourable …

Or it is to apply the Islamic system partially, if there is inability to accomplish the origin, within the limits
dictated to by the Islamic Maslahah in accordance to the Qaa’idah (principle): “That which all of it cannot
be realised is not all abandoned” and the principle: “That which is easy (or accomplishable) is not dropped
due to what is hard (or not easily accomplished)” (1).

And in accordance to what is understood from what was recorded in the Prophetic Seerah concerning the
treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah. Shortly before convening this treaty, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬consulted the Kuffaar of
Makkah which included (in the discussion) the extolling of the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities) of Allah,
when he said: “By the one in whose hand is my soul, they do not ask me for a course of action that extolls
within it the Hurumaat of Allah accept that I concede it to them” (2).

Ibn ul-Qayyim understood from this speech of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬the following as stated in his “Zaad ul-
Ma’aad”: “The Mushrikeen and the people of Bid’a (innovation) and Fujoor (vices) and the criminals and
oppressors, if they requested a matter that extolled in it a Hurmah (inviolable sanctity) from the Hurumaat
of Allah, respond to that affirmatively and assist them upon that and even if they prevent other than that!
As such they would be assisting upon that which contains extolling the Hurumaat of Allah Ta’Aalaa and
not assisting upon their Kufr and transgressions” (3).

[(1) “Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: 159 and “Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah”, ‘Ali Ahmad An-Nadawiy: 283, (2) “Zaad
ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/289, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/303].

I say: It is clear that in respect to the matter of extolling the Hurumaat (inviolable sanctities) of Allah, the
agreement over them with the disbelievers does not rest upon their initiative towards that. And if the
expression of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬here could establish attaching this matter to that request of the disbelievers,
the non-permissibility of the Muslims taking the initiative of calling the disbelievers to abide by the
inviolable sanctities (Hurumaat) of Allah is nevertheless not what is intended by the meaning of this
statement. Rather, it was only from the angle of consulting the sense of honour of the disbelievers of
Makkah so that they take the initiative themselves with this request and that was in the case where those
making the request were those who were responsible over the Sacred House of Allah and extolling its
inviolable sanctities (Hurumaat) … That is so that they would have greater reason to abide and adhere to
that which they were taking the initiative in respect to requesting. That is whilst the Hurumaat of Allah
that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬called to be part of the agreement with the disbelievers for them to adhere to,
were not restricted to the rites of the Hajj and the ‘Umrah, which the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬above
was concerning (1). Consequently, it is permitted to call th disbelievers to abide by some of these
Hurumaat and Ahkaam (rulings) and even if they refrain from committing or adhering to other Ahkaam.
This is like what Ibn ul-Qayyim stated in the above quote (2) and applies as long as they have not
submitted to Daar ul-Islaam and not all of the Ahkaam are applied over them.

Included within those Hurumaat (sanctities) and Ahkaam which the Islamic State could see to call other
states to abide by are those matters that we mentioned previously like the prevention of drugs, the
persecution of minorities or the prevention of peoples and states assaulting against each other …

In this situation, the lifting or removal of persecution from the oppressed citizens in other states or
preventing those states from aggressing against each other or for example preventing dealing with usury
(Ribaa) within those states or trading in drugs … Then none of these represent an independent Sabab
(cause or reason) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) of Al-Qitaal in Islaam … Rather, the Sabab is alone,
as previously mentioned, the carrying of Islaam to those states for them to enter into it or to submit to its
Ahkaam (rulings) as a whole or partially, according to what we have explained, which is in accordance to
the dictates of the Maslahah (interest) and what the capability, circumstances and conditions permit to be
undertaken (at a given time).

Finally: We do not want it to be understood from what has preceded, that we view it to be prohibited in
Islaam for Muslims or the Islamic State to defend (or support) disbelievers who are not under treaty or
covenant when they are from the oppressed and suffering peoples and weak states.

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/289, (2) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/303].

In the case where it is permissible for the Muslims to make treaties with them and an alliance with them
which stipulates the obligation of defending them, then this indicates that defending them in origin is
from the permissible matters and even if there had not been a covenant (treaty) or alliance. If that had not
been the case then it would not have been permissible in origin to make treaties with them for the sake of
defending them.

Despite that, we do not wish to make this permissibility the important issue in this matter where it is used
for another issue. That is making the aggression undertaken against peoples and weak states a reason
(Sabab) from amongst the Asbaab (reasons) for Al-Qitaal in Islaam so as to defend them based upon this
permissibility and making it like the case of carrying the Islamic Da’wah or defending the Muslims and
those who fall under the protection of the Muslims. This is a matter that would lead to diverting the
Islamic strengths and capabilities towards that which they were not meant to be employed and used in.
That is whilst the permission that is taken as a proof to divert the Islamic strengths and capabilities
towards other than its natural path, has not been legislated in Islaam except when it is for the Maslahah
(interest) of the Muslims and the Maslahah of the Islamic Da’wah …

With that we have reached the conclusion of the discussion about this third and final issue of this study
and we also come to the end of the first chapter of this volume which is: Repelling the aggression in
respect to it being a reason from amongst the reasons of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

Chapter Two

Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah

- Foreword concerning the areas of study included in this chapter.

1 - The first study: What is intended by “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah” in respect to it
representing a reason for the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad in Islaam.

2 - The second study: What are the non-Muslims in other states invited to?

3 - The third study: The stances of the other states and peoples towards the Da’wah to Islaam or to the
Islamic rule, the consequences that result from that and the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad.

4 - Separate Masaa’il (issues) connected to the reasons of declaring Al-Jihaad:

A - Al-Jihaad, is it a defensive war alone or can it also be offensive?

B - Al-Jihaad, does it represent an interference into the affairs of others?
C - What is the origin in respect to the relationship between Muslims and others, in peace and war?
 Chapter Two

Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah

Foreword: In the first chapter of this volume we have mentioned the first Sabab (reason or cause) from
amongst the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for the declaration of Al-Jihaad in Al-Islaam. That was to repel
the occurring or expected aggression from the enemies, whether those enemies had previously been
connected by a peace treaty with the Muslims like the situation of Makkah prior to the treaty (Sulh) of Al-
Hudaibiyah, or they had been tied by a peace treaty with the Muslims but then broke it, like the situation
of Makkah and its ally Bani Bakr, following the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah. Or it could be that they have not
yet broken the treaty but all the signs indicate to that they are preparing to break it and are only waiting
the favourable opportunity to do so and that is according to what we have explained in detail previously.
Now, after having finished the discussion about the repelling of aggression in respect to it being a reason
(Sabab) for Al-Qitaal, we now move ahead to another Sabab (reason or cause) related to the legal
legitimacy of Al-Qitaal in Islaam and that is: “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah”.

However, what is intended by this statement?

- Is the intended meaning: Preventing the Da’wah carriers from conveying Islaam within the other states?
In the case where if they were permitted to convey there would be no standing in the face of the Da’wah
and consequently the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad would no longer exist in that case?

- Or is the intended meaning that the Islamic Da’wah strives towards a particular aim within the life of
people and their societies and that particular aim is: That the people embrace Islaam and that the life in
society is established upon its basis. Then if this (first) aim is not realised then there is no alternative
except to establish that life upon the basis of Islaam and even if the people refuse to accept it in terms of
the Aqeedah (belief) and remain persisting upon their old religion or beliefs?

Then in such a situation, if the people or their leaders have not responded positively to this aim or that
one, then that would be considered to represent standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah or opposing it
by preventing it from accomplishing it sought after aim and even if there was no danger of threat coming
from them against the carriers of the Da’wah in respect to their conveyance of Islaam. Based upon this
understanding, the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad to remove the obstacle or barrier that stands in the path of
the Da’wah exists, to enable the realisation of its sought aim.

I say: Which of the two meanings is intended by our statement: “Standing in the face of the Islamic
Da’wah”?

- Is it the danger or threat against the activity of the carriers of the Da’wah in relation to the conveyance
of Islaam?
- Or is it the refusal to submit to the Islamic system if the disbelievers do not wish to embrace Islaam?
Based upon this, it becomes necessary to specify the intended meaning of the statement in respect to it
being a Sabab (cause or reason) from among the Asbaab (reasons) of declaring Al-Jihaad in Islaam for the
purpose of opening up the path before the Islamic Da’wah.

- Then it is necessary to explain the different stances or positions that people of the leaders of lands can
adopt towards the Islamic Da’wah and the consequences are built upon each stance, in respect to
declaring Al-Jihaad or nor declaring it/

It is for that reason that this area of study of this chapter that we are currently addressing is divided into
the following topics or studies:

1 - The first study: What is intended by “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah” in respect to it
being a Sabab (reason) for the legal legitimacy of (declaring) Al-Jihaad in Islaam?

2 - The second study: What are the non-Muslims in other states invited to?

3 - The third study: The stances of the other states and peoples towards the Da’wah to Islaam, the
consequences built upon that and the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad.

4 - Separate Masaa’il (issues) connected to the reasons (Asbaab) of declaring Al-Jihaad:

The first Mas’alah (issue): Al-Jihaad, is it a defensive war alone or can it also be offensive?

The second Mas’alah: Al-Jihaad, does it represent an interference into the affairs of others?

The third Mas’alah: What is the origin in respect to the relationship between Muslims and others, in
peace and war?
 The first study

What is intended by “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah” in respect to it

being a Sabab (reason) for the legal legitimacy of (declaring) Al-Jihaad in Islaam?

The following Masaa’il (issues) will be addressed in this study:

The first Mas’alah (issue): A presentation of some of what has been said concerning the meaning of
“Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah”.

The second Mas’alah: The Adillah (evidences) that each group has used as evidence to support the
meaning that they have taken for the statement of “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah”.

The third Mas’alah: A discussion of the evidences and the opinion that we have selected based upon the
strength of the evidences.

The first Mas’alah (issue): The meaning of “Standing in the face of the Islamic
Da’wah”.

- Some of the Islamic writers have held the view that “standing in the face of the Da’wah” is realised in
the prevention of the carriers of the Da’wah from conveying Islaam. There would then be a legal
legitimacy for Al-Jihaad to remove this ban imposed upon the conveyance of the Da’wah. If, however, no
ban or prohibition has been imposed upon the carriers of the Da’wah in respect to their conveyance to
the people, then there would not exist, at such a time or circumstance, that which is called “standing in the
face of the Islamic Da’wah” undertaken by the disbelievers and consequently there would be no
justification for the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad in such a situation.

- Other Islamic writers held the view that “standing in the way or face of the Islamic Da’wah” is only
realised in relation to the refusal to submit to the system that the Islamic Da’wah is carrying and which it
wants to impose upon the people in their lives and societies, where they had preferred to remain upon the
beliefs and religions that they had previously been upon according to:

ِ ‫َالَإِ ْك َرا َهَفِيَال ِّد‬

َ‫ين‬
There shall be no compulsion in respect to [acceptance of] the Deen (Al-Baqarah: 256)

If that refusal or rejection (to submit to the Islamic system) happened, the legal legitimacy of
(undertaking) Al-Jihaad, would come into being and even if there was no ban or prohibition imposed
upon the carriers of the Da’wah in respect to the conveyance of that which they had been tasked to
convey to the people.

We will now present some of the opinions which are indicative of both opinions:
- Some of what has been said related to that which indicates to the first of these meanings i.e. the
explanation of the meaning of “standing in the face of the Da’wah” to be the prevention of the Da’wah
carriers from conveying it or the torture (punishment) of those who have believed in it.

The following was stated in “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah” by Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf when
he was elaborating about the opinion of those, including himself, who hold this understanding of the
meaning: Concerning the non-Islamic Ummah which did not initiate aggression against the Muslims and
did not oppose the callers to Islaam whilst leaving them to freely present their Deen to whomever they
wish and establishing their proofs how they wish, and they did not resist or oppose an inviter, put
pressure upon the one being invited (i.e. to reject) or they (the non-Islamic Ummah) had not been sent a
delegation of Da’wah carriers … then concerning them, it is not permitted to fight them, sever or cut the
peaceful relations with it and the Amaan (security) between them and the Muslims is established without
Jizyah or contract (treaty). It is only established upon the origin of peace whilst nothing has occurred that
breaks that basis in terms of aggression undertaken against the Muslims or against their Da’wah”.
Then Ash-Sheikh Khallaaf continues to explain this opinion stating:

“Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) to protect the Islamic Da’wah and to repel the aggression
against the Muslims. Consequently, the one who has not accepted the Da’wah, not resisted it and have not
initiated hostility against the Muslims, is not permitted to be fought nor to change his security into fear”.

He also states regarding this: “War does not exist between Muslims and others unless there is an
extraordinary situation in terms of an act of aggression or hostility, or resistance (opposition) to the
Da’wah or harm inflicted upon the carriers of the Da’wah or those who have been invited to it” (1).

- Also from among the Islamic writers who explained the meaning of standing in the face or way of the
Islamic Da’wah by preventing the Da’wah carriers from conveying it or bringing harm to those who have
believed in it, was “As-Sayyid Saabiq”. In his book “Fiqh us-Sunnah” he states:

“There is no justification for this war in the view of Islaam … except in two cases:

The first case: The case of defending the Nafs (life), ‘Ird (honour), Maal (wealth), Watan (country) when
they are being aggressed against or assaulted.

The second case: The situation of defending the Da’wah (invitation) to Allah I anyone stands in its way
by torturing (i.e. inflicting pain or suffering) against those who have believed in it, blocking and opposing
those who have wished to believe in it or by preventing the Da’wah caller from being able to convey it”

[(1) “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p74-75].

Then he says: “There is for this legally legitimate war an objective that it ends at and that is: Preventing the
Fitnah (pressure to leave the Deen) so that they don’t harm them and allow them their freedom to
practise their worship of Allah, establish their Deen whilst being secure over themselves from any
aggression (or act of hostility)” (1).

- Also from among the statements in line with this same direction is what was mentioned in the book “Al-
Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam” by Al-Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy, when quoting from
Ash-Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zaid Aali Mahmood, the Head of The Shar’iyah Courts and Affairs of the Deen
in the state of Qatar. The author quotes Ash-Sheikh Abdullah’s opinion in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) as
follows: “When callers to Islaam come upon a land to call its people to the Deen of Allah … then if the
door is opened for them … and they are permitted to enter and spread the Da’wah, then this is the
desired and sought after aim. The Muslims rejoice by that as there was no killing and no fighting and all
the people are safe and secure in respect to their bloods (lives) and properties. And the Muslims opened
many of the lands in this manner which has been called Sulh (by treaty) … If, however, they erected
repelling obstacles to drive them away and prevented the callers from the freedom to spread their Da’wah
and from being able to make contact with the people to inform them of the Deen of Allah in which lies
their happiness and the happiness of humanity as a whole, then they would be considered in such a case as
being aggressors against the Deen and it becomes a duty upon us to fight them to protect the Da’wah and
callers (to the Da’wah) and not to coerce or force them to accept the Deen” (2).

The above represents some of what has been mentioned concerning the meaning of “standing in the face
(or way) of the Da’wah” which is a Sabab (reason) for the legally legitimate war in Islaam.

- As for the other meaning for “Standing in the face of the Da’wah” which is: Not handing over the
authority to the Muslims, within the disbeliever lands, for the purpose of ruling the people and the lands
by Islaam, in the case where war is legally legitimate in the situation, in order to enable and consolidate the
Muslims to accomplish that.

- From that which has been said in respect to this meaning id the statement of Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-
Deen Al-Albaaniy: “Know that Al-Jihaad is divided into two categories: The first: Fard ‘Ain (obligatory
upon every individual) and this is to repel the enemy attacking part or some of the Muslim lands …

[(1) “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, As-Sayyid Saabiq: 2/611/612, (2) “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq ud-Dawlah Fil Islaam”, Al-Ustaadh Zhaafir
Al-Qaasimiy: p184].

The second (or other): Fard Kifaayah (Duty of sufficiency) … And this is Al-Jihaad undertaken in the
way of carrying (or transporting) the Islamic Da’wah to the rest of the lands until Islaam rules them.
Consequently, whoever surrenders then that is accepted from them and whoever stands in the path is
fought, until the word of Allah is the highest …” (1).

Also from amongst those who adopted this direction was Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani. He
stated the following in a study paper of his about Al-Jihaad: “Al-Jihaad does not force (or compel)
individuals to embrace Islaam. Rather it means: Making the peoples submit to the rule of Islaam. They are
therefore called (or invited) to Islaam and whoever becomes Muslim from among the individuals, then his
blood and property is protected and it is Haraam to fight him, because he has responded affirmatively to
the Da’wah (invitation) and even if he was an individual. And the one who does not become Muslim is
forced to submit to the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam. Otherwise he will be fought and fighting him would
continue until his submission to the Ahkaam of Islaam is fulfilled …” (2).

- Another Islamic writer who also took this direction was Dr Abdul Kareem Zaidan who stated the
following: “The no-Islamic states established on other than Islaam and reject its Ahkaam, are considered
by the Islamic State to be false entities that do not deserve to remain. That is because the Baatil
(falsehood) is a Munkar (evil) and Fasaad (corruption) whilst the Munkar must be removed and its end is
brought about by building it from anew upon the basis of Islaam, where its rulers are Muslims and its
Qaanoon (law) is the Islamic law i.e. the Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah. That is completed by way of choice; by
your embracing of Islaam and applying its law, or by submitting to the political Sultaan (authority) of the
Islamic State and Islamic law. The sign of that is manifested in their commitment to the payment of the
Jizyah. If, however, they did not choose this (i.e. first option) or that (i.e. second option), then it is the
duty of the Islamic State to fight them until they submit to the political authority and its Islamic law, thus
becoming part of Daar ul-Islaam. The meaning of all of this is … That the Islamic State has the right to
make the non-Islamic state submit to its political authority and its Islamic law and even if that is done by
way of Al-Qitaal (fighting), if they refuse to submit by their own choice” (3).

The above was a presentation of statements or views of both groups in respect to the Sabab (reason) for
the legitimate war for the sake of carrying the Islamic Da’wah.
[(1) “Al-Aqeedah At-Tahaawiyah - Sharh Wa Ta’leeq”, Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy: p49, (2) “Study in Al-Jihaad”,
Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani as quoted in “International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah”, Dr.
Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p128. The study of Ash-Sheikh An-Nabhaani begins from p121 until 132 from the book, (3)
“Majmoo’ah Buhooth Al-Fiqhiyah”, Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidan: p53-54].

One group which views that if the non-Islamic states have not prevented the carriers of the Islamic
Da’wah by allowing them entry visas to their lands and did not impose any pressure or aggression, neither
against the carriers of the Da’wah nor those who had responded to it, then such states are prohibited for
the Islamic State to fight against under the pretext of making them submit to the Islamic system and
making it join to Daar ul-Islaam. That is because no aggression has come from them and not even
“standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah” can be attributed to them.

As for the non-Islamic states which prevent the carriers of the Da’wah by not providing them entry visas
to their lands or imposing bans upon their Islamic activities if they have been permitted to enter their
lands, or which practise forms of pressure or aggression against them or those who have responded
positively to their Da’wah, then these states which adopt this stance towards the Islamic Da’wah, its
carriers and those who have responded to it, are states which the Islamic State has a right to fight and
declare Al-Jihaad against.

This represents the conclusion of what those of the first direction view in respect to the meaning of
“Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah” or not standing in its way, in addition to the consequences
built upon that. However, those of this view, have not made clear to us, in relation to if other states stand
in the face of or opposition to the Islamic Da’wah according to the meaning they mentioned, will that
then be taken as a pretext to overturn the authority, regime and system in those lands to make them
submit to the Islamic system and consequently attach it to Daar ul-Islaam, which would then guarantee
the opening of the way and path for the Islamic Da’wah to proceed and move forward without being
exposed to any obstacles? Or does the Islamic State have a number of choice open before it when faced
with this stance where it employs the legally legitimate Jihaad to realise and accomplish what it sees to be
suitable or fitting? And those choices could include:

- Undertaking military disciplining campaigns which would lead as a result to the granting of entry visas
for the carriers of the Islamic Da’wah to enter the lands and the permission to undertake Islamic activities
without being exposed to pressure or hostility against them or the citizens of those lands who had
responded positively to them (and their Da’wah).

- Or to change the current authority and impose a new authority from the people of the land and even if
they were disbelievers whilst taking an agreement from them that they will not oppose the Islamic
Da’wah, its carriers and those who respond to it, in any negative or harmful manner.

- Or any course of action that the state views to be suitable or fitting to deal with the state that stands in
the face of the Islamic Da’wah, which will open the door for the Da’wah in the absence of fears or
obstacles.

In any case, this direction or understanding of the meaning of opposing the Islamic Da’wah, does not say
that Al-Jihaad is declared in the name of imposing the Islamic system upon the non-Islamic states and
annexing them to the Islamic State, as long as they permit the Islamic Da’wah to be undertaken within
their lands. That applies even if they remained forever ruling by non-Islamic systems as long as the
Muslims through their activities within the states were unable to incline and attract the majority or the
most powerful faction from amongst the citizens to Islaam, whereas if that was to occur, then the ruling
would transform naturally into the Islamic rule.
This is what the first group views in relation to the meaning of “Standing in the face of the Islamic
Da’wah” and the consequences built upon that in respect to the legitimacy of Al-Jihaad or its non-
legitimacy.

- As for the other group, then their speech was clear, defined and specified in respect to what is required
from the non-Islamic states in relation to the Islamic Da’wah. It is in summary, as understood from their
speech, that it is required or demanded from those states:

- For either the authority in those lands to embrace Islaam meaning the application of the Islamic system
in ruling and its joining or being attached to Daar ul-Islaam. The choice would then be left to the people
after that to enter into Islaam or to remain upon their former beliefs and religions.

- Or, the authority in those states be handed over to the Muslims for the Islamic system to be applied
upon them and for them to be joined to Daar ul-Islaam. Then the choice would be left to the people in
respect to entering into Islaam or nor entering into it, as explained previously.

If neither of these takes place, that would be considered to be “Standing in the face of the Islamic
Da’wah” preventing it from reaching its aim and objective. The Islamic State would then have the right to
declare Al-Jihaad with the objective of making those states submit to the Islamic rule and to join them to
Daar ul-Islaam, so as to open the path before the Islamic Da’wah. This is undertaken in accordance to the
power and strength that the Islamic State possesses and what the circumstances or conditions permit.

By that we have reached the conclusion of the first Mas’alah (issue) of this study and we now move on to
the discussion of the second.

The second Mas’alah (issue): The Adillah (evidences) of the two groups related to
the intended meaning of “Standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah”.

Firstly: The Adillah (evidences) of those who say that war is illegitimate for the sake of the Islamic Da’wah
except in the case of the prevention of its conveyance or the occurrence of an aggression against it. These
evidences are summarised in the following:

1 - Al-Jihaad has been legislated or been made legally legitimate in Islaam to defend against the aggression
in accordance to the Qawl (statement) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُدواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
So, whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).

Included within the assault or aggression against the Da’wah is the prevention of its conveyance to the
people.

In this regard Ash-Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zaid Aali Mahmoud said in his book “The Legitimate (or
legislated) Jihaad in Islaam”:

“Islaam makes peace with those who make peace with it and it does not fight unless it is fought or the
spread of its Da’wah is prevented and the means preventing its conveyance to the people is cut off. They,
by their prevention of its conveyance are considered to be aggressors against the Deen and the creation as
a whole” (1).

2 - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

 َ‫ِين‬ َّ
َ ‫ىَالظالِم‬َ‫انَإِ َّالَ َعل‬
َ ‫ونَال ِّدينُ َلِلَّـ ِهََۖ َفإِ ِنَانََت َه ْواَ َف َالَع ُْد َو‬
َ ‫ونَ ِف ْت َنةَ َو َي ُك‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ُك‬ َ ‫َو َقا ِتلُو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰى‬
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] the Deen (worship) is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they
cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors (Al-Baqarah: 193).

As-Sayyid Saabiq elaborates upon the intended meaning of this Aayah when he says: “This legitimate war
has an objective or aim that it ends at and that is to prevent the Fitnah of the male and female believers so
that they are not harmed and are left to practise the worship of Allah and establish their Deen whilst being
in a state of security (and safety) for themselves from any aggression” (2).

I say: If we had wanted to explain this Aayah in light of this meaning in a way that increases the
connection of the Aayah to the understanding of this direction then we would say: The meaning of the
Aayah is:

Fight the disbelievers who punish the believers with a punishment that aims to pressure them and take
them away from their Deen and continue this fighting against them until the disbelievers are uprooted
from practising that Fitnah and until the Deen is for Allah i.e. until the Deen is brought into existence,
meaning the worship to Allah. That means: Until they permit its existence without a Fitnah befalling the
Muslims. Then if the disbelievers cease that Fitnah and punishment or aggression, and permit the
presence of the Deen and worship without persecution or pressures, then there is no ‘Udwaan
(aggression) except against the Zhaalimeen (oppressors and wrongdoers) i.e. Whoever aggresses against
those who have ceased the acts of Fitnah and have permitted the Deen without persecuting its followers,
whoever aggresses against them despite their ceasing of the Fitnah, then he is the Zhaalim (aggressor and
wrongdoer) who deserves that Allah brings aggression against him:

َ‫ِين‬ َّ
َ ‫ىَالظالِم‬َ‫انَإِ َّالَ َعل‬
َ ‫َف َالَع ُْد َو‬
There is to be no aggression except against the oppressors (Al-Baqarah: 193).

[(1) “The legitimate Jihaad in Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zaid Aali Mahmood: p7 quoted from “Al-Jihaad and
international rights in Islaam” by Al-Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p182, (2) “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, Ash-Sheikh As-Sayyid Saabiq:
2/614].

Or the meaning of the Aayah could be: If some of them cease from the Fitnah of the believers and
harming them whilst some others continue in it, then fight those Zhaalimeen (oppressors and
transgressors) only, those who persist upon the Fitnah of the believers (i.e. applying pressure upon them
to leave their Deen) or those who revolve around the orbit of this meaning (1).

I say: the Tafseer (explanation) of the Aayah in this manner establishes the illegitimacy of fighting those
who have permitted the presence or existence of the Deen and the worship to Allah without Fitnah and
persecution. This refraining from practising the Fitnah requires permitting the activity undertaken for the
sake of making Da’wah or inviting to the Deen. That is because the activity in respect to the Da’wah is
from the Deen which the Aayah forbade fighting the disbelievers for if they permitted it and ended their
Fitnah against those who followed the Deen.

3 - The third evidence used by those of this direction is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َفإِ ِنَاعْ َت َزلُو ُك ْمَ َفلَ ْمَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْم ََوأَ ْل َق ْواَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّسلَ َمَ َف َم‬
َ‫اَج َع َلَاللَّـهَُلَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َس ِبيال‬
So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for
fighting] against them (An-Nisaa’: 90).

Ash-Sheikh As-Sayyid Saabiq says commenting upon this Aayah: “So these people have not fought their
people and they have not fought the Muslims and kept away from the warring sides or parties. Their
isolation (from the fighting) was real wishing for peace by that and as such the Muslims have no way over
them (i.e. to fight them)” (2).

I say: The angle of deduction, with this Aayah, is that if the disbelievers make peace with the Muslims and
do not aggress against them, which includes permitting them to undertake the Islamic Da’wah and not
opposing it, as not permitting the Da’wah is considered to be aggression, as explained earlier … if they
were to make peace with the Muslims in this manner, it would be prohibited to fight them:

َ‫اَج َع َلَاللَّـهَُلَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َس ِبيال‬

َ ‫َف َم‬
Then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them (An-Nisaa’: 90).

And this establishes the illegitimacy of fighting them for the purpose or sake of making them submit to
the Islamic rule.

4 - The fourth Daleel (evidence) brought by those of this direction is the Aayah Al-Kareemah:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ َ ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم ََو‬
َ ‫الَ َتعْ َت ُدواََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah:
190).

[(1) Refer to “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 2/76-77, “Tafseer Al-Jamal ‘Ala l-Jalaalaini”: 1/174, “At-Tafseer At-Tabariy”: 2/114 and
“Soorat ul-Anfaal ‘Ard Wa Tafseer” by Mustafaa Zaid: p117, (2) “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, As-Sayyid Saabiq: 2/615].

They say: The Qitaal (fighting) against non-combatants represents and aggression and the Aayah forbids
that.

Ash-Sheikh Ahmad Mustafaa Al-Maraaghiy says in his Tafseer: “(Those who) fight you” (َ‫ ) ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬i.e. it is
expected from them that they will fight you. “But do not aggress” (‫)و َالَ َتعْ َتدُوا‬
َ i.e. do not initiate them with
the fighting …” (1). The angle of deduction (Wajh ul-Istidlaal) with this Aayah upon our Mas’alah (issue)
is clear and it establishes the illegitimacy of initiating the Qitaal (fighting) against the Kuffaar (disbelievers)
to make them submit to the Islamic rule because that would be an act of aggression and Allah Ta’Aalaa
says:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ َ ‫َو َالَ َتعْ َت ُدواََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
But do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah: 190).

5 - The fifth Daleel (evidence) brought by those of this direction is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫اَو َت ََو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ ِهََۚإِ َّنهَُه َُوَال َّسمِي َُعَ ْال َعلِي ُمَإِنَي ُِري ُدواَأَنَ َي ْخ َدعُو‬
َ َّ‫كَ َفإِن‬ َ ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َه‬
َ ِ‫َوإ‬
‫كَاللَّـ َُه‬َ ‫َحسْ َب‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.
But if they intend to deceive you, then Allah is sufficient for you (Al-Anfaal: 61-62).

Mustafa Zaid in his Tafseer of Soorah Al-Anfaal says: “The Aayah expresses about the inclining of the
disbelievers towards peace with the use of “‫‘( ”إن‬In’ meaning: if) which is used to express a doubtfulness
in respect to its occurrence or that which from its nature does not occur, providing you with the sense
that they are not from the type of people who usually choose peace for its sake and that it is not secure of
safe that their inclining towards it could be a plot and act of deception. Connected to the command to the
Messenger to accept the peace treaty is another command to have Tawakkul (reliance) upon Allah, to
increase the strength of the (sense of the) possibility of their deception and then to reiterate the command
to accept the treaty even with this strong possibility that the disbelievers want to deceive and fool the
believers. The Muslims have more right than the disbelievers with peace so do they hesitate to accept it
when the disbelievers offer it to them?” (2).

The Wajh ul-Istidlaal (angle of deduction) with this Aayah upon the Mas’alah (issue) that we are
addressing is: That if the non-Islamic states incline to convening a peace treaty with the Islamic State
whilst those states retain their independence and their systems of ruling, then the Muslims are
Mukallafoon (legally responsible and charged) to accept their inclining to peace that is offered, just as the
Aayah in Soorah Al-Anfaal we are dealing with, has indicated to. This then establishes the illegitimacy of
fighting those states with the aim of making them submit to the Islamic rule and making them join their
land to Daar ul-Islaam.

[(1) “Tafseer Al-Maraaghiy”, Ash-Sheikh Mustafaa Al-Amaraghiy: 2/88, (2) [Soorat ul-Anfaal ‘Ard Wa Tafseer”, Mustafa Zaid:
p149].

6 - The sixth Daleel used as evidence by those of this direction, according to what As-Sayyid Muhammad
Rasheed Rida said, is:

“All the wars of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬against the disbelievers were defensive and did not contain within
them anything in terms of aggression” … He then says: “The fighting of the Arab Mushrikeen (idolaters)
and the discarding of their covenants or treaties (‘Uhood) after the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah was in line
with this principle” … He then says: “The only matter that has been unclear to those who have been
unmindful is that which some of the expeditions and battles contained in terms of the Muslims initiating
in them whilst being absent-minded about the existing state of war between them and the Mushrikeen due
to the initial aggression of the Mushrikeen (polytheists) and the continuance of it. That is because it is not
stipulated that defence be in every battle or every movement” (1).

The angle of deduction with this Daleel (evidence) is that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬restricted all of his wars to the
case of defence. Based upon that, the legally legitimate war in Islaam is restricted and limited to the case of
defence and that establishes the illegitimacy of fighting the disbelievers to make them submit to the
Islamic rule, in the case where they have not practised any aggression against the Muslims or their Da’wah.

The above represented the Adillah (evidences) of those who have adopted the first direction or view
stating that the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad in Islaam to the defence against the aggression. That
aggression includes the standing in the face of the Islamic Da’wah or in opposition to it, where a ban is
imposed upon its spread. And that if the disbelievers have not stood in the face of or in opposition to the
Da’wah but have rather permitted its spread within its territories and amongst its citizens, then Al-Qitaal
(fighting) against them, in such a case, to make them submit to the Islamic rule, would represent an illegal
and illegitimate fighting.

2 - We now come to the Adillah (evidences) of the other group who have stated that “standing in the face
of the Islamic Da’wah” is not only represented by preventing the spread of the Islamic Da’wah, whether
an aggression occurred against its carriers and those who have believed in it, or no aggression or harm
befell them. Rather, it is also represented in their refusal to hand over the authority to the Muslims to be
ruled by Islaam and to be integrated into the Islamic State. Consequently, if the authority within the other
states stood with its forces in the way of the Islamic State to prevent the lands from submitting to the
Islamic State and its system, then Al-Jihaad in this situation is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate and legislated)
in Islaam, so as to accomplish this aim by force if it could not accomplish it by way of consent and treaty.

[(1) “Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadiy”, As-Sayyid Muhammad Rasheed Rida: p236-237].

The evidences for this direction and view are summarised as follows:
1 - The unrestricted (Mutlaq) Shar’iyah texts which affirm the fighting of the disbelievers without the
restriction of them being aggressors. These include:

A - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫اغلُ ْظَ َعلَي ِْه ْم‬ َ ‫ار ََو ْال ُم َنا ِفق‬
ْ ‫ِين ََو‬ َ ُّ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَال َّن ِبي‬
ْ ‫َجا ِهد‬
َ ‫َِال ُك َّف‬
O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them (At-Taubah: 73).

B - His Qawl ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

َ‫ار ََو ْل َي ِج ُدواَفِي ُك ْمَغِ ْل َظة‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬

َِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ َ ‫ََياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you (At-Taubah: 123).

C - The statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫َوي ُْؤ ُتوا‬،

َ ‫َو ُيقِيمُواَالص ََّال َة‬،
َ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ََّللاُ ََوأَنَّ َم َُحمَّد‬
ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬ َّ ‫َإال‬ َ ْ‫َحََّتىَ َي ْش َه ُدواَأَن‬
َّ ‫َالَإلَ َه‬ َ ‫تَأَنْ َأ ُ َقا ِت َلَال َّن‬
َ ‫اس‬ ُ ْ‫أُمِر‬
َّ
‫الز َكاََة‬
I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish the
Salaah and pay the Zakaat … (1).

In addition, we have already discussed the matter of the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts related to Al-Qitaal
within the first chapter of this volume and that leaving them upon their unrestricted form is outweighed
as strongest without these texts being restricted to aggression. As such, we will not repeat that discussion
again now.

2 - Those who hold this understanding also use, as evidence, the Hadeeth of Suleymaan Bin Buraidah
related from his father which is recorded in Saheeh Muslim. It contains that which relates to our subject
area, when it mentioned some of the Ahkaam which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to make every appointed
commander (Ameer), at the head of an expedition, abide by and adhere to when dispatching them
towards the enemy. This included his statement:

“If you meet your enemy from the Mushrikeen (in battle), then call them to three choices and
whichever they choose then accept that from them and refrain from (fighting) them. Call them to
Islaam. Then if they respond positively, then accept that from them and refrain from (fighting)
them … Then if they refuse, then ask them for the Jizyah and if they then respond positively (i.e.
accept) then accept that from them and refrain from them. Then if they refuse that, then rely
upon Allah’s help and fight against them …” (2).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 25, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1731 and in Sunuan Abi Dawud: 2612, 3/52].

3 - Those who hold this view also use the Aayah of Al-Jizyah as evidence:

َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ْ ‫َِو َالَ ِب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِين‬
ِ
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29) (1).
The angle of deduction in respect to all of these texts is: That the legislator has charged and made the
Muslims legally responsible in these texts to fight the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in an unrestricted (Mutlaq)
manner i.e. if they were not aggressors in line with the unrestricted nature of the texts. And they were
legally charged and made responsible (Mukallaf) for continuing in this Qitaal until one of two matters was
realised and accomplished:

- Either by their entry into Islaam.

- Or their submission to the Islamic rule which means making them from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and
joining their lands (physically) to Daar ul-Islaam.

4 - Those of this direction and view have also used the actions of the rightly guide Khulafaa’ as evidence:

Regarding that Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan said: “And the actions of the Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen support
what we have said and the Fuqahaa’ said the same. That is because they opened (or conquered) the
neighbouring lands, nullified their systems, implemented the Islamic law within them, made them enter
within the authority (Sultaan) of the Islamic State so that they became a part of it, whilst nobody rebuked
them for that at all. Therefore, this methodology and way has been agreed upon through consensus by all
and it represents the greatest consensus (Ijmaa’) that has been established upon a particular Shar’iyah
Mas’alah (issue) (2).

In addition, the word of the Fuqahaa’ has come together in agreement in Islaam upon the legal legitimacy
of inititating the declaration of Al-Jihaad against all disbelievers (3) and even if there was not aggression by
them against the Muslims or against the da’wah. That is for the sake and purpose of making them enter
under the Islamic rule. The only exception is what is related from Al-Imaam Maalik in respect to the
illegitimacy of initiating the Jihaad against Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) and the Turks alone whilst stating the
legal legitimacy of initiating Al-Jihaad against all other disbelievers. This is affirmed by Ibn Rushd in his
book “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” where he states: “As for those whom war is to be waged against, then they
have agreed that they are all of the Mushrikeen due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ونَال ِّدينُ َ ُكلُّهَُلِلَّـ ِه‬

َ ‫ونَ ِف ْت َنة ََو َي َُك‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ُك‬ َ ‫َو َقا ِتلُو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰى‬
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah (Al-Anfaal: 39).

[(1) In respect to Aayah 29 of At-Taubah Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in his book “Al-Umm”: “As-Saghaar”: To apply the
Hukm (ruling) of Islaam over them”, (2) “Majmoo’ah Buhooth Fiqhiyah”, Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidaan: p57, (3) Refer to: “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/387, “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/238, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzay: 164
and “Al-Kaasaaniy”: 7/100].

Except for what was related from “Maalik” that he said: It is not permitted to initiate Al-Habashah with
war nor the Turks due to what has been related that he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Leave Al-Habashah be as long as they
have left you be” and “Maalik” was questioned about the soundness of this report but did not
acknowledge that. Rather he said: The people are still holding back from attacking them” (1).

I say: The Hadeeth about leaving the fighting of the Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) and the Turks was related
by Abu Dawud amongst others and its text as recorded by Abu Dawud is:

َ ْ‫اَودَ عُو ُك ْم ََوا ْت ُر ُكواَال ُّتر‬

َ‫كَ َماَ َت َر ُكو ُك ْم‬ ْ ‫َدع‬
َ ‫ُواَال َح َب َش َةَ َم‬
“Leave Al-Habashah as long as they have left you and leave the Turks as long as they have left
you (alone)” (2).

We will discuss this Mas’alah in the forth coming studies however the Hadeeth, according to the view that
it is sound, indicates to the legal legitimacy of initiating the disbelievers with Al-Qitaal and even if an
aggression has not come from them. That is due to the exception that this Hadeeth has brought in respect
to initiating Al-Qitaal against Al-Habashah and At-Turk whilst maintaining the legitimacy of fighting them
in the situation of defence against aggression.

After having presented the evidences which each of the two groups have depended upon concerning this
issue we are currently addressing, we now move on to the third Mas’alah of this current study area and
that is:

The third Mas’alah (issue): A discussion of the evidences and the opinion that we
have selected based upon the strength of the evidences

We will first discuss the evidences of the first group which holds the view of the illegitimacy of fighting
the disbelievers and their states in that which relates to the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah to them unless
they (the disbelievers) stand in the face of the Da’wah …

[(1) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd (Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah: 6/8-9), (2) Sunan Abi Dawud:
4302. A version recorded by Ad-Dailamiy in “Firdaus Al-Akhbaar”: “Leave the Turks as long as they have left you because they
are a people of might or severe mettle and their caring is little …”. Al-Albaani said concerning the Hadeeth: “Hasan” (in his
“Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 4302, 3/811, (3) It appears that the guidance to leave fighting the Turks was only due to their
mighty strength at that time and that was until the Muslims were able to gather the capable strength to confront them. As for
leaving Al-Habashah, then it was because their King An-Najaashiy, who had embraced Islaam, had expressed his desire for
more time to be given until supporters increase … as will be discussed later. Despite this, the Madh’hab of Maalik, which raised
this issue, has stated the legal legitimacy of fighting the Turks and Al-Habashah for the sake of the Da’wah. The following was
mentioned in “Sharl ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer, 2/183: “And it was made permissible to fight the Romans and they are the
Franks and the Turks although other than them have priority. The stated text upon those who have been mentioned, only
indicates that the Hadeeth “Leave Al-Habashah …” guides to fighting other than them at that time is given priority”.

That is according to the meaning of preventing the Muslims from conveying the Da’wah within their
lands and even if they had not aggressed against the Muslims by fighting or material harm. That is
according to the consideration that the prevention of Tableegh (conveyance) represents an aggression. As
such, fighting against them is legislated (or legally legitimate) in the situation of defending against this kind
of aggression (1). Concerning the evidences of those who hold this view we say:

1 – The first Daleel (evidence): This is established upon the basis that the mere prevention of the
Tableegh (conveyance) of the Da’wah is an aggression and that the defence against aggression represents
the legally legitimate Sabab (reason) for Al-Jihaad in Islaam, according to the evidences that have been
presented. Based upon that, Al-Jihaad was legally legitimate to open the path before the Da’wah whenever
obstacles and obstructions were placed in its way.

I believe that those holding the idea of the illegitimacy of Al-Jihaad, apart from in the case of defence
against the aggression, viewed that this thought leads, in the end, to preventing the spread of Islaam and
not undertaking its conveyance. This is a matter which they viewed to be clashing with the Shar’iyah texts
which have dictated the carrying of Islaam and conveying it to all people, like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ َ‫ونَإِل‬
َ‫ىَال َخي ِْر‬ َ ‫ع‬َُ ‫َو ْل َت ُكنَمِّن ُك ْمَأُمَّةَ َي ْد‬
And let there arise from amongst you an Ummah (group) that calls to the Khair (good i.e. Islaam) (Aali-‘Imraan: 104).

Al-Imaam At-Tabariy said in his Tafseer: “By that Allah glorified be His praise means: Let there be from
among you O believers an Ummah. He said: A Jamaa’ah (group) calling the people to Al-Khair (good),
meaning to Islaam and to its legislations that Allah had legislated for His servants” (2).

I say: When those who held the idea of the illegitimacy of Al-Jihaad apart from in the case of defence
viewed that their thought leads to the prevention of the spread of Islaam. That is because if the
disbelievers abstain from fighting the Muslims, it may be that they do not permit, alongside that, the
spread of Islaam within their lands. Therefore, the view of abstaining from fighting them because they
have not engaged in acts of aggression (i.e. against the Muslims) would lead to Islaam not spreading within
their lands whilst such a situation is in conflict with the command of making Da’wah to Islaam … When
those of the idea of restricting the legitimacy of Al-Jihaad to the situation of defence alone perceived this
result, they resorted to expanding the indicative meaning of “Al-‘Udwaan” (aggression) to also encompass
the mere prevention of inviting people to Islaam and even if those disbelievers who prevent the Da’wah
had not engaged in any act of aggression against the Muslims, according to the well-known meaning of
aggression manifested in violence or harm etc… As such, included within the aggression or assault against
the Da’wah would be non-Muslim states refusing to grant entry visas to the carriers of the Da’wah
allowing them to enter their territories and invite their subjects to Islaam.

[(1) Refer to: “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, As-Sayis Saabiq: 2/612 and “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Al-Ustaadh
Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: 183, (2) “Tafseer At-Tabariy”: 4/26].

Then those of this opinion stopped the extension of the meaning of aggression at these limits that we
have mentioned, the limits bof preventing the conveyance of the Da’wah by tongue alone. Based upon
this logic of theirs, they should have seen that preventing the Islamic Da’wah from assuming the authority
within the non-Islamic states, to also be considered aggression against the Da’wah. That is because the
basis of aggression in their view is the prevention of that which the Shar’a had commanded in respect to
Islaam. And the Shar’a, just as it has commanded inviting the disbelievers to Islaam, it has also
commanded making the disbelievers submit to Islaam “Until they pay the Jizyah and are subdued” (At-Taubah:
29). The disbelievers preventing the Muslims from undertaking the Da’wah within their lands is like their
preventing the Muslims from assuming and receiving the authority and ruling them by Islaam within their
lands as well, in the case where the Shar’iyah texts have come commanding both of these matters.

However, it appears that the international custom or norms has played a role in respect to this
differentiation that has been made by those who hold the opinion, the evidences of which we are currently
discussing. That is in the case where the international custom or norm today does not condemn invitation
to be made to religion within other states, within particular remits or limits. However, it does condemn
and not accept requesting or demanding those states to hand over the authority in their lands to foreigners
and the declaration of Al-Qitaal (fighting) for that purpose and intended aim.

The truth concerning this Mas’alah, as I view it, is that there is no need to make the issue of “standing in
the face of the Da’wah” according to the meaning of refusing the permission for its propagation,
understood from the angle of aggression or assault and then pass jusdgement upon it, after that, within
the remit or limits of this aggression. Thus making opposition to the Da’wah by preventing it reaching the
people fall under the issue of aggression whilst on the other hand opposing it to prevent it from reaching
the authority and ruling is not seen from the perspective of aggression … there is, in my view, no need to
do that.

It would be more accurate for us to say:

- That the Shar’a has legally charged the Muslims to convey the Da’wah to other states and fighting
whoever stands in the face of this conveyance, is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate and justified in the Islamic
legislation).

- Likewise, the Shar’a has legally obliged the Muslims to make the Islamic Da’wah reach the authority in
the other lands with the meaning of assuming the Hukm (rule) and Sultah (authority) within them.
Therefore, it is legally legitimate (Mashroo’) to fight anyone who stands in opposition to that.
The issue then, is therefore one of implementing that which Allah Ta’Aalaa has commanded in respect to
the relationship between the Muslims and others from among the nations and states (of the world), in
realtion to the Islamic Da’wah.

- As for the Islamic State restrict itself to fighting some of the staes for the purpose acquiring permission
for the carriers of the Islamic Da’wah to convey alone without receiving or assuming the authority whilst
refraining from fighting them if they were to provide the permission for that.

- And that it could engage in fighting other states for the sake of assuming and taking over the suthority
within them and making them submit to the Islamic rule. Concerning these two possibilities I say: As for
this issue, then it returns back to the one who possesses the authority and right to decide according to his
evaluation of the capabilities that the Islamic State has and his evaluation of the Maslahah in relation to
adopting a particular stance with a certain state.

2 – The second Daleel (evidence): From among the Adillah (evidences) for the illegitimacy of Al-Jihaad
for the purpose of making other states submit to the Islamic rule, as long as they permit the propagation
of the Islamic Da’wah upon its land, is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِين‬ َّ
َ ‫ىَالظالِم‬َ‫انَإِ َّالَ َعل‬
َ ‫ونَال ِّدينُ َلِلَّـ ِهََۖ َفإِ ِنَان َت َه ْواَ َف َالَع ُْد َو‬
َ ‫ونَ ِف ْت َنة ََو َي َُك‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ُك‬ َ ‫َوََقا ِتلُو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰى‬
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] the Deen (worship) is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they
cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors (Al-Baqarah: 193).

The Tafseer of the Aayah according to the understanding of those who use it as an evidence to make the
view that they have taken comply with it has already been mentioned. The summary of it is: And fight, O
believers, the disbelievers who practise Fitnah against the believers (i.e. punish and harm them). Fight
them until there is no more Fitnah from them against the Muslims and until there exists, under their rule,
the worship of Allah, without Fitnah and being harmed. So if they cease from that Fitnah after your
fighting them and that fighting led to the accomplishment of its intended purpose, then cease fighting
them because there is no longer any ‘Udwaan (aggression or hostility) i.e there is no longer legal legitimacy
to fight except against the Zhaalimeen (transgressors) who continue to practise Fitnah against the
Muslims.

I say: The Aayah upon this meaning, represents the furthest that we can go to in respect to its Tafseer
(explanation) to support the view that we are discussing.

However, the majority of the scholars of Tafseer (Mufassireen) have explained “Al-Fitnah” in the Aayah
here as: “Ash-Shirk and Al-Kufr” (idolatry and disbelief) and very few have explained it with the meaning
of bringing harm or inflicting punishment. That is as this Tafseer (explanation) has been related from
‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair. In addition, they explained: “(Until) the Deen is to Allah” as meaning: Until none is
worshiped except Allah, that there does not exist obedience except to Allah in respect to his command
and forbiddance, and until Islaam prevails and is high over all other Deens (1).

And they explained: “But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors” as: If they cease
from Ash-Shirk (polytheism or disbelief) and fighting. Al-Qurtubiy said in his Tafseer: “And if they cease”
means: (If they cease) from Kufr (disbelief) either by embracing Islaam … or by giving the Jizyah in
respect to the Ahl ul-Kitaab … or otherwise they will be fought and they are the Zhaalimoon and there is
no ‘Udwaan (aggression) against them. What is done with the Zhaalimeen (oppressors or transgressors) is
called an aggression (‘Udwaan) in the case where it represents the recompense for ‘Udwaan and where the
Zhulm (oppression or transgression) includes al-‘Udwaan within it. Therefore, the recompense of
‘Udwaan (aggression) was called ‘Udwaan …” (2).
Based upon this, the meaning of the Aayah according to the majority of the Mufassireen (Scholars of
Tafseer) is:

And fight the disbelievers, O believers, until there is no Shirk and the Deen belongs to Allah absolutely i.e.
until the disbelievers enter into Islaam and the obedience belongs to Allah alone. This is in respect to the
Wathaniyeen (idolators/pagans) which will later be discussed with its details. Or until Shirk does not
manifest i.e. that the obedience belongs to Allah alone which means: That the Hukm (ruling) is for Islaam
to which the non-Muslims submit to by giving the Jizyah and by abiding by the Islamic Ahkaam which
relate to them.

In any case, as long as the Aayah is open to be explained to conform with both views … And even if the
majority explain it upon the angle of the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers until they enter into Islaam
or give the Jizyah, which will be discussed in detail later … I nevertheless see that the Aayah is related to
the disbelievers who initiate the fighting and Fitnah against the Muslims as the Aayah is talking about
them. In the previous Aayah Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتَلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِاَلَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Then He says:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْثَ َثقِ ْف ُتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
And kill them wherever you overtake them … (Al-Baqarah: 191).

And then comes the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ونَ ِف ْت َن َة‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ُك‬ َ ‫َوََقا ِتلُو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰى‬
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah … (Al-Baqarah: 192).

[(1) Tafseer At-Tabariy: 2/113, Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/227, “Taweel Mushkil Al-Qur’aan”, Ibn Qutaibah: p472, Tafseer Ash-
Shawkaaniy “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 1/192, “Soorat ul-Anfaal ‘Ard Wa Tafseer”, Mustafaa Zaid: p117, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy “Al-
Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: 2/354 and refer to Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy: 1/191].

All of the Damaa’ir (pronouns) (i.e. them) return to the disbelievers who initiated the Muslims with
fighting. Therefore, it is possible for those of the first direction or view to say: The Aayah establishes the
legal legitimacy of fighting the aggressors until they cease their aggression. That could be by their mere
ending of the aggression and the granting of permission for the Islamic Da’wah to be propagated without
Fitnah befalling its followers.

That could also be by the submission of the disbelievers to the Islamic rule in the case where it represents
the way of removing their Fitnah and it could be through their embracing of Islaam. And then His Qawl
Ta’Aalaa would apply upon them:

َ‫َفإِ ِنَان َت َه ْواَ َفإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ َغفُورَرَّ حِيم‬

Then if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful (Al-Baqarah: 192).

That is because Al-Maghfirah (forgiveness) is specific to the Muslims (and does not apply upon the
disbelievers).

This Tafseer does not however contradict or conflict with the second direction and view … Rather, it only
reveals the conflict in respect to the evidences in which the discussion is about the non-aggressing
disbelievers. That is because the first direction or position does not give legitimacy or justification to
fighting them to make them submit to Islaam (i.e. its rule) … Whilst the second direction views fighting
them to be justified and that it does not go outside of the scope of legitimacy for the sake of
accomplishing the mentioned objective.

3 – We now move on to discussing the third evidence and that is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َفإِ ِنَاعْ َت َزلُو ُك ْمَ َفلَ ْمَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْم ََوأَ ْل َق ْواَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّسلَ َمَ َف َم‬
َ‫اَج َع َلَاللَّـهَُلَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َس ِبيال‬
So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for
fighting] against them (An-Nisaa’: 90).

This Aayah came within the context of Aayaat discussing groups or categories of the disbelievers and
explain the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to them, in relation to the legitimacy of fighting them or the
removal of that legitimacy. The Aayah which is the subject of the deduction discusses two categories or
groups of the disbelievers and they are: The foreign Musta’mineen (i.e. those granted security and safety)
of the state who we have a peace treaty with and a group from amongst the disbelievers who are at war
with us, who came to us desiring to take a neutral position; not wanting to fight us alongside their people
and similarly not wanting to fight their own people alomngside us. Concerning these two categories or
groups, it is not permitted to fight them in the case where they have taken themselves away from fighting
the Muslims … So, after Allah Ta’Aalaa said in relation to the disbelievers:

َ ‫َف ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬
Then seize them and kill them wherever you find them (An-Nisaa’: 89).

He Subhaanahu said after that:

َ ُ‫ِينَيَصِ ل‬
َ‫ونَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َبَْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬ َ ‫إِ َّالَالَّذ‬
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty (An-Nisaa’: 90).

In “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas he clarifies what is intended by this group of people when he said:
“Except those who enter amongst a people whom you have an Amaan (security agreement) with and they
will have the same as the others in respect to it (i.e. the security)” (1). Then He Ta’Aalaa said:

َ َ‫ص ُدو ُر ُه ْمَأَنَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْمَأَ ْوَ ُي َقا ِتلُواَََق ْو َم ُه ْم‬
ََۚ‫َۚولَ ْوَ َشا َءَاللَّـهَُلَ َسلَّ َط ُه ْمَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفلَ َقا َتلُو ُك ْم‬ ُ َ‫ت‬ ْ ‫َحصِ َر‬ َ ‫أَ ْو‬
َ ‫َجاءُو ُك ْم‬
َ ‫َفإِ ِنَاعْ َت َزلُو ُك ْمَ َفلَ ْمَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْم ََوأَ ْل َق ْواَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّسلَ َمَ َف َم‬
َ‫اَج َع َلَاللَّـهَُلَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َس ِبيال‬
… Or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah
had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So, if they remove themselves from you
and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them (An-Nisaa’:
90).

Al-Jassaas said: “It is permissible for the Muslims to abandon the fighting of those Kuffar who did not
fight them … Except, that these Aayaat contain a prohibition of fighting those disbelievers who refrain
from fighting us. That is whilst we do not know any of the Fuqahaa’ who have prohibited fighting those
who hold themselves back or away from fighting us from the Mushrikeen. The difference is only in
respect to the permissibility (Jawaaz) of leaving fighting them and not in respect to its prohibition. That is
because an agreement has taken place amongst all in respect to the abrogation of the prohibition of
fighting those who are characterised by the description that we have mentioned …” (2).

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas intends to say: This Aayah prohibits fighting the disbelievers who remove
themselves from fighting us and that this Hukm (ruling) had represented the Hukm of Al-Qitaal in the
first stage of the legislation of Al-Jihaad in accordance to the statement of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
 َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Its understanding is: Do not fight those who do not fight you. Then the Hukm came to fight the Kuffaar
Mutlaqan (without restriction) i.e. whether they fight us or remove themselves from fighting us. That has
come in numerouse texts including the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـهَُ َو َرسُولُه‬

َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىََُيع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

Consequently, the first Hukm was abrogated which had been the prohibition of fighting those who
removed themselves from fighting and wanted peace and then the Hukm in respect to them became:

- Either the obligation of fighting them to make them submit to the Islamic rule, according to some of the
Fuqahaa’.

- Or the permission of fighting them, to make them submit to the Islamic rule, in the view of some other
Fuqahaa’, in accordance to the Islamic Maslahah (interest).

In any case, all agree over the legal legitimacy of fighting them to make them submit to the Islamic rule.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/189, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/191].

And this is the meaning of the statement of Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas:

“And we do not know anyone from the Fuqahaa’ who have prohibited fighting those Mushrikeen who
have removed themselves from fighting us. Rather, the disagreement is only in respect to the
permissibility of abandoning fighting them and not in respect to its prohibition” (1).

4 – The fourth evidence used by those who say that it is lawful to fight the non-aggressing disbelievers to
make them submit to the Islamic rule is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم ََو َالَ َتعْ َت ُدواََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah:
190).

The understanding of this Aayah, as mentioned previously, is that it is not permissible for the Muslims to
declare war against the disbelievers who do not aggress against the Muslims and do not fight against them
under the pretext of making them submit to the Islamic rule. The answer to this Daleel is: We have
already explained that the prohibition of fighting non-aggressing disbelievers represents the first Hukm
(ruling) in respect to the legislation of Al-Jihaad. It was then followed by the issuing of another Hukm and
that was the legal legitimacy of fighting the disbelivers without any restriction (Mutlaq), whether they were
aggressors or not. And that His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah: 190).
That this Aayah in light of the latter Hukm in respect to the legislation of Al-Jihaad only means that which
Ibn Katheer mentioned in his Tafseer: “The perpetration of sinful acts of disobedience (Ma’aasiy) as was
stated by Al-Hasan Al-Basriy in terms of mutilating bodies, treachery in respect to the spoils and booty,
killing women, children and the elderly who have no choice and no fighting in them, the priests and
monks, burning trees and killing animals for no legitimate benefit … And Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would dispatch his armies, he said:

َ ‫واَال ِو ْل َد‬
َ‫ان‬ ْ ُ‫واَوالَ َت ْق ُتل‬ َ ‫واَوالَ َتمْ ُثلُوا‬
َ ُّ‫َوالَ َت ُغل‬، ِ َّ ‫َب‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ْغ ِد ُر‬،‫اّلل‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ِ ‫ََّللاَ َمنْ َ َك َف َر‬ ََِّ ‫واَبسْ ِم‬
َِ ‫َ َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬،‫ََّللا‬ ْ
ِ ‫اخ ُر ُج‬
َِ ‫ص َوام‬
‫ِع‬ َ ‫َوالَأَصْ َح‬
ََّ ‫ابَال‬
Go out in the name of Allah, fight in the way of Allah those who have disbelieved in Allah and do
not betray and do not mutilate, and to not deceive (i.e. with the booty). And do not kill the
children or the monks” (2).

5 – The fifth Daleel of those of the position whose evidences we are discussing is the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

This establishes, as mentioned earlier, the obligation (Wujoob) of accepting a peace treaty with the
disbelievers if they request that. That means: The illegality or illegitimacy of fighting them to make them
submit to the Islamic rule, in such a situation.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/191, (2) “Tafseer Ibn Katheer”, 1/226 and the Hadeeth was related by Al-Imaam
Ahmad].

The response to this Daleel is that the command here to incline to peace when the disbelievers request the
peace has not come in the way of Wujoob (obligation) but rather has come in the way or form of Ibaahah
(permissibility) and it is decided in accordance to the dictates of the interests of the Islamic Da’wah. Just
as it could occur when the Muslims are in a state or condition of weakness, or when it is hoped that the
disbelievers would embrace Islaam, or there is the possibility of making them submit to the rule of the
Muslims without resorting to fighting after a certain period of time … or some reason similar to these.
The command to accept the peace is only one of Jawaaz (permissibility) i.e. Al-Ibaahah and not Al-
Wujoob (obligatory). That is as a result of bringing this Aayah of Al-Anfaal together (i.e. so as to
understand their import and Hukm) with other Aayaat like the following two:

- The Aayah of Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah):

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

- And the Aayah of Soorah Muhammad:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن‬
ْ ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلم ََوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior (Muhammad: 35).
That is because the apparent (Zhaahir) meaning of the Aayah of “Baraa’ah” (At-Taubah) dictates the
obligation (Wujoob) of fighting the disbelievers and not accepting to make a peace treaty with them. This
is particularly pertinent because Soorah Baraa’ah was revealed after Soorah Al-Anfaal. However, the most
correct understanding in respect to bringing the two Aayaat together is the legal legitimacy of both
commands:

- Either, fighting the disbelievers to make them submit to the Islamic rule.
- Or, convening a peace treaty with them and leaving or not undertaking the fighting.

The one who has the right to make the decisions within the Islamic State chooses that which is in the
interests (Maslahah) of the Islamic Da’wah according to what the different conditions or circumstances
permit which must be placed into the calculations when taking a specific decision; a decision to go to war
or a decision to make peace.

Concerning this matter, Ibn Katheer said the following in his Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َوإِنَ َج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

… He said: “And Ibn ‘Abbaas, Mujaahid, Zaid Bin Aslam, ‘Ataa Al-Khuraasaaniy, ‘Ikramah, Al-Hasan
and Qataadah said: This Aayah is Mansookhah (abrogated) by the Aayah of As-Saif (the sword) in
Baraa’ah (At-Taubah):

ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬

َ‫َاْلخ ِِر‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day … (At-Taubah: 29).

This requires some examination though because the Aayah of “Baraa’ah” contains the command to fight
them if that is possible. As for if the enemy is dense (i.e. many), then it is permitted to make a truce with
them as the Noble Aayaah guided to i.e. “And if they incline to peace …”. And that is like what the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
did on the day of Al-Hudaibiyah. Therefore, there is no negation and no abrogation or specification, and
Allah is All Knowledgeable” (1).

- As for Al-Jam’u (bringing together or combining the meanings) between the Aayah of Al-Anfaal:

َ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

And the Aayah of Soorah Muhammad:

َ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْل ِم ََوأَن ُت ُمَ ْاألَعْ َل ْو َن‬

َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior (Muhammad: 35).

Then, this latter Aayah dictates the Nahi (forbiddance) of calling to a peace treaty with the disbelievers
when the Muslims are in a position of power, supremacy and grandeur. The Jam’u (bringing together) of
the two Aayaat is done according to how it has been mentioned by Al-Qurtubiy in his Tafseer of the Qawl
of Allah:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن‬
ْ ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلم ََوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior (Muhammad: 35).
He stated the following: “The ‘Ulamaa’ have differed in respect to its Hukm (ruling). And so it has been
said: It abrogates His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

Because Allah Ta’Aalaa has forbidden inclining to peace if the Muslims are not in need of convening such
a peace … And it is said: It is Muhkamah (very clear in meaning) and the two Aayaat were revealed in two
times int wo different circumstances” (2).

And Ibn ul-Arabiy said in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”: “And as for the one who said: If they call you to peace
then respond affirmatively to them, then the answer differs in respect to that. Allah has said:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن‬
ْ ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلم ََوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior (Muhammad: 35).

And if the Muslims are in a position of might, strength and (fighting) power … then there is no Sulh
(peace treaty) … And if there was an interest (Maslahah) for the Muslims in convening the peace treaty to
bring a benefit or to repel a harm, then there is no problem for Muslims to propose it if they require it or
to respond to it if they are called to it. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made a Sulh (peace treaty) with the people of
Khaibar, a Muwaada’ah (treaty) with Ad-Damriy and a Hudnah (truce) for ten years with Quraish which
lasted until they broke the covenant or treaty. The Khulafaa’ and the Sahaabah remained upon this same
path that we have explained and in accordance to the ways that we have explained …” (3).

And the author of “Al-Kash’shaaf” said concerning the Tafseer of the Aayah:

َ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

[(1) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/322-323 and refer also to Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/39-40, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 16/256, (5)
Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/864-865 and also refer to Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, Al-Jassaas: 5/271 and Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy,
Al-Aalousiy: 26/80].

“And the correct view is that the matter rests upon what the Imaam views to be in the best interest or
well-being for Islaam and its followers, in tersm of war or peace. And it is not inevitable that they will
fight always [i.e. the non-aggressing disbelievers] or that they will be responded to always in a truce (or
peace) …” (1).

I say: Based upon this, by way of “Al-Jam’u” (bringing together the evidences) between the all of the
evidences the opinion that fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) is legeally legitimate and even if it was gainst
non-aggressors and they requested a Sulh (peace treaty) represents the strongest opinion, and that is for
the purpose of making them submit to the Islamic rule.

6 – The sixth evidence of those whose evidences we are discussing is that all of the wars of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
were defensive and that they did not include within them any aggression (‘Udwaan).

The response to this evidence is summarised in two points:

Firstly: It is not permitted to call the Muslims initiating the fighting against the non-aggressor disbelievers
for the purpose of ruling them by Islaam as an ‘Udwaan (aggression). It cannot be named as such as the
legitimacy of that Qitaal (fighting) has been brought by the Shar’a. That is because ‘Al-‘Udwaan’
(aggression) represents a transgression and violation of the limits of the Shar’a in respect to the actions.
What we are discussing here does not fall under that reality.

Secondly: The Daleel (evidence) for the legal legistimacy or lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of actions in
Islaam is not restricted to the action (Fi’l) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬but rather its sources alos include what the
texts of the Qur’aan and the texts of the Sunnah Qawliyah (spoken Sunnah). And the following text came
in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem:

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـهَُ َو َرسُولُه‬

َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ ْ ‫َب َْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ َْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

Just as the following text came within the Sunnah Al-Qawliyah (spoken Sunnah):

...َ‫ّلل‬ ِ ‫َقا ِتلُواَ َمنْ َ َك َف َر‬

ِ ‫َبا‬
Fight those who disbelieve in Allah … (2).

Both of these texts came in a Mutlaq (unrestricted) form and not restricted to the disbelievers being
aggressors so as to restrict or limit the legal legitimacy of fighting them to the case of defence against an
act of aggression.

Based upon those unrestricted texts the legal legitimacy is established in respect to fighting the disbelievers
and even if they were not aggressors for the sake of making them submit to the rule of Islaam in
accordance the Shar’iyah texts that have come related to that.

The majority of the Fuqahaa’ are also upon this opinion, as mentioned earlier, and they include amongst
them Al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Qayyim.

[(1) “Al-Kash’shaaf”, Az-Zamakhshariy: 2/182, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1731].

We have specifically mentioned these two Imaams because those who follow the first view or direction
which states the absence of legal legitimacy in respect to fighting disbelievers except in the situation of
aggression, have used some of what has been written by these two Imaams to give support to their view in
relation to restricting the legitimacy of Al-Jihaad to defence alone. We will now present that which they
used to support their position and make clear the angle of what they were both saying, as we view it, just
as we will make clear that the two Imaams have other speech attributed to them which supports the
position or viw that the majority of the Fuqahaa’ have held.

- Ash-Sheikh “Muhammd Abu Zahrah” said the following in his book about “Ibn Taymiyyah”: “Ibn
Taymiyyah deduces that Al-Qitaal (fighting) is to repel the aggression (i.e. that it is defensive) from the
Qur’aan as well by the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َالَإِ ْك َرا َهَفِيَال ِّد‬

َ‫ين‬
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the Deen (Al-Baqarah: 256).

And this text is ‘Aamm (general) and if the Qitaal (fighting) was (undertaken) for the Wasf (description) of
Kufr (disbelief) then that would represent compulsion to accept Islaam. And he says (May Allah be
pleased with him): “We do not compel anyone to accept Islaam and if the Kaafir was to be fought until he
became Muslim then that would represent the greatest form of compulsion in respect to the Deen” …
And Ibn Taymiyyah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: His Seerah (i.e of the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬was that in
respect to anyone who sought a Hudnah (truce or peace) with him from the disbelievers, he did fight
them and the books of Seerah, Hadeeth, Tafseer, Fiqh and Maghaaziy conform with that. This is
Mutawaatir from his Seerah ‫ ﷺ‬as he did not initiate the Qitaal (fighting) against anyone” (1).

This is what he said and what Al-Imaam Muhammad Abu Zahrah quoted fom Al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah
in relation to this Mas’alah (issue). My opinion is that concerning the Aayah:

ِ ‫َالَإِ ْك َرا َهَفِيَال ِّد‬

َ‫ين‬
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the Deen (Al-Baqarah: 256).

Then, it does not negate or run contrary to Al-Qitaal being undertaken for the prupose of making the
disbelievers submit to the rule of Islaam whilst retaining the Deens that they had been upon if they wish
to. That which is negated in the Aayah is the compulsion to enter Islaam and not the compulsion to
submit to the Islamic system as was mentioned in the Aayah of Al-Jizyah:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َبا ْل َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

As for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬not having fought against anyone who made a Hudnah (truce or
peace) with him and that he did not initiate the fighting (Qitaal) against anyone:

- If what is intended by those who made a Hudnah with him ‫ ﷺ‬are those whom he had actually
contracted a Hudnah (peace or truce) with (i.e. Mu’aahadah), then it is natural that he would not have
fought them in compliance to the contract of the truce or treaty.

[(1) “Risaalah Al-Qitaal”, Ibn Taymiyah: p123 (Majmoo’ Rasaa’il Najdiyah) (Ibn Taymiyah by Ash-Seikh Abu Zahrah: p380-
381].

- And if what was intended by those whom sought a truce with him were those disbelievers who did not
fight the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and did not aggress against him, and then based upon that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬also left
them and did not fight against them and even if there was no peace treaty contracted between them. If
this was intended from what was stated, then it has been established earlier, during the discussion of the
evidences, that the Qitaal (fighting) against non-aggressing disbelievers to make them sumit to the Islamic
rule or deciding not to fight them is a matter that returns to the Imaam (leader) of the Muslims who
makes the decision based upon the dicates of the Maslahah (interests) concerning that.

Therefore, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬leaving the fighting against the non-aggressing disbelievers does not indicate to
the legal illegitimacy of fighting them if the Maslahah (interest) dictated the declaration of Al-Qitaal
against them, with the aim of compelling them by the Islamic rule, whenever the capability was available
and present to fulfil that.

- As for him ‫ ﷺ‬not having initiated Al-Qitaal against anyone, then that also does not indicate to the
illegality or illegitimacy of initiating Al-Qitaal against the disbelievers for the prupose of ruling them by
Islaam. And as was established earlier, it is the decision of the decision maker within the Islamic State to
initiate the Qitaal against the disbelievers and even if they were non-aggressors, if they rejected Islaam or
refused to voluntarily adhere to the Islamic Ahkaam (rulings). That is for the purpose or sake of applying
the Islamic system upon them. Similarly, he can decide not to fight them by way of a Mu’aahadah (treaty)
or without one, where he does that which the Islamic Maslahah has dictated to be done.

In addition, the disbelievers surrounding the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had declared war against him and he had
barely finished fighting those aggressors and making them submit, that he went beyond them to those
disbelievers after them from whom no act of aggression had emanated. Therefore, his leaving the fighting
of those who had not fought him was not because of the absence of legal legitimacy of fighting them to
make them submit to and abide by the Islamic rule. Rather, the reason for that, was that he had not found
rest or a break from fighting those aggressing disbelievers, so as to allow us to see what his position would
be towards the non-aggressors? However, he ‫ ﷺ‬explained the Shar’iy position towards them within the
Qur’aan and the Sunnah Al-Qawliyah (spoken Sunnah) according to what we have earlier presented and
that was: The legal legitimacy or lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of fighting them to make them submit to the
Islamic rule:

َ‫ُون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (i.e. made to submit to the Islamic rule) (At-Taubah: 29).

In this way, we do not see within the speech of “Ibn Taymiyah”, mentioned above, that which negates the
legal legitimacy of fighting the non-aggressing disbelievers for the purpose of making them submit to the
Islamic rule, nor do we see that which supports the opinion of limiting or restricting the legitimacy of
fighting them to only the situation of defence alone. That is opposite to what is understood from the
speech of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah in respect to his affirmation of the opinon of Ibn
Taymiyah in relation to this Mas’alah. Indeed, Ibn Taymiyah has (other) speech in which he supports
initiating the fighting against the disbelievers just like what was mentioned in the “Risaalah Al-
Qubrusiyah” (Cyprus letter) that he sent to the Christian King of Cyprus in relation to the Muslim
prisoners held in Cyprus … In relation to our Mas’alah (iisue) he stated the following in the letter:

“It is extremely astonishing that the Christians would take people captive by treachery or without
treachery as long as they had not fought them. That is whilst the Maseeh says: Whoever strikes you on the
right cheek then turn your left to him … And is someone was to say: They fought us first … It is said (in
return): This false in respect to those you betrayed by it and those who you initiated the fighting against.
And as for those who did bengin the fighting against you then he is excused because Allah Ta’Aalaa
commanded him to do that and His Messenger …! And the one who acts in accordance to obedience to
Allah and His Mesengers and calls to His worship and Deen … and fought for the word of Allah to be
highest and for the Deen to be for Allah alone, is not equal to the obne who fought based upon his own
desire, in obedience to Shaytaan (the devil) and contrary to Allah and His Messengers” (1).

Therefore, the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of fighting the disbelievers for the sake of the purposes he
mentioned is clear from this speech of Ibn Taymiyah. That is concerning Ibn Taymiyah.

- As for that which is linked to his student Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Qayyim, then in the book “Aathaar ul-Harb”
by Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy, he quotes from the book “Zaad ul-Ma’aad” by Ibn ul-Qayyim, his opinion
concerning Al-Jihaad. He states the following: “And his student said (i.e. the student of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn
ul-Qayyim): “And Al-Qitaal (fighting) was made obligatory upon the Muslims against those who fought
them and not against those who did not fight them. Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َالمُعْ َتد‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم ََو َالَ َتعْ َت ُدواََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫ََو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (Al-Baqarah:
190) (2).
Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy comments upon the speech of Ibn ul-Qayyim by saying: “And this
defensive position is what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬proceeded upon and the Muslims after him …” (3).

[(1) “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah”, Ibn Taymiyah (Majmoo’ah Ar-Rasaa’il Al-Mufeedah): p255-256, (2) Refer to “Zaad ul-
Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/71, (3) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p93].

I say: This speech of Ibn ul-Qayyim was only related to the stage in which the legislation of Al-Jihaad was
restricted to defence alone. That does not negate that the Tashree’ (legislation) came after that with the
legal legitimacy to undertake Al-Jihaad against the disbelievers generally and even if they were not
aggressors.

Concerning this Ibn ul-Qayyim said in his book “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”:

“Then Al-Qitaal (fighting) was made obligatory (Fard) upon them after that against those who fought
them and not those who did not fight them as He said:

َ‫ِينَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِالَّذ‬
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress (Al-Baqarah: 190).

Then the Qitaal against all the Mushrikeen was made obligatory upon them. And it (i.e. fighting the
Kuffaar) was Muharram (forbidden), the permitted, then commanded with against those who initiate the
fighting against them and then it was commanded against all of the Mushrikeen! (i.e. disbelievers). It is
either Fard ‘Ain (a duty upon the individual) according to one view or Fard Kifaayah (a duty of
sufficiency) which is the well-known opinion” (1).

This is what Ibn ul-Qayyim said and by that we come to the end of this Mas’alah (issue) in which we have
discussed the Adillah (evidences) of those who say that there is no legal legitimacy to fight the disbelievers
with the aim of applying the Islamic rule over them, in the case where they have held back their hands
from aggressing against the Muslims, which includes not placing obstacles and obstrucions in the way of
the Islamic Da’wah within their lands and amongst their subjects.

The strength of the evidences of the other direction and view, in relation to this Mas’alah, has become
clear to us during that discussion. That is the position stating the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad
against the disbelievers and even if they were not aggressors and did not obstruct the path of the Islamic
Da’wah within their lands, for the prupose of applying the Islamic rule over them, making their lands join
(physically) to Daar ul-Islaam and making their inhabitants subjects of the Islamic State, even if they retain
their beliefs and religions. And that is according to what the Maslahah (interest) of Islaam and the
Muslims dictates.

We have also seen in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) that the majority of the Fuqahaa’, including
Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn ul-Qayyim, held the opinion of the legal legitimacy of the Muslims
initiating the disbelievers in Al-Qitaal (fighting), for the purpose of carrying the Islamic Da’wah to them
so that they embrace it or enter under its authority and system … And that the legal legitimacy is not
restricted alone to defence against the aggression. Based upon all of that, we choose the opinion of the
majority in respect to this Mas’alah due to the strength of its evidences. And with that we have concluded
the first area of study of this chapter and now move on to the second area of study.

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/71].

 The second study

What are the non-Muslims in other states invited to?

We will address this area of study within to issues which are:

1 – The first Mas’alah (issue): The Da’wah that is directed to the disbelivers, what is it?

2 – The second Mas’alah (issue): What is the Hukm of inviting the disbelievers to Islaam or to submit to
the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam, before the Qitaal (fighting)?
 1 – The first Mas’alah (issue): The Da’wah that is directed to the disbelivers, what
is it?

The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬explained and made clear the Da’wah that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to direct to
the disbelievers within the Hadeeth of Buraidah as recorded in Saheeh Muslim and other collections. The
following was mentioned within it:

َ‫كَ َفا ْق َبلَْ ِم ْن ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َ َفأ َ َّي ُتهُنَّ َ َماَأَ َجابُو‬-َ‫ال ٍل‬ َ ‫َأَ ْوَ ِخ‬-َ‫ال‬ ٍ ‫ص‬ َ ‫ع ُه ْمَإِلَىَ َثالَثَِ ِخ‬ َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َُ ‫ِينَ َف ْاد‬ ْ ‫كَم َِن‬ َ ‫َوإِ َذاَلَق‬
َ ‫ِيتَ َع ُد َّو‬
َ ْ‫َاد ُع ُه ْمَإَِلَىَال َّت َح َُّو ِلَمِن‬ ْ ‫َث َّم‬ َ ‫ىَاإلسْ الَ ِمَ َفإِنْ َأَ َجابُو‬
ُ ‫كَ َفا ْق َبلَْ ِم ْن ُه ْم ََو ُكفَّ َ َع ْن ُه ْم‬
ِ َ‫َاد ُع ُه ْمَإِل‬ ُ ‫َع ْن ُه ْم‬
ْ ‫َث َّم‬ َ َّ‫َو ُكف‬
َ‫ين‬َ ‫ىَال ُم َها ِج ِر‬ ْ َ‫ين ََو َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َماَ َعل‬ َ ‫كَ َفلَ ُه ْمَ َماَل ِْل ُم َها ِج ِر‬َ ِ‫ين ََوأَ ْخ ِبرْ ُه ْمَأَ َّن ُه َْمَإِنْ َ َف َعلُواَ َذل‬ ْ ‫ار‬
َ ‫َال ُم َها ِج ِر‬ ِ ‫ار ِه ْمَإِلَىَ َد‬ ِ ‫َد‬
َ‫ََّللاَالَّذِيَ َيجْ ِري‬ ِ َّ ‫ِينَ َيجْ ِريَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ ُح ْك ُم‬ ْ ‫ونَ َكأَعْ َراب‬
َ ‫َِال َُمسْ لِم‬ َ ‫َفإِنْ َأَ َب ْواَأَنْ َ َي َت َح َّولُواَ ِم ْن َهاَ َفأ َ ْخ ِبرْ ُه ْمَأَ َّن ُه ْمَ َي ُكو ُن‬
َ‫ِينَ َفإِنْ َ ُه ْم ََأَ َب ْواَ َف َس ْل ُه ُم‬ َ ‫َالمُسْ لِم‬ْ ‫َِو ْال َفىْ ِءَ َشىْ ءَإِالََّأَنْ َي َُجا ِه ُدواَ َم َع‬ َ ‫ِيَال َغنِي َمة‬ْ ‫ِين ََوالََ َي ُكونُ َلَ ُه ْمَف‬ ْ َ‫َعل‬
َ ‫ىَال َُم ْؤ ِمن‬
ِ ْ‫كَ َفا ْقََبلَْ ِم ْن ُه ْم ََو ُكفَّ َ َع ْن ُه ْمَ َفإِنْ َ ُه ْمَأَ َب ْواَ َفاسْ َتعِن‬
ِ َّ ‫َب‬
‫اّللَ َو َقات ِْل ُه َْم‬ َ ‫ْال ِج ْز َي َةَ َفإِنْ َ ُه ْمَأَ َجابُو‬
When you meet your enemy of the polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they
respond to any one of these, then accept it from them and refrain from doing them any harm.
Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from
fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen
and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the
Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims
and will be subjected to the Hukm (ruling) of Allah like what applies upon the other Muslims,
but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' (booty) unless they undertake Al-
Jihaad alongside the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse (i.e to accept Islam), then
call them to give the Jizyah. If they agree to that, accept it from them and hold back your hands
(from fighting). If they refuse (that), then seek Allah's help and fight them (1).

And in a narration of the Hadeeth recorded by Abu Dawud the following was stated:

ْ ‫َفإِنْ َ ُه ْمَأَ َب ْواَ َف ْاد ُع ُه ْمَإِلَىَإِعْ َطا ِء‬

َ‫َال ِج ْز َي ِة‬
Then if they refuse (or reject) then call them to give the Jizyah (2).

That which is connected in this Hadeeth to the invitation of those who become Muslim to perform the
Hijrah and the consequences of refusing to accept the Jizyah in terms of the legal legitimacy of fighting,
will be discussed in the next study area Inshaa Allah. The angle of deduction concerning the Hadeeth in
realtion to the are of study we are addressing now is: That the Kuffaar (disbelievers) are called or invited
to one of two matters: Either to embrace Islaam or to give the Jizyah.

- As for the Da’wah (invitation) to embrace Islaam, then this is the first and initial invitation that is
directed towards the other states and their citizens. All possible styles and means should be undertaken,
including diplomatic, modern media means in terms of news, radio and television media, for the purpose
of providing the authoriies and citizens, within these other states, a general picture and portrayal of
Islaam. That is in terms of the Aqeedah that it is established upon and a general knowledge of the
different systems that emanate from the Aqeedah and this is what is known today as “general culture”.
That genral culture about Islaam would be directed to the other states would be characterised by a level of
seriousness which aims to generate a conviction in respect to the thoughts that it carries and to remove
any doubts or questions surrounding it. In addition, it aims to expose what exists in other contrary beliefs
and systems in terms of their corruption and falsity. This is so that all of this leads to the generation of
what is called a public or genral awareness about Islaam amongst the non-Muslims in a manner that makes
clear the realisation of the condition stated in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem in relation to conveying the Da’wah,
and that is: “‫( ”ا ْل َب َال ُغَا ْلم ُِبين‬The clear or manifest conveyance). This is the Shart (condition) that came in the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫اَال َب َال ُغ‬

َُ‫َالم ُِبين‬ َ ‫َفاعْ لَمُواَأَََّن َماَ َعلَ ٰى‬
ْ ‫َرسُوَِل َن‬
Then know that upon Our Messenger is only [the responsibility for] clear notification (Al-Maa’idah: 92).

And in His Qawl ‘Azza wa Jalla:

ْ ‫َال َب َال ُغ‬

َُ‫َالم ُِبين‬ ْ ‫َف َهلَْ َعلَىَالرُّ س ُِلَإِ َّال‬
So, is there upon the messengers except [the duty of] clear notification? (An-Nahl: 35).

What we have mentioned here in respect to being diligent about generating a conviction amongst those
the Da’wah is be directed to, using different means, is not a matter that the circumstances of the modern
age have dictated or made necessary. Whilst, for instance, that was not taken into account or given regard
within the Prophetic Seerah when the Da’wah was being directed to the disbelievers … And that the
Da’wah, as is imagined, was merely a quick or brief customary presentation around the three choices:
Either Islaam, or the Jizyah, or war … without holding negotiations or discussions about the reality of the
Islamic Da’wah, whether that was in length or condensed … No, the matter was not like that at all …

The one who reads the long discussion and dialogue that took place between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and ‘Adiy Bin
Haatim At-Taa’iy, the Christian who was the head of his clan from the “Tayyi” tribe, which took place
before ‘Adiy declared his Islaam, would realise the extent of diligence of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to convince the
one he was discussing with of the correctness of Islaam and make him desire to embrace it. That included
his expressing knowledge of the details of Christianity and violations of its teachings which had the
greatest impact upon ‘Adiy Bin Haatim and his conversion to Islaam.

The following is a part of what was discussed in that dialogue as recorded in the Seerah Of Ibn Hishaam:

“… O ‘Adiy Bin Haatim! Were you not Rukoosiy (religion between Christianity and Sabeans)? He (‘Adiy
who is relating) said: I said: Yes, indeed! He (‫ )ﷺ‬asked: Did you not used to proceed with your people
according to the rule of a quarter in respect to booty (A Jaahiliyah custom)? He (‘Adi) said: I said: Yes,
indeed! He said: That was not Halaal for you in your Deen (religion). He (‘Adiy) said: I said: Yes, by Allah!
And he (‘Adiy as the narrator) said: And I knew that he was indeed a Nabi (Prophet) who had been sent
who knows that which others are ignorant of! Then he (‫ )ﷺ‬said: It may that what you see of their needs
(i.e. poverty of the Muslims) that prevents you from entering this Deen? For by Allah, it won’t be long
until the wealth is abundant amongst them until there is none to take it. And it may be that what you see
in terms the large number of enemies and their (i.e. the Muslims) small number that prevents you from
entering in it (i.e. Islaam)? For by Allah, it will not be long until you hear about a woman sets off from Al-
Qaadisyah upon her camel until she visits this House (Bait ul-Haraam for Hajj) without her being in fear!
And it may be that what prevents you from entering into it, is that you see the Mulk (rule) and Sultaan
(authority) in other than them? By Allah, it will not be long until you hear that the white palaces of the
land of Babylon have been conquered. He (‘Adiy) said: And so I embraced Islaam!

And ‘Adiy used to say: Two (i.e. of the prophecies) have passed and the third remains. By Allah it will be!
For I have seen the white palaces of the land of Babylon being conquered! And I have seen the woman
leave from Al-Qaadisyah upon her camel with no fear until she made Hajj of this House (Bait ul-Haraam)!
By Allah, the third will come to pass where the wealth is abundant until there is no longer anyone to take
it (i.e. in need of others support)” (1).

[(1) Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/212. As-Suhailiy said in Ar-Rawd: “And the Hadeeth of his Islaam (i.e. becoming
Muslim) is ‘Saheeh ‘Ajeeb’ recorded by At-Tirmidhi” (Ar-Rawd ul-Unufr: 4/228].
- And the following is a part of the dialogue that took place between the envoy of the Nabi ‫‘ ﷺ‬Amr
Ibn Al-‘Aass and the two brother Kings of Oman; Jaifar and ‘Abd, the two sons of Al-Julandiy. The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬had sent ‘Amr to them to invite them to Islaam and to deliver a message to them related to that.
Before delivering the message, a long dialogue took place, in relation to the Islamic Da’wah, between
‘Amr and ‘Abd one of the two kings of Oman. The author of “Nasb Ar-Raayah” mentioned that long
dialogue as reported by ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas concerning the discussion that took place first between him and
‘Abd, and then between him and his brother Jaifar, secondly. ‘Amr said the following:

“… And I informed him (i.e. He informed ‘Abd) that An-Najaashiy had embraced Islaam! And he said: I
don’t believe that Heraclius knows about his conversion to Islaam! I said: No, he has come to know! He
said: How do you know? I said: Najaazhiy used to give Kharaaj (i.e. an amount imposed upon the
province of Al-Habahsha paid to Heraclius in its capacity as being subservient to the Roman Empire).
Then when he became Muslim he (i.e. An-Najaashiy) said: By Allah if he asks me for a single Dirham I
would not give it to him. Then when that reached Heraclius it was said to him: Will you leave your servant
and allow him not to give you Kharaaj (levy) whilst he follows a new Deen! He (heraclius) said: And what
should I do? A man who desires his Deen and chooses it for himself! By Allah, if it was not for my Mulk
(rule) I would have done the same as what he did!

Then he (‘Abd Bin Al-Julandiy) said to ‘Amr: Look O ‘Amr at what you are saying! There is no worse
quality in a man than lying. So I said: By Allah, I did not lie and it (lying) is Haraam in our Deen! So he
said: And what is it that he (i.e. the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬is inviting to? I said: He invites to Allah alone, that He has
no partner, and he commands obedience to Allah, good conduct, maintain relatiosn, and he forbids sinful
acts, oppression and aggression, Zinaa (fornication and adultery), drinking alcohol, worshiping stone, idols
and the cross. Then he said: Indeed, how excellent that is! If my brother was to join me then we would
ride to him so as to affirm our belief in him however my brother is to attached to his rule so as to leave it!
I said: If he was to become Muslim, then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would place him in the position of
authority over his people. He (‘Amr) said: Then he informed the brother what I had told him and so he
called for me. I entered to where he was and gave him the letter. He opened it and then read it. He then
passed it to his brother who read it like him except he was more delicate (i.e. ‘Abd was more delicate in his
approach or reading than Jaifar). And he said to me: What is the situation of Quraish? I said: There is not
anyone of them except that they have embraced Islaam! Either, out of a desire for Islaam or overcome by
the sword [i.e. those who initially prefered to openly display their Islaam rather than leave the Arabian
Peninsula if they were to insist upon disbelief and that was because Islaam had given notice to the
Mushrikeen who had broken their treaty with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to travel freely in the land during a grace
period for a maximum of four months if they refused to enter Islaam. Then whoever was found within
the Arabian Peninsula after that period whilst stil insisting upon disbelief and effused to enter Islaam, then
he would face being killed in such a situation due to his challenging of the former notification].

‘Amr said: The people had entered Islaam and they knew by their minds in addition to the guidance of
Allah given to them. They were astray (in misguidance) and I do not know of anyone remaining other
than you and if you don’t embrace Islaam horses will step upon you (i.e. your land and you green will be
effaced! (i.e. what you possess). So embrace Islaam and you will be safe. He said: Give me this day (i.e. to
decide). He (‘Amr) said: Then when he was alone with his brother he said: What is our situation that we
find ourselves in, and the affair of this man (i.e. the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬has arisen and all whom he was sent to
have responded affirmatively to him (i.e. embraced Islaam)!? He (‘Amr) said: Then when he awoke in the
morning, he sent for me and he had his brother embraced Islaam together. They paved the way for me to
collect the Sadaqah [i.e. to collect the Zakaah from those who had embraced Islaam and the Jizyah from
those who remained upon their Deen and had not accepted to enter Islaam] and they (the brothers)
assisted me aginst anyone who opposed me …” (1).
The above is related to the Da’wah to Islaam and that is must me undertaken in a manner that leads to the
one it is being directed to respond affirmatively to Islaam and seek to embrace it. And that is what the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬instructed explicitly as can be found mentioned within some of the Ahaadeeth:

َ‫َو َالَ ُتغِي ُرواَ َعلَي ِْه ْم‬,َ َ ‫اَب ِه ْم‬ ِ ‫َو َتأ َ َّن ْو‬,َ
َ ‫اس‬ َ ‫َ َتأَلَّفُواَال َّن‬:َ‫َ َقا َل‬،َ‫ثَ َبعْ ثا‬ َ ‫َإِ َذاَ َب َع‬،َ‫َِو َسلَّ َم‬ َّ َّ‫صل‬
َ ‫ىََّللاَُ َعلَ ْيه‬ َ َ ُّ‫انَالََّن ِبي‬
ََ ‫َك‬
ََْ‫حبَََُّإِلََيَََّ َِمنَََْأَن‬
ََ َ‫ينََأ‬ َِ ‫ال ََأَنََََْتَأَُْتوَِن‬
ََ ‫يَب َِه َْمَ َُمسََِْل َِم‬ َ َّ ِ‫ََإ‬.‫ضَ َِمنَََْأَهَْلَ ََم ََد ٍَرَ ََو ََوََب َِر‬ َ ِ َْ‫ىَاألَر‬
َ ََ‫عل‬ ََ َ‫َََف ََما‬,َ‫َح َّتىَ َت ْدعُو ُه ْم‬
‫جالََ َُهم‬ َِ ُ‫ساَِئ َِه َْمَ ََوََتَْقَُتَل‬
ََ ‫واَر‬ َِ ‫ََتَأَُْتوَِن‬
ََ ‫يَبَأ ََْبََناَِئ َِه َْمَ ََوَِن‬
When the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to send out a group on an expedition he said: Be gentle and patient with the
people and do not change their situation (i.e. physically or by force) until you have invited them.
That is because there is not upon the earth a people of a house of clay or camel wool/fur except
that it is more beloved to me that you bring them to me as Muslims, rather than you bring me
their sons and women (i.e. as booty) and kill their men (2).

Indeed, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to guide and exhort the commanders of the armies and the
Da’wah carriers to be disposed with patience and to not transgress beyond the aggression that could be
directed against them as long as there was hope for the people to be won over to Islaam and for a
preponderant Maslahah (interest) to return to the Islamic Da’wah.

It was mentioned in some of the Ahaadeeth: “That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent ‘Ali out on an expedition and
said to him: Walk and do not turn (i.e. do not leave anything that I commanded you with. He
(‘Ali) said: O Messenger of Allah! How should I deal with them? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: If you arrive in
their area, then do not fight them until (or unless) they fight you! Then if they fight against you,
do not fight them until they have killed one of you!

[(1) “Nasb Ar-Raayah”, Al-Imaam Az-Zayla’iy: 4/423-424 and refer to “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/693-96, (2) “As-
Siyar ul-Kabeer”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy (“Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”, Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy:
1/79)].

Then if they kill one of you then do not fight them until you make them see it and then say to
them: Will you say: Laa Ilaahah Illallah? If they say: Yes! Then say to them: Will you pray? If they
then say: Yes! Then say to them: Will you extract from your wealths (or properties) the Sadaqah
(i.e. the Zakaah)? Then if they say: Yes! Then do not seek anything else from them. For by Allah!
For Allah to guide a man by your hand is better for you than all that the sun rises and sets over”
(1).

This is what came mentioned within the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah in relation to the description of the
presentation of the Islamic Da’wah to the people, whether they were from the people of authority or from
amongst the notables of the people and subjects.

Violations away from the honourable Prophetic guidance in relation to the way the Islaamic Da’wah was
directed towards other states, entities and nations did occur. In such situations, those who perpetrated
those violations are judged to have been in error and that it was obligatory for them to reverse the error
and cancel what was built upon that mistake in terms of effects and consequences … The following was
stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “If Islaam has reached a people from those of war but they
have not become aware about it? Then the Muslims attack them and call them to embrace Islaam and the
Ameer over the Muslims refuses to offer that to them until he had fought them and then he then prevails
over them, he must then present Islaam to them. If they embrace Islaam, then they are let to go upon
their way freely and their property, children and lands are handed to them. That is because Al-Qitaal has
been legislated for the sake of Islaam (i.e. people embracing it) …And when those enquired about Islaam
they desired to enter into it and it had been obligatory upon the Imaam to have made them aware of the
reality of Islaam before fighting, for them to embrace it. If he fought against them without have made
them aware of the reality of Islaam, then he has made a mistake in respect to it (i.e. the fighting). He must
thenreverse his mistake and present Islam to them after having prevailed (militarily) over them. If they
become Muslim, then it is as if they had become Muslim prior to being defeated and as such they remain
free people as they had been and if they refuse to embrace Islaam, they are made a Dhimmah (i.e. non-
Muslim contract of citizenship) …” (2).

The above relates to what is connected to the Da’wah (invitation) to Islaam.

As for what is connected to the Da’wah (call) to the giving of the Jizyah, then a number of matters is
intended from that. That is because the word “Al-Jizyah” could be used to refer to the contract of the
Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizenship) and all that is included within that. Just as the word can be used to
refer to the Maal (money) that became compulsory by that contract (3).

Included amongst the effects of the contract of Al-Jizyah or Adh-Dhimmah are the following:

[(1) “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy (“Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, Al-Imaam As-
Sarakhsiy: 1/78), (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 5/2227-2228, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj”: Ash-
Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/242].

- To join (or annex) the non-Islamic state to the Islamic State i.e. that it becomes part of Daar ul-Islaam.

- Application of the Islamic system upon the state and its subjects.

- Making the non-Muslims, of the state’s people, Ahl udh-Dhimmah who pay the Jizyah.

- Dropping the Jizyah from the one who embraces Islaam from its people whether they do that sooner or
later.

- Making the authority of the one in authority of that state, if he rejected becoming Muslim, limited and
restricted to the scope of the private affairs of non-Muslims related to the matters of worships, marriage,
divorce and what is similar to that.

- Appoint a Haakim (ruler) from the Muslims over the land connected to the central authority in the
capital of the Islamic State.

These effects of the contract of the Dhimmah fall within the indicated meaning of the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

The following was stated in “Al-Umm” by Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: “Ash-Shaafi’iy said: I heard a number
of the people of ‘Ilm (knowledge) saying: As-Saghaar means: For the Hukm (ruling) of Islaam to be
applied over them” (1). All that we have mentioned above is from the ruling of Islaam which is applied
upon the land and its people from those who pay the Jizyah and accept to enter into the Dhimmah
(protection) of the Muslims. In addition, the call or inivitation made to states, entities and nations to the
Jizyah, which means submission to the Islamic rule, is similar their being invited to Islaam as no legal
legitimacy to fight against them exists unless they have rejected and refused the Da’wah (inivitation) to
accept the Islamic rule after having rejected to enter Islaam before that. This is what the Fuqahaa’ have
affirmed in respect to this matter.

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: “… If Islaam had been conveyed to
them but they are not aware that we accept the Jizyah from them, then we must not fight them until we
have invited them to give the Jizyah. This is what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded the leaders of
the armies to do and it represents the last point by which the Qitaal (fighting) stops…

[(1) “Kitaab ul-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/176].

Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

That includes adherence to some of the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Muslims and to obey them in respect to
the Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions). Therefore, it is obligatory to offer and present this (choice or
option) to them if they are not aware of it” (1). And the following was mentioned in “Ad-Durr ul-
Mukhtaar BiSharh Tanweer il-Absaar” and the “Haashiyah” (commentary or nots) of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “If
we have encircled or held them under seige, we invite them to Islaam. If they then accept, then that is how
it will be, and if not, then (we call them) to the Jizyah … If they accept that, then they have what we have
in terms of justice and rights and what is upon us in terms of obligations is also upon them … And it is
not Halaal for us to fight those whom the Da’wah to Islaam has nor reached and even if it has become
famous (or well-known) in our current age in the East and the West. However, there is no doubt that
amongst the lands of Allah there are those who have no sensation of that. It remains that if Islaam has
been conveyed to them but not Al-Jizyah (i.e. invitation to pay it), then they should not be fought until
they (the Muslims) call them to the Jizyah”. And in “Al-Haashiyah” he said: “And the statement “should
not (‫ )الَينبغي‬apparently means it is not Halaal …” (2).

And it was mentioned in “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer: “And they are called as an obligation to
Islaam … Then if they refuse to accept it they are called to give the Jizyah in a general manner unless they
ask about its details …” (3).

And in “Kitaab ul-Umm” by Ash-Shaafi’iy: “The Da’wah to Islaam or to the Jizyah is Waajib (obligatory)
only to the one whom the Da’wah has not yet reached” (4).

The above represents what has been said in respect to the Da’wah directed to the other states and their
subjects before the declaration of war against them.

- The are first called or invited to Islaam. Then if they refuse, they are called to the Jizyah according to the
meaning that we have already explained.

It is upon this basis that the Muslims undertook their conquests. At-Tirmidhi recorded in his Sunan:

Abu l-Bukhtariy related from Salmaan that he came to a stronghold or a town [i.e. in the lands of Persia].
Then he said to his companions: Let me invite them like I saw the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬invite them.
And so, he said to them: Verily, I was only a man from among you and then Allah guided me to Islaam.
So, if you embrace Islaam then you have what we have and are obliged with what we are obliged with.
And if your refuse, then give the Jizyah and you will be “Saaghiroon” (made to submit to Islamic rule) and
if you refuse that, then we will declare war against you … verily Allah does not like the treacherous…

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 1/76, (3) “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar Sharh Tanweer il-Absaar Wa Haashiyah Ibn
‘Aabideen ‘Alaihi”: 3/343-344, (3) “Haashiyah Ad-Dusooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer”: 2/167, (4) “Al-Umm”: Ash-Shaafi’iy:
4/239].

He continued to do that with them for three days. Then when the fourth day came, he gave the command
to the people and they went out to it and conquered it (1).
By that, we conclude the first Mas’alah of this study and begin our discussion of the second Mas’alah
(issue) which is:

2 – The second Mas’alah (issue): What is the Hukm of inviting the disbelievers to
Islaam or to submit to the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam, before the Qitaal (fighting)?

The discussion concerning this Mas’alah will take place as follows:

Presentation of the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the Hukm of the Mas’alah (issue) accompanied
by the Daleel (opinion) of every opinion followed by outseighing the strongest opinion.

The author of “An-Nail ul-Awtaar” summarised these opinions when he said:

“In respect to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) there are three Madhaahib (i.e. views):

The first: That it is obligatory to present the invitation to Islaam to the disbelievers without any
difference between those of them whom the Da’wah has reached and those it has not reached. And this
was what “Maalik” held.

The second Madh’hab: That it is not obligatory at all (Mutlaq).

The third Madh’hab: That it is Waajib (obligatory) to those whom the Da’wah has not reached and it is
not obligatory if it has reached them but rather it is Mustahabb (recommended). Ibn ul-Mundhir said:
“This is the Qawl (opinion) of the majority (Jumhoor) of the people of knowledge …” (2). It was
mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baari”: “And Maalik said: Thos who are close to his Daar (homeland i.e. Daar ul-
Islaam) are fought without the making of the invitation due to the fame of Islaam and those who are far
away from his Daar, then there is no doubt that the Da’wah must be undertaken” (3).

We will now present the evidences that each Madh’hab used and then choose the opinion that we view to
be strongest in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

1 – The first Madh’hab (opinion): The absolute obligation of presenting the Da’wah (i.e. the choice
before fighting) to the disbelievers, whether the Da’wah had reached them (previously) or not:

[(1) Refer to Sunan At-Tirmidhi: 1548 (4/119-120), “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/594-59 and “Nasb Ar-Raayah”: 3/378-379, (2) “Nail
ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/244, Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid (Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah: 6/36), Subul us-
Salaam, As-San’aaniy: 4/45, Ar-“Rawdah An-Nidiyah”: Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy: 2/486, (3) Fat’h ul-Baari, Sharh
Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 6/108].

This was the opinion of Al-Imaam Maalik. The following was stated in “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer” by Ad-
Dardeer which is a book of Fiqh of Al-Imaam Maalik: “They are called, as an obligation, to Islaam for
three days, whether the Da’wah had (previously) reached them or not, as long as they do bnot hasten the
fighting against us, otherwise they are fought …” (1).

The evidence for this opinion is found in a number of Ahaadeeth:

- “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not fight a people until he had invited them”
(2).
- “Farwa Bin Musaik said: I approached the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and said: O Messenger of
Allah! Do I fight with my people, from the front and their rear? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Yes! Then when I
turned he called me and said: Do not fight them until you have invited them to Islaam” (3).

- “‘Ali related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to him when he dispatched him: Do not fight a people until you
have invited them” (4).

- A hadeeth related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: “That Ibn ‘Abbaas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to Mu’aadh Bin Jabal when he dispatched him to Yemen: You will
come to a people who are from the Ahl ul-Kitaab (people of the book). If you reach them, then
call them to bear witness that there is no deity (worthy of worship) other than Allah and that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah …” (5).

The angle of deduction in respect to these Ahaadeeth is the command to call the disbelievers to Islaam,
before fighting them in an absolute manner, without distinguishing between those the Da’wah had
reached and those whom it hadn’t. In particular the statement: “Do not fight a people (Qawm) until
you have invited them” and the statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not
fight a people (Qawm) until he had invited them” include the word “Qawm” (a people) which is the
indefinite within the negation (Nafy) form and similar to it is the Nahi (forbiddance), and it establishes
generality (6).

[(1) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa sh-Sharh Al-Kabeer”: 2/176, (2) Al-Haakim recorded it in his “Al-Mustadrak” and said:
Saheeh ul-Isnaad but they (i.e. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) did not record it: 1/15. Also refer to: “Nasb ur-Raayah”: 3/378, (3)
Recorded by Ahmad (Nasb Ar-Raayah: 3/378) and in the “Musannaf” of Ibn Abi Shaibah: 14001, 12/362-363, (4) Musannaf
Abdur Raaziq: 9424, 5/217, “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 5/305, “Nasb Ar-Raayah”: 3/378. Al-Haithamiy said in respect to the
mentioned source (Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id): “At-Tabaraaniy recorded it in his “Al-Awsat” and the Rijaal (narrators) are Rijaal As-
Saheeh (sound narrators) apart from “’Uthmaan Bin Yahyaa Al-Qarqasaaniy who is Thiqqah (trusted)”, (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari:
1496. Refer to “Nasb Ar-Raayah”: 3/379, (6) “‘Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf: p716].

2 – The second Madh’hab (opinion): The absolute non-obligation of inviting the disbelievers to Islaam
before fighting (them) i.e. whether the Da’wah had reached them or had not reached them.

The Daleel for this Madh’hab is that which was recorded in the two Sahehs:

Ibn ‘Aun related: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the
disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it
was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬made a raid upon Banu
Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were drinking by the water... Nafi' said that
this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding
troops (1).

It was stated in “Nasb Ar-Raayah” by Al-Imaam Az-Zai’la’iy: “Al-Haazimiy claimed in (the book) “An-
Naasikh Wa-l-Mansookh” that the aformentioned Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar abrogates the Ahaadeeth which
include the Da’wah (invitation to the disbelievers) and that it is explicitly clear in respect to that as he said:
That was only in the early days of beginning period of Islaam …” (2).

3 – The third Madh’hab (opinion): It is obligatory to make the invitation to those whom the Da’wah
has not (previously) reached and it is recommended to repeat it to those whom it has reached. This
represents the opinion of the majority as was stated earlier.
Al-Imaam Al-Kaasaaniy says: “What is obligatory upon the those attacking to begin with … If the Da’wah
had not (previously) reached them (i.e. the disbelievers), then they (the Muslims) must begin with an
invitation to Islaam by speech, due to the Qawl of Allah Tabaaraka Wa Ta’Aalaa:

َُ‫ِي ََأَحْ َسن‬ ِ ‫َِال َح َس َن ِةَ ََۖو َجاد ِْله‬

َ ‫ُمَبالَّتِيَه‬ ْ ‫َِو ْال َم ْوعِ َظة‬
َ ‫َب ْالح ِْك َمة‬
ِ ‫ك‬َ ‫َر ِّب‬ ِ ‫ْادعَُإِلَ ٰىَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يل‬
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best (An-Nahl:
125).

And it isn’t allowed for them to fight before making the invitation … That is because the Qitaal has not
been made obligatory for its own sake but rather for the purpose of the Da’wah to Islaam … If the
Da’wah had reached them, it is permissible to begin with the fighting without making the Da’wah again …
However, despite that, it is better to not initiate the fighting except after making the Da’wah again with
the hope that they will all respond positively to it. It has been narrated that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
did not fight the disbelievers unless he had invited them to Islaam, to that which he had called them other
than once, which indicates that it is better to begin with making the invitiation again to Islaam” (3).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: 2541, Saheeh Muslim: 1730 and refer to “Nasb Ar-Raayah”: 3/381, (2) “Nasb Ar-Raayah”, Az-
Zai’la’iy: 3/382, (3) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/100].

And Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in his book “Al-Umm”:

“The invitation to the Mushrikeen to enter Islaam or to accept the Jizyah is only Waajib (obligatory) in
respect to those whom the Da’wah has not reached. As for the one whom it has reached, then the
Muslims can kill him before he is invited. If they choose to invite them (i.e again), then they can leave the
fighting for a period, as leaving the fighting until they are invited is Aqrab (nearer i.e. better) … And I am
not aware of anyone whom the Da’wah has not reached today, unless there exists a nation of Mushrikeen
(i.e. disbelievers) behind those we are currently fighting. It may be that the Da’wah has not eached them
and that could be if located behind the Romans, Turks or Jazar, there is a nation of people that we are not
yet aware of. If one of the Muslims killed one of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) whom the Da’wah had not
reached he must pay blood money for him …” (1).

And the following was stated in “Al-Muhadh’dhab” of Ash-Sheeraaziy: “If the enemy was from those
who the Da’wah had not reached, then it is not permissible to fight them until they are called or invited to
Islaam. That is because they are not bound by Islaam before ‘Ilm (i.e. knowledge and becoming aware of
it). The Daleel for that is the Qawl of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

َ‫َرسُوال‬
َ ‫ث‬َ ‫َح َّت ٰىَ َنب َْع‬ َ ‫َو َماَ ُك َّناَ ُم َع ِّذ ِب‬
َ ‫ين‬
And never would We punish until We sent a Messenger (Al-Israa’: 15).

And it is not permitted to fight them upon that which is not binding upon them. And if the da’wah had
already reached them, then it is more likeable (i.e. better) to present Islaam to them due to what Sahl Bin
sa’d related: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to ‘Ali (Karramallahu Wajhah) on the day of “Khaibar”:
“When you descend upon their plain, then invite them to Islaam and inform them about what is
obligatory upon them. For by Allah, that is because if Allah guides one man by your guidance,
that is better than the red camels”. And if they (the Muslims) fight them without presenting Islaam to
them, that is permitted, due to what Naafi’ related: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬attacked Bani Al-
Mustaliq whilst they were unaware” (2).

- And the following was mentioned in “Al-Mughni” of Ibn Qudaamah: “If there can be a nation of people
located behind the Romans and behind the Turks upon whom this description applied [i.e. the Da’wah
had yet to reach them], then it is not permitted to fight them before the Da’wah (invitation) …
[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/239. And the following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” of the Hanafi
Fiqh: “If they (the Muslims) fight them before the Da’wah and then kill them, there is nothing due upon
the Muslims in terms of Diyah (blood money) or Kaffaarah (expiation)”: 1/77. And it was stated in “Al-
Mughni” of Ibn Qudaamah of the Hanbaliy Fiqh: “Whomever is killed from them before the Da’wah
(invitation) is not guaranteed because he has no Iemaan (belief) and no Amaan (security). He is not
guaranteed like the women whom the Da’wah had reached and their children”: 10/387, (3) “Al-
Muhadh’dhab”, Al-Imaam Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/231. Ibn Qudaamah says in “Al-Mughniy” about the
Yahood of Khaibar: “And they were from those whom the Da’wah had reached as related by Al-
Bukhaariy”: 10/386 and In Al-Bukhaariy: 4210].

… And I am not aware of anyone today who is invited as the Da’wah has reached everyone. The Da’wah
has reached the Romans and they have become aware of what is wanted from them. The Da’wah
(invitation) was only in the early period of Islaam, however, if the invitation is made there is no problem
in that” (1).

4 – There is also a fourth opinion in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) that was expressed by “Ibn ul-
Juzayy”, from the Maalikiyah, in his book “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”. He states: “As for those whom
the Da’wah has reached, then they are not invited and are sought to be taken by surprise. Some said: It is
obligatory to call them absolutely whilst others said it is Mustahabb (recommended)” (2). What is apparent
in this statement, contary to the obligation of renewing the Da’wah or its recommendation, is: Either the
Ibaahah (permissibility) of renewing the Da’wah or the recommendation of not renewing it whilst seeking
the opportunity to attack by surprise. This would consequently represent a fourth opinion within this
Mas’alah.

It is possible that this opinion is based on what we previously noted, in terms of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
attacking Banu Mustaliq whilst they were unaware.

Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy in respect to his restricting the opinion of the majority to only the
recommendation of renewing the Da’wah (invitation) in relation to those whom it had already reached
and not to its obligation, he reasons that as follows: “The majority sufficed with the opinion of the
Istihbaab (recommendation) in the case where the Da’wah had reached the people, returning in respect to
our estimation to the their assumption of a state of despair about accepting Islaam and persisting upon
Kufr. And so that Islaam does not take those contrary to it unawares or by surprise, they preferred o said
that it is recommended to renew the Da’wah and to repeat it in such a situation” (2).

The above is what has been said in relation to the Hukm (ruling) of making the Da’wah to Islaam before
declaring war against other non-Islamic states and peoples. The view that we have weighed to be strongest
in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) is detailed as follows:

1 – In respect to the Harb Ad-Difaa’iyah (Defensive war): When the enemy attacks the Muslim lands
there is no room or place here for the Da’wah (invitation) to be made in most cases. That even applies in
respect to those whom the Da’wah has not previously reached because preoccupation with the Da’wah in
this circumstance could expose and subject the Muslims to danger … If the situation was like that, then
there is no room for the Da’wah in it … Concerning this matter, the following was mentioned in “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “If a people from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), whom Islaam or the
Da’wah had not previously reached, came to the Muslims within their lands, and then the Muslims fought
against them in defence without undertaking the Da’wah (invitation) and went on to kill from them, take
from them as booty and take their wealth or properties, then this is permissible …

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/376, (2) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p139, (3) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-
Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p139].
That is because if the Muslim unsheaves his sword against a Muslim, it is allowed for the one who has the
sword unsheaved against him to kill him in defence of his life, and would apply here, in our situation, by
greater reason. The meaning in respect to that is: That if they were to occupy themselves with the Da’wah
to Islaam, then the resuilt may be that slaves are taken (i.e. from women and children) and killing against
the sanctities of the Muslims, their properties and their lives, and as such the invitation is not obliged.
That is contrary to the situation when the Muslims are conquering in their lands as the Muslims should
not fight them until they have invited them. That is because they are not fighting in defence but rather for
the sake of Islaam. The invitation to Islaam is therefore necessary” (1)

2 – And the same also applies in other than the circumstance of the enemy attack against the
Muslims: When the need or requirement dictates that the Islamic State declare war against a particular
entity whilst its preoccupation in undertaking the invitation to it, before engaging in the fighting, results in
harms afflicting the Muslims. In such a situation, there are two cases:

- The case where the entity which the requirement or need dictates declaring war against it has already had
the Da’wah (invitation) conveyed to it and it rejected it. In such a case, there is also no room or place to
be occupied in conveying the Da’wah (invitation) to them and that is because the Hujjah (proof and
argument) has already been established in respct to it due to the prior conveyance (2). That is because the
recommendation of renewing the invitation is at odds with the harms afflicting the Muslims as a result of
undertaking that Da’wah whilst allowing harms to afflict the Muslims is Haraam: “There is no harm and
harming” (‫َض َرار‬َ ‫َض َر َر ََو َال‬ َ (3). The repelling of the Haraam that has been forbidden therefore takes
َ ‫)ال‬
precedence over the recommended act. This is also affirmed by a number of Shar’iyah principles
including: (If the Maani’ (preventer) and the (Muqtadiy) dictated are in conflict then give precedence to
the preventer (Maani’)) (4).

- And: “If the Halaal and the Haraam come together then the Haraam dominates” (5).
The Halaal in this case is the recommendation of renewing the invitation whilst the Haraam is the harm
that results from undertaking that.

- And the principle: “Repelling the Mafaasid (corrupting and harmful elements) is given precedent over
drawing in the Masaalih (interests and benefits)” (6).
The Mafsadah here is the harm that will afflict the Muslims as a result of renewing the Da’wah and the
Maslahah is the possibility of the disbelievers benefiting from being invited to Islaam once again.

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2233-2234, (2) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/100, (3) “‘Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-
Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p216, (4) “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p115, (5) “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-
Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p105, (6) “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p87].

Concerning the Hukm in this situation, the following was mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “If the
Da’wah has reached them, then if the Muslims wish they can invite them to give excuse and warning and
if they wish they can fight them without undertaking the Da’wah due to them already being aware of what
is requested from them. It may also be that by presenting the Da’wah that could bring a harm upon the
Muslims and as such there is no problem in fighting them without making the Da’wah …” (1).

The following was stated in “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar ‘Alaa Tanweer Al-Absaar”: “We invite, as a
recommended act, those whom it has (previously) reached [i.e. the Da’wah] unless that will bring a harm
and even if it is thought most likely, like if they were making preparations and making fortifications. In
which case, they should not do it (make the invitation)” (2). In such a situation, the Ahaadeeth that we
mentioned previously are applied, which establish leaving inviting the disbelievers to Islaam before
engaging in fighting and then surprising them when they are heedless. They include what was related from
As-Sa’b Bin Jath’thaamah who said: The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬was asked about the polytheists
whose land was attacked at night with the probability that some of their women and offspring
were killed or hurt. He said: “They are from among them” (3). And salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ said that
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬placed Abu Bakr in command and we undertook a military expeditition
against a people of the Mushrikeen and we attacked them at night …” (4) (5).

This applies in the situation if the Da’wah had previously reached the party that has been needed to
declare war against.

- If the Da’wah however had not previously reached that party or entity which the Muslims want to
declare war against (or engage in fighting) and harms afflict the Muslims as a result of the Muslims
occupying or engaging themselves in that obligatory Da’wah (invitation) …

Then in that situation we are faced with an obligation and that is the conveyance of the Da’wah to those
whom the Da’wah had not previously reached and been conveyed to and at the same time we are faced by
the harm that could inflict the Muslims if they engage themselves in undertaking that obligation, the
obligation of conveying the Da’wah and not surprising the enemy by fighting them suddenly (i.e. without
warning or invitation).

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy: (Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 1/77), (2) “Haashiyah”, Ibn
‘Aabideen: 3/344, (3) Refer to Saheeh Al-Bukhaari: 3012 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/146) and Saheeh Muslim: 1745, 3/32-33. The
Hadeetb uses the word ‘‫ ’ ُي َب َّي ُتون‬from ‘‫ ’ال َبيَات‬and its meaning is: To attack the disbelievers at night where it is difficult to
distinguish between its individuals: Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/147, (4) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2638, 3/60, (6) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 1/386].

When confronted with this contradictory or conflicting situation, the scale of priorities in the Islamic
Sharee’ah dictates giving preponderance to the repelling of the ‘Darar’ (harm) over the undertaking of the
Waajib, in accordance to a number of Shar’iyah Qawaa’id (principles). From among them is the previously
mentioned principle: “If the Maani’ (preventer) conflicts with the Muqtadi (dictated) then the Maani’ is
given preponderance” (1).

Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy said the following in respect to the conflict between the undertaking of the Waajib
and repelling the harm: “That which is well-known in the Sharee’ah, is that the harm is repelled by leaving
the Waajib if a way to repel the harm ahs been designated” (2).

It also applies to this situation that it falls under the situations of the “Daroorah” (necessity) in which the
person undertakes that which should not be undertaken. Consequently, the following Shar’iyah Qaa’idah
(principle) applies upon it: “The Darooraat (necessities) make the Mahzhooraat (prohibitions) Mubaah
(permissible)” (3). And Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in his book “Al-Umm” that which fits with this
meaning “In respect to the Darooraat (necessities), it is permitted in them that which is not permitted in
other than them” (4).

3 – As for if the Da’wah had not been conveyed to the particular entity from amongst the non-
Islamic entities or states and there is no harm resulting from being occupied in inviting them and
delaying the Qitaal (fighting), then the view we weight to be strongest is the same view held by the
Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa’) which dictates the obligation (Wujoob) of undertaking the invitation
to that entity or state to Islaam or the call for them to submit to the rule of the Muslims, and that fighting
is Haraam before that Da’wah (invitation). It is within this context which the previous Ahaadeeth apply
which command the undertaking of the Da’wah (invitation) and forbid the fighting before it … And we
have also already mentioned the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ concerning that. The statements of the
Fuqahaa’ include what was mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “When the Muslims meet
the Mushrikeen (disbelievers or polytheists), then if they are from a people or nation whom Islaam has not
reached, they should not fight them until they have invited them. That is due to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َرسُوال‬
َ ‫ث‬َ ‫َح َّت ٰىَ َنب َْع‬ َ ‫َو َماَ ُك َّناَ ُم َع ِّذ ِب‬
َ ‫ين‬
 And never would We punish until We sent a Messenger (Al-Israa’: 15).

That is because they might belive that we are fighting them desiring their wealth and property and to take
their children as booty. If they were to be aware that we are fighting them upon the baisi of the Deen,
then it may be that they will respond positively to that without their being any need to fight. The
presentation of Islaam to them should begin with a call to the way of Allah by way of Hikmah (wisdom)
and the good exhortation. This therefore must be begun with. If, however, Islaam had already reached
them but are not aware that we accept the Jizyah from them, then we should not fight them until we have
invited them to give the Jizyah …” (5).

[(1) “Al-Ashbaah Wan-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p115, (2) “Al-Furooq”, Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123, (3) “‘Ilm Usool ul-
Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab Khallaaf: p247, (4) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/188-189, (5) “As-Siyaar Al-Kabeer Was
Sharhuhu”: 1/75-76”].

4 – If the Islamic Da’wah had already reached the entity from amongst the entities of the
disbelievers or non-Islamic states and there is no harm caused against the Muslims in renewing
the Da’wah:

Here there are two opinions as has been mentioned earlier during the presentation of the opinions
concerning this Mas’alah (issue):

- The opinion of the Jumhoor (majority): The Istihbaab (recommendation) of renewing the Da’wah
(invitation to Islaam).

- The opiniom stated by “Ibn Juzayy” Al-Maalikiy (i.e. of its Madh’hab): The opinion is that the Da’wah is
not renewed and taking the enemy by surprise whilst they are not aware is sought. This establishes either
the Ibaahah (permissibility) of not renewing the Da’wah or the Istihbaab (recommendation) of not
renewing it. This opinions that states that the Da’wah is not renewed was also mentioned in “Bidaayat ul-
Mujtahid” in this manner: “And as for whether the Da’wah must be repeated when war is repeated? Then,
they differered in respect to that. Some of them viewed it to be obligatory, others viewed it to be
recommended and there were some from among them who did not view it as being obligatory or
recommended …” (1).

The opinion that we view to be strongest is that each of these two opinions are both sound but in
different contexts.

- If the conversion of the people (Qawm) to Islaam was expected, or their submission to the Islamic State
or any other Maslahah (interest or benefit) that could result from renewing the Da’wah was expected to be
gained, then it is recommended to renew the Da’wah in such circumstances.

That is in accordance to the Hadeeth that we mentioned earlier:

َِ ‫حبَََُّإِلََيَََّ َِمنَََْأَنََََْتَأَُْتوَِن‬
َ‫يَبَأ ََْبََناَِئ َِه َْم‬ ََ َ‫ينََأ‬ َِ ‫ال ََأَنََََْتَأَُْتوَِن‬
ََ ‫يَب َِه َْمَ َُمسَْلَِ َِم‬ َ ِ َْ‫ىَاألَر‬
َ َّ ِ‫ََإ‬.‫ضَ َِمنَََْأَهَْلَ ََم ََد ٍَرَ ََو ََوََب َِر‬ َ ََ‫عل‬ََ َ‫ََف ََما‬
‫جالََ َُهم‬ َِ ُ‫ساَِئ َِه َْمَ ََوََتَْقَُتَل‬
ََ ‫واَر‬ ََ ‫ََوَِن‬
There is not upon the earth a people of a house of clay or camel (or rabbit/sheep) wool/fur
except that it is more beloved to me that you bring them to me as Muslims, rather than you bring
me their sons and women (i.e. as booty) and kill their men (2).

The wording “More beloved to me” establishes the Hukm (ruling) of Istihbaab (recommendation) as is
apparent (Zhaahir). And in relation to this situation or circumstance (Haal) the Ahaadeeth related to the
renewal of the Da’wah are understood and applicable.
And it was stated in “Al-Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”: “If the guidance is made possible by establishing the
Daleel (evidence) through other than Jihaad, then that is given precedence over Al-Jihaad” (3).

[(1) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd (“Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Al-Bidaayah”: 6/36), (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” (Sharh As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer: 1/79), (3) “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/210].

- If, however, the conversion of the people to Islaam or their acceptance to submit to the Islamic State or
the realisation of any Maslahah (interest or benefit) from the legitimate interests, is not expected, then
renewing the Da’wah in such circumstances holds no value according to this evaluation. It may also be
that being occupied in renewing the Da’wah would alert the nation or people so that they be on their
guard which would then lengthen and extend the war that the Muslims wage against the people for the
purpose of applying Islaam upon them and opening the path befoe the Islamic Da’wah.

In addition, one of the recommended matters related to war is to finish it quickly and suffer minimal
losses as a result. For that reason, it is recommended in the scenario that we have proposed to not renew
the Da’wah. And in relation to this situation or circumstance (Haal) the previously quoted Ahaadeeth
related to seeking to take the disbelievers whilst they are unaware and by surprise or at night are
understood and applicable, like what took place in the attack of Bani Mustaliq (1).

Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaani said the following in relation to the renewal of the
Da’wah:

“Abu ‘Uthmaan An-Nahdiy said: We used to make the invitation and leave (it) i.e. Sometimes we would
make the invitation and sometimes we would leave it and take them by surprise. Therefore, it guides to all
of that being Hasan (good and acceptable); they are called time after time if it is hoped that they will
believe. If, however, there is no hope in that, then there is no problem to take them by surprise without
making the Da’wah” (3) i.e. without repeating the Da’wah to them because the context of the discussion
here relates to those who have been already conveyed to previously and the da’wah reached them.

It is therefore the opinion of the majority of the Fuqahaa’ (Al-Jumhoor) that we view to be strongest or
preponderant in this Mas’alah according to the details that we have mentioned. According to that, the
texts are brought together which appeared to be in conflict with each other and it is established in Usool
ul-Fiqh that making all of the texts work and function together by combing them (Al-Jam’u) is more
correct than using some and neglecting ior making redundant others (4). The opinion of the majority was
validated by Al-Imaam An-Nawawi when he stated the following:

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2541 and Saheeh Muslim: 1730, (2) The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Sa’eed Ibn
Mansoor related via a Saheeh chain from Ibn ‘Uthmaan An-Nahdiy one of the major Taabi’een. He said: “we used to invite and
leave (it): 6/108, (3) “Sharh Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/79, (4) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu n-Nur Zuhair: 4/200].

“In this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) there are three Madhaahib (i.e. opinions): The first: That it is obligatory to
give notice (Indhaar) absolutely (i.e. under all circumstances) … and this is weak. The second: It is
absolutely not obligatory (i.e. under any circumstances) … and this is weaker than the first opinion or
Baatil (invalid). And the third: It is obligatory if the Da’wah had not previously reached them and it is not
obligatory if it has reached them but rather is Mustahabb (recommended)” (1).

“The opinion that is obligatory to be followed is the presentation of the Da’wah to Islaam before any
battle for the Muslims to be exused in respect for what they do and for the doubt to be removed by
certainty, in respect to the enemy persisting upon his stance. This is what took place in the different
battles or military expeditions of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and the Seerah of his Khulafaa’ who followed him.
The Muslims did not fight their enemy despite the spread of Islaam in the East and the West, according to
what the Fuqahaa’ said, that this didn’t happen once, except after the conveyance of their Da’wah, either
upon the tongue of a messenger or envoy or a letter directed to the leaders of the enemy armies” (2).
This speech above by Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy raises an issue that we should briefly address
and that is:

- Is the mere profusion or spread of Islaam in the East and the West form a proof and argument (Hujjah)
against the peoples and nations that fall under the scope of that spread or profusion so that they would be
considered and regarded as being from amongst those whom the Da’wah had reached and been conveyed
to and then consequently the Ahkaam are applied upon them based upon that consideration? As can be
understood from what has been stated in some of the books of Fiqh? (3)

- Or must there be an official conveyance from the Islamic authority to the peoples or those who
represent the peoples so that the Da’wah can be considered to have been conveyed to them?

My view is that the official conveyance from the Islamic authority to the peoples or to those who
represent the peoples is necessary so that they can considered to have had the Da’wah reach them in
relation to the Islamic international Ahkaam (i.e. those related to international affairs between states).
Consequently, the Ahkaam related to those whom the Da’wah has reached is applied upon them
according to the manner explained previously. That is due to the following considerations:

1 – The Hadeeth related by “Buraidah Al-Aslamiy” mentioned earlier which indicated that the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬used to charge the Ameer of every expedition to invite the entity to which he had been dispatched to
Islaam or the Jizyah or otherwise there would be war …

[(1) “Sharh An-Nawawi ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 7/309-310, (2) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 140-
141, (3) Refer to for example: “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah: 10/375 and “Al-Umm”, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/239, (4)
Saheeh Muslim: 1731].

And it is known that the legislation of the Jizyah was only after Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) was revealed
in the ninth year of Al-Hijrah (1). That was at a time when the affair of Islaam had spread in all parts of
the Arabian Peninsula which indicates that the spread or profusion of Islaam is not sufficient for the
Da’wah to have been considered to have been conveyed and that it is necessary for an official conveyance
to be undertaken so that the proof (Hujjah) can be established over the people following that conveyance
in relation to the Ahkaam of the Dunyaa (the life of this world). As for the Ahkaam of the Aakhirah
(hereafter), then whoever became aware of the Haqq (truth) and even if it was by other than the way of an
official conveyance, then the Hujjah (prrof and argument) would have become bound upon him. That is
because it would apply upon him that the notice or warning mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem had
reached him:

َ‫َِو َمنَ َبلَ َغ‬ ُ ْ ‫َوأُوح َِيَإِلَيَّ َ َه ٰـ َذ‬

ِ ‫اَالقُرْ آنُ َِألنذ َِر ُك‬
َ ‫مَبه‬
And this Qur'an was revealed to me that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches (Al-An’aam: 19).

Al-Qurtubiy said: “i.e. that the Qur’aan has reached him” (2). The intended meaning is that the Islamic
Da’wah has reached him.

2 – The mere spread or profusion does not indicate that the condition of conveying the Da’wah has been
fulfilled and met by it and its condition is the clear conveyance or notification (Balaaghun Mubeen), as
mentioned previously. The evidence is that many parts of the world today have heard about Islaam but
receive a distorted thought about it and its followers which makes the people have an aversion towards
Islaam rather than being drawn to it. Consequently, in such a situation or circumstances, it is not said that
Islaam has reached those peoples in a manner that fits with “Al-Balaagh Al-Mubeen” (Clear or manifest
conveyance or notification).
That which realises the condition of the “Manifest conveyance”, in respect to the Da’wah, is only the
official address from the Islamic authority upon which it is Waajib (obligatory) to convey the Da’wah in a
manner that realises this mentioned condition. Even if there were questions and queries from those whom
the Da’wah was directed towards about it, then it would be the official state that would provide the
official answers to those questions and queries.

Al-Imaam An-Maawardiy said in his “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”:

“And the second category: Those whom the Da’wah of Islaam has not reached … Then it is Haraam
upon us to enageg in fighting them … before manifesting the Da’wah of Islaam to them and making them
aware of the miracles of the Prophethood and making evident the Hujjah (proof and evidence) that will
lead them to the answer … hat is because Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َُ‫ِيَأَحْ َسن‬ ِ ‫َِال َح َس َن ِةَ ََۖو َجاد ِْله‬

َ ‫ُمَبالَّتِيَه‬ ْ ‫َِو ْال َم ْوعِ َظة‬
َ ‫َب ْالح ِْك َمة‬
ِ ‫ك‬َ ‫َر ِّب‬ ِ ‫ْادعَُإِلَ ٰىَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يل‬
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best (An-Nahl:
125).

This means that the Haqq (truth) is explained to them and the Hujjah (proof and evidence) is made clear
for them.

[(1) “Tafseer At-Qurtubiy”: 8/67, (2) “Tafseer At-Qurtubiy: 6/399].

If fighting against them take place before the invitation to Islaam and warning them by the Hujjah (proof,
evidence and argument), then the blood money of their lives is assured and according to the most correct
view from the Madh’hab of Ash-Shaafi’iy, it is like he Diyah (blood money) of the Muslims… And Abu
Haneefah said: There is no Diyah for those killed from them and their lives are wasted!” (1).

As for how the Islamic State can make sure that the non-Islamic states have had the miracles of the
Prophethood explained clearly to them and the Hujjah (proof and evidence) has been manifested to them
in a way which leads them to the answer.

- According to what Al-Maawardiy established – Concerning the reality if the state has not undertaken it
itself in an official manner, conducting its task by way of its envoys to explain these matters and convene
the discussions and debates related to it?

3 – Today the idea that the legally legitimate war in Islaam is the defensive war is promoted to the point
that it has become dominant in many mediums. For that reason, it is necessary for the Islamic State to
inform the other non-Islamic states with the opinion that they have adopted and that is: That legally
legitimate (and legislated) Al-Jihaad in Islaam is also to make other states submit to the Islamic rule if they
reject to enter Islaam and even if they have not initiated any aggression. That is so that the Islamic State is
not accused of aggression if some other states are surprised by war undertaken for this objective without
having undertaken a previous aggression against the Muslims, in the case of the non-renewal of the
Da’wah (invitation) to embrace Islaam or to pay the Jizyah, according to the meaning of entering into the
obedience of the Islamic State. It would be necessary for the official Da’wah undertaken to those states to
present the free choices: Islaam, conven the contract of the Dhimmah and join the Islamic State, or war.
However, we do not see that this Da’wah is obligatory before each and every battle… That is because it is
sufficient for the Islamic State to inform the other states of what it has adopted in respect to this and that
would be representative of and equal to a continuous notification … After that the Islamic State can use
its Haqq (right) to declare war based upon that notification, at any time thereafter and even if it was after
some length of time.
Therefore, reliance upon the general spread and profusion of the affair of Islaam in the East and the West
does not realise the mentioned objective and purpose. It is therefore necessary for there to be an official
conveyance of the Da’wah undertaken by the Islamic authority to the other states whom it is desired to
present the three choices to.

If we find a disregard in respect to the practise this Da’wah, that we have described, within the Seerah of
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬or the history of the Muslims, within a particular war from among the wars, then that
would either be related to a defensive war or a war in which the Muslims would be afflicted by harm if
they were to occupy themselves with the Da’wah before declaring it, or the Da’wah had been previously
been conveyed to those the war has been declared upon via an official channel and they had refused to
enter into Islaam and rejected to submit to the Muslim rule.In all of these circumstances the Da’wah could
be put aside or renewed according to what we have detailed previously… By that we conclude the second
topic of study and proceed on to addressing the third study of this Mas’alah (issue).

[(1) “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: 37-38].

The third study

The stances of the other states and peoples towards the Da’wah to Islaam or to the
Islamic rule, the consequences that result from that and the legal legitimacy of
declaring Al-Jihaad

There are numerous positions or stances, that can be adopted by the states and peoples to whom the
Islamic Da’wah is being directed for them to embrace Islaam or join to Daar ul-Islaam and accept the
Islamic rule.

Based upon those different stances the resultant consequences differ in respect to the legal legitimacy of
Al-Jihaad.

- As a consequence of a particular stance the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad can no longer be present.

- Whilst Al-Jihaad could become legally legitimate as a consequence of another stance.

The stances or positions that the states and peoples can adopt towards the Da’wah for them to embrace
Islaam or enter into the obedience of the Islamic State, which is directed to them, number four stances or
positions. We will present each stance as a specific Mas’alah (issue) that we will address separately.
Consequently, this study is divided into the following four Masaa’il (issues):

1 - The first Mas’alah (issue): The acceptance to embrace Islaam.

2 - The second Mas’alah: The acceptance to enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims.
3 - The third Mas’alah: The convening of a peace treaty between the disbelievers and the Muslims.
4 - The fourth Mas’alah: Rejection of Islaam, refusual to submit to the Islamic rule and the legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) of declaring Al-Jihaad

1 – The first Mas’alah (issue): The acceptace to embrace Islaam.

We will address this issue in three points:

The first point: The people in authority embracing Islaam openly whilst being capable of keeping hold
on to and maintaining their authority and protecting the land from external aggression.

The second point: The people in authority or some of them embracing Islaam whilst being incapable of
maintaining their authority upon the basis of Islaam.

The third point: The authority or people of some of the regions embracing Islaam whilst being incapable
of protecting their lands from the neighbouring enemy or from the (greater) state that they have separated
from.

1 - The first point: The people in authority embracing Islaam openly whilst being capable of keeping hold
on to and maintaining their authority and protecting the land from external aggression.

It could be that the authority in the other land responds positively to the Da’wah directed to it by the
Islamic State whilst that authority possesses the capability to declare and announce Islaam and maintain
the authority in its hand, keep control over the land internally and protect it from the external enemy. In
these circumstances, the noble Prophetic guidance guides to keeping the person of authority who declared
his Islaam as the Ameer (leader) of his region that falls under his hold as long as he has the aptitude and
capability to hold that position of leadership. This is not in the form of independence but rather in
subservience to the central authority in the capital of the Islamic State and by breaking off and severing
any allegiance or subservience to other states if that existed. It is by overturning the system that used to
govern the land and replacing it naturally with the Islamic system. Then, whoever embraces Islaam from
the people of the land have the same that belongs to the Muslims in terms of rights, responsibilities and
obligations whilst those who remain upon their religion become Ahl udh-Dhimmah and from the citizens
of the Daar ul-Islaam who are required to submit to the new system which includes the requirement of
the Jizyah that has been decided and established upon the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. That is unless they decide
to leave the land and give up their citizenship (Tab’iyah) to the Islamic State, or what has been called
citizenship (Jinsiyah) in the moder age.

An example of such a land in which this reality manifested clearly in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was that of
Bahrain.

- The following was mentioned in “Nasb ur-Raayah”: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent Al-‘Alaa’a Bin
Al-Hadhramiy to “Al-Mundhir Bin Saawaa Al-‘Abdiy” in Bahrain … When he was departing from
Tabook he wrote to him a letter which included in it: “In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem.
From Muhammd the Messenger of Allah to Al-Mundhir Bin Saawaa. Peach upon the one who
follows the guidance. Thereafter: I invite you to Islaam. Become Muslim and you will be secure.
Become Muslim and Allah will grant you that which is under your hands (i.e. authority) and
know that my Deen will prevail to the furthest point that the hooves can reach”. And the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sealed the letter and then Al-‘Alaa’u Bin Al-Hadramiy went to Al-Mundhir
amongst a group which included Abu Hurairah. And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “Deal
with them and treat them well” and he said: “If he responds positively to that which you invite him
to then remain until my command comes to you. And take the Sadaqah from their wealthy and
return it to their poor…” (1).

- In “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf Fee Tafseer As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah” by Ibh Hishaam the following was stated:
“As for Al-‘Alaa’u Bin Al-Hadrami, then he went to Al-Mundhir Ibn Saawaa and said to him: “O
Mundhir! You have a great mind in respect to the Dunyaa (life of this world) so don’t diminish it in
respect to the Aakhirah! Verily, this Majoosiyah is the worst religion. There is nothing in its that which
enobles the Arabs and no knowledge of the People of the Book. They marry those whom there is shame
to be married to and they eat that which is detestable to be eaten and they worship in this Dunyaa (life of
this world) fire that will eat them on the Day of Judgement. That is whilst you are not somebody who has
no mind or opinion! So, look, is it not right for the one who does not lie to be believed and the one who
does not betray to feel secure and safe with, and the one who does not break his word to be trusted? If
that is the case, then he is the illiterate Prophet about whom, by Allah, no one with sound mind can say: If
only he had forbidden that which he commanded to be undertaken, or commanded that which he had
forbidden. Or, if only he had increased in forbearance or decreased from his punishment. Verily, all of
that is from him upon the wish of the people of ‘Aql (sound mind) and the thought of the people of
insight”.

Mundhir then replied: “I have examined the matter that I possess and I have found it to be for the
Dunyaa (life of this world) at the expense of the Aakhirah (hereafter) and I have looked into your Deen
and I have found that it is for bothe the hereafter and the life of this world (Aahkirah and Dunyaa) and so
what prevents me from accepting a Deen that contains the hopes of this life and the peace and tranquillity
of the hereafter. Yesterday I was astonished by the one who accepts it and today I am astonished by the
one who rejects it. And, also, it is from the greatness of the one who brought it to make great his
Messenger. And ther3efore I will look into it!” (3). And after the ruler of Bahrain deliberated and thought
about Islaam his mind and heart was opened to it and he declared his Islaam.

[(1) “Nasb Ar-Raayah LiAhaadeeth Al-Hidaayah”, Al-Imaam Az-Zaila’iy: 4/419-420, (2) The following was stated in “Al-
Amwaal” of Ibn ‘Ubaid: “’Umar Ibn Abdil ‘Azeez wrote to Al-Hasan asking him: “What was in the mind or the matter with the
the rulers before us who approved of the Majoos marrying their mothers and daughters?” And he mentioned some matters
about them which he mentioned by name … He said: Al-Hasan wrote back to him saying: “Thereafter (Ammaa Ba’d), I am
only a follower and not an innovator. And Salaam”: p22-23, (3) “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”, As-Suhailiy: 4/250].

- The following was stated in “Nasb ur-Raayah”: “Then he said: I bear witness that what he has invited to
is the Haqq (truth) and that there is no diety other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah and His slave” … Al-Mundhir then wrote to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬: “Thereafter … O
Messenger of Allah! I have read your letter to the people of Bahrain and from them there are those who
love Islaam and were pleased with it and entered into it and there are from them those who disliked it. In
my land, there are Majoos and Yahood (Jews) and so inform me in respect to that matter”. The Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wrote back to him and said: “In the name of Allah Ar-Rahmaa Ar-Raheem. From
Muhammad the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Al-Mundhir Bin Saawaa. Salaamu ‘Alaika, I praise Allah to
you, whom there is no diety other than Him and I bear witness that there is no diety other than Allah and
that Muhammad is His ‘Abd (slave) and His Messenger. Thereafter … I make mention of Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla, verily the one who is sincere only does so for his own sake and verily the one who obeys my
messengers (or envoys) and follows their command has obeyed me. And the one who has been sincere to
them has been sincere to me. And verily my emvoys have spoken well of you and I have granted you
position in respect to your people and so leave to the Muslims that which they have accepted Islaam upon
and I have pardoned from the people of sins and so accept it from them (Islaam pardons what occurred
in disbelief). As for you, then as long as you do well we will never dismiss you from your work (i.e.
position). And whoever is upon Judaism or Majoosiyah, then the Jizyah is obliged upon him” (1).

The above represents that which has been said in respect to the situation of the people of authority within
the other lands embracing Islaam whilst having the capability to maintain their position of authority,
declare their Islaam and protect their lands from the external enemy.

The second point: The people in authority or some of them embracing Islaam whilst being incapable of
maintaining their authority upon the basis of Islaam.

In the Seerah An-Nabawiyah two cases of this reality have been mentioned:

- The case of “Farwah Bin ‘Amr Al-Judhaamiy”, the Haakim (ruler) on behalf of the Romans in “Ma’aan”
and the lands of Ash-shaam (greater Syria) that fell around it.

- The case of An-Najaashiy the King of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia).

[(1) “Nasb Ar-Raayah”, Al-Imaam Az-Zaila’iy: 4/420 and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/692-693, (2)

As for “Farwah Bin ‘Amr Al-Judhaamiy”, then the following has been mentioned in respect to his story
within the books of Seerah: “The envoy of Farwah was sent to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬infoming
them of his Islaam … And Farwah had been a governor of the Romans over the region between them
and the Arabs. Then, when the Romans found out about his becoming Muslim they took him and
imprisoned him. They then chopped his head and crucified him … That was after the King had said to
him: Turn back from the Deen of Muhammad and we will restore you to your Kingdom (or authority)!
He replied: I will not leave the Deen of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬. You know that ‘Iesaa (‫ )عليهَالسالم‬gave glad
tidings of his coming however you have become too attached to your position of authority!” (1).

- As for An-Nashaashiy (the King of Al-Habashah), it has been related in respect to him that when Al-
Habashah (Abyssinia) heard of his becoming Muslim, that they revolted against him saing to him: You
have left our Deen … When he wanted to go out to meet them, he wrote a letter including the Shahaadah
(testimony) of his Islaam and that ‘Iesaa Ibn Maryam (‫ )عليهَالسالم‬is the ‘Abd (slave) of Allah, His
Messenger and His Rooh. He placed the letter under his robe by his right shoulder … He then went out
to meet them and said: What is your issue? They said: You left our Deen and you have falsely claimed that
‘Iesaa is a slave. He said: So what do you say concerning ‘Iesaa? They aid: He is the son of Allah… An-
Najaashiy then placed his hand upon his chest over the letter and he affirmed to them that he bears
witness that ‘Iesaa Bin Maryam does not exceed beyond this at all. An-Najaashiy meant what he had
written and what he had placed his hand upon! That is whilst they understood that he had believed in
what they had said and that he had left Islaam. They were therefor epleased and contented by what he had
said to them and departed! (2).

It appears that this incident happened in the early period of Islaam when the Muslims migrated to Al-
Habashah away from the harm of Quraish, after the dialogue took place between An-Najaashiy and Ja’far
Bin Abi Taalib about Islaam and concerning ‘Iesaa (‫)عليهَالسالم‬, and at the time when Quraish dispatched
‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas to An-Najaashiy, for An-Najaashiy to hand over the Muslims who had sought refuge
with him to ‘Amr and then return them to Makkah. It appears that as a result of that dialogue An-
Najaashiy became convinced of Islaam and embraced it … Then, news of his conversion to Islaam leaked
to his opponents … They then exploited the news to incite the land against him … However, An-
Najaashiy, caused them to lose the opportunity by this play on words that he employed as mentioned
above! After that, his Islaam remained concealed from the public opinion within the land.

And when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote the letters to the Kings inviting them to Islaam, An-Najaashiy was one of
those who he wrote to. He dispatched the letter with ‘Amr Bin Umayyah Ad-Damriy. An-Najaashiy said
to ‘Amr Bin Umayyah: “I bear witness by Allah that he is the Nabi whom the Ahl ul-Kitaab (People of the
Book) are awaiting. And verily the sign of Mousaa (‫ )عليهَالسالم‬riding the donkey is like the sign of ‘Iesaa
(‫ )عليهَالسالم‬riding the camel and verily the witnessing with the eyes is not clearer than the news …
however, my supporters in Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) are few and so give me some time to increase the
supporters and make the hearts incline.

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah” (Insaan Al-‘Uyoon Fee Seerat ul-Ameen Al-Ma’moon): ‘Ali Bin Burhaan ud-Deen Al-Halabiy
Ash-Shaafi’iy: 3/258 and refer to “seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/216-217) and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim:
3/646, (2) “Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf, As-Suhailiy: 2/90)].

And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬spoke about his death on the day that it occurred and prayed the Janaazah prayer for
him in Al-Madinah (1) i.e. Salaat ul-Ghaa’ib (prayer upon the absent).

The following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “Anas related that the Nabi of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to
Kisraa (of Persia), Qaisar (of Rome), to An-Najaashiy and to every one of power and might,
calling them to Allah and it wasn’t the Najaashiy whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬performed the prayer for”
(2).

The author of “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah” reconciles the statement of Anas Bin Maalik (May Allah be
pleased with him) which indicates that the Najaashiy (i.e. ruler of Abyssinia) who the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to
inviting him to Islaam was not the first Najaashiy who honoured and hosted the emigrants who migrated
to Al-Habashah, entered into Islaam and then later the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed the funeral prayer of the absent
over him. The following was mentioned in “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: “It is possible that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
wrote to the Najaashiy whom he performed the Janaazah prayer for and also to the Najaashiy who
succeeded him, delivered by the hand of ‘Amr Bin Umayyah. And Ibn Hazm mentioned that this second
Najaashiy did not embrace Islaam” (3).

I say:

In respect to:

- The case of the Haakim (ruler) of “Ma’aan”, Farwah Bin ‘Amr Al-Judhaamiy, who declared his Islaam
(openly).

- And the case of the King of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia).

Both of these indicate that the person in authority embraced Islaam but was however not capable of
maintaining the authority upon the basis of Islaam.

- The authority of the ruler of “Ma’aan” was derived or drawn from Rome and was not dependent upon a
natural self-reliant power that he could depend upon to confront the people of the high of authority
controlling the lands and the governors within them … The result of which was that he declared his
Islaam openly, insisted upon remaining upon it and then gained the success of martyrdom, as mentioned
earlier, may the mercy of Allah Ta’Aalaa be upon him.

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/279, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1774 and “Sharh An-Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim”: 7/398-399, (3)
“As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/279 and “An-Najashiy” is the title given to every King of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia)].
And it appears that the King of Abyssinia viewed that the support for his authority, despite being based
upon the people of the land and not drawn from the King (or Caesar) of Rome and in spite of the
subservience to Rome in name or title under the united Christian rule, this natural support for his
authority was nevertheless only loyal to the Najaaashiy (Abyssinian King) as long as he did not display to
his people that he had left their Deen and embraced Islaam … The Najaashiy evaluated in this situation,
that if the number of his Muslim supporters increased in Al-Habashah and if Islaam was left to spread
amongst the people and the leaders, then and at that time a natural support would be prepared upon the
basis of Islaam and he could openly declare his Islaam and join (his land) with the Islamic State.

In my estimation, the situation of the Muslim Najaashiy in Al-Habashah was like the situation of the
leaders of the lands or army within a state of the current day states who want to overturn the ruling
system within them and establish the rule upon a thought that they have believed in which differs from
the thought that the current regime or system is established upon. However, despite that, they fear to be
hasty in declaring their thought openly, implement what they want and then their effort comes to nothing
in the absence of finding the positive response amongst the rest of the forces (i.e. people of power) or the
people within the land, that would strengthen their resolve before the opponents and adversaries. For that
reason, they view that it is wise to leave the country to continue to proceed upon its system whilst
consolidating their grip upon what they possess in terms of centres of power, making efforts to take more
centres of power into their possession and working to promote the thought upon the basis of which they
want to build the state without announ cing their identities and the true reality of their thoughts … That is
until they have seen that the land has responded positively with this new thought, that the natural pillar of
support for that thought had been met and fulfilled, and that this support was capable of defending the
authority that is wanted to overturn the current system or regime and capable of implementing and
applying the new system … against all internal (potential) opponents and rebels and external intervening
forces … At such a time, this group will reval their identities and rise to overturn the standing regime and
build the new state upon the thought that they have believed in …

I say: In my estimation, the Muslim Najaashiy in Abyssinia was resolved to follow a course of action
according to the plan that we mentioned so that the land could be changed towards the new situation.
This was indicated within the statement of An-Najaashiy to the emvoy of the Nabi ‫‘ ﷺ‬Amr Bin
Umayyah Ad-Damriy: “However, my supporters from the people of Al-Habashah are few and so give me
some time so that I can increase the supporters, and incline the hearts” (1).

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/280].

We view that it is possible for those like An-Najaashiy (in this situation), due to what he possesses in
terms of astuteness and capability to bring together the matter of taking hold of the reins of the affair in
the land, so that it does not slip out of his hands until he has arranged the situation to bring about the
desired transformation and change … and the matter of not being directly involved in the Hukm (ruling)
by other than what he believes in, so that he doesn’t fall under the description of the Qawl (statement) of
Allah Ta’Aalaa in this Aayah or other similar Aayaat:

َ ‫َال َكافِر‬
َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫نز َلَاللَّـهَُ َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
ْ ‫كَ ُه ُم‬ َ َ‫مَب َماَأ‬
ِ ‫َو َمنَلَّ ْمَ َيحْ ُك‬
And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers (Al-Maa’idah: 44).

It is possible that what is understood from the plan of An-Najaashiy that he was determined to
implement, represented the secret behind the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Leave Al-Habashah
(Abyssinia) as long as they leave you” (1) which means not dealing with Al-Habashah by placing it
before the three choices: Either Islaam, or the Jizyah or war. That was to leave the opportunity in respect
to that to the Najaashiy so that he could proceed upon the process of change according to what he viewed
would accomplish the desired transformation, without resorting to Al-Qitaal (fighting).
In addition, when the author of “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah” mentioned that An-Najaashiy had sent word to
the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, he affirmed the following explicitly: “At that (i.e. receipt of the correspondence) he ‫ﷺ‬
said: “Leave Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) as long as they leave you” (2). As such, this supports the
understanding that we have indicated to.

I say: However, the righteous An-Najaashiy died before he could achieve what he had wanted and the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his Sahaabah, May Allah be pleased upon them, prayed the prayer of the Ghaa’ib (absent)
over him (i.e. the Janaazah).

The following was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: “Jaabir (May Allah be pleased with him) related:
When An-Najaashiy died, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Today a Saalih (righteous) man has died and so stand
over your brother (i.e. to perform prayer) …” (3).

Therefore, if the Islamic State communicates with other states, it invites the authority to Islaam and the
leaders respond positively … and those leaders can declare that they have embraced Islaamm, then it
should be allowed to be … If they are then overthrown or toppled, they would have followed the example
of the governor of “Ma’aan”, Farwah Bin ‘Amr Al-Judhaamiy, may Allah’s mercy be upon him.

Hust as it is possible for them to write and correspond with the Islamic State to inform it that they had
embraced Islaam and to ask that the Muslims provide them with some time so that they can arrange the
situation of their land and power within it for the sake of accomplishing the sought and desired change
…. That is whilst the fact that they had embraced Islaam would remain hidden from the people of the
land …

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah: 3/279. And in the Sunan of Abu Dawud the following wording was recorded: “Leave be Al-
Habashah as long as they leave you be …”, Hadeeth Number: 4302, (2) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/279, (3) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy, Hadeeth Number: 2877. And also refer to the Ahaadeeth in Al-Bukhaariy numbered 3877-3881. Ibh Hajar said:
“His death only happened in the ninth year after Al-Hijrah according to the majority (view) and it is also said: The eighth year
before the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah” (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 7/191). And refer to “Al-Qasatlaani ‘Ala l-Bukhaariy”: 6/192].

It is then the choice of the Islamic State, in such a situation, to respond positively to their demand, if they
saw the Maslahah (interse and benefit) in that, just as it could offer assistance to them or resolve the
matter by presenting the three choices to the land … It would decide that according to what the Maslahah
(interest) of the Islamic Da’wah dictated.

This then is concerning the second point related to the inability of the people of authority of those whom
are invited to Islaam to maintain their authority or their inability to bring about the required radical change
immediately upon their acceptance of Islaam.

3 - The third point: The authority or people of some of the regions embracing Islaam whilst being
incapable of protecting their lands from the neighbouring enemy or from the (greater) state that they have
separated from.

In such a situation, the decision maker in the Islamic State has two options before him and he takes the
one which he sees to be in the Maslahah (interest) whilst considering the possibilities and capabilities that
are available to the State (to utilise).

- The first option: To provide the land that has declared its Islaam with an Islamic force or power
through which it is able to prevent (external) aggression.
- The second option: To provide advice to the people of the threatened land to migrate away from there
to the Daar ul-Islaam and then if they refuse to leave their land they are not forced to transform and they
are left to choose for themselves!

In respect to this situation, there is that which came mentioned in the Hadeeth of Buraidah Al-Aslamiy as
recorded by Muslim. The following was related within it:

“Call them to Islaam. If they respond positively, then accept that from them and refrain from
(fighting) them. Then call them to move from their Daar (land) to the Daar of the Muhaajireen
(emigrants i.e. Daar ul-Islaam). And inform them, that if they do that, then they will have what
the Muhaajireen have and it will be due upon them what is due upon the Muhaajireen. If they
refuse to transform (i.e. their land), then inform them that they will be like the Muslim Arabs (i.e.
Bedouins). The Hukm (ruling) of Allah that applies upon the Muslims applies upon them and
they will not share anything in terms of the Ghaneemah and Fay’ (spoils and booty) unless they
undertake the Jihaad with the Muslims …” (1).

In addition, it is known that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not demand from the people of the regions which had
entered Islaam, like Yemen, Makkah, At-Taa’if, Bahrain and Oman to change to Daar ul-Muhaajireen (i.e.
Daar ul-Islaam) … Rather, he requested from the people of the Bedouin regions to transform from their
lands to Daar ul-Muhaajireen.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1731 (3/1357) and “Sharh Saheeh Muslim” by An-Nawawiy: 7/311/312].

By studying the reality of these regions and those, we find that the regions which were capable of
protecting themselves from enemies were not asked or required to make Hijrah (migration) from them
because they became a Daar (land) of Islaam.

And the following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

‫َالَهِجْ َر َةَ َبعْ دََال َف ْتح‬

There is no Hijrah (migration) after the conquest … (1).

Al-Imaam As-Suyootiy said: “There is no Hijrah from Makkah after it became a Daar of Islaam” (2).

This concerns the regions which are capable of protecting themselves from the enemies.

As for the regions or areas which are incapable of protecting themselves from theuir enemy, then the
Hijrah (migration) of the people of those areas are asked to migrate away from them to Daar Islaam. The
previous Hadeeth of Buraidah applies to this situation in respect to the request to make Hijrah to Daar ul-
Islaam. This is in the form of a recommendation (Nadb) and not obligation (Wujoob).

The following was mentioned in Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy’s Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim:

“The meaning of this Hadeeth is that if they have become Muslim, it is recommended for them to make
Hijrah (i.e. to migrate) to Al-Madinah. If they were to do that, then they would be like the Muhaajireen
(emigrants) before them in respect to deserving the booty and spoils amongst other matters. Otherwise, (if
they don’t migrate) they are considered to be Arabs (i.e. Bedouins) like the rest of the Arab (Bedouin)
Muslims who live in the desert or nomadic regions and did not migrate and there is no Ghazw (conquest).
Consequently, the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam are applied upon them and they have no right in respect to
the Ghaneemah and the Fa’I (booty and spoils)” (3).
What is intended by this, is the continuation of the legal legitimacy of making the Hijrah to Daar ul-Islaam
in relation to those regions which are incapable of protecting themselves, and that is for the sake of
attining that protection in addition to other rights that citizens possess.

Concerning this, Ash-Shawkaaniy wrote in his “Nail ul-Awtaar”: Ibn ‘Umar expressed the intended
meaning i.e. the intended meaning of the previous Hadeeth: “There is no Hijrah after Al-Fat’h (conquest)
…” as recorded by Al-Ismaa’eeliy with the wording: “The Hijrah to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬after the
Fat’h (conquest of Makkah) came to an end and the Hijrah does not cease as long as the disbelievers are
being fought” i.e. as long as Kufr exists in the Dunyaa (world), then the Hijrah from it is obligatory upon
the one who has become Muslim if he fears that he will be pressured away from his Deen and its
understanding. If he assesses that Kufr no longer remains in the Dunyaa, then the Hijrah was cease to
exist as that which obliges it ceases to exist” (4).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1834 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 4/46), (2) “Sharh As-Suyootiy ‘Alaa Sunan An-Nisaa’iy”: 7/146, (3) “Sharh An-
Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 7/312, (4) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/29].

Therefore, in respect to the regions or areas which enter into Islaam and their people are not capable of
protecting themselves and they are exposed to being pressured away from their Deen by the disbelievers
who threaten them, it is obligatory upon them, in such a situation, to migrate to Daar ul-Islaam.

If, however, they were not afraid of being pressured in respect to their Deen but were only fearful of
aggression against them from the people of war, due to their inability to defend themselves, then it is
recommended for them to make Hijrah and they are not compelled to do that.

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” concerning this:

“If an army of Muslims enters Daar ul-Harb (Land of war) …. And descend upon a town from its towns
… Then the Muslims invite to Islaam and they respond positively to it … Then the Muslims accept that
from them if they become Muslim … That is because the Qitaal (fighting) is only legally legitimate (or
legislated) with the aim of the acceptance of Islaam. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫ُت َقا ِتلُو َن ُه ْمَأَ ْوَيُسْ لِم‬

َ‫ُون‬
You fight them or they submit (i.e. to Islaam) (Al-Fat’h: 16).

Therefore, if they become Muslim, it is obligatory to accept that from them. The Ameer (of the Muslim
army) then settles them in their land and appoints an Ameer (leader) from the Muslims over them to rule
the people of Islaam. That is because the town (or city) has become Daar ul-Islaam and there must be an
Ameer who applies the rule of the Muslims. If the people, when that Muslim army has departed from
them, were not capable of being restrained from the people of war and they refuse to transform to Daar
ul-Islaam, then the Ameer leaves them and what they have chosen for themselves. That is because they
made a bad choice and they are left upon their bad choice whilst they are not forced to transform (i.e. to
Daar ul-Islaam) …” (1).

The above is what is to be said concerning the second point about the inability of the land that has
embraced Islaam to protect itself from foreign or external aggression.

And with that, we have concluded the first Mas’alah (issue) of this study and that is the Mas’alah of the
states, entities and peoples responding positively to the Islamic Da’wah, the acceptance to enter Islaam
and what is built upon that in terms of effects according to the details that have been explained.

We now arrive at the second Mas’alah (issue) and that is:

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2190-2191].

The second Mas’alah (issue): Acceptance to enter into the Dhimmah of the
Muslims:

We have become aware, in the previous study, that it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to first invite the
other states, entities and peoples to enter into Islaam and do not spare any effort to accomplish that.
Then, if that invitation returns with a reply of refusal, a second invitation is made to them, and that is to
enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims, accept to submit to the Islamic system and join to the Islamic
State, through which the following Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa is realised:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

Later, in the forthcoming studies we will examine the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ concerning the acceptance
of entering into the Dhimmah in relation to the adherents of all of the religions and the people of every
category, in addition to the difference of opinion regarding the Mas’alah.

As for now, then that which concerns us, is the reality when the states, entities and peoples respond
positively to this second invitiation, whilst the Da’wah (invitation) to enter into the Dhimmah obliges the
Muslims to accept that positive response and to implement the effects and consequences that are built
upon it. In such a situation, it is Haraam (prohibited) to launch war against the party that has accepted the
Da’wah and accepted by their will to accept the Dhimmah. That is in accordance to the guidance of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬found in the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “…

If they refuse (i.e to accept Islam), then call them to give the Jizyah. If they agree to that, accept
it from them and hold back your hands (from fighting). If they refuse (that), then seek Allah's
help and fight them (1).

In addition, in respect to the lands or people responding to the invitation to enter into the Dhimmah of
the Muslims, their situation differs in terms of the ability of the Islamic State to extend its protection over
them or not … In accordance to that, the stance or position of the Islamic State towards those lands or
peoples differs in respect to incorporating them to it or not incorporating them. That is as follows:

- If the Islamic State is capable of protecting the regions which have chosen to enter into the Dhimmah of
the Muslims and of protecting their inhabitants, whether that is by transporting an Islamic power or force
to them or due to the presence of a deterring force within Daar ul_islaam that prevents hostile or
aggressing states from attacking these new Islamic regions which have entered into the Dhimmah … or
via some other means of protection … Upon the condition that this protection is reliant upon the Islamic
power independently or mainly in terms of sufficiency, without any harm befaklling the Muslims as a
result of that …
[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1371, 3/1357, Sunan Abu Dawud: 2612, 3/52 and the wording (Lafzh) we used is from the narration
collected by Abu Dawud].

If that is the case then I say: If the state is capable of protecting those regions which have chosen to enter
into the Dhimmah … Then in such a situation, it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to incorporate and
join those regions to Daar ul-Islaam and to accept their people in their description as Ahl udh-Dhimmah
and as citizens of the Islamic State.

- If, however, the Islamic State is not capable of protecting the regions which have chosen to enter into
the Dhimmah of the Muslims or their residents … Then we have two cases in this situation:
The first case: If the people of those regions are content to leave from their lands to Daar ul-Islaam, then
here, it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to accept them into the Dhimmah of the Muslims, if they
move to Daar ul-Islaam.

The second case: If the people of those regions refuse to move from their lands to Daar ul-Islaam with
the request for them to enter into the Dhimmah whilst the Islamic State is incapable of protecting them
and their regions. The reality of this case does not conform to the reality of the situation of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah. That is because the reality of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah is represented or manifested in the State’s
protection of them and the application of the Islamic rule over them. That is whilst the reality of this
situation that we are addressing is that there is no protection of the State for them due to its inability of
providing the necessary force or power for that. Consequently, there is also a defectiveness in the
application of the Islamic rule upon them because that rule requires the force to implement it … And the
State according to this evaluation is incapable of providing the necessary force to accomplish that.

Therefore, in the case where this case or situation does not conform to the reality of the situation of the
Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then the request of the Dhimmah (i.e. contract of protection) from the people of
these regions is considered in reality to be a request for a Muwaada’ah (treaty) i.e. a request to contract a
peace treaty with the Muslims. When faced with such a reality the Islamic State has two options before it:

To accept this request or to reject it according to what the Islamic Maslahah dictates concerning it.

And in the situation of rejecting what we have considered to be a Muwaada’ah (treaty), fighting these
regions in this situation remains legally legitimate … Then, after breaking the power or force that those
regions possess, the Islamic State can leave their people where they are just as it can move them to Daar
ul-Islaam … The Islamic State acts in accordance to the Mslahah which is determioned by the
circumstances at that time.

In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” it mentions that which is related to what we have mentioned,
which we will quote from according to the requirment. It stated the following: “If they refuse to become
Muslim, then the Muslims invite them to give the Jizyah. If they respond positively to that and refuse to
move to their Daar (homeland) … If the Muslims by residing with them are strong enough against the
Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) … Then there is no problem for the Ameer to grant them a Dhimmah
(contract of protection) and to appoint an Ameer over them from the Muslims who rules them by the rule
of the Muslims and to station Muslims alongside the Ameer (ruler) who are capable of residing with them
I their land. That is because the acceptance of the Dhimmah is obligatory. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َحََّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

And this is a Dhimmah from them because the Ameer applies upon them the rule (Hukm) of the Muslims
and by the application of the rule, they become Dhimmah and their Madinah (town) becomes a Madinah
(town) of Islaam, and so that is accepted from them.

And if those who are left within this location from amongst the Muslims are no strong enough against the
Ahl ul-Harb and not capable of ruling within it by the Islamic rule, then the Muslims cannot respond to
them positively in respect to that (i.e. accept the Dhimmah) … In this situation, they would be of the
status of the Muwaadi’een (those under a treaty) with the Muslims. And when the Ahl ul-Harb (those at
war or of Daar ul-Harb/Kufr) request the treaty (Muwaada’ah) from the Muslims, it is not obligatory
upon the Muslims to make such a treaty with them unless there is an evident (or apparent) good (i.e.
benefit) in it for the Muslims and similarly, in this situation it is not obligatory to accept the Dhimmah
from them … Then, if they respond positively to moving to Daar ul-Islaam, then the Muslims should not
refuse them that … If the Muslims were to leave a group of Muslims amongst them that gave them power
over the Mushrikeen from the people of war, when combined with the assistance of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah and then the people of the town said: “We are a Dhimmah for you if you leave behind a group
that we fight alongside, then the Ameer should not do that …” (1).

This is what the two Imaams, Ash-Shaibaani and As-Sarakhsiy said in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”
concerning the second Mas’alah that we are addressing and that is: The acceptance of the disbelievers to
enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims and the absence of legal legitimacy of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in such
a situation, according to the details that we have presented … We now move on to the third issue.

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaibaaniy and Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy: 5/2191-2194].

The third Mas’alah (issue): The convening of a peace treaty (Mu’aahadah Salaam)
between the disbelievers and the Muslims

If the Islamic State directed the Da’wah towards other states and peoples so that they embrace Islaambut
they rejected it and then it directed the invitation to them for the purpose of them entering into the
Dhimmah of the Muslims and to join the Islamic State, so that the Islamic system be applied over them,
and the response to that was negative as well, then in such a situation, is it permissible for the Islamic
State to request those states and peoples to contract a peace treat (Mu’aahadah Salaam) with it or is it
permissible for the Islamic State itself to repond positively to those states or peoples if they requested to
contract treaties like that? Which would then as a result mean the non-legitimacy of declaring war against
those states of treaty for the purpose of inviting them to Islaam or for the purpose of making them
submit to the Islamic rule? This is the subject area of this Mas’alah (issue).

The answer, is that we have already explained in the first study of this chapter and in other places, that the
strongest opinion, in respect to this issue, is the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority). That is the non-
obligation to resort to peace treaties … Rather, it is permissible to resort to them if the Maslahah (interest)
of the Islamic Da’wah dictated that. We quoted numerous texts of the Fuqahaa’ concerning this.

- They include the statement of Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas: “We do not know anyone from the Fuqahaa’ who
prohibit fighting those Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) who have removed themselves from fighting us. The
only difference (of opinion) is in respect to the permissibility of not fighting them and not in respect to its
prohibition …” (1).

Regarding the statement of leaving the Qitaal (fighting) against the Mushrikeen, that applies upon leaving
it in the presence of a Mu’aahadah (treaty) and without a Mu’aahadah.

- They also include the statement of Al-Imaam Ibn Katheer: “If the enemy is dense (i.e. a great number)
then it is permissible to make a Muhaadanah (truce) with them …” (2).

- And the statement of Al-Imaam Az-Zamakhshariy: “And the Saheeh (correct view) is that the matter
rests upon what the Imaam views to be in the well-being of Islaam and its adherents, in terms of war or
peace, and it is not definite that they will always fight or that they will always make a truce” (3).

- Al-Imaam Ibn Hajar stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:

“
َ‫َوإِنَ َج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).
This Aayah indicates to the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of make a truce or peace (Musaalahah) with
the Mushrikeen of making peace or a truce (Musaalahah) with the Mushrikeen … And the meaning of the
Shart (condition) in the Aayah, is that the command to make the Sulh (peace or truce) is restricted to if it
is in the best interest or fortune to Islaam to make the Musaalahah. However, if Islaam was prevalent or
dominant over the Kufr and the interest in making the Musaalahah (peace) is not in the Maslahah
(interest), then no (i.e. it should not be undertaken) …” (4).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/191, (2) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/322-323, (3) Tafseer “Al-Kashaaf”, Az-
Zamakhshaariy: 2/182, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy Sharh Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy”, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy: 6/275-276].

And according to Ibn Taymiyysh as well, the Mu’aahadah (treaty) is permissible and not Waajib
(obligatory) and if the Islamic State contracted it as an unrestricted contract without specifying a specific
time period, that would in his view mean, that the Islamic State is not bound by it and it can end the
Mu’aahadah (treaty) at any time according to the Maslahah (interest) … If it had been contracted upon a
specific time period, then it is obligatpry to be faithful to it throughout the period as long as the enemy is
sticks to its faithfulness to it … Concerning this, Ibn Taymioyyah says in “Al-Ikhtiyaaraat Al-‘Ilmiyah”:
“Chapter of “Al-Hudnah” (truce): And it is permissible to contract it Mutlaqan (i.e. without restriction)
and on a temporary basis (i.e. with a time period specification). In respect to the temporary, then it is
binding upon the two parties, it is obligatory to be faithful (or adhere) to it as long as the enemy does not
violate it … As for the Mutlaq (unrestricted treaty), then it is a permissible contract (i.e. non-binding) and
the Imaam acts with it in accordance to the Maslahah (interest)” (1).

Based upon this, if the Islamic State sees that the greater interest lies in it resorting to the convening of
peace treaties with other states, then it resorts to them … These peace treaties, connected to the matter of
the Islamic Da’wah, could include conditions related to the protection of the carriers of the Da’wah for
the purpose of propagating Islaam and the invitation to the people, within the state which a treaty has
been made, to embrace Islaam.

From among the realities found within the Prophetic Seerah which can be used to support such
conditions is what came mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Abu Baraa’, ‘Aamir Bin Maalik Bin
Ja’far … came to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in Al-Madinah. And so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
presented Islaam to him and invited him to it, but he did not become Muslim but did not distance himself
from Islaam. And he said: “O Muhammad! If you snt men from amongst your companions to the people
of Najd and invited them to your matter, I would hope that they would respond positively to you”. And
so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “I fear for them from the people of Najd”. Abu Baraa’ said: “I will
provide them with security and safety and so send them and let them call the people to your matter (i.e.
Islaam)!”. And so. the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent “Mundhir Ibn ‘Amr” … in charge of forty men from
His companions from amongst the best of the Muslims …” (2).

Anu Baraa’, whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬invited to Islaam in this narration but didn’t accept, was a man from
among the leaders of his region which he had indicated to. And his provision of security and protection to
the carriers of the Da’wah so that they could propagate the Da’wah to Islaam in Najd, is equivalent, in our
current time, to states providing an entry visa to the Da’wah carriers to their lands and granting them
permission to undertake Islamic activities within them.

[(1) “Al-Ikhtiyaaraat Al-‘Ilmiyah”, Ibn Taymiyyah (“Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa” of Sheikh ul-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyyah: 4/613, (2)
“Seerah Ibn Hishaam” (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/231). As-Suhailiy said in “Ar-rawd”: “The truth is that they numbered eighty. That
is what was stated in Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/238) … Refer to the report of “Bi’r Ma’oonah” in Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy, the Ahaadeeth: 4088-4092, and in Saheeh Muslim: 677. Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fat’h: “It is possible to bring (the
evidences together i.e. Al-Jam’u) … The forty could have been heads whilst the remainder were followers” (7/387)].

This is even though the Da’wah delegation sent by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Najd met with a tragic end without
accomplishing the purpose that it was dispatched for, as a result of the treachery of the nephew of Abu
Baraa’, ‘Aamir Bin At-Tufail, and his betrayal of the protection of his uncle who had granted protection
and security to the Da’wah carriers and those who had been sent to invite to Islaam from among the
companions of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, and that occurred in the manner that is well-known in respect to
what happened to the martyrs of “Bi’r Ma’oonah” (1).

From the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬acceptance of the protection of “Abu Baraa’” for those of his Sahaabah who
were sent for the sake of the Da’wah to the land of Najd, the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of the
Islamic State contracting peace treaties with other states, is deduced. And that the treaties include
conditions that open the doors to the Islamic activity and the protection of those calling to Islaam within
those lands. That is if the Islamic State has seen a Maslahah (interst and benefit) in that. It is not
undertaken upon the premise that this style of carrying Islaam to other states, if it is possible to
accomplish it, represents an obligatory alternative to undertaking Al-Jihaad which aims to make others
submit to the Islamic rule, if they reject entering under it … Rather, it is undertaken from the angle of the
alternative by necessity if Al-Jihaad is not possible to be undertaken (i.e. at that time or those
circumstances) or if a harm upon the Muslims will result from it … Or, it is from the angle or an
alternative by way of choice or as an option, in the case where Al-Jihaad is possible to be undertaken,
however, the Islamic State has viewed that there exists a Maslahah, due to certain considerations, to
convene those treaties with some of the states instead of declaring Al-Jihaad against them.

The above is what relates to the peace treaties (Al-Mu’aahadaat As-Silmiyah), which include conditions to
protect the carriers of the Da’wah and the granting or permission for Islamic activity to be undertaken
within the states.

However, if we were to suppose that those states … stipulated upon the Islamic State, as a condition to
enter into a peace treaty with them, that it refrains from sending those who carry the Da’wah to the states
that the teaty has been made with, and that it prevents the Islamic embassy within those lands of
undertaking any Islamic activity amongst the citizens of those states, is it then permissible for the Islamic
State to accept such treaties with those conditions?

[(1) It is stated in “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Abu Baraa’ died following that in regret and remorse after what ‘Aamir Bin At-Tufail
did and ‘Aamir Ibn At-Tufail lived after that and died by the Du’aa of the Nabi ‫ ”ﷺ‬7/491-491. And ‘Bi’r Ma’oonah’ is from
Najd 160 km from Al-Madinah. Yaqoot measured the distance by four stages where each stage was 40 km: (Al-Mujtama’ Al-
Madaniy, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umaraiy: p90). And in “An-Nihaayah” by Ibn Katheer: “Bi’r Ma’oonah: In the land of Bani
Sulaim, between Makkah and Al-Madinah”: 4/344].

The answer in my estimation, is that if the Daroorah ([essential] necessity) led to resorting to such treaties,
then there is no harm (Haraj) in that, like Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said: “There is permitted in respect to
the Darooraat ([essential] necessities) that which is not permitted outside of them” (1). The prevention of
the Muslims conveying Islaam within the other states is like preventing them from reaching the authority
in those states. So, just as the Daroorah or Maslahah could determine convening treaties with those states
which have decided to prevent the Muslims from taking the authority within them by force and to leave
them ruling themselves by the system that they had been upon … until a time determined by
circumstances …. Then similarly, the Daroorah or Maslahah could determine contracting treaties with
those states which have decided to prevent the Muslims from conveying Islaam within them, until a
certain time determined by circumstances and conditions!

The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬contracted the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah with Quraish whilst it was pressurising the
Muslims to leave their Deen and persecuting the weak believers within Makkah. That pressure and
persecution continued after the treaty which led Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer to flee from Makkah, as is
well-known in the books of Seerah.

In addition, it can be understood, from some of the Hadeeth realted to the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, that
the Quraish stipulate the condition upon the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he would not direct his Da’wah to anyone
from the people of Makkah. Al-Bukhaariy related in his Saheeh, in relation to this and within the context
of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah: “Al-Buraa’ (May Allah be pleased with him) related that when the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬wanted to perform the ‘Umrah, he sent word to the people of Makkah seeking permission to enter
Makkah. And so, they stipulated as a condition upon him that he does not stay for more than three nights,
that he does not enter except with the weapons in cases and scabbards and that he does not call anyone of
them to Islaam! He said: He said: So, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib began to write down the condition between
them. He wrote: This is what the Messenger of Allah has settled. They (i.e. Quraish) then said: If we had
recognised you as the Messenger of Allah we would not have fought against you and would have given
you the Bai’ah (pledge of allegiance) …” (2).

And so, in this treaty, the treaty was convened between the Islamic State in Al-Madinah and Makkah,
upon halting the war between them for a period of ten years (3).

[(1) “Kitaab ul-‘Umm”, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/188-189, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3184, (3) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2766 and
“Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/299].

Therefore, included within that which was stipulated upon the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as recorded in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy, was the condition to not engage in undertaking the Da’wah to anyone of them. This Da’wah,
which was forbidden for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in Makkah, included inviting the disbelievers within it to Islaam,
just as it also included forbidding calling the Muslims within it to leave with him to go to Al-Madinah.
That would apply to when he ‫ ﷺ‬would return to perform the Qadaa’ Umrah in the year following the
treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah.

We have also indicated above that the Fitnah (pressure) uponthe Muslims to leave their Deen continued
in Makkah after the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, which compelled Abu Jandal (Al-‘Aas Bin Suhail Bin ‘Amr)
and Abu Baseer, amongst others from the oppressed Muslims to flee with their Deen from Makkah to a
region on the path to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), which the Quraish pass through (i.e. for trade). “And so
they cut the material path of Quraish, they did not engage anyone except that they killed them and no
trade caravan passed them except that they took possession of it. That was until Quraish wrote to him
‫ ﷺ‬to provide them with refuge and that they had no need for them …” (1).

All of this indicates that the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah was restricted to the cessation and halt of war and
providing security to the people of both sides, and according to the well-known narrations, it did not
include permission for the Islamic Da’wah to be active in Makkah. Otherwise, the pressure would have
been relieved from the weak and oppressed, whilst that did not take place … As for what Az-Zuhriy said
concerning the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah: “There was only Qitaal (fighting) when the people met, then
when the truce came, war was ceased, and the people became secure from each other. And they met and
negotiatied in speech and in respect to the dispute. Then no one who understood anything was spoken to
about Islaam except that he embraced it and in those two years as many or more embraced Islaam than
had embraced it before that” (2).

I say: What Az-Zuhriy said should be understood from what he intended from his speech: “No one who
understood anything was spoken to about Islaam except that he embraced it”. If this speech was in
respect to the Da’wah to Islaam in Makkah, then it was related to the activity of the Muslims who
concealed their Islaam or those who declared their Islaam openly due to their strength and the protection
of their clan or tribe like Nu’aim Bin An-Nahhaam from Bani ‘Adiy … The Islamic State, in such a
situation, is not responsible for their Da’wah activity because those Muslims did not carry its citizenship
but were rather from the citizens of Makkah. Just as the Islamic State was not responsible for the Muslims
from the people of Makkah who rebelled against them like the group of Abu Baseer, when they left them
and threatened the caravans of Quraish and their men … As for if that Da’wah activity to Islaam took
place in Al-Madinah when the disbelievers of Makkah were passing through as visitors or travellers, then
the understanding of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah was that this Da’wah would not be undertaken inside
Makkah whilst it did not mention outside of Makkah …

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/32. Also refer to “Seerah Ibn Hishaam” (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/31), and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/523-524. And the name of Abu Baseer was said to be: ‘Ubaid Bin Usaid Bin Jaariyah and it is also said: ‘Utbah
(Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/37), (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/30-31). Refer to “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/189].

Based upon all of this, it is permissible for the Islamic State to contract a temporary Sulh or peace
Mu’aahadah (treaty) with another state and to refrain from fighting them, for the purpose of inviting it to
enter into Islaam or to enter into submission to the Islamic rule. Similarly, it is permitted for it to commit
to not undertaking any activity related to the Islamic Da’wah upon the ground of that state which it has a
treaty with, if that Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah requires commiting to that. Entering into
such a treaty is as a result of the pressure of the circumstances and falls under the ruling of “Ad-
Daroorah” (necessity) where it is allowed to undertake that which is not permitted normally.

With that, we have reached the end of the third Mas’alah (issue) of this study and we now move on to the
fouth Mas’alah.

The fourth Mas’alah: Rejection of Islaam, refusual to submit to the Islamic rule and
the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of declaring Al-Jihaad

We have bee made aware that the Islamic State sends official delegations to other states, entities and
peoples, inviting them to Islaam and that it expends its utmost effort to undertake all that is possible and
within its capability, and that it makes use of all means and styles available to it for the sake of convincing
the people to embrace Islaam … Then if (after that), they refuse to accept Islaam they are invited to give
the Jizyah i.e. they are invited to submit to the Islamic State and what that means in terms of
responsibilities, rights and commitments. If they then reject that and the Islamic State does not see a
Maslahah (benefit or interest) in contracting a peace treaty with them … Then, at that time, it is
permissible to declare Al-Qitaal (fighting or Al-Jihaad) against them for the purpose of applying the
Islamic rule over them in a practical manner, where the qualities of Islaam will manifest in a manner that
can be directly sensed. And it is that, bby its nature, which will make the people incline to embracing
Islaam.

As for what is related to the time period, which is provided to the states and peoples which are being
invited to Islaam or to the Jizyah, where war is declared against them when that time period elapses and
they haven’t responded within it, then the evaluation of that matter belongs to the decision maker in the
Islamic State in accordance to the conditions and circumstances which could determine hastening the war
or delaying it.

- The time period of the Da’wah could be open and not restricted to a specific time and Al-Qitaal
(fighting) is not permitted in it unless, of course, it is defensive.

- The time period could also be set by a particular time.

And in respect to that, there are narrations that have been reported …

The following was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ibn Is’haaq said: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬dispatched expeditions (Saraayaa) around (i.e. outside of) Makkah inviting to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla,
and they were not commanded to fight …” (1).
In “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, quoting from Ibn Is’haaq in respect to what Abu Ja’far Al-Baaqir narrated: He said:
“The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Khaalid Bin Al-waleed, when he opened (or conquered)
Makkah, to Banu Judhaimah to invite them (i.e. to Islaam) and he dis not fight them to fight …” (2).

And the following was stated in Ibn ul-Qayyim’s “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: “Al-baihaqiy related with a Saheeh
Isnaad (chain) … From Al-Baraa’, that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed to the people of
Ymene to call them to Islaam. Al-Baraa’ said: I was amongst those who had set out with Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed and we stayed for six months inviting them to Islaam but they didn’t respond positively. Then the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him, and he commanded him to
relieve Khaalid (and his soldiers) apart from any man from those who were with Khaalid and preferred to
join the new army with ‘Ali (i.e remain) (3), may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Baraa’ said: I was amongst
those who stayed behind to join with ‘Ali. Then when we approached closer to the people, they came out
towards us. ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, the prayed with us, and formed us into one row. He then
advanced before us and read to them a letter from the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. As a result, the whole of
(the tribe of) Hamdaan embraced Islaam! ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, then wrote to the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬informing him about their embracing Islaam. When the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬read the letter, he fell down in prostration and then raised his head saying: Peace be upon Hamdaan,
peace be upon Hamdaan. And the origin of the Hadeeth is found in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy” (4).

[(1) Seerah ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/109), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy Bi Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy”, Al-‘Asqalaaniy: 8/57,
(3) It was normal for the Khalifah to send an army for a particular time. Then when they finished that they woukld return (i.e.
to their families, homes businesses etc.) and others would be sent to take their place. Those who wished to remain and join the
second army is what is being described here. “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 8/66, (4) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/623. The Hadeeth
in Al-Baihaqiy: 2/369 in the Baab (chapter) of “Postration of gratitude” (Sujood ush-Shukr) within the “Book of Salaah” and
also refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3449].

The following was stated in “Al-Amwaal” by Ibn ‘Ubaid: “’Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab wrote to Sa’d Ibn Abi
Waqqaas: I have written to you to imform you to invite the people to Islaam for three days. Then,
whoever responds positively to your invitation before Al-Qitaal (the fighting), then he is a man from the
Muslims. He has what the Muslims have and he has a share in Islaam …” (1).

And in “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah”, in the context of the discussion about the conquest of Egypt and in
relation to what was mentioned about the dialogue between ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas and the two priests of
Egypt; Abu Maryam and Abu Miryam, concerning the three choices or opitions, Al-Islaam, Al-Jizyah or
war, which ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas presented to the two men, the book stated that the two Egyptian negotiators
said to ‘Amr:

“Provide us with safety until we return to you. ‘Amr said: People like me are not deceived (or tricked)
however I will allow you a delay of three (days), so that you can deliberate and your people can deliberate,
and if you don’t accept we will fight against you. They said: Give us more time. And so, he gave them one
more day. Then they asked again: Increase the time for us. And so, he extended the period for them for
another day. They then returned back to Al-Maqawqis (ruler of Egypt) …” (2).

I say: These Ahaadeeth and reports indicate, as mentioned before, that it is up to the decision maker to
evaluate the time period that is to be provided to the states and the peoples, when they are invited to
Islaam or to submission to the Islamic rule, in accordance to different considerations in light of the
interest (Maslahah) of the Islamic Da’wah. That is where, if the time period expires and there is no
positive response, the Islamic State can then declare Al-Jihaad against those who have rejected Islaam and
refused to enter under the rule of the Muslims. That is for the purpose of applying the Islamic system
upon them by force and making them citizens of the Islamic State and making their lands join to Daar ul-
Islaam.
We have now reached the end of the fouth and final Mas’alah (issue) of this study and consequently we
have come to the conclusion of the third study of this chapter.

[(1) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam: p66, (2) “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah Fee Mulook Misr Wa l-Qaahirah”,
Ibn Taghriy Al-Ataabakiy: 1/23-24].

Branch Masaa’il (issues) connected to the reasons or causes (Asbaab) for the declaration of Al-
Jihaad

We mentioned in the introduction of this third volume, which we have now reached the end of, that we
will present issues related to the subject area of the declaration of Al-Jihaad at the end of the volume. It
could be that from those issues, there are those which have already been addressed and dealt with or
partially dealt with. However, as they carry the description of being issues upon which there is difference
or disagreement (Khilaaf) and because a lot of discussion has risen in regards to them, we have seprated
them under different headings and then addressed that which we have not already previously covered and
addressed …As for what has already been addressed completely or partially, then we will limit the
discussion to provide a concentrated picture about them and to provide reference to their study within the
preceding studies that we have covered.

From amongst the Masaa’il (issues) that are being indicated to are:

1 – The first Mas’alah: Is Al-Jihaad a defensive war alone or could it be an offensive war as well?

2 – The second issue: Is Al-Jihaad considered to be interfering in the affairs of others?

3 – The third issue: What is the origin in respect to the relationship between the Muslims and others,
peace or war?

These are the most important Masaa’il (issues) which we have already discussed in the previous studies.
However, as was mentioned, their appearance as independent issues, upon which a lot of discussion or
debate revolved, makes us also address them individually under separate headings, indicating in brief to
our opinion concerning them.

1 – The first Mas’alah: Is Al-Jihaad a defensive war alone or could it be an offensive war as well?

We have previously come to know, within the studies of this volume and what came before it, that Al-
Jihaad has been legislated (and made legally legitimate) was first legislated as a defensive war against those
who initiate against the Muslims by aggression and fighting. Therefore, in this stage, it is verified that Al-
Jihaad only represented a defensive war.

Then came the permission for the Muslims to initiate the disbelievers in Al-Qitaal (fighting) after first
conveying the Da’wah to them and following their rejection, and even if no aggression was undertaken by
the disbelievers against the Muslims. Based upon that, it is verified that Al-Jihaad in this second stage
represented (both) a defensive and offensive war together.

- It represents a defensive war against the aggressors, just as it had been in the first stage of the legislation
of Al-Jihaad, and this matter continued into the second stage. And it was added to by the initiation of the
Qitaal (fighting) against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) following their rejection of the Da’wah and their
rejection of the Islamic rule, as was explained earlier. Consequently, we understand that the meaning of
Al-Jihaad being an offensive war is that the Muslims initiate the Qitaal against the disbelievers according
to the aforementioned Shart (condition) i.e. the condition of the conveyance of the Da’wah in a manifest
manner and giving notification to the disbelievers of three options, which are Islaam and then the Jizyah,
and if there response or reply was negative concerning these two options, the third option is war. This is
therefore the meaning of Al-Jihaad being offensive.

Therefore, it is permissible to describe Al-Jihaad as being an offensive war based upon this mentioned
meaning.

- Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani said: “Al-Jihaad is fighting the enemies Mutlaqan (without
restriction) and in a general (‘Aamm) manner. It includes the offensive war (Hujoomiy), the defensive
(Difaa’iy), the protective (Wiqaa’iy), the limited and unlimited war …” (1).

- And the author of “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islaamiy” stated: “The Islamic military Aqeedah is an
offensive Aqeedah …” (2). He also said: “The Nabi Muhammd ‫ ﷺ‬was not a Nabi (Prophet) sent to the
Arabs alone. Rather, he was the possessor of a message for humanity and creation and he carried it to
spread it upon all mankind. It was therefore necessary that he and his Khulafaa’, after him, launch out
carrying the message of Islaam to the world and outside of the borders of the Arabian Peninsula. And that
is a matter that requires, without doubt, invasion, affirmative action, initiation and expansion, in order to
impose the Siyaadah (sovereignty). And all of these represent offensive positions by their nature” (3). He
also says: “Al-Jihaad in Islaam was not (legislated) as much for the purpose of repelling the aggression as it
was for the spread of the principles of the upright (Haneef) Deen …” (4). He then says: “The offensive
character of the Islamic military Aqeedah does not at all mean “aggressiveness) as Al-Jihaad, in its essence,
and according to the Islamic conception, possesses a defined and clear objective and that is: The spread of
the Islamic Da’wah …” (5).

There also exists another group of Islamic writers who have denied that Al-Jihaad be described as an
offensive war and carried the word “Offensiveness or attacking” to mean oppressiveness (transgression)
and aggression.

- Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy said: “And it is not correct (or valid) to describe Al-Jihaad as being
offensive (Hujoomiy) because Al-Hujoom (the attack or offensive act) means Azh-Zhulm (oppression and
transgression), whilst Al-Jihaad is ‘Adl (just), in reality …” (6).

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Kitaab Wa s-Sunnah”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p122. We have previously mentioned
that the author of this book had quoted the “Study of Al-Jihaad” which includes the paragraph that we quoted above whilst the
author did not mention the origin of the “study” or an indication that it was a quote, (2) “Al-Fann Al-‘Askariy Al-Islaamiy”,
Colonel Genral Dr. Yaseen Suwaid: p355, (3) Same source: p361, (4) Same source: p362, (5) Same source: p362, (6) “Aathaar
ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p108].

- Al-Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy said: “The Aayaat that have been used for deduction like His Qawl
Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫إِ َّن َم‬

َ ‫اَال ُم ْش ِر ُك‬
َ‫ونَ َن َجس‬
Verily, the Mushrikeen are but impure (At-Taubah: 28).

And like His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن َو َنَد‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫ُونَ ََم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال َِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).
These Aayaat do not contain within them that which indicates to the offense (Hujoom) and it represents a
sensitive expression that is equivalent to aggression (‘Udwaan)” (1).

I say: The secret behind the denial of the description of Al-Jihaad being an offensive war amongst a group
of Islamic writers, is that they have adopted the opinion stating that Al-Jihaad is a defensive war alone,
albeit with differences amongst tem in respect to how wide or narrow the scope if the defence is …
However, despite those differences, they agree that it is Haraam (prohibited) to fight the disbelievers who
have kept themselves away or refrained from fighting the Muslims and from whom no act of aggression
has taken place against them and have not obstructed or opposed the Da’wah from being propagated
within their lands … whether that is by way of pressuring those who have embraced Islaam within their
lands or an aggression against the carriers of the Da’wah … Upon the basis of this understanding, they
have prohibited placing those peaceful disbelievers before the three options: Islaam, Al-Jizyah or war.
Therefore, if these options were presented to them and they refused Islaam and the Jizyah (i.e. to submit
to the Islamic rule), and then the Muslims attacked them based upon that, by Al-Qitaal, that war, in the
view of these Islamic writers, would represent and act of aggression and oppression. As for the earlier
Islamic writers who adopted the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad against the Kuffaar (disbelievers), even if
they held back and stayed away from fighting the Muslims and even if they opened the doors to their
lands for the Islamic Da’wah to be undertaken, without any opposition from them or against the carriers
of the Da’wah or those who had believed in it, but they (as a state or people) had rejected Islaam or
refused to submit to the Islamic rule… Those Islamic writers who adopt the opinion of the legal
legitimacy of Al-Jihaad against those, for the purpose of applying the Islamic system over them, justify the
description of Al-Jihaad as being an offensive (Hujoomiy) war based on this mentioned understanding of
theirs.

We have mentioned, on more than one occasion, that the majority (Jumhoor) of the Fuqahaa’ state the
legal legitimacy of initiating the Qitaal against the disbelievers, who have kept away from fighting the
Muslims, for the above-mentioned purpose or objective. And we have quoted many statements from the
Fuqahaa’ related to this matter. They include the statement of Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas: “And we do not
know anyone from the Fuqahaa’ who have prohibited fighting those Mushrikeen who have removed
themselves from fighting us. Rather, the disagreement is only in respect to the permissibility of
abandoning fighting them and not in respect to its prohibition” (2).

[(1) “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Al-‘Aammah Fil Islaam”: p206, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/191].

That means that there exists an agreement and that there exists a disagreement or difference of opinion
amongst the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the subject of fighting the peaceful disbelievers i.e. to make them
submit to the Islamic rule, in accordance to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َة‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

- The area of difference (Ikhtilaaf) amongst the Fuqahaa’ is:

- Is it obligatory (Waajib) to fight the peaceful disbelievers who do not aggress and prohibited (Haraam) to
not fight them, which means the prohibition of leaving them to rule themselves by the systems of
disbelief?

- Or is it permissible to fight themn and permissible to leave fighting them … according to what the
Maslahah dictates in respect to that?

In any case, based upon this statement of Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas, none of the Fuqahaa’ of Islaam say that
being on the offensive against or attacking the peaceful disbelievers, who refrain from fighting the
Muslims, after the Da’wah has been conveyed to them and after they had been prvided the three options,
is legally illegitimate. Therefore, it is correct(or valid) to describe Al-Jihaad as being an oggensive war
according to this meaning.

The second issue: Is Al-Jihaad considered to be interfering in the affairs of others?

I say: There are unrestricted worded expressions which carry non-specified indicative meanings, however,
due to a number of factors, when people hear them being said, they adopt a position of affection and
support or, in reverse, a stance of dislike and rebuttal. However, when they think about the difference of
the realities in which it is possible to use those worded expressions, they come to realise that it is naïve to
apply a single judgement upon them. They then also realise that the single worded expression from those
expressions could be good and acceptable within a particular reality, and ugly and rejected in respect to
another reality. Included within those type of worded expressions which fits with what we have said is the
expression: “Interference in the affairs of others”. For a particular reason, the people have begun to adopt
a stance of rejection towards the thought of “Interference in the affairs of others”. They rarely sense the
error of this firm stance towards the thought unless that thought clashes with their interests. So, if one of
them was to fall under threat or danger or aggression and he requires the help of others, and then help is
rejected by someone due to the argument of not interfering in the affairs of others … Then here, in such a
situation, he would sense the extent of heinousness which this thought holds when it is applied in other
than its correct situation or place. He then senses the error of generalising the judgement upon a particular
matter or action, where the Hukm (judgment) upon it must differ in accordance to the difference in its
conditions and circumstances.

So that the desires do not take over when passing judgement over things (matters), actions and thoughts
in accordance to the difference in respect to their exhibited circumstances and conditions, in relation to
the Muslim, the Shar’a has taken the sole right in respect to passing the Hukm (judgment or ruling) upon
them.

Consequently, interfering in the affairs of others could be ugly (Qabeeh) and rejected in a circumstance …
And it could be good and required in another circumstance or situation, according to what the Shar’a has
legislated.

For example, if there was a mutual non-aggression treaty between the Islamic State and another state and
the Muslim citizens of that state sought the help of their brother Muslims in the Islamic State due to an
oppression that was taking place against them … Then interference in the affairs of those states, in this
situation, to provide support to those Muslims would be regarded and ugly and rejected in accordance to
the Shar’a. That is because it is the Shar’iy evidence which has provided the Hukm (legal ruling) and it is
the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
ََ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek you support in the Deen, then you must provide the support, except against a people between yourselves and
whom is a treaty (Al-Anfaal: 72).

If, however, there is no such mutual non-aggression treaty between the Islamic State and that state and
that state had previously had the Da’wah to Islaam conveyed to it in a manifest manner and had been
provided with the three options: Islaam, the Jizyah or war … and it refused Islaam just as it refused to join
to the Islamic State and accept the Islamic rule, then interfering in this situation, in the affairs of that state,
for the purpose of breaking down the material obstacle represented in the military forces, standing in the
way and preventing the application of the Islamic rulings upon it, is a good (Hasan) matter and demanded
or required to be undertaken, according to the Shar’a. That is because it is the Shar’iy Daleel (evidence)
which has provided the legal ruling (Hukm) … And that is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
 َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬
َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ ْ ‫ط‬
ََ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬َ ‫ِينَأُو ُتواَ ْال ِك َت‬
َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

In addition, the world has sensed the error of the thought of “Non-interference in the affairs of others” in
some circumstances within the domain of international relations. And so it permitted the interference or
intervention for the sake of establish the right, removing the false and in defence of the human in the
situation of a state persecuting its minority citizens (1). Despite that, the desires in this case still play their
part in respect to that interference for the sake of particular aims. Just as the desires still play their part in
respect to others concerning that interference, so that there will be those who support the intervention
whilst others oppose it. That will be the case as long as the ruling is not based upon a source that is free of
desires and biases.

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”: Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy].

Realted to this, on the morning 03/01/1990, British radio quoted from the British newspapers: “Bush –
the US president – does not enjoy the complete public support to restore democracy to any country in the
world”. And that was related to the invasion by American forces of Panama for the purpose of arresting
its leader Noriega and returning him to America to face trial for his crimes ….

As long as America has provided itself with the right to interfere or intervene in the affairs of others for
the sake of applying the democratic system, which it believes in, over them, and they are supported in that
by supporters, whilst nobody, and not even its proponents, have claimed that the democratic system is a
system that Allah has chosen for His creation … So, what kind of insolence isit then, that they (the US
and disbelievers) find fault in the Muslims interfering in the affairs of others, by a legal injuction from
Allah, even if that is only according to the viewpoint of the Muslims, for the purpose of applying the
Islamic system upon those others, whilst acknowledging that 2 billion humans believe this system is the
system that Allah has chosen and selected for His creation? If the other deniy that, then why do they not
open up the space for the syatem with its Aqeedah to be presented to the people for discussion upon an
official international and general people plain and level, over the modern means of media, so that the
people can realise and understand by way of free (or unimpeded) study and research the extent of the
closeness or farness of this claim, from the truth, in the case where this world represents the first and last
concerned by this claim?

In summary: I have a question: Do the Muslims interfere or interven in the affairs of others in the name
of “Al-Jihaad”? The answer is unequivocally and without hesitation, yes! And to Allah belongs all praise
and favour upon that, in the name of humanity and understands its true interests … That is because the
interference of Muslims in the affairs of others is not like the interference or intervention of foxes and
wolves in the affairs of those who are weak from Allah’s creation, which is undertaken for the purpose of
satisfying their predatory greed and desires … Rather, it is like the intervention of fathers and mothers in
the affairs of their sons and daughters for the sake of establishing right and justice amongst them and
planting love, affection and mercy in their hearts, even if it means that the fathers and mothers spend so
much of their efforts and time and what they possess in undertaking this course …!

We will now move on to another Mas’alah (issue) …

3 - The third issue: What is the origin in respect to the relationship between the Muslims and
others, is it a relationship of peace or war?
- Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan says: “The origin in respect to the relationship between the Islamic states
with other states, is a relationship of war and not peace. And the Islamic State has the right to make the
non-Islamic state submit to its political authority and its Islamic law, and even if that is by Qitaal
(fighting), if they refuse to submit by their own choice … He then says: The peace between Daar ul-
Islaam and Daar ul-Harb does not occur unless it is by a treaty (Mu’aahadah) or by the Daar ul-Harb
embracing Islaam or its surrender (or submission) … For that reason, all of the Fuqahaa’ named the non-
Islmaic states as Daar ul-Harb (the land of war) and considered the origin of the relationship of Daar ul-
Islaam with it, as a relationship of war and that the peace does not occur except by Amaan (security) i.e.
an ‘Ahd (covenant) or Dhimmah (contract of protection) or Imaan (i.e. Islaam) … And from amongst
their statements established upon this origin is: And they People of the Book (Ahl ul-Kitaab) and the
Majoos (i.e. the non-Islamic states) are fought until they embrace Islaam or give the Jizyah …” (1).

Then Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan says: “… Some of the more recent Fuqahaa’ and writers have taken the
view that the origin of the relationship between Daar ul-Islaam and Daar ul-Kufr, is one of peace and not
war and that nothing changes this relationship except a cause from the legally legitimate causes of Al-
Qitaal (fighting). That does not include, in their view, the Daar ul-Islaam initiating the fight against Daar
ul-Harb to make it submit to its authority, rule and to implement the Islamic Sharee’ah within them,
according to the way that we have stated …” (2)

The author indicated, in the margins of his book, to whom he meant when he said some of the more
recent (or modern day) Fuqahaa’ and writers ... And so he mentioned Muhammad Rasheed Reda, the
Ustaadh and writer Muhammad Abu Zahrah and the colleague and author Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy.

The author (Dr. Zaidaan) did not however quote anything from that which those Islamic authors had said
representing the opinion they have adopted … And so we will now quote from their books what they
have stated concerning this matter.

[(1) “Majmoo’ Buhooth Fiqhiyah”, Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan: 45. Also refer to “Al-Mughniy” by Ibn Qudaamah: 10/387, (2)
“Majmoo’ Buhooth Fiqhiyah”, Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan: 57].

- Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Rasheed Reda said in his book “Al-Wahyu Al-Muhammadiy”:

“Al-Harb (war) is a Daroorah (i.e. undertaken under necessity) … And peace is the origin which the
people must be upon …” (1).

- And Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah said in his book “International relations in Islaam” in a
number of topics: “The origin in respect to the relations is peace … And as Islaam establishes peace as
being representative of an origin from among the origins of the relations of humanity between the states,
it did not permit the believers to interfere or intervene in the affairs of states unless it is for the protection
of the general (public) freedoms and when its help is being sought from the oppressed or those who
believe are being aggressed against … he then says:

And there is no doubt that war does not represent the origin in respect to the relations. That is because
the principles that we have established for ourselves in respect to the principles of relations does not
permit the Muslims to start the war in the absence of a reason emanating from these principles that lead
to it:

- Either an aggression against justice (Al-‘Adaalah) or human dignity … He then says: The origin in
relations between the Muslims and others is peace and that is the opinion of the vast majority of the
Fuqahaa’ …!” (3).

- And Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy in his book “Aathaar ul-Harb” states:

“The Fuqahaa’ of the Sunni and Shiah schools (Madhaahib), in the age of the Ijtihaad Al-Fiqhiy of the
second century Hijriy, viewed that the Asl (origin) in respect to the relationship between the Muslims and
others is (one of) war … That was based upon what they understood from the Aayaat of the Qur’aan
upon their apparent meaning and unrestricted form, without attempting to reconcile between them …
The he said: It may that their excuse in respect to this Hukm (ruling) was their being influenced by what
the situation of the Muslims at that time called for in terms of the necessity to remain steadfast before the
enemies that surrpounded them from every side. Then, if a Muslim heard that he was in a state of was
with the enemy, he would always be in a state of complete readiness without being afflicted by slackness
or resignation (surrender) …” (3).

Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy supports his view by the Shar’iyah texts which make the reason or cause (Sabab)
for the Muslims fighting the disbelievers, the disbelivers (first) fighting the Muslims.

[(1) “Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadiy”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Rasheed Reda: p240, (2) “Al-‘Alaqaat Ad-Dawliyah (international
relations) Fi l-Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p47-52. Refer to: “Al-Islaam Mulaadh Al-Mujtama’aat”: p230 by
Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, (3) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Whabah Az-Zuhailiy: p113-114].

That is like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك َْمَ َكا َّفة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36).

i.e. If the Kuffaar (disbelievers) do not fight the Muslims, then there is no justification for the Muslims to
initiate the fighting against the disbelievers.

Just as he also supports his view with the texts that prohibit fighting the disbelievers who have held back
from fighting the Muslims and have committed to being peaceful with them. That is like the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َفإِ ِنَاعْ َت َزلُو ُك ْمَ َفلَ ْمَ ُي َقا ِتلُو ُك ْم ََوأَ ْل َق ْواَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّسلَ َمَ َف َم‬
َ‫اَج َع َلَاللَّـهَُلَ ُك ْمَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َس ِبيال‬
So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for
fighting] against them (An-Nisaa’: 90).

This is in the case where the Aayah is clear in it being Haraam upon the Muslims to initiate the fighting
against the peaceful disbelievers who keep away from fighting the Muslims.

And he also supports his view by the Shar’iy text that commands the Muslims to incline to peace if or
when the disbelievers incline to that:

َ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َها‬

َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] (Al-Anfaal: 61).

Then, based upon that, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy says the following:

“And the concluding summary is: That the Asl (origin) in respect to the relations of the Muslims with
others is one of peace whilst war is manifested to repel the evil and clear the path of the Da’wah from
those who stand in its way. That is where the Da’wah to Islaam would be undertaken by way of proof and
evidence and not by way of the sword edge of the spear. Our Fuqahaa’ have established that the origin in
respect to the relations is war without that having a legislative support apart from their perception of the
reality in the case where Islaam, like any new Da’wah, was opposed by the people …” (1).
The above then, represents a sum of what Dr. Zaidaan had pointed to, in terms of these being the
modern Fuqahaa’ and writers who have adopted a view contrary to what the classical Fuqahaa’ had
adopted, in respect to the origin of the relationship of the Muslims with others being war and not peace,
unless that peace is comes from Amaan (i.e. a covenant or Dhimmah) or Imaan (i.e. their embracing
Islaam), like Dr. Zaidaan mentioned.

That is whilst the modern or recent Fuqahaa’ and writers who were pointed to established the opposite to
that and consequently made the origin, in respect to the relationship, one of peace … whilst war is a
Daroorah (act of necessity) which is outside of the norm.

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”: Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p120].

And it is truly strange that Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah attributed to the vast majority of the
Fuqahaa’, the opinion that the origin in respect to the relations between the Muslims and others is peace,
whilst Dr. Zaidaan affirms that all of the Fuqahaa’ have considered the origin in the relations between the
Muslims and others is war and not peace!.

However, at the same time we find Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy being very fair in respect to this issue when
he affirms that the Fuqahaa’ of the Sunnah and Shi’ah schools established that the origin in respect to the
relationship between the Muslims and the disbelievers is war, even though Dr. Az-Zuhailiy did not agree
with the opinion of those Fuqahaa’ as he himself mentions. He reasoned that by saying that the Fuqahaa’
only established this origin due to being influenced by the reality of their age and the non-stop wars that
took place within it between the Muslims and the Kuffaar. They established what the reality was and the
effect of that reality was refelected in how they understood the Shar’iyah texts. So, when they saw some of
the texts forbidding fighting the peaceful disbelievers and commanding the fighting to be against the
aggressors … then they found other texts commanding the fighting against the disbelievers in general and
in an unrestricted manner without restricting them to being aggressors, they made the ‘Aamm and Mutlaq
(general and unrestricted) later texts dominate (over the others). They said that the prohibition of fighting
the non-aggressor disbelievers had been abrogated by these later texts … That is whilst Dr. Az-Zuhailiy
viewed the application of the Usooliy Qaa’idah (principle) of restricting the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts by
the restricted (Muqayyad) ones which dictates making the intended meaning of fighting the disbelievers
within the unrestricted texts, that only the aggressors are fought against and not the disbelievers generally
(1).

Concerning the above, then we have already addressed the Mas’alah of of the unrestricted (Mutlaq) and
restricted (Muqayyad) texts in a previous study (2) and we concluded that the unrestricted texts being left
with their unrestricted indication is the stronger view, and we will not repeat that discussion again here.
We have also addressed previously the matter of the reconciliation between the texts that call to peace and
the texts that call to fighting. We presented the texts of the Fuqahaa’ which establish that the inclining to
peace and leaving the fighting of the disbelievers is only when the Maslahah of peace is greater that the
Maslahah of war, in relation to the Muslims and the Islami Da’wah (3) …

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”: Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p101-102, (2) The first study of the first chapter of the third volume. Refer to
the third Mas’alah and second point: “The unrestricted and restricted texts of Al-Qitaal”: p617 (of the original Arabic book), (3)
Refer to the third Mas’alah of the second chapter of the third volume which we are currently in: p748].

As for our opinion in respect to the origin of the relationship between the Islamic State and the other
states and whether it is based upon peace or war?

Then, we see that we should first affirm the following truth before answering that issue.

- Ther are many issues governed by Usool (origins or fundamental bases) and then other Usool branch
out from them contrary in their ruling to the initial Usool due to the distinction in the scope that governs
the other Usool by particular or specific attributes (Siffaat) … An example here may be necessary to
clarify this truth or fact.

- The Fuqahaa’ established that the Asl (origin) in respect to things is Ibaahah (i.e. ruling of permissibility)
(1) based upon the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َجمِيعا‬
َ ‫ض‬ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
َ ْ ‫ِيَخلَ َقَلَ ُكمَمَّاَف‬
َ ‫ه َُوَالَّذ‬
He it is who has created for you all that is upon the earth (Al-Baqarah: 29) (2).

Then from those things are those which are described as being harmful whilst they fall under the
classification of the things which the Asl (origin) has affirmed to follow the rule of Ibaahah … And in this
case the Fuqahaa’ affirmed another Asl (origin) which is:

“The origin (Asl) in respect to the harmful matter is Tahreem (prohibiton)” (3) which is based upon the
Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “There is no Darar (harm) and Diraar (harming) in Islaam” (4).

In this way, we now have before us tow Asls (origins) in respect to the Hukm (ruling) upon things where
one of them is exempted from or an exception to the other due to particular considerations.

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 1/251. Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 1/60. “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-
Suyootiy: p60. “Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah”, An-Nadwi: p107, (2) Al-Baqarah: 29 and in “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” by Ash-Shawkaaniy
he says: “It contains evidence that the Asl (origin) in created things is Ibaahah i.e. ruling of permissibility) until an evidence
comes that takes the rule away from this origin (i.e. an exception)”, (3) In “At-Tamheed Fee Takhreej ul-Furoo’ ‘Ala l-Usool”
by Al-Isnawi: p487, the following was stated: “The dictates of the evidences: The Asl (origin) in respect to the benefits
(Manaafi’) is Ibaahah due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa found in Al-Baqarah Aayah 29. And in respect to the harmful thing: It
(i.e. the Hukm) is Tahreem (prohibition) due to his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: “There is no harm or no harming in Islaam”, (4) Ibn Maajah:
2340-2341. Ahmad in hi Musnad: 5/27. An-Nawawiy said in his “Forty”: “The Hadeeth is Hasan”, hadeeth number 32 in
Nawawiy’s “Forty”. The addional wording of “In Islaam” is from the Riwaayah (report) of At-Tabaraaniy in his “Al-Awsat”.
Refer to “Nasb ur-Raayah”: 4/386. The ahdeeth came in “Al-Mustadrak”: “Related by Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy, May Allah be
pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “There is no harm and no harming. Whoever harms Allah harms him
and whoever causes hardship Allah causes him hardship”. This is Saheeh in its Isnaad (chain of narration) upon the Shart
(conditionality) of Muslim but they (Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record it. In “At-Talkhees” of Ad-Dhahabiy he says: i.e.
Al-Haakim affirms that it is upon the Shart (conditionality) of Muslim. (Al-Mustadrak with At-Talkhees: 2/57-58].

They are:

- The Asl (origin) in respect to things is Ibaahah (permissibility).

- The Asl (origin) in respect to the harmful things is Tahreem (prohibition).

We can therefore establish a number of contrasting Usool (origins) derived from each other in relation to
a particular thing or action … Each Asl (origin) governs a particular scope which are distinguished by
particular characteristics or attributes (Siffaat) from others scopes or spheres which are all covered by a
single umbrella … And so we say for example:

- The Asl (origin) in respect to viewing things is Ibaahah (permissibility) due to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ْ‫َِو ْاألَر‬
َ‫ض‬ ُ َ‫قُ ِل‬
َ ‫انظ ُرواَ َما َذاَفِيَال َّس َم َاوات‬
Say: Observe what is in the heavens and earth (Younus: 101).

- Then we say: The Asl (origin) in respect to viewing the ‘Awraat (specific places of nakedness) is Tahreem
(prohibition) due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
 ُ ‫صار ِه ْم ََو َيحْ َف‬
َ ‫ظواَفُر‬ َ َ ‫قُلَلِّ ْلم ُْؤ ِمن‬
َ‫ُوج ُه ْم‬ ِ َ ‫ِينَ َي ُغضُّواَمِنْ َأ ْب‬
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts (An-Noor: 30).

- Then we say: The origin in respect to viewing the ‘Awraat for the sake of a Haajah (legitimate need) is
Ibaahah because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬approved of looking at the ‘Awraat of the boy of Bani Quraizhah to know
whether he had reache the age of puberty or not (1).

Consequently, we find that a single action from among the human actions which is to regard or look has
different rulings according to those Usool (origins) and that is in accordance to the scope or sphere which
governs each Asl (origin). Based upon that understanding we establish the following in respect to the
Mas’alah (issue) that we are currently addressing:

1 - The Asl (origin) concerning the relationship between the Islamic State and other states before the
conveyance of the Da’wah to them in a clear and manifest manner, is peace and not war ... That is because
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade fighting the disbelievers before conveying the Da’wah to them which is established
in many evidences that we quoted in the prior study (2).

2 - The Asl (origin) in respect to the relationship between the Islamic State and other states after the
conveyance of the Da’wah to them and after their rejection to enter into obedience to the Muslims, is war
and not peace. That is due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

[(1) “Seerah Ibn Hishaam” (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/271), (2) Refer to the second Mas’alah (issues) of the second study of this
current chapter: p779 of the original Arabic edition].

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ َ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيدٍَ َو ُه ْم‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِين ََأ ُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they
give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

3 - The Asl (origin) in respect to the relationship between the Islamic State and other states who have a
treaty with it, is peace. That is due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ينَ َف َعَلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek you support in the Deen, then you must provide the support, except against a people between yourselves and
whom is a treaty (Al-Anfaal: 72).

4 - The Asl (origin) in respect to the relationship between the Islamic State and other states which are
aggressive and even if they are in a treaty, is war. That is due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُد َواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
So, whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you (Al-Baqarah: 194).

And it is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬marched to Quraish to wage war against them after the Sulh (treaty or
truce) of Al-Hudaibiyah because they had violated the truce and aggression manifested from them, as has
been related in the books of Seerah (1).

In this manner, we observe a number of Usool (origins) governing the relationship between the Islamic
State and other states and not just one single Asl (origin).
However, what could be meant by the Asl (origin or original position) here is the first Asl and not the
Usool derived from other thatn it due to particular considerations … If that is the case, we can say: That
the Asl (origin) of the relationship between the Islamic State and the states which the Da’wah to Islaam or
the invitation to enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims has not reached, this Asl is peace and not war …
This case, in reality, represents the Asl (origin) of all the cases which the other states can be upon because
the situation of the absence of conveyance precedes the situation of conveyance. Consequently, if we were
to say: That the Asl (origin) of the relationship between the Islamic State and between the other states is
peace and not war, this statement would be correct in our view albeit with the observation of the above-
mentioned condition which is that this applies before the clear Da’wah has been conveyed.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/84 and the pages after)].

However, despite that, this Asl (origin), in any case, with the restriction, will never satisfy the Islamic
writers who affirmed that peace was the basis of the relationship between the Muslims and the
disbelievers in an absolute or unrestricted (Mutlaq) manner. That is because they intend by the Asl (origin)
that they have established, that the relationship between the Muslims and disbelievers is established upon
peace even if the Da’wah has reached them and they have rejected the invitation to accept Islaam or to
enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims, as long as they have not aggressed against the Muslims and not
imposed a ban upon the Da’wah to Islaam. This position is in opposition and conflicting to the second
Asl (origin) that we have affirmed which is: The Asl (origin) in respect to the relationship between the
Islamic State and other states after the conveyance of the Da’wah and after their rejection to enter into the
Dhimmah of the Muslims, is war and not peace, as long as there is no peace treaty existing between them
which prevents war taking place between the two parties.

In any case, it is my opinion that presenting the issue in this way, by asking what is the origin of the
relationship between the Islamic State and other states, without restriction to the intended situation or
circumstance that the origin is wanted to be established in respect to, in terms of whether it is the situation
before the conveyance of the Da’wah and before the rejection of it, or after that, it is my opinion that just
a manner of vague presentation leads to ambiguioty and lack of clarity concerning the issue.

Based upon that, regarding the opinion of Dr. Zaidaan in respect to the original position of international
relations between the Islamic State and other states, being a relationship of war, then he only means by
that, the situation and case following the conveyance of the Da’wah, the provision of the notification of
the three options or choices, and the refusal to embrace Islaam and enter into the Dhimmah of the
Muslims. That is because he has adopted what all of the Fuqahaa’ established in relation to this Mas’alah
as he says … And the Fuqahaa’ only adopted that which establishes this origin within the scope of the
situation or circumstances that we have mentioned … As for prior to the conveyance of the Da’wah, then
they all viewed the prohibition of fighting the disbelievers, with the exception of a very small number of
the Fuqahaa’ who permitted the fighting even if the Da’wah had not previously reached them. Al-Imaam
An-Nawawiy however said that their opinion was Baatil (invalid) (1). This is all as we have explained and
mentioned in the previous study in which we presented the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the
Hukm (ruling) of the Da’wah (invitation) prior to the Qitaal (fighting).

In addition, the prohibition (Tahreem) of fighting the disbelievers before the conveyance of the Da’wah
means that the Asl (origin) of the relationship with them is peace and not war, as long as they do not
surprise us by fighting or an act of aggression which leaves no room for the Da’wah to take place. The
relationship with them then changed completely to a relationship of war according to the manner that we
have explained the details of in the prior study (2).

[(1) The second Mas’alah (issue) from the second study of this chapter and refer to the Sharh of Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy of
Saheeh Muslim: 7/309-310, (2) The second Mas’alah of the second study of this chapter: refer to pages 780 and 783 (of the
original Arabic version)].
That is whilst the view of some of the modern Islamic writers that the origin of the relationship between
the Islamic State and other states is peace, then they intend by that all of the circumstances in their
generality, whether that was before the conveyance or after it and the rejection of their acceptance, as long
as they have not undertaken any aggression against the Muslims or prevented the Islamic Da’wah from be
propagated to all of the people, and in all lands …

Concerning this, Ash-Sheikh Muhammd Abu Zahrah said: “The Asl (origin) in respect to the international
relations in Islaam is peace until there is an act of aggression, an actual aggression against the Islamic State
or Fitnah practised against the Muslims to take them away from their Deen. At such a time (i.e. aggression
or Fitnah), the war is a necessity made obligatory by the law of defending the life, the Aqeedah and
religious freedom” (1).

It appears that Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Hasan in his paper: “International relations in the Qur’aan and the
Sunnah”, that he understood the word “Asl” (origin) (2) from our statement: “The Asl (origin) in respect
to the relationship between the Islamic State and other states”, that he understood the word to mean of
‘aim’ and ‘objective’, which Islaam provided when it legislated Al-Jihaad against the Kuffaar (disbelievers)
… That is because its goal or objective is to break the military forces or powers of those other states
which protect the false and invalid systems, for the sake of applying the Islamic rule upon their citizens
and so that the oppression that they were subject to be removed from them. By removing the Zhulm
(oppression), justice will settle and by the settling of justice, peace will be established. This then, is what
Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Hasan understood from the word “Asl” (origin) in respect to the relationship
between the Muslims and others. Based upon this, he established that the origin of the relationship is one
of peace because the aim of Islaam from undertaking Al-Jihaad is to bring and settle peace in the world …

Concerning this, Dr. Al-Hasan said the following under the heading: “Is peace the origin (Asl) in respect
to international relations in Islaam?”:

“Verily Islaam, when it established that Al-Jihaad is to raise high the word of Allah and to rid humanity of
the oppression of the man-made systems and remove the oppression (Zhulm) which means to settle
firmly the principles of justice i.e. to settle firmly the principles of peace … Then it is Al-Jihaad that
prevents the oppression and tyranny or despotism and removes it from the human being ...

[(1) “International relations in Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p48, (2) What is intended by the word “Asl” in
this Mas’alah (issue) is: Al-Qaa’idah Al-Mustamirrah (The continuous or constant principle) … Refer to: “Usool ul-Fiqh”,
Muhammad Abu An-Noor Zuhair: 1/5-6].

And in this (i.e. Al-Jihaad) there is found the fortification of peace and the degradation of the Baatil
(falsehood) …” (1). After that Dr. Al-Hasan supports his view by the speech of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad
Abu Zahrah who said concerning this: “And some of the Fuqahaa’, in the era of the Umawiyeen
(Umayyads) and the ‘Abaasiyeen (Abbasids), when war was ablaze, held the view that the Asl (origin) of
the relationship was war. They took their opinion from the reality and not texts, and they did not
represent the majority.

And from them, there were those who did not adopt the ruling (Hukm) from the reality, but rather
adopted it from the texts of the Qur’aan, Prophetic Ahaadeeth and wars that Muhammd ‫ ﷺ‬took part in
(i.e. the Seerah), and they considered the relationship to be one of peace unless there was justifying causes
for war” (2). Dr. Al-Hasan agrees with what he quoted fom Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah and
states directly after that, in support of what he quoted, the following: “And after this presentation I can
say: That peace is the Asl (origin) of the international relations between the Muslims and others and that
those who say that the Asl is war, have only looked at the reality (i.e. as a source for their judgement) ...!!”
(3).
I say: Concerning this above point, we leave it to the reader to refer back to the previous studies and what
we have indicated in relation to this Mas’alah (issue) and then ascertain whether what the Fuqahaa’
determined was derived from the Shar’iyah texts according to the Usooliy principles which reveal the the
stronger opinion over the outweighed one, or it was just a result of what they perceived from the reality of
the wars which were raging between the Muslims and disbelievers, the flames of which which had yet to
die out and calm … and then they twisted or made the texts comply and conform to what the reality had
established and not to what these texts indicated in terms of their Mantooq and Mafhoom (literal and
understood meanings)!?

With those words, we have reached the end of this Mas’alah (issue) and we have also subsequently come
to the end of the third volume of this doctorate paper … We will now move on to the fourth Inshaa
Allah.

[(1) “International relations in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Hasan: p263-264, (2) Refer to
“International relations in Islaam” by Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah: p51, (3) “International relations in the Qur’aan and the
Sunnah”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Hasan: p266].
 Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal
Fee
As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume Four
Ahkaam ul-Jihaad
(The Shar’iy Rulings of Al-Jihaad)
Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Um Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.

Volume Four
Ahkaam ul-Jihaad
(The Shar’iy Rulings of Al-Jihaad)

Chapter One: The details of the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad within the books of Islamic Fiqh.

- Introduction: The status of Al-Jihaad and its merit.

- The first study: Al-Jihaad - The origin in respect to it being Fard Kifaayah (An obligation of
sufficiency).

- The second study: Al-Jihaad - When is it Fard ‘Ain (An obligation upon every individual)?

- The third study: Al-Jihaad - Is the origin in respect to it Mandoob (recommendation)? And can it be
Mandoob?

- The fourth study: Al-Jihaad - Can it be Mubaah (permissible)?

- The fifth study: Al-Jihaad - Can it be Makrooh (disliked)?

- The sixth study: Al-Jihaad - Can it be Haraam (prohibited)?

Chapter Two: The tool of Al-Jihaad - The Islamic army - Its organisation - Its training - Its
human and material components.

- The first study: The different types of organisation that the army requires.

- The second study: The different types of training that the Army requires.

- The third study: The human components:

The first requirement: The individuals composing the main army and their role within it.

The second requirement: The reserve army.

The first branch: Arming of the public and its limits.

The second branch: The volunteers in the army and their role within it.
The third branch: The Hukm (ruling) of women participating in the army and their role within it.
The fourth branch: The Hukm of children participating in the army and their role within it.
The fifth branch: The Hukm of non-Muslim citizens participating in the army and their role within it.
The sixth branch: Foreigners in the Islamic army and their role within it.
- The fourth study: The material components:

The first requirement: The means of attaining weapons.

The second requirement: What are the financial sources of revenue for the different army expenses?

Chapter One

The details of the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad within the books of Islamic Fiqh

- Introduction: The status of Al-Jihaad and its merit.

- The first study: Al-Jihaad - The origin in respect to it being Fard Kifaayah (An obligation of
sufficiency).

- The second study: Al-Jihaad - When is it Fard ‘Ain (An obligation upon every individual).

- The third study: Al-Jihaad - Is the origin in respect to it Mandoob (recommendation)? And can it be
Mandoob?

- The fourth study: Al-Jihaad - Can it be Mubaah (permissible)?

- The fifth study: A-Jihaad - Can it be Makrooh (disliked)?

- The sixth study: Al-Jihaad - Can it be Haraam (prohibited)?

Chapter One

The details of the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad within the books of Islamic Fiqh

Introduction: The status of Al-Jihaad and its merit in Islaam.

- In the Kitaab Al-Kareem and the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah Ash-Shareefah there are an abundant number
of texts which make clear the elevated standing and status of Al-Jihaad which distinguish it from the rest
of the acts and activities that Islaam has urged and paid attention to the necessity of being undertaken.
Many of the ‘Ulamaa have examined those texts and determined, in light of them, that which establishes
that Al-Jihaad is at the head of the scale of values that Islaam has urged to be brought about within the
Islamic society or as the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah has expressed:

َ‫ال ِجها ُدَ َسنا ُمَال ََع َم ِل‬

Al-Jihaad is the peak of the action (1).

In this introduction, that we have solely dedicated to making clear the status of Al-Jihaad and its merit, we
will address the following points:

1 - A presentation of some of the texts of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem which make clear the merit of Al-Jihaad
and its status in Islaam.

2 - A presentation of some of the texts of the Sunnah that also make that clear.

3 – Quotes from some of the Fiqhiy texts related to this.

4 – The reconciliation between the Shar’iyah texts in which there appears to be a conflict, in the case
where Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah is given preference over other acts sometimes and on other occasions
other acts are given preference over it.

[(1) Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy, Al-Albaaniy: 1355, 2/131 and he said: “It is a Hasan Saheeh Hadeeth”. In the Sunan At-
Tirmidhy: 1658, 4/185].

The First Point: The Aayaat of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem that make clear the merit of
Al-Jihaad and its status

- The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has made clear that the family bonds, the societal relationships, the material
interests and what has been legislated in terms of the pleasures of life … are values that Muslims are not
reproached for taking a strong concern in respect to them, as long as they do not give them preference
over the value of responding to the command of Allah and His Messenger and responding to the call to
Al-Jihaad in His way. That is because the value of obeying Allah and the Messenger and undertaking the
command of Al-Jihaad, is above all other values, in the view of the Shar’a. Any neglect, carelessness and
playing around with the arrangement of this order of values, which Allah has specified to things and
actions, is Fisq (rebellious disobedience) and violation of the methodology that Allah has laid out for the
life of the Muslims, which will subject them to anger and threat.

Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

 َ‫ارةَ َت ْخ َش ْو َن‬ َ ‫ير ُت ُك ْم ََوأَمْ َوالَا ْق َت َر ْف ُتمُو َه‬
َ ‫اَوت َِج‬ َ ِ‫انَآ َباؤُ ُك ْم ََوأَ ْب َناؤُ ُك ْم ََوإِ ْخ َوا ُن ُك ْم ََوأَ ْز َوا ُج ُك ْم ََو َعش‬
َ ‫قُلَْإِنَ َك‬
َُ‫ُواَح َّت ٰىَ َيأْت َِيَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِو ِج َهادٍَفِيَ َس ِبيلِهَِ َف َت َر َّبص‬ َ ‫َِو َرسُولِه‬ َ ‫ض ْو َن َهاَأَ َحبَّ َإِلََْي ُكمَم َِّنَاللَّـه‬ َ ْ‫اَو َم َساكِنُ َ َتر‬ َ ‫َك َسا َد َه‬
ْ ‫ِيَال َق ْو َم‬
ََ ‫َال َفاسِ ق‬
‫ِين‬ ْ ‫َُالَ َي ْهد‬ َ ‫ِبأَم ِْر ِهَ ََۗواللَّـه‬
Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein
you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and Al-
Jihaad in His way, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people
(At-Taubah: 24).

2 - To highlight the comparison between the value of some of the virtuous actions in Islaam and the value
of Al-Jihaad, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ َ‫يلَاللَّـ ِه‬
َ‫َۚال‬ ْ ‫َِو ْال َي ْوم‬
ِ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َجا َهدََفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َال َمسْ ِجد‬
ِ ‫َِال َح َر ِامَ َك َمنْ َآ َم َن‬ ْ ‫ار َة‬
ََ ‫َِّوعِ َم‬ ْ ‫أَ َج َع ْل ُت ْمَسِ َقا َي َة‬
َ ‫َال َحاج‬
ِ
َّ ‫ِيَال َق ْو َم‬
ََ ‫َالظالِم‬
‫ِين‬ ْ ‫َُالَ َي ْهد‬ َ ‫ونَعِ ندََاللَّـ ِهَ ََۗواللَّـه‬
َ ُ‫َيسْ َتو‬
Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haraam equal to [the deeds of]
one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and undertakes Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah? They are not equal in the sight
of Allah. And Allah does not guide the transgressing people (At-Taubah: 19).

3 - And Allah Ta’Aalaa made clear the value of the Mujaahideen in relation to those who do not undertake
Al-Jihaad when He said:

ََۚ‫َِبأ َ ْم َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْم‬

ِ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ِ ‫ونَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫ِينَ َغ ْيرَُأُولِيَالض ََّر ِر ََو ْالم َُجا ِه َُد‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ ْ ‫ونَم َِن‬ ْ ‫َّالَ َيسْ َت ِو‬
َ ‫يَال َقاعِ ُد‬
َُ‫ض َلَاللَّـه‬َّ ‫َُالحُسْ َن ٰىَ ََۚو َف‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َد َر َجةَ ََۚو ُك ّال ََو َعدََاللَّـه‬ ْ َ‫َبأَمْ َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَال َقاعِ د‬ ِ ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫ض َلَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َُالم َُجا ِهد‬ َّ ‫َف‬
‫انَاللَّـهَُ َغفُوراَرَّ حِيما‬ َ ‫﴾َ َد َر َجاتٍَ ِّم ْنه‬٩٥﴿َ‫ِينَأَجْ راَ َعظَِيما‬
َ َ‫َُو َم ْغف َِرة ََو َرحْ َمة‬
َ ‫َۚو َك‬ ْ َ‫ِينَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَال َقاعِ د‬ َ ‫ْالم َُجا ِهد‬
Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the Mujaahideen, [who strive and fight] in
the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the Mujaahideen through their wealth and their lives
over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the
Mujaahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward. Degrees [of high position] from Him and forgiveness and
mercy. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful (An-Nisaa’: 95-96).

4 - The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has also made clear that Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way) represents a
profitable trade and earns for the Mujaahideen, wiping the pages of sins which may have been recorded
against them, closing the doors of punishment to them, opening the doors of delights before them and
making them proceed upon the path towards victory against the enemies. And Allah has commanded His
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to give good tidings to the believers of these blessed fruits resulting from Al-Jihaad, and is
there any source truer than Allah in respect to what He promises and provides glad tidings of?

Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َِ‫َِو َرسُولِه‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ ِ ‫ون‬َ ‫﴾َ ُت ْؤ ِم ُن‬١٠﴿َ‫ع َذابٍَأَل ٍِيم‬ ََ َ ْ‫ارةٍَ ُتن ِجي ُكمَمِّن‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َهلَْأَ ُدَلُّ ُك ْمَ َعلَ ٰىَت َِج‬
َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
ُ ‫﴾َ َي ْغفِرْ َلَ ُك ْم‬١١﴿َ‫ُون‬
َ‫َذ ُنو َب ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َخيْرَلَّ ُك ْمَإِنَ ُكن ُت ْمَ َتعْ لَم‬َ ‫َِبأ َ ْم َوالِ ُك ْمَ َوأَنفُسِ ُك ْمََۚ ٰ َذلِ ُك ْم‬
ِ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
َ ‫ونَف‬ َ ‫َو ُت َجا ِه ُد‬
َ﴾١٢﴿َ‫َالعَظِ ي ُم‬ ْ ‫َال َف َْو ُز‬
ْ ‫ك‬ ٰ
َ ‫ِيَج َّناتَِ َع ْد ٍنََۚ َذ ِل‬
َ ‫َُو َم َساك َِنَ َط ِّي َبةَف‬ َ ْ ‫َج َّناتٍَ َتجْ ريَمِنَ َتحْ ِت َه‬
َ ‫اَاأل ْن َهار‬ َ ‫َوي ُْدخَِْل ُك ْم‬
ِ
ْ ‫ش ِر‬
ََ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
‫ِين‬ َ ‫َوأ ُ ْخ َر ٰىَ ُت ِحبُّوََن َهاََۖ َنصْ رَم َِّنَاللَّـه‬
ِّ ‫َِو َف ْتحَ َق ِريبَ ََۗو َب‬
O you who have believed, shall I guide you to a trade (transaction) that will save you from a painful punishment? [It is that]
you believe in Allah and His Messenger and undertake Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah with your wealth and your lives.
That is best for you, if you should know. He will forgive for you your sins and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow
and pleasant dwellings in gardens of perpetual residence. That is the great attainment. And [you will obtain] another [favour]
that you love - victory from Allah and a near conquest; and give good tidings to the believers (As-Saff: 10-13).
 5 – The Qur’aan then affirms that the time of their lives spent by the Mujaahideen when going out for Al-
Jihaad and occupying themselves with its actions, represent the periods of their lives which hold the most
Barakah (blessings) for them. Every affair from its affairs, every condition from its conditions and every
action from its actions, within this context, is considered to be an accepted and blessed action, and those
who undertake it will inevitably find that its reward and recompense is better when he is before the One
with whom reward is not lost. This is like what has been mentioned in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ار ََو َال‬

َ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ ُ ‫ونَ َم ْوطِ ئاَ َيغ‬
ْ ‫ِيظ‬ َ ‫َِو َالَ َي َط ُئ‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ ِ ‫صةَفَِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫صب ََو َالَ َم ْخ َم‬ َ ‫َالَيُصِ ي ُب ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َظ َمأ ََو َالَ َن‬ َ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬
ِ ‫ك‬َ ِ‫ٰ َذل‬
َ ‫﴾َو َالَيُنفِ ُق‬
َ‫ون‬ َ ١٢٠﴿َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫َالَيُضِ يعَُأَجْ َر‬
َ ‫َالمُحْ سِ ن‬ َ ‫صالِحَ ََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ َ َ‫َِع َمل‬ ِ ‫ِبَلَه‬
َ ‫ُمَبه‬ َ ‫ونَمِنْ َ َع ُدوٍّ َ َّنيْالَإِ َّالَ ُكت‬ َ ُ‫َي َنال‬
ََ ُ‫ِبَلَ ُه ْمَلِ َيجْ ِز َي ُه ُمَاللَّـهَُأَحْ َس َنَ َماَ َكا ُنواَ َيعْ َمل‬
‫ون‬ َ ‫ُون ََوادِياَإِ َّالَ ُكت‬ َ ‫َو َالَ َي ْق َطع‬ َ ‫ِيرة ََو َالَ َك ِب‬
ََ ‫يرة‬ َ ‫صغ‬ َ َ‫َن َف َقة‬
That is because they are not afflicted by thirst or fatigue or hunger in the cause of Allah, nor do they tread on any ground that
enrages the disbelievers, nor do they inflict upon an enemy any infliction but that is registered for them as a righteous deed.
Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of the doers of good. Nor do they spend an expenditure, small or large, or
cross a valley but that it is registered for them that Allah may reward them for the best of what they were doing (At-Taubah:
120-121).

The above reflects some of what has been mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem making clear the merit of
Al-Jihaad and the standing or status of the Mujaahideen.

The Second Point: The Ahaadeeth An-Nabawiyah which make clear the merit of
Al-Jihaad and its status

The Prophetic Sunnah has included a rich supply of Ahaadeeth which make clear the merit of Al-Jihaad,
raise the status of the Mujaahideen and acclaim and stress what Allah has encompassed them with in
terms of reception and be bestowed with honour. We will select from that blessed Prophetic treasure the
following Ahaadeeth:

1 - The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬affirmed the standing and status of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah in comparison to other
acts and he made it the head of all of those actions following Al-Imaan (belief) in Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. Al-
Bukhaariy and Muslim related: “Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, said: I asked the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ َّ ‫َب‬
َ‫اّلل ََو ْال ِج َها ُدَفِيَ َس ِبيلِ ِه‬ ِ ُ‫َاإلي َمان‬:َ
ِ ‫ضلَُ؟َ َقا َل‬ ِ ‫أَيُّ َاألَعْ َم‬
َ ‫الَأَ ْف‬
“Which act is best?”. He answered: “Imaan in Allah and Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of
Allah) …” (1).

Ibn Hajar said: “The Hadeeth includes the meaning that Al-Jihaad is the best of actions after Al-Imaan
(belief)” (2).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2518 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/148). Saheeh Muslim: 84, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/149].

2 - The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬also explained concerning those who stay back from and do not engage in Al-Jihaad
from the righteous believers, that however much they strive in virtuous and pious acts, in other than the
domain of Al-Jihaad, they will never catch up to the Mujaahideen … That came in what was related by Al-
Bukhaariy and Muslim from Abu Hurairah, May Allah be pleased with him, who said:

ََ ‫َ َقا‬.َ"َُ‫الَ َتسْ َتطِ يعُو َنه‬

َ‫ل‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ َ"َ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َجلََّ َقا َل‬ ْ ‫قِي َلَلِل َّن ِبيِّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َماَ َيعْ ِدل‬
ِ ‫َُال ِج َهادََفِيَ َس ِب‬
ََّ ‫َ َو َقا َلَف‬.َ"َُ‫كَ َيقُولَُ"َالََ َتسْ َتطِ يعُو َنه‬
ْ ‫ِيَالثالِ َثةَِ"َ َم َثل‬
َ‫َُالم َُجا ِهدَِفِي‬ َ ِ‫ْنَأَ ْوَ َثالَثاَ ُكلَُّ َذل‬
ِ ‫َفأ َ َعا ُدواَ َعلَ ْيهَِ َمرَّ َتي‬
َ‫َالم َُجا ِه ُدَفِي‬ْ ‫ٍَح َّتىَ َيرْ ِج َع‬
َ ‫صالَة‬
َ ََ‫امَ َوال‬ ِ َّ ‫َِبآ َيات‬
ٍَ ‫ََِّللاَالََََي ْف ُترَُمِنْ َصِ َي‬ ْ ‫َال َقائِم‬
ِ ‫َال َقا ِنت‬ ِ ِ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ْ ‫ََّللاَ َك َم َث ِلَالصَّائِم‬ ِ ‫َس ِب‬
ِ َّ ‫يل‬
"َ‫ََّللاَ َت َعالَى‬ ِ ‫َس ِب‬
What (act) is equal to Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla? He answered: You cannot do
it. The narrator said: They repeated the question twice or thrice. Every time he answered: You do
not have the strength to do it. When the question was asked for the third time, he said: One who
goes out for Jihad is like a person who keeps fasts, stands in prayer (constantly), is obedient to
the verses of Allah and does not exhibit any lassitude in fasting and prayer until the Mujaahid
returns from Jihaad in the way of Allah Ta’Aalaa (1).

The above is the Lafzh (worded version) recorded by Muslim and the following was recorded by Al-
Bukhaariy:

َُ‫َ َقا َلََ"َالََأَ ِج ُده‬.‫َُال ِج َها ََد‬

ْ ‫ىَع َم ٍلَ َيعْ ِدل‬ َ َ‫ََّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َف َقا َلَ ُدلَّنِيَ َعل‬ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
ِ ‫ىَرس‬ َ َ‫َرجُلَإِل‬ َ ‫َقا َل‬
َ ‫َجا َء‬
َ‫ل‬ َ ‫َالم َُجا ِه ُدَأَنْ َ َت ْد ُخ َلَ َمسْ ِج َد‬
ََ ‫َ َقا‬."َ‫كَ َف َتقُو َم ََوالََ َت ْف ُت َر ََو َتصُو َم ََوالََ ُت ْفطِ َر‬ ْ ‫اَخ َر َج‬ َ ‫ـَ َقا َلَـَ َهلَْ َتسْ َتطَِيعَُإِ َذ‬
َ ‫َالم َُجا ِهدَِلَ َيسْ َتنُّ َفِيَطِ َولِهَِ َف ُي ْك َتبُ َلَه‬
ٍَ ‫َُح َس َنا‬
‫ت‬ ْ ‫س‬ َ ‫كَ َقا َلَأَبُوَه َُري َْر َةَإِنَّ َ َف َر‬ َ ِ‫َو َمنْ َ َيسْ َتطِ يعَُ َذل‬
A man came to Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬and said: "Guide me to an action equal to Al-Jihad (in
reward)". He replied: "I do not find such an act". Then he added: "Can you, while the Mujaahid
leaves (for battle), enter your mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast and never
break your fast?". The man said: "But who can do that?". Abu Hurairah added: "The Mujaahid (i.e.
Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders about (for grazing) tied by
a long rope" (2).

In “Fat’h ul-Baariy” it is stated: “’Iyaad said: The Hadeeth of this Baab (subject area) guides to the
greatness of the affair of Al-Jihaad. That is because the Siyaam (fasting) and other virtuous actions
mentioned have all been made equal to Al-Jihaad, to the point where all of the conditions of the Mujaahid
and his permissible (Mubaah) acts are equal to the one who remains constantly in Salaah and other acts.
For that reason, he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “You cannot do that!”. It also indicates: That the merits are not
comprehended by analogy. Rather, it is only Ihsaan (good) from Allah Ta’Aalaa provided to whom He
wishes and it (i.e. the Hadeeth) is used to deduce that Al-Jihaad the best of actions absolutely!” (3).

And the following was state in the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: “ (In respect
to) … The likeness of the Mujaahid in the way of Allah is the likeness of the one who fasts and
stands (in prayer) who is (Qaanit) obedient to the verses of Allah … The meaning of “Qaanit” here:
The “Mutee’” (obedient) and this Hadeeth includes the greatness of the merit of Al-Jihaad. That is
because the Salaah, the Siyaam (fasting) and undertaking of the verses of Allah Ta’Aalaa are the best of
actions. And Allah has made the Mujaahid the example of the one who does not slacken from that for a
single moment. That is whilst it is known that this is not possible for anyone. For that reason, he ‫ﷺ‬
said: “You cannot do that”, and Allah knows best” (4)

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1878, 3/1498, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2785 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 4/6), (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, Ibn Hajar: 5/6,
(4) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: (‘Alaa Haamish Al-Qastalaaniy: 8/82-83)].

3 - The Sunnah An-Nabawiyah also made clear that Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah is a means to attain safety
from the fire and to be saved from the punishment on the Day of Judgement. This is according to what
Al-Bukhaariy related in his Saheeh: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ‫ََّللاَ َف َت َم َّسهَُال َّنا ُر‬ ْ َّ‫اَاغ َبر‬
ِ ‫تَ َق َد َماَ َع ْبدٍَفِيَ َس ِب‬ ْ ‫َم‬
Anyone whose both feet get covered with dust in Allah's Cause will not be touched by the (Hell)
fire (1).
The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “What comes automatically to the mind when the term
“Fee Sabeelillah” (In the way of Allah) is mentioned is Al-Jihaad … Ibn ul-Mundhir said: “… The
Hadeeth indicates that whoever gets his feet dusty in the way of Allah, Allah has made the Naar (fire of
Jahannam) Haraam (prohibited) for him, whether he engaged in (actual) Qitaal (fighting) or not … The
statement “َ‫ ” َف َت َم َّسهَُال َّنا ُر‬is in the Mansoob form (grammatical point). The meaning is: That the touch (َّ‫ ) ََمس‬is
negated by presence of the mentioned dust and in that there exists an indication to the great estimation of
the actions in the way of Allah. If the mere coming into contact with dust upon the feet makes the fire of
hell prohibited from touching them, and so what is the case then, concerning the one who strived,
expended his effort and exhausted his capability? The Hadeeth has similar versions including that which
At-Tabaraani recorded in his “Al-Awsat” from Abu Ad-Dardaa’ from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Whoever got his
two feet dusty in the way of Allah will distance him from the fire by a distance of 1000 years at the
speed of a rushing rider!” (2).

4 – From the Barakaat (blessings) of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah, is that an action from among its
actions, and even if it was small, would wipe away from the one who undertook it all that could have filled
his pages of bad deeds or sins and what he could have perpetrated in his lifetime, in terms of gaps in his
conduct, whilst opening up before him the doors of Al-Jannah (paradise) via the testimony of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

“The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out for the Janaazah (funeral prayer) of a man. When he was placed
down (in position) Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Do not pray over him O
Messenger of Allah. Because verily he was a Faajir (wickedly corrupt man)”. The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
then turned to the people and said: Have anyone of you seen him (i.e. the dead man) upon an act of
Islaam? And so, a man said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah! He guarded one night in the way of Allah! And
so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over him and scattered dirt over him and said: Your companions
think that you are from the people of the Naar (hellfire) and I bear testimony that you are from the people
of Al-Jannah (paradise) …” (2). And in another narration: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then stood (for
prayer) and then followed him until he reached the place of his grave. He sat until he had been buried, he
scattered dirt over him three times and then said: The people are saying bad about you and I say good
about you. Umar then said: And what is that O Messenger of Allah! And so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said: Leave us be O son of Al-Khattaab (i.e. ‘Umar). Whoever undertakes Al-Jihaad in the Way of Allah,
Jannah is obligatory for him” (4).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2811 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/29), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy: 6/29-30, (3) “Mishkaat
ul-Masaabeeh”, with verification by Al-Albaaniy: 3860, 2/1133-1134 and he said: Related by Al-Baihaqiy in “Shu’ab Al-Imaan”,
(4) “At-Targheeb Wa t-Tarheeb”, Al-Mundhiriy and he said: At-Tabaraaniy related it and its Isnaad has no problem in it In
Shaa’ Allah (2/117)].

Also with this meaning, that the action from amongst the actions of Al-Jihaad, however small it may be,
makes the one who undertakes it nominated for success on the Day of Judgement and he is made ready
for success with Jannah and the highest levels before Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. This meaning has come within
the Saheeh Ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and include his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫ٍَو َمنْ َأَعْ َت َق‬

َ‫َر َق َبةَم ُْؤ ِم َنة‬ َ ‫َال َع ُد َّوَأَ ْوَلَ ْمَ َي ْبلُ ْغَ َك‬
َ ‫انَلَهَُ َك ِع ْت ِق‬
َ ‫َر َق َبة‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ْ ‫ََّللاَ َت َعالَىَ َبلَ َغ‬ َِ ‫َو َمنْ َ َر َم‬
ِ ‫ىَب َسه ٍْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬
‫اَبعُضْ ٍَو‬ِ ‫ارَعُضْ و‬ ِ ‫تَلَهَُفِ َدا َءهَُمِنْ َال َّن‬ ْ ‫َكا َن‬
And whoever releases an arrow in the way of Allah Ta’Aalaa, whether it reached the enemy or did
not reach. It will be for him like the freeing of a slave and whoever frees a believing slave it will be
aa a ransom from the fire, limb by limb (1).

And like his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫َّللا ََو َماَال َّد َر َج ُةَ َقا َلَ"َأَ َما‬
ِ َّ َ‫اَرسُو َل‬ َ ‫َ َقا َلَابْنُ َال َّنحَّ ِامَ َي‬.َ"َ‫َبهَِ َد َر َجة‬ َّ ‫َرََف َعه‬
ِ ُ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫َب َسه ٍْم‬ ْ ‫ارْ مُواَ َمنْ َ َبلَ َغ‬
ِ ‫َال َع ُد َّو‬
ٍَ ‫ْنَمِا َئ ُةَ َع‬
‫ام‬ َ ‫َب َع َت َبةَِأ ُ ِّم‬
ِ ‫ك ََولَكِنْ َ َماَ َبي َْنَال َّد َر َج َتي‬ ِ ‫ت‬ ْ ‫إِ َّن َهاَلَ ْي َس‬
Shoot, and whoever hits the enemy with an arrow, Allah will raise him one degree in status
thereby. Ibn An-Nahhaan said: O Messenger of Allah, what is the degree? He said: It is not like
the doorstep of your mother, rather (the distance) between two degrees is a hundred years (2).

And like the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

َ‫َال َج َّنةَِأَ ْوَ َم ْوضِ عَُقِيدٍَـ‬

ْ ‫سَأَ َح ِد ُك ْمَم َِن‬ِ ‫َولَ َقابُ َ َق ْو‬،‫ا‬
َ ‫اَو َماَفِي َه‬ َ ‫َخيْرَم َِنَال ُّد ْن َي‬ َ ‫َّللاَأَ ْوَ َغ ْد َوة‬
ِ َّ َ‫يل‬ َ ‫لَ َر ْو َحةَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
َ‫ض‬ ِ َْ‫تَإِلَىَأَهْ ِلَاألَر‬ ْ ‫َِاطلَ َع‬ ْ ‫َولَ ْوَأَنَّ َامَْ َرأَةَمِنْ َأَهْ ِل‬،‫ا‬
َّ ‫َال َج َّنة‬ َ ‫اَو َماَفِي َه‬ َ ‫ِيَس ْو َطه‬
َ ‫َُـَخيْرَم َِنَال ُّد ْن َي‬ َ ‫َيعْ ن‬
َ ‫اَخيْرَم َِنَال ُّد ْن َي‬ ْ َ َ ‫تَ َماَ َب ْي َن ُه َم‬ َ َ‫أل‬
‫اَو َماَفِي َها‬ َ ‫ىَرأسِ َه‬ َ َ‫َولَ َنصِ ي ُف َهاَ َعل‬،‫ا‬َ ‫َُريح‬ ِ ‫اَو َل َمأل ْته‬ ْ ‫ضا َء‬
A single endeavour (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than
all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is
better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a Houri from Paradise appeared to the
people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and
pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it (3).

And concerning the merit of undertaking the small act from the acts of Al-Jihaad the following was also
mentioned in Al-Bukhaariy:

‫اَو َماَ َعلَ ْي َها‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬

َ ‫ََّللاَ َخيْرَم َِنَال ُّد ْن َي‬ ُ ‫ر َب‬
َ ‫اطَ َي ْو ٍمَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ ِ
To stand on guard for a day in the way of Allah is better than the world and all that is upon it (4).

[(1) Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy, Al-Albaaniy: 2945, 2/659, (2) Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy, Al-Albaaniy: 2947, 2/660, (3) Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy, 2796, Fat’h ul-Baariy: 3/15. Also refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1880. Al-Ghadwah is going out once and Ar-Rawhah is
returning once (At-Targheeb Wa Tarheeb: 2/105-106, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2892 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/85)].

“Regarding the meaning of Ar-Ribaat (standing guard) the following was mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: “The ‘Muraabatah’ (standing guard) mentioned in the Hadeeth means being in the position of
the frontiers (i.e. where the enemy can attack from) of the enemy to strengthen the Deen and repel the
evil of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) from the Muslims” (1). And it was recorded that ‘Uthmaan Ibn
‘Affaan, may Allah be pleased with him, said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

‫ازل‬ ََ ‫خَْيرََ َِمنَََْأََْلفََََِي َْو ٍَمَفَِي ََماَسَِواهَُ َِم‬

َِ ‫نَالمََن‬ ََ َ‫َّللا‬
َِ َ‫بيل‬
َِ ‫يَس‬
ََ َِ‫ومَف‬ َُ ‫َِرََب‬
ٍَ ‫اطَََي‬
Standing guard in the way of Allah is better than one thousand days in any other place (2).

5 – And from the honour that Islaam gave to the Mujaahid in the way of Allah, is that it made him the
best of people:

Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was asked:

ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ‫ََّللا‬ َ ‫ل؟َ َقا َل‬
َ ‫َرجُلَي َُجا ِه ُدَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ‫اسَأَ ْف‬
َُ ‫ض‬ ِ ‫أَىُّ َال َّن‬
Which of the people is the best? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: A man who performs Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (3).

In addition, the Mujaahid is not harmed if the people do not consider him to be the best according to
their societal measures, as long as Allah has favoured him over them all. Therefore, he does lose out from
what he is engaged in from Al-Jihaad, in any place, even if he does not find from the people the
honouring that should surround him, and it is sufficient for him that he is in the first ranks of the people
of honour in the sight of Allah Ta’Aalaa.
Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, related from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫ِرا َسةَِ َك‬

َ‫انَفِي‬ ْ ‫انَف‬
ََ ‫ِيَالح‬ َ ‫َإِنْ َ َك‬،ُ‫َر ْأ ُسهَُم ُْغ َبرَّ ةٍَ َق َد َماه‬
َ ‫ث‬َ ‫َأَ ْش َع‬،‫ََّللا‬
ِ َّ ‫يل‬ِ ‫انَ َف َرسِ هَِفِيَ َس ِب‬
ِ ‫ٍَب ِع َن‬ ُ
ِ ‫طو َبىَل َِع ْبدٍَآ ِخذ‬
َ ‫َإِ ِنَاسْ ََتأْ َذ َنَلَ ْمَي ُْؤ َذنْ َلَه‬،ِ‫انَفِيَالسَّا َقة‬
َْ‫َوإِنْ َ َش َف َعَلَ ْمَ ُي َش َّفع‬،ُ َ ‫انَفِيَالسَّا َقةَِ َك‬ َ ‫ْالح َِرا َسة‬
َ ‫َوإِنْ َ َك‬،ِ
Toubaa is for him who holds the reins of his horse to strive in Allah's Cause, with his hair
unkempt and feet covered with dust: if he is appointed in the vanguard, he is perfectly satisfied
with his post of guarding, and if he is appointed in the rear guard, he accepts his post with
satisfaction; (he is so simple and unambiguous that) if he asks for permission he is not permitted,
and if he intercedes, his intercession is not accepted (4).

The Salaf As-Saalih (righteous predecessors) used to honour those whom Allah Ta’Aalaa had honoured
and would pay special care and attention to honouring the Mujaahideen and they regarded the provision
of an act that was the purpose of serving them and dealing with them with respect and generosity, to be
represent ways to gain the pleasure of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, As-Sarakhsiy: 1/7. And refer to “Tafseer Ibn Katheer”: 1/444 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/86, (2)
“Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”, Al-Albaaniy: 1361, 2/133. “Saheeh Sunnah An-Nasaa’iy”, Al-Albaaniy: 2971, 2/666, (3) “Saheeh
Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”, Al-Albaaniy: 1357, 2/131-132, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2887, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/81. “Toubaa” is the
form of “Fu’laa” (‫ )فُعْ لى‬of everything that is good (Tayyib) … Ibn ul-Jawziy said: “The meaning is that it is a mention of an
unknown matter and nothing is intended apart from elevation. Consequently, if he proceeds on it well it comes to be. It is like
saying: If he was involved in guarding, he continues in it and if he was involved in the rear guard, he continued in it” (Fat’h ul-
Baariy: 6/81-83).

The following came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “It is related from Mujaahid (who is from the
Taabi’een and students of Ibn ‘Umar” that he said: I wanted to perform Al-Jihaad and so Ibn ‘Umar took
hold of my stirrup!! So, I refused that from him. Then he said: Do you dislike for me the reward? We have
been informed that the one who serves the Mujaahideen is among is of a station among the people of the
Dunyaa like that of Jibreel among the inhabitants of the heaven!” (1).

The above represents just a very small selection taken from the Noble Sunnah An-Nabawiyah making
clear the merit of Al-Jihaad and the standing and status of the Mujaahideen in the sight of Allah Tabaaraka
Wa Ta’Aalaa.

The Third Point: The Fiqhiy Nusoos (texts) explaining the station of Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah

Ibn Qudaamah says in his “Al-Mughniy”: “Ahmad (i.e. Bin Hanbal) said: We do not know of anything
from the categories of virtuous acts better than As-Sabeel (i.e. Al-Jihaad) … And the affair of the enemy
was mentioned to him and he began to cry and said: There are no acts of obedience (and virtuosity) better
than it … Nothing is equal to meeting the enemy (in battle) and undertaking the Qitaal (fighting) oneself
is the best of actions. And those who fight the enemy are those who are defending Islaam and their
sanctuary, and so what action is better than that? The people are in security and they are in fear, they have
given their lifeblood … The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: By the one in hand is my soul, there does not
exist, between the heaven and the earth, an action that is better than Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah, or an
argument more accepted. There is no Rafath (obscenity) in it, no Fusooq (disobedience) and no Jidaal
(dispute). And because Al-Jihaad means expending the lifeblood and wealth, and its benefit is general to
all of the Muslims, their young and their old, their strong and weak, it mentioned and praised them, and
other than it does not equal it in respect to its benefit and importance. Therefore, it is not equal to it in
respect to its merit and reward” (2).
The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “Abu Qataadah related that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬stood to address the people in a Khutbah. He praised Allah and then mentioned
Al-Jihaad. He did not leave anything better than Al-Jihaad apart from the Faraa’id, meaning the Faraa’id
(obligations) which are established upon every individual (Fard ‘Ain) and these are the five pillars. And Al-
Jihaad is also Fard, however, it is Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency. That is whilst the reward is
according to the level of affirmation of the Fareedah (obligation). Consequently, that which is Fard ‘Ain is
stronger and for that reason the Faraa’id were exempted from the host of that which the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made Al-Jihaad of greater merit …” (3).

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/30, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/368-369. Aldo refer to “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer ‘Alaa
Matn Al-Muqni’”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/368-369, “Al-Muhadh’dhib”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/227, “Haashiyah Ibn
‘Aabideen”: 3/335/337, (3) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 1/23-24 and refer to “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/335].

In addition, from the care and concern of the ‘Ulamaa’ of Al-Islaam for the matter of Al-Jihaad, and
particular in the age in which the enemy was involved in a fierce struggle against the Muslims and their
lands, they did not spare any effort in inciting and urging the Ummah to undertake Al-Jihaad and
reminding them of what Islaam came with in respect to the obligation to undertake it and the dangers of
refraining from it, in addition to what Allah had stored for the believers of those engaged in it in terms of
great reward, and they wrote many papers and written works concerning that …

- Amongst those papers was “Al-‘Ibrah Mimaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazwi Wa sh-Shahaadati Wa l-Hijrati” by As-
Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy (1).

On the occasion of publishing this paper the author stated the following:

“We have received conclusive reports of the realities of what is taking place in these current times
between the regions of the ‘Uthmaani (Ottoman) Sultanah (authority) and the regions of the Russian state
… And the majority of the Muslims of the land have arisen … to provide support to the Sultaan (i.e.
Muslim ruler) … And the situation has come in the end … to the firm resolve to wage war against the
Russians (2) and the determination has become decisive by all of the citizens of the ‘Uthmaani state and
others to expend their properties and lives … Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa grants victory to those who
support the Deen of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬and He forsakes those who forsake the correct Deen of
Muhammad and the Deen of Islaam and He has assisted all of the Muslims to repel the disbelievers …
When I paused to examine these events … And I saw that the Muslims are calling for victory for the
righteous Muslim ruler … I desired to lift the veil of ignorance and confusion concerning what has come
in relation to Al-Ghazw (battles) and Al-Hijrah (migration) … by mentioning what has come in the Kitaab
ul-‘Azeez (i.e. the Qur’aan) and the Sunnah Al-Mutahharah (purified) … The books of “Aathaar”
(reports) have contained within them many commands … and an abundance of Ahkaam (rulings) … I
therefore saw that it was beneficial to summarise the main Ahkaam … and I hope from Allah Ta’Aalaa
Wa Tabaarak for this summary to be met by His compassion and benevolence and be circulated and
received well and benefit ever one of knowledge and understanding in every place and time. And I have
called it:

“Al-‘Ibrah Mimaa Jaa’a Fil Ghazwi Wa sh-Shahaadati Wa l-Hijrati” [What should be taken (in terms of
lessons) from what has come related to the subject of battles and migration] (3).

Similarly, Ash-Sheikh Yousuf An-Nabahaani (4) authored a paper in which he collected together some of
the Ahaadeeth An-Nabawiyah which urge the undertaking of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah and he named
it: “The forty Ahaadeeth concerning the merits of Al-Jihaad and the Mujaahideen”.

[(1) He was born in the year 1248 Hijriy corresponding to 1832 CE and he passed away on 1307 Hijriy, 1890, (2) The year 1293
Hijriy, (3) “Khutbat ul-Kitaab”: p7-10, (4) Born in 1266 Hijriy and died 1350 Hijriy. His biography is on pages 8-9 of his book
“The forty Ahaadeeth …”].
On the occasion of publishing his collection of Ahaadeeth, the Sheikh explained the following:

“The aggression of the enemies against the people of Imaan has not been hidden from anyone for ages.
They gained control over most of the Islamic lands, they constrained the Islamic Khilafah and the
‘Uthmaaniy authority. (Then) raised its minaret high and destroyed its enemies, and supported its armies
and supporters. And when the Khalifah issued his command for hold Jihaad against the Russian state, the
English and the French to raise high the word of Allah, it became obligatory upon every Muslim to join
under the flag of the Khalifah of the Muslims and the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, to undertake Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah … That reality has encouraged me to gather forty Hadeeth from the two books of Saheeh, in
service to Allah, His Messenger and the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, and as an advice for all of the Muslims. I
have called it: “The forty Ahaadeeth concerning the merits of Al-Jihaad and the Mujaahideen”. I ask Allah
Al-‘Azheem to make it beneficial and for its benefit to spread widely, and for Him to restore to the
Muslims all of the lands, which their despicable enemies have gained control over” (1).

The above represents some of what the ‘Ulamaa of the Muslims have written in terms of papers
concerning the explanation of the station and standing of Al-Jihaad and the merit of the Mujaahideen, at a
time when western colonialism was attacking Islaam, its people and its lands, desiring the division and
distribution between themselves of the lands of what they called the sick man (i.e. the Ottoman State),
after finishing it off, referring to the Khilafah state which was represented by the Ottoman state and the
lands that submitted to its authority.

We now arrive at the final point of this introduction.

The Fourth Point: The reconciliation between the Shar’iyah texts in which there
appears to be a conflict, in the case where Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah is given
preference over other acts sometimes and on other occasions other acts are given
preference over it.

To begin addressing this point, we will first present some of the texts which contain the giving of
preference to some actions from amongst the acts of obedience and those which make one closer to
Allah, over Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah … We will then, secondly, mention the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa
concerning them, before finally providing our view in respect to this Mas’alah.

[(1) “The forty Ahaadeeth …”, Ash-Sheikh Yousuf An-Nabahaani: p9-10].

Firstly: The Shar’iyah texts in which some others acts of obedience are given preference or higher
merit over Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah

1 - It was related in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: That ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr, may Allah be pleased with him related:

َ."َ‫ْن‬ ْ ُّ‫َبر‬
ِ ‫َال َوالِ َدي‬ ِ ‫َ َقا َلَ"َ ُث َّم‬.ٌَّ‫تَ ُث َّمَأَى‬
ُ ‫َقُ ْل‬."َ‫علَىَمِي َقا ِت َها‬ََ َُ‫صالَة‬ َّ ‫ضلَُ َقا َلَ"َال‬ َ ‫َال َع َم ِلَأَ ْف‬
ْ ُّ‫ََّللاَأَى‬
ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬ ُ ‫قُ ْل‬
َ ‫تَ َي‬
َُ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَولَ ِوَاسْ َت َز ْد ُته‬
َ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫َرس‬ َ ْ‫َعن‬
َ ‫ت‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ُّ ‫َ َف َس َك‬."َ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫َث َّمَأَىٌّ َ َقا َلَ"َ ْال ِج َها ُدَفِيَ َس ِب‬
ُ ‫ت‬ُ ‫قُ ْل‬
‫لَ َزا َدنِي‬
“I said “O Allah's Messenger! What is the best deed?” He replied: “(To perform) the prayer at
their stated fixed times”. I asked: “What is next?” He replied: “To be good and dutiful to your
parents”. I said: Then what?” He replied: “Al-Jihaad in Allah’s way”. I did not ask Allah's
Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more” (1).
2 - Al-Bukhaariy also recorded that ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr related that a man asked the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫َو َت ْق َرأَُال َّسالَ َمَ َعلَىَ َمنْ َ َع ََر ْف‬،

َْ‫ت ََو َمنْ َلَ ْمَ َتعْ ِرف‬ َّ ‫لَ ُت ْط ِع ُم‬
َ ‫َالط َعا َم‬ َ ‫َاإلسْ الَ ِم‬
ََ ‫َخيْرَ َقا‬ َ
ِ ُّ‫أى‬
“What (sort of) deeds in Islaam are good?” He replied: “To feed (the poor) and say Salaam to
those you know and those you don't know” (2).

3 - Abu Ad-Dardaa’, may Allah be pleased with him said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ُ
َّ ‫اق‬
َِ‫َالذ َهب‬ ِ ‫َب َخي ِْرَأَعْ َمالِ ُك ْم ََوأَ ْز َكاهَاَعِ ْندََ َملِي ِك ُك ْم ََوأَرْ َف ِع َهاَفِيَد ََر َجا ِت ُك ْم ََو َخيْرَلَ ُك ْمَمِنْ ََإِ ْن َف‬
ِ ‫َأَالَََأ َن ِّب ُئ ُك ْم‬
َ"َ‫َ َقا َل‬.َ‫َ َقالُواَ َبلَى‬.َ"َ‫َو ْال َو ِر ِق ََو َخيْرَلَ ُك ْمَمِنْ َأَنْ َ َت ْل َق ْواَ َع َُد َّو ُك ْمَ َف َتضْ ِربُواَأَعْ َنا َق ُه ْم ََو َيضْ ِربُواَأَعْ َنا َق َُك ْم‬
ِ َّ ‫َج َب ٍلَرضىََّللاَعنهَ َماَ َشيْ ءَأَ ْن َجىَمِنْ َ َع َذاب‬
ََِّ ‫ََِّللاَمِنْ َ ِذ ْك ِر‬
‫ََّللا‬ َ ُ‫َ َف َقا َلَ ُم َع ُاذَبْن‬.َ"َ‫ََُّللاَ َت ََعالَى‬
ِ َّ ‫ِذ ْكر‬
“Should I not inform you of the best of your deeds, and the purest of them with your Master, and
the most elevated of them in your respect to your levels, and is better for you than the spending of
gold and silver, and better for you than meeting your enemy and striking their necks, and they
strike your necks?” They said: “Of course” He said: “The remembrance of Allah Ta’Aalaa”.
Mu’aadh bin Jabal, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “There is nothing that brings more salvation from
the punishment of Allah than the remembrance of Allah” (3).

The above are some of the Ahaadeeth An-Nabawiyah which make the value of some acts of obedience
(Taa’aat) and acts of gaining closeness to Allah (Qurubaat), above the value of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.
That is whilst we observed many texts earlier from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah which made Al-Jihaad in
the way of Allah the head and summit of the scales of Islamic values, which Islaam has come with, and its
order. How then can we reconcile these texts with those?

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2782 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 2/3), (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 12, (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/55), (3) Ahmad related it
with a Hasan Isnaad in addition to Ibn Abi d-Dunyaa, At-Tirmidhiy, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim and Al-Baihaqiy. Al-Haakim said:
Saheeh ul-Isnaad (At-Targheeb Wa t-Tarheeb: 2/166-167). In “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim: 1/496, Sunan Ibn Maajah: 3790,
2/1245. And Al-Albaaniy said: Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 3057, 2/316].

Secondly: The opinions of the ‘Ulamaa in respect to reconciling between those texts in which
there appears to be a conflict between them?

- The following came mentioned in the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim, by Al-Imaam An-
Nawawiy, in respect to the reconciliation that we are addressing:

He says there are two angles:

“The first of them: That the difference in respect to the answer (i.e. when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was asked)
occurred in accordance to the difference in circumstances and people. It could be said that: The best of
matters is such and such but it is not intended that it is the best of matters from all angles and in all
circumstances, conditions or for all people. Rather, it could be in a circumstance and not another. This is
supported by reports which include from amongst them: That is was related from Ibn ‘Abbaas, May Allah
be pleased with them both, that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “The Hajj of the one who has not
made Hajj is better than forty Ghazwah (military excursions) and the Ghazwah for the one who
has made Hajj is better than Hajj forty times”.

The second angle: That it is permitted for the intended meaning to be: From the best (Afdal) of actions
is so and so action, or from the best (Khair) of them, or of the best of you is the one who does such and
such action. Consequently, the word “from” (َْ‫ )مِن‬has been omitted whilst being intended. It is like saying:
“So and so is the most understanding of people and the best of them”. That is like the Qawl of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬: “The best of you are the best of you to your wives” (‫َخ ْي َُر ُك ْم َِألَ ْهلِ َِه‬
َ ‫) َخ ْي ُر ُك ْم‬, whilst
it is known that the person does not become the best of people absolutely by that. Also like his Qawl
‫ﷺ‬: “The most Zaahid (removed) of people in respect to the ‘Aalim (knowledgeable person) is
his neighbours” (‫جيراَُنه‬ َِ ‫)أََ َْز ََه َُدَالََّن‬. That is whilst there could well be others who are even more
َِ َ‫اسَفَِيَال ََعالَِ َِم‬
“Azhad” in respect to him than them … And upon this second angle “Al-Imaan” is the best of them
absolutely and the remainder are equal in respect to them being the best of actions and conditions. Then
the merit of them in respect to each other is known by the indications which indicate that and they differ
with the difference of circumstances and people.

Therefore, if it is said: That certain Ahaadeeth have stated: “The best of them is this and then this” using
ُ (Thumma i.e. then). This has been placed to indicate order and so the answer
the Harf (proposition) “َ‫”ث َّم‬
provide here, is for the purpose of ordering in respect to the mention. And they (i.e. Arabs) have recited
prose about this:

ُ‫َج ٌّده‬
َ ‫ك‬ َ ‫ادََث َّمَ َسادَأَبُوَهَََََََََََََُ ُث َّمَ َق ْدَ َسادََ َق ْب َل‬
َ ِ‫َذل‬ ُ ‫قُلَْلِ َمنْ َ َس‬
Say to the one who had been chief, then his father had been chief … Then before that his grandfather had
been chief” (1).

The above is what An-Nawawiy said regarding this matter in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim.

Also in relation to this Mas’alah the following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:

“The sum of how the ‘Ulamaa answered in respect to this Hadeeth and others concerning the difference
in answers related to the best of actions is: That the answer differed according to the difference in
conditions or circumstances of those asking (the question), to inform each people that which they are
most in need of, or that which they have a desire to undertake or that which is suitable for them …

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim: 1/429-430. Aldo refer to: “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Az-
Zuhailiy: 61].

Or the difference was due to a difference in times, in the case where the action in that time was better
than another. And so, Al-Jihaad, at the beginning of Islaam, was the best of actions because it was the
means to undertake it, to become consolidated in its undertaking. And the texts indicating that the Salaah
is better than the Sadaqah are numerous and yet at the time of tragic circumstances, the Sadaqah would be
better.

Or that the meaning of “Afdal” (the best) does not actually mean giving preference but rather the
intended meaning is the absolute “Fadl” (merit) [note: i.e. just that it has great merit without restricting
that merit].

Or that the intended meaning is “From the best (Afdal) actions” in the case where the “from” has been
omitted but intended in meaning.

And Ibn Daqeeq Al-‘Eid said: The actions in this Hadeeth (meaning the Hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood):
“Which action is Afdal (best)? He ‫ﷺ‬: Salaah in its set time” is understood in respect to the bodily
actions. He intended by that to be distinct from “Al-Imaan” because that is from the actions of the hearts
(and not body). There, is therefore no contradiction between it and the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah in
which it is stated: “Afdal (the best) of actions is Imaan in Allah” (1). And other than him said: The
intended meaning of Al-Jihaad here (i.e. In the Hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood in which the level or standing of
Al-Jihaad came after the Birr ul-Waalideen [obedient and good conduct towards the parents]) applies to
that which is not Fard ‘Ain (an individual obligation) and because it rests upon the permission of the
parents. Consequently, being obedient and treating them well comes before it” (2).
The above is what came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” (explanation of Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy) …

And in “Tuhfah Al-Dhaakireen”, by Ash-Shawkaaniy, the following was stated:

“Some found giving of preference to the act of Dhikr over Al-Jihaad problematic as many Saheeh
evidences stated that it (i.e. Al-Jihaad) is the best of actions. Some of the people of knowledge reconciled
between what came mentioned in the Ahaadeeth which include the giving of preference of some acts over
others and what was mentioned from them indicating that some are preferred over others, by saying that
this was in accordance to the difference in people, conditions and circumstances. Therefore, whoever had
the capacity to undertake Al-Jihaad and have a powerful impact in it, then the best of his actions (to
undertake) is Al-Jihaad. And whoever was very wealthy then the best of actions that he can undertake is
As-Sadaqah, and whoever is not characterised by either of these mentioned characteristics, then the best
of his actions are Dhikr and Salaah, and so on. However, this was the reason behind the statement of his
‫ ﷺ‬about the preference of the Dhikr over Al-Jihaad itself in this Hadeeth …” (3) i.e. the Hadeeth:
“Should I inform you of the best of your actions … And it is better for you than meeting your enemies …
it is the Dhikr (remembrance) of Allah …”.

[(1) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 26 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/77), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/9, (3) “Tuhfat udh-Dhaakireen”, Ash-
Shawkaaniy: 10].

This is what Ash-Shawkaaniy said concerning the addressing of this problematic issue. It is understood
from his speech, that the answer of the ‘Ulamaa, in respect to reconciling between the (apparently)
conflicting Ahaadeeth, within the subject area of “The best of actions”, is suitable to explain making some
of the actions preferable over others on an occasion whilst being preferred over on other occasions.
However, it is not suitable to answer the problem in respect to the Hadeeth that we are addressing where
the Dhikr (remembrance of Allah) was given preference over or greater merit than Al-Jihaad … In
addition, Ash-Shawkaaniy himself, does not provide his view of how to repel or resolve this problem …
What I see to be correct, is that the answer of the ‘Ulamaa is also suitable to solve the problem in respect
to this Hadeeth. That is according to the evaluation that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was addressing in this
Hadeeth, for example, a group of people who were not capable enough to undertake the Takaaleef (tasks)
of Al-Jihaad and they also did not have in their possession gold and silver, beyond the amount required to
fulfil their needs, to spend upon good. That was whilst, they were deeply concerned about undertaking the
best actions, above the obligations that they had been obliged and charged with to undertake, in search of
greater reward and the desire to please Allah and ear His pleasure. So, what is the best action in relation to
those?

- To be charged with undertaking Al-Jihaad because it is the best of actions absolutely, even if they are not
capable of undertaking it and they do not possess that which will cause harm to the enemy or provide
strength to the Muslims?!

- Or to be charged with spending from the very little that they possess whilst they are in greater need of
being spent upon than others? Is this action or that, the best of actions in respect to those”

- Or is the best of actions, in respect to them, another action from amongst the virtuous actions that they
are capable of undertaking and fulfilling?

There is no doubt that another action, other than Al-Jihaad, is more fitting for this category of people, to
be the best of their actions. And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬evaluated that abundance in the Dhikr
(making remembrance) of Allah, does represent that action which is better than other actions, when taking
into account those who are being addressed, in the manner that was mentioned within this particular
Hadeeth.
Therefore, the answer of the ‘Ulamaa concerning the reconciliation between the (apparently) conflicting
Ahaadeeth, which we are addressing, solves all the problematic issues that arose within all of the
Ahaadeeth.

The conclusion of this Mas’alah (issue) is that the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa, in light of what has been
presented, focus upon the following:

1 - The righteous acts (Al-A‘amaal As-Saalihah) after Al-Imaan are equal in respect to the value.
Therefore, the Salaah, Al-Jihaad, Dhikr and Sadaqah … all acts of ‘Ibaadah (worship) and those which are
undertaken to draw closeness to Allah (Qurubaat), are not given preference over each other in terms of
them being Taa’aat (acts of obedience) and Qurubaat (acts of drawing closeness). Preference of one over
the other only occurs in accordance to the difference in people, conditions, circumstances and times,
which dictate such a preference being given. Here, the expression of preference (Ism ut-Tafdeel), found
within the Ahaadeeth which mention the preference of some actions over others, is explained by saying
that there is a word of “Tab’eed” (i.e. to indicate to some or a part of or from something) which is “َْ‫”مِن‬
(‘min’: from) which is Muaqaddarah i.e. evaluated to exist in meaning (even if it has been omitted in the
speech), or that the use of the wording of preference (Ism ut-Tafdeel) is not to be understood as such but
rather what is intended is the unrestricted attribute (i.e. of having merit), without preference being given,
as was established in the text that we quoted from “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy” (1).

2 – The actions of Islaam are divided into ‘Wasaa’il’ (means) and ‘Ghaayaat’ (objectives or aims), and the
aims are better than the means of course (2). The Salaah, Dhikr, Hajj and what is similar to these,
represent ‘Ghaayaat’ (aims) which Islaam and sought (to be fulfilled). As for Al-Jihaad, then it only falls
under the category of ‘Wasaa’il’ (means) which have been legislated to consolidate the establishment of
the Salaah, Dhikr Hajj and similar acts, which are from the category of the ‘Ghaayaat’ (aims) …
Consequently, the Salaah and what is like it of the ‘Ghaayaat’ (aims) are better than Al-Jihaad due to it
being a ‘Waseelah’ (means). However, Al-Jihaad is better that all of the actions which are considered to be
from the ‘Wasaa’il’ (means). Concerning that, the following came in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” when he quoted
from Ibn Daqeeq: “Al-Qiyaas (analogy) dictates that Al-Jihaad be (regarded as) the greatest of actions
which are ‘Wasaa’il’ (means pl.) because Al-Jihaad is a ‘Waseelah’ (means sing.) for the declaration of the
Deen, its spread or propagation, to subdue Kufr and disprove it. Therefore, its Fadeelah (merit) is in
accordance to the Fadeelah (merit) of that. And Allah knows best” (3).

3 – The actions of Islaam, irrespective of their categorisation into means and aims, Islaam, nevertheless
came giving preference of some over others. Concerning that, Ibn Hajar said: “The ‘Fadaa’il’ (merits) are
not comprehended by Qiyaas (analogy) … Al-Jihaad is the best of actions Mutlaqan (absolutely) …” (4),
as was previously established.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/9, (2) I say: This is not absolute … It was stated in “Al-Furooq” by Al-Qaraafiy (2/33): “The Ahkaam
are two categories: Maqaasid (aims) and these are inclusive of Al-Masaalih and Mafaasid in themselves. And the Wasaa’il
(means) which are the Turuq (paths) leading to them (i.e. to the Maqaasid). And their Hukm is the Hukm of what they lead to
in terms of Tahreem (prohibition) and Tahleel (Halaal), although they are lower in grade than the Maqaasid in respect to their
Hukm. And the Waseelah (means) to the best Maqaasid (aims), is the best of means, and the Waseelah to the ugliest Maqaasid
is the ugliest (or worst) of Wasaa’il. And that which is middle (i.e. not the best and the worst) is in the middle (i.e. in terms of
grade) …”, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/6. Also refer to: “Colonialism, maliciousness and designs” by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-
Ghazaaliy: p111. That is where it is understood from his speech that he inclines towards viewing this opinion to be stronger, in
respect to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), when he presents the Hadeeth of the preference of the Dhikr (making remembrance of
Allah) over Al-Jihaad, which was presented in the fourth point and was related by Abu Ad-Dardaa’, may Allah be pleased with
him. Also refer to “Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”: 3/335, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/5].

4 – The Salaah in its set times is better than all actions absolutely. Concerning that the author of “Ad-Durr
ul-Mukhtaar” stated: “The persistence upon the obligations of Salaah in its set times is better than Al-
Jihaad” (1).
Our opinion in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)

Islaam has places a scale or grading for the values of actions and activities that the human undertakes,
where it places the order of the most important and then the (next) important. The individual obligations
(Faraa’id Al-‘Ainiyah) occupy the highest level or grade upon this scale, then the obligations of sufficiency
(Faraa’id Al-Kifaayah), as long as there are those undertaking them, and then the Nawaafil … followed by
the Mubaahaat (acts of permissibility) … This is what the ‘Ulamaa have established.

As mentioned earlier, Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy said: “The reward is in accordance to the level of
affirmation of the obligation and therefore, whatever is Fard ‘Ain is stronger” (2)

And Al-Qastalaaniy in “Sharh Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy” stated: “Doing the Fard is better than the Nafl,
unequivocally!” And this is taken from the Hadeeth Al-Qudsiy: “My slave does not draw closer to me
by anything that is more beloved to me than his performance of what I have made obligatory
upon him …” (4).

And Ibn Hajar in the explanation of this Hadeeth said: “All of the ‘Ain (individual) and Kifaayah
(collective) obligations fall under this wording (Lafzh). I is understood from it that the performance of the
obligations is the most beloved actions to Allah … Some of the major scholars said: “Whoever is
occupied by the Fard (obligation) away from the Nafl (extra i.e. recommended acts) then he is excused
and whoever is occupied by the Nafl (recommended) away from the Fard, then he is deceived!” (5).

Consequently, if the Faraa’id come at the same time as the Nawaafil and it is not possible to undertake all
of them, then the obligations (Faraa’id) are prioritised over the recommended acts (Nawaafil). Similarly, if
the obligatory acts specified upon the individual (Faraa’id ul-‘Ainiyah) come at the same time as the
collective acts of sufficiency (Faraa’id ul-Kifaa’iyah), when there are already those undertaking these
collective obligations, then the former are given priority (‘Ainiyah) over the latter (Kifaa’iyah), in such a
situation. However, if the individual and collective obligations are due at the same time, in the situation
where a sufficient number is not engaged to fulfil the collective obligations of sufficiency and it is not
possible to undertake all of the acts at the same time (i.e. the individual and collective), then the most
important Fard (obligation) is prioritised according to the existing situation, whilst the performance of the
other Fard is delayed … This is like when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬delayed the performance of the
obligatory Salaah during the battle of Al-Ahzaab (the confederates), whilst he was occupied in the
obligation of repelling the enemies who had encircled Al-Madinah.

[(1) “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar BiSharh Tanweer il-Absaar Wa Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”: 3/335, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its
Sharh”: 1/23, (3) “Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy”, Al-Qastalaaniy: 2/207, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 6502 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 11/340,
(5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 11/340-341].

This incident was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy. ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him said that the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬said on the day of Al-Khandaq (Battle of the Trench i.e. Al-Ahzaab):

‫ُور ُه ْم ََو ُبيُو َت ُه ْمَأَ ْوَأَجْ َوا َف ُه ْمَََنارا‬ َّ َ‫ىَح َّتىَ َغا َبتَِال َّشمْسُ َ َمأل‬
َ ‫ََّللاَُ ُقب‬ ْ ‫صالَة‬
َ ‫َِالوُ سْ َط‬ َ َ ْ‫َح َبسُو َناَ َعن‬
They (the enemy) have held us back from offering the middle prayer (‘Asr) till the sun had set.
May Allah fill their graves, their houses (or their bodies) with fire (1).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “His statement ‫ﷺ‬: “They have held us back from the
middle prayer” means: They have prevented us from the middle prayer i.e. from praying it at its time.
Muslim reported an addition in wording as related from ‘Ali: “They kept us busy from the middle
prayer, the ‘Asr prayer” and it was added in the end: “Then he prayed it between Maghrib and
‘Ishaa’” (2).
- And in the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy, he said: “At the time of the urgent
march and Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (general call to arms), at such a time Al-Jihaad is obligatory upon everyone.
And if it is like that (i.e. such a situation), then Al-Jihaad has the priority in terms of being urged (to be
undertaken) and is prioritised over the Hajj. That is due to what Al-Jihaad contains in terms of the general
interest of the Muslims in addition to it being designated and constraining (or urgent) in this situation,
whilst the Hajj is not. And Allah knows best” (3).

Based on what we have presented, if we find in our current age ‘Ulamaa or those of an Islamic direction
who are characterised by awareness, knowledge and sincerity, being engaged and occupied in Al-Amr Bil-
Ma’roof Wa n-Nahy ‘An il-Munkar (Commanding the good and forbidding the bad), or spreading
knowledge and awareness amongst the Ummah, or in work to correct the deviated situations and striving
to resume the Islamic life and establish the Islamic society … If we find them occupied in these Islamic
activities and areas of focus, where they are unable to occupy themselves with Al-Jihaad, upon the
assumption that the ban is lifted in respect to forming armed groups to fight the enemies and undertake
Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah … I say: If we observe that occupation and engagement from those in other
than the domain of Al-Jihaad, then the explanation of that, is that being occupied in that which they are
engaged in, in terms of commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar, and striving to correct the
situation and establish the Islamic society, then all of that is prioritised over Al-Jihaad, according to the
measure of the special circumstances that the Muslims are living in this current age. Or, in the least, this
would represent the viewpoint of those ‘Ulamaa and those of an Islamic direction working within the
Islamic domain, whilst acknowledging that the determination of what must be prioritised in terms of
Islamic actions, which are competing for the same space and time, would differ according to the
difference of the evaluation of the Mujtahideen (scholars).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4533 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 8/195), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/195, (3) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh
Muslim”: 1/430].

This does not however negate the value of “Al-Jihaad” in terms of it being elevated in its value or grade
than other Islamic actions, in normal circumstances and when stripped from other considerations. But if a
particular Islamic action is exposed to a certain circumstance, it may become prioritised over Al-Jihaad
due to that particular circumstance, due a measure or evaluation (Qiyaas).

This disparity in respect to the values of matters, according to circumstances or conditions that are being
exposed to, represents a matter that happens frequently in many matters within the customs of the people
and their dealings … As an example, gold and silver is worth more in weight than bread or wheat,
however, there may be some circumstances in which the piece of bread is more in value than many times
its weight in gold and silver …!

“Al-Maqreeziy” narrates from the events of the famine that happened in Egypt in the era of what was
called the Khilafah Al-Faatimiyah (Fatimides) in the time of “Al-Mustansir” (1). That a woman, from
among the house wives, used as payment a neckless worth the value of 1000 Deenaar for the sake of
obtaining some flour foe herself. She could not find anything in the end in return for that neckless except
for a loaf of bread. And so, she went to one of the gates of the palace of “Al-Mustansir” for a matter that
she wanted to do … “Al-Maqreeziy” said the following: “… She stood upon an elevated place and raised
the loaf of bread in her hand so that the people could see and then called at the top of her voice:

O people of Cairo! Call to our master Al-Mustansir! In the days of whom Allah has brought happiness to
the people … to the point where this loaf of bread has cost me 1000 Deenaar!” (2).

Concluding statement:
The definite (Qat’iy) texts have come providing merit and preference to Al-Jihaad and the Mujaahideen in
a Mutlaq (unrestricted) form, like in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ََۚ‫َبأ َ ْم َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْم‬

ِ ‫يلَاللَّـ َِه‬
ِ ‫ونَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمنِي َنَ َغ ْيرَُأُولِيَالض ََّر ِر ََو ْالم َُجا ِه ُد‬ْ ‫ونَم َِن‬ ْ ‫َّالَ َيسْ َت ِو‬
َ ‫يَال َقاعِ ُد‬
َُ‫ض َلَاللَّـه‬َّ ‫َُالحُسْ َن ٰىَ ََۚو َف‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َد َر َجةَ ََۚو ُك ّال ََو َعدََاللَّـه‬ ْ َ‫َبأَمْ َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَال َقاعِ د‬ ِ ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫ض َلَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َُالم َُجا ِهد‬ َّ ‫َف‬
َ‫ِينَأَجْ راَعَظِ يما‬ ْ َ‫ِينَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَال َقاعِ د‬ َ ‫ْالم َُجا ِهد‬
Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the Mujaahideen, [who strive and fight] in
the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the Mujaahideen through their wealth and their lives
over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the
Mujaahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward (An-Nisaa’: 95-96).

[(1) Hafeed ul-Haakim Bi Amrillah (1036-1094) (History of the Islamic Peoples: Carl Brockelmann: 256), (2) “Ighaathat ul-
Ummah Bi Kashf il-Ghummah”, Al-Maqreeziy: 22-23].

Then, if some texts have come indicating to the preference of other than Al-Jihaad or other than the
Mujaahideen ...

The Usooliy principle states that making use of both evidences is better than utilising one of them and
neglecting the other (1), dictates that this preference given to other than Al-Jihaad is only due to a
particular circumstance, or a certain group of people or specific person be addressed …

This has been indicated to within the following that was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, related that she said to the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫َِحجٌَّ َم ْب ُرور‬
َ ‫َال ِج َهاد‬ َ ‫َلَ َُكنَّ َأَ ْف‬،َ‫لَال‬
ْ ‫ض َل‬ ََ ‫َأَ َفالََ ُن َجا ِه َُد؟َ َقا‬،‫َال ََع َم ِل‬ َ ‫ىَال ِج َهادََأَ ْف‬
ْ ‫ض َل‬ ْ ‫َن َر‬
We view Al-Jihaad to be the best action, should we not undertake Al-Jihaad? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Verily,
for you (i.e. women) the best Jihaad is the Hajj Mabroor (2).

Therefore, in this Hadeeth the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬confirmed and approved of the speech of
‘Aa’ishah: “We view Al-Jihaad to be the best action” and then he explained that the performance of Al-
Hajj, in relation to women, is better than Al-Jihaad according to the meaning of fighting in the way of
Allah.

It was stated in “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “This is supported by the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah related by An-
Nasaa’iy with the Lafzh (wording):

‫َُّوال ُعم َْرة‬ َ ‫َوال َمرْ أَة‬

َ ‫َِالحج‬ ِ ‫ِج َها ُدَال َك ِب‬
ََ ‫ير‬
The Jihaad of the elderly (i.e. weak and incapable) and of the woman, is the Hajj and the ‘Umrah
(3).

The following was also mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Concerning the Qawl: “We view Al-Jihaad to
be the best action” … it means: we believe and we know. And that is due to the great number of what is
heard in the Kitaab and the Sunnah regarding its merits. Jareer related from Suhaib as recorded by An-
Nasaa’iy, with the wording: “For verily, I do not see an action in the Qur’aan better than Al-Jihaad”. As
for the statement: “Verily, for you (i.e. women), the best Jihaad is …”, the majority have made a
Dammah go above the Kaaf (ََّ‫ )لَ ُكن‬to indicate to the address of the women … And it (i.e. the Hajj) was
named “Al-Jihaad” because of what the action involves in terms of the exertion or striving of the Nafs
(self)” (4).
As for calling the Hajj with the name of Jihaad, then Al-Bukhaariy mentioned in relation to that the
statement of ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: “Mount your saddles for the Hajj because it is one of
the two Jihaads” (5).

Ibn Hajar said: “Calling the Hajj with the name of Jihaad, is either from the angle of “Taghleeb” or from
the angle of the Haqeeqah (literal meaning) and the intended meaning of it is the Jihaad of the Nafs (self)
because of what it involves in terms of hardship or difficulty upon the body and wealth” (6).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Muhammad Abu n-Noor Zuhair: 4/200, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2784 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/4), (2) “Fat’h
ul-Baariy: 6/76. Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 5/114, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/382, (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1516 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 3/380),
(6) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/381].

I say: The meaning of Ibn Hajar’s statement “from the angle of Taghleeb” is: If we consider the Shar’iy
and ‘Urfiy (customary) meaning of Al-Jihaad which is: “Fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to raise high
the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla”, the naming of the Hajj as Jihaad here, is from the angle of making
Taghleeb with the name “Al-Jihaad” over “Al-Hajj” just like Taghleeb is made upon the name “Umar”
over “Abu Bakr” to praise them and so it is said: “Al-‘Umaraan” (the two Umars) or like Taghleeb is
undertaken with “At-Tamr” dates over “Al-Maa’u” (water) when praising them and so it is said “Al-
Aswadaan” (the two blacks) (1). (Translator note: This is a metaphorical linguistic matter and means the utilisation of a
name over another matter to carry the merit of the first over to the second).

If, however we were to consider the linguistic literal (Haqeeqah) meaning of Al-Jihaad in the sense that it
contains the meaning of the expending of effort and combatting or overcoming another matter … Then
the Hajj can be understood from the angle of the Haqeeqah (literal linguistic meaning) here. That is
because the undertaking of the Hajj includes the expending of effort to overcome the desire of the Nafs
(self). And the one performing Hajj, when he undertakes it, as Al-Qastalaaniy said: “He makes Jihaad with
himself by patience (and perseverance) over the hardship of the travel and leaving behind the comforts
and pleasures” (2).

Finally, the Shar’iyah texts that we have presented in this introduction indicate that the best of actions, in a
Mutlaq (unrestricted or absolute) form, is Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah … And a particular action, from
amongst other righteous actions, could be given preference over Al-Jihaad … in respect to some people
or some circumstances … due to a particular reason that dictates providing such a preference … That
action would then be like Al-Jihaad in respect to its merit, virtue and reward, in relation to those people or
in those circumstances.

We have not concluded the introduction concerning the merit and virtue of Al-Jihaad and its status and
standing … We will now enter the studies of this first chapter of this volume.

[(1) The following was stated in “Adab Al-Kaatib” (The literary discipline of the writer) by Abi Muhammd, Abdullah Bin
Muslim Bin Qutaibah (213-276 Hijriy): “Al-‘Umaraan” (the two ‘Umars) means Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. “Al-Aswadaan” means:
Dates and water. ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: “I saw that we were with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and we
did not have food apart from Al-Aswadaan, dates and water”. A Hijaaziy (man) said to a man hosting him as a guest: We do
not have anything apart from Al-Aswadaan. And so, he said: It is much good! He replied: It appears that you think it means
dates and water! By Allah, they are nothing but the night and black rocks: p38, (2), Al-Qastalaaniy: Sharh ul-Baukhaariy: 3/91].
 The First Study

Al-Jihaad – Its Asl (origin) is that it is Fard Kifaayah (An obligation of sufficiency)

To encompass the most important aspects of this study and what is strongly connected to it, the following
points need to be addressed:

1 - What is the Fard ul-Kifaayah (Obligation of sufficiency)?

2 - Those who have said that Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah with an explanation of the purpose of aim of this
obligation and a presentation of evidences for it.

3 - When is Al-Jihaad Fard Kifaayah? Or what are the Shuroot (conditions) in which the Jihaad is Fard
Kifaayah?

4 - What is the minimum that the Fard Kifaayah of Al-Jihaad needs to be carried out?

5 - Is the presence of a Khalifah of the Muslims a condition to undertake the Jihaad which is Fard
Kifaayah?

1 - The First Point: What is the Fard ul-Kifaayah (Obligation of sufficiency)?

Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy determined that: “The Fard and Waajib are of the same single
meaning according to the Jumhoor (majority)” (1). He then provides a definition for Al-Waajib Al-
Kifaa’iy: “Al-Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy: This is what the Shaari’ (legislator) has requested to be done from the
host (or collective) of the Mukallafeen (those charged to abide by the Shar’a) and not from every
individual himself. Therefore, if some of the Mukallafeen undertake it, then the Waajib (obligation) has
been performed and the sin has fallen from the remainder. It is called a Waajib Kifaa’iy (obligation of
sufficiency) because some of the Mukallafeen undertaking it is sufficient to reach the aim (Maqsad) of the
Shaari’ (Legislator). This is like the Al-Amr Bil Ma’roof and An-Nahy ‘An il-Munkar (Commanding the
good and forbidding the bad), returning the greeting of Salaam, Al-Jihaad, acquiring different areas of
knowledge, of production or manufacturing, and the Janaazah prayer … and other actions”.

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p235].

“And its Hukm is that it attached to all of the Mukallafeen according to the Jumhoor (majority).
Therefore, the one who is capable of undertaking it undertakes it by himself, whilst the one who is
uncappable urges or encourages others to undertake it. That is because the address (Khitaab) is directed to
every Mukallaf. An example is the Qawl of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫َطلَبُ َالع ِْل ِمَ َف ِري‬

َ‫ضةَ َعلَىَ ُكلَِّمُسْ ل ٍِم‬
Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim (1).

And the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ار ََو ْل َي ِج ُدواَفِي ُك ْمَغِ ْل َظ َة‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َيلُو َن ُكمَم َِّن‬

ِ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness (At-Taubah: 123).

If some of them undertake it, then the responsibility has been fulfilled for all and if nobody performed it,
everyone was sinful. That is because the capable did not perform it and the incapable did not urge him to
perform it. This division (or categorisation) provides an image from among the images of the solidarity
within the Muslim society … He then says: The intended meaning of Al-Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy is the
existence of the action and not the Takleef (charging with legal responsibility) of the individuals to
undertake it” (3). (Translator note: i.e. the emphasis is on the action being undertaken and not on the individuals who
undertake it. Therefore, as long as the action has been undertaken, the obligation has been fulfilled).

Ash-Shaatibiy, in his book “Al-Muwaafaqaat”, clarified how to proceed with the Furood Al-Kifaa’iyah
(obligations of sufficiency) and consequently determined that the Muslims require all fields of knowledge,
production and manufacturing, professions and beneficial actions and activities ... upon all levels. And the
burden of undertaking all of them only falls upon all of the Muslims; meaning that all of the Muslims take
part in preparing the causes (Asbaab) to undertake those obligations of sufficiency (Al-Furood Al-
Kifaa’iyah). As for those capable, from among them, to actually undertake the action, then they are those
upon whom it falls to undertake those actions. For that reason, it is obligatory upon those looking to
provide education to the young, to pay attention to their inclinations and the aspects of their superiority
(i.e. where they excel) … That is so that they direct them towards the ‘Ilm (area of knowledge) that they
are inclined towards and observe the qualities in which they can excel or be outstanding in … They
therefore direct some towards industry or manufacturing and other towards military service … in
accordance to the inclinations and the signs of what they excel in (i.e. where their strengths are) … Then
in whatever stage those stop in, within the direction they have proceeded in and been unable of
progressing any further, then they cover or meet by that an aspect of the interests that the Muslims need
to fulfil and provide, because they are from the Furood ul-Kifaayaat (obligations of sufficiency). The
following are some snippets of the precious speech of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaatibi concerning this matter: He
says: “Al-Jihaad, in the case where it is a Fard Kifaayah, its undertaking is only designated to the one who
has courage, bravery and other similar qualities that fit into the lines of the Shar’iyah. That is because it is
not valid to demand or request it to be undertaken from the one who does not start in it and does not
return (to it). That is because it would represent a Takleef (tasking or charging) of something that is not
within the capability, in respect to the Mukallaf. It also falls under pointlessness in relation to the gained
Maslahah (benefit) or Mafsadah (harm) that is sought to be repelled. And both of these are Baatil in the
view of the Shar’a …
[(1) Ibn Maajah and Ibn Abdul Barr from Anas (Meem Saad Daad 256). Al-Albaaniy said: “And know that As-Suyootiy had
collected these paths (meaning the paths of the narration of this Hadeeth) until it reached the number of 50 and as such judged
the Hadeeth to be Saheeh, Al-‘Iraaqiy also spoke about its soundness (i.e. being Saheeh) from some of the A’immah (pl. of
Imaam) and it was classified as Hasan by more than one. And Allah knows best” “Mishkaat ul-Masaabeeh Bi Tahqeeq Al-
Albaaniy”: 218, 1/76].

… However, it could be valid to say: That it is Waajib upon everyone from a metaphorical angle or
figuratively and that is because the undertaking of that Fard represents the undertaking of a general
Maslahah, as they are required to fulfil it for the whole. Some of them are capable to undertake it directly
and that is those who are capable or have the aptitude for it, whilst the remainder, if they lack the
capability, are (nevertheless) capable of establishing those who are capable … The capable is therefore
requested or required to establish the Fard and the incapable is requested or required to present and bring
forward the one who is capable. That is because the undertaking of the capable is not reached unless he is
brought and this is from the angle of “that which the Waajib is not established except with it, is Waajib”
…

Concerning the education of the children of the Muslims and directing them towards that which it is
expected for them to be creative in and which falls within the different Masaalih (interests) which are from
the obligations of sufficiency (Furood ul-Kifaa’iyah), Ash-Shaatibiy states: “If we were to suppose, for
example, that one of the boys displayed an ability to comprehend and understand well and the ability to
retain what he heard, but he was participating in something that didn’t fi those qualities, he would be
directed towards that direction. This is the obligation of the one overlooking him from the perspective of
taking in the overall picture, observing that which is hoped to be accomplished from the benefit or
interest of education, and hence such a boy would be requested to study and learn … This is how it
should be organised and arranged and so the one who has the qualities of bravery and managing matters,
he should be inclined or directed in such a direction … In that way, they are prepared by education and
training for every action and that is Fard Kifaayah … Then, where the one proceeding (i.e. in his
education, preparation or training) stops and is unable to surpass that, then he has stopped at the level
that is needed within the whole or collective, and if he has the strength to proceed further until he reaches
the utmost aims in respect to those matters which are obliged upon the collective to be fulfilled to a level
of sufficiency, and in those matters which are rarely reached, like Al-Ijtihaad in the Sharee’ah and rulership
(Imaarah). Then in that way, the affairs of the Dunyaa are put right in addition to the affair of hereafter”
(1).

The above is what Ash-Shaatibiy said in respect to the manner of how to proceed regarding the
undertaking of the Furood ul-Kifaa’iyah (obligations of sufficiency) within the (societal) life of the
Muslims. And included within those obligations is Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah.

2 - The Second Point: Those who have said that Al-Jihaad is a Fard Kifaayah
(Obligation of sufficiency).

Those who have said that Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah is a Fard Kifaayah are the Jumhoor (majority) of the
Fuqahaa’ and the following represent some of the Fiqhiy texts which establish that.

- Ibn Rushd said in his “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” when discussing the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy of the assignment
of Al-Jihaad: “As for the Hukm regarding the assignment, then the ‘Ulamaa have held a consensus upon it
being Fard ‘Alaa Al-Kifaayah (A duty upon the sufficiency) and not Fard ‘Ain (a duty upon every
individual). That is with the exception of Abdullah Bin Al-Hasan who said: It is voluntary” (2).

[(1) “Al-Muwaafaqaat”, Ash-Shaatibiy: 1/177-181, (2) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd (Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej
Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah: 6/5)].
- Concerning the Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Jihaad, the following was stated in “Tanweer ul-Absaar and its
Sharh (explanation) Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar”: “It is Fard Kifaayah … When being initiated and if they have
not initiated (i.e. fighting) against us” (1).

- And in “Al-Minhaaj” of An-Nawawiy and its explanation “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj” it was stated: “The
Kuffaar have two conditions: One of them is that they are in their lands, settled in it, and not targeting
anything from the lands of the Muslims, then (in such a case), it is Fard Kifaayah …” (2).

- In “Al-Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah” by Ibn Juzayy, in the book of Al-Jihaad itself, he stated:
“There are four Masaa’il (issues) concerning it: The first Mas’alah (issue) is concerning its Hukm. It is Fard
Kifaayah in the view of the Jumhoor (majority). Ibn ul-Musayyab said: It is Fard ‘Ain (obligation on every
individual). As-Suhnoon said: It became voluntary after Al-Fat’h (the conquest i.e. of Makkah) and Ad-
Daawudiy said: It is Fard ‘Ain upon those who are adjacent (i.e. bordering) the disbelievers” (4).

- And Ibn Qudaamah said in “Al-Mughniy”: “Al-Jihaad is from the Furood ul-Kifaayaat (obligations of
sufficiency) according to the view of the majority of the Ahl ul-‘Ilm (people of knowledge) and it has been
related that Ibn ul-Musayyib said that it was from the individual obligations (Furood Al-A’yaaan)” (5).

- Ibn Hazm said in his “Al-Muhallaa”: “Al-Jihaad is Fard upon the Muslims and if it is undertaken by
those who repel the enemy, attack them in their lands and protect the frontiers of the Muslims, its Fard
(obligation) falls from the rest of the Muslims, but if that is not being fulfilled then it (i.e. the obligation)
does not (fall from them)” (6).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy said in his “Sail ul-Jarraar”: “The Adillah (evidences) that have come concerning the
obligation of Al-Jihaad in the Kitaab and the sunnah are too numerous to be written here. However, it is
not obligatory except upon the Kifaayah (sufficiency). Therefore, if some undertake it, it falls from the
remainder. And before the some undertake it, it is Fard ‘Ainiy upon every Mukallaf” (7).

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/337, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb:
4/209, (3) “Al-Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p163, (4) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/173, (5)
“Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/364, (6) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/291, (7) “Sail ul-Jarraar Al-Mutadaffiq ‘Alaa Hadaa’iq
Al-Azhaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/515].

He then said: “As for the undertaking military expeditions against the disbelievers, fight the people of
disbelief and bring them to Islaam or to hand over the Jizyah or be killed, then this is (all) known from the
Deen by necessity (Ma’loom Min Ad-Deen Bi-d-Daroorah) … And what has been mentioned in respect
to make a Muwaada’ah (treaty) with them or leaving them be if they leave the fighting, then that has been
abrogate by the agreement of the Muslims, due to what has come making fighting them obligatory in
every situation, when the capability is present to undertake that against them, and to consolidate the war
with them and target them in their homelands” (1).

- The following came in the “Tafseer of Al-Aaloosiy”: “Concerning the Aayah:

ْ ‫ِبَ َعََل ْي ُك ُم‬

َُ ‫َال ِق َتا‬
‫ل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been prescribed upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216).

It means: Fighting the Kuffaar and it is Fard ‘Ain if they enter our lands and Fard Kifaayah if they were in
their lands” (2).

The above represent some of the Fiqhiy texts in which the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is made evident, in that
fighting the disbelievers for the purpose of inviting them to Islaam or to submit to the Islamic rule, is a
Fard Kifaayah, according to the view of the Jumhoor of the Muslim Fuqahaa’.
Concerning this Jihaad and the explanation of its end aim and objective, the following was stated in “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhu”: “If they (i.e. the Muslims) were to come together in consensus to abandon it
(i.e. to abandon Al-Jihaad), they would be participating in sin … And in such a situation, it is obligatory
upon the Imaam (i.e. leader) to examine the Muslims, because he has been appointed for that and is a
deputy of the Muslims Jamaa’ah (collective). He must not neglect the Thughoor (frontiers from which the
enemy may attack), nor abandon the Da’wah to the Deen and he must urge or incite the Muslims to
undertake Al-Jihaad … The Mushrikeen (disbelievers) should not be left without a Da’wah to Islaam or
giving the Jizyah, if that is possible to be accomplished … And if they say to the Muslims: “Make a treaty
with us upon the basis that we do not fight you and you do not fight us”. The Muslims should not do that
due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َاألَعْ لَ ْو َنَإِنَ ُكن ُتمَ َُّم ْؤ ِمن‬

َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫واَوأَن ُت ُم‬
َ ‫الَ َتحْ َز ُن‬
َ َ ‫واَو‬
َ ‫َو َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
And do not weaken and do not grieve, whilst you are superior if you are [true] believers (Aali ‘Imraan: 139).

And because Al-Jihaad is Fard and they are requesting a treaty upon the basis that you leave that
obligation. It is not permissible to respond to them positively in respect to such a treaty (Muwaada’ah),
unless they have great strength or might that the Muslims cannot cope with … That is because the true
reality of Al-Jihaad is in the Muslims safeguarding their own powers first and then defeating the
Mushrikeen and breaking their strength. If the Muslims were incapable of breaking their strength, they
must preserve their strength, by way of Al-Muwaada’ah (treaty), until the time that the capable strength
exists to break the enemy’s strength … This is from the angle (or upon the premise) of delaying what is
difficult until the time of ease …

[(1) “Sail ul-Jarraar Al-Mutadaffiq ‘Alaa Hadaa’iq Al-Azhaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/518, (2) “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 2/106].

Similarly, if they said to the Muslims: “Make a treaty (Muwaada’ah) with us, upon the basis that we give
you a certain amount of money, and you do not apply your Ahkaam (rulings) upon us” . A treaty should
not be made upon that because they are not committing to anything in terms of our Ahkaam. That is
whilst the Qitaal only comes to an end when a contract of Dhimmah is convened and what that includes
within it in terms of committing to abide by the Ahkaam of Islaam, in respect to that which relates to the
Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions and dealings) … That (i.e. the treaty) should not be convened unless
they have a great might or (military) strength. In such a situation, it is permitted to make a treaty
(Muwaada’ah) with them even without money being taken from them … for it (i.e. the treaty) to be
permissible, with money (or financial compensation) taken from them, that would be by greater reason
…” (1).

As for the evidences that the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ used to support the view that the
mentioned Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah and not Fard ‘Ain in every situation or circumstance, as some have
said, and not merely recommended (Mandoob), as others have said, then they are Adillah (evidences,
some of which establish the Hukm (legal ruling) of the Wujoob (obligation) of Al-Jihaad, in respect to it
itself, whilst some of them establish the permissibility of some not participating in the Jihaad if others
have undertaken it … And by the host of these evidences it is established that Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah;
if some have undertaken it, the sin falls of the remainder.

And from amongst those Adillah (evidences) are:

1 - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َ‫َالقِ َتا ُل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been prescribed upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216).
 Al-Qurtubiy says in his Tafseer: “The meaning of (َ‫ِب‬ َ ‫ ) ُكت‬is (َ‫ض‬
َ ‫ )فُ ِر‬i.e. been made Fard or obligatory” (2). I
say: This text indicates the obligation of Al-Jihaad in itself.

2 - And His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ََۚ‫َِبأ َ ْم َوال َِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْم‬

ِ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫ونَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫ِينَ َغ ْيرَُأُولِيَالض ََّر ِر ََو ْالم َُجا ِه ُد‬ َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ْ ‫ونَم َِن‬ ْ ‫َّالَ َيسْ َت ِو‬
َ ‫يَال َقاعِ ُد‬
َ‫َُالحُسْ َن ٰى‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َد َر َجةَ ََۚو ُك ّال ََو َعدََاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ىَال َقاعَِد‬ْ َ‫َبَأ َمْ َوال ِِه ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ِه ْمَ َعل‬
ِ ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫ض َلَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َُالم َُجا ِهد‬ َّ ‫َف‬
Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the Mujaahideen, [who strive and fight] in
the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the Mujaahideen through their wealth and their lives
over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward](An-Nisaa’: 95).

Al-Jassaas said: “If Al-Jihaad had been Fard (obligatory) upon every individual in himself then those who
stayed back from it would not be promised with good (Al-Husnaa). Rather, they would have been
reproached and deserving of punishment for leaving it” (3). And Al-Imaam At-Tabariy said: “If those who
stay behind (from Al-Jihaad) were neglecting a Fard (obligation), they would have deserved the worst and
not the best (Al-Husnaa)!” (4).

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/189-191, (2) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/38, (3) “Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/315, (4) “Jaami’u l-Bayaan Fee Tafseer il-Qur’aan”, At-Tabariy: 2/201].

I say: Consequently, it is established that the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa: “َ‫ِبَ َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَا ْلقِ َتا ُل‬
َ ‫( ” ُكت‬fighting has been
made obligatory upon you [Al-Baqarah: 216]) does not indicate the Wujoob Al-‘Ainiy (individual
obligation) in every situation or circumstance and upon every individual … It is for that reason that the
following was mentioned by Al-Quturbiy in his Tafseer of the Aayah: “َ‫ِبَ َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَا ْلقِ َتا ُل‬ َ ‫( ” ُكت‬fighting has been
made obligatory upon you [Al-Baqarah: 216]): “Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: And what the Ijmaa’ (consensus)
continued upon, was that Al-Jihaad upon the whole of the Ummah of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬is Fard Kifaayah
(obligation of sufficiency)” (1).

3 - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫ونَ ِل َينفِ ُرواَ َكا َّفةََۚ َفلَ ْو َالَ َن َف َرَمِنَ ُكلَِّفِرْ َقةٍَ ِّم ْن ُه ْمَ َطا ِئ َفةَلِّ َي َت َف َّقهُواَفَِيَال ِّد‬
َ‫ين ََولَُِين ِذ ُرواَ َق ْو َم ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ان‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِم ُن‬ َ ‫َو َماَ َك‬
ََ ‫اَر َجعُواَإِلَي ِْه ْمَلَ َعلَّ ُه ْمَ َيحْ َذر‬
‫ُون‬ َ ‫إِ َذ‬
And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group
[remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be
cautious (At-Taubah: 122).

It is said (in accordance to the language concerning the word “‫”لِ َينفِرُوا‬: Nafara, Yanfiru, Nafran and
Nafeeran (َ‫ ) َن َف َرََ َي ْنفِرََُ َن ْفراَو َنفِيرا‬and its meaning: Is to go out to fight the enemy.

And the Nafeer is the going out to meet the enemy … And the Nafeer is the name of the people who go
out to meet the enemy. And the origin of An-Nafeer is: Leaving a place to go to another place for a
reason that has motivated that (2).

Al-Qurtubiy said concerning the Tafseer of this Aayah:

“Al-Jihaad is not (obliged) upon the A’ayaan (individuals), rather it is a Fard Kifaayah as explained
previously. If everyone was to go out then those left behind of dependents would suffer. Therefore, a
group from amongst them would leave for Al-Jihaad whilst another would stay to pass the knowledge of
the Deen and protect the women. That is so that when those who left for Al-Jihaad return, they would be
taught by those who stayed behind what they had learnt in terms of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i and all that
had been revealed newly upon the Nabi ‫( ”ﷺ‬3).
4 - It was recorded in Saheeh Muslim that: Abu Sa’eed ul-Khudriy related that the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a force to Banu Lihyaan, who are from Banu Hudhail, and said: Let one man from
every two be dispatched and the reward (will be divided) between the two (4).

An-Nawawiy said in his Sharh (explanation) of this Hadeeth: “The ‘Ulamaa have agreed that Bani Lihyaan
were disbelievers at that time and so a military expedition was dispatched against them and he ‫ ﷺ‬said to
those who had been sent: Let half of the number of every tribe go out and this is what is meant by the
expression: “Let one man from every two”. As for the reward being split between them then that is
carried over if the resident is left behind from the Ghaaziy (i.e. the one who goes out) to take care of his
family or people, just as has been expressed in the remainder of the Ahaadeeth” (5).

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/38, (2) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 5/274, “Tilbat
ut-Talabah”: p165 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/37, (3) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/293, (4) Saheeh Muslims:
1896, (5) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 8/101 (‘Alaa Haamish Al-Qastalaaniy)].

It is therefore clear from not approving of all of the individuals of the tribe to go out for Al-Qitaal
(fighting) and sufficing with some of them to go out and for some of them not to, that Al-Jihaad is not
Fard ‘Ain upon every individual, but rather it is Fard Kifaayah.

5 - The following was stated in “Ar-Rawdah An-Nadiyah”: “And from among the Adillah (evidences)
indicating that it is Fard Kifaayah, is that he ‫ ﷺ‬used to undertake military expeditions himself on
occasions and on other occasions send others. He would suffice with some of the Muslims. The
companies and expeditions he dispatched were consecutive and so some of the Muslims were fighting and
others were amongst their families and had it not been for it being a Fard Kifaayah, the majority would
have gone” (1).

The above are some of the evidences which have been presented by those who say that Al-Jihaad, in other
than the circumstances in which it has been designated which will be explained later, is in origin Fard
Kifaayah; if some undertake it, the sin falls from the remainder.

3 - The Third Point: When is Al-Jihaad Fard Kifaayah? Or the conditions in which
Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah.

- We have become aware, from the previous Fiqhiy quotes, about what the Fuqahaa’ have determined, in
respect to Al-Jihaad being Fard Kifaayah in the situation of the Muslims initiating the fighting against the
disbelievers for the sake of calling them to Islaam or to submit to the Islamic rule. This refers to what has
been called offensive Jihaad (Al-Jihaad ul-Hujoomiy) which has been explained in previous topics.

From among the previous Fiqhiy quotes was the following:

“It is Fard Kifaayah … When being initiated and if they have not initiated (i.e. fighting) against us” (2).

And the following text:

“The Kuffaar have two conditions: One of them is that they are in their lands, settled in it, and not
targeting anything from the lands of the Muslims, then (in such a case), it is Fard Kifaayah …” (3).

[(1) “Ar-Rawdah An-Nadiyah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan Al-Qanoujiy: 2/478-479, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/337, (3)
“Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/209].
- The Fuqahaa’ also determined that Al-Jihaad is also Fard Kifaayah in the situation of defence and not
only in the situation when Muslims initiate the Qitaal against the disbelievers. That is if the Muslims who
are being aggressed against are capable of repelling the aggression and rise up to undertake the defence …
In such circumstances, the participation of other Muslims in the fighting alongside them would fall under
the Hukm (legal ruling) of Fard ul-Kifaayah.

Concerning this, the following was mentioned in “Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”:

“Regarding Al-Jihaad, if the Nafeer (call to go out) comes it only becomes Fard ‘Ain upon those nearest to
the enemy. As for them behind them in distance from the enemy, then it is Fard Kifaayah upon them and
they can even leave it if they were not needed” (1).

In this manner, it also becomes evident to us that Al-Jihaad is also Fard Kifaayah in the situation of
defensive Jihaad.

1 - It is stipulated, for the offensive Jihaad to be Fard Kifaayah upon the Muslims, that they are capable of
undertaking this Fard. If they were incapable, then this Fard would fall from them as there is no Takleef
(legal responsibility) except according to capability. Concerning this, the following came mentioned in
“As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “And he (i.e. the Imaam) should not leave the Mushrikeen (i.e.
disbelievers) without the Da’wah to Islaam or giving the Jizyah, if he is enabled to do that, because the
Takleef (legal responsibility) is according to the capability” (2).

2 - It is also stipulated, for the Jihaad to remain Fard Kifaayah in this situation, for the Muslims in the
Dunyaa not to be from a small number, where they would be compelled to all go out to fight is they
wanted to engage in it. In such a situation, as is clear, the Jihaad would turn into a Fard ‘Ain (i.e. upon
every individual).

In relation to this the following was mentioned in “Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”: “What we said about its
obligation in respect to initiating (i.e. the Muslims initiating the fighting against the disbelievers and not in
response to an aggression), then this cannot be Fard ‘Ain unless the Muslims were few in number, and
refuge is sought in Allah Ta’Aalaa from that, in the case where it is not possible for some of them to
undertake it. In that situation, it is obliged upon every one of them as a (Fard) ‘Ain” (3).

Based on what we has been presented, we are able to say that Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah in the situation
when it is offensive and defensive, in light of the aforementioned conditions (Shuroot) and surrounding
circumstances, and in other than the situations or circumstance in which Islaam has been designated upon
the Muslims, which will be discussed in the forthcoming study.

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/339, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/189, (3) “Haashiyah Ibn
‘Aabideen”: 3/337].

4 - The Fourth Point: What is the minimum that the Fard Kifaayah of Al-Jihaad needs to be
carried out?

The Fuqahaa’ have determined that the Jihaad which is Fard Kifaayah in other than the situation of
defence, (i.e. Al-Jihaad for the purpose of Da’wah) is fulfilled if the Muslims undertake it a minimum of
once a year. The following are statements of the Fuqahaa’ concerning this:

- It was mentioned in “Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”: “It is obligatory upon the Imaam to send Sariyah (military
expedition) to Daar ul-Harb (Land of war) every year, once or twice, and the subjects (or citizens) must
assist him … If he does not dispatch (an army), the sin is upon him and that is if he believes it most likely
that they can handle them (i.e. the enemy), otherwise it is not Mubaah (permissible) to fight them” (1).

- And in “Ash Al-Kabeer” of Ad-Dardeer he said: “Al-Jihaad … is Fard Kifaayah, and is undertaken in
the most important direction. If the directions are equal, the Imaam is given the choice every year. And
the following was stated in the “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy”: “His statement: “every year” means: That the
Imaam directs a (fighting) group every year and he pushes himself out alongside it or he sends someone in
his place whom he trusts so as to call them (the disbelievers) to Islaam, make them desire to enter it, and
then to fight them if they refuse”” (2).

- Al-Maawardiy said in his “Al-Iqnaa’”: “And the Jihaad which is Fard ul-Kifaayah is assumed by the
Imaam, as long as it has not been designated, and the least that it can be undertaken is that a year does not
come to pass except there has been a Ghazwah (battle, fighting, military expedition) in it, either led by
himself or via his military expeditions (i.e. armies that he sends out)” (3).

- And in the “Sharh Al-Kabeer” by Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy, the following was mentioned: “The least that
Al-Jihaad is undertaken every year is once” (4).

The Fuqahaa’ have mentioned evidences to support their view of the obligation of fighting the
disbelievers for the purpose of the Da’wah at least once every year or as a minimum … The author of
“Al-Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj” summarised those evidences as follows:

[(1) “Haashiyah ‘Aabideen”: 3/337, (2) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Kabeer”: 2/173, (3) “Al-Iqnaa’”: Al-
Maawardiy: p175, (4) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer ‘Alaa Matn Al-Muqni’”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/367].

“The minimum Jihaad is once in a year like the Ihyaa’ (rejuvenation) of the Ka’bah. That is due to the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫ُون ََو َالَ ُه ْمَ َي َّذ َّكر‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫َالَ َي ُتوب‬
َ ‫َث َّم‬ ِ ‫ع ٍامَمَّرَّ ةَأَ ْوَ َمرَّ َتي‬
ُ ‫ْن‬ َ ‫أَ َو َالَ َي َر ْو َنَأَ َّن ُه ْمَ ُي ْف َت ُن‬
ََ َِّ‫ونَفِيَ ُكل‬
Do they not see that they are tried (or put to trial) every year once or twice but then they do not repent nor do they remember?
(At-Taubah: 126).

Mujaahid said: It was revealed concerning Al-Jihaad and his action ‫ ﷺ‬since he was commanded with it.
And because the Jizyah is obligatory as an alternative and it is obligatory every year and therefore likewise
its alternative is (1). And because it is a Fard that is repeated and the minimum is what has been obliged to
be repeated every year like the Zakaah and the Sawm. If it is done more than once, then that is better” (2).

In addition, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy has discussed the evidences of those who hold the view
that undertaking Al-Jihaad once as a minimum in the year is obligatory. That is whilst he holds an opinion
that differs to theirs. He says the following: “And we view that Al-Jihaad is repeated in accordance to the
repetition of its cause (Saba) or its description (Wasf), and that is the presence of the ‘Udwaan
(aggression), without it being restricted to being in a year or not. And the Aayah that they have used as
evidence [i.e. Do they not see that they are tried (or put to trial) every year once or twice but then they do
not repent nor do they remember? (TMQ: At-Taubah: 126)], indicates to that. That is because the
aggression is the reason and cause for the believers being tried and put to trial or subjected to Fitnah. And
we have established in the conclusion of this study (or topic) that the stance of the Messenger in all of his
wars was a defensive stance or position. And it is not valid to compare (or make analogy) between the
Jihaad which in origin is considered to be defensive, within the foreign policy, with the Jizyah which is
merely a tax within the state. And we are supported in thus view by the form of the command [meaning in
the Aayah: Fight those who do not believe in Allah … TMQ: At-Taubah: 29] in that it does not indicate
to repetition and not to being undertaken once. Rather, the request is restricted to what it is without an
indication of repetition or that it be undertaken once (or a time), in accordance to what has been preferred
amongst the scholars of Usool [refer to: Sharh Al-Isnawiy, the Salafiyah printed edition: 2/274]. Rather,
the matter is only repeated according to the repetition of its Sabab (cause or reason) and in this case, it is
the ‘Udwaan (aggression) … He then says: And making the obligation Mutlaq (absolute) without any
restriction in respect to it being undertaken once in a year as a minimum, is the Madh’hab (i.e. adopted
opinion) of the Hanafiyah!” (3). This is what Dr. Az-Zuhailiy mentioned.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy and As-Sharh Al-Kabeer”: 10/367-368, (2) “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”: 4/209-210. Also refer to: “Al-Mughniy”,
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/387-388, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/367-368, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-
Sheeraaziy (Takmilah Al-Majmoo’: 19/266-267), “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer (Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy: 2/173-174),
(3) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy (Haamish (margin): p73-74)].

I say: We have already established in this paper (i.e. doctorate) that Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah has
another Sabab (cause) other than repelling or defending against the aggression. That is to carry Islaam to
the other lands so that they embrace Islaam or submit to its rules, even if those lands have not undertaken
any aggression against the Muslims or opposed the spread or propagation of the Da’wah, as long as they
have already rejected or refused to submit to the Islamic rule … As such: Al-Jihaad, just as it is repeated in
line with the repetition of its cause, which is aggression, as Dr. Az-Zuhailiy determined, similarly, we see
that it also repeats according to the repetition of its other Sabab (cause), which is the carrying of Islaam to
other lands, according to the manner that has been explained previously, as long as the Muslims are
capable or in a position that enables then to undertake that.

In any case, concerning the Aayah:

َ ‫ُون ََو َالَ ُه ْمَ َي َّذ َّكر‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫َالَ َي ُتوب‬
َ ‫َث َّم‬ ِ ‫ونَفِيَ ُكلَِّ َع ٍامَمَّرَّ ةَأَ ْوَ َمرَّ َتي‬
ُ ‫ْن‬ َ ‫أَ َو َالَ َي َر ْو َنَأَ َّن ُه ْمَ ُي ْف َت ُن‬
Do they not see that they are tried (or put to trial) every year once or twice but then they do not repent nor do they remember?
(At-Taubah: 126).

We, do not see it containing a strong indication indicating the obligation of fighting the disbelievers once
in a year as a minimum.

In “Tafseer Al-Jalaalaini” in relation to this Aayah the following was stated: “Do they not see” means: The
Munaafiqeen (Hypocrites). “That they are exposed to Fitnah” means: They were put on trial. “Every year or
twice” means: By drought and disease. “Then they do not repent” means: From their hypocrisy. “Nor do they
remember” means: Take heed” (1).

In addition, the Mufassireen (Scholars of Tafseer) have transmitted from the Taabi’een that they
interpreted the Fitnah befalling the Munaafiqeen in this Aayaah with the meaning of Al-Jihaad, occurring
once or twice in every year. The following came mentioned in the Tafser of Al-Qurtubiy:

“They are exposed to Fitnah: … Qataadah, Al-hasan and Mujahid said: By Al-Ghazw (fighting, battles)
and Al-Jihaad alongside the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and they saw what Allah had promised in terms of victory” (2).

In any case, the context of the Aayah, if we restrict the explanation of Al-Fitnah mentioned in it to Al-
Jihaad, indicates that Allah Ta’Aalaa is drawing attention to the wonder of the affair of those Munaafiqeen
(hypocrites). How can they persist upon hypocrisy and concealing disbelief when they experience once a
year or more than once, that in which they can verify the truthfulness of the promise of Allah to His
Messenger and the believers of victory over their enemies, and how Allah makes His promise come true in
spite the small number of the believers and large numbers of the disbelievers …? That is a matter that by
its nature should make the hypocrites return to their senses, repent from their hypocrisy and take heed
from what befalls the disbelievers at the hands of the believers, in terms of being killed and scattered ….
So, should this not call them to re-examine their stance in respect to Islaam before their affair becomes
exposed openly before all and before it is too late for them?!
[(1) “Tafseer Al-Jalaalaini”: p271, (2) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: Al-Qurtubiy: 8/299].

I say: Even according to this Tafseer, the Aayah does not contain that which indicates to the obligation of
fighting the disbelievers once or twice a year as a minimum, for the purpose of carrying the Da’wah to
them. The mention of one time in respect to that being the minimum that the hypocrites used to
undertake in terms of Al-Jihaad against the disbelievers every year, does not indicate to that which we are
addressing now. That is because the wars of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, the believers going out alongside him and the
hypocrites on occasions, to fight, that those wars were only due to defending from or repelling the
aggression. That is whilst they would occur a lot more than this number of times in line with the repetition
of the aggression against the Muslims. However, due to the small participation of the hypocrites in the
fighting that the Muslims used to undertake, they did not used to attend the realities of Jihaad within a
single year more than once or twice … Despite that, they used to witness the signs of the support of Allah
to His Deen, His Messenger and the believers, and the Mushrikeen and their Shirk being forsaken, and
what these signs contained to make them take heed … had they been open to that!

Indeed, there is nothing in this Aayah that indicates with a strong indication to the obligation of fighting
the disbelievers once a year as a minimum. Similarly, here is nothing within the wars of the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬to indicate that as well. That is because, they were, as mentioned previously, undertaken because of
defence and repelling the aggression. In addition, they also took place within a year a lot more than was
mentioned in accordance to the dictates of defence against the occurring or anticipated aggression. We
have already discussed in previous topics regarding the wars of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, as represented in all
of his Ghazawaat and Saraayaa (larger and smaller military expeditions and battles), that even if they were
in response to the aggression of the Mushrikeen, the Shar’iyah texts of the Kitaab and the Sunnah
nevertheless have indicated to the Wujoob (obligation) of fighting the disbelievers and even if they were
not aggressors. That is in the case when they have rejected to submit to the Islamic rule. That is after
having been invited to accept Islaam or to join to the Islamic State and rejecting both of these two
matters, according to the manner that has been detailed previously. However, the Shar’iyah texts did not
mention a minimum limit for the undertaking of this Waajib (obligation) within a single year, for the
purpose of ruling the other lands by Islaam through force, if those states have rejected or refused that
through consent and choice.

In addition, the Sahaabah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬who followed him continued to undertake this
obligation that the Shar’iyah texts have indicated to without any regard to a minimum or maximum limit
in this regard.

- As for deduction of the obligation of launching war against the disbelievers at least once in a year as a
minimum based upon the Jizyah which is an alternative for the Qitaal (fighting) and must be taken once in
the year and hence the same would apply to that which it has replaced, which is Al-Qitaal, which
accordingly also must take place once a year … Then, it appears that this deduction is not strong, as Dr.
Az-Zuhailiy pointed to. It may also be due to this that the author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab indicated to
another Daleel (evidence) for this issue, when he said:

“… And because its suspension for more than one year would lead the enemy to covet designs against the
Muslims” (1).

It also appears that Ibn Hajar does not see within the Daleel (evidence) of Al-Jizyah, that which provides
the Hukm of restricting the obligation of fighting the disbelievers to one time as a minimum within a year,
whilst fighting them more than that remains recommended. He viewed as stronger that fighting them is
Waajib as long as it is possible (or capability exists) without a minimum or maximum restriction being
applied to that.

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:

“The Fard Kifaayah is performed by him (i.e. the Imaam) once a year according to the Jumhoor and from
amongst their proofs is that the Jizyah is obliged in its place and that (i.e. the Jizyah) is not obligatory
more than once in a year by agreement. Its alternative should also be like that. And it is said: It is
obligatory to be undertaken whenever it is possible (and ability exists), and that is a strong view!” (2).

As for Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, then his “Al-Umm” he did not point to this Daleel (evidence) of the
Jizyah but rather based his view on the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬unrestricted or absolute undertaking of Al-Qitaal
against the Kuffaar in a continuous manner since the time that Al-Jihaad was made obligatory upon the
Muslims, even though he viewed that the obligation was restricted to being performed once within the
period of a year.

The following was stated in his “Al-Umm”:

“And the least that is obligatory upon him (i.e. the Khalifah) is that a year does not pass him by except
that a Ghazwah (military excursion or battle) has been undertaken in it, so that Al-Jihaad does not become
suspended within a year unless there is an ‘Udhr (legitimate excuse). And if he has undertaken military
action in a coming year he has done so against another land, and he does not pursue and follow on the
action against a land, and suspends the fighting against other lands of the Mushrikeen, unless the situation
of the people of the lands is different, so he would follow up the fighting against those he feared their
harm or those who wanted the Muslims to conquer their lands. Consequently, his pursuance and follow
up (or continuance) would be upon that and the suspension of another by meaning is not like other than
it. He said: I only said what I did, that there was no year, from the time that Al-Jihaad was made obligatory
upon him, in respect to him undertaking a Ghazwah or others, in which a battle or two battles or military
expeditions did not take place, or that a time came in which he did not undertake a military expedition, or
dispatch a force, whilst he was able (or in a position to) undertake them! …

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: (“Takmilah Al-Majmoo’”: 19/266), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy,
Ibn Hajar: 6/38].

… Rather he concentrated upon that, invited and manifested the proofs (Hujaj) upon those he called to”
(1). This is what Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said.

Based upon what we have presented above, the opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this
Mas’alah (issue), relating to what the Fard Al-Kifaayah of Al-Jihaad for the purpose of the Da’wah is met
or occurs by, is that the matter is left to the different circumstances related to the situation of the enemies;
their stance in respect to Islaam and the reality of their power or strength in comparison to the strength of
the Muslims, amongst other influencing factors in relation to the hope of the Muslims winning the war
and implementing or applying Islaam upon other lands.

- It is therefore possible for the conditions, required for the Fard Al-Kifaayah to exist, to not be realised
or met upon the neck of the Muslims

- This Fard could be undertaken and performed by Al-Qitaal once in the course of the year.

- Just as the responsibility and obligation upon the necks of the Muslims in respect to the undertaking of
this Fard Kifaayah may not be fulfilled unless it is undertaken a number of times within the year.

Concerning that, Ash-Shaafi’iy, after mentioning what is obligatory upon the Khalifah in terms of
organising and arranging the soldiers and the necessary fortifications upon the frontiers of the Muslims
lands, he said:
“And if he (the Imaam) has established this well amongst the Muslims (i.e. the preparation of the armies
and the fortifications that he mentioned previously), then it is Waajib (obligatory) upon him to insert the
Muslims into the lands of the Mushrikeen in the times that the Muslims will not be exposed to danger and
in which it is hoped that they will defeat the enemy. If the Muslims possess the power, strength of force, I
do not see that a year will pass by except that there will be an army or a raid taking place within the lands
of the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) which lie adjacent or neighbouring to the Muslims from every
direction, and if that is possible within the year without being exposed to danger, he should not abandon
that, as long as he is capable of undertaking that” (2).

Although this text of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy indicates to the obligation of fighting the disbelievers at
least one time as a minimum within a year and the recommendation of seeking to increase in that fighting
as much as possible or the capability exists for … we nevertheless view to be strongest, as we have already
stated, that there be no commitment to this undertaking of the fighting at least once during a year. Rather,
the matter is left to the conditions and circumstance according to the evaluation of the decision maker in
respect to that. That is because the conditions may dictate the obligation of waging war against the
disbelievers many time within a year’s period, just as the conditions or circumstances could dictate that it
is recommended to refrain from war for a number of years even if it is possible to be undertaken, or they
could even dictate the prohibition of launching into any war, other than defensively, when the Maslahah
of Islaam and the Muslims dictates that.

[(1) Kitaab “Al-Umm”, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/168, (2) “Al-Umm”: 4/168].

In respect to leaving the matter due to circumstances or conditions in relation to this Mas’alah (issue), the
author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab” said the following:

“If the need or requirement within the year called for more than one time, it is Waajib (obligatory). That is
because it is a Fard ‘Alaa Al-Kifaayah and so it is obligatory to undertake according to what the need calls
for. Then, if the need called for delaying it due to the weakness of the Muslims or a lack in respect to what
is required in terms of manpower or due to a desire for them (i.e. disbelievers) to enter Islaam, amongst
other similar excuses that permit its delay. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬delayed fighting Quraish by
making a truce (Hudnah) and he delayed fighting other tribes by other than a truce, due to what was
hoped for from the delay in terms of benefit being greater than the benefit as a result of advancing it, and
consequently its delay, making its delay Waajib (obligatory or necessary)” (1).

The above is what Ash-Sheeraaziy said in “Al-Muhadh’dhab” … And if it said: How does the Hukm of
the obligation of repeating the undertaking of Al-Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy whenever the Muslims are capable or
enabled to do that, whilst there was an outweighing interest (Maslahah) within it, reconcile with the form
of the command (Seeghat ul-Amr) in the Aayaah (Fight those who do not believe in Allah ….[At-Taubah: 29])
which does not establish (in its meaning) repetition, according to the view of the majority of the
Usooliyeen (scholars of Usool), as was indicated to by Dr. Az-Zuhailiy?

The answer: The majority (Jumhoor) of the Usooliyeen: “Are agreed that if an accepted Qareenah
(connotation or indicating linkage) is available or present, indicating to the repetition, it would be
necessary to move to that which that Qareenah has indicated to in terms of repetition” (2). Concerning
the Aayah:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْالََي َْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not make Haraam (unlawful) what Allah and His
Messenger have made Haraam and who do not adopt the Deen of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).
In this Aayah the obligation of fighting the disbelievers was determined or set upon a Sabab (cause or
reason) which is: That they (i.e. those being fought) are disbelievers who do not believe in Allah and the
Last day … And the (final) aim or objective was mentioned: “Until they give the Jizyah and they are Saaghiroon
(i.e. made to submit to the Islamic rule)”, indicating to the obligation of repeating that Qitaal (fighting) and its
continuance, until that end aim is fulfilled and accomplished. Consequently, the Aayah contains a
Qareenah (connotation) indicating that the Seeghat ul-Amr (command form) in: “Fight those who do not
believe in Allah and not in the Last Day …”, the intended meaning is repetition and continuation, if that is in
the Maslahah (i.e. interest of Islaam, its Da’wah and the Muslims), in accordance to other Shar’iyah
Adillah (evidences).

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: (Takmilah Al-Majmoo’: 19/266-267), (2) “Takhreej ul-Furoo’ ‘Alaa l-Usool”, Az-
Zanjaaniy – Commentary and revision by Muhammad Adeeb Saalih (Commentary: p75-76)].

That obligation consequently is repeated and continues as long as there remains disbelievers upon the face
of the earth who have yet to give the Jizyah whilst they are humbled (i.e. made to submit to the Islamic
rule)! (1).

We now move on to our final point in this study and that is:

5 - The Fifth Point: Is the presence of the Khalifah of the Muslims stipulated for the
undertaking of the Fard ul-Kifaa’iy of Al-Jihaad for the sake of the Da’wah?

The answer is that the texts from the Kitaab and the Sunnah have not indicated to such a condition (2).

The author of “Ar-Rawdah An-Nadiyah” stated the following concerning the Hukm of Al-Jihaad:

“This Fareedah from the Faraa’id (obligations) of the Deen was made obligatory by Allah Ta’Aalaa upon
his Muslim servants without restriction to time, place, person, justice of injustice (oppression) …” (3).

Concerning this, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani said the following:

“Al-Jihaad is a Fard Mutlaq (unrestricted obligation) and is not restricted by anything nor is it stipulated by
anything. That is because the Aayah: “Fighting has been prescribed (or made obligatory) upon you” is
Mutlaqah. Therefore, the presence of the Khalifah does not come into the matter of the obligation of Al-
Jihaad. Rather, Al-Jihaad is Fard whether there is a Khalifah for the Muslims or there isn’t one. However,
when the Muslims do have a Khalifah whose Khilafah has been contracted legally and has not left it for
any reason (or cause) from the reasons of exiting, then the matter of Al-Jihaad is delegated to the Khalifah
and his Ijtihaad, as long as he is a Khalifah and even if he was a Faajir (corrupt and sinful). The subjects
(or citizens) are obliged to obey him in respect to what he views in relation to that and even if he
commanded any one of them to undertake a military expedition alongside a Faajir Ameer. That is due to
what Abu Dawud recorded from Abu Hurairah who said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫انَأَ ْوَ َفا ِجرا‬ ٍَ ‫لََأَ َِم‬

َ ‫يرَب ّراََ َك‬ َِّ ‫عَلََْي َُك َْمَ ََم ََعَ َُك‬
ََ ََ‫ال ِجها ُد ََوا ِجب‬
Al-Jihaad is obligatory with every Ameer whether he is pious or impious (4).

[(1) Concerning the Dalaalah (indication) of the Amr (command) and when it indicates to repetition, refer to: “At-Tabsirah Fee
Usool il-Fiqh”, by Ash-Sheeraaziy, with revision and explanation by Dr. Hito: p108, “At-Tamheed Fee Takhreej il-Furoo’ ‘Alaa
ul-Usool”, Al-Isnawiy, with revision by Dr. Heetoo: p282, “Usool ul-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 1/224,
“Usool ul-Fiqh Fee Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy, Ustaadh Hasbullah: p218, “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Al-Bardeeshiy: p: 418, and “Tafseer un-
Nusoos”, Dr. Muhammad Adeeb Saalih: 2/318, (2) The Shi’ah Madh’hab stipulate the presence of the Imaam for the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad: (As-Sair ul-Jarraar”: 4/517) and refer to: “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p76, (3) “Ar-
Rawdah An-Nadiyah”, Siddeeq Bin Hasan: 2/480, (4) Sunan Abi Dawud: 3/27].
Therefore, if there is no Khalifah, Al-Jihaad is not delayed, under any circumstances, because its Maslahah
is lost by its delay” (1).

I say: This Hukm is that which came within the books of Islamic Fiqh … Ibn Qudaamah said in “Al-
Mughniy”: “And the matter (or affair) of Al-Jihaad is delegated to the Imaam and his Ijtihaad and the
subjects are obliged to obey him in respect to what he views in terms of that … He then says: And he
launches war against every people adjacent to or neighbouring them unless there are upon some (military)
fronts those who are unable to fight those adjacent to them. In which case, he (i.e. the Imaam) transfers to
them others and they proceed towards the one he has made designated, on the condition that the Muslims
are not led to destruction … And if the Imaam does not exist, then the Jihaad is not delayed because its
Maslahah (interest) is lost by its delay” (2).

Consequently, the leaders (Qaadah) of the Muslims in the Islamic lands today, if there is no Khalifah
covering all of the Muslims, it is obligatory upon them, from the host of what has been made obligatory
upon them from the matters of Islaam, to raise the banner of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah for the sake of the
Islamic Da’wah, according to the manner that has been detailed previously. If they were then to do that,
then it is obligatory upon the Muslims to fight under their banner (Raayah) for the purpose of undertaking
this obligation of sufficiency. However, what is the role of the Muslims if the leaders fell short and did not
undertake this obligation of sufficiency after all excuses have gone for them not to undertake it?

The answer to this question has already been detailed in the study: “The Qitaal Al-Ghaarah (raid/attack)
for the sake of acquiring the property of the enemy”, which is in the first volume of this paper (or
doctorate).

Dr. Faayed Hammaad Muhammad ‘Aashour addressed this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) saying:

“If the reality of Al-Jihaad and its obligations was a continuous issue, then it is not the right of the Waliy
ul-Amr (i.e. leader and ruler) of the Muslims to leave Al-Jihaad and neglect the Da’wah (call) to it. If he
did not do that, then it is obligatory upon the Muslims to urge him to undertake it and to direct blame or
censure towards him. Then, if he does not do it, then they must remove obedience from him, do away
with conformity to him and by necessity replace him with another who undertakes the Waajib (obligation)
of Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal. That is because the Maslahah of Islaam and the Muslims at large dictates or
necessitates that. This is from one of the important general issues which are connected to the life of the
Islamic Ummah and the Sharee’ah of Islaam doesn’t accept bargaining (i.e. compromise). It is obligatory
upon the Muslims to demolish every force obstructing the path of the Da’wah to Islaam and whoever
stands in the way of its conveyance to the people …

[(1) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah- Third Part”, Ash-Sheikh An-Nabhaani: p132-133, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/373-374].

He then says: The ‘Umaraa (leaders) of the Muslims did not used to leave Al-Jihaad, either due to fear of
Allah and in implementation of the Sharee’ah of Al-Jihaad, or out of fear of the revolt of the general
masses of the Muslims against them. That is because the Muslim sentiment did not allow for those who
fall short, are feeble and abandon (what is obliged upon them) to remain in the position of leadership of
the Ummah for a long time” (1).

We have now reached the end of the study of Al-Jihaad in relation to when it is Fard Kifaayah and we
now move on to a new study.

[(1) “Jihaad ul-Muslimeen Fi l-Huroob As-Saleebiyah: Al-Asr ul-Faatimiy, As-Saljooqiy and Az-Zinky” (Jihaad of the Muslims
in the crusader wars in the eras of the Fatimids, Seljuks and Zenki), Dr, Faayed Hammaad Muhammad ‘Aashour: 14-15].
 The Second Study

Al-Jihaad - When is it Fard ‘Ain (An obligation upon every individual)?

Most of what is intended in this area of study or topic is contained under a number of points and they are:

1 - What is Al-Fard ul-‘Ain or Al-Waajib ul-‘Ainiy?

2 - Presentation of the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa’ in respect to Al-Jihaad being Fard ‘Ain, in light of the
number of their opinions in relation to different considerations which establish this Hukm (ruling) within
their scope.

3 - When is Al-Jihaad Fard ‘Ain in the view of the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’? Accompanied by a
mention of the evidences (that they used).

4 - Is the presence of the Khalifah of the Muslims a condition for Al-Jihaad which is Fard ‘Ain? And how
is this Jihaad undertaken?

1 - The First Point: What is Al-Fard ul-‘Ain or Al-Waajib ul-‘Ainiy?

Dr. Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy says the following in his definition of Al-Waajib ul-‘Ainiy:

“It is what Ash-Shaari’ (the Legislator) has requested to be undertaken from every Fard (individual) from
among the individuals of the Mukallafeen (those who have been charged and made legally responsible). It
has been called a “Waajib ‘Ainiy” because the Khitaab (address) of the Shaari’ (Legislator) is directed to
every Mukallaf to take. It is therefore necessary for it to be undertaken or performed by all of the
Mukallafeen, like the Salaah, Zakaah, Hajj, loyalty and avoiding Khamr (alcohol) and gambling”.

“And its Hukm (legal ruling) is that every Mukallaf is obliged with it and that his Dhimmah (legal
responsibility) be engaged with it until he has performed it himself. If he has undertaken it, he has Ajr and
Thawaab (reward) and if he left or did not undertake it, then he is sinful and punishment is due upon
him”.

“And the Shaari’ (Legislator) intends two matters from this Waajib (Obligation): The undertaking of the
Waajib from one angle and the commitment of every individual, in himself, from another angle”. And Dr.
Az-Zuhailiy comments upon this last paragraph in the commentary of his book stating: “The Waajib Al-
‘Ainiy could be demanded or requested from one single individually specifically and that is in the
circumstances where the Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy turns into a Waajib ‘Ainiy. That could be like the situation
where there is only one doctor within a land, or one swimmer who comes across someone drowning, or
one ‘Aalim (knowledgeable person) who is suitable or capable of being a judge and fulfils its conditions.
That is because, in respect to each of these mentioned in these examples, it is obligatory upon him
specifically to undertake the act and this is a Waajib ‘Ainiy upon him” (1).

I say: From this definition it becomes evident to us that the Fard ul-‘Ain or the Waajib Al-‘Ainiy does not
necessary apply to all of the Mukallafeen i.e. each and every individual. That is because it is possible in
some circumstances for it to apply to one single individual or most of the Mukallafeen, and it would be,
by that, Fard ‘Ain upon those and not others. That was demonstrated in the example of the doctor,
swimmer, and ‘Aalim according to the circumstances explained in the speech above. In addition, there will
be further examples of this within this study related to that which is connected to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad.

2 - The Second Point: Presentation of the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa’ in respect to Al-
Jihaad being Fard ‘Ain, in light of the number of their opinions in relation to
different considerations which establish this Hukm (ruling) within their scope.

First, we will present the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa in respect to Al-Jihaad being Fard ‘Ain and in which
context it takes this Hukm.

We will then present some of the texts of the ‘Ulamaa from which we have extracted those opinions.

Firstly: The opinions of the ‘Ulamaa:

1 - Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon the Muhaajireen alone in the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, either absolutely
(Mutlaq) or in the case or circumstance of the offensive Qitaal, meaning the Qitaal of the Muslims
initiated against the disbelievers for the sake of the Da’wah.

2 - Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon the Ansaar alone in the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, either absolutely (Mutlaq)
or in the case of defence to repel the aggression against Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah.
3 - Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon all of the Muslims in the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in the Ghazwah
(military expedition) that he went out himself in, alone and not in the other Ghazawaat and Saraayaa (large
and smaller military expeditions).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p256].

4 - The Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon the Sahaabah specifically and not upon the other Muslims and
without any distinction between the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar or between the offensive and defensive
Qitaal (fighting).

5 - Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon whom the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬specified or designated to go out to fight
from the Muslims, whether the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬went out himself for that fighting or not.

6 - Al-Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain in every time upon every Mukallaf from the people of a land which the enemy
attacks and upon those who are nearest to them if they are incapable of repelling the aggression.

7 - Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain in every time and every place in respect to those whom the Imaam has
designated to go out to fight.

8 - Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain upon every Muslim in every time and place. And this statement upon its
unrestricted form (Mutlaq) covers the defensive just as it covers and includes the offensive Qitaal for the
sake of carrying the Da’wah.

9 - Al-Jihaad is only Fard ‘Ain upon the people of the lands which are adjacent or neighbouring to the
lands of the disbelievers alone.

10 - Al-Jihaad could be Fard ‘Ain in the case of offensive Qitaal. That is if the Muslims in the Dunyaa are
few in number in the case where they are unable to undertake the Jihaad which is Fard Kifaayah unless
they all go out to undertake it.

Secondly: Quotes from the texts of the ‘Ulamaa from which we extracted these opinions:

- “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The people have two situations or circumstances in respect to Al-Jihaad: The first
was in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the other was after him …”

“As for the first: … Al-Maawardiy said: It was Fard upon the Muhaajireen and not upon other than them.
He supports his opinion by the obligation of making the Hijrah to Al-Madinah prior to the Fat’h (i.e.
conquest of Makkah) in respect to everyone who had become Muslim, so as to support Islaam. As-Suhaily
said: It was ‘Ain (individual obligation) upon the Ansaar and not upon other than them. He supports this
view by their Bai’ah to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬on the night of Al-‘Aqabah to provide refuge to the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and support him (i.e. materially). It is extracted from these two opinions (i.e. of Al-Mawaardiy
and As-Suhailiy) that it was (Fard) ‘Ain upon the two groups and (Fard) Kifaayah (duty) of sufficiency in
respect to the others. Despite that, the duty (‘Ain) is not in respect to the two groups in a general manner,
but rather it is in respect to the Ansaar if Al-Madinah is aggressed against and in respect to the
Muhaajireen if it was desired to initiate the fighting against the disbelievers …

This is supported by what happened in what has been reported about the (battle of) Badr as mentioned by
Ibn Ishaaq (1) as it is appears explicitly in that. And it has been said: It is ‘Ain (i.e. Fard) upon the one
whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬designated it for him and even if he ‫ ﷺ‬didn’t go out (i.e. join the army)”.
“The second circumstance: After the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. According to the Mash’hoor (well-known and
widespread opinion) it was Fard Kifaayah unless the need called to its undertaking like if the enemy
attacked and it is designated upon the one whom the Imaam has designated” (2).

- In relation to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َاألَعْ َرابَِأَنَ َي َت َخلَّفُواَ َعنَرَّ س‬

َ‫ُولَاللَّـ ِه‬ ْ ‫َح ْو َلهُمَم َِّن‬ ْ ‫ان َِألَهْ ِل‬
َ ‫َال َمدِي َنة‬
َ ْ‫َِو َمن‬ َ ‫َماَ َك‬
It was not [proper] for the people of Madinah and those surrounding them of the Bedouins that they remain behind after [the
departure of] the Messenger of Allah … (At-Taubah: 120).

The statement of Qataadah was cited: “This was Khaass (specific) with the Nabi ‫ ;ﷺ‬if he went out to
fight himself, then none can stay behind unless it is by an ‘Udhr (legitimate excuse). As for other than him
(i.e. the Nabi ‫)ﷺ‬, in terms of the A’immah (i.e. Khulafaa’) or Wulaah (governors and rulers), then
whoever wishes to stay behind from the Muslims if the people did not have a Haajah (need) or Daroorah
(necessity), he can” (3).

- Concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ْ‫ىَاألَر‬
َ‫ض‬ َّ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ْ َ‫َِاثا َقَْل ُت ْمَإِل‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َماَلَ ُك ْمَإِ َذاَقِي َلَلَ ُك ُمَانفِرُواَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah, you adhere
heavily to the earth? (At-Taubah: 38).

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said: “And it has been mentioned in its Ta’weel (interpretation or explanation) …
That this was in relation to the Ghazwah (military expedition) of Tabook which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬designated
or assigned the people to take part in. The Nafeer (i.e. going out) alongside the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
was Fard upon those he called to go out and it is like:

ِ ‫َاألَعْ َرابَِأَنَ َي َت َخلَّفُواَ َعنَرَّ س‬

َ‫ُولَاللَّـ ِه‬ ْ ‫َح ْو َلهُمَم َِّن‬ ْ ‫ان َِألَهَْ ِل‬
َ ‫َال َمدِي َنة‬
َ ْ‫َِو َمن‬ َ ‫َماَ َك‬
It was not [proper] for the people of Madinah and those surrounding them of the Bedouins that they remain behind after [the
departure of] the Messenger of Allah … (At-Taubah: 120).

They said: And the Nafeer (i.e. going out for war) is not like that with other than him ‫( ”ﷺ‬4).

- The following came mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “Sa’eed Ibn ul-Musayyab said: The Jihaad
is Fard ‘Ain upon every Muslim in himself always. That is what Al-Maawardiy said” (5).

[(1) The following statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬is being referred to: “Give me counsel O people, and he meant the Ansaar, due
to his fear that the Ansaar do not see the duty of offering him Nusrah (material support) except to those who attack him from
the enemy, and not a duty upon them if he marches with them to the enemy in the enemy’s lands” (Seerah Ibn Hishaam: Ar-
Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/33), (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/37 and refer to “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/198, (3) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”,
Al-Qurtubiy: 8/292, (4) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/310, (5) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/38 and
Tafseer At-Tabariy: 2/201].

- And it was mentioned in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: “And Ad-Daawudiy said: It is Fard
‘Ain upon those who are adjacent to or bordering the disbelievers” (1).

- In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer he stated: “And the Jihaad is designated by the enemy
suddenly attacking a people … and it is designated upon those who are closest to them if they (i.e. those
who came under attack) were incapable of repelling the enemy from themselves) (2).
- In “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”, the following was stated: “Our speech is about its being an obligation in
respect to initiating it, and this cannot be Fard ‘Ain unless the Muslims are few in number, refuge is
sought in Allah Ta’Aalaa from that, where it is not possible for some of them to undertake it. At such a
time, it is obligatory upon everyone individually (i.e. Fard ‘Ain)” (3).

Thereafter, these then represent some of the texts indicating to the opinions of those who say that Al-
Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain in accordance to the different considerations in which Al-Jihaad takes this ruling
(Hukm).

We now move on to the following point to see the opinions that have been outweighed as stronger by the
Jumhoor (majority) of the ‘Ulamaa in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

3 - The Third Point: When is Al-Jihaad Fard ‘Ain in the view of the Jumhoor
(majority) of the ‘Ulamaa’? Accompanied by a mention of the evidences (that they
used).

We have learnt from the previous point, from the presentation of the statements concerning this issue,
that the speech revolves around to parts:

The first part: The Hukm of Al-Jihaad in the era or time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.
The second part: The Hukm of Al-Jihaad in the time following the era of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

The view outweighed to be stronger amongst the verifiers (Muhaqqiqeen) of the Fuqahaa’ is that the
Hukm of Al-Jihaad is one and the same in the era of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and it the time that followed including
all eras until the Day of Judgement.

[(1) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p163, (2) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/174,
“Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/341 and “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/219, (3) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/337].

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “Our companions (i.e. Fuqahaa’) said: Al-Jihaad today is Fard Kifaayah
unless the Kuffaar (disbelievers) descend upon (i.e. attack) a land of the Muslims, in which case Al-Jihaad
is designated for them. And if the people of that land did not possess the sufficiency, it is obligatory upon
those (Muslims) who are closest (or neighbouring) them to complete the Kifaayah (sufficiency). As for
(the Hukm) in the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, then the most correct view held by our companions, is that it
was also Fard Kifaayah. And the second (view): Is that it was Fard ‘Ain whilst those who state that it was
Fard Kifaayah used as evidence that the military expeditions used to be undertaken in which some took
party and others did not participate” (1).

I say: It is clear that what is intended in respect to the Jihaad being Fard Kifaayah in the time of the Nabi
‫ﷺ‬, according to the stronger opinion, is that it refers to that which other than the situation or case of
defence. As for the situation where the disbelievers attacked the Muslims in the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬,
then the Jihaad for the sake of defence in such a case would have become Fard ‘Ain upon them as well,
just as it is the same Hukm in respect to the Muslims after the time or era of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

Concerning this matter, the following was stated in “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”: “Al-Jihaad, in his era ‫ﷺ‬,
could be Fard ‘Ain, in the situation where the enemy has surrounded the Muslims, just like when the
disbelieving Ahzaab (confederates or hosts) gathered together around Al-Madinah. This dictates the
designation of Al-Jihaad individually upon the Muslims to fight them” (2).
As such, the stronger opinion is that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is one and the same in the era of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬and in the consecutive eras that followed until the Day of Judgement, applying equally in respect to
the situations of it being Fard ‘Ain or Fard Kifaayah.

Based upon that, we now come to mentioning the situations in which Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain, regardless of
the time in which the Hukm was established or affirmed, because it is a Hukm that covers all ages and
times.

Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain in the following circumstances or situations:

1 - If the enemy occupies a land from the lands of the Muslims, or mobilises its armies to occupy it, or
undertakes an attack against it, or if it wants to bring harm upon or assault its people or a group or
individuals from among them, in terms of making them captive, killing, terrifying them or something of
this nature. The following are some of the texts of the ‘Ulamaa which indicate to what we have guided to:

[(1) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 8/63-64 (Printed upon the “Haamish Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Alaa al-Bukhaariy), (2)
“Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy: 4/209. Also refer to “Al-Ikhtiyaaraat ‘Al-‘Ilmiyah”, Ibn Taymiyah” printed with
“Fatawaa of Ibn Taymiyah”: 4/609].

- Al-Qurtubiy said: “There could be a situation or circumstance in which the call to arms or to go out to
fight (Nafeer) is made to all … That is if the Jihaad has been designated (i.e. upon all individuals) due to
the enemy gaining dominance over a region from among the regions or by the enemy’s occupation of the
land. If that is the case (or happens), then it became obligatory upon all of the people of that land to go
out to meet the enemy, whether light or heavy (1), young or old, everyone according to his ability, upon
the one who has a father without his permission and the one who has no father, no one stays behind who
is capable of going out from the Muqaatil (fighter) and the Mukath’thir (2). Then, if the people of that
town or land are incapable of standing against their enemy, the obligation falls upon those (Muslims) who
are close to them and neighbour them, to go out according to what the people of that town or land
require, until it becomes known that they have the capability to stand against them (the enemy) and
defend against them or drive them away. Similarly, anyone who becomes aware of their weakness in the
face of their enemy and knows that he can reach them and can provide them with help and relief, he must
also go out to them … And if the enemy gets close to Daar ul-Islaam and has not yet entered it, they must
also go out to meet the enemy until the Deen of Allah prevails, its land is protected, its territory is
safeguarded and preserved, and the enemy is disgraced (i.e. defeated). And there is no Khilaaf
(disagreement or difference in opinion) concerning this” (3).

- The following came stated in “Mukhtasar Al-Khiraqiy”: “And it is a Waajib upon the people, if the
enemy comes, to go out to meet them, the Muqill of them and the Mukthir …”.

Ibn Qudaamah said: “His statement: “Al-Muqill of them and the Mukthir, means, and Allah knows best:
The rich and the poor … And its (overall) meaning is therefore: That the ‘Nafeer’ (going out to fight)
covers all of the people from those who are from the people of fighting (Ahl ul-Qitaal) when the need for
them to go out to fight arises due to the coming of the enemy to them. And it is not permitted for anyone
to stay behind apart from the one that is needed to stay behind to safeguard the place, people (i.e. women,
children and elderly etc…) and those whom the Ameer has prevented from going out, or the one who has
no capability to go out and fight. That is due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫اَو ِث َقاال‬
َ ‫انفِرُواَ ِخ َفاف‬
Go forth, whether light or heavy … (At-Taubah: 41).

And the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

 ‫َوإِ َذاَاسْ ُت ْنفِرْ ُت ْمَ َفا ْنفِ ُروا‬
And if you are called to go forth, go forth (4).

[(1) This is referring to Aayah 41 of Soorah At-Taubah. Al-Qurtubiy said: “The correct understanding of the Aayah is: That the
people are commanded as a whole i.e. go forth, whether the movement I light or heavy upon you”, “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-
Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/150, (2) This was expressed in the statement of Sa’eed Bin ul-Musayyib when he went out to fight:
“If I was not able to engage in warfare, I would still increase its number and look after the properties”, “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-
Qur’aan”: 10/151, (3) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/151-152. Refer also to “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/170, “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”,
Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/98 and “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/174-175, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2825 and Saheeh Muslim:
1353].

In addition, Allah Ta’Aalaa has reproached those who wanted to return to their homes on the day of Al-
Ahzaab when He Ta’Aalaa said:

‫ونَإِ َّالَف َِرارا‬

َ ‫َب َع ْو َر ٍةََۖإِنَي ُِري ُد‬ َ ُ‫َو َيسْ َتأْذِنُ َ َف ِريقَ ِّم ْن ُه ُمَال َّن ِبيَّ َ َي ُقول‬
َ ‫ونَإِنَّ َ ُبيُو َت َناَ َع ْو َرة ََو َماَه‬
ِ ‫ِي‬
And a party of them asked permission of the Prophet, saying, "Indeed, our houses are unprotected," while they were not
exposed. They did not intend except to flee (Al-Ahzaab: 13) … (1).

It is worth noting that the aim of the Waajib Al-‘Ainiy in respect to this Mas’alah of ours is focused upon
preventing the enemy from occupying the Muslim lands or aggressing against them and their people.
However, if it was assumed that this aim could be fulfilled and realised in a better way through a war plan
that dictates allowing the enemy to breach the Muslim lands or for it to place its troops inside them, whilst
considering that to place the Muslims in a stronger position to eliminate the enemy, then there is no
problem in such a situation to implement a plan like this. Concerning this, when discussing the Ahkaam
and Fiqh taken from the battle of “Uhud”, Ibn ul-Qayyim stated the following:

“It is not obligatory upon the Muslims if the enemy come to them in their homelands to go out to meet
them (in battle). Rather, it is permitted for them to remain in their homes and to fight them there if that
provided them with greater support or opportunity of victory against their enemy. That is like what the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬proposed on the day of Uhud” (2).

The above discussion represents the first situation from amongst the situations or cases in which Al-
Jihaad would be Fard ‘Ain. In light of what has been presented, the Fard ‘Ain here is specific to the people
of the land that is being aggressed against. Then, if they were not sufficient to repel the enemy or fell short
in undertaking the obligation, those who are closest to them and then the next closest of them would be
designated with this obligation until the enemy is repelled or dealt with, and that continues even if it went
on to cover all of the Muslims in the East and the West (3).

Ibn Taymiyah said: “If the enemy enters the lands of Islaam, then there is no doubt that it is obligatory to
repel it, upon the closest and then the closest, in the case where the lands of Islaam are all considered to
be one land” (4).

[(1)

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said:

“It is known within the belief of all the Muslims, that if the people of the Thughoor (Plural of Thughr and
it means the location where it is feared that the enemy could attack the Islamic lands from i.e. frontiers
and borders of the state) fear from the enemy and they don’t possess the capability to resist, and
consequently fear for their lands, lives and children, then it is Fard upon all of the Ummah to go forth
towards them to repel the aggression from the Muslims. And there is no Khilaaf (disagreement or
difference of opinion) in respect to this amongst the Ummah” (1).
2 - The second situation in which Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain:

If the Khalifah, the one possessing the legitimate legal (Shar’iy) authority, issues his command in respect
to a group from the army or from the people or from individuals, to go out to fight, which is known as
“Al-Istid’aa” (i.e. being called up for service) or “Al-Istinfaar” (being summoned to go out to fight i.e. An-
Nafeer) (2), then it is obligatory upon those whom he has issued his command upon, through designation
by description or by name (3), to join the fighters and it is Haraam for them to stay behind. However, this
matter has some detail attached to it:

A - The call up or summons could be issued from the person who holds the mandatory powers or
jurisdiction, for the sake of defending the occupied Islamic lands from the enemy or those falling under
threat … Also, the command could be directed to them, for them to come out to fight, from the
inhabitants of the occupied lands or those threatened or under the danger of being occupied or being
aggressed against and attacked. Consequently, here the Fard ul-‘Ainiy to fight could come from two
angles: From the angle that they are from the people of the land that is being aggressed upon, as was
mentioned in respect to the first situation, or it could be based upon the obligation of obeying the Imaam
from another angle.

B - The “Istinfaar” (summons to go forth to fight) could also be for the sake of defending the Islamic
lands however the command to go out to them was not issued by the people of those lands which were
under threat or being aggressed against. Rather, it was due to the inhabitants of those lands falling short or
not undertaking the defence of their lands and as a result sin was attached to them due to not undertaking
the obligation that was individually upon their necks (Waajib Al-‘Ainiy), or because they did arise to
defend the lands but were insufficient to repel the enemy or restore all of the occupied lands. Here, in
such a case, the basis of the Fard ul-‘Ainiy upon those who are sought to go forth to fight, is also
established from two angles, like the previous scenario. These are:

- The angle of them being from those upon whom it is obligatory to defend the lands due to their
closeness to the lands that are being aggressed against.
- The obligation of obeying the Imaam from the other angle.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/312, (2) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/142, (3) “The Fuqahaa’
view that the Waajib ul-Kifaayah becomes ‘Ain by the designation of the Imaam in respect to Al-Jihaad” (From the comments
of the supervisor over the PHD)].

C - The “Istinfaar” (call to go forth) could be for the sake of defence, like in the previous case, however
the people of the threatened or attacked land are capable of opposing the enemy and save or rescue the
land, whilst the call to go out to fight was based upon the motive of solidarity with other Muslims. In this
situation, the undertaking of this solidarity fighting is not from the category of the Waajib Al-‘Ainiy in
origin upon those who are not threatened or being attacked, as long as those whom the threat and attack
is being directed against are capable by themselves of opposing the aggression. However, in spite of that,
it is obligatory upon those who have been summoned and called to participate in the defence to respond
to and answer the call. The fighting in respect to them would also then be Fard ‘Ain and that would stem
from the obligation to obey the Imaam alone.

D - The summons to go forth to fight could be for the purpose of undertaking a military expedition
(Ghazwah), for the purpose of offensive fighting which means the invasion of the lands of the
disbelievers as a result of their rejection or refusal to respond positively to the Islamic Da’wah or submit
to the Islamic system, following the conveyance of the invitation and the presentation of the three well-
known options to them. That fighting is undertaken for the aim of applying the Islamic system upon them
by force in the case where they have rejected to submit to it by consent and choice. In such a situation, it
is obligatory upon those who have been requested to go forth to fight to answer the call of the summons
to do that and this obligation is based upon the undertaking of the Fard ul-Kifaayah, as was discussed
previously, and the undertaking of this Fard could become ‘Ain upon the one whom the Imaam has
designated to undertake it, based upon the obligation of obedience to the Imaam, in respect to that.

We will now present some of the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) and some texts of the Fuqahaa’ which
indicate to the Jihaad being Fard ‘Ain upon the one whom the Imaam has designated to undertake it.

- Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

ِ ْ‫ىَاألَر‬
َ‫ض‬ َّ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ْ َ‫َِاثا َق ْل ُت ْمَإِل‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َماَلَ ُك َْمَإِ َذاَقِي َلَلَ ُك ُمَانفِرُواَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling
heavily to the earth? (At-Taubah: 38).

- Then, in the following Aayah, He ‘Azza Wa Jalla says:

‫إِ َّالَ َتنفِ ُرواَ ُي َع ِّذ ْب ُك ْمَ َع َذاباَأَلِيما‬

If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment (At-Taubah: 39).

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said concerning this: “The Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of the Aayah dictates the
obligation of the Nafeer (going forth to fight) upon the one who has been called or summoned to go
forth” (1).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/309].

- The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said as related by Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both:

‫َوإِ َذاَاسْ ُت ْنفِرْ ُت ْمَ َفا ْنفِرُوا‬، ْ ‫الََهِجْ َر َةَ َبعْ د‬

َ ‫ََال َف ْت ِح ََولَكِنْ َ ِج َهاد ََو ِنيَّة‬
There is no emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are called or
summoned for fighting, then go forth to fight (1).

Concerning this Hadeeth, the following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “It (i.e. the Hadeeth) contains
in it, the obligation of the designation of going out in the Ghazwah (military expedition) upon the one
who has been designated by the Imaam (to do that)” (2).

The following was stated in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas, also concerning this Hadeeth:

“The command to go out (An-Nafeer) when being summoned to (Al-Istinfaar) is in accordance to the
Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ْ‫ىَاألَر‬
َ‫ض‬ َّ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
ْ َ‫َِاثا َق ْل ُت ْمَإِل‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَ َماَلَ ُك ْمَإِ َذاَقِي َلَلَ ُك ُمَانفِرُواَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling
heavily to the ground? (At-Taubah: 38).

And it is carried upon what we mentioned in terms of the Istinfaar (summons to go out) due to the
Haajah (need) for them. That is because the people of the Thughoor (frontiers prone to attack), when
they have found sufficiency by themselves and were not in need of others and they had not yet
summoned others to go out. However, if the Imaam had summoned them to go out with the existence of
a sufficiency of those who are confronting the enemy from among the people of the Thughoor and the
Muslim armies, because he (the Imaam) wants to engage militarily in a Ghazwah against the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war), and enter their lands, then (in such a case), it is obligatory upon those who are summoned
to answer it and to go out” (3).

- Al-Qurtubiy stated in his “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”:

“Al-Istid’aa and Al-Istinfaar are unlikely to make something obligatory that wasn’t obligatory before
except that the Imaam, when he designates a people (or group) and entrusts or charges them to go for Al-
Jihaad, they are not permitted to cling heavily to the ground after being designated. By this designation by
the Imaam it becomes Fard upon the one who has been designated; not because of the place of Al-Jihaad
but rather due to obedience to the Imaam, and Allah knows best” (5).

- And Ash-Shawkaaniy said:

“It is obligatory upon the one whom the Imaam summons to go out to fight to go forth to fight and that
is designated for him (i.e. upon his individual neck) …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2825. Saheeh Muslim: 1353, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/39, (3) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/311,
“Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/142].

… It is for that reason that Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa threatened or promised punishment for those
who do not go out to fight alongside the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ‫َاألَعْ َرابَِأَنَ َي َت َخلَّفُواَ َعنَرََّس‬

َ‫ُولَاللَّـ ِه‬ ْ ‫َح ْو َلهُمَم َِّن‬ ْ ‫ان َِألَهْ ِل‬
َ ‫َال َمدِي َنة‬
َ ْ‫َِو َمن‬ َ ‫َماَ َك‬
It was not [proper] for the people of Madinah and those surrounding them of the Bedouins that they remain behind after [the
departure of] the Messenger of Allah … (At-Taubah: 120).

And the following Aayah applies in respect to the Istinfaar (summons to fight) made by the Imaam:

َ‫اَو ِث َقاال‬
َ ‫انفِرُواَ ِخ َفاف‬
Go forth, whether light or heavy … (At-Taubah: 41)” (1).

With that, we have reached the end of the discussion about the second situation or case from amongst the
cases of the Jihaad being Fard ‘Ain … We now move on to address the third case.

3 - The third case: From the cases in which the Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain

If the fighters attend the battle it is not permitted for them to leave or retreat from it until the war has laid
down its burdens (i.e. reached a conclusion) or those in authority decide to stop it according to what the
Maslahah (interest) has dictated. However, who is intended by the fighters in this situation?

- Naturally, those who are defending their land against the aggression or the threat of aggression are not
intended by them. That is because that Qitaal in respect to those defenders is Fard ‘Ain upon them in
origin as was discussed previously in the first case or situation. We have also mentioned that the defence
of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah in the battle of Al-Khandaq (The Trench) was a Waajib ‘Ainiy (individual
obligation) upon all capable Muslims, even though the attacking disbelievers were many times greater in
number than the Muslims.

- Similarly, those from the army, commanders or subjects whom the Imaam has summoned to go out and
fight are not intended here. That is because the Qitaal in respect to those who have been summoned by
the Imaam has also become Fard ‘Ain upon them due to the obligation of obedience to the Imaam.
Therefore, who are those who are meant by the fighters in this case that we are dealing with? The reality is
that this case applies to two groups or categories of fighters:

- The first group: Those who have volunteered to fight and who were not summoned by the Imaam
whilst they are not from the army that has been charged to fight and the fighting has not been designated
or specified upon them for the sake of defending their lands.

If those volunteers go out to fight, it is permitted for them to retreat from it as long as they have not
attended the battle but if they have attended, then the Qitaal becomes Fard ‘Ain upon them …

[(1) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/515].

Similar to this is the reality of someone going out to fight voluntarily, who has two parents, without their
permission. In such a case, it is Haraam for him to go out because obedience to the two parents is Fard
‘Ain upon him and the Fard ‘Ain comes before the voluntary Jihaad. However, if the son violates that and
goes out for Al-Qitaal (fighting), and the battle commences, it is then Haraam upon him, after having
attended and been present, to then leave it. Concerning that and what is similar Ibn Qudaamah said the
following:

“And if he (i.e. the Muslim) goes out for Jihaad voluntarily, with their (i.e. the parents) permission, but
they then forbid him after he has set off and before his arrival (to the battle), then he must return … But
if he is present in the Saff (ranks) it is designated upon him to attend and the right of permission no
longer remains with them (i.e. parents)” (1). This and what is similar to this represents the first group of
those upon whom the fighting is designated upon him (as Fard ‘Ain) if he is present in the battle and
joined the ranks (of fighters) and begun then attack.

- The second group: These are the fighters who are undertaking the Fard Kifaayah in the attack against
the enemies for the sake of the Islamic Da’wah, for example. Those fighters are permitted to refrain from
launching the attack against the enemies before the commencement of the fighting according to the
Maslahah that the Ameer of the fighting views in respect to that. However, if the Qitaal started and they
had joined the ranks for battle, it becomes Fard ‘Ain upon those fighters to continue in the Qitaal
according to the Ahkaam which make remaining firm and steadfast obligatory and which prohibit fleeing”
(2).

The Hikmah (wisdom) behind the Jihaad becoming Fard ‘Ain upon every individual who is present and
attending the battle and the prohibition of leaving it, is that the departure of some of the fighters from the
fighting, at the time of battle and the clashes of war, between the Muslims and their enemies, represents a
betrayal and letting down of the Muslims fighting, as it weakens their side, spreads chaos, unrest, and
alarm amongst their ranks, just as it makes the disbelievers bolder against them and tips the scales of
power towards the interests of the enemies. Here, the Shar’a has come commanding “Thabaat”
(steadfastness) at the time of meeting (in battle) and prohibited fleeing or flight and turning ones back at
the time of battle.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/383, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/169/171 and “Mughniy al-Muhtaaj: 4/218].

Ibn Qudaamah said: “If two armies meet and the two ranks (i.e. rows of armies) are facing each other, it is
Haraam (prohibited) to leave and staying out is designated (i.e. Fard ‘Ain) due to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫واَو ْاذ ُكرُواَاللَّـ َهَ َكثِيراَلَّ َعلَّ ُك ْمَ ُت ْفلِح‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَإِ َذاَلَقِيَُت ْمَفِ َئةَ َف ْاث ُب ُت‬
َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, when you encounter a company [from the enemy forces], stand firm and remember Allah much that
you may be successful (Al-Anfaal: 45).
And due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َاألَ ْد َب‬
َ‫ار‬ ْ ‫ُواَزحْ فاَ َف َالَ ُت َولُّو ُه ُم‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَإِ َذاَلَقِي ُت ُمَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَ َك َفر‬
O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in
flight] (Al-Anfaal: 15)” (1).

And concerning the matter of remaining firm, steadfastness and perseverance when meeting the enemy,
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ َّ‫واَواعْ لَمُواَأَن‬
َ ْ‫َال َج َّن َةَ َتح‬
َ‫ت‬ َ ‫َ َفإِ َذاَلَقِي ُتمُو ُه ْمَ َفاصْ ِب ُر‬،‫واََّللاَ ْال َعافِ َي َة‬ ْ ‫أَ ُّي َهاَال َّناسُ َالََ َت َم َّن ْواَلِ َقا َء‬
َ َّ ُ‫َال َع ُدوِّ ََو َسل‬
َِ‫ظِ الَ ِلَال ُّسيُوف‬
O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but if you meet the enemy,
patiently persevere and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords (2).

The following came mentioned in the Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: “The forbiddance to
hope to meet the enemy was only due to what it contains in terms of be pleased and reliant upon the Nafs
(i.e. oneself) … And because it includes a lack of concern for the enemy and having contempt for it …
And that is contrary to prudence, precaution and judiciousness or taking due care … He then said: As for
his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “But if (or when) you meet the enemy, patiently persevere”, then this represents
urging patient perseverance in the fighting and this represents the most important or certain of its pillars”
(3).

The above is then what is to be said in respect to the third situation or case in which the Qitaal becomes
Fard ‘Ain upon those undertaking it.

And by that we have concluded the third point of this current study and now move on to the fourth.

4 - The fourth point: Is the presence of the Khalifah of the Muslims a condition for
the undertaking of Al-Jihaad which is Fard ‘Ain? And how is this Jihaad
undertaken?

The answer, as was discussed in the previous study, is that the presence or existence of the Khalifah is not
a condition in respect to the undertaking of Al-Jihaad which is Fard Kifaayah and consequently, by greater
reason (Min Baab Awlaa), it is not a condition (Shart) for undertaking Al-Jihaad which is Fard ‘Ain.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/365-366, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3025 and Saheeh Muslim: 1742, (3) “Sharh An-
Nawawiy ‘Alaa Muslim”: 7/321. Also refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/157. I say: It is possible to add to that in respect to the
reasoning (‘Illah) of the forbiddance of the wishing to meet the enemy, that the primary wish of the Muslim is for the
disbelievers to be guided to Islaam or for them to submit to the rule of the Muslims, whilst considering that to be a means to
make them aware of Islaam and for them to be guided to it, and that Allah does not make fighting necessary for the believers
… That is whilst their primary wish is not to fight the disbelievers out of a love of fighting. However, if the disbelievers refuse
or reject the mentioned path of peace and refuse to submit to the command of Allah or if they aggress against the sanctities of
the Muslims, then it becomes necessary to do that which is necessary. Then if the confrontation takes place and the meeting
happens, then the Muslims must persevere and be steadfast and know that Jannah (paradise) lies beneath the shades of the
swords!].

- As for how this Jihaad is to be undertaken (in the absence of the Khalifah of the Muslims), then the
matter returns to the Ameer of the Qitaal (fighting) who has been appointed by the high authority or the
one who has been agreed upon by the fighters, in the absence of the appointed or assigned Ameer
(leader). If neither this or that are viable options and the enemy undertakes a surprise attack or the Qitaal
becomes designated (i.e. as Fard ‘Ain), then it becomes obligatory to repel the enemy in any way that is
possible.

It was mentioned in “Al-Mughniy”: “If the enemy comes the Jihaad becomes Fard ‘Ain and is therefore
obligatory upon everyone. As such, it is not permissible for anyone to stay back from it. If that (matter) is
established, then they do not leave except with the permission of the Imaam and that is because the
matter or affair of war is delegated to him and he is more aware of the large number of the enemy or their
small number (or their strengths and weakness), what the enemy possesses hidden strengths and plots. It
is therefore necessary to return to his opinion because he is the most aware of the Muslims. That is unless
his permission is not possible to be attained due to being surprised by their enemy, in which case seeking
his permission is not obligatory. That is because the Maslahah is specified in respect to fighting them and
going out to fight them due to the Fasaad (corruption) that comes from leaving them. For that reason,
when the disbelievers attacked the camels of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and then Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ came across
them leaving from Al-Madinah, he pursued and fought them without first seeking permission. The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬then praised him and said: “The best of our foot soldiers is Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’” (1).

This is what is to be said in respect to the fourth point and through its conclusion we have reach the end
of this study of: When is Al-Qitaal (the fighting) Fard ‘Ain? And we now move on to the next area of
study.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/389-390 and also refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1807].

The Third Study

Al-Jihaad - Is the origin in respect to it, that it is Mandoob (recommended)? And

can it be Mandoob?

The important aspects which we will address in this study are summarised in the following points:

1 - What is Al-Mandoob (recommendation)?

2 - The thought that states that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is one of Nadb (recommendation) and not
Wujoob (obligation)?

A - Who are those who have expressed this thought from among the classical Fuqahaa’? What are their
Adillah (evidences)? A discussion of those evidences and directing the opinion stating that Al-Jihaad is
Mandoob in accordance to what agrees with the opinion of the Jumhoor in respect to the Hukm of Al-
Jihaad being Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy (obligation of sufficiency).
B - The attack (or offensive fighting) only is the area in which the Hukm of Al-Jihaad has been affirmed
to be Mandoob (recommended) and not Fard (obligatory) amongst those who have stated that.

C - What does the opinion that offensive Jihaad is Mandoob according to those who have said that mean
in terms of consequences?

3 - The modern or recent Islamic writers who have said that Al-Jihaad is defensive in Islaam only:

A - What is the true reality of the thought that they are calling to?

B - A comparison between the thought of some of the classical Fuqahaa’ concerning the Hukm of Al-
Jihaad being Nadb (recommendation) and the modern thought that Al-Jihaad is defensive only and is not
offensive.

4 - Is Al-Jihaad or Al-Qitaal against the enemies recommended (Mandoob) sometimes according to those
who are not of the view that the origin in respect to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is Nadb (recommendation)
and not Wujoob (obligation)?

These are the points that our discussion will revolve around in this study.

1 - The First Point: What is Al-Mandoob (the recommended act)?

After Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy defined the “Mandoob” and explained that definition, he
provided us with the following summary, which is sufficient for us here, in respect to understanding what
is meant by the “Mandoob” act. He says: “Al-Mandoob: It is the action of the Mukallaf that the Shaari’
(legislator) has requested (or demanded), by way of a Talab Ghair Jaazim (non-decisive request) and not
Hatmiy (decisive)”. He then explains the Hukm of the Mandoob saying: “The Hukm of the Mandoob: …
It is that the one who undertakes it is deserving of Thawaab and Ajr (reward) from Allah Ta’Aalaa whilst
the one who does not do it is not deserving of ‘Iqaab (punishment)”.

Al-Mandoob also has other names that the ‘Ulamaa have utilised for it. Dr. Az-Zuhailiy says: “The
‘Ulamaa have given or used other names for the Mandoob: Like the Sunnah, Naafilah, Al-Muragh’ghab
Feehi, Al-Mustahabb and Al-Ihsaan. Ibn As-Subkiy said: Al-Mandoob, Al-Mustahabb and As-Sunnah are
synonyms” (1). I say: And some of the ‘Ulamaa have also provided it with the names of “Al-Adab” and
“Al-Fadeelah”.

The following was stated in “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “There is no difference between the Mustahabb,
Mandoob and Al-Adab” (2). And the following was mentioned within it concerning the reasoning for the
naming of the Mandoob with “Al-Fadeelah”: “And Al-Fadeelah: Because undertaking it surpasses leaving
it and so its meaning is “Faadil” (exceeding or surplus). Or it is because the one who undertakes it
becomes someone who possesses the Fadeelah (merit) by the reward (Thawaab)” (3).

This then is the Mandoob, its Hukm (ruling) and its naming. After that we have concluded the first point
of the study and now come to the second.

2 - The Second Point: The thought that states that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is one of
Nadb (recommendation) and not Wujoob (obligation)?

A - Who are those who have expressed this thought from among the classical Fuqahaa’?
- What are their Adillah (evidences)? A discussion of those evidences.

- Directing the opinion stating that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob in accordance to what agrees with the opinion
of the Jumhoor in respect to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad being Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy (obligation of sufficiency).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p265-266, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 1/128, (3) “Haashiyah
Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 1/876].

B - The attack (or offensive fighting) only is the area in which the Hukm of Al-Jihaad has been affirmed
to be Mandoob (recommended) and not Fard (obligatory) amongst those who have stated that.

C - What the opinion that offensive Jihaad is Mandoob and not Fard, according to those who hold it,
dictates?

A - Who are those who have expressed this thought from among the classical Fuqahaa’?

In the following, I will present some of the Fiqhiy texts indicating to this opinion and to those who have
stated it.

- In “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah” the following was stated: “And Suhnoon said: It (i.e. Al-
Jihaad) has become “Tatawwu’an” (voluntary) after Al-Fat’h (i.e. conquest of Makkah)” (1).

- In “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh il-Kabeer” it was mentioned: “And it has been transmitted
from Ibn Abd il-Barr (that he said): That it is Fard Kifaayah in the presence of fear and Naafilah (i.e.
recommended) in the presence of security” (2).

- And in “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” Ibn Rushd said: “As for the Hukm of the “Wazheefah” (i.e. the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad), then the ‘Ulamaa have held a consensus (Ijmaa’) upon it being Fard ‘Alaa l-
Kifaayah and nit Fard ‘Ain, apart from “Abdullah Ibn ul-Hasan” as he said that it is “Tatawwu’”
(voluntary)” (3).

- In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “Al-Mahdawiy and others mentioned from Ath-Thawriy that he said: Al-
Jihaad is Tatawwu’ (voluntary)” (4).

- And in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: “And a Jamaa’ah (group) from the Fuqahaa’ said: That
Jihaad, after the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah, is not Fard unless the Imaam summons someone from them
to go out for it (Al-Istinfaar). It was said by Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy and Suhnoon was inclined to it and it
was believed by a people linked to Ibn ‘Umar, when they saw him frequent the Hajj and leaving the Jihaad
…” (5).

- In “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” of Al-Jassaas: “It has been related from Ibn Shubrumah, Ath-Thawriy and
amongst others, that Al-Jihaad is voluntary (Tatawwu’) and not Fard … and similar to that has been
related from or about Ibn ‘Umar …

[(1) “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaami sh-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: 164, (2) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa Ash--Sharh il-Kabeer”, Ad-
Dardeer: 2/173, (3) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd (Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah, Al-Ghumaariy: 6/5),
(4) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/38, (5) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/103].

… Even though there is disagreement about the Sihhah (soundness) of the narration from him (i.e.
Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar) … and similar to the view has also been related from ‘Ataa and ‘Amr Bin Deenaar”
(1).
- It was also mentioned in it: “It is related that Ibn Juraij said: I said to ‘Ataa: Is the Ghazw (i.e. fighting)
Waajib (obligatory) upon the people? He and ‘Amr Bin Deenaar said: We have not known that (i.e. to be
the case)!” (1).

In summary from what we have quoted, that those to whom the opinion of the Hukm of Al-Jihaad being
recommendation and not obligation is attributed include: Ibn ‘Umar (May Allah be pleased with them
both), ‘Ataa, Amr Bin Deenaar, Ibn Shubrumah, Ath-Thawriy and from the Maalikiyah: Suhnoon and Ibn
‘Abd il-Barr.

Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel also attributed this view to “Al-Jaahizh” and “Az-Zamakhshariy” in addition to most of
the Fuqahaa’ of the current age … He said the following: “And it has been related from Ibn Shubrumah,
Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy and others, that Al-Jihaad is Tatawwu’ (voluntary) and not Fard (obligatory) … And
Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy had supporters (in this view) from the past including Al-Jaahizh and
Az-Zamakhshariy … And most of the Fuqahaa’ of the current age adopt the opinion of Ath-Thawriy and
Ibn Shubrumah” (2). This then, is what Dr. ‘Aarif said concerning those who held this view stating that
the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is Nadb (recommendation) and not Wujoob (obligation).

My view, is that the opinion of those, in respect to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad, differs from the opinion that
Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy (actually) say and the explanation of that will come in the discussion of
the third point of this current study area. Now, what are the Adillah (evidences) relied upon by the
proponents of the view that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is recommendation and not obligation?

The answer: The evidences that they have relied upo to support this opinion are of two kinds:

- From them are those which indicate with a clear Dalaalah (indication) to the opinion that we are
addressing.

- And from them, there are those which are not clear in their Dalaalah (indicated meaning). Rather, it only
represents speech and conduct that came from some of the Salaf (predecessors), from which some of
them understood: That is supports the direction or position stating that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is Nadb
and not Wujoob.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/311 and refer to “Takmilah Al-Majmoo’ Sharh Al-Muhadh’dhab”: 19/268-269, (2)
“’Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Fee Dawlat il-Khilaafah”, Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel Abu ‘Eid: p110].

Despite that, we will present these evidences without distinguishing between them. We will explain the
angle of their Dalaalah (indicated meaning) indicating to recommendation in respect to the Hukm of Al-
Jihaad and we will discuss these evidences.

1 - Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan said: “Ath-Thawriy said: Al-Qitaal with the Mushrikeen
(disbelievers) is not Fard unless they initiate it. At such a time, it is obligatory to fight them to repel. That
is due to the Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of His Qawl:

َ‫َفإِنَ َقا َتلُو ُك ْمَ َفا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬

But if they fight you, kill them (Al-Baqarah: 191).

And His Qawl:

َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّفة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight the Mushrikeen collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36) (1).
I say: This Fiqhiy text and what it contains in terms of deduction, indicates that Ath-Thawriy has limited
the obligation of fighting the disbelievers to the case of defence alone. The meaning of this is that the
Muslims initiating the Qitaal against the disbelievers, in other than the case of defence, after they have
rejected or refused the invitation (Da’wah) and have been provided the choice between entering Islaam,
accepting the Jizyah or war, that this Qitaal is not Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) in respect to the two Aayah
that he mentioned.

In the case where Al-Imaam Ath-Thawriy states the legal legitimacy of this Qitaal, albeit according to the
ruling of recommendation and not obligation, as was stated in the previously presented Fiqhiy texts, then
it seems that he has made the Shar’iyah texts which command fighting the disbelievers function absolutely
or without restriction (Mutlaq), without stipulating that they be aggressors … And he made them function
within the sphere or scope of the Nadb (recommendation) alone and not the Wujoob (obligation) … In
any case, the Fiqhiy text, that we have before us, is restricted to the negation of the Fardiyah of Al-Jihaad
in other than the case or situation of defence.

That is whilst we have already discussed the opinion that restricts Al-Jihaad to the case of defence alone in
previous studies and that this Hukm (ruling) was only in the first stage of the legislation of Al-Jihaad in Al-
Madinah Al-Munawwarah. Then, after that, the legislation of Al-Jihaad against all of the disbelievers was
added to that and even if no act of aggression against Islaam and the Muslims had been undertaken by
them, following the conveyance of the Da’wah to them and their refusal to accept Islaam or the Jizyah …
And that following that nothing remains before apart from war … And that this is undertaken in
accordance to what the Islamic Maslahah (interest) dictates. In the previous studies we also presented the
evidences of the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) related to the aggression of the disbelievers against the
Muslims not being stipulated as a condition for the obligation of fighting them, if the Muslims are capable
and in a position to undertake that and the preponderant Maslahah dictated that …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/187].

From among those Adillah (evidences) is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َي ِدَي ُن‬

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not make Haraam (unlawful) what Allah and His
Messenger have made Haraam and who do not adopt the Deen of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

And the meaning of “Saaghiroon” (َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫صا ِغر‬

َ )َmeans: That they have submitted to the Ahkaam (rulings) of
Islaam i.e. to live under its rule (1).

We have also quoted in the previous studies from Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas about the Ijmaa’ (consensus) of
the Fuqahaa’ over the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of fighting the disbelievers in other than the case or
situation of defence. That was when he stated: “We do not know any of the Fuqahaa’ who have
prohibited fighting those who have kept away from fighting us from the Mushrikeen (disbelievers).
Rather, the only point of difference is in respect to the permissibility of not fighting them and not in
respect to its prohibition. And an agreement has taken place from all upon the abrogation of the
prohibition of fighting those who of the description we have mentioned, and Allah is the one who
reconciles to what is correct” (2).

This is what is said in response to the first Daleel (evidence) which has been transmitted from Al-Imaam
Ath-Thawriy to support his opinion … That is, even if it did not indicate to his specific opinion in respect
to Al-Jihaad being Mandoob and its Dalaalah (indicated meaning) was only restricted to the negation of
the Fardiyah (obligation) of the non-defensive Qitaal, it was nevertheless necessary for this Daleel
(evidence) to be responded to. That is because negating the obligation of Al-Jihaad is also from what has
been indicated by the opinion that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob only. It was therefore necessary, to respond to
(or refute) the statement negating the obligation from Al-Jihaad.

- Another Daleel transmitted by those who have said that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob is what came mentioned
in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas. He stated the following: “It has been related from Ibn Shubrumah,
Ath-Thawriy and others, that Al-Jihaad is Tatawwu’ (voluntary) and not Fard (obligatory). Concerning the
Aayah:

ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َُ ‫َالقِ َتا‬
‫ل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been enjoined upon you (Al-Baqarah: 217).

They said that it does not indicate to the obligation but rather recommendation (An-Nadb) like the Qawl
of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ َ ِ‫َب ْال َمعْ ُروف‬

َ‫َۖحقّاَ َعلَى‬ َ ‫ْن ََو ْاألَ ْق َر ِب‬
ِ ‫ين‬ ِ ‫اَال َوصِ َّي ُةَل ِْل َوالِ َدي‬
ْ ‫َخيْر‬ َ ‫ك‬ ْ ‫ض َرَأَ َح َد ُك ُم‬
ُ ‫َال َم ْو‬
َ ‫تَإِنَ َت َر‬ َ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ْمَإِ َذ‬
ََ ‫اَح‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
ََ ‫ْال ُم َّتق‬
‫ِين‬
Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [is that he should make] a bequest for the
parents and near relatives according to what is acceptable - a duty upon the righteous (Al-Baqarah: 180).

َ ‫َ” ُكت‬in:
This means that the word “َ‫ِب‬
ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َُ ‫َالقِ َتا‬
‫ل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been enjoined upon you (Al-Baqarah: 217).

َ ‫( ”فُ ِر‬Furida i.e. been made Fard/obligatory). Rather, its meaning is “An-Nadb”
Does not mean “َ‫ض‬
(recommendation) just as the word “َ‫ِب‬ َ ‫( ” ُكت‬Kutiba) in the Qawl of Allah:

ْ ‫ض َرَأَ َح َد ُك ُم‬
ُ ‫َال َم ْو‬
َ‫ت‬ َ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ْمَإِ َذ‬
َ ‫اَح‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you (Al-Baqarah: 180).

َ ‫(َ” ُند‬Nudiba i.e. been made recommended/Mandoob) and it does not mean “Furida” (made
Means: “َ‫ِب‬
obligatory). That is because the Hukm of the Wasiyyah (will) is Nadb, Istihbaab (recommendation) and
not Wujoob (3).

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/176. The following came stated in “Al-Umm”: “Ash-Shaafi’iy said: We heard a number of the
people of knowledge saying: As-Saghaar means to apply the Hukm (ruling) of Islaam upon them”, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”,
Al-Jassaas: 3/191, (3) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/311].

We will discuss this Daleel (evidence) as follows:

The meaning of the word “Kutiba” (written) in origin means “Furida” (made obligatory) just like in the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِّ ‫ِبَ َع َلَْي ُك ُمَال‬

َ‫ص َيا ُم‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fasting has been made obligatory upon you (Al-Baqarah: 183).

i.e. it means that the fasting has been “Furida” (made obligatory/Fard) upon you … Al-Jassaas also said:
“The Hukm (ruling) of the Lafzh (wording) (i.e. of Kutiba) is obligation unless the Dalaalah (indication)
has come to indicate An-Nadb (recommendation) whilst no Dalaalah (indication) has been established in
respect to Al-Jihaad to indicate that it is Nadb (recommendation)” (1). In addition, the Wasiyyah (will) to
be provided to the parents and near relatives had been obligatory (Waajib) if the one who passed away left
Khair (i.e. “Maal” wealth or property) behind him. That was before the legislation of the Mawaareeth
(rules of inheritance) and the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ِ ‫َح َّقهَُ َفالَ ََوصِ َّي َةَل َِو‬

ٍَ ‫ار‬
‫ث‬ َ ‫ََّللاَ َق ْدَأَعْ َطىَ ُكلََّذ‬
َ ‫ِيَح ٍّق‬ َ َّ َّ‫إِن‬
Verily, Allah has provided (or allotted) everyone possessing a right, his right, and so there is no
Wasiyyah (will) for the one who inherits (2).

Consequently, the word “Kutiba” in the Aayah of Al-Wasiyyah” (will) indicates to the meaning of
“Furida” (made obligatory) according to its original meaning. Then this obligation was abrogated in the
manner that has been mentioned. As for the Istihbaab (recommendation) of the Wasiyyah (will) for other
than those who inherit, then that is due to other Adillah (evidences) like the statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas,
may Allah be pleased with them both: “

َ‫ثَ َكثِيرَأَ ْوَ َك ِبير‬ ُّ ‫َو‬،

ُ ُ‫الثل‬ َ ‫ث‬ ُّ ََ‫ل‬
ُ ُ‫الثل‬ َ َّ‫َألَن‬،‫لَ ْوَ َغضَّ َال َّناسُ َإِلَىَالرُّ ب ِْع‬
ِ َّ ‫َرسُو َل‬
ََ ‫ََّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َقا‬
If the people were to reduce (their bequests) to one-quarter (of their wealth, that would be
better), because the Messenger of Allah said: “One-third, and one-third is a lot or much” (3).
i.e. It is recommended (Mustahabb) to allocate from the will an amount which is less than a third of the
(overall) property or wealth (Maal) and here Ibn ‘Abbaas indicated to the preference or recommendation
of giving a fourth as the Wasiyyah.

Conclusion: That “Kutiba” (َ‫ِب‬َ ‫ ) ُكت‬in the Aayah of the Wasiyyah (will) does not indicate to the meaning of
“Nudiba” (made recommended). Even if it was said that the Aayah had not been abrogated and was
understood according to the meaning that: It has been recommended for you to give a will to the parents
who are not from those who inherit like disbelievers for example and non-inheriting relatives, then the
meaning of “An-Nadb” (recommendation) and “Al-Istihbaab” (recommendation) upon this meaning
would not exist here based upon “Kutiba” indicating merely to recommendation (An-Nadb and Istihbaab)
according to the language and the Shar’a. That is because it actually indicates to obligation and being
necessary. It is only taken here, with the meaning of recommendation due to the Qareenah (indication) of
other evidences which have indicated that the Wasiyyah to those who don’t inherit is recommended.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/313, (2) Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 2/263 and he said: “It was
related by Abu Umaamah and recorded by At-Tirmidhiy. And he said: This Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh”. Al-Albaaniy said:
“Saheeh (Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy, Hadeeth: 1721, 2/218), (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2743 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/369)].

Therefore, in respect to the Aayah:

ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َ‫َالقِ َتا ُل‬ َ ‫َُكت‬
Fighting has been enjoined upon you (Al-Baqarah: 217).

Then as long as no Qareenah (connotation or linking indication), has come, as found in other evidences,
that takes it away and diverts it from its meaning of “Wujoob” (obligation) to the meaning of “An-Nadb”
and “Al-Istihbaab” (recommendation), then the meaning of the Aayah remains upon its original meaning
i.e. That Al-Qitaal (fighting) has been made Fard (obligatory) upon you.

3 - The third evidence that has been transmitted from those to whom the opinion of Al-Jihaad being
recommended (Mandoob) has been attributed, is what came from Maymoon Bin Mahraaan who said: “I
was with Ibn ‘Umar and then a man came to ‘Abdullah Bin ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas asking him about the
Faraa’id (obligations). Ibn ‘Umar was sitting where he could hear the speech and (Abdullah) said: “Al-
Faraa’id (obligations) are the Shahaadah (to bear) witness that there is no Ilaaha (deity) other than Allah,
that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish the Salaah, give the Zakaah, make Hajj of the Bait
(House i.e. Al-Ka’bah), fasting Ramadhaan and Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah)!”. It was
then as if Ibn ‘Umar became angry about that! He (Ibn ‘Umar) then said: “Al-Faraa’id (obligations) are the
Shahaadah (to bear) witness that there is no Ilaaha (deity) other than Allah, that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah, to establish the Salaah, give the Zakaah, make Hajj of the Bait (House i.e. Al-Ka’bah)
and fasting Ramadhaan”. He (the narrator) said: And he left out Al-Jihaad” (1). Al-Jassaas mentioned this
text in relation to what has been attributed to Ibn ‘Umar in respect to denying the Fardiyah (obligation) of
Al-Jihaad.

- He also presented, connected to this context, the Hadeeth related from Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased
with them both, who said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َّ ‫َوإِي َتا ِء‬،ِ

َ،ِ‫َالز َكاة‬ َ ‫صالََة‬
َّ ‫َوإِ َق ِامَال‬،
َ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ََّللاُ ََوأَنَّ َم َُحمَّد‬
ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬ َّ َّ‫سَ َش َها َدةَِأَنْ َالََإِلَ َهَإِال‬ َ َ‫َاإلسْ الَ ُمَ َعل‬
ٍ ْ‫ىَخم‬ ِ ‫ُبن َِي‬
ََ ‫ض‬
‫ان‬ َ ‫ص ْو ِم‬
َ ‫َر َم‬ ََ ‫َو ْال َحج‬
َ ‫َو‬،ِّ
Islaam is built upon five: The Shahaadah (testimony) that there is no Ilaaha except for Allah, that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishment of the Salaah, giving the Zakaah, the Hajj
and the Sawm (fasting) of Ramadhaan (2).

- Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said in respect to what those who say that Al-Jihaad is not Fard can possibly use as
evidence or proof from this Hadeeth: “And so he mentioned these five and he did not mention Al-Jihaad,
and so that indicates that it is not Fard” (3).

- Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas continued and also quoted what indicates to that Ibn ‘Umar, the relator of this
Hadeeth, did not see that Al-Jihaad was obligatory. So, he related that: A man came to Ibn ‘Umar and
said: “O Abu Abdur Rahman, are you not going out for Al-Ghazwah (i.e. to fight Jihaad)?” He then
replied: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying: Islaam has been built upon five” (3).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/311, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 8 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/49). And refer to the indication to
this Hadeeth in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/314, (3) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/314].

- Ibn ul-‘Arabiy also mentioned the reason that made some of them believe that Ibn ‘Umar did not view
Al-Jihaad to be Fard. He said: “A group from the Fuqahaa’ said: Al-Jihaad after the Fat’h (conquest) of
Makkah is not Fard unless the Imaam summons (Istinfaar) someone from amongst them (i.e. the
Muslims) to go out to undertake it. The group believed that when they saw Ibn ‘Umar regularly going to
Al-Hajj and not participating in Al-Jihaad” (1). I say: Even though these texts that we have mentioned in
relation to this third Daleel (evidence) do not indicate explicitly to the view or opinion that Al-Jihaad is
Mandoob in the view of Ibn ’Umar as it has been said, it is nevertheless necessary to discuss this Daleel
(evidence) because it is connected to the view that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob (recommended) whilst negating
that it is Fard (obligatory). We will discuss this Daleel as follows:

Firstly: The Hadeeth stating that “Islaam is built upon five” is only addressing the Furood Al-‘Ainiyah
(obligations upon the neck of each Muslim individually) and does not address the Furood Al-Kifaa’iyah
(obligations of sufficiency). As such, it did not mention Al-Jihaad amongst them because it is not a Fard
‘Ainiy, which is the Asl (origin), rather it is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah. Consequently, other Furood ul-
Kifaa’iyah were not mentioned within this Hadeeth. Al-Jassaas said: “Do you not see that Al-Amr Bil
Ma’roof and An-Nahy ‘An il-Munkar … and learning the Deen, washing the dead, shrouding them and
burying them, that all of these are Furood (obligations) that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not mention within that
which Islaam is built upon? His not mentioning them did not take them out or exclude them from being
Fard. That is because he ‫ ﷺ‬only intended to make clear the mention of the obligations that are
necessary for the person in respect to himself specifically to be undertaken at arranged or set times and
where other than the person can be deputised to undertake them on his behalf. And (similarly) Al-Jihaad
is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah upon the definition that we have explained. And for that reason, he did not
mention it” (2).

Secondly: Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, has related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that which
indicates to the obligation of Al-Jihaad. That is the Hadeeth:

ُ ‫ََّللاَُ َع َل ْي ُك ْم‬
َُ‫َذالَّالََ َي ْن ِز ُعه‬ ََّ ‫َال ِج َهادََ َسلَّ َط‬
ْ ‫الزرْ ع ََو َت َر ْك ُت ُم‬
ِ َّ ‫َب‬
ْ ‫اب‬
ِ ‫َال َب َق ِر ََو َرضِ ي ُت ْم‬ َ ‫َِوأَ َخ ْذ ُت ْمَأَ ْذ َن‬
َ ‫َب ْالعِي َنة‬
ِ ‫إِ َذاَ َت َبا َيعْ ُت ْم‬
‫َح َّتىَ َترْ ِج ُع َواَإِلَىَدِي ِن ُك َْم‬
If you enter into the ‘Ienah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and
abandon Al-Jihaad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you and
will not remove it until you return back to you Deen (3).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/103, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/314-315, (3) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”,
Al-Jassaas: 4/315. The Hadeeth is in the Musnad of Ahmad: 2/84, Sunan of Abu Dawud: 3462 (3/373). In the margins (i.e.
commentary) of the Sunan of Abu Dawud it stated: “Al-‘Ienah with ‘Kasrah’ is “As-Salaf” and it means selling something from
other than him with a delayed price (payment) and delivers to the buyer [i.e. the item that he has sold] and then he buys it
before taking possession of the cost whilst the cost is less than what he sold it for and he pays him the cost”].

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said: “This Lafzh (wording) has dictated the obligation of Al-Jihaad due to it
informing that Allah will enter disgrace upon them, via the mention of a punishment upon the leaving of
Al-Jihaad. That is whilst the punishments are not deserved except for leaving the Waajibaat. This indicates
that the Madh’hab (i.e. opinion) of Ibn ‘Umar in respect to Al-Jihaad is that it is a Fard Kifaayah. And that
the narration that has been narrated from it in respect to negating the Fard of Al-Jihaad is only from the
angle of what we mentioned in terms of it not being designated in every situation and every time” (1).
Concerning this, we have already quoted the narration that points to Ibn ‘Umar’s negation of the Fard of
Al-Jihaad within the previous texts. The correct understanding of it as indicated to by Al-Imaam Al-
Jassaas is that Ibn ‘Umar’s denial in respect to it was only from the angle of including Al-Jihaad within the
host of obligations obliged upon the individual (Al-Furood ul-‘Ainiyah) because, in reality, it is not a Fard
‘Ain like the Salaah and Sawm (fasting) according to the original Hukm in respect to it. Rather, it is Fard
‘Alaa l-Kifaayah and should not be included with the Furood ‘Ainiyah (individually prescribed obligations)
which are mentioned in the Hadeeth exclusively.

Thirdly: As for responding to the deduction of the opinion that Al-Jihaad isn’t Fard based upon Ibn
‘Umar leaving the undertaking of Al-Jihaad whilst constantly undertaking the Hajj, then Ibn ul-‘Arabiy
said:

“Ibn ‘Umar’s, may Allah be pleased with them both, frequent or constant undertaking of the Hajj is
because he believed the Haqq (what was right) and that is that Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah and if
some of the Muslims undertake it, its duty falls from the remainder. It is also possible for the view to be
that he did not undertake Al-Jihaad alongside the Wulaah (governors) of tyranny or injustice. However,
the first view is most correct because in his time there were those who were just and unjust and yet
despite that, throughout the whole period, he preferred the Hajj and undertook it constantly” (2).

These then are the Adillah (evidences) which have been related by those to whom the opinion that Al-
Jihaad is Mandoob and not Fard has been attributed to. That is whether it includes those Adillah which
have indicated to Al-Jihaad being Mandoob or the Adillah which only negate that Al-Jihaad is Fard and
hence lead to the opinion that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob. We have now discussed those evidences or
presented the discussion of the ‘Ulamaa concerning them, which has removed the indicated meaning for
what they have been brought to indicate to (i.e. the use of these evidences to support their opinion has
been refuted).
The question that arises now is: In the case where the result of the above discussion of the evidences has
concluded that they do not indicate to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad merely being Mandoob and Mustahabb
(recommended) and likewise do not indicate to the negation of it being Fard, then this leads us to doubt
that those who brought these evidences have even really said that Al-Jihaad is merely voluntary
(Tatawwu’) and not Fard. As such, how do we reconcile the opinion that has been related from them in
respect to Al-Jihaad being voluntary with the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority) who state that it is Fard
ul-Kifaayah?

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/315, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/103].

The answer: The following was stated by Al-Qurtubiy concerning this:

“And Al-Mahdawiy and others mentioned from Ath-Thawriy that he said: Al-Jihaad is voluntary
(Tatawwu’). Ibn ‘Itiyyah said: This statement in my view is only upon (the basis) of the question of the
questioner and when the Jihaad had been undertaken. As such, it was said to him (i.e. the questioner):
That is Tatawwu’ (voluntary)” (1). Consequently, the opinion of Ath-Thawriy in respect to Al-Jihaad being
voluntary is not Mutlaq (unrestricted or absolute) and in every situation or circumstance. Rather, it is in
the case where the Jihaad is being undertaken and the Fard ul-Kifaayah has fallen (upon the remainder).
Therefore, anyone who wishes to undertake Al-Jihaad after that, when the Fard ul-Kifaayah has fallen
(from the rest because it had been met and fulfilled), then he only undertakes it from the angle of it being
voluntary and not Waajib (obligatory).

In addition, there has come that which has been related from Ath-Thawriy supporting this conclusion.
“Abu ‘Ubaid mentioned that Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy used to say: It is not Fard however the people cannot
come together to abandon it, and some of them compensate for it for others (or undertake it on behalf of
others)”. Al-Jassaas commented upon this narration saying: “If this is a statement of Sufyaan (Ath-
Thawriy) then his Madh’hab (opinion) is that it (i.e. Al-Jihaad) is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah and that is in
conformity with the Madh’hab (opinion) of our people (i.e. Fuqahaa’) that we have mentioned” (2).

All that we have mentioned above (in this section) concerns the thought stating that the Hukm of Al-
Jihaad is An-Nadb (recommendation) and not Al-Wujoob (obligation), those who came with this thought
or adopted it alongside a mention of their evidences and a discussion of them, and then directing the
opinion stating the recommendation with that which agrees with the opinion of the majority who have
said that the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is an obligation of sufficiency (Wujoob ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah).

B - As for the place in which the Hukm of Al-Jihaad being Mandoob is established according to
those who have stated it?

Then the answer is that its place or context is the Jihaad Al-Hujoomiy (attacking or offensive Jihaad) alone
i.e. when the Muslims initiate the fighting against the disbelievers for the sake of carrying the Da’wah to
them and applying Islaam upon them. Therefore, what has been attributed to Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-
Thawriy, in addition to those who state the same opinion as them, in respect to the Jihaad being Mandoob
and not Fard upon the Muslims to undertake, is contrary to the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority) who
have stated that this Jihaad is obligatory.

As for the place and context of the defensive Jihaad (Al-Jihaad Ad-Difaa’iy), then those who have held the
view of Al-Jihaad being Mandoob (recommended) are in agreement with the Jumhoor (majority) in
respect to the Jihaad in this context, the context of defence, being Fard upon the Muslims to undertake
and is not only recommended.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/38, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/312].
The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “Ath-Thawriy was saying: The Qitaal with the
Mushrikeen is not Fard unless they initiated it and at that time fighting them is obligatory to repel, due to
the Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of His Qawl:

َ‫َفإِنَ َقا َتلُو ُك ْمَ َفا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬

But if they fight you, kill them (Al-Baqarah: 191).

And His Qawl:

َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّفة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight the Mushrikeen collectively as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36)” (1).

However, we have already pointed out that the restriction of the obligation of fighting in these two
Aayaat, in that it is to repel the aggression, was only for the early stage of the Islamic history in Al-
Madinah. Then, the legislation for the Muslims to fight the disbelievers in an unrestricted (Mutlaq) form
came, in the stage that came after i.e. Al-Qitaal was legislated whether the disbelievers were aggressors, as
was the case regarding the Hukm in the early stage, or they were non-aggressors, upon which the Hukm
of the later stage brought. That (Qitaal) was for the purpose of applying the Islamic system upon them if
they rejected or refused the application of Islaam via peaceful means.

However, the intended meaning from this Fiqhiy text and in what it contains in terms of deduction, is that
Al-Imaam Ath-Thawriy says the same as what the rest of the Fuqahaa’ of the Muslims have said in respect
to the Wujoob of Al-Jihaad in the context of defence.

Therefore, the place of disagreement between Ath-Thawriy, those who held his view, and between the
majority (Jumhoor) of the ‘Ulamaa is restricted or limited to the offensive Jihaad (Al-Jihaad Al-Hujoomiy),
alone.

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas says: “The place of disagreement between them, is that when the situation was that
the enemy resisting and it wasn’t feared that the enemy would overcome or defeat them, is it permitted for
the Muslims (in such a situation) to leave the Jihaad against them until they become Muslim or give the
Jizyah (from their own accord)? It was from the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Ataa, ‘Amr Bin Deenaar and Ibn
Shubrumah: That it is permitted for the Imaam and the Muslims to not engage them in fighting or attack
them (Ghazwah) and to refrain from fighting them. Others said: The Imaam and the Muslims must fight
them without ceasing until they become Muslim or agree to the giving of the Jizyah …” (2).

This is the place of disagreement between the two groups and this represents the subject of the last
section in the discussion of this point. That is:

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” (Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer: 1/187), (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/312].

C - What the opinion that offensive Jihaad is Mandoob and not Fard, according to those who
hold it, dictates?

The opinion dictates, as mentioned by Al-Jassaas and mentioned a short time ago, is that in respect to
those who saying or hold the opinion that Al-Jihaad is not Fard, then built upon this Hukm, as a
consequence, is their opinion that it is permitted for the Imaam and Muslims to not undertake Al-Jihaad
for the sake or purpose of carrying the Islamic Da’wah to the people and present them with the choice
between accepting Islaam, or the Jizyah or face war. However, despite that, if the Islamic State wanted to
undertake Al-Jihaad and provide the options to other states to choose Islaam or Al-Jizyah i.e. to join to
the Islamic State and for Islaam to be applied upon them including what results from that in terms of
Jizyah and other Ahkaam, or to face war which aims to annex those lands to the Islamic State by force
after their rejection of joining to it by peaceful means …

I say: If the Islamic State wanted to undertake this Jihaad for this mentioned aim and purpose, then this
Jihaad is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate), indeed, it is Mandoob (recommended) to be undertaken and it is
obligatory upon the Muslims whether from the army, Qaadah (leaders, commanders …) or individuals, to
obey the one in authority in this matter and it is not Halaal for any of them to stay behind or back from it.
This applies even in respect to the one who has adopted the opinion stating that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob
and not Fard due to the obligation of obeying the Imaam in respect to what he commands to be
undertaken. This has been transmitted or reported from those who hold this opinion from among the
Fuqahaa’ as mentioned by Ibn ul-‘Arabiy when he said:

“And a group of the Fuqahaa’ said: That Al-Jihaad, after Al-Fat’h (the conquest) of Makkah, is not Fard
except when the Imaam summons someone from them to go out to fight (Al-Istinfaar). This was said by
Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy and Suhnoon inclined to it (i.e. that opinion) and a people (or group) thought that
to be the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar” (1).

As such, the text establishes that the Istinfaar (summoning to fight) by the Imaam for this Mandoob
(recommended) Jihaad, even upon the opinion of those who say that Jihaad is Mandoob, makes this
Jihaad Fard upon those who have been summoned to undertake it and that it is not Halaal for them to
stay back from it (and not take part).

This then represents what is dictated by the opinion that Jihaad for the purpose of carrying the Da’wah
and not for the purpose of defence is a matter that is Mandoob (recommended). And with that we have
reached the conclusion of the second point of this study and now move on to the third.

3 - The Third Point: The modern or recent Islamic writers who have said that Al-
Jihaad is defensive in Islaam only.

A - What is the true reality of the thought that they are calling to?

B - A comparison between the thought of some of the classical Fuqahaa’ concerning the Hukm of Al-
Jihaad being Nadb (recommendation) and the modern thought that Al-Jihaad is defensive only and is not
offensive.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/103].

A - The true reality of the thought that Al-Jihaad is Difaa’iy (defensive) only

We have detailed the opinion concerning this Mas’alah in the previous studies of this doctorate paper.
There is no harm here however, in presenting a summary of the thought of some of the Islamic writers
for the purpose of bringing this thought to our minds again as an introduction to undertaking a
comparison between it and the old thought (i.e. from the early scholars) who said that Al-Jihaad is
Mandoob (recommended) and not Waajib, just as that is the opinion attributed to Ath-Thawriy and those
who followed the same opinion, whether before or after.

- Tawfeeq ‘Al Wahbah said: “It is not permitted for the Muslims to aggress against the non-Islamic
peoples without a justification unless these peoples worked against Islaam or were preparing to attack it. It
is then a necessity (or essential) to confront these peoples and repel them from what they are intending”
… He then said: “By that, the justice of the Islamic war is made clear because it is always a defensive war
undertaken to repel the aggression or prevent its occurrence” (1).
- ‘Abdullah Bin Zaid Aali Mahmoud said: “Al-Islaam makes peace with those who are peaceful with it and
it does not fight except the one that fights against it or prevents the spread (or propagation) of its Da’wah
… By preventing the conveyance, they are considered to be aggressors against the Deen and against the
creation as a whole” (2).

In respect to the prohibition of undertaking Al-Jihaad except in the case of an assault or act of aggression
or hostility against Islaam and the Muslims or the preparation to undertake that and except in the case of
the prevention of Muslims propagating the Islamic Da’wah …. In respect to this I say: The opinion
prohibiting the undertaking of Al-Jihaad except in these two cases and considering Al-Jihaad in other than
these two cases to be an aggression committed by the Muslims against other states, dictates that the states
which did not aggress against Islaam or the Muslims and did not in any way prevent the propagation of
the Islamic Da’wah within their lands whilst their stance towards Islaam was limited to the rejection to
enter it, hand over the authority to the Muslims and join to the Islamic State … these states according to
the thought or idea of Al-Jihaad being defensive and according to its wider meaning, makes it Haraam
upon the Muslims to undertake Al-Jihaad against them until they give the Jizyah by hand and are humbled
i.e. submit to the Islamic system.

[(1) “Al-Jihaad Fil Islaam Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah”, Al-Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p190-191, (2) The same reference:
p183].

That is because the three well-known options or choices which are presented to the non-Islamic states
and peoples are: Al-Islaam, Al-Jizyah or Al-Harb (war) … It means that these options would not be
presented, according to this thought, except to those who are aggressors in the reality or anticipated to be
aggressors (1).

B - We now come to undertaking a comparison between this modern thought and the early thought
stating that Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) in a recommended manner only and not obligatory.
That is the view which has been attributed to Ibn Shubrumah, Ath-Thawriy and others, in conflict with
the view of the Jumhoor (majority of the classical Fuqahaa’).

By comparing the two thoughts the following manifests clearly to us:

The modern thought, stating that Al-Jihaad is only legally legitimate in defence alone, allows for the
Islamic State to present Islaam and the Jizyah to the other states, however, if those states reject these two
offers, it is not permitted for the Islamic State to declare Al-Jihaad against them, as long as they have not
closed the doors before the Islamic Da’wah and have not opened doors of the enemies against the
Muslims.

That is whilst the earlier thought, attributed to a small group of Fuqahaa’ like Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-
Thawriy … This thought calls the Islamic State to present Islaam or Al-Jizyah to the other nations. Then,
if they refuse or reject these two offers, then the Islamic State has the right to declare Al-Jihaad against
them, indeed it is called to do that, albeit by way of recommendation (Istihbaab) and not by way of
Wujoob (obligation), and even if those states have not undertaken any act of hostility against the Muslims
or obstructed the path or proceeding of the Islamic Da’wah. And if the one in the position of authority
commands the army and Muslim individuals outside of the army to join the recommended procession of
Al-Jihaad, then it is obligatory (Waajib) upon the army and the Muslims to obey him in that.

Consequently, it becomes evidently clear to us that there is a vast gap or great distance between the
modern thought stating that Al-Jihaad is defensive alone and the early thought attributed to a small group
of the Fuqahaa’ stating that Al-Jihaad in other than the case or situation of defence is recommended and
not obligatory.
[(1) Refer to “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p766. And the Mustahsaar (consultant) ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor
said: “And providing the enemies with the choice between three options only applies in the war that is legally legitimate for us
after they have initiated the hostility and fighting against us” as mentioned in “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa l-Qaanoon Ad-
Dawliy Al-‘Aamm”: p281].

As such, the lack of accuracy in the statement of Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel, concerning this, also becomes
evidently clear, when he said:

“And most of the Fuqahaa’ of the current time hold the same view as Ath-Thawriy and Ibn Shubrumah
…” (1)

Where then is the conformity or agreement between the two opinions? That it when those of our current
time say that Al-Jihaad in other than the case of defence is Haraam whilst those Fuqahaa’ of the early
generations said that it is recommended (Mustahabb) to undertake Al-Jihaad in other than the situation or
case of defence.

Another matter which was indicated to earlier from the speech of Dr. ‘Aarif and also lacks accuracy is his
statement that Az-Zamakhshariy holds the same view as Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy i.e. that Al-
Jihaad is Mandoob (recommended) and not Waajib (obligatory). This is what the author wrote concerning
this:

“And it has been said that Al-Jihaad is voluntary and not Fard from Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy …
And Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy has supporters in the past including Al-Jaahizh and Az-
Zamakhshariy”. The author then presented the text from Az-Zamakhshariy and deduced from it that his
opinion was that Al-Jihaad is Mustahabb (recommended) and not obligatory. “Az-Zamakhshariy says: The
matter rests upon what the Imaam views to be in the benefit or good of Islaam and its people (i.e.
Muslims), in terms of war or peace. And it is not always inevitable (or certain) that they will fight or that
they will always respond to truces” (2).

I say: This speech of Az-Zamakhshariy does not include that which indicates to his negation of Al-Jihaad
being Fard, his restricting the Hukm, in respect to it, to recommendation (An-Nadb and Al-Istihbaab) (3)
or that he held the same opinion as Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy in this matter …

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Fee Dwlat il-Khilafah”, Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel: p110, (2) The same reference: p110, (3) I say: Dr
‘Aarif did not rely upon in respect to the consideration that Az-Zamakhshariy was from those who said that Al-Jihaad
recommended and not obligatory, except upon what he transmitted from him within his Tafseer of the Aayah: “And if they
incline to peace …” (TMQ: Al-Anfaal: 61) in his book of Tafseer “Al-Kashaaf: 2/182), as mentioned above… And as I said:
The speech of Az-Zamkhshariy does not indicate to the negation of Jihaad being Fard … In addition, the explicit evidence that
Az-Zamakhshariy did not go outside of the opinion of the Jumhoor in respect to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad and that it is
obligatory when the capability exists to undertake it, naturally, is what came mentioned in his Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa: “… Fight those of the disbelievers who are close (or adjacent) to you …” (TMQ: At-Taubah: 133 - Al-Kashaaf:
2/254). Az-Zamakhshariy stated the following: “Al-Jihaad is Waajib (obligatory) with all of the Kafarah (disbelievers), those
that are close and those which are far, however, the closest and then the closest is more obligatory (i.e. in priority) … And in
this way it has been made obligatory upon every area to fight those who are adjacent (or neighbouring) to them, as long as a
people of another region do not compel them to fight them ...!”].

Rather, what he said was what many of the Fuqahaa’ said (1) and the detail of that will come in the
forthcoming studies. And the strange matter is that Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel, when rejecting the attempt of the
modern day writers to limit Al-Jihaad to the defensive meaning alone and their following of the opinion of
Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy, he believed that these two Imaams has limited or restricted Al-Jihaad
by this same understanding, and then he refuted the claim of the modern day writers that this opinion
represents the opinion of the vast majority of the classical Fuqahaa’, to gain support and promotion for
this opinion, as if these two great Imaams are representative of the vast majority of the Fuqahaa’.
Concerning this I say: In respect to that we see Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel returning and showing his pleasure with
the previous quoted statement of Az-Zamakhshariy which he had understood, previously, to support the
view of Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy, in that Al-Jihaad is Mandoob (recommended) and not Waajib
(obligatory), or according to the understanding of Dr. ‘Aarif, that it restricts and limits Al-Jihaad to the
defensive understanding alone. That is what Dr. ‘Aarif rejects i.e. that it is only defensive.

The following is what Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel stated concerning the matter:

“May Allah pardon Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah because it is as if he viewed that the vast majority of the
Fuqahaa’ as being restricted to Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy and Ibn Shubrumah, a minority of those of the four
Madhaahib and those Fuqahaa’ who followed them. He has gone away from the correct view in respect to
this judgment of his (2) … He then says: “And the majority of the Fuqahaa’ of our current time have
taken the view of Sufyaan (Ath-Thawriy)” (3). The author then attacked the attempts of some of the
modern-day writers to twist the Shar’iyah texts so that they follow the direction stating that Al-Jihad is
defensive only. He says: “This group has expended its effort to search for evidences, interpret them with
an arbitrary interpretation to support their opinion and interpret away the Noble Aayaat and Ahaadeeth
that command the absolute and unrestricted (Mutlaq) fighting of the disbelievers”. He then states: “And I
was pleased by the opinion of Az-Zamakhshariy in his Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َهاَ َو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ َِه‬
َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah (Al-Anfaal: 61).

[(1) Refer for example to: “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd (“Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah: d/39), “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/517 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/422 and 573, (2) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-
Khaarijiyah Li Dawlat il-Khilafah”: p280-281 and refer to “’Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad
Abu Zahrah: p52, (3) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Li Dawlat il-Khilafah”: p280-281].

That is because he (Az-Zamakhshariy) is saying: That the matter rests upon what the Imaam sees to be in
the benefit or good of Islaam and its followers, in terms of war or peace, and that it is not inevitable for
there always to be war, or that truces will always be responded to (i.e. peace made” (1). It is perhaps not
strange or a wonder that the writer expresses his pleasure with a statement that he had previously rejected
based upon his Zhann (belief) that it supported the direction of limiting Al-Jihaad to the scope of defence
alone. That is because the second reading of the statement (or view) of Az-Zamakhshariy, which he
expressed his pleasure with, only concerns the Jihaad being dependent upon the view (or evaluation) of
the Imaam and that it represents a means at his disposal which he utilises according to the Maslahah
(interest) regardless of what the Hukm of Al-Jihaad is and what the view of Az-Zamakhshariy is …

In conclusion of the point that we are addressing, which is a comparison between the modern-day
thought that Al-Jihaad is defensive only and the thought of the minority of early (or classical) Fuqahaa’
that the non-defensive Jihaad is recommended and not obligatory, it becomes clear to us the extent of the
disparity between the two thoughts. And that the two thoughts are not in agreement with each other apart
from their agreement that the non-defensive Jihaad is not obligatory. They however, disagree in other
than that. That is because the modern thought does not only state that the non-defensive Jihaad is not
obligatory but rather they say that this Jihaad (i.e. offensive) is Haraam (prohibited). The consequence
built upon that opinion is that the Imaam or one in authority is not obeyed if he commands the
undertaking of that (Jihaad) and that is because there is no obedience to the created in that which is
Haraam in the Shar’a (Islamic legislation). That is whilst the early or classical thought held by a small
number of the early Fuqahaa’, even if it doesn’t state the obligation of the non-defensive Jihaad, it
nevertheless states that this Jihaad is Mustahabb (recommended). Based upon that, it is obligatory to obey
the Imaam or (legitimate) person in authority if he commands it to be undertaken and that is because
obedience to the Imaam concerning that which is not a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience) is Waajib
(obligatory). If that is the case then what about the situation if he commands the undertaking of a
Mandoob (recommended act) (i.e. if obedience is obligatory in other than the act of disobedience to Allah
then by greater reason it is obligatory in the matter that Islaam has recommended) (2).
As such:

- It is incorrect to say that those who held the thought of restricting or limiting Al-Jihaad to the scope of
defence alone, even if it is according to the wider meaning of defence, it is incorrect to say that they were
following upon the steps of Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy. That is because it is also incorrect to say
that these two Imaams limited the concept or understanding of Al-Jihaad to defence alone and prohibited
the non-defensive Jihaad.

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Li Dawlat il-Khilafah”: p280-283, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 1/871. I say: We built the
non-obedience to the Imaam if he commanded the undertaking of non-defensive Jihaad according to the dictates of the
modern-day thought, based upon the premise of the Imaam adopting the prohibition of that non-defensive Jihaad, and yet in
spite of that adoption he commanded its undertaking whilst overlooking the Shar’a in respect to what he has adopted.
However, if the Imam had adopted the legal legitimacy of this Jihaad (i.e. offensive), whilst those upon whom his command to
undertake it was issued viewed that it is prohibited (Haraam), then in that situation, it is obligatory for them to implement the
command of the Imaam. That is because the command of the Imaam resolves the dispute or difference (in opinion) in respect
to those matters which are differed upon].

- It is likewise an error to say that Az-Zamkhshariy holds the same opinion as these two Imaams based
upon his speech that we quoted earlier.

- It also incorrect to say that what Ibn Shubrumah and Ath-Thawriy have said concerning this matter,
according to any Tafseer (interpretation), is the same as what the vast majority of the classical or early
Fuqahaa’ have said.

With that we have concluded the discussion of the third point of this current study and now proceed on
to the fourth and final point.

4 - The Fourth Point: Is Al-Jihaad or Al-Qitaal against the enemies Mandoob sometimes according to
other than the minority of Fuqahaa’ that we have discussed?

We have already learnt in what has preceded, that the non-defensive Jihaad represents a matter that is
recommended and not Waajib in the view of a small number of the Fuqahaa’ like Ibn Shubrumah and
Ath-Thawriy, in addition to those whom it is well-known from them that they follow the same view. That
is despite the possibility of directing this opinion of theirs so that it agrees with the view of the majority of
the Fuqahaa’ of the Muslims in respect to the non-defensive (or offensive) Jihaad being Waajib ‘Alaa l-
Kifaayah (an obligation of necessity), if the Maslahah in undertaking it is weighed to be stronger according
to the evaluation of the Imaam or the one in the position of authority, concerning this matter.

However, in this final point of this current study we pose the question: Are there not circumstances or
realities of Al-Jihaad or of Al-Qitaal against the enemies in which the fighting is Mandoob (recommended)
and not Waajib, according to the view of those Fuqahaa’ whom we have mentioned?

The answer: Indeed, this does have a reality to it and we will present, in the forthcoming section, cases or
circumstances of Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal, undertaken against the enemy, in which the Fuqahaa’ have
stated that they take the Hukm (legal ruling) of An-Nadb (recommendation) or At-Tatawwu’ (being
voluntary) and not obligatory. However, in many of these circumstances or realities, the Hukm of
recommendation is not upon Al-Jihaad in terms of it itself, but rather the Hukm of Nadb
(recommendation), in relation to it, only applies upon those specific or particular circumstances or cases in
themselves. That is in the case where Al-Jihaad in terms of itself takes the Hukm of Fard ‘Ain in the case
of defence, the case of Al-Istinfaar (being summoned) in respect to those who have been called up to
undertake it or the case when the meeting of fighting between the two sides has taken place (i.e. the battle)
in respect to those who are present. Just as it (Al-Jihaad) takes the Hukm of Fard ul-Kifaayah if it is
undertaken in other than the above cases.

The following are some of the cases or realities in which the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned that the fighting in
them takes the Hukm (ruling) of At-Tatawwu’, An-Nadb, Al-Istihbaab (being voluntary or recommended)
or other Fiqhiy terminologies that carry the same meaning generally.

1 - When the Jihaad is a Fard Kifaayah and some of the Muslims are undertaking it in a manner that is
sufficient and is not in need of others participating alongside them in that Jihaad. In such a situation, the
‘Ithm (sin) would have been lifted or raised from the remainder of the Muslims in respect to their absence
from the battlefields. However, if despite that, some individuals or groups from amongst the Muslims
wish to join the ranks of the Mujaahideen, then does the Jihaad of those new fighters who are not needed
(to meet the sufficiency which has already been met) take the Hukm of the Fard ul-Kifaayah? Or does it
take the Hukm of a voluntary or recommended act?

- Also, similar to this reality, is when the Fard ul-Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) of Al-Jihaad has
fallen from the Muslims because they have undertaken the minimum amount of it within the year, which
is once according to the Jumhoor (majority). In such a situation, what is the Hukm of the extra times it is
undertaken after that? Does it also take the Hukm (legal ruling) of Fard ul-Kifaayah? Or does it take the
Hukm of At-Tatawwu’ and An-Nadb?

I say: It is possible for these two realities or circumstances to bring both of the rulings … That is because
the Fuqahaa’, in respect to the Janaazah prayer which is Fard Kifaayah, have mentioned that if one male
performs the prayer, then that is sufficient, according to the Saheeh (correct opinion). Consequently, if
more than that perform it or a Jamaa’ah (congregation) prays after another, then all have undertaken a
Fard …!

There is also an opinion that the extra after the fulfilment of the Fard ul-Kifaayah is undertaken as a Nafl
(extra i.e. recommended) (2).

As such, it is possible to say here, that the excess and increase, after the falling of the obligation of the
Fard ul-Kifaayah of Al-Jihaad (due its sufficiency having been met), can also be called Fard Kifaayah …
Just as it can be considered to be Nafl and Tatawwu’ (voluntary, extra i.e. recommended) … Some have
inclined to viewing as stronger that the surplus is Fard Kifaayah and that is because the reward of the Fard
is greater than the reward of the Nafl, as has been established (2).

However, it is not our purpose here to present the Usooliy basis or process of every opinion and then
adopt a particular opinion for the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue). Rather, our purpose here, in this section, is to
mention particular cases and realities of Al-Jihaad which the Fuqahaa’ have said take the Hukm of An-
Nadb (recommendation) and not Wujoob (obligation).

[(1) “At-Tabsirah Fee Usool il-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: p87, “Tamheed Fee Takhreej il-Furoo’ ‘Alaa l-Usool”: p77-78 and p90-
94 and “Sharh ul-Muhadh’dhab”, An-Nawawiy: 5/213, (2) “Tamheed Fee Takhreej il-Furoo’ ‘Alaa l-Usool”, Al-Asmawiy: p77].

In addition, the Fuqahaa’ have used, when expressing these cases or realities in respect to Al-Jihaad, the
wordings of “At-Tatawwu’” (voluntary), “At-Tabarru’” (voluntary) and Al-Istihbaab (recommended or
preferable), amongst other wordings (Alfaazh) which mean An-Nadb (recommendation) and not Al-
Wujoob (obligation).

- Concerning the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Jihaad, the following was mentioned in “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: “And
undertaking it a lot is Mustahabb (recommended or preferable) … And the least of what meets or fulfils
(the obligation) is that it is undertaken once in every year” (1).
- And in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, by Abu Al-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy, the following was stated: “The best of
what voluntary action (At-Tatawwu’) can be undertaken in, is Al-Jihaad” (2).

- And in ‘Al-Mughniy”, by Ibn Qudaamah, in relation to his Tafseer of the behaviour of ‘Abdullah Ibn ul-
Mubaarak in respect to him leaving the Qitaal of the Persian disbelievers, whilst they were close to him,
whilst he moved to the Roman front to fight there, despite being further away from him. He said: “And
regarding this, and Allah knows best, Ibn ul-Mubaarak only did this because he was Mutabarri’u
(volunteering) with Al-Jihaad and the Kifaayah had been met by other than him from the registered army
and Muslim soldiers. The volunteer (Mutabarri’u) has the right to leave the undertaking of Al-Jihaad
altogether just as he can undertake Al-Jihaad wherever he wishes and alongside whom he wishes” (3).

- It was also mentioned in “Al-Mughniy”: If his two parents were Muslims, he does not undertake Al-
Jihaad as At-Tatawwu’ (voluntarily) except with their permission” (4).

- And Ibn Qudaamah also stated: “And if he goes out to undertake Jihaad voluntarily (Tatawwu’) with
their permission and then they forbid him from it after his march but before he has engaged, then he must
return” (5).

The above represent some of the Fiqhiy texts which have used terms indicating that the one who
undertakes the act in surplus or above the minimum by which the Fard Kifaayah is met and its obligation
falls (from the remainder), follows the ruling (Hukm) of Al-Mutwatti’ (volunteer) in respect to his Jihaad.

2 - Another case or reality where the Jihaad or Qitaal has been said to take the ruling of being voluntary or
recommended, is when the Muslim Mujaahid is presented by a situation during the Qitaal in which he is
limited to two options or choices, the best of which is bitter.

- It is either the fight to death, according to what is evident, or it means surrendering oneself as a prisoner
… Then, in such a case, the Mandoob (recommended) action would be to continue in the fighting until he
is honoured by Shahaadah (martyrdom), even if it is permitted for him to choose the second option.

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/227, (2) “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/368, (3) “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/373, (4) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/381, (5) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/383 and also refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/374].

- The following came mentioned in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, by Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: “And if he fears
being taken prisoner, then it is better for him to fight until he is killed and to not surrender himself to
being taken prisoner because he will be successful with martyrdom … and he will be safe from the
disbelievers taking control over him by way of torture, using him and Fitnah (i.e. pressure to leave his
Deen” (1). He then used, as evidence, the incident of “Ar-Rajee’” from the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, in
which some of the Sahaabah sought to be made captive acting upon the Rukhsah (i.e. Shar’iy excuse and
permission) whilst others refused to be taken as prisoner and continued to fight until they were all
martyred, acting upon the ‘Azeemah (original rule before the Rukhsah) (2).

3 - Another case or reality is when the siege of the disbelievers upon a Muslim town or city becomes
severe, may Allah protect from that, and then its people are left with no option before them except to
surrender, the end of which is to be wiped out collectively, or to die under the siege, or to go out and fight
until death … In such a situation, it is Mustahabb (recommended) to go out and fight and succeed in
attaining the Shahaadah (martyrdom).

- The following came mentioned in “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam ish-Shar’iyah”: “If the town (or city) is
besieged, Rabee’ah said: “Going out to fight is more beloved to me than death through hunger (or
starvation)” (3).
4 - And from the Ahkaam of individual combat or duelling between the Muslims and the disbelievers in
war … Is that from its realities there is that which falls under the Hukm (ruling) of Istihbaab
(recommendation) … And it may be beneficial here, to present its Ahkaam in its different forms:

- The following was stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “The Mubaarazah (individual combat or duel) is divided into
three categories: Mustahabb (recommended), Mubaah (permissible) and Makrooh (disliked).

As for the Mustahabb (recommended), then if the disbeliever requests a duel, it is recommended
(Mustahabb) from the one who knows in himself strength and courage to fight him in a duel, with the
permission of the Ameer. That is because it contains a response from the Muslims and a display of their
power … And the Mubaah: It is when the courageous man initiates it by his own request and then it is
Mubaah and not Mustahabb. That is because there is no need for it and he cannot guarantee that he will
not be defeated and consequently break the hearts (i.e. morale) of the Muslims. That is unless he is strong
and has confidence in himself, in which case it is Mubaah (permissible) for him and that is because in
accordance to the judgment that is apparent to him, he will win …

[(1) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/387, (2) Refer to the report about (the incident of) “Ar-Rajee’” in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 4087 and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/244. And refer to the “Hukm of seeking captivity and the preference of fighting until
martyrdom” in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 384, (3) “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam ish-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p165].

… The Makrooh: The one who is weak in strength who does not have confidence in himself engages in
individual single combat or a duel. It is Makrooh for him to engage in the duel or contest due to what it
brings in terms of breaking the hearts (i.e. morale) of the Muslims by his being killed, (according to the
assessment of what is apparent)” (1).

5 - The same applies in respect to the single Muslim combatant challenging a large number of the enemy
army and confronting them … Included within this is what has been called “Al-Inghimaas” which is when
the Muslim storms or rushes upon the rows of the enemy. The majority (Jumhoor) of the Fuqahaa’ made
this act of “throwing one’s self in” to be Mustahabb (recommended) and similar such contests (against
numbers) if benefit results from it for the Muslims and even if the consequence of it was martyrdom, as is
what is to be expected on the face of these types of circumstances.

- The following was mentioned in “Subul us-Salaam” concerning the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of one
person attacking a large number, as transmitted by Ibn Hajar:

“The Jumhoor (majority) stated: If it was (undertaken) due to an excess in courage, or his belief that he
would terrify (or instil fear in) the enemy by that, or give courage to the Muslims, or it is able to
accomplish for you valid objectives, then it is Hasan (good). However, if was merely carelessness or
irresponsibility, then it is forbidden (Mamnoo’) and especially if that resulted in the weakening of the
Muslims” (2).

- And it was stated in “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam ish-Shar’iyah”: “The challenging or contesting

(Mubaarazah) of a single fighter against the army is Mustahsanah (looked at as being good). And it has
been said: It is Makrooh (disliked) because it means throwing oneself into destruction or to your death”
(3).

It is worth noting that we have already discussed the details of the Ahkaam ush-Shar’iyah related to the
different cases of ‘Al-Inghimaas’ or a single person attacking a large number within the study entitled:
“Qitaal ul-Ghaarah” in the first volume of this doctorate.

6 - Also from the forms or realities in which the fighting of the enemy is Mustahabb (recommended) and
does not take the Hukm (legal ruling) of Wujoob (obligation), are the following:
- In the non-defensive Jihaad when war is waging between the Muslims and disbelievers and it becomes
clear that the balance of power has moved in the favour of the enemy by more than double (i.e. their
number is more than double the number of the Muslims) … Here, in this situation, it is permissible for
the Muslims to withdraw from the battlefield if their withdrawal does not result in a greater harm than the
harm resulting from remaining steadfast and firm (4) … a reality which will be discussed in detail in the
forthcoming study Inshaa Allah …

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/395 and refer to “Al-Minhaaj”, An-Nawawiy with its Sharh “Mughniy al-Muhtaaj”:
4/226, (2) “Subul us-Sabeel”, As-San’aaniy: 4/51. Also refer to: “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/164, Tafseer Ash-Shawkaaniy:
1/193, Tafseer ul-Qurtubiy: 2/261 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-Arabiy: 1/116, (3) “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam ish-
Shar’iyah”: p166, (4) Refer to “Al-Ikhtiyaaraat ul-‘Ilmiyah” (Selections of knowledge) by Ibn Taymiyyah from: “Al-Fataawaa Al-
Kubraa”, Ibn Taymiyyah: 4/609].

… However, in this situation or case, in which withdrawal is permissible, it is Mustahabb (recommended)

for the Muslims to be steadfast and continue in the fighting if the Islamic leadership, in light of its
calculations, has weighed to be stronger, any of the following possibilities or probabilities:

- That the Muslim army will win the battle or the army will be preserved and not eliminated.

- Or it is believed or assessed to be most probable that the Muslim army could fall into a trap which will
mean its end whether or not it continues to fight or withdraws from the fighting, whilst being rescued
from that is impossible …

In all these situations, it is recommended for the Muslims to hold firm upon perseverance and that is by
remaining steadfast upon the battlefield, firm in confrontation to the enemy and opposing the forces of
disbelief however great (in number or force) they may be … That is even though it is permissible for them
to withdraw.

Concerning such situations, the following has been mentioned within the books of Fiqh:

- Ash-Sheeraaziy said: “And if the number of the disbelievers increase above two times the number of the
Muslims, then they can turn back … And if they believe it most likely that they will not perish (or be
destroyed), then it is better for them to remain steadfast so that the Muslims are not broken or defeated”
(1).

- Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: “If the enemy is more than twice the size of the Muslims and it is believed to
be most likely that the Muslims will win, then it is more appropriate (or better) for them to remain
steadfast due to what that includes in terms of the Maslahah (interest), but it is permitted for them to leave
(i.e. withdraw from the battle)” (2).

The above therefore represent some of the situations and realities that the Hukm (ruling) of
recommendation (Mandoob and Mustahabb) applies upon as have been mentioned within the books of
Islamic Fiqh.

It was not our aim here, in our discussion of this final point of this study, to present all of those situations
and realities or forms. That is not even possible in origin because the decision undertaken by weighing up
the Maslahah in respect to engaging in the battle or continuing it, is based upon a huge number of
considerations and this is particularly so in modern warfare and the complications that it includes …
Those considerations are not known except in light of the reality that is taking place and what happens
during it in terms of changes or developments … As such, it is difficult to limit the situations, cases and
realities in which the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Qitaal, within them, is recommendation (An-Nadb or Al-
Istihbaab).
[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/233, “Takmilah Al-Majmoo’”: 19/291 and “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/226, (2) “Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/388, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/553-554].

It is worth finally drawing attention to that the Hukm of recommendation in respect to fighting with the
permission of leaving it, is only in respect to the one who possesses the military decision. As for those
submitting to the decision in terms of commanders and regular soldiers or irregular soldiers, then it is
obligatory upon them to abide by what that decision dictates, whether that means remaining steadfast or it
means withdrawing from the battle. However, if the decision is left to the individual fighters in respect to
withdrawal or fighting, due to a particular circumstance that has dictated such a choice (being provided to
them), then the appraisal and evaluation of the matter is left, in such a time, to the fighter himself.

What we have mentioned in terms of the obligation to abide by the military or ward decisions issued by
the leadership, then that falls under the principle of the obligation of obedience to the Imaam …

The following was stated in “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “And it is necessary for the Imaam to appoint
over them (i.e. the Mujaahideen) someone who has awareness of the matters of war and its management
… and they must obey him because violating (the command of) the Ameer (leader) is Haraam, unless the
majority have agreed that he represents a Harm if followed” (1).

By that we have reached the conclusion of this study concerning whether Al-Jihaad can be Mandoob
(recommended) and now move on to a new study.

[(1) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabdideen: 3/361].

 The Fourth Study

Al-Jihaad - Can it be Mubaah (permissible)?

We will address this study through discussion around the following points:

1 - The First Point: What is the definition of “Al-Mubaah” in the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminology)?

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in some circumstances or situations of Al-
Jihaad to be Ibaahah (permissibility)?

3 - The Third Point: A presentation of some of those circumstances in which the fighting of the enemies
takes the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility).

1 - The First Point: What is the definition of “Al-Mubaah” in the Shar’iy Istilaah
(terminology)?

Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy mentioned two definitions for the Mubaah taken from the ‘Ulamaa of Usool. He
stated the following: “The first definition: It is that which the Shaari’ (Legislator) has provided the choice
to the Mukallafeen, between undertaking it and leaving it (or not undertaking it)” … He then said: “The
second definition: Ash-Shawkaaniy defined the Mubaah by saying that it is that which is not praised (or
commended) for its undertaking nor for leaving its undertaking”. Dr. Az-Zuhailiy followed that up by
saying: “Therefore, the Shaari’ Al-Kareem (Legislator) has aimed to provide the Mukallaf with the choice
of acting or not acting and consequently, what the Mukallaf (legally responsible and charged person)
undertakes represents what the Shaari’ has intended. That is due to the Mafaasid and the Maslaalih being
equal in respect to the Mubaah or the equality between the benefit and the harm in relation to it. Or it is
because the human nature, the Fitrah of the Insaan (person) and the sound mind which Allah Ta’Aalaa
has created, points in this direction. That is like the Ibaahah (permissibility) of eating, drinking types of
clothing, walking in streets, enjoying the breeze and standing in the sun. For that reason, the one who
undertakes that does not deserve praise or commendation and the one who does not undertake it,
similarly does not deserve praise or commendation” (1).

- He then said: “Al-Ghazaaliy amongst others brought together these two definitions and said: Al-
Mubaah: That which has come with the permission from Allah Ta’Aalaa to do it or leave it, not connected
with censuring the doer or commending him, and not censuring the leaver or commending him”. He then
stated the Alfaazh (wordings) that are synonyms to the terminological term “Al-Mubaah” according to the
scholars of Usool, saying: “Synonyms of Al-Mubaah are: Al-Halaal, Al-Jaa’iz and Al-Mutlaq” (2).
I say: It is not the purpose or aim of this current study to delve into the details of the Mubaah, the
objections related to each definition and the answer to every objection … It is enough for us here to
know that the Mubaah is that which the Shar’a (Islamic legislation) has permitted to be done without
requesting it in an obligatory (Waajib) or recommended (Mandoob) manner, and naturally it does not fall
under that which the Shar’a has forbidden whether that is in the disliked form (Karaahah i.e. Makrooh) or
the prohibited form (Tahreem) … And this is what has been established for us within the previous
definitions.

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in some

circumstances or situations of Al-Jihaad to be Ibaahah (permissibility)?

The answer to this question is that the Hukm At-Takleefiy (i.e. the ruling that the Mukallaf has been
charged with) is as Dr. Az-Zuhailiy says:

“Divided amongst the Jumhoor (majority of scholars) into five divisions or categories and these are: Al-
Waajib, Al-Mandoob, Al-Haraam, Al-Makrooh and Al-Mubaah … These Ahkaam At-Takleefiyah are
related to the actions of the Mukallaf … These Ahkaam could be related to one single action and all five
Ahkaam could apply to it, or some of them, according to the circumstances and conditions that surround
it. That is like Az-Zawaaj (marriage) which could be Waajib upon the Mukallaf if he is capable of bearing
the costs and responsibilities of marriage and he is sure that he will fall into Haraam if he does not marry.
Marriage could also be Mandoob in regular or normal conditions if he is capable of bearing the expenses
of marriage and it would be Haraam if he was sure in himself that he would wrong his wife and not fulfil
her rights. It would be Makrooh if he fears that and Mubaah is the Mahaasin (good aspects) and Mafaasid
(bad aspects) were equal. Similar to marriage there are many actions of the Mukallafeen upon which the
five Ahkaam apply, or some of them, according to the surrounding linking matters …” (3).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy”, the second year, Faculty of Sharee’ah, Damascus: p298-299, Dr. Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy, (2) The
same reference as above, (3) Same reference: p309].

I say: And from amongst the actions of the Mukallafeen upon which the five Ahkaam can apply,
according to the linking indications surrounding it, is the Qitaal against the enemies, even if the original
Hukm (ruling), in respect to this Qitaal, is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah, as has been explained in the previous
study.

Consequently, the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy of the Muslims fighting their enemies could transfer or move from
Al-Wujoob (obligation) to Al-Ibaahah (permissibility), as a result of particular circumstances surrounding
that Qitaal (fighting). This is the main subject area of this current study and it is what we will address
within the discussion of the following point:

3 - The Third Point: A presentation of some of those circumstances in which the

fighting of the enemies takes the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility).

- We have previously come to know that the Asl (origin) of the Hukm of fighting the enemies is Wujoob
ul-Kifaa’iy (an obligation of sufficiency).

- Then we came to know when the Qitaal (fighting) becomes Fard ‘Ain (obligation designated upon every
individual) and when it becomes Mandoob (recommended), in accordance to particular or specific
circumstances surrounding that Qitaal or the fighters (undertaking it).
- We will now seek to become aware of some of the cases that the Qitaal of the Muslims against their
enemies is exposed to where the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to that fighting is Ibaahah (permissibility).

Concerning this, these cases which make the fighting of the enemies permissible (Mubaah) could be
specific to the action of the individual fighter, in his fighting of the enemy, according to specific
considerations that relate to that fighter alone.

- And these cases could also apply to a fighting group in its military struggles with the enemy due to
specific considerations that relate to that group as a whole … In accordance to the evaluation of the high
leadership or the leadership that takes charge of the affairs of that group. We will now present examples
of these cases where the Hukm of Ibaahah (permissibility) applies upon them according to what the
Shar’iyah texts have guided to and what the Fuqahaa’ have determined.

A - The fighting of the enemy for other than making Allah’s word the highest and where Ar-
Riyaa’ (showing off) is not intended.

We have become aware previously that Al-Jihaad is fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to make the world
of Allah ‘Aza Wa Jalla the highest and that it is a Fard Kifaayah, Fard ‘Ain or Mandoob according to what
we have previously explained in detail.

That is because the Qitaal that is demanded by the Shar’a is the Qitaal that is Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of
Allah). This applies upon the Qitaal that is undertaken for the purpose of strengthening the Muslims,
increasing the standing and might of the Deen, weakening the disbelievers and opening up the path before
the Islamic Da’wah … amongst other purposes upon that line …

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫يلََّللا‬ َ ‫َالع ُْل َياَ َفه َُوَف‬

ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ ْ ‫ِي‬ ِ َ‫ونَ َكلِ َم َة‬
َ ‫َّللاَه‬ َ ‫َمنْ َ َقا َت َلَلِ َت ُك‬
The one who fights for the word of Allah to be the highest is Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah)
(1).

This type of Qitaal for these aims and what is in line with them is representative of making the word of
Allah the highest … And it is the Qitaal to make the word of Allah Ta’Aalaa the highest which is the
Qitaal that Islaam has demanded to be undertaken. That is whilst that which Islaam has demanded or
requested to be undertaken revolves around it being Fard Kifaayah, Fard ‘Ain or Mandoob
(recommended) according to what the Adillah (evidences) have indicated to and the circumstances
surrounding the fighting.

We have also become aware previously within the study of “Qitaal ul-Ghaarah for the purpose of taking
possession of the property of the enemy” that the Qitaal undertaken for the aim of fame, showing off and
being seen of men, is from the type of Qitaal (fighting) that the Shar’a has decisively forbidden (i.e.
prohibited) and considered to be minor Shirk.

Shiddaad Bin Aus related: “We used to consider in the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that the
Riyaa’ (showing off or undertaking actions to be seen by others) is Ash-Shirk Al-Asghar (minor Shirk)”
(2).

And the following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:
 ُ
َ ‫َبهَِ َف َعرَّ َفهَُ ِن َع َمهَُ َف َع َر َف َهاَ َقا َلَ َف َماَ َعم ِْل‬
َ‫تَفِي َها‬ ِ ‫َِرجُلَاسْ َُت ْش ِهدََ َفأت َِي‬ َ ‫ضىَ َي ْو َمَا ْلقِ َيا َمةَِ َعلَ ْيه‬ ِ ‫إِنَّ َأَ َّو َلَال َّن‬
َ ‫اسَ ُي ْق‬
ُ ََ ‫َ َف َق ْدَقِي‬.َ‫تَألَنْ َ ُي َقا َلَ َج ِريء‬
ِ ‫َ ُث َّمَأم َِر‬.‫ل‬
َ ‫َب َِهَ َف ُسح‬
َ‫ِب‬ َ ‫ْت ََولَ ِك َّن َكَ َقا َت ْل‬
َ ‫َ َقا َلَ َك َذب‬.‫ت‬
َُ ‫َح َّتىَاسْ ُت ْش ِه ْد‬
َ ‫ك‬ َ ‫تَفِي‬ُ ‫َقا َلَ َقا َت ْل‬
َِ ‫ىَأ ُ ْلق َِيَفِيَال َّن‬
‫ار‬ َ ‫َِح َّت‬ َ ‫ىَوجْ ِهه‬ ََ َ‫َعل‬
The first to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who had died as a martyr. He will
be brought forward. Allah will remind him of the favours He had bestowed upon him and the
man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him: 'What did you do to express gratitude for it?'
The man will reply: 'I fought for Your Cause till I was martyred.' Allah will say: 'You have lied.
You fought so that people would say that you are courageous; and indeed it was said.' A
command will then be issued about him and he will be dragged on his face and thrown into the
fire of Hell (3).

Therefore, the Qitaal that is not undertaken with the aim or purpose to make the word of Allah the
highest and also has not been undertaken for the sake of fame, to show off or been seen and praised by
others, this Qitaal is not considered to be from the Qitaal that has been requested or demanded by the
Shar’a just as it does not fall under the category of the Qitaal that the Shar’a has forbidden. As long as this
is its reality, it takes the Hukm of Ibaahah (permissibility) which has no commendation or reward, just as it
has no censure or punishment attached to the one who undertakes it or does not undertake it (4).

The Fuqahaa’ have determined: That the Qitaal of the enemy for the sake of obtaining property or
benefits of the Dunyaa but detached from Ar-Riyaa’ (seeking praise from others), represents a matter
which cannot be denied …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2810 (Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/27-28), (2) Mustadrak Al-Haakim: He said it is Saheeh ul-Isnaad but they (i.e.
Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record it. Ad-Dhahabiy said: Saheeh: 4/329, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1905, 3/1513-1514 and
refer to “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/228, (4) “Usool ul-Fiqh il-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy:
p306].

… Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy stated: “There is a difference between his undertaking of Al-Jihaad so that the
people say that he is brave or courageous … as this and what is similar to it is Haraam … and between
him undertaking Jihaad to take possession of Sabaayaa (slaves), horses and weapons from the properties
of the enemy, as that does not harm him (i.e. in terms of reward and punishment) …” (1).

The Daar (homeland) of the enemy is a Daar of Qitaal, of Nahb (looting) and Ibaahah (permissibility) (2)
due to the Daleel (evidence) of the Ibaahah (permissibility) of the Shar’a to fight them and take their
properties as booty.

As long as the Daar (homeland) of the enemy is like that, then the Qitaal of the Muslim within it is
permitted according to the Shar’a and takes the Hukm of Ibaahah (permissibility) i.e. there is no Thawaab
(reward) upon its undertaking because it is stripped of the upright (Saalih) intention, just as there is no
‘Iqaab (punishment) upon its undertaking because it is stripped of being undertaken for the sake of fame
or to be praised by others.

This Qitaal which has been provided the ruling of being Mubaah (permissible) could take this ruling in
respect to the individual fighter alone. That is like the one who fights for the sake of attaining a financial
wage, provided to the one who is occupied in this occupation, or for the sake of taking his share from the
booty alone … despite the Raayah (banner) that he fighters under being a Raayah (banner) of Al-Jihaad to
raise the word of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla, the highest … In such a case, he would be alone in respect to his
fighting being Mubaah (i.e. taking the rule of permissibility), whilst the Qitaal of the other fighters, whose
Niyah is upright (Saalih), would take the Hukm of being Waajib or Mandoob.

This Qitaal could also take, in respect to what it is, the Hukm of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility), in view of the
aim behind the undertaking of the Qitaal. Therefore, for example, the Muslim ruler who launches a war
against the enemy to divert the concern of his people away from internal problems and he does not aim or
intend from this war making the word of Allah the highest or to increase the might and position of the
Deen, just as his intention behind undertaking that is not to seek fame or to be praised amongst men …

Concerning this, I say: The ruler such as this, who is only waging war against a land in the form of
fighting, the rule of permissibility and plundering, according to the Hukm Ash-Shariy, then this represents
a war that has been permitted to be undertaken according to the Shar’a. Due to that, this would be
permissible war in respect to what it is. However, in respect to the individual fighters participating in this
war, then the Hukm in respect to the Qitaal (fighting) of each one of them, would be according to his
Niyah (intention) and his motive for undertaking it. That is according to the Hadeeth of the Messenger
‫ﷺ‬:

ٍ ‫َِوإِ َّن َماَلِ ُكلَِّام ِْر‬

‫ئَ َماَ َن َوى‬ ِ ‫َإِ َّن َماَاألَعْ َمال‬
َ ‫َُبال ِّنيَّات‬
Verily, the actions are only by intentions and verily, every person attains what he intended … (3).

[(1) “Al-Furooq”, Al-Imaam Al-Qaraafiy: 3/22-23, (2) “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 1/355 and 3/915. “As-Sail ul-
Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/551, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1, 2529, 2889 and also “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/160 and 7/226 and
Saheeh Muslim: 1907, 3/1515].

- Therefore, whoever fought for the sake of making the word of Allah highest, in support of the Deen and
to weaken the affair of the disbelievers, then his Qitaal was Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah) and he
attains the reward of undertaking it, whether it was Fard or Mandoob.

- Whoever fought and his aim was Ar-Riyaa’ (to attract praise of others) or to attain fame, then his
fighting was in the way of Ash-Shaytaan and he would earn the recompense due to that Haraam motive.

- And whoever devoted his fighting to the attainment and seeking of material gains or benefits, then his
Qitaal is Mubaah (takes the rule of permissibility), and there is no reward or punishment (attached to it)!

In addition, we have presented previously in the study entitled: “The Qitaal Al-Ghaarah (raid/attack) for
the sake of acquiring the property of the enemy” more detail in respect to the discussion and evidences
about the Hukm of the Qitaal according to the motive behind it … That is whilst we have restricted our
discussion here to that which the current study we are addressing requires.

We now come to another case from among the cases in which the Hukm (legal ruling) of fighting the
enemy is Ibaahah (permissibility).

B - Some of the situations of Qitaal ul-Mubaarazah (contest and dueling).

It could be beneficial here to take another look at what the author of “Al-Mughniy” mentioned in relation
to the Hukm of “Al-Mubaarazah”:

“The Mubaarazah (individual combat or duel) is divided into three categories: Mustahabb (recommended),
Mubaah (permissible) and Makrooh (disliked).

As for the Mustahabb (recommended), then if the disbeliever requests a duel, it is recommended
(Mustahabb) from the one who knows in himself strength and courage to fight him in a duel, with the
permission of the Ameer. That is because it contains a response from the Muslims and a display of their
power …

And the Mubaah (permissible): It is when the courageous man initiates it by his own request and then it is
Mubaah and not Mustahabb. That is because there is no need for it and he cannot guarantee that he will
not be defeated and consequently break the hearts (i.e. morale) of the Muslims. That is unless he is strong
and has confidence in himself, in which case it is Mubaah (permissible) for him and that is because in
accordance to the judgment that is apparent to him, he will win …

… The Makrooh (disliked): The one who is weak in strength who does not have confidence in himself
engages in individual single combat or a duel. It is Makrooh for him to engage in the duel or contest due
to what it brings in terms of breaking the hearts (i.e. morale) of the Muslims by his being killed, (according
to the assessment of what is apparent)” (1).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/395, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/445, “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam ish-
Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p166 and “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 1/100-101].

And the following was expressed in “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” concerning this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue):

“And it is permitted without recommendation (Nadb) and without dislike (Kurh): Al-Mubaarazah, and it
refers to two coming out for single combat or in a duel from the rows or ranks (i.e. or the respective
armies) to fight. It is Mubaah (takes the ruling of permissibility) for us and that is because ‘Abdullah Ibn
Rawaahah and the son of ‘Afraa’, may Allah be pleased with them, came out for single combat or duelling
on the day of Badr and the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not disapprove of that from them” (1).

It is therefore evident that in respect to some of the cases of “Al-Mubaarazah” (duelling), when fighting
the enemies, that the Fuqahaa’ have provided them with the Hukm of Ibaahah (permissibility). Let us now
move on to another case from amongst the cases in which the Hukm of Ibaahah has been given for them
within the context of fighting the enemies.

C - Some of the cases of fighting the enemy’s women and children.

The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the killing of women and children in war … It was recorded in
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy from ‘Ibn ‘Umar that he said:

ِ َّ ‫ىَرسُول‬
َ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللا‬ َ ‫َ َف َن َه‬،‫ََّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬ِ ‫يَرس‬ ِ ْ‫وُ ِج َدتَِام َْرأَةَ َم ْق ُتولَةَفِيَ َبع‬
ِ ‫ضَ َم َغ‬
َ ‫از‬
ِّ ‫عليهَوسلمَ َعنََْ َق ْت ِلَال ِّن َسا ِء ََوال‬
َِ ‫ص ْب َي‬
‫ان‬
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬a woman was found killed, so Allah's
Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬forbade the killing of women and children (2).

And Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is allowed to attack the disbelievers at night and kill them whilst they are
beguiled (or unaware). Ahmad said: There is no problem or issue with attacking at night (or under the
cover of night) and was the assault of the Romans other than at night? He said: And we do not know
anyone who has said that the night assault is disliked (Makrooh). And Sufyaan read to him from Az-
Zuhriy from ‘Abdullah from Ibn ‘Abbaas from As-sa’b Bin Jath’thaamah that he said: The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was asked about the houses of the Mushrikeen that we attack at night and
consequently (in the dark) strike their women and children? He said: They are from them (3). He
said: Its Isnaad (chain of narration) is Jayyid (good). Therefore, if it said that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the
killing of women and children, we say: This is understood to apply to deliberately killing them. Ahmad
said: As for deliberately killing them, then no (i.e. it is not permitted). He said: The Hadeeth of “As-Sa’b”
came after the “Nahy” (forbiddance) of killing the women. That is because his forbiddance of killing the
women was when he sent to “Ibn Abi l-Huqaiq” (4) and (in any case) “Al-Jam’u” (bringing together)
between the two (texts) is possible. The Nahy (forbiddance) is understood to apply to the deliberate act
and the Ibaahah (permissibility) applies upon other than that” (5).
[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/226, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3015 “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/148, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3012,
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/146, (4) He was “Abu Raafi’” and that was shortly after the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq (The ditch). Refer to:
Seerah ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawdat ul-Unuf”: 3/295, and “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 3/7 and “Al-Umm”, Al-Imaam
Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/239, (5) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/503. Also refer to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/389-
390 and “Takmilah Al-Majmoo’”: 19/296-297].

From the above, we see that the permission of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in respect to killing the women and the
children during the undertaking of night attacks or raids against the enemy, after having forbidden killing
them, indicates that this killing and fighting, which occurs but is not aimed at, takes the Hukm of Al-
Ibaahah (permissibility) and there is no Haraj (problem) in that.

The following came mentioned in the book “Al-Umm” of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: “So, if someone was
to say: How was the it permitted to hurl catapults of fire upon the Mushrikeen collectively amongst whom
were children and women, whilst they have been forbidden to be killed?

It is said: We permitted (it) … As the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬launched an attack against Bani l-Mustalaq whilst they
were unaware and he commanded night attacks and burning whilst it was known that they had children
and women amongst them. That is because the Daar (homeland), the Daar of Shirk is not Mamnoo’ah
(forbidden)! Rather, it only forbidden to target the killing of the women and the children in the case where
their killer identifies them by sight” (1).

The author of the “Subul us-Salaam” expressed this issue as follows: “The ‘Ulamaa’ have differed in
respect to this. Ash-Shaafi’iy, Abu Haneefah and the Jumhoor (majority) have adopted the permissibility
of killing the women and children in the night attacks … And his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “They are from
them” means: The permissibility (Ibaahah) of the killing as a consequence and not as a deliberate
targeting, in the situation when it is not possible to separate them from those who deserve to be killed. Al-
Maalik and Al-Awzaa’iy held the view that it is not permissible to kill the women and the children at all (or
under any circumstance) …” (2).

Ash-Shawkaaniy stated: “Ash-Shaafi’iy and the Koofiyoon (Scholars of Koofa, Iraq) brought together the
mentioned Ahaadeeth and said: If the woman fights it is permissible to kill her. And Ibn Habeeb of the
Maalikiyah said: It is not permissible to target to kill her if she is fighting unless she engaged to kill or
targeted him. And this has been indicated to in what was related by Abu Dawud amongst the Maraaseel
(i.e. Mursal Hadeeth) from ‘Ikramah: That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬passed by a killed woman on the day of Hunain
and then said: “Who killed this one?” A man said: “It was me O Messenger of Allah, I took her as booty
and made her follow behind me. Then when she saw the defeat amongst us she wanted to take my sword
to kill me, and so I killed her”. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not rebuke him for that and At-
Tabaraaniy connected it (i.e. the Hadeeth making it Mawsool) in his “Al-Kabeer” …” (3).

- And some of the Fuqahaa’ determined: “That it is permitted to target fighting the women enemy and
their children in war and to kill them in some circumstances and even if they did not actually engage in the
fighting and such a circumstance is like if the woman or child is in a position of ruling within the land of
the enemy …

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/244, (2) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/49, (3) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/261.
Refer to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” and the “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy”: 2/176].

The following came in “Hashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “The female Queen is killed and even if she is not
fought. And the same applies in respect to the child king and that is the breaking of their (i.e. the enemies)
strength or will is a result of killing the king …” (1).
- Similarly, if women of the enemy exhibit behaviour or conduct that lifts or removes from them the
prohibition of killing them, then it is permissible (Mubaah) to target them in fighting and to kill them in
such a case.

The following was stated in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: “And if a woman stood amongst the rows of the
disbelievers or upon their fortresses and hurled abuse upon the Muslims or revealed their nakedness to
them, it is permitted to target them due to what Sa’eed related: Hammaad Bin Zaid related from Ayyoob
from ‘Ikramah who said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬laid siege to At-Taa’if a woman appeared
high, revealed her front private parts and taunted them to fire an arrow at her and so a man from amongst
the Muslims shot an arrow at her … And it is permissible to look at her private parts due to the need of
being able to target her accurately because it is from its necessity (i.e. to look at your target when
shooting)” (2).

The fighting in these cases, circumstances or realities related to fighting the enemy takes the ruling of Al-
Ibaahah according to the opinion of all of the Fuqahaa’ or some of them, in view of the particular
circumstances surrounding that fighting.

And there are also other cases and realities like this connected to issues (Masaa’il) related to some of the
subject areas of Al-Jihaad like the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of fleeing from the enemy, the Mas’alah of
barricading and the Mas’alah of giving up to become a prisoner (or surrendering) … amongst other issues
which we will study at their fitting time.

We find it sufficient here to establish that Muslims fighting their enemies can take the Hukm of Ibaahah
(permissibility) in certain circumstances or realities like those we have mentioned … That is whilst our aim
and purpose here is not to study those cases or realities within this study and that is because in respect to
many of them we view that it is more appropriate to study them within the study of the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue) that they are connected to, than it is to study them here.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of this study, the shortness of which fits the saying: “All you
need in terms of the length of the necklace is that which fits around the neck” (3). We will now move on
to another area of study …

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/347 and refer to “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/101, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdasiy: 10/402 and refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/504, (3) “Majma’ Al-Amthaal” (Collection of proverbs), Al-
Maidaaniy: 1/196 and its meaning is: Suffice with a little from a lot].
 The Fifth Study

Al-Jihaad - Can it be Makrooh (disliked)?

We will proceed in this study in the same manner that we proceeded upon in the study of the previous
topic. As such, we will address the following points:

1 - The First Point: The definition of “Al-Makrooh” according to the Istilaah (terminological convention)
Ash-Shar’iy.

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies, in some of its circumstances,
to be Makrooh, according to the Shar’a?

3 - The Third point: A presentation of some of the circumstances in which the Fuqahaa’ haven mentioned
that the fighting of the enemies takes the Hukm (legal ruling) of “Al-Karaahah” (being disliked), according
to the Shar’a.

1 - The First Point: The definition of “Al-Makrooh” according to the Istilaah (terminological
convention) Ash-Shar’iy.

The following was mentioned in the book “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy” by Dr. Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy in
respect to the examination of the “Makrooh”:

“And in respect to the Istilaah (terminological convention) we mention two definitions for it:

The first definition: Al-Makrooh: It is what the Shaari’ (Legislator) has requested to be left in the form
of a non-decisive request (Talab Ghair Jaazim)”. Dr. Az-Zuhailiy then follows that definition up by
stating: “And the definition is clear … So, the ‘Makrooh’ is the action that the Shaari’ (Legislator) has
requested to be left and to be not undertaken, and this request has come without decisiveness or
compulsion which indicates to the ‘Karaahah’ (dislike) of the action and the desire of the legislator to keep
away from it.

The second definition: Al-Isnawiy defined the Makrooh and said: “It is that which the one who leaves it
is praised (or commended) whilst the one who does it is not reproached”. And Dr. Az-Zuhailiy comments
upon that definition saying: “Therefore, the Makrooh is that which the one who leaves it deserves ‘Al-
Madh’ and ‘Ath-Thanaa’’ (commendation and praise) and ‘Ajr’ and ‘Thawaab’ (reward) from Allah
Ta’Aalaa. As for the one who undertakes it, then he is not deserving of the ‘Iqaab’ (punishment) and
‘Dhamm’ (dispraise or disparagement) but he could deserve the ‘Lawm’ (blame) and ‘Al-‘Itaab’ (rebuke)
(1).

From amongst the examples of that which the Shaari’ (Legislator) has requested to be left or not
undertaken or has forbidden with a non-decisive Nahy (forbiddance), and hence indicating to ‘Al-
Karaahah’ (dislike), is that which was recorded by Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim amongst others: Abu
Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him said that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ ‫َُالَََي ْد ِريَأَي َْنَ َبا َت‬

‫تَ َي َدَُه‬ َ ‫َح َّتىَ َي ْغسِ لَ َهاَ َث َالثاَ َفإِ َّنه‬
َ ‫إل َنا ِء‬ َ
ِ ْ َ‫إِ َذاَاِسْ َت ْي َق َظَأ َح ُد ُك ْمَمِنْ َ َن ْو ِمهَِ َف َالَ َي ْغمِسُ َ َي َدهَُفِيَا‬
When one of you wakes up from his sleep, he must not put his hand in a (water) container till he
washed it three times, for he does not know where his hand was (while he slept) (2).
The following was stated in the “Sharh” (explanation) of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim:

“The intended benefit here (i.e. what is to be extracted from it), is the Nahy (forbiddance) of placing one’s
hand in a container before washing it and this is agreed upon in the form of consensus however the
majority of the ‘Ulamaa, those of earlier and later generations, are of the opinion that it is a Nahy Tanzeeh
and not Tahreem (prohibition). Therefore, if he violates that and dips his hand in a container, the water is
not corrupted and the one who does it is not sinful” … He then explained the Sabab (reason or cause) for
the Nahy (forbiddance) in the Hadeeth being for Tanzeeh (i.e. for Karaahah, dislike) and not for Tahreem
(prohibition) when he said: “The origin in respect to water and the hand is Tahaarah (i.e. the state of
purity) and it is not made impure (Najas) by Shakk (doubt or uncertainty) and the principles of the Shar’a
demonstrate this” … He then says: “And all of this is if he has uncertainty in respect to the Najaasah
(impurity) of the hand. If, however, he is certain in respect to its Tahaarah (purity) and wishes to dip or
submerge his hand before washing it, then a group from our companions (i.e. scholars of the Shaafi’iy
Madh’hab) have said: There is no Karaahah (dislike) in doing that, rather he has the choice between
submerging his hand first (in a container) or washing (first). That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬mentioned the
sleep and brought attention to its ‘Illah (reasoning). As such, if the ‘Illah (reason for the legislation) is
negated, the Karaahah (i.e. it being Makrooh) is likewise negated …” (3).

And the following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, the explanation of Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy:

“And the Nahy (forbiddance) mentioned within it (i.e. the Hadeeth) is for the purpose of Tanzeeh (i.e. to
indicate dislike) … His statement ‫ﷺ‬: “He does not know” indicates that the ‘Illah (reasoning) for the
Nahy (forbiddance) relate to the probability (or possibility) that his hand came into contact with that
which has an impact upon the water or not. Its dictated meaning (Muqtadaahu): To add the one who has
doubt in respect to that even if he was awake. Its Mafhoom (understood meaning) is: That the one who
knows where his hand was whilst he slept like the one who was wrapped in a sheet for instance and then
awoke and it was not disturbed (i.e. still covering him), that concerning such a person there is no
Karaahah (dislike) (i.e. regarding the undertaking of the action) …” (4).

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p294, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 278, 1/233, Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 162 , “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/264 and Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 24, 1/36-37, (3) An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim (‘Alaa
Haamish Al-Qastalaaniy): 2/329, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/264].

In addition, it was mentioned in the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy: “And this Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh”. Ash-
Shaafi’iy said: “And I prefer (i.e. view it to be better or recommended) foe everyone who has awakened
from sleep, whether it was from a nap (after Zhohr) or other than that, to not enter his hand in his
Wudoo’ (i.e. water for making Wudoo’) until he has washed it. If he enters his hand before washing it,
then I have viewed that to be Makrooh (disliked) for him but that does not corrupt the water if there was
no Najaasah (impurity) upon his hand” (1).

Continuing on … We have therefore become aware, from what has preceded, what the definition of the
“Karaahah” is according to the Istilaah Ash-Shar’iy (terminological convention) and what “Al-Makrooh”
is, its Hukm and how the Nahy (forbiddance) found in the Shar’iyah texts is diverted from “At-Tahreem”
(prohibition) to “Al-Karaahah” (dislike) … That was understood in light of the Hadeeth that we presented
and what the ‘Ulamaa have said in relation to the explanation of that Hadeeth. Now we come to the
second point of this current topic of study.

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies, in some of its
circumstances, to be Makrooh, according to the Shar’a?

In the previous study we quoted from Dr. Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy, in his book “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-
Islaamiy”, concerning the discussion about the five Ahkaam ush-Shar’iyah, that he said: “These Ahkaam
At-Takleefiyah are related to the actions of the Mukallaf … These Ahkaam could be related to one single
action and all five Ahkaam could apply to it, or some of them, according to the circumstances and
conditions that surround it. That is like Az-Zawaaj (marriage) etc …” (2).

And we stated in respect to that: And from amongst the actions of the Mukallafeen upon which the five
Ahkaam can apply, according to the linking indications surrounding it, is the Qitaal against the enemies,
even if the original Hukm (ruling), in respect to this Qitaal, is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah.

Based on what has already been said we say here: It is possible for the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the
Qitaal of the Muslims against their enemies to move from Al-Wujoob (obligation) to Al-Karaahah (the
ruling of dislike) … And that is in accordance to the specific circumstances which dictate such a
movement in respect to the Hukm … This then, is the main subject that we are addressing in this study
and what we are dealing with in the next point.

3 - The Third point: A presentation of some of the circumstances in which the Fuqahaa’ haven
mentioned that the fighting of the enemies takes the Hukm (legal ruling) of “Al-Karaahah”
(being disliked), according to the Shar’a.

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ As-Saheeh”, Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1/36-37, Hadeeth number: 24, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr.
Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy: p309].

We repeat what we previously indicated to within the previous study and that is, concerning that which
specific relates to the current study we are addressing, that it is not our purpose to examine all of the
cases, circumstances and realities in which the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies is Makrooh (disliked). That
is because many of them fall under specific Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) connected to the subject of Al-Jihaad
and the Fuqahaa’ have studied those Masaa’il (issues) within independent studies and have provided each
of these cases with what they require in terms of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah (that specifically treat them)
… and the study of these Masaa’il will be undertaken at its proper time.

Indeed, our aim and purpose here is not to examine all of the cases in which the fighting of the enemies if
Makrooh as can be found presented within the Kutub ul-Fiqh. Rather, it is sufficient here to present a
number of those cases which the Fuqahaa’ mentioned so as to establish that the Qitaal of the enemies can
be Makrooh (i.e. take the ruling of dislike) in accordance to the Shar’a in some circumstances, even if that
is only from the viewpoint of some of the Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat.

Examples of these such cases or circumstances:

1 - When individuals from the Muslim fighters, outside of the regular army, undertake an attack or raid
against the enemy, without having taken prior permission from the Imaam or the one who holds the
authority in relation to this matter.

We have already addressed this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) in detail in the study: “The Qitaal Al-Ghaarah
(raid/attack) for the sake of acquiring the property of the enemy”. As such, it is sufficient here for us to
present the viewpoint of some of the Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat, as can be found within the books of Fiqh, in
order to fulfil the purpose of this current study.

The following came mentioned in “Al-Minhaaj” of An-Nawawiy and its Sharh “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”:

“It is Makrooh (disliked) to undertake a Ghazw (attack or invasion) without the permission of the Imaam
or his deputy, in courtesy with him, because he is more aware than others concerning the Masaalih
(interests) of Al-Jihaad. It is not Haraam because it does not include more than some endangering of lives
which is permitted in Al-Jihaad …
And it is necessary, as Al-Adhra’iy said, for that (i.e. the ruling) to be specified to the volunteer. As for the
Murtazaqah (paid fighters i.e. the regular army in which its individuals take a regular recompense or wages
as a recompense for dedicating their time to military service), then it is not permitted in respect to them
because they are earmarked for the tasks in the service of Islaam and they are at the disposal of the
decisions and direction of the Imaam … and they are therefore in a similar standing to the Ujaraa’ (i.e.
those who have been hired to undertake a task for a wage) … Then the author of “Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj”
said: Point of note: Al-Balqeeniy exempted certain realities from the Karaahah (ruling of dislike):

- The first: That he (the fighter) misses him (i.e. the Imaam) even though he went to seek the permission.

- Secondly: If the Imaam suspends the Ghazw (i.e. fighting) and he (the fighter) and his soldiers go forth
for matters of the Dunyaa, as is witnessed! (i.e. in that time).

- Thirdly: If he believes it most likely (Ghalaba ‘Alaa Zhannihi) that if he was to seek the permission he
would not be permitted” (1).

I say: This text looks at the reality of the Muslims in the past at a time when roughly all of the (battle)
fronts surrounded them and were open for Al-Jihaad before all the Muslims, whether they were
individuals of the regular army or were individual volunteers from outside of the regular army … and
when the prevailing international custom was that every state had the right to attack others, in the case
where it was capable of doing that. However, Islaam did not make it permissible for the Muslims to use
that right which the international custom had affirmed at that time. Rather, in respect to the Ghazw
(attacking or invading) it determined that which is Waajib (obligatory), that which is Mandoob
(recommended), Mubaah (permissible), Makrooh (disliked) and Haraam (prohibited), in accordance to
what the Shar’iyah evidences dictate in view of the different circumstances related to the sides or parties
involved in the struggle and the surrounding conditions.

Indeed, it is within that prevailing international custom and that reality that was occurring at that time, that
we can read this Fiqhiy text and understand it correctly, in light of that.

In addition, we have already addressed, in previous studies and particular the study of “The Qitaal Al-
Ghaarah (raid/attack) for the sake of acquiring the property of the enemy”, the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of
the permission of the Imaam or person in authority, in relation to fighting the enemies, in light of the
reality of the Muslims (today) within the modern international arrangement or situation, and therefore
there is no need to repeat what we have previously said! Also, the study here has not been undertaken in
order to bring Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat about the conditions of Al-Qitaal in the current time. Rather, the study is
for the purpose of presenting examples from the texts of the classical Fuqahaa’ which establish that the
Qitaal in some of its circumstances is Makrooh (disliked) according to the Shar’a, not in respect to its
original ruling, but rather due to those circumstances alone.

Let us now then, move on to present another case from amongst the cases or circumstances which we are
addressing.

2 - When the Muslims declare war against the lands of the enemy due to a reason from among the reasons
of the legally legitimate Qitaal and they wish to bomb them. However, within those lands there are
Muslims who are likely to be affected by that bombing, whether those Muslims were from the people of
those lands originally or were not from them, like detained prisoners or those who had entered under
security for trade, visiting, tourism, education or medical treatment etc.

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj Bi Sharh il-Minhaaj”: 4/220].

In such a situation, if there was no necessity that called for the bombing of those lands, then bombing
them with weapons, the harm of which extended beyond the disbeliever fighters or combatants, takes the
Hukm (legal ruling) of Karaahah (i.e. it is Makrooh) according to the Shar’iy Ijtihaad. Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy stated the following in his book “Al-Umm”:

“If there are Muslim prisoners within the land or traders who have entered under a security
(Musta’minoon), I have viewed it to be Makrooh (disliked) to undertake against them that which afflicts
generally (or widely) like burning, drowning and what is similar to that, but not prohibited to undertake in
a clearly prohibited manner (Tahreem Bayyin). That is because if the Daar (land) was Mubaah (i.e.
permitted to attack), then the existence of a Muslim whose blood in Haraam (inviolable) within it does not
make it Haraam but rather I have viewed it to be Makrooh out of precaution. And because the Mubaah
for us in the case if there was no Muslim within them (the lands) to make us bypass it and not fight
against it. And if we fight against it, we do so by other than that which its harm afflicts generally like by
burning and drowning …” (1)

The above applies in the case if it was not necessary or essential to bomb the land of the enemy with
weapons of mass, comprehensive or wide destruction (2).

If however, the necessity called for that, then there is no Karaahah at such a time (i.e. it is not Makrooh).

The following came mentioned in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:

“… The Madh’hab (i.e. the adopted opinion) is that it is disliked if it was not a Daroorah (necessity) as a
precaution to not kill the Muslim and it is not Haraam according to what is most evident. However, if it
was due to a Daroorah (necessity) because of fear of their (the disbelievers’) harm or it was not possible to
conquer a fortress by it (i.e. catapults, heavy rocks, fire bombs etc.), for example, then it is permitted
definitely. And it is like the Muslim separated from amongst the Muslims, as Ar-Raafi’iy has said, and his
issue is non-permission if there was amongst the Muslims a large number, whilst he was like that” (3).

3 - There is another case that has been presented in the previous two studies related to the recommended
Qitaal and the permissible Qitaal and that is the case connected to the Qitaal Al-Mubaarazah (duelling and
contesting).

That is because the Mubaarazah (duelling) can be Makrooh in some circumstances as was pointed to
previously and we repeat here what was quoted from Ibn Qudaamah in respect to that which relates to
our current topic of study. He said:

“And the Makrooh (disliked): It is when the one who is weak in strength and does not have confidence in
himself engages in individual single combat or a duel. It is Makrooh for him to engage in the duel or
contest due to what it brings in terms of breaking the hearts (i.e. morale) of the Muslims by his being
killed, (according to the assessment of what is apparent)” (4).

[(1) Kitaab “Al-Umm”, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/244, (2) Compare with “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/344 where he states
in it that the use of these weapons is Haraam in other than the case of Daroorah (necessity), (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj Bi Sharh
il-Minhaaj”: 4/223-224, (5) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/395].

4 - Another case from amongst the cases of Al-Qitaal which the Muslim combatant or fighter could face
in battle, is that he could find, when chasing or going after one of the enemy, that the enemy is one of his
blood relations!

In such a situation, should he continue to chase after or target that enemy blood relation and fight him
and strike him (down) if he is able to, or should he turn away from him and avoid him, leaving him for
someone else?

The following was stated in “Al-Minhaaj Wa Sharhuhu” concerning the Hukm related to such a situation:
“It is Makrooh (disliked) for a Ghaazi (Muslim fighter) to kill a disbeliever who is his relative and that is
because the compassion could lead to regret and that could be cause for making him weak in his
undertaking of the Jihaad and because it means cutting the Rahim (i.e. blood relations) which have been
commanded to be kept and preserved.

And it (i.e. the Hukm) is ‘Karaahah Tanzeeh” (disliked) and even if the second ‘Illah (reasoning) dictates
that it is Karaahah Tahreem (i.e. prohibition). And killing the Mahram relative is even greater Karaahah
(dislike) because he ‫ ﷺ‬prevented (or forbade) Abu Bakr from killing his son ‘Abdur Rahman on the
day of Uhud and prevented (or forbade) Abu Hudhaifah from killing father on the day of Badr” … He
then said: “There is no Karaahah (dislike) if he (i.e. the relative) sought to kill him and then the Muslim
killed his relative in defence of his life” (1).

I say: This Fiqhiy text describes the circumstances that happened often in that time and it is true to say
that the majority of those circumstances involved the confrontation of one man to another in the midst of
the battlefield.

As for the today, then it is rare for such individual confrontations to take place. As such, there is no room,
when a Muslim fighter knows that a relative of his is within the ranks of the enemy bombing the Muslims
from his aircraft or from his missile base, whilst he himself is being targeted by that enemy relation of his,
like the rest of his brother Muslims … There is no room to say here, that it is Makrooh for the Muslim to
silence the source of this danger in the case where one of his relatives is embedded amongst them. That is
especially when, as indicated to above, that silencing the source of danger, destroying and eliminating
those directing it, is considered, in the least, to represent a kind of self-defence from the Muslim relative.
Therefore, what was mentioned in the previous Fiqhiy text applies upon him: “There is no Karaahah
(dislike) if he (i.e. the relative) sought to kill him and then the Muslim killed his relative in defence of his
life” (1).

[(1) “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/222].

5 - Another of the circumstances or cases in which the fighting of the enemies takes the Hukm of “Al-
Karaahah” (dislike i.e. Makrooh) is what we have discussed earlier in the study concerning the “Mubaah”
fighting, when we presented that the fighting of the enemy undertaken under the cover of the darkness or
during the night (Qitaal ul-Bayaat) can take the ruling of Ibaahah (permissibility).

We quoted what had come mentioned in “Al-Mughniy” concerning this matter:

“Ahmad said: There is no problem in “Al-Bayaat” (attacking at night) … And we do not know anyone
who has viewed attacking the enemy at night as being Makrooh …” (1).

Despite that statement, the reality is that some of the Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat have ruled that this type of
fighting is Makrooh. It could be that this ruling has been deduced from the Nahy (forbiddance) of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬from killing the women and children and that this kind of fighting necessarily means that those
who have been forbidden from being killed will be killed. For that reason, this fighting has been
forbidden. And this Ijtihaad does not differentiate between the killing that is intentional and the killing
that has happened as an (unintended) consequence …

Concerning this, we have already brought together and reconciled the evidences, which appear to be
conflicting, within the previous study.

However, in any case, as our study here is purely to present what has been said in terms of Fiqhiy
Ijtihaadaat which have judged the fighting of the enemies with the Hukm (legal ruling) of ‘Karaahah’
(dislike) in some of its realities, then we will present this Ijtihaad that has been mentioned within our
Fiqhiy heritage …

The following was stated in “Nail ul-Awtaar” by Ash-Shawkaaniy:

“… And it is permissible to attack the enemy at night. At-Tirmidhiy said: And a group from the people of
knowledge (Ahl ul-‘Ilm) have given permission (A Rukhsah) to undertake attacks at night whilst some
disliked that. Ahmad and Ishaaq said: There is no problem to attack the enemy at night …” (2).

6 - And finally, it has come stated within books of Usool ul-Fiqh that the Makrooh could also apply upon
leaving anything in which the greater Maslahah lies (3).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/503 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy: 10/389-390, (2) “Nail ul-
Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/260 and refer to this text in “Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 4/121-122 in the chapter: “Al-Bayaat And Al-
Gharaat”: 1551, (3) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p295].

Therefore, if the greater or weightier Maslahah, in respect to the relations with any non-Islamic state,
dictates avoiding initiating the declaration of war against it die to a certain Shar’iy reasoning, then turning
one’s back upon that Maslahah and declaring war against that state, even if it is in line with the legally
legitimate undertaking of war in Islaam, the war would in this case be considered to be Makrooh based
upon would results from that in terms of losing the greater or weightier Maslahah … That is as long as the
consequences resulting from that war in terms of its declaration and anticipated results do not represent a
Darar (harm) that will afflict the Muslims, as in such a situation, it would take the Hukm of At-Tahreem
(prohibition) and not just Al-Karaahah (dislike), as will be discussed in the forthcoming study.

In conclusion, the aforementioned examples of Ahkaam and Fiqhiy opinions manifest clearly that which
we intended to explain within this study.

And so let us now move on to the final study within the frame and context of the different Ahkaam ush-
Shar’iyah that the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies can take, in accordance to the difference in conditions
and circumstances.

The Sixth Study

Can Al-Jihaad be Haraam (prohibited)?

We will direct the discussion in this study, just we did in the previous studies, around specific points that
we believe to fulfil the purpose that the study of this whole chapter was undertaken for. That purpose is
to make clear that Al-Jihaad or the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies does not take one single Hukm within
the Islamic Sharee’ah, which is stays upon irrespective of how much the conditions and circumstances
have changed related to it. That is because in each case that the Islamic lands are exposed to, or the
Islamic State, or individual fighters from the Muslims or their enemies, or the two parties or sides of the
struggle in general, in respect to balance of powers or other matters … I say: That for every case from
these cases which differ from each other in respect to this, its Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is that which fits it
within the context of the clash with the enemy and its fighters, whilst this Hukm doesn’t necessarily have
to be the original Hukm in respect to Al-Jihaad, which is that it is Fard ‘Alaa l-Kifaayah (an obligation of
sufficiency). Concerning this, we have already come to know within the prior studies that the fighting of
the enemies could exit from its original Hukm (ruling), which is Al-Wujoob (obligation), and be Mandoob
(recommended) on occasions and Mubaah (permissible) on other occasions, just as it could be Makrooh
in other circumstances, whether it is in relation to the declaration of war, in itself, against an enemy from
the enemies of the Islamic Ummah, due to a particular circumstance that has been presented from
amongst the circumstances that dictate such a Hukm (legal ruling), or it is in relation to a Muslim fighter
in his individual description or capacity due to a reason, specifically related to him, which has made his
going out for Al-Qitaal (fighting) and his taking up of arms, exit from the Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-
Wujoob (obligation) and take a different Hukm (ruling) from amongst the Ahkaam ush-Shar’iyah which
we have mentioned.

I say: just as we have come to know, in the previous studies … we want to now come to know some of
the circumstances or cases in which the fighting against the enemies exits from the Hukm of Al-Wujoob
(obligation) to take the Hukm of At-Tahreem (prohibition), whilst approaching that in the same manner
that we approached the previous studies. Consequently, the points around which the discussion in this
study will revolve are:

1 - The First Point: What is “Al-Haraam” according to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention)?

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for Al-Jihaad, or the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies, to be Haraam
(prohibited)?

3 - The Third Point: A presentation of some of the cases in which the Hukm ush-Shar’iy, in respect to Al-
Jihaad or fighting the enemies, moves from Al-Wujoob (obligation) to At-Tahreem (prohibition).

1 - The First Point: What is “Al-Haraam” according to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological
convention)?

Dr. Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy said the following when providing the definition of Al-Haraam:

“In the Istilaah (terminological convention) we mention two definitions:

The first definition: The Haraam is that which the Shaari’ (legislator) has requested to be left in a decisive
manner (or form) or one of compulsion (Ilzaam).

The second definition: Al-Baydawiy defined the Haraam by a Siffah (descriptive characteristic or attribute)
and said: It is that which the one who does it is censured by the Shar’a” (i.e. Adh-Dhamm - censure and
dispraise is upon him)”.

Then Dr. Az-Zuhailiy said: “And some of the ‘Ulamaa added to this definition, their statement: ‘And the
one who leaves or does not do it is praised’ so that it the opposite of the definition of Al-Waajib
(obligatory)”. He then said: “And it (i.e. Al-Haraam) is synonymous with ‘Al-Muharram’, ‘Al-Mahzhoor’,
‘Al-Ma’siyah’, ‘Adh-Dhanb’, ‘Al-Mamnoo’’, ‘Al-Qabeeh’, As-Sayyi’ah’, ‘Al-Faahishah’, ‘Al-Ithm’, ‘Al-
Mazjoor ‘Anhu’ and ‘Al-Mutwa’adu ‘Alaihi’ …” (1).

After Dr. Az-Zuhailiy explained the different styles of speech from which the Tahreem of the action takes
its forms through which the Tahreem (prohibition) is expressed, like the ‘Alfaazh’ (wordings) that indicate
‘Al-Hurmah’ (prohibition) or ‘Al-Ijtinaab’ (to keep clear of something), or that something is not ‘Halaal’,
or contain a strong or severe condemnation, or like the style of the ‘Nahy’ (forbiddance) or the
consequences of a punishment built upon the action (Translator note: i.e. after he discussed the Qaraa’in
(connotations) contained within the ‘Alfaazh (wordings or expressions) which indicate that an action is
Haraam) … And after he mentioned some examples of prohibited (Muharramah) actions like Ar-Ribaa
(usury), killing the life that Allah has prohibited, Al-Khamr (intoxicants) and devouring wealth or property
of someone without right, after all of that, Dr. Az-Zuhailiy explained the Hukm of Al-Haraam saying:
“From the previous definition and the explanation of the Asaaleeb (styles) that establish At-Tahreem
(prohibition), it appears that the Hukm of ‘Al-Haraam’ is equal to the ‘Wujoob’ (Obligation) of leaving
(the act) upon the Mukallaf. Consequently, if he undertakes it (the act) he deserves ‘Al-Iqaab’
(punishment) and ‘Adh-Dhamm’ (censure or rebuke) from Allah Ta’Aalaa …” (2).

This then is the ‘Haraam’ in accordance to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention); its definition,
its Hukm, its Asaaleeb (styles) and its examples … We now move on to the second point of our
discussion.

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh il-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p278-282, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh il-Islaamiy”, Dr.
Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p282].

2 - The Second Point: Is it possible for Al-Jihaad, or the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies, to be
Haraam (prohibited)?

We have already discussed the opinion, within the two previous studies, that the five Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah At-Takleefiyah, which are Al-Waajib, Al-Haraam, Al-Mandoob, Al-Makrooh and Al-Mubaah,
are connected to the actions of the Mukallaf (the one who has been legally addressed and charged to abide
by them), and that they could relate or be attached to one single action, where all of these Ahkaam or
some of them apply upon the action according to the circumstances and conditions surrounding it, and
the example of ‘Az-Zawaaj’ (marriage) was presented as an example of that (1). We then said, that the
Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies is from those actions which those five Ahkaam can apply upon.

Consequently, the Qitaal of the enemies could be Haraam, due to a particular presented reason or cause,
that transfers it to taking this Hukm (ruling) in light of what will become clear to us via the presentation of
some cases or circumstances which will be mentioned in the discussion of the following point.

3 - The Third Point: A presentation of some of the cases in which the Hukm ush-Shar’iy, in
respect to Al-Jihaad or fighting the enemies, moves from Al-Wujoob (obligation) to At-Tahreem
(prohibition).

To address this point, we will mention some of the cases the Fuqahaa’ mentioned in which they viewed
that the Jihaad or the Qitaal against the enemies takes the Hukm of At-Tahreem (prohibition).

These cases could relate to the Qitaal (fighting) against the enemies from the angle of the fighting itself
and consequently, at such a time, it is not permissible to declare war against the enemies, as long as that
exposed to case or circumstances is what dominates over the situation between them and the enemies.

- Just as it could relate to cases or circumstances of individual Muslim fighters in their individual capacity
or description. This is where the war taking place against the enemies is a legally legitimate war, however,
it is Haraam upon those individuals, who are encompassed by or connected to those surrounding or
related circumstances, to participate in that fighting which is taking place.

Some of those cases which we will present have already been discussed within the previous studies and we
are only revisiting them here due to their connection to this particular study.

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh il-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p309].

Just as there are some cases which can be mentioned here but we have decided to delay the discussion
about them for later. That is because they are connected to independent Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) which we
have dealt with as individual areas of study within this research paper (Doctorate) and which will be
discussed in their suitable place …

We now come to the presentation of some of the cases in which the Fuqahaa’ have said that the Qitaal of
the enemies takes the Hukm (legal ruling) of At-Tahreem (prohibition) in accordance to the Sharee’ah Al-
Islaamiyah and even is that is only from the point of view of some Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat.

1 - The Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Jihaad if the two parents or one of them forbids him from it
and the Jihaad was not Fard ‘Ain.

The word of the Fuqahaa’, in spite of their many Ijtihaadaat, has agreed upon that if the Muslim wishes to
go out for Al-Jihaad, he must attain the permission of both his parents, in the case when they are present
together. If they then hold back the permission or one of them does, his Jihaad would in such a situation
become Haraam in accordance to the Shar’a, as long as this Jihaad was not Fard ‘Ain upon him. That is
due to that being a violation of the Hukm ush-Shar’iy which has decided to advance or give priority of
Birr ul-Waalidain (obedience and good conduct towards the parents) over Al-Jihaad when that Jihaad is
not Fard ‘Ain upon him. However, if the Jihaad was Fard ‘Ain upon him, it would in that case take
precedence. This is what the Shar’iyah texts have brought.

It has been reported in “Muntaqaa ul-Akhbaar” from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr who said:

ِ ‫لَ َفف‬
َ‫ِيه َما‬ ََ ‫َ َقا‬.‫َ َقا َلَ َن َع ْم‬.‫ك‬
ََ ‫حىٌّ َ َوالِ َدا‬ ْ ‫َرجُلَإِلَىَال َّن ِبيِّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َيسْ ََتأْ ِذ ُنهَُف‬
ََ َ‫ِيَال ِج َهادَِ َف َقا َلَأ‬ َ ‫َجا َء‬
َ‫َف َجاه ِْد‬
A man came to the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬seeking his permission in respect to Al-Jihaad. And so he ‫ﷺ‬
asked him: Are your parents alive? He said: Yes. Then he ‫ ﷺ‬said: Then in respect to them
make your Jihaad (i.e. strive your utmost) (Related by Al-Bukhaariy, An-Nasaa’iy, Abu Dawud, At-
Tirmidhiy …

He then said: All of this applies if Al-Jihaad has not been designated for him as a Fard ‘Ain but if it has,
then not undertaking it is Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience) and there is no obedience to the created in
disobedience to Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla” (1).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “Concerning his statement “Then in respect to them (i.e. the parents) make your
Jihaad” it means: Specify them by the Jihaad of the Nafs in that which pleases them … He then said: It is
obligatory to seek the permission of the two parents in respect to (undertaking) Al-Jihaad and that is the
view of the Jumhoor (i.e. majority of the Fuqahaa’). And they were decisive regarding the Tahreem
(prohibition) of Al-Jihaad if the parents or one of them has forbidden him from undertaking it. That is
because the obedience and pleasing conduct to them (Al-Birr) is Fard ‘Ain whilst Al-Jihaad is Fard
Kifaayah. Consequently, if the Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain upon him there is no permission and the evidence for
that is the Hadeeth recorded by Ibn Hibbaan related by ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr who said: A man came to
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and asked him about the best of actions? He replied: As-Salaah. He
asked: then what? He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: Al-Jihaad. He asked: I have two parents. He replied: I
command you to treat your parents well. Then he said: By the One who sent you with the truth as
a Nabi I will certainly undertake Al-Jihaad and leave them. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: You are best aware”.

[(1) The Hadeeth is in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3004, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/140 and refer to “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/231].

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “It is understood to apply to the Jihaad which is Fard ul-Ain as a result of
reconciliation between the two Hadeeth …” (1).

- And in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” the following was stated:

“And it is Haraam upon a man to undertake Jihaad, by travel or other than that, unless it is with the
permission of his parents …” (2).

- And in “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah” by Ibn Juzayy:

“Two matters prevent (or forbid) the undertaking of Al-Jihaad: The first is the debt that is due and not the
one that is deferred (or delayed) … The second: Parenthood because the parents have the right to prevent
(or forbid) him unless it is Fard ‘Ain …” (3).

And the majority of the Fuqahaa’ have stated similar to the above and there is no need to quote similar
texts related to this Mas’alah (4).

I say: This Hukm applies upon the one who goes out to fight from the volunteers i.e. outside of the
regular army which at the disposal of the person in authority to be utilised at any moment of time. That is
because the Jihaad in respect to the individuals of this army takes the ruling (Hukm) of the Fard ‘Ain,
every time they are called to undertake it.

As for those volunteers, then each individual from among them has the choice to go out for Al-Qitaal or
to not go out. In such a situation, if he is resolved to go out alongside the fighters, he must attain the
permission of both of his parents or the one who is still living.

That is if the Jihaad in respect to the son was not Fard ‘Ain, as previously mentioned. As for when the
Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain upon him then their permission is not sought in such a situation. That is because, in
this reality, there is a clash or competition between two Waajibs (obligations), both of which are Fard ‘Ain;
Al-Jihaad and Birr ul-Waalidain (obedience and service to parents). Consequently, the most important is
given precedence and it is Al-Jihaad due to the generality of its Maslahah (i.e. its Maslahah is wider).

[(1) “Nail ul-Awtaar Bi Sharh Muntaqaa ul-Akhbaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/231-233. Also refer to: “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-
Shawkaaniy: 4/517 and concerning the Hadeeth: “He ‫ ﷺ‬said: You are best aware” then it is in the “Zawaa’id” of Ibn
Hibbaan: 258 p87-88 and sometimes according to the numbering of the Saheeh of Ibn Hibbaan: 1719, 3/111, (2) “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/217, (3) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: 163-164, (4) In addition to previous reference source
(Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj) also refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/282, “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’ Sharh ul-Muhadh’dhab”:
19/277, “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98 and “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/292].

Concerning this, the author of “Subul us-Salaam” said:

“Jihaad is prohibited upon the son if his parents forbid him, or if one of them does so, upon the condition
that they are Muslims. That is because the ‘Birr’ (obedience and good conduct) towards them is Fard ‘Ain
whilst Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah. Therefore, if the Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain this does not apply. If it is said:
That if Birr ul-Waalidaini is Fard ‘Ain also and the Jihaad when designated is Fard ‘Ain, then they are
equal, so what is the angle that gives precedence to the Jihaad? I have said: Because the Maslahah is wider
or more general because it is undertaken for the preservation of the Deen and the defence of the Muslims.
Its Maslahah (interest and benefit) is therefore general and given precedence over other than it and it is
given precedence over the Maslahah (interest) of preserving the Badan (body)” (1).

We will now move on to another case from the cases in which fighting the enemy has been prohibited.

2 - The Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Jihaad upon the indebted if he has not left a ‘Wafaa’un’
(means of fulfilment) or something similar to that, and if it is not Fard ‘Ain.

Most of the Fuqahaa’ have stated this opinion. The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa
Sharhuhu”:

“If the indebted wants to go out to fight … Then if he has a ‘Wafaa’un’ (means of fulfilment) in respect to
what he owes, then there is no problem for him to go out to fight. But if he does not have a ‘Wafaa’un’
(‫)و َفاء‬
َ with the debt then it is better for him to stay and delay until he has settled his debt. That is because
settling the debt is demanded upon him in himself (i.e. Fard ‘Ain), whilst the Ghazwah (i.e. Al-Jihaad), if
the call out or summons is not for everyone (Nafeer ‘Aamm) and is not demanded upon him in himself
(i.e. not Fard ‘Ain), then it is more of a priority for him to occupy himself with the cause for removing
that which is due upon him in himself. That is due to the origin of the ‘Ma’roof’ (what is right) in that
when rights come together, the most important is begun with, and the settling of the debt is more
important than the Ghazw (i.e. undertaking Jihaad) … He then says: And if the Nafeer (call or summons)
was ‘Aamm (general i.e. designated by the Ameer for all to take part), then there is no problem (or there is
nothing wrong) for the indebted to go out (i.e. for Al-Jihaad), whether he has a Wafaa’ (means to settle the
debt) or not, whether the one whom he is indebted to has provided him with permission or has forbidden
him. That is because the going out (to fight) is Fard upon every individual who is capable of undertaking it
and it cannot be delayed whilst the debt can possibly be delayed, and the Darar (harm) of not going out
(for Al-Jihaad) is greater than the Darar (harm) of refraining from settling the debt. That is because that
harm (i.e. associated with not go out to fight) relates to all of the Muslims and it is Waajib (obligatory)
upon him to occupy himself in repelling the greater of the two harms” (2).

[(1) “Subul us-Sabeel”, As-San’aaniy: 4/42, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 4/1448-1454].

He then states: “And if the indebted has his name written in the Deewaan (records i.e. of the regular
army) … then the Imaam should take him out (of the army) in the case where others can fulfil the task.
And if he refuses except to go out to fight then he must obey the Imaam because obedience to him, in
respect to this, is obligatory upon him. And after he has informed him of his excuse and he (the Imaam)
does not excuse him and commanded him to go out to fight, then there is nothing better than obedience
to him!” (1).

- The following was stated in Kitaab ‘Al-Umm” of Al-Imaam ush-Shaafi’iy:

“It is not permissible for him to undertake Al-Jihaad whilst he has a debt unless it is with the permission
of those whom he owes the debt to, and that applies equally whether the debt was to a Muslim or Kaafir
(disbeliever)” (2).

And in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” of Abu l-Faraj Al-Maqdasiy the following was stated:

“Whoever has a debt due (to be paid) or a deferred debt, it is not permissible for him to go out for Al-
Ghzw (i.e. Al-Jihaad) except with the permission of the one whom he is in debt to unless he leaves a
Wafaa’ (means to settle it), or a guarantor takes case of it or he binds it with a security (Rahn), This is what
Ash-Shaafi’iy said and Maalik gave permission (a Rukhsah), in respect to undertaking the Ghazw
(fighting), to the one who is unable to settle his debt because the demand for it has not been directed
against him and he has not held it back from its due time. Consequently, he is not prevented (or
forbidden) from participating in the Ghazwah (i.e. fighting) just like if he had no debt upon him!” (3).
- And in “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah” it was stated: “He is prevented from Al-Jihaad by the due debt
and not the deferred debt and if he was impoverished then he can travel without the permission of the
one he is indebted to” (4).

In addition, evidences have come mentioned in “Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” and its Sharh (explanation) “Nail
ul-Awtaar”, which the Fuqahaa’ relied upon for the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Jihaad upon the indebted
except after attaining the permission of the one he is indebted to. Then, Ash-Shawkaaniy explained the
angle of deduction of those evidences and discussed the deduction of the Fuqahaa’, from these evidences,
concerning the impermissibility of undertaking Al-Jihaad in respect to the indebted. He then went on to
conclude with the opinion that Al-Jihaad is not prohibited for the indebted under any circumstances.

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 4/1453-1454, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/163, (3) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdasiy: 10/382, (4) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p163].

We will suffice ourselves in quoting one of these evidences which have been brought in relation to this
because they all agree upon one single meaning.

The following was recorded in “Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar”:

َ ِ‫بَإالَال َِّدينَََفإِنَّ َ ِجب ِْري َلَ َعلَ ْيهَِالسَّالمَ َقا َلَلِيَ َذل‬
َ‫ك‬ ٍَ ‫َُي َْغََف َُرَللشهيدَكلَ َذ ْن‬
The Shaheed is forgiven every sin except for the debt, for verily Jibreel (peace be upon him) told
me that … Recorded by Ahmad and Muslim” (1).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “The Ahaadeeth related to the topic were used to deduce that it is not permissible
for the one who has a debt to go out for Al-Jihaad except with the permission of the one he is indebted
to. That is because it is a Haqq (right) due to an Aadamiy (i.e. human) whilst Al-Jihaad is a Haqq (right)
due to Allah Ta’Aalaa, and it is necessary for all of the rights of other people to be attached to that … due
to the absence of difference between one Haqq (right) and another Haqq. And the angle of deduction,
with the Ahaadeeth related to this topic area, in respect to the non-permissibility of the indebted going out
for Al-Jihaad without the permission of the one he is indebted to, is that the ‘Dain’ (debt) prevents the
benefit of the Shahaadah (martyrdom), which is the Maghfirah Al-‘Aammah (the general or all-
encompassing forgiveness) and that invalidates the fruit of Al-Jihaad …”

He then said: “And it is not hidden that the remaining of the debt (Ad-Dain), due upon the Shaheed, does
not prevent the Shahaadah (martyrdom). Rather, he is a Shaheed (martyr) and all of his sins are forgiven
apart from the debt. The forgiveness of even one sin is enough to make it a fruit of Al-Jihaad, so what
about if all the sins are forgiven except for one from amongst them? Therefore, the statement stating that
the fruit of the martyrdom (in respect to the one in debt) is the forgiveness of all of the sins is forbidden,
just as the statement that says that the absence of forgiveness of one sin prevents the benefit of the
martyrdom and invalidates the fruit of Al-Jihaad, is forbidden, also. The aim of these Ahaadeeth related to
this topic area (Baab) is that the Shaheed (martyr) is forgiven for all of his sins apart from the sin (Dhanb)
of the ‘Dain’ (debt). That does not necessitate that it is not permissible for him to go out for Al-Jihaad
unless it is with the permission of the one whom he is indebted to. Rather, if the Mujaahid loves for his
Jihaad to be a cause or reason for the forgiveness of every sin he would seek the permission of the one
whom he owes to go out on Al-Jihaad and if he is content or satisfied for one sin to remain (i.e. the sin of
the debt), then it is permissible for him to go out without seeking the permission! …” (2).

The author of “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”, the Sharh (explanation) of “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, quoted this speech
of Ash-Shawkaaniy without attributing it to him and summarising some of what he quoted. That is an
indication of the author of “At-Takmilah” viewing as preponderant the opinion of Ash-Shawkaaniy in
respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) … However, the author of “At-Takmilah” quoted the opinion of
Ash-Shawkaaniy in this way:

“It is not permissible for the one who has a debt to go out for Al-Jihaad unless it is with the permission of
the one whom he is indebted to …

[(1) “Nail ul-Awtaar Bi Sharh Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar”: 7/234. Refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1885-1886 and Musnad Ahmad Bin
Hanbal: 2/220, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/235].

… And the Hadeeth of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr was used as evidence:

ٍَ ‫َُي َْغََف َُرَللشهيدَكلَ َذ ْن‬

َ‫بَإالَال ِّدين‬
The Shaheed is forgiven every sin except for the debt (1).

It was used as evidence to indicate the non-permissibility of the indebted going out to undertake Al-Jihaad
without the permission of the one whom he is indebted to … “And it is not hidden that the remaining of
the debt (Ad-Dain), due upon the Shaheed, does not prevent the Shahaadah (martyrdom). Rather, he is a
Shaheed (martyr) and all of his sins are forgiven apart from the debt etc.” (1). The way that this has been
presented indicates that the author affirms (and agrees with) what has come mentioned in the text, “Al-
Muhadh’dhab”, in respect to the non-permissibility of Al-Jihaad for the one who has a debt … The reader
is then surprised when the one providing the explanation reverses what he previously affirmed to then
object to the deduction of that Hukm (legal ruling) from the previous Hadeeth. That is when he says all of
a sudden: ““And it is not hidden that the remaining of the debt (Ad-Dain), due upon the Shaheed, does
not prevent the Shahaadah (martyrdom) …”. This generates some ambiguity due to the style of the
affirmation firstly and then what is understood in terms of his reversal of what he affirmed, secondly …

That is whilst the original text from “Nail ul-Awtaar” as it is from its source is free of such ambiguity as is
clear from what we have presented.

In any case, what is evident to us in respect to this Mas’alah, is that Al-Jihaad, in other than when it is
specified upon the individual (‘Ainiy), if it took place in circumstances, in relation to some fighters, which
by their nature could be a path for the rights of the ‘Ibaad (servants i.e. people) to be lost, then in such a
case, it is not permissible to tread and follow that path. That is because making the rights be lost is
Haraam and avoiding falling into Haraam is more important than undertaking that which is Fard ‘Alaa l-
Kifaayah, in the case where there is already a sufficient number to undertake it (2).

This Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) is only brought up in respect to the volunteers outside of the regular army.

As for the individuals of the regular army, then they are subservient to the commands of the Sultah
(authority) which they follow. It is the authority that is referred back to for the final decision in respect to
the rejection or acceptance of the excuses of those seeking to excuse themselves. The individuals of this
army have no choice accept obedience as was established by Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy in the quote that we
mentioned earlier in relation to the obedience of the Sultah (authority), when he stated: “And after he has
informed him of his excuse, if he does not excuse him, then there is nothing better than obedience to
him!” (3).

We will now move on to another case from among the cases in which the Qitaal of the enemies has been
states to be Haraam in accordance to the Shar’a.

[(1) “Takmilat ul Majmoo’ - Sharh ul-Muhadh’dhab”: 19/274-275, (2) refer to “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy (Takmilat ul-
Majmoo’: 19/274), (3) “Sharh Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1454].
3 - The Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal upon the Muslims when it leads to a profound or
grave harm (Darar) reaching them.

This case is established by the general Shar’iyah principles like: “َ‫ار‬

َ ‫”الَض َر َر ََوالَضِ َر‬
َ (There is no harm and
no harming) (1).

And “Leaving the Waajib if a path to repel the Darar (harm) is designated” (2) and “Repelling the harmful
matter is given precedence over acquiring the Manaafi’ (benefits) (3) … And from the examples or
realities that the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned, in which this case applies, are the following two:

- Fighting against the enemy when it is believed most probable or likely (Ghalab ‘Alaa Azh-Zhann) that it
will defeat the Muslims.

- Fighting against the enemy when it takes the Muslims or those who are under the security (Amaan) of
the Muslims as shields to protect themselves.

The following are some of the statements or opinions of the Fuqahaa’ concerning the first of these
realities i.e. when it is expected that the enemy will defeat the Muslims.

The following came stated in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:

“If the disbelievers are in excess of double (i.e. double the strength of the Muslims) and victory is hoped
for where we have believed it likely if we remain steadfast, then it is recommended to remain steadfast.
And if we believe it most likely that we will be made to perish and not be victorious, then fleeing is
obligatory because of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت َْهلُ َك ِة‬

ِ ُ‫َو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
And do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

And if it is believed that we will destroy ourselves but be victorious (in the end), then it is recommended
(Mustahabb) to flee” (4).

Related to this and concerning the Mas’alah (issue) of hurling weaponised projectiles (i.e. from catapults)
against the disbelievers when the effects of those weapons are wide and expand to encompass those who
inhabit those lands, in terms of Muslims, then the following was mentioned in “Al-Muhadh’dhab”:

[(1) An-Nawawiy said in his “Arba’een” (Forty): The Hadeeth is Hasan related by Ibn Maajah, Ad-Daaru Qutniy and others is
the Musnad (conncetd) form. And Maalik related it in “Al-Muwatta’” Mursalan from ‘Amr Bin Yahyaa from his father from the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬but did not include (in the chain) Abu Sa’eed i.e. Al-Khudriy. And it (the Hadeeth) has paths which strengthen each
other (Al-Arba’een, An-Nawawiy: p74), (2) “Al-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123, (3) “Usool ul-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad
Az-Zuhailiy: 98, (4) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/226].

“And if they had amongst them Muslim prisoners I have viewed:

- If it is feared from them that is they are left that they will fight and defeat the Muslims, then it is
permitted to hurl (i.e. projectiles or wide damage) at them because the preservation of those with us of the
Muslims is given preponderance over preserving those who are with them.

- And if that is not feared from them, I have viewed:

- If the number of prisoners is few in number it is permitted to hurl projectiles of wider afflicting damage
upon them because the view which is apparent is that they will not strike them (i.e. the Muslims) however
it is better to not do that because perhaps the Muslims will be struck (i.e. by the weapons).
- And if their number is many, it is not permissible to hurl the weapons against them, because the view
that is apparent is that it will strike and afflict the Muslims and that is not permitted in other than the
situation of the Daroorah (necessity)” (1).

In addition, the non-prisoner or captive Muslims within the lands of the enemy take the same Hukm (legal
ruling) as the Muslim captives as has been stated within the books of Fiqh (2).

- The following came in “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”:

“And if it is known that they are being killed then departing (i.e. from the battle) is Awlaa (preferable) and
even if they knew, alongside that, that they have no impact in respect to the defeat of the enemy, then it is
obligatory for them to flee. Abu l-Ma’aaliy said: And there is no disagreement (or difference of opinion) in
respect to that” (3).

I say: If fleeing is obligatory if this situation occurs whilst the war is waging between the Muslims and their
enemies, then not declaring war against the enemy, in the first place, in such a situation, is even more sure
to be obligatory. That means the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting in this reality that has been presented.

- And it was stated in “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: If they (i.e. the Muslims) come to know, due to strong linking
indications, that the disbelievers will defeat and vanquish them, then they should avoid and steer clear
from fighting them and seek reinforcements from the Mujaahideen and seek the assistance of the people
of Islaam. This has been deduced based upon the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت ْهلُ َك ِة‬

ِ ُ‫َو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
And do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

The Aayah dictates that (deduction) in accordance to the generality of its wording or worded expression
and even if its Sabab (cause of revelation) was specific.

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: (Takmilat ul-Majmoo’: 19/297). Refer to “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:

4/223-224, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/223, (3) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p165].

That is because its Sabab An-Nuzool (reason or cause of revelation) was that when the Ansaar tended to
their agriculture, rectifying their properties and leaving Al-Jihaad, Allah revealed this Aayah in relation to
their affair. That is according to what Abu Dawud, An-Nasaa’iy and At-Tirmidhiy collected and was
classified as Saheeh by At-Tirmidhiy and Al-Haakim. And it has been determined or established in ‘Usool’
that the consideration is with the generality of the Lafzh (wording) and not the specificity of the cause.
That is whilst it is known that the one who proceeds whilst he sees that he will be killed, taken as captive
or defeated, then he has thrown himself into destruction by his own hand” (1).

- And in “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “It is obligatory upon the Imaam to dispatch a Sariyyah (military
expedition) to Daar ul-Harb (land of war i.e. Daar ul-Kufr) every year, once or twice … This if he views it
to be most likely (Ghalaba ‘Alaa Azh-Zhann) that he compares favourably to them, otherwise, it is not
permissible to fight them” (2).

The above represents a model representing what the Fuqhaa’ have said in relation to this first reality in
which the fighting of the enemy takes the Hukm of At-Tahreem when it leads to profound or grave harm
reaching the Muslims.

As for the second reality: That is the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the enemy
when it takes Muslims or those under the Amaan (security) of the Muslims as shields to protect itself …
Then, regarding this Mas’alah, the following was stated in “Al-Muhadh’dhab”:

“If they (i.e. the enemies from the Ahl ul-Harb) take shields from those who include Muslim prisoners:

- Then, if that is in the situation of the engagement in war (i.e. when fighting is underway), it is permissible
to hurl (i.e. projectiles from catapults and its like) and for the Muslim to die. That is due to what we
mentioned [i.e. what he stated previously in terms of leaving the fighting of them leading to harm reaching
or afflicting the Muslims).

- And if it is in other than the time of engagement in war (or battle) it is not permissible to hurl
(projectiles) against them at all.

- And if they use the Ahl udh-Dhimmah as shields or those with whom there is an Amaan (security)
between us and them, then the Hukm (ruling) in respect to that is the same as the Hukm of when they use
Muslims as shields. That is because it is Haraam to kill them just as it is Haraam to kill the Muslims” (3).

Concerning this, we will discuss in detail the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the Mas’alah of “Using
(human) shield” in its place within this research paper (or doctorate) and we will be concise here in
accordance to the requirement (of this current are of study).

[(1) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/529. And in respect to the Hadeeth that has been pointed to Ash-Sheikh Naasir
ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh”. Refer to “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy” by Al-Albaaniy: 2373, 3/25 and in Sunan At-
Tirmidhiy: 2972, 5/212 and At-Tirmidhiy said: Hadeeth Hasan Saheeh Ghareeb, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/337, (4)
“Al-Muhadh’dhab” (Takmilat ul-Majmoo’: 19/296)].

I say: The above represent some of the cases in which the Fuqahaa’ have determined the Tahreem
(prohibition) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the enemy … And there are cases other than these which they
have mentioned. And included within the host of what they have mentioned in terms of those cases, even
if they are from the viewpoint of some Ijtihaadaat, are the following:

- Al-Qitaal (fighting) without the permission of the Ameer (1), fighting the Kuffaar after they had given
the Jizyah according to its rules i.e. accompanied by the acceptance of submitting to the Islamic rule (2), a
Muslim fighting the disbelievers after they have given him an Amaan (security) and after the Muslims have
given them an Amaan (security) (3), fighting those whom the Da’wah has not reached (4), the weak
fighting in the duel (5), fighting the enemy in the ‘Haram’ or in the Hurum (inviolable or sacred) months
(6) and fighting for the sake of fame and showing off or to be seen by others (7) …

Concerning these cases, then our purpose in this study was merely to affirm that Al-Jihaad could be
exposed to circumstances in which it is Haraam to undertake it and we did that by mentioning some of
the evidences that provide this Hukm. As such, we will limit ourselves to the cases that we have presented
with their connected evidences and what the Fuqahaa’ have stated in respect to them … Concerning these
last cases which we have merely listed above and indicated to, then references for them have been
provided in the margin (or footnotes) without the Shar’iyah or Fiqhiy texts that indicate to them, and they
are either from the matters that we have previously discussed or which we will examine later.

Up until this point we have concluded the explanation of the different Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah At-
Takleefiyah related to Al-Jihaad or Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the enemies in accordance to the general
and specific circumstances surrounding it.

As such, we have reached the conclusion of our discussion of the first chapter of the fourth volume of
this research paper (or doctorate). It is the chapter in which we have addressed the subject area of: “The
explanation of the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad within the books of Islamic Fiqh”.
We now move on, by the favour of Allah, to the second chapter of this volume.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/420 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/460, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, 10/545 and “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Ad-Dasooqiy: 2/202, (3) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/549 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/565, (4) “Haashiyah
Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/344 and “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”: 19/285, (5) “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”: 19/316, (6) “Haashiyah Ibn
‘Aabideen”: 3/338 and “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/114, (7) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”: p166].

Chapter Two
 The tool of Al-Jihaad - The Islamic army - Its organisation - Its training - Its
human and material components

Foreword about this chapter

The first study: The different types of organisation that the army requires.

The second study: The different types of training that the Army requires.

The third study: The human components:

- The first requirement: The individuals composing the main army and their role within it.

- The second requirement: The reserve army.

- The first branch: Arming of the public and its limits.

- The second branch: The volunteers in the army and their role within it.
- The third branch: The Hukm (ruling) of women participating in the army and their role within it.
- The fourth branch: The Hukm of children participating in the army and their role within it.
- The fifth branch: The Hukm of non-Muslim citizens participating in the army and their role within it.
- The sixth branch: Foreigners in the Islamic army and their role within it.

The fourth study: The material components:

- The first requirement: The means of attaining weapons.

- The second requirement: What are the financial sources of revenue for the different army expenses?

Chapter Two

The tool of Al-Jihaad - The Islamic army - Its organisation - Its training - Its
human and material components

Foreword about this chapter

This is the second chapter of the fourth volume addressing the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad. Within it we will
discuss the tool that practises Al-Jihaad, without which it would not enjoy that existence through which
Islaam is carried to the other lands, in order to place them before the three options or choices which we
have previously discussed. Just as the protection of Islaam and the defence of the Muslims and their lands
from the plots and plans of those who scheme against it and the evil of the aggressors, is accomplished
and realised through it.

That tool which steers the wheel of Al-Jihaad is the Islamic army (Al-Jaish ul-Islaamiy).

This army is not merely a human quantity that has gathered together and then taken up arms in whatever
way that comes about! Rather, it is a military apparatus that has human and material components, subject
to different arrangements and organisations, whether in the time of peace or in the time of war, which
must be attended to.

Similarly, it is subject to different types of training (or drilling) that must be undertaken.

And if the army, as we have mentioned, is not merely a human quantity that has gathered together and
taken up arms in whatever way that comes about, but rather is dependent upon human and material
components …

Then, in that case, what are its human components? And how does the provision of its material
components take place? These are the matters that we will be discussing in this chapter and we will
undertake that according to the areas of study that we have divided this chapter into and what branch out
from them.

Let us then now begin with the first of these areas of study:

The First Study

The different types of organisation that the army requires

We will address this study through the following points:

1 - The First Point: What do we mean by different types of organisation (Tanzheemaat) which the army
requires?

2 - The Second Point: What is the angle that we are dealing with in respect to those organisations
(Tanzheemaat)?
3 - The Third Point: Realities or examples of the activities and tasks which must be undertaken by those
different organisations.

1 - The First Point: What do we mean by different types of organisation (Tanzheemaat) which the
army requires?

What is intended by those “Tanzheemaat” (organisations), is the establishment of those numerous

organisational bodies within the army, each of which supervises over a type of the actions and activities
connected to its formation, compositions and requirements, the tasks that it undertakes, in addition to
other matters connected to the army which require organisation. And these organisational bodies
implement that supervision over their actions and activities via numerous administrative bodies that
branch from them where each of these is designated with a particular action from amongst the actions
that the army requires. That is so that it is prepared and ready to engage in military and bloody struggle
with the enemy at any time, with the hope of winning that struggle or clash, so that it realises the purposes
and aims that it has been entrusted with.

The Brigadier General Dr. Muhammad Damir Witr informs us of those organisational components by
telling us about the administrative bodies which undertake those organisational elements … And about
the manner of how the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in his capacity as commander of the Islamic army, used to undertake
all the tasks which the different administrations in the army undertake.

When discussing the administrative bodies and their actions or undertakings, the Brigadier General stated
the following: “The administrative bodies: They are the collection of different departments that undertake
the securement of the military and administrative service for the army. The number of these bodies, their
organisation and size differ in accordance to the economic and human potentials and capabilities of the
lands, in addition to considerations of the strength of the military enemy”. He then states: “The Arab
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was concerned with a number of administrations and applied a special level of
importance to them. The most significant of these were: The administration of planning and organisation,
the administration of Shouraa (consultation), the administration of directing the morale, the
administration of information gathering (i.e. reconnaissance and research), operations, training and
equipping. Then there was the administration of provisions, supplies and booties, and the administration
of medical services”. He then said: “These administrations used to undertake their tasks according to the
obligatory military requirements and they did not have specific structures like we see today just as they
were not (completely) separate from each other or from the field army in respect to its actions and
elements. That is because it was possible for a fighter to also be charged with reconnaissance and with
another task at the same time. And all of these administrations were headed by a single head who assumed
their administration and the supervision over them. He was the “Qaa’id Al-‘Aamm” (General or overall
leader or commander). Also, these administrations were not concentrated in a particular or specific
location but were rather included within the army and moved with it and were located or concentrated
along with it. For that reason, the teeth of the army were stronger than its tail and its fighting elements
were greater in number than its administrative elements” (1).

This is what has been said concerning the different organisations or organisational elements that the army
requires and the numerous administrations that the undertaking of those organisations is reliant upon.

With that we have reached the end of the first point and now come to the discussion of the second.

2 - The Second Point: What is the angle that we are dealing with in respect to those organisations
(Tanzheemaat)?
The angle which we are treating in respect to those organisations is dictated by the title of this volume that
we are in and that is: “Ahkaam ul-Jihaad” (The rulings of Al-Jihaad).

And as the army is the tool of Al-Jihaad (or by which it is undertaken), it was therefore necessary for us,
after explaining the different Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah of Al-Jihaad in respect to what it is, in the first
chapter of this volume, it was necessary for us, after that, to explain the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah connected
to the tool which is responsible for undertaking the obligation of Al-Jihaad. That is the army and all which
that tool comprises in terms of its different organisational elements which guarantee the preservation of
its entity, its progressive increase in strength or power, its fighting and military preparedness and its
success in respect to the tasks and missions that have been entrusted and delegated to it.

[(1) “Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah Fee Huroob Ar-Rasool Muhammad ‫( ”ﷺ‬The military administration in respect to the wars to
the Messenger Muhammad ‫”ﷺ‬: p107-108].

As such, the point that we are dealing with now and addressing is restricted and limited to the following
question:

- What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to those organisations or organisational elements which the
army requires?

i.e. Is it permissible to establish specific and specialised administrations, in respect to the army, where each
of its administrations has a specialised task that has been branched out to it and does not concern another
administration, just like the situation of the armies in our current age?

And the answer to this question is made clear through the consideration of the following matters:

A - The Shar’iyah texts which have legally charged the Muslims to all go out or some of them to fight the
enemy, according to what the circumstance with that enemy dictates, and to prepare for it as much as they
can in terms of power to repel (1) it or strike fear in it, these Shar’iyah texts did not restrict the Muslims to
specific organisational elements, in respect to gathering the force and preparing it in addition to other
matters connected to the army and Al-Qitaal (fighting).

As such, the subject area is open to all types of organisational elements which the gathering of power, its
preparation and other connected matters require, as long as those organisational elements do not conflict
with or oppose the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah.

It is on this basis, that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, established the Deewaan
(register) of Al-Jund (soldiers) and Al-‘Ataa (provisions or financial allocations) and this represents a type
of organisation of the Islamic army in respect to one of its aspects. The Sahaabah approved of what he
did whilst knowing that this type of organisation was taken from the Persians and the Romans of that
time (2).

It was mentioned in “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah”, when commentating upon the command of the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to dig the trench, in accordance to the advice of Salmaan Al-Faarisiy, may Allah be
pleased with him (3), whilst it was the lands of Persia who were the first to employ this defensive system,
at a time when the Arabs had been unware of such a system of defence, when discussing this, the
following was mentioned in this book:

[(1) “Repelling” according to the modern military concept means “To turn the enemy away from the aggression because its
consequences and dangers are absolutely not proportionate to the gains and interests that are anticipated to be realised” Article:
“The nuclear deterrent and horizons of the future”, Colonel: Muhammd Sameeh As-Sayyid: p21 from the “Military thought”
magazine issued by the policy department of the Arab Syrian Army, 9th year, third edition, Sha’baan 1401 AH, May/June 1981
CE, (2) “Ad-Deewaan”: It is a register or book in which the people of ‘Al-‘Ataa’ (those deserving of receipt of financial
support), ‘Asaakir (troops) and Butoon are written”, “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah” (Administrative arrangements), Ash-Sheikh
‘Abdul-Hayy Al-Kataaniy: 1/225. Also, refer to “Taareekh ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ibn ul-Jawziy: 43-44, “Al-Ahkaam us-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: 199-200, “Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantawiy and his brother Naajiy:
p328, “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr. Hasan Ibraheem Hasan and his brother ‘Ali: p179, and “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”,
Dr. Hussein Al-Haaj Hasan: p449, (3) “Seerah Ibn Hishaam” (Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/263)].

“… That indicates to the permissibility of this type of taking precaution or being on guard from the
enemy and the origin in respect to that is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare for them all that you can of power (and force) … (Al-Anfaal: 60).

In that is the greatest evidence that the kingdoms and states which do not follow upon the steps or path
of their neighbours in respect to the war machinery, military arrangements and scientific, practical,
manufacturing and agricultural organisations, that they have adopted, then they will be on the verge of
being easy prey for them, even if that is not immediately. The situation of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dictated that he
adopts the best and most beneficial of these matters, whether his people were aware of that and acted in
accordance to it or if they were not aware (and had no experience of it).

Concerning this, it has been confirmed that he said to ‘Aasim Bin Thaabit:

َ‫َمنْ َ َقا َت َلَ َف ْل ُي َقاتِلَْ َكماَ ُي َقا َت ُل‬

Whoever fights then he should fight as he is fought

Al-Haafizh Ibn Taymiyyah …: It has been confirmed from him ‫ ﷺ‬that he commanded fighting the
Turks and that his Ummah will fight them and it is known that it is only beneficial fighting them with the
Persian short bow however they (i.e. the Turks) were fought with the Arab bow, and so it was of no
benefit. Rather, they (i.e. the enemy) were able to target the Muslims further with the strength of their
archery. It is therefore necessary to fight them with that which will vanquish (or defeat) them …” (1). The
book then went on to address the Mas’alah (issue) of imitating or resembling the foreigners and the Hukm
in respect to that. The following is from that which was mentioned concerning that:

“We are not forbidden from the accompaniments of everything that the A’aajim (foreigners or non-
Arabs) have done unless the Sharee’ah has forbidden it and the Qawaa’id (principles i.e. of the Shar’iyah)
have indicated that it should be left … The forbiddance is specific to that which they do which is in
violation to the dictates of our Shar’a. As for what they have done which conforms to the Nadb
(recommendation), Iejaab (obligation) or the Ibaahah (permissibility) in respect to our Shar’a, then we do
not leave that based on their dealing with it. That is because the Shar’a has not forbidden imitating the
action which Allah has permitted. As such, we see that he ‫ ﷺ‬dug the trench in Al-Madinah in imitation
of the foreigners or non-Arabs so that the Ahzaab (confederates or hosts) would be taken back or
astonished by it. Then they came to know that it had been under the guidance of Salaam Al-Faarisiy …”.

[(1) “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah”: 1/376-377. Concerning the distinguishing or special quality of the ‘Persian bow’ the following
was mentioned in the book “Al-Jaish Wa-l-Qitaal Fee Sadr il-Islaam”: “And this bow (i.e. the Persian bow) is distinguished by
its firing of delicately or finely trimmed small arrows. With these qualities, these arrows are distinguished by not being visible so
as to defend and be protected from them. Just as they are distinguished by the speed of their effectiveness and the length of
their reach which could reach up to 500 cubits. The archer is also enabled to carry 1000 arrows at one single time due to their
small size”, “Al-Jaish Wa-l-Qitaal”: p309, Mahmoud Ahmad Muhammad Suleymaan ‘Awwaaad].

He then went on to discuss the Mas’alah (issue) of “Al-Libaas” (clothing) which included the following
speech: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the Arabs from “At-Tashabbuh” (resembling and imitating) the ‘Ajam
(non-Arabs) but it has not come (i.e. been reported) from him, that he forbade the clothing of the non-
Arabs and recommended the dress of the Arabs. Some of them said: And from this meaning is that which
conforms to Al-Jaahilliyah (pre-Islamic period) whilst a forbiddance of it has not come in our Shar’a”. He
then affirmed the Shar’iyah principle which governs this Mas’alah (issue) and that is: “Al-Asl (origin) in
respect to things is Ibaahah (permissibility) until the Nahy (forbiddance) has been proven or established”
(1).

I say: From all of this, it becomes clear that the different organisational elements upon which the matters
or affairs of the army and its conditions revolve, fall under the area or scope of the Mubaahaat
(permissible matters). That is as long as they do not contravene the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, and that
applies whether those matters are related to the centres where the army is established and its distribution
upon the fronts and different regions, or related to its military formations, the clothing that it individuals
wear or its organisation of military ranks, in addition to the many other organisational aspects related to
the army, which do not fall under the scope of this research paper to delve into and discuss.

B - The Shar’iyah principle (Al-Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah) that states:

‫َبهَِ َفه َُو ََواجب‬

ِ ُ‫َالوا ِجب‬ َ ‫َم‬
َ ‫اَالَ َي ِت َّم‬
That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (2).

This principle dictates that is there are a number of styles (available) to realise the Waajib, then the choice
of a single style from amongst the styles for the purpose of undertaking the Waajib, remains within the
scope of the Mubaah (permissibility). However, when a single style has been designated to undertake that
Waajib (i.e. it is the only way to fulfil it), then in such a case, it becomes an obligatory matter in which
there is no choice in respect to it. And if there was a style better than another style to undertake the
Waajib, whilst other valid styles were available, then the adoption of the best style takes the Hukm (ruling)
of An-Nadb and Al-Istihbaab (recommendation), in this situation and not the Hukm of Al-Wujoob. That
is because it then falls under the category of “Al-Itqaan” (perfection) in respect to performing the actions
whilst “Al-Itqaan” (perfection or doing something well) represents a required or demanded value,
according to the Shar’a.

The Hadeeth came stating: As related by ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫َع َمالَأَنْ َ ُي ْتقِ َن َُه‬

َ ‫ََّللاَ َت َعالىَ ُيحِبّ َإِ َذاَ َع ِم َلَأَ َح ُد ُك ْم‬
َ َّ ّ‫إِن‬
Verily, Allah loves that when one of you does an action, that he does it well (or with perfection)
(Itqaan) (3).

C - It was stated within the first chapter of this volume, that the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies could
become Fard ‘Ain upon every Mukallaf (legally responsible) Muslim. That is like the situation if the enemy
occupies a Muslim land or was facing that occupation. In such a circumstance, the Qitaal of the enemy
would be Fard upon every Mukallaf Muslim within this land. I say: In light of these three previously
mentioned matters, we will answer the question that has been asked in the point that we are currently
dealing with and that is: What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to those different organisational
elements which the army requires?

[(1) “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Abdul Hayy Al-Kataaniy: 1/379, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah:
p179 and “Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy”, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p318, (3) Related by Abu Ya’laa: “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 4/98 in the
Chapter: “Nush il-Ajeer and Itqaan ul-‘Amal”].

And the answer is:

- The Asl (origin) in respect to those organisational elements is that they are upon (the Hukm of) Al-
Baahah (permissibility) because they represent legally legitimate styles to undertake the Fard of Al-Jihaad.
However, if certain organisational elements are designated or specified which it is not possible for the
army to undertake its tasks effectively except through managing its affairs upon their basis, then in such a
case, they come to be from the Waajibaat (obligations) which it is not permitted to neglect their
undertaking. That is in accordance to the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle):

‫َبهَِ َفه َُو ََواجب‬

ِ ُ‫َالوا ِجب‬ َ ‫َم‬
َ ‫اَالَ َي ِت َّم‬
That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (1).

- However, in the case where it is possible for the army to undertake the Fard of Al-Jihaad without those
organisational elements or without certain organisational elements (Tanzheemaat) from among them,
without disturbing the accomplishment or realisation of what has been obliged in terms of actions,
however adhering to those modern or proposed organisational elements makes the undertaking of the
Waajib of Al-Jihaad more productive and effective, then in such a case, those organisational elements
would take the ruling of An-Nadb and Al-Istihbaab (recommendation) and not Wujoob (obligation). That
is according to what came mentioned in the Hadeeth:

‫َع َمالَأَنْ َ ُي ْتقِ َن َُه‬

َ ‫ََّللاَ َت َعالىَ ُيحِبّ َإِ َذاَ َع ِم َلَأَ َح ُد ُك ْم‬
َ َّ ّ‫إِن‬
Verily, Allah loves that when one of you does an action, that he does it well (or with perfection)
(Itqaan) (2).

- Having said this, when those organisational elements are adopted in the case where departments of the
army are occupied in specific or particular actions to the exclusion of others, like information gathering,
supply, medical care or engineering works like digging trenches or bridges etc… I say: When these
organisational elements dictate that departments of the army become occupied in those actions, then that
occupation should not be such that it suspends those individuals occupied in those departments from the
ability of taking up arms and engaging in the actual fighting, as a result of that occupation in those specific
areas. That is because, as explained earlier, conditions could arise which make the taking up of arms and
undertaking the actual fighting Fard ‘Ain upon every individual. As such, it is obligatory to take the
necessary steps and arrangements to make those who are occupied in those administrative departments
within the army in a situation where they are amongst those who are capable of taking up arms on a
permanent basis.

The above represents what is said in answer to the question related to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to
the different organisations or organisational elements which the army requires. We now come to the final
point of this study.

[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu Zahrah: p179 and ‘Usool At-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy”, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p318, (2) related by Abu Ya’laa:
“Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 4/98].

3 - The Third Point: Realities or examples of the activities and tasks which must be undertaken
by those different organisational elements:

A - The task of information gathering, reconnaissance and spying against the enemy:

It is well-known that it is necessary for every army to have information about the enemy before deciding
to engage in a clash with it and that information covers all aspects which benefit the engagement in
respect to the struggle or clash and winning in it … Therefore, included amongst the administrative
organisational elements of modern armies, is the establishment of a specific administration to provide that
information.
I say:

- As for the effort or attempt to obtain information about the enemy, then it is a Waajib (obligatory)
matter because it is from the essential matters of preparation for Al-Qitaal (undertaking the fighting) …
Concerning this, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to undertake the gathering of information about the enemy in a
continuous manner and we will mention example of that after a short while.

- As for specifying an administration within the army for the sake of fulfilling that purpose which
dispatches spies within the ranks of the enemy and engages the services of those who can provide or
communicate to it the required information … and what is similar to that (1), then this falls under the area
of organising (At-Tanzheem) and the origin in respect to that is Ibaahah (permissibility). Therefore, if the
undertaking of the Jihaad does not take place in a manner which does not bring harm upon the Muslims
or the undertaking of Al-Jihaad does not happen in an effective manner except by the establishment of
these specialised departments, then in such a case, their formation becomes Waajib (obligatory) in the
Shar’a and it is not permitted to fall short or be negligent in respect to it.

Brigadier General Muhammad Daahir Witr, under the heading of “Administration of reconnaissance” (2),
stated the following: “It is the administration which is tasked with obtaining the gathered information
about the enemy and particularly related to: The intention, the gathered formation and the landscape and
region upon which the fighting will take place, in addition to making sure that the information is accurate,
conforms to reality and verifying that it is correct…

[(1) The means of information gathering can be found in an article of the “Military thought” magazine under the title: “The
importance of reconnaissance in war operations”: p49, issue number: 6, 15 th year, Rabee’ ul-Awwal-Rebee’ uth-Thaaniy 1408
AH, November-December 1987 CE … Issued by the political administration in the Arab Syrian army. The article was by
Colonel Koznitsov and translated by Lieutenant Dr. Adnaan Abu Fakhr, (2) The military administration: Brigadier General
Muhammad Daahir Witr: p143].

… That is undertaken by utilising all the various available paths and means of information gathering or
reconnaissance (1)”. He then said:

“The concern of the Arab Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬for reconnaissance or information gathering was greater than
his concern for other military matters. That is because the attainment of complete information means the
taking of the correct decision …

He dispatched numerous expeditions toward different fronts to attain information about Quraish and
their intentions and about hostile tribes and the Romans, and he kept track of all points goes in and out of
Makkah …” (2).

In relation to the reconnaissance expeditions which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched to attain information of the
enemy, Major Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibraheem said the following: “Within these expeditions we find
an important matter and that is the secrecy of the directing of the exploratory and reconnaissance group.
And within modern warfare the fleets could traverse upon the ocean waves in a particular direction upon
instructions that the commander would open a sealed letter at a certain place to find a different or new
command and to proceed in a different direction to what had previously been designated to him. That is
undertaken to preserve the secrecy of the matter that had been delegated to him. Concerning this, the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched ‘Abdullah Ibn Jahsh over 13 centuries ago along with a letter that he must look at
after travelling for two days. That was undertaken so that every individual in Al-Madinah was unaware of
where Abdullah Ibn Jahsh was heading and then not write or send to Quraish informing them! …” (3).

The examples within the subject area of “At-Tajassus” (spying) are many within the Prophetic Seerah.
Included amongst them is what came recorded in Saheeh Muslim where the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent Hudhaifah
Bin Al-Yamaan on one of the nights from the nights of the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Khandaq which was
extremely cold and windy, to gather news of the enemy upon the other side of the trench.

[(1) “The means of reconnaissance or information gathering during warfare are many and include: observation, listening,
rounds, prisoners, air reconnaissance, land and air photography”, “Al-Harb” (War), Muhammad Safaa: 28, (2) “Military
administration”: p143, (3) “Muhammad the Leader”, Major Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibraheem: p115, published 1364 AH/
1954 CE. Also refer to the report of the Sariyyah (expedition) of ‘Abdullah Ibn Jahsh in the Sserah of Ibn Hishaam, “Ar-Rawd
ul-Unuf”: 3/22-24].

The following is some of what has been mentioned regarding the occurrence:

“I was with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on the night of the battle of Al-Ahzaab and we were gripped by
a violent wind and severe cold. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Indeed, Allah will make the man who
brings me news of the enemy be alongside me on the Day of Judgement”. We all kept silent and none of
us responded to him. [And the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬repeated that three times and then said: “Arise Hudhaifah!
and bring me information about the enemy”. When he called my name, I had no option except to get up.
He said: “Go and bring me information of the enemy and do nothing to provoke or instigate them against
me”. When I departed from him, I felt warm as if I was walking in heated baths until I reached them. I
then saw Abu Sufyaan warming his back against fire. I put an arrow in the middle of the bow, wanting to
shoot him, but then I recalled the words of the Messenger of Allah ‫“ ﷺ‬Do not provoke or instigate
them against me”. Had I fired at him I would have hit him. But I returned and (again) felt warm as if I was
walking in heated baths. Then when I arrived back to him, I informed him about the news of the people. I
came to an end and began to feel very cold. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then covered me with excess of
his cloak which he used to cover himself when performing the Salaah. I then continued to sleep until I
awoke and then when I woke up he said: “Arise O heavy sleeper!” (1).

The above is related to one of the various administrations which the army requires and the indispensable
tasks that it undertakes.

Let us now move on to discuss another administration and the tasks that it is charged with.

B - The task and role of supply:

Within modern armies there exists a special administration that undertakes this task and tasks which are
similar to it. The Brigadier General Dr. Muhammad Daahir Witr defined this administration under the
heading: “Administration of Supply and Provision”.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1788, 3/1414-1415. Other examples include what was recorded in “Zaad ul-Ma’aad” in respect to the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬sending Abdullah Ibn Abi Hadrad to Hawaazin following the Fat’ (conquest) of Makkah, to mix amongst the people and
reside amongst them until he had become aware of what they knew and then return to the Nabi and inform him… And so he
went and returned with information that they were intent upon war against the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. The following was stated in “Zaad
ul-Ma’aad” in relation to this and in respect to the Fiqh of the Ghazwah of Hunain (against Hawaazin): “And included within it
(i.e. the incident) in terms of Fiqh: That the Imaam must send out spies and those who will be inserted amongst his enemy, so
as to return to him (i.e. the Imaam) with their news (i.e. information about them)”: 3/479 and the narration of the incident
within the same source: p468. Also, regarding the dispatching of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬a spy from Khuzaa’ah of the Mushrikeen, to
Makkah, when he ‫ ﷺ‬went out to perform the ‘Umrah in the year of Al-Hudaibiyyah, to inform him about the Quraish …
Within the section of the Fiqh of the incident of Al-Hudaibiyyah the following was stated in “Zaad ul-Ma’aad” by Ibn ul-
Qayyim: “And from them (i.e. areas of Fiqh): That seeking assistance with a trusted Mushrik within (the area of) Al-Jihaad is
permissible at the time of need. That is because his spy from Khuzaa’ah was a Kaafir at that time and the Maslahah dictated
that he was better placed to mix and intermingle with the enemy and obtain their information”: 3/301 and the news of the
incident can be found in the same source: p288].
He said: “It is the administration tasked or charged with the material securing or ensuring (Ta’meen) and
the supply or provision of the armed forces with what they require in terms of material means and other
requirements like water, housing, clothing and evacuating populations from regions where military
operations are being conducted or engaged in” (1).

I say: In the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬the individual fighter was responsible for his own preparation in terms
of food, drink and the tools or equipment that he required, as long as he was capable of ensuring those
preparations by himself. If he was incapable of that, he would request the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to provide him
with what he needed and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to encourage or urge the affluent and rich to provide
preparations for those who were incapable of that themselves. That matter was made clear in the
following Hadeeth recorded by Muslim: “Anas Bin Malik related that he boy or young man had embraced
Islaam and then said: “O Messenger of Allah! I want to participate in the Ghazwah (i.e. battle or Al-
Jihaad) but I do not have with me that which I can be prepared with”. He said: “Go to so and so
person because he had made the preparations but then became ill”. And so he went to him and
said: “Verily, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬conveys his Salaam to you and he says for you to give
me that which you have prepared with (i.e. equipment and provisions)”. He said: “O so and so
(addressing a female i.e. his wife)! Give him that which I have prepared with (i.e. equipment and
provisions) and do not hold back anything from him. For by Allah! Don’t hold any of it back from
him so that you will be blessed by it” (2).

Therefore, this Hadeeth indicates that the fighter used to undertake the preparations for fighting himself,
with all that the fighter, who was departing his land to a far-off land, needed. Those preparations include
the provisions in terms of food and drink amongst other similar matters. The Hadeeth also indicates that
when the fighter is incapable of preparing himself, he then proceeded to request that from the Messenger
‫ﷺ‬, in his capacity as head of state and supreme leader of the army. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used
to then undertake the available procedures and management to cover and meet the needs of the fighters,
as much as he could. That included encouraging the wealthy Sahaabah to provide assistance to the
Mujaahideen in terms of preparing and readying those required preparations (or provisions).

Muslim related: “That Zaid Bin Khaalid Al-Juhaniy related from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ِ ‫َخلَ َفهَُفِيَأَهْ لِه‬

‫َِب َخي ٍْرَ َف َق ْدَ َغ َزا‬ َ ْ‫اَو َمن‬
َ ‫َّللاَ َف َق ْدَ َغ َز‬
ِ َ‫يل‬ ِ ‫َجه ََّزَ َغ‬
ِ ‫ازياَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ْ‫َمن‬
The one who equips the Ghaaziy (fighter) in the way of Allah has undertaken the Ghazwah
(himself i.e. he is like the one who goes to fight in terms of reward). And the one who takes care
of his (i.e. the Ghaaziy’s) dependents (whilst he has gone out to fight) then he has undertaken the
Ghazwah (3).

Concerning what is intended and meant by the “Tajheez” (preparation), the following was stated in “An-
Nihaayah) of Ibn ul-Atheer:

“Tajheez (preparing) the Ghaaziy (fighter means): Taking his burden and preparing (or making ready)
what he needs for his Ghazwah” (4).

[(1) “Military administration” (Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah), Muhammad Daahir Witr: p263, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1894, 3/1506, (3)
Saheeh Muslim: 1895, 3/1506-1507, (4) “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/321].

The books of Seerah have mentioned many reports or occurrences concerning the preparation or
equipping of the fighter himself and those who have the capability, assisting other fighters in respect to
the matters of provision and other preparations. An example of that is what has been mentioned in the
Seerah of Ibn Hishaam in respect to what happened in the Ghazwah of Tabook, that when the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
was resolved to march in this Ghazwah: “He commanded the people to make preparations and ready
themselves. He informed them that he was targeting the Romans and he encouraged the people of wealth
or affluence to spend upon it and provide riding or transport animals in Allah’s cause. And so the people
of wealth took the burden in anticipation of the reward from Allah. And ‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan spent a
great deal and nobody had given the like of him. Ibn Hishaam said: Somebody I trust told me that
‘Uthmaan Ibn ‘Affaan spent 1000 Deenaar on the Jaish ul-‘Usrah (the army of hardship) in the Ghazwah
(expedition) of Tabook. And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “O Allah be pleased with ‘Uthmaan for
verily I am pleased with him”. Ibn Ishaaq said: It reached me that Ibn Yaameen Bin ‘Umair Bin Ka’b An-
Nadriy met or came across Abu Laylaa Abdur Rahmaan Bin Ka’b and Abdullah Bin Mughfil, and found
them both crying! And so he asked them both: “What has caused you to cry?” They replied: “We went to
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to carry our burden (i.e. to provide us what we need to join the army) but we
didn’t find with him that which would do that and we don’t have in our possession that which will enable
us to go out (in battle) with him”. And so he (Ibn Yaameen) provided them with a drinking camel of his
to ride on and he provided them with sustenance of dates and then they went out alongside the Messenger
of Allah” (1).

Ibn Ishaaq also informed us that Abu Khaithamah said two his wives when the army had gone before him
on the march towards Tabook, he said to him: “Prepare for me provisions”. And so they did that. He
then brought his drinking camel, departed and sought the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬until he caught up
with him when he had set down at Tabook” (2). It was in this manner that the matters related to provision
took place in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in most cases … And in consideration of the circumstances of
that time and age this manner of management and arrangement was sufficient, to meet the requirements
in respect to this matter.

However, included within the administrative organisations of modern day armies, is a special or specific
administration for the securement of the needs of the army related to the necessary provisions and
supplies. The fighters are then excused from this concern whilst their whole concern is restricted to the
preparations related to meeting the enemy (in battle).

[(1) “Seerah Ibn Hishaam with verification by Muhammad Muhyi d-Deen Abdul-Hameed”: 4/170-172, (2) Same reference:
4/175].

It appears that such an organisational element has become one of the essential necessities within the
natural circumstances and conditions and that dependency on other than that in terms of styles could
expose the army to dangers. Dr. Mohsin Muhammad Hussein:

“The issue of provisions often defined the outcome of the (military) campaigns and hastened the
resolution of the results of the battle in the favour of the side that had taken sufficient reserves in terms of
provisions and water. It was the duty of the leader (or commander) to supply his army with the necessary
quantities that would be sufficient for the period of time that the army would spend on the way, in the
situation of war and then the return. He would also include in his calculations the continuation of
providing supplies and provisions according to the requirement and for the line of supply not to be cut or
interrupted, whenever that was possible. And if we were aware of the severe condition of thirst that the
Crusaders were suffering from on the day of Hitteen, which was at the head of the causes of their
monstrous defeat in that oppressive heat of July, we would realise the importance and significance of the
weapon of water in respect to one side (in the battle) overcoming the other. And it may have been the
difficulty of providing the necessary required provisions and supplies at ‘Akkaa that represented one of
the most important reasons for their fall into the hands of the Crusaders after an amazing lengthy period
of resistance that lasted around two years” (1). I say: In light of this, the organisation of the matters of
provisions and supplies in a manner that ensures the meeting of the requirements of the army, in terms of
food and drink, in a continuous manner, represents a matter in which there can be no negligence
concerning it.
Therefore, if this cannot be fulfilled except by establishing special or specific departments where a
collective of human elements assume the task of fulfilling the actions of this matter, then it becomes
obligatory to establish these departments and administrations in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle:
“That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib” (2)..

Concerning the different organisational elements that the modern armies have adopted and the
administrations that take care of those organisational elements, the quantity of those specialising in the
undertaking of the activities which those departments and administrations will assume the responsibility
for … All of these issues differ from one army to another in respect to the armies of the world today,
according to their capabilities from one angle and from another angle, due to the perspective through
which they view the organisational elements that accomplish their interests, in terms of quantity and
manner.

The following was mentioned in the book “Al-Harb” (War) by Colonel Muhammad Safaa, under the title:
“Logistics” (3):

[(1) “Al-Jaish ul-Ayoubiy Fee ‘Ahd Salaah ud-Deen” (The Ayoubiy army in the era of Salaah ud-Deen): p126, (2) Refer to:
“Usool ul-Fiqh”, Abu Zahrah: p179 and “Usool ut-Tashree’i l-Islaamiy”, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p318, (3) “Al-Harb”, Colonel
Muhammad Safaa: p284. The author did not define this word but the author of the “Mawred” English-Arabic dictionary
translated the word as “Logistic” and said: “That which has a relationship to the transportation of the soldiers, their supply,
provisions and lodging”].

“Logistics: It is that section from the obligations of the remaining actions and it refers to the provision
and supply of the army and its preparation with all that it requires, in the best conditions and quickest.
And it also refers to securing the requirements of medical or health matters, the means of transportation,
communications or information and its maintenance, in addition to building, maintaining and repairing
roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, airports, repairing and maintaining weapons and vehicles, and all other
remaining preparatory requirements and preparations, in additional to restoring or retrieving what has
been left or been damaged on the field of battle” (1).

- Colonel Muhammad Safaa explains the matter of the number of individuals specialising in these actions
within modern armies saying: “The number of individuals specialising in the actions of logistics ranges
between a fifth, or quarter, half or three quarters of the entire sum of active armed forces whilst the
remainder specialise in the fighting. For example, in the American army, within a force numbering 100,000
combatants or soldiers, the actual number of (fighting) combatants within this force does not exceed more
than 23,000. That is whilst the remainder, numbering 77,000 are dedicated to logistic actions and services
…”

“As for in the Russian army, in respect to a similar sized force, the proportion specialising in logistic
actions would be around 20,000 personnel” (2).

As mentioned previously, it is not the purpose of this paper (i.e. doctorate) to thoroughly examine the
different organisational elements which the army requires or to discuss their forms, shapes, types,
numbers and sizes in respect to the armies of the world today. Rather, the purpose is to explain the Hukm
Ash-Shar’iy concerning it. We have done that and then we presented some of these organisational
elements as a demonstration to explain what we intended from them and their impact in relation to the
organisation of the affairs of the army and the raising of its competencies to fulfil that which it has taken
upon itself to fulfil in terms of its tasks.

And by that we have reached the conclusion of this first study in this current chapter and we now move
on to the second by the help of Allah Ta’Aalaa.

[(1) “Al-Harb” (War), Colonel Muhammad Safaa: p284, (2) “Al-Harb”: 283-284].
 The Second Study

The different types of training or exercises that the army requires

We will approach this study by addressing the following points:

1 - The First Point: What do we mean by the different types of training or exercises that the army
requires?

2 - The Second Point: What is the angle that we are addressing in respect to those types of training or
exercises?

3 - The Third Point: A brief section about the concern with military training or exercises in the time of
the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

4 - The Fourth Point: The benefits that return to the army and the Ummah as a result of undertaking
those different types of training that the army requires.

1 - The First Point: What do we mean by the different types of training or exercises that the army
requires?

The first matter that comes to the mind from the word “Tadreeb” (training or exercises), in relation to
what we are addressing, is the training associated to the use of various types or categorisations of weapons
(1), in preparation for utilising them in the Qitaal (fighting or warfare). And this in truth, is what we mean
by the word “Tadreeb” (training or exercise) but does not cover all that we mean or intend here. For that
reason, we have used the plural “Tadreebaat” (trainings/exercises) and followed it with the word
“different”. And described differently it refers to what the army requires, and that is for us to indicate by
that to all of the dimensions or aspects that the “Tadreeb” (training) in the army comprises of.

In addition, these dimensions or areas (fields), which the training in the army relates to, covers all aspects
of military life.

[(1) Colonel Muhammad Safaa defines the categorisations within military language when he says that it relates to “The fighting
formations like: the artillery division, air force, tank divisions etc. (Al-Harb: p27)”].

- It includes and covers that which connects to the Qitaal (fighting), like the training undertaken upon
weapons usage, joining fighting formations (1), undertaking the role required within them and undertaking
the appropriate action in all circumstances of fighting that the fighters are exposed to.

- It also includes the types of training in other matters which do not fall under the area of Qitaal and its
organisational elements but are nevertheless necessarily tied to the Qitaal and those undertaking it.

- They could be of the indispensable matters required to enable the undertaking of the fighting effectively
and are necessary to draw out war plans, like information gathering, reconnaissance and spying against the
enemy.

- Or it could fall under the area of services that the fighters require to enable them to perform their
fighting obligation because they relate to their essential needs, like those related to provisions, medical
assistance to those who have been injured and so on …
What we have indicated to here and what we have not indicated to in relation to all that is included within
the scope of activities that the army engages in, whether they are fighting or non-fighting activities, is that
which concerns us in respect to the different types of training that the army requires.

With that, we have reached the end of the first point of discussion in this current study and now move on
to the second.

2 - The Second Point: What is the angle that we are addressing in respect to those types of
training or exercises?

Naturally, it does not fall under the scope of our addressing of these types of training to list the areas
which are the subject of those types or categories of training. Rather, that is the concern of the
departments within the army specified for that purpose.

[(1) The formation for Al-Qitaal or the arrangement of forces for mobilisations for fighting: This relates to the arrangements of
the divisions of the army in respect to each other and the general formation in relation to fighting like: The advance (or front),
the flanks or sides, rear and heart. This relates to the majority of the mobile forces with the aim of fighting: “Al-Harb” (War),
Muhammad Safaa: 32-33].

Concerning the discussion about a particular type from among the types of training that have been
indicated to and that is the training for Al-Qitaal (fighting), Colonel Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen ‘Ali
Mahfoozh stated the following:

“Training for Al-Qitaal (i.e. fighting or military engagement) represents the main activity and daily work of
every army. The organisation of each of these armies includes departments and their primary task is
planning and organising the training of their men in respect to fighting, supervising that and making the
necessary means, tools and accessories or services available to the army” (1).

I say: In the case where there are departments within the army that assume the task of organising the
undertaking of those types of training which are from that which exits from the scope of our study in this
research paper … Then, in such a case, what is the angle by which the addressing of these types of
training enter within the scope of this study?

The angle that we are addressing here is controlled or dictated by the heading of this volume that we are
currently in.

- That is just as we indicated to within the previous area of study and the heading or title of this volume is:
“The Ahkaam (rulings) of Al-Jihaad”. Just as we became aware of the different Ahkaam (rulings) related
to Al-Jihaad itself in the first chapter of this volume, it is also necessary to become aware, after that, of the
Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to the actions and activities which are considered to fall under the category or
topic area of the preparation of Al-Jihaad. By that, I mean the different types of training that enable the
Mujaahideen (fighters) to undertake their primary role and work, and that is Al-Jihaad.

Therefore, acquiring knowledge of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to undertaking those types of training
is dependent upon knowledge of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the preparation for Al-Qitaal. What
then is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to this preparation?

The answer: The undertaking of those types of training, which represents an aspect from amongst the
aspects of preparation for Al-Jihaad, is Waajib (obligatory) in accordance to the Shar’a. That is due to the
following matters:
Firstly: The undertaking of this training, in the case where it represents an action from amongst the
actions of preparation for Al-Jihaad, is also Waajib (obligatory) because the Shar’iy text came with the
obligation of this preparation specifically. That is found in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَ ََّماَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

[(1) “Al-Madkhal Ilaa l-Aqeedah Wa l-Istraateejiyah Al-Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah” (Entrance to the Aqeedah and the Islamic
Military Strategy), Muhammad Jamaal ud Deen ‘Ali Mahfoozh: p271].

Al-Qurtubiy said in his Tafseer: “Concerning His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

Allah Subhaanahu commanded the believers to prepare the force or power (Quwwah) for the enemies …
And all that you prepare for your friend in terms of good or for your enemy in terms of bad, falls under
(the meaning of) your preparedness or readiness (Al-‘Uddah) … And ins Saheeh Muslim it was related
from ‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

َ َ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ ْمىَُأ‬

ْ ََّ‫الَإِن‬
َُ ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ َْم‬
‫ى‬ ْ َّ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ ْمىَُأَالََإِن‬
ْ َّ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَ ُه ْمَ َماَاسْ َت َطعْ ُت ْمَمِنْ َقُ َّوةٍَأَالََإِن‬
And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60). (Be aware that) verily the
force (or power) is in the shooting of arrows, (be aware that verily) the force (or power) is in the
shooting of arrows, (be aware that) verily the force (or power) is in the shooting of arrows (1).

And there is another Hadeeth about shooting arrows also related from ‘Uqbah: I heard the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

َ‫َبأَسْ ُه ِم ِه‬
ِ ‫ََّللاَُ َفالََ َيعْ ِج ُزَأَ َح ُد ُك ْمَأَنْ َ َي ْله َُو‬ َ ‫َس ُت ْف َتحَُ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَأَ َرض‬
َّ ‫ُون ََو َي ْكفِي ُك ُم‬
Lands shall be opened for you and Allah will suffice you (against your enemies), so none of you
should give up spending time in pastime with his arrows (2).

And he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َال َح ِّق‬ َ ‫َِو َتأْدِي َبهَُ َف َر َسه‬

ْ ‫َُو ُمالَ َع َب َتهَُأَهْ لَهَُ َفإِ َّنهُنَّ َم َِن‬ ْ ‫ُوَبهَِالرَّ ُجل‬
ِ ‫َُالمُسْ لِ ُمَبَاطِ لَإِالََّ َر ْم َيه‬
َ ‫َُب َق ْوسِ ه‬ ِ ‫ُكلَُّ َماَ َي ْله‬
All idle pastimes that the Muslim man engages in are falsehood (Al-Baatil), except for his
shooting of his bow, his training of his horse, and his playing with his wife, for they are from
truth (Al-Haqq) (3).

And the meaning of this, and Allah knows best is: That everything that a man does as a pastime (Lahw)
which doesn’t benefit him, sooner or later, then it is Baatil and avoiding it is better or more appropriate.
And these three matters, even if he does them as a pastime, they are Haqq (the truth) because of their
connection to that which benefits. Shooting with a bow and training the horse are from that which assists
the fighting and playing (or enjoying time) with the wife could lead to a child that believes in Allah alone
and worships Him. And for this reason, these three actions are considered to be from the Haqq (truth)
…” (4).

Secondly: Undertaking that training is a Shar’iy Waajib (obligation) because it is a prelude to the
performance of the Waajib and that is Al-Jihaad. That is because the undertaking of Al-Jihaad does not
occur in a manner that realises its purpose until after the necessary training has been undertaken, which
represents the natural way to make its undertaking productive and effective. That is whilst the Shar’iyah
principle is clear in respect to all preludes or prerequisites of the Waajib and that Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah
which we have indicated to on many occasions is:

‫َبهَِ َفه َُو ََواجب‬

ِ ُ‫َالوا ِجب‬ َ ‫َم‬
َ ‫اَالَ َي ِت َّم‬
That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (6).

Thirdly: The continuation of training in respect to anyone who possesses some experience in the area of
Qitaal (or warfare), so that this experience is not subject to being forgotten, has been made obligatory by
the Shar’a.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1917, 3/1522, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1918, 3/1022, (3) Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhiy, An-Nasaa’iy “Jaami’ ul-
Usool: 3045, 5/41, (4) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/35-36, (5) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/36, (6) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abu
Zahrah: p179, “Usool ut-Tashree’ ul-Islaamiy”, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p318].

That came in his warning about the consequences of leaving the training which leads to the loss and waste
of that experience. It was related in Saheeh Muslim from ‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫ْسَ ِم َّناَأَ ْوَ َق ْدَ َع‬

‫صى‬ ُ ‫ْى‬
َ ‫َث َّمَ َت َر َكهَُ َفلَي‬ َ ‫َمنْ َ َعلِ َمَالرَّ م‬
Whoever learns how to shoot arrows (or archery) and then abandons it, then he is not from us or
he has been disobedient (1).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy, when commentating upon the Ahaadeeth related to archery, stated the following:

“Contained in the Ahaadeeth (there is) … The Fadeelah (merit) of Ar-Ramy (archery), Al-Munaadalah
(competing in archery), and to take care of that with the intention of Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah and
similarly Al-Muthaaqafah (a game with weapons where it is attempted to strike a target in competition and
the origin of the word refers to use of spears or lances) and other types of weapons usage, in addition to
racing with horses amongst other matters … And what is intended from all of this, is practising for Al-
Qitaal (i.e. undertaking fighting and battle), training, gaining expertise and exercising the body” (2).

And Ash-Shawkaaniy said when commentating upon this as well:

“And it contains a Daleel (evidence) for being occupied in learning the arts of Al-Jihaad, practising them,
taking care in their preparation and to practise that for Al-Jihaad, to train in it and exercise the body …”
He then commentated upon the Hadeeth which warns about abandoning archery after gaining experience
in it and said: “And his ‫ ﷺ‬statement: “He is not from us” contains an indication that the one who has
comprehended a type from among the types of Al-Qitaal (fighting or warfare) through which Al-Jihaad
Fee Sabeelillah is benefit, and then slackens or is negligent in respect to that (i.e. his skill) to the point that
he abandons it, then he would be very sinful. That is because abandoning the care (and maintenance) of
that indicates to the abandonment of the care associated to the matter of Al-Jihaad, whilst abandoning the
care and concern for Al-Jihaad indicates to the abandonment of the care and concern for the Deen due to
it (Al-Jihaad) being representative of its highest peak (Sanaam)…” (3).

Therefore, if the continuous training in respect to the one who has possessed some experience in the field
of Qitaal is from the Shar’iy obligations, then that means that obtaining or gaining that experience or
know how through training, is also from the Waajibaat (obligations).

We summarise all of this by saying that the military training and what is connected to it, takes the Hukm
of Al-Wujoob (obligation) in accordance to the Shar’a. Concerning this, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-
Nabhaani stated the following:
[(1) “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/88 and the Hadeeth is in Saheeh Muslim: 1919, 3/1522-1523, (2) “Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh
Muslim”: 8/128-129, (3) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/88].

“As the fighting today necessitates military training so that they undertake it in the manner that is required
by the Shar’a in respect to defeating the enemy and conquering the lands, then this training is Fard
(obligatory) like Al-Jihaad in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle:

‫َبهَِ َفه َُو ََواجب‬

ِ ُ‫َالوا ِجب‬ َ ‫َم‬
َ ‫اَالَ َي ِت َّم‬
That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (1).

That is because the request to undertake Al-Qitaal covers it as it (the Talab i.e. request) is ‘Aamm
(general): “‫”و َقاتلوهم‬
َ (And fight them: [Al-Baqarah:183]). That is because it is a command to undertake Al-
Qitaal (fighting) and (also or consequently) a command to undertake that which enables the Qitaal. Above
that, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

That is whilst training and high military experience or expertise falls under the preparation of the power or
force (Al-Quwwah). That is because it must be present to enable the Qitaal and therefore it is from the
Quwaah (power or force) that is prepared just like the equipment (munitions, ordnance etc.), (military)
tasks (or assignments and missions) and what is similar to these …” (2).

- The above is what relates to the training in the case where it is a prelude to the performance or
undertaking of the Waajib (obligation) which is Al-Jihaad. That is where it represents a type or kind of the
preparation that the command of the Shaari’ (Legislator) has specifically come with the obligation to
undertake it.

- As for the manner of organising the undertaking of this training, then the Hukm in respect to it is
subject to what came in the previous study concerning the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to the different
types of organisations which the army requires. The conclusion of that was: If what is required from the
training is not realised or fulfilled except by the establishment of special or specific departments and
administrations branching from that, which are occupied in the actions of the training, in terms of
establishing special training centres for this purpose and what that includes in terms of the required staff
and equipment etc. If that was the case, then such an organisational element would be Waajib (obligatory),
because it would represent a path to realise and fulfil the Waajib.

However, if there are types of trainings that it is possible for individuals of the army to undertake by
themselves without the need to burden the army’s budget with the establishment of special departments
to undertake that … Then it would not be Waajib, in such a situation, to organise the undertaking of it
through those departments and it would be sufficient to commission the individuals of the army to
practise those trainings by themselves without a specific restriction associated to its undertaking.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the second point of this study and now
move on to the third.

3 - The Third Point: A brief section about the concern with military training or exercises in the
time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬

The Islamic army in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬consisted of a collection or host of Muslims who has been
made legally responsible (Mukallaf) to undertake Al-Jihaad (3).
[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah: p179, “Usool ut-Tashree’ ul-Islaamiy”, ‘Ali Hasbullah: p318], (2) “Muqaddamat
Ad-Dastoor”, An-Nabahaani, 1969, (3) Refer to: “Muhammad the Commander”, Lieutenant, Muhammad Abdul Fattaah
Ibraheem: p97 and “The Messenger the Commander”, Major Mahmood Sheit Khattaab: p44].

This army consisted of those who had entered Islaam and many of them had already practised warfare and
had trained upon it in the period of Jaahilliyah (i.e. prior to Islaam). That is as they were living in an
environment and conditions that made it inevitable and necessary for every man from among them to
carry arms or use weapons and fall in line of the ranks of fighters. This could give the impression that
there was no need for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to be concerned about training this already trained army as their
former training had relieved him of this concern or worry. However, the situation that the Muslims found
themselves in after the establishment of the Islamic State in Al-Madinah following the Hijrah, in terms of
the forces of disbelief being ready to pounce upon them and due to the message that this State was
required to carry to the world which cannot happen without demolishing the physical or material barriers
and vanquishing the military forces that stand in its path … And in addition to that, there was the reality
of the new young generation of Muslims who had not experienced the life of the period of Jaahilliyah and
had not practised the arts of fighting or warfare, and also because the manner and way that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
assumed and dealt with the affairs of this army represents a form of legislation for those who will assume
its administration and running after him … Due to all of these factors and reasons, it was inevitable that
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬be concerned with this aspect (i.e. that of training) from amongst the aspects of caretaking
the affairs of this Islamic army.

- Consequently, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬called the Muslims, in their capacity as being individuals from this army, to
expend more effort in the different areas or types of training that this army required and to continue to
undertake these trainings.

- Just as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬encouraged the young from the children of the Muslims whenever he sensed
within them the potential to excel in a certain military art or skill, which brought about a desire within the
young growing man to proceed upon the different types of training within that area or field.

- The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬also directed the attention of the Sahaabah towards proficiency and excellence in the use
of specific types of weapons which have an effective role in winning the battles. That is like archery (or
shooting) which was represented in the bow and arrow in that age.

- In addition to that, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬alerted his honourable companions to direct their care and attention
towards new fields of battle from the fields of Al-Jihaad that they were not yet accustomed to, upon the
surface of which they will engage the enemy in battles in the future, and those were the battle fields of the
seas!

We will now mention, in the following section, some of the Prophetic directions or instructions, that we
have indicated to above, within the context of the concern related to the different types of training that
the army required.

- Care and attention to cavalry and horsemanship as a weapon, and pointing to its advantages, thus stirring
the desire to train with this use of weapon. The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaari: That the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫َالقِ َيا َمةَِاألَجْ ر‬

َ‫َُو ْال َم ْغ َن ُم‬ ْ ‫اَال َخ ْيرَُإِلَىَ َي ْوم‬
ِ
ْ ‫ْال َخ ْيلَُ َمعْ ُقودَفِيَ َن َواصِ ي َه‬
Good will remain (as a permanent quality) in the foreheads of horses (for Jihad) till the Day of
Resurrection, for they bring about either a reward (in the Hereafter) or (war) booty (in this world)
(1).
And Al-Bukhaari also recorded: That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َِ‫ِيزا ِنه‬ َ ‫َُو َر ْو َثه‬

َ ‫َُو َب ْولَهَُفِيَم‬ َ ‫َ َفإِنَّ َشِ َب ََعه‬،ِ‫اَب َوعْ ِده‬
َ ‫َُو ِر َّيه‬ ََِّ ‫اَب‬
ِ ‫اّلل ََو َتصْ دِيق‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ِ ‫ََّللاَإِي َمان‬ ِ ‫سَ َف َرسَاَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫َم ِنَاحْ َت َب‬
ْ ‫َي ْو َم‬
‫َالقِ َيا َم َِة‬
If somebody keeps a horse in Allah's Cause motivated by his faith in Allah and his belief in His
Promise, then he will be rewarded on the Day of Resurrection for what the horse has eaten or
drunk and for its dung and urine (2).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “This Hadeeth contains the permissibility in placing the
horses in a position of defence of the Muslims …

And concerning his statement: “And its dung” is referring to the reward of that and not that the dung in
itself is weighed. And in line with this is that a person leases his building and worker. And there is no
harm in mentioning an unpleasant matter at the time of need … And Ibn Maajah related a (Marfoo’)
Hadeeth from Tameem Ad-Daariy: “Whoever commits a horse to being in Allah’s way and then treats its
fodder by his hand, he attains a Hasanah (reward) for every grain (that he gives it)” (3) (4)”.

And regarding the advantage and merits of the use of cavalry or horsemanship as a weapon, in respect to
speed and movement, the following was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: Qataadah related: I heard Anas
saying:

َ،ُ‫َ َف َر ِك َبه‬، ُ‫َ ْال َم ْن ُدوب‬:‫َ ُي َقالَُلَ َُه‬،‫ارَال َّن ِبيُّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َف َرساَألَ ِبيَ َط ْل َح َة‬ َ ‫َ َفاسْ َت َع‬،ِ‫انَ َف َزعَ ِب ْال َمدِي َنة‬
َ ‫َك‬
َ ‫اَرأَ ْي َناَمِنْ َ َشيْ ٍء‬
‫َوإِنْ ََو َج ْد َناهَُلَ َبحْ را‬، َ ‫َفلَم‬
ََ ‫َّاَر َج َعَ َقا‬
َ ‫َ َم‬:‫ل‬
There was some alarm (or cause of fright) in Al-Madinah and so the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬borrowed a
horse from Abu Talha called Al-Mandub, and rode it. When he came back he said, "We have not
seen anything (to be afraid of), but the horse was very fast (having an energy as inexhaustible as
the water of the sea)” (5).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy: “Concerning his statement: “There was some alarm in Al-
Madinah”, then that means: Fear from the enemy. And regarding: “And we found it (i.e. the horse) was
indeed like a sea” then Al-Asma’iy said: It is said that the horse is a sea if it was wide in its stride or
because its running does not exhaust or run out just like the sea (i.e. it can keep going)” (6).

- The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬also used to make legally legitimate wagers in horse racing and used to participate himself
in those wagers, whilst the positive impact of that in connection to training for the actions of Al-Qitaal
(fighting and battle), in that age, is not hidden.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2852, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/56 and Saheeh Muslim: 1873, 3/1493, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2853,
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/57, (3) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2791, 2/933, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/57, (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2627, (6)
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/240].

Ibn ‘Umar related: That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to award (or set a prize) for horse racing and awarded
the one who won (1).

Anas related that he was asked: Did you used to wager in the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ?ﷺ‬Did
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wager? He said: Yes by Allah! He wagered upon a horse called
“Sahbah” and so the people competed and he was delighted with that and it pleased him (2).

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khidr Hussein stated the following under the heading: “Training for war”:
“In the case where the racing of horses includes within it training to engage in the exploits of wars, the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬permitted it and undertook it in the manner that is well-known within the books of Fiqh” (3).

The above represents some of what has come mentioned in respect to the concern for cavalry and
horsemanship as a weapon and the training in its use as a weapon, due to its effective role in the wars at
that time. That is despite its impact or effectiveness having become weaker in the modern era in relation
to the reality and area of warfare. That is because, in every era or time, weapons are used which have the
greatest impact and effectiveness. Concerning this matter, Colonel Muhammad Safaa stated the following:

“The horse, until recently, represented the master of the battle. It represented the speed and dynamic
mobility. It was the best and most appropriate weapon for directing the fight, gathering and arranging the
fight and pursuing (the enemy) … (4).

[(1) Musnad Al-Imaam Ahmad: 2/91 and an explanation can be found in “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/81, (2) Musnad
Al-Imaam Ahmad: 3/160, Sunan Ad-Daaramiy: 2/279-280, no: 2430. The verifier of the Sunan stated: It was related by At-
Tabaraaniy in “Al-Awsat”, Ad-Daaru Qutniy, Al-Baihaqiy, Ahmad and its Rijaal (transmitters) are Thiqqaat (trustworthy). And
further explanation can be found in “Nail ul-Awtar”: 8/83, (3) The book “Al-Hidaayah Al-Islaamiyah”: p14, (4) These are
explained further by Colonel Muhammad Safaa in his book “Al-Harb” (War) on pages: 21,23 and 30].

The horse remained occupying this outstanding or distinguished status and standing until the appearance
of firearms in the forms of artillery and machine guns which have quickly displaced horses for its number
one standing after it was given a painful lesson in the ‘Battle of the Pyramids’. That was the lesson that
was received by the horses of the Kings at the hands of the French General Bonaparte and his artillery at
the end of the 18th century in the year 1798 CE” (1).

We will now move on to discuss another Prophetic guidance from what we indicated to earlier within the
context of the different trainings that the army requires.

- Concerning the training in archery and the encouragement of excelling or acquiring expertise in its use,
the following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

َ"َ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬ ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬ َ ‫َ َف َقا َل‬،‫ون‬ َ ُ‫َمرَّ َال َّن ِبيُّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َع َلىَ َن َف ٍرَمِنْ َأَسْ َلَ َمَ َي ْن َتضِ ل‬
ِ ‫َبأ َ ْيد‬
َ،‫ِيه ْم‬ ْ ‫كَأَ َح ُد‬
ِ ‫َال َف ِري َقَْي ِن‬ َ ‫َ َقا َلَ َفأ َ ْم َس‬."َ‫َوأَ َناَ َم َعَ َبنِيَفُالَ ٍن‬،‫ا‬ َ ‫َرامِي‬ َ ‫ان‬ َ ‫َ َفإِنَّ َأَ َبا ُك ْمَ َك‬،‫ارْ مُواَ َبنِيَإِسْ مَاعِ ي َل‬
َ‫تَ َم َع ُه ْم‬َ ‫ِيَوأَ ْن‬
َ ‫َ َنرْ م‬،‫ََّللا‬ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬ َ ‫َ َف َقالُواَ َي‬."َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ"َ َماَلَ ُك ْمَالََ َترْ م‬ ِ َّ ‫َر ُس َول‬ َ ‫َف َقا َل‬
"َ‫ُواَوأَ َناَ َم َع ُك ْمَ ُكلِّ ُك ْم‬
َ ‫َقا َلَ"َارْ م‬
The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬passed by some persons of the tribe of Aslam practicing archery (i.e. the
shooting of arrows) Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “O offspring of Ishmael! Practice archery as
your father was a great archer. I am with (on the side of) the son of so-and-so-." Hearing that,
one of the two teams stopped shooting. Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬asked them: “Why are you not
shooting?” They replied: “O Allah's Messenger (‫ !)ﷺ‬How shall we shoot when you are with
the opposite team?” He said: “Shoot, for I am with you all” (2).

In respect to teaching the young in the art of archery and training in it, Al-Baihaqiy related from the
Hadeeth of Abu Raafi’: “It is the Haqq (right) of the son from his father that he teaches him writing,
swimming and archery” (3). And concerning the special or distinguishing quality or merit of archery, the
following came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”:

“’Utbah Bin Abi Hakeem said: I mentioned the bow in the presence of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and
he said: “No weapon has preceded it in good at all!”. Meaning that it is the most powerful of the tools of
Al-Jihaad and it (the statement) contains an urging and encouragement of the fighters to learn archery …
And Allah did not bring together for anyone his two parents except to Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas, may Allah
be pleased with him, on the day of Uhud. That is because he said (i.e. when firing): Shoot! Your sacrifice
my father and my mother (4) … And said: “Ride and that you shoot (arrows) is more beloved to me than
you riding” (5) …

[(1) “Al-Harb” (War), Colonel Muhammad Safaa: p429, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2899 and further explanation in “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 6/91 and “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/88, (3) “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal: 45340, 16/443, (4) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12/86:
Hadeeth no: 12193, (5) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 6/222-223 and refer to “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 3040, 5/41].

The conclusion: That which assists him with the undertaking of Al-Jihaad is recommended (Mandoob) for
him to learn and to become accustomed with it, due to what that brings in terms of giving strength and
might to the Deen and vanquishing the Mushrikeen (i.e. enemy disbelievers)” (1).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said the following when commenting upon the last Hadeeth:

“It contains the statement that archery is better than riding horses and that may be due to the severity of
its damage against the enemy, in every place that battle is undertaken and in all times, which is different to
the case of horses. That is because they are not used in fighting except in places (or terrains) where they
can traverse and move freely and not the terrains which are difficult for the horses to run in. And the
same applies in respect to the strongholds and fortresses” (2) (i.e. arrows are used but horses cannot).

And concerning the Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

Al-Aalousiy stated the following:

“Verily this was mentioned because the complete preparation was not present at Badr and so they were
made alert to that the victory without preparation does not happen every time! And Ibn ‘Abbaas, may
Allah be pleased with them both, explained the “Quwwah” (force or power) as being the types or forms
of weapons”. And after Al-Aalousiy mentioned the Hadeeth: “Indeed the Quwwah (Force or power) is
in “Ar-Ramy” (archery/shooting)” (3), he stated: “And the generality is evident, however he ‫ﷺ‬
specified the mention of archery because it represents the most powerful of that which can provide
strength or power and it is like the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “Al-Hajj is ‘Arafah” (4). And he
‫ ﷺ‬commended or praised archery and commanded learning it in more than one Hadeeth” … And then
he said: “And you (i.e. the reader) are aware that archery with arrows today does not reach the target of
the enemy because they are firing using guns and artillery whilst arrows can barely do anything against
them! And if they (the enemy) are not met with what is similar (i.e. in terms of weapons), then the chronic
or deep-seated evil will become widespread, the calamities will intensify and the people of Kufr and Dalaal
(misguidance) will possess the world! Therefore, my view, whilst the knowledge is with Allah Ta’Aalaa,
that this meeting of what they possess in like, is designated (as a duty) upon the leaders of the Muslims
and protectors of the Deen. It may be that the merit of that archery is affirmed in this new form of
archery (i.e. with guns and artillery), as it takes its place in respect to defending the heartlands of Islaam.
That is whilst I do not see in it in terms of fire, due to the necessity that has called for it, except that it be
a means or cause for success with Jannah In Shaa’a Allah Ta’Aalaa …

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 1/112/113, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/89-90, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1917, 3/1522, (4)
Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 889, 3/237, Sunan Abu Dawud: 1949, 3/266 and Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 5/264].

And it is not remote or improbable that this type of firing (i.e. with guns and artillery) enters within the
generality of His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
 ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬
And prepare against them all that you can of power (Al-Anfaal: 60) (1).

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khidr Hussein said: “(Concerning) the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Indeed the
Quwwah (Force or power) is in “Ar-Ramy” (archery/shooting)” (2), this alerts to that “Ar-Ramy”
(archery/shooting) is from the most important means by which power is exists. That is because aircraft,
ships, tanks and submarines are all tools that employ “Ar-Ramy” (firing)” (3)

Dr. ‘Imaad ud Deen Khaleel said: “(Concerning) the Qawl of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Indeed the Quwwah
(Force or power) is in “Ar-Ramy” (archery/shooting)”: Ar-Ramy (archery/casting/shooting) means
striking or hitting the target and it even applies in this current age in the case where technical wars bring
victories primarily based upon the extent of the ability of the soldier to hit his target by bullets, bombs and
missiles” (4).

The above section is related to the weapon (5) of Ar-Ramy (firing/archery/shooting) and the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
urging and encouraging that it be learned and trained upon …

- Concerning the encouragement of the young from among the Muslim children, whenever the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
sensed in them the signs or the potential to excel in any art from among the military arts, to entice that
young person to proceed upon the different types of training in this area … Concerning this, we will
mention what was mentioned in the biography of the Sahaabiy “Samurah Bin Jundub” as related by Ibn
Abdul-Barr:

“That the husband of Umm Samurah Bin Jundub passed away and left behind his son Samurah. She was a
beautiful woman and so she proceeded to Al-Madinah and was proposed to (for marriage). She would say:
That she would not marry except a man who would guarantee to her the financial support for her son
Samurah until he reached the age of maturity. And so a man from the Ansaar married her upon that basis.
She was then with him amongst the Ansaar and the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would examine the boys of
the Ansaar every year [i.e. to make those who were suitable from among them join the army for the
purpose of dispatching them on the fields of battle]. So, a boy passed before him and he permitted him to
be dispatched and then Samurah was presented before him after him and he rejected him [i.e. because of
his young age] …

[(1) “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 10/24-25, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1917, 3/1522, (3) “Al-Hidaayah Al-Islaamiyah - Jam’un Wa
Tahqeeq”: ‘Ali Ar-Ridaa At-Tousiy: p14, (4) “Diraasah Fee Seerah”, Dr. ‘Imaad ud-Deen Khaleel: p162, (5) The word “Silaah”
(weapon) could refer to the tool of fighting like the arrow, cannon and tank just as it could refer to the type or category like
Infantry, air-force etc. “Al-Harb” (War): p285].

… At that Samurah said: “O Messenger of Allah! You permitted the before and rejected me and if I was
to wrestle him I would defeat him!”. Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: Then wrestle him! He
(i.e. Samurah) said: So, I wrestled him and defeated him! And so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬permitted
me to be dispatched (i.e. to the field of battle)” (1).

However, it is not our intention here to go into length by mentioning the texts related to the different
fields of training which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was concerned with, and even if that was upon the level of
awakening the desire and stirring this desire towards the undertaking of the required actions within those
fields which would realise a sufficient level of competency within the army, manifested in various types of
training that would make it qualified, proficient and capable of undertaking its tasks that have been
delegated to it … I say: It is not our intention to go into length, in respect to the texts, by mentioning
what is connected to those fields of training … However, we point to that those trainings covered or
encompassed all of the areas or fields that the armies required in that age or time period and even in those
fields that the Arabs had not been familiar with. That is like the field of utilising engineering skills for
warfare which was manifested in the digging of the trench, or like the field related to sea warfare, in
respect to which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َّ‫َخيْرَمِنْ َ َع ْش ِرَ َغ َزواتٍَفِيَال َبر‬

َ ‫َغ َْز ََوةَفِيَال َبحْ ِر‬
A Ghazwah on the sea is better than ten Ghazawaat (expeditions of battles) upon the land (2).

That was from that which directed the resolve and endeavours of the honourable Sahaabah towards that
new field from among the fields of Al-Qitaal; a matter which motivated them to try and train with them
(or gain expertise in them), as a prelude to extending their military activity towards using it, in their
endeavour to carry the message of Islaam to the nations beyond the seas!

We repeat, it is not our intention to elongate the listing of the texts, which are many in number, in relation
to what we are currently aiming to address.

We will restrict ourselves to that which we have already mentioned in this brief section about the military
training which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was concerned wit and we will now move on to the the final point of
discussion in this current study topic.

4 - The Fourth Point: The benefits that return to the army and the Ummah as a result of
undertaking those different types of training that the army requires

It is possible for us to mention the most significant benefits in a number of matters that have resulted
from the different trainings. These are:

[(1) “Al-Istee’aab Fee Asmaa’i l-Ashaab”, Ibn Abi il-Barr: 2/76-77 (Printed in “Dhail ul-Isaabah”, Ibn Hajar: 2/77), (2)
Mustadrak Ibn Haakim: 2/143. He said: “This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the Shart (conditionality) of Al-Bukhaariy but they (Al-
Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record it”. Al-Mundhiry said in “At-Targheeb Wa t-Tarheeb”: And it is as he has said: 2/126].

A - To provide or make available the fighting competency for the army.

B - To fulfil and realise the fighting readiness i.e. the immediate readiness to engage in Al-Qitaal (fighting,
battle or warfare) at any moment whenever the matter demands or requires it.

C - To decrease the losses in lives and equipment during war. In respect to the reasoning for this benefit
from among the benefits of training, Colonel Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen ‘Ali Mahfoozh stated the
following: “The well-trained soldier is exposed less to being afflicted than his colleague who has not had
the training. This has been proven through the experience of wars until a principle arose that military
people in every place know, which says: “The sweat in training spares the blood in battle” …” (1).

D - The training provides the fighter with self-confidence and confidence in his weapon, which
strengthens the military spirit within him and the will to engage in fighting or battle (2).

With that we have reached the conclusion of this second study of this chapter and we will now progress to
the third.

[(1) “Al-Madkhal Fil-Aqeedah Wa l-Istraatajiyah Al-‘Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen ‘Ali Mahfouzh:
p271, (2) Same reference: p271-272].
The Third Study

The human components

Introduction: About this study

The First Issue: The individuals of the regular or main army and their role within it.

The Second Issue: The reserve army.

- The First Branch: Arming of the population and its limits.

- The Second Branch: Male volunteers in the army and their role within it.
- The Third Branch: The Hukm (Legal ruling) of women participating in the army and their role within
it.
- The Fourth Branch: The Hukm (legal ruling) of the participation of those who have not reached the
aged of maturity or puberty in the army and their role within it.
- The Fifth Branch: The Hukm (Legal ruling) of the participation of non-Muslims from the non-Muslim
subjects of the state in the army and their role within it.
- The Sixth Branch: Foreigners within the Islamic army and their role within it.

The Third Study

The Human Components

Introduction: About this study

We have mentioned that the army which represents a tool of the Islamic Jihaad, according to its fighting
meaning, consists of human and material components.

Its human components are all of the Muslims who have been made legally responsible (Mukallaf) to
perform Al-Jihaad because they have all be addressed in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َُ ‫َالقِ َتا‬
‫ل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been obliged upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216).

However, despite that, it is not a natural matter for all of those Muslims to participate within the army
launching out into the fields of battle and to leave their cities, towns and villages, with all that they contain
in terms of factories, industries, installations, interests, agriculture and what is similar to that, to leave
them at a standstill and state of inactivity, whilst waiting for the Mujaahideen to return so as to resume
that activity and motion.

Something like this, if it was possible to happen or did actually take place to some extent, before the
modern eras, without the nation and lands being exposed to danger or threat … Then this, I mean the
suspension of the natural life within the cities, towns and villages, and the general call out of all to go out
to participate in Al-Jihaad, this could not possibly take place without that resulting in consequences that
lead to the opposite results of what is hoped for from the general call out of the whole Ummah to go out
to fight.

This is in consideration of the changes that have taken place to the new life or living including what that
consists of in terms of specific organisations administering the affairs of the land, the interests of the
people, which have made the cities, towns and villages, with what they contain of factories, institutions
and amenities, represent the rear guard of the army that is going out for Al-Qitaal. Consequently, if the life
in this rear guard was suspended and its activity became paralysed, as a result of those who assume the
responsibilities of administering and running them, going out for Al-Qitaal (the fight/battle), then that
would mean a blow against the rear guard of the army and if the rear guard of the army is struck, its whole
existence is placed in danger and under threat!

Yes, indeed it could be possible for this general call out to occur in our current age albeit due to
unforeseen and temporary circumstances and where there is not a long period of time in which the rear
guard is left waiting for normal life to return to it. Otherwise, the army (i.e. the Ummah) will never gain
from that anything apart from the worst of consequences!

In line with what we have mentioned, the original ruling in respect to Al-Jihaad is that it is Fard ‘Alaa l-
Kifaayah (a duty upon the sufficiency). And it could be Fard ‘Ain upon every Mukallaf Muslim albeit in
unforeseen or urgent circumstances which have been spoken about in the prior chapter of this volume.

In addition, the divine address has come guiding the Muslims to that the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (2), i.e. the call
for the whole Ummah to actually participate in the fighting army, that this does not represent the natural
state in respect to the life of the Muslims. That is due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫ونَ ِل َينفِ ُرواَ َكا َّفةََۚ َفلَ ْو َالَ َن َف َرَمِنَ ُكلَِّفِرْ َقةٍَ ِّم ْن ُه ْمَ َطا ِئ َف َة‬ ْ ‫ان‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِم ُن‬ َ ‫َو َماَ َك‬
And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group
[remaining] … (At-Taubah: 122) (3).

Similarly, it is not a natural matter for all of the Muslims, who are Mukallaf (legal charged) to undertake
Al-Jihaad, to participate in the fighting army in practise or actuality. Just as it is not a natural matter for all
of the Mukallaf Muslims to join and be affiliated to the regular or state army, be devoted to the soldier’s
life and be cut off from the needed different activities apart from the activity of being recruited, awaiting
the opportunities that call for the undertaking of Al-Qitaal. Indeed, this is not a natural matter and is not a
legally legitimate (Mashroo’) matter …

[(1) “Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah”, General Muhammad Daahir Witr: p263 and “Al-Harb”, Colonel Muhammad Safaa: p280-281,
(2) “An-Nafeer ul-‘Aamm” is: “That all of the Muslims are needed or required”, “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/342, (3) At-
Taubah: 122: Refer to Tafseer Al-Qurturbiy: 7/293-294].

We have previously discussed the definition of the Waajib Al-Kifaa’iy (obligation of sufficiency), in the
previous chapter; that every (indispensable) activity of life that the Ummah and the lands require, are from
the obligations of sufficiency, and that it is obligatory for a group from amongst the Ummah to be
provided and made ready to fulfil each of these required activities until the Kifaayah (sufficiency) is met in
respect to them.

From all of this, it becomes clear to us, that if all of the Muslims, who are Mukallaf (legally charged) with
Al-Jihaad, are considered to all be representative of the Islamic army, it is not permitted for all of them to
be dedicated to one single activity from amongst the activities that are considered to be Fard Kifaayah (an
obligation of sufficiency), meaning for them all to be dedicated to Al-Qitaal or the preparation and
readiness for it i.e. dedication to military service. That is not permitted whilst the other activities are made
redundant, in the case where undertaking them also falls within the obligations of sufficiency.

Consequently, the Islamic army, meaning all those who are legally charged (Mukallaf) with the undertaking
of Al-Jihaad, must be divided into two divisions or sections:

- A division which is the main regular army and that is the section dedicated to Al-Qitaal or the reparation
and readiness to engage in it, so that this Fard Kifaa’iy (obligation of sufficiency) is met and covered at all
times, permanently.

- And a division which is the reserve army and consists of all of the Muslim civilians, as they have been
described in our current age. The one who is permitted joins with them and it is not obligatory upon him
to participate in the Qitaal (fighting). These should undertake the specific and general interests, which in
respect to them and the Ummah as a whole, are either from the ‘Ainiy (individual) obligations or from the
Kifaa’iy (sufficiency) obligations … or from the legally legitimate matters, in any case, whilst knowing that
it is obligatory for them to be in a continuous and permanent state of readiness to take up arms and
actually engage in Al-Qitaal, whenever the need demands or requires that. That makes it necessary, of
course, that they have already undertaken the Waajib (obligation) of preparation, for such a situation, prior
to that i.e. that they had previously performed compulsory military service within the army, as it has been
described in today’s language.

Therefore, the area of study that we are looking at now must address the issue of the regular or main army
and the reserve army, and from whom each of these armies is made up of? And to examine the role of the
individuals within each of these two armies?

We will address this issue according to the map that we have drawn out for this study and we will begin
with the first issue which discusses the regular army within the Islamic State.
 The First Issue

The Individuals of the Regular or Main Army and their Role within it

Introduction: About the beginnings of the formation of the Islamic army and its organisation.

The First Point: Who are the Mukallafoon (those legally responsible) to undertake Al-Jihaad as an
obligation?

The Second Point: Who are those whom are accepted in the regular army within the Islamic State?

Introduction: About the beginnings of the formation of the Islamic army and its
organisation

We have already stated within the study of “The different types of organisations that the army requires”,
that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to these organisations is Ibaahah (the ruling of permissibility),
because it means the selection or choosing of particular styles through which the Waajib is undertaken, in
the case where that Waajib in this subject area that we are addressing is Al-Jihaad. Then, if the Daroorah
necessity calls for a specific style to be designated, to the exclusion of others, so as to fulfil the Fard of Al-
Jihaad, that style alone represents an obligatory organisation, which has been adopted in respect to that
matter.
The Islamic army in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to proceed upon the same style that the Arab’s, prior
to the coming of Islaam, used to proceed upon, where it was summoned or called to engage in Al-Qitaal
whenever the need called for that … As such, he did not have special military camps for the army to
reside in, in a permanent manner and the army’s individuals were not cut off from the actions they would
pursue for the purpose of earning a living. Rather, they were fighters living with their families in their
homes and were engaging in those actions which were the source of their income, in terms of trad,
manufacturing and services … Then, if they were called to fight, they left everything and gathered in a
particular place on the outskirts of the land they were residing in. In that way they would form a simple
army, under the flags of their commanders, to confront the enemy … Then when the fighting came to an
end, they would all return to their homes, families and work.

Proceeding upon this style in respect to arranging the matter of the army and the Qitaal was sufficient in
consideration to the time of the Prophethood … However, when the Muslim fighters swept passed the
Arabian Peninsula, following the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, conquered lands which had been under the
control of the Persian and Roman Kings and annexed them to Daar ul-Islaam, this style of arranging the
affair of the army no longer led to the fulfilment of the intended and required purpose.

This was as the Muslim leaders truly feared that the Kings of disbelief would return to gain control over
the lands that they had departed from. That was when they sensed serious attempts from those Kings to
gather forces, make preparations, make alliances and draw out plans in this direction.

At this, the Muslim leaders saw that it was necessary, in order to shield from such an approaching danger
and threat, to adopt a system of recruitment. That meant: That a section from amongst the Muslims, who
have been charged with Al-Jihaad, become dedicated to the soldier’s life and remain bearing arms on a
permanent basis whilst they be provided for financially due to their being dedicated to the military life, at a
level that suffices them, their wives and children, from the worries of seeking sustenance.

And they saw it necessary that those Muslim fighters or great Islamic army be distributed over different
regions of the expanding Islamic State and for towns to be built for them or military centres (or barracks)
that they reside in alongside their families. That is so that they would represent striking forces that are
upon full readiness and alert, at the first sign or signal issued to them to march towards the fields of battle,
whether that was to defend or engage in offensive fighting, in light of the legally legitimate causes for war
in Islaam.

Consequently, Al-Koufah and Al-Busrah amongst other cities were taken as military bases for the Muslim
fighters. The regular army was formed for them to counter the regular armies of the other nations.
Concerning what we have mentioned, the following was stated in the book “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”
(Islamic Systems):

“The Arabs, in Jaahiliyah (i.e. the period before Islaam), did not have a specific system for the army …
The men of the tribe used to go out for battle when a cause demanded it … Then when the fighting
concluded they would return to their homes and return back to their work.

Then when Islaam came, it brought together the hearts of the Arabs (i.e. unified them) and they began to
fight to spread this Deen. Then the Arabs took to undertaking military expeditions and conquests. And
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab was the first to make the army a specified group and he established the
“Deewaan” (register) for the soldiers to supervise and administer them, by registering their names, their
descriptions or qualities, the amount of their incomes and enumerating their actions … Then when the
Muslims were able to conquer Iraq, Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), Palestine and Egypt, the army were set up
in each of the regions within special military camps for them. Then they went off to engage in agriculture,
gathering wealth and taking ownership of fixed residencies. In that way, they departed from the military
service and the military spirit diminished. ‘Umar became alert to this danger and commanded them to go
out for Al-Jihaad and guaranteed for them their subsistence or income and that of their families. And the
credit of establishing forts and permanent military bases for the soldiers to rest in upon the road returns
back to ‘Umar. From there, the capitals were constructed and garrisons were established in a number of
locations to block any surprise attacks by the enemies” (1).

And in respect to the explanation of the reasoning for the guaranteeing of the sustenance or income of
the individuals of the army and making them dedicated to the military life for the purpose of protecting
the Muslims and the Islamic lands from the aggression of aggressors and the plots of the disbelievers,
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, said the following when announcing the policy
that he was determined to implement in relation to the lands that had entered under the control and
possession of the Muslims and so that its produce be employed for the mentioned purpose: “I have
viewed that I should retain the lands with their non-Arab possessors and impose Al-Kharaaj upon them,
and Al-Jizyah upon their necks which they give as a Fai’ (booty) for the fighting Muslims, their offspring
and those who follow them. Have you seen these Thughoor (i.e. places on the frontiers that the enemy
can attack from)? They must have men upon them committed to them! Have you seen these great cities
like Ash-Shaam, Al-Jazeerah, Al-Koufah, Al-Busrah and Misr (Egypt)? They must be filled with armies
and have subsistence or income provided for them … If these ‘Thughoor’ (places or gaps through which
the enemy can attack) and cities are not filled with men and they are not provided with what they need (in
terms of sustenance and income), then the people of disbelief will return to their cities!” (2).

Concerning this matter, the following came mentioned in the history of At-Tabariy:

“When Umar allotted the payments, he allotted them to the people entitled to share in the immovable
booty (Ahl ul-Fay') to whom Allah had bestowed it. These were the people of al-Mada'in (towns) who
moved to al-Kufah, al-Basrah, Damascus, Hims, Jordan, Palestine,
and Egypt. He said: “The booty belongs to the people of the regions (i.e. newly established garrison
towns) and to those who joined them, gave them assistance and stayed with them” …

[(1) “An-Nuzhum Al-Islaamiyah”: Dr. Hasan Ibrahim Hasan and his brother Dr. ‘Ali: p178-179, (2) “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf:
p27].

Through them the cities and the villages were populated, treaties were administered by them, the Jizyah
was paid to them and through them the frontiers were made safe and the enemy was
subdued. Then `Umar wrote a letter instructing that the payments be given to those who were entitled to
them” (1).

Concerning the distribution of the Muslim fighters across different Islamic regions via the division of the
Islamic army into a number of armies where each is stationed in a specific region that is taken as a base
for it, to protect that region from internal rebellion or external aggression, concerning this, ‘Ali Ibn Abi
Taalib provided ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with them both, with his advice to dissuade
him from his resolve to march himself to fight the Persians (2), as some of the reports have said, and
according to what some of the Sahaabah advised him with, following the news reaching the Khalifah that
the Persians were gathering in Yazdijard and their gathering was for the purpose of waging war against the
Muslims with an army of 150 thousand fighters!

In some of the reports mentioned in the history of At-Tabariy, the following is a summary of what was
stated:

“…When 'Umar had told them (i.e. the Muslims) the news (i.e. about the Persian Yazdijard gathering his
troops) and had asked their advice, saying that they should be concise, to the point and not longwinded.
He said "Know that this is a day that will be decisive for the days that will follow. Talhah b. 'Ubaydullah
then stood… He recited the Shahaadah and then said, “O Ameer of the believers, you have judged wisely
in matters… With you rests the decision to be taken in this matter. So, if you give us your orders, we will
obey… Then 'Umar returned to address the people and said: “Today is a day that will be decisive for the
future. So, speak (your minds)”. ‘Uthman b. 'Affaan then stood up, then uttered the Shahaadah and said:
“Ameer of the believers, I propose that you write to the people in Syria. Let them march out from their
territory. I also propose that you write to the people of Yemen to march out from theirs. Furthermore, I
suggest that you, together with the people of these two holy cities, march out in the direction of the two
garrison cities, al-Kufah and al-Basrah, so that the combined disbeliever forces with meet all the Muslim
combined forces! … Then 'Ali b. Abi Taalib stood up and said: “O Ameer of the believers, if you move
the people of Ash-Shaam (Syria) to leave their Shaam, the Romans will pounce on their offspring. And if
you order the people of Yemen to leave their Yemen, the Abyssinians will pounce upon their offspring.
And if you depart from this land, rebellions may break out against your authority from all sides and
regions to the point that what you left behind, namely your wives and children, may become more
important to you than what lies ahead of you. Let those men stay in their garrison cities, and write to the
people of al-Basrah ordering them to divide themselves into three groups one to remain behind to protect
the women and children, another to remain behind to keep an eye on the conquered people who have
treaties with the Muslims, lest they rebel against them, and the third to march out to their brethren in al-
Koufah as reinforcements for the latter” … (‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib then added reasoning to his view warning
the Khalifah to not march out to wage war against the Persians). He said: “If the foreigners (i.e. Persians)
look upon you some day in the near future (i.e. on the battlefield), they will say: “This is the Ameer (leader
and commander) of the Arabs on whom the whole nation of the Arabs depends” and that will only
increase their desire to defeat you” … ‘Umar realised the correctness in all that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib had
said to him and decided to act by his advice. He said: “Yes, indeed, by Allah, if I leave this land, the whole
area may start a rebellion against me from all quarters and regions. If the Persians see me in person, they
will certainly not leave the battleground and they will surely be reinforced by those who have never given
them help (in the past). They will say to their forces: “This is the man on whom the Arabs depend; if you
cut him down, you will have severed the spine of the Arab nation”. ‘Umar then turned to his consultants
from the Sahaabah saying: “Advise me, what man shall I entrust with handling the situation on that front
in the days to come? … “Let it be an Iraqi (or someone in Iraq)” … Then the choice of ‘Umar fell upon
Al-Nu'maan b. Muqarrin al-Muzani, upon which they said: “He is the man for the role!” (1).

I say: From the reports that we have presented, we see how the beginnings of the formation of the Islamic
army in the Islamic State were. The newly occurring realities obliged making it dedicated to the affairs of
Al-Jihaad, distributing it over the different parts of the lands and providing the individuals of the army
with peace of mind from the concerns related to making a living for them and their families. This is whilst
we have previously stated that: Every Mubaah organisational element which the undertaking of the Fard
of Al-Jihaad cannot be undertaken in the manner that is required, except by its existence, becomes an
organisational element that is obligatory to adopt. That is in accordance to the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah
(principle) stating:

‫َبهَِ َفه َُو ََواجب‬

ِ ُ‫َالوا ِجب‬ َ ‫َم‬
ََ ‫اَالَ َي ِت َّم‬
That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib (2).

And so, this is what took place. It now remains for us to acquire knowledge of those who are recruited
within the regular army of the Islamic State? Meaning those who are dedicated to the life of a soldier and
removed from all other activities that would split his attention and take him away from the life of Al-
Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 4/124-126, (2) “Usool ut-Tashree’ ul-Islaamiy”: ‘Ali Hasaballah: p318].

- And what are the Shuroot (conditions) that must be met and fulfilled within them for them to be
accepted within this regular army?
To answer this question, it is necessary to first mention those who fall under the Takleef (legal
responsibility) of the obligatory Jihaad? (1).

Then we will mention secondly, those who are accepted within the regular army in the Islamic State? That
is because they are those who are taken, as a whole or most of them, from those who are being addressed
with the obligatory Jihaad.

Therefore, after concluding this introduction concerning the beginnings of the formation of the regular
army and its regulation or organisation within the Islamic State, we now move on to address that which is
connected to the individuals of this army and their role, in two points answering the two questions posed
above.

The First Point: Who are the Mukallafoon (those legally responsible) to undertake
Al-Jihaad as an obligation?

The Fuqahaa’ specified the Shuroot (conditions) of the Wujoob (obligation) of Al-Jihaad upon the
Mukallafeen (those legally responsible) as follows:

1 - Al-Islaam (2): That is because the Shar’iyah texts have specified the believers in relation to the Takleef
(legal charging) of undertaking Al-Jihaad. Amongst those evidences is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ َ‫ِينَ َعل‬
ِ ‫ىَالقََِت‬
َ‫ال‬ ْ ‫ض‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ َ ُّ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَال َّن ِبي‬
ِ ِّ‫َحر‬
O Prophet, urge the believers to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting/battle) … (Al-Anfaal: 65).

And His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ونَ ِل َينفِ ُرواَ َكا َّفةََۚ َفلَ ْو َالَ َن َف َرَمِنَ ُكلَِّفِرْ َقةٍَ ِّم ْن ُه ْمَ َطا ِئ َفة‬ ْ ‫ان‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِم ُن‬ َ ‫َو َماَ َك‬
And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group
[remaining] … (At-Taubah: 122).

[(1) The subject of the Mukallafeen with the undertaking of Al-Jihaad and the Shuroot (conditions) of this Takleef, has a
relationship with the first chapter of this volume where we discussed the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad and when it is Fard Kifaa’iy or
Fard ‘Ain etc. It also has a relationship with the second chapter that we are currently in due to its connection to the human
components of the Islamic army and who those individuals are from whom the regular army or reserve army are formed. We
have preferred to deal with the subject area of those who are Mukallaf to undertake Al-Jihaad and the conditions of this Takleef
here within the second chapter. That is because it is those Mukallafeen that this army or that is made up from … according to
the Shuroot (conditions) being fulfilled or met within them. That makes addressing this subject here more appropriate in
accordance to the plan that we are proceeding upon, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/339, “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”:
p164, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/216, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/366,
“Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/291].

2 - Al-Buloogh (reaching the age of maturity) (1): That is because Al-Buloogh (maturity) is a Shart
(condition) from among the conditions of At-Takleef (i.e. being legally responsible for undertaking) in
respect to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah in origin. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َح َّتىَ َيعْ قِ َل‬ ْ ‫َح َّتىَ َيحْ َتلِ َم ََو َع ِن‬
ِ ‫َال َمجْ ُن‬
ََ ‫ون‬ َ ِّ‫َح َّتىَ َيسْ َت ْيقِ َظ ََو َع ِنَالص َِّبي‬ ْ ‫ُرف َِع‬
َ ‫َال َقلَ ُمَ َعنْ َ َثالَ َثةٍَ َع ِنَال َّنائ ِِم‬
The pen is lifted from three (persons) (i.e. actions are not recorded): The sleeper until he awakes,
the boy until he reaches puberty, and the insane until he regains his ability to reason (2).
3 - Al-‘Aql (The reason or mind): And concerning the reasoning of the stipulation of the ‘Aql’ (mind and
reason) in respect to the Takleef of Al-Jihaad (3) the author of “Al-Mughniy” stated: “Al-Jihaad is not
undertaken by Al-Majnoon (insane person)!” (4).

4 - Al-Hurriyyah (freedom) (5): The Daleel (evidence) for this Shart (condition) is: What has been
recorded in respect to that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to take the Bai’ah (pledge) from the Hurr (free person)
upon Al-Islaam and Al-Jihaad whilst he took the Bai’ah (pledge) from the ‘Abd (slave) over Al-Islaam and
not Al-Jihaad (6).

Concerning the reasoning of this condition the author of “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” said: “In respect to the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫واَبأ َ ْم َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ُك ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ‫يلَاللَّـ ِه‬ ِ ‫َو َجا ِه ُد‬
And perform Al-Jihaad with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah (At-Taubah: 41).

There is no ‘Maal’ (wealth or property) belonging to the ‘Abd (slave) and no ‘Nafs’ (life) that he possesses.
Therefore, the address (in the Aayah) does not apply to him. Even if his master commands him, that
doesn’t bind him. That is as the Imaam has stated (i.e. Abu Hanifah) because he is not from amongst the
people of this matter and the Qitaal (fighting) doesn’t fall under the right of the master’s usage of him
because the ownership does not dictate exposure to death” (7).

However, stated within “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen” is that which establishes the possibility of the
obligation of Al-Jihaad applying over the ‘Abd (slave) with the permission of the owner. The proof is that
the prevention of the obligation of Al-Jihaad over him is only due to the right of the master (over him).
However, if he gives permission the prevention is negated (8).

5 - Adh-Dhukoorah (being male) (9): The Daleel for this Shart (condition) is what was recorded in
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98, “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”: p165, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/228 and “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 4403, 4/198, (3) “Al-Minhaaj Wa Sharhuhu Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:
4/216, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/228, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdasiy: 10/366, (4) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366, (5) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 4/340, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”,
Ad-Dardeer: 2/174, “Al-Minhaaj Wa Sharhuhu Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/217 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366, (6)
“Talkhees Al-Habeer”: 4/91, (7) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/217, (8) Refer to “Haashiyah Ibn
‘Aabideen”: 3/340, (9) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/174, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-
Sheeraaziy: 2/227 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366].

‘Aa’ishah, the mother of the believers, may Allah be pleased with her, said:

ْ َّ‫َ ِج َها ُد ُكن‬:‫ل‬

َُّ‫َال َحج‬ ُ ‫اسْ َتأْ َذ ْن‬
ْ ‫تَال َّن ِبيَّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَف‬
ََ ‫َََف َقا‬.‫ِيَال ِج َها َِد‬
I sought the permission of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to undertake Al-Jihaad and he said: “Your Jihaad is Al-
Hajj” (1).

The following came stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ibn Battaal said: The Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah indicates that
Al-Jihaad is not Waajib (obligatory) upon the women. However, the statement “Your Jihaad is Al-Hajj”
does not mean that they do not have the right to volunteer to undertake Al-Jihaad, but rather it only
means that it was not made obligatory upon them. That is because of what the act contains in terms of
being in conflict with what is required from women in terms of covering (i.e. their ‘Awrah) and keeping
away (or separating) from men” (2).
Concerning the Mas’alah (issue) of the stipulation of being male in respect to Al-Jihaad, Colonel
Mahmoud Sheet Khattaab stated the following under the heading of: “Conditions of acceptance into
military service (or being a soldier in the army)”:

“Military service is not restricted to mature men but rather includes mature (i.e. pubescent) women as
well. That is because the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬used to take women along with him in his Ghazawaat (military
expeditions) and indeed he took his wives him by way of drawing lots. Nobody objected to the
participation of women in war during the era of the rightly guided Khulafaa’ and the era of the Umayyads.
However, during the era of the Abbasids some rigid Fuqahaa’ arose. Consequently, they added a fifth
condition to the conditions for military service and that is the condition of being male. As such the army
was deprived of an effective element which would increase its number and morale!” (2).

I say: It appears that the writer above has mixed between two different matters and did not distinguish
between them. They are:

A - Does Al-Jihaad in its description as being a Fard Kifaayah encompass the woman in origin? Or is it
specific to the men alone?

B - Is it permissible for the woman to go out for Al-Jihaad or to be accepted in military service, as the
writer expressed it, if she does not fall under the Takleef of the Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy? That is of course
within the scope of the Shar’a.

Disregarding the inappropriate adjective that the writer used to describe whom he named some of the
Fuqahaa’ of the Abbasid era, which we would have preferred he not used, then what the Fuqahaa’
mentioned in terms of the condition of being male, was only mentioned by them upon the basis that it
represents a Shart (condition) in respect to those whom Al-Jihaad is obliged, in the case where Al-Jihaad is
a Fard Kifaayah. They did not mention that it is a condition in respect to those who undertake Al-Jihaad
when this Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain (designated upon every individual) or when it is voluntary. More detail for
this Mas’alah (issue) will be provided when we address the issue of: “Women in the Islamic army and their
role within it”.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2875, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/75, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/76, (3) “Ar-Rasool ul-Qaa’id” (The Messenger
the Leader or Commander), Colonel Mahmoud Sheet Khattaab: 30-31].

6 - Soundness or well-being of the body (i.e. health) and the ability to undertake Al-Jihaad (1):

The following was stated in “Al-Umm” concerning this Shart (condition). He said: “As-Salaamah Min Ad-
Darar” (Safe being from harm). He then explained what was meant by this wording or phrase and said:
“Its meaning is: Being free and well from blindness, lameness or sickness (disease). This is a Shart
(condition) due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aaalaa:

َ‫َح َرج‬
َ ‫يض‬ ْ َ‫الَ َعل‬
ِ ‫ىَال َم ِر‬ َ ‫ىَاألَعْ َر ِج‬
َ َ ‫َح َرج ََو‬ َ ‫ىَاألَعْ َم ٰى‬
ْ َ‫َح َرج ََو َالَ َعل‬ ْ َ‫ْسَ َعل‬
َ ‫لَّي‬
There is no restriction (or blame, problem etc.) on the blind, nor any restriction on the lame, nor any restriction on the sick
… (An-Noor: 61) (3).

Because these excuses prevent him from (undertaking) Al-Jihaad. As for the bind, then that is well-known.
As for the lame, then the prevention coming from him is the severity of the affliction that prevents
walking well and riding like that caused by the chronic illness or what is similar. As for the one who
afflicted lightly and can manage riding and walking and is only overwhelmed by the severity of the enemy,
then he is not prevented from the obligation of Al-Jihaad because he was capable of undertaking it and so
it resembles the defect or imperfection. Similar to that is the case of the sickness in the case where it
prevents by its severity. As for the light sickness that does not prevent the possibility of undertaking Al-
Jihaad like tooth ache and a light headache, then the obligation is not prevented from him because he is
not incapable of undertaking Al-Jihaad …” (4).

And the following came mentioned in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: “Al-Jihaad: Means the expending of effort
and this relates to the capability and potent strength in respect to Al-Qitaal or exaggeration of the act of
Al-Qitaal. And the one who has no capability for it, how is he to expend it and the (effort) action?
Therefore, it is not obliged upon the blind, lame, chronically ill, crippled, very elderly, sick and weak” (5).

(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/174, “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/163, “Al-Mughniy”:
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/337, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/163, Soorah An-Noor: 61. Refer to Tafseer At-Tabariy: 18/129,
Tafseer An-Nasiaabooriy: 18/115 and also Soorah Al-Fat’h: 17. Ibn ul-Arabiy said in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”: “And in respect to
Soorah An-Noor its explanation has already been presented and what is intended by it here is Al-Jihaad”: 4/1694, (4) “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/367, (5) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98].

I say:

- As long as these excuses which prevent the obligation of Al-Jihaad of the person who has them is
reasoned upon the basis that they negate the condition of ‘Al-Qudrah’ (capability) to undertake Al-Jihaad
like what was established by Ibn Qudaamah in the previously quoted statement of his: “Because these
excuses prevent him from (undertaking) Al-Jihaad” and in the case where the reasoned matter (Mu’allal)
revolves in existence and absence with its ‘Illah (reason) …

- And as long as the newly occurring realities in modern times within the area of Al-Jihaad; its
organisational elements and tools, have made some of those possessing these excuses viable to engage in
the Qitaal (fighting/battle) or viable to engage in acts connected to the Qitaal … Then in such
circumstances, I say: As long as the matter is how we have described it, then it is necessary to leave that
evaluation of the level of well-being necessary to participate in the Qitaal, to the one possessing the
authority and for him to evaluate the excuses that pardon those possessing them, from the obligation of
Al-Jihaad being directed towards them.

Without delving into the details of this issue … Is it not clear that the lameness from which used to lift
the obligation of Al-Jihaad, from the one afflicted by it, in the wars of old … that it doesn’t appear that it
would prevent the fighter today, if he was to sit upon the launching site of missiles, for example, from
excelling in striking the sought target?

In any case, the one who possesses the authority in respect to this matter, with the assistance of military
experts, whilst taking into account and consideration, the specificities related to every weapon from
among the various types of weapons present today, is the one who can specify and determine who is
suitable (or capable) from among the people of excuses to partake in an area from the areas of Qitaal
(fighting/battle) whilst being excluded from others or being excluded from all of them!

We now come to the last condition (2) which the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned in relation to our subject area.

7 - The presence of An-Nafaqah (spending/maintenance) (3):

Ibn Qudaamah explained the Daleel (evidence) of this Shart (condition) and the limits of the maintenance
required: He said: “As for the presence of the ‘Nafaqah’ (maintenance), then this is stipulated due to the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ص ُحواَلَِلَّـ ِه‬

َ ‫َح َرجَإِ َذاَ َن‬ َ ‫ونَ َماَيُنفِ ُق‬
َ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ض ٰى ََو َالَ َعلَىَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِين‬
َ ‫َالَ َي ِج ُد‬ ْ َ‫ض َع َفا ِء ََو َالَ َعل‬
َ ْ‫ىَال َمر‬ َ ‫لَّي‬
ُّ ‫ْسَ َعلَىَال‬
‫َو َرسُولِ َِه‬
There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend [in holy fighting (Jihad)], if they are sincere
and true (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger (At-Taubah: 91).
[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh”: Muhammad Zakariyaa Al-Bardeesiy: p 268, (2) Some of them mentioned that included within the Shuroot
(conditions) here is that he is not indebted just as they stipulated the permission of the two parents and we have already
discussed that matter in detail earlier, (3) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/98, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/175, “Al-
Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/228, “Al-Mughniy” and Ibn Qudaamah: 10/266].

That is because Al-Jihaad is not possible except with a tool (or means) and so the capability is considered
upon that. Therefore, if the Jihaad was to be undertaken over a distance in which the Salaah is not
shortened (1) it is stipulated that he has provisions and maintenance for his family to cover the period of
his absence and a weapon to fight with whilst the ride (camel) is not considered because of the shortness
of the travel. And if the distance was that in which the Salaah is shortened, then the ride (camel) would be
considered in addition due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫واَوأَعْ ُي ُن ُه ْمَ َتفِيضُ َم َِنَال َّدم ِْع‬

َ‫َح َزنا‬ َّ َّ‫َالَأَ ِج ُدَ َماَأَحْ ِملُ ُك ْمَ َعلَ ْيهَِ َت َول‬
َ ‫ت‬ َ ‫ِينَإِ َذاَ َماَأَ َت ْو‬
َ ‫كَلَِ َتحْ ِملَ ُه ْمَقُ ْل‬ َ ‫َو َالَ َعلَىَالَّذ‬
ََ ‫أَ َّالَََي ِج ُدواَ َماَيُنفِ ُق‬
‫ون‬
Nor [is there blame] upon those who, when they came to you that you might give them mounts, you said: “I can find nothing
for you to ride upon”. They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to
spend [for the cause of Allah]. (At-Taubah: 92) (3).

I say: In light of the reality of the army organisation and fighting today, there is no problem related to the
spending upon the weapon as that is provided by the state. Similarly, no problem arises in respect to the
personal spending of the fighter in terms of provisions and means of transport, as that is also provided by
the state.

The only remaining issue is that related to the spending upon the family who have a Shar’iy right from the
fighter to spend upon them during his absence or when he is occupied with the matters of fighting if that
resulted in his source of income becoming disrupted, whilst he doesn’t possess savings or another
secondary source that covers the needs of those family members.

In this case, if the state was to provide the financial maintenance, then this fighter would fall amongst
those whom the Jihaad ul-Kifaa’iy is obliged upon. However, if the state does not provide this financial
maintenance (Nafaqah) he would not be from those whom the Jihaad ul-Kifaa’iy is obligatory upon.

The basis of this Shart (condition) is that the Nafaqah (financial maintenance) upon those whom it is
obligatory for a person to financial maintain is Fard ‘Ain upon him. That is whilst Al-Jihaad, in other than
the circumstances in which it is designated as a Fard ‘Ain, is Fard Kifaayah. Being occupied with a Fard
‘Ain, which in our current issue is the effort to attain the Rizq for the family, is given priority over be
occupied in hat which is Fard Kifaayah, which in this case is the Jihaad that has been mentioned.

It was stated in “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “It is not correct to leave the Fard ‘Ain to arrive at (or
undertake) the Fard Kifaayah” (4). And we have already explained this matter a number of times.

[(1) The distance for shortening according to the majority is measured in two stages: “Sair ul-Athqaal and Dabeeb ul-Aqdaam”
i.e. Travel of two days in this manner and it is equal to just over 80km according to modern measurements. Refer to “Fiqh ul-
Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaily: 2/320-321, (2) At-Taubah: 92. Refer to Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/228, (3) “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/367, (4) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/339].

By that, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the first point of this issue that we are
addressing and now arrive at the discussion of the second point.

The Second Point: Who are those whom are accepted in the regular army within
the Islamic State?
The answer to this question is that most of them are included amongst those whom the address (Khitaab)
of the obligation of Al-Jihaad is directed towards. I have only used the word “most) here to make clear
that the scope is open before the possessor of the authority (i.e. ruler), in respect to this army, to include
within it those human elements whom the obligation of the Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy is not directed towards in
origin, if the Maslahah calls for that. That is like the women, children and non-Muslims … Even if the
place of these, in most cases, is only within the ranks of the reserve army, as will be explained later.

And we have already indictaed that it is not natural for all of those have been charged and made legally
responsible (Mukallaf) to undertake the Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy, to be conscripted within the regular army and
devoted or dedicated to the military life … Rather, that the natural state of affairs, in respect to that, is for
those legally responsible to be selected to undertake the Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy. Those who are the most
appropriate or suited and then the next best suited and so forth, in respect to their suitability and
appropriateness for conscription and military life.

Upon that basis, it is left to those in authority to place down the required conditions in respect to those
who will be accepted within this regular army, on the premise that they are legally legitimate conditions
whilst taking into consideration equal opportunity ... That is so that the Islamic army can proceed upon an
upward path in terms of competence and readiness or preparedness and consequently reaches the highest
possible level and standard, in relation to the (other) armies of the world. That is whilst continuously
striving to realise and meet the Shar’iyah ‘Illah (reason) that the Qur’aan Al-Kareem specified, in respect
to it representing the limit that the required “Readiness” (‫ )إِعْ دَاد‬must reach, in terms of power in all of its
various forms or types. That Shar’iyah ‘Illah (reasoning) is: “To strike fear (or terror) into the foreign or
external enemies” and all of those who are similar in terms of Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) and those
conspiring internally. That is according to what is clear in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُد َّوَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِو َع ُد َّو ُك ْم ََوآ َخ ِر‬
َ‫ينَمِنَ ُدون ِِه ْم‬ ِ ‫ُون‬َ ‫َال َخي ِْلَ ُترْ ِهب‬ َ ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوة‬
ْ ِ‫ٍَومِنَرِّ بَاط‬
‫َالَ َتعْ لَمُو َن ُه ُمَاللَّـهَُ َيعْ لَ ُم ُه َْم‬
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah
and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows (Al-Anfaal: 60) (1).

[(1) Al-Anfaal: 60. Refer to “Tafseer An-Nasafiy”: 2/197].

And concerning anyone whom the Maslahah (interest) of conscription within the regular army is not
dictated, i.e. to be dedicated and committed to the military life, then his place is within the reserve army in
which includes all the rest of the fighters and they are called to Al-Jihaad, some of them or all of them,
when the need (Haajah) or the Daroorah (necessity) dictates that.

We said: That the (human) elements of the regular army are chosen from amongst those who have been
made legally responsible (Mukallaf) to undertake Al-Jihaad; the most suitable and then the next suitable, in
respect to their suitability for being enlisted and for the military life. This means that all of those who are
Mukallaf (legal responsible) for al-Jihaad must pass through a period of learning, education and training, as
much as possible, for the military life, in the use of different weapons and what is similar to that. That
would happen from the age Takleef (i.e. puberty) which is 15 years of age as that is the age in which the
Muslim is legally made responsible (Mukallaf) to perform Al-Jihaad. In the case where the education and
training upon the military life and different weapons are considered to be from the necessary requirements
of the undertaking of Al-Jihaad, then this age, which is the age of Takleef (becoming legally responsible
and accountable), is also the age in which the Muslim is made legally responsible (Mukallaf) to begin the
learning of the affairs of Qitaal and training in the use of weapons.

Then at the end of this period, determined by the authorities, for this education and training, those who
completed that period would be considered:
- The one who then wishes to continue the military life, as a whole or for a period determined by the
authorities, and he has the zeal or the gifts and readiness or potential, which indicates that he will excel in
this field, he would be enlisted within the regular army.

And the one who is not endowed with what we mentioned and there is no Maslahah (interest/benefit) in
respect to joining him to the regular army, then he would be advised to move towards that which he is
suitable for from among the other fields of life, whether they relate to knowledge (or science) or
something practical.

- As for those who do not wish to continue in the military direction from those who have ended the
period or term of education and training, then they are not compelled upon a matter that is against their
wishes as long as the Fard ul-Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) is met by the presence of a regular army
that is capable of fulfilling the tasks that have been entrusted to it, at any given moment … However, the
door remains open to those in authority to enlist whatever human elements it needs, from any sector, into
the army, according to the Maslahah (interest) dictates, in accordance to the obligation of obeying the
Imaam in relation to that which the caretaking of the affairs of the Ummah calls for and to not disobey
him in respect to that (1).

[(1) “Qurratu ‘Uyoon il-Akhbaar”: 1/47].

The above concerns the individuals of the regular or main army of the Islamic State. As for the role that
these individuals undertake, then that role is the undertaking of Al-Jihaad. And Al-Jihaad, as previously
mentioned, is either defensive or it is offensive for the sake of making other lands apply the Islamic
system and to join or annex them to the Islamic State, whenever the local or international circumstances
permit that, according to what was explained in detail previously.

Conclusion:

It is obligatory upon the Islamic State to prepare the regular army at the highest level of readiness and
preparedness to undertake the Fard of Al-Jihaad, whether in defence or in a proactive stance (1).

As for the detailed process and management to reach the preparation of this army, then that enters under
the different organisational elements that the formation of the army and its preparation requires, and that
falls under the jurisdiction of those in authority.

As such, what we have mentioned here concerning this is only general guidelines to provide a general
picture about the formation of the regular army within the Islamic State.

And with that we have concluded the first issue and that is the regular army. We now move on to the
second issue of our current study, and that is the reserve army.

[(1) “This means taking the direction or course to seek out the enemy to meet, fight and destroy it upon the battle fields”, “Al-
Harb”, Colonel Muhammad Safaa: p21].
 The Second Issue

The Reserve Army

We have become aware, within the discussion of the previous issue, that the regular army is that army that
is under arms (or involved in military work) in a permanent manner. That is because its individuals have
dedicated and committed themselves to being soldiers and to the military life for the course of life or for a
particular period of time in respect to some of them, according to the systems (or procedures) that are
followed in this regard.

As for those outside of the regular army which consists of all of the remaining Muslims who have been
made legally responsible for undertaking Al-Jihaad and those whom it is permitted for them to participate
in the acts of Al-Jihaad and its services, then they are those who are intended by the reserve army and who
are called to fight at the time of the Haajah (need) (1) … or that the door is opened to these individuals,
from those who wish, to volunteer to participate in the undertaking of the military acts against the enemy.
The relevant authorities would be responsible for drawing out their size, limits and the objective from
that.
[(1) When the entire reserve army is called out or summoned to Al-Qitaal, this circumstance is called “An-Nafeer ul-‘Aamm”
and it is part of what has been called by “Al-Harb ul-Ijmaa’iyah” (Collective or general War) in our current age. Colonel
Mahmoud Sheet Khattaab said: “Al-Harb ul-Ijmaa’iyah” or “Al-Harb Al-Ii’tisaabiyah” or “Al-Harb Ash-Shaamilah” are all
military terminologies indicating to one military meaning. That is the gathering together of the all material and non-material
potencies (or capabilities) of the whole nation in service to the regular army alone for the sake of the war effort …”, “Jaish ur-
Rasool” (Army of Muhammad): p61). He then says: “The principle of the ‘Nafeer ul-‘Aamm’ (general call out to battle or war)
in the modern collective war states gathering 10% of the number of the war population only in the case where service begins at
18 years of age in most cases and the reserve service ends at 39 years of age for men and 34 years for the woman. As for the
Muslims in their collective comprehensive wars, then it is possible to gather 40% of the number (of the population) as the
military service or conscription starts at 16 or 15 years of age and includes anyone who is capable of undertaking Al-Jihaad … It
does not end at a specified age and the Muslim remains as a Mujaahid as long as he remains capable of taking up arms (i.e.
using weapons and capable of fighting). Everyone capable to bear arms from the Muslims is a soldier or commander within the
Islamic army”, “Jaish ur-Rasool”: p84].

Now, after having finished the discussion about the regular army, within the limits of the scope of this
research paper (Doctorate), we now turn our attention to discussing the reserve army.

Again, when discussing this issue, we will not allow the reins of the study to be pulled in different paths
and details which this subject area can possibly encompass and branch out to. Rather, we will stick to
those branches that we have previously specified in our plan for this research paper. The concern will be
focused upon addressing these branches from the Shar’iy perspective i.e. a study of the Shar’iyah texts and
what is based upon them from that which assists us to arriving to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah in relation to
the Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) which these branches present, within the subject area that we are in and that is:
“The Reserve Army”. It is also restricted in line with the title and heading of the volume, the issues of
which we are still addressing, and that is the “Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad”. Therefore, what are the Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah in respect to those issues related to Al-Jihaad as brought up by the branches of the second
issue of the study entitled: “The Human Elements of the Islamic Army”? This is the scope that we are
sticking within when addressing those branches.

We will now begin with the first branch:

The First Branch: Arming of the population and its limits

This subject area will be dealt with by quickly and briefly addressing the following points:

1 - The First Point: How did the arming of the fighters take place in the early era of Islaam?

2 - The Second Point: Is it permitted for the Ummah to form armed or militarised groups that are
disconnected or independent from the state for the purpose of undertaking Al-Jihaad?

3 - The Third Point: How does the arming of individuals of the Ummah take place today, when they are
called to take part in Al-Jihaad? And what are the limits of this arming process?

1 - The First Point: How did the arming of the fighters take place in the early era of Islaam?

At the beginning of Islaam, the fighter was responsible to prepare himself with the preparations that the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad required or demanded. Those preparations included those weapons that were
used at that time like the sword, spear and bow and arrows etc...

That was because the Jihaad which had been made obligatory upon the Muslims covered the Jihaad by
“Al-Maal” (wealth) alongside the Jihaad with the “Nafs” (life). Included within the Jihaad of the ‘wealth’ is
making the fighter Mukallaf (legally responsible), within the limits or constraints of his material ability, to
prepare all that is required to be prepared for the undertaking of Al-Jihaad, in terms of weapons and other
matters …

Concerning the Takleef (i.e. making legally responsible) of undertaking Al-Jihaad with ‘Al-Maal’ (wealth)
many Aayaat have come, which include within them, the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫واَبأ َ ْم َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ُك ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬

َ‫يلَاللَّـ ِه‬ ِ ‫َو َجا ِه ُد‬
And undertake Al-Jihaad with your wealth (or properties) and lives, in the way of Allah (At-Taubah: 41).

Just as the urging to undertake Al-Jihaad by wealth and property (Maal) was mentioned within the
Prophetic Sunnah:

َ‫َبأَمْ َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَ ْنفُسِ ُك ْم ََوأَ ْلسِ َن ِت ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َجا ِه ُدواَالم ْش ِرك‬
ِ ‫ِين‬
Perform Al-Jihaad against the Mushrikeen (polytheists/disbelievers) with your wealth (or
properties), your lives and your tongues (1).

However, there were amongst the Muslims those who were unable to secure those preparations that
fighting requires. In this situation, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would recommend the rich to help and assist those who
did not have the ability by providing what they needed in terms of weapons and other necessary
preparations, so that they could go out to fight the enemy.

The following came related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫َب َخي ٍْرَ َف َق ْدَ َغ ََزا‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬

ِ ‫ََّللا‬ َ َ‫َو َمنْ َ َخل‬،‫ا‬
ِ ‫فَ َغ‬
ِ ‫ازياَفِيَ َس ِب‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ ‫ََّللاَ َف َق ْدَ َغ َز‬ ِ ‫َجه ََّزَ َغ‬
ِ ‫ازياَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ْ‫َمن‬
He who prepares a Ghaaziy (Muslim fighter) going out in Allah's Cause, then he has gone out on
the Ghazwah (i.e. attains the reward) and he who looks after the dependents of a Ghaaziy, who
going out in Allah's Cause, well, then he has gone out on the Ghazwah (i.e. attains the same
reward) (2).

And similar was reported in a narration in Saheeh Muslim (3).

Ibn ul-Atheer said: “At-Tajheez (preparation) means: “At-Tahmeel” (Carrying the burden) and making
ready what the Ghaaziy requires” (4).

In addition, if a fighter did not go out for a particular battle, he would give his weapon to one of the other
fighters so as to assist him. The following was stated within the books of the Sunnah under the heading:
“Assisting the Mujaahideen”: “Jabalah, i.e. Ibn Haarithah, related that if the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not participate
in the Ghazwah, he would give his weapon to ‘Ali or Usaamah” (5).

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2504, 3/16. Al-Mundhiriy said: “It is probable that he intended by the statement of ‘And tongues’ the
meaning of ‘Al-Hijaa’’ (derision) and that is supported by his statement: “He is quicker with them than the protection of
arrows” (i.e. with his tongue). And it is also likely to mean the urging and encouraging of the people to undertake Al-Jihaad,
making them desire it and explaining its merits and benefits for them”, Margin of “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/564, (2) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 2843, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/49, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1895, 3/1506-1507, (4) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/567, (5) Related by
Ahmad, At-Tabaraaniy in “Al-Kabeer” and “Al-Awsat” and the men (transmitters) of Ahmad are ‘Thiqqaat’ (reliable): “Majma’
Az-Zawaa’id”: 5/283].

The Islamic State in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to undertake policies and measures enabling it to
make weapons available so that they could be extended to those who were incapable of arming themselves
when it called them to undertake Al-Jihaad. ‘Umar related: The properties (Amwaal) of Bani An-Nadeer
were from what Allah have to His Messenger as booty of which the Muslims did not take from its horses
or rides. It was for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬specifically. He held back from it the Nafaqah (spending) of a year and
what remained he allocated for the horses, the weaponry and for the preparation in the way of Allah (i.e.
for Al-Jihaad)” (1). It was also an affair of those possessing the capability, in the very early period of Islam
to provide weaponry to the people so that they could participate in Al-Jihaad with that.

‘Umar Ibn Mirdaas said: I arrived in Ash-Shaam (Syria) and I came across a man with heavy lips and nose
and he had weapons before him. They asked him and he would say: O People! Take from these weapons,
arm yourselves and perform Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way)” (2).

Then, in the time that followed, when the Islamic State possessed a plentiful supply of weapons, it is used
undertake the distribution to every fighter that wanted a weapon from it. This is substantiated by the
reports related to the “Riddah” (apostasy) in the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, may Allah be pleased
with him.

“Hishaam Bin ‘Urwah said that the people of the “Riddah” (apostasy) would approach Abu Bakr saying:
“Provide us with weaponry” and he would duly supply them with weaponry and then they would fight
him! And so, ‘Abbaas Bin Mirdaas As-Sulamiy said:

“Are you taking his weapons to fight against him! You are with the Ilaah (creator) very sinful!”

And when ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, assumed the Khilafah, he made the
“Dawaaween” (pl. of Deewaan i.e. register/s), imposed financial support and committed in his financial
policy I respect to the financial support to specify the fighter with an additional amount of money for the
purpose of spending upon weaponry.

It was related that ‘Ubaidah Bin As-Salmaani said: ‘Umar said to me: How much is sufficient for a man in
respect to his financial support? He (‘Ubaidah) said: I said: So much and so much…

[(1) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 1/48, Mussanaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 1325, 12/341, Saheeh ul-Bukhaariyt: 2904 and “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 6/93, (2) Ahmad (Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 5/283, (3) Musnad Ishaaq bin Raahwaih (“Al-Mataalib ‘Al-‘Aaliyah”: 2/231)].

… He (‘Umar) said: “I will surely make the ‘Ataa (financial support) of the man 4000! 1000 for his
weaponry, 1000 for his financial maintenance, 1000 for his house and 1000 for so and so, that I see
necessary. He said: And for his horse” (1).

In summary, concerning this point, the arming of the fighters in the beginning of Islaam took place,
primarily, by the responsibility of the fighter himself. Then, if he was incapable, the arming occurred by
encouraging those who were capable of assisting others to do so (2). It also took place by the effort or
endeavour of the state to secure the weaponry for everyone who required it by the adoption of measures
and management for that purpose.

It is worth mentioning here, that this Mas’alah (issue) of “Arming the fighters” is only being addressed
from the angle of it following under the subject area of the different types of organisations or
organisational elements that the army requires. That is whilst we have affirmed, previously, in respect to
this matter, that it is subject to the circumstances and changes … The method that took place at the
beginning of Islaam for the arming of the fighters was sufficient for the purpose and objective whilst
considering the reality of that time. However, the question that imposes itself now, in relation to the time
that we are currently living in, is that which we will pose in the discussion of the second point from the
branch that we are currently addressing …

So, what is that question?

2 - The Second Point: The reality of this question is:

In light of what used to take place in the beginning of Islaam, in terms of the fighters arming themselves
and receiving assistance from those who possessed wealth of the means, so that the weaponry could be
obtained and the necessary preparations for Al-Qitaal be made, in light of that:

Is it permissible in our current age, today, for individuals to arm themselves? Or form and
establish groups, by receiving financial assistance from those who are rich or have the financial
means in the land, for the purpose of purchasing weaponry for its members, whilst knowing that
those groups are independent in respect to its organisation from the army that the state regulates
and organises?

And the answer to this question is as follows:

[(1) Al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12918, 12/309, (2) Refer to: “Al-Idaarah Al-Islaamiyah Fee ‘Izz il-‘Arab” (The Islamic
Administration in the era of the glory of the Arabs), Muhammad Kurd ‘Ali: p19].

The individuals, in origin, are Mukallaf (legally responsible and charged) to arm themselves, as mentioned
previously, and it is also permissible for them to form armed groups from amongst them that go out to
fight the enemy (1), under the permission of the state, just as it is permissible for them to receive, from
those who have wealth, assistances that they present, to purchase weaponry and all that is necessary and
required to fight against the enemy. This represents the original position.

However, the one who possesses the Shar’iyah (legal) authority in the land, also possesses the Islamic
principles that enable him to impose a ban upon any Usloob (style) or any legitimate organisation that by
its nature produces effects that exposes the Ummah to dangers and harms.

Therefore, if the legal possessor of the authority views that the matter, which in origin is permitted, results
in harm, he has the right to prevent that harm. Indeed, it is Waajib (obligatory) upon him to prevent that
harm and that would be by preventing or forbidding the individuals from arming themselves and from
forming any armed group independent from the army’s organisation, in addition to forbidding the people
of wealth from providing any assistance to individuals or groups of this nature. That is whilst whoever
wishes, from those who possess the wealth and riches, to gain closeness to Allah by spending in the way
of Allah, can give whatever they want, from that which they want to gain closeness to Allah with, to the
State. The State, in turn, would be the entity that spends in this matter. That would be undertaken to
prevent the opening of the space for the presence of armed groups within the land which are distributed
amongst various loyalties due to the various directions that provide the financial support and backing…
That is because such a reality exposes the Ummah, the land, the authority and the armed forces within it
to danger … a matter that we will not delve further into here.

Indeed, Islaam has placed a number of Shar’iyah principles at the disposal of the person in authority that
he can use to prevent and block the path from which danger could emerge. From among those Shar’iyah
principles are: “Preventing or repelling the harmful matter has precedence or priority over the attaining of
beneficial matters”, “The Darar (harm) is removed according to the Shar’a” (2) and “The agreed or known
matter in respect to the Sharee’ah is that the harm is repelled by abandoning the Waajib when a path to
repel the harm is designated” (3).

In addition, it has been reported from the time of the rightly guided Khilafah that groups of Muslim
fighters were stripped of their weapons due to the harm of the presence of those weapons in their hands
brought or presented.

[(1) refer to “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy in respect to the Tafseer of Aayah 71 of Soorah An-Nisaa’, 1/458, (2) “Usool
ul-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy”, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98. Refer to “Al-Majallah” article: 20 and article: 30: p14-15 and
also to “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p83-87, (3) “Al-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/123].
These groups from which weapons were stripped were:

- The tribes that returned to Islaam after apostatizing at the time of the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq,
may Allah be pleased with him.

- The rebels who rebelled against ‘Ali Bin Abi Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him. That was when one
of them was captured by the forces loyal to the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen (Leader of the believers).

The above is established in the following two reports:

- The first report:

Taariq Bin Shihaab said: A delegation of Buzaakhah (1) Asad and Ghatafaan came to Abu Bakr asking
him for a truce. Abu Bakr then gave them the choice between a war that will end them or a humiliating
peace. They said: We are aware of the war that will bring an end but what is the humiliating peace? He (i.e.
Taariq) said: Abu Bakr said: You will hand over the “Halqah” (shield i.e. weapons), the “Kuraa’” (horses)
and you will leave in groups following the tails of the camels, until the Allah shows the Khalifah of His
Nabi and the Muslims a matter by which you will be excused and you will give blood money for our dead
and we will not give blood money for your dead. Our dead are in Jannah and your dead are in the Naar
(fire). You will return what you took from us (as booty) and we will keep (as booty) what we took from
you. ‘Umar then stood and said: You have given an opinion and we will give you consultation:

- As for the shields (i.e. weapons) and the horses, then your view is very good!
- As for leaving them to leave in groups following the tails of the camels until Allah shows the Khalifah of
His Nabi and the Muslims a matter by which they will be excused, then your view is indeed good!
- As for us taking as booty what we took from them and they return to us what they took from us, then
indeed your view is good!
- As for us not paying blood money for their dead, then indeed your opinion is good!

- However, as for them giving blood money for our dead, then no! Our dead were killed fighting for the
matter of Allah and so there is no blood money for them.

[(1) Buzaakhah: A water belonging to Bani Asad: “The Sword of Allah, Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed”, ‘Umar Ridaa Kahaalah: p61.
In “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet” (dictionary): It is a name of a location in which Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, had an
incident: Chapter letter ‘Khaa’’ chapter: ‘Baa’a’’: 1/266].

And then the people followed on consecutively upon that” (i.e. in their consultation) (1).

- As for the second report:

It was related that Abu Ja’far said: “When a captive came to him (‘Ali) on the day of Siffeen he would take
his riding animal, his weapon, his word that he would not return (i.e. to the battle) and then let him go
free!” (2).

The above is what is to be said in respect to the second point which we have been discussing.

3 - The Third Point: How does the arming of individuals of the Ummah take place today, when
they are called to take part in Al-Jihaad? And what are the limits of this arming process?

The answer: If the authorities have forbidden weapons to be in the hands of those who have been
charged to undertake Al-Jihaad (Al-Mukallafeen) from amongst the civilians, in normal circumstances, in
accordance to the Maslahah (interest), and then the need called for them to carry weapons and they are
called out to fight, then the state, in this circumstance, is the entity that undertakes the distribution of the
weapons to them and according to the limits that the nature of the missions or tasks, that they have been
charged to undertake, dictate. Then when the war lays down its burdens (i.e. comes to an end) the
weapons are returned to the authorities according to the instructions or guidelines that are issued in
respect to that.

With that we have concluded the first branch and now come to the second branch of the issue that we are
currently addressing.

The Second Branch: The volunteers in the army and their role within it

Here by “men” we mean the one who has reached 15 years of age from amongst the males and covers all
those over that age as long as they are capable of undertaking Al-Jihaad.

And by “volunteers” we mean the individuals of the reserve army and that is because the fighters,
conscripts who are permanently at arms within the regular army were called and known as “Ashaab ud-
Deewaan” (The people of the register) within the Islamic history …

[(1) Al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12777, 12/264 and similar to it is collected in the Sunan of Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2934,
2/333, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15116, 12/422].

As for those outside of the regular army from those who go out to participate in Al-Qitaal (the fighting),
then they were called “Al-Mutawwi’ah” (the volunteer). This was indicated to in the Musannaf of ‘Abdur
Razzaaq in that which he related from Ash-Sha’biy who was asked: “About the Ghazw (battles/fighting)
and about whether the Ashaab ud-Deewaan (i.e. regular army) are better or the Mutawwi’ah (volunteer)?
He said: Indeed, the people of the register (Ashaab ud-Deewaan) and the Mutawwi’ah (volunteer) can
return whenever he wishes!” (1).

It is clear from this narration that the Ashaab ud-Deewaan are the individuals of the regular army who are
registered in the Deewaan (register) (i.e. the Deewaan ul-Junud or Muqaatilah [the soldiers or fighters
register]) and are those who are armed and under command without having any choice in respect to
fighting or not.

As for the volunteers, then they are outside of the “Ashaab ud-Deewaan” i.e. external to the regular army.
They have the choice in respect to fighting and abstaining from it, as the relation establishes. That is
because they are not in receipt of wages which apply to the fighters which is provided to them in return
for their dedication and commitment to the military life.

I say: What has been mentioned here in respect to the volunteer returning when he wishes, then that is a
correct statement however that is in the cases when the Qitaal is not Fard ‘Ain upon him and we have
mentioned those circumstances or cases in a prior study. As for when the Jihaad becomes Fard ‘Ain upon
him, then he has no choice to return and leave the Qitaal whenever he wishes and even if his name is in
the ‘Deewaan’ (register) of volunteers or registers of the reserve army.

Concerning the role of the male volunteers within the reserve army? Then this role is to undertake what
one of them has been charged with via the channel that he is attached to, whether he was charged with
fighting, reconnaissance, guarding or to undertake services required for the fighters or what is similar to
that …

It is the duty of those in positions of responsibility over the units of the reserve army to take into
consideration that which is appropriate and suitable for every individual from amongst them and to place
him in the position where he can provide the best of what he possesses in terms of expertise, energies and
potential. That is so that he has an effective role in respect to attaining victory and winning the battles.

[(1) Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq: 9612, 5/279-280. It appears that the style is metaphorical by way of omission and estimation:
“He was asked about the Ghazw …”].

There are two reports that came mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy concerning this:

The first report: “Az-Zuhriy said: Sa’eed Ibn ul-Musayyib went out for battle and one off his eyes had
lost vision. And so, it was said to him: You are visually impaired! And so, he said: “Allah has summoned
the Khafeef and the Thaqeeel (light and heavy i.e. all) to go out to fight. Therefore, if I cannot participate
in the war (i.e. fighting itself), I would still have increased the numbers and protected the properties (i.e.
what the fighters brought along in terms of goods)!” (1).

The second report: “Ibn Umm Maktoom, may Allah be pleased with him, and his name was ‘Abdullah,
said on the day of Uhud: “I am a blind man! And you have handed over to me the Liwaa’ (i.e. flag or
banner of the army) in the case where if the one bearing the flag is defeated the army is defeated whilst I
cannot see who is targeting me with his sword, so what will come to pass!” And so Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair
took hold of the banner on that day …” (2).

It should not be understood from these two reports that the Islamic army was a refuge for those whom
Al-Jihaad is not suitable … That should not be understood because there does not exist in Al-Qitaal with
the enemies any room to satisfy the desire or longing of the people for Al-Jihaad and if that is at the cost
and expense of the competency of the army! And so, Sa’eed Ibn ul-Musayyib, in the previous report,
specified himself the role that he would be beneficial in undertaking whilst not being a burden upon the
fighters, even though he possessed a legitimate excuse to not partake.

Similarly, the noble companion Ibn Umm Maktoom, it came within his reasoning for the task that had
been suggested to be given to him within the army, that which establishes that he was perhaps more
suitable than others to undertake it, where the leadership which had seen that which he did not see (i.e.
had a different view) at that time did not accept what he tasked for himself but rather tasked that role to
someone they viewed to be more suitable than him for it.

Based upon this, the coward does not participate in war and the one who does not have the readiness to
undertake Al-Qitaal does not go out alongside the fighters … And that is in line with the objective of
preserving and maintaining the competence of the fighting army from allowing that which will harm it to
enter within it.

The following came mentioned in the Sunan of Sa’eed Bin Mansoor:

“’It was related that Aa’ishah said: If one of you fears cowardice from himself then do not go out for
battle or to war” (3).

[(1) Tafseer “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/151, (2) The same as previous reference, (3) Sunan Sa’eed Bin
Mansoor: 2533, 2/208].

The following also came mentioned concerning this matter:

“It was related from Mujaahid who said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬departed for Tabook, no one
departed with us except the one who had a strong riding animal. A man departed with a camel that was
hard to steer and so it threw him off and he died (i.e. broke his neck). The people then said: “The Shaheed
(martyr), the Shaheed”. Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded Bilaal to call out: “Indeed, no! No
one enters Al-Jannah (paradise) except the believing soul and the (stubbornly) disobedient will not enter
it!” Mujaahid said: I have not heard from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬a Hadeeth more severe than this!”
(1).

Following these two reports, we conclude our discussion of this branch and now come to the next one.

The Third Branch: The Hukm (Legal ruling) of women participating in the army
and their role within it.

This subject will be addressed by quickly covering the following points:

1 - The First Point: Did the Muslim women, in the era of the Prophethood and the Rightly Guided
Khulafaa’ go out with the army that departed for Al-Qitaal? And what was their role in this army?

2 - The Second Point: What did the Fuqahaa’ say concerning the Hukm of the woman taking up arms
and engaging in Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the enemies?

3 - The Third Point: Is there a place for the woman within the regular army? Or is her place within the
reserve army if the matter requires it? And what is the natural role that she undertakes within the army?

1 - The First Point: Did the Muslim women, in the era of the Prophethood and the Rightly
Guided Khulafaa’ go out with the army that departed for Al-Qitaal? And what was their role in
this army?

We will become aware of the answer to this question through reports that have come related regarding
this matter. The following are some of these reports:

- In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Related from Ar-Rubayyi’ Bint Mu’awwidh, may Allah be pleased with her: We
used to go out in the battles (Ghazawaat) with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to provide water for
the people and we would serve them and return the dead and wounded to Al-Madinah” (2).

In “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy” the following was stated when commenting upon this Hadeeth: “And it contains:
The permission for the foreign (i.e. non-Mahram) woman to treat the foreign man due to the Daroorah
(necessity)” (2).

[(1) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2494, 2/194-195, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2882, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/80].

- Also in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Tha’labah Bin Maalik said: ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab divided (or handed
out) woollen and silken bags amongst the women from the women of Al-Madinah. One good bag
remained. Then some who were in his company said: O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen (Leader of the believers)!
Give this, what you have still remaining, to the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ‫( ﷺ‬meaning by that
Umm Kulthoom the daughter of ‘Ali (1). ‘Umar replied: “Umm Saleet is more entitled”. And Umm Saleet
was from the women of the Ansaar who had given the Bai’ah (pledge) to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬.
‘Umar said: For verily she used to carry the water skins for us on the day of (the battle of) Uhud” (2).

The following came mentioned in “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy” concerning Umm Saleet:

“Ibn Sa’d mentioned her in the ‘Tabaqaat’ (biographies) of the women … He mentioned that she
witnessed (the battles of) Khaibar and Hunain but neglected to mention her witnessing of Uhud which is
established in this Hadeeth”. Then the author of “Al-Fat’h” (i.e. Ibn Hajar) went on and spoke about
Umm ‘Ammaarah Al-Ansaariyah from among the women who attended the battle of Uhud. He
transmitted from Ibn Sa’d that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab said in respect to her: “Verily, I have heard the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying: “I did not turn to my right or to my left on the day of Uhud except
that I saw her fighting in defence of me”” (3).

And the following was also recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: Anas, may Allah be pleased with him related:
“On the Day of (the battle of) Uhud, when some people retreated and left the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. He said: And I
saw ‘Aa’ishah Bint Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around
their ankles were visible, hurrying with their water skins (and in another narration: carrying the water skins
upon their backs). They would then empty the water into the mouths of the people, then return to refill
the water skins and then come again to empty them into the mouths of the people” (4).

[(1) ‘Umar had married Umm Kulthoom Bin ‘Ali and her mother was Faatimah. For that reason, they called her the daughter of
the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. She was born during his lifetime ‫ ﷺ‬and she was the youngest of the daughters of Faatimah,
‘Alaihaa s-Salaam: “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/97, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2881, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/79, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/79, (4)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2880, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/78 and Muslim: 1811, 3/1443-1444].

In the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy, the following was stated in his commentary upon the
Hadeeth:

“This visual showing of the bangles was not forbidden. That is because the day of Uhud was before the
command of the Hijaab for the women and the prohibition to look at them. And because it was not
mentioned here that he deliberately looked at the lower leg and so it is understood to mean that this
sighting occurred unexpectedly without intending that and that he did not keep looking” (1).

- Also related in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

“That ‘Aa’ishah said: When the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wanted to go out (for battle) he used to cast lots between his
wives. Whoever’s arrow was brought out (from the lots) went with him. So, he cast lots between us in
respect to the battle that he was undertaking and my arrow came out and so I went along with the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬after the Hijaab (i.e. command) had been revealed” (2).

- In Saheeh Muslim under the heading: “Chapter: The Ghazw (expeditions) of the women with the men”:

“Anas related that Umm Sulaim took out a dagger on the day of Hunain that she had in her possession!
Abu Talhah saw her and said: O Messenger of Allah! This Umm Sulaim has a dagger with her! And so, the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to her: What is this dagger? She said: “I took it in case someone from the
Mushrikeen gets close to me I could stab him in the stomach”. That made the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
laugh ...!” (3).

- Also in Saheeh Muslim:

“It was related that Anas Bin Maalik said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to undertake military
expeditions with Umm Sulaim and some women from the Ansaar alongside him. When they engaged in
battles they would provide the water and treat the wounded” (4).

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/465, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2879, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/77. And here in respect
to this a text came stating: “Before the revelation of the Hijaab” however the same narration number: 2661, 5/270, brought the
text stated above (i.e. after the revelation of the command of Al-Hijaab) and the same in the version of Al-Bukhaariy with the
explanation of Al-Qastalaaniy: 5/80. And that is the correct view because the Hadeeth is concerning the Ghazwah (military
expedition) of Bani Mustalaq and the legislation of the Hijaab was revealed before that, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1809, 3/1442, (4)
Saheeh Muslim: 1810, 3/1443. Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1575, 4/139].
The following came mentioned in the Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: “This establishes that the
women went out in the military expeditions and they were benefited from in terms of providing water,
medical treatment and what is similar to that. This treatment was for their Mahaarim and husbands and
outside of them there was no touching of the skin unless it was in the time of (dire) need (Haajah)” (1).

- And in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah:

“Related from Umm ‘Atiyyah who said: I went on a military expedition (Ghazwah) with the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on seven military expeditions (Ghazawaat). We would stay back with the camel saddles (or
where they set down). We would make food for them, give medical attention to the wounded and watch
over the sick” (2).

- Also in the Musannaf:

“’Abdullah (i.e. Ibn Mas’ood) said: The women would finish off the wounded (i.e. of the Mushrikeen) on
the day of Uhud” (3).

- And the following was mentioned in At-Tabaraaniy:

“Anas Bin Maalik said: Umm Sulaim said: O Messenger of Allah! Can I go out with you to the
Ghazwah? (i.e. battle). He said: O Umm Sulaim! Al-Jihaad has not been made obligatory upon
the women! She said: I will give medical attention to the wounded and treat the ‘Ain and provide
drinking water. He said: in that case, yes” (4).

- And in the Sunan of Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: “That Asmaa’ Bint Yazeed Al-Ansaariyah was present at Al-
Yarmook along with the people and she killed seven romans with a pole from her shelter or tent” (5).

- Also recorded in that Sunan: “Abdullah Bin Qurt Al-Azdiy said: I under a military expedition against
Rome with Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed and I saw the women of Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed and the women of his
companions busily carrying water to the Muhaajireen, chanting or reciting poetry or prose etc.” (6).

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/464, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15497, 12/525, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi
Shaibah: 15127, 12/424-425, (4) Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id: 6/324, (5) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2787, 2/284, Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id: 6/213: “Related by At-Tabaraaniy and his Rijaal (i.e. transmitters) are Thiqqaat (reliable)” and in one report recorded
by Tabaraaniy it stated that she killed “nine”, (Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2788, 2/284].

- It was recorded in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq: “Ibrahim (i.e. An-Nakh’iy) was asked about the
Jihaad of the women and so, he said: They used to be present with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬treating
the wounded and providing water for the fighters and I have not heard of a woman in his company who
had been killed. And the women of Quraish fought on the day of Al-Yarmook when they (i.e. the
Muslims) were overtaken by a host of Romans to the point that the Muslim camp became mixed with the
battle and so the women on that day struck with swords, during the Khilafah of ‘Umar, may Allah be
pleased with him” (1).

I say: From the reports and narrations presented above we obtain the following facts concerning the
participation of women with the men in respect to going out to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting or battle):

1 - That the size of the female element within the army was very little to the extent that their going out
with the fighters may have been hidden from some of the Muslims until the matter required affirming that
departure (of theirs) … This is what the reader of those texts above senses. That matter becomes more
apparent and clearer from the correspondence that took place between Najdah Al-Harooriy and Ibn
‘Abbaas about this issue from that which was reported in respect to that correspondence as found in
Saheeh Muslim: “That Najdah wrote to Ibn ‘Abbaas asking him: … Thereafter, So inform me: Did the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertake military expeditions (or battles) with the women? … And so, Ibn
‘Abbaas wrote back to her: You wrote to me asking: Did the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertake military
expeditions (or battles) with the women? And he did indeed undertake military expeditions with them and
they would tend to the injured …” (2).

2 - The departure of women to the battle was not upon the basis that it represented the undertaking of a
Fard that they had been charged (Mukallaf) to undertake like the men had been charged. Rather, it was
upon the basis of a voluntary action. That was made clear in the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Umm
Sulaim when she had asked his permission to go out with him on the military expedition: “O Umm
Sulaim! Al-Jihaad has not been written (i.e. made obligatory) upon the women!”.

3 - The greatest role that the women in the army used to undertake included: Serving the male fighters in
terms of preserving the goods (or properties that were taken to the battle), preparing the food, providing
water, providing medical treatment to the wounded, treating the sick and transporting the bodies from the
battlefield … and what was similar to that as was made apparent within the texts presented above.

4 - The woman taking up arms and engaging in the fighting did actually take place when the fighting
became Fard ‘Ain upon them and that was to defend the Nafs (self or life), just like what happened in
respect to when the women fought at Al-Yarmook with swords when the Romans attacked them …

[(1) Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq: 9673, 5/298, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1812, 3/1444].

Or when defending the Nabi ‫ … ﷺ‬And that is because defending the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬is of greater
importance and priority than defending one’s self in accordance to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَمِنْ َأَنفُسِ ِه ْم‬ ِ ‫ال َّن ِبيُّ َأَ ْولَ ٰى‬

َ ‫َب ْالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
The Prophet is of greater worth to the believers than their own selves (Al-Ahzaab: 6).

This was also evidently clear within the report about the defence of Umm ‘Ammaarah Al-Ansaariyah of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud. The Hadeeth recorded by Muslim about Umm Sulaim carrying a
dagger on the day of Hunain also indicates to the defence of the woman of herself if she is subjected or
exposed to an attack by the enemy.

Similarly, the report about the women finishing off the wounded Mushrikeen at Uhud indicates that they
used to be armed and actually engage in Al-Qitaaal (fighting).

5 - Also from the facts that have been indicated to within the previous reports is that there is no
relationship between the Hukm of the Shar’iy Al-Hijaab in relation to the woman and between her
departing with the army to serve or to fight. I mean: That the Hukm of Al-Hijaab does not negate the
legal legitimacy of that going out. The evidence for that is that the woman continued to go out to Al-
Jihaad after the descent of the revelation of the Hukm of Al-Hijaab. The battle of Hunain which was
attended by Umm Sulaim, when she was armed with a dagger, as recorded in Saheeh Muslim, was after the
revelation of the Shar’iy Hijaab upon the women. That is because the Hukm of the Hijaab is found in
Soorah An-Noor and it was revealed after the Ghazwah of Al-Muraisee’ aka Al-Mustalaq, which was in
the 5th year Hijriy. That is whilst the battle of Hunain was shortly after the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah in
the 8th year Hijriy (1).

The above all relates to the first point related to the Muslim women going out with the army for Al-Qitaal
(fighting or battle) in the era of the Prophethood and the era of the Rightly Guided Khulafaa’ … We now
come to the second point.
2 - The Second Point: What did the Fuqahaa’ say concerning the Hukm of the woman taking up
arms and engaging in Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the enemies?

The answer: Is that there are three Masaa’il (issues) that need to be examined:

- The First Mas’alah (issue): Al-Jihaad in its description as being a Fard Kifaayah, does it include the
women? Or is it specific to the men alone?

- The Second Mas’alah: Can Al-Jihaad become Fard ‘Ain upon the woman? And when does that occur?

- The Third Mas’alah: If (or when) the Jihaad was not Fard ‘Ain or Fard Kifaayah upon the woman is it
permissible for her to carry a weapon and fight against the enemies?

[(1) Refer to the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 12/197-198 and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/256 and 3/394].

A - The Answer to the First Mas’alah (issue): Al-Jihaad in its description as being a Fard Kifaayah,
does it include the women?

The texts of the Fuqahaa’, according to their different Madhaahib, indicate that Al-Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy does
not encompass or cover the woman, but rather it is Khaass (specific) to the man alone.

- From the Hanafiy Fiqh the following came stated in “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: “As for when the Nafeer
(call to arms) is not ‘Aamm (general) then the women should not preoccupy themselves with Al-Qitaal”
… He then said: “And it does not please me that they conduct the Qitaal because men suffice the need of
the women for the fighting and so they do not occupy themselves in that, in other than the case or
situation of the Daroorah (necessity)” (1).

And the following was state in “Ad-Durr” in relation to the Hukm of Al-Jihaad: “It is Fard Kifaayah
initially. If some undertake (or fulfil) it, it (i.e. the obligation) falls from the rest. Otherwise they would be
sinful, but it would not fall upon the Sabiy (boy under the age of puberty), the ‘Abd (slave) and the
woman …” (2).

In addition, in “Al-Haashiyah” he (i.e. the author) responded to the view that establishes the woman
entering under the Takleef (legal responsibility) of the Fard Al-Kifaa’iy of Al-Jihaad if the husband grants
permission or if she was not married. That is based on the Maani’ (prevention) preventing the directing of
this Fard upon her, is represented by the right of the husband. If there is no husband or he grants
permission then the obligation is directed to her. However, after refuting this view the following text came
in “Al-Haashiyah” establishing: “The non-obligation upon her, in origin, unless the enemy attacks” (3).

- And in the Maalikiy Fiqh, in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, concerning the conditions of
the obligation of Al-Jihaad, the following was stated:

“The Shuroot (conditions) of its obligation (Wujoob) are six: Al-Islaam, Al-Buloogh (reaching the age of
maturity), Al-‘Aql (sound mind), Al-Hurriyah (freedom i.e. not a slave), Adh-Dhukoorah (being male) and
the capability in terms of body and property. If, however, the enemy attacks the Muslims it is obligatory
upon the slave and the woman” (4).

It is clear from this text that Al-Jihaad in other than the situation of shock i.e. in other than the situation
of the enemy attacking the Muslims, is Fard Kifaayah and from amongst the conditions (Shuroot) of its
obligation is “Adh-Dhukoorah” (being male) …
[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan: (Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer: 1/200-201), (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”:
3/337-341, (3) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/341, (4) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p163].

As such, the woman does not fall under the Takleef (legal responsibility) in this situation. However, in the
case of the attack (against the Muslims) and also in the case of the issuing of a specific command that
designates the going out to fight upon every individual, which will be discussed, then the Jihaad here,
would be Fard ‘Ain upon her.

- And in the Shaafi’iyyah Fiqh, the following was stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”, within the discussion about Al-Jihaad in the case where the disbelievers are in their own land
and not in the case when they are attacking the Muslims (i.e. in the situation when the Jihaad is Fard
Kifaayah and not Fard ‘Ain):

“There is no Jihaad obligatory upon the Sabiy (boy before puberty), the Majnoon (mentally unsound),
woman and the ill …” (1).

- And in the Hanbaliy Fiqh: The following was stated in “Al-Muqni’” in the explanation of the Hukm of
Al-Jihaad:

“It is not obligatory except upon the male, free, Mukallaf (legally responsible i.e. reached the age of
puberty and of sound mind or reasoning) and the one who has the capability …” (2).

Consequently, the woman falls outside of the obligation of Al-Jihaad encompassing her.

This is what the Fuqahaa’, according to their different Madhaahib, have said in respect to the woman not
falling under the Takleef (legal responsibility) of Al-Jihaad in the case when it is Fard Kifaayah.

I say: It appears that this Hukm is not Mu’allal (reasoned i.e. attached to an ‘Illah) by the Shar’a, in that the
woman is too weak to take up arms and undertake fighting, in the case where if she was capable, the
address of the obligation would be directed to her like it is to the men.

Similarly, her not being made legally responsible with the obligation of the Jihaad ul-Kifaa’iy is not
Mu’allal (reasoned) by the Shar’a, neither by weakness nor by taking in consideration the right of the
husband. That is even if the reality of the woman is that it is not from her nature to enter into military
clashes and bloody wars!

This absence of reasoning is clear from the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Umm Sulaim quoted earlier:
“O Umm Sulaim! Al-Jihaad has not be written (i.e. made obligatory) upon the women”.

This indicates that the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫ِبَ َع َل ْي ُك ُم‬
َُ ‫َالقِ َتا‬
‫ل‬ َ ‫ُكت‬
Fighting has been prescribed upon you (Al-Baqarah: 216).

That this statement is specific to the men alone and that the women are outside of the address due to the
specific Adillah (evidences) indicating that they are not charged and made legally responsible for the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad which is of the type of the Fard ul-Kifaayah.

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj Bi Sharh Al-Minhaaj”: 4/216, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy “Alaa Matn ul-Muqni’”:
10/366].

The above is what is related to the first Mas’alah (issue).

B - The Answer to the Second Mas’alah: Can Al-Jihaad become Fard ‘Ain upon the woman? And
when does that occur?

We will now mention what the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned regarding this matter:

- In the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf (Hanafiyah): The following came stated in “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar Bi Sharh
Tanweer ul-Absaar” and “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”, during the discussion about Al-Jihaad and when it
becomes Fard ‘Ain:

“And it is Fard ‘Ain when the enemy attacks and so everyone goes out (i.e. to fight). i.e. All who have
been mentioned in terms of the woman, ‘Abd (slave), indebted and others … and even if it was without
permission and the husband or similar to him are sinful by preventing (or forbidding) that)” (1).

- In the Maalikiy Fiqh: The following came mentioned in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer, also
in respect to this issue:

“And it becomes Fard ‘Ain also by the Imaam designating it as such upon a person and even a
woman…!” (2).

- In the Shaafi’iy Fiqh: The following, with some summarisation, was stated in “Al-Minhaaj Wa
Sharhuhu Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:

“The second of the two situations of the disbelievers is that they enter one of our lands … That
necessitates that its people repel as much as they possibly can and the Jihaad, at such a time, is Fard ‘Ain
and it is said: Kifaayah …. If the people are capable of preparation for fighting then it is obligatory upon
every possible one of them i.e. to repel the disbelievers according to the capability and that includes even
the destitute (Faqeer), the boy, the indebted and the slave … without the permission of the parents, the
one whom the debt is owed to or the master … And within the meaning of them entering a town as long
as they have not dominated over it. And the women are like the slaves if they have the ability to defend,
otherwise they don’t defend. Ar-Raafi’iy said: And it is permitted that the woman does not require the
permission of the husband …” (3).

This is what has come within the Shaafi’iy Fiqh in relation to the individual (‘Ain) obligation of the Qitaal
upon the woman in the defensive situation if she was capable of undertaking that.

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/341-342, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer and “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy” upon it:
2/174-175, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/219].

- As for what was mentioned within the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah, in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue),
the following came stated in the Mukhtasar of Al-Khiraqiy:

“It is obligatory upon the people to all go out when the enemy attacks, the “Muqill” from them and the
“Mukthir” (those who have little and those who have much i.e. all of the people)”. And in the Sharh
(explanation) of this text by Ibn Qudaamah he said: “His statement: “Al-Muqill Minhum Wa l-Mukthir”
means, and Allah knows best, the rich and the poor. And its meaning is: That the Nafeer (call out or
summons to fight) covers all of the people from those who are of the people of Al-Qitaal (fighting) when
the need to go out to fight arises due to the enemy coming upon them. And it is not permissible for
anyone to stay back or behind apart from those whom are needed to stay back to protect or safeguard the
place, families and wealth or properties, in addition to those whom the Ameer has forbidden from going
out to fight or the one who has no capability to go out and engage in Al-Qitaal (fighting) …” (1).
I say: His statement: “It is obligatory upon the people to all go out when the enemy attacks” possibly
establishes that the women are included within the generality of the word “the people” (2). However, this
generality is restricted in the Sharh (explanation) by his statement: “From those who are of the Ahl ul-
Qitaal (people of fighting)” from which it appears that he is excluding the women from being included
within that generality. Consequently, the Jihaad does not become Fard ‘Ain upon the women and even in
the circumstance or situation of the disbelievers attacking the lands of the Muslims. They therefore, do
not fall into sin if they do not go out to fight … And that is according to what the text indicates.

As far as the women not being from the Ahl ul-Qitaal (people of fighting) was stated explicitly by Ibn
Qudaamah when he said: “It is disliked to enter the young women into the land of the enemy because
they are not from the Ahl ul-Qitaal (people of fighting or warfare) …” (3).

Summary: That Al-Jihaad in its meaning of fighting could become Fard ‘Ain upon the woman according
to the view of the three Madhaahib, as presented, but not in accordance to the Madh’hab of the
Hanaabilah.

C - The Third Mas’alah: If (or when) the Jihaad was not Fard ‘Ain or Fard Kifaayah upon the
woman is it permissible for her to carry a weapon and fight against the enemies?

The answer: Yes, it is permitted for her to do that. And we have already presented what was transmitted in
“Fat’h ul-Baariy” indicating to that permissibility in his commentary upon the Hadeeth: “Your Jihaad is
the Hajj” (4). And we will repeat here, due to what we are currently discussing, what was transmitted:

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/389, (2) Refer to “Al-Kulliyaat: Mu’jam Fil Mustalahaat Wa l-Furooq Al-Lughawiyah”,
Abu l-Baqaa’ Al-Kafawiy: 4/373, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/391, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2875, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
6/75].

“Ibn Battaal said: The Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah indicates that Al-Jihaad is not Waajib (obligatory) upon the
women. However, the statement “Your Jihaad is Al-Hajj” does not mean that they do not have the right
to volunteer to undertake Al-Jihaad …” (1).

In addition, there has come in “Al-Mughniy” by Ibn Qudaamah that which establishes the permissibility
of the woman undertaking Al-Qitaal despite Ibn Qudaamah viewing the women to not be from the Ahl
ul-Qitaal (people of fighting) and that Al-Jihaad is not obliged upon them; neither Fard Kifaayah or Fard
‘Ain. He stated the following:

“Umm Sulaim and Naseebah Bint Ka’b used to go out on military expeditions with the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. As for
Naseebah, then she used to fight! And her hand was severed on the day of Al-Yamaamah …” (2). And
when discussing the subject of giving the women something from the spoils or booty due to their
attendance of the battle he said: “And he (the Imaam or commander) gives preference to the fighting
woman and the one who provides water and tends to the wounded, and it is valid for other than them”
(3).

With that we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the second point and not move on to the
third.

3 - The Third Point: Is there a place for the woman within the regular army? Or is her place
within the reserve army if the matter requires it? And what is the natural role that she undertakes
within the army?

And the answer, in summary, to this point is:

The regular army, in origin, is only for the men who have been charged or made legally responsible
(Mukallaf) with the undertaking of Al-Jihaad Al-Kifaa’iy. This is where its individuals are armed and their
fingers are upon the trigger in the maximum and utmost state of readiness for any arising or sudden
situation that calls for the engagement in war, immediately, in defence and attack. By that they make the
obligation fall from the rest of those who have been charged to undertake this Jihaad ul-Kifaa’iy. In the
case where the address of the Takleef (legal responsibility) of the Wujoob (obligation) of the Jihaad ul-
Kifaa’iy has not been directed to her in origin, then the army is not her natural place.

However, this does not prevent opening the door of the regular army to female elements if the Maslahah
(interest) calls for that, according to the evaluation of the one in authority in respect to this matter, in the
case where Al-Jihad, in origin, is not forbidden for the woman to participate in. And the regular army, in
its reality, represents no more than a tool to undertake Al-Jihaad in the best possible way. Therefore, if we
have permitted Jihaad for the woman, then that means entering into the tool or means by which the
undertaking of that Jihaad is enabled, which is the army, is permissible of course.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/76, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/391, (3) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/457].

Despite that, as we have said above, this army does not represent the natural place for the woman and
even if it is permitted for the people of authority to open its doors to female elements if the Maslahah
(interest) calls for that.

Where then is the natural place for the woman, when she joins the body of the Mujaahideen and when the
reason calls her to Al-Jihaad?

The answer, is that her natural place is within the reserve army which is called out to undertake Al-Jihaad
at the time of the Haajah (need) or Daroorah (necessity).

And the natural role, for the woman within the army or within the regular army if she joins it, due to a
Maslahah that has called for that, is for her to undertake that which is appropriate for her nature from that
which does not include the conducting of Al-Qitaal, like the tasks related to suppy, provision, medical
support and what is similar to this.

However, that does not prevent, if the matter dictates it, for her to occupy positions in which fighting or
military actions are conducted as long as she is suitable for the undertaking of the Qitaal.

Indeed, it is obligatory upon her to undertake the Qitaal in actual practise in circumstances in which the
Jihaad has become Fard ‘Ain upon her, from the fighting perspective, according to the manner that has
been explained previously.

Consequently, based upon this, we view that it is obligatory upon the Islamic State to prepare and set up
centres for the training of women in which they learn how to use weaponry and the matters of warfare.
That is because, as long as it is possible for the Jihaad to become Fard ‘Ain upon the woman, then it is
Waajib (obligatory) to prepare her for such a situation, so that she is enabled to be able to undertake this
Fard (obligation).

With that we have concluded our discussion about the woman within the amy and now we move on to
discussing another branch.

The Fourth Branch: The Hukm of children participating within the army and their
role within it.
The following points will be addressed in relation to this subject matter:

1 - The First Point: The issue of children accompanying the Islamic army, in the time of the
Prophethood, and what has been reported concerning that?

2 - The Second Point: What did the Fuqahaa’ say in respect to the Hukm of the children being engaged
in fighting against the disbelievers?

3 - The Third Point: Are children utilised in the Islamic army, in the modern time? And what is their role
within it?

1 - The First Point: The issue of children accompanying the Islamic army, in the time of the
Prophethood, and what has been reported concerning that?

To explain this issue, we will present a collection of reports connected to it and what came in related to it
in terms of comments made by some of the ‘Ulamaa.

- It was recorded by Al-Bukhaariy, Muslim and others: “It was related that Ibn ‘Umar said: “The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬inspected me on the day of Uhud in respect to the fighting. I was 14 years old.
He did not allow me to participate in the fighting. He inspected me on the Day of Al-Khandaq and I was
15 years old and he permitted me (to fight)”. Naafi’ said: This represents the demarcation between the
junior and the senior. So, he wrote to his governors to impose it upon the one who was 15 years of age
and to deal with those less than that as dependents” (1).

And in another narration of the Hadeeth: “So he wrote to his governors to oblige the fighting upon the
15-year-old and to regard the 14-year-old to be from amongst the children” (2).

And in another narration: “… This is the demarcation (or separation) between the men (3) and the boys.
Then he wrote to his governors: To not permit anyone less than 15 years of age” (4).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukaariy: 2664, 5/276, 4097, 7/492 from “Fat’h ul-Baariy”. Saheeh Muslim: 1868, 3/1490 and At-Tirmidhiy:
1711, 4/211, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18613, 14/396, (3) Referring to all mature fighters, (4) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor:
2465, 2/175].

In commentary of this Hadeeth the following came mentioned in the Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh
Muslim:

“This contains evidence to specify the ‘Buloogh’ (reaching of maturity) to 15 years of age. That is the
Madh’hab of Ah-Shaafi’iy, Al-Awzaa’iy, Ibn Wahab, Ahmad and others. They said: By completing 15 years
of age he becomes Mukallaf (legally responsible) and even if he has not exhibited signs of sexual maturity.
Therefore, the Ahkaam apply upon him in respect to the obligations of the ‘Ibaadaat and other acts …
Then he said: The intended meaning of “he permitted me” (in the text of the Hadeeth) is that he made (or
classified) him as a man who takes the Hukm of the fighting men” (1).

And in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, the following was stated also
commenting upon this Hadeeth:

“Inspection of the army: testing (or examining) its conditions, before conducting the Qitaal, to examine its
structure, organise its positions and other than that. His statement: “So he permitted him” i.e. endorse
him and permit him in respect to undertaking the Qitaal” (2). It was also stated: “And his statement: “To
impose” means: To estimate for them sustenance or subsistence from the “Deewaan ul-Jund” (register of
soldiers) as they used to distinguish between the fighter and others in respect to the financial assistance.
This is a fund collected in the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) and is divided amongst those are entitled to it.
It is deduced from the story of Ibn ‘Umar, that whoever completes 15 years of age has the Ahkaam
(rulings) of the mature applied upon him and even if he has not shown signs of sexual maturity … And
At-Tahaawiy, Ibn ul-Qassaar and others who did not adopt this view, responded by saying that the
mentioned permissibility came in the context of Qitaal (fighting) and that is related to strength and
endurance. Some of the Maalikiyah responded: By saying that it relates to the incident of the ‘Ain and that
there is no generality in respect to it. And it is probable that at that age, it coincided with that he had
exhibited the signs of maturity and for that reason he was provided with permission” … He then said:
“And within the (meaning of the) Hadeeth: Is that the Imaam examines those who have gone out to fight
with him before the war (or battle) takes place. The one he found to be suitable accompanied him,
otherwise he would be rejected (or sent back). That happened with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬at Badr, Uhud and
other occasions … And according to the Maalikiyah and the Hanafiyah: The permission to fight does not
rest upon the ‘Buloogh’ (reaching the age of maturity). Rather, the Imaam can grant permission and allow
from the boys those who possess the strength and ability. That is because the pre-pubescent could well be
stronger than the pubescent…!” (3).

- And in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah the following was related: “From Ash-Sha’biy: That a woman
gave a sword to her son on the day of Uhud but he was not capable of holding it and so she tied it his arm
with a strap. She then took him to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and said: “O Messenger of Allah! This is my son, he will
fight to defend you!” …

[(1) “An-Nawawiy Sharh Muslim”: 8/67-68, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/393-394. And the statement “Fa Ajaazahu” (And so he
gave him permission) came mentioned in the narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy but not the version of Muslim, (3) “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 5/278-279. The prepubescent (Muraahiq) refers to the one who is close to puberty: “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”
(dictionary): p221].

… And so, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said (during the battle): “O boy! Move over here. O Boy! Move over here”.
Then he was afflicted with an injury and fell. He then went to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬then he ‫ ﷺ‬said to
him: “O boy! It is as if you have fallen apart? He said: “No, O Messenger of Allah!” (1).

- And it was recorded in “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: “Related from Sa’eed who said: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬turned back ‘Umair Bin Abi Waqqaas (i.e. the brother of Sa’d) from going out to Badr as he deemed
him to be too young. ‘Umair then wept and so he permitted him!” (2).

- Also recorded in “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: “It was related from ‘Urwah who said: “The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬rejected or sent back a group from his companions on the day of Uhud. He deemed them to be too
young and so they did not witness the fighting! From amongst them was ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar who was 14
years of age, Usaamah Bin Zaid, Al-Baraa’ Bin ‘Aazib, ‘Araabah (3) Bin Aus, a man from Bani Haarithah,
Zaid Bin Arqam, Zaid Bi Thaabit and Raafi’”. He said: Raafi’ kept on and so he permitted him to march
with them whilst the remainder stayed behind and they were made guards for the children and women of
Al-Madinah” (4).

- And At-Tabaraaniy related: “From Raafi’ Bin Khadeej who said: “My paternal uncle and I approached
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he meant for Badr. And so, I said: “O Messenger of Allah! I want to go
out along with you” and so he began to clasp his hand and said: “I deem you to be young and I don’t
know what you will do if you are to meet the people (i.e. enemy)?” So, I said: Are you aware that I
can shoot arrows at the archers!?” But he rejected me and I did not witness Badr” (5).

- And in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam the following was reported: “Ibn Hishaam said: And the Messenger
of Allah ‫ﷺ‬gave permission on that day (i.e. Uhud) to Samurah Bin Jundub Al-Fazaariy and Raafi’ Bin
Khadeej, the two brothers of Bani Haarithah and they were both 15 years of age whilst he had
(previously) turned them away. It was said to him then: “O Messenger of Allah! Raafi’ is an archer” and so
he permitted him. Then when he gave permission to Raafi’ is was said to him: “O Messenger of Allah!
Verily Samurah defeated Raafi’ (i.e. in strength)” and so he ‫ ﷺ‬permitted him (as well)” (6).

[(1) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18629, 14/410-402. Also refer to “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: 30062, 10/438, (2) “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”:
10/411, 29990 from a narration of Ibn ‘Asaakir, (3) In “Al-Kanz” it stated “’Azaabah” and the correction is from “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/160, (4) “Kanz ul-Ummaal”: 10/438-439, 30063 from the relation of Ibn ‘Asaakir, (5) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 5/139,
(6) “Seerah Ibn Hishaam” (Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/150)].

- The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with him,
said: “Haarithah was struck on the day of Badr and he was a boy (Ghulaam). His mother later came to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and said: “O Messenger of Allah! Did you know the station of Haarithah in respect to me? If
he is in Jannah I will be patient and anticipate the reward! And if it is other than that I don’t know what to
do!” He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Don’t worry! Or have you become confused (i.e. about the reality of Jannah)?
Is it just a single Jannah (garden of paradise)? Rather, it is many gardens of paradise (Jinaan)!
And verily he is in Jannat ul-Firdaus (The highest and best garden of paradise)” (1).

And in a narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Verily your son has gained the highest
Firdaus” (2).

The following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “In an established narration recorded by Ahmad it was
mentioned that Haarith went out (to the battle) as a watcher. An-Nasaa’iy added in respect to this: He did
not go out to participate in the fighting” (3).

- Also within Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy under the heading: “Chapter: Those children who went out to the
battle to serve”:

“Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with him, related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to Abu Talhah: “Find
for me a boy from amongst your boys who will serve me when I go out to Khaibar”. So, Abu
Talhah took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy close to puberty. I sued to serve the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬whenever he stopped to rest (or camp)” (4).

Concerning this, the following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:

“His (i.e. Al-Bukhaariy’s) statement: “Chapter: Those children who went out to the battle to serve”
indicates that the boy is not addressed with Al-Jihaad however it is permissible for him to go out in a
following capacity”. He then said: “And the Hadeeth contains the permissibility of encouraging the boys
to participate in the military expedition”. This is what some of the Shurraah (explainers of Hadeeth) have
said and followed. This needs to be examined because Anas, at that time, was older than 15 years of age.
That is because Khaibar took place in the seventh year of Al-Hijrah whilst his age at the time of the Hijrah
was 8 years old…” (5).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3982, 7/304, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2809, 6/26, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/27, (4) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 2893, 6/86, (5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/87].

- Concerning the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), are the children, women and Ahl udh-Dhimmah entitled to a
share of the Ghanaa’im (spoils or booty), if they are present at the fighting, like the share of the Muslim
men fighters? Or are they given what is called “Ar-Radkh” (gifting) only? i.e. an amount of property
without that be specified which is less than the share of the men?

I say: In respect to this Mas’alah, the following was stated in “Nail ul-Awtaar”:
“Some of them said: The woman and the boy are given a share (i.e. like the man) and this is the opinion of
Al-Awzaa’iy. Az-Zuhriy said: The share is given to the Dhimmiy but not the slaves, women and boys as
they are given a Radkh (i.e. some kind of gift less than a full share) … then he said: And the Zhaahir (i.e.
what is apparent): is that the women, the boys, the slaves and the Dhimmiyeen are not appropriated with a
share. And what has come mentioned within the Ahaadeeth which provides an indication that the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬provided a share to one of those (i.e. categories) must be understood to represent the “Radkh” and
that is the small gift, and that is through bringing all of the Ahaadeeth together” (1).

- And finally: The following was recorded in the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy: “Al-Awzaa’iy said: And the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬provided a share to the boys (Sibyaan) at Khaibar” (2).

The above therefore represents some of what has been related in relation to the boys (under the age of
puberty) going out alongside the fighting army during the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the following
conclusions are from that which has been indicated to by those narrations and texts:

1 - The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to inspect the army before entering into battle with the Mushrikeen to examine
the physical suitability of the individual fighters. Then the one whom he viewed to be young and expected
not to be capable of undertaking the fighting was ejected from the army. That could include the one who
had reached 15 years of age but despite that did not exhibit the suitability or that which was required to
undertake the fighting. However, if the capability of one of them was proven in any aspect from the
aspects of military suitability or competency he would permit him to join the fighters. This is what was
indicated by how he ‫ ﷺ‬acted in respect to turning away Samurah Bin Jundub and Raafi’ Bin Khadeej
along with those whom he deemed to be young on the day of Uhud even though they had reached 15
years of age, as was mentioned by Ibn Hishaam. However, then after the competency of both Samurah
and Raafi’ was proven to him in some fighting skills, he gave them permission to join those who had been
permitted…

[(1) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/927, (2) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1556, 4/126].

This indicates that the age of 15 years, even if it represents the beginning of the age of Takleef (legal
responsibility) (1). to adhere to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah (1), which include within them Al-Jihaad, that
alongside that the attribute of physical suitability is also taken into consideration in addition to the war and
fighting skills, in order to attain the permission to join the ranks of the fighters in actuality.

2 - The possessing the Shar’iyah authority (i.e. the ruler) has the right to permit the young or to not permit
them to join the fighters, in light of what he views in terms of the Maslahah attached to the provision of
that permission or not providing it. This is clear from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬turning away and rejecting Raafi’ Bin
Khadeej in the battle of Badr even though he was skilled in archery and also in the permission given to
‘Umair Bin Abi Waqqaas in the same battle even though the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had viewed him to be young.
Then when he wept out of the pain of being deprived of undertaking the Jihaad, he was then permitted to
join!

This is also clear from the acceptance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬of the boy whom his mother had brought to him
on the day of Uhud to defend the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. That was, as it appears, when the Muslims were defeated
and a small number remained with the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. It was for that reason that the woman said: “O
Messenger of Allah! This is my son, he will fight to defend you”. And so, he ‫ ﷺ‬accepted him and began
to direct him in the fighting instructing him to go here and there, as was stated in the narration.

3 - Those who are not granted permission to go out to fight against the enemy from among the young and
those close to the age of puberty who yearn to participate in the Jihaad could be charged with other
actions other than the engagement in the fighting upon the borders of the lands. That is like undertaking
acts of guarding in the town or city like protecting the families comprising of the women and children.
That protection could be against the internal conspirators from among the people of Fitnah and Nifaaq
(hypocrisy) or protection from any of the external enemy who have snuck into the town or city to cause
corruption and bring harm. Those guards would then be watching and lying in wait for them! This is clear
from the narration which said in respect to those whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬turned away from attending the
battle of Uhud: “They were made guards for the children and women of Al-Madinah”.

[(1) This is the view of the Jumhoor (majority): The following was stated in “Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu” by Dr. Wahbah
Az-Zuhailiy: 1/91: “Al-Buloogh (maturity) and its signs are five: Al-Ihtilaam (seminal discharge), growth of pubic hair,
menstruation, pregnancy and the reaching of the age and that is 15 years of age and it has been said 17 years and Abu Hanifah
said 18 years of age”].

4 - The young could be permitted to go out alongside the fighting army, not to engage in fighting, but
either to serve or just merely to observe the scenes of warfare, if the Maslahah (interest) dictates that. That
is because experiencing the military life and witnessing the battles close up, will lead to the breaking of the
barrier of fright of fighting within their hearts and it would represent a dispositional preparation for those
who are reaching the age of being legally responsible and charged with the undertaking of Al-Jihaad.

The evidence for this is clear in the searching of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬for a boy servant to serve him on his
march to the Ghazwah (military expedition) of Khaibar. That was when Abu Talhah presented Anas Bin
Maalik for this purpose and Abu Talhah was the husband of Umm Anas. In addition, Anas, may Allah be
pleased with him, said about himself, as recorded in Al-Bukhaariy, that he had been a boy who was close
to the age of puberty but had yet to reach it. That is even if it is confirmed that Anas, at that time, was
more than 15 years of age, as Ibn Hajar affirmed. Therefore, the meaning of the speech of Anas
concerning this, was that at that time he had yet to reach the stage of sexual puberty despite being 15 years
of age or a little older than that, and that is a possible matter.

We have said: From that which has been indicated to within the previous narrations:

That the young could be permitted to go out alongside the fighting army for the purpose of observing the
scenes of war. That was established in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy concerning the martyrdom of Haarith Bin
Suraaqah, that boy who was killed in the battle of Badr, whilst he was from those who were observing and
not from among the fighters.

In addition, the word “Ghulaam” (boy) is used in origin for the one who is below the age of maturity or
puberty (Buloogh) (1). That is like what came in the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Abdul ‘Azeez about the age
of 15 years: “This is the demarcation between the men and the Ghilmaan (pl. of Ghulaam i.e. boy/s)” (2).

- That is even if it is not prevented to use the word for adults sometimes from a metaphorical angle (3).
That is like what they (i.e. Quraish) used to say about the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬when he was in Makkah after he was
charged with the Prophethood: “Ghulaam Bani Haashim” (i.e. the boy of Bani Haashim) (4).

5 - The narrations that indicate to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬providing the boys from the spoils or booty (Ghanaa’im
pl. of Ghaneemah), regardless of whether that was from the angle of it representing a share being
provided to them like the shares of the men or if it was in the form of a small gift (Radkh), is nevertheless
a Daleel (evidence) affirming the departure of the boys during his time ‫ ﷺ‬alongside the fighting army.
That is because the Asl (original position) regarding the Ghanaa’im (spoils and booty) is that they are only
for those who attended the battles.

[(1) Refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/279, (2) Ibn Qudaamah quoted this narration in “Al-Mughniy” with the wording: “This is the
demarcation between the Rijaal (men) and the Ghilmaan (boys)”: 10/541, (3) Refer to “fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/279, (4) “Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id”: 6/22].
This then is what is to be said concerning the first point about what has come reported in respect to the
boys accompanying the Islamic army in the era of the Prophethood.

We will now move on to the second point.

2 - The Second Point: What have the Fuqahaa’ said in respect to the Hukm of the children being
engaged in fighting against the enemies?

- In the view of the Hanafiy Fiqh: Commentary came mentioned in the “Haashiyah” (of Ibn ‘Aabideen)
upon what was stated in “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar Bi Sharh Tanweer ul-Absaar” concerning his statement:
“It (i.e. Al-Jihaad) is not made obligatory upon the Sabiy (boy)”. It was stated in “Al-Haashiyah”:

“In respect to the male: It is the right of the father to permit the Muraahiq (one approaching puberty) to
undertake Al-Qitaal and even if he fears that he will be killed … And As-Sughdiy said: It is necessary that
he does gear for him and if he fears that he will be killed it is not permitted for him …” (1). Then, in
respect to the situation of the enemy attacking the lands of the Muslims, the following also came stated in
“Al-Haashiyah”:

“As-Sarakhsiy said: … The Ghilmaan (boys) who have not reached the age of puberty, if they are capable
of fighting, then there is no harm (or problem) that they go out and fight in the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (general
call-out to arms) and even if the fathers and mothers dislike that” (2).

Also mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”, following the text above that Ibn ‘Aabideen
quoted from As-Sarakhsiy, was the following:

“And in other than this case or situation (i.e. the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm or the general call-out), they should
not go out to fight, unless that is according to their wishes” (3) i.e. the wishes of the fathers of boys and
their mothers.

- And in the view of the Shaafi’iy Fiqh: Concerning the Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Jihaad, the following,
in summary, came stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “The disbelievers have
different circumstances (attached to them): One of them: Is that they are in their own lands … In which
case, it is Fard Kifaayah, as indicated to by what happened during the era of the rightly guided Khulafaa’
… If it is undertaken by those who fulfil the sufficiency then the sin falls from the remainder …

[(1) “Al-Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/339, (2) “Al-Haashiyah”: 3/342, (3) As-Siyar ul-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 1/202].

And concerning his statement: “Those who fulfil the sufficiency” includes the one who is not from the
people of the Fard of Al-Jihaad … As such, if the Muraahiqoon (those approaching or near to the age of
puberty or manhood) undertake it, the sin falls from the people of the obligations (i.e. the Mukallaf men)”
(1). He then said:

“The second of the circumstances related to the disbelievers: I that the enter a town (or land) of ours and
so it is necessary and required for its people to defend and repel as much as possible … That applies even
to the Faqeer (impoverished), the boy, the indebted and the slave, without (the requirement of)
permission” (2). And in ‘Al-Muhadh’dhab”: “And it is allowed for him (i.e. the Imaam in the Jihaad) to
grant permission to the women … And it is allowed for him to grant permission to those who are strong
from the boys, because they possess that which can assist, but he cannot grant permission to the Majnoon
(not of sound mind) because he will be exposed to being killed without bringing any benefit” (3).
- And in the view of the Maalikiy Fiqh: The following came stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah”:

“The third issue: Concerning those who are relied upon to assist (i.e. those who are relied upon and
utilised in respect to the undertaking of Al-Jihaad). They are: The Muslims, the Ahraar (free) and the
Baalighoon (mature). And it is permitted to rely upon the ‘Abd (slave) with the permission of his master
and the strong Muraahiqoon (those near the age of manhood) …” (4).

And in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” and the “Haashiyah” of Ad-Dasooqiy, concerning the Mas’alah of when
Al-Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain, the following came stated:

“And Al-Jihaad becomes Fard ‘Ain as a result of the enemy suddenly attacking a people and the act of
repelling is directed to the woman and the slave …

And in the “Haashiyah” it was stated here: And similarly, the boy who has the capability to undertake the
fighting”. Then he said in the Sharh: “And it becomes Fard ‘Ain also by the Imaam designating a person
and even if that is a woman or slave … And in the Haashiyah, here, he said: And by the designation of the
Imaam means: Anyone whom the Imaam designates for Al-Jihaad, it becomes Fard upon him and even if
he is a boy (Sabiy) who is capable of fighting or a woman, slave, younger boy (Walad) or one in debt. They
go out (for battle) even if the Waliy, husband, master or the one whom the debt is owed, forbid it. And
what is intended by it becoming Fard ‘Ain upon the Sabiy due to the attack of the enemy and by the
designation of the Imaam, by resorting to him and compelling him upon it, is according to what is
required to make it (the Jihaad) right and not according to the meaning of punishing the one who
abandons it … Therefore, it should not be said: That directing the obligation to the Sabiy (prepubescent
boy) represents a breach or violation of the Ijmaa’!” (5). This is what has come within the Fiqh of the
Maalikiyah.

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/209, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/219, (3) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-
Sheeraaziy: 2/230, (4) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p164, (5) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa
Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 2/174-175].

- As for the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah: Then its stance, in relation to this Mas’alah, is that the Sabiy (boy)
does not enter under the Takleef (legal responsibility) of Al-Jihaad at all (Mutlaqan). That is because the
Buloogh (reaching manhood) is from the Shuroot (conditions) of the Takleef (legal responsibility) of
abiding by the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, which include Al-Jihaad. In “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah, after
mentioning reaching the age of maturity from the conditions of the obligation of Al-Jihaad, he said: “The
Sabiy (boy) is weak in stature or build (i.e. physically), and it was related from Ibn ‘Umar that he said: I
was presented before the Messenger of Allah ‫( ﷺ‬for inspection) on the day of Uhud, when I was a boy
of 14 years of age, and so he did not grant me permission to fight” Agreed upon” (1).

Here, the matter of absolutely making the Buloogh (maturity) a condition for the obligation of Al-Jihaad,
indicates that the Sabiy (prepubescent boy) does not enter under the Takleef (legal responsibility) to
undertake Al-Jihaad, whether that is in its description as a Fard Kifaayah or in its description as a Fard
‘Ain as well, when the enemy attacks the lands of the Muslims and the situation becomes one of the
Nafeer ul-‘Aamm (general call-out or call to arms). That is because Ibn Qudaamah obliges the Qitaal, in
the case of the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm upon those who are from Ahl ul-Qitaal (the people of fighting) alone.
And the Ahl ul-Qitaal are those in whom the conditions of the obligation of Al-Jihaad are met. He states:
“The Nafeer (call to arms) encompasses all of those who are from Ahl ul-Qitaal at the time of the need of
their call-out due to the enemy coming to them” (2).

However, despite that, it is permitted, within the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah, for the Sibyaan (boys) to depart
alongside the army and to actually take part in the fighting, even if that is not Waajib (obligatory) upon
them. That is just like the case in relation to the woman, as previously explained. This is indicated by the
fact that they determined that the Sibyaan (boys), if they go out to the fighting, are entitled to the Radkh
(some financial recompense less than the share of the men).

- i.e. They are entitled to something small from the Ghaneemah (spoils or booty) that does not reach the
amount of the men. And if one of them kills one of the disbelievers he is entitled to his spoils (Salab) i.e.
what he possesses in terms of clothing, weaponry and ride.

Concerning this, the following was stated in “Al-Mughniy”:

“The Salab (spoils or booty) of every fighter is entitled to the share or the Radkh; like the ‘Abd (slave), the
woman, the Sabiy (boy) and the Mushrik” (3).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/366, (2) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/389, (3) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/419].

Concluding summary:

The Sibyaan (boys), who are those under the age of Buloogh (manhood), are not Mukallaf (legally
responsible) with Al-Jihaad in a manner of compulsion except for in the situation of the Nafeer ul-‘Aamm
(general call-out) to defend the Islamic lands and their people when the disbelievers are attacking. And in
the view of the Maalikiy Madh’hab:

- They are also compelled to fight when they are charged with that by the legally legitimate possessor of
the authority (i.e. the Shar’iy ruler) and even if it is in other than the circumstance of defence, if they are
competent for that which they are being made responsible and charged to undertake.

As for the Hnaabilah: Then they do not consider the Sibyaan (boys) to be suitable or valid to be
compelled to undertake the Qitaal under any circumstances.

However, all of the Fuqahaa’, including the Hanaabilah, view the permissibility of the Sibyaan taking up
arms and engaging in the fighting of the enemies in actual practise as long as they have the capability to
undertake that.

And by that we have reached the conclusion of this point and now move on to the final point of this
issue.

3 - The Third Point: Are children utilised in the Islamic army, in the modern time? And what is
their role within it?

The answer:

The Jaish (army), as we have previously stated, is divided into two divisions:

- Al-Jaish un-Nizhaamiy (Regular army): Its individuals, in origin, consist of those who are Mukallaf
(legally responsible) to undertake Al-Jihaad, upon the way of sufficiency. They are at arms on a permanent
basis and in a state of readiness to immediately enage in fighting at the first signal.

- Al-Jaish Al-Ihtiyaatiy (Reserve army): It comprises of the rest of the Muslims who are Mukallaf to
undertake Al-Jihaad in addition to those who are permitted to participate in Al-Jihaad or in its actions and
services.
Therefore, in the case where the Sibyaan (prepubescent) boys do not enter under the Takleef (legal
responsibility) of Al-Jihaad, under its description of being Fard Kifaayah, then their place, as such, is not
within the regular army … Although that does not prevent (or forbid) their utilisation within this army is
the Daroorah (necessity) of Maslahah (interest) called for that. That is because the regular army was only
brought into being in order for it to be able to fulfil the Jihaad in the best of manners and as it is
permitted for the Sibyaan (boys) to undertake the Jihaad, then upon that basis it is also permitted for them
to be utilised within this army.

However, despite that, it remains that the natural place for the boys is not the regular army but rather the
reserve army that combines the remainder of those Mukallaf to undertake Al-Jihaad external to the regular
army in addition to all those who are permitted to participate in the Jihaad from those who are not
Mukallaf (legally responsible) to undertake it.

This army, as stated, comprises of civilians who go about their business and undertake their normal
routines and actions. They are not dedicated or committed to the military life but rather are called to
undertake the Jihaad if the necessity or interest calls for that.

The Sibyaan (boys) who are capable of using weapons could represent an element from among the
elements of the reserve army, if the matter requires it.

- As for the role of the Sibyaan (boys) within this army? Or within the regular army if the Maslahah
(interest) dictated their utilisation?

The answer is: That each of them is placed in the position or placing that he is suited to be in.

- Therefore, in respect to the one who is capable of using a weapon and has been trained in the arts or
techniques of warfare, it is permissible for the authority to utilise him in this field or area, whether that
was inside the land, in what is known as civil defence, or upon the borders or frontiers of the land to face
the enemies.

- And the one whose benefit lies in the field of providing services more than the field of combat, is
utilised in this field that he is most beneficial in.

In addition, we have seen within the narrations that we presented in the first point, how from the Sibyaan
(boys) there were those who fought, those who undertook acts related to guarding or what is called civil
defence, and those who used to serve the needs of the fighters.

With that we have concluded the discussion around this branch and now move on to a new branch.

The fifth branch: The Hukm of non-Muslim citizens participating in the army and
their role within it.

We will address this topic via a discussion of the following points:

1 - The First Point: The participation of the disbelievers in the Islamic army going out to fight in the era
of the Prophethood and the Rightly Guided Khulafaa’ - What has been related concerning this within the
texts?

2 - The Second Point: What has come mentioned within the books of Fiqh concerning the Mas’alah
(issue) of Al-Isti’aanah (seeking assistance) with non-Muslims in respect to fighting the enemy?
3 - The Third Point: Are the doors of the regular army in the Islamic State opened to non-Muslim
citizens? Or is their place within the reserve army, if the matter requires, and what is their role within the
army?

1 - The First Point: The participation of the disbelievers in the Islamic army going out to fight in
the era of the Prophethood and the Rightly Guided Khulafaa’.

The texts that have come related in relation to this Mas’alah are of two categories:

- Some of them direct towards the non-seeking of assistance from non-Muslims in war.
- And some permit this seeking of assistance (Isti’aanah).

We will now present a collection of texts for each of these directions or positions:

Firstly: The texts that have come indicating to not seeking assistance from non-Muslims in war:

The following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “’Aa’ishah, the wife of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, said: “The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬departed towards Badr. Then when he was at Harrat ul-Wabrah, a man
caught up with him, and he was known for his courage and capability. The companions of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬therefore rejoiced when they saw him. When he reached the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬he said: I have come to join you and fight (or take booty) with you. The Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?” He said: “No”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said:
Then return for I will never seek assistance with a Mushrik (polytheist)”. She (‘Aa’ishah) said:
Then they proceeded on until we reached Ash-Shajarah (2). The man again caught up to him and
said to him the same as he had said the first time and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬replied as he had done the
first time. He said: “Then return because I will never seek assistance with a Mushrik!” …

[(1) A location about 4 km away from Al-Madinah: “An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Muslim”: 7/477, (2) The words “until we” most likely
indicates that ‘Aa’ishah was amongst those seeing the army off and so she saw that. And it is possible that she meant the
Muslims were (instead of we): “An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Muslim”: 7/477-478].

… he then returned and caught up with him once more at Al-baydaa’. He said to him the same as
the first time: “Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?”. And (this time) he said: “Yes”. And
so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Then go forth” (1).

The following was recorded in “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini” of Al-Haakim:

“Habeeb Bin Abdur Rahmaan related from his father from his grandfather, may Allah be pleased with
him. He said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out in some of his Ghazawaat (military
expeditions) and I and a man approached him whilst we had yet to become Muslim. We said: We
are shamed that our people witness an event that we don’t witness”. And so, he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Have
you both become Muslim?”. We said: “No”. He said: “I do not seek assistance with the
Mushrikeen against the Mushrikeen”. And so we became Muslim and we witnessed (i.e. the
battle) with the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. I killed a man and the man struck me with a blow and then
(after that) (2) I married his daughter! She used to say: “You are not deprived of a man that had adorned
you with such an adornment (i.e. scarring)!” And I replied: “And you have not been deprived of a man
that hastened your father’s journey to the fire!” (3).

- And in the Musnad of Ishaaq Bin Raahuwaih: “Abu Humaid As-Saa’idiy, may Allah be pleased with him,
said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out on the day of Uhud until he left Thaniyat ul-Wadaa’.
He then looked behind him and there he suddenly saw the Kateebah (regiment) of Hasnaa’ (and
in a relation it stated: “Khasnaa’”) (4). And he said: “Who are they?” They said: “This is
Abdullah Ibn Ubayy Ibn Salool amongst his followers from the Yahood (Jews) and they are the
group of Abdullah Ibn Salaam”. He asked: “Have they embraced Islaam?” They replied: “No,
they remain upon their Deen”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Say to them to return back for verily we do not
seek assistance with the Mushrikeen against the Mushrikeen” (5).

The above is some of what has been related in respect to not seeking (or accepting0 assistance from the
Mushrikeen in war.

Secondly: In contrast to those texts, there are other texts that indicate to the permissibility of the
participation of the disbelievers with the Muslims in war against the enemy. The following are a collection
of these texts:

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1817, 3/1449-1450, (2) This addition is from “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 5/303 and Al-Haithamiy said:
Ahmad and At-Tabaraaniy recorded it and the men (i.e. transmitters) of Ahmad are Thiqaat (reliable), (3) Al-Haakim, “Al-
Mustadrak”: 2/121-122 and Al-Haakim said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh ul-Isnaad but they (Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not
record it, (4) i.e. lots of crude weapons. And ‘Al-Kateebah’ is a regiment or troop of the army, (5) “Nasb Ar-Raayah”: 3/423-
424. It was related by Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrak as well: 2/122, the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12/394. And in the
Haamish (margins) of “Al-Mataalib Al-‘Aaliyah” it stated: “In its Musnidah: Its Isnaad is Saheeh, And Al-Bousairiy said: Ishaq
related it with a Hasan Isnaad (chain)”: 4/222].

- In the Sunan of Abu Dawud with a Saheeh Isnaad (chain): “I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:
“You will make a security treaty with Rome and you and they will fight an enemy that lies behind you …”
(1).

- In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah and the Sunan of Al-Baihaqiy: “Ash-Shaibaaniy (and he is Abu
Ishaaq) related that Sa’d Bin Maalik (and he is Ibn Abi Waqqaas) fought with a people (or group) from the
Jews and the granted them the Radkh (i.e. some financial reward from the booty)” (2).

- Also from the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah and quoted by Ibn Hazm in “Al-Muhallaa” with this Lafzh
(wording): “Jaabir said: I asked Ash-Sha’biy regarding the Muslims fighting with the Ahl ul-Kitaab?” Ash-
Sha’biy said: I have come across the A’immah (pl. of Imaam), the one who was Faqeeh (knowledgeable)
and the one who was not Faqeeh, who would fight with the Ahl ul-Dhimmah and divide the share of
spoils amongst them and free them from the Jizyah from them. And that represents for them a good
Nafl” 93).

Ibn Hazm said after quoting this report: “And Ash-Sha’biy was born in the early days of ‘Ali and he met
with those Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, who remained after him”. Then Ibn Hazm
commented upon the report of the Ghazwah of Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas undertaken with a party of the
Jews and said: “And we do not know of Sa’d anyone from the Sahaabah who disagreed with or opposed
him and Salmaan Ibn Rabee’ah, may Allah be pleased with him, used to seek assistance with the
Mushrikeen against the Mushrikeen” (4).

Concerning this, what Ibn Hazm indicated to in terms of the Sahaabiy Salmaan Bin Rabee’ah seeking
assistance with the Mushrikeen against the Mushrikeen, the following was stated in the Musannaf of Ibn
Abi Shaibah and the text came as follows: “That Salmaan Bin Rabee’ah Al-Baahiliy attacked Balanjar (5)
and so he sought assistance from some people from the Mushrikeen and said: “It is to use the enemies of
Allah against the enemies of Allah” (6).

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 4292-4293, 3/115 and 4/156. And he said in the margins of “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: Its Isnaad is Saheeh:
10/26, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15013, 12/396. Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/37, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15014, 12/396.
“Al-Muhallaa”: 7/334, (4) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/334. And it is mentioned here that the opinion of Ibn Hazm is that the
assistance of the disbelievers is not sought in the Qitaal: “Al-Muhallaa”: 7/333, (5) From the lands of Armenia and ‘Umar had
dispatched it there and he was not killed until the time of ‘Uthmaa, may Allah be pleased with him. “Al-Istee’aab” of Ibn Abd
ul-Barr in his biography of the Sahaabiy: Salmaan Bin Rabee’ah Al-Baahiliy: 2/59-60, (6) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15008,
12/394-395].

- And from the events of Hunain, following the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah, was that Safwaan Bin
Umayyah, who was upon Shirk (polytheism) attended this battle with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬before he embraced
Islaam … In it (the report) Safwaan reproached his brother (Kaladah) for his delight or malicious joy that
he expressed at the defeat of the Muslims in the first round of the battle … The report said: “And
Kaladah Bin Al-Hanbal shouted out whilst he was with his brother Safwaan Bin Umayyah Bin Khalaf, and
he was his brother by his mother, and Safwaan was a Mushrik on that day, during the period of time (1)
that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had set. He (Kaladah) said: “Indeed, the sorcery not proven false
today!” And so Safwaan responded to him: “Be quiet, may Allah break your mouth! For by Allah, for a
man from Quraish to be my master is more beloved to me than for a man from Hawaazin to be my
master” (2).

- And the following was reported in “Nasb ur-Raayah”: “Ibn ‘Abbaas related: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬sought (or accepted) assistance with the Jews of Qaynuqaa’ and he gave them the Radkh (a small
financial recompense) but not the share (i.e. of the Muslim fighters)”. Al-Bayhaqiy said: Al-Hasan Bin
‘Ammaarah was alone in transmitting this (report) and it is Matrook (discarded)” (3).

- And in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy under the heading: “Chapter: Very Allah will assist the Deen with the Faajir
(evil, corrupt or wicked) man”, the following Hadeeth was presented: “Abu Hurairah, may Allah be
pleased with him said: “We were present (for battle) with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he said
about a man who had claimed to be Muslim: “This (man) is from the people of the fire!”. Then
when the fighting commenced, the man fought ferociously and he was struck with a wound. It
was then said: “O Messenger of Allah! The one you said that he is from the people of the fire,
fought today ferociously and then died!” Then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “To the fire!”. He (the
narrator) said: Then some of the people were close to doubting and whilst they were like that, it
was said: “He had not died but rather he had been wounded severely and then when it came to
the night he could not remain patient upon his wound and then killed himself”. The Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
was informed of that and then said: “Allah Akbar! I bear witness that I am the slave of Allah and
His Messenger”. He then commanded Bilaal to call out amongst the people: “Verily, no one
enters Jannah apart from the Muslim soul (Nafs) and verily Allah aids this Deen with a Faajir
(corrupt, wicked) man” (4).

[(1) i.e. the period of security that was provided: Four months, (2) Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said that this Khabar (report) in its
full length was recorded by Ibn Hishaam and At-Tabariy with a Saheeh Isnaad from Jaabir Bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased
with him: “Fiqh us-Seerah”, Al-Ghazaaliy: p422. The above text is from the “Taareekh” (History) of At-tabariy: 3/74. Also
refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/124, (3) “Nasb ur Raayah”, Az-Zai’la’iy: 3/422, (4) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 3062, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/179, Muslim: 98, 1/98].

The above are some of the Riwaayaat (reports) connected to the permission of “Al-Isti’aanah” seeking or
acquiring assistance and support in respect to fighting the enemy. Now, we want what the commentary of
the ‘Ulamaa upon all of these reports is? Which of them prevent or forbid the assistance of the
Mushrikeen and which permit it?

- In “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, in commentary upon the Hadeeth: “Verily, Allah supports this Deen with the Faajir
(corrupt) man”, the following was stated: “Al-Muhallab and others said: This does not conflict with his
statement ‫ﷺ‬: “We do not seek assistance with the Mushrik” (1). It is either specific to that time or
either what is intended by it (i.e. the Hadeeth of supporting the Deen by the Faajir) is the Faajir (corrupt)
other than the Mushrik. I said: The Hadeeth was extracted by Muslim [i.e. the Hadeeth: “We do not seek
assistance with the Mushrik”] and Ash-Shaafi’iy answered it according to the first (explanation above) [i.e.
it is Mansookh (abrogated) and was specific to the battle that it came related to]. And the evidence of the
abrogation is Safwaan Bin Umayyah witnessing Hunain with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was a Mushrik
whilst the telling if well-known in the (books) of Al-Maghaaziy (battles i.e. Seerah). Other than him
answered this by combining angles other than this which included: That he ‫ ﷺ‬was looking, within the
one to whom he said: “I don’t seek assistance with the Mushrik”, to stir the desire to become Muslim. So,
he turned him away hoping that he would become Muslim and his Zhann (speculation) was affirmed.
Another angle is: That the opinion in respect to it returns to the opinion of the Imaam. And each of them
there exists scrutiny from the angle that it is Nakirah (indefinite i.e. grammatical term) in respect to the
context of the Nafy (negation) and as such the one wanting to specify it requires a Daleel (2). At-Tahaawiy
said: The story of Safwaan does not conflict with his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: “I do not seek assistance by the
Mushrik” because Safwaan went out with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬by his own choice and not by the command of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬given to him to do that …” (3).

Ibn Hajar expresses his own opinion in respect to reconciling between the two Hadeeth when he says:
“And that which appears to me is that the intended meaning of the Faajir (corrupt) is more general than it
referring to a Kaafir or a Faasiq and his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “Verily, we do not seek assistance with the
Mushrik” does not conflict with it because it applies upon the one who used to exhibit the Kufr, or it is
Mansookh (abrogated)” (4).

[(1) i.e. the Hadeeth: “We do not seek assistance with the Mushrik” is specific to the battle in which this text was stated, (2) The
summary of this view is: That the specification of preventing the Mushrik from the Qitaal in the case where it is hoped that he
would become Muslim and that is to encourage him to embrace Islaam. And the specification of preventing the Mushrik from
fighting in the case if the Imaam views that. In other than these two cases, then the fighting of the Mushrik alongside the
Muslims is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) … (Concerning this), this Takhsees (specification) requires a Daleel (evidence)
indicating to that because the text of this forbiddance or prevention “I do not seek assistance with the Mushrik” is general and
not specified to the two mentioned cases, whilst the specification of the ‘Aamm (general) without that which specifies it
(Mukhassis) is not permitted. I say: It is possible for this view, indicated to by Ibn Hajar, to be answered, by stating that the
confirmation of the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of the Isti’aanah (acquiring assistance) by the Mushrik in the Qitaal indicates
to this Takhsees (specification), thus bringing together these two evidences, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/179-180, (4) “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 7/474].

- Under the heading: “The chapter of the dislike of seeking assistance in the war with a Kaafir except in
the situation of the need or due to him having a positive opinion of the Muslims”, the following was
stated by An-Nawawiy in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, when commentating upon the Hadeeth: “I will
never seek assistance with the Mushrik”:

“It came mentioned in the other Hadeeth that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sought (or acquired) the assistance of
Safwaan Bin Umayyah before he embraced Islaam. Consequently, a group from the ‘Ulamaa took the first
Hadeeth according to its Mutlaq (unrestricted) indication and Ash-Shaafi’iy and others said: If the Kaafir
has a positive or good view towards the Muslims and the need called to seeking assistance with him, his
assistance is sought or acquired, otherwise it would be Makrooh (disliked). And the two Hadeeth are
understood in accordance to these two cases or circumstances” (1).

- The following was stated by Ash-Shawkaaniy in “Nail ul-Awtaar”:

“… A group from the ‘Ulamaa held the view of the non-permissibility of the Isti’aanah (assistance) of the
Mushrikeen … And it was stated in “Al-Bahr” from Al-‘Itrah, Abu Haneefah and his companions (i.e.
followers of his Madh’hab), that it is permissible to seek assistance with the Kuffaar (disbelievers) and the
Fussaaq (sinfully disobedient) in the case where they abide by his commands and forbiddances. They used
as evidence that he ‫ ﷺ‬took the assistance of some people from the Jews, as mentioned previously, by
his taking the assistance of Safwaan Bin Umayyah on the day of Hunain, his ‫ ﷺ‬statement that there will
occur a treaty with the Romans and that they will fight together against an enemy behind the Muslims …
And from among the evidences indicating to the permissibility of acquiring the assistance of the
Mushrikeen is that Quzmaan went out alongside the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on the
day of Uhud whilst he was a Mushrik. He then killed three of Bani Abd ud-Daar who were carrying the
Liwaa’ (banner) of the Mushrikeen, until he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Verily Allah strengthens (or reinforces) this Deen
with the Faajir man” as was confirmed by the people of the Seerah” … Then, after all of this that
preceded, Ash-Shawkaaniy concludes by saying: “And the conclusion is that what is apparent (Zhaahir)
from the evidences is the non-permissibility of acquiring the assistance of the one who was Mushrik
absolutely (Mutlaqan) due to what is contained in his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: “Verily, we do not seek the assistance
via the Mushrikeen” in terms of generality”. He then states: “As for his ‫ ﷺ‬Isti’aanah (acquiring
assistance) via Ibn ‘Abi (3) then that was only due to his display of Islaam. As for the fighting of Quzmaan
(4) alongside the Muslims, then it has not been established that he ‫ ﷺ‬gave permission for that, initially,
and the conclusion of that is that it is permitted for the Imaam to be silent over a Kaafir fighting alongside
the Muslims” (4).

This is the view of Ash-Shawkaaniy as stated in his book “Nail ul-Awtaar” however he states another
opinion in his book “As-Sail ul-Jarraar” when he stated: “And as for the Isti’aanah (seeking assistance)
with the disbelievers against the disbelievers, then that took place from him ‫ ﷺ‬on more than one
instance just as it also happened from him that he rejected the one who wanted to assist him from the
Mushrikeen to fight against the Mushrikeen …

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim: 476-477, (2) referring to Abdullah Ibn Abi Ibn Salool: The chief of the
Munaafiqeen (hypocrites): Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/149, (3) Refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/168, (4) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/237].

And he said to them that he does not seek assistance via a Mushrik. And it is possible to bring together
(i.e. this perceived conflict) by the permission being attached to the Haajah (need), the hope of gaining
benefit, whilst the rejection due to the absence of these two reasons or one of them, would be delegated
to the opinion (and judgment) of the Imaam” (1).

After examining these previously presented reports or narrations and the comments of the ‘Ulamaa upon
them, we view the following in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue):

1 - It is verified that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬rejected and turned back some of the Mushrikeen from going
out with him to the fighting like what was recorded in Saheeh Muslim. Similarly, in contrast, it has also
been verified that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬informed about what will take place in the future in terms of the
disbelievers joining with the Muslims to fight against a joint or shared enemy. And those disbelievers,
according to what was recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, are the Romans who entered into a treaty
with the Muslims via the contract of Dhimmah or what is similar to that … In any case, the form of the
narration indicates to approval (Taqreer) i.e. it indicates to the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of the
disbelievers fighting with the Muslims … It has also been established that Safwaan Bin Umayyah was a
Mushrik (idolater) when he went out to fight against the Hawaazin at Hunain alongside the army of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had requested armour, mail and weapons from him which he had in his
possession in the form of borrowing, and he did so (2). Just as it has been affirmed that some of the
Sahaabah in the era of the Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashideen used to allow some of the disbelievers to participate
with them in the army to fight against the enemy like what was reported in respect to Sa’d Ibn Abi
Waqqaas and Salmaan Ibn Rabee’ah Al-Baahiliy, may Allah be pleased with them, as was found within the
reports we presented earlier. And this type of conduct could not be hidden from the rest of the Sahaabah
whilst it is from the kind of matters that would be renounced and condemned had it been illegitimate in
the Shar’a. Despite that, no condemnation or rejection has been reported from them which consequently
indicates to the legal legitimacy of this act.
2 - Utilising the Qaa’idah (principle): “Working with or utilising both evidences is better than utilising one
and discarding the other”, reconciling between the (apparently) conflicting evidences is what must be
attempted. And concerning this, some angles have been presented in the previous commentaries to
reconcile between the Riwaayaat (reports or narrations) …

My opinion in respect to lifting (or removing) the problem posed by what appears to be a conflict
between those texts, is that his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “I do not seek assistance by the Mushrik”, is not from the
angle of the Nahy (forbiddance) of the Isti’aanah (seeking assistance) via the Mushrikeen Mutlaqan
(absolutely) where the Nahy (forbiddance) over this is ‘Aamm (general) … That is whilst considering the
Nafy (negation) here to provide the meaning of the Nahy (forbiddance) in respect to that seeking of
assistance …

[(1) “As-Sailu ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/521, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/123].

… Then what came after that which indicates to the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of that assistance
should be explained in that it represents a Naskh (abrogation) of the previous Nahy (forbiddance) or as a
Takhsees (specification) for that general (‘Aamm) Nahy (forbiddance) according to the meanings which
are understood from the cases or circumstances in which the legal legitimacy of that assistance have come.
I say: My opinion in respect to his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: “I do not seek the assistance by the Mushrik”, is not upon
the angle that I have mentioned …

Rather, my opinion is that this text “I do not seek assistance by the Mushrik” only represents an Ikhbaar
(informing) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬about himself in that he chooses in the time that he made this statement,
one of two matters which are permissible for him. That is in the case where it is Mubaah (permissible) for
him to be assisted by the Mushrikeen in his war against the enemy just as it is permitted for him to not
accept or seek that assistance … In respect to that he follows what he views to hold the Maslahah
(interest) … The fact that he ‫ ﷺ‬took the assistance on an occasion, like in Hunain, for example, and
that he rejected it on another occasion, like in Badr, for example, represents a Daleel (evidence) that this
matter is one of Ibaahah (permissibility). As for his having expressed his rejection of this assistance by his
speech: “I do not seek assistance” and what is similar to this wording … Then, the like of this expression
does not indicate that he cannot return to the seeking of the assistance whenever he wishes. That is
because the like of this style: “I do not” does not necessarily indicate that the one who said it should not
revise what he has said or choose previously, or otherwise he would be in contradiction of himself …
Rather, it is permitted for the person to say about a particular matter that “I will not do it” and then
return, if he wishes, and then do it, as long as the matter is from the Mubaahaat (permissible matters), and
there is no objection in respect to that.

When such an Usloob (style) is reported from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, i.e. when he negates from himself a certain
act, and then returns to undertake that, after that, then the nearest explanation for the undertaking of this
action following the (original) Nafy (negation), is that that action is only one of permissibility or falls
under its ruling. Based upon this understanding, then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬chose first to not undertake and act
whilst expressing that choice with the statement: “I don’t do”, and then secondly, he chose to undertake
that which he had previously abstained from doing, and he expressed that by undertaking that action
practically.

In addition, there may be within the following narration that which supports what I have mentioned:
“Abu Hurairah related that a man caught up to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and pulled him from behind by his
cloak and his cloak was rough so it reddened his neck. He said: “O Mohammad! Load these two
camels of mine (i.e. with food and other items)” … And so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “I
will not load for you until you allow me equal retribution for your pulling of my neck”. The Arab
nomad then said: “No by Allah, I will not allow you the right of retaliation!” Then, the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬repeated that three times and each time he replied saying: “No, by Allah, I will not
allow you the right of retaliation”. Then the Messenger of Allah said to a man from amongst the
people: “O so and so! Load one of the camels with barley and the other camel with dates …!” (2).

Therefore, in this Hadeeth we observe that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said: “I will not load for you until you
give me the right of retaliation” and then he reversed and went back upon what he had told him and
commanded that his camels be loaded without taking the retaliation … That did not occur except that it
was Mubaah (permissible) for him, in origin, to not load for that man except after exacting retaliation, just
as it was permitted (Mubaah) for him to load for him and pardon him from the retaliation.

Another example:

It was recorded in the Musnad of Ahmad and in other than it, that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ُ ‫اَالَأ‬
‫صافِحَُال ِّنسا َء‬ َ ‫أَ َن‬
“Verily, I do not shake the hand of the women” (2)

Then there was related from him that which establishes that he did that which he had refrained from and
negated from himself. That is like what was recorded by At-Tabaraaniy, with reliable transmitters (Rijaal
Thiqaat), in a long Hadeeth in which the Sahaabiy Abu Qirsaafah narrates the story of his conversion to
Islaam followed by the conversion of his mother and maternal aunt. Included within this Hadeeth and
related to our matter, the following was stated:

“And so, my mother and maternal aunt said to me: “Take us to him (i.e. to the Nabi ‫”)ﷺ‬. And
so, I, my mother and aunt went. They embraced Islaam and gave the Bai’ah (pledge) to the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he shook their hands”. This was related to the matter of the Islaam of
Abu Qirsaafah and his Hijrah (migration) to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. And Abu Qirsaafah used to live in the land of
Tihaamah. Related by At-Tabaraaniy and Rijaaluhu Thiqaat (his transmitters are reliable) (3).

Therefore, this Hadeeth, with what it includes in terms of a specific style in respect to the taking of the
Bai’ah from the two women by the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, if affirmed, does not negate his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: “Verily, I do
not shake the hand of the women”, and is understood consequently, to indicate that this matter is one of
Ibaahah (permissibility), where either of the two actions is chosen, according to what he views to be more
appropriate and suitable (4).

[(1) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 8/33-34, (2) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 6/357, Muwatta’, Al-Imaam Maalik: 2/250 (Tanweer Al-
Hawaalak Sharh Muwatta’ Maalik), Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2874, 2/959, (3) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 9/396, (4) In the Sharh of the
Sunan of Ad-Daaru Qutniy concerning the commentary upon the Hadeeth: “I do not shake the hands of the women” he said
that there are Ahaadeeth that conflict with this text and then he stated the following: “And if it is verified in respect to it
anything (i.e. that he did shake the hands of some of the women), then the analogy upon the infallible (Ma’soom) Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
who has control over desire represents an analogy that is not equal, and particularly in a time in which the effects of evil acts
and disobedience is widespread”: “Al-Mughniy ‘Alaa Ad-Daaru Qutniy: 4/147].

Therefore, and based upon this, the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “I do not seek assistance by the
Mushrik” and then followed by what was confirmed, after that, in terms of the assistance provided in the
battle of Hunain, for example, indicates that this matter is one of Ibaahah (the Hukm of permissibility), as
previously explained.

Summary: That the matter of the Isti’aanah (seeking or acquiring of assistance) via non-Muslims in the
fighting, is delegated to the opinion of the one possessing the legitimate authority and he does in this
regard that which he sees fit in light of the Maslahah (interest)… By that we have concluded the
discussion around this point and now move on to discuss the second.
2 - The Second Point: What came in the books of Fiqh concerning the Mas’alah of seeking
assistance (Al-Isti’aanah) by non-Muslims in the fighting against the enemy?

- In respect to the Hanafiy Fiqh: The following was stated in “Radd ul-Muhtaar”: “… The
permissibility of seeking assistance by the Kaafir (disbeliever) at the time of the Haajah (need) and he ‫ﷺ‬
did seek or use the assistance of the Yahood against the Yahood (Jews) and gave them the Radkh (a small
financial recompense)” (1).

And in “Siyar ul-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “And there is no problem for the Muslims to be assisted by the
people of Shirk (polytheism) against the people of Shirk if the Hukm (rule) of Islaam was manifested over
them … That it because those who had not become Muslim from the people (or inhabitants) of Makkah
went out with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬riding and marching to Hunain (2) … And Safwaan went out
whilst he was a Mushrik … So, we have come to know that there is no problem in utilising their assistance
and it is similar to using the assistance of dogs to attack the Mushrikeen …! And that which was related
from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud when he saw the brigade or troop with weapons and he asked
who they were? And then it was said: “The Jews of Bani so and so, allies of Ibn Abi (i.e. Ibn Salool)” and
then he said: “We do not seek or use the assistance of the one who is not upon our Deen”. Then,
the interpretation of that is that they represented the Ahlu Man’ah (a people of force) and they did not
fight under the banner of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. In our opinion: If the Imaam views that the
correct (course) in not allowing the assistance of the Mushrikeen due to the fear of the Fitnah, then he has
the right to turn them away” (3).

- In the Maalikiy Fiqh: In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” of Ad-Dardeer and the “Haashiyah of Ad-Dasooqiy
upon it”, the following was stated: “And it was made Haraam upon us to seek the assistance of the
Mushrik. And the ‘seen’ (i.e. the letter ‘seen’ in Isti’aana) indicates to the request or seeking. Therefore, if
he (i.e. the Mushrik) goes out by his own accord, it is not forbidden upon the one being relied upon …
(except for a service)”.

[(1) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/363, (2) In origin it stated Al-Khaibar but this is apparently an error and it may be because of
the closeness between the shape of the Hunain with Khaibar when printing, (3) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 4/1422-
1423].

- He (Ad-Dasooqiy) said in the Haashiyah here: “Meaning: Unless the seeking of assistance with the
disbeliever was a service to us in which case it is not Haraam (prohibited) and the prohibited act is only
seeking his assistance in respect to the Qitaal (fighting)”. Then the intended meaning of the service was
explained in the Sharh and the Haashiyah (margins i.e. commentary): He said: That is like the seaman, the
tailor, the fortress demolisher, the well digger, the wall builder or the one who sets explosives” (1).

- In the Shaafi’iy Fiqh: The following was stated in the book “Al-Umm”: “And if the Mushrik goes to
battle with the Muslims and he is accompanied in the battle by the one he obeys, whether Muslim or
Mushrik, and signs of defeat are over him and was eager to see the Muslims defeated and their collective
disunited, it is not permitted for him (i.e. the Imaam) to fight with him… And the one who was from the
Mushrikeen in contrast to this description and he possessed benefit for the Muslims … Then there is no
problem for him to be fought alongside … And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬turned back a Mushrik on the day of Badr
… then he embraced Islaam and perhaps his rejection of him was with the hope that he would embrace
Islaam. And the scope is wide for the Imaam to turn back or reject the Mushrik and prevent him from the
fighting or to grant him the permission … The same applies in respect to the weak person from amongst
the Muslims for him to be granted permission … And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬turned back of rejected (the
participation) based on the Ibaahah (permissibility) of the rejection. And the Daleel (evidence) for that,
and Allah knows best, is that he fought with the Yahood of Banu Qaynuqaa’ after Badr. And Safwaan Bin
Umayyah attended with him at Hunain after the Fat’h (conquest i.e. of Makkah), whilst Safwaan was a
Mushrik. He said: And the women of the Mushrikeen and their boys, in respect to this, are like the men
and it is not prohibited for them to witness (or participate) in the fighting … And it is preferable in my
view, that they have not witnessed the war, if they do not possess a benefit. That is because we have only
granted the permission for the women (i.e. the Muslim women) of the Muslims and the boys to participate
in war out of the hope that they will provide support and assistance to that which Allah has made
obligatory upon the people of Imaan, and that is not the case in respect to the Mushrikeen” (2).

And Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy stated in another place: “There is no problem to seek assistance with the
Mushrikeen in the fighting of the Mushrikeen if they come voluntarily and they are provided with a Radkh
(i.e. financial reward less than the share of the booty of the Muslim fighters) …

[(1) Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy: 2/178. Also refer to “Al-Mudawwanah”: 2/40 and “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”: p164, (2) “Al-
Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/166-167].

And if he (i.e. the Imaam) coerces the Ahl udh-Dhimmah to participate in the fighting, then they have a
financial reward (i.e. wage) like them as they are the same as them in terms of leaving their families behind,
and that is until the war has ended and they have been sent to them. And it is preferable to me that they
be hired if they go out to war with them” (1).

And in “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” the following was stated:

“And he (i.e. the Imaam) can seek the assistance of the disbelievers against the disbelievers, from among
the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and others, from whom treachery is not feared … And whom their good view
towards the Muslims is known and where we are capable of withstanding them if the two forces of Kufr
joined forces”. He then said: “In respect to their assistance the Imaam does with them that which he
views to be in the Maslahah (interest), in terms of keeping them separate aside the army or mixing them in
it so as to divide them amongst the Muslims” (2).

- In respect of the Hanaabilah: Ibn Qudaamah stated the following:

“The Mushrik is not sought assistance with and this is what Ibn ul-Mundhir, Al-Jawzjaaniy and a group of
the people of knowledge, whilst there is related from Ahmad that which indicates to the permissibility of
seeking assistance by them … and the time of the need … And it is stipulated as a condition that those
whose assistance is being sought have a good opinion of the Muslims. If they are not to be trusted or
safely relied upon, it is not permissible to seek assistance by them. That is because, if we forbid the
Isti’aananh (assistance) from the one the Muslims are not safe and secure from like the Mukhadh’dhil (3)
and the Murjif (4), then that applies by greater reason to the Kaafir (disbeliever)” (5).

This is what the Fuqahaa’ have said concerning the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of Al-Isti’aanah (seeking
assistance) by the disbelievers in respect to fighting the enemy.

Summary: That the Ahnaaf and the Shaafi’iyah permit the fighting of non-Muslims with the Muslims
against the enemy and the same view is attributed to Ahmad Bin Hanbal, at the time of the need.

As for the Maalikiyah, then they prevent the Isti’aanah (assistance) from the non-Muslims in respect to the
fighting. However, they permit attaching them to the Islamic army going out to conduct the fighting. That
is with the specification of their military activities against the enemy in non-fighting areas or matters.

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/261, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/221, (3) Al-Mukhadh’dhil: He is the one who says: That the
disbelievers have great numbers or what is similar to that. He seeks by that to let down the Muslims and that is by holding back
from giving support and by leaving the provision of assistance: “An-Nuzhum Al-Musta’adh’dhab Fee Sharh Ghareeb ul-
Muhadh’dhab”: 2/230, (3) Al-Murjif: He is the one who spreads a lot of false rumours like if he said: So and so military
expedition was killed or the enemy has got reinforcement from so and so direction or they have an ambush planned in so and
so place: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/221. And in “Al-Qamoos”: Arjafa ul-Qawm: They delve into reports of Fitan (i.e. to create
disorder and strife): Article: (‫ )رجف‬Ra Ja fa, (5) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/456].

The Third Point: Are the doors of the regular army in the Islamic State opened to non-Muslim
subjects? Or is their place within the reserve army, if the matter necessitates or requires that? And
what is their role within the army?

I say: Based on what has preceded in respect to outweighing as stronger the permissibility of seeking
assistance by the non-Muslim in respect to the Qitaal (fighting), then it is permissible to use those within
the Islamic army. However which army? The regular army or the reserve army?

We have become aware, previously, that the regular army, only consists, in origin, from those who have
been made legally responsible (Mukallaf) to undertake Al-Jihaad from the Muslims. Consequently, in the
case where the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic State) are not from the people of
Takleef (i.e. those who have been legally charged) with Al-Jihaad, then the regular army, upon that basis, is
not the natural place for them, if they desire to participate in the Qitaal. However, as it has been made
permissible for them to fight alongside the Muslims against the enemy and as the regular army only
represents a department or body through which the fighting of the enemy is undertaken in the best
manner, then, as such, it is permitted for them to join this army for the purpose of realising and
accomplishing that objective or purpose that it has been made permissible for them to undertake. And all
of this is naturally within the limits of what the Islamic Maslahah (interest) calls for.

However, despite that, the most suitable place for non-Muslims subjects, within the military field, is not
the regular army, but rather the reserve army. That is because this army, i.e. the reserve army, comprises of
all those who are summoned or called to the Qitaal (fighting) at the time of need, from among those who
have been made legally responsible and charged (Mukallafeen) to undertake Al-Jihaad, whilst they are not
those who are dedicated to the military life. Similarly, it comprises those who it is permissible to undertake
Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal from those who are not Mukallafeen (i.e. those who have not been made legally
responsible to undertake it), like the women, those nearing the age of puberty or manhood and the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah.

As for the role of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah citizens within the army if they join it?

Then the answer is: This matter returns back to the decision of the Shar’iyah person in authority. He has
the right to open before them the space to practise actual fighting alongside the Muslim fighters just as he
can specify or limit the space of their utilisation within the scope of the non-fighting fields or areas, like
services related to engineering, provisions, medical and spying against the enemy … amongst other similar
areas.

It is also the right of the person holding authority to specify, within this scope, the doors that it is
permitted for the non-Muslims to enter through, as well as the doors that none except for the Muslims
enter. All of that is in light of what the person in authority deems to be in the Maslahah in relation to
these matters.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of this branch and now move on to the discussion of a new
branch:

The Sixth Branch: Foreigners within the Islamic army and their role within it.

By foreigners here we are referring to disbelievers who are not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. These
include:
- They could be the Musta’mineen (those who have been provided with an Amaan or security by the
Muslims) who reside within Daar ul-Islaam on a temporary basis; to visit, seek knowledge (i.e. education),
trade or in implementation of business contracts which have been undertaken with them, amongst other
similar reasons.

- They could also be from those the Islamic State has provided with security, whilst they are in Daar ul-
Harb, for a particular Maslahah from the considered Masaalih (interests) that is hoped for from that
security (Amaan).

In any case, those Musta’mineen, from both categories or groupings, have the rule of the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah applied upon them, in respect to the permissibility of seeking assistance by them in respect to
the Qitaal (fighting).

Therefore, if the Maslahah (interest) dictated that one of them be used within the Islamic army as a fighter
from amongst the fighters, or as an expert who trains the individuals of the army to use equipement and
to maintain it, or as a spy that seeks to become aware of the news of the enemy and provide that to the
Muslims, or what is similar to that, then this utilisation is permitted as long as the Maslahah (interest)
dictates that. And this person who is being utilised or contracted is deserving of a wage or financial
recompense for the work that he undertakes.

In addition, the Fuqahaa’ have stated the permissibility of seeking assistance from other than the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah i.e. non-Muslim foreigners because the permissibility of seeking assistance via disbelievers, in a
general manner, applies upon them.

In “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” the following came stated: “And it is valid for the
Imaam to hire a Dhimmiy, a Mu’aahad (person at treaty) and Musta’min (person provided with a security
by the Islamic state) where it is permissible to seek their assistance … What is intended here is in respect
to the Qitaal” (4/222).

And in “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer and its Sharh” it was stated: “And if the Ameer said: “Whoever goes out from
the military and gains something (i.e. in terms of booty), then he has a right to a quarter of it”. Then this
Lafzh (wording) encompasses everyone who has a share in the Ghaneemah (spoils or booty) or Radkh
(the smaller financial compensation or gift), in terms of a Muslim or a Dhimmiy, a man or a woman, a free
person or a slave, the young or the one who has reached the age of maturity, a trader or a fighter … That
is because the intended purpose (of the speech) is to incite and encourage the undertaking of the Qitaal
and to gain from it. And the meaning of incitement is realised in respect to every one of those” …

“So, as for the Musta’min: Then, if he had gone out (to fight) without the permission of the Imaam, then
he has nothing from that because he has no right in respect to the Ghaneemah (booty), whether in the
form of a Radkh (small gift or financial recompense) or in the form of a share. If he had gone out with the
permission of the Imaam, then he is like the status of the Dhimmiy in relation to that”. He then explained
the difference, in relation to the “Musta’min”, between the one who went out with the permission of the
Imaam and the one who went out without permission. He said: “That which clarifies the difference
between those who went out with the permission of the Ameer and those who went out (to join the fight)
without his permission, is that it is obligatory upon the Ameer and the Muslims to provide Nusrah
(support) to those Musta’mineen who have gone out with his permission, if it reaches them that the
enemy has surrounded them, just like it is obligatory to provide the Nusrah (support) to the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah. That is whilst it is not obligatory upon them to provide Nusrah to those who have gone out
without his permission. The same applies in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of At-Tanfeel (1) where those
who went out with his permission are of the same status as the Ahl udh-Dhimmah whilst those who went
out without his permission are not. And Allah is most aware of what is correct” (2).
I say: The Musta’min (one granted security) in Daar ul-Islaam or a military camp of the Muslims, has the
rule of Amaan (security) applied over him and he is treated or dealt with like the Ahl udh-Dhimmah as
long as he is in this Daar (homeland i.e. Daar ul-Islaam) or this military camp. If he then leaves without
permission he would have breached the security (Amaan) by himself and become a Harbiy (status of
someone at war) and his Hukm would be the same as the Hukm (ruling) of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of
war). That is because he is not a citizen from the people of the Daar (homeland) who possess the Amaan
(security) wherever they are, whether they are from the Muslims or the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.

Consequently, if such a person who has breached his Amaan (security) wages war against the enemies,
takes their properties as booty and then comes to the Muslims without a new security (Amaan), then the
Hukm in respect to him is: That he himself has become a captive (or prisoner) of the Muslims because he
entered without a new Amaan (security). And the Hukm in respect to his money: Is that it becomes a
Ghaneemah (booty or spoils) for the Muslims as well. Based upon that, this Musta’min who breached his
security by leaving without permission has no right to anything that he came with!

Regarding the utilisation of the Musta’min who is in Daar ul-Islaam or a military camp of the Muslims and
the utilisation of the Harbiy (one at war) who has been granted security whilst he was in Daar ul-Harb, in
the context of using this or that one as a guide for the Islamic army in the land of the enemy and his
entitlement to what has been named for him in terms of money, the following came mentioned in “As-
Siyar ul-Kabeer and its Sharh”:

[(1) Referring to an extra amount beyond the fighters share of the booty that is given to him by the head of the army: “Jaami’
Al-Usool”: Ibn ul-Atheer: 2/680. And the Tanfeel for non-Muslims is giving them from the spoils or booty an amount in
return for the actions they undertake as they do not have a define amount set from the Ghaneemah (booty), (2) “Sharh As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 3/835-836].

And in respect to what the Dhimmiy, the Harbiy and the Musta’min are entitled as a financial remittance
for their guiding (i.e. work as guides), then there is no difference between him going with them or that he
guides them with his information without going with them, if they found the matter to be as he had said
(i.e. that his information was accurate)” … then he said: And if the Imaam had said to him: Go along with
us to a certain location and you will have a certain financial reward, and then he went with them, he then
has that named reward or financial amount. The Imaam would then give him his financial recompense
from that which they gain in booty … And if they do not gain any booty, then the Imaam must give the
hired hand his wage or reward from the Bait ul-Maal (State treasury)” (1).

Concluding remarks: It is permitted to utilise the foreigners in their description as contractors, or hired
work or mercenaries, for the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic State, and they are provided what they are
entitled to in terms of wages or financial recompenses and rewards for the work that they undertake (2).

It is a natural matter, that those hired hands not be elements within the formation of the Islamic army and
that is according to the Hukm of them not carrying the Islamic citizenship and the Hukm of their
temporary stay or residency in Daar ul-Islaam, in the case where they are from those who entered this land
(Daar) with the description of Musta’mineen.

If, however, they have not entered Daar ul-Islaam with the description of Musta’mineen (those who had
been granted an Amaan (security)), but rather their security had taken provided by the Islamic State whilst
they were located where they were outside of Daar ul-Islaam, and an agreement was made with them to
undertake certain tasks in the lands which there exists an active state of war between them and the Islamic
lands, then it is more appropriate that those hired hands, who have been granted this security, are not
elements within the formation of the Islamic army, even if they were utilised in various actions that
benefit this army.

And included among the actions that it is permitted to utilise them in, for example, are:
- Undertaking military (fighting) operations, assassinating certain personalities or figures, grabbing people
from the enemies to take them as hostage, undertaking spying activities for the benefit of the Muslims,
manufacturing weapons or equipment used in warfare, or the provision of military supplies and what is
similar to that …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 3/996-997, (2) refer to “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” where it was stated:
“And it is valid for the Imaam to hire a Dhimmiy, Mu’aahad, Musta’min, in the case where it permitted to seek assistance (Al-
Isti’aanah) by them, even by more (i.e. greater cost) than the share of the foot soldier or cavalry man! …”: 4/222].

These actions and those like them, are included within the role that it is permitted to utilise those
foreigners for, for the purpose of undertaking them. That is due to what these actions accomplish in terms
of realising the benefit of the Islamic army and all of that, naturally, is undertaken in light of the Maslahah
(interest) that is seen by those in authority within the Islamic State.

With that, we have come to the end of the sixth branch of the issue that we currently addressing and that
is the issue of the reserve army. By that, we have also reached the conclusion of the third area of study in
which we have discussed the human elements or components of the Islamic army.

We now move on to the fourth study in which we will discuss the material components of the Islamic
army, by the help of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

The Fourth Study

 The Material Components of the Islamic Army

After having completed the discussion about the human components of the Islamic army, we now begin
the discussion about its material components.

That is whilst the material components are manifested or represented in many matters such as the
weapons, ammunition and all of the equipment that the army requires in general, whether they are related
to combat such as cannons, artillery and war planes, or they are non-combat like the equipment used for
reconnaissance and early warning systems etc. These weapons, ammunition and equipment, as a whole,
which demand huge financial costs, in addition to what the army requires in general in terms of funds
needed to be spent upon the fighters, their needs and other different areas, all in the end act in the interest
of the Islamic army. I say: It is all of this will be discussed by us in this fourth and final study of the fourth
volume we are currently in.

The discussion about these material components will be addressed through two issues:

1 - The First Issue: The paths or ways for acquiring the weaponry.

2 - The Second Issue: What are the financial sources of revenue for the different army expenses?

The First Issue

The paths or ways of acquiring the weaponry

We will deal with this issue by addressing two points:

1 - The First Point: What were the paths or ways for acquiring the weaponry of the Islamic army in the
time of the Prophethood?
2 - The Second Point: What is obligatory upon the Muslims in the current time in respect to the
Mas’alah (issue) of acquiring weaponry?

1 - The First Point: What were the paths or way for acquiring the weaponry of the Islamic army in
the time of the Prophethood?

The Islamic army in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had numerous paths or ways through which it acquired the
fighting or combat equipment and materials that it required. These paths were:

1 - Purchasing the weaponry from the local or domestic market and from the foreign market.
2 - The State gaining or seizing control over the weapons of the enemy.
3 - Making contracts with those directions which possessed the weaponry to secure what was required of
it when it was necessary.
4 - Military manufacturing serving and subservient to the army.

1 - Purchasing the weaponry from the local or domestic market and from the foreign market.

We became aware, previously, that individual fighters within the Islamic army were entrusted and charged
themselves to secure the weapons that they needed for battle, whether that was attacking weapons like the
sword or the spear, or defensive weaponry like the shield, armour and helmet … The individual fighter,
could in most cases attain the weaponry by purchasing it through the local market. It came mentioned in
the story of Sa’d As-Sulamiy, who the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had married to the daughter of ‘Amr Bin
Wahb and collected 400 Dirham as a dowry for his wife … mentioned within story, which was related by
Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with him, was the following: “… Whilst he was in the market and
he had that money for his wife … He suddenly heard the sound or voice of the Nafeer (general call out
for Fighting) calling: O steeds of Allah! Ride forth … And so, he looked towards the heavens and said: “O
Allah! The Ilaah of the heavens and the earth and the Ilaah of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬, I will certainly place
these Daraahim (i.e. the money), today, in that which Allah, His Messenger and the believers love”. And
so, he purchased a horse, a sword, a spear and he also bought a shield… And so (in the battle) he went
forth stabbing with his spear and striking with his sword … killing the enemy of Allah with all of that …
Then it was said: That Sa’d has been killed and so he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded that his weapon and horse be
brought to him and he did not have anything else. So, he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Take this to his wife” (1).

And this local or domestic market for the sale of weaponry depended upon local or domestic production,
to meet the need of the purchases. The profession of iron mongering was well-known within the Islamic
State and swords were produced by the iron mongering factories. From among the companions of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who were professionals in this field was Khabbaab Ibn ul-Aratt, may Allah be pleased with
him, and he had been well-known with that skill since the time of Jaahiliyah (i.e. pre-Islamic period).

The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Khabbaab said: I was an ironsmith (2) in Makkah. I
made a sword for Al-‘Aasiy Bin Waa’il As-Sahmiy and I went to him to claim its price. He said: “I will not
give it to you until you disbelieve in Muhammad ‫”ﷺ‬. He said: “I will not disbelieve until causes you to
die and then brings you back to life”. He said: “Then when Allah causes me to die and then resurrects me,
I will have wealth and children to settle the debt with you! Then Allah revealed:

ََ ‫ْبَأَ ِمَا َّت َخ َذَعِ ندََالرَّ حْ َم ٰـ ِن‬

‫َعهْدا‬ ْ ‫﴾َأَ َّطلَ َع‬٧٧﴿َ‫َألُو َت َينَّ َ َماالَ َو َولَدا‬
َ ‫َال َغي‬ َ ‫اَو َقا َل‬
َ ‫َبآ َيا ِت َن‬ َ ‫أَ َف َرأَي‬
ِ ‫ْتَالَّذِيَ َك َف َر‬
Then, have you seen he who disbelieved in Our verses and said: “I will surely be given wealth and children [in the next life]?”
Has he looked into the unseen, or has he taken from the Most Merciful a promise? (Maryam: 77-78) (3).
[(1) “Tanbeeh ul-Ghaafileen”, Al-Muhaddith As-Samarqandiy: p215-216, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 8/430, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:
4732-4733, Fat’h ul-Baariy: 8/430. Ibn Hajar commented: “The understanding of Khabbaab’s statement is that he would
disbelieve at that time however that is not what is intended because disbelief at that time is inconceivable (i.e. because by the
resurrection the truth would be undeniable). Therefore, it is as if he said: I will never disbelieve”, 7/430].

Concerning the spread of the professionals in this occupation within the Islamic State, in the era of the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, the following came mentioned in “At-Taraateeb ul-Idaariyah”: “When Khaibar was
conquered, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬took 30 ironsmiths as Sabiy (booty) from among those who were taken as
booty. They were manufacturers, middle-men and ironmongers. So, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Leave them
amongst the Muslims so that they can benefit from their manufacturing and strengthen
themselves through it in the Jihaad against their enemies!”. They were therefore left and the one
who learnt manufacturing from them came to be called a Saani’ (manufacturer) or teacher, whilst in origin
they had been called Qain (ironsmith) …” (1).

- Also mentioned in “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah” was: “In “Talbees Iblees”, by Ibn ul-Jawziy, it was stated
that Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas used to shape or craft the arrows” (2).

This indicates to the existence of arrow manufacturing in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah during that time
period and that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to encourage that. That is like what came in the Hadeeth that ‘Uqbah
Bin ‘Aamir related: “He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

َ‫ِي‬ ْ ‫ص ْن َع ِته‬
َ ‫َِال َخي َْر‬
َ ‫َوالرَّ ام‬، َ َ:َ‫َال َج َّن َة‬
َ َ‫صاَِن َعهَُ َيحْ ََتسِ بُ َفِي‬ ْ ‫َال َوا ِحدَِ َثالَ َث َةَ َن َف ٍر‬
ْ ‫َُبال َّسهْم‬
ِ َ َّ َّ‫َإِن‬
ِ ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َجلََّي ُْد ِخل‬
‫َو ُم ْن ِبلَ َُه‬،ِ
َ ‫ِبه‬
Verily, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla will admit three people to Paradise because of one arrow: The one
who makes it in anticipation of good (i.e. reward) thereby, the one who shoots it and the one who
hands it to him … (3).

[(1) “At-Taraateeb ul-Idaariyah: 2/75, (2) “At-Taraateeb ul-Idaariyah”: 2/165 and “Talbees ul-Iblees”: p282, (3) Sunan Abu
Dawud: 3/19].

The domestic or local market was not the sole supplier or provider of the needs of the fighters in respect
to weaponry. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to sometimes provide his army with war ammunition
through convening weapons deals with the foreign market. This was indicated to in the Hadeeth
concerning the fate of the Sabaayaa (prisoners taken as booty) from Bani Quraizhah. The following was
reported in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent Sa’d Ibn Zaid Al-
Ansaariy, the brother of Bani Abdil Ash’hal, with some of the Sabaayaa from the Sabaayaa of Bani
Quraizhah, to Najd. And he bought with them horses and weaponry” (1).

And it was also related that a group of those Sabaayaa (captives) were sent to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria)
for the same purpose. The following was recorded in “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah” quoting from “Al-Imtaa’”
of Al-Maqreeziy: “He said: When the Sabaayaa were taken captive and the children, the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a group to Ash-Shaam (Syria) with Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah, may Allah be pleased with
him, to sell them and buy weaponry” (2).

The above then represents what is to be said concerning the subject of purchasing weaponry from the
domestic and foreign markets.

2 - From among the paths of acquiring weaponry for the Islamic army, during the time of the
Prophethood, included that which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was able to seize control of, in terms of the
weaponry of the enemy.
- In respect to the story of the evacuation of the Jews of Bani Qainuqaa’, after they broke the treaty
between them and the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the following was mentioned in the Seerah in relation to
this: “He ‫ ﷺ‬laid the most severe siege upon them for 15 nights … And so, Allah cast terror (and fear)
into their hearts. They numbered 400 without armour (i.e. shield, breastplate and helmet) and 300 were
armoured. And so they asked the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to clear their path and allow them to evacuate
Al-Madinah … That they would retain the women and children and he ‫ ﷺ‬would obtain the properties
i.e. and included within that was Al-Halqah which is weaponry …” (3).

- And concerning the story of the evacuation of the Jews of Bani Nadeer, following their breaking of the
treaty, the following was stated in the Seerah: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded to make the
preparations to wage war against them and to march to them … And so they fortified themselves in the
fortresses. And Allah cast terror (and fear) into their hearts and so they asked the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬to allow them to vacate and to abstain from killing them and that they could carry would they could
upon their camels of their properties apart from the Halqah (i.e. weaponry), and so that happened …” (4).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam, “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/271, (2) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 2/380-381. Also refer to Ash-Shaafi’iy in
“Al-Umm”: 4/286 where he mentioned that the Saby (captives) of Bani Quraizhah dispatched them in thirds; a third to Najd, a
third to Tihaamah and a third to Ash-Shaam, (3) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 2/221, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/240-241. And “Al-Halqah” is Duroo’ (i.e. armour: breastplates, helmets, mail etc…) and it is said that it is a name
given to weapons or weaponry as a whole: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/644].

Similar to this, concerning the ways of attaining weaponry for the Islamic army, is “Al-Fidaa’” ransom
which was imposed upon some of the captives that the Muslims held, when that ransom was a type from
among the types of weapons. In “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah” the following was mentioned: “And in the
“Tabaqaat” of Ibn Sa’d: “When Nawfal Bin Al-Haarith was made a prisoner are Badr the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said
to him: “Ransom yourself with your spears which are at Jeddah”. He said: “I bear witness that you are the
Messenger of Allah”. And so he ransomed himself by them and they numbered 1000 spears!” (1).

3 - Also from among the paths by which the Islamic army acquired weaponry was to contract
agreements with parties that owned weaponry, for them to provide what was required from them,
when necessary.

- This type of agreement could be non-binding for the party owning the weaponry and it is not binding to
provide from his ownership at the time of provision.

Concerning the preparation for the Ghazwah of Hunain the following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had resolved to march to (the tribe of) Hawaazin to meet
them (in battle), it was mentioned to him that Safwaan Bin Umayyah had armour and weaponry for him.
So he ‫ ﷺ‬sent to him (i.e. wrote) and at that time he (Safwaan) was still a Mushrik (polytheist). He ‫ﷺ‬
said: “O Abu Umayyah! Lend us this weaponry of yours, we will meet our enemy with it tomorrow”.
Safwaan said: “Is it to be seized (i.e. against my will) O Muhammad?” he replied: “No, rather it is be
borrowed and guaranteed until we return it to you”. He said: “There is no problem with that”. And so he
provided him with 100 plates of armour with that which sufficed the needs in relation to weaponry …”
(2).

- And this borrowing of weaponry from its owner could bind the lending party, built upon the contracted
agreement made with him upon that. Concerning this, the following came mentioned in the letter that the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to the people of Najraan when he convened the treaty with them and imposed the Jizyah
upon them…

[(1) “At-Taraateeb Al-Idaariyah”: 2/38, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/123 and “Taareekh At-Tabariy”: 3/73].
… The following was stated in the letter: “In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem, this is what
Muhammad the Nabi and Messenger of Allah wrote to Najraan … And it a duty upon the people of
Najraan to host my envoys for twenty days of less, and they must lend 30 horses, thirty camels (Ba’eer)
and 30 sets of armour … in case of treachery ... There is no destruction from what you lend my envoys as
it acts as a guarantee for my envoys until it (i.e. the Jizyah) is given to them …” (1).

The above related to the acquisition of weaponry by way of borrowing and its binding or non-binding
nature.

4 - Also from the ways by which the Islamic army acquired weaponry is the way of: Military
manufacturing under the control and supervision of the army.

This manifested in what took place during the siege that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬imposed upon the town of At-
Taa’if after the defeated Mushrikeen from the battle of Hunain sought refuge in it. That town was well
fortified and they had supplies to last for a long period of time, in the case where one of its leaders “Abd
Yalail”, when Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed called them to descend to him from their fortress and accept an
individual combat challenge, declared: “None of us will descend to you bur rather we will remain in our
fortress because we have not food to suffice us for years. If you stay until this food runs out, we will then
come out to you with our swords altogether and fight until our last man …” (2). It was at this time that
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬erected a catapult to target At-Taa’if. Ibn Hishaam said: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
catapulted them. Someone I trust told me: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was the first to use the
catapult in Islaam when he catapulted the people of At-Taa’if” (3).

However, how did the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬obtain this war machinery during his siege of At-Taa’if? It came
mentioned within the Seerah: “Salmaan Al-Faarisiy, may Allah be pleased with him, guided him to it. He
said: When we were in the land of the Persians we would erect catapults against the fortresses and strike at
our enemy …And it is said that Salmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, was the one who made it by his
own hands” (4).

[(1) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam: p85-86, (2) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/134, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam
“Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/149, (4) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/134 and “Nasb ur-Raayah”: 3/383].

Also in the siege of At-Taa’if, in addition to the Muslims manufacturing catapults, they also manufactured
another weapon and that was the defence weapon of spikes, from a variety of materials, which was spread
upon the ground around the enemy camp or upon the path to it with the aim of tightening the siege upon
the besieged or to obstruct the advance of hostile forces. The thorns or spikes of this weapon would
pierce the feet of the foot soldiers or horses and hence impede the advance of those forces. Similarly, this
defensive weapon can also be used by spreading it around the Muslim camp to prevent the enemy from
breaching it in a surprise attack.

I say: The Muslim army manufactured this weapon and distributed it around the fortress of At-Taa’if
during the siege to prevent any infiltration by the enemy as was mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in “At-Tabaqaat”
(1).

With that we have concluded the first point of this current issue we are addressing which was related to
the ways in which the Islamic army acquired weaponry during the time of the Prophethood. We now
move on to the discussion of the second point.

2 - The Second Point: What is obligatory upon the Muslims in the current time in respect to the
Mas’alah (issue) of acquiring weaponry?
- In the current age, there are advanced states that rely upon themselves to provide their military
equipment, hardware and munitions. That is done through their own production, regarding the vast share
of it and the most core aspect of it, if not all of it. These states could also acquire some of their military
equipment through purchase or joint production with other states in respect to specific types of
equipment, hardware or munitions (2).

- And there are, in contrast, states lagging behind in manufacturing which depend upon purchasing from
the foreign markets for the provision of their military equipment, hardware and munitions (3).

[(1) “Tabaqaat”, Ibn Sa’d: 2/158. Refer to: “The Army and Al-Qitaal in the beginning of Islaam”: Mahmoud Ahmad
Muhammad Sulaimaan ‘Awwaad: p394-395, (2) refer to “Tijaarat ul-Aslihah” (Weapons trading) by jean Claude Martinez,
translated by Kamaal Al-Khawliy: p109, (3) The same reference: p8]

- And there are also states which have been described to belong to the third world which attempt to
follow a course of manufacturing some of their military equipment and hardware. They purchase from the
advanced states some factories producing military machinery or enter into partnership of ownership of
them and then transport them back to their lands … they sign contracts with technical experts, employees
and engineers and then mobilise those factories into production … Most of the time, this production is
only for specific parts from the war machinery and not all of its parts … In any case, the foreign states
selling those factories or which remain as a partner in them, remain the dominant controlling force over
the manufacturing process and they supervise the maintenance of those factories and supply them with
spare parts and what is similar to that (1).

I say: In light of these numerous paths related to the arming of states and their armies, in the current time,
what are the paths that the Muslims must proceed upon today to acquire this weaponry?

The answer: Regardless of the paths and ways in which the states attain the weapons they require today,
the modern era that we are living in makes it obligatory upon the Muslims for the vast majority of their
dependence, in respect to arming, to be upon domestic manufacturing and for the production of its
military machinery and in turn, the spare parts for it, to be manufactured internally by the Islamic lands
and not for them to be imported from the foreign market. That is because the reliance and dependence
upon other than that, in respect to the paths available to obtain weaponry, like purchasing for instance,
within the current day international relations between the powerful and weak, could become a path from
amongst the paths for the powerful states to dominate and subjugate other states and consecrate their
being bound to them and having control over their capabilities and their foreign and (even) domestic
policy. That applies equally, whether the way to accomplishing that control is via the conditions of sale,
the need for experts, spare parts or the continuous improvements that need to be made upon the
equipment and materials, amongst other means of gaining control (or influence) … That is in the case
where those powerful states dictate their will upon those purchasers in return for meeting their
requirements.

[(1) Refer to (Arabic Magazine): “Manufacturing the Arab Weaponry”: Research of Muneer Naseef: p36-54. Issue number: 314,
January 1985].

That is not even to speak of the potential ban upon selling weapons and the ban upon continuing their
provision in spite of the contract of sale. That is the ban which the states manufacturing the weapons or
the international institutions impose for any given reason at a time when the state which has purchased
the weapons or wishes to purchase them, is in the greatest need of them (1). And what is said concerning
the purchasing of weaponry can also be said in respect to the weak partnering the powerful in the
manufacturing of weaponry where the control and dominance remains of this production, in the end, in
the hands of the powerful.
Upon this basis and in this context, it has become obligatory upon the Muslims, for the vast majority of
their reliance and dependence, in respect to arming and attaining weaponry, to be upon domestic
manufacturing. That is so that it can attain self-sufficiency in this area or field and in a manner, that does
not leave a way or means for the foreigners to gain dominance, control or influence over this
manufacturing. That occurs by proceeding upon a manufacturing or industrial policy that assures for the
Muslims the liberation from the control and dominance of the states that covet and aspire to achieve that
over them.

Concerning this, the Lawyer Abdur Rahman Al-Maalikiy, in his book “The Ideal Economic Policy”,
explained, in a general manner, the way towards accomplishing this liberation in relation to the industrial
or manufacturing policy, whilst the war industry or manufacturing falls under that in a natural manner. Al-
Maalikiy said in this regard:

“The industrial policy is established upon making the land amongst the industrial lands. It proceeds
towards that upon one path and that is generating the production of (industrial heavy) machinery first and
from that the remainder of the industries come into being … i.e. by bringing the factories that
manufacture and produce the (heavy) machinery in terms of motors and other than that into existence,
and then after accomplishing the generation of the (heavy) machinery from the manufacturing of the
lands, this machinery is taken and the rest of the factories are brought about from them … As for the
statement: That the bringing into existence the manufacture of machinery requires a long period of time
and as such, it is necessary to begin by manufacturing the fundamental or basic needs, then this represents
a nonsense statement and it represents an argument that has been planted (from outside) intending by it
to impede the manufacturing of machinery and to divert the land to consumer manufactures so that they
remain a market to Europe and America. The reality belies this statement and proves it false. That is
because when Czarist Russia exited from the first world war it was dependent upon Europe and it had not
established the manufacture of heavy machinery, to the point that it was quoted that Lenin said that it had
been requested or demanded from him to improve the agricultural production by bringing in tractors to
make agriculture proceed with modern machinery. He answered: We will never use tractors until we
produce them ourselves and at that time (alone) will we use them. Then within a short time the
manufacturing of heavy machinery was brought into existence in Russia…

[(1) Refer to “The banning of weapons sales” from the book “Weapons Trade” (Tijaarat ul-Aslihah): p114 onward].

… And concerning the statement: That the manufacturing of (heavy) machinery requires the
establishment of a manufacturing middle level of engineers, workers and technicians etc. Then this
statement is misleading and intends to deceive. That is because the East and West European states have
an excess of engineers, workers and technicians. Consequently, it is possible to bring hundreds of them at
once to begin this work. At the same time, it is possible to send hundreds, indeed thousands, of our young
men (and women) to attain the engineering knowledge or expertise related to manufacturing heavy
industry and the manufacture of steel. This is not a difficult matter and easily within the grasp”… Then
the author lists the reasons for hastening the generation of the manufacture of heavy machinery within the
Islamic lands. He mentions from amongst them: “Many of our factories are afflicted by damage and ruin
as a result of the breaking of the machinery or a part from it which necessitates importing that part
externally, or the machinery could stop functioned completely and this costs us huge expenses. Therefore,
to save these expenses we must establish the manufacture of the machinery. For example: Purchasing
factories or industrial structures and machinery externally costs us an expensive cost and they are sold to
us at high prices. However, if we were to establish our own industrial structures for machinery, whilst the
supply of oil is abundant within our lands, we would then attain industrial complexes and machinery
cheaper than if we were to purchase them from Europe or America”. The author follows on and says:
“We do not want to say: That when the industrial revolution happened in Europe, that it only took place
when the manufacture of (heavy) machinery was brought about and we do not want to say: That America,
which had been colonised by a number of states, only progressed materially when the industrial revolution
happened within it, by the production of machinery … We do not want to say or argue that as they
represent sensed realities and the proof of that is decisive. Rather, what we want to say is: That the reality
which the (Islamic) lands live in today necessitates that they undertake an industrial revolution
immediately. That is because the separation and disengagement from the West will not take place and the
person will not feel content and assured about such a separation, unless sufficiency from the West was
accomplished. As long as we remain in need of importing the machinery and industrial structures from it,
the opportunities for the West to restore our being tied and bound to it will remain, indeed the
opportunity to restore its influence and control. For that reason, undertaking an industrial revolution
represents an obligatory and indispensable matter. That means: To immediately initiate the establishment
of the manufacturing of machinery without gradualism. Rather, it must be undertaken in a radical manner
for the working of an industrial revolution to be sound …” (1).

This is a summary of what the author Abdur Rahman Al-Maalikiy said concerning the industrial policy
that makes the Islamic lands proceed towards the path of true and real liberation from the coveting states
and consequently proceeds upon the path of industrial progress until it comes to be amongst the rankls of
the industrial states or nations….

[(1) “As-Siyaasah Al-Iqtisaadiyah Al-Muthlaa” (The Ideal Economic Policy”: p191-195)].

Consequently, the war industry which is independent from the control and dominance of the West, which
represents a kind of industry in general terms, will not happen by other than beginning to manufacture the
(heavy) machinery and equipment from which war industrial manufacturing structures are formed. Then,
these factories or industrial structures begin the production of the required military equipment and
materials.

Proceeding upon this industrial industry is not only a matter that is made necessary in order to accomplish
independence from the West and to be freed from its colonialism and controlling influence or hegemony
… Rather, it is also a Shar’iy Waajib (obligation) that hs its Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (evidences).

- From those Adillah: That Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made it obligatory upon us, as Muslims, to prepare
the maximum or most of what is within our capability in terms of power to confront the enemies, to the
point that they are fearful (or terrified) by the Islamic strength and power. That command is found in the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُد َّوَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِو َع ُد َّو ُك ْم ََوآ َخ ِر‬
َ‫ينَمِنَ ُدون ِِه ْم‬ ِ ‫ُون‬َ ‫َال َخي ِْلَ ُترْ ِهب‬ َ ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوة‬
ْ ِ‫ٍَومِنَرِّ بَاط‬
‫َالَ َتعْ لَمُو َن ُه ُمَاللَّـهَُ َيعْ لَ ُم ُه َْم‬
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah
and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows (Al-Anfaal: 60).

It is only natural that the enemy from whom we purchase weaponry to fight against it or against its agents
will never be terrified from the war machinery which it has sold to us whilst it has specified and defined
for every part of it a particular age, a specific extent of usage, possesses the spare parts for the equipment
and knows their secrets more than we do. It is only natural that this enemy would not be fearful or
terrified from these tools of war and particularly in the case where it maintains for itself weaponry that is
designed to counter or neutralise that which we have purchased.

Therefore, for us to fulfil what Allah has made obligatory upon us in terms of preparing the force to a
level that strikes fear into the enemy, it is absolutely necessary upon us to proceed upon the path that
makes us have no need for any dependence or reliance upon that enemy in the affairs relating to arming
our armies.

- In addition, it is obligatory upon us to proceed upon the industrial policy that enables us to build
factories that produce the necessary machinery to build the war factories or industrial complexes and from
there begin to produce the required weaponry. That is obligatory upon us because this is the only way that
leads to the removal of the hands of the disbelievers for them to have any way of control over us or any
pressure over the Islamic will (and independent decision making). And Allah Ta’Aalaa has negated from
the Muslims for this type of way or means (of control) to exist which indicated to the Tahreem
(prohibition) of any policy that exposes the Muslims to that which Allah has negated from them. He
Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫َس ِبيال‬ ْ َ‫ينَ َعل‬

َ ‫ىَالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
َ ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َولَنَ َيجْ َع َلَاللَّـهَُل ِْل َكاف ِِر‬
And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way (An-Nisaa’: 141) (1).

[(1) An-Nisaa’: 141. From among the explanations of this Aayah whilst the sense reality has confirmed the opposite of its
meaning is that: “Allah does not make a way for the disbelievers over the believers according to the Shar’a and so if that does
happen then that is contrary to the Shar’a”: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-Arabiy: 1/510].

Therefore, as long as the reliance and dependence remains upon the colonialist states or the states that
have ambitions to control and exploit, in relation to the matters of arming and weaponization, that leads,
in our current day, to what Allah Ta’Aalaa has made Haraam, and that which leads to Haraam is
Muharram (prohibited). As such, it is obligatory upon the Muslims to rid and free themselves from falling
into this Haraam and that is by following an industrial policy including a war industry that raises the
Muslims beyond the reach of the disbelieving colonialist to have any way over them.

Summary: The permanent reliance upon buying weaponry from the colonialists and those with designs in
the age that we are living only represents a means to falling into Haraam and consequently such a reliance
is Haraam (prohibited). Being freed from the control or dominance of the colonialists and those who have
designs (i.e. over us, our lands and resources), indeed striking fear into the disbelievers as a whole, is an
obligatory matter. Therefore, the means to accomplishing this Waajib (obligation) is a Waajib matter
according to the Shar’a. And that means (Waseelah) is: “Self-reliance in respect to the war industry. Al-
Imaam Al-Qaraafiy said in affirmation of the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) concerning this matter:

“Just as the prohibited Waseelah (means) is Muharramah (prohibited) the obligatory Waseelah (means) is
Waajibah (obligatory)” (1).

Ash-Sheikh Jamaal ud-Deen Al-Qaasimiy explained the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the establishment
of factories or industrial complexes to manufacture weapons and ammunition. That was during his
Tafseer (explanation) of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ََوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

He says: “… As for today, the Muslims have abandoned acting upon this Noble Aayah and neglected a
Fard (obligation) from amongst the Furood ul-Kifaayah (obligations of sufficiency). Therefore, the whole
Ummah is sinful due to abandoning it. It is for that reason why she suffers today from the agonies and
ordeals that she is suffering. How can the enemy not have designs over the Islamic kingdoms (i.e.
territories) in which it does not see any weapons factories and war ammunitions? Rather, all of these
weapons and ammunitions are bought from the countries of the enemy. Has the time not come to
become alert and awaken to its neglectful carelessness and to establish industrial infrastructures or
factories for the manufacturing of artillery, guns, missiles and war ammunition? The enemy taking bit after
bit of the lands from its edges is a lesson that must be contemplated and what has been lost must be
redressed and corrected” (2).
And Ustaadh Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy spoke preciously at length about the subject or the war preparation that
the Muslims must fulfil to strike fear or terror into the enemy. The following represents some extracts
from what he said:

[(1) “Kitaab ul-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 2/33, (2) “Mahaasin At-Ta’weel”: 8/3025].

“You are aware that the race on this earth between the different camps is not over weaponry and not over
its factories (or industrial complexes). Rather, the race on this earth was only represented in weaponry and
its industrial complexes as a result of the scientific results. And you are (also) aware that amongst those
working in the (science) labs are Arabs from different nationalities, even including Palestinians. They are
in the United States of America, Unified Germany and France, and if you were to have embarrassed me I
would have named a team from amongst them. Why are those Arab men in the (scientific) labs of the
enemy and in their facilities and not working in the Arab labs, in the Arab lands, and in their facilities or
complexes?

The answer is clear … It is because those in charge of the Arab lands have not prepared the suitable
environment for those men to work in” … he then goes on to say: “The preparation (I’daad) represents a
branch from the area of Al-Jihaad or an origin for it - view it as you wish …

The preparation (I’daad), in my view, must begin by a knowledge or scientific based preparation among
the men of an Ummah whose number has reached close to 1 billion Muslims! We are not short of wealth
(money) or manpower but rather we lack the will power to act. I do not explain the “Istitaa’ah”
(capability) mentioned in the Noble Aayah:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

Except in accordance to the “Iraadah” (will power) to produce and generate the specialists within the
highest affairs of military knowledge. And this is not difficult, rather it represents the easiest of matters if
the determination and resolve is correct” … He then states: “What has been called defence infrastructures
or facilities within some of the Arab lands are of absolutely no benefit and barely meet the needs of
internal security! And whoever has imagined that the one who sells us the weaponry, whether that is from
the East or from the West, cares deeply about our Maslahah (interest) has deceived himself! That is
because it has been established (and proven) that the states work for their own specific interests alone
without any consideration for the interests of others” …

“Someone may say: That the East and the West conspire against us to prevent us from reaching or
attaining our goal, however, the facts of history prove that the nations that wish to be truly free cannot
possibly allow anything to stand in their way. And that our scientists whom we must begin to train, direct,
instruct and generate, from today, are responsible for the protection of the military labs, facilities,
infrastructures and production … That our ‘Ulamaa must amaze the world, every hour, with their
inventiveness and creativeness that preserves and safeguards their entity and strikes fear in their enemies
…

Al-Qaasimiy continues to say: “In the year 1954 I was present at the international conference of lawyers in
Monaco and it was arranged for me to meet a major European official. That was whilst the wound of
Palestine was very hot (or fresh)! Then, when we brought up the subject, he said to be freely and
unambiguously:

“Mister! You Arabs are intelligent however you are a people who do not frighten. When you have
scientists, capable of destroying the earth in 59 minutes, as the English claim, instead of 60 minutes, which
the Americans claim, then at that time you will have some weight or consideration. If, however, you are in
need of 1000 rifles to hand out to the police, whilst you were compelled to purchase them from Belgium,
then Belgium pulls out of the deal, and your police remain without rifles, then (if that remains the case)
you have no right to ask the world to return Palestine to you!” And Al-Qaasimy said: “On that day I
understood the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َالَ َتعْ لَمُو َن ُه ُمَاللَّـهَُ َيعْ لَ ُم ُه ْم‬

َ ‫ينَمِنَ ُدون ِِه ْم‬ َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُد َّوَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِو َع ُد ََّو ُك ْم ََو‬
َ ‫آخ ِر‬ َ ‫ُترْ ِهب‬
ِ ‫ُون‬
By which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom
Allah knows (Al-Anfaal: 60).

And I said to the one speaking to me: The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has come with what is similar to your
speech and I translated for him the meaning of the Aayah. He was astonished and immediately went off to
search for a translation of the meanings of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem …” (1).

I say: Based upon this, the Islamic army, which we are discussing, in respect to the paths by which it
acquires the necessary weaponry that it requires, must proceed upon a path of acquiring that weaponry,
which strikes fear in the hearts of the enemies … And that will not come to pass except through scientific
or knowledge based excellence, which will produce as a result, a self-sufficient war industry which exceeds
that which the enemy possesses in terms of scientific areas of knowledge and industries.

We have now concluded the discussion about the first issue of this current study and we now move on to
the second.

[(1) “Al-Jihaad Wa l-Huqooq Ad-Dawliyah Al-‘Aammah Fil Islaam” (Al-Jihaad and the General International Rights in Islaam),
Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p241-244].
 The Second Issue

What are the financial sources of revenue for the different army expenses?

The army has different huge expenses and particularly in the modern time (1). To cover the different
expenses of the army, Islaam has legislated a number of revenue sources for this purpose. Islaam has
made those sources numerous so that the money continues to flow into the army generously to fulfil all of
its requirements. That is so that the weakness of the budget relating to it does not become a reason for the
weakness of the Islamic military forces and its incapability to fulfil the obligations and tasks allocated to it.
That is because it could happen that a particular source from among the sources of revenue becomes
short which the army needs to meet its requirements. In such a situation, if this source of revenue by
which caused this crisis was one single source which the army was dependent upon, that would lead to
many negative results and bad consequences; not just in the army department or its war machinery alone
but rather it would extend to negatively affect the entity of the Ummah as a whole in respect to
confronting its enemies internally or externally. Therefore, having numerous sources of revenue for the
army expenses acts as the guarantee to block any gap by which the enemies may penetrate the Ummah’s
entity or its fortified armour, as a result of such negative effects.

In this section, we will discuss the financial sources of revenue that act in the favour of the army and
military forces generally whilst relying in that upon the texts that have come within the Kitaab, the
Sunnah, the Seerah and the books of Fiqh and Tafseer related to this issue.

[(1) The scientific aspect of modern day weaponry is clearly observable as approximately 60% of the cost of a tank returns to its
electronic and device based equipment “Taijaarat ul-Aslihah”: p11. “The cost of a tank is around one million dollars”: p20.
“American B1 bombers cost 76.4 million dollars. As for the Phantom then one costs $3 million whilst the cost of the Mirage
which was produced in Israel costs $4 million”: p97].

We will approach that without delving into the details or Fiqhiy differences. Delving into them is not from
the nature of this subject area which does not discuss about what this or that fighter takes in terms of
entitlements which are called “Arzaaq” (i.e. wages), Aslaab, Anfaal, Ghanaa’im (i.e. booty and spoils) etc.
rather, our subject, covers in a generally encompassing manner, the different financial directions that
extend their hand to the army with all that they possess or some of what they possess, so that within them
there is found that which or who assumes its affairs to meet the expenses resulting from it.

Now, let us list these sources of revenue before mentioning what has come mentioned concerning them
within the texts that we previously indicated to:

These revenue sources are:

1 - Al-Fai’u and Al-Ghanaa’im (Spoils and booty).

2 - The obligatory Zakaah (A share of it is allocated Fee Sabeelillah).
3 - The obligation of Al-Jihaad by wealth.
4 - Voluntary or non-obligatory Saqadaqaat Fee Sabeeillah.
5 - Al-Himaa (protected or reservation) of a part of the public owned property (Al-Milkiyah Al-‘Aammah)
for the Maslahah of the army.
1 - Al-Fai’u and Al-Ghanaa’im:

It is not the purpose of this study, here, to define which of the properties (or sources of wealth) fall under
the category of Al-Fai’u and which of them are Ghaneemah, in a detailed manner, and what the directions
of the disposal of this property or that are? Nor is it our purpose to delve into what the opinions of the
Fuqahaa’ are concerning its disposal and distribution? Or how each of them understood the evidences
that have come related to this in a particular way which resulted in a number of different Fiqhiy views
related to these Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues).

I say: The purpose, here, is not to undertake a detailed study of all of this. Rather, the purpose is to
explain that these properties (Amwaal), which have been called “Al-Fai’u” and “Al-Ghanaa’im”, are from
the sources of revenue that the army depends upon to spend upon its interests and requirements, whether
what was specified from these two sources of revenue were large or small amounts, according to the
numerous Ijtihaadaat of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to this Mas’alah (issue).

As such, we will mention broad or general outlines in respect to defining these two sources of revenue
and what is directed or allocated from them to the Maslahah (interest or benefit) of the army, in general,
without delving into precise details that the books of Fiqh have dealt with across the different Madhaahib
that the opinions are attributed to. We will begin our discussion with “Al-Fai’u” before “Al-Ghaneemah”,
within the general scope that we have indicated to.

Al-Fai’u:

Concerning the definition of “Al-Fai’u” and the areas that it is spent upon, the following was mentioned
in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Al-Maqdasiy: “Chapter of “Al-Fai’u”: It is what is taken from the property
of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) without fighting (Al-Qitaal) like Al-Jizyah, Al-Kharaaj (1), Al-Ushr (2),
what was left behind in flight, the fifth of the Ghaneemah, the property that has no inheritor; it is spent
on the Masaalih (interests) of the Muslims … Ahmad, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, mentioned: “The
“Fai’u” and said: “All of the Muslims have a right to it, and it is between the rich and the poor” and Al-
Qaadiy mentioned that “Al-Fai’u” is specifically allocated to the people of Al-Jihaad including those
posted on the frontiers where the enemy can attack or penetrate, the Muslim soldiers and those who
undertake their interests (i.e. serve them)”. The meaning of Ahmad’s statement “Between the rich and the
poor” means that which is in the interests of the Muslims in terms of the Mujaahideen, the judges and the
Fuqahaa’ … And the context of Ahmad’s speech indicates that it is not specified to the soldiers or military
(Jund). Rather, it is spent in the interests (Masaalih) of the Muslims, however, the Muslim soldiers (or
military) is begun with because it represents the most important of the Maslaalih (interests) as they (the
soldiers) safeguard the Muslims and provide for them the sufficiency covering them. What is in excess is
given in accordance to its importance; the most important and then the next and so on … in terms of
fortifying the frontiers from which the enemy could attack and sufficing them with horses, weapons and
what they require” (3).

- In “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh (explanation) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, regarding the areas of the
expenditure of “Al-Fai’u”, the following was stated: “All of it is divided is divided into five equal parts like
the Ghaneemah, contrary to the view of the A’immah (Imaams i.e. Abu Haneefah, Maalik and Ibn
Hanbal) in the case where they said it is not divided into five. Rather, that all of it is for the Masaalih
(interests) of the Muslims”. He then said: “And its fifth (i.e. of “Al-Fai’u”) is allocated to five (4): The first:
The Masaalih (interests) of the Muslims … like the Thughoor (frontier points where enemy can attack or
penetrate the Islamic lands) (6) which is the plural of “Ath-Thughr” i.e. to block them and fill them with a
number (i.e. of soldiers) …

[(1) It refers to a specific role to be placed upon a land like ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab placed upon the Sawaad (rural or arable land)
of Iraq: “Ta’reefaat”, Al-Jarjaaniy: p123, (2) The intended meaning of “Al-‘Ushr” here is: Taking the tenth of the trade of non-
Muslims when they cross the borders i.e. like customs tax. Refer to: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/597, (3) “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/547-548, (5) The other four divisions are: 1 - Nabu Haashim and Al-Muttalib, 2 - Orphans, 3 -
Masaakeen (poor) and 4 - The wayfarer (Ibn us-Sabeel): “Al-Minhaaj” and its Sharh “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 3/94 and the
Aayah of “Al-Fai’u” is: (TMQ: And what Allah gave as booty (Al-Fai’u) to His Messenger from them, for which you made no
expedition with either cavalry or camelry. But Allah gives power to His Messengers over whomsoever he wills. And Allah is
Able to do all things - What Allah gave as Al-Fai’u (booty) to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah, His
Messenger, the orphans, the poor and the wayfarer, so that it doesn’t become a fortune (or wealth) circulated amongst the rich
from amongst you Al-Hashr: 6-7), (4) The Thughr is the location where the enemy is feared (to attack from): “Tilbah At-
Talabah Fil Istilaahaat Al-Fiqhiyah: p178” i.e. it refers to the borders and frontiers of the lands and what is similar to them i.e.
ports etc.].

(Also of the interests of the Muslims) is the fighter, Arzaaq (financial compensation to meet the needs)
(1), the judges, the Imaams and ‘Ulamaa’ … It (i.e. the Fai’u) is allocated to the most important and then
the next in terms of obligation. And the most important of them, as has been alerted to (2), is to block the
Thughoor, because the preservation of the Muslims relies upon that” (3).

The following was stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: “The way the just A’immah
(Imaams) proceed in respect to the Fai’u and the Khumus (i.e. the fifth of the Ghanaa’im), is that the
points of fear, the Thughoor, the preparation of the war machinery (or tools of war) and the fighter’s
wage are begun with (i.e. spent upon first). If any surplus remains, then it is for the Qudaah (judges), Al-
‘Ummaal (employees/workers), building of the Masaajid and the Qanaateer (bridges), and then it is
distributed amongst the Fuqaraa’ (poor). If, after that, anything is left over, then the Imaam has the choice
between distributing it amongst the Aghniyaa’ (rich or well off) and holding it back for the needs of
Islaam” (4).

The above represents some of what has been mentioned regarding “Al-Fai’u” and what the army takes or
acquires from it.

As for the Ghaneemah:

Concerning its definition and the explanation of what it is spent upon, the following came stated “Al-
Ghaneemah: Is the name for what is taken from the Amwaal (properties) of the disbelievers by the force
of the fighters involved in the military expeditions and battles (Al-Ghuzaah) and by way of vanquishing
the disbelievers so that the word of Allah is raised the highest. Its Hukm (ruling) is: That a fifth is taken
from it and the rest is to those who took it as booty or obtained it” (5).

In this regard, it has previously been mentioned that the “Khumus” (fifth) of the Ghaneemah is attached
to the “Fai’u” in respect to its expenditures according to the manner presented in the opinions of the
Fuqahaa’ concerning that. As for the four-fifths, then the majority (of the Fuqahaa’” view that it is
distributed upon those who took it, as mentioned above, with some more detail in respect to that. “And
Al-Maalik said: The (matter of the) Maal (property) of the Ghaneemah rests upon the opinion of the
Imaam. If he wills, he divides it amongst those who attained it (i.e. the fighters who obtained it in battle)
equally or preferentially. And if he wishes he makes others share in it from those who did not attend the
battle” (6). And Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “And it is for Allah, Subhaanahu, to divide the Ghanaa’im (spoils or
booty) as he wishes and
He can prevent those who took it as a whole (from it) just as He prevented them from acquiring the
Ghanaa’im of Makkah whilst they had sped their horses and rides to acquire it” (7).

[(1) “The difference between the Rizq and the Ujrah is that the Rizq: Is that he be provided with what is sufficient for himself
and his dependents whilst the Ujrah is: That which is mutually agreed upon” “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 3/127-128, (2) from
the books of Fiqh in the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab, Abu Ishaaq Ash-Sheeraaziy, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 3/93. Also refer to
“Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/93-94, (4) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah”: p170. Also refer to the definition of “Al-Fai’u” and its expenditures: “Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/352 and
“Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 2/190, (5) “At-Ta’reefaat”, Al-Jarjaaniy: p219, (6) “Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Mawardiy: p140, (7) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/475].
Concerning the division of the Amwaal (properties) gathered or collected in the Bait ul-Maal (state
treasury) in terms of the Fai’u, what is produced from it and what remains from the Ghanaa’im after those
who acquired it took their share, the following was stated in “Ar-Rawdat un-Nidiyah”: “Regarding the
division of the gathered funds of the Muslims from the Kharaaj, its revenues from crops (i.e. according to
agreement with inhabitants of conquered lands), Jizyah, treaty (Sulh) and other than that, it (the division
and allotment) must be delegated to the just Imaam who is sincere to his subjects and expends his effort
to address their interests. As such, he divides (the wealth) upon them to meet their sufficiency and he
saves or puts aside for their incidents (disasters etc.) to pay for them (when they arise). In respect to this,
he is not bound by a particular way that those predecessors before him proceeded upon. That is because
the conditions and situations change and differ according to the difference in times. If he viewed the well-
being and what is fitting to lie in the division of what is collected in the Bait ul-Maal once a year, he can do
that. And if he views that the well-being or what is right lies in dividing and allocating it monthly, weekly
or daily, then he can do that. Then if what was in the Bait ul-Maal was in excess over what was needed to
establish their (i.e. the subjects) sufficiency (in terms of needs) and in excess of what is required to be
saved for what may afflict them in terms of incidents (or disasters), then he places that surplus into
fighting (and struggling) against the disbelievers, opening (i.e. conquering) their lands, multiplying the
Jihaad of the Muslims, by increasing the numbers of the armies, horses and weaponry. That is because
strengthening (and increasing the power) of the Muslim armies represents the fundamental origin or basis
in respect to repelling the Mafaasid (corruptions and evils) and bringing the Masaaalih (interests)” (1).

The above therefore represents a picture of the Fiqhiy opinions which have been presented in relation to
“Al-Fai’u” (2) and “Al-Ghaneemah” (3) and how they are spent. In respect to those opinions we did not
however approach them for the purpose of study and outweighing between them because that would take
us away from what this current discussion is focused upon and requires.

The purpose here, is that, in spite of the numerous Fiqhiy opinions in this Mas’alah (issue), the Islamic
army remained the matter in common amongst those opinion, in respect to being a focal point of
concern, in relation to providing it with what fulfils its requirements and what leads to strengthening its
military forces.

[(1) “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah”: 2/505-506, (2) Concerning the division of the “Fai’u” refer to: “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”,
Al-Maawardiy: p126, “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p120, “Al--Muhadh’dhab”: 2/247, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 3/92,
“Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” (“Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej il-Bidaayah”): 6/93, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p170,
“Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/352, (3) For the details of the Ahkaam of Al-Ghaneemah refer to: ““Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p131, “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p125, “Al--Muhadh’dhab”: 2/244, “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 3/99, “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” (“Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej il-Bidaayah”): 6/49, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah”: p166, “Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/352].

In addition, we have previously mentioned how when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬obtained the “Fai’u” of Bani Nadeer,
he took from it his annual spending and set aside the remainder for the strengthening of the army, horses
and weaponry (1).

The above represents a general idea about the sources of “Al-Fai’u” and “Al-Ghanaa’im” and what the
army obtains from that. We will now move on to another of the financial sources of revenue that the army
benefits from.

2 - Az-Zakaah (A share Fee Sabeeillah):

Verily, Allah has placed Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah as one of the expenditures of the Zakaah. That is in His
Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
َ‫يل‬
ِ ‫ِين ََوفِيَ َس ِب‬ ِ ‫َِو ْال َغ‬
َ ‫ارم‬ ََ ‫اَو ْالم َُؤلَّ َفةَِقُلُو ُب ُه ْم ََوفِيَالرِّ َقاب‬ َ ‫ِين ََو ْال َعا ِمل‬
َ ‫ِينَ َعلَ ْي َه‬ ِ ‫اتَل ِْلفُ َق َرا ِء ََو ْال َم َساك‬ َّ ‫إِ َّن َماَال‬
ُ ‫ص َد َق‬
َ‫َحكِيم‬َ ‫ِّنَاللَّـ ِهََۗ َواللَّـهَُ َعلِيم‬ََ ‫ضةَم‬ َ ‫يلََۖ َف ِري‬ِ ‫ْنَالس َِّب‬ َ ‫اللَّـه‬
ِ ‫َِواب‬
Zakaah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [Zakaah] and for bringing
hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for
the [stranded] traveller - an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise (At-Taubah: 60).

The following was stated in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Ibn ul-Arabiy: “Concerning His (Ta’Aalaa’s)
statement: “Fee Sabeelillah” (In the way of Allah), Maalik said: The Subul (pl. of Sabeel i.e. ways) of Allah
are numerous however I am not aware of any disagreement (or difference in view) concerning that the
intended meaning of the Sabeel (way) of Allah here means Al-Ghazw (i.e. fighting and Al-Jihaad) and
from the sentence “Sabeelillah”, except for what was attributed to Ahmad and Ishaaq as they said: It is the
Hajj” … Then he said: “And no report at all has come indicating the giving of the Zakaah in respect to
the Hajj. Our ‘Ulamaa’ have said: The Faqeer (impoverished) is given from it without disagreement
because the Faqeer (impoverished) was named at the beginning of the Aayah. And it is given to the
wealthy according to Maalik by the description of Fee Sabeelillah Ta’Aalaa, even if he was wealthy in his
land or in place in which he takes it … An-Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “The Sadaqah is not Halaal (permissible) for
the Ghaniy (rich) apart from five: The Ghaaziy (fighter) Fee Sabeelillah (2) … And Abu Haneefah said:
The Ghaaziy Fee Sabeelillah (Fighter in the way of Allah) is not given unless he is Faqeer and this
represents an addition upon the text whilst according to him the addition upon the text means abrogation
and there is no abrogation in respect to the Qur’aan except by the Qur’aan like it or by a Mutawaatir
report! And Muhammad Bin Al-Hakm said: he is given from the Sadaqah (i.e. the Zakaah) in respect to
horses and weaponry in addition to what he requires in terms of war equipment and what is required to
prevent the enemy from gaining territory. That is because all of that is from that which in the way (Sabeel)
of Al-Ghazw (fighting i.e. Al-Jihaad) and its benefits” (3).

[(1) Refer to: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2904, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/93, Saheeh Muslim: 1757, 3/1376-1377, (2) The Hadeeth in the
Sunan of Abu Dawud: “The Sadaqah (i.e. Az-Zakaah) is not Halaal for the Ghaniy (rich or wealthy) apart from five: The
Ghaaziy Fee Sabeelillah, the employ to collect it, the indebted, or a man who buys it with his money, or a man who has a poor
neighbour, then the poor man is given Sadaqah and gifts it to the rich”: 1635-1636. Refer to “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 4/662 and “Al-
Muhashiy” said: Its Isnaad is Saheeh. Also, concerning this Mas’alah refer to: “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/190-192,
(3) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/957, “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 10/124, “Fiqh Az-Zakaah”, Dr. Yousuf Al-
Qaradaawiy: 2/638/644].

Concerning the expenditure of the share of “Fee Sabeelillah” of the Zakaah fund, the following came
stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “The Ghaaziy (fighter undertaking Al-Jihaad) is
given an amount covering his need for his Ghazw (the fighting he undertakes), Nafaqah (spending),
clothing, for himself and also for his dependents … To cover his departure, his return and his residence in
the place of the Ghazw until the Fat’h (conquest i.e. its accomplishment) and even if his stay is long” …
Then he said: “And he (i.e. the Imaam) has the right to purchase from this share (i.e. of the Zakaah fund),
horses, weapons and placing them in a Waqf the proceeds of which go to Fee Sabeelilllah (in the Way of
Allah i.e. Al-Jihaad) … And he prepares for him (i.e. the Ghaaziy) something to ride other than that which
the fighter fights upon, by renting or lending … If the travel is long or he was weak and was not capable
of walking (the distance), in accordance to his necessity …” (1). And in “Fiqh Az-Zakaah” by Dr. Yousuf
Al-Qaradaawiy, under the heading: “What the four Madhaahib have agreed upon in respect to the
expenditure” (i.e. the expenditure of the share that is Fee Sabeelillah from the funds of the Zakaah), he
mentions: “They have agreed in respect to this expenditure upon three (matters):

1 - That Al-Jihaad definitely enters into (or under) Fee Sabeelillah.

2 - The legal legitimacy of spending from the Zakaah upon the Mujaahideen in contrast to the spending
upon the Masaalih (interests) of Al-Jihaad and its equipment or materials, which they (i.e. the Madhaahib)
have differed upon.
3 - The impermissibility of spending the Zakaah in directions of the general Al-Khair (good) and Al-Islaah
(reform) like building dams, bridges, Masaajid and schools … The burden of spending for these matters
falls upon other sources of the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) like the Fai’u, Kharaaj and other sources of
revenue”. He then says: “Abu Haneefah was alone in the opinion of stipulating poverty (Al-Faqr) in
respect to the Mujaahid and Ahmad was alone in respect to the permission of spending upon those
undertaking the Hajj and ‘Umrah. The Shaafi’iyah and the Hanaabilah were in agreement upon stipulating
that the Mujaahideen who take the Zakaah be from the volunteers and not from those on wages from the
Deewaan (register i.e. regular army). And they agreed, with the exception of the Hanafiyah upon the legal
legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of spending upon the Masaalih (interests) of Al-Jihaad as a whole” (2).

I say: The purpose here, as explained previously, is not to go into the details and these Fiqhiy quotes are
sufficient for us to see that the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ have made the door of “Az-Zakaah”
(the share which is “Fee Sabeelillah”) open to the Imaam of the army to meet some of its requirements in
terms of weapons, equipment, materials and other legally legitimate spending which it requires in its
description as being the army of Al-Jihaad fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way).

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 3/115, (2) “Fiqh Az-Zakaah”, Dr. Yousuf Al-Qaradaawiy: 2/643-644 and further detail with
references: 2/635-643].

We now move on to discuss another source of revenue that the Islamic army depends upon to meet its
requirements.

3 - The Obligation of Jihaad by Al-Maal (Jihaad by wealth or property):

We will address this source of revenue which has been specified for the Maslahah (interest or benefit) of
the army, through a discussion of the following matters:

- What is the Daleel (evidence) for the Wujoob (obligation) of Jihaad by Al-Maal (property or wealth)?

- What is the form that was well-known or customary in respect to the Jihaad by Al-Maal?

- Are taxes imposed upon the Muslims for the sake of spending their returns upon the army in its capacity
as representing a form from amongst the forms of undertaking Al-Jihaad by wealth?

- As for the Daleel (evidence) for the Wujoob (obligation) of Al-Jihaad by Al-Maal (wealth):

The command to undertake Al-Jihaad by Al-Maal (wealth) has come mentioned in many Aayaat linked to
the Jihaad with An-Nafs (the life), which indicates that their Hukm (legal ruling) is one and that is Al-
Wujoob (obligation). Included amongst those Aayaat is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـ ِهََۚ ٰ َذلِ ُك ْم‬

َ ‫َخيْرَلَّ ُك ْمَإِنَ ُكن ُت ْمَ َتعَْلَم‬ ِ ‫واَبأَمْ َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ُك ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬
ِ ‫اَو ِث َقاال ََو َجا ِه ُد‬
َ ‫انفِرُواَ ِخ َفاف‬
Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if
you only knew (At-Taubah: 41).

And in His Qawl Subhaanahu:

َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت ْهلُ َك ِة‬

ِ ُ‫َِو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ َ ‫َوأَنفِقُواَف‬
ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬
And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining] (Al-
Baqarah: 195).

In this Aayah, there is also that which indicates to the Wujoob (obligation) of spending (Al-Infaaq) Fee
Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah) i.e. Al-Jihaad. Concerning this Nafaqah (spending), the following was
stated in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Ibn ul-Arabiy: “It is Waajibah (obligatory) due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
 َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت ْهلُ َك ِة‬
ِ ُ‫َو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining] (Al-Baqarah: 195) (3).

Meaning, that this warning and threat is a Qareenah (connotation) indicating that the command (Amr) to
spend the Maal (wealth and property) Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way), i.e. for Al-Jihaad and its preparation,
is only from the angle of Al-Wujoob (obligation)

- As for the form that was well-known or widely practised in respect to undertaking Al-Jihaad by
Al-Maal (wealth)?

Then, as has been mentioned in the preceding studies, the fighter used to bear the cost of his preparation
himself for the Qitaal (fighting), if he was capable of undertaking that preparation. That would also
include the spending upon the travel to the battle front, the purchasing of what he needs in terms of
weapons and equipment, if that was not available for him or if the state had not provided that to him. In
addition, the one who was capable from the perspective of finance, but was unable to go out for Al-Qitaal
(the fighting) himself, he would bear the cost of preparing someone else from among the fighters who was
incapable of preparing himself.

In Saheeh Muslim: “That a youth who had become Muslim said: “O Messenger of Allah! I want to go out
to fight (Al-Ghazw) but I do not have with me that which I can prepare myself with”. He said: Go to so
and so person. For verily, he had made the preparations and then fell ill”. And so, he went to him
and said: “Verily, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬passes to you Salaam (greetings) and he says that you can
give me what you have prepared yourself with”. He said: O so and so (addressing his wife)! Give him that
which I have prepared myself with and do not hold back anything. For by Allah! Do not hold back
anything so that Allah blesses you in it” (1).

In this manner, bearing the financial or material costs of Al-Jihaad was upon the Muslims (themselves).

However, the question that arises is: Are financial or monetary taxes imposed upon the Muslims for
the sake of spending them upon the army, so that it can undertake or fulfil its preparations, with what
it requires in terms of weapons and equipment, enabling it to rise to perform the obligation of Al-Jihaad
according to its requirement?

The answer: There are from amongst the ‘Ulamaa, those who have stated the obligation of Al-Jihaad by
Al-Maal (wealth) in an independent manner or form. In the “Fataawaa” of Ibn Taymiyyah, the following
was stated: “The one who is incapable of Al-Jihaad with his body and is capable of Al-Jihaad with his
wealth (Maal), it is obligatory upon him to do the Jihaad with his wealth. This is the (purport of the) text
of Ahmad in the Riwaayah (report) of Abu l-Hakam and it is what Al-Qaadiy stated definitively in
“Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” (2) in relation to Soorah Baraa’ah (i.e. At-Taubah):

َ‫ُون‬ ََ ‫يلَاللَّـ ِهََۚ ٰ َذلِ ُك ْم‬

َ ‫َخيْرَلَّ ُك ْمَإِنَ ُكن ُت ْمَ َتعْ لَم‬ ِ ‫واَبأَمْ َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَنفُسِ ُك ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬
ِ ‫اَو ِث َقاال ََو َجا ِه ُد‬
َ ‫انفِرُواَ ِخ َفاف‬
Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if
you only knew (At-Taubah: 41).

It is therefore obligatory upon the prosperous or rich to spend Fee Sabeelillah (i.e. upon Al-Jihaad). Based
upon this, it is obligatory upon the women to spend upon Al-Jihaad from their wealth (or properties) if
they have a surplus (of wealth) and similarly spending should be from the wealth of the Sagheer (young i.e.
child), as it is required just like the Nafaqaat (areas of spending) and the Zakaah. And the context or place
of the two reports (Riwaayataini) should be in respect to the Waajib Al-Kifaayah (obligation of
sufficiency). If, however, the enemy attacks (i.e. the Muslim lands) then there is no room for
disagreement, because repelling the harm they pose to the Deen, the life and the sanctities is an obligation
by Ijmaa’ (consensus)” (3).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1894, 3/1506, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/944, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/316
(In the Mas’alah of the obligation of Al-Jihaad by wealth), (3) “Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyyah”: 4/607 and refer to “As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: 1/253].

- The following was mentioned in “Al-Mazhaalim Al-Mushtarakah”, also by Ibn Taymiyyah: “If the
Muslims need finance that they gather and collect to repel the enemy, it is obligatory upon the capable to
participate in that” (1).

- And Ibn ul-Qayyim said the following, when discussing the Fiqh of the the Ghazwah of Tabook:

“And included within it (i.e. the Fiqh of this Ghazwah) is the Wujoob (obligation) of Al-Jihaad by or with
Al-Maal (wealth) just as it is obligatory by the Nafs (life). This is one of the two reports attributed to
Ahmad and it represents the correct view, without doubt. That is because the command to undertake Al-
Jihaad with Al-Maal (wealth) is the brother of the command to undertake Al-Jihaad with the Nafs (life) in
the Qur’aan and its companion or mate. Indeed, it came ahead of the Jihaad with the Nafs (life) in every
place apart from one (2) and that indicates that Al-Jihaad with or by it is more important and more
affirmed than the Jihaad with the Nafs (life). And there is no doubt that it represents one of the two
Jihaads. It is just as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Whoever prepares a Ghaaziy (fighter) then he has undertaken the
Ghazwah” (3). It is therefore obligatory upon the one who is capable of undertaking it just as it is
obligatory upon the one who is capable physically. And the physical Jihaad is not fulfilled except by
expending it (i.e. the body) and it is not given victory except by number and preparation. Therefore, if he
is not capable of increasing its numbers it is obligatory upon him to extend the wealth and the
preparation. And if the Hajj by wealth is obligatory upon the one who is incapable physically then the
obligation of Al-Jihaad with or by the wealth is of greater precedence (priority) and more appropriate” (4).

Despite this, the majority (Jumhoor) of the ‘Ulamaa have stipulated, in respect to obtaining the wealth
from the people for the sake of preparing the army for Al-Qitaal, that the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) and
what is subordinate to it, is empty of the funds that cover the needs and requirement of the army.
Concerning this, the following was stated by the author of “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: “And know that it is
dictated that the Nafaqah (spending) is obligatory upon the wealth of the Ghaaziy (fighter) because he has
been commanded with an act of ‘Ibaadah (worship) comprising of both the wealth (Maal) and body
(Badn), and so, it is like the Hajj. And that the obligation upon the Imaam of preparing them from the
Bait ul-Maal (treasury) is only when they (i.e. the fighters) are incapable of making the preparation above
their needs and that of their dependents. And if there is no “Fai’u” (i.e. funds) in the Bait ul-Maal, it is not
Makrooh for the Imaam to place the burden upon the people upon a just percentage (i.e. taken from their
wealth) because by that the greatest harm is repelled and that is by attaching the lowest harm (i.e. the
taking from their wealth) so as to guard the evil posed by the disbelievers to the Muslims” (5).

[(1) “Al-Mazhaalim Al-Mushtarakah” within “Majmoo’ah Ar-Rasaa’il”, Ibn Taymiyyah: p218, (2) He means by that: Soorah At-
Taubah: 111. TMQ “Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth (or properties) so that they can attain Al-Jannah”,
(3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2843, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/49. Saheeh Muslim: 1895, 3/1507, (4) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim:
3/558-559, (5) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Al-Kamaal Ibn ul-Himaam: 5/443].

- The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “If the Imaam wanted to prepare (and
equip) and army, then if there is room for that within the Bait ul-Maal, then he should prepare it with the
wealth (or funds) of the Bait ul-Maal and to not take anything from the people. But if the Bait ul-Maal is
constrained (i.e. it has insufficient funds), then he can impose upon the people the amount by which those
who go out for Al-Jihaad are strengthened. That is because he has been appointed as a supervisor for
them and he has complete supervision in respect to that” (1).
- And in “Al-‘I’tisaam”, by Al-Imaam Ash-Shaatibiy, he said the following: “If we have established an
Imaam who is to be obeyed and he lacks the soldiers to protect the frontiers and protect the expansive
regions under the (Islamic) authority, whilst the Bait ul-Maal is empty and the needs (or requirements) of
the soldiers have risen so that they do not have what meets their sufficiency, then the Imaam, if he is just,
should make the rich provide that which is he views to be sufficient for them, immediately, until funds
appear within the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) … This was not reported to have happened with the earliest
generations because the wealth in the Bait ul-Maal was abundant in their time which is not the case in our
current time (2). That is because the issue in respect to it is more appropriate and the angle of the
Maslahah (interest) here is apparent, That is because, if the Imaam does not implement such a system, the
strength of the Imaam would be invalidated and our lands would become open and prone to being taken
over by the disbelievers” (3).

- The following came mentioned in “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah” related to the events of the year 657 Al-
Hijrah after the Tatars moved and mobilised towards the lands of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria). That one of
the Sultaan’s (rulers) of the Muslims in Egypt called Qutuz requested from the judges, the Fuqahaa and
the notable to meet so as to consult them in respect to imposing upon the people the taking of wealth to
meet the needs of the preparation and equipping of an army to fight the Tatars. The meeting was held and
the author of “An-Nujoom” said:

“He spoke a lot and the reliance was upon the opinion of Ibn Abdus Salaam (4) and the sum of what he
said was: If the enemy comes to the lands of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) then it is obligatory upon the
world to fight them and it is permissible for you to take from the subjects that which you will be
supported with in your Jihaad upon the condition that nothing remains in the Bait ul-Maal (treasury), and
to sell sell your golden strips and precious equipment and every troop of soldiers will be restricted to his
ride and his weapon and they and the general masses will be the same. As for taking the funds from the
general masses whilst there remains funds and first-rate tools or equipment in the hands of the soldiers,
then no … And the session disbanded upon that …” (5).

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/139 and refer to: “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/520, (2) Al-Imaam Ash-Shaatibiy
passed away in the year 790 Al-Hijrah. “Al-I’tisaam” Biography of the author: Sayyid Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa: 1/12, (3) “Al-
I’tisaam”, Ash-Shaatibiy: 2/121, (4) And he Al-Imaam Al’Izz Bin Abdis Salaam, (5) “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah”, Ibn Taghriy
Bardiy Al-Ataabkiy: 7/72-73].

Following on, that which appears evident to me in respect to this Mas’alah (issue) is: That Al-Jihaad with
Al-Maal (wealth) takes the Hukm of Al-Jihaad with the Nafs (life). They are equal, in view of them being
linked together in the explanation of their Hukm and the Adillah that have mentioned them together in
respect to the Hukm of Al-Wujoob (obligation) did not differentiate between the Hukm of Al-Jihaad with
the Maal (wealth) and the Hukm of the Jihaad with the Nafs (life).

Consequently, in the case where Al-Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah the Jihaad undertaken with or by the Maal
(wealth) is also Fard Kifaayah just like the actually physical fighting. Therefore, if a single individual or a
number of individuals undertook the provisioning and preparation of the army with what it requires, the
Talab (Shar’iy request) would fall from the rest (i.e. of the Mukallaf Muslims). Similarly, the request (Talab)
would fall from them if the state undertook the preparations of the army with all that it requires, from the
general funds gathered for the Masaalih (interests) and the share of “Fee Sabeelillah” from the Zakaah
funds. That is because the Fard Kifaayah would have been fulfilled and there would be no place for the
request upon the Muslims to remain standing in such a situation (1). This is just like if a number of
individuals from the Muslims were to undertake the fighting Jihaad which is Fard Kifaayah meeting its
requirements. That is because the Talab (request), the violation of which is sinful, falls from the remainder
(i.e. rest of the Mukallafeen) Similarly, it would fall from them if the state undertook this physical fighting
Jihaad of sufficiency, meeting its requirements, via advanced fighting equipment or technology that does
not require except a very small number to operate them and does away with the need for expanding the
size of the armies and gathering increased numbers of armed forces. That is because the Fard ul-Kifaayah
would have been met and fulfilled and as such there is no place for the request upon the Muslims to
remain standing in this situation; the request (Talab) that sin results from its violation.

- However, when a sufficient number from the Muslims do not rise to fulfil the Waajib (obligation) of Al-
Jihaad by Al-Maal (wealth) to prepare and equip the army, when they have been charged to undertake that,
then the sin, at such a time, would be upon the affluent who have abstained from undertaking this Jihaad
(i.e. the Jihaad by Al-Maal) … In the same way as the sin falls upon the capable Mukallafeen who
abstained or refrained from undertaking the fighting (or physical) Jihaad, when it was required of them.

In this situation, just as it is the right of the person possessing the authority (i.e. the legitimate ruler) to
bind individuals by designating or appointing them to go out for Al-Jihaad according to its fighting
meaning, according to what the Maslahah dictates, for the sake of undertaking the Waajib (obligation) of
Al-Jihaad, whilst that falls under the circumstances when the Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain, upon the one to whom
that appointment or designation has been directed, then similarly, it is the right of the ruler to bind
individuals from the rich and wealthy by designation (2), so that they carry the burden of Al-Jihaad
according to its financial or funding meaning.

[(1) Refer to “Al-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 1/116 (“The difference between the Fard ul-Kifaayah and the Fard ul-‘Ain”) and
“Tahdheeb ul-Furooq”, Muhammad ‘Ali Bin Ash-Sheikh Hussein: 10/129, (2) The Hadeeth of Muslim quoted earlier about the
command of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, to the one who had made his preparations for himself for Al-Qitaal and then fell ill, to give this
preparation or equipment to some of the Mujaahideen. This Hadeeth is viable to be used as evidence in respect to the ruler
designating some of those who possess the financial capability to take the burden of what he views necessary in terms of
spending to prepare and equip the army. The origin in respect to this Takleef (commissioning) issued from the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
is the obligation of implementation upon the one who has been made Mukallaf for that].

i.e. to undertake the spending that the army requires so that it can undertake the obligation of Al-Jihaad
and that is also in accordance to what the Maslahah (interest) dictates. And if the distribution of this
responsibility or burden upon the wealthy was done equally, by a proportion of the property (or wealth)
that they own, whilst bearing in mind the commitments they have, is what meets the Maslahah (interest),
then it is incumbent upon the one possessing the authority (i.e. legitimate ruler) to commit to this style in
respect to commissioning this financial Jihaad i.e. designating people to provide the finance. That is in
accordance to the Shar’iyah principle:

ََ َ‫علىَالرََّعَََِيةَ ََمنَوطَبَِالمصََْل‬
‫ح َة‬ ََ َ‫مام‬ ََ ‫ََت‬
َِ ‫صرَُّفََُاإل‬
“The actions of the Imaam over the subjects is dependent or rests upon the Maslahah” (1).

This applies when the Jihaad is Fard Kifaayah … However, when the Jihaad is Fard ‘Ain upon all of the
Muslims due to the attack or raid of the enemy against them, then just as it is obligatory upon all of the
Mukallafeen, from those who possess the fighting capability, to go out for the fighting or physical Jihaad,
each according to their capability …

Similarly, it is obligatory upon all of the Mukallafeen, of those who possess the financial capability, to
bring out their wealth, to meet the requirements of this Qitaal (fighting), each according to their capability
…

- From another angle, what appears evident in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), is that the Jihaad, whether in
the situations in which it is Fard Kifaayah, or the circumstances in which it is Fard ‘Ain, requires an army
and that the army requires huge funds to prepare it with the necessary weapons, equipment and materials,
and that is particularly so in our current time.

Upon that basis, in the case when there is not within the public funds specified for the Masaalih (interests)
nor within the share of Al-Jihaad from the funds of the Zakaah, that which meets the needs and
requirements of the army, then the Fard of the financial Jihaad upon the people, according to the
legislated perspective or what has been called the imposition of taxes upon the wealthy and its
distribution, for the sake of the undertaking of this Fard (obligation) … would fall under the principle of
“That which the Waajib is not fulfilled except with it, is Waajib” (2). As such, the Jihaad by Al-Maal
(wealth) would be from the obligations that the undertaking of the Jihaad Al-Qitaaliy (fighting) definitely
necessitates.

- That is whilst it is established within the Fiqh, that in respect to the obligations of sufficiency (Al-
Waajibaat Al-Kifaa’iyah), like the commanding of the Ma’roof (right) and the forbidding of the Munkar
(wrong), judiciary, educations and making the necessary roads etc., that the burden or responsibility for
the spending and financing that they require, falls upon the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) …

[(1) “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p121, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”: [The Second Year: Faculty of
Sharee’ah], Damascus, Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p265. Also, refer to: “Usool ul-Fiqh”, Muhammad Abu n-Noor
Zuhair: 1/118 and “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p125].

… Then if the treasury doesn’t have the funds, the obligation transfers to those who are affluent or rich
(1) … In this way, this Hukm applies upon the Jihaad in the circumstance of its being Fard Kifaayah and
in the situation of it being Fard ‘Ain, the matter is even clearer in respect to the Hukm applying to it, in
line with what has previously been explained.

The above represents what is to be said concerning the issue of Al-Jihaad undertaken by wealth or
property (Maal i.e. financially) in respect to it representing a source from amongst the financial sources of
funding, that the rulers resort to when necessary for the sake of the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic
army.

We now move on to discuss another source from among the sources of funding related to this current
subject area (i.e. the funding of the Islamic army).

4 - Voluntary Sadaqah Fee Sabeelillah (2):

Concerning this source, we mean that the state opens its door to financial and material contributions for
them to be employed for the Maslahah (interest or benefit) of the army; whether that’s for its general
expenditures or to purchase what it requires in terms of weapons and equipment.

The contributions that are given for this purpose are from the spending Fee Sabeelillah that attains reward
with Allah from the one who gives it … The Qur’aan Al-Kareem has encouraged the giving of this
spending which is directed towards the purpose of preparing the necessary strength to strike fear into the
enemy. That is in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ينَمِنَ ُدون ِِه ْم‬َ ‫آخ ِر‬َ ‫َِو َع ُد َّو ُك ْم ََو‬ َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُدوَََّاللَّـه‬ َ ‫َال َخي ِْلَ ُترْ ِهب‬
ِ ‫ُون‬ َ ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعَْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوة‬
ْ ِ‫ٍَومِنَرِّ بَاط‬
ََ ‫َالَ ُت ْظلَم‬
‫ُون‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِي َُوفَّ َإِلَ ْي ُك ْم ََوأَن ُت ْم‬ َ َ‫َالَ َتعْ لَمُو َن ُه ُمَاللَّـهَُ َيعْ لَ ُم ُه ْم‬
ِ ‫َۚو َماَ ُتنفِ ُقواَمِنَ َشيْ ٍءَفِيَ َس ِب‬
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah
and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the
cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged (Al-Anfaal: 60).

- Similarly, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has encouraged with great encouragement, so as to awaken the desire, to
spend that which is collected for the undertaking of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah, in general. That is by the
multiplication of the reward over that which is spent in this direction greater than the reward that is
prepared for spending on other areas from amongst the other areas of spending on good and drawing
close to Allah.
That has been made clear in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َُ‫َۗواللَّـه‬ َ ‫َسب َْعَ َس َن ِاب َلَفِيَ ُكلَِّسُن ُبلَةٍَمِّا َئ ُة‬

َ َ‫َح َّب ٍَة‬ َ ‫ت‬ ْ ‫َح َّبةٍَأَن َب َت‬ ِ ‫ونَأَ ْم َوالَ ُه ْمَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِ َك َم َث ِل‬ ََ ‫َّم َثلَُالَّذ‬
َ ُ‫ِينَيُنفِق‬
َ‫َُواسِ عَ َعلِيم‬ َ ‫ضاعِ فُ َ ِل َمنَ َي َشا ُءَ ََۗواللَّـه‬ َ ‫ُي‬
The example of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is like a seed [of grain] which grows seven spikes; in each
spike is a hundred grains. And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and
Knowing (Al-Baqarah: 261).

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/211/212, “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 2/86-87, (2) The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: “We have explained (made clear) that when “Sabeelillah” is stated it refers to Al-Ghazw and Al-Jihaad, and nothing
other than that …”: 5/2078].

- The following was stated in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer related to this Aayah: “Mak’hool said: It means
the spending related to Al-Jihaad in terms of steeds of war and preparing and making ready of weapons,
amongst other matters” (1).

- And Al-Qurtubiy said in his Tafseer concerning this Aayah: “It has been related that this Aayah was
revealed in relation to ‘Uthmaan and Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf, may Allah be pleased with them. That is
because when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬urged the people to give Sadaqah when he wanted to go out
for the Ghazwah of Tabook, Abdur Rahman came to him with 4000. He said: “O Messenger of Allah, I
had 8000 so I held back 4000 for me and my dependents and I have loaned 4000 to my Rabb (Lord)”.
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “May Allah bless you in what you have kept and in what you have
given”. Then he (Al-Qurtubiy) said: “The Qur’aan has stated that the Hasanah in all actions of Birr
(righteousness or goodness) is equal to ten of its like (2), whilst this Aayah dictates that in respect to the
spending upon Al-Jihaad, that its Hasanah is seven hundred times multiplied, and the ‘Ulamaa have
differed in respect to the meaning of His Qawl (statement): “And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He
wills”. A group said: It is reinforcing explanation for what had been said in respect to the mention of the
700 times (i.e. multiplied reward) and does not refer to multiplying greater than the 700. Another group
from the ‘Ulamaa said: Rather, it represents and informing that Allah Ta’Aalaa multiplies for whom he
wills more than 700 times (the reward)” … Then Al-Qurtubiy commented upon that saying: “I said: And
this opinion is the most correct”. He then used as evidence to support his opinion that which Ibn Maajah
related from a number of Sahaabah: All of them related from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:
Whoever sends spending in the way of Allah (Fee Sabeelillah i.e. Al-Jihaad) and remains in his
house. Then for every single Dirham he gains 700 Dirham and the one who undertakes the
Ghazwah with his Nafs (life) Fee Sabeelillah, and spends for the sake of that, then for every
single Dirham he attains 700 thousand Dirham. He then recited this Aayah: “And Allah multiplies [His
reward] for whom He wills” (TMQ: Al-Baqarah: 261)” (3).

In addition, the following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “Ibn Mas’ood Al-Ansaariy said: A man
brought a she-camel with a nose-string or bridle and said: “This is Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah)”.
And so, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “On the Day of Judgement, you will have for her, 700
bridled she-camels” (4).

[(1) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/316, (2) Referring to Aayah 60 Soorah Al-An’aam: TMQ: “The one who comes with a Hasanah,
then he has ten of its like”, (3) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Quturbiy: 3/303-305. The Hadeeth is in the Sunan of Ibn
Maajah: 604, p222. And it is also in “Mishkaat ul-Masaabeeh”: 3857, 2/1132. Examined by Al-Albaaniy: He said in respect to it:
Its Isnaad (chain) is Da’eef (weak)”, (4) “It is said: It is possible that what is intended is that he will have the reward (Ajr) of 700
camels and it is possible to mean its literal meaning and that he will have 700 she-camels in Al-Jannah (Paradise), each of which
will be bridled and that he can ride them wherever he wishes for pleasure, as was reported about the horses of Al-Jannah and
their excellence. And this (latter) possibility) is more apparent, and Allah knows best”, Sharh of An-Nawawiy upon Saheeh
Muslim: 8/98. And the Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim: 1892, 3/1505].
I say: After this overflowing abundance from the Karam of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, which awaits those who
give the Sadaqah and contributions that are collected for the armed forces in preparation for the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah, after that, there is no surprise to find the first generation, from
among the Sahaabah (companions) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, competing amongst each other to
respond to the call for spending in the way of Allah, each of them according to what their means allow for
… And this page taken from “Hayaat us-Sahaabah” (Life of the Companions) highlights in the most
excellent of ways the generosity that was expended in this way. It is transmitted by “Ibn ‘Asaakir” in
relation to the urging and encouragement upon the giving of Sadaqah for the preparation of the Ghazwah
of Tabook. He said: “And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬incited and encouraged the Muslims upon the
undertaking of Al-Jihaad and aroused the desire to partake in it. And he commanded them with the
Sadaqah and so they gave a lot of Sadaqah. And the first to give was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, may Allah be
pleased with him, who have all of his money which was equal to 4000 Dirham. Then the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬asked him: “Have you left anything for your family?” He replied: “Allah and His Messenger
are more aware (1)”. Then ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him came, and he gave half of all his wealth.
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬asked to him: “Have you left anything behind for your family?” He replied:
“I brought half of what I have”. Then ‘Umar heard about what Abu Bakr had brought (in terms of
Sadaqah) and said: “We have not competed in the acts of good except that Abu Bakr always precede me
in it!”. And Al-‘Abbaas Bin Abdul Muttalib and Talhah Ibn ‘Ubaidullah, may Allah be pleased with them,
gave money to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. And Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf, may Allah be pleased with him, gave two
hundred Awqiyah (measurement of gold). Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah, may Allah be pleased with him contributed
money and likewise Muhammad Bin Maslamah, may Allah be pleased with him. ‘Aasim Bin ‘Adiy, may
Allah be pleased with him contributed 90 Wasaq (2) whilst ‘Uthman Bin ‘Affaan, may Allah be pleased
with him, funded the preparation of a third of that army, and he gave the most … And so, it was said:
That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said on that day: “‘Uthmaan will not be harmed (or damaged) by
anything he does after this (3)”.

[(1) In another related version he (i.e. Abu Bakr) said: “That which Allah and His Messenger have promised in terms of the
good Rizq (sustenance)”, Ibn Asaakir: “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: 30249, 10/563. And in a relation recorded by Abu Dawud and At-
Tirmidhiy he was reported to have said: “I have left behind for them Allah and His Messenger”. At-Tirmidhiy said: This
Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh. “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 8/591, (2) “Al-Wasaq” is 60 Saa’ah (a measure for quantity). Al-Khaleel said: Al-
Wasaq is the load of the camel (“Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: p620) i.e. the amount that the camel carries on its load. In respect to
the “Saa’ah” then the Fuqahaa’ have said: The Saa’ah is equal to four Amdaad and the Mudd (i.e. singular of Amdaad) is equal
to what fills both hands of the man with average-sized hands. And in “Al-Munjid”: Al-Mudd is: It is a measure and divides into
half a Mudd, a quarter of a Mudd and an eighth of a Mudd. And the Mudd is equal to approximately 18 European (or Frankish)
litres: p751, (3) refer to “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 8/636 where Al-Mahshiy said: Its Isnaad (chain) is Hasan and this paragraph was
related by At-Tirmidhiy].

And the people of wealth desired to give for the good and the Ma’roof (good/right) … Even the women
assisted and gave all that they were able to. Umm Sinaan Al-Aslamiyah, may Allah be pleased with her,
said: “I saw a cloth or garment spread out in front of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in the house of ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah
be pleased with her, and it hand upon it: Bracelets, anklets, bangles, ear rings and rings. It had been filled
from that which the women had sent to assist the Muslims in their preparations. That was whilst the
people were in very hard times, when the fruits had become good and the shade was preferred. The
people (at that time) preferred to remain and the people disliked leaving that, in the situation of the time
that they were in … And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬met his military force at Thaniyat ul-Wadaa’ …
And the number of people was many, too many to be recorded in a book … And the people alongside the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬numbered 30 thousand and there were 10 thousand horsemen (or cavalry) …”
(1).

The above represents only a small part of the vast amount that came mentioned in respect to this source
from amongst the funding sources for the interest and benefit of the Islamic army. That is whether this
source came from the direction of encouragement and awakening the desire, upon a recommended
(Mandoob) basis and not an obligatory one, or from the direction of the Sahaabah responding positively
to that urging and encouragement and enticement. And we have already seen how the funds collected
from this source represented a matter of great significance. That was despite the hard times the people
were experiencing at that time and even though the door to spending was opened upon the basis of
recommendation and not obligation …

Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy said: “The Sahaabah donating their wealth to prepare the
army of Al-‘Usrah (Hardship i.e. Tabook) is not considered to be an evidence for the imposition of taking
wealth from the rich at the time of the State’s need for it. That is because the acts of the Sahaabah were
voluntary contributions and the call of the Messenger for them to do that was a call towards a
recommended act …” (2).

[(1) “Hayaat us-Sahaabah”, Muhammad Yousuf Al-Kaa’id Halwiy: 1/404-406, (2) “Dawaabit Al-Maslahah”, Dr. Muhammad
Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p224. I say: However, it is probable, that the matter of the Sadaqah for the preparation of the
army of hardship (Tabook) was only upon the basis of its being Fard Kifaayah as is the original position in respect to the Hukm
(legal ruling) of Al-Jihaad, whether that is by Al-Qitaal (fighting) or related to what that fighting requires in terms of funds
being spend upon it … And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬opened the door to contributions for this army upon this basis and when he
obtained the funds required to meet the needs of sufficiency for the preparation, he commanded the commencement of the
march …].

I say: The existence of a financial (funding) source for the Maslahah (interest) of the army opened to
collect or gather contributions from the Ummah, upon the basis of recommendation (An-Nadb), does not
negate the existence of another financial (funding) source, also for the Maslahah of the army, which is
opened to collect what the State had designated upon the rich and affluent of the Ummah, upon an
obligatory basis (Al-Wujoob). That is according to the detail presented for the source of revenue discussed
before this one. We will now move on to discuss another source of revenue.

5 - Al-Himaa (protected or reservation) of a part of the public owned property (Al-

Milkiyah Al-‘Aammah) for the Maslahah of the army.

All that is considered to be from the public property or ownership (Al-Milkiyyah Al-‘Aammah) of the
Ummah in terms of the resources of the Islamic lands and its natural resources, are permitted for the
person in authority (i.e. legitimate ruler) to reserve a section or part of them and utilise it specifically for
the Maslahah of the Islamic army to the exclusion of other Masaalih (interests) of the land. That section or
part that the State issues a decree for it to enter into “Al-Himaa” (reserve or protection) is only in
accordance to the amount that the decision maker sees necessary to meet the need of the army … Then,
the remainder of those public resources and natural resources are directed towards meeting the
expenditures that the other interests and amenities require which the land is in need of. The Daleel
(evidence) for this subtraction or segmentation from what is considered to be the public property or
ownership and specifying that for the interest and benefit of the army, which is called “Al-Himaa” (َ‫)ال ِح َمى‬,
is what came related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: “Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with him, related that
As-Sa’b Bin Jath’thaamah said: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:
ِ َّ ِ ‫َالَ ِح َمىَإِ َّال‬
َ‫َّلل ََول َِر َسولِ ِه‬
There is no Himaa except for Allah and His Messenger (1).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ash-Shaafi’iy said: It is possible (or probable) that the
meaning of the Hadeeth is two matters: The first: It is not for anyone to reserve or subtract for the
Muslims except that which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬reserved (himself) (i.e. it was his right alone). And the second
meaning: Unless it is upon that which is like what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬reserved. Therefore, based on the first
meaning, it is not the right of any of the Wulaah (rulers) after him to reserve or section off. And based on
the second meaning: The right of reserving or sectioning is specific to the one who stands in the position
of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and that is the Khalifah specifically”. He then said: And the strongest
opinion according to the Shaafi’iyah (i.e. their Madh’hab) is that the “Himaa” (reserving or taking a part) is
specific to the Khalifah and those Wulaah (rulers) over the regions who are attached to him, and the
permissibility rests upon that it absolutely does not bring harm to the Muslims as a whole …” (2).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2370, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/44, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/45. In “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: “Verily Allah
has only imposed upon humans the forbiddance of their specific or privately-owned property and not the forbiddance of that
which does not belong to anyone individually. And the Qawl of the Messenger of Allah ‫“ ﷺ‬There is no Himaa except for
Allah and His Messenger” means: That there is no Himaa except the Himaa of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to the
well-being of the Muslims who are partners in the land of Allah!”: 4/50].

And in another Hadeeth, also recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “That ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah
be pleased with him, reserved a piece or segment of land that was considered to be from the public owned
property of the people of Al-Madinah which was distinguished with an abundance of water and fertile
grazing pasture. He prevented Muslims from entering it to graze their livestock within it even though it
was from the public property and he specified it for the Sadaqah camels and the horses used by the
Islamic army, for them to graze in it. He gave permission, only to those who have a small quantity of
grazing livestock to benefit from these grazing pastures which had been made a reservation for the army.
That was out of kindness to them due the severity of their need and their lack of possessing an alternative
source of income that they live from other than this small number of sheep … And ‘Umar mentioned,
that if he was to prevent those of limited income like he prevented the affluent, from benefiting from this
grazing pasture, it would be obligatory upon him, if what they depended upon was to perish, to
compensate them with gold and silver to enable a dignified living, for them and their families. Therefore,
‘Umar viewed that giving permission to those of these circumstances alone, to benefit from the land that
had been reserved for the army, applied less pressure upon the state budget and realised the general
Maslahah more than if he was to prevent them from utilising it, like he had prevented the affluent and rich
who possessed other sources of income other than livestock … Then ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab explained
that this measure, i.e. the Himaa (reservation) of a part of the public property, even if the people directed
a lot of criticism to him and accused ‘Umar of Zhulm (oppression) in respect to it, ‘Umar, nevertheless,
defending his taking of this measure by saying that the reason that called for him to take it was the
Maslahah (interst0 of the army and the horses that were set aside for Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah.

The following is the narration about this incident as it has been recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:

“Zaid Bin Aslam related from his father that: ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab appointed a freed slave of his, called
Hunayyaa, as the manager of the Himaa (reserve). He said to him, "O Hunayyaa! Don't oppress the
Muslims and ward off their curse (supplications against you) for the supplication of the oppressed is
responded to (by Allah); and allow the shepherd having a few camels and those having a few sheep (to
graze their animals), and take care not to allow the livestock of `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf and the livestock
of (`Uthman) bin `Affan, for if their livestock should perish, then they have their farms and gardens, while
those who own a few camels and those who own a few sheep, if their livestock should perish, would bring
their dependents to me and appeal for help saying, O chief of the believers! O chief of the believers!
Would I then neglect them? (No, of course). So, I find it easier to let them have water and grass rather
than to give them gold and silver (from the Muslims' treasury). By Allah, these people think that I have
been unjust to them (3). This is their land, and during the pre-lslamic period, they fought for it and they
embraced Islaam (willingly) while it was in their possession. By Him in Whose Hand my life is! Were it not
for the animals (in my custody) which I give to be ridden for striving in Allah's Cause (4), I would not
have turned even a span of their land into a Himaa” (5).

I say: Based upon this, it is the right of the person possessing the authority (i.e. the legitimate ruler) to
reserve or cut off a specific or particular part from what is considered to be from the Milkiyah Al-
‘Aammah (public property) from amongst the resources and natural resources of the land, and to specify
its benefit for the Maslahah of the army alone. That also applies if there are oil wells, for example, that fall
under the public property, as it is the right of the ruler to reserve a certain part of its production or a
certain number of those wells, and specify their returns to the Maslahah (interest and benefit) of the army,
specifically. That is just like what ‘Umar did in respect to the land that he reserved and specified for the
army its water and pastures!

And it is permitted for him to attach to the army, in respect to the benefit attained from this Himaa
(reserve), some groups who are in need from the Ummah, if the Maslahah dictates that.

By concluding the discussion about this source of revenue specified for the Maslahah (interest) of the
army, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion concerning the sources of revenue which the
army relies upon to realise its requirements … And in doing so, we have also reached the end of the
fourth study which we dedicated to the discussion of the material elements of the Islamic army … And
consequently, we have also reached the end of the discussion of the studies of the fourth volume of this
paper (i.e. doctorate) and now move on to the fifth volume, with the help of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

[(1) Ibn Hajar said: “It appears to me that he intended those who owned a small amount of livestock and the majority (of the
people), who were the people of that land, were from the nomadic areas of Al-Madinah. This was indicated by the statement of
‘Umar: “This is their land”. I say: Based upon this, those who were permitted to enter the Himaa (reserve) were the very limited
minority who only owned a few sheep … As for the majority of those who owned more than that and even if what they owned
was little proportionately, in addition to those who had a lot of wealth and large flocks … then they were all prevented from
entering (and utilising) the Himaa (reserve)”, (2) i.e. the camels which carried upon them those who did not possess that which
they could ride (i.e. in Al-Jihaad) and it was related from Maalik that he said: “That the number that were in the Himaa (reserve)
in the time of ‘Umar reached 40.000 camels and horses and other livestock”, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3059, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
6/175 and the explanation in the margins (i.e. number (1)) was from “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/176-177].
 Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal
Fee
As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume Five
Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah Fee As-Siyaasah Al-Harbiyah
(The Shar’iyah Rulings of the War Policy)
Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Um Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.

Volume Five
Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah Fee As-Siyaasah Al-Harbiyah
(The Shar’iyah Rulings of the War Policy)

Chapter One:

The Treatment of the Individuals of the Islamic Army

The First Study: The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) in respect to obedience and its limits.

The Second Study: The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) to exclude whom he views, by his presence, to
represent a harm within the army.

The Third Study: The rights of the fighters.

The Fourth Study: The display of pride and arrogance.

The Fifth Study: The Hukm (ruling) of Muslim spies and non-Muslim spies from amongst the Islamic
subjects.

The Sixth Study: The Hukm (legal ruling) of fleeing from the army (i.e. desertion).

The Seventh Study: The Shaheed (martyr) and the Ahkaam related to him and the family he leaves
behind.

Chapter Two:

The Treatment of the Enemies during War

The First Study: The Ahkaam (rulings) related to the non-combatants of the enemies.

The Second Study: The Hukm (ruling) of the spies from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war).

The Third Study: Employing lying and deception with the enemies in the war.

The Fourth Study: The corpses of the enemies:

- The First Issue: Mutilation of the enemies’ corpses.
- The Second Issue: Dissection of the enemies’ corpses for the purpose of medical research.
- The Third Issue: Concealing or burying the corpses of the enemies.
- The Fourth Issue: Returning the corpses of the enemies to their people.

Chapter Three:

The actions and different conducts during war: Between permission and
forbiddance

The First Study: Is it permissible to kill individuals from the Muslims or Islamic subjects or others, if the
enemy uses them as (human) shields?

The Second Study: The use of weapons that encompass non-combatants with harm.

- The First Issue: Weapons of mass destruction which destroy of human life, animal life and vegetation
alongside the destruction of buildings: (The nuclear bomb and other such weapons …).
- The Second Issue: Weapons of mass destruction which destroy human and animal life and vegetation
but not buildings: (Neutron bombs, chemical and germ weapons and the use of poisons amongst other
weapons …).

The Third Study: The practises and conduct of the fighters and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in
respect to them.

- The First Issue: The delay of the performance of the Salaah (prayer) from its (set) times due to war and
the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to that.
- The Second Issue: Abduction and its forms or the taking of hostages.
- The Third Issue: Suicide or martyrdom operations?
- The Fourth Issue: Violating honours and the concept of the enemies being Mubaah (permissible) for
the Muslims in respect to their life, honour and wealth.
 Chapter One
The Treatment of the Individuals of the Islamic Army

The First Study: The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) in respect to obedience and its limits.

The Second Study: The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) to exclude whom he views, by his presence, to
represent a harm within the army.

The Third Study: The rights of the fighters.

The Fourth Study: The demonstration of pride and arrogance.

The Fifth Study: The Hukm (ruling) of Muslim spies and non-Muslim spies from amongst the Islamic
subjects.

The Sixth Study: The Hukm (legal ruling) of fleeing from the army (i.e. desertion).

The Seventh Study: The Shaheed (martyr) and the Ahkaam related to him and the family he leaves
behind.

The First Study

The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) in respect to obedience and its limits
We will address this study through the discussion of the following points:

1 - The First Point: What is the meaning of “At-Taa’ah”? (Obedience) What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in
relation to it? And what role does the obligation of army’s obedience to its leadership play in respect to
establishing military discipline amongst its individuals?

2 - The Second Point: Who is it obligatory to obey within the Islamic army?

3 - The Third Point: The Shar’iy and Fiqhiy texts explaining the limits of the obligatory obedience and
the (type of) obedience which is prohibited.

1 - The First Point: What is the meaning of “At-Taa’ah”? (Obedience) What is the Hukm Ash-
Shar’iy in relation to it? And what role does the obligation of the army’s obedience to its
leadership play in respect to establishing military discipline amongst its individuals?

A - The meaning of “At-Taa’ah” (Obedience):

The following was stated in “Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer”: “And obedience does not exist except as a result of
a command (Al-Amr) just like the answer does not exist unless there is a statement (preceding it). It is
said: He commanded him so he obeyed. Ibn Faaris said: If he follows through with his command (Amr)
then he has obeyed him and if he agrees with him he has conformed with him” (1).

Al-Qurtubiy said in his Tafseer: “The true reality of At-Taa’ah (obedience): Compliance to the command
(Amr) just like the ‘Ma’siyah’ (disobedience) is the opposite of it and means violating or transgressing the
command (Amr). At-Taa’ah (obedience) is derived from “َ‫اع‬ َ ‫( ”أ َط‬Ataa’a) if he follows and yields (Inqaada)
and Al-Ma’siyah (disobedience) is derived from “‫صى‬ َ ‫‘( ” َع‬Asaa) if he becomes hard or intransigent
(Ishtadda) …” (2).

[(1) “Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer”: p144, (2) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaami Qur’aan”: 5/261].

This is the meaning of “At-Taa’ah” (obedience): Imtithaal Al-Awaamir (compliance and obedience to
commands) and responding affirmatively to the matter commanded that the one issuing the command
wants.

B - The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to the obedience (At-Taa’ah):

What is intended by obedience in our context is the obedience to the systems, laws and commands issued
from the leaderships of the army to the individuals who are subservient to those leaderships, whether it is
regarding that which is related to the management of the affairs of the army at the time of peace or the
management of the affairs of battle and fighting at the time of war. What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in
respect to this obedience?

The answer: The Hukm is Al-Wujoob (obligation).

The Daleel (evidence) for that is the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

As for the Qur’aan, then the Daleel for the obligation of the meant obedience is the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ ْ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَأَطِ يعُواَاللَّـ َه ََوأَطِ يعُواَالرَّ سُو َل ََوأُول‬

َ‫ِيَاألم ِْرَمِن ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
 O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you (An-Nisaa’: 59).

Concerning the Hukm (ruling) of “At-Taa’ah” (obedience), Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “The ‘Ulamaa
have held a consensus (Ijmaa’) upon its obligation in other than the Ma’siyah (act of disobedience to
Allah) and that it (i.e. obedience) is Haraam in the Ma’siyah. This Ijmaa’ (consensus) was transmitted by
Al-Qaadiy ‘Iyaad and others” (1).

And he also says when explaining the intended meaning of “Uoli l-Amr” (Those in authority) in respect to
whom obedience is obligatory according to dictates of the previous Aayah: “The ‘Ulamaa’ said: The
intended meaning of “Uoli l-Amr” are those whom Allah has made obligatory obedience to from among
the Wulaah (governors) and ‘Umaraa (leaders). This is the view of the majority of the Salaf and Khalaf
from the Mufassireen, Fuqahaa’ and others. And it has also been said: (That it refers to) the ‘Ulamaa …”
(2).

And the following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “And Ash-Shaafi’iy outweighed as strongest the first
view (i.e. that the intended meaning of Uoli l-Amr, are those Umaraa’ (leaders or rulers) and not the
‘Ulamaa’ (scholars)). And he used as evidence for that, that the Quraish did not know (the concept) of
‘Imaarah (leadership) and they did not follow an Ameer. Therefore, they were commanded to obey those
who had been given authority and as such he ‫ ﷺ‬said:

‫يريَ َف َق ْدَأَ َطا َعنِي‬ َ َ ‫ط‬

ِ ‫اعَأ َِم‬ ََ َ‫َمنْ َأ‬
Who has obeyed my Ameer has obeyed me (Agreed upon)” (4).

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 8/30, (2) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 8/30, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/254. And
the Hadeeth: Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 7137, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/111 and in Saheeh Muslim: 1835, 3/1466].

The above is related to what has come in the Qur’aan indicating to the obligation of obedience to the
“Uoli l-Amr” … As for what has come within the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah related to this matter, then the
Nusoos (texts) are numerous and they include:

What was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: “From Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with him, who
said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫َر ْأ َسه‬
َ‫َُز ِبي َبة‬ َ َّ‫َحبَشِ يٌّ َ َكأَن‬ َ ‫ُواَوأَطِ يع‬
َ ‫ُواَوإِ ِنَاسْ ُتعْ ِم َلَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َعبْد‬ َ ‫اسْ َمع‬
Listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin (1) was appointed over
you (as a ruler, Waaliy) (2).

And what was recorded in Saheeh Muslim, as narrated by Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him,
from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫ِيرَ َف َق ْدَأَ َطا َعن‬

ِ ْ‫ِيَو َمنََْ َيع‬
َ‫ص‬ َ ‫ىََّللا ََو َمنْ َيُطِ ع‬
َ ‫َاألم‬ َ َّ ‫ص‬ َ َّ ‫اع‬
َ ‫ََّللا ََو َمنْ َ َيعْ صِ نِيَ َف َق ْدَ َع‬ َ ‫َمنْ َأَ َطا َعنِيَ َف َق ْدَأَ َط‬
ِ
‫صانِي‬ َ ‫األَ َِم‬
َ ‫يرَ َف َق ْدَ َع‬
Whoever has obeyed me has obeyed Allah and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah and
whoever obeys the Ameer (leader) has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the Ameer (leader) has
disobeyed me (3).

In light of this, Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy indicated that the “Uoli l-Amr” refers to the people of political
authority and that is whom the ‘Ulamaa have held a consensus (Ijmaa’) upon the obligation of obedience
to them. This has been expressed in many statements attributed to them:
- In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, in relation to the Hukm of obedience to the Uoli l-Amr, the
following was stated:

“The Fareedah (obligation) of obedience is Thaabitah (firmly established) by a definite text” (4).

- And in the “Haashiyah” of Ibn ‘Aabideen:

“The Imaam should examine the army when it is entering into Daar ul-Harb (the land of war) … And to
write their names and to appoint over them someone who has insight into the affairs of war and its
management, and even if it is from the Mawaaliy (slaves), it is obligatory upon them to obey him, because
going against (or disobeying) the Ameer is Haraam, unless the majority agree that he represents a Darar
(harm) in which case, he is pursued …” (5).

- And in “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, of Al-Maawardiy and his counterpart Al-Farraa’, it was stated that
there are a number of matters that the individuals or members of the army are bound by in respect to the
Ameer that has been appointed over them. The following was stated:

[(1) “It is said that this similarity was presented due to the small size of his head and that was well-known in respect to the
Habashah (Abyssinians) and it is said: It was because of the blackness. And it was said: Due to the shortness of the hair and its
tight curls” “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/187, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 7142, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/121, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1835,
3/1466, (4) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 1/165, (5) “Al-Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/361].

“First: Bound to obedience to him and to enter into his Wilaayah (i.e. under his authority and caretaking)
… Second: To entrust the matter to his opinion and entrust to his management (of affairs) … Third: To
hasten to comply to his command and refrain upon his forbiddance and prevention because that is
included within the necessities of obedience to him. If they refrain from what he commanded them with
and proceed upon that which he forbade them from, then it is for him to discipline them for the violation
according to their circumstances and he does not do that with severity or harshness …” (1).

The above relates to the Hum Ash-Shar’iy in respect to the obedience.

C - The role that the obligation of the army’s obedience to its leadership plays in respect to
establishing military discipline amongst its individuals

There is no value or worth to an army unless a military code of discipline prevails over it … It is that
discipline that is established, according to experts in military affairs, upon: “Obedience and sound
conduct, even in the absence of commands, without the need for a supervisor, in all condition” (2).

As such, the obedience to the systems of the army and its laws was not merely a recommended matter and
if it had been like that, then it would have not produced the sought-after discipline and order. Rather, that
obedience represented an obligatory matter, in respect to which there was no Rukhsah (i.e. permission to
leave it) … That is as the obedience to the “Uoli l-Amr” was made in respect to all fields including the
field of the army whilst Al-Jihaad has been connected to the obedience of Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla and the
obedience to His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬.

In addition, the matter, in respect to every Muslim, is that the matter which defines his conduct or his
behaviour in respect to any activity that he practises in life, is his concepts that he holds in his mind
concerning that activity in addition to the dispositional feelings that his heart holds towards it. These
feelings and those concepts only generate within the Muslim that he should adopt the Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah which regulate and organise his conduct in the practising of his activities and his belief that
those Ahkaam alone represent the Wahiy (divinely inspired revelation) from Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla, which is
manifested in what came within the Kitaab and the Sunnah, and what they have guided to …
[(1) “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p48 and similar with a slight difference in “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-
Farraa’: p3031, (2) “Al-Madkhal Fi l-Aqeedah Wal Istraateejiyah Al-‘Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah” (And introduction into the belief
and strategy of the Islamic military), Chief of Staff: Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen ‘Ali Mahfoozh: p291].

Consequently, upon that basis, the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to the obligation of the individuals or
members of the army obeying their leaderships, is connected to their minds and emotions by the Islamic
Aqeedah. It is not strange or odd in such a case, that this Hukm Ash-Shar’iy would fulfil its role in
generating the military discipline based upon obedience and sound conduct, in the case where this
discipline, at the end of the day, is what the Islamic Aqeedah has dictated to those who believe in it.

However, when gaps or deviations from this discipline are observed, they are treated according to the
flaws that led to there appearance. If the flaws were in the Aqeedah (belief), then the area of Imaan of the
person is treated … And if the flaws were due to the existence of heedless or reckless outbursts or the
whispers of Shaytaan etc. then its treatment would be by the imposition of a deterring punishment … In
conclusion, the military discipline represents a fundamental matter within the army and there should be no
neglect in respect to it. And it is sufficient, for its establishment or generation to be assured, for the
obedience to represent an obligation (Waajib) in the Shar’a just like the obligation of the Salaah, and that
this Waajib is what has been dictated by the Islamic Aqeedah. Consequently, if flaws arise in the keeping
to this order and discipline, a treatment is provided, according to the explanation above.

2 - The Second Point: Who is it obligatory to obey within the Islamic army?

The obedience, according to the ruling system in Islaam, is only obligatory to the Khalifah of the Muslims
or their Imaam … And he is the one who has assumed the political authority according to the Shar’iy
method.

In Saheeh Muslim, it is related from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
said:

َ.‫ِيَو َسََت ُكونُ َ ُخلَ َفاءَُ َف َت ْك ُث َُر‬

َ ‫َخلَ َفهَُ َن ِبيٌّ َ َوإِ َّنهَُالََ َن ِبيَّ َ َبعْ د‬ َ َ‫تَ َب ُنوَإِسْ َرائِي َلَ َتسُو ُس ُه ُمَاألَ ْن ِب َياءَُ ُكلَّ َماَ َهل‬
َ ٌّ‫كَ َن ِبي‬ ْ ‫َكا َن‬
َ َّ َّ‫َح َّق ُه ْمَ َفإِن‬
‫ََّللاَ َسا ِئلُ ُه ْمَ َعمَّاَاسْ َترْ َعا ُه َْم‬ ََ ‫طو ُه ْم‬ ُ ْ‫واَب َب ْي َعةَِاألَ َّو ِلَ َفاألَ َّو ِل ََوأَع‬
ِ ُ‫َف‬:‫ل‬ ََ ‫َ َف َماَ َتأْ ُم ُر َنا؟َ َقا‬:‫َقالُوا‬
Banu (the children of) Israa'eel were ruled over (or their political affairs were taken care of) (1) by
the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no further
prophet. But, there will be Khulafaa’ and they will be numerous. His Companions asked: What
do you order us to do? He said: Fulfil the Bai’ah (pledge of obedience) to them, the first and then
the first (2). And give them their due rights (i.e. obey them), for verily Allah will question them
about that which they He had entrusted to them (3).

The Haqq (right) that is obligatory to be given to the Shar’iy Khalifah is what faithfulnees to the Bai’ah
(pledge) dictates and that is “At-Taa’ah” (obedience).

[(1) This (Tasoosuhum) means: That they assumed the caretaking of their affairs just like the Umaraa’ (rulers) and Wulaah
(governors) do in respect to the subjects. And As-Siyaasah means: Undertaking a matter in a manner that is suitable and good
for it …” Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 8/39, (2) The meaning of the Hadeeth: If the Khalifah is given the Bai’ah
(pledge) after another Khalifah, then the first Bai’ah is valid (Saheeh) and must be faithful to it whilst the second Bai’ah is
invalid (Baatil) and it is Haraam to be faithful to it and it is Haraam for him to seek it, whether those who were aware of the
first contract contracted it or were ignorant of it, or whether they were in two lands or one land, or one was in the land of an
independent detached land and the other was in another land …” Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 8/40, (3) Saheeh
Muslim: 1842, 3/1471-1472. Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3455 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/495].

Also recorded in Saheeh Muslim is the narration reported from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr who said that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:
 َ َ‫َحقّاَ َعلَ ْيهَِأَنْ َ َي ُدلََّأ ُ َّم َتهَُ َعل‬
َ‫ىَخي ِْرَ ََماَ َيعْ لَ ُمهَُلَ ُه ْم ََو ُي ْنذ َِر ُه ْمَ َشرَّ َ َماَ َيعْ َل ُمهَُلَ ُه ْم‬ َ ‫إِ َّنهَُلَ ْمَ َي ُكنْ َ َن ِبيٌّ َ َق ْبلِيَإِالََّ َك‬
ََ ‫ان‬
َ‫از ُعهَُ َفاضَْ ِربُوا‬ ِ ‫َآخرَُ ُي َن‬
َ ‫َجا َء‬ َ ْ‫اعَ َفإِن‬ َ ‫َِو َث َم َر َةَ َق ْل ِبهَِ َف ْليُطِ عْ هَُإِ ِنَاسْ َت َط‬
َ ‫ص ْف َق َةَ َي ِده‬َ َُ‫َ َو َمنْ َ َبا َي َع ََإِ َماماَ َفأَعْ َطاه‬...
َ ‫ُع ُن َق‬
َ‫َاْلخ ِر‬
It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew
was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them … And whoever has
given the Bai’ah (pledge) to an Imaam, having given him the grasp of his hand and the fruit of
his heart, must obey him to the best of his ability. Then if another comes disputing his authority,
then strike the neck of the latter (1) (2).

Consequently, it is the Imaam of the Muslims or their Khalifah who has hold of every authority in the
land and included within that is the authority of the leadership of the army. That is according to what the
restriction of the obligation of obedience to the person of the Khalifah or the Imaam, in an unrestricted
or absolute (Mutlaq) form, indicates to, within the legally legitimate limits, naturally. And that obligatory
obedience is general to cover all fields which encompasses the leadership of the army; whether that is in
relation to the fighting against the enemy externally or in respect to the fighting undertaken internally
against those who have deviated or rebelled against the authority. In this regard, it was related in both Al-
Bukhaariy and Muslim, from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
said:

ِ ‫َِو ُي َّت َق‬

َ‫ىَب ِه‬ َ ‫اَاإل َما ُمَ ُج َّنةَ ُي َقا َتلَُمِنْ ََو َرا ِئه‬
ِ ‫إِ َّن َم‬
Verily, the Imaam is a shield; he is fought behind and protection is found in him (3).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said in his explanation of the Hadeeth: “The Imaam is a shield (Junnah): i.e. a
covering because he prevents the enemy from harming the Muslims and he prevents the people from
harming each other, he protects the lands of Islaam, the people fear him and his authority. And the
meaning of: “He is fought behind”: It means that the disbelievers, rebels, Khawaarij and all of the people
of corruption (Fasaad) fight with him and he is victorious over them. And the meaning of protection
being found in him: It means that they are protected from the evil of the enemy by him and the evil of the
people of Fasaad (corruption) and Zhulm (oppression), absolutely” (4).

Based upon this, the real leadership of the army in Islaam belongs to the Khalifah of the Muslims. He is
the high commander of the armed forces, in actuality and not in name only (or symbolically). It is he who
appoints or removes those who assume this matter of that matter on his behalf, in respect to the affairs of
the army and Al-Jihaad, just like the situation was in the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the era of the rightly
guided Khilafah.

[(1) “Its meaning is: repel the second because he is rebelling against the Imaam. Then if he is not repelled except by war and
fighting, then fight him and if the need necessitates killing him, then killing him is permitted. His life is not assured because he
is an aggressing or hostile Zhaalim (oppressor) as manifested in his fighting” Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 8/43,
(2) Saheeh Muslim: 1844, 3/1472-1473. “And the grasp of his hand is a Kinaayah (metaphor) for the Bai’ah (pledge) and ‘Ahd
(covenant) … And the fruit of his heart: Is a Kinaayah (metaphor) for the sincerity in respect to the covenant that was given to
him” “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 4/68, (3) Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 2957, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/116. Saheeh Muslim: 1841, 3/1471, (4)
Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 8/39. Also refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/116].

However, just as it is obligatory for obedience in the army to be given to the high commander (i.e. the
Khalifah of the Muslims), it is similarly obligatory for the obedience in the army to be given to those who
the Khalifah appoints as commanders and Umaraa’ (pl. of Ameer), to act on his behalf, within the limits
that have been provided to them in terms of affairs and mandatory powers or jurisdiction (1). And when
the Khalifah issues his decision to remove this or that person from amongst the commanders of the army,
that removed commander becomes stripped of any authority over those who were previously under his
command. It is therefore not permitted for any of them (i.e. those who previously submitted to the
authority of the removed commander) to continue in his obedience, if Shaytaan whispered to such a
commander to undertake a rebellion against the legitimate authority.

However, in the situation where it is not possible for there to be Qaa’id (commander) or Ameer for any
section of the army who had been appointed by the Khalifah or the one who had been delegated by the
Khalifah to appoint others, just like what occurs normally upon the battle fronts in respect to some of
commanders being martyred … In this situation, it is a duty upon this section of the army to choose a
commander from amongst them to lead them and manage their affairs. It is obligatory, then, to obey this
Ameer of Qaa’id (commander) as if he had been appointed from those higher in the chain of command
from amongst the commanders and ‘Umaraa who had been given the right to appoint others. Indeed, it is
as if he had been appointed with this matter by the highest echelons of authority which is the Khalifah
himself. That obedience continues until a command comes affirming him in that position or to change
him … This has been indicated to in relation to what happened at the Ghazwah of Mu’tah after the
martyrdom of the three commanders who had been appointed by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to lead the army, one
following the other.

Under the heading: “That chapter of who is appointed as an Ameer in war without being given a
command”, the following was related in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: Anas Bin Maalik said that the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬addressed us and said:

َ‫َث َّمَأَ َخ َذ َها‬،

ُ ‫ب‬ َ ‫اح َةَ َفأُصِ َي‬
َ ‫َر َو‬ ِ َّ ‫َث َّمَأَ َخ َذ َهاَ َع ْب ُد‬،
َ ُ‫ََّللاَبْن‬ ُ ‫يب‬ َ ِ‫اَجعْ َفرَ َفأُص‬
َ ‫َث َّمَأَ َخ َذ َه‬،
ُ ‫يب‬َ ِ‫َزيْدَ َفأُص‬
َ ‫أَ َخ َذَالرَّ ا َي َة‬
‫َغي ِْرَإِم َْرةٍَ َففَُ ِت َحَ َعلَ ْي َِه‬ ْ ُ‫َخا ِل ُدَبْن‬
َ ْ‫َال َولِيدَِ َعن‬
Zaid received the flag (Raayah) and was martyred, then Ja`far took it and was martyred, then
`Abdullah bin Rawaahah took it and was martyred, and then Khalid bin Al-Walid took it without
being appointed, and Allah gave him victory … (2).

And in another narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy, it was stated:

َّ ‫َح َّتىَ َف َت َح‬

َ‫ََّللاَُ َعلَي ِْه ْم‬ ِ َّ ِ‫َح َّتىَأَ َخ َذَالرَّ ا َي َةَ َسيْفَمِنْ َ ُسيُوف‬
َ ‫ََّللا‬
Until a sword from among the swords of Allah took hold of the Raayah (flag) until Allah gave
them victory (3).

The following came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ibn ul-Munayyir said: It is taken from the Hadeeth
of this chapter (i.e. subject area), that the one who is appointed to a position of authority (Wilaayah),
whilst it was not possible to return back to the Imaam, that the Wilaayah (authority) is affirmed for that
appointed person according to the Shar’a and it is obligatory to obey him as a Hukm, this is what was said.
And it is not concealed that his position is such when those present have agreed upon him” (4).

[(1) “Badaa’i Wa s-Sanaa’i”: “If an Ameer is appointed over them then they are charged to obey the Ameer in that which he
commands them with and forbids them from … That is because he is the deputy of the Imaam and the obedience to the
Imaam is necessary and similarly obedience to him is because it represents obedience to the Imaam”: 7/99, (2) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 3063, 6/180, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4262, 7/512, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/180].

- And in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah, the following came mentioned: “And if the Imaam dispatches
an army and appointed an Ameer over them but then he was killed or died, then it is for the army to
appoint one of them, just like the companions of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did in respect to the army of Al-Mu’tah,
when the Ameers whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had appointed were killed and they appointed Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed over them as their Ameer. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was informed of this and was pleased with its and
approved of their opinion. And Khaalid was named that day “Saifullah” (The sword of Allah)” (1)

The above is related to whom it is obligatory to obey within the Islamic army.
3 - The Third Point: The Shar’iy and Fiqhiy texts explaining the limits of the obligatory
obedience and the (type of) obedience which is prohibited.

- Numerous Shar’iyah texts have come setting the outline or frame that the Muslims must abide by in
respect to what they obey in relation to the regulations and commands issued to them from the Wulaat ul-
Amr (rulers). If those systems and commands exit from that Shar’iy outline or frame that has been set, the
obedience is prohibited and it is obligatory to go against it and be disobedient.

Included among those Shar’iy texts is what came recorded in Saheeh Muslim under the heading: “Chapter:
The obligation of obeying the Umaraa’ (leaders) in other than the Ma’siyah (disobedience) and its
prohibition in relation to the Ma’siyah (act of disobedience)” just as it was also recorded in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

‫ال ََأَنََُيؤَْ ََم ََرََِب ََمعَْصَََِي ٍَة‬ ََ َ‫اَأ‬

َ َّ ِ‫حبَََّ ََو ََك َِرََهََإ‬ ََ َ‫ع َُة‬
َ ‫عَلَىَالمرَْ َِءَالمسَْلَِ َِمَفَِي ََم‬ ََّ ‫س َْم َُعَ ََو‬
ََ ‫الطا‬ ََّ ‫ال‬
Hearing and obeying is a duty upon the Muslim person in what he likes and hates unless he is
commanded with a Ma’siyah (i.e. act of disobedience to Allah) (2).

However, it could be that the commander or Ameer who was appointed to take command or assume
leadership is disliked by those submitting to his authority; either due to a deviancy in his personal conduct
and his having committed Haraam acts, or it could be because his status is not respected in the eyes of the
people due to not having certain noble origins, or something similar, according to what the people have
agreed upon based on certain societal considerations, for example. Or it could be that he makes his
subordinates undertake loathsome matters.

Concerning this, I say: The Qaa’id (commander) of the Ameer could be disliked by those under his
authority for some of these reasons or all of them combined … However, in spite of that, it is not
permitted to oppose or disobey this commander or Ameer in respect to what he issues to them in terms
of systems, regulations, instructions and commands, as long as these do not clash with the Shar’a and the
undertaking of it is considered to represent a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience to Allah).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/374, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 7144, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/121-122. Saheeh Muslim:
1839, 3/1469].

The following came related in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim concerning this: Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ ‫ار َق‬
َ ‫َال َج َما َع َةَشِ بْراَ َف َم‬
َ ‫اتَ َفمِي َتة‬ َ ‫ِيرهَِ َشيْئاَ َي ْك َر ُههَُ َف ْل َيصْ ِبرْ َ َفإِ َّنهَُ َمنْ َ َف‬ َ َ َ ْ‫َمن‬
َ‫َجا َِهلِيَّة‬ ِ ‫َرأىَمِنْ َأم‬
The one who saw from his Ameer something which he dislikes, he must remain patience, for
verily, the one who separated from the main body (Jamaa’ah) (i.e. of the Muslims) by a hand
span and then he died, he would die the death of Jaahiliyah (pre-Islamic time i.e. sinful) (1).

Also related in Saheeh Muslim from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫ك ََوأَ َث َرةٍَ َعلَي‬

َ‫ْك‬ َ ‫ك ََو َم ْك َر ِه‬
َ ِ‫ك ََو َم ْن َشط‬ َّ ‫كَال َّسم َْع ََو‬
َ ‫الطا َع َةَفِيَعُسْ ِر‬
َ ‫ك ََويُسْ ِر‬ َ ‫َعلَ ْي‬
You must listen and obey him, in hardship and ease, in pleasure and displeasure, and when
preference is given over you (2).
In the Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim, the following was stated as commentary upon the above
Hadeeth:

“The ‘Ulamaa said: Its meaning (i.e. the last Hadeeth) is that it is obligatory to obey the Wulaat ul-Amr
(rulers) in that which brings hardship or discomfort and the inner self dislikes (undertaking) and other
than that which is not a Ma’siyah (sinful disobedience to Allah). If it is a Ma’siyah, then there is no hearing
and obeying, as was made clear in the remainder of the Ahaadeeth. Therefore, these Mutlaq (unrestricted)
Ahaadeeth indicating the obligation of obeying the Wulaat ul-Amr (rulers) are understood in line and
conformity with those Ahaadeeth stating that there is no gearing and obeying in respect to the Ma’siyah”.
And Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy continues in his explanation of the last Hadeeth saying: “And the “Athrah”
(preference) means the preoccupation and focus on the affairs of the Dunyaa i.e. Hear and obey even if
the Umaraa’ (rulers) are focused upon the Dunyaa and do not deliver your rights from that which they
have in their possession. These Ahaadeeth emphasis the hearing and obeying in all situations (or under
any circumstances). And the reason for that is: To unify the word of the Muslims because the difference
or disagreement is the cause for the corruption of their condition and situations in the Deen and the
Dunyaa” (3).

- Also related in Saheeh Muslim: Yahyaa Bin Husain related from his grandmother Umm ul-Husain. He
said: I heard her saying. I performed Hajj with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in the farewell pilgrimage and
he said:

‫َُوأَطِ يعُوا‬ ِ ‫َأَسْ َو ُدَ َيقُو ُد ُك ْم‬-َ‫ت‬

ِ َّ ‫َب ِك َتاب‬
َ ‫ََِّللاَ َفاسْ َمعُواَلَه‬ َ ‫إِنْ َأُم َِّرَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬
ْ َ‫َ َحسِ ْب ُت َهاَ َقال‬-َ‫َعبْدَم َُج َّدع‬
If a amputated slave is appointed a commander over you - the narrator says: I think she said:
“black” - who leads you by the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey him (4).

And also in Saheeh Muslim: Abu Dharr said:

َ ‫صانِيَأَنْ َأَسْ َم َع ََوأُطِ َي َع ََوإِنْ َ َك‬

َِ‫انَ َعبْداَم َُج َّد َعَاألَ ْط َراف‬ َ ‫َخلِيلِيَأَ ْو‬
َ َّ‫إِن‬
My friend instructed me that I should listen and obey and even if it was to a slave whose limbs
had been amputated (5).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 7143, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/121. Saheeh Muslim: 1849, 3/1477, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1836, 3/1467, (3)
Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 8/32, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1838, 3/1468, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 1837, 3/1467].

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: ““Mujadda’ Al-Atraaf” means: amputated and what is intended is: The
lowest of slaves (by perception) i.e. Hear and obey the Ameer even if he was of the lowest lineage or
decsent and even if he was a black slave with amputated limbs, because obedience to him is Waajib
(obligatory)” (1).

And Ibn Qudaamah stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “And if the Qaa’id (commander) is known that he drinks
alcohol or acts unfaithfully, the Ghazwah is still undertaken with him. That is only in respect to himself.
And it has been related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

َِ ‫لَالََفا‬
‫جر‬ َِ ‫ج‬ ََ ‫َّللاََلََُي ََؤَِّي ََدَ ََه ََذاَال َِّد‬
َُ ََّ‫ينََِبالر‬ ََ َََّ‫َإِن‬
Verily, Allah will support this Deen by the corrupt man (2) (3)”.

Concerning this, some incidents have come related in the Prophetic Sunnah indicating to the condemning
the obedience to what the military leadership issues of commands which are contrary to Islaam and
approving of those submitting to the authority of that leadership to disobey those commands. That is,
whilst preserving the leadership, naturally, with its right in respect to the obedience of those under their
authority to remain, in relation to all that which does not fall under the commands which are contrary to
Islaam. The command contrary to Islaam from amongst his commands is therefore that alone which it is
not permissible to obey him in (whilst obedience continues in other than that contravention of the Shar’a).

The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim related to this: ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased
with him said: The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a military unit (for some campaign) and appointed a man
from the Ansaar as its commander and ordered them (the soldiers) to obey him. (During the campaign) he
became angry with them and said: “Didn't the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬order you to obey me?” They said: “Yes”.
He said: “I have decided that you collect firewood, make a fire and then throw yourselves into it”. So they
collected wood and made a fire, but when they were thinking about throwing themselves into, they started
looking at each other, and some of them said: “We followed the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to escape from the fire.
How should we enter it now?” So, while they were in that state, the fire extinguished and their
commander's anger abated. The event was mentioned to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and he said: “If they had entered
it (the fire) they would never have come out of it, for obedience is required only in what is good
(Al-Ma’roof)” (5).

[(1) Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 8/34, (2) Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 3062, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/179. In Saheeh Muslim:
111, 1/106, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/371, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 7145, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/122, (5) Saheeh
Muslim: 1840, 3/1469].

In respect to what came regarding the explanation of the aim of the Ameer of the expedition in this
incident when commanding his group to throw themselves into the fire: “He did not mean or intend that
they enter the fire in reality but rather only wanted to point out to them, through that, that the obedience
to the Imaam is obligatory and whoever leaves that obligation will enter the fire (of hell). If it is hard for
them to enter into this fire, then what about the great fire (of hell)! He intention was that if he saw from
them any seriousness that they would enter the fire, that he would prevent them from doing so”! (1).

Concerning the condemnation of those on whose mind was obedience to follow this command which
contravened Islaam, the following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” when commentating upon the statement
of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “If they had entered it they would never have exited from it”. The following was
stated: “It means: That entering it represents a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience to Allah) and the
‘Aasiy (disobedient) deserves the fire. And it is (also) possible that the meaning is that if they entered it
(believing it Halaal) they would never get out of it (i.e. the fire of Jahannum). That is because they had
perpetrated that which they had been forbidden from in terms of killing themselves. And it is possible,
and according to what is apparent, that the pronoun is attached to the actual fire (i.e. of this Dunyaa) that
was lit for them (i.e. they would not exit the fire that they had lit). i.e. They believed that if they entered
due to obedience to their Ameer, it would not harm them. And so the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬informed that if they
had entered the fire they would have burned, died and not exited … This includes (i.e. in terms of
understanding and benefit): That the absolute command does not encompass all situations or
circumstances because he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded them to obey the Ameer, so that this command be carried
upon the generality of all situations and even the situation of anger and in the situation of being
commanded to commit a Ma’siyah (act of disobedience to Allah). And so he ‫ ﷺ‬made clear to them that
the command to obey is restricted to that which is not a Ma’siyah” (2).

I say: It is clear from this incident, from what was mentioned concerning it in terms of comments that
shed light upon it and from what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said commenting upon the incident, it is clear from all of
that: That Islaam supports those who go against the commands of the leadership when those commands
are from that which the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah does not approve of or condone. That is as the text has
guided to: “And he said to the others a good word”.

- Islaam condemns blind obedience to those commands that are contrary and opposition to the Shar’a and
it warns and threatens those who go ahead upon that with a bad destination or end, as was indicated to in
the text: “If they had entered it they would never have exited from it”. And that Islaam has placed a
constant principle in respect to the legally legitimate obedience and that is:

َِ‫ع َُةَفَِيَالمعَْ َُروف‬ ََّ ‫َإََِّن ََم‬،‫َّللا‬

ََ ‫اَالطا‬ َ َ‫ع ََةَفَِيَ ََمعَْصَََِي َِة‬ ََ َ‫ال‬
ََ ‫طا‬ ََ
“There is no obedience in the disobedience of Allah. Verily, obedience is only in respect to the Ma’roof
(good)”.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 13/123, (2) Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/60].

It may also be beneficial here to quote some passages from the book “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh
(explanation)” which make clear to us some of the situations which the army is exposed to linked to the
affairs of war, Qitaal and entering the land of the enemy ... That is when the leadership issues, concerning
that, some instructions and commands, and the views between the leadership and those subservient to
their authority differ regarding those instructions and orders. What then is the Shar’iy conduct in relation
to those situations and commands? When is the obedience obligatory? And when is it obligatory to
disobey?

- The following was stated within the above-mentioned book: “And when the military enter Daar ul-Harb
(the land of war) for Al-Qitaal, by the Tawfeeq of Allah. The he commands them with a matter of war; if
there is a Manfa’ah (benefit) for them in what he commanded them with, then they must obey him …
And the obedience to the Imaam in respect to abstaining or refraining from the Qitaal good be better than
a lot of fighting. It could be that, that which is apparent which the soldier depends upon guides him to a
matter (or judgment) whilst the matter differs in the view of the Ameer. And he doesn’t see the
correctness to follow what appears to be the truth of the reality according to the general masses of the
soldiers! As such, they must obey as long as he doesn’t command them with a command that they fear will
lead to their destruction according to the opinion of the majority of their collective, in which they have no
doubt regarding it. Therefore, if the situation is like that, there is no obedience due to him from them …
But if the people disagree over that matter and some of them say: “It will lead to destruction”, whilst
others say: “It will lead to being saved”, then they obey the Ameer in respect to that … Unless he
commands them with an apparent or evident (Zhaahir) matter which the fact that it will lead to
destruction is not concealed from anyone (i.e. it is obvious) or if he commands them with a Ma’siyah
(disobedience to Allah). In such circumstances, there is no obedience due upon them in respect to that.
However, they must remain patient and not rebel against their Ameer … And if the Ameer calls that so
and so and his regiment be on the right flank and so and so and his regiment take the front, and so and so
and his regiment take the left flank, and so and so and his regiment take the rear, then none of them
should leave the position or placing that he has been commanded to be in. That is because this is related
to the good management associated to the affair of war and its benefit only manifests in its obedience …
And if the Imaam commanded them not to leave their positions and forbade them from assisting one
another, then they should disobey him, even if they were safe and secure in their side but feared for the
others. That is because the obedience to the Imaam is Fard upon them by way of definite evidence, whilst
what they fear is imagined. As they say: “Most of what is feared, does not (actually) come to pass!” The
original position in respect to is what was related about the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanding the archers on the
day of Uhud to stay in their place and to not depart from their positions. Then, when they looked to the
Mushrikeen, when they had been defeated, they left their positions seeking to obtain the spoils of war or
booty (Ghaneemah), and then the defeat of the Muslims came from their position (1). Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ُّون‬ َ ‫ِيَاألَم ِْر ََو َع‬

َ ‫صَْي ُتمَمِّنَ َبعْ دَِ َماَأَ َرا ُكمَمَّاَ ُت ِحب‬ ْ ‫ازعْ ُت ْمَف‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰىَإِ َذاَ َفشِ ْل ُت ْم ََو َت َن‬
Until (the moment) you flagged and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He showed you (of the booty) which
you love (Aali ‘Imraan: 152)”.

[(1) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4043, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/349].

Then he said: “And there is no problem for the abstaining group to go out to fodder their riding animals,
without the permission of the Waaliy, so that they fodder and then return, due to the presence of the
indicated meaning of the permission. That is because the Imaam drew them to that place (or position)
whilst knowing that they will need to fodder and that it represents a hardship upon them to bring the
fodder from Daar ul-Islaam and that there does not exist in Daar ul-Harb those whom they can purchase
it from … And if the caller of the Ameer calls to them to forbid them from leaving to fodder, then the
people of force and others should not leave (i.e. their positions) because the indicated permission ceases
to exist by the expressed forbiddance. And there could possibly be some examination in respect to this
forbiddance, although the Imaam should dispatch a people for that … And after the Waaliy forbade the
people from leaving if they were afflicted by the necessity in respect to the foddering and they feared for
themselves or their animals, whilst they didn’t find anything to purchase, then (in such a scenario) there is
no problem for them to go out in search of fodder, and that is because the situation of the Daroorah
(necessity) represents an exception from the dictates of the command. And the Daleel for that is His Qawl
Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ْ‫إِ َّالَ َماَاض‬

َ‫ط ِررْ ُت ْمَإِلَ ْي ِه‬
Except for that you have been compelled to (undertake) it (Al-An’aam: 119) …

And I do not view it as preferred that when they go to a town (i.e. in search of feed and fodder) for one
man alone to enter it! That is because there could be a people concealed who then kill him. Rather, a
number capable and ready to engage in fighting enters the town, then if there is anybody in it, they will be
aware of each other. This is due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫اَث َباتٍَأَ ِوَانفِر‬

‫ُواَجمِيعا‬ ُ ‫ُخ ُذواَح ِْذ َر ُك ْمَ َفانفِ ُر َو‬
Take your precaution and [either] go forth in companies or go forth all together (A-Nisaa’: 71).

And if the Ameer forbade the Muslims from cutting trees or demolishing buildings, then they should not
disobey him in that because within this forbiddance there is the possibility of examination for the Muslims
and this prevention is from the matters of the war. And if he forbade them from fighting, then they
should not disobey him as long as a harm (Darar) or a Ma’siyah (disobedience to Allah) is brought. The
same applies if he forbade them from these characteristics …” (1).

I say: The above represented some forms of the different situations that the army used to be exposed to in
its military and war affairs, in respect to what used to happen in the past.

That is whilst it is clear that in the modern times, regardless of the changing of many matters related to the
affairs of the army and battle, a lot of what the fighters are exposed to are situations that resemble those
forms of the past or are close to them in nature …

“Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/165-178 and refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/393-394].

Upon that basis, the text that was presented is beneficial in respect to throwing light upon knowing when
obedience is obligatory? And when going against it is obligatory? That is so that analogy can be made with
the new situations upon those of the past mentioned above, without the need to go into detail of that.
With those words we have come to the conclusion of the first study of the first chapter and now proceed
on to the second study, by the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.

The Second Study

 The right of the Qaa’id (Commander) to exclude whom he views, by his presence,
to represent a harm within the ranks of the army

We will address this study through a discussion of the following points:

1 - The First Point: The value of the army in Islaam and the necessity of protecting it from any harm
becoming attached to it or from being a cause of it.

2 - The Second Point: Purifying the army from any corrupting elements and protective measures to
prevent it being taken as a means to harm.

1 - The First Point: The value of the army in Islaam and the necessity of protecting it from any
harm becoming attached to it or from being a cause of it.

- The army represents the shield that protects the Muslims and their lands from foreign aggression. It
represents the iron fist that eliminates the elements of evil, corruption and internal Fitnah (strife). It is the
military machine that raises the Raayah (banner) of Al-Jihaad to break the material obstacles preventing
the arrival of the Islamic Da’wah to other lands and accomplishing its objective.

It is the shield that protects the Islamic ruling system from attempts at deviation being made or coups
against it being undertaken. It represents the power that guarantees the implementation of this rule and
deters the forces or powers that attempt to disrupt it. It is the firm stick that is raised above the head of
those revolting against the ruler or those who have designs to attain the authority by other than the legally
legitimate manner. It represents the tool that is relied upon for the establishment of the State if it is
removed, to preserve it when it is established and to restore its unity if has become divided and
fragmented, and it represents the guarantor of this unity against the attempts to make divisions and
separations.

In summary, the Islamic Ummah represents the life of the Ummah in its description as an Islamic
Ummah; in respect to its political existence, whether upon the local level inside the Islamic lands, or the
international or global level in respect to international relations. The importance and significance of the
army is therefore evident as it represents the power through which all of the above-mentioned roles are
fulfilled.

It is also understood from this, the great danger that is posed to the Ummah, the State and the Da’wah,
when there exists in the army or elements have infiltrated it which represent a source of evil and
corruption. Elements which work to weaken it, or deviate it away from the tasks that are obligatory for it
to fulfil, or attempt to plunge it into matters that will bring harm to it and the Ummah which depends
upon its protection, in addition to the State which relies and rests upon it for its power and for the
Da’wah that it believes in and proceeds in the lands under its Raayah (banner).

For this reason, it is from amongst the most important of obligations for the one who manages and takes
care of the affairs of the Muslims, as well as it being the obligation of every Muslim, to protect this army
from any factors that will attach harm to it or make it a tool for attaching harm to the Muslims or the
State that they belong to and the Da’wah that they carry.

Concerning this, we have made this responsibility, of purifying the army from any elements which could
represent a source of harm within it, to be the Haqq (right) of the Qaa’id (commander or leader), as was
indicated to in the heading of this current study, although it is not Waajib upon him, as is Zhaahir
(apparent) … That is not to negate the obligation of undertaking this responsibility, but rather to make
clear that the Qaa’id (commander or leader) or one possessing the reins of authority, is the one who
weighs between the harm resulting from the presence of particular persons within the army and between
the Maslahah (interest) resulting from their remaining in it … Based upon that weighing, he takes his
decision by dismissing them from the army or retaining them within it … This Haqq (right), in respect to
taking the decision, returns to him upon the basis of the preponderant Shar’iyah Maslahah (interest).

Consequently, it is more appropriate to use the word “Haqq” (right) in respect to this issue … If,
however, the Darar (harm) is dominant, in respect to what we are addressing, then the Hukm (legal ruling)
of removing the source of this harm is Wujoob (obligation), without question, in accordance to the noble
Hadeeth:

َ َِ‫ض َر َر ََو َالَض‬

َ‫رار‬ َ َ‫َال‬
There is no harm and no harming (1).

And in accordance to the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah: “The Darar (harm) is removed” (2).

[(1) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2340-2341, 2/784. And Ash-Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaaniy said that it is Saheeh: “Saheeh Ibn
Maajah”, Al-Albaaniy: 2/39, (2) “Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p83 and “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Dr.
Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p98].

Despite that, it is not hidden that the army (Jaish) is only made up of humans and not angels. Therefore, it
contains that which exists amongst humans in terms of weakness from which deviations, whether small or
large, arise. It is not possible for any army in the world to be completely free from these deviations and
even the army that existed in the blessed time of the Prophetic era and the period that followed in the
time of the rightly guided Khilafah. Thar army was not completely free of such deviations and their
existence was not considered to represent a danger upon it threatening its entity, as long as its leadership
did not see in that a great harm which called for the taking of decisive measures and as long as they were
treated and dealt with by appropriate remedies. To provide some pictures of those deviations we will
mention the following incidents:

- In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam concerning what took place at the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah, it was
reported that when the Islamic army breached Makkah that they came across a young girl whist she was
rushing with her blind father to her house before being stamped upon by the horses … That girl was a
sister of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and that man was Abu Qahaafah, Abu Bakr’s father …

Asmaa’ Bin Abi Bakr said: “The girl had a ring (or necklace) of silver around her neck and a man came
across her and snatched it from her neck. She said: Then when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬entered
Makkah and entered the Masjid … Abu Bakr stood and took his sister by her hand and said: “I call by
Allah and Islaam for the necklace of my sister”. Nobody responded and she said: He said: “O little sister,
sacrifice your ring (for anticipation of reward), for verily the Amaanah (trust) amongst the people today is
little!” (1).

- And from what was reported about the Ghazwah of Hunain, shortky after the conquest or opening of
Makkah, the following came mentioned: “Abdur Rahman Bin Al-Azhar said: I saw the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬in the year of the Fat’h (i.e. conquest of Makkah), whilst I was a youth, asking about the station of
Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed (i.e. asking him about the leadership headquarters in the battle of Hunain). And
so he came with someone who had been drinking alcohol and so they beat him with what was in their
hands. There were some who beat with a whip, some with sandals and with a stick whilst the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
cast dirt (or dust) upon him …” (2).
[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam, from Ibn Is’haaq with a Saheeh Sanad: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/91, Also refer to “Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id”: 6/173-174. Al-Haithamiy said: Rijaaluhu Thiqaat (its transmitters are reliable), (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah:
18792, 14/504].

- Also, during the time of the Prophethood: “’Abu ‘Aamir Al-Ash’ariy said: I went out on a Sariyyah
(military mission) and Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas was with us. We set down at a pot and a young man from us
said that he wanted to fodder (i.e. feed) his animal (1). Ibn ‘Aamir said to him: Don’t do that until you
have sought permission from our companion, meaning Abu Mousaa Al-Ash’ariy, whilst they were a troop.
And so he sought his permission and Abu Mousaa said to him: “It seems that you may be intending to
visit your family?”. He said: No. He (the relator) said: And so the young man set off and went to his
family staying with them for four nights before returning! Then Abu Mousaa asked him: “Did you go to
your family?” He replied: “I didn’t!”. Abu Mousaa: “You will tell me”. He replied: “I didn’t!” He (Abu
Mousaa) said: “You will tell me the truth!” He said: “I did do it!” And so, Abu Mousaa said to him: “Then
you have proceeded into the fire and have made your family fall into the fire, and have advanced towards
the fire. So, (now), resume the work!” (2) (3).

- In the era of the Khilafah Ar-Raashidah, the following came concerning what took place during the
conquest of Egypt: “Junaadah Bin Abi Umayyah related that he was with ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas in Alexandria.
He commanded the people: “Do not fight”. Then a rabble from the people started a commotion and so
they fought amongst each other. ‘Amr saw them and said: “O Junaadah! Watch the people that none of
them are killed whilst he is disobedient!” Then when Junaadah approached Amr watched over him and
called to him: “Was anyone from the people killed?” He said: “No”. And so he said: “Al-Hamdu Lillah!”
(4).

These are some of the incidents in which highlight violations of soldiers during the era of the
Prophethood and the Rightly Guided Khulafaa’ when the committed Haraam acts, departed from the
code of discipline and disobeyed commands of the leadership. However, despite that, it appears that the
Maslahah in respect to keeping them within the army was outweighed to be stronger than removing them
from it. As such, the leadership did not adopt the measure of dismissing them in spite of the number of
violations that those violators perpetrated. It was even mentioned by the author of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
“That Al-Gulool (5), as we see it, existed more in the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬than other
times due to the large number of Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) and Arab Bedouins who would fight with him
whilst they were people of Ghulool” (6).

[(1) This is referring to seeking the fodder or animal feed from its locations. Ibn Qudaamah said: “He (the soldier) does not exit
the camp for foddering, which is to attain the fodder for the animals, or for anything else, except with the permission of the
Ameer …”, “Al-Mughniy”: 10/393, (2) this means: Start your work again from the beginning because what you have done in
the past has fallen or been negated due to your disobedience to the commands of the leadership and lying to it!, (3) Sunan
Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2392, 2/193-194. “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: 14383, 5/785-786, (4) Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2495, 2/195, (5)
Al-Ghulool: Treachery in respect to the taking of spoils: “Talibat ut-Talabah”: p166, (6) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1209].

I say: It may that what I mentioned in terms of the Maslahah, which was the secret behind the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
retaining the Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) within the Jaish (army), despite the manifestation of the Darar
(harm) arising from their presence within it, under the leadership of their chief Abdullah Bin Ubayy Bin
Salool, due to the conspiracies they hatched and the strife they instigated in addition to what they spread
amongst the ranks of the army in terms of demoralisation and demolishing the high level of spirit within
it. Concerning this the Fuqahaa’ provided reasoning for why the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sought to keep the chief of
hypocrites in his army in some of the Ghazawaat whilst the harm of his remaining was manifest. It was
stated in “Al-Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “He ‫ ﷺ‬only brought out Abdullah Ibn Ubayy Bin Salool in the
Ghazawaat (military expeditions or battles), whilst he was the head of the Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) and
demoralisation arose from his presence, because the Sahaabah were those who were strong in the Deen
and were not affected by his acts of demoralisation and what was similar to them or because he ‫ ﷺ‬had
been made aware of his actions through the Wahy (divine inspiration) preventing him from being harmed
by his schemes” (1). Concerning the explanation of the angle of the Maslahah (interest) of remaining silent
over the hypocrites, in respect to what we are discussing, the following was stated in “Ahkaam us-
Sultaaniyah”: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬overlooked the Munaafiqeen, even though they were
adversaries to the Deen, and applied upon the Hukm (ruling) according to what was apparent, so that
their power was strengthened, their number was increased and the force was completed by them …” (2).

Consequently, when the Islamic leadership takes hold of the reins of the matters with strength and the
conspiracies being hatched against it and the Muslims are not concealed from the leadership or the
corrupt elements that are threading the threads of those conspiracies, whilst the leadership is capable of
foiling them and dealing with its culprits, then in such a situation, it is the right of the leadership, in
accordance to the interest (Maslahah) to expel those corrupt elements from the ranks of the army or to
retain them is the Maslahah lay in their remaining, whilst pursing and following them up, naturally, with
the appropriate treatment …

If, however, the Darar (harm) is seen to be serious or out of control, the evil aggravates and becomes
serious and danger is foreseen …. Then, it is necessary, in such circumstances, to deal with the matter
before it is too late. That is by undertaking decisive measures eliminating the corrupting elements from
having an impact or causing an effect … so that the remainder of the army is safe from the corruption
and harm.

In addition, the harm that the corrupting elements can cause within the army can either afflict the army
itself and that is as a result of deviant behaviour leading to the spread of the occurrence of the deviation
or violations in a contagious manner amongst the army’s ranks, or the harm could afflict, in addition to
that, the Ummah, her entity and her Da’wah, and that would occur if those elements became dominant
and took over the army or over regiments or sections from it …

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/221, (2) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p37 and
similar to that in “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p25].

Then, with the power that they had gained control over they could attempt to usurp the authority to
implement its deviant direction or make the authority fall under its controlling influence so that it
becomes a puppet in their hands, directing it as they wish according to their desire, whether in domestic
politics or external politics …! Based upon this, it is obligatory to take protective measures to prevent any
of these dangerous and serious results from taking place and this is the subject of our discussion within
the following point.

2 - The Second Point: Purifying the army from any corrupting elements and protective measures
to prevent it being taken as a means to harm.

In the discussion of the first point we have pointed to the issue of corrupting elements within the army
which attach or bring harm to it. Just as we have pointed to elements that influence the army so as to
interfere in politics; not with the intended aim of correcting the situations if they have deviated and then
returning back to the barracks soon after … but rather with the aim of maintaining control over the rule
directly or from behind the veil, for the purpose of securing specific interests of some parties or to
implement plans and schemes which are harmful to the Ummah, her entity and her Da’wah.

This is the issue or reality that we highlighted within the discussion of first point and it is not our intended
purpose here to examine those corrupting elements which bring harm to the army as a result of their
corruption.
And it is also not our intended purpose to elaborate in detail about the dangerous and serious
consequences that result from the army entering into politics far-detached from their primary role and
tasks.

Rather, the intended purpose here, is to bring attention to the danger of neglecting the purification of the
army from the corrupting elements which attach and bring harm to it and to the Ummah … when the
Maslahah makes such a purification necessary.

After that preamble, it is now a good time to mention some of those corrupting elements which the
Fuqahaa’ have mentioned and which they have urged to be removed from the army.

Ibn Qudaamah said in “Al-Mughniy”: “The Ameer does not take the one who lets down or demoralises
with him: He is the one who hinders or holds back the people from undertaking the Ghazw (expedition
or battle) and makes them abstain or dislike to go out to meet them and undertake Al-Qitaal and Al-
Jihaad. It is like the one who says: There is severe heat or cold, severe hardship and defeating this army is
not secured or assured and so forth …”. “And the one who spreads rumours and arouses fear: Like the
one who says: The expedition of the Muslims has been destroyed, they don’t have reinforcements, they
have no strength or power over the disbelievers, the disbelievers have strength, reinforcements, patience
and no one can stand firm against them and so on …” “Nor the one who assists against the Muslims by
spying for the disbelievers and informing them about the weak points of the Muslims; writing to them
about the news of the Muslims and indicating to their defects or weak points or giving shelter and
sanctuary to their spies… Nor the one who stirs hostility amongst the Muslims and strives to corrupt, due
to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َّاَزا ُدو ُك ْمَإِ َّال‬

َ‫َخ َباال‬ َ ‫َخ َر ُجواَفِي ُكمَم‬
َ ‫﴾َ َل ْو‬٤٦﴿َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َال َقاعِ د‬ ْ ‫َّط ُه ْم ََوقِي َلَا ْق ُع ُدواَ َم َع‬
َ ‫َُانب َعا َث ُه ْمَ َف َثب‬
ِ ‫َولَ ٰـكِنَ َك ِر َهَاللَّـه‬
ْ ‫ضعُواَخ َِاللَ ُك ْمَ َي ْب ُغو َن ُك ُم‬
‫َالفِ ْت َن ََة‬ َ ‫أل ْو‬ َ َ ‫َو‬
But Allah disliked their being sent, so He kept them back, and they were told: “Remain [behind] with those who remain”.
Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in trouble and confusion (1), and they would have
been active among you (2), seeking Fitnah (strife and dissension) (3) for you (At-Taubah: 46-47).

… And because those represent a harm upon the Muslim and so they must be prevented (from joining)”
(4).

The above is what relates to some of the elements which use the army to bring harm to it or harm bring
harm against the Islamic State, the Da’wah that it carries, the system that it governs by or the ruler in it.
Our Islamic history is full of these types of affairs and their associated grief and ills however discussing
them here would divert us from our topic.

It is sufficient here, to acknowledge that what the Islamic Ummah suffered from across its lengthy history
and what it suffers from now in our present day, which we have previously alluded to, represented one of
the most important causes enabling some of the elements within the army to reach dangerous central
positions of leadership which brought no good to the Muslims…

In this way, one single state was fragmented and divided into small statelets and the rulers became puppets
in the hands of those in the army or the army itself became the actual rulers.

The Da’wah to Islaam via Al-Jihaad then came to a halt and many of the manifestations of the Islamic life
were effaced or erased from the lands whilst many of the manifestations of Kufr (disbelief) were imposed
over the people. The Islamic system was marginalised and removed from the rule and replaced systems
that the disbelievers and colonialists brought …
[(1) ““Al-Khabaal”: Al-Fasaad (corruption), An-Nameemah (sowing of dissension), causing dispute and spreading rumours i.e.
They have not increased your strength but have sought Al-Khabaal (i.e. a lot of trouble)”, Tafsser Al-Qurtubiy: 8/156, (2) “Its
meaning: That they hastened to bring or spread corruption amongst you”, Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/157, (3) “Its meaning: They
want Fitnah (dissension, discord and strife) for you i.e. to corrupt, ruin and incite…”, Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 8/157, (4) “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/372. Also refer to: “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/230, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/221,
“Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p37, “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p44, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-
Jassaas: 4/319-320 and “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/166].

It might be that from the most prominent examples of the harm enabling elements that were raised within
the army and then used the army to strike at Islaam and the Muslims, is what the Turkish military leader
did at the end of the Era of the Ottomans, Mustafaa Kamaal, when he usurped the authority from the
Khalifah and then declared the abolishment of the Islamic Khilafah.

- Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy said concerning this matter: “The Salaateen (i.e. plural of Sultaan)
of Aali ‘Uthmaan (Ottomans) kings who practised a lot of repression or ill-treatment … However, their
claim to the Khilafah contains an admission that the lofty or respected post or position remained carrying
the meanings that is dependent upon. And it is a duty upon those who desire reform to remove them
from it so as to bring better than them in place of them. As for the Hukm (ruling) passed upon it (i.e. the
post of the Khilafah) and against them with the death sentence, then that has no justification for it.
However, the Turkish commander Mustafaa Kamaal decided to expel the Khalifah Sultaan Abdul Majeed,
not because he had fallen below the level of his post, but rather because Mister Mustafaa had agreed with
the European states to remove the Khilafah itself from Turkey!” (1).

And the following came stated in the book: “The Khilafah State”:

“And it has been confirmed for all within the Islamic world that Mustafaa Kamaal, the foolhardy (or
reckless) commander, does not want anything apart from glory and authority for himself and that he will
eliminate the glory of the Khilafah permanently and make it a mere memory and trace from the traces of
history. Those who supported him yesterday have begun to free and dissociate themselves from what he
has done and are going over the top to cast blame and censure upon him and attacking him inside and
outside Turkey … It has become clear for all to see that Mustafaa Kamaal is on his way towards
abolishing the Khilafah permanently and indeed with all manifestations of the Deen in Turkey. As such,
two large delegations, made up of people of opinion in Egypt and India hastened to urge Mustafaa
Kamaal to appoint himself as the Khalifah! However, he refused that stubbornly and resolvedly. And on
the 3rd of March 1924 he presented a decree to the National Assembly for the abolition of the Khilafah
and the expulsion of the Khalifah in addition to the separation of the Deen from the State” (2).

[(1) The book “Kifaah Deen”, Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p118, (2) “Dawlat ul-Khilafah” (The State of the Khilafah), Dr.
Abdur Rasheed Abdul ‘Azeez Saalim: p189-190. And refer to “Al-Khilafah Fil Hadaarah Al-Islaamiyah” (The Khilafah in the
Islamic civilisation), Dr. Ahmad Ramadhaan Ahma: p132-133 and “The Grey Wolf - Mustafaa Kamaal”, Captain H.S
Armstrong: p200].

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy said: “And some may ask: Why did this commander (or leader)
refuse to become the Khalifah of the Muslims? Does that not represent a sign of his pure hatred towards
that system and his feelings of the necessity to get rid of it?” (1).

I say: From what has been mentioned, it becomes clear to us, that from amongst the calamities that the
Muslims drew upon themselves, was their negligence in respect to cleaning their Islamic army from its
doubtful or suspicious elements, in terms of soldiers and commanders, leaving them to climb up to the
positions of high leadership, to then, after that, taking control over its direction according to the manner
that they desire and wish …

This reiterates to us that from amongst the most important obligations upon the officials in the Islamic
State is to undertake a constant and vigorous monitoring of the army and its leaderships and to purify it
from all elements that arouse suspicion; whether that is due to their personal behaviour or conduct which
indicates to a weakness of their loyalty to Islaam and the Muslims, or due to the thoughts and inclinations
they carry which are far from Islaam and the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam.

From another angle, the harm or danger that is brought by the army could also be anticipated to arise due
to other than the reason of the presence of corrupting elements between its ranks … Rather, there could
exist within it outstanding leadership personalities which draw power or strength around them or attract
large sections of the army due to the strength of their influence and impact. This by its nature could lead
the Shayaateen of men from inside and outside to take these personalities as a means to entice those who
have a grasp over the reins of the authority to overthrow the legally legitimate (Shar’iyah) authority or to
take control over the rule or impose specific political or policy directions … or what is similar to that.

However, it is possible that those who hold the keys to that power are from those who are the furthest
away from such thinking and yet the possessor of the authority (i.e. ruler) could view, in spite of that, that
it is a better precaution to cut the path from the beginning to any whispers (i.e. of Shaytaan) of this type,
which some could use to move towards reaching some goals that they have … Consequently, there is no
harm in the ruler resorting to taking appropriate protective measures … either by transferring those
military leaders from the sections which have become drawn to them and which they have become central
to … or by secluding them from the mandatory powers of the general leadership within the army they are
in … or other measures … even if the matter dictates removing them permanently from the army so as to
protect and preserve the highest Maslahah (interest) of the Muslims. It is possible that this was one of the
reasons that motivated ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, to remove some of the
notable Sahaabah from the armies which were sent out to make conquests outside of the Arabian
Peninsula and to keep these Sahaabah back in Al-Madinah.

[(1) “Kifaah Deen”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy”: 122-123].

The following was stated in the “History of At-Tabariy”: “Hasan Al-Basriy said: ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab
hindered the major Sahaabah of Quraish of the Muhaajireen to leave to go to the lands except with his
permission and for a set period of time…! Muhammad and Talhah said: Then when ‘Uthmaan assumed
the rule he did not follow the same course as ‘Umar and so they (the Quraishiy Sahaabah) travelled
through the (conquered) territories. As they saw (these lands) and the things of this world (al-Dunyaa),
and as the people in turn saw them, those who were obscure and without power or privilege in Islam
attached themselves to (the notables of Quraysh), forming into factions around them. They aroused their
hopes, and in this manner, they acquired precedence. Then they said: “(The Quraysh) are powerful, and
we will become known to them and acquire precedence by gaining access to them and attaching ourselves
exclusively to them”. That represented the first weakness (and flaw) to enter Islaam and the first discord
(Fitnah) to appear among the common people … related from Ash-Sha’biy who said: By the time that
‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, had died the Quraish had become weary of him as he had confined
them to Al-Madinah … and he said: “The matter that I fear the most for this Ummah is your being
dispersed across the (conquered) lands”. If one of the Emigrants confined to Al-Madinah sought his
permission to go on campaign and he ('Umar) had not restricted other Meccans in this manner, he would
say to them: “You have obtained your reward by your military campaigns with the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬. It is better for you to avoid entanglement in worldly affairs than to go on campaign now”. Now
when ‘Uthmaan assumed the rule, he freed them from such restrictions. They betook themselves to the
conquered territories, where the people attached themselves to them. Therefore (the Quraysh) preferred
(‘Uthman) to ‘Umar! … related from Muhammad and Talhah who said: A year of the leadership of
‘Uthmaan had not passed except that the men of Quraish had begun to acquire wealth from the
conquered territories and the people became attached to them. This continued for seven years and each
people loved for their master to assume the rule …!” (1).
Also, what we have mentioned in terms of fears could be counted to be from amongst the host of reasons
that also led ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab to remove Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed from the general leadership of the
army that was opposing the Romans in the lands of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) and to hand that
leadership to the noble Sahaabiy Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah, may Allah be pleased with him (2).

[(1) History of At-Tabariy: 4/396-398. Refer to “Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantawiy and his brother:
p324-325, “’Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab Wa Usool us-Siyaasah Wa-l-Idaarah Al-Hadeethah”, Dr. Suleymaan Muhammad At-
Tamaawiy: p271, “Al-Idaarah Al-Islaamiyah Fee ‘Izz il-‘Arab”, Muhammad Kurd ‘Ali: p34-35 and “Al-Khulafaa Ar-
Raashidoon”, Abdul Wahhaab An-Najjaar: p292-293, (2) Reefer to “Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-
Tantawiy and his brother: p716 and “Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed”, Muhammad As-Saadiq ‘Arjoon: p218+].

Concluding statement:

The Jaish (arm) represents the fortress of the Ummah and the Ummah must preserve and take care of it
so that it can preserve and take care of her. And from the most important of the responsibilities of the
rulers of the Muslims is to protect and safeguard it from any harm afflicting it and to curb and prevent any
harm that could arise … By that we conclude the second study of this chapter and now move on to a new
study by the Tawfeeq of Allah Ta’Aalaa and His help.

The Third Study

The Huqooq (rights) of the Fighters

After we have become aware of the right of the Qaa’id (commander or leader) in respect to the obedience
and his Haqq (right) or Waajib (obligation) in respect to removing elements which are seen better to be
removed from the Islamic army, after having become aware of that, we now move on to become aware of
the rights of the fighters within this army. That will be addressed within the set framework of this chapter
which is dealing with the treatment of the individuals of the Islamic army, in light of the war policy that
the leadership have set, in relation to undertaking war against the enemy, in accordance o what the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah dictate concerning this matter. That is clear from the heading of this fifth chapter
and means that the subject of study is restricted to the way, upon the basis of which, the fighters have a
right to be dealt with and treated whilst they are marching to the fronts for the sake of warfare and then
plunging into its perils and brushing the dust from their shoulders… When they undertaking all of this,
what are the rights that the leadership must provide to those fighters, from that which falls within this
mentioned framework?

As such, the issue of the Ghanaa’im (spoils and booties), how to deal with them or anything similar to
that, is not included in the subject area of our study, and therefore we will not occupy ourselves in
discussing those matters. We will suffice with the discussion about the most significant or important rights
that are obligatory to be provided to the fighters in terms of the manner of treating and dealing with them
in respect to the caretaking of their affairs, the tasks that they have been commissioned with, the
relationship between them and the leadership and other matters that leave a good effect within the breasts
of the fighters, so that they can give their best in terms of energy and capability in Al-Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah. We will address this study through the discussion of two points:

1 - The First Point: A presentation of the most significant of what the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned in
relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the Huqooq ul-Jaish (rights of the army) or rights of the fighters.

2 - The Second Point: Further detail upon some of what the Fuqahaa’ mentioned in relation to the rights
(Huqooq) of the fighters within the Islamic army.

1 - The First Point: A presentation of the most significant of what the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned
in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the Huqooq ul-Jaish (rights of the army) or rights of
the fighters.

Concerning the right of the fighters in respect to choosing the commander or leader (Qaa’id), who is
appointed over them, well, in terms of qualifications or aptitude that he is characterised with and which
will manifest in the caretaking of their rights and not them being lost … concerning this, the following
was stated in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: “As far as the explanation of the responsibility of the Imaam when he
dispatches the army or an fighting group (Sariyyah) for Al-Jihaad: Then we say and with Allah is the
Tawfeeq: He is charged to undertaking some matters: they include appointing an Ameer over them …
And from them is that he appoints over them an Ameer who is knowledgeable of the Halaal and Haraam,
is just, knowledgeable of the faces of the policies and aware of the managements of war and its causes …
Also included amongst them is that he (the Imaam) exhorts him to have the Taqwaa of Allah ‘Azza Wa
Jalla, in relation to himself, and to treat those who are with him in a good manner. This was related from
the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, that when he dispatched an army he would exhort him with the Taqwaa of
Allah in respect to himself and to deal with those accompanying him in a good manner …” (1) (2).

Concerning the same matter, the following came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “When the Imaam
dispatches a Sariyyah (military party or expedition), whether little or large in number, he must not dispatch
them until he has appointed an Ameer over them from some of them … He should appoint for that
someone who is aware of the matter of war and has good skills of management over that and not
someone who will plunge them into calamities or someone who will prevent them the taking of the
opportunity when they see it … If the Ameer has no awareness or vision (or foresight) in respect to that
then he should have an assistant appointed alongside him to provide him with such awareness and vision
… If he (the Imaam) does not appoint an assistant for him, then the Ameer calls a group from amongst
the Sariyyah (expeditionary or military party) who have such awareness and vision so that he consults with
them … Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ََ
َ‫يَاأل َْم ِر‬َِ‫اورَْ َُه َْمَف‬ ََ ‫ََو‬
َِ ‫ش‬
And consult them in respect to the matter (Aali ‘Imraan: 159) (3).
It could happen that the leadership for the army be chosen badly or poorly. If that does occur, it doesn’t
mean that it is permissible for the army to oppose or disobey those leaders and rebel against them. Rather,
as explained in the previous study, the obligation of obedience to them continues and the Jihaad under
their Raayah (banner). It is not allowed to oppose or disobey him except in the case of the Ma’siyah
(disobedience to Allah) or the case of Ad-Darar (the harm) (4).

[(1) The Hadeeth that is being indicated to is the Hadeeth of Buraidah in Saheeh Muslim: 1731, 3/1357, (2) “Badaa’i As-
Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/99, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/61-63, (4) Refer to Sunan Abu Dawud: 2627, 3/58 and
“Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”, Al-Albaaniy: 2287, 2/498].

In respect to that, the following was mentioned in “Al-Mudawwanah” of Al-Imaam Maalik: “Maalik said:
I do not see a problem that Jihaad is undertaken against the Romans with those Wulaah (governors,
leaders or rulers) … Ibn Qaasim said: I said to Maalik: O Abu Abdullah! They do this and they do that!
He replied: That does not affect the matter of the armies. And what are the people (themselves) doing?!”
(1).

Similar to what came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, concerning the good selection and choice by
the Imaam of those whom he appoints to the leadership of the army, the following was also stated in “Al-
Umm” of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy: “… And he does not command them with a holey protection that is
feared to be broken from under it … nor any other causes for calamities to befall. If the Imaam does that
then he has acted badly and seeks forgiveness of Allah and there is no ‘Aql (blood money) (2), no Qawad
(Qasaas i.e. equal retribution for injury or death) (3) and no Kaffaarah (expiation), if one of the Muslims
are afflicted (with harm) as a result of obedience to him. He said: Similarly, he does not command a small
number of them with the task of the many in the situation where there is no aid for them. He does not
oblige anyone from them to undertake other that the Fard (obligation) of Al-Qitaal and that is for the man
to fight two men, and does not task him beyond that. And if he burdens them to undertake that which he
does not have the right to burden them with, then they don’t have to do it …” (4). And Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy also said, concerning that which the leadership should not undertake, which belittles the rights of
the fighters: “And the Imaam doesn’t have the right to hold them back or detain in respect to the
Ghazwah (i.e. hold them back in the land of the enemy). If he holds them back then he has acted badly
and it is permissible for all of them to disobey him and return! And if a group of them obey him and
remained and then some of them wanted to return, then they didn’t have the right to return apart from
those who stayed behind from them, remaining in their positions, whilst the fear in respect to them is not
severe…!” (5).

And in “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah” by Al-Maawardiy, he mentioned that the Ameer of the army must
undertake a number of matters in respect to the army:

1 - “Guard them from surprise raid from which the enemy attacks or defeats them”.

2 - To choose for them the location of their setting down or camp to fight their enemies” i.e. That the
leader of the army draws the enemy army to a place of battle that will be most suitable and advantageous
for the army of the Muslims to enable them to fight and not allow for the army to be drawn to a place of
battle that the enemy has imposed upon it.

[(1) “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 2/5, (2) “Al-‘Aql”: Ad-Diyah i.e. blood money “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer:
3/278, (3) “Al-Qawad”: Al-Qasaas (law of equal retribution for death of injury), (4) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/69, (5) “Al-
Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/165].

3 - “To prepare all that the army requires in terms of supplies and provisions and fodder (to feed the
animals), which is distributed amongst them at the time of its need. That is so that they content with their
material needs where they have no need to demand it and so that they can be more focused upon the war
and more capable of confronting the enemy”.
4 - “That he (the Ameer) strengthens their morale with that which provided them with the feelings of
attaining victory and makes them perceive the causes of victory”.

5 - “To promise the people of patience, perseverance and those being tested from amongst them with the
reward of Allah if they are from the people of the Aakhirah (hereafter) and the attainment of recompense
and surplus or extra from the booty, if they are from the people of the Dunyaa. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ْ ‫اب‬
‫َاْلخ َِرةَِ ُن ْؤ ِتهَِ ِم ْن َها‬ َ ‫اَو َمنَي ُِر ْدَ َث َو‬ َ ‫َو َمنَي ُِر ْدَ َث َو‬
َ ‫ابَال ُّد ْن َياَ ُن ْؤ ِتهَِ ِم ْن َه‬
And whoever desires the reward of this world - We will give him thereof; and whoever desires the reward of the Hereafter -
We will give him thereof (Aali ‘Imraan: 145)”.

6 - “And he should consult the people of opinion in respect to that which is problematic. Allah Ta’Aalaa
said to his Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫ْتَ َف َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ ِه‬ َ ْ ‫اورْ ُه ْمَف‬

َ ‫ِيَاألم ِْرََۖ َفإِ ََذاَ َع َزم‬ ِ ‫َو َش‬
And consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah (Aali ‘Imraan: 159).

He commanded him to seek their consultation in respect to war so that the correct opinion settles for him
and then he works in accordance to it. This is the view of Al-Hasan …” (1).

Also, concerning this matter, the following was stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah: “The Ameer
must be kind with his army and march with them according to the pace of their weakest so that he does
not bring hardship upon them but if the need arises to pick up the pace, it is permitted for him to do so.
That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬picked up the pace rapidly when the statement of Abdullah Ibn Ubayy
reached him:

َ‫اَاألَ َذ َّل‬
ْ ‫َاألَ َع َُّزَ ِم ْن َه‬
ْ َّ‫لَي ُْخ ِر َجن‬
Indeed, those of more honour will expel the most low (or least honourable) from it (i.e. Al-Madinah) (Al-Munaafiqoon: 8)
(2).

He did that so as to preoccupy the people from delving into it … And the Ameer does not incline
towards those who follow the same Madh’hab as him or share lineage against those who don’t, so that he
does not break their hearts and then they let him down at the time when he needs them … and he should
frequently consult those of opinion from his companions and provide the choice for camping to those
who know best …” (3).

[(1) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p43 and similar to that can also be found in “Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah” by Al-
Farraa’: p28-29, (2) Soorah “Al-Munaafiqoon” (The hypocrites) Aayah 8. That was in relation to the Ghazwah of “Al-
Mustaliq”. Refer to Seerah of Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/7, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/392].

I say: As cane be seen above, the Fuqahaa’ presented speech around the subject of the rights of the
fighters within the Islamic army, within the context of the discussion about the Ameer who the Ameer
should choose to be the commander of the army and then what the commander should undertake in
relation to taking care of the affairs of the fighters. With that, we have reached the conclusion of the
discussion of the first point and now come to the second.

2 - The Second Point: Further detail upon some of what the Fuqahaa’ mentioned in relation to
the rights (Huqooq) of the fighters within the Islamic army.
We will now present detail for some of those rights (Huqooq) due to their great importance.

A - The preservation and safeguarding over the lives of the soldiers:

Concerning the value of this Haqq (right) and its impact upon realising and accomplishing the victory, one
of the modern leaders of war said: “The leader who pays the utmost attention and care to the preservation
of the lives of his men is capable of accomplishing the victory with the least amount of losses in lives.
That is because he attains the trust of his troops and by that they follow him based on belief and a deeply
rooted trust (or confidence)” (1).

Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-deen An-Nabahaaniy, when explaining the status of the soldiers within the State and
the necessity of preserving and safeguarding them, said: “It is obligatory upon the Khalifah to value or
accredit the high status of the military personnel within the State. Whether, that is in terms of the defence
of the lands or in respect to the initiation of fighting against the disbelievers. As such, it is obligatory upon
him and upon the entire Ummah to safeguard the military forces just like a person looks after his own
eyeball” (2).

In addition, it is an obvious matter, that he doesn’t mean by the preservation or safeguarding of the lives
of the troops or military forces, that they are completely kept away from engaging in warfare, so that they
are not exposed to danger … Rather, what is intended is that war is not resorted to except in light or
consideration of the following matters:

Firstly: Engaging in warfare is inevitable in accordance to the reasons for the declaration of Al-Jihaad in
Islaam, as has been explained in detail previously.

[(1) “Introduction to the Islamic military belief (doctrine) and strategy” p: 374. The speech above is attributed to Montgomery
and he was a famous British military man from the Second World War. “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The political dictionary):
p1271 (2) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah” (The Islamic Personality): 3/139].

Secondly: That the decision to engage in war be after the preparation of the power and force (Quwwah)
that strikes fear into the enemy, as much as possible. That is as Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُد َّوَاللَّـه‬
َ‫َِو َع ُد َّو ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َال َخي ِْلَ ُترْ ِهب‬
ِ ‫ُون‬ َ ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوة‬
ْ َِ‫ٍَومِنَرِّ َباط‬
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah
and your enemy (Al-Anfaal: 60) (1).

That is in the case where, after the preparation of this terrifying force, the enemy is left with two choices,
and each of them realises for the Islamic army the preservation and safeguarding of the lives of its
fighters, as much as possible:

- Either, the choice of war, after the terror or fear associated from the Islamic force has accomplished its
aim within the breasts of the enemy and consequently are defeated with the least amount of losses.

- Or, the choice of peace negotiations and responding affirmatively, in the end, to the demands of the
Muslims, to that which is in the Maslahah (interest) of the Islamic Da’wah and the interest or benefit of
humanity as a whole. And as a result, the lives of the fighters are safeguarded.

Thirdly: Not to expose the Muslims to ventures that do not return a major benefit to the Muslims.

Fourthly: That proceeding upon war to smooth the path before the Da’wah does not happen until after
the evaluation of attaining victory in it has been made.
Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, in respect to what is obligatory upon the Imaam of the Muslims, in this regard,
said the following: “It is obligatory upon him to enter the Muslims into the lands of the Mushrikeen in the
times when the Muslims will not be deceived in it and when the attainment of victory over the enemy is
hoped for” (1). And for the sake of this aim as well i.e. the aim of preserving and safeguarding the lives of
the soldiers ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, used to write to his ‘Ummaal
(governors): “Do not appoint Al-Baraa’ Bin Maalik (2) over an army from amongst the armies of the
Muslims” (3). That was because his daring to plunge into dangers and risks was immense. As such, if the
leadership was placed into his hands he may lead the army into actions that they cannot possibly be
successful in and escape from.

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/168, (2) He was the brother of Anas Bin Maalik “Al-Isaabah”: 1/147-148, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar
Al-Kabeer”: 1/62].

And ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, due to his deep and great concern for the
lives of his soldiers used to say: “And by the One in whose hand is my soul, it does not please me that you
open a town containing 4000 fighters at the cost of one Muslim” (1).

There is no surprise or astonishment that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, had the
greatest concern for the lives of his soldiers, as he was a plant that had been grown in the company of the
Prophethood, in respect to this field and all of the praiseworthy fields … It was the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬who initiated this deep concern for his soldiers from any harm that they could be exposed to from
the enemy … An example of this is found recorded in Saheeh Muslim, from among the reports related to
the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq (the trench), when a young man would “Seek the permission of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to be allowed to return to his family at midday. And so, he sought permission
one day and the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “Take your weapon with you, for verily I fear
for you from Quraizhah” (2).

The above relates to the preservation and safeguarding of the lives of the fighters within the Islamic army.

B - The good treatment of the fighters and the taking care of their affairs:

Many rights of the fighters within the Islamic army fall under this heading in accordance to the differences
in their circumstances.

- For example, a sick person could be present within the Islamic army or a wounded person who requires
specific care and attention. Concerning this, we saw in the previous study how Muslim women used to go
out with the army to treat the ill and give medical attention to the wounded, just as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to
supervise himself the realisation of this aspect from amongst the rights of the fighters.

The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had placed Sa’d
Ibn Mu’aadh in a tent inside his Masjid of a woman from Aslaam whose name was Rufaidah and she
would tend to the injured and she would take it upon herself to serve those Muslims who had been
afflicted. And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had said to his people (i.e. Sa’d’s) when he was hit by an arrow
at Al-Khandaq (the battle of the trench), to place him in the tent of Rufaidah until he comes to visit him
there soon!” (4).

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/252. Refer to Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2585, 2/226 and “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal Fee Sunan il-
Aqwaal Wa l-Af’aal”: 14327, 5/767, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 2236, 4/1756, (3) refer to the biography of Rufaidah Al-Ansaariyah or
Al-Aslaamiyah in “Al-Isaabah”: 4/295-296, (4) Seerah Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/269 and refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
7/411 and the number of the Hadeeth in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 4122].
- In addition, there could also be present within the Islamic army, the one who is weak or is overcome by
weakness and hence requires someone to pay attention to him and provide strength to his weakness. The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was not heedless of this aspect related to the caretaking of such people who
were weak.

In the Sunan of Abu Dawud it was related from Jaabir Bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him, who
said: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to fall back in the march and direct the weak forward to
catch up with the rest (1), make him ride behind a rider (i.e. himself or another) and supplicate
for them” (2).

Those of positions of responsibility within the Islamic State used to make this aspect related to caretaking
the object of their concerns. It came mentioned: “From Al-Awzaa’iy that ‘Umar Ibn Abdul ‘Azeez
instructed his governor in respect to the Ghazw (fighting) to not ride an animal except that its speed was
the same as the weakest riding animal in the army” (3).

- Just as there could exist in the army someone who has special requirements or needs and wishes to find
within his leaders, serious concern to meet what they can from those needs …

Regarding this, ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, used to instruct the commanders of his armies in respect to their
soldiers: “Do not prevent them from their rights so as to make them disbelieve and do not drive or
overburden them so as to put them on trial …” (4).

It was also related from him in relation to the organisation of the departure of the fighters to fight and
their return to their houses and families, that he said:

“The people go out to fight marching out for a month. Then they are in their battle for four months and
then return for a month. So that is scheduled for the people from their year in respect to their Ghazw
(going out to fight)” (5).

i.e. He used to divide the fighters into groups and each group should be absent from his family for more
than six months…

[(1) refer to: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn Atheer: 2/297, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2639, 3/60. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh
Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2298, 2/500, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12980, 12/331-332, (4) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12967,
12/328, (5) Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2463, 2/174].

… And when the time for a break from military service came for a group from among the fighting or
expeditionary forces or those who stand guard upon the borders (Al-Muraabatah or Ar-Ribaat) for them
to return back to their families, he would send another group to take their place and fill their positions.
That would remain for another six months and would continue as such … In this manner, there was a
system of succession or alternation amongst the fighters in respect to undertaking the obligation of Al-
Jihaad and the protection of the Thughoor (places where the enemy can attack from i.e. frontiers which
are prone to attack).

It is worth noting that this procedure or system of alternating between the fighting groups was in place
from the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and should not be neglected.

It was related in the Sunan of Al-Baihaqiy: “That an army, made up from the Ansaar, were in the land of
the Persians, with their Ameer, whilst ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, used to alternate (1) the
armies every year. ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was preoccupied for them. Then when a year
had passed, the people of that frontier returned and it was hard upon him and he made an appointment to
meet them whilst they were from the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. They said: “O Umar!
You were negligent in respect to us and left in respect to us that which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had commanded in
terms of alternating the fighters with each other” (2).

- Also, from among the most important of rights that are obligatory to be observed when dealing with the
fighters, is to provide respect to them, safeguard their dignity, avert from humiliating and degrading them
and beware of attaching any degradation or shame to them. This is what ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab reiterated
in his instruction and advice to the leaders of his armies when he said: “Do not beat the Muslims so as to
humiliate or degrade them” (3).

Despite this, the treatment of some of the leaders of the armies of the Islamic lands today, of their troops,
is distressing and is the opposite of the refined treatment that should exist … Ash-Sheikh Hasan Ayyoob,
in a compliant about that and what results from it in terms of negative consequences, said:

[(1) “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/267: “When a group went out and then returned they would not be charged to return
again a second time until another group other than them had succeeded then. This came in the Hadeeth of ‘Umar: “That he
used to alternate the armies every year”, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/29. Sunan Abu Dawud: 2960, 3/191. Al-Albaaniy said:
“Saheeh ul-Isnaad” in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2565, 2/571, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12/328, 12967].

“Some of the troops come from noble dignified families who have deeply ingrained in their manners,
Deen and lineage. Then when they join a regiment specified for them, they hear filthy and low curses and
insults from them which are not appropriate to be directed towards beasts and insects. As a result, their
morale sinks, their blood boils and they begin to think seriously about revenge against those who harm
them and are behave arrogantly with them …” (1).

I say: The dignified and honourable treatment is a right of all the soldiers in the Islamic army, regardless of
his lineage, whilst exiting from the fitting level of addressing them represents a form of discretionary
punishment over the perpetrated violations infringing the legally legitimate limits … And it is not
permissible to utilise repugnant and improper styles when addressing them with the intended aim of
breaking them inside and putting their honour and dignity to trial.

The good treatment of the leadership towards the soldiers and taking care of their affairs is not restricted
to what we have mentioned … Rather, it includes and encompasses all that must be provided to the
soldiers in terms of material and moral rights. That is so that the soldier feels his status within the army
and the Ummah, in that he represents a fundamental pillar in respect to the message that the Muslims
carry to the world and that he represents a focus of the Islamic State’s concern and regard manifested in
the head authority of the State. That is the Khalifah of the Muslims who follows up news concerning him
irrespective of how much he is concealed from the eyes …

The above just represents a small sample of what relates to the obligation of treating the soldiers in the
best manner and taking care of their rights within the various affairs of their military lives whilst they are
on the war fronts.

We will conclude the discussion concerning the rights of the fighters with the following two narrations:

- The first narration: In this narration, the Khalifah rebukes a leader of an army from among his armies
upon the Persian front for applying discrimination upon his soldiers in relation to what can be considered
to be comfort or luxury in respect to the food. Indeed, this commander was rebuked for presenting to the
Khalifah some of that from what he had kept for himself and not for the fighters, of that which was not
enough for everyone … Thus representing a matter that gives the impression of disparity in respect to the
living standards between the soldiers on one hand and the leaders and officials on another whilst the
dangerous effects of such a practise are not hidden.

[(1) “Al-Jihaad Wa-l-Fadaa’iyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Hasan Ayyoob: p146].

- The following was recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: “When ‘Utbah went to Azerbaijan he
came across a sweet delicacy. He tasted it and found that it was sweet and said: It would be good if you
were to produce something for the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen (i.e. Khalifah) from this! He (the narrator) said:
And so he made for him two great baskets and then carried them upon a camel alongside two men. He
sent them with the baskets to him. Then when they came to ‘Umar he said: What is this? He said:
Khabees! (i.e. the sweet delicacy). He tasted it and found it sweet and then said: Do all of the Muslims
satisfy themselves with this in his camp? They said: No. He (the narrator) said: And so, he returned the
two baskets and wrote to him (i.e. to ‘Uqbah):

Thereafter, verily it is not from your labour and toil, nor the labour and toil of your father or the labour
and toil of your mother. Satisfy the Muslims with that which you satisfy yourself from whilst you are in
your camp” (1).

The second narration: It relates to us the story of a man coming from the Persian war front to give glad
tidings to ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab of the conquest (i.e. victory). He stood at the door of the house of
‘Umar whilst ‘Umar did not know that he was a messenger sent by Salamah Bin Qais, one of the
commanders of the Muslims upon that front, rather, he believed him to be merely a guest visiting him …
So he invited him to enter, he entered and made sure that he was comfortable … Then ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab said to his guest as transmitted by the guest himself:

“To Allah is your father! Who are you then?” I said: “The messenger of Salamah Bin Qais”. He said: “By
Allah, it is as if you came out from his belly!” out of compassion for me and out of his love to hear the
news that I had brought from him. And he began to say whilst attacking me with questions! “Tell me O
one to whom Allah belongs your father! How did you leave Salamah Bin Qais?! How are the Muslims?!
What have you achieved?! How is your condition?!” I said: “As you like, O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen!” And
then I narrated to him the news, that they declared war on us and a man from the Muslims was killed”. He
(i.e. ‘Umar) was taken back by that, and it took from him what Allah willed and he expressed his
compassion for the man for a long time! I (then) said: “Then Allah gave us victory O Ameer ul-
Mu’mineen! A great victory and the hands of the Muslims were filled with goods, slaves and silver” …

[(1) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 12963, 12/325].

… He then asked: “Woe onto you! And how is the meat there? For verily it represents the tree of the
Arabs and the Arabs are not made right except with their tree (i.e. it is important for their well-being)”. I
said: “The sheep is two Dirham”. He said: “Allahu Akbar!” and then said: “Woe to you! Did any other of
the Muslims killed?! …” (1).

And so is there anything more beautiful than this outpouring of grief, concern and sorrow with warmth
and compassion, emanating from the heart of the Khalifah of the Muslims whilst he is enquiring about
the conditions of the Muslims, who are concealed within the deserts and far lands, thus embracing every
soldier upon the war fronts and expressing his compassion upon those who were martyred from amongst
them?!

Based upon this, we can comprehend some of the secret behind the conquests which were fulfilled at the
hands of those fighters who were under the shadow of this kind of leadership …

We will suffice with what we have presented in our discussion concerning the rights of the fighters and
now move on to a new study by the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.

[(1) “Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor”: 2476, 2/183-184].

 The Fourth Study
The Display of Pride and Arrogance

There are actions of the human that the texts of the Shar’a have provided two Hukms (rulings) for; a
Hukm (ruling) in respect to the general or normal circumstances and a Hukm different to the first for a
specific circumstance, like the circumstance that we are currently addressing, and that is the situation of
war. Included amongst these actions are pride and arrogance.

The discussion in this study will therefore revolve around the following two points:

1 - The First Point: What is Al-Fakhr (pride)? What is its Hukm (legal ruling) generally? And
what is its Hukm in the situation of war?

2 - The Second Point: What is Al-Khuyalaa’ (Arrogance and conceit)? What is its Hukm (legal
ruling) generally? And what is its Hukm in the situation of war?

1 - The First Point: What is Al-Fakhr (pride)? What is its Hukm (legal ruling) generally? And
what is its Hukm in the situation of war?

The following came stated in “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” (name of dictionary): “Al-Fakhr (pride): Al-Iftikhaar
(pride, vainglory, boasting) and ‘Add ul-Qadeem (counting the old) (1).

In “Misbaah ul-Muneer” (name of dictionary): “Fakhartu Bihi Fakhran (I had prideful pride in something)
… Iftikhartu (I was proud) and the Ism (noun) is: Al-Fakhaar and it means to be proud or boastful of
noble deeds and virtues or outstanding traits in terms of lineage, honour and standing of forefathers and
their deeds of pride, amongst other matters. And can either be first person (i.e. someone speaking about
himself) or about his father” (2).
If this
In “Al-Qaamoos Al-Muheet” (dictionary): “Al-Fakhr: Self-praise or bragging about characteristics or traits
… (It is said): Huwa Faakhir and Fakhoor (He is proud or vainglorious) …” (3).
[(1) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p423, (2) “Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p176 and refer to “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/381, (3) “Al-
Qaamoos ul-Muheet”: 2/112].

And in “At-Ta’reefaat” (Definitions) of Al-Jarjaaniy it was stated: “Al-Fakhr: “Being boastful and arrogant
over the people in respect to the accumulation of virtues and outstanding deeds or traits” (1).

It is clear from the preceding definitions that Al-Fakhr is that there comes from a person that which
indicates to pride, self-praise and boastfulness in respect to what he enjoys in terms of the origin he
belongs to, or traits that he is characterised with or those (people) he is affiliated to. This then is what is
meant by “Al-Fakhr”.

As for its Hukm (legal ruling) generally, then the details of that are as follows:

A - If this Fakhr (pride) generated within the one demonstrating it a sense of pride and arrogance and he
carried it to wound the feelings of others, where his pride or boastfulness indicates, even if it was filled
with bitterness, that the sources of pride associated to him are not evident or present in others, then in
such a case this pride is Haraam. That is because the Shar’iy text has come prohibiting these characteristics
or traits that the pride was used for as a mean to reach them. That is in the case where that which leads to
the Haraam is Haraam and the evidence for the Tahreem (prohibition) of the aforementioned traits is as
follows:

The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ين‬ ْ ُّ‫َُالَ ُيحِب‬

َ ‫َالمُسْ َت ْك ِب ِر‬ َ ‫إِ َّنه‬
Verily He does not love the proud or arrogant (An-Nahl: 23).

And the Qawl (statement) of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ُ ‫َُال َح ِّق ََو َغم‬

ِ ‫ْطَال َّن‬
َ‫اس‬ ْ ‫ْال ِك ْبرَُ َب َطر‬
Pride is disdaining the truth (out of self-conceit) and showing contempt for (or to) the people (2)
(3) (4).

And Abu Hurairah said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ ‫َ َق َذ ْف ُتهَُفِيَال َّن‬،‫ِيَواحِداَ ِم ْن ُه َما‬

َ‫ار‬ ِ ‫َو ْال َع َظ َم ُةَإِ َز‬،‫ِي‬
َ ‫َ َف َمنََْ َن‬،‫اري‬
َ ‫از َعن‬ َ ‫َُر َدائ‬
ِ ‫َال ِكب ِْر َياء‬:َّ َّ ‫َقا َل‬
ْ ‫ََّللاَُ َع َّز ََو َجل‬
Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla said: Pride is my cloak and majesty (or sublimity) is my robe, and he who
competes with Me in respect of either of them I shall cast into the fire (of hell) (5).

An-Nawawiy said in his Sharh (explanation) of Saheeh Muslim: “This represents a severe threat (of
punishment) in respect to the pride and arrogance (Kibr), the prohibition of which has been expressed”
(6).

[(1) “At-Ta’reefaat”, Al-Jarjaaniy, (2) “Batar ul-Haqq” means to be blind to it due to arrogance and as such does not accept it”:
“Al-Qaamoos Al-Muheet”: 1/388, (3) “Ghamt un-Naas”: To look down and have contempt for them and to mock them”,
“Muktaar As-Sihhaah”: p413, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 91, 1/93, (6) Sunan Abu Dawud: 4090, 4/84. Similar is recorded in Saheeh
Muslim: 2620, 4/2023. An-Nawawiy said in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim: “the naming of the robe and cloak is metaphoric …”
10/58, (6) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 10/57].

Therefore, the Fakhoor (proud) person who carries the pride to these blameworthy traits, behaviours or
characteristics in terms of displaying contempt for the people and was arrogant and boastful over the
people, falls under the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
 ٍ ‫الَََف ُخ‬
َ‫ور‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
ٍ ‫َالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكلََّم ُْخ َت‬
Verily, Allah does not love every conceited and proud boastful person (Luqmaan: 18).

And His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫انَم ُْخ َتاالَ َف ُخورا‬ َ ‫َإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬

َ ‫َالَ ُيحِبُّ َ َمنَ َك‬
Verily, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful (An-Nisaa’: 36).

B - It is also possible for the “Fakhr” (pride and vainglory) do not represent a path towards those traits or
behaviours that we have mentioned but rather it merely represents a searching or seeking of ‘Izzah
(honour) via the belonging to an origin that a human belongs to from predecessors who have elapsed in
the past of time. And those in relation to the Arab Muslim would be the Arabs of Jaahiliyah prior to the
coming of Islaam … They are therefore a nation or people which this person who is seeking ‘Izzah
(honour) and Karaamah (dignity) through his belonging to them, descends from. He seeks to have or
display pride in them due to what they had in terms of actual or claimed glories. Concerning this, then the
Shar’iyah texts have come forbidding such pride.

“Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َِو َف ْخ َر َهاَ ِباْل َبا ِءَم ُْؤمِنَ َتقِيٌّ ََو َفا ِجرَ َشقِيٌّ َأَ ْن ُت ْمَ َب ُنوَآ َد َم‬ َ ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َجلََّ َق ْدَأَ ْذ َه‬
ْ ‫بَ َع ْن ُك ْمَ ُع ِّب َّي َة‬
َ ‫َال َجا ِه ِل َّية‬ َ َّ َّ‫إِن‬
ِ َّ َ‫َج َه َّن َمَأَ ْوَلَ َي ُكو ُننَّ َأَهْ َو َنَ َعل‬
َ‫ىََّللاَم َِن‬ َ ‫َبأ َ ْق َو ٍامَإِ َّن َماَ ُه ْمَ َفحْ مَمِنْ َ َفحْ ِم‬ ِ ‫َر َجالَ َف ْخ َر ُه ْم‬ ِ َّ‫َوآ َد ُمَمِنْ َ ُت َرابٍَلَ َي َد َعن‬
ََ ‫َُبأ ََْن ِف َهاَال َّن ْت‬
‫ن‬ ِ ‫ْال ِجعْ الَ ِنَالَّتِيَ َت ْد َفع‬
Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride (1) of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting
in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner (2). You are sons of Adam, and
Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel
in Jahannam; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung
with its noseَ(3).

And in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal: “Utayy Bin Damrah said: I saw a man, next to Ubayy (i.e.
Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, may Allah be pleased with him), consoling according to the manner of Jaahiliyah (pre-
Islaam), displaying pride in his father. And so he (Ubayy) insulted him by his father and did not use his
Kunyaa. He (Ubayy) then said to them: “As for me, I can see what you are thinking. But I am unable to
do anything other than that. I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying: “Whoever consoles according
to the way of Jaahiliyah, then insult him by the male private part of his father and do not use his
Kunyaa (i.e. his name as father of so and so … Abu …)”” (4).

[(1) Meaning: Its Kibr (prideful arrogance), Nakhwah (sense of honour, arrogance or haughtiness) and its Fakhr (pride), (2) It
refers to evaluation of the people: Mu’min Taqiy (The pious believer who has Taqwaa) and the Faajir Shaqqiy (disobedient
corrupt and sinful). This means that this is the categorisation of the people according to the Islamic measure and so there is no
consideration or regard given to lineage or honouring of fathers, (3) Sunan Abu Dawud: 5116, 4/450, (5) Musnad Ahmad Bin
Hanbal: 5/136. In respect to the male part of his father and its metaphorical usage refer to “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer:
5/278].

It came mentioned in “An-Nihaayah” of Ibn ul-Atheer: “The one who consoles (‫ ) َت َع َّزى‬with consoling of
Al-Jaahiliyahَ… At-Ta’azziy (consoling) refers to: The affiliation and belonging (by relation) to a people”
(1).

Consequently, upon this basis, raising nationalistic slogans and manifestations of pride and vainglory with
the past of Jaahiliyah, in its different and varied manifestations, all falls under this prohibition that has
come stated within the Shar’iyah texts … That is because the affair in respect to the Muslim is for the
basis of his pride to be in Islam and the source of his honour is that he belongs to his Islamic Ummah in
its quality and description as an Islamic Ummah.

َ ‫َالَ َيعْ لَم‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫ِين‬ ْ َّ‫ِين ََولََ ٰـكِن‬
َ ‫َال ُم َنافِق‬ َ ‫َِول ِْلم ُْؤ ِمن‬ ْ ‫َولِلَّـه‬
َ ‫َِالع َِّزةُ ََول َِرسُولِه‬
And to Allah belongs [all] honour, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know (Al-
Munaafiqoon: 8).

As for commending and extolling the past of the Ummah (nation) prior to its Islaam and seeking glory,
honour and pride from the attributes, behaviours and traits that it was upon, then that indicates denying
what Islaam came with in respect to repudiating and discrediting that historical period which the Qur’aan
Al-Kareem described with Jaahiliyah (ignorance or the time of ignorance) (2).

The truth is, that neglecting Islaam in respect to being representative of the single and only source of
honour for the Muslims and seeking honour and glory by other than Islaam, whether that is gathering
under nationalisms, old roots, newly invented calls or futile, vain and empty manifestations and displays
… All of that, brings to the Muslims, indeed it has brought to them, in actuality, the opposite of what they
were seeking from resorting to other than Islaam (i.e. in terms of negative results).

The following was recorded in “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini”: “Taariq Bin Shihaab said: ‘Umar Ibn
Al-Khattaab set out for Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria) whilst Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah was with us. They
approached a ford (i.e. water) and ‘Umar was upon a she-Camel (Naaqah). He descended from it, took off
his shoes and placed them over his shoulders. He took the reins of his she-camel and then went into the
ford (water) with it. Abu ‘Ubaidah then said: “O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen! You do this! Take off your shoes,
place them around your shoulders, take the reins of your camel and so into the ford (water)! It doesn’t
please me that the people of the land see you doing that!” …

[(1) “An-Nihaayah: Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/233, (2) Refer to Soorah Aali ‘Imraan: 154, Al-Ahzaab: 33, Al-Maa’idah: 50, Al-Fat’h: 26].

Then ‘Umar replied: “Had someone other than you said that Abu ‘Ubaidah! I have made it an example
for the Ummah of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬. We used to be the lowest nation and then Allah honoured and
raised us by Islaam. So, by however much we (wish to) seek honour by other than what Allah has
honoured us with, Allah will make us low” (1).

It is obvious that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, did not intend by his conduct that came mentioned in this
report, to say: That Islaam rebukes or condemns the manifestations or displays which preserve the
standing of a person (2) or the respect and standing the person possessing the authority. Rather, it
condemns that those manifestations or displays become the measure by which respect and standing are
measured whilst it is forgotten, or made to be forgotten, that Islaam is the source of the value and respect
that he is affiliated to and that Islaam represents the source of the respect given to the authority that rules
in its name … In addition, ‘Umar was aware, as well, that Abu ‘Ubaidah did not make those displays a
measure for respect and standing and for that reason he did not reproach him directly. His statement
means that had such an observation upon the behaviour of ‘Umar come from other than Abu ‘Ubaidah,
from anyone who extolls those displays, in the scale of values, above the value of Islaam, then he would
have reproached such a person severely.

In summary, the Fakhr (pride or vainglory) in a matter related to lineage, the deeds of forefathers or its
effects and manifestations, which does not make Islaam the source of that pride, if it is done seeking
‘Izzah (honour) and Majd (glory), by extolling it and holding onto devotion to it, is that which the
Shar’iyah texts have come prohibiting and condemning it.

C - However, if the above-mentioned matters, in terms of lineages and deeds of fathers and so forth, were
mentioned in other than a proud and vainglorious manner but merely as a way of informing about origins
or to know the relations between relations so that the person can fulfil the Shar’iyah obligations of
keeping contact with womb relatives (Silat ur-Rahm), or what is similar to that … Then, concerning this,
there is no problem in that. Rather, it is required so as to fulfil that which the Shar’a has demanded in
respect to taking care of the rights of relatives. In this regard, Abu Hurairah related that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
said:

َ‫َبهَِأَرْ َحا َم ُك ْم‬ َ ُ‫َت َعلَّمُواَمِنْ َأَ ْن َس ِاب ُك ْمَ َماَ َتصِ ل‬
ِ ‫ون‬
Learn from your lineages or lines of descent that by which you can connect with your womb
relations … (1).

The following statement of ‘Umar is also understood in accordance to that: “Learn the lineage and do not
be like the Nabeet (2) of the arable lands. If one of them was asked about his origin he would say: From
such and such a village or town” (3).

D - As for the Fakhr (pride) in respect to what the person has done in terms of noble acts and
praiseworthy effects …Then if that was undertaken in the way of showing off then that is the type of
pride (Fakhr) that is dispraised and falls under the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َف َالَ ُت َز ُّكواَأَنفُ َس ُك ْمََۖه َُوَأَعْ لَ ُم‬

َ‫َب َم ِنَا َّت َق ٰى‬
So do not claim purity for yourselves; He is most knowing of who has Taqwaa (An-Najm: 32).

And if it was one in a manner that was acknowledging what Allah had extended to him in terms of
strength or power and honoured him in terms of Tawfeeq, to proceed upon the path of good, then that is
being undertaken in a manner of praising Allah and being grateful for His blessings. The following was
stated in the Tafseer: ““So do not claim purity for yourselves” means: Do not praise themselves in a
manner to impress. As for acknowledging the blessing then that is good” (4).

And in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, by Al-Jassaas, the following came: “… And it is permissible for the person
to speak about the Ni’mah (blessing) of Allah that he has and not from the angle of Fakhr (pride or
vainglory), but rather from the angle of the blessing and gratitude for the One who bestowed the blessing.
That is like His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫كَ َف َح ِّد‬
َ‫ث‬ ِ ‫َوأَم‬
َ ‫َّاَبنِعْ َمة‬
َ ‫َِر ِّب‬
As for the blessing of your Lord then proclaim it (Ad-Duhaa: 11).

And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫أَ َناَ َس ِّي ُد ََولَدَِآ َد َم ََوالََ َف ْخ َر‬

I am the master or leader of the son of Adam and that is no boast … (5).

And so he informed about the blessing and favour that Allah had bestowed him with and he explained
that his informing of it was not from the angle of being boastful” (6).

[(1) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1979, 4/351. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 1612,
2/190. Also refer to “Silsilah Al-Ahaadeeth As-Saheehah”, Al-Albaaniy: 276, 1/497, (2) An-Nabt and An-Nabeet: A well-
known generation of people who were settled on Al-Bataa’ih between Al-‘Iraaqaini: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 5/9, (3)
“Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantawiy and his brother: p582, (4) “Tafseer Al-Jalaalaini”: p699. Refer
also to the Tafseer “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 5/246 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/171, (5)
Sunan Ibn Maajah: 4308, 2/1440. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 3477, 2/430. And in Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy it came with the wording: “I am the Sayyid (master or leader) of the people on Yaum ul-Qiyaamah (The Day of
Judgement)”: 3340 and in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/371, (6) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/163].
The above represents the some of what is said regarding the Hukm (legal ruling) of having pride in An-
Nasab (lineage) and Al-Hasab (noble descent) and what is similar to this, in a general manner.

As for the Hukm of this Fakhr (pride) in the situation of war?

The ‘Ulamaa have examined this Mas’alah in a number of occasions (or contexts):

- When discussing the Tafseer (explanation) of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ٍ ‫الَ َف ُخ‬
َ‫ور‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
ٍ ‫َالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكلََّم ُْخ َت‬
Verily, Allah does not love every self-deluded and proud boastful person (Luqmaan: 18).

- During the explanation of the Qawl (statement) of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in the Ghazwah of Hunain:

‫َُالَ َك َِذبَأَ َناَابْنُ َ َع ْبدَِالم َّطلِب‬

َ ‫أَ َناَال َّن ِبي‬
I am the Nabi (Prophet), it is no lie. I am the son of Abdul Muttalib (1).

- When discussing the statement of Salamah ibn ul-Akwa’ during the Ghazwah of Dhu Qarad: “Take it,
and I am the son (Ibn) of Al-Akwa’” (2).

- When discussing the statement of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib when engaging in single combat with Marhab Al-
Yahoodiy, during the battle of Khaibar: “I am the one who my mother called Haidarah (Lion) …” (3).

I say: The ‘Ulamaa’ examined the Mas’alah (issue) of the Fakhr (Pride) in lineage and descent within these
incidents and what is similar to them during the state of war and the following is some of what has been
stated concerning that:

- In the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy of the Aayah:

ٍ ‫الَ َف ُخ‬
َ‫ور‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
ٍ ‫َالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكلََّ َُم ْخ َت‬
Verily, Allah does not love every self-deluded and proud boastful person (Luqmaan: 18).

It was stated: “Al-Fakhoor is from Al-Fakhr and it means showing-off or being boastful in matters which
are external to the person like in respect to wealth and standing or fame. Included in that is the man
counting or enumerating what he had given (or been given), displaying his pride and boastfulness
regarding the wealth. It was related from Mujaahid: In the explanation of Al-Fakhoor is the one who
enumerates what he has been given and he does not express gratitude to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3042, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/164. Saheeh Muslim: 1776, 3/1400, (2) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 3041, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/164. Saheeh Muslim: 1807, 3/1436, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1807,
3/1441. “Haidarah” is a name of the lion and ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, had been called Asad
(lion) from the time of his birth … And the Asad (lion) is called Haidarah due to its harshness and “Al-
Haadir” means: Harsh and powerful. The intended meaning of the statement is: I am like the lion in
daring, advancing and strength: “Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/461-462].

And the form of “Al-Fukhoor” (as has come in the Aayah) is due to it being suitable (i.e. with the Aayah
that proceeded which ends with Amoor and hence rhymes) and because what is detested from the Fakhr
(pride) is its large amount (i.e. the form of Fukhoor signifies that it happens frequently or to a great level).
The little amount or level of its manifestation or display happens frequently and Allah Ta’Aalaa has been
Lateef (beneficent) in pardoning that just as He is Lateef in respect to permitting the pride or prancing of
the Mujaahid between the two ranks and the permissibility (Ibaahah) of pride (Al-Fakhr) towards wealth
when accompanied by a good purpose (or intention)” (1).

Therefore, the Fakhr (pride) in respect to what the person presents in terms of heroics in supporting
Islaam and its cause and defeating the enemy is not from the form of pride that is dispraised
(Madhmoom). Rather, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬approved of this Fakhr (pride) which is of this type or form.

The following came recorded in “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini” of Al-Haakim: “It was related from
Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he said: “‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him,
came with his sword, on the day of (the battle of) Uhud, and it had bent (out of shape). And so, he said to
Faatimah: Take the sword which is praised for verily it has satisfied me. The Messenger of Allah then
‫ ﷺ‬said: If you have done well with your sword, then Sahl Bin Haneef, Abu Dujaanah, ‘Aasim
Bin Thaabit Al-Aqlah and Al-Haarith Bin As-Simmah have also done well with their swords”.
This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the Shart (condition) of Al-Bukhaariy. And it has a Saheeh supporting
evidence in “Al-Maghaaziy”: It was related from Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that
he said: “When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬returned he gave his sword to his daughter Faatimah and
said: “O daughter! Wash the blood off this”. Then ‘Ali gave her his sword and said: “And take this and
wash the blood off it! For by Allah the fighting has been true made true for me today”. And so the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “if the fighting has been true for you today, then it has also been true along
with you for: Sahl Bin Haneef, Simaak Bin Kharashah and Abu Dujaanah”. Ibn Ishaah said: “‘Ali Ibn Abi
Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him, said when he gave the sword to Faatimah:

O Faatimah! Take the sword which is not dispraised - For verily I am not a coward and not wretched
My life, I have an excuse in a most praised victory - And the pleasure of a Lord with the servants is merciful (2).

And it came stated in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy: “And if it is said: How did
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬say: “I am the son of Abdul Muttalib” and thus affiliated himself to his grandfather and not
his father. Was he expressing pride in that whilst expressing such pride in respect to most of the people is
considered to be from the acts of Al-Jaahiliyah (ignorance i.e. non-Islamic acts)? Then the answer is that
his link with his grandfather was more well-known because his father Abdullah died as a young man
during the life of his father Abdul Muttalib” … he then said: “And this contains a Daleel (evidence) for
the permissibility of the person saying in warfare: I am so and so and the son of so and so. And that is like
the statement of Salamah when he said: “I am the son of Al-Akwa’” and the statement of ‘Ali, may Allah
be pleased with him: “I am the one who my mother called the (ferocious) lion” and the likes of such
statements!

[(1) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy (Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy): 21/90, (2) “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa As-Saheehaini”, Al-haakim: 3/24].

The ‘Ulamaa of the Salaf have stated the permissibility of doing this. They said: “It is only disliked
(Makrooh) to say that in a manner of boastfulness and pride like the way it was done in Jaahiliyah (pre-
Islaam)” … And Allah knows best” (1).

- And when commenting upon the short poetry of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib when he was involved in a duel or
single-combat contest with Marhaban Al-Yahoodiy, An-Nawawiy said: “And know that this Hadeeth (2)
contains categories of knowledge, including: … the permissibility of praising who did something good and
that is recommended (3) if the Maslahah (interest) results from that … And it is recommended to use the
short poetry or poetic lines and the permissibility of the hurled, attacking and striking statement: Take this
you so and so person, I am the son of so and so” (4).

- And the following came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Regarding the statement: “Take it (or this), I
am the son of so and so”. It is a statement said at the time of self-praising or vainglory. Ibn ul-Mundhir
said: Its position in respect to the Ahkaam (i.e. of Islaam) is that it falls outside of the Iftikhaar (pride,
boastfulness and vainglory) that has been forbidden, due to what the situation dictates. I said: It is close to
the permissibility of Al-Ikhtiyaal (arrogance or conceit), during war but not at any other time or
circumstance” (5).

- The following was also mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” in the commentary upon the Hadeeth: “I am the
Nabi (Prophet) and it is no lie, I am the son of Abdul Muttalib” (6). He said: “This includes the affiliation
to the fathers and even if they died in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (Al-Jaahiliyah) and the
forbiddance of that is applied upon that which falls outside of war” (7).

I say: From what has been presented, it becomes evident to us that the statement of a person, in normal
times, like for example: “I am so and so, the son of so and so”, outside of the circumstance of informing
about himself to someone who doesn’t know him, or something similar to that … Then that only falls
under the praising of oneself and referring or implying the origin that he is affiliated to. Such a statement
with such a purpose or goal behind it falls under the Fakhr (pride) in oneself and in one’s origin, in respect
to which, the one who does that is not praised. However, such praise and implying, represents a
permissible matter in war due to what it contains in respect to striking fear into the enemy. It represents a
kind of psychological warfare and particularly when the fighter, who repeats his name to the ears of the
enemy in the field of the battles, has been connected in their minds to a record that is full of heroics and
glories.

[(1) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/405-406, (2) The hadeeth recorded by Muslim about the Ghazwah of Dhu Qarad
and the Ghazwah of Khaibar related by Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’: 1807, (3) i.e. his statement to Salamah in the Hadeeth that we
are dealing with: And Abu Qataadah was the best of our horsemen today and the best of our foot soldiers was Salamah”:
Saheeh Muslim: 3/1439, (4) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/462-463, (5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/164-165, (6) Al-
Bukhaariy: 3042 and Muslim: 1776, (7) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/32].

As such, there is no problem for the broadcasts directed against the enemy, in the state of war, to carry to
our favourable heroes, that which makes their hearts surge and give strength to their moths in terms of
speeches containing threat and promises, and poems or prose containing pride and resolution; even if that
contained reference to the lineage, praising of the self (1) and enumerating the war feats of every one of
those heroes and their military accomplishments … That is when undertaken with the intended objective
of hurling fear into the hearts of the enemy and spreading the fright amongst their ranks (2).

And finally, we will mention two Hadeeth here concerning this:

The first: This is in line with what has been mentioned in respect to the permissibility of displaying pride
of lineage during warfare. It was recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and narrated by Ibn Al-
Hanzhaliyah: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched out a military expeditionary party and then it
returned. One of the men came and sat where the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was sitting, and he said to a
man beside him: Would that you saw us when we met the enemy and so-and-so attacked and cut through
a lance. He said: Take it (i.e. my blow) from me and I am a boy of the tribe Ghifaar. What do you think
about his statement? He replied: I think his reward was lost. Another man heard it and said: I do not think
that there is any harm in it. They quarrelled until the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬heard it, and he said:
Glory be to Allah! There is no harm if he is rewarded and praised” (3).

The second: This Hadeeth does not condone praising the lineage during warfare and it was recorded by
Ibn Maajah: “Abu ‘Uqbah, who had been a Mawlaa (servant) of the people of Persia, said: “I was present
with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud and I struck a man from the Mushrikeen. I said: “Take it from me
(i.e. my sword or my blow) and I am the Persian boy”. The news of this reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and he
said: “Rather you should have said: Take it from me, I am Ansaariy boy!” (4).

[(1) In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” of Ash-Shaibaaniy: “There is no problem in mentioning the Kunyaa and affiliation (i.e. to lineage)
at the time of warfare and chanting lines of poetry as long as that does not lead to angering some of the Muslims by ridiculing
or mocking some of them or displaying pride in some of them over others”: 4/1470, (2) Refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/463, (3)
Sunan Abu Dawud: 4089, 4/82-83 although Al-Albaaniy overlooked it in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2/770. In any
case, there is contained, within the previously quoted Saheeh Ahaadeeth, that which indicates to the permissibility of making
such a statement during war, irrespective of this Hadeeth. Ash-Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Al-Arna’out aid: “Its Isnaad (chain) is
Hasan and An-Nawawiy classified it as Hasan in his Riyaad (As-Saaliheen)”, Jaami’ ul-Usool: 2/588, (4) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 784,
2/931, (5) Al-Albaaniy did not mention the Hadeeth here in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah” but rather mentioned it in his
book “Da’eef Sunan Ibn Maajah” (i.e. the weak Hadeeth of the collection): 614, p226].

This Hadeeth was classified as Da’eef (weak) by some of the scholars of Hadeeth (Muhadditheen).
However, even if it is assumed to be Saheeh (sound), there is nothing in the Hadeeth which indicates that
Abu ‘Uqbah had been rebuked … rather, it contained an urging or encouragement to say that which is
better in such a situation with that which indicates to the support (Nusrah) provided to the Messenger
‫( ﷺ‬and the Deen).

By that, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the first point of this study and now move
on to the second.

2 - The Second Point: What is Al-Khuyalaa’ (Arrogance and conceit)? What is its Hukm (legal
ruling) in general circumstances? And what is its Hukm in the situation of war?

What is Al-Khuyalaa’?

- It was stated in “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” (a dictionary): “Al-Khuyalaa’: Al-Kibr (arrogance). It is said that:
Ikhtaala (‫ )اختال‬is from it and the person is said to be Dhoo Khuyalaa’ or Dhoo Khaalin, or Dhoo
Makheelah i.e. Dhoo (the possessor of) Kibr (arrogance)” (1).

- In “Misbaah ul-Muneer (a dictionary): “It is said: Ikhtaala Rajul (‫ اختالَرجل‬i.e. the man was arrogant) and
that he has Khuyalaa’ and this means Al-Kibr (arrogance) and Al-I’jiaab (‫ اإلعجاب‬i.e. conceit)” (2).

- In “Al-Qaamoos ul-Muheet” (a dictionary): Al-Akhyal (‫)األَ ْخ َيل‬, Al-Khuyalaa’, Al-Khail, Al-Khailah, Al-
Makheelah (all) mean: Al-Kibr (arrogance)” (3).

As for its Hukm (legal ruling) generally: Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said concerning this: “The ‘Ulamaa
said: Al-Khuyalaa’, Al-Makheelah, Al-Batar (‫ البطر‬i.e. cockiness), Al-Kibr, Az-Zahw (4), At-Tabakhtur, all
have the same meaning (i.e. arrogance and conceitedness) and it is Haraam” (5).

-And Al-Imaam Adh-Dhahabiy said in his book “Al-Kabaa’ir” (The Major Sins) when discussing the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ور‬ ٍ ‫َالَ ُيحِبُّ َ ُكلََّم ُْخ َت‬

ٍ ‫الَ َف ُخ‬ َ ‫َّللا‬ ِ ْ‫ْشَفِيَاألَر‬
َ َ َّ‫ضَ َم َرحاَإِن‬ ِ ‫اس ََو َالَ َتم‬
ِ ‫كَلِل َّن‬ َ ‫الَ ُت‬
َ ْ‫ص َِّعر‬
َ ‫َخ َّد‬ َ َ ‫ََو‬
And do not turn your cheek [in contempt] toward people and do not walk upon the earth Marahan. Verily, Allah does not
like every conceited and proud boastful person (Luqmaan: 18).

He said: “And do not turn your cheek to the people in contempt or arrogantly. “Al-Marah” mentioned in
the Aayah means: “At-Tabakhtur” (strutting)” (6).

[(1) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p165-166, (2) “Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p71, (3) “Al-Qaamoos ul-Muheet”: 3/383, (4) “Az-Zahw”
means Al-Kibr and Al-Fakhr (arrogance and pride). “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p239, (5) Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy:
8/397, (6) “Al-Kabaa’ir Wa Tibyaan il-Mahaarim”: p78].

- Al-Qurturbiy said: “Don’t’ walk upon the earth Marahan” means: swaggering and arrogantly” (1).
- And in another place, Al-Qurtubiy said: “This contains a form of threat and the Mukhtaal is: The one
who possesses arrogance (Dhoo Khuyalaa’) i.e. Al-Kibr (arrogance)” (2).

- And in Saheeh Muslim under the heading “The chapter of the prohibition of Tabakhtar (arrogance and
swaggering) when walking whilst being impressed with his own clothing”, the following was narrated: Abu
Hurairah related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ْ‫َبهَِاألَر‬
َ ‫ضَ َفه َُوَ َي َت َج ْل َجلَُفِي َه‬
َ‫اَإِلَىَ َي ْو ِم‬ َّ ‫ف‬
ِ ُ‫ََّللا‬ َ ‫اَرجُلَ َي َت َب ْخ َترَُ َي ْمشِ يَفِيَبُرْ دَ ْيهَِ َق ْدَأَعْ َج َب ْتهَُ َن ْف ُسهَُ َف َخ َس‬
َ ‫َب ْيََن َم‬
‫ْالقِ َيا َم َِة‬
There was a person (3) who strutting (arrogantly) in his two cloaks and well pleased with himself.
Allah made him sink in the earth and he would go on sinking (4) in that until the Day of
Judgement (5).

And in “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa s-Saheehaini” of Haakim:

“Related by ‘Ikramah Bin Khaalid Bin Sa’eed Bin Al-‘Aass Al-Makhzoomiy … He met ‘Abdullah Ibn
‘Umar Bin Al-Khattaab and said: “O Abu Abdur Rahmaan: We are Banu ul-Mugheerah a people who
possesses An-Nashwah (6). So, have you heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬mention something about
that?” ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say: There is not a man who is
arrogant in respect to himself and swaggers or struts (i.e. arrogantly) in his walking, except that
he will meet Allah, whilst Allah is angry with him”” (7).

The above is what is to be said regarding the Hukm (legal ruling) of Al-Khuyalaa’ (arrogance and
conceitedness) and what is similar to that, within general circumstances.

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 14/70, (2) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 5/192, (3) In a Riwaayh (relation) of
Muslim: “There was a man from those (i.e. nations) who came before you who used to strut arrogantly in his attire”: 3/1654,
(4) Move and descend in an unstable state: Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 8/399, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 2088, 3/1654.
The quoted Hadeeth is the Lafzh (wording) recorded by Muslim and Al-Bukhaariy related similar to it: 5790 and “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 10/258, (6) An-Nakhwah is: Al-‘Azhmah (arrogance and haughtiness) and Intikhaa: Ta’aazhum and Takkabur
(arrogance): “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p228, (7) “Al-Mustadrak”, Al-Haakim: 1/60. He said: This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the
Shart (condition) of the two Sheikhs but they did not extract (or record) it. Adh-Dhahabiy said: It is upon the Shart (condition)
of Muslim. I say: Ahmad related it in his Musnad: 2/118. And due to this characteristic of pride in Aali Al-Mugheerah, ‘Umar
Ibn Al-Khattaab indicated to Abu Bakr that he should dismiss Khaalid Bin Sa’eed Bin Al-‘Aaas from the leadership or
command of one of the armies that had been directed to Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria). “He said: “He is a man who has pride
(Rajul Fakhoor) and he carries his affair with the air of superiority and partisanship or tribalism” And so Abu Bakr dismissed
him”. Refer to “Seerah ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab”, At-Tantaawiy: p495].

As for Al-Khuyalaa’ (arrogance) in the circumstance of war, what is the Hukm (legal ruling) in
relation to it?

- Al-Imaam ul-Qurtubiy said:

“His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ِ ْ‫شَفِيَاألَر‬
َ‫ضَ َم َرحا‬ ِ ْ‫َو َالَ َتم‬
And do not walk upon the earth Marahan (arrogantly) (Luqmaan: 18).

This represents a forbiddance of Al-Khuyalaa’ (arrogance) and a command to be humble or have humility
(At-Tawaadu’) … And arrogance and what carries its meaning could be praiseworthy and that is when it is
employed against the enemies of Allah and the Zhalamah (oppressors)” (1).

- And in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy:

 ِ ْ‫شَفِيَاألَر‬
َ‫ضَ َم َرحا‬ ِ ْ‫َو َالَ َتم‬
And do not walk upon the earth Marahan (arrogantly) (Luqmaan: 18).

This means Fakhr and Kibr (pride and arrogance). This is what Qataadah stated … In addition, walking
arrogantly or in a conceited fashion is major (i.e. a big sin)! As indicated to within the Saheeh Ahaadeeth.
This applies to everything apart from between the two rows (i.e. battle rows between Muslims and their
enemies)! As for between them (i.e. in battle), then it is Mubaah (permissible) due to the Khabar (narration
or report) which has verified that” (2).

In addition, we have already quoted the statement of Al-Aalousiy during the discussion about Al-Fakhr
(pride):

“Allah has been Lateef in respect to permitting the arrogance or conceitedness of the Mujaahideen
between the two ranks (i.e. the Muslims and the enemies) and the permissibility (Ibaahah) of pride (Al-
Fakhr) in respect to the for a good purpose (or intention)” (3).

We have also previously quoted the statement of Ibn Hajar in respect to the same matter: “It contains the
permissibility of affiliating to the fathers and even if they died in Jaahiliyah. And the forbiddance of that is
applied upon that which is outside of warfare. Like that, is the Rukhsah (exceptional permission) in
respect to Al-Khuyalaa’ in war but not outside of that” (4).

And in “Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” and its Sharh (explanation) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, under the heading: “The
recommendation (Istihbaab) of Al-Khuyalaa’ in warfare”, the following Hadeeth was quoted:

“Jaabir Bin ‘Ateek related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “There is from Ghairah that which Allah loves and
from Al-Ghairah that which Allah hates. And there is from Al-Khuyalaa’ that which Allah loves and from
it that which Allah hates. As for the Ghairah (ardent passion or jealousy) that Allah loves, then it is the
Ghairah in respect to Ar-Reebah (that which is doubtful or suspicious). As for the Ghairah that Allah
hates, then it is the Ghairah that is other than the Reebah (1). And the Khuyalaa’ that Allah loves is when
a man displays arrogance with himself at the time of fighting and his arrogance at the time of (giving)
Sadaqah, whilst the Khuyalaa’ that Allah hates is when a man displays arrogance in respect to the Fakhr
(2) and Al-Baghiy (sinful rebelliousness) (3)” (4).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “The man is arrogant in himself at the time of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in respect to the
Khuyalaa’ (arrogance) that Allah loves due to what that brings in terms of terrifying the enemies of Allah
and activation of His Awliyaa’. An evidence of this is his statement ‫ ﷺ‬when he saw Abu Dujaanah
displaying strutting arrogantly at the time of Al-Qitaal: “This type of walking is hated by Allah and
His Messenger except in this place (or situation)”. The same applies in respect to the Ikhtiyaal
(arrogance) at the time of the Sadaqah as it could be from the causes that lead to more being given and a
greater desire for it to be given” (5).

What Ash-Shawkaaniy indicated to, regarding the arrogant strutting of Abu Dujaanah at the time of Al-
Qitaal (fighting or battle), was related in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam as follows: “The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬said: “Who will take this sword and give it its due right (6)?” Men then stood before him but he kept
it back from them until Abu Dujaanah Simaak Bin Kharashah stood, the brother of Bani Saa’idah and
said: “And what is its Haqq (right) O Messenger of Allah”. He said: “To strike the enemy with it until it
bends (or breaks)”. He said: “I will take it O Messenger of Allah with its due right”. And so he gave it to
him. And Abu Dujaanah was a courageous man and would strut arrogantly at the time of war when it
took place. When he displayed his red head-band and tied it around his head, the people knew that he will
fight. Then, when he took the sword from the hand of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, he took out that
headband of his and tied it around his head and then began to prance or strut arrogantly between the two
lines …

[(1) “That is like the man being jealous over his mother marrying her husband and similarly the rest of his Mahaarim, as this is
what Allah hates. That is because what Allah has made Halaal is obligatory for us to accept and be content with. If we are not
content with it then that is as a result of preferring the concerns of Jaahiliyah over what Allah has legislated for us” “Nail ul-
Awtaar”: 7/257-258, (2) “That is like mentioning his lineage and forefathers, the great amount of wealth he has, his fame,
courage and honour or generosity, just for the sake of pride. And then he exhibits arrogance as a result of that. This is the type
of arrogance that Allah Ta’Aalaa hates because pride in origin is dispraised and Al-Ikhtiyaal (arrogance) is dispraised. Therefore
the dispraised act is being added or combined to the dispraised act”: “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/258, (3) “That is like the man
mentioning that he had killed so and so person and taken his money without right or arrogance is exhibited in him at the name
of transgressing against the wealth of the man or his life. Allah hates this because it includes the combining of an ugly act to
another ugly (or reprehensible) act”: “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/258, (4) The Hadeeth is recorded in a number of the books of the
Sunnah including the Sunan of Al-Baihaqiy: 9/156 and the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 2659, 3/68. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said
about it: “Hasan” in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2316. 2/505, (5) “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/258, (6) In Saheeh Muslim:
“Anas related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬took a sword out on the day of Uhud and then said: “Who will take this from
me?” And so, they outstretched their hands, each of them saying: “Me, me”. He said: “And who will take it with its Haqq
(right)?” He (Anas) said: And so the people moved away and Simaak Bin Kharashah, Abu Dujaanah, said: “I will take it with its
right”. He said: And so he split the heads of the Mushrikeen with it”: 2470, 4/1917].

… Ibn Ishaaq said: Ja’far Ibn Abdullah Bin Aslam the Mawlaa (servant) of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab told
me about a man from the Ansaar from Bani Salamah. He said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saw
Abu Dujaanah parading arrogantly he said: Indeed, it is a kind of walking that angers Allah except in a
situation (or place) like this (i.e. war)” (1).

Included within the category of the military Al-Khuyalaa’, in its description as being a form of
psychological warfare targeting the disbelievers, included within that is what the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, his
companions and those who came after them, used to do in terms of the concern they had for their
weaponry and war tools. That is in the case where they would wear silver jewellery or ornaments or attach
it to them, similar to how the brides would ornament themselves for their spouses and adorn themselves
for the celebration of their weddings … That is whilst (in analogy) the weddings are similar to the rounds
of Al-Qitaal (fighting and battle) and the battlefields, where the spouses embrace and dance above the
heads and necks!

- Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The sheath or scabbard (2) of the sword of the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was made of silver and the handle (3) of his sword and the area between that had silver
rings” (4).

- And in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: Hishaam Bin ‘Urwah related from his father (‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair) who
said: “The sword of Az-Zubair was ornamented with silver”. Hishaam said: “The sword of ‘Urwah was
ornamented with silver” (5).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/150. Refer to “Kanz ul-‘Ummal”: 10685, 4/317, (2) It is the iron at the lowest
part of the Sheath: “Sharh As-Suyootiy Wa Haashiyah As-Sanadiy ‘Alaa Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 8/219, (3) Handle of the sword:
“Sharh As-Suyootiy Wa Haashiyah As-Sanadiy ‘Alaa Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 8/219, (4) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 8/219. Al-Albaaniy
said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunaan An-Nasaa’iy”: 4967, 3/1087 and similar to it is recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud:
2583, 3/43 and the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy: 1691, 4/201, (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3974. “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/299. Also in
Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and related by Abu Umaamah, may Allah be pleased with him: “The conquests were accomplished by a
people who ornamentation was not gold or silver but rather their ornamentation was untanned leather and lead …”: 2909 and
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/95. The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “… And in this Hadeeth, it is indicated that ornamenting
the swords with gold and silver and other war equipment or tools in preferable. And those who permitted it answered: That the
ornamentation of the swords with gold and silver is only legislated (i.e. been made legally legitimate) to strike terror or fear into
the enemy! The companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬were in no need of that because of the strength they possessed in
themselves and the strength of their Imaan”: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/96. I say: This Hadeeth and the Saheeh Ahaadeeth that
preceded it and establish other than that are reconciled by that the ornamentation of the swords with silver existed during the
era of the Sahaabah, however, it was not common. That is in the case where Abu Umaamah had not come across it or he had
come across it but due to its negligible appearance, it was as if it was not existent (in the evident reality) and consequently his
statement about the conquests having been accomplished by those whose swords were not ornamented with silver was correct
(or accurate) … The negation here applies upon what was most common and apparent in the case where such ornamentation
was not evident, common or widespread. What he intended by this statement of his was: To divert the attention or concern of
the Mujaahideen away from these side or marginal issues … That is because Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla had prepared the conquests to
those who undertook them with or by their Imaan and their providing support to their Deen and not due to their adorning or
ornamentation of their war tools, equipment and weaponry!1].

The summarised conclusion of this topic of study is that matters which are Mahzhoor (prohibited), in
general circumstances, in terms of Al-Fakhr (pride and being boastful), Al-Khuyalaa’ (arrogance and
conceitedness) and what falls under their category, are permitted (Mubaah) in warfare or Mustahabb
(recommended).

To summarise this, in “Fiqh us-Sunnah” by Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, when
commentating upon the arrogant strutting of Abu Dujaanah between the two rows (of the fighters), the
following was stated: “This indicates that in respect to every prohibited (Haraam) manifestation of
arrogance, its prohibition is removed or ceases to exist in the circumstances of war and upon the
battlefields. This includes the strutting when walking, the ornamentation of war tools and weapons with
silver, as all of that is not forbidden …” (1).

By that. We have reached the end of this study and now move on, with the help of Allah and His
Tawfeeq, to the topic of study that follows it.

[(1) “Fiqh us-Seerah”: Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p216. Concerning the ornamentation or embellishment of
war equipment and tools refer to: “Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 3/545-546. Indeed, we have
seen some of the Fuqahaa’ permitting men wearing silk in war in order to strike fear into the enemy and that this falls under the
category of this subject area that we are addressing. Refer to: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/488 and “fat’h ul-Baariy”:
6/101].
 The Fifth Study
The Hukm (ruling) of Muslim spies or non-Muslim spies from amongst the
Islamic subjects against the Islamic State

In this study, we will discuss specific Masaa’il (issues) relates to spying (1) on behalf or for the benefit of
the enemies, without examining other Masaa’il related to this subject area i.e. the subject of spying. The
discussion about that will take place within the next chapter of this volume by the help of Allah Ta’Aalaa.

That is in accordance to what the division of this subject area requires, generally, into a number of issues;
some of which fall within the scope of this study whilst others are more suitable to be discussed within
another study from among the studies of this volume. Even if these issues are all connected to spying and
its Ahkaam (legal rulings), they have nevertheless been spread across more than one study and under more
than one chapter due to the different aspects that those issues address within the subject area.

Here, in this chapter which we have dedicated to the treatment of the individuals of the Islamic army
during war, the issue of “At-Tajassus” (spying) arises. That is because one of those individuals could be
involved in a spying operation for the enemies against the Islamic army or the Muslims or their subjects,
in general. That is whether that spy follows Islaam or is from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. In such a scenario,
what is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to him? That is the subject area which we are currently
addressing.

In addition, in the case when the Hukm upon a matter represents a branch of its perception, it becomes
necessary to first know the following: Firstly: What is At-Tajassus (spying)? What is considered to fall
under acts of spying? What is not considered to fall under that? And secondly, there come’s the Hukm
applied upon the one who undertakes those acts which are categorised as being acts of spying.

[(1) Al-Jaasoosiyah: It is a Masdar Sinaa’iy (grammatical term) formed from the word “‫ ”جَ اسُوس‬and “Al-Masdar Al-Sinaa’iy,
which is Qiyaasiy, refers to every Lafzh Jaamid (inflexible wording) or Mushtaqq (derived wording), or Ghair Ism (non-noun)
that has a “Yaa’ Mushaddadah” (َ‫ي‬ ّ ) added to its end followed by “Taa’ Ta’neeth’َMarbootah” (Taa’ of femininity) (‫ )ة‬so that it
comes to indicate a Mujarrad meaning … It refers to: The host of specific Siffaat (properties or descriptive elements) attached
to that Lafzh (wording) …” “An-Nahw ul-Waafiy”, ‘Abbaas Hasan: 3/182].

Consequently, this study revolves around the following Masaa’il (issues):

The First Mas’alah (issue): What is “At-Tajassus” linguistically? And what are the actions that are
considered to be from At-Tajassus (spying) in relation to our current topic of study?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm (legal ruling) of the Muslim Jasoos (spy).

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm (legal ruling) of the Jasoos from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah.
1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): What is “At-Tajassus” linguistically? And what are the actions that
are considered to be from At-Tajassus (spying) in relation to our current topic of study?

A - At-Tajassus (spying) linguistically (i.e. its meaning according to the Arabic language):

- It was stated in “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” (name of a dictionary): “Jassahu Bi Yadihi” (he touched it with
his hand) means: “Massahu” (he touched it) and “Jassa l-Akhbaar and Tajassahaa” means: “Tafahassa
‘Anhaa” (He enquired about the news) and from this (word) comes “Al-Jasoos” (i.e. the spy) (1).

- And in “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer” (dictionary): “Jassa Al-Akhbaar Wa Tajassahaa” means: “Tatabba’ahaa”

(to pursue it) and from it (i.e. the verb Jassa and its meaning) is the word “Jasoos” (spy) because he
pursues the news and enquires or examines the hidden or unapparent elements of matters. It was then
used to refer to the examining of the spy (Al-‘Ain) (2).

- In “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet” (dictionary): “Al-Jass means: Tafahhas Al-Akhbaar (enquiring about the
news) like “At-Tajassus” and from (i.e. its meaning) it comes “Al-Jasoos” (the spy) and he enquires or
examines with his ‘Ain (eye), examining it (the news) so as to verify and ascertain its correctness” (3).

- In “An-Nihaayah” by Ibn ul-Atheer: “At-Tajassus” means: To investigate and examine the hidden,
unapparent or underlying elements of matters (4).

- In “Asaas ul-Balaaghah” by Az-Zamakhshariy: “Jassa At-Tabeeb Yadahu” (The doctor touched his
hand) and metaphorically: “Jassoohu Bi’Ayunihim” (They touched it with their eyes) … And (it is said):
“Tajassasoo Al-Akhbaar” (They enquired or examined the news) and this is in respect to the spies of the
enemy” (5).

[(1) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: p86, (2) “Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer”: p39, (3) “Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet”: 2/211, (4) “An-Nihaayah”,
Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/272, (5) “Asaas ul-Balaaghah”, Az-Zamakhshariy: p59-60].

The above is what relates to the meaning of “At-Tajussus” linguistically and all of these definitions, in
respect to what concerns us, revolves around the orbit of these meanings: Following up and pursuing of
the Akhbaar (news, incidents and events etc.), and examining them for the sake of verifying them and
investigating the secrets or the hidden or unapparent elements of the affairs or matters.

B - As for what is related to the actions which are considered to fall under “At-Tajassus” (spying)
concerning the study that we are addressing, then those actions are:

Spying (At-Tajassus) upon the ‘Awraat (weak points) of the Muslims and transferring information which is
considered to be secret news or information related to war and attempting to attain information
connected to the Islamic military situation or the situation of the Islamic State.

- Concerning what is meant by the ‘Awraat (weak points) of the Muslims here, then that is what has come
stated in “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”. He said: “The ‘Awrah (weak point) in respect to the Thughr (frontiers
or openings from which the enemy can attack) and war (Al-Harb) means: Faults, defects or weaknesses
(Khalal) that are feared from. And the plural is ‘Awraat” (1). And concerning some of what the spy
undertakes, in this regard, for the interest of the enemies, the following statement of the Fuqahaa’ has
been stated: “It is like writing a letter to them or sending them a messenger informing that a certain place
belonging to the Muslims has no guard stationed in it, for example, so that they can approach (or attack)
from it” (2).

- As for transmitting information which is considered to be secret in respect to war, then an example is
what Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy mentioned related to some of the acts undertaken by the spy. He said: “That
he writes to the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of or at war) informing them
that the Muslims plan to attack them” (3) i.e. when the Islamic State wants to keep the knowledge of the
military preparations linked to its objective secret and concealed, then one of them uncovers that and
attempts to inform the enemy about that”.

- As for the attempt at attaining the information related to the military situation of the Islamic army or the
situation of the Islamic State, then that is like what came mentioned about the incident of the spy who ate
with the Muslims whilst they were preparing for war against Hawaazin at Hunain, to become aware of the
situation of the Muslims.

[(1) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p166, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/205, (3) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/249].

The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “"A spy came from the Mushrikeen to the Prophet
(‫ … )ﷺ‬He then sat amongst his companions and started talking …” (1). And the following was
recorded about the same incident in Saheeh Muslim: “… Then he came to eat with the people and began
to look around (curiously). We had weakness in us weak and were in a frail and poor condition as some of
us had been walking (i.e. without having had the use of riding animals), then all of sudden he left in a great
hurry …” (2).

And also concerning the same incident Ahmad recorded in his Musnad: “Then he reached his camel, sat
upon it and left at a gallop and he was someone who had been sent out to gather information for the
disbelievers …” (3).

As such, the intended meaning of At-Tajassus (spying), within the frame of this current study, is not just
the attainment of any information related to the conditions and affairs of the Muslims and transmitting it
to the non-Islamic lands … Rather, it is related to that information which by its nature the enemy will
benefit from it to bring harm against the Muslims in relation to that which has a link or connection to
their ‘Awraat (weaknesses) i.e. weak points in respect to the Islamic front. And it relates to that which is
wanted to remain concealed and secret from the enemy and what is connected to the military situation of
the Islamic State and what is like that.

Consequently, in respect to the attainment of information related, for example, to sporting competitions
or cultural seminars or anything like that in terms of activities which are evident for all to see and which
the State does not attempt to conceal from the enemy and even if they took place at the times of war …

Concerning that I say: This information and news, its pursuance, gathering and transmission to other
states by hostile individuals or media correspondents, journalists and news agencies, whether the means of
transmission was by sound, visual or by written reports, none of that is considered or regarded to fall
under spying acts, just as those who undertake those actions are not considered to be spies if they gather
that news, information and realities, and then send all of that to the bodies that they work for or are
employed by ….

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3051 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1754, 2/1374, (3) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal:
4/51]

That is in contrast to the news or information that we first spoke about which falls under the category of
the actions of spying. That is because this is what the linguistic meaning of At-Tajassus applies upon, i.e.
to search for, enquire about, examine and investigate for the purpose of attaining it, in view of the
seriousness attached to it which made the State be guarded and very keen to keep hidden and surrounded
with a veil of secrecy and concealment … As such anyone who attempts to uncover such information is
considered and regarded to be someone who arouses suspicion who is working for the interests of the
enemies … In addition, this dangerous news and information is what the Shar’iyah texts addressing the
subject area of spying during war have revolved around, as has been indicated to previously. This was also
the focus of the instructions and advise of the rightly guided Khulafaa’ provided to those who they
appointed in respect to war, as military leaders and commanders. That was in the case where the Khulafaa’
used to be reiterate to them strongly to not allow or enable the enemy to gather information about
anything related to such news or information that we have indicated to … An example of that is what
Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq instructed and advised Yazeed Bin Abi Sufyaan with, when he sent him at the head
of the army to conquer Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria). He said: “If emissaries (or messengers) of the enemy
come to you, treat them honourably but keep their stay short so that they leave your (military) camp whilst
remaining ignorant of it. And do not delay them so that they see your Khalal (i.e. points of weakness in
respect to your military preparations) and know what you know. And camp them amongst a large number
of your military (1) and prevent anyone from speaking to them and make sure you are the one who takes
charge of speaking to them. And do not make your secret matters public so that your affair becomes
complicated …” (2).

In addition, the contemporary Islamic thought has presented an explanation concerning the intending
meaning of spying and spies, in relation to our topic of discussion. Amongst such writings is what came
from Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy. He stated: “At-Tajassus (spying): It means seeking
information and enquiring about the Akhbaar (news and information) … And “Al-Jasoos” (the spy) is
taken from it … That is whether he seeks the apparent information or the hidden news … If, however, he
sees matters which are regular and normal without seeking information about them or to gather news so
as to publish it … Then all of that is not spying as long as he doesn’t seek or delve into the information,
enquire or investigate the news (Akhbaar). As such, it is not said about the one who pursues the news and
gathers it like what is undertaken by news correspondents or news agencies, that he is a spy unless his
actual work is spying and he has only used journalism as a means of cover, like the situation of many of
the correspondents and particularly those from the disbelievers who are at war with us” (3).

[(1) The objective of this is to cast fear into the hearts of the enemy due to what they witness of the large or dense numbers of
the Islamic army and this represents a kind of psychological warfare … That is intended to influence him to move to peace
negotiations upon the basis of the choices or options which the Islamic State presents to the other states, rather than rushing
into taking the decision of engaging in war, (2) “Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Ali At-Tantawiy: p328 (Transmitted from
the history of Ibn ul-Atheer), (3) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, the third part: p176-177].

And Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan said: “We mean by At-Tajassus (spying) here, the attempt to attain
information about the weak-points of the Muslims, their affairs and the circumstances and conditions of
the Islamic State, and (then) informing the enemy about that. There is no question that such an act is a
major crime that threatens the well-being of the State and particularly during the times of war” (1).

In line with modern terminology (political dictionary) the following was stated in respect to the definition
of spying: “It is a secret work with deceitful claims undertaken so that a person gains possession or
attempts to gain possession over sensitive or vital information with the objective of delivering that to the
enemies” (2). Or it refers to “Secret investigation upon the efforts and acts of the foreign states to
ascertain its strength and movements and then convey this information to specific or designated
authorities” (3). Or “… “At-Takhaabur” (i.e. information sharing or intelligence contact with a foreign
power) with any party against any other party” (4).

The above represents some of what has been said regarding At-Tajassus or Al-Jasoosiyah (spying). The
purpose of presenting that is to throw more light upon the aspects of this subject area whilst its purpose is
not to discuss what we have presented or to reach a precise definition for At-Tajassus (spying). In any
case, that which concerns us in the study we are addressing here, from the subject area of spying, is that
which we mentioned previously. The summary of this is: That spying refers to the attempt at acquiring
information connected to war or its preparation, which the State is concerned to conceal from the other
states; whether that attempt succeeded or failed or whether that information was actually transferred or
transmitted to the enemy or not …
With that we conclude the first Mas’alah (issue) and now begin the discussion of the second.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm (legal ruling) of the Muslim Jasoos (spy) who works on
behalf of the enemy against the Muslims:

This Mas’alah (issue) will be addressed through the discussion of the following points:

1 - The First Point: The Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) related to this Mas’alah.

2 - The Second Point: The Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm of the Muslim spy.

3 - The Third Point: The opinion that we find to be strongest in this Mas’alah.

[(1) “Ahkaam Adh-Dhimiyyeen Wa-l-Musta’mineen Fee Daar il-Islaam”, Dr. Abdul Kareem Zaidaan: p240, (2) “Al-Qamoos
As-Siyaasiy” (Political dictionary), Ahmad ‘Atiyyatullah: 367, (3) “Al-Harb Al-Khafiyah, Falsafah Al-Jasoosiyah Wa
Muqaawamatuhaa” (The secret war: The philosophy of spying and combatting it), Salaah Nasr: p12, (4) “Sirr ul-Jasoosiyah”
(The secret of spying), Ibraheem Al-‘Arabiy: p34].

1 - The First Point: The Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) related to the Mas’alah (issue) of the Hukm
(legal ruling) upon the Muslim spy:

And from among the strongest (or most severe) texts connected to this Mas’alah are the following three
Ahaadeeth:

A - The First Hadeeth: It is what was reported in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Saheeh Muslim, amongst
other collections, concerning the story of the Sahaabiy Haatib bin Abi Balta’ah in respect to the letter that
he sent to Quraish informing them about the preparations of the Muslims for the Fat’h (opening or
conquering) of Makkah following the Quraish’s breaking and violation of the treaty (Sulh) of Al-
Hudaybiyah. The Hadeeth as reported in Al-Bukhaariy, under the heading of: “The Chapter of the Spy” is
as follows: ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

“Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad Bin Al-Aswad (1) and said: “Proceed
until you reach Rawdatu Khaakh (2). There you will find a girl with a letter and so take the letter from
her”. So, we set out and our horses ran at full pace until we reached Ar-Rawdah where we found the girl
and said (to her): “Take out the letter”. She replied: “I have no letter with me”. We said: “Either you take
out the letter or else we will take off your clothes”. So, she took it out of her braid. We brought the letter
to Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and it contained a statement from Haatib bin Abi Balta’ah addressed to some
of the people of Makkah informing them of some of the intentions of Allah's Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. Then
Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said: “O Haatib! What is this?” (3) Haatib replied: “O Allah's Messenger! Don’t
hasten to pass judgment upon me. I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I wasn’t one of
them (4). Whilst the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Makkah who would protect their
dependents and property. So, I wanted to make up for my lack of blood relations to them by undertaking
a favour for them so that they might protect my dependents. I did this neither because of disbelief not
apostasy nor out of acceptance of Kufr (disbelief) after (having accepted) Islaam”.

[(1) In one narration it states: “And Abu Murthad Al-Ghanawiy instead of Al-Miqdaad. An-Nawawiy said: “There is no
contradiction. Taher, four were sent: ‘Ali, Az-Zubair, Al-Miqdaad and Abu Murthad”, “Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim”:
9/402. And it was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy that he sent: ‘Ali, ‘Ammaar, ‘Umar, Az-Zubair, Talhah, Al-Miqdaad and
Abu Murthad”, “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 18/51, (2) “It is located between Makkah and Al-Madinah”, Sharh Muslim
by An-Nawawiy: 9/402 and in “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: “It is close to Hamraa’u l-Asad near Al-Madinah”: /444, (3) This includes
the exposure of the concealed matters of the spies by reading their letters … If there is a Maslahah (interest) in doing that or if
there is a Mafsadah in concealing it. It is only recommended to conceal if there is no Mafsadah (harm) in that and the Maslahah
is not lost. Upon this basis the Ahaadeeth mentioned are understood in respect to concealing”: Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy:
9/402-403, (4) In another related version of Al-Bukhaariy he (Haatib) said: “I was a man from Quraish but I wasn’t one of
them”: 4890. It was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/634: “this is not a contradiction. What he meant is that he is from them
according to the meaning of being their ally and the Hadeeth has affirmed that the Haleef (ally) of the people is (considered) to
be from them whilst he stated: “But I am not one of them” to confirm the metaphorical usage”.

Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬then said: “Haatib has told you the truth”. ‘Umar said: “O Messenger of Allah!
Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite” (1). Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬then replied: “Haatib
participated in the battle of Badr, and who knows, perhaps Allah has already looked at the
participants of Badr and said: “Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you”” (2).

B - The Second Hadeeth: It came recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, with a Saheeh Sanad (chain)
(3) under the heading: “The Chapter concerning the Dhimmiy spy”: “Furaat Ibn Hayyaan related that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬gave the command to kill me and had been a spy for Abu Sufyaan and an ally of
a man from the Ansaar. And so he passed by a circle of the Ansaar and said: “I am Muslim”. Then a man
from amongst the Ansaar said: “O Messenger of Allah! He is saying: “I am a Muslim””. And so the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Verily, there are from amongst you men whom we trust with their
Imaan and Furaat Ibn Hayyaan is from them” (4).

C - The Third Hadeeth: It was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and Saheeh Muslim and was related by
‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood who said:

َّ ‫س ََو‬
َ ُ‫الثيِّب‬ ِ ُ‫َبإِحْ َدىَ َثالَثٍَال َّن ْفس‬
ِ ‫َبال َّن ْف‬ ِ َّ َُ‫يَرسُول‬
ِ َّ‫َّللاَإِال‬ َ ‫ََّللاُ ََوأَ ِّن‬
َّ َّ‫ئَمُسْ ل ٍِمَ َي ْش َه ُدَأَنْ َالََإِلَ َهَإِال‬
ٍ ‫الََ َي ِحلَُّ َد ُمَام ِْر‬
ْ ‫ارك‬
‫َُال َج ََما َع ََة‬ ِ ‫ينَال َّت‬
ِ ‫ار ُقَم َِنَال ِّد‬ ِ ‫َو ْال ََمََف‬،‫ِي‬
َ ‫الزان‬ َّ
The blood (i.e. life) of a Muslim who bears witness to that there is no deity other than Allah and
that I am the Messenger of Allah is not Halaal (permissible) except in one of the three cases: The
life for the life, the married adulterer and the one who leaves the Deen leaving the Jamaa’ah
(Muslim collective) (5).

[(1) In another relation recorded by Al-Bukhaariy: ‘Umar said: “He has betrayed Allah and the believers and so let me to strike
his neck”: 3983 and 6939. I say: The reason that called ‘Umar to seek permission to kill Haatib was not only because he was a
Munaafiq (hypocrite) whose hypocrisy had been revealed, as ‘Umar had first thought before it became evident that he was not a
Munaafiq due to the Messenger’s ‫ ﷺ‬affirmation of him. Rather, according to this narration the reason for requesting
permission to kill him was the betrayal that manifested in the spying. That was established and not negated by the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
but he forbade that killing be the punishment for that treachery … (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3007 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/143.
Saheeh Muslim: 2494, 4/1941, (3) The editor of “Jaami’ ul-Usool” Ash-Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Al-Arnaa’out said: “And its
Isnaad (chain of transmitters) is Saheeh”: 10/212 and refer to “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/10, (4) Sunan Abi Dawud: 2652, 3/66. Ash-
Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud: 2310, 2/504, (5) Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 6878. “Fat’h
ul-Baariy”: 12/201. Saheeh Muslim: 1676, 3/1302-1303].

And in a Riwaayah (narration) recorded by An-Nasaa’iy and related by ‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Affaan, may Allah
be pleased with him, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

َِ‫َب َثالَثٍَأَنْ َ َي ْزن َِيَ َبعْ دََ َماَأُحْ صِ َنَأَ ْوَ َي ْق ُت َلَإِ ْن َساناَ َف ُي ْق َتلَُأَ ْوَ َي ْكفُ َرَ َبعْ دََإِسْ الَ ِمه‬
ِ َّ‫ئَمُسْ ل ٍِمَإِال‬
ٍ ‫الََ َي ِحلَُّ َد ُمَام ِْر‬
َُ ‫َف ُي ْق َت‬
‫ل‬
It is not Halaal (permissible) to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: A man who
commits adultery after having married; or one who kills another person, and is then killed (as a
consequence); or who disbelieves after having accepted Islam, and is then killed (as a
consequence) (1).
The above represent the most prominent Ahaadeeth which have been quoted within the speech of the
Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Mas’alah (issue) of the Hukm upon the Muslim if he spies upon Muslims on
behalf of the enemy.

We now arrive at the second point to see how the Fuqahaa’ viewed the previous Ahaadeeth from which a
number of opinions arose in respect to this Mas’alah.

2 - The Second Point: The Fiqhiy opinions in respect to the Hukm of the Muslim spy who spies
for the interests of the enemy against the Muslims:

The First Opinion: It is Haraam (prohibited) to kill the spy if he is Muslim and it is permitted to punish
his with a non-Hadd (Ta’zeeriy) punishment according to what it requires or demands. This is the opinion
of the Ahnaaf, the Shaafi’iyah and Ahmad Bin Hanbal.

- Abu Yousuf from the Hanafiy Madh’hab said when addressing Haaroon Ar-Rasheed: “And you asked,
O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, about the spies?” Abu Yousuf said in the answer: “If they are from the known
people of Islaam then make them suffer a punishment and extend their detention until repentance comes
from them” (2).

- And the following was stated in “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” during the presentation of the deduction of
not killing the Muslim spy: “It was deduced from the Hadeeth of Haatib Bin Abi Balta’ah … And if he
was a disbeliever by this deserving to be killed then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would not have left him
whether he had participated at (the battle of) Badr of not. Similarly, if killing him was required as a Hadd
(set prescribed punishment) the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would not have left establishing it upon him”
(3).

- Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said in “Al-Umm”: “The blood (i.e. life) is not Halaal (permitted i.e. to be taken)
in respect to the one in whom the prohibition of his Islaam has been affirmed (or proven) unless he kills
(i.e. commits murder), or commits Zinaa (adultery) after being married or disbelieves with evident (clear)
disbelief after having had belief (Imaan) and is then proven to be upon disbelief…

[(1) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 7/92. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 3752, 3/844, (2) “Al-Kharaaj”,
Abu Yousuf: p205-206 and refer to “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/ 2040-2041, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2040-2041].

That is whilst guiding to the weak points of a Muslim or assisting a disbeliever by warning him about the
Muslims intending to attack him, to warn him or to bring harm upon the Muslims, is considered to be
evident or clear Kufr (disbelief)” (1). Then Ash-Shaafi’iy mentioned what establishes that any spying
against the Muslims is less than the heinousness of the spying of Haatib against the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬. He said: “And no one has come with something like this (i.e. spying) which is apparently greater (in
wrongness) than this!” (2) (i.e. what Haatib did). And yet “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬judged, in respect
to him, that he not be killed” (3). Upon that basis, anyone whose case is less than that of Haatibs’ is not
killed “And it is preferred to accept from him like what he accepted from him!” (4). Then Ash-Shaafi’iy
mentioned that the punishment for the spy is At-Ta’zeer (non-Hadd punishment) according to the
opinion or view of the Imaam whilst pardoning him is recommended if the person who did that has
standing (or repute) and what not accused in respect to his Islaam and his sincerity, but only engaged in
spying due to ignorance. Ash-Shaafi’iy said: “The punishments are not Hudood (set prescribed
punishments). As for the Hudood, then they are not suspended under any circumstance whilst the
‘Uqoobaat (i.e. Ta’zeer punishments) are left to the Imaam’s Ijtihaad … Therefore, if this took place from
a man of stature by way of ignorance, just like the case with Haatib was due to ignorance whilst he was
not accused or suspected (i.e. in respect to his Deen), I view it preferable to look over him. If, however,
he was not of good stature (or repute), then it is the right of the Imaam, and Allah knows (best), to
impose a Ta’zeer (non-Hadd punishment) upon him” (5).
- Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “And the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab and a group view that the Muslim spy has a
Ta’zeer (non-Hadd punishment) applied upon him and that it is not permissible to kill him” (6).

Al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah explains the view of Al-Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal concerning the Mas’alah
(issue) of the Muslim spy, stating: “In the case of the Muslim spy, if he spies for the enemy against the
Muslims, then Ahmad refrains in respect to killing him” (i.e. that he is not killed) (7).

- And Ibn ul-Qayyim said concerning this also: “And Ash-Shaafi’iy and Abu Haneefah said that he is not
killed, and that the Zhaahir (apparent or evident) view in the Madh’hab of Ahmad” (8).

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/249, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/250, (3) From the speech of Ash-Shaafi’iy in “Al-Umm”:
4/250, (4) From the speech of Ash-Shaafi’iy in “Al-Umm”: 4/250, (5) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/250. “Al-Muhadh’dhab”:
Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/242 and “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”: 19/342, (6) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 9/403, (7) “As-Siyaasah
Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Taymiyyah: 123, (8) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/423].

The then represents a summary of the first opinion stating that the Muslim who engages in spying for the
enemy against the Muslims is not killed and a summary of what has been depended upon to make that
deduction.

The Second Opinion: The Muslim spy (Jasoos) is killed. Al-Maalikiyah adopted this opinion and some of
the Hanaabilah, even though there are a number of directions within the Maalikiy Madh’hab within the
frame of this opinion:

- The first direction: The obligation of killing the Muslim spy absolutely without restriction (Mutlaqan).

Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “Suhnoon said: If the Muslim corresponds with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of or at war),
he is killed and his repentance is not sought, whilst his wealth (or property) goes to his inheritors … Ibn
ul-Qaasim said: He is killed and Taubah (repentance) is not known for such a person and he is like the
Zindeeq” (1).

- The second direction: The obligation of killing the Muslim spy if he was caught spying before
declaring his repentance or if spying was a norm for him.

It was stated in “Manh ul-Jaleel”: “And the Muslim spy is like the Zindeeq, i.e. like the one who displayed
Islaam and concealed the Kufr (disbelief), in respect to being designated to be killed and even if he
exhibited repentance after being discovered. That is whilst his Taubah (repentance) is accepted if he
exhibited it before being caught or found out” (2).

And in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, by Al-Jassaas, the following was stated: “Abdul Maalik (3) said: If that was
a norm (or regular act), then he is killed because he is a spy” (4).

In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “It is possible that Ibn ul-Maajishoon only adopted the repetition (i.e. of
the act of spying) in respect to this because Haatib was caught in his first act, and Allah knows best” (5).

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 5/64-65, (2) “Manh ul-Jaleel”, explanation upon Mukhtasar Sayyidiy Khaleel: 3/163 and
refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer, Ad-Dardeer: 2/182, (3) He is Ibn ul-Maajishoon, (4) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-Arabiy:
4/1771 and refer to “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 18/53, (5) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-
Qurtubiy: 18/53. I say: And Al-Imaam Adh-Dhahabiy adopted the obligation of killing the Muslim spy. That is if great harms
results from his spying. He said in his book “Al-Kabaa’ir” (Major Sins): “The 76th great sin is: The one who spies upon the
Muslims and guided to their weak points. And in the subject of the Hadeeth of Haatib Bin Abi Balta’ah, where it is stated that
‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, wanted to kill him for what he had done, and then the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
forbade him from killing him due to his participation at (the battle of) Badr. Then (in light of this), had weakness afflicted
Islaam and its adherents, the killing of Muslims, their being taken as booty and prisoners, plundering (of their properties) and
anything like that, been a consequence of his spying, then this spying has taken place from someone who seeks corruption
upon the earth and the destruction of the crops and cattle, and death his designated for him”: p169].

- The third direction: The killing of the Muslim spy is subject to the Ijtihaad of the person possessing
the authority. He can pass judgment upon him to be killed or pass judgment upon him with another
punishment.

Ibn ul-Arabiy from the Maalikiy Madh’hab said:

“The one who has gathered information about the weak points of the Muslims a lot, is attentive to them
and makes their enemies aware of their news … If we said: That he is not a Kaafir (disbeliever) by that …
Then is he killed by it as a Hadd (set punishment) or not? Then Maalik, Ibn ul-Qaasim and Ash’hab said:
The Imaam makes Ijtihaad in respect to the matter …” (1).

Some of the Hanaabilah also adopted this direction or approach in relation to this Mas’alah (issue).

Ibn ul-Qayyim stated in his “Turuq Al-Haakimiyah”: “Is it permissible for the Ta’zeer (non-Hadd
punishment) to reach the level of killing? There are two opinions concerning this: It is permitted; like the
killing of the Muslim spy if the Maslahah (interest) dictates his killing. This is the opinion of Maalik and
some of the followers of Ahmad just as it was selected by Ibn ‘Aqeel” (2).

Ibn ul-Qayyim, himself, views this opinion to be preponderant or stronger and in “Zaad ul-Ma’aad” he
stated: “The correct view: Is that his being killed returns to the opinion of the Imaam. If the Imaam views
that there is a Maslahah (interest or benefit) for the Muslims represented in him being killed, he kills him.
And if keeping him alive is more beneficial (or of greater interest), he is kept alive. And Allah knows best”
(3).

The summary of what has been presented related to this Mas’alah is: That the majority (of the Fuqahaa’)
have viewed that the Muslim spy is not killed. The evidence for that is that the spying is not from the
three matters that permit the killing of the Muslim, which are: Apostasy from Islaam, the killing of the
protected life (i.e. unlawful killing) and Zinaa (adultery) after marriage (i.e. whilst being married). In
addition, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬refrained from killing Haatib Bin Abi Balta’ah when he fell into the lapse of
spying.

The other opinion, contrary to the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority), is that the Muslim spy is killed;
either as an obligation or as a permissible act, in accordance to the previously mentioned detail. They also
deduced that from the story of Haatib Bin Abi Balta’ah. Ibn Hajar, when clarifying the deduction of those
of this opinion, said:

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-Arabiy: 4/1771. Also refer to: Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 18/53, (2) “At-
Turuq Al-Haakimiyah”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: p117, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/423].

“The angle of evidence or deduction, is that he ‫ ﷺ‬approved of ‘Umar in respect to the will or wishing
for killing to be imposed had there not mean a Maani’ (Shar’iy preventive matter) and he explained that
the prevention came from Haatib having participated in the battle of Badr. That is whilst this (Maani’ i.e.
prevention) is negated in other than Haatib. Had being a Muslim been the Maani’ (preventer) preventing
his being killed, then why did ‫ ﷺ‬reason the matter with a reasoning that was more specific than that!”
(1).

As for At-Tajassus (spying) not being from among the three matters in which it is permitted to kill the
Muslim, then the Shar’iyah texts have come mentioning the killing of the Muslim in other than these three
matters which came mentioned within the Hadeeth. Therefore, the generality in respect to the Tahreem
(prohibition) of killing other than those three categories of Muslims is specified by those who have been
mentioned in the other Shar’iyah texts in respect to it being permitted to kill them in other circumstances.
Included amongst those texts are:

The Qawl (statement) of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫از ُعهَُ َفاضْ ِربُواَ ُع ُن َق‬

ِ ‫َآخرَُ ُي َن‬ َ ‫َِو َث َم َر َةَ َق ْل ِبهَِ َف ْليُطِ عْ هَُإِ ِنَاسْ َت َط‬
َ ‫اعَ َفإِنََْ َجا َء‬ َ َُ‫َمنْ َ َبا َي َعَإِ َماماَ َفأَعْ َطاه‬
َ ‫ص ْف َق َةَ َي ِده‬
َ
‫اْلخ َِر‬
Whoever gives the Bai’ah (pledge) to an Imaam and so given him the pledge of his hand and the
fruit of his heart must obey him to the best of his capability. Then, if another comes disputing
him, strike the neck of the other (2).

And his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ْ‫َُبال َّسيْفِ َ َكائِناَ َمن‬

ِ ‫َ َفاضْ ِربُوه‬،‫ِيَ َجمِيع‬ َ ‫َِاأل ُ َّمة‬
َ ‫َِوه‬ ْ ‫َ َف َمنْ َأَ َرادََأَنْ َ ُي َفرِّ َقَأَ ْم َرَ َه ِذه‬،‫إِ َّنهَُ َس َت ُكونُ َ َه َناتَ َو َه َنات‬
ََ ‫َك‬
‫ان‬
There will be evils (and trials) and so whoever wishes to divide the affair of the Ummah whilst
she is unified, then strike him with the sword whoever he may be (3).

And his Qawl ‫ ﷺ‬in another narration:

ُ‫ع َت ُك ْمَ َفا ْق ُتلُوه‬ َ ‫صا ُك ْمَأَ ْوَ ُي َفرِّ َق‬

ََ ‫َج َما‬ ُ ‫ىَرج ٍُل ََوا ِحدٍَي ُِري ُدَأَنْ َ َي‬
َ ‫ش َّقَ َع‬ َ ‫َمنْ َأَ َتا ُك ْم ََوأَ ْم ُر ُك ْم‬
َ َ‫َجمِيعَ َعل‬
Whoever comes to you, whilst your affair is unified upon one man, wanting to break your
strength and divide your collective, then kill him (4).

And his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

‫واَاْلخ َرَ ِم ْن ُه َما‬

َ ُ‫ْنَ َفا ْق ُتل‬ ِ ‫إِ َذاَب‬
ِ ‫ُوي َعَل َِخلِي َف َتي‬
If the Bai’ah (pledge) has been given to two Khalifahs then kill the other (or latter) from them (5).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy in respect to the specification upon the Hadeeth: “The blood of a Muslim person
is not Halaal except in one of three (cases) …” said: “And know that this is ‘Aamm (general) and the Saa’il
(one who attacks the property or life of others) is specified from it (i.e. its generality) and what is similar to
that, as it is permissible to kill him in defence or when repelling (the aggression) …” (6).

Also falling under this is area is the view of a group from the A’immah (i.e. Imaams of Madhaahib) that
the one who abandons the Salaah be killed, in addition to others who commit the Munkaraat. These have
been mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” (7).

By that we have reached the conclusion of the second point and now move on to the third point related
to this Mas’alah (issue).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/635, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1844, 3/1473, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1852, 3/1479, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1852,
3/1480, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 1853, 3/1480, (6) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 7/190, (7) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 12/204].

3 - The Third Point: The opinion that we view to be preponderant or strongest in respect to this
Mas’alah (issue):

Our opinion in relation to this Mas’alah is the same as the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’)
in respect to the non-permissibility of killing the Muslim spy. Rather, it is only permitted for him to be
subject to the Ta’zeeriy (non-Hadd) punishment according to the opinion of the one who possesses the
authority. The reason for the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing him is that he is Muslim and the Daleel
(evidence) for that is the Hadeeth of Furaat Bin Hayyaan which we previously presented during the
discussion of the first point. That is because Furaat was a Dhimmiy (under covenant non-Muslim subject
of the Islamic State) who lived amongst the Muslims in Al-Madinah. He was a spy for Abu Sufyaan in
Makkah and when his affair being disclosed or revealed the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬issued a command to kill him.
Then when Furaat declared that he was Muslim, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬abstained from killing him.

The following is deduced from the difference of the Hukm (ruling) in respect to this man between the
two circumstances or cases:

- The case of him being a non-Muslim and the case of him being a Muslim. It is deduced from that that
the ‘Illah (reasoning) for forbidding or preventing his being killed for the act of spying was Islaam (i.e. the
person being Muslim). Consequently, the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to the Jasoos (spy), in origin, is
that he is killed, unless there is a Maani’ (a matter that prevents that), and the Maani’ is only Al-Islaam (i.e.
being Muslim), as has been indicated to in the Hadeeth about Furaat Bin Hayyaan.

Therefore, the reasoning of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬for not agreeing to the killing of Haatib due to him having
witnessed and participated in Badr, is not because Islaam (i.e. being Muslim) alone is not viable (or
sufficient) to be a preventer (Maani’) for his being killed, Rather, that is to indicate that the Maani’
(preventer) in respect to Haatib is more than just him being Muslim. That is because, above that, which in
itself is sufficient to prevent the killing of him, according to the Hadeeth of Furaat Bin Hayyaan, he is also
distinguished above others from the Muslims due to being from amongst those who had witnessed and
participated in the (battle of) Badr. That is because those have a high virtue and elevated standing in
Islaam. So how can anyone of those favoured people of merit be killed due to a lapse that they have fallen
in whilst his previously affirmed support for Islaam diminishes any accusation in respect to his Aqeedah
or sincerity to Islaam.

This is what we understand from gathering and reconciling between the ‘Illah (reasoning) of preventing
the killing of Haatib due to him having witnessed Badr and between the ‘Illah (reasoning) of preventing
the killing of Furaat Bin Hayyaan due to him declaring his Islaam.

Concerning this, the following was stated by Ibn ul-Qayyim regarding the story or incident of Haatib:
“The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not say: “It is not Halaal to kill him, verily he is Muslim”. Rather, he
said: “It may be that Allah has looked upon the people of Badr and said: Do what you wish”. And so, he
‫ ﷺ‬answered by stating that there exists a Maani’ (preventer) to prevent his killing and that is the
witnessing of Badr. And in answer with this, it is like alerting to the permissibility of killing the spy who
does not have such a Maani’ (preventer i.e. the preventer of not killing those who witnessed the battle of
Badr)” (1).

I say: This speech of Ibn ul-Qayyim contains an omission of the Hadeeth of Furaat Bin Hayyaan which
indicates that Islaam (i.e. belief in it) alone is the only preventer (Maani’) that prevents the killing of the
spy. That is whilst it is known that bringing together (and reconciling) the evidences is better than utilising
or working with some of them whilst abandoning others.

It appears that the non-indication to the Hadeeth of Furaat Bin Hayyaan, in respect to the (acceptance or
belief in) Islaam representing a preventer for the killing of the spy, is the weakness of this Hadeeth in
some of its Riwaayaat (narrations). However, as long as the soundness of this Hadeeth has been verified in
other narrations (2), then it is obligatory to utilise it and that is what we have done. Therefore, we have
weighed as strongest the opinion of the majority in respect to the non-permissibility of killing the Muslim
spy and for the choice be left to the person in authority to determine the Ta’zeeriy punishment, according
to his opinion and Ijtihaad (3).

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm (legal ruling) of the spy from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah:

We will address this Mas’alah through a discussion of the following two points:

1 - The First Point: What are the Fiqhiy opinions related to the Hukm (legal ruling) of the Dhimmiy spy?

2 - The Second Point: What is the opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to the Hukm of the
Dhimmiy spy?

1 - The First Point: What are the Fiqhiy opinions related to the Hukm (legal ruling) of the
Dhimmiy spy?

- According to the Hanafiy Madh’hab: Al-Imaam Abu Yousuf views the killing of the Dhimmiy spy.
He said, in his address to Haaroon Ar-Rasheed, concerning this issue: “And you asked, O Ameer ul-
Mu’mineen, concerning the spies? …

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/422-423, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/9, (3) A group of the contemporary Islamic thinkers
supported the opinion permitting the killing of the Muslim spy. Refer to “Al-Jihaad Wa n-Nuzhum Al-‘Askariyah fi t-Takeer
Al_islaamiy”, Dr. Ahmad Shalabiy: p115 and “At-Ta’zeez Fi sh-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah”, Dr. Abdul ‘Azeez ‘Aamir: p313. In
addition, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadr Hussein found it sufficient to point to the opinion of Al-Imaam Maalik in respect
to this Mas’alah, thus indicating that he views that opinion to be preponderant, on top of him being a follower of the Maalikiy
Madh’hab. Refer to “Al-Hidaayah Al-Islaamiyah”: p26. And from another angle, some of them have supported the opinion of
the majority in respect to the Muslim spy not being killed. Refer to: “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-
Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/181].

… If they are from the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) or from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who pay the Jizyah
from amongst the Jews, Christians and Majoos, then strike their necks” (1).

However, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan held the opinion that the Dhimmiy spy not be killed. In
“As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” the following was stated: “And similarly if a Dhimmiy did that (i.e.
spied upon the Muslims). A punishment is imposed upon him and imprisoned. This (spying) is not
considered to break the ‘Ahd (covenant of Dhimmah). That is because, had a Muslim done it, it would not
have breached his Amaan (security). Consequently, if a Dhimmiy has engaged in it, it is likewise not
breaching or invalidating of his Amaan (security)” (2).

Yes, there is one case, according to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf, in which the covenant (‘Ahd) of the
Dhimmiy is violated and at such a time it is permissible to kill him. This case is when he was not in origin
a Dhimmiy carrying the Islamic citizenship but rather acquired it or as is said in modern day terminology:
“He attained the Islamic citizenry via naturalisation or through acquiring citizenship”. Whilst that was
done to enable him to undertake his spying work. In such a case his ‘Ahd (covenant) is broken and
consequently the judgment passed upon him is death.

The following was stated in “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar” concerning the explanation of what breaks the ‘Ahd
(covenant) of the Dhimmiy: “Or he makes himself a spy or informant for the disbelievers where he was
dispatched in order to gather information about the enemy. If he was not sent out for that purpose he
would not invalidate his ‘Ahd (covenant)” (3). And in the “Haashiyah” of Ibn ‘Aabideen when providing
an example, he stated: “An example: That a Musta’min (one granted security) enters and stays as a resident
for a year and Jizyah is imposed upon him, whilst his aim is to spy upon the Muslims to inform the
enemy” (4).
I say: An example of such a case in our current time would be a non-Muslim foreigner working for a
particular spy agency of another land been commissioned by that agency to present a request to the
Islamic lands to acquire the Islamic citizenry and enter into the Dhimmah (protection) of the Muslims.
That is whilst his objective behind that, in this case, is to provide a cover for his spying activities and
facilitate his mission that he requested the citizenry for. Here, in such circumstances, if he attains this
citizenship or subject status (Taabi’iyah) and then his affair was discovered, he would be considered to be
in breach of his covenant. It would then be permissible to kill him based upon that, if the person holding
the position of authority (i.e. the ruler) viewed the Maslahah in killing him.

[(1) “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: p205, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2041, (3) “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar” and its Sharh “Radd
ul-Mukhtaar” Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/428, (4) “Haashiyah” Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/428].

- As for the Madh’hab of Maalik: The following came mentioned in “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: “And the spy
(‘Ain) is killed i.e. the one spying upon the Muslims and informing the Harbiyeen (those the Muslims are
at war against) about the weak-points of the Muslims and transferring their information to them … And if
the spy was a Dhimmiy in our land … he is killed unless he embraces Islaam. And it was transmitted from
Suhnoon: If the Imaam views that he be enslaved then he can do that and it is deemed dubious that it will
not prevent his evil” (1).

And in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” of Ad-Dardeer, concerning the Hukm of the Dhimmiy spy, the following
was stated: “As for gathering information about the weak points of the Muslims, then the Imaam has the
option of killing him or imprisoning him” (2).

Al-Qurtubiy said: “Asbagh (3) said: … And the Muslim and Dhimmiy spy are punished unless they
support one another against Islaam, in which case they are killed” (4).

- As for the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab: In “Al-Muhadh’dhab” of Ash-Sheeraaziy, he summarised that: The

Dhimmiy spy falls between two cases:

The first case: If it has not been stipulated upon him that he abstain from spying when the contract of the
Dhimmah is made, then his ‘Ahd (covenant) is not invalidated if he spied. I say: And the meaning of this
is that it is not permissible to kill him although it is permissible to impose a punishment upon him due to
his perpetrating of an act that harms the Muslims.

And the second case: If it has been stipulated that he abstain from spying when the contract of the
Dhimmah was made for him and then he spied. In respect to the Hukm (judgment and ruling) passed
upon him in such a situation, there are two angles:

The first angle: That his ‘Ahd (covenant) is not broken or invalidated even if he has engaged in spying and
violated the condition that was stipulated upon him.

[(1) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/162-163, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/205, (3) Asbagh Bin Al-Faraj: An Egyptian
Maalikiy Faqeeh who gained knowledge with Ibn ul-Qaasim, Ibn Wahab and Ash’hab. Abdul Maalik Bin Al-Maajshoon said
regarding him: “Egypt has not produced the like of Asbagh. It was said to him: And not even Ibn ul-Qaasim? He said: And not
even Ibn ul-Qaasim”: “Wafayaat ul-A’ayun: 1/240, (4) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 18/53 and refer to “Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 4/1772].

The second angle: That he breaks or invalidates his ‘Ahd (covenant) by the spying sue to violating the
condition stipulated upon him. Then built upon this angle in respect to his breaking of his ‘Ahd here,
there are also two opinions relate to the Hukm (ruling or judgment) upon this Dhimmiy spy who has
broken his covenant by spying:
- The first opinion: It is not permissible to kill him but rather he is expelled from the lands of Islaam and
returned to his place of security i.e. he is deported to the land that he enjoys security in. The evidential
argument for this opinion is that he entered Daar ul-Islaam in security (Amaan) and as such it is not
permitted to kill him before returning him to his place of security (i.e. outside of the Islamic land).

- The second opinion: And this is the correct view. It is that it is not obligatory to return him to his place
of security. That is because when he broke or invalidated his ‘Ahd (covenant) by spying, he became a
Mushrik (disbeliever) who no longer has a security for him, just like the disbelieving captive or prisoner of
war. Therefore, the Imaam chooses in respect to him what he views (to be correct) according to the
Maslahah in terms of killing, enslaving, letting free or ransoming (1).

As for the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah: In “Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah” by Al-Farraa’, the following was stated:
“The Dhimmiy must leave that which brings harm upon the Muslims and their individuals in respect to
wealth or life, and they number eight matters …” Al-Farraa’ then listed these matters and mentioned
within them: “That he does not give refuge or sanctuary to a spy of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) i.e. a
spy. And that he does not assist the Muslims by indication. I mean: That he doesn’t correspond with the
disbelievers informing them of the news of (or information about) the Muslims …” He then said: “He
must therefore leave these matters, whether the Imaam stipulated them upon him or did not. If he did
that or anything from it, then his ‘Ahd (covenant) is invalidated according to one of the narrations (i.e.
reported opinions) … And there is another reported opinion stating that the covenant is not broken or
invalidated except by refraining from giving the Jizyah or from our Ahkaam being applied upon them” (2).

Concerning the opinion stating the breaking of the covenant, the author of “Al-Mughniy” said: “In
respect to the one whom we have judged to have broken his ‘Ahd (covenant0 from among them, the
Imaam has four options available to him: Killing, enslavement, ransoming and letting free, like the Harbiy
(enemy) prisoner” (3).

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/257. Also refer to “Mugniy ul-Muhtaaj: 4/258-259, “Haashiyah Al-Buhairamiy ‘Alaa
Sharh ul-Khateeb”: 4/257 and “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p145, (2) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’:
p142-143. Refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/606 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/634, (3) “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/635].

And in respect to the opinion that the covenant is not broken by the spying, the following came
mentioned in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Al-Maqdisiy, in respect to the spy: “He is given a Ta’zeer (non-
Hadd punishment) … in accordance to what is imposed upon similar acts” (1).

The summarised conclusion of what has preceded: That the Dhimmiy spy is killed according to Abu
Yousuf from the Ahnaaf and the majority of the Fuqahaa’ of the Maalikiy Madh’hab. It is permitted to kill
him according to the prominent opinion in the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab if it was stipulated upon him at the
time of contracting the Dhimmah, that he refrain from spying. It is also permitted to kill him according to
one of the opinions attributed to the Hanbaliy Madh’hab, whether refraining from spying was stipulated
as a condition upon him or not.

According to the opinion stating that it is not permissible to kill the Dhimmiy spy in other than the
previous cases or according to those Fuqahaa’ whom we have mentioned, then he is subject to a Ta’zeer
(non-Hadd) punishment that deters him from repeating what he undertook in terms of spying and as a
deterrent to others from following the same dangerous and transgressing path.

By that we have reached the conclusion of our discussion of the first point of this Mas’alah and now
move on to the second.
2 - The Second Point: What is the opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to the Hukm of
the Dhimmiy spy?

The opinion that we view to be strongest or correct in this issue is generally the same as that which came
in the preponderant view of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab, albeit with some further details. That is as follows:

When non-Muslims present a request to the Islamic State seeking that they grant them Islamic subject
status or what is called citizenry, so that they become citizens of the Islamic State … Then, in such a case,
the matter is examined:

- If one of the conditions that they sign upon, to be granted the right of citizenship within the Islamic
State, is that they do not engage in any spying activity and that there undertaking or engagement in such
an activity would subject them to the death penalty, then in such a case, this spy who was granted the right
of the Dhimmah and citizenship deserves execution, in accordance to the Shart (condition) that was
stipulated upon him and which he agreed to.

As such, it is permissible for the State, in such a case, to kill this Dhimmiy after merely proving or
establishing that he had engaged in spying. It is also permitted for the State, to present to him that this
ruling of death be removed or lifted from him, if he declares his Islaam; undertaking that in which the
Maslahah lies …

[(1) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/634 and refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609].

However, if the spy who has been given the verdict of the death penalty takes the initiative and declares
his Islaam and even before or without Islaam is offered or presented to him, then it is obligatory upon the
State to abstain from killing him, in accordance to the Hadeeth of Furaat Bin Hayyaan.

In any case, the punishment of execution here, represents the right of the State, in accordance to the
dictates of the stipulated condition, but it is not obligatory upon it. That means that in respect to the
Dhimmiy who broke his covenant (‘Ahd) due to spying, it is permitted for the State to renew the contract
of Dhimmah which he had been broken, so that he returns to the status of being from the secure citizens,
if the State saw the Maslahah in doing that.

This represents the situation of the Dhimmiy spy if there existed a previous stipulated condition to apply
the judgment of death upon him if he was to engage in any spying activity.

- As for when such a condition does not exist at the time of granting non-Muslims the right of the
Dhimmah and citizenship within the Islamic State, then in this situation:

- If a condition was placed upon the State to not kill the Dhimmiy in other than specific circumstances
whilst the engagement in spying activities was not included amongst them, then in such a situation it is not
permitted for the State to proceed upon killing him, in accordance to the mentioned stipulated condition.

- In the case when the contract of the Dhimmah was neglectful concerning this matter, where it neither
mentioned the condition of killing for spying nor the condition that killing or the death penalty would not
be imposed for that, then in such a case:

- It is permissible for the State to punish the Dhimmiy spy with any Ta’zeer (non-Hadd) punishment that
is less than killing.

- Just as it is permissible for the State for its punishment to reach the level of killing or imposing the death
penalty.
The death penalty here for the Dhimmiy spy deserving of the Ta’zeer (non-Hadd), is in harmony with the
view of those ‘Ulamaa’ who have stated the permissibility of the Ta’zeer punishment reaching the level of
death or execution (2).

[(1) “At-Ta’zeer: It is the reprimanding that is less than the Hadd and its origin is “Al-‘Azr” and it means “Al-Man’u”
(prevention)”, “Ta’reefaat” (Definitions), Al-Jarjaaniy: p85. Also, some of the Fuqahaa’ prefer to utilise the term of Ta’zeer
specifically in respect to the Muslims. As for the non-Muslims, they use the term ‘Uqoobah’ (punishment or penalty). Whilst,
some utilise both terms for both groups together. Refer to “Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 5/2040, “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy:
4/250, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/634 and “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf:
p205-206, (2) Refer to “At-Turuq Al-Haakimiyah”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: p117. And within this source, also refer to the topic: “Is the
Ta’zeer of the State for those who have committed Munkaraat obligatory or permissible”: p116].

Similarly, this punishment does not clash with those who have stated the forbiddance of the Ta’zeer
punishment reaching the level of execution whilst limiting execution to the three matters: Apostasy from
Islaam, the adultery of a married person and the killing of the protected (or innocent) life. That is because
the Hadeeth that limits the death penalty to these (three) cases states that this restriction is in respect to
the Muslim alone: “The blood (life) of the Muslim is not Halaal except in one of three
(circumstances) …”. The Mafhoom (understood meaning) from this is that if the non-Muslim
perpetrates crimes other than what has been mentioned, that there is nothing preventing its imposed
punishment to reach the level of the Hadd (prescribe set punishment) of death, if or when the Maslahah
calls for that … In addition, the subject area of the mentioned Hadeeth indicates that it specifically relates
to the Muslims alone because it mentioned amongst the three cases which the execution or death penalty
is restricted, the case of apostasy from Islaam. That is whilst it is obvious that the perpetration of this
crime of apostasy is unconceivable in respect to the non-Muslims, whilst they are established upon their
Deen. Consequently, this mentioned Hadeeth does not stand in the way of the Hukm (ruling) of executing
the Dhimmiy spy and even upon the opinion of those who restrict the punishment of execution to the
three cases stated in the text.

That is whilst we have already previously mentioned that the original ruling (Al-Hukm Al-Asliy) in respect
to the spy is Al-Qatl (to be killed/executed) unless there is a Maani’ (preventer preventing the application
of the rule) whilst that Maani’ (in this issue) is Al-Islaam (i.e. being Muslim). In the case where the
Dhimmiy spy has not sought recourse in this Maani’ (preventer), to protect himself from being executed,
whilst it is available to him, indeed he is invited to it through the general call and invitation to Islaam, then
he alone is responsible for his fate and the outcome, if the State has decided to impose the judgement of
execution upon him.

Finally, the following question could arise: Why have the Shar’iyah texts, according to our understanding
of them, distinguished between the punishment of the Muslim and the punishment of the Dhimmiy, in
respect to the same single crime that each of them had committed; the crime of At-Tajassus (spying)?

In answer to this, I say: This might be because those bonds that bond the Muslim with Muslims and with
the Islamic State are stronger than they are with the non-Muslim and it may be that this is what this
differentiation in the Hukm upon the spy between the Muslim and Dhimmiy rests upon. That is because
the factors of sincerity and loyalty attached to the Muslim towards his Islamic State and towards his
brothers in the Deen makes conceiving the will for committing treachery and causing harm, towards his
State and his Ummah, even if he engaged in acts of spying, is more remote than if someone who does not
possess those factors related to the Deen undertakes the spying, even if it is not natural for that to drive
him to betray the state that he is affiliated to and the Ummah that treats him well. However, despite that,
the bonds of the Deen are stronger than the bonds of citizenship or similar such bonds, in respect to
being motivated towards sincerity and loyal in relation to this matter we are discussing (i.e. spying) … This
is what we believe to be the secret behind the distinction of the Shar’iyah texts, according to our
understanding of them, in respect to the difference of the Hukm of the Muslim spy and the Dhimmiy spy.
In any case, what is depended upon in respect to issuing the Ahkaam (judgements) upon the Muslims and
upon others, whether those Ahkaam are the same or have differed, are the Shar’iyah texts which indicate
to them, in accordance to the understanding of the one studying them, reached through the established
principles to reach the sound understanding … and whether the mind has understood this agreement in
respect to the Ahkaam or the difference in respect to them or has not comprehended …

By that, we have reached the end of this second Mas’alah (issue) and in doing so we have also reached the
conclusion of the study in which we have addressed the issue of the Hukm (ruling) of the Muslim spy and
the Dhimmiy spy. We now move on to the next area of study with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.

The Sixth Study

The Hukm (ruling) of fleeing from the army during war

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadar Hussein said: “Fleeing from the fighting or combat ranks represents a
major Mafsadah of huge consequence. That is because the one fleeing could be like the falling brick from
the bottom of the wall and as a consequence of its falling the whole wall could fall. For that reason, the
Shaari’ (legislator) Al-Hakeem regarded the fleeing from the battle to be from the greatest of crimes …”
(1).

I say: The Fuqahaa’ have examined the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of fleeing from Al-Qitaal (the fighting or
battle) and explained its Hukm. In our study of this issue we will restrict ourselves to the following points:

1 - The First Point: The main Shar’iyah texts that the ‘Ulamaa relied upon in respect to providing the
Hukm (legal ruling) upon this issue in addition to some commentary upon them.

2 - The Second Point: Some of what has been mentioned within the Fiqhiy sources or references
concerning the Mas’alah of fleeing from the battle.

3 - The Third Point: Our opinion in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

4 - The Fourth Point: What is the ‘Uqoobah (punishment) for fleeing from the army or the war?

1 - The First Point: The main Shar’iyah texts that the ‘Ulamaa relied upon in respect to providing
the Hukm (legal ruling) upon this issue in addition to some commentary upon them.

There are Shar’iyah texts which have warned about fleeing and turning backs (in flight) when meeting the
enemy and when the two rows; those of the Muslims and the disbelievers, come together for battle. The
following are some of those texts:

[(1) “Al-Hidaayah Al-Islaamiyah”: Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khadar Hussein: p29].

 1 - Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫﴾َو َمنَي َُولِّ َِه ْمَ َي ْو َم ِئذٍَ ُدب َُره ََُإِ َّال‬ َ ١٥﴿َ‫ار‬ َ ‫َاألَ ْد َب‬
ْ ‫ُواَزحْ فاَ َف َالَ ُت َولُّو ُه ُم‬
َ ‫ِينَ َك َفر‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَإِ َذاَلَقِي ُت ُمَالَّذ‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
‫سَ ْالمَصِ ي َُر‬ ََ ‫َۖو ِب ْئ‬ َ ‫َِو َمأْ َواه‬
َ َ‫َُج َه َّن ُم‬ َ ‫ضبٍَم َِّنَاللَّـه‬ َ ‫َب َغ‬ ِ ‫الَأَ ْوَ ُم َت َحيِّزاَإِلَ ٰىَ ِف َئةٍَ َف َق ْدَ َبا َء‬
ٍ ‫ُم َت َحرِّ فاَلِّ ِق َت‬
O you who have believed, when you meet (1) those who disbelieve advancing [for battle] (2), do not turn to them your backs
[in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day (3), unless swerving [as a strategy] (4) for war or joining
[another] company (5), has certainly returned (6) with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell - and wretched
is the destination (Al-Anfaal: 15-16).

Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said concerning the two verses: “When you have come together (to fight) then don’t flee
from them and don’t show them your backs. Allah has made that Haraam (prohibited) upon the believers
when He made Al-Jihaad Fard (obligatory) upon them” (7).

Al-Aalousiy said in his Tafseer of the two verses: “The Aayah contains an evidence for the prohibition of
flight from the battle in respect to the one who is not doing that for strategic reasons or to join another
company … That is if the enemy is not more than two times their number due to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫فَاللَّـهَُ َعن ُك ْم‬ َ ‫ْاْل َن‬

َ ‫َخ َّف‬
Now, Allah has lightened [the matter] for you (Al-Anfaal: 66).

If, however, the number is greater than that, it is permissible to flee and as such the Aayah does not
remain upon its generality. This is the view of the majority of the people of knowledge (Ahl ul-‘Ilm)” (8).

2 - Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ُونَ َي ْغلِبُواَمِا َئ َتَْي ِنَ ََۚوإِنَ َي ُكن‬

َ ‫ص ِابر‬ َ َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫الََۚإِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُك ْمَعِ ْشر‬ ِ ‫ىَالقِ َت‬ ْ َ‫ِينَ َعل‬ ْ ‫ض‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ ِ ِّ‫َحر‬ َ ُّ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَال َّن ِبي‬
َ ‫فَاللَّـهَُ َعن ُك ْم ََو َعلِ َمَأَنَّ َفِي ُك ْم‬
ََۚ‫َضعْ فا‬ َ ‫َخ َّف‬ َ ‫ُونَ ْاْل َن‬ َّ ‫ُواَبأ َ َّن ُه ْمَ َق ْوم‬
ََ ‫َالَ َي ْف َقه‬ ِ ‫ِينَ َك َفر‬َ ‫مِّن ُكمَمِّا َئةَ َي ْغلِبُواَأَ ْلفاَم َِّنَالَّذ‬
َ‫َبإِ ْذ ِنَاللَّـ ِهَ ََۗواللَّـهَُ َم َع‬ ِ ‫َۚوإِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُك ْمَأَ ْلفَ َي ْغ ِلبُواَأَ ْل َفي‬
ِ ‫ْن‬ َ َ‫ْن‬ َ َ‫َفإِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُكمَمِّا َئة‬
ِ ‫ص ِاب َرةَ َي ْغلِبُواَمِا َئ َتي‬
ََ ‫َّاب ِر‬
‫ين‬ ِ ‫الص‬
O Prophet, urge the believers upon Al-Qitaal (9). If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two
hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand (10) of those who have
disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand. Now, Allah has lightened [the hardship] for you, and He
knows that among you is weakness (11) …

[(1) “The term ‘Al-Liqaa’’ (meeting) has become prominent in respect to Al-Qitaal like the term ‘An-Nizaal’”: Al-Aalousiy:
10/13, (2) Zahf: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/832 and refer to the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 7/380, (3) “A group
believed that this is indicating to Badr, whilst it is not. Rather, it indicates to the day of the Zahf (battle) and the Dalel for that is
that the Aayah was revealed after the fighting … and what is in it is applicable today”: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy:
2/833, (4) “i.e. it means leaving his position to a more suitable position to conduct the fighting from or to head off to fight
another group which is more important than them or to alternate the attack. That could proceed according to the deceptions of
warfare”: “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 9/182, (5) “Meaning: To incline to another group of the believers … to fight the enemy
alongside them … And some of them considered the group being close to the group seeking them so as to gain support
through them, as if the matter was built upon what is conventional or customary, whilst others did not pay regard to that, in
consideration of the linguistic understanding”: “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 9/181, (6) “َ‫ب‬ ٍ َ‫( ”بَاءََبِ َغض‬Baa’a BiGhadab) means: It stuck
to him and he returned with it”: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/159, (7) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/832. Refer
to: “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan), Al-Qurtubiy: 7/380, (8) “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”, Al-Aalousiy: 9/182, (9) “Al-Qitaal: It means
to repel something which leads to killing”: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/866, (10) “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: It was this and
then it was abrogated after that by a long period. And even though it (i.e. the later abrogating Aayah) was next to or following
it”: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”: Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/866, (11) “Restricting the lightening with the present is evident (Zhaahir). As for
restricting the knowledge of Allah to it then it by the consideration of its attachment and they had said: It contains an
attachment to a matter before the occurrence and the present state of the occurrence and after it. At-Tayyibiy said: The
meaning: Now Allah Ta’Aalaa has lightened from you due to what has appeared attached to His knowledge: i.e. your large
number”: Tafseer Al-‘Aalousiy: 10/32].

… So, if there are from you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred (1). And if there are among
you a thousand, they will overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. And Allah is with the steadfast (Al-Anfaal: 65-
66).

Al-Jassaas said when presenting these two verses: “The Fard (obligation) at the beginning of Islaam was:
That one must fight ten of the disbelievers due to the correctness or good state of the awareness of the
believers at that time and the truthfulness and affirmation of their Yaqeen (certainty i.e. belief). Then
when other people embraced Islaam, they became mixed with those who did not possess their level of
awareness and intention and He lightened from them as a whole and dealt with them as a whole and
consequently made it obligatory upon one to confront and combat two”. Al-Jassaas continued saying:
“And regarding the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ َ‫فَاللَّـهَُ َعَن ُك ْم ََو َعلِ َمَأَنَّ َفِي ُك ْم‬

‫ضعْ فَا‬ َ ‫ْاْل َن‬
َ ‫َخ َّف‬
Now, Allah has lightened [the hardship] for you, and He knows that among you is weakness

This does not intend the weakness of strength and bodies but rather what is intended is the weakness of
the Niyah (intention or will) to fight the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) and so He made the Fard of everyone
the obligation of their weak. And ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood said: I had not thought that any one of the
Muslims had wanted (or desired) by his fighting, other than Allah (i.e. His pleasure) until Allah Ta’Aalaa
revealed:

ْ ‫اَومِن ُكمَمَّنَي ُِري ُد‬

َ‫َاْلخ َِر َة‬ َ ‫مِن ُكمَمَّنَي ُِري ُدَال ُّد ْن َي‬
Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter (Aali ‘Imraan: 152).

The first (or early Muslims) were upon the like of these intentions. Then when those who desired the
Dunyaa from their fighting mixed with them, they were all made equal in respect to the Fard” (2).

3 - In Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: “Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: When “If there are
among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred” was revealed, that was hard upon the
Muslims as it was made obligatory upon them that one would not flee from ten. Then the lightening came
and He said: “Now, Allah has lightened [the hardship] for you, and He knows that among you is weakness So, if there
are from you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred”. He said: Then when Allah lightened
this number from them the level of steadfastness was deducted according to what was lightened from
them” (3).

And commenting upon the decrease of steadfastness due to the lightening in obligation the following was
stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “This is what Ibn ‘Abbaas said based upon what is apparent and it is possible
that what he said was arrived at by way of Al-Istiqraa’ (examination and deliberation)” (4).

[(1) “It is a Khabar with the meaning of a command: i.e. One hundred will stand steadfast before two hundred and upon this
the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa: “If you meet a group, then stand firm …” “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224 and the Aayah is Al-
Anfaal: 45, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/256. And look to what Ibn Mas’ood related as recorded in the Musannaf of
Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18630, 14/402, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4653, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/312, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/313].

I say: Concerning reasoning the decrease of Sabr (patience and steadfastness), if Ibn ‘Abbaas said that by
way of Al-Istiqraa’ (deliberation and examination) and not based on what was revealed by the Shaari’, then
this is because the normal reality of the human is that his level of steadfastness upon matters and
difficulties or hardships is in accordance to the size of what he has been commissioned or entrusted to
undertake. So, you find, for example, that the one who has been tasked to climb a mountain to its halfway
point would feel the exhaustion of his energy when he reaches that specified goal and could feel the
difficulty of continuing to reach further than that … However, the same person, if tasked to reach the top
of that high mountain, he may pass the middle point of that mountain without feeling a great level of
tiredness and could actually reach the summit … This thought here is like that: That the steadfastness or
perseverance upon tasked obligations is dependent upon the size of those tasked obligations. The
perseverance or steadfastness increases if they increase and diminishes if they diminish!

4 - The following was recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim: “Abu Hurairah related from the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

َ‫سَالَّتِي‬ِ ‫َو َق ْتلَُال َّن ْف‬،ُ

َ ‫َوالسِّحْ ر‬، ِ َّ ‫َُب‬
َ ‫اّلل‬ ِ ‫شرْ ك‬ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُو َل‬
ِّ ‫ََّللا ََو َماَهُنَّ َ َقا َلَ"َال‬ َ ‫َ َقالُواَ َي‬."َِ‫ُوب َقات‬ِ ‫َالم‬ْ ‫اجَْ َتَِنبُواَال َّسب َْع‬
ْ ‫ص َنات‬
َِ‫َِالم ُْؤ ِم َنات‬ ْ ُ‫َو َق ْذف‬،
َ ْ‫َالمُح‬ ََّ ‫َوال َّت َولِّيَ َي ْو َم‬،
َ ِ‫َالزحْ ف‬ َ ‫َال َيت ِِيم‬ ِ ‫َوأَ ْكلَُ َم‬،‫ا‬
ْ ‫ال‬ َ ‫َوأَ ْكلَُالرِّ َب‬،
َ ‫َب ْال َح ِّق‬ َّ ‫َحرَّ َم‬
ِ َّ‫ََّللاُ ََإِال‬
َِ َ‫ْال َغافِال‬
‫ت‬
“Stay clear from the seven great destructive sins (1)” They asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What
are they?” He said: “To join partners in worship with Allah; to practice sorcery; to kill the life
which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause (according to Islamic law); to eat up usury
(Riba), to eat up the property of an orphan, fleeing from the battle and to slander the Muhsinaat
(2) Al-Ghaafilaat women believers” (3).

[(1) “Al-Muhlikaat (destructive acts). They have been called that because they are a cause for the destruction of the one who
perpetrates them … and what is meant by them is the Kabaa’ir (major sins)” Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Ala l-Bukhaariy: 10/37. Many
Ahaadeeth have come listing the Kabaa’ir (major sins). Some have mentioned less than this number and some have mentioned
more. That is like what came in “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim: “… And so they asked him: “What are the Kabaa’ir?” He ‫ﷺ‬
said: “To associate partners with Allah, to flee from the battle and to kill the life”. Al-Haakim said: It is Saheeh upon the
conditionality of the two Sheikhs. Adh-Dhahabiy said: It is upon the conditionality of Al-Bukhaariy alone: “Al-Mustadrak:
1/23… However, what is the Hikmah behind restricting to a specific number of the Kbaa’ir in this Hadeeth? In “Fat’h ul-
Baariy” he said: “The restriction has occurred according to the situation of the questioner or upon whom the incident fell upon
etc… At-Tabariy and Ismaa’eel Al-Qaadiy recorded from Ibn ‘Abbaas: That it was said to him: “Are the Kabaa’ir seven?” he
said: They are more than seven and (another) seven”. And in a relation from him they are closer to seventy and in another 700.
His speech is understood to be indicative of exaggeration (to make the point) in respect to those who restricted it to seven”.
Then the author of “Al-Fat’h” in his explanation of the Kabeerah (major sin) said: “And Ibn Abdis Salaam said: I do not rest
upon the Daabit of the Kabeerah i.e. that it is safe from objection”. Then Ibn Hajar said: And from the best definitions is the
statement of Al-Qurtubiy in “Al-Mufhim”: “Every Dhanb (sin) that has been stated in the Kitaab, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ as
being a Kabeerah (major) or Azheem (great) or severity of punishment has been informed concerning it or the Hadd
(punishment) is attached to it, or the denunciation is severe for it, then it is a Kabeerah (major sin)”. Then Ibn Hajar said: “Al-
Haleemiy said in Al-Minhaaj: There is no Dhanb (sin) except that it has within it a Sagheerah (minor sin) and Kabeerah (major
sin) and a Sagheerah can become a Kabeerah by a Qareenah (indicative linkage) attached to it, whilst a great major sin can
change similarly … Al-Haleemiy then mentioned examples for what he said: The first: Engaging in intimate actions (less than
penetration) with a foreign woman is a Sagheerah (minor sin). However, if it was with wife of the father or son or a Mahram
then that it turns into a Kabeerah (major sin) … And he went on at length in respect to examples of that …” “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
12/183-184. And refer also to: “Al-Qastalaaniy Alaa l-Bukhaariy”: 10/36-37, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 6857, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
12/181. Saheeh Muslim: 89, 1/92]

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “As for him ‫ ﷺ‬counting or considering turning one’s back or fleeing
from the battle to be from the major sins, then it represents an explicit Daleel (evidence) for the
Madh’hab (opinion) of all of the ‘Ulamaa in respect to it being a Kabeerah (major sin). That is apart from
what was related from Al-Hasan Al-Basriy, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, who said: And the Noble
Aayah relating to that “And whoever turns his back on that day” was only mentioned in relation to the
people of Badr specifically. However, the correct view is what the majority have said in respect to it being
‘Aamm (general) and that it remains applicable. And Allah knows best” (1).

It appears here that he was somewhat negligent when speaking about the opinion of Al-Hasan Al-Basriy
concerning this matter, just as is this is found in the expression of Ibn Qudaamah in “Al-Mughniy” when
he states: “And it has been related from Al-Hasan and Ad-Dahhaak that this (i.e. the obligation of
steadfastness or perseverance during the Qitaal and not fleeing) is specific to the day of Badr and is not
obligatory in other than that” (2).
I say: The relation attributed to Al-Hasan, in truth, does not establish the non-obligation of remaining
steadfast in other than Badr as the statement of Ibn Qudaamah indicates to. Rather, it establishes that the
fleeing in other than Badr is not from amongst the Kabaa’ir (major sins). This means that it is Haraam
only and consequently it is therefore obligatory to remain steadfast in the battles other than the battle of
Badr. That is in the case where the steadfastness is obligatory to avert following inti the Haraam. The text
of the report from Al-Hasan, as quoted by Ibn Hazm, by his chain, is: “Al-Hasan said: Fleeing from the
battle is not from the Kabaa’ir (major sins). That was only specific to the day of Badr” (3) … And similar
to that was quoted by Ad-Dahhaak (4).

5 - In the Sunan of Al-Baihaqiy: “‘Ataa’ related from Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both,
that he said: If a man fled from two (men) then he has fled and if he fled from three, then he has not fled”
(5). And Al-Jassaas said: “He means by his statement that: He has fled the fleeing from the battle which is
intended by the Aayah” (6).

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 1/443, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/551. “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdisiy: 10/385. Refer also to: “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”: 19/294 and “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”, As-Suhailiy: 4/141, (3) “Al-
Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/293 and Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 7/381, (4) refer to Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq: 5/253, 9526, (5) Sunan
Al-Baihaqiy: 9/76. Sunan sa’eed Ibn Mansoor without a path (Tareeq): 2537, 2/209. Al-Haithamiy quoted it in “Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id” and said: At-Tabaraaniy related it and his men (i.e. transmitters) are reliable (Thiqaat): 5/328, (6) “Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/227].

6 - In the Sunan of Abi Dawud and At-Tirmidhiy: Related from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar … that he was
taking part in a military expedition from among the expeditions of the Messenger of Allah. He said: The
people wheeled around in flight (1). He said: I was one of those who wheeled round in flight. When we
stopped, we said (i.e. thought): What should we do? We have run away from the battlefield and deserve
Allah's wrath. Then we said (thought): Let us enter Al-Madinah, stay there, and go there while no one sees
us. So, we entered and thought: If we present ourselves before the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and if there is
a chance of repentance for us, we shall stay. And if it is other than that, we shall go away. So, we sat down
(waiting) for the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬before the dawn prayer. When he came out, we stood up to him
and said: We are the ones who have fled. He turned to us and said: No, rather you are the ones who
return to fight after wheeling away (2). We then approached him and kissed his hand, and he said;
I am the Fi’ah (party) (3) of the Muslims (4).

7 - Also recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhiy: “It was related from Ibn ‘Abbaas that he
said:

َ ْ‫َاث َناَ َع َش َرَأَ ْلفاَمِن‬

َْ ‫ب‬ َ ‫ُوشَأَرْ َب َع ُةَآالَف‬
َ َ‫ٍَولَنْ َي ُْغل‬ ْ ‫ٍَو َخ ْير‬
ِ ‫َُال ُجي‬ َ ‫َخ ْيرَُالص ََّحا َبةَِأَرْ َب َعة ََو َخ ْيرَُالس ََّرا َياَأَرْ َب ُعمِا َئة‬
‫قِلَّ ٍَة‬
The best (number) of companions are four (5), the best of Saraayaa (military units) is four
hundred (6), the best of armies is four thousand, and twelve thousand will not be overcome due to
being too few (7) (8).

[(1) I wheeled or turned around (َ‫ت‬ُ ْ‫ )حِص‬from a thing: Swerved or deviated from it or inclined away from its direction”: “Jaami’
ul-Usool”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 2/610. At-Tirmidhiy said: “It means that they fled from the Qitaal (fighting), “Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”:
4/215, (2) “These are those who are favourably disposed to war …”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/610. At-Tirmidhiy said: The one
who flees to his Imaam to gain his support but not desiring to flee from the battle: Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 4/215, (3) “These are
those who they return to from a position of war and seek protection with them i.e. gather as a group or troop to them”, “Jaami’
ul-Usool”: 2/610, (4) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2647, 3/63. In (version of) At-Tirmidhiy: “Then we kissed his hand”: 1716, 4/215.
And he said: “This Hadeeth is Hasan and we do not know it except from the Hadeeth of Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad”. The
examiner of “Jaami’ ul-Usool” said: “Its Sanad (chain) includes Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad and he has bad memory and the rest of
the transmitters are Thiqaat (reliable)”: 2/610. I say: It was mentioned in “At-Taqreeb” regarding this relator: “He is Da’eef
(weak). He became elderly, (his condition) altered and began to receive and he was a Shee’ah …”: number of biography: 7717,
p601. Also, Al-Albaaniy bypassed this Hadeeth and did not record it, neither in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2/502
nor his book “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 2/142, (5) “i.e.: If (for example) he wants to cut grass or gather fire wood and
went alone he would be estranged and so he takes another with him whilst two remain with the supplies, because if one only
was to remain he would be estranged … That is whilst other than that is said in respect to wisdom”: “Haashiyah Ash-Sheikh
Al-Hafniy ‘Alaa Al-Jaami’ As-Sa”heer": 2/244, (6) As-Saraayaa: The plural of Sariyyah because its proceeds or marches at night
to attack the enemy and so it should not be less than that”: “Haashiyah Al-Hafniy”: 2/244, (7) “i.e. That the defeat does not
happen due to the small number and it does not negate that it (i.e. defeat) could happen due to another reason like being
pleased with ones’ great number. For that reason, there were ten thousand with him ‫ ﷺ‬for the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah
and they were victorious, whilst there was 12 thousand on the day of Hunain. Some of the Sahaabah then said: This army
cannot possibly be defeated due to its large number and then what happened to them happened!”: “Haashiyah Al-Hafniy”:
2/244. In the “Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen”: “The restriction by the number: Because it could be defeated due to another
reason like the treachery or betrayal of the rulers in our current time!”: 3/345, (8) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2611, 3/51. Al-Albaaniy
verified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2275, 2/495. “Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 1555, 4/125. And “Saheeh Sunan
At-Tirmidhiy”, Al-Albaaniy: 1259, 2/105].

The following came mentioned in “Al-Jaami’ As-Sagheer”: “And they relied by this Hadeeth upon if the
number of Muslims reached 12 thousand, that it is Haraam (prohibited) for them to leave, even if the
disbelievers were more than twice their number. Al-Qurtubiy said: And this is the Madh’hab (opinion) of
the majority of the ‘Ulamaa because they specified the Noble Aayah by it” (1) i.e. As it appears from what
has preceded, it represents a specification to the Mafhoom (understood meaning) of the Aayah that
establishes the permissibility of withdrawing from the fighting if the disbelievers are more than twice the
number of the Muslims:

َ َ‫َفإِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُكمَمِّا َئة‬

ِ ‫ص ِاب َرةَ َي ْغلِبُواَمِا َئ َتي‬
َ‫ْن‬
So, if there are from you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred (Al-Anfaal).

8 - In the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq: “It was related from Juraij who said: I asked ‘Ataa’: What about
the fleeing from the battle? He said: The one who flees not out of tactics intended to re-join the fighting
nor to join with a supporting group. The Qawl of Allah. I asked: If the man flees in other than the battle?
He replied: There is no issue with that (2). That only applies in respect to the battle” (3).

9 - Also in the Musannaf: Qataadah related that Abu ‘Ubaid Ath-Thaqafiy was appointed by ‘Umar over
an army. He was then killed in the land of the Persians along with his army. ‘Umar then said: If he had
turned back to me I would have been a supporting group for them” (4).

10 - In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: “Abdur Rahman Bin Abi Lailaa related that two men fled of the
day (of the battle of) “Maskan” from the fronts of Kufa. They came to ‘Umar and he rebuked them
strongly with his tongue! He said: You both fled! And he wanted to divert them to the Basra front. They
said: O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, no, rather return us to the front that we fled from so that we can
accomplish our repentance through it” (5).

11 - In “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded ‘Amr Bin Murrah to stop with his people
(Juhainah Bin Zaid) on the Day of (the battle with) Hawaazin. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to them: O gathered
men of Juhainah, be upon the heels of Bani Sulaim. If they flee in fright then place the swords at the back
of their heads … Then on that day a tribe from them fled in fright and they were he tribe called ‘Usayyah
(disobedient), because they disobeyed Allah and His Messenger …

[(1) “Siraaj ul-Muneer”, “Sharh Al-Jaami’ As-Sagheer”, Al-‘Azeeziy: 2/244, (2) I say: This does not mean that fleeing from the
army in other than actual (engagement in) warfare is not prohibited. Rather, what is intended here, is that if this happens it is
not called “Al-Firaar Min Az-Zahf” (Fleeing from the battle) … If the fleeing from the army was in other than war by those
who are enlisted in it and receive monetary compensation or wages for that service, then that is Haraam and they are those who
have been called “Al-Muqaatilah” (fighters) from the Ahl ul-Fa’i (people of revenues i.e. from the Bait ul-Maal). If, however,
the fleeing was by a volunteer who is not part of the regular army, then he is not compelled to remain in it as long as a harm
does not befall the Muslims as a result of his leaving. And concerning the leaving of the army in other than the time of war
refer to the “Fataawaa of Ibn Taymiyyah”: 4/331, (3) Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq: 9519, 5/251, (4) Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq:
9522, 5/521. And “Sunan Al-Baihaqiy”: 9/77, (5) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 15543, 12/538].
… Juhainah then killed them. The Nabi then commanded Juhainah and they advanced to Hawaazin and
moved Sulaim from their position …” (1).

12 - It was mentioned in Saheeh Muslim that Umm Sulaim, following the victory of the Muslims in the
Ghazwah of Hunain after their loss in the first round, said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as one of those who
attended that Ghazwah: “O Messenger of Allah! Kill those other than us (2) from those you declared free
(3) and were defeated by your hand”. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬replied: “O Umm Sulaim! Allah has
sufficed and brought us good!” (i.e. there is no need for further action) (4).

The above is what relates to the Shar’iyah texts and the realities that have come concerning related to the
examination of the Hukm of the Mas’alah (issue) of fleeing from the battle. By that, we have reached the
end of the discussion of the first point and now come to the second.

2 - The Second Point: Some of what has been mentioned within the Fiqhiy sources or references
concerning the Mas’alah of fleeing from the battle:

1 - In the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf:

The following was stated in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: “If the fighters are confronted by a host of disbelievers
(Mushrikeen) which they have no capacity or capability to face and they fear that they will kill them, then
there is no problem for them to fall back to some of the Muslim regions or to some of their armies. And
the Hukm (judgment) in this matter returns to what is believed most probable and not to a specific
number. If the (Muslim) fighters thought it most likely that they can resist them then they must remain
steadfast and firm, even if they were less in number. And if they believed most likely that they will be
defeated, then there is no problem for them to fall back to Muslims to seek support and assistance
through them, even if they were a larger number than the disbelievers. The same applies in respect to a
fighter who does not have a weapon when faced by two from them who are armed or one of them from
the disbelievers is armed. In such a case there is no issue in him turning his back to seek support with
(another) group. The original position in relation to this is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ضبٍَم َِّنَاللَّـ ِه‬ ِ ‫الَأَ ْوَ ُم َت َحيِّزاَإِلَ ٰىَفِ َئةٍَ َف َق ْدَ َبا َء‬
َ ‫َب َغ‬ ٍ ‫َو َمنَي َُولِّ ِه ْمَ َي ْو َم ِئذٍَ ُدب َُرهَُإِ َّالَ ُم َت َحرِّ فاَلِّقِ َت‬
And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has
certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, (Al-Anfaal: 16)”.

[(1) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id” 6/182. Al-Haithamiy said: It was related by At-Tabaraaniy and it includes a Jamaa’ah (group) that I
am not aware of, (2) “Sharh Saheeh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 7/464, (3) They are those who became Muslim from the people of
Makkah on the day of the Fat’h (conquest). They were named that because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬let them go and set them free. There
was weakness in respect to their Islaam and so Umm Sulaim believed that they were Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) and that they
deserved death by their defeat and for other reasons”, “Sharh Saheeh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 7/464, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1809,
3/1442-1443].

He then says: “And by this it is evident that the Noble Aayah is not abrogated and the same applies to His
Qawl Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa:

َْ‫ُونَ َي ْغلِبُواَمِا َئ َتي‬

َ ‫ص ِابر‬ َ ‫إِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُك ْمَعِ ْشر‬
َ َ‫ُون‬
If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred (Al-Anfaal: 65).

And His Qawl:

‫َوإِنَ َي ُكنَمِّن ُكمَمِّا َئةَ َي ْغلِبُواَأَ ْلفَا‬

 And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand (Al-Anfaal: 60).

It is not abrogated because turning back to join another party (of the army) is specified in respect to it.
Therefore, the two Aayaat are not abrogated and Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa knows best. The Daleel
(evidence) for this is his ‫ ﷺ‬statement to those who fled to Al-Madinah which included: “You are
those who intend to go back to fight (after gaining assistance) and I am the Fi’ah (group or
party) of a Muslim (i.e. to come back to for support)”. He ‫ ﷺ‬informs us that the one going back to
gain support of a group is someone intending to go back to fight and not someone who flees from the
battle. As such the threat of punishment does not apply to him” (1).

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “If the number of the Muslims was equal
to half of the number of the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers), it is not Halaal for them to flee from it. The
Hukm (ruling) initially had been that if they were equal to a tenth of the number of the Mushrikeen, it was
not Halaal for them to flee … Then the matter was lightened … That is when they possess the power to
engage in fighting in the case where they have weapons. As for those who do not have weapons, then
there is no issue or problem for them to flee from those possessing weapons. Similarly, there is no
problem (or sin) for them to flee from those who use archery (or catapulting) when they possess no such
weapons … Consequently, there is no problem (or sin) for one to flee from three unless the Muslims
number 12 thousand and they are unified and it is not permitted for them (in such a case) to flee from the
enemy and even if their number was large …”. He then quoted the Hadeeth about 12 thousand and
commentated upon it saying: “And whoever was predominant (2) should not flee”. He then mentioned
the statement of ‘Umar following the martyrdom of Abu ‘Ubaid Ath-Thaqafiy and his army at the battle
of “Al-Jisr”: “Had they turned back to me (for support or reinforcement)”. Commentating upon this he
said: “This contains an explanation that there is no issue in fleeing if the Muslims are confronted by an
enemy that they have no power or capacity to defeat and there is also no problem in remaining steadfast
…” (3).

The summary of what came in “Al-Badaa’i” is: That the important point concerning the Mas’alah is
the capability of the Muslims to resist and engage the enemy. If the capability is present, it is not
permissible for them to flee or to retreat to gain support regardless of how few the number of the
Muslims are and how large the numbers of the disbelievers are. If they do not possess such a capability, it
is permissible for them to retreat to a group or body of the Muslims to seek assistance through them, so
as to return to the fight.

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/99. Refer to “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 3/505-506. Ibn Hazm, from the Zhaahiriyah
(Madh’hab) also viewed that there was no abrogation and the obligation to remain steadfast absolutely apart from what was
mentioned: “Al-Muhallaaa”: 7/292, (2) I say: The Hadeeth indicated to does not contain that which states that the Muslims
with this number will defeat their enemy. Rather what is indicates is: That they will not be defeated or overcome … That is
whilst the outcome of the war could be for any one of the two sides over the other and there could be no victor or loser. The
Hadeeth states the negation of the Muslims being overcome with this number and not that they will be the victors, (3) “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 1/124-125. Also refer to “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/345 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-
Jassaas: 4/227-228].

And the summary of what came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” is:

Firstly: If the Muslims are less that 12 thousand, there are two cases or situations:

A - If the disbelievers are not more than double the number of the Muslims, it is not permissible to flee
from the fighting upon the condition that they possess the power to fight and resist (or engage the
enemy). If their power becomes weaker than that, it is permissible for them to withdraw from the
confrontation with the enemy to seek the support of another group or reinforcements.

B - If the disbelievers are more than double the number of the Muslims, it is permissible for them to flee.
Secondly: As for when the number of the Muslims has reached 12 thousand, then it is not permissible for
them to flee from facing the enemy regardless of how great the number of the disbelievers has reached.

The above is what has come from the Ahnaaf (Hanafiy Madh’hab).

2 - In the Maalikiyah Madh’hab:

The following came in “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”: “It is not permissible to leave the fighting row (or
front line) if that means the rupture or routing of the Muslims. If that is not the case, then it is permissible
to withdraw tactically from the fighting or retreat to reinforcements … Withdrawing back to a present or
attending group is permitted. There is a difference of opinion in respect to withdrawing for reinforcement
to a group that is absent from the Muslims or the city or town. It is not permitted to flee unless the
number of the disbelievers is double the number of the Muslims (1). The point of consideration here: Is
the number according to what is well-known and it is also said: Al-Quwwah (the strength) (2). And if the
number of Muslims reaches 12 thousand, it is not Halaal to flee and even if the disbelievers are more than
double that in number. If, (however) the Muslims knew that they will be killed, then leaving is better.

[(1) “And even if the Ameer fled”: “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/152, (2) In “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: “The consideration in the view of Ibn Ul-
Qaasim and the Jumhoor (majority) lies in: The number and not in the power and endurance. That is contrary to the view of
Ibn Maajshoon”: 3/152. In “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”: “As for knowing number that it is not permitted to flee from, then that is
double and that has been agreed upon (by consensus) … The view of Ibn ul-Maajshoon which has also been reported to be the
opinion of Maalik is: That the double (i.e. number) is only considered in terms of Quwwah (strength) and not by number. Also,
it is permitted for one to flee from one if he was a more capable rider than him, or in the use of weaponry or greater in
strength”: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/39. Also refer to: “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan”: 7/380,
(3) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy”: “When their word has differed (i.e. they are disunited) fleeing is absolutely permitted and even if
they have reached 12 thousand in number”: 2/178-179].

And if they knew, in addition to that, that they will have no impact in terms of bringing harm or damage
upon the enemy, then it is obligatory to flee” (1). This text is clear in respect to explaining the different
circumstances or situations and their Ahkaam and is in no need of further commentary.

3 - In the Shaafi’iyah Madh’hab:

In “Al-Muhadh’dhab” of Ash-Sheeraaziy it mentions that which establishes that when the Muslim army
meets the army of the disbelievers, we examine or observe:

Firstly: If the number of the disbelievers is not twice the number of the Muslims, then there are two
cases:

- The First Case: That it is not feared that the Muslims will be destroyed or vanquished i.e. by their
engagement in the fighting or their continuation in the fighting. In this case, it is obligatory to remain
steadfast and the Fard of Qitaal is designated upon them (i.e. Fard ‘Ain). However, it is permissible for
them to leave the battle for one of two reasons:

A - With the aim of diverting to return to the fighting by another strategy.

B - Or the aim to gain reinforcements and even if they were far away. If one of the fighters turned away,
in this case, for other than these two reasons or purposes, he has committed a sin and a major sin from
the Kabaa’ir.

- The Second Case: If the Muslims believe it most likely that they will perish i.e. if they fight or continue
the fighting, whilst the Mushrikeen do not number more than twice the number of the Muslims.
Concerning this case, there are two views in respect to its Hukm.
The first view: It is permitted for them to flee due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت ْهلُ َك ِة‬

ِ ُ‫َو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

[(1) “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p165. Concerning the number of 12 thousand, the Al-Imaam Maalik
generalises the obligation of the Muslim fighters confronting their enemy, if they reach this amount, to the case of revolting or
rebelling against the rulers if they rule by other than the Shar’a. In “Al-Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas, he states: “And At-
Tahtaawiy mentioned: That Maalik was asked: Is it permissible for us to refrain from fighting against the one who has gone
outside of the Ahkaam (rulings) of Allah and ruled by other than it? And so Maalim said to him: If you have 12 thousand like
you, it is not permitted to refrain (from that)”: 4/228. That also came in “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy:
7/382].

The second view: It is not permissible to flee, which is the correct opinion, due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫واَو ْاذ ُكرُواَاللَّـ َهَ َكثِيراَلَّ َعلَّ ُك ْمَ ُت ْفلِح‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَإِ َذاَلَقِي ُت ْمَفِ َئةَ َف ْاث ُب ُت‬
َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, when you encounter a company [from the enemy forces], stand firm and remember Allah much that
you may be successful (Al-Anfaal: 45).

And because the Mujaahid (one undertaking Al-Jihaad) only fights to kill or be killed. That is when the
Kuffaar (disbelievers) are more than double the number of the Muslims.

Secondly: As for when the number of the disbelievers is more than double the number of the Muslims,
then here, it is permissible for them to leave and flee from the fighting (1). Concerning the circumstance
of the permission here, there are some details:

A - If the Muslims view it to be most likely that the fighting will not lead to the perishing of the Muslim
fighters, then the best (decision) is for them to fight and not leave or flee, so that the Muslims do not fall
apart.

B - However, if the Muslims believe it most likely that the Qitaal in these circumstances will lead to the
perishing of the Muslim fighting army, then there are two views in respect to the Hukm (legal ruling)
related to this issue.

The first view: To leave (the battle) and flee is obligatory due to His Qawl ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫واَبأ َ ْيدِي ُك ْمَإِلَىَال َّت ْهلُ َك ِة‬

ِ ُ‫َو َالَ ُت ْلق‬
And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction (Al-Baqarah: 195).

The second view: It is recommended to leave and flee only and not obligatory. That is because if they are
killed they are the winners by martyrdom.

Then the author of “Al-Muhadhdhab examines a circumstance from among the circumstances of
individual fighting in other than the field of battle. He states the following: “If a man from the Muslims
encounters two men from the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers), in other than war, if they sought him out but
he hadn’t sought them, then he can turn away from them, because he is not prepared for the fighting. If
he was seeking them whilst they were not seeking him, the there are two views:

[(1) i.e. without the intention of a tactical withdrawal to continue the fighting or without going back for reinforcements to then
return to the fighting. The following came mentioned in “Al-Umm”: “The anger of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, in my view, is not
dictated, if they turn back from them for other than a tactical withdrawal to continue the fighting or to seek reinforcements …
Rather, His anger is only dictated upon the one who abandons his Fard (obligation). And Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made
obligatory in Jihaad only that the Muslims perform Jihaad against twice their number”: “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/169. In
addition, Ash-Shaafi’iy indicates by his statement: “That His anger is only dictated upon the one who abandons his Fard” to the
women as well, if or when they have fought, as the fighting is not Fard (obligatory) upon them. Therefore, Ash-Shaafi’iy has
permitted for them to flee whenever they wish. He said in “Al-Umm”: “And if the women are present (or participating) at the
fighting and then turn their backs (in flight), I hope (or view) that they have not been sinful by their turning away because they
are not from those whom the fighting has been made obligatory upon, according to how their condition was”: “Al-‘Umm”,
Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/170].

The first view: That he can turn away from them both because the Fard of Al-Jihaad is in respect to the
Jamaa’ah (collective) and not in the individual form (1).

The second: That it is Haraam upon him to turn away from them, because he is a Mujaahid (one
undertaking Jihaad) against them whilst. Therefore, he does not turn away from them just as the case
would be in respect to the Jamaa’ah (collective)” (2).

4 - In the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah:

The Hanaabilah (of the Hanbaliy School) addressed the Mas’alah (issue) of fleeing from the battle similar
to what was held by the Shaafi’iyah, with a slight or negligible difference. Despite that, there is no harm in
quoting some statements from “Al-Mughniy” by Ibn Qudaamah concerning this issue for further
reiteration and clarification. He said:

“If the Muslims meet (or confront) the disbelievers (i.e. in battle), steadfastness is obligated and fleeing is
prohibited … That is with two conditions: The first: That the disbelievers do not exceed double (the
number of) the Muslims (3). If they are more than that, then it is permissible to flee … The second: That
it is not for the purpose or with the intention of seeking reinforcements or as a tactical withdrawal as part
of the fighting. If either of these two are intended, then it is Mubaah (permissible) for them … And if the
enemy was more than double the number of the Muslims:

A - The Muslims believed it most likely that they would be victorious: Then it is better or more
appropriate for them to be steadfast due to the Maslahah (interest) attached to that. And if they were to
withdraw and leave (the battlefield) it is permitted because they are not secure from perishing or ruin … It
is more likely for them to stick to steadfastness, if they believe it most likely that they will attain victory
due to the Maslahah (interest) contained in that.

B - If they believe it most likely that they will be destroyed or perish if they stay and will be saved by
departing: Then it is more appropriate or better for them to depart. If they remain steadfast (to fight) it is
permitted because they have an interest in martyrdom and also because it possible for them to be
victorious.

[(1) Ibn Hajar comments upon this view saying: This requires examination! That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched some of
his companions as a military expedition (or mission) alone (i.e. individually)”: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/313. I say: It is possible for it
to be said in respect to reconciling between this view and what Ibn Hajar objected to, that the origin of Al-Jihaad is that it
charged to the collective (Al-Jamaa’ah). As such, it is permissible for the one who is confronts two men from the enemies, in
other than the battle, to leave them, if he views that (i.e. chooses) … Unless he has been tasked by the commander or leader to
undertake that … In such a case it is not permissible for him to leave them as established by the Daleel *evidence) resented by
Ibn Hajar, (2) “Al-Muhadhdhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/232-233. Refer also to: “Takmilah Al-Majmoo’”: 19/290-294, “Al-Umm”,
Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/169=171, “Al-Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj and its Sharh”: 4/224-226, (3) “And if they believe it most likely that they
will perish or be destroyed”: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/553].

C - If they believe it most likely that they will perish if they remain or leave: Then it is better or more
appropriate for them to remain steadfast to attain the degree of martyrdom … And also, because it is
possible for them to be victorious as Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َ‫ين‬ ِ ‫َبإِ ْذ ِنَاللَّـ ِهَ ََۗواللَّـهَُ َم َعَالص‬

َ ‫َّاب ِر‬ ِ ‫ِيرة‬ ْ ‫َكمَمِّنَ ِف َئةٍَ َقلِيلَةٍَ َغلَََب‬
َ ‫تَفِ َئةَ َكث‬
 How many a small company has overcome a large company by permission of Allah. And Allah is with those who persevere
(Al-Baqarah: 249) (1).

The above then represents a summary of what has been mentioned in some of the Fiqhiy sources of
reference concerning the Mas’alah (issue) of fleeing or departing from the enemies at the time of
confrontation, whether that was upon the level of the army, a regiment or individuals. By that we have
reached the conclusion of the second point and now arrive to the discussion of the third.

The Third Point: Our opinion in respect to the Mas’alah (issue) of fleeing from the battle and
departing from fighting the enemy

I say: In view of the reality of modern day wars and in light of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) we view the following:

1 - If any fighter or military formation has been designated to a specific position or defined role within the
war plan that has been set, it is not permitted to go outside of what has been set for him or them, whether
with the intention of tactical withdrawal to fight the enemy or with the intention of gaining
reinforcements, based upon the Daleel that came in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy concerning the Ghazwah of
Uhud:
َ ْ‫َإِن‬،‫َالََ َتب َْرحُوا‬:‫ل‬ ِ َّ ‫َوأَم ََّرَ َعلََي ِْه ْمَ َع ْب َد‬،ِ
ََ ‫ََّللا ََو َقا‬ َ ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَجيْشاَم َِنَالرُّ َماة‬
َ َ َ‫أَجْ ل‬
ُّ‫سَال َّن ِبي‬
‫َرأَ ْي ُتمُو َُه ْمَ َظ َه ُرواَ َعلَ ْي َناَ َفالََ ُتعِي ُنو َنا‬ َ ‫َرأَ ْي ُتمُو َناَ َظ َهرْ َناَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َفالََ َتب َْر ُح‬
َ ْ‫واَوإِن‬
The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬positioned an army (i.e. unit) of archers and appointed ‘Abdullah over them (as
their Ameer). And then he said: Do not leave (i.e. the position) even if you see that we have
dominated over them and do not leave, even if you see that they have dominated over us. So, do
not come to our assistance (2).

2 - If the general war plan permitted the tactical manoeuvre for the fighting by a different approach or
permitted leaving to seek reinforcements, in their description as falling under branch plans which are left
to the fighters to take the measures which the war situation and newly occurring realities upon the battle
field demand, then in such a situation: It is permissible for the individual fighter, fighting formation or
unit etc. to mobilise, move position and cease the fighting activity or engagement for a period, whether it
is short or long, within the scope that is permitted, with the intention of tactical repositioning to engage in
the fighting and the intention of seeking reinforcements … Any mobilisation, movement or abandoning
of the fighting for any intended purpose other than this intention or that (i.e. tactical or for
reinforcements) is considered to be fleeing from the battle (i.e. which is impermissible).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/550-554 and refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/385-388, (2) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 4043, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/349].

Here (in this case), the individual fighter and fighting units or formations, whether small of large, could
undertake actions or conduct themselves, within this scope, in a manner that the leadership is unable to
pass judgement upon, in terms of whether it was undertaken with the intended aim of tactical manoeuvres
or to seek reinforcements, which is permitted? Or if it was done with the intention to be distanced from
the fire of the war whilst giving preference to their safety and wellbeing. In such a case, the Niyah
(intention) behind this behaviour is what makes it either permissible because it falls within the limits of
what has been permitted or makes it fall under the major sinful acts of disobedience because it represents
fleeing from the fighting, whilst taking that which is permitted as a cover for that.

3 - The Jihaad, in the circumstance of the offensive fighting against the disbelievers, when the Maslahah
(interest) dictates that, is only Waajib (obligatory) according to the Shar’a, when the balance of the forces
between the Muslims and their enemy is in a situation in which the forces of the disbeliever are not more
than twice the Muslim forces. If the Muslim Quwwah (force) is below this level. The Jihaad, in such a
situation, is permissible and not obligatory, as long as a harm befalling the Muslims is not the consequence
resulting from that.

Therefore, the Jihaad is only obligatory or permissible according to the way that has been mentioned
when this deficiency in the material military force of the Muslims exists. That is because they possess that
which others do not which compensates for that (material) deficiency, indeed it gives them the advantage.
By this I mean that they possess the spiritual strength manifested in the Imaan (belief) in Allah and the
awaiting of His reward attached to complying to His command to arise to undertake Al-Jihaad, in addition
to the fear of His punishment in the case of fleeing from the battle and the yearning for Jannah via
martyrdom. That is amongst other similar spiritual values which made the righteous Muslim predecessors
face opposing forces which were tens of times more numerous than them in many battles … Despite that,
victory accompanied the Muslims in line with what they used to possess of that spiritual strength or
power. That is what prompted Al-Muqawqis (ruler of Egypt) to say about those who conquered Egypt:
“By the one whom oaths are made upon! If those (Muslims) had faced the mountains, they would have
removed them and no one has the strength to fight against them!” (1).

[(1) “An-Nujoom Az-Zaahirah”: 1/7].

Al-Qurtubiy said in his Tafseer: “It occurred in history that Taariq, the Mawlaa of Mousaa Bin Nusair,
marched amongst 1700 men towards Andalus and that was in Rajab in the year 93 of Al-Hijrah. They met
the King of Andulus Ludhreeq and he had an army consisting of 70,000 horsemen. And so Taariq
attacked him and stood steadfast. And so, Allah defeated the tyrant Ludhreeq and the Fat’h (conquest)
was accomplished!” (1).

4 - The matter that is considered in respect to the situation of the balance of strength or force between the
Muslims and their enemy, according to the above-mentioned proportion, is not the number of the
individual fighters on each side. Rather, it the combined power that each side possesses regardless of the
individuals. That is in accordance to the evaluation of the specialist military experts in this field … That is
despite this opinion being contrary to that of the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ which An-Nawawiy
mentioned when he said:

“And they differed in respect to whether the considered matter should be merely the number without
paying consideration to the strength and weakness or if that should be considered? The Jumhoor
(majority) held the view that it should not be considered due to the Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of the
Qur’aan” (2).

I say: In the case where our opinion in respect to taking into account and consideration the strength and
weakness aspect as part of the sum of the force that each side possesses, is contrary to the opinion of the
majority which views the number of fighters only be considered as a measure of the power or strength …
Then, the Daleel for our opinion is the action of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬when he departed from At-Taa’if
after having besieged it for over twenty days during which fierce fighting had taken place and a number of
the Sahaabah were martyred from the exchange of arrows between the two sides without there being
anything to indicate that victory would be realised from this clash via the continuation of the siege and
fighting (3).

In this battle of At-Taa’if the military scale of balance tilted towards the side of the enemy by more than
double in comparison to what the Muslims possessed, as it appears. That is because the enemy was
surrounded by defensive weaponry from the fortress of At-Taa’if which the Muslims could not penetrate
or weaken the determination of those defending behind it … That was despite the Muslims utilising
substantial offensive or attacking weaponry against that defensive weaponry and those bring protected
behind it, which included armoured vehicles (of some form), catapults and arrows … and yet the enemy
with those defensive fortifications in addition to the offensive weapons they relied upon, represented in
arrows and lumps of iron heated by fire which they would throw down upon the Muslims, were able to
withstand the attack of the Muslims …

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 7/381, (2) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 8/58, (3) Concerning the
Ghazwah of At-Taa’if refer to: Seerah Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/149-150. It will be mentioned (later) that the siege
lasted 40 days and what was mentioned here refers to the period in which fighting took place during the period of the siege].

… It was here that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬realised that there was no point in continuing the siege and fighting in
this manner. Therefore, he issued the command to cease the fighting and the continuation of the siege,
and to head back towards Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah.

By examining the numerical aspect in respect to the fighters of both sides in this battle, we observe that
the Muslim fighters, who had surrounded the fortress of At-Taaif, appeared to be of a greater number
than the number of fighters from the people of At-Taa’if standing upon the walls of the fortress launching
arrows and projectiles … However, the total power was tilted in favour of the enemy, in spite of the
number of Muslim fighters exceeding their number. This withdrawal from the continuation of the
fighting, despite the superiority of the Muslims in number, indicates that the Prophetic Seerah,
represented in the act of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, when considering whether fighting should continue or cease
against the enemy, does not consider the numerical aspect alone in respect to the fighters. Rather, the total
power was also observed and taken into consideration regardless of the number.

Consequently, we reconcile between what the Qur’aanic text has indicated in terms of considering the
number of the fighters alone, and between what the Prophetic Seerah indicated to in respect to the siege
of At-Taa’if in terms of observing and taking into account the total power or strength, regardless to the
number of fighters … We reconcile between these two evidences and say:

- The number is considered to be the measure of strength when the number alone represents an evidence
for that strength or power i.e. when there is an equivalence or semi-equivalence in respect to the weapons
utilised by the two sides and other matters which are reflect the balance of power (Note: i.e. when there is not
much difference in the tools of war between the two sides and hence the number is the distinguishing factor).

- That is whilst the consideration of the number as a measure of the strength is cancelled or not taken into
consideration when the number by itself does not purely reflect an evidence of that strength, according to
what has been mentioned previously.

In this manner the Usooliy Qaa’idah (principle) is affirmed: “Utilising both evidences is better than
utilising one of them and neglecting (or not utilising) the other”. This is what governs the understanding
of the different Shar’iyah evidences related to this Mas’alah and specifies each one of them to the place
where they are applicable to.

In addition, it is an obvious matter that the modern-day weapons in terms of tanks, armour, planes and so
on, are like modern fortresses that march towards the opponent or pounce down upon him hurling all
what they possess in terms of frightful missiles and bombs etc… Concerning these weapons, it is obvious
that they are more impenetrable or preventative force than the fortresses attached to the ground which
used to protect those inside them in the past who would hurl down what they possessed in terms of
arrows and projectiles at their enemies from the walls.

Therefore, if the Prophetic Seerah considered the reality of the fortresses of the past when making the
decision to withdraw from them and cancelled the consideration of the numerical number of the fighters,
like what occurred at At-Taa’if, then by greater reason, the contemporary modern-day weapons should be
given consideration in respect to enumerating or measuring the strength between the Muslims and the
enemy and in respect to not being restricted to the numerical measure, when taking the decision to
withdraw due to the lack of equivalence between the strengths of the two sides, in relation to the
possession of weapons and what is similar to them.

As for the number of 12 thousand mentioned in the Noble Hadeeth related to this matter, then we don’t
understand it to mean that it is not possible for the Muslims meeting this number to be defeated by the
enemy or that it is not permitted for them to withdraw from facing any army they are confronting … I
say: We do not understand this Hadeeth in this manner and that is because the Muslims possessed this
number at Hunain and were defeated in the first round (1) of the battle just as a number similar to that
withdrew from At-Taa’if … Rather, what we understand from the Hadeeth is that this number, according
to the measure of what the Muslims would normally face in terms of the forces of Shirk (disbelief and
polytheism) within the Arabian Peninsula, represents a number that is capable of confronting those forces
and that is what happened in actuality …

Also, this Hadeeth should not be isolated from the rest of what the other Shar’iyah texts and realities have
indicated to when passing judgement upon circumstances which are different to the Mas’alah that we are
addressing. In that case, in light of those texts and realities, it is established that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wanted to
express to his companions his feelings of delight due them being in possession of an army of such
strength and wanted to urge them to stand steadfast before any enemy confronting them as an aggressor
or as obstacle standing in the way of the spread of the Islamic Da’wah to mankind … That is because they
were not in short supply of the numerical strength which was used as the measure of strength and power
in most cases during their clashes with the leaders of paganism in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.

[(1) It is worth mentioning here that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬remained steadfast alongside a group of his companions and was not routed
or defeated. In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and related by Al-Baraa’ Bin ‘Aazib: “A man from Qais asked him: “Did you flee from the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of (the battle of) Hunain?” He replied: “But the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not flee …!”:
4317, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/28. And you can see who remained steadfast with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on that day in the
Seerah of Ibn Hishaam with the commentary of Muhammad Muhyiy ud-Deen Abdul Hameed: 4/72].

… And their strength or force, regardless of how much they could gather by alliances and blocs, did not
exceed the Shar’iy measure within the scope of which Allah had commanded the enemy to be fought (1).

Therefore, what has been presented in this point only relates to the obligation of Al-Jihaad according to
the Shar’a in the circumstance of the offensive Qitaal (fighting) against the enemy …

5 - As for the obligatory Jihaad in the situation of the Qitaal Ad-Difaa’iy (defensive fighting), then we say:

- When a situation from among the situations arises where the attack of blocs of disbelievers against the
Muslims dominates over the Islamic Ummah as a whole, to erase Islaam from existence, may Allah
prevent that, then the leaders of the Islamic Ummah must work to break up that aggressing front by any
legally legitimate mean possible, with the aim of creating divisions in those blocs and to divert them away
from what they gathered to accomplish. That is even by enticing them with some material benefits like the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did at the battle of Al-Khandaq when all of the main and prominent forces within the Arabian
Peninsula gathered and formed a bloc against him, surrounding Al-Madinah to wipe out the Islamic base
from existence (2) …. And if, in the end, war is necessary, then in such a case we do not look at the
balance of power of strengths between the Muslims who are defending and the enemies who are
attacking, neither from the perspective of number or from the perspective of weaponry. It is obligatory
upon the Muslims, in this situation, to engage in warfare regardless of the level of weakness they have
reached and irrespective of the level of strength or power that the enemy has amassed, even if millions of
Muslims fall as martyrs (3). It is not permissible for the Muslim, in such circumstances, to think about
fleeing or withdrawing from this crucial and vital battle. That is like the situation of the Muslims at the
battle of Al-Khandaq (or Al-Ahzaab):
 َ‫ص ُرهََُۗإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَلَ َق ِويٌّ َ َع ِزيز‬
ُ ‫َولَ َينص َُرنَّ َاللَّـهَُ َمنَ َين‬
And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might (Al-Hajj: 40).

[(1) Refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy concerning the gathering of the Hawaazin against the Muslims: 8/29. An indication can be found,
in respect to the 12 thousand being conditional to the Shar’iy Nisaab when confronting a number of the Mushrikeen, in what
was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ibn Ishaaq said: Some of the people of Makkah informed me that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, when he departed from Makkah to Hunain and saw the large number of soldiers of Allah
alongside him: “We will not be defeated today due to having a small number”. Ibn Ishaaq said: And some of the people
claimed that a man from Bani Bakr had said that”, Seerah Ibn Hishaam with verifying by Muhammad Muhyiy-ud-Deen Abdul
Hameed: 4/73. In addition, it has been recorded that the Mushrikeen in this battle were within the parameters of being double
the number of the Muslims which represents the Shar’iyah proportion in respect to the scale of numerical measuring between
the two sides related to the obligation of fighting and standing steadfast and firm, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”:
3/259, (3) Refer to the “Haashiyah of Al-Bujairamiy ‘Alaa Sharh Al-Khateeb”: 4/229].

Verily, Allah repelled the enemies of the allies, disgracing them and not allowing them to attain any good.
In addition, those who joined them, broke their covenant with the Muslims and wanted to stab the
Muslims from behind, from amongst the Jews, were dealt with decisively.

- If, however, the attack of the disbelievers against the Muslims is not aiming to erase them or Islaam
from existence, but rather aims to seize some of its resources in terms of lands, regions or natural
resources etc, then it is also obligatory, in such a situation, to defend using every possible legally legitimate
means, without paying regard to the situation of the balance of strength between the Muslims and their
enemies. And it is not permissible to flee from confronting them due to what such a flight would bring in
terms of wide reaching harms which are greater than the harm of standing resolute and steadfast in the
face of this attacking army … However, when all of the calculations confirm that the harm, against Islaam
and the Muslims, of standing steadfast and confronting the enemy, is greater than the harm resulting from
withdrawal from confronting the enemy, then in that situation, it is permitted for the leaders (or
commanders) who are sincere to Islaam and the Muslims within the State to decide to withdraw from the
lands or regions of the Islamic lands and from confronting the attacking army. However, by that action, it
is not intended to give up those lands to the enemy permanently but rather it is intended to then make the
necessary preparations to fight the enemy at the earliest possible opportunity and to drive it away from
what they had previously given up due to the ruling of war necessities.

Concerning this, the leaders of the Muslim armies, in the days of the conquests of the era of the rightly
guided Khilafah, after having conquered the lands and the cities (or towns) and made them into Daar ul-
Islaam joining them to the Islamic State, were sometimes compelled to give them up and even return to
the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, living within them, what they had taken from them in terms of the Jizyah, when
they withdrew, before the enemy, from those conquered lands and cities. However, they did not intend
that they be given up or relinquished permanently or to acknowledge the control of the enemy and their
rule over them. Rather, the intention was to gather up the forces and to prepare the readiness to fight the
enemy again and drive them out from the areas that they had withdrawn from due to the Hukm (ruling) of
Ad-Daroorah (necessity), as explained previously … This occurred with the conquests of Ash-Shaam
(Greater Syria) and in the conquests of Persia as is well-known within the history of the Islamic conquests
(2).

[(1) Concerning the Ghazwah of Bani Quraizhah refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/268 and the pages
after that, (2) Refer to the History of At-Tabariy: 3/478 and “Saifullah, Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed”, ‘Umar Ridaa Kahaalah: p158-
159, “Al-Jihaad Wa n-Nuzhum Al-‘Askariyah”, Dr. Ahmad Ash-Shalabiy: 107-108. That is whilst the following came stated in
“Taareekh Futuooh Ash-Shaam” (The History of the Conquest of Greater Syria) by Muhammad Bin Abdullah Al-Azadiy:
“’Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab wrote to Abu ‘Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah, may Allah be pleased with them … Thereafter, it has reached
me that you are moving away from the land of Hims (Homs) to the land of Damascus and that you have left a land that Allah
had opened for you and left it to your enemies! And that you departed from it willingly! And so I have disliked your view and
your act! And I asked your envoy whether it was the opinion of all of you? And he claimed that that was from your choosing!
And the people of influence amongst you and your collective! Therefore, I learned that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla would not have
gathered your opinion except upon Tawfeeq and what is correct and wise, in respect to the short-term and consequence. That
then lightened the dislike that was within me before that, which would have caused me to turn you about. And your messenger
has asked me for reinforcements for you and I will have sent reinforcements before you have read this letter!!” p159].

This type of withdrawal was not considered to represent the fleeing from the battle but rather it was of the
form of seeking reinforcements so as to mount an attack after the retreat. That is whilst war is as they say:
“Attack and retreat”.

6 - There is also a circumstance or situation that the Fuqahaa’ dealt with when examining the subject of
fleeing from the battle which is comparable and resembling to what we find within our modern time:

That is like the situation where some of the states which are hostile to the Muslims and possess a huge
military force or strength, could display that force in a show of haughtiness, pride and arrogance before
the Muslims, upon land, air and sea. Just as they could undertake military build ups within the sight of the
Muslims, with the intention of striking fear or alarm amongst the ranks of those Muslims, in order to
pressure them to make the concessions they desire … In such an explosive situation, is it obligatory upon
the Muslims to take the initiative and ignite the match of actual war between them and those states, by
attacking them or some of their forces, whilst that is what the enemy wants. That is so it can then use that
as an international pretext or excuse to build a global public opinion against the Muslims, by means of
scheming and deception, so as to deliver a devastating blow, destroy its military forces and realise from
that their coveted and sought-after desires in terms of seizing the resources of the Muslims and gaining a
controlling dominance over them and the Muslims? I say: Is it obligatory upon the Muslims to initiate war
against this enemy? Or is it permitted for them to fortify themselves and refrain their hands from the
enemy, irrespective of what they display before them in terms of haughtiness, arrogance, threat and
psychological warfare?

And if the Muslims were to hold back from this enemy which is enticing and goading them to engage
them in battle, would they then, in such a situation, be considered to be of those who flee from the battle
(Zahf)?

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy addressed a situation similar to this and we find, within the frame of the following
text, the answer to some of the questions that arise from it. He says: “And the Muslims are not
constrained from fortifying themselves from the enemy; within the lands of the enemy and the lands of
Islaam, even if they were dominating the enemy as far as they could see. That is if they thought that
represented that which would increase their strength or power more, as long as the enemy was not taking
from the Muslims or from their properties anything as a result of their making of fortifications and not
engaging them. If one of the two meanings represented a harm upon the Muslims, it is not permissible for
them to not engage if they had the capability. If however, the enemy was dominating, then there is no
harm for them (i.e. the Muslims) to fortify themselves until reinforcements join them or they are able to
generate power or strength. If the reinforcements are slow to arrive, then there is no problem to turn away
from the enemy as long as they have not engaged the enemy in battle. That is because the forbiddance of
turning away is only in respect to the turning away that happens after the engagement (1)” (2).

The author of “Al-Mughniy” said: “If the enemy comes to a land, then the people can fortify themselves
from them and even if they were more than half of them (in number) so that reinforcements or strength
could reach them. That is not turning ones back or fleeing. Turning away if only after meeting the enemy
(i.e. in battle through engagement)” (3).

In respect to the stance that the individuals and groups of Muslims must be upon when being exposed to
these circumstances, the following was stated in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “Groups or individuals from us
do not rush to repel a king from them (i.e. the enemies or disbelievers) who has great strength and entered
the edges of our lands, due to what that holds in terms of great danger!” (4).
Therefore, if the Maslahah (interest) dictates it, in respect to this matter of fortifying themselves from the
enemy and refraining from meeting or engaging them (in battle), that would not fall under the category of
fleeing from the battle. However, if the confrontation took place, war was ignited, and the meeting or
engagement occurred, then at that time turning back from that would be considered as fleeing from the
battle, in light of what has been discussed earlier in this study.

This then is our opinion and the one we view to be strongest in relation to the Hukm (legal ruling) applied
to the most significant circumstances or situations connected to the Mas’alah (issue) of fleeing from the
battle …

And by that we have reached the conclusion of this point and now come to the discussion of the final
point of this study.

[(1) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/13, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/171, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/554 and also refer
to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/389, (4) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/220].

4 - The Fourth Point: What is the ‘Uqoobah (punishment) for fleeing from the army or the war?

There are texts and realities connected to this Mas’alah.

We have already stated in the discussion of the first point of this current study that which establishes that
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬expected the regiment of Bani Sulaim to flee from the battle in the Ghazwah of Hunain or
that they would consider fleeing. As such, he delegated the regiment of Juhainah to look over them,
placed them behind them and he issued his command to them to place their weapons upon the back of
the heads of the fighters of the regiment that gets agitated and becomes destabilised in an attempt to flee
from the battle or become slack in respect to remaining steadfast, resolute and persevering against the
enemy, in a manner that would spread the spirit of defeat within the (rest of the) army.

This is what can be understood from the text. Indeed, the report relates that Juhainah did in fact kill a
tribe from Bani Sulaim called Bani ‘Usayyah which became agitated and restless on that day and what the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬has feared from them beforehand revealed itself … However, this narration, in any case, is not
verified (i.e. as a sound narration) … Consequently, it is not relied upon when deducing the Shar’iy
procedure in respect to punishing those who flee from the Qitaal (fighting) or those who are attempting
to flee.

However, the Hadeeth of Umm Sulaim about the Ghazwah of Hunain which is recorded in Saheeh
Muslim mentioned: That she said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “O Messenger of Allah! Kill those other than us from
those you declared free (i.e. those who became Muslim after the Fat’h of Makkah) and were defeated by
your hand” (1). This Hadeeth establishes that the one fleeing from the battle deserves to be killed in the
view of Umm Sulaim, whilst the answer of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as is apparent, does not contain a rebuke of
what she said. Indeed, in his ‫ ﷺ‬statement: “Verily, Allah has sufficed and brought us good” there is
that which indicates that as long as the motions of war, in the end, brought a good result in respect to the
victory of the Muslims, in the second round of the battle (at Hunain), then Allah has sufficed (and saved)
the believers from what had been expected or anticipated in terms of evils and harms resulting from the
fleeing of those who fled. As such, there is no necessity, after that, to punish those who had fled. Speech
such as this could indicate that if bad results had resulted from the flight of those who had fled, then they
would have been deserving of the mentioned punishment …

Also, in the era of the rightly guided Khilafah, amongst the narrations about the battle of Al-Yarmouk, it
was mentioned that many of the Muhaajiraat women had attended this battle; that they were positioned
behind the rows of the Muslims and would throw stones and rocks which they had at their disposal. Abu
Sufyaan said to them: “No one from amongst the Muslims retreats towards you except that you hurl
stones at him” …

[(1) The Riwaayah (reported narration) of Ibn Ishaaq in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam for this Hadeeth is: “By my father and
mother O Messenger of Allah! Kill those who are fleeing from you just as you kill those who are fighting you, because they are
deserving of that!” The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬responded to that saying: “Or Allah is sufficing (us) of Umm Sulaim …”:
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/125].

… And we said to him: “Who do you want after fleeing from Islaam, his family and the women whilst
they are facing the enemy of Allah?” In addition, the commander of the army at that time, Khaalid Bin Al-
Waleed, said to them (the women): “O Muslim women! Any man that turns towards you fleeing kill him”
(1).

And it was mentioned in the reports concerning the Persian front, also during the era of the rightly guided
Khilafah and as mentioned previously in the discussion of the first point, that when ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab heard about the insistence and resolve of Abu ‘Ubaid Ath-Thaqafiy to fight in a battle that was
not equal, so as to cause damage to the enemy, and even if he and all the Muslims with him were
martyred, which came to pass… when the news of that reached ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab he said: “If they
had retreated back to me I would have been a supporting group (i.e. reinforcement) for them”.

It has also been reported, as mentioned previously, that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab dealt harshly with two
men who had fled from some of the battles upon the Persian front and accounted them severely with his
tongue. This form of scolding is considered to be from among the Ta’zeeriy punishments which the
authority applies upon those who have disobeyed or been in violation.

I say: It is understood from the report of Abu ‘Ubaid Ath-Thaqafiy that the withdrawal and retreating for
reinforcements is a permissible matter if the Islamic power is not capable of resisting the strength or
power of the enemy (2).

And it is understood from the report concerning the two men who fled and were scolded by ‘Umar Ibn
Al-Khattaab, that fleeing, which is prohibited warrants, upon the one who does it, a punishment that the
person in authority evaluates and decides. It could be by way of a severe scolding, reprimand and rebuke
like what ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab did …

[(1) “Saifullah Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed”, ‘Umar Ridaa Kahaalah: p148 and “Taareekh Futooh Ash-Shaam”, Al-Azadiy: p223
onwards, (2) This is also understood from the report of Ibn ‘Umar which was mentioned in the first point. That is even if some
of the Muhadditheen classified it as Da’eef (weak). Despite that its indicative meaning is valid Fat’h (i.e. conquest and victory),
as mentioned in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1246 and Fat’h ul-Baariy: 3.116. Despite that we did not use this Khabar in the first point
because it is not clear from the historical reports if Khaalid had fought and been victorious after assuming the leadership and
gained possession of booty and slave captives, as some narrations report? Or that he withdrew with the army utilising war
trickery or deceit eager to preserve the well-being of the Muslims within an unequal war, as cane be understood from the
statement of the people directed towards them: “O those who have fled”, mentioned in other reports. Naming his action as a
“Fat’h” (conquest or victory) could mean: war and victory just as it could mean: The Tawfeeq in respect to protecting the army,
leaving the fighting and withdrawing, Refer to “Rawd ul-Unuf: 4/81 and “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/159-160].

The punishment could also reach the level of being struck like what came mentioned in the report of Abu
Sufyaan at Al-Yarmouk, or it could reach the level of killing as is understood from the Hadeeth of Umm
Sulaim in Hunain and like the threat from Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed as mentioned in the reports related to
his commissioning the Muslim women at Al-Yarmouk to kill anyone who turned towards them fleeing
from the battle when before the enemy …

Concerning this matter, such a severe punishment has been established within the laws of warfare
amongst the states. Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy said: “The prevalent laws of warfare dictate the killing of the
soldier who flees the situation of fighting so that it does not become a cause to unsettle the ranks of the
army and spread the spirit of disillusion and weakness amongst the rest of the soldiers, thus leading to
defeat following that” (1).

In light of what has preceded and the Shar’iyah realities related to the Mas’alah (issue) of the punishment
for fleeing from the battle, we view that a specified or defined punishment has not been established from
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in an explicit manner for the act of fleeing from the battle. However, due to the fleeing
being from the major sins which could bring the most severe of harms and dangers upon the Muslims in
terms of the consequences and effects resulting from it, and as it is the right of the one in authority (i.e.
Shar’iy ruler) to impose a Ta’zeer (discretionary or non-set) punishment to deter the perpetration of acts
of disobedience and violations …

Due to that, that it be left to those who possess the mandatory powers or jurisdiction to evaluate and
determine the punishment that they believe will act as a deterrent to deter the crime of fleeing from the
battle. That is whilst taking into account, when evaluating and determining that punishment, the size of
the danger resulting from that crime, in light of the specific circumstances related to each battle and the
position or standing of the one who fled or the factor and motive that caused him to flee, or how others
were affected by his fleeing, in addition to consideration being given to the time in which this crime took
place and then the time in which the application of the punishment for this crime takes place … That is
amongst other considerations which those in positions of responsibility view necessary to be taken into
account when evaluating and determining this punishment …

We also view in respect to this Mas’alah that it doesn’t reach the point of killing (i.e. death sentence)
unless it is in extreme circumstances in which the dangers associated to this crime are not dealt with
sufficiently unless it is by the imposition of such a punishment … It is hoped that within the evidences
and reports, including what we have presented, there is that which supports this position or direction.

With that, we have reached the end of the discussion of this final point and have also reached the
conclusion of this current area of study. We will now move on to a new study by the will and assistance of
Allah Ta’Aalaa.

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p727].

The Sixth Study

The Shaheed (martyr) and the Ahkaam related to him and the family he leaves
behind
From among the Fiqhiy issues (Masaa’il) falling within the frame and context of the treatment of “The
individuals of the Islamic army in war”, which is the subject of the current chapter that we are addressing,
is that which is related to the obligatory conduct in respect to the Muslim fighter when he attains the
success of Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) in addition to what relates to how his family should be dealt with
and treated following his martyrdom. That is in the case where he has left his family as an Amaanah (trust)
with the Ummah which he has sacrificed his life for the sake of its message, in defence of it and of its
entity.

However, it is necessary before examining these two issues, for us to examine, in brief, that which is
connected or linked to the Shaheed (martyr) whom we are discussing. Who is the Shaheed? And why has
been given this name? It is also necessary for us to adorn this Shaheed with the gems of the Qur’aan Al-
Kareem and the treasures of the Sunnah which extol the merits and virtues of the Shahaadah (martyrdom)
and the noble standing of those who attain it, before Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla … Then we need to move on to
mention the kinds of martyrdom before beginning to address that which is related to the preparation of
the martyr following his death and how his family must be dealt with.

As such, this study will address the following Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues):

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): The definition of the Shaheed intended in this study.

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): Why has the Shaheed (martyr) been named with this naming?

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): Some of the Shar’iyah texts that have come mentioning the virtue or
merit (Fadl) of martyrdom and the honouring of the Shaheed (martyr).

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): The types or kinds of Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) and a mention of some of
what has been verified as Saheeh in respect to the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter).

5 - The Fifth Mas’alah (issue): The obligatory conduct due to the Shaheed.

6 - The Sixth Mas’alah (issue): The obligatory conduct due to the family of the Shaheed after his
passing.

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): The definition of the Shaheed intended in this study:

The Fiqhiy Madhaahib have a number of definitions for the Shaheed (martyr) and upon their basis some
of those Muslims who are killed or die are included within the list of the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs), those whom
our discussion is focused upon, or upon their basis some are excluded from that list … However, it is not
our intended purpose here to present all of the definitions which have been mentioned for the Shaheed
which also includes that which falls outside of the study we are addressing. Similarly, we will not examine
the Mas’alah (issue) of Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) and the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) with all of its details.
That is because we are governed by that which is linked to the subject area of the topic of study that is
before us i.e. we are governed by that which connects to two matters:

The first matter: The one who is killed or dies during the war with the disbelieving enemies.

The second matter: The one upon whom applies specific Ahkaam related to the matter of his
preparation following his martyrdom i.e. related to his Ghusl (washing), his shrouding (Takfeen), the
Salaah (prayer) to be performed over him and his burial.
As for the first matter: The matter of the one who is killed or dies during warfare with the enemy
disbelievers specifically. Then that is because connected to Al-Jihaad against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) is
the desire of the fighters to attain martyrdom, giving the life Fee Sabeelillah (In the way of Allah), the
explanation of what they have of a dignified and honourable standing before Allah and of the bliss and
comforts that they are heading to … That is because the one that dies upon this way is from the
Shuhadaa’ (martyrs), whether the specific rulings related to the Shaheed apply upon him in respect to his
preparation following the death or the general Ahkaam apply upon him related to Muslims who die.
Concerning this, Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “There is no requisite between affirming the name of martyrdom
and the leaving of the Ghusl (washing of the body) …” (1). Which means: The name of Ash-Shahaadah
(martyrdom) could be affirmed for some of them and is therefore called a Shaheed (martyr) however
despite that he is still treated and dealt with according to the Ahkaam related to preparation in terms of
burial and other acts i.e. the same treatment as non-martyr Muslims.

That is concerning the first matter governing us in the issue of the definition of the Shaheed as it makes
clear to us those who are meant by Shuhadaa’ in this study.

As for the second matter governing the issue of the definition of the Shaheed, then that relates to who has
specific Ahkaam from among the Shuhadaa’ in respect to his preparation following his martyrdom …
That is because the administration specifically allocated to the affairs of the killed and dead, from the
administrative departments under the jurisdiction of the army, must pay regard to the specific Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah related to the preparation of the one upon whom the name of Shaheed applies during the
war taking place with the disbeliever enemies. That is whether this Shaheed is the one who deserves the
specific treatment of the Shaheed with Allah and deserves the honour specified for the Shuhadaa’ or he is
a Shaheed falling under the Ahkaam of the Dunyaa (life of this world) only and not a Shaheed in respect
to the Aakhirah (hereafter), due to not fulfilling some of the conditions required to attain the success of
the honour of martyrdom with Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla, which will be explained later … I say: Based upon
these two matters: The one who is killed or dies during the war with the disbelievers and the one who is
treated with a specific or special treatment in respect to his preparation for burial following his martyrdom
in war or as a result of the war …

[(1) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: 1/342].

… I say based upon these two matters, the one who is intended in this study is not everyone upon whom
the name of martyrdom applies, according to the differences of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib, and even if some
exceptional rulings are applied upon him related to his preparation following the death … Rather, the
intended meaning of the Shaheed (martyr) here, includes everyone who is killed or dies during the war
against the disbelievers or as a result of the war. As such, we will select from the definitions mentioned by
the Fuqahaa’ related to the Shaheed, that which relates specifically to the (category of) Shaheed connected
to our subject of discussion and study. We have only addressed other than this when it was necessary for
the sake of clarifying the thought or text that we present.

- Within the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf (Hanafi School):

- The following was stated in “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: “The Shaheed (martyr) is of two kinds: The kind
which is washed (i.e. the Ghusl of the body) and the kind which is not washed. As for the one that is not
washed then it is the one conforming to the meaning of the martyrs of (the battle of) Uhud …” (1).

- In “Al-Bidaayah” and its explanation “Al-‘Inaayah”: “The Shaheed is: The one whom the Mushrikeen
(i.e. disbelievers) have killed or who was found during the battle whilst he bore the signs of an exterior or
interior wound or injury like blood exiting from his eye or something similar” (2).

- In “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” when commenting upon the definition above: “This is a definition of the Shaheed
who is bound by the mentioned Hukm (ruling). I mean: That he is not washed and his clothing is not
removed. However, that doesn’t apply absolutely (i.e. upon every Shaheed) because the Shaheed is more
general than that, as we will explain in respect to the Murtath’th (wounded picked up alive from the battle)
and others who are also Shaheed. He then says: The Murtath’th (3) is washed and the Murtath’th is the
one who eats or drinks or sleeps or receives medical treatment or medicine, or leaves the battle alive. That
is because he possesses some of the factors of life whilst the martyrs of Uhud died thirsty …” (4).

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/210, (2) “Al-‘Inaayah Sharh ul-Hidaayah”: 2/142, (3) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 1/949. In
addition, the word is taken from (‫ثَرَ َثا َثة‬
ُّ ‫ثَي َِر‬
َّ َ‫ )ر‬meaning: “‫( ”الََب َلى‬Al-Balaa) Shabbiness or worn out. Like: The item of clothing
was worn out or become shabby. Or in respect to a person it means: That he was carried away from the battle in a worn out or
shabby state i.e. injured or wounded whilst still possessing the breath of life”, “Mukhtaar As-Sihaah”: p198, (4) “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 2/142].

- Also in “At-Tuhfah”: “And for this reason the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬washed Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh even
though he was a Shaheed due to the wound he picked up (in battle)” (1).

- In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “And if he is wounded, then he is a Shaheed in respect to the Ahkaam of the
Aakhirah (hereafter) however he is treated like the rest of the dead in terms of the Ghusl (washing of the
body) and shrouding (Takfeen)” (2).

Concluding summary: The Shaheed whose definition has been presented, related to our study, during the
war with the disbelievers, is: The one from the Muslims who is killed in the battle and was not picked up
wounded i.e. the one who lived until after the end of the war and was then martyred, albeit with greater
detail and a number of Fiqhiy opinions related to this which have been mentioned within the Fiqhiy
sources of reference.

This is in the Madh’hab of Al-Ahnaaf (3).

- Within the Maalikiy Madh’hab:

- The following has come mentioned concerning the definition of the Shaheed: “He is the one killed in
the Qitaal (fighting) against the Harbiyeen (the people of war) only. And if he was killed in the land of
Islaam in the case where the people of war (i.e. enemy) launch an attack against the Muslims or if he did
not fight like if he was heedless or asleep, or a Muslim killed him (in error) believing him to be a
disbeliever (4), or a horse trampled him, or a Safeeh (someone mentally impaired) came upon him (5) or
by his (own) arrow, or by falling into a well or from a high place, during the situation of Al-Qitaal (the
fighting) …

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/211. And refer to the death of Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/269-274, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 1/232, (3) In “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i” seven conditions are mentioned for the
martyrdom taking the Hukm (ruling) of the Dunyaa. They are: “1 - That he be killed 2 - That he be Mazhloom (oppressed) 3 -
That he does not leave from his self or life a Badal (alternative) and that is property … Even if he was killed by error or semi-
deliberately … He would not be Shaheed 4 - That he wasn’t Murtath’th (i.e. wounded in battle but lived past it) 5 - That the
one killed is Muslim 6 - That the one killed was Mukallaf and that is a Shart (condition) for the validity of the Shahaadah
(martyrdom) according to the opinion of Abu Haneefah and so the boy and Majnoon are not martyrs in his view. But this is
not a condition in the view of Yousuf and Muhammad 7 - Being in a pure state and not in a state of Janaabah (major ritual
impurity) which is a Shart (condition) according to Abu Haneefah whilst not a condition with the other two. If he was killed in
a state of major impurity he is not Shaheed in his view in disagreement with their view (i.e. Yousuf and Muhammad)”: ?/320-
324. In “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: “Whoever is killed in battle or towards it whilst he is fighting the enemy from the warring
disbelievers or highway robbers or rebels or is killed as result of defending his life, his family, the Muslims or Ahl udh-
Dhimmah, then he is a Shaheed according to the meaning of the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud due to the existence of being killed in an
act of Zhulm and there is no recompense or compensation (‫ ) ِع َوض‬of the Dunyaa in respect to their killing” 1/210, (4) That is
like how the father of Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yamaan was killed in the battle of Uhud. Refer to Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 3290 and
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/338 for this incident, (5) That is like how ‘Aamir Bin Al-Akwa’ was killed at the battle of Khaibar. Refer to
Saheeh Muslim: 1807, 3/1440-1441 for the incident].
… And if he was in an apparent state of major impurity or she was menstruating when war becomes
obligatory upon her (the woman) due to a surprise attack. And it does not apply if he was carried off alive
from the battle and then died (later) and even if the one he was fighting penetrated him with his weapon
(1) apart from the Maghmoor (2) … and he is the one does not eat, drink and does not speak until he
dies” (3).

- Within the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab:

Ash-Sheeraaziy said when explaining who the Shaheed is: “The one who is killed from the Muslims in the
Jihaad against the Kuffaar (disbelievers) due to a cause related to fighting them, before the end of the war,
is Shaheed” (4).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy explained what has preceded in respect to the definition of the Shaheed saying:
“The Shaheed is the one who is not washed and not prayed over. He is the one who died as a result of
fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers), during the undertaking of Al-Qitaal, whether the one who killed him
was a Kaafir or a Muslim’s weapon struck him accidently (5) or his own weapon struck him, or he fell
from his horse or an animal pierced him and then he died, or a riding animal of the Muslims or others
trampled upon him, or he was struck by an arrow and it was unknown whether a Muslim or a Kaafir shot
it (6), or he was discovered killed following the disclosure of the war whilst the cause of his death was
unknown, whether he had the signs of blood or not, or whether he died immediately or remained alive for
a period before dying from that cause before the end of the war, or whether he ate, drank or wrote a will,
or didn’t do any of that. All of this is agreed upon by us (i.e. in our Madh’hab)” (7).

[(1) In “Sharh Ad-Dardeer”: “The adopted opinion: Is that the one wounded by a fighter is not washed and even if
he was lifted (or carried away alive) apart from the Maghmoor”. However, this opinion about not washing him was
attributed to Suhnoon in the “Haashiyah” and he said: “What is depended upon: The first (opinion) (i.e. washing
the wounded unless he was Maghmoor) and the view of Suhnoon is weak”: “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa Ash-
Sharh Al-Kabeer Lid Dardeer”: 1/436, (2) In Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah (dictionary): p412: “Al-Ghamrah” means “Ash-
Shiddah” (severity or severe state) and Ghamaraat ul-Mawt means the pains of death”. And the intended meaning
here is the one who is suffering the apparent or visible pains of death, (3) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer:
1/425-426, (4) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 1/135, (5) The following was added in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:
1/350: “Or he was killed by a Baagh (rebel) Muslim assisted by the Ahl ul-Harb just as the fighting of the
disbelievers covers him”, (6) This is like the killing of Haarithah Bin Suraaqah whose mother was Ar-Rabee’ Bint
An-Nadr and his uncle was Anas Bin Maalik, when he was struck by an errant arrow during the battle of Badr and
died. Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2809 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/25-26. “An errant arrow (Sahm Gharb) refers to
when it is not known who shot it”, “Hadiy As-Saariy”: p162, (7) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/261].

Then An-Nawawiy mentioned some of the ambiguous or unclear circumstances related to the Shaheed
and explained the preponderant judgment in respect to them. He said: “If a Harbiy (enemy or disbeliever
from Daar ul-Harb) entered Daar ul-Islaam and assassinated a Muslim, then there are two views in such a
case … The correct is that he is not Shaheed. And if the disbelievers took a Muslim as a captive and then
killed him whilst a prisoner (1), then regarding his being Shaheed in respect to leaving the performance of
the Ghusl (i.e. washing of the body) and the Salaah (over him), there are two views … The most correct
is: That he is not a Shaheed (2)” (3).

- Within the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah:

It has been according to the Hanaabilah that the Shaheed upon whom the specific Ahkaam (rulings)
related to the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) is applied upon, in terms of his preparation following his martyrdom
during the war with the Kuffaar (disbelievers) is: That he is the one who dies in the battlefield with the
disbelievers; whether it is a man or woman, Baaligh (mature of age) or non-Baaligh, whether he was killed
by the disbelievers or was killed by his own weapon. That is whilst those who died in the war against the
disbelievers would be considered a Shaheed in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of the Aakhirah only and not
according to the Hukm of the Dunyaa, if he was carried away from the battle whilst he still possessed the
breath of life (i.e. in a stable condition), or if he fell from a riding animal and then died (4), or was found
dead whilst there was no sign upon him (5), or he was martyred whilst he was in a major state of impurity
(Junub), with details in respect to the woman who was martyred whist menstruating , or after its
interruption (i.e. she had finished the bleeding but had not yet performed the Ghusl) …

[(1) I.e. he was not killed in the war whilst fighting, “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p126, (2) This is in other than the situation of
fighting. As for if his being killed was in this form during the circumstance of the fighting, then he is a Shaheed according to
the Hukm of the Dunyaa. Refer to “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 1/350, (3) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/362. In his explanation
An-Nawawiy mentioned that if the killed person from the people of ‘Adl (justice) was killed by the Ahl ul-Baghy, then he is not
Shaheed according to the most correct view, according to the Shaafi’iyah. The same applies if those who killed him were
highway robbers and thieves, “Al-Majmoo’”: 5/261-262, (4) The name of martyrdom (Ash-Shahaadah) is affirmed in respect to
him i.e. the Hukm (ruling) of the Thawaab (reward) and of the hereafter, like is mentioned in the Hadeeth: “The one who falls
(to his death) from his ride Fee Sabeelillah is Shaheed”, Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 2/523, (5) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah:
2/401-405. And according to the Hanaabilah: The naming of martyrdom (Ash-Shahaadah) in respect to the Hukm of the
Dunyaa (life of this world) is affirmed to the one who is killed from the people of ‘Adl (justice i.e. those on the side of the
legitimate authority) during the war with the Bughaat (rebels). As for the one who is killed unjustly (Zhulman) or killed in
defence of his property, his life and family, then there are two attributed opinions, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/404-405].

As we have stated, what concerns us in this study is the Shaheed (martyr) who is killed or dies from the
Muslims during the war with the Kuffaar (disbelievers). That is whether he was from the Shuhadaa’
(martyrs) of the Dunyaa (life of this world) and the Aakhirah (hereafter) together, from the Shuhadaa’ of
the Aakhirah only, or from the martyrs of the Dunyaa alone … according to the explanation that will
follow.

For that reason, we have only presented the definitions of the Fuqahaa’ for the Shaheed according to our
intended purpose here. We have also indicated within the references to the opinions of the Ahnaaf and
the Hanaabilah in relation to the affirmation of the naming of the Shaheed and its Ahkaam Ad-
Dunuwiyah (i.e. of the life of this world) for the one who was killed in war or in other than it, outside of
the context of the war against the disbelievers, although this does not fall under the scope of what we are
addressing.

Having said that, it is not our intended purpose here to discuss the above-mentioned definitions and the
evidences that those of each definition relied upon. Some of that, which is connected to our study, will be
mentioned when we address the Mas’alah (issue) of the obligatory Ahkaam in relation to the preparation
of the Shaheed following his death. We have now reached the end of the discussion of the first issue and
now move on to the discussion of the second.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Why has the Shaheed (1) been named with this
naming?

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy mentioned seven angles (Awjuh) (2) for the naming of Shaheed with this naming.

[(1) The word “Shaheed” (‫ش ِهيد‬ ََ ) can be upon the Wazn (form) of “Fa’eel” (‫ ) َفعِيل‬with the meaning of “Maf’ool” (‫) َم ْفعُول‬.
Consequently, is can come from (the meaning of) “Shuhood” i.e. Al-Hudoor (being present). The meaning is that the
Malaa’ikah (angels) witness it at the time of his death as an honour provided to him. It could also be from “Ash-Shahaadah”
which means being present along with witnessing by vision or sight. In this case it is according to the meaning of “Mash’hood
lahu” (being witnessed for him) in respect to Al-Jannah (i.e. validation) … It is also possible for the word “Ash-Shaheed” upon
the Wazn (form of “Fa’eel” to be according to the meaning of “Faa’il” (‫ ) َفاعِل‬i.e. Al-Hudoor (presence or in attendance) i.e. He
is present because he is Hayy (alive) with His Lord. And it could be according to the meaning of “Ash-Shahaadah” (witnessing)
because he is witness over those he killed upon disbelief or because he will come on the Day of Judgment with a witness who
will act as a witness for him, and that is his blood, his wounds and what is like that. Refer to: “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”:
1/947. I say: Built upon the word “Shaheed” according to the meaning of “Al-Faa’il” it is said in respect to the woman that she
is a “Shaheedah” just like it is said “Aleemah” with the meaning of “’Aalimah”. And if the word is according to the meaning of
“Al-Maf’ool” it is said in respect to her, that she is Shaheed just like it is said “hiya Qateel” (she is someone who has been
killed) with the meaning of “Maqtoolah” (Been killed) … That is whilst the Ahaadeeth have come using both of these words
(Lafzh), (2) Ibn Hajar made them reach 14 angles and then said: “Some of these relate specifically to the one who was killed
Fee Sabeelillah and some of them cover other than that whilst some are disputed about”, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/43].

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy stated these seven angles (Awjuh) as follows:

1 - Because Allah Ta’Aalaa and His Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬have witnessed for him Al-Jannah (paradise).
2 - Because he is Hayy (alive) with His Rabb (Lord).
3 - Because the Malaa’ikah (Angels) of Ar-Rahmah (mercy) witness him and then take his Rooh (soul).
4 - Because he is from those who witness the Day of Judgement over the Umam (nations).
5 - Because Imaan and the good end has been witnessed for him according to what is apparent about his
state.
6 - Because he has a witness through his being killed and that is his blood.
7 - Because his Rooh (soul) witness”es Daar us-Salaam i.e. Al-Jannah whilst the Rooh of other than him
does not witness it except on the Day of Judgment (1).

Ibn ul-Atheer said: “Ash-Shahaadah is: Being killed Fee Sabeelillah (In the way of Allah) and the killed
person is only called a Shaheed because Allah and His Malaa’ikah (Angels) are witnesses for him for (the
attainment of) Al-Jannah” (2).

As-Suhailiy said: “And the most affirmed of these angles in terms of correctness is that “Fa’eel” is with
the meaning of “Maf’ool” and its meaning is therefore: That Jannah has been witnessed or testified for
him” (3).

And with that we have reached the end of the second Mas’alah and now come to the third.

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): Some of the Shar’iyah texts that have come
mentioning the virtue or merit (Fadl) of martyrdom and the honouring of the
Shaheed (martyr).

Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) Fee Sabeelillah (In Allah’s way) is from the Qiyam (values) that Islaam has
brought and raised its stature and the stature of those who attain it.

- Through it every neglect that they have undertaken in respect to Allah is buried (in the past) and so there
is no ‘Iqaab (punishment) and no ‘Itaab (censure or reprimand)!

- Through it life and eternity are granted, and so they do not die like the (other) people die!

- Through it the doors of Jannah are opened. Whilst the people of the earth remain upon it the Shuhadaa’
are in receipt of the bliss, delights and comforts of Jannah (paradise)!

However much time we spend continuing to list the blessings of martyrdom, for those who attain it, then
what Allah has prepared for them exceeds any list.

[(1) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 1/277 and Sharh Muslim also by An-Nawawiy: 1/515, 8/81/82, (2) “Jaami’ Al-Usool”:
2/585, (3) “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/195].

And however much human eloquence in speech attempts to confer upon the martyrs the most brilliant of
what it possesses in terms of praise and glory, then it will still not reach one single ray of the rays of that
praise and glory that the eloquence of the Qur’aan has clothed them with or eloquence of the
Prophethood has encompassed them with.
Whatever the level of sense of faithfulness driving us forward or feelings of giving that shake us, so that
we strive to organise celebrations in honour of the memory of the Shuhadaa’ or proceed in acts of
kindness and goodness extending care of those whom the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) have left behind, in terms
of their families, wives and children, then the honouring that Allah Ta’Aalaa provides for them is much
greater than all other attempts of honouring that can be made and the kindness that Allah has reserved in
store for the wives and children whom the martyrs leave behind, is more permanent and lasting than any
other act of kindness and more beneficial than any good deed extended to them. That is because the
Shaheed gives his life to Allah and so Allah gives him Jannah and Ridwaan (pleasure) just as He grants
him intercession for the people of his household and so on that Day when they are in most dire need of a
gesture of compassion the doors of the gardens of paradise are opened for them to enter and every bad
thing is diverted away from them.

- Is there an honouring upon the earth that reaches the heights of that honouring that happens in the
heavens?

- And is there a kindness or goodness that reaches the extent of that kindness and goodness?

- Indeed, how we diminish the right of the Shaheed when we are neglectful and heedless about this true
honouring and then do not indicate to it by a word. That is whilst the most we offer to him are moments
of silence that we stand for and then words that we pronounce following that silence; words which do not
give glad tidings of the reward of Allah, do not connect him to the abode of the angels and do not open
for him the doorways to Jannat ul-Firdaus … It is as if those moments spent standing or those words and
letters are sufficient for the Shaheed in exchange for the precious life of his that he has given … Then, we
call what we do honouring of the martyrs and a high appreciation of martyrdom … In that case, I wonder
what belittling his affair and diminishing his value and worth would look like?

As such, we will turn ourselves in the direction of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem and the Noble Prophetic
Sunnah, so that we can see the true honouring and high estimation that has been allocated to martyrdom
and to the martyrs … It will not be possible for us to present everything that has come mentioned related
to this matter and as such we will suffice ourselves with the threads from the rays of the Kitaab and the
Sunnah, enlightening for us the virtues attached to the martyrdom and the honour and status awaiting the
Shuhadaa’ with Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla …

[(1) “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: The Ahaadeeth concerning the true Shahaadah (martyrdom) … From number 11098-11171. And the
Ahaadeeth concerning the Shahaadah taking the Hukm of reward and the Aakhirah only from number: 11172-11248, 4/397-
427].

- Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

َ‫َب َماَآ َتا ُه ُم‬ َ ‫﴾َ َف ِرح‬١٦٩﴿َ‫ون‬

ِ ‫ِين‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـهَِأَ ْم َواتاََۚ َبلَْأَحْ َياءَعَِند‬
َ ُ‫ََرب ِِّه ْمَيُرْ َزق‬ ِ ‫ِينَقُ ِتلُواَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫َو َالَ َتحْ َس َبنَّ َالَّذ‬
َ﴾١٧٠﴿َ‫ون‬ َ ‫َخ ْلف ِِه ْمَأَ َّال‬
َ ‫َخ ْوفَ َع َلي ِْه ْم ََو َالَ ُه ْمَ َيحْ َز ُن‬ ِ ُ‫ِينَلَ ْمَ َي ْل َحق‬
َ ْ‫واَب ِهمَمِّن‬ َ ‫َبالَّذ‬ِ ‫ون‬ ََ ‫اللَّـهَُمِنَ َفضْ ِله‬
َ ‫َِو َيسْ َتبْشِ ُر‬
ْ ‫َالَيُضِ يعَُأَجْ َر‬
ََ ‫َال َُم ْؤ ِمن‬
‫ِين‬ َ ‫َوأَنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ َ ‫ونَ ِبنِعْ َمةٍَم َِّنَاللَّـه‬
ََ ‫َِو َفضْ ٍل‬ ََ ‫َيسْ َتبْشِ ُر‬
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord,
receiving provision. Rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those
[to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
They receive good tidings of favour from Allah and bounty and [of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers
to be lost (Aali ‘Imraan: 171).

- The following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim:

Related from Masrooq who said: “We asked Abdullah (i.e. Ibn Masud) about this verse: And do not regard
those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead, rather are they alive with their Lord, being provided for (Aali
‘Imraan: 169). He said: “We asked about that and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Their souls are in the insides
of green birds having lanterns suspended from the Throne (2), roaming freely in Paradise where
they please, then taking shelter in those lanterns. Then their Lord cast a glance at them and said:
“Do you wish for or desire anything?” They said: “What shall we wish for when we roam freely in
Paradise where we please?” And then He did that with them three times. When they saw that
they would not be spared from being asked [again], they said: “O Lord, we would like for You to
put back our souls into our bodies so that we might fight for Your sake once again”. And when
He saw that they were not in need of anything they were left be”” (3).

An-Nawawiy said: “In respect to his Qawl ‫ﷺ‬: Then He Ta’Aalaa said: “Do you wish for or desire
anything?” … This represents an exaggeration in respect to the honouring provided to them and the
blessings and delights that they had been granted as Allah had been given them that which the mind or
heart of a human could never have conceived. He then enticed them to ask for more, but they were
unable to find anything more than what He had (already) given them. And then when they saw that they
were required to ask, they asked Him Ta’Aalaa to return their souls to their bodies so that they can
undertake Al-Jihaad and give their lives in the way of Allah Ta’Aalaa seeking the delights of being killed
Fee Sabeelillah (in the ay of Allah). And Allah knows best” (4).

- And in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: Anas Bin Maalik related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

َ ْ‫َ َي َت َم َّنىَأَن‬،‫َإِالََّال َّش ِهي ُد‬،‫ضَمِنْ َ َشىْ ٍء‬ ِ ْ‫اَولَهَُ َماَ َعلَىَاألَر‬ َ ‫َُال َج َّن َةَ ُيحِبُّ َأَنْ َ َيرْ ِج َعَإِلَىَال ُّد ْن َي‬
ْ ‫َماَأَ َحدَ َي ْد ُخل‬
ْ ‫َلِ َماَ َي َرىَم َِن‬،ٍ‫َع ْش َرَ َمرَّ ات‬
‫َال َك َرا َم َِة‬ َ ‫َيرْ ِج َعَإِلَىَال ُّد ْن َياَ َف ُي ْق َت َل‬
Nobody who enters Paradise wishes to return back to the Dunyaa (life of the world) and even if
he was given everything upon the earth, except the Shaheed (martyr) who wishes to return to the
world and then be killed (another) ten times due to the honour and position of dignity he receives
(from Allah) (5).

[(1) i.e. that Allah creates for their souls after they have left their bodies forms upon this formation, which they are attached to
and in exchange for their bodies. An indication for this is in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa: “Alive with their Lord” and so they beg to
attain by it that which they desire in terms of delights that can be tangibly sensed and of lanterns like nests of birds”, “Tuhfat
ul-Ahwadhiy Sharh At-Tirmidhiy”: 8/361, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1887, 3/1502-1503, (3) “Sharh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 8/93, (5)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2817, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/32. Saheeh Muslim: 1877, 3/1498].

An-Nawawiy said: “This is from the most explicit of the evidences in respect to the greatness of the Fadl
(virtue and merit) of Ash-Shahaadah (martyrdom) and Allah is worthy of All praise and gratitude” (1).

In “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ibn Battaal said: This Hadeeth is the most splendid from that which has come
concerning the Fadl (virtue and favour) of martyrdom. He said: And from the acts of Birr (virtuousness)
there is no act that the life is expended (or given) apart from Al-Jihaad and for that reason the reward for
it has been made great” (2).

- In a Saheeh Hadeeth in the “Sunan”: Al-Miqdaam bin Ma'diykarib related from the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ْ ‫َِوي َُجارَُمِنََْ َع َذاب‬

َ‫َِالََقب ِْر‬ ْ ‫ٍَو َي َرىَ َم ْق َع َدهَُم َِن‬
َ ‫َال َج َّنة‬ َ ‫الَي ُْغ َفرَُلَهَُفِيَأَ َّو ِلَ َد ْف َعة‬
ٍ ‫ِص‬
َ ‫تَ خ‬ ُّ ِ‫ََّللاَِس‬َّ ‫لِل َّش ِهيدَِعِ ْن َد‬
َُ‫اَوي َُز َّوج‬ َ ‫اَخيْرَم َِنَال َُّد ْن َي‬
َ ‫اَو َماَفِي َه‬ ْ ‫ار‬
َ ‫َال َياقُو َت ُةَ َِم ْن َه‬ ْ ‫ىَر ْأسِ هَِ َتاج‬
ِ ‫َُال َو َق‬ َ َ‫ضعَُ َعل‬ َ ‫َال َف َزع‬
َ ‫َاأل ْك َب ِر ََويُو‬ ْ ‫َو َيأْ َمنُ َم َِن‬
ِ
َ َ ‫ِين ََو ُي َش َّفعَُفِيَ َس ْبع‬ ِ ‫ُورَ ْالع‬ ْ ‫َز ْو َجةَم َِن‬ ِ ‫ْاث َن َتي‬
ِ ‫ِينَمِنْ َأ َق‬
‫ار ِب َِه‬ ِ ‫َالح‬ َ ‫ِين‬ َ ‫ْن ََو َس ْبع‬
There are six things with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he
suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from the punishment of the grave,
secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are
 better than the world and what it contains, he is married to seventy two wives from the Hoor ul-
‘Ein and he may intercede for seventy of his relatives (3).

- In a Hadeeth Hasan also recorded in the “Sunan”: Abu Hurairah said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said:

ْ ِّ‫َال َق ْت ِلَإِالََّ َك َماَ َي ِج ُدَأَ َح ُد ُك ْمَمِنْ َ َمس‬

َ ْ‫َال َقر‬
َ‫ص ِة‬ ْ ِّ‫َماَ َي ِج ُدَال َّش ِهي ُدَمِنْ َ َمس‬
The martyr does not feel anything more when he is killed than one of you feels if he is pinched
(by a bug) (4).

- In Saheeh Muslim: ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn ul-‘Aas related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫ي ُْغ َفرَُلِل َّش ِهيدَِ ُكلَُّ َذ ْنبٍَإِالََّال َّدي َْن‬

Every sin of the Shaheed is forgiven apart from the debt (5).

[(1) “Sharh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 8/81, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baaruy”: 6/33, (3) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1663, 4/187-188. He said: “This
Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh”. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 1358, 2/132. Sunan Ibn Maajah:
2799, 2/935-936. And Al-Albaaniy verified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 2257, 2/129. I say: And the
Hadeeth here is the wording recorded by Ibn Maajah. Amongst the narrations there is a variance in the number of Khisaal
(things) granted to the Shaheed ranging from 6-8, (4) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1668, 4/190 and he said: “Hasan Saheeh Ghareeb”
and Al-Albaaniy said: “Hasan Saheeh”: 1362 in his “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 2/133. Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 6/36, Sunan Ibn
Maajah: 2802, 2/937, (5) It was stated in “Ithaaf un-Nubalaa’”: “If the Shaheed leaves that by which his debt will be settled or
has instructed for it to be settled like Abdullah instructed his son Jaabir when he went out for the battle of Uhud, or one of his
parents settles it for him or some of the Muslims, then Allah forgives him and he will not be punished” p23 … - Continued in
next page of references -].

In another related version it stated:

ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ‫ََّللاَ ُي َك ِّفرَُ ُكلََّ َشىْ ٍءَإِالََّال َّدي َْن‬ ِ ‫ْال َق ْتلَُفِيَ َس ِب‬
Death in the way of Allah expiates (or erases) everything except the debt (1).

And in another narration when he ‫ ﷺ‬was asked if someone’s sins would be expiated if he was killed
Fee Sabeelillah, he stated:

َ‫ص ِابرَمُحْ َتسِ بَ ُم ْق ِبلَ َغ ْيرَُم ُْد ِب ٍر‬ َ ‫ََّللا ََوأَ ْن‬
َ َ‫ت‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ َ ‫َن َع ْمَإِنْ َقُت ِْل‬
َ ‫تَ ف‬
Yes, if you were killed Fee Sabeelillah whilst you were steadfast, sincere, facing forward (against
the enemy) and not turning your back (1).

The following came mentioned in the Sharh of Muslim by An-Nawawiy: “As for his ‫ ﷺ‬statement:
“Except the debt”. Then this alludes to all of the rights of men and that Al-Jihaad, Ash-Shahaadah
(martyrdom) and other virtuous acts do not expiate or wipe out the rights owed to men but only expiate
the rights of Allah Ta’Aalaa” (2). (Note: i.e. that which is between Allah and His servant and not that which is between
the servants).

We will suffice ourselves with this quantity from the Saheeh Ahaadeeth which extol the Fadl (merit and
favour) of martyrdom and indicate to the elevated standing and status of the Shuhadaa’. That is to make
those who seek the reward, yearn for Al-Jannah and aspire for its eternity, know the path for that which
they seek and desire …

However, it is worth noting here that when Islaam placed such a high value and status to martyrdom it
nevertheless prevented it from becoming a means of oppressing anyone! That is as has been established in
the Hadeeth: “Death in the way of Allah expiates (or erases) everything except the debt”.
We have now reached the end of the discussion of this Mas’alah and move on to the next.

The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): The types of Shuhadaa’ (martyrs):

The following came stated in “Sharh Muslim”: And know that the Shaheed is of three categories: The
first (type): The one killed in the war against the disbelievers due to one of the causes of fighting. This
one takes the ruling of the Shuhadaa’ in respect to the Thawaab (reward) of the Aakhirah and the Ahkaam
(rulings) of the Dunyaa. These are that he is not washed and not prayed over …

[- In the “Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen” he states that this was at the beginning when seeking debt was forbidden due to their
inability to pay it back in their early circumstances and that the indebted who did not leave behind property (or wealth) wasn’t
prayed over. Then that was abrogated by the statement of the Nabi ‫“ ﷺ‬Whoever left behind property, then it is for his
inheritors and whoever left children and burdens, then that is upon me”: 3/335 This Hadeeth indicated to by Ibn ‘Aabideen is
in Al-Bukhaariy: 5371, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 9/515, Saheeh Muslim: 1619, 3/1237. Its text is: “Whenever a dead man in debt was
brought to Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left
something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's
funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other
believers to be the guardian of the believers. Therefore, if a Muslim dies whilst he is in debt, I am responsible for the repayment
of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs” (1) Saheeh Muslim: 1886, 3/1502, (2) “Sharh
Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 8/88].

The second (type): The Shaheed in respect to the Thawaab (reward in the hereafter) without the
Ahkaam (rulings) of the Dunyaa (this life) (being applied upon him). This includes the Mabtoon (1), the
Mat’oon (2), the one who dies under collapsed debris, the one who is killed defending his life and others
whom the Saheeh Ahaadeeth have named as Shuhadaa’ (martyrs). Such a Shaheed is washed and prayed
over and in the Aakhirah (hereafter) he attains the reward (Thawaab) of the Shuhadaa’ whilst it is not
necessary that it be equal to the reward of the first category. The third (type): The one whose thirst is for
the booty and those similar to that (2) which have been mentioned in the narrations negating the naming
of Shaheed for them if they are killed during the war with the disbelievers. This type takes the Hukm of
the Shuhadaa’ in the Dunyaa and consequently is not washed and the prayer is not performed over him,
whilst he does not have the full reward of them (i.e. the Shuhadaa’) in the Aakhirah (hereafter). And Allah
knows best” (4).

A number of Ahaadeeth have been reported related to the listing of the Shuhadaa’ taking the Hukm of the
Thawaab alone and not the Ahkaam of the Dunyaa. They are known as “Shuhadaa’ Al-Aakhirah” (Martyrs
of the hereafter) … These Hadeeth differed in respect to the number of those Shuhadaa’. Ibn Hajar said:
“And it appears that he ‫ ﷺ‬was informed of a fewer number and then was informed of more on top of
that and therefore mentioned them at a later time. That is whilst he did not intend limitation in respect to
that. More than twenty matters (i.e. specifying these martyrs) have been gathered for us through good
paths (i.e. relations)” (5).

I say: We will present here some of what has been verified from those Ahaadeeth which establish the
Shahaadah (martyrdom), in relation to the Thawaab (reward) alone, in respect to particular categories of
the people due to a specified matter which they are characterised with.

1 - In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim: Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, related that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ َّ ‫يل‬
َ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫َوال َّش ِهي ُدَفِيَ َس ِب‬، ْ ُ‫صاحِب‬
َ ‫َال َه ْد ِم‬ َ ‫َو ْال َغ ِر ُق ََو‬،
َ ُ‫ْطون‬ َ ُ‫َال َم ْطعُون‬
ُ ‫َو ْال َمب‬، ْ ‫َُخ ْم َسة‬
َ ‫ال ُّش َه َداء‬
The martyrs are five: The one who dies in a plague, the one who dies from a stomach disease, the
one who drowns, the one who dies due to a collapsed building (6) and the Shaheed (martyr) Fee
Sabeelillah (7).
2 - Saheeh Muslim: Abu Hurairah said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

“Whom do you consider to be a Shuhadaa’ among you?” They (the Companions) said: “O
Messenger, of Allah, the one who is killed in the way of Allah is a Shaheed. He said: “Then (if
this is the definition of a martyr) the martyrs of my Ummah will be small in number”. They
asked: “Who are they then O Messenger of Allah?”

[(1) “He is the one who suffers in his stomach”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/740, (2) “The one who is exposed to the plague and that
is well-known deadly infectious disease”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/740 and in “Al-Qamoos”: 4/246: “At-Taa’oon” (plague) is: “Al-
Wabaa’u” (epidemic), (3) “And the one who is killed turning his back (i.e. in flight) or the one who fights to be seen by others
and what is similar to that”, “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/264, (4) “Sharh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 1/515 and refer to “Al-
Majmoo’”: 5/264, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 1/350 and “Al-Fawaakih Al-‘Adeedah Fil Masaa’il il-Mufeedah”, Ash-Sheikh Al-
‘Alaamah Ahmad Bin Muhammad Al-Manqoor At-Tameemiy An-Najdiy: 1/151, (5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/43, (6) “He is the one
upon whom a building or a wall falls and dies underneath it”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/740, (7) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2829, 6/42
and Saheeh Muslim: 1914, 3/1521].

He said: “The one who is killed in the way of Allah is a martyr; the one who died in the way of
Allah is a martyr; the one who dies of plague is a martyr; one who dies of disease to his stomach
is a Shaheed (martyr)” (1).

3 - Also recorded in Saheeh Muslim: Anas Bin Maalik said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫صادِقاَأُعْ طِ َي َه‬
‫اَولَ ْوَلَ ْمَ ُتصِ ْب َُه‬ َ َ‫َمنْ َ َطل‬
َ َ‫بَال َّش َها َد َة‬
Whoever seeks martyrdom sincerely he will be given it (i.e. its reward) even if it did not happen to
him (2).

4 - In a Saheeh Hadeeth recorded in the Sunan: Jaabir Bin ‘Ateek related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said:

َ‫يقَ َش ِهيد‬ َُ ‫ْطونُ َ َش ِهيد ََو ْال َغ ِر‬ُ ‫ََّال َم ْطعُونُ َ َش ِهيد ََو ْال َمب‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ْ ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َجل‬ ْ ‫ال َّش َها َدةَُ َسبْعَسِ َو‬
ِ ‫ىَال َق ْت ِلَفِيَ َس ِب‬
َ‫َب ُج َْم ٍعَ َش ِهي َدة‬ ُ ‫قَ َش ِهيد ََو ْال َمرْ أَةَُ َتم‬
ِ ‫ُوت‬ ْ ُ‫صاحِب‬
َِ ‫َال َح َر‬ ْ ‫صاحِبُ َ َذات‬
َ ‫َِال َج ْنبَِ َش ِهيد ََو‬ ْ ُ‫صاحِب‬
َ ‫َال َه ْد ِمَ َش ِهيد ََو‬ ََ ‫َو‬
Martyrdom is of seven types besides being killed for the sake of Allah. The one who dies of the
plague is a martyr; the one who dies of a stomach disease is a martyr; the one who is crushed by a
falling building is a martyr; the one who dies of drowning is a martyr; the one who dies of
pleurisy (3) is a martyr; the one who is burned to death is a martyr, and the woman who dies in
pregnancy (4) is a martyr (5).

5 - At-Tabaraaniy related a narration with a Sanad of which its Rijaal are Thiqaat (i.e. transmitters are
reliable): ‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Whoever is thrown down
off his riding animal is Shaheed” (6).

6 - At-Tabaraaniy also related a narration with a Sanad of which its Rijaal are Thiqaat (i.e. transmitters are
reliable): Ibn Mas’ood said: “The one who falls from the tops of the mountains, the one who is eaten by a
wild animal and the one who drowns in the seas is a Shaheed with Allah” (7).

7 - And in a Saheeh Hadeeth related by Abu Dawud and others: Sa’eed Bin Zaid related from the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

َ ‫ونَدَ ِمهَِأَ ْوَ ُد‬

َ‫ونَدِي ِنهَِ َفه َُوَ َش ِهيد‬ َ ‫ونَأَهْ لِهَِأَ ْوَ ُد‬
َ ‫َو َمنْ َقُ ِت َلَ َُد‬، َ ‫َمنْ َقُ ِت َلَ ُد‬
َ ‫ونَ َمالِهَِ َف َُه َوَ َش ِهيد‬
 He who is killed protecting his property is a Shaheed (martyr), he who is killed defending his
family, or his blood, or his religion, is a Shaheed (8).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1915, 3/1521, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1908, 3/1517, (3) “Internal wounds or abscesses which erupt from
inside and then the person dies and it could erupt (from the inside) to be seen externally”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/742, (3) “A
woman died “Bi Jum’i” means: When she died whilst she was pregnant and could also be the woman who has not been
touched by a man”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/742. In “Fat’h ul-Baariy: “They are the Nufasaa’ (postnatal women). It is also said that
it refers to the woman whose child died in her belly and then died as a result of that and it has been said that it refers to the
woman who has died as a virgin. And the first view is the most well-known or widely viewed”: 6/43, (6) “Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id”: 5/301 and he said: Rijaaluhu Thiqaat” (Its men (i.e. transmitters) are reliable of trustworthy), (7) “Majma’ Az-
Zawaa’id”: 5/302 and he said: Its transmitters are Rijaal As-Saheeh, (8) Sunan Abu Dawud: 4782, 4/339 and Al-Albaaniy said:
“Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 3993, 3/906. An-Nasaa’iy with slight difference in wording: 7/116 and 3816,
3/858 in Al-Albaaniy’s “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”. The Hadeeth recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim only states:
“The one who is killed in defence of his property is Shaheed”, Al-Bukhaariy: 2480, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/123 and Muslim: 141,
1/125].

8 - In a Saheeh Hadeeth related by An-Nasaa’iy: Suwaid Bin Muqarrin sais: The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said:

‫ش َِهيد‬ َْ ‫ونَ ََم‬

ََ َ‫ظََل ََمَِت َِهَََف َُه ََو‬ ََ ‫ََمنَََْقَُِت‬
ََ ‫لَ َُد‬
Whoever is killed in defence of an injustice against him is Shaheed (a martyr) (1).

9 - Ibn Hajar said: “And Ad-Daaruqutniy verified as Saheeh from the Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar: “The death
of the Ghareeb (the one who is away from his family and home or alone) is martyrdom” (2).

Ibn Hajar also said: “And other Hadeeth have been related in respect to other matters which I have not
addressed because of their weakness. Ibn At-Teen said: All of these are deaths in which there is suffering
in which Allah has favoured the Ummah of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to them by making them as a
purification for their sins and as a source of increasing their reward which makes them reach the levels of
the martyrs. I said: And what appears to be the case is that those mentioned are not of the same or equal
level or rank …”

He then said: “And the conclusion of what has been mentioned in these Ahaadeeth, is that the Shuhadaa;
are of two categories: The Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah (hereafter): And that includes those who
have been mentioned that they will be given from the reward of the martyrs whilst the Ahkaam (rulings)
of the Dunyaa are not applied over them …” He then says: “And if that is established then giving or
applying the name of Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) to other than those who were killed Fee Sabeelillah (i.e. in
Jihaad) is metaphoric (Majaaz)” (3).

We will suffice with what we have presented here concerning this Mas’alah and now move on to the
discussion of the Mas’alah (issue) that follows it.

5 - The Fifth Mas’alah (issue): The obligatory conduct due to the Shaheed in
respect to his preparation and burial:

In respect to this Mas’alah we will address the following points:

- The First Point: What is the Hukm of the Ghusl (washing) of the Shaheed (martyr)?

- The Second Point: What are the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) shrouded in?
[(1) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 7/117 and it was verified as Saheeh by Al-Baaniy in his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 3818, 3/858, (2)
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/43. Ibn Maajah recorded the Hadeeth: 1613, 1/151. However, Al-Albaaniy did not include it in his
“Saheeh of the Sunan of Ibn Maajah”: 1/269. That which Ad-Daaruqutniy verified as Saheeh is from the Hadeeth of Ibn
‘Umar whilst that which was recorded by Ibn Maajah is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/44].

- The Third Point: Is the Janaazah Salaah (prayer) performed over the Shaheed?

- The Fourth Point: What is the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to moving the Shaheed to bury him in a
place other than the place in which he was martyred?

- The Fifth Point: Are a number of Shuhadaa’ buried in one single grave?

1 - The First Point: What is the Hukm of the Ghusl (washing) of the Shaheed
(martyr)?

In respect to this point we will address the following Ahkaam:

A - The Hukm (ruling) of washing the Shaheed if he was not Junub (in a state of major impurity).

B - The Hukm (ruling) of washing the Shaheed if he was in a state of major impurity.

C - The Hukm of washing the woman if she was martyred in a state other than the state of purity.

D - The Hukm of washing the Shaheed who is from the Sibyaan (prepubescent boys).

A - The Hukm (ruling) of washing the Shaheed if he was not Junub (in a state of
major impurity):

The opinion of the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’): The Jumhoor of the Fuqahaa’ of the Madhaahib and
others held the view that the Shaheed is not washed (i.e. the Ghusl is not performed for him).

- In “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i” it was stated concerning the Shaheed: “He is not washing according to the view
of most of the ‘Ulamaa” (1).

- In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer, it was stated: “The Shaheed of the battlefield is not washed
i.e. it is Haraam (prohibited to wash him)” (2).

- In “Al-Majmoo’” by An-Nawawiy, he stated: “It is not permissible to wash the Shaheed” (3).

- In “Al-Mughniy” by Ibn Qudaamah he said: “If the Shaheed dies in the battle he is not to be washed”
… He then said: “It is possible that not undertaking the Ghusl (washing) is because it means removing the
effects of the ‘Ibaadah (act of worship) which the Shar’a has deemed to be favourable. That is because it
was related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he said:

ْ ‫َجا َءَ َي ْو َم‬

َِ‫َالقِ َيا َمة‬ ِ ‫َّللاَُأَعْ لَ ُم‬
َ َّ‫َب َمنْ َ ُي ْكلَ ُمَفِيَ َس ِبيلِهَِـَإِال‬ َّ ‫َـَو‬
َ ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ‫يَب َي ِدهَِالََ ُي ْكلَ ُمَأَ َحدَفِيَ َس ِب‬
ِ َّ ‫يل‬ ِ ِ‫َوالَّذِيَ َن ْفس‬
ْ ‫َُريح‬
َِ‫َُالمِسْ ك‬ ِ ‫َواللَّ ْونُ َلَ ْونُ َال َّد ِم ََوالرِّ يح‬
By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! Nobody is wounded in Allah's Cause....and Allah knows well
who is wounded in His Cause.... except that he will come on the Day of Resurrection with his
wound having the colour of blood but the scent of musk (4).
[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/324, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 1/425, (3) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/260, (4)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2803, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/20].

… It is also possible that the Ghusl is not obligatory (or necessary) except for the purpose of the Salaah
(prayer), whilst the dead has no actions (belonging to him) and so we have been commanded to wash him
to pray over him. Consequently, the one whom it is not obligatory to pray over is not obligatory to be
washed like the living. It is also possible that the Shuhadaa’ in the battle number many and washing them
would represent a hardship and so it has been pardoned from him due to that reason” (1).

Despite the above, the dependence in respect to not washing the Shaheed is upon the Shar’iy text having
brought that. Then what has been mentioned after that, in terms of sensed effects or Hikam (wisdoms)
that have come from the Shaari’ (legislator) as the result of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy, is not to be understood
to represent a reasoning (Ta’leel i.e. Shar’iy ‘Illah), upon the basis of which, the Hukm revolves in
presence and absence. Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “The correct way (of understanding) in our view in
respect to not undertaking the Ghusl (washing), is that it is not reasoned by an ‘Illah (Shar’iy reason)” (2).

From among the Adillah (evidences) that the washing of the Shaheed is not undertaken is what has been
recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy in respect to the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of Uhud: “Jaabir said: The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫ْادفِ ُنو ُه ْمَفِيَ ِد َمائ ِِه ْم‬

“Bury them in their blood” i.e. on the day of Uhud. And he did not have them washed” (3).

The above is what is to be said regarding the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa’).

The opinion of Sa’eed Ibn ul-Musayyib and Al-Hasan Al-Basriy (4): These two scholars, from
among the notable Taabi’een, said that the Shaheed is washed.

- The following came mentioned in “Al-Majmoo’” in respect to the discussion about the Shaheed: “Sa’eed
Ibn ul-Musayyib and Al-Hasan Al-Basriy said: He (i.e. the Shaheed) is washed” (5).

- Concerning the reasoning for this opinion, the following came mentioned in “Al-Badaa’i”: “That the
Ghusl (washing) is a dignity for the sons of Adam and the Shaheed deserves the dignity just like others
have the right to it. Indeed, they have greater right and so the Ghusl (washing) in respect to them is even
more obligatory!” … They did not was the martyrs of Uhud only as a lightening upon the living as most
of the people had been wounded due to the hardship and trial of that day and its testing nature, and so
they were not capable of washing them” (6).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/333, (2) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/266, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1346 and “Fat’h
ul-Baariy”: 3/212, (4) “It has been reported from Ibn Suraij from Ash-Shaafi’iy and from others”: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/212.
Refer to “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/324, “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/264 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/333, (5) “Al-
Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/264, (6) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/324].

The author of “Al-Badaa’i” responded to this opinion with a number of points to reject them which
included: Had the leaving of the Ghusl of the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud been for the reason mentioned due to
inability and hardship at that time, then why were the Shuhadaa’ not left in all of the wars and all
situations in which they were capable of washing them … He said: “Just as the Shuhadaa’ were not
washed at Uhud, the Shuhadaa’ of Badr, Al-Khandaq and Khaibar were not washed. And what has been
mentioned in terms of inability was not on that day (alone)!” (1).

B - The Hukm (ruling) of washing the Shaheed if he was in a state of major

impurity:
Abu Haneefah held the opinion, contrary to that of his two companions (i.e. Abu Yousuf and
Muhammad) just as the Hanaabilah and some of the Shaafi’iyah held the same opinion, that the Junub
(one in major state of impurity) is washed (2). In contrast: The Maalikiyah (apart from Suhnoon), the
majority of the Shaafi’iyah and Abu Yousuf and Muhammad from the Ahnaaf, viewed that the Shaheed is
not washed and even if he was in a state of major impurity (Junub) (3).

The Daleel (evidence), from the Shar’iyah texts, for excluding the Shaheed in the state of major ritual
impurity from the general evidence dictating that the Shaheed not be washed, is what came narrated in
“Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim and other sources, from Yahyaa Bin ‘Ubbaad Bin Abdillah Bin Az-Zubair
Bin Al-‘Awwaam: “Related from his father from his grandfather, may Allah be pleased with him, that he
said: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying when Hanzhalah Bin ‘Abi ‘Aamir (4) was killed after he and
Abu Sufyaan Bin Al-Haarith met in battle and then Shaddaad Bin Al-Aswad came from above with his
sword and killed him. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Your companion is being washed by the
angels”. And so they asked his wife (5) about that and she said: “He went out to the battle when he heard
the harsh sounds of war beginning whilst he was in a state of Janaabah (major ritual impurity)”. The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “And for that reason the angels washed him” (6).

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/324, (2) and (3) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/211, “Al-Majmoo’”: 5/263, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-
Dardeer, “Haasiyah” Ad-Dasouqiy: 1/426 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/402, (4) refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam:
“Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/154, (5) “Meaning his wife who was Jameelah Bint Ubayy Bin Abi Salool and the sister of Abdullah Ibn
Ubayy. He had consummated the marriage with her that night and she had been his bride”: “Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/164, (6) “Al-
Mustadrak”. He said it is upon the conditionality of Muslim but they (Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record it. He classified
it as Saheeh: 3/204-205. In “Al-Majmoo’” of An-Nawawiy: 5/260 it was recorded that: “Al-Baihaqiy related it (4/15) with a
Jayyid (good) Sanad (chain) from the relation of Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair as a Mutassil (connected) Hadeeth”. He then
mentioned that Abdullah Ibn Az-Zubair was born just two years prior to the battle of Uhud and as such the Hadeeth is
regarded as a Mursal of the Sahaabiy and he said concerning this: “The Mursal of the Sahaabiy is a Hujjah (valid proof and
evidence) according to the correct view and Allah knows best”. However, Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy, after three pages, said: “The
compiler mentioned the Hadeeth of Hanzhalah Bin Ar-Raahib and the angels washing him when he was martyred in a state of
major impurity whilst we have mentioned that it is a weak Hadeeth!” “Al-Majmoo’”: 5/263. And Ash-Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Al-
Arnaa’out from amongst the contemporary scholars of Hadeeth said: “Its Sanad (chain) is Jayyid (good)”: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad and
its Haasiyah (commentary)”: 3/200].

Consequently, based upon the angels washing Hanzhalah after he was martyred whilst in a state of major
ritual impurity (Janaabah), the general evidence in respect to not washing the Shaheed became specified by
this Daleel Khaass (specific evidence). That is whilst the Khaass is given predominance over the ‘Aamm,
as has been established in Usool (1).

The response to this evidence by those who hold the view that the Shaheed is not washed and even if he
was in a state of major ritual impurity (Janaabah), is what came mentioned in “Al-Majmoo’”. An-Nawawiy
said: “If the Hadeeth is affirmed (i.e. the Hadeeth of Hanzhalah), then the answer to it is that if the Ghusl
had been Waajib (obligatory), it would not have fallen by the act of the angels and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would
have commanded that he be washed” (2) … An-Nawawiy then mentioned from Al-Qaadiy Abu At-Tayyib
that the requirement from the Ghusl (washing) is a human act of worship i.e. the action of the angels does
not lift the request from the human in respect to that which he has been requested to undertake. I say:
This is what appears to be most evident in respect to what is understood from the Khabar (report or
narration) and as such, the opinion that the Shaheed who is in a major state of ritual impurity (Janabah) is
not to be washed is the opinion that is weighed to be strongest.

C - The Hukm of washing the woman if she was martyred in a state other than the
state of purity:
This is referring to when she is martyred during the time of her “Haid” (menses) or her “Nifaas”
(postnatal bleeding) or she had come to an end of that but had yet to perform Ghusl.

- According to the Maalikiyah and the Shaafi’iyah: She is like the Shaheed if he was Junub (in a state of
major ritual impurity) and we have already mentioned that the Shaheed is not washed according to the
most correct opinion held by them. Similarly, the woman martyred in other than the state of purity is not
washed (3).

- As for those who hold the opinion that the Shaheed who was in a state of impurity at the time of his
martyrdom is washed, then they say:

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/211 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/402, (2) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/263, (3) “Ash-
Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 1/426 and “Al-majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/263].

- If the bleeding of the Haid or Nifaas of the Shaheedah (female martyr) had stopped and she had not
performed Ghusl before attaining the success of martyrdom, it is obligatory in this case, to wash her. That
is: “Because the Ghusl before the death was obligatory as has been made obligatory in respect to the
Janaabah (state of impurity)” (1). This is the view held by the Ahnaaf and the Hanaabilah.

- If, however, the woman martyr had attained martyrdom during the days of her bleeding from the Haid
(menses) of the Nifaas (postnatal bleeding), then according to the view of the Hanaabilah: “The Ghusl is
not obligatory because At-Tuhr (purity) is a Shart (condition) for the Ghusl or the Sabab (reason) that
obliges it (2). Therefore, the Hukm is not established without it (i.e. the Shart or Sabab)” (3).

This Hukm is also one of the two reported opinions attributed to Abu Haneefah.

- The other attributed report from Abu Haneefah is: That this female martyr (Shaheedah) is like the one in
a major state of ritual impurity (Janaabah) i.e. it is obligatory to wash her if she is martyred before the
stopping of her bleeding from the menstruation (Haid) or the post child birth bleeding (Nifaas) (4).

As we have weighed to be strongest that the Shaheed in the state of major impurity is not washed, then
this Hukm (ruling) also applies to the female Shaheedah if Allah has honoured her with martyrdom before
she is purified from her bleeding, in any circumstance.

D - The Hukm of washing the Shaheed who is from the Sibyaan (prepubescent
boys or children):

The Jumhoor (majority) of the Maalikiyah, Shaafi’iyah, Hanaabilah in addition to Abu Yousuf and
Muhammad from the Ahnaaf, amongst others, said: The Shaheed from amongst the Sibyaan
(prepubescent boys or children) is like the Baaligh (postpubescent) Shaheed.

- And Abu Haneefah said: The Shaheed from the Sibyaan (boys) is washed and the angle of his opinion is:
“That the sword was sufficient to take the pace of the Ghusl in respect to the martyrs of Uhud in its
description as being a purifier of the sins. That is whilst the Sabiy (boy) has no sins and as such does not
fall under their meaning and whoever does not fall under their meaning (i.e. description) is not washed”
(5).

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa”, ‘Alaa Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy: 1/211. Also refer to “Al-Badaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 2/402 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 2/333, (2) He means that the cause for the obligation of
performing the Ghusl is: The act of Salaah. And in the case where the menstruating woman or those in there post child birth
bleeding (Nufasaa’) are in the days of their bleeding, then the Salaah is not obligatory upon them and consequently the Ghusl is
not obligatory upon them, in accordance to that, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/402 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdisiy: 2/333, (4) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’: 1/211 and “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/322-323, (5) “Al-‘Inaayah Sharh ul-Hidaayah”:
2/148. “Manh ul-Jaleel, Sharh ‘Alaa Mukhtasar”, Sayyidy Khaleel: 1/518, “Al-Majmoo’” and An-Nawawiy: 5/226].

- When mentioning the evidence of the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) and responding to what Abu
Haneefah used as evidence, An-Nawawiy stated the following in “Al-Majmoo’”: “Our Daleel: That he (i.e.
the boy martyr) is a Muslim killed in the battlefield with the Mushrikeen as a result of fighting them. As
such, he resembles the Baaligh (mature) and the woman. And he (Abu Haneefah) used as evidence that he
(the boy) has no sin. We have said: That he (the boy) is washed and prayed upon in other than the
battlefield and even if he is not from the people who earn sins” (1).

- Ibn Qudaamah adds in respect to the deduction of the opinion of the majority, saying: “Among the
Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of Uhud was Haarithah Bin An-Nu’maan and ‘Umair Bin Abi Waqqaas, the brother
of Sa’eed, and they were both young. In addition, the Hadeeth is ‘Aamm (general)” (2) i.e. the Hadeeth of
not performing the Ghusl upon the Shuhadaa’ is ‘Aamm (general) in respect to applying to every Shaheed
and no specifying text (Nass Khaass) has come excluding the Sabiy (boy) from its generality.

I say: This is the opinion that we weigh to be strongest in relation to this Mas’alah based upon the
strength of the Daleel.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the first point concerning the Ghusl
(washing) of the Shaheed and we now move on to discuss the second point.

2 - The Second Point: What are the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) shrouded in?

Ibn ul-Qayyim said: “The Fuqahaa’ have differed in relation to the command of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to bury the
Shuhadaa’ of Uhud in their clothes (i.e. those they were martyred in). Is it from the angle of
recommendation and preference? Or is it obligatory? There are two opinions: And the second is the most
apparent of evident. It is the view which is known to be that of Abu Haneefah whilst the first is known to
be the opinion of the Shaafi’iyah and those of Ahmad’s Madh’hab. If it said: Ya’qoub Bin Shaibah and
other than him related with a Jayyid (good) Sanad (chain): That Safiyah sent two pieces of cloth to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to shroud Hamzah in them and then he shrouded him in one of them and shrouded (i.e.
covered) another man in the other cloth or sheet (3). It is said: That in respect to Hamzah, the disbelievers
had crucified him, mutilated him, opened up his stomach and removed his liver. As such he was shrouded
in another sheet or garment …” (4).

[(1) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/226, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/403, (3) In the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal:
1/165. Ash-Sheikh Al-Arnaa’out said: “Its Sanad (chain) is Hasan”. “Zaad ul-Ma’aad: Al-Haashiyah: 3/217, (4) “Zaad ul-
Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/216-217. Also refer to the Fiqhiy opinions attributed to the Fuqahaa’: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/324,
“Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/263, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/403 … Ibn ul-Qayyim to did mention the opinion of
the Maalikiyah and their opinion is: The obligation of buring the Shaheed in the clothes that he was martyred in. refer to: “Al-
Mudawwanah”, Maalik: 1/183 and “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 1/521].

I say: What Ibn ul-Qayyim was indicating to in terms of the command of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬for the Shuhadaa’
to be buried in their garments or clothing, was recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: Ibn ‘Abbaas said:

َِ ‫َال َحدِي ُد ََو ْال ُجلُو ُد ََوأَنْ َي ُْد َف ُن‬

َ‫واَب ِد َماَِئ ِه ْم‬ َ ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَب َق ْتلَىَأ ُ ُحدٍَأَنْ َ ُي ْن َز َع‬
ْ ‫َع ْن ُه ُم‬ ِ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫أَ َم َر‬
ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬
‫َو ِث َي ِاب ِه َْم‬
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded to remove weapons and skins from the martyrs of
Uhud, and that they should be buried with their blood and clothes (1).

Just as it was related in the Sunan of Abu Dawud from Jaabir that he said:
 ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
َ‫ََّللا‬ َ ‫َ َو َنحْ نُ َ َم َع‬-َ‫َ َقا َل‬-َ‫اتَ َفأ ُ ْد ِر َجَفِيَ ِث َي ِابهَِ َك َماَه َُو‬
ِ ‫َرس‬ َ ‫ص ْد ِرهَِأَ ْوَف‬
َ ‫ِيَحَْلقِهَِ َف َم‬ َ َ‫َب َسه ٍْمَفِي‬
ِ َ‫ِيَ َرجُل‬
ََ ‫ُرم‬
‫صلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬
A man was shot with an arrow in his chest or throat (the narrator is doubtful). He then died and
was then shrouded in his clothing as he was. The narrator said: We were with the Messenger of
Allah ‫( ﷺ‬2).

There are two matters related to this:

- What is the clothing of the Shaheed is too short to cover him?

- Is the Shaheed stripped of what he is carrying in terms of weapons and anything else, which does not fall
under the category of the shroud in terms of clothing, like leather and fur?

- As for when the clothing or garment of the Shaheed is not enough to cover his body, then in such a
case, it is required to complete the required covering from what is accessible.

In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Saheeh Muslim the following was recorded: Khabbaab, may Allah be pleased
with him, said: “We emigrated with the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬for Allah’s sake and so our reward fell upon Allah.
From among us were those who died and did not take anything from their fruits in this world (3) and
from them was Mus’ab bin `Umair. And from us there were those who attained their rewards (4). Mus’ab
bin `Umair was martyred on the day of the Battle of Uhud and we could not find anything apart from his
Burdah (cape) to shroud him in. And when we covered his head his two feet were uncovered and if we
covered his two feet his head was uncovered. So, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬ordered us to cover his head only
and to put a kind of shrub (5) over his feet (6).

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3134, 3/265. Al-Albaaniy did not record it in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud”. Refer to 2/606.
However, Ash-Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Al-Arnaa’out said about it: “It is a Hasan Hadeeth”: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: “Al-Haashiyah”:
11/139, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3133, 3/265. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Hasan” in his “Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud”: 2687,
11/139, (3) and (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 3/142, (5) “This is referring to a well-known plant that turns white when it dries”: “Al-
Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p79, (6) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1276 and Saheeh Muslim: 940, 2/649].

- As for whether the Shaheed is stripped of what he is wearing or carrying in terms of weapons and other
items? Then the aforementioned Hadeeth recorded by Abu Dawud and related by Ibn ‘Abbaas mentions
the removal of the iron (i.e. weapons) and leathers from the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud. As this Hadeeth has been
differed upon in respect to its authenticity, the opinions of the Fuqahaa’ differ have also consequently
differed.

- It has been stated in the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf: “And the weapons, fur, leathers and what is not
suitable to be shrouded in, is removed from him (i.e. the Shaheed” (1).

- According to the Maalikiy Madh’hab: “And he (the Shaheed) is buried with his clothing that he died in as
an obligation if it covers him. And if it does not cover him them it (the clothing) is increased upon until it
covers him … It is recommended to bury him with the shoes or sandals which were on his feet at the time
of his death and so they are not removed. And he is buried with his headgear upon his death at the time
of his death if it made from wool or something similar … and so it is not removed … and he is buried
with what he has upon his waist, like a belt, at the time of his death, it is not removed, if its value is not
high … and he is buried with a silver ring … If it is ring that has been forbidden or the value of his ring or
belt is high, it is removed from him … He then said: The Shaheed is not buried with a tool of war like
body armour or a weapon that is with him …” (2).
- According to the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab: “What isn’t regarded usually to be from the clothing of people is
removed from the Shaheed, like the leathers, furs, shoes and body armour … As for the rest of the
garments or clothing that is usually worn which he was wearing when killed, then his Waliy has a choice: If
he wishes he can take it and shroud him in something else and if he wishes he can leave him as he is …
Burying him in it is better and the clothing stained in the blood of martyrdom is better …” (3)

- According to the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah: “That which is not the usual dress or clothing of the
people in terms of leathers, fur and iron (i.e. weapons) is removed from him (i.e. the Shaheed)” (4).

- According to the Zhaahiriy Madh’hab: “He (the Shaheed) is buried in his blood, his clothing. However,
the weapon alone is stripped from him” (5).

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/209, (2) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 1/521 and refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 1/426, (3)
“Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/263, (4) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/403, (5) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 5/115].

After that, I say: It appears to me, from that which has been presented, that the burial of the Shuhadaa’
with their clothing has been established in the Sunnah from the Hadeeth of Jaabir recorded by Abu
Dawud … That is whilst the command to remove what they had upon them in terms of leathers and iron,
which came in the Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas, has been differed upon in respect to its authenticity …
Therefore, based upon what has been established or authenticated in the Sunnah: I weigh to be strongest
that everything conforming to the meaning of clothing is left upon the Shaheed in accordance to the
previously mentioned Hadeeth: “He was then shrouded in his clothing as he was”. That is whilst
anything that does not conform to the reality of clothing like a watch on his wrist or a weapon that he had
with him, is removed from him … We have now concluded the discussion of the Mas’alah (issue) of the
shrouding (Takfeen) of the Shuhadaa’ and now move on to the next point of discussion.

3 - The Third Point: Is the Janaazah prayer performed over the Shaheed?

We will proceed in our discussion of this point according to the following:

Firstly: The main Shar’iyah texts that have come related to this subject area.

Secondly: The opinions of the Madhaahib and Fuqahaa’ in addition to their evidences from the Shar’iyah
texts.

Thirdly: The opinion that we weigh to be strongest based upon the strength of the Daleel (evidence).

Firstly: The main Shar’iyah texts that have come related to this subject area.

1 - In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy from the Hadeeth of Jaabir concerning the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud: “… And he
commanded that they be buried in their blood, not be washed and not be prayed over” (1).

2 - In Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim: “’Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir related that: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬went out one
day and then prayed his prayer over the dead upon the people of Uhud and then set off towards
the Minbar …” (2). And in another recorded version of the Hadeeth also related by Al-Bukhaariy it was
stated: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over the dead of Uhud after 8 years like the one
saying farewell to the living and the dead. He then ascended the Minbar …” (3).
3 - And in a Saheeh Hadeeth in “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim and other collections: “Shaddaad Bin Al-
Haad (4) related that a man from the Arab Bedouins believed in the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and said: “Iَ
will emigrate with you?” Then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬instructed his companions to take care of him …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1343, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/209, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1344, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/209 and Saheeh
Muslim: 2296, 4/1795, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4042, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/348, (4) In the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq: 9597,
5/276].

Then when the Ghazwah of Khaibar or Hunain took place … (he was martyred) … And then the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬shrouded him, stood before him and prayed over him. Some of what could be heard from his
prayer was: “O Allah this is your slave, he came out as an emigrant (Muhaajir) in your way and
then has died as a Shaheed (martyr) and I am a witness over him” (1).

4 - In a Hadeeth recorded by Al-Haakim in “Al-Mustadrak” with a Hasan Isnaad (chain of transmitters):

“Anas said: on the day of Uhud the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬passed by Hamzah Ibn Abdul Muttalib and
he had been disfigured and mutilated. And he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “If it wasn’t for Safiyah (2) I would have left
him until Allah resurrected him from the stomachs of the birds and predatory animals”. He then
shrouded him in Namirah (3). But if his head was covered his feet would be revealed and if his
feet were covered his face would be revealed. And so he covered his face. And he did not pray
over anyone from the Shuhadaa’ other than him! (4) And he said: “I am witness over them today
and he put three or two together in a single grave. He would ask which of them had memorised
more Qur’aan and advance them accordingly. He shrouded two men and three in one single
Thawb (5) …” (6).

5 - In a Saheeh Hadeeth recorded by Ibn Maajah: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “They (the martyrs) were brought
to the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬on the Day of Uhud, and he started to offer the funeral prayer for
them, ten by ten. Hamzah lay where he lay, and they were taken away but he was left where he
was” (7).

[(1) “Al-Mustadrak”, Al-Haakim: 3/596. Ash-Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Al-Arnaa’out said in his commentary upon Zaad ul-Ma’aad:
3/214: “Its Sanad is Saheeh. Al-Haakim verified it as Saheeh and Adh-Dhahabiy authenticated it”. I say: I have not found in
“Al-Mustadrak” that Al-Haakim verified it as Saheeh nor have I found the authentication of Adh-Dhahabiy. Despite that, Al-
Albaaniy has also classified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 1845, 2/420. The Hadeeth in the Sunan of An-
Nasaa’iy is: 4/61, (2) i.e. that it would make his sister Safiyah sad, the paternal aunt of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, (3) It is a cloak made of
wool or unwoven …” “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/213, (4) Its intended meaning, and Allah knows best, is that he did not pray over
other than him (Hamzah) independently and therefore the Salaah over other than him is not negated in linkage to him”, “Zaad
ul-Ma’aad”: “Al-Haashiyah”: 3/214, (5) In the Haashiyah of As-Sanadiy over Al-Bukhaariy: “What is the meaning of that in the
case where the Shaheed is buried in his clothes …? It is as if this applies to those whose clothing was torn or cut and it (their
clothing) no longer remained over their bodies or only a small amount remained due to the number of wounds. Based on the
evaluation of the remaining of the previous clothing, there is no problem due to it not connecting to cover all of his skin. In
addition, some of them have excused it in the case of the Daroorah (necessity). Some of them said: Gather them in one sheet
and that is for a sheet or shroud to be cut between them …”: 1/148. Also refer to “Haashiyah As-Sanadiy ‘Alaa An-Nasaa’iy:
4/62-63 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/210, (6) “Al-Mustadrak”: 1/365. Al-Arnaa’out said: “Its Sanad is Hasan”, “Haashiyah Zaad
ul-Ma’aad”: 3/214, (7) Ibn Maajah: 1513, 1/485. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 1228, 1/253].

The above therefore represent the main Ahaadeeth which have come related to the subject of the
performance of the Salaah over the Shaheed or its non-performance.

Secondly: The opinions of the Madhaahib and Fuqahaa’ in addition to their evidences from the
Shar’iyah texts:

- The Jumhoor (majority) from the Maalikiyah, Ash-Shaafi’iyah and the Hanaabilah: Do not hold the
opinion of the prayer being performed over the Shaheed (martyr); the Salaat ul-Janaazah (funeral prayer).
- Al-Ahnaaf, some of the Shaafi’iyah and an opinion reported to be attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad: They
hold the opinion of the performance of the Salaah over the Shaheed. The following are their opinions in
relation to that and their Adillah evidences:

- In respect to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf:

It was stated in “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa”: “As for the Salaah over the Shaheed, then it is Waajib (obligatory) in
our view, in contrast to the Ash-Shaafi’iy. Our view is correct because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over the
Shuhadaa’ of Uhud” (1).

- In respect to the Maalikiy Madh’hab:

It was stated in “Al-Mudawwanah”: “Maalik said concerning the Shuhadaa’: The one who dies in the
battlefield is not washed, not shrouded, not prayed over and is buried in his clothing … He then quoted
the Hadeeth of Jaabir which stated within it: “And he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded that they be buried and not
washed nor prayed over” (2).

- In respect to the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab:

In “Al-Majmoo’” it was stated: “It is not permissible to wash the Shaheed or perform the Salaah over him.
And Al-Muzniy, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, said: He is prayed over. That is whilst Imaam ul-
Haramaini, Al-Baghawiy and others held the view that: It is permissible to pray over them and not
obligatory. Then An-Nawawiy said: And the opinion of the Madh’hab is what has been asserted in terms
of the prohibition of praying and washing (i.e. the Shaheed) together. And its Daleel (evidence) is the
Hadeeth of Jaabir” (3).

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 1/212, (2) “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 1/183. Also refer to the Haashiyah of Ad-
Dasouqiy: 1/426 and “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p110, (3) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/260/261].

- In respect to the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah:

The following came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah: “As for the Salaah over him (i.e. the
Shaheed), then the correct (opinion) is that he is not prayed over. That is the opinion of Maalik, Ash-
Shaafi’iy, Ishaaq. And there is another Riwaayah (attributed report) from Ahmad that he the prayer is
performed over him, which was chosen by Al-Khallaal and is also the opinion Ath-Thawriy and Abu
Haneefah. However, the speech of Ahmad in this report indicates to the prayer over him being
Mustahabb (recommended) and not Waajib (obligatory)”. He (i.e. Ibn Qudaamah) then mentions the
evidence for this attributed report stating: Ibn ‘Abbaas related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over the dead of
Uhud … And he added: And we have that which Jaabir related, that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬ordered that the
Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of Uhud be buried in their blood, not be washed and not be prayed over. And that
they did not pray over them. Which is agreed upon (i.e. recorded in Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim)” (1).

The above, then, is what has come mentioned in the Fiqhiy Madhaahib concerning the prayer performed
over the Shaheed.

Thirdly: The opinion that we weigh to be strongest in respect to the Mas’alah of the prayer over
the Shaheed, based upon the strength of the evidence.

The Fuqahaa’ have spoken at length discussing the opinions and Ahaadeeth related to this matter. We will
summarise that within the following points:
A - The Hadeeth of Jaabir in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy, negating the performance of the Salaah (prayer) over
the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud, is the strongest Hadeeth related to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) in respect to its
authenticity. And like it is the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim
mentioning the Salaah being performed for the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud after 8 years of their passing.

- As for the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah, it is clear that it relates to other than the subject of the Janaazah prayer
performed before the burial. That is because this mentioned Salaah took place eight years after the burial
of the martyrs. Explaining the intended meaning of this Salaah, An-Nawawiy said: “The intended meaning
of the Salaah here is: Ad-Du’aa (supplication). And his statement: “The Salaah upon the dead” means:
That he made Du’aa for them like the Du’aa (supplication) of the prayer of the dead” (2). At-Tahtaawiy,
from the Ahnaaf, said concerning the intended meaning of the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah: “The meaning of his
‫ ﷺ‬Salaah upon them: Does not come outside of three (possible) meanings: Either that it abrogates
what preceded it in terms of leaving the performance of prayer over them (i.e. the Shuhadaa’), or it was
from their Sunnah to not pray over them except after the mentioned period of time, or the Salaah over
them is permissible in contrast to others who have said that it is Waajib (obligatory). Whichever of the
two it is (i.e. permissible or obligatory), the prayer over them has been affirmed, the prayer over the
Shuhadaa’ …

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/401. I say: Hadeeth Jaabir is recorded in Al-Bukhaariy and the Sunan, but not Muslim
and we have previously mentioned its source, (2) “Al-Majmoo’”: 5/265].

… Then Ibn Hajar, from the Shaafi’iyah, when commentating upon what At-Tahtaawiy from the Ahnaaf
stated, said: His Salaah upon them can hold different meanings which include: That it falls under that
which is from his specificities. And also included among them is: That it could be the meaning of the
Du’aa (supplication), as was discussed previously” (1). Ibn Qudaamah said: “And the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah
is specific to the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud as he prayed over them in the graves after eight years” (2).

I say: In any case, the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah is not related to the Mas’alah of the Salaah performed over the
Shaheed before his burial, and that is the Mas’alah that we are addressing here … Consequently, in respect
to this point, there remains the Saheeh Hadeeth of Jaabir negating the performance of the Salaah over the
Shuhadaa’ of Uhud.

B - We have some Ahaadeeth related to this Mas’alah which some of those occupied in the science of
Hadeeth in our contemporary time have classified as being Saheeh … They affirm that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
prayed over the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) … Included amongst those Ahaadeeth is the Hadeeth of Shaddaad
Bin Al-Haadi which stated within it that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over the Arab Bedouin Shaheed (martyr).
And also includes the Hadeeth related by Ibn ‘Abbaas in respect to the performance of the prayer over
the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud in sets of ten.

- As for the Hadeeth of Shaddaad Bin Al-Haadi, then in the “Majmoo’” of An-Nawawiy there is an
indication to that it represents the closest (Aqrab) of what has been related in respect to the Salaah over
the Shuhadaa’ … However, its ‘Illah (flaw) is that the narrator of the Hadeeth, Shaddaad Bin Al-Haadi,
was a Taabi’iy and not a Sahaabiy … That means that the Hadeeth is Mursal (the Sahaabiy is absent from
the chain of narrators) i.e. it is not used as an evidence (3).

Concerning this say: It appears that Shaddaad Bin Al-Haadi was a Sahaabiy and not a Taabi’iy. His
biography is mentioned amongst the Sahaabah in the two books “Al-Istee’aab” and “AlIsaabah” (4).
Consequently, the Hadeeth is Muttasil (connected chain without interruption), a Riwaayah (narration) of a
Sahaabiy and not a Mursal Hadeeth. Therefore, it is viable to be used as an evidence for deduction.
- As for the Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas in respect to the Salaah performed over the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud in
groups or sets of ten …

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/211, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/401, (3) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/265, (3) “Al-
Istee’aab”, Ibn Abdil Barr: 2/134-135 and “Al-Isaabah”, Ibn Hajar: 2/140 - The biography number is: 3857. In “Al-Isaabah” he
said: “Al-Bukhaariy said: He has Suhbah (companionship i.e. he is a Sahaabiy). And Ibn Sa’d said: He participated in Al-
Khandaq, lived in Al-Madinah and moved (later) to Kufa. And he has a narration from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and from Ibn Mas’ood,.
And his son related from him and he has Ru’yah (sight). And under him was Salmaa Bint ‘Umais, the sister of Asmaa’ Bint
‘Umais. He was therefore from the Aslaaf of Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬because Salmaa was the sister of Maymoonah due to her mother. And
in Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy it was stated: “Shaddaad Bin Al-Haadiy, and he is known amongst the Muhadditheen with the
‘Yaa’ emitted (i.e. from his name: Al-Haadi) whilst the Saheeh (correct view) is for the ‘Yaa’” to be present”: 7/427].

… Then, according to the view that it is Saheeh, it nevertheless contradicts the Hadeeth of Al-Bukhaariy,
related by Jaabir, that negates the performance of the Salaah over the Shuhadaa’. In such a case, where the
incident is one and the same, the two Hadeeth are both Saheeh (if the Hadeeth about the prayer over
them is regarded as Saheeh), then the matter requires explanation in order to remove the problematic
aspect.

- Al-Imaam Al-Kaasaaniy, from the Ahnaaf, in his Tafseer of the contradiction, said: “It has been said:
That concerning it (i.e. the Hadeeth of Jaabir negating the prayer over the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud), then he
(i.e. Jaabir) was occupied that day. His father had been killed, his brother and maternal uncle. And so, he
returned to Al-Madinah to take make arrangements to transport them to Al-Madinah, and he was not
present when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over them. It is for this reason that he narrated what he narrated. And
those who witnessed the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬narrated that he prayed over them. Then the call or announcement of
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬for the dead to be buried in the ,,,, place of their death reached Jaabir and so
he returned to bury them there” (1).

Based upon this Tafseer (explanation), it is said: Shahaadat ul-Ithbaat (testimony of affirmation) i.e. the
affirmation that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had prayed over the martyrs, is given precedence to the Shahaadat un-Nafy
(the testimony of negation). That is due to the possibility of an obstacle being before the one who denies
the occurrence of an incident which prevented him from seeing that which was shown to others …

Despite that, Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy, dealt with this Qaa’idah (principle i.e. of giving preference to the
testimony of affirmation) as follows: “Our companions (i.e. of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab) answered by saying
that the Shahaadat un-Nafy (testimony of negation) is only rejected if the witness was not aware of it and
it was not Mahsoor (limited or restricted). As for what his knowledge encompassed and was Mahsoor
(restricted or limited), then that is accepted by agreement (i.e. amongst the Fuqahaa’). This incident was
specific and Jaabir and others knew about it. As for the narration of affirmation (i.e. of the performance
of the prayer), then it is Da’eef (weak) and so its presence is just like its absence (i.e. has no worth)” (2).

I say: It appears, that Jaabir, may Allah be pleased with him, did not have full awareness or knowledge of
what was related to the Shuhadaa’ of Uhud like Al-Imaam Al-Kaasaaniy indicated to … Indeed, some of
the narrations indicate that he was not present at the battlefield of Uhud when the Muslims began to
occupy themselves with the preparation of the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs), following the battle … The following
was recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: “It was related from Jaabir that he said: My father
(Abdullah) said to me: “O son! If it wasn’t for young girls that I leave behind after me, in terms of sisters
and daughters, I would have loved for you to advance before me (i.e. in battle)! However, take my place of
watching over them in Al-Madinah”. He said: It wasn’t long after that, until my paternal aunt brought
them as two who had been killed” (i.e. his father and his paternal uncle). She had placed them upon a
riding camel”

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/325, (2) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/265, (3) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18606, 14/394].
Therefore, in conclusion: Based on what we have presented, regarding the Sihhah (authenticity) of the
Hadeeth of Shaddaad Bin Al-Haadi, concerning the prayer over the Arab Bedouin martyr, in other than
the battle of Uhud, and based upon the opinion that the prayer over the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of Uhud is
authentic …

And based upon the lack of abundance of reports related to the performance of the prayer over the
Shuhadaa’ in a continuous or consistent manner in all of the battles and wars, during the era of the
Prophethood or the era of the Rightly Guided Khulafaa’, in the case where such a topic would normally
have been transmitted in a Mutawaatir or abundant manner, because it is from among the matters that is
not hidden from the individuals of the army on mass even if it was possible for it to be hidden from some
of them …

Based upon all of this, I say: We weigh the opinion stating the permissibility of the performance of the
Salaah over the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) to be strongest just as it is permitted to not pray over them … This is
the opinion given preponderance by Al-Imaam Ibn Hazm however he relied, in respect to the
permissibility of the prayer, upon the Hadeeth of ‘Uqbah concerning the performance of the Salaah over
the martyrs of Uhud eight years following their burial. And we have already mentioned previously that this
Hadeeth does not fall under the subject area of the Salaah performed upon the Shaheed (martyr) before
his burial.

Ibn Hazm said: “And if he is prayed upon (i.e. the Shaheed) then that is Hasan (all well and good) and if
he is not prayed over, that is (also) Hasan (all well and good)” (1).

By that we have reached the end of the discussion of this point related to the Mas’alah of the performance
of the prayer over the Shaheed and now we come to another point.

4 - The Fourth Point: What is the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to moving the Shaheed to bury
him in a place other than the place in which he was martyred?

We will address this point as follows:

Firstly: Where are the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) buried according to what has been related in the Prophetic
Sunnah?

Secondly: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ concerning the moving of the dead or the Shaheed to a place
other than the place that he died in, for the purpose of burying him.

[(1) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 5/115].

Firstly: Where are the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) buried according to what has been related in the
Prophetic Sunnah?

- It was recorded in the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy and other sources: “It was related from Jaabir that he said:
On the day of Uhud, my paternal aunt came to me with my father to bury him in our graveyard. Then a
caller or announcer of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬announced: Return the killed to the places where they
lay (i.e. the place of battle where they were killed)” (1).

- In the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy and other sources: “Jaabir Bin Abdullah related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that the
dead of Uhud be returned to the place of their deaths as they had been transported to Al-Madinah!”. And
in another relation recorded by An-Nasaa’iy: Jaabir related: That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: Bury the killed in the
place where they were killed” (2).
This is some of what has been related within the Prophetic Sunnah concerning the matter of where the
Shuhadaa’ are buried. Ibn ul-Qayyim affirmed: “That the Sunnah in respect to the martyrs, is that they be
buried in the place where they are killed and not moved to another place” (3).

It appears that the intended meaning of the word “‫( ”مصارع‬Maasri’ i.e. place where killed) of the
Shuhadaa’ or the word “‫( ”مضاجع‬Madaaji’ i.e. place of lying down) (as mentioned in the two
aforementioned Hadeeth), is the field upon which the war took place, in general, if it was suitable or viable
to bury them. That is whilst the intended meaning is not that they be buried in the exact spot that every
Shaheed fell as a martyr. The Daleel (evidence) for this is that he buried the martyrs of Uhud with two or
three in one single grave, whilst it was known that those martyrs were killed in places which were away
from each other. Consequently, some of them were moved to where others were to then bury them in a
single spot. This all applies in the case where the battlefield is suitable for them to be buried in.

- If, however, the place in which they fell as martyrs was not suitable for burial, like if they were martyred
whilst fighting on the roofs and battlements of buildings or in the streets of cities, when these places had
become the battlefield, or if the fighters were upon the sea at the time of their martyrdom … then in such
circumstances, it is natural for them to be transported to the nearest place that is suitable for their burial
… That is unless, it is feared that the bodies will be exposed to decay and rot, like the martyrs killed at sea,
and it is difficult to reach land and bury them. They are then, in such a situation, cast into the sea to sink
into its depths (4).

[(1) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1717, 4/215. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan At-Tirmidhiy”: 1401, 2/142. Sunan
Abu Dawud: 3165, (2) “Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 4/79. Al-Albaaniy classified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy” :
1893-1894, Sunan Ibn Maajah: 1516, 1-486, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/214, (4) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer Sharh Al-Hidaayah ‘Alaa l-
Bidaayah”: 2/141, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p113, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 1/362 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 2/381. Concerning the moving of the Shaheed to the nearest suitable place for burial refer to Hadeeth 1878 in “Al-
Mataalib Al-‘Aaliyah - Bi Zawaa’id AlMasaaneed Ath-Thamaaniyah”, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy: 2/143-144: Related from the
Musnad of Muhammad Bin Abi ‘Umar) and it included: “That two men from the companions of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were killed at
the gate of Bani Saalim. That was mentioned to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and so he commanded that they be buried where they were
killed. They were then carried from where they had been struck and they found the graveyard at Bani Hilaal to be suitable and
so buried them both their”. An-Nasaa’iy mentioned the Hadeeth in a summarised or shorter form which stated that it was the
day of the battle of At-Taa’if. Refer to the Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 4/79].

Secondly: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ concerning the moving of the dead or the Shaheed to a
place other than the place that he died in, for the purpose of burying him.

We will present the opinions of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib in relation to this Mas’alah, in brief, restricting
ourselves to that which concerns us in this current study, in order to explain the Hukm in respect to what
normally takes place in relation to the moving or transportation of the Shuhadaa’ or some of them, from
the place in which they were martyred, to their own lands, and what is connected to that.

What we will present is summed up by stating that the majority of the Fuqahaa’ were lenient in respect to
the transportation of the dead, in general, from the place of their death to another place to be buried in …
The Shaafi’iyah prohibit that in the opinion they have weighed to be strongest amongst them, albeit with
details related to the Mas’alah here and there. This will be made clear through the following Fiqhiy
statements:

- In respect to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf: In relation to the transportation of the dead, in general, to
another land, the following was stated:

“There is no problem or issue in transporting him before his burial. It has been said: “Mutlaqan” (i.e.
absolutely or no issue at all). And it has been said: To that which is less than the period (or distance) of
travel. Muhammad (ibn ul-Hasan) restricted it to a distance of a mile or two, because the graveyards of the
land may have reached this matter, and so he viewed it as Makrooh beyond that (distance)” (1).

- In “As-Sair ul-Kabeer and its Sharh”, in relation to the command of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to bury the dead in
the place of their deaths, it was said: “This is Hasan (good) but not Waajib (obligatory). The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬only did this because he hated to cause hardship and difficulty upon them (i.e. the Muslims) …
It was stated: If he is moved a mile or two, or near to such distance, there is no problem or issue in that
…” (2).

- According to the Maalikiy Madh’hab: In relation to the general ruling of transporting the dead, it was
stated:

“There is no problem or issue to transport the dead person from a land to another is he has not already
been buried” (3).

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 1/939, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/234, (3) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”:
p112].

- According to the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab:

The following came stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “It is Haraam to transport
the dead person from a land to another. And it is said: It is Makrooh, unless it is to Makkah, Al-Madinah
or Bait ul-Maqdis. This is what Ash-Shaafi’iy stated, may All be pleased with him … Az-Zarakhshiy said:
The Shaheed needs to be exempted (i.e. in respect to not transporting him to the mentioned sacred places
and even if he is martyred close to them) due to the Khabar (narration) of Jaabir …” (1) i.e. concerning
the burial of the dead in the place of where they met their deaths or were killed, as presented previously.

- According to the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah:

Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is recommended (Mustahabb) to bury the Shaheed (martyr) where he was killed.
Ahmad said: As for the killed, then the Hadeeth of Jaabir applies over them … As for other than them
(i.e. the martyrs), then the dead person is not transported from his land to another unless it is for a Saheeh
(valid) reason or purpose … he then states: Ahmad said: I do not see a problem or issue in respect to
transporting the man who dies in his land to another land” (2).

I say: It appears, from the speech of the Fuqahaa’, that they understood the command of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
to bury the Shuhadaa’ in the places of their deaths, to be one of recommendation and that the Junhoor
(majority) did not see the Tahreem (prohibition) of transporting the dead person, generally, prior to his
burial, in order to bury him in another land, due to a valid (Saheeh) purpose or reason. That could be for
him to be buried closed to his loved ones thus enabling them to visit his grave or to place him a grave of
the righteous … and so forth.

My view concerning this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), is that no Shar’iy Nass (text) has come commanding that
that he be buried in the place in which he died … It has been established or affirmed that the Sahaabah
did not speak out against the transportation of Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Sa’d Bin Zaid from Al-‘Aqeeq
(3) after they had died there, whilst they were from the ‘Asharah Al-Mubashireen Bil Jannah (Ten given
glad tidings of Jannah), to be buried in Al-Madinah (4). All of that indicates that there is no harm or
problem in respect to such a transportation as long as a violation of the Shar’iyah is not a consequence of
that or that it leads to a Mafsadah (harm or corruption).

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 1/366, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/389-390, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy [‘Alaa
Matn Al-Muqni’]: 2/389-390, (3) It appears that was is meant is the ‘Aqeeq of Al-Madinah in which there is Al-‘Airan and An-
Nakheel. That is North of Al-Madinah towards the West from mount Uhud. And above it slightly to the North lies the Al-
Ghaabah region and it is from the Amwaal (funds) of the ‘Awaaliy of Al-Madinah. Refer to “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: 2/952 and
“Atlas Taareekh ul-Islaam”: Map: 42 p66, (4) “Al-Muwatta’”, Maalik: “Tanweer Al-Hawaalak”: 1/180. Ash-Sheikh Al-Arnaa’out
in “Haashiyah Jaami’ ul-Usool” said: “Hadeeth Saheeh”: 11/148].

That is even if it is preferable to be buried in the place in which he died according to the origin of
hastening the burial of the dead (1) and due to what is understood from some of the Ahaadeeth which
deem fortunate the one who dies in other than his land (2).

However, the above concerns the dead in general. As for the Shaheed, then the command of the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬was issued to bury the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of Uhud in the place where they met their deaths, as has
been previously mentioned. The command was not reasoned (i.e. there was no ‘Illah) related to removing
the hardship from the Mujaahideen in relation to carrying them back to their lands … The evidence for
this is that some of them were actually transported back to Al-Madinah to be buried in it, due to the belief
of their loved ones or family that there was no harm or problem in doing that, as it appears. However,
despite that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded that they be recovered from Al-Madinah to the place where they
were martyred and to be buried there … This type of command, with these Qaraa’in (connotations) which
are attached to that command, are indicative of Al-Jazm (decisiveness) in respect to the Talab (request), in
most cases. And if it has not indicated to the obligation (Wujoob) of burying the Shaheed (martyr) where
he was martyred, then it is not less than indicating that the command is Mandoob in Islaam in a Mu’akkad
(reiterated) form, and it is not good to leave this Sunnah as much as is possible.

By that we end the discussion of this point related to the movement or transportation of the Shuhadaa’ to
places other than the place in which they were martyred and now move on to the final point related to the
Mas’alah (issue) of the obligatory conduct towards or related to the Shaheed, in respect to the preparation
of the burial.

5 - The Fifth Point: Are a number of Shuhadaa’ buried in one single grave?

There is no need, when answering this question, to do more than present the Shar’iyah texts connected to
the Mas’alah (issue).

In the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy: Hishaam Ibn ‘Aamir said: “We complained to the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud, saying: “O Messenger of Allah, it is difficult for us to dig a grave for
each person”. The Messenger of Allah said: “Dig graves and make them good and deep, and
bury two or three in one grave”. They said: “Who should we place in first, O Messenger of
Allah?” He said: “Place the one who knew more Qur'aan first”. He said: “My father was the third of
three placed in one single grave”” (3).

[(1) Refer to Sunan Abu Dawud: 3159, 3/271-272, (2) Sunan Abu Maajah: 1614, 1/515: “Abdullah Bin Amr said: A man died in
Al-Madinah from amongst those who had been born in Al-Madinah. And so the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed over him and said: “If only
he had died in other than his place of birth”. Then a man from the people asked: “And why? O Messenger of Allah?” He said:
“If a man dies somewhere other than his birthplace, a space will be measured for him in Paradise (as big as the distance) from
the place where he was born to the place where he died”. Al-Albaaniy said: “Hadsan” in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 1309,
1/229], (3) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 4/81. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 1899, 2/432].

In another narration recorded by Ibn Maajah he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Dig the grave, make it spacious and
prepare it well” (1).

In line with this Hadeeth concerning the collective burial at the time of necessity, it has been related that
the leaders of the battle of Mu’tah from the Muslims who were martyred there, were buried in one dug
whole (or grave). They were Zaid Bin Haarithah, Ja’far Bin Abi Taalib and Abdullah Ibn Rawaahah, may
Allah be pleased with them (2).
During the Islamic conquests there were a great number of Shuhadaa’ in the Daar ul-Harb (land of war)
and Al-Imaam Ahmad was asked about what should be done in respect to their burial. He said: “Dig that
which is resembles a river (i.e. like a trench), place the head of one at the foot of another and put a barrier
between them so that one does not stick or cling to the other” (3).

With that we have reached the end of the fifth Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of this study and now move on to
discuss the final issue.

The Sixth Mas’alah (issue): The obligatory conduct towards the family of the
Shaheed following his passing:

I didn’t intend, by the study of this Mas’alah, to extend it to become a comprehensive Fiqhiy examination
… Rather, circulated in some states in our current day is the appearances of concern and care for the
Shaheed and his family following his death … and perhaps that has been made to seem like
accomplishments which those states had ever known in the past. For that reason, I wanted to deal with
this subject area as an independent Mas’alah so as to see: Did Islaam, upon the level of its direction,
legacy, Ummah and State, provide the family of the Shaheed following his death with the honouring and
caretaking related to life practically, whether it related to the moral aspect or material aspect, or is that
only a right of generosity provided in recent times?

Following on … After having become aware of how Islaam has honoured the Shaheed we will now
become aware of how Islaam honours his family following his passing …

In truth, there is no separation between this honouring and that honouring because it is part of the
honouring of the Shaheed that we honour his family after his passing …

[(1) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 1560, 1/497. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 1266, 1/260, (2) Sunan
sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2835, 2/298, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/422].

From the honouring provided to this family is for the family’s Shaheed himself to have a permanent
presence upon the level of the Ummah and the level of the officials or those in positions of responsibility
within the State i.e. that they are all made to feel that a person dear to them has been lost and not that his
death was just a passing incident or occurrence that nobody sensed or felt …

In this situation, the family of the Shaheed feel, that through the martyr whom they lost, they have
provided something of value to the Ummah and the State, where he is held in the standing of appreciation
and attention and the Ummah and officials of the State have not disavowed or denied what has been
provided …

This relates to the moral or non-material aspect of the honouring but there is also an aspect which relates
to the material aspect.

The Shaheed could leave behind a father and mother whom he feared for in the situation of his death. He
could have a wife who needs support in facing life and its responsibilities in the absence of her husband
and particularly if she has children who have become orphans as she has become a widow. That is in the
case where they are all in need of someone to take care of them and provide them with all that they need
in terms of what a dignified living and life demands.

However, in the discussion of this issue we will delve into the manifestations of the moral honouring
provided to the families of the Shuhadaa’ and how that takes place in Islaam and within the Islamic State;
whether it resembles those manifestations undertaken by modern states, like specifying a day in the year to
honour and celebrate the memory of the martyrs of those families or the presentation of official
invitations to the members of those families and so forth …

Similarly, we will not delve into the details of the material honouring and the economic caretaking of
those families and whether it will take place by providing them with that which used to be provided to
their martyrs in terms of wages and sustenance, supplying them with their needs without shortage … just
like if the Shaheed was still present and had not been absent from sight … Or if the state will open a part
of the treasury for them from the funds of the Zakaah where each takes what they are in need of, if they
were from those in need (1) …

I say: In our discussion of this Mas’alah we will not delve into the moral manifestations of the honouring
of the families of the Shuhadaa’ and how that will take place, and we will not delve into discussing the
details of the material aspect of the honouring and the economic caretaking provided to these families and
how that will be organised or regulated … Rather, we will only present here extracts from the texts that
have come within the books of the Sunnah and the Islamic Fiqhiy sources or references, which will make
clear and evident how that honouring took place during the era of the Prophethood, the Khilafah Ar-
Raashidah and during the period when Islaam dominated over the state policy making and over the
caretaking of the affairs of the Ummah in in its different areas, aspects or fields.

Let us then move on to those texts that we have pointed to so that we may live in the atmospheres which
resonate from the true honouring provided to the Shaheed and the true caretaking provided to his family
following his martyrdom.

1 - In relation to the Ummah feeling the loss of every Shaheed from amongst them and so that the family
which is overcome by sadness for their Shaheed does not forget that there are other Shuhadaa’ who also
have the right for their loss to be felt like the feelings they have for the Shaheed whom they lost and in
relation to the relatives of those Shuhadaa’ providing consolation that they themselves are need of to
others who have also lost a family member as a martyr …

Concerning this the following was related: “‘Ataa Bin Yaasir related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
passed by the women of Bani Al-Ash’hal when he had finished from Uhud. He heard them crying
over those who had been martyred from them at Uhud. And then the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said: “But Hamzah does not have tears for him!” Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh heard that from him and so
he went to the women of Nabi Al-Ash’hal and commanded them to go to the house of Hamzah
and cry over him. And so they went and cried for him. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then heard
their crying and said: “Who are those (crying)?” It was said: “They are the women of the Ansaar
crying over Hamzah!” The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then went out to them and said: “No crying!
May Allah’s pleasure be upon you and upon your children and your children’s children!” (1) And
in another worded version: “I did not want that. And he forbade the wailing” (2).

2 - Concerning the giving of condolences to the family of the Shaheed and commending what the family
and their Shaheed gave to Islaam, the following was related:

“Ash-Sha’biy said: When the news of the killing of Ja’far Bin Abi Taalib reached the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬, he left his (Ja’far’s) wife (Asmaa Bin Umais) be (for a while) to allow her to release the overflow of
emotion and some of her sadness. He then went to her to pass his condolences. He supplicated for the
children of Ja’far and supplicated for Abdullah Bin Ja’far to bless him in respect to what his hand does
and he did not trade except that he was profitable in it.

[(1) Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2910, 2/325-326, (2) Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2911, 2/326]
And so Asmaa’ said to him: O Messenger of Allah! Those (falsely) claim that we are not from the
Muhaajireen (1). And so he said: “They have lied, you have two Hijrahs (accredited to you). You made
Hijrah to An-Najaashiy (i.e. in Abyssinia) and you made Hijrah to me” (2).

3 - Concerning the continual presence of the Shaheed amongst the officials, the Ummah, upon every
occasion and commending him before the individuals of his family, it was mentioned that Waaqid Bin
Amr Bin Sa’d, the grandson of Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh, who was martyred as a result of being wounded by an
arrow during the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq (the trench), and was similar to his grandfather in terms of
being handsome and tall amongst men … it was recorded that he said: “I went up to Anas Bin Maalik. He
(Waaqid) said: Then he (Anas) asked me: “Who are you?” I said: I am Waaqid Bin Amr Bin Sa’d Bin
Mu’aadh”. He said: “May Allah have mercy upon Sa’d! You resemble Sa’d”. Then he said: “May Allah
have mercy upon Sa’d! he was from among the most handsome men and tallest”. He said: “The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬set to Akaidar Doumah (3) and so he sent back to him a long silk outer garment
with gold woven in it! The people began to feel the outer garment and marvel about it! And so he ‫ﷺ‬
said: “Do you marvel over it?” They said: O Messenger of Allah! We have never seen a garment better
than this!” He said: “By the one in whose hand is my soul! The handkerchief of Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh in
Jannah is better than what you are seeing!” (4).

4 - In respect to the Muslim leaving the family of the Shaheed in a good state, then he takes those from
his family upon himself to treat them with true compassion, extreme kindness and to visit them regularly
to make sure they are being looked after and needs met, so as to take away or diminish the effects of the
suffering from them … I say: Concerning this noble conduct the following came stated in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy and Muslim: “Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not
used to enter a house in Al-Madinah other than the house of Umm Sulaim, excluding the houses
of his wives. That was mentioned to him and he said: “Verily, I am being compassionate with
her. Her brother (5) was killed with me (6).

[(1) That is because she and her husband were from those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Habashah (Abyssinia) and they
remained there until they came to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬when he was at Khaibar and had opened it. Refer to: Seerah Ibn Hishaam:
“Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/52, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18827, 14/520-521. And in a narration in Al-Bukhaariy: “And you
have, O people of As-Safeenah, two Hijrahs”: 3876 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/188, (3) Malik Doumat ul-Jandal whom the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had written to inviting him to Islaam, (4) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18644, 14/413, (5) Her brother Haraamu
Bin Milhaan was killed at Bi’r Ma’oonah. The intended meaning of “with me” is “with my military or troop” or “upon my
command and in obedience to me”, (6) Al-Bukhaariy: 2844, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/50 and Saheeh Muslim: 2455, 4/1908. For
further understanding of the Hadeeth refer to: Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 9/365 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 11/78].

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to mend the heart of Umm Sulaim by
visiting her and that was because her brother had been killed with him. This indicates that he dealt with
his family well in his stead after his passing and that is considered to be from the good fulfilling of his
covenant ‫( ”ﷺ‬1).

5 - Regarding the concern for the family of the Shaheed and reassuring his wife after his death, in respect
to the State bearing her material concerns and taking care of her children, there has been related in respect
to the family of the Shaheed of Ja’far Bn Abi Taalib, another part of the narration in addition to what we
presented earlier. It states that the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, after visiting the wife of Ja’far to offer consolations, he said
to her: “Call the sons of my brother to me”. And so she brought three boys as if they were young perched
birds! … He called for shaver who shaved their heads. Then he said: “As for Muhammad, then he
resembles our uncle Abu Taalib, as for ‘Aun then he resembles me and my manner, and as for Abdullah”
… then he took his hand and raised it … and then said: “O Allah bless the grasp of his right hand”. The
narrator said: “And their mother began to feel joy for them! And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then said:
“Do you fear for them any constraint or loss whilst I am their Waliy (guardian and caretaker) in this life
and the next” (2).
6 - And in respect to the people of influence, high status and standing within the Ummah and State, to
take care of the young from the children of the martyrs and their upbringing in their homes; treating them
as if they are their own children or with even more regard, in respect to playing with them and pouring
love upon them … then within the scope of this beautiful affection, it was narrated in respect to Sa’d Ibn
Ar-Rabee’ Al-Ansaariy who was martyred in the battle of Uhud, that he entrusted the caretaking of his
family to Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, may Allah be pleased with him, in the event of his death …

During the era of the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, it was narrated that: “A man came to Abu Bakr
whilst the daughter of Sa’d was sitting upon his belly and playing with her ... He said: “O Khalifah of the
Messenger of Allah! Is this your daughter? He said: “No, rather it is the daughter of a man who is better
than I!” The man asked: “Who is it that is better than you after the Messenger of Allah ‫ ”?ﷺ‬He said:
“Sa’d Ibn Ar-Rabee’, he was from the deputies on the day of Al-‘Aqabah, participated in Badr and was
killed on the day of Uhud!” (3).

7 - Many of the Fiqhiy references from the books of the Islamic heritage have reiterated this aspect of
material caretaking and fulfilling the living needs of the families of the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) and families of
the Mujaahideen in general … these families from whom their individuals have committed themselves to
the service of the army and armed forces for the sake of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way) and to
stand guard upon the frontiers and points where the Muslims can be attacked, in order to protect the
Muslims and their lands from any aggression or hostility …

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/51, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 18820, 14/518, (3) Sunan sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2842, 2/303].

We will go into length here quoting the Fiqhiy texts from the books of the Madhaahib related to this
Mas’alah. That is because they all revolve around thoughts and rulings that are similar and complimentary
to each other. Therefore, we will suffice ourselves with extracts from what was mentioned in “Al-
Muhadh’dhab” of Ash-Sheeraaziy and “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah, to clarify the dimensions of the
material caretaking provided to the families of the Mujaahideen and the Shuhadaa’.

- The following came mentioned in “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: “The Imaam should make a Deewaan (register)
(1) establishing within it the names of the fighters and the amounts of their sustenance (or wages) … And
it is recommended to place and ‘Areef (attendant or responsible person) over every group because the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬placed an ‘Areef over every ten in the year of Khaibar. That is because that is a Maslahah
(interest) and that is in the case where the ‘Areef undertakes their affairs and gathers them together at the
time of the giving or allocation of the provision and at the time of the Ghazw (battle or military
expedition). And the provision is given once annually or twice a year” … He then said: “They are
allocated according to the amount that suffices them (or their needs). That is because they are have
fulfilled the collective duty of the Muslims on their behalf in respect to the matter of Al-Jihaad and
consequently it is obligatory to suffice them with what they need in terms of spending and maintenance.
The Imaam, at the time of the giving of the provision, takes into account the number of their dependents,
because the amount could increase or decrease (accordingly). He attains current knowledge about the
prices and costs and what they require in order to meet their needs of food and clothing. That is because
they could cost more or decrease … that is so that their provision is in accordance to what is required to
meet their needs …” (2).

- Concerning the same subject area, the following was stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “Al-Qaadiy said: And he
(should) now the amount of their needs (i.e. the people of provision) and what suffices them. The one
who has a child is allocated more for the sake of his child and the one possessing a horse is likewise given
more for the sake of his horse … And prices in their lands are examined because the prices between lands
differ whilst the purpose (of the provision) is to suffice them (and meet their needs)” … He then says:
“And those who have died from the Muslim soldiers, then the payment is given to the wife and his young
children whilst the purpose and aim (of that) is to meet and suffice their needs. That is because if the
children or dependents he leaves behind are not provided for he will not have made himself purely
focused for Al-Jihaad as he will fear that they will suffer. If, however, he knows that they will be provided
for sufficiently after his death, it will be easier for him to be focused upon that. It is for this reason that
Abu Khalid Al-Hanaa’iy said:

Indeed, love for the life has increased in me ... By my daughters, they are from the weak (needy)
Out of fear that they will see poverty after me ... And that they will drink turbid (water) after pure (3).

[(1) “It is a written register (Daftar) including the people of the registers (Dawaaween) and mentions what they are provided
with”, Ibn Qudaamah: 7/310, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/248-249, (3) What is intended by this is: The difficulty
of life and hardship brought by the death of the father following the comfort during the time of his life, dur to his fulfilling of
their needs].

- Ibn Qudaamah continued saying: “And if the male children (of the Shuhadaa’ fighters) reached the age
of maturity and choose to join the fighters (i.e. Mujaahideen), then they are allocated (i.e. a sufficient
amount from the (state treasury) provision) and if they do not choose that, they are left. And whoever
leaves the fighters (1) (i.e. military service) his right to the ‘Ataa’ (provision) no longer exists” (2).

The above therefore represents some of that which relates to the obligatory caretaking and the obligatory
conduct towards the family of the Shaheed after his martyrdom … By that, we have reached the end of
the discussion of the Mas’alah of this current study just as we have reached the conclusion of the first
chapter of the fifth volume that we are in. We will now, by the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq, move on
to the second chapter of this volume.

[(1) This refers to what is called today: Resigning from the army and from military service or dedication to the military life, (2)
“Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 7/310. And concerning this subject area refer from the books of the Ahnaaf to: “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 6/67, from the books of the Maalikiyah: “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/185. The intended meaning of “Al-‘Ataaa” (provision):
“That which has been written for the fighters in the Deewaan and for everyone who undertakes a matter from amongst the
matters of the Deen” “Al-‘Inaayah”: 6/67].
 Chapter Two
The Treatment of the Enemies during War

The First Study: The Ahkaam (rulings) related to the non-combatant enemies.

The Second Study: The Hukm (ruling) related to the spies of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war).

The Third Study: Employing lying and deception with the enemies during war.

The Fourth Study: The enemy corpses.

 The First Study
The Ahkaam (rulings) related to the non-combatant enemies

Introduction concerning the visualisation or conception of the reality of wars of old and modern times,
to know who the enemy non-combatants are? How they are exposed to fighting and killing? And towards
whom it is permitted to direct or point the weapon?

The First Mas’alah (issue): Who are the people from amongst the individuals of the enemy, in respect
to whom the Shar’iyah texts have stated that they are not fought during war?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Concerning those whom the texts have prohibited to be killed, from the
enemies, during the Qitaal (fighting), is analogy made upon them to apply the prohibition upon others?

The Third Mas’alah (issue): What are the circumstances in which it is permitted to direct the weapon
towards the one whom in origin it is prohibited to kill from amongst the individuals of the enemy?

The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): Does the person in authority have the right to prohibit the killing of
particular people or groups from the enemies during the war?

Introduction concerning the visualisation or conception of the reality of wars of old

and modern times, to know who the enemy non-combatants are? How they are
exposed to fighting and killing? And towards whom it is permitted to direct or
point the weapon?

Before embarking upon addressing the issues of this study, it is first necessary to attain a picture of the
reality of how the war used to take place in the past in addition to the reality of warfare in the
contemporary time. Through the visualisation or conception of these two realities we will become aware
of who the enemy non-combatants are, how they are exposed to fighting and being killed and whom from
them it is permitted or not permitted to direct weapons against? And that is in accordance to the
numerous Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat related to this subject matter.

- Concerning the warfare of old, we can conceptualise this reality as follows:

Upon the battlefield there are two armies fighting each other. Then at a distance behind each army or at a
place close to them, there could be a grouping or collective attached to the armies but does not participate
in the fighting. There could be women, children and elderly amongst this collective who went out
alongside the army for reasons including: To merely witness the battle as spectators, to provided services,
to incite and urge on the fighters or to make the numbers swell and appear bigger. Some of them are hired
hands who departed with the army to perform non-combat tasks, like treating the wounded or preparing
the food and drink etc. In such a reality, is it permissible for the Muslim fighter to target those people who
are with the enemy army and strike with his sword, stab with his spear or shoot with an arrow anyone of
them whom he sees, whether it is an elderly person, child, hired worker or woman who has no impact on
the matter of the war?

There is another reality of the wars in the past which is as follows:

An army launches an attack against the land of the enemy, during the night or day … It then searches
through the households and invades the peoples’ houses.

In this reality, the attacking army could, along its way within the land of the enemy, come across:

- Places of worship containing worshippers.

- Agricultural fields containing workers.
- Women, children and elderly within the households.

In such situations, is it permissible for the Islamic army to kill any of those people? Or is it obligatory to
restrict its fighting or military activity against armed enemy combatants alone?

I say: This and what is similar to these examples represents the reality of what can be envisioned in respect
to the wars of old or of the past.

- As for what relates to the reality of how war takes place in modern or contemporary times, then it
resembles the wars of the past in many ways, in respect to the issue that we are dealing with here.

- That is because when two armies meet there are behind each army men and women who are utilised for
non-combatant actions or tasks, which could include the provision of medical care, the preparation of
food and drink or other such tasks.

- In the situation of an attack or invasion of the land of the enemy, the fighters may come across farms
along with those working upon them, factories or plants with their workers, hospitals with their doctors
and patients, schools with their teachers and students, houses with their inhabitants including women,
children and the elderly, all of whom have no relation to combat, just as young men can be found within
them who have no capability to engage in combat.

- In this reality, when the war between the two armies is still continuing, or the resistance to the invading
army had not announced its end, is it permissible for the Muslim fighter to actually target the killing of
non-combatants, whichever category they may fall under?

Or is it obligatory for him to restrict his war or combat activity to fighting the soldiers of the enemy army
and the armed resistance elements within the land of war?

- I say: This war reality and what resembles it, from the past or in modern times, represents the subject of
this study. That is so that we can become aware of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to the Masaa’il
(issues) that it comprises.

In our view, the most important Masaa’il (issues) connected to this study are the following:

The First Mas’alah (issue): Who are the people from amongst the individuals of the enemy, in respect
to whom the Shar’iyah texts have stated that they are not fought during war?
The Second Mas’alah (issue): The texts which prohibit killing them from amongst the enemies during
the Qitaal (fighting), is analogy made upon them to apply to other than them?

The Third Mas’alah (issue): What are the circumstances in which it is permitted to fight the one whom
in origin it is prohibited to kill, from amongst the individuals of the enemy, during war?

The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): Does the person in authority have the right to prohibit the killing of
particular people or groups from the enemies during the war?

These represent the most important issues that we will be addressing in this study with the help of Allah
‘Azza wa Jalla.

The First Mas’alah (issue): Who are the people from amongst the individuals of the
enemy, in respect to whom the Shar’iyah texts have stated that they are not fought
during war?

I say: The reality of the matter of war is that when it breaks out between two sides, each side in it becomes
permissible (i.e. to fight) in respect to the other side and none are exempted from this permissibility, even
if they are from those who are not the actual fighters … That is because the war is a violent act practised
for the purpose of avenging the enemy or for the purpose of applying pressure upon the enemy’s will to
make it submit to the will its foe.

As such, everything that soothes the breasts of those engaged in the war in respect to avenging the enemy
or applying pressure upon its will, represents an act that brings the permission according to the Hukm
(ruling) of this motive.

Based upon that, the weapons could be pointed towards actual non-combatants for the purpose of
accomplishing this or that objective.

This describes the matter of war in respect to its origin … However, due to a particular reason, those in
engaged in the war, from one of the two sides, or both sides together, could refrain from directing their
weapons towards particular groups found upon the battle front of their enemy. They could continue
during warfare (and over time) to refrain from fighting those particular groups until it becomes a custom
from the customs of warfare amongst the peoples and nations, that those particular groups fall outside of
the scope of being killed and fought, and even if they are from the ranks of the enemy … Such a custom
could be restricted to a local scope or it could apply generally upon an international level.

Concerning this, in the case where warfare falls under the actions which Islaam has come to regulate by
the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, like any action from the acts of the Mukallafeen (those legally responsible and
charged to abide by the Shar’a) … we find that the Shar’iyah texts have come to regulate this aspect from
the aspects of war. I mean: In relation to those people whom it is prohibited to direct weapons towards
from amongst the ranks of the enemy and even if the war was waging between the Muslims and that
enemy?

What are those texts?

The Shar’iyah texts which have come related to this matter are divided into two categories:

- Acceptable texts which are valid to be used as evidence according to those occupied in the science of
Hadeeth, in general.
- The texts which do not fulfil the conditions of acceptance to be used as evidence according to those
occupied in the science of Hadeeth.

We will now come to mentioning those texts; those which are acceptable and those which are
unacceptable, alongside an indication towards the references of the Hukm (judgement) in respect to them,
without delving into the precise details for the acceptance or non-acceptance of this text or that one,
sufficing ourselves with reference to those sources and the judgments which have been issued in respect
to those texts.

Firstly: The texts in which the conditions of acceptance have been fulfilled and met:

Recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim: Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, said:

ِ َّ ‫ىَرسُول‬
َ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللا‬ َ ‫َ َف َن َه‬،‫ََّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬ِ ‫يَرس‬ ِ ْ‫وُ ِج َدتَِام َْرأَةَ َم ْق ُتولَةَفِيَ َبع‬
ِ ‫ضَ َم َغ‬
َ ‫از‬
ِّ ‫عليهَوسلمَ َعنْ َ َق ْت ِلَال ِّن َسا ِء ََوال‬
َِ ‫ص ْب َي‬
‫ان‬
“A woman was found killed in one of the military expeditions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and
so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the killing of women and children (Sibyaan)”

And in another related version also recorded in the two Saheeh books, it was stated:

ِّ ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َق ْت َلَال ِّن َسا ِء ََوال‬

ِ ‫ص ْب َي‬
َ‫ان‬ َ ‫َفأ َ ْن َك َر‬
ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬
“And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬condemned the killing of women and children” (1).

What is contained in this Hadeeth in terms of forbiddance (Nahy) and condemnation (Inkaar) establishes
the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing the Sibyaan (children) and women who amongst the ranks of the
enemies (i.e. in the midst).

2 - In the Sunan of Abu Dawud with a Saheeh Isnaad: “It was related from Rabaah Bin Ar-Rabee’, may
Allah be pleased with him, that he said: We were with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in a military
expedition and then he saw the people gathering around something. He then dispatched a man
and said: Go and look at what those men are gathering around? He returned and said: They are
gathering around a woman who had been killed! He said: This one (i.e. the woman) was not
meant to fight!”.

“He said: And at the head (of the expedition) was Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: He sent
a man and said: Say to Khaalid: “That he must not kill a woman or an ‘Aseef (labourer)” (2).

And in another Saheeh relation recorded by Ibn Maajah it was stated: “Set off to Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed
and say to him: “Verily, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commands you saying: “Do not kill any
children or a labourer (‘Aseef)”” (3).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3014, 3015, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/148 and Saheeh Muslim: 1744, 3/1364, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2669,
3/82-83. The author of the “Haashiyah” (commentary) of “Jaami’ ul-Usool” said: “Its Isnaad (chain) is Saheeh”: 2/598 and Al-
Albaaniy also classified it as Hasan Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2324, 2/507, (3) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 2842, 2/948
and “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 2294, 2/137 and he said: “Hasan Saheeh”].

I say: In these two Hadeeth the newly mentioned matter is the forbiddance of the killing of the ‘Aseef
(‫)عسيف‬.

Ibn ul-Atheer said: The ‘Aseef is the Ajeer (hired worker or labourer) (1).
In “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer” it was stated: “Al-‘Aseef is Al-Ajeer (hired labourer) and the plural is ‫ُع َس َفاء‬
(‘Usafaa) like Ajeer and Ujaraa’ (2) (i.e. upon the same plural form).

The following came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy concerning the incident of the ‘Aseer (labourer) who
committed Zinaa (fornication): “He said: “Indeed, my son was a labourer for this man …” Maalik
said: And the ‘Aseef is the Ajeer (3).

Concerning the intended meaning of the ‘Aseef and how he is distinct or distinguished from others, Ash-
Shawkaaniy said:

“As for the ‘Abd (slave) then there has not come (related) that which indicates that it is impermissible to
kill him (4) and it is not valid to make analogy upon him based on the ‘Aseef. That is because the ‘Aseef is
not fought. He is there only to look after the baggage and the riding animals. However, if he engages in
the fighting, it is permissible to kill him” (5).

This then is the reality of the ‘Aseef.

Based on what has preceded, for this ‘Aseef, who is amongst the enemy during the war, to be granted a
Shar’iy immunity from being killed, his work that he has been hired to undertake must have no
connection to the actions of fighting.

In the case where anyone who has been hired to undertake non-combat or military actions is considered
to be from the ‘Usafaa (pl. of ‘Aseef) whom it is not permissible to target with the fighting, when they
have attended the battlefield to perform that which they have been hired to undertake …

[(1) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/598, (2) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p155 and refer to “Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/143, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:
6633, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 11/523, (4) Refer to what has come in respect to the forbiddance (nahy) of killing the “Wusafaa’” and
some have interpreted that to mean slaves: “Al-Muhallaa”: 7/287 and Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/91, (5) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: 4/532.
Refer in respect to the intended meaning of the ‘Aseef to Al-Haashiyah in “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 2/137].

Then by greater reason, the immunity in respect to not being targeted covers the ‘Usafaa who have been
hired to undertake tasks not connected to the fighting and are not present in the field or ground of battle,
even if they are from the land of the enemies (1). That is because the Shar’iy text applies upon them
according to their description as being from the ‘Usafaa’.

Consequently:

- The hired farm or field workers (Falaahoon)

- And the hired workers in factories and plants, the street cleaning workers, the hired doctors who
frequent the sick and wounded in addition to the hospitals to perform that which they have been hired to
undertake …

Those and those similar to them, from among the people of the land which war is being waged against, all
have the description of the ‘Usafaa’ (pl. of ‘Aseef) applied upon them, in respect to the reality, because
they are in truth hired works (Ujaraa’) i.e. they have been contracted by their employees to undertake
particular acts or provide certain services, in return for a wage, and irrespective of the titles and social
status which distinguish between these groups. Therefore, they all enjoy the Shar’iy immunity in respect to
being protected from weapons being directed against them. That is upon the condition that they do not
have a linkage or connection to the fighting or combat actions.

We will now move on to other texts.

3 - The following was related in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: “Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with
him, related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to say when dispatching an army:

ََ‫اَوالََامْ َرأَة ََوال‬

َ ‫صغِير‬ََ ََ‫اَوالََطِ ْفال ََوال‬ ِ َّ ‫ُول‬
َ ‫ََّللا ََوالََ َت ْق ُتلُواَ َشيْخاَ َفانِي‬ ِ ‫َِرس‬ ِ َّ ‫ََّللا ََو ِب‬
َ ‫اّلل ََو َعلَىَ ِملَّة‬ ِ َّ ‫واَباسْ ِم‬
ِ ُ‫َِا ْن َطلِق‬
َ ‫َالمُحْ سِ ن‬
}‫ِين‬ َ َّ َََّ‫ُواَوأَحْ سِ َُنواَ{إِن‬
ْ ُّ‫َّللاَ ُيحِب‬ َ ‫ضمُّواَ َغ َنا ِئ َم ُك ْم ََوأَصْ لِح‬ َ ُّ‫َت ُغل‬
ُ ‫واَو‬
Go forth in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Messenger. Do
not kill a decrepit old man, or an infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty,
but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who act well (2).

[(1) Refer to “Al-‘Alaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah where he states: “The Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
repeated the forbiddance of killing the ‘Usafaa’ (hired labourers) and they are the workers who are hired to perform work, who
do not engage in warfare and they have no work connected to the warfare”. He then said: “The workers, agricultural workers
and those who undertake handicraft or menial work, who are not fought, are those who build prosperity or progress and the
Islamic war does not aim to remove progress or development …”: p99. Also, refer to “Al-‘Alaqaat Al-Khaarijiyah Fi d-Dawlat
il-Khilafah”, Dr. ‘Aarif Khaleel Abu ‘Eid, where he took from the speech of Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah without indicating that:
p86, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2614, 3/52-53, (3) Refer to the “Haashiyah” of “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/596, “Ash-Shawaahid Fee
Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/91, “An-Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/261, “Nasb ur-Raayah”: 3/386. Al-Albaaniy did not quote this Hadeeth in
his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2/496. Refer to Ibn Hajar in “Taqreeb At-Tahdheeb”, where he examined Al-Firz in the
chain. He said: “This is acceptable from the fourth Tabaqah (level)” p190 Biography no: 1665].

Al-Baihaqiy in his “As-Sunan”, concerning the Hadeeth mentioning the forbiddance of killing the elderly
man, said: “In this Isnaad (chain) there is Irsaal (no mention of the Sahaabiy) and Da’f (weakness). With
its Shawaahid and what is mentioned about in the Athaar is strengthened (i.e. to the level of acceptance),
and Allah knows best (1).

I say: If this Hadeeth is judged with acceptance, based upon the authentication of Ibn Hibbaan for the
mentioned narrator (Raawiy) and based upon its Shawaahid (external supports) which provide it with
strength, we would have then come across a new group from amongst the inhabitants of the land which
war is being waged against, whom it is not permissible to target with the fighting, as long as they
themselves are not engaged in it … This group is: The elderly whom no longer possess the capability of
taking up arms and participate in wars.

Consequently, it is not permitted for the Muslim fighter, if he forcefully enters a house in the land of the
enemy or if he comes across someone who belongs to this category, to direct his weapon towards him
under the pretext that he is from the people of Kufr (disbelief) and Harb (war) whom it is lawful to take
their blood. That is because the Shar’iy text has excluded those weak elderly people from the scope of that
permissibility or lawfulness.

However, if there were Shar’iyah texts permitting the killing of the elderly (Shuyookh) from the people of
Kufr and those texts were judged to be acceptable (i.e. authentic), then in such a case reconciliation needs
to be attempted between the texts and the other, providing space for each of them to be applied in
separately. Of such texts there is that which has been related in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and At-
Tirmidhiy: Al-Hasan Bin Samurah said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ ‫شيُو َخ‬
َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ‫ِين ََواسْ َت ْبقُواَ َشرْ َخ ُه ْم‬ ُ َ‫َا ُ ْق ُتلُوا‬
Kill the Shuyookh of the Mushrikeen (polytheists) and spare their young (Sharkh) (2)

[(1) “Sunan Al-Kubraa”, Al-Baihaqiy: 9/91, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2670, 3/73. Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1583, 4/145. At-
Tirmidhiy said: This Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh Ghareeb. It was related by Al-Hujjaaj Bin Artaah from Qataadah and like that.
The author of the Haashiyah (commentary) of “Jaami’ ul-Usool” said: “Ibn Hibbaan authenticated it as Saheeh even though it
included the ‘An’anah of Al-Hasan: 2/597. It was stated in “Nasb ur-Raayah”: “Al-Hujjaaj Bin Artaah is not relied upon for
evidence and Al-Hasan from Samurah is interrupted …” 3/386].
Ibn ul-Atheer said: “Ash-Shark is the plural of Shaarikh and he is the youth (Shaabb) upon the form of
Saahib and Sahb. Their intended meaning here is the young who have not reached the age of puberty” (1).

If this Hadeeth is authentic, it becomes necessary to bring it together with the previous text which forbids
the killing of the decrepit elderly man (Ash-Sheikh ul-Faaniy). That is done like what came mentioned by
Ash-Shawkaaniy when he said: “The two Hadeeth can be brought together (Al-Jam’u i.e. without the need
to discard one of them) by stating that the Sheikh (elderly person) whom it has been forbidden to kill in
the first Hadeeth is the Sheikh ul-Faaniy (the decrepit elderly person) who no longer possesses a benefit to
the disbelievers (i.e. in respect to warfare) and can bring no harm against the Muslims. The statement
came with thios description (Wasf) when it stated: “The decrepit elderly man”. That is whilst the Sheikh
who has been commanded to kill, in the second Hadeeth, then it applies to the one who still possesses
benefit to the disbelievers and even if that is by opinion. That is like the case of Daraid Bin As-Simmah
where the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, after finishing at Hunain, despatched Abu ‘Aamir at the head of the army of
Awtaas. He met with Daraid Bin As-Simmah and they (the group Daraid had gathered) numbered over
one hundred. He (Daraid) had brought them to plan war and so Abu ‘Aamir killed him whilst the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬did not rebuke him for that as has been affirmed in the two Saheehs from the Hadeeth of Abu
Mousaa, and the story (or incident) is well known. Ahmad Bin Hanbal stated when reasoning the
command of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to kill the Shuyookh (elderly): That the Sheikh hardly ever embraced Islaam
whilst the young (Sagheer) is closer to Islaam” (2).

I say: Concerning the killing of Daraid Bin As-Simmah, the following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
“They differed in respect to his killing … It is said: That when he was killed he was in his twenties and it is
said in his sixties and even 100 years!” (3).

The above is what has come connected to the acceptable Shar’iyah texts related to the forbiddance of
particular categories of people from the enemy whom it is Haraam to target in the fighting.

Secondly: The texts which do not fulfil the conditions of acceptance to be used as evidence
according to those occupied in the science of Hadeeth:

1 - It was stated in “Al-Muwatta’” of Al-Imaam Maalik: “That Yahyaa Bin Sa’eed, may Allah’s mercy be
upon him, related that Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, despatched armies to Ash-Shaam
(greater Syria). And so he came out to escort them (i.e. as they were setting off). He walked with Yazeed
Bin Abi Sufyaan … and said: You will come across a people who have isolated themselves to Allah. So
leave them and what they have enclosed themselves off to …” (4).

[(1) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/597, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/262. Refer to “Subul us-Salaam”: 4/50. And to the
Hadeeth about the killing of Daraid Bin As-Simmah in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4323 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/42-43, (3) “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 8/42, (4) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/599 and “Al-Mudawwanah”, Maalik: 2/7].

Ibn ul-Atheer said: “He meant by those who enclose or isolate themselves, the monks who inhabit the
monasteries, reside in them and do not leave them and the Christians call them “Al-Habees” (i.e. the one
who has secluded himself)” (1).

In respect to this Hadeeth, according to those occupied in the science (i.e. knowledge of Hadeeth): “It has
interruption because Yahyaa Bin Sa’eed was not around at the same time as Abu Bakr”. Ibn Hazm said:
“This report from Abu Bakr is not Saheeh because it is related from Yahyaa Bin Sa’eed, ‘Ataa and Thaabit
Bin Al-Hujjaaj and all of them were not born except after some period following the death of Abu Bakr,
may Allah be pleased with him!” (2).
2 - The following was recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: “… Related from a Sheikh from the
people of Al-Madinah, a Mawlaa of Bani Abdul Ash’hal, from Dawud from ‘Ikramah from Ibn ‘Abbaas
that when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to despatch his armies, he would say: “Do not kill the people of the
monasteries or places of worship (Sawaami’)” (3).

Concerning this Hadeeth, Ibn Hazm said: “As for the Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas then it states (in its chain)
that it is related from a Sheikh of Al-Madinah who has not been named whilst some have named him as
Ibraheem Bin Isma’eel Bin Abi Habeebah, and he is Da’eef (weak)!” (4).

In spite of the what has been said regarding this Hadeeth, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy has inclined towards
choosing the view of not killing the monks in the lands of the enemy, in view of the large number of
reports related to that and even if each of these reports by themselves do not reach the level or grade of
acceptance (5). And that is despite Ash-Shaafi’iy permitting the killing of everyone aside from the women
and children from among the people of war and even if they do not participate in the Qitaal (fighting) that
is ongoing, from the mature men and even the elderly men.

In “Al-Jawhar An-Naqiy” the following was stated: “Al-Baihaqiy related from Ash-Shaafi’iy that he said:
“If it had been permitted to denounce the killing of other than the monks (Ruhbaan) due to them not
being involved in the fighting, the captive and the wounded would not have been killed” … until he said:
“I do not have knowledge that confirms from Abu Bakr the contrary to that” (6).

Also in “Al-Jawhar”: “Al-Baihaqiy related in the book “Al-Ma’rifah” from Ash-Shaafi’iy that he said: “The
killing of the Ruhbaan (monks) is not undertaken in following of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with
him …

… And he stated in this book the permission of killing the one who has no fighting in him, apart from the
Ruhbaan (monks). He stated that he only said that in respect to the monks, in following (i.e. of Abu Bakr)
and not due to Qiyaas (analogy)” (1).

The above then, relates to the Ruhbaan (monks) and people who inhabit or reside in the monasteries or
places of worship.

3 - In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah: “Jaabir Bin Abdullah said: They used to not kill the Tujjaar (pl. of
Taajir i.e. traders) of the Mushrikeen” (2).

Ibn Hazm said: “As for the statement of Jaabir: That they did not used to kill the Tujjaar (traders) of the
Mushrikeen, then there is no Hujjah (proof or evidence) for them in that. That is because he didn’t say:
That not killing them was in Daar ul-Harb (the land of war). Rather he just informed about their affair as a
whole. In addition, if the Mubayyin from him was affirmed or validated, they would not have anything
related to that. That is because it does not contain a Nahy (forbiddance) of killing them but rather in
indicates their choice in respect to leaving them, alone” (3).

In summary, the above represents the most important or significant of what has come stated in respect to
those actual non-combatant enemies who are not fought despite the existence of an actual state of war
with them. We will now move on to the next Mas’alah (issue).
2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): Concerning those whom the texts have prohibited
to be killed, from the enemies, during the Qitaal (fighting), is analogy made upon
them to apply the prohibition upon others?

The answer: The Fuqahaa’ have differed concerning that in accordance to their difference in respect to the
‘Illah (reasoning) obliging the lawfulness of the blood of the enemies (i.e. the permissibility to kill them).
This difference was explained by Ibn Rushd when he said: “And they differed regarding the people of the
monasteries or places of worship who are secluded from the people, the blind, the Zamaniy (someone
suffering a chronic or long-term illness), the Sheikh (elderly man) who does not fight, the insane, the
ploughman (Harraath i.e. farmer of crops) and the ‘Aseef (labourer). Maalik said: The blind, insane and
the residents of the monasteries are not killed and they are left with enough of their wealth to live on. In
addition, he (Maalik) viewed that the Sheikh Al-Faaniy (weak and decrepit elderly man) is not killed. And
this was the view of Abu Haneefah and his companions or followers …

[(1) “Al-Jawhar An-Naqiy”: 9/93, (2) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 14076, 12/386, (3) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/298].

… Ath-Thawriy and Al-Awzaa’iy said: “The Shuyookh (elderly) are not killed, only” and Al-Awzaa’iy said:
“The ploughmen (i.e. farmers of crops) are not killed”. Ash-Shaafi’iy said in the most correct view
attributed to him: “All of these categories are killed”. Then Ibn Rushd said: “The reason for their overall
difference is their difference in respect to the ‘Illah (reasoning) that obliges or dictates the killing. The one
who claimed that the ‘Illah for that is Kufr (disbelief) did not exempt any from the Mushrikeen whilst
those who viewed the ‘Illah (reasoning) to be the capability to undertake fighting, due to the forbiddance
of killing the women even though they are from the Kuffaar (disbelievers), exempted those were incapable
of fighting and those who did not put themselves forward to undertake it like the farmer and the hired
labourer (‘Aseef)” (1).

This is what Ibn Rushd said concerning the explanation of the reason for the difference amongst the
Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Mas’alah of the permissibility of fighting non-combatant disbelievers, when
war is waging between the Muslims and their enemies.

The reality is that the permitting factor for the killing of the disbelievers, according to those of a more
severe view, as represented by Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, is not just Kufr (disbelief) by itself but rather it is
the Kufr combined with the refusal to submit to the Ahkaam of Islaam i.e. the refusal or rejection to
accept the Dhimmah. If, however, the people of disbelief have accepted to enter into the Dhimmah i.e.
submission to the Ahkaam of Islaam, then it is not permissible to fight against them and even if they
remain upon their disbelief, according to details which will be explained at its time. That applies even if
those disbelievers were from the fighters of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war). What we have mentioned
here is what the speech of Ash-Shaafi’iy has indicated to. The following was stated in his book “Al-
Umm”: “If the Imaam has surrounded a land and they offer to give the Jizyah upon the basis that the
Hukm (ruling) of Islaam be applied upon them, he must accept that from them” (2).

It was also stated: “If they said: We will give (or pay) the Jizyah upon the basis that the Hukm (rule) is
applied over us, the Imaam has no choice except to accept that from them” (3).

Concerning making the blood of the enemy lawful, on the condition of their rejection or refusal of the
Jizyah i.e. the enemy’s rejection of entering into the (contract of the) Dhimmah and acceptance of the
Islamic rule, Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy also said in his book “Al-Umm”: “Every mature (Baaligh) Mushrik is
killed if he refuses Islaam or the Jizyah” (4).

[(1) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid” - “Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/20-25, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/176,
(3) “Al-Umm”: 4/186, (4) “Al-Umm”: 4/286].
Therefore, according to the group (of Fuqahaa’) who hold the more severe view stating that the ‘Illah
(Shar’iy reasoning) for fighting the enemies is Kufr and not Al-Muhaarabah (that they fight or engage in
warfare), then when the disbelievers from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) declare their acceptance of the
Dhimmah, whether that was done by an armed regiment which surrendered to the Muslims, a region or
land that had separated from its state, and joined to the Islamic State, or individuals who had gone to the
Muslim camp to declare their acceptance of the Dhimmah, and whether they were armed fighters or non-
combatants, like scholars, doctors and others …

Then according to this view and in such a situation: It is not permitted to direct weapons of fighting
towards those who have made such a declaration, under the pretext that they are disbelievers upon which
the ‘Illah (reasoning) dictating that they be killed be applied upon, the ‘Illah of disbelief (Kufr). That is not
permitted and not even amongst those who have said that the ‘Illah (Shar’iy reasoning) for fighting the
enemy is Kufr. That is because the permitting factor amongst those Fuqahaa’, as we have seen it, is only
when the disbelievers have refused or rejected to live with the Muslims under the shade of the Islamic
ruling system, and not just or merely because they are from Ahl ul-Kufr (the people of disbelief).

We summarise what has been said by saying that there are two directions which have been adopted in
respect to this Mas’alah we are addressing, which is: In respect to those people from the enemies whom
the Shar’iyah texts have come exempting their killing, is analogy made upon them to extend that
exemption to others? These two directions are:

Firstly: The direction that rejects the view of making Qiyaas in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) … This
direction restricts the Tahreem (prohibition) of the directing of weapons, during battle, towards the
people from the enemy who have been specified by type or description … They are those whom the
Shar’iyah texts have mentioned specifically not to be targeted, as long as they do not fight, like the women
and children. This is the amount or extent that the Madhaahib have agreed upon … The difference has
occurred in respect to other than those as a result of the difference of opinions related to the acceptance
and non-acceptance of the texts, related to this Mas’alah. That is like their difference in respect to the
Fallaahoon (field farmers) from the people of war and whether they are killed or not, as a result of the
acceptance or non-acceptance of the report concerning them.

When discussing the opinions of the Fuqahaa’, from amongst the people of this direction which does not
view the utilisation of Qiyaas (analogy) in this Mas’alah, but rather rely alone upon the related texts and
reports and what they indicated to explicitly in relation to this subject area, Ibn Rushd stated the
following: “As for the one who viewed that the Hurraath (those who plough and work in the farming
fields) are not killed, then they used as evidence for that opinion, what was related by Zaid Bin Wahb who
said: “A letter came to us from ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him which stated within it: Do not
commit excesses (in respect to the booty), do not betray, do not kill the child and fear Allah in respect to
the Fallaahoon (those who work in the fields)” (1).

I say: This text was stated by Al-Baihaqiy as follows: “Zaid Bin Wahb related from ‘Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: Fear Allah in respect to the Fallaaheen (field or
farm workers). So, don’t kill them unless they are to engage in war against you” (2).

Ash-Shaafi’iy reasons not utilising the Qiyaas in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) i.e. not making
analogy between non-combatants from the men disbelievers and women for example, in respect to the
Tahreem of killing them, due to them being joined by the ‘Illah (reasoning) present with the women,
which is that they don’t fight, which is also present in the non-combatant enemy men. Ash-Shaafi’iy
reasons not utilising this Qiyaas that we have indicated to by arguing that: If the only ‘Illah (reasoning) for
the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing women from the people of war, was that they don’t fight usually, then
this Hukm of the prohibition of killing, would apply in respect to all those who do not usually fight from
the disbelievers. That would include the like of the cowards who are struck by terror by just seeing a
weapon, let alone holding one and are even more detrimental than women in respect to the fighting.
Despite that, nobody has stated that it is prohibited to fight this category from among the people of war.
This indicates that the non-fighting description from the disbelievers is not a valid ‘Illah for the Tahreem
of raising weapons against them. This is what is understood from the speech of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy
within the frame of the following text from “Al-Umm”:

“The killing of the monks is not undertaken, whether they are the monks of the monasteries or the desert
homes. Anyone who secludes himself in a monastic life we do not kill, in following to Abu Bakr, may
Allah be pleased with him. That is because, if we have the right to leave the fighting of some of the
combatants and the killing of men in some circumstances, we would not be sinful in leaving the monks,
by Allah Ta’Aalaa’s permission. And we have only said this (i.e. come with opinion) by way of following
(i.e. Abu Bakr) and not by way of Qiyaas (analogy). If we had claimed that we had left the killing of the
monks because they fell under the meaning of non-fighters, we would have left the killing of the sick
when we attack them, the monks, the cowards, the free (Ahraar), the slaves and the people of factories
who do not fight …” (3).

[(1) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth il-Bidaayah”: 6/24. The letter of ‘Umar, may Allah
be pleased with him, was quoted in the Sunan of Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2625, 2/239, (2) As-Sunan Al-Kubraa”, Al-Baihaqiy:
9/91, (3) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/240].

Ash-Shaafi’iy wants to say in this text: That it is permitted for us to kill the enemy men including the sick,
monks, cowards and people of factories or industries … That is even if they do not fight the Muslims and
it is not usual for them to be involved in the matters of fighting. And that we have only selected the non-
killing of monks specifically, non because are from those who don’t fight, in analogy (Qiyaas) to the
women from the people of war … Rather, we have only done that, following Abu Bakr, may Allah be
pleased with him, who chose not to kill them due to a Maslahah that he saw … This is permissible of the
Waliy ul-Amr (ruler). It is permitted for him to kill those whom it is permissible to kill from the
disbelievers and it is his right to not kill them. As long as the matter is as we have described it, then the
non-occurrence of fighting from the women usually, is not an ‘Illah for the Tahreem (prohibition) of
killing them, to allow us to make analogy upon them to apply upon everyone who does not fight or is not
from his affair to be involved in fighting, from the enemy men.

This is what the above quoted speech of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy indicates to in respect to the reason for
not utilising Qiyaas (analogy) in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) that we are currently addressing.

It is worth mentioning here, that the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab has another opinion in relation to not killing
those who have no involvement in fighting and there is no Ra’y (i.e. Qiyaas) … That is even if the most
prominent of the views is the permissibility of directing the weapons against all of the Ahl ul-Harb (people
of war); whether they are combatants or non-combatants, with the exception of the women and the
children, whilst the insane is attached to the child (i.e. takes the same ruling) because he is not Mukallaf
just as the hermaphrodite is attached to the women due to the possibility of being female. Concerning
this, the following was stated in “Al-Minhaaj” of An-Nawawiy:

“It is Haraam to kill the Sabiy (prepubescent boy [or girl]), the Majnoon (one who doesn’t possess the
faculty to reason), the woman and the hermaphrodite. It is permissible to kill the monk, the hired worker
(Ajeer), the Sheikh (old man), the blind person and the Zamaniy (someone suffering chronic or long-term
illness) who have no fighting capability within them, whilst there is no Ra’y (i.e. Qiyaas) according to what
is most evident”. Concerning the mention of the Daleel upon that the following was stated in “Mughniy
ul-Muhtaaj”: “It is due to the generality of His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َفا ْق ُتلُواَالم ْش ِرك‬

َ‫ِين‬
So, kill the Mushrikeen (polytheists, disbelievers) (At-Taubah: 5).
That is because they are Ahraar (free) and Mukallaf (legally responsible) and therefore it is permitted to kill
them as it is permitted to kill other than them. Secondly: i.e. relating to the opinion than is contrary to the
most evident, which is that they are not from those who fight, then it is based upon their resemblance to
the women and the children” (1).

“Al-Maawardiy also said in relation to that: “And it is permissible for the Muslim to kill the one he
overcomes from the fighters of the Mushrikeen, whether he was a fighter (combatant) or non-combatant!
And there is a difference of opinion concerning the killing of their Shuyoookh (elderly) and their monks
…” (2).

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj Bi Sharh il-Minhaaj”: 4/222-223, (3) “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p41].

The above relates to the first approach or view which does not make Qiyaas (analogy) upon women in
respect to the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing actual non-combatants, from amongst the individuals of
the enemy, during war … we will now address the second approach or view.

Secondly: The direction or view that adopts the usage of Qiyaas (analogy) in this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).
This represents the view of the Jumhoor (majority). Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy elaborates upon the
viewpoint of those following this approach within the context of the following text:

“Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to despatch his armies, he would say: “Go out
in the name of Allah Ta’Aalaa, fight Fee Sabeelillah (in the way of Allah) those who have disbelieved. Do
not betray, do not exceed bounds (like in respect to the booty), do not mutilate, do not kill children nor
the people of the monasteries” (1). After quoting this Hadeeth Ash-Shawkaaniy comments as follows:

“The Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas includes in its Isnaad (chain of transmitters): Ibrahim Bin Isma’eel Bin Abi
Habeebah and he is Da’eef (weak) whilst Ahmad viewed him as reliable” … He then said: “In respect to
his statement: “and not the people of the monasteries” contains evidence that it is not permissible to kill
those who are seclude in acts of worship from amongst the disbelievers, like the monk due to his
objection towards harming the Muslims. This Hadeeth, despite what has been said about it (i.e. that it is
Da’eef due to the weakness of one of its transmitters), it is nevertheless supported or propped up by
Qiyaas upon the women and the children due to the connecting factor between them in respect to them
neither bringing benefit or harm, whilst that is the reality (Manaat). Analogy is made upon those whom
the text has mentioned by that connecting factor or description to include the one who is incapable
(disabled) or blind or similar to them, from amongst those whom no benefit is hoped for (i.e. to aid the
enemy) and who bring no continuous harm (against the Muslims)” (2).

In other words: This approach or view holding that Qiyaas (analogy) be utilised in respect to this Mas’alah
bases its view upon the following:

It has been established that women are not to be killed and that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said about the killed
woman: “This one (i.e. the woman) was not meant to fight”, as quoted earlier. This provides the
understanding that if she fought, she is killed and that the ‘Illah (reasoning) for the Nahy (forbiddance) of
killing her is that she does not fight. Consequently, anyone from amongst the men of the people of war,
whose reality is like that of the woman, from those whom apparently bring no benefit to the enemy nor
do they bring harm consistently to the Muslims, are attached to the women by Qiyaas (analogy), in respect
to the Tahreem (prohibition) of raising arms against them (i.e. fighting them) and even if they were from
amongst the Sufoof (ranks) of the enemies and the war is being waged between us and them.

[(1) Refer to the Hadeeth in the Sunan of Al-Baihaqiy: 9/90, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/326].
This is what Ash-Shawkaaniy presented in respect to affirming the Madh’hab (i.e. opinion) holding the
view that Qiyaas (analogy) be employed in respect to the Mas’alah we are addressing in this current study
… However, it appears that this mentioned basis of: “The one whom benefit for the enemy is not viewed
and his harm towards the Muslims is not continuous”, in relation to this representing the description that
must be fulfilled in respect to the actual non-combatants from the enemies, in order for the Qiyaas
(analogy) upon them to be valid extended from the women … It appears that this basis opens the door to
lots of different points of view in respect to those whom this description applies or does not apply upon
… That is in the case where, based upon this, some of the actual non-combatant disbelievers could be
spared from being killed, according to a particular Ijtihaad, whilst according to another Ijtihaad
(deduction) they could fall under the sword, even if both Ijtihaads (deductions) belong to the direction
that utilises the Qiyaas made upon the women, in respect to this Mas’alah.

To shed more light upon this view, approach or direction, and the numerous different opinions that can
result from it, we will present some of the texts from the books of the three Fiqhiy Madhaahib i.e.
excluding the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab which, as mentioned, restricts itself to the texts and does not employ
analogy (Qiyaas) in relation to this Mas’alah.

- Within the Hanafiy Fiqh: The following was stated in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”:

“… As for during the state of fighting, it is not Halaal (permitted) in it to kill a woman, boy, decrepit
elderly man, disabled, paralysed on one side, blind, one whose hand and leg are severed from opposite
sides or right hand amputated, the insane, monk in his monastery, hermit in the mountains nor a people
residing in a place or church where they engage in monastic life … As for the (evidence for) the woman
and the boy (below the age of puberty) then that is due to the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Do not kill a
woman or a child (Waleed)” … That is because they are not from the people of Al-Qitaal (i.e.
combatants) and as such are not killed” … Then he said: “The original position (Al-Asl): Is that everyone
from the people of Qitaal (fighting) are permitted to kill, whether they engaged in the fighting or did not!
And everyone who is not from the Ahl ul-Qitaal (people of fighting) is not Halaal (permissible) to kill
unless they actual fought or in its meaning like through opinion, obedience, incitement and what is similar
to that. Therefore, the priest or clergyman and the hermit who mixes with the people, the one who is in
and out of sanity, the deaf, mute, the one whose left hand is cut, one of his legs are amputated and even if
they have not fought, because they are from the people of Qitaal (fighting)!” (1).

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/10. For the specification of whom the fighters of the disbelievers are, refer to: “As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 5/1807. Included in what was stated: “The Muqaatilah (fighter or combatant) is: Everone who
areached the age of manhood (or puberty). That is because the fighter is the one who has the stature or build suitable to engage
in fighting, if he wanted to engage in it. The women and the children do not have the suitable build for fighting and are
therefore not included amongst the fighters, even if they undertake fighting against what is usual or the norm. Do you not see
that the one who does not fight from among the mature men then he is from the host of the fighters because of the
consideration that he has the (physical) build suitable to engage in fighting, even if he does not actually engage in it for some
reason … And those who have excuses from the blind and the Zamaniy (chronically ill) … if they engage in the fighting then
they are considered to be from amongst the fighters whilst if they do not undertake that, then they are not considered to be
from the fighters or combatants (Muqaatilah)”].

I say: It is clear from this Fiqhiy text that the Qiyaas (analogy) made upon the women in respect to the
Tahreem (prohibition) of killing men from the people of war is restricted alone to the case of the inability
of those men to take up arms and practise the fighting, like the case of the disabled and paralysed, or to
the case of the non-perceivability of taking up arms of non-perceivability of thinking about war, usually,
like the case of the hermit living in the mountains if he did not mix with the people. The meaning of this
is that even such a hermit living in the mountains, if he was to descend and mix with the people, it would
not be Haraam to target him and even if he was not from those who are actually from the fighters or
combatants, according to what is understood from this text … Therefore, the Qiyaas (analogy) in respect
to this Mas’alah (issue), according to those of this direction, approach or view, is only applied in
accordance to the controlling factor which Ash-Shawkaaniy mentioned which is related to the benefit that
such a person brings to the enemy and the potential harm he can bring against the Muslims (1). All of that
is despite there being some room open to discussion, as it appears to the one who ponders, in respect to
some of the examples mentioned by Al-Kaasaaniy above.

- In the Maalikiy Fiqh: In “Mukhtasar Khaleel” and its Sharh (explanation) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”, in relation
to the disbelievers, the following was mentioned: “They (the disbelievers) are invited to Islaam. Then if
they refrain from accepting Islaam they are called to give the Jizyah … And if they do not respond
positively to the Jizyah … they are fought … And if it is permitted they are fought i.e. it is permitted to
kill them with the exception of seven whom it is not permissible to kill: The woman, Sabiy (boy), the
insane, the decrepit elderly man, the chronically ill, the blind, the monk secluded in his place of seclusion
or monastery, without Ra’y (opinion or analogy)” (2).

The following was stated in the “Haashiyah ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dasooqiy: “The author’s
restricting the categories to seven establishes that the hired workers (Ujaraa’), Al-Harraathoon (field
workers or ploughmen) and the factory owners amongst them can be killed. This is the opinion of
Suhnoon and it is contrary to what is well-known in respect to that they are not killed but rather made
captive, as is the opinion of Ibn ul-Qaasim …” (3).

Ibn ul-‘Arabiy from the Maaliy Fuqahaa’, in his “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, concerning the Mas’alah of whom
it is Haraam to kill from among the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), when mentioning the ‘Aseef (hired
labourer), he said:

[(1) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/262, (2) ‘Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/144-146, (3) “Haashiy Ad-
Dasooqiy ‘Alaa ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 2/177].

“Al-‘Usafaa’” (pl. of ‘Aseef i.e. hired workers or labourers): They are the ‘Ujaraa (hired workers) and
Fallaahoon (farm or field workers) … They (the Fuqahaa’) have differed in respect to them. Maalik said in
his book “Muhammad”: They are not killed … And the Saheeh (correct view) in my opinion is that they
are killed because even if they do not fight, they nevertheless represent a support for the fighters …” (1).

- In the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah: The following came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah:

“When the Imaam is conquering the disbelievers, it is not permissible to kill the Sabiy (boy) who has not
reached the age of puberty, without any difference of opinion (2) … and the woman is not killed, nor the
decrepit elderly man. That is what Maalik and the followers of “Ar-Ra’y” (opinion and analogy i.e. the
Hanafiyah) … And Ash-Shaafi’iy said: In one of the two opinions attributed to him and Ibn ul-Mundhir:
It is permissible to kill the Shuyookh (elderly) … And our opinion is (meaning: the evidence or proof for
our opinion) that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Do not kill the decrepit Sheikh (elderly man), nor Sabiy
(boy/child) or woman” as related by Abu Dawud in his Sunan. And also, because he (the elderly man) is
not from the people of Al-Qitaal (i.e. non-combatant) and is therefore not killed like the woman. The
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬indicated to this ‘Illah (reasoning) in respect to the woman when he said: “How could this one
be killed (i.e. woman) whilst she does not fight?” … The decrepit Sheikh falls under her meaning and so
we apply analogy upon her … And the Zaman (chronically ill) is not killed, nor the blind or the monk
(Raahib) … And in our view: Concerning the Zaman (chronically ill) and the blind, they are not from the
people of Qitaal (i.e. combatants) and hence resemble the woman. In respect to the Raahib (monk), then
that is due to what was related in the Hadeeth of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq when he said: And you will come
across peoples in monasteries who have secluded themselves within them, therefore, leave them be until
Allah causes them to die upon their misguidance. That is because they do not fight out of belief and
therefore resemble the one incapable of fighting … He (Ibn Qudaamah) then said: As for the sick then he
is killed if he was from those who, if they had been well, would have fought. That is because he is of the
status of the injured who are finished off. That is unless he is in a state where there is no hope for
recovery in which case he is like the Zaman (chronically ill), who is not killed. That is because it is not
feared from him that he will return to a condition in which he will be able to engage in fighting again …”
(3).

Thereafter, those are some of the realities of the numerous and various Fiqhiy Ijtihaadaat related to the
Mas’alah of whom it is allowed to target to kill and whom it is not permissible to target from amongst the
groups or categories of the enemies, during war.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-Arabiy: 1/106, (2) In relation to difference regarding the out of the normal killing of the boys
or women refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/148 and “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/262, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/539-542 and
“Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/397].

All of these Ijtihaadaat (deductions) fall under the scope of the approach, direction or view stating that
Qiyaas be utilised in respect to this Mas’alah, upon the basis of those whom it has been established
amongst all to be prohibited to be killed from the people of war and they are the boys and woman …

However, we must pay attention here, when addressing this Mas’alah (issue), even if it revolves around the
permissibility of killing the enemies and whether it is reasoned by Kufr (disbelief), like Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy stated, or reasoned by the participation in fighting of those enemies of the Muslims, like the
Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa’) stated … I say we must pay attention to the point that this Mas’alah is
not the same as the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad against the non-
Islamic lands and states which have refused to accept the Da’wah to Islaam or the Islamic ruling and to
enter into the Dhimmah (protection) of the Muslims … even if there is a kind of linkage between the two
issues (Mas’alahs) …

As such, it is not permissible to say that Al-Jihaad is not legally legitimate unless it is in the situation or
circumstance of defence against aggression based upon the ‘Illah (reasoning) of fighting enemies being
that they participate in war (i.e. that they are combatants), as stated by the Jumhoor (in relation to this
Mas’alah) and that the ‘Illah isn’t merely Kufr (disbelief). And based upon that ‘Illah to go on to say that
the Jihaad is not legally legitimate as long as the disbelievers are not waging war against the Muslims i.e. in
the case where they have not brought the ‘Illah (reasoned) permitting the Muslims to fight them, which is
represented in aggression and warfare … It is not permitted to say or argue that …

That is because even according to the opinion that the ‘Illah (Shar’iy legal reasoning) for fighting the
disbelievers is that they engage in warfare and that the ‘Illah (reasoning) isn’t Kufr (disbelief) and even if
we went to the furthest extent in respect to prohibiting the directing of weaponry (i.e. engage in fighting),
during war, against all of the disbelievers who are actual non-combatant, whether they are disabled or
healthy i.e. those who are called civilians in general (1) … Concerning that I say: Even according to this
very wide meaning applied to the understanding of non-fighters or non-combatants, this does not cancel
the other Mas’alah, which is the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad against the peoples and the lands, which
refuse to accept the Islamic system if they did not wish to accept Islaam, after being invited to embrace it
… That is because this refusal or rejection, if it represented a non-aggressive rejection, meaning that these
peoples and lands did not oppose the Muslims by force whilst these Muslims were undertaking the
measures to annex or join the lands to the Islamic State and make its people from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
(non-Muslim citizens), then there is naturally no room or place here to use weapons (i.e. military force)
against such lands or its people.

[(1) Our Ustaadh Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy weighed as strongest this very wide meaning for the understanding of non-combatants
of the lands of war. He said: “… The Muhaariboon (fighters or those engaged in war): They include everyone who has put
himself forward to fight in a direct or indirect way. That is like the regular army and the volunteers … As for the civilians who
have laid down the weapons and gone off to undertake their everyday work and everyone who has a neutral description in
reality in respect to assisting the enemy like foreign military attaches, news correspondents and clergy attached to the war
forces, then all of these are not considered to be Muhaariboon (fighters) whom it is allowed to spill their blood”: “Aathaar ul-
Harb”: p480].
If, however the rejection of the lands or the peoples to accept Islaam or the Islamic rule was an aggressive
rejection, meaning that they took up arms in opposition to the Muslims against the attempt to join the
lands and peoples to the Islamic State, then in such a situation, it is obligatory for the Muslims to fight
those who prevent them from establishing the Deen of Allah through the application of the Islamic rule
over the lands … As for those who do not prevent the Muslims from establishing the Deen of Allah as
mentioned, then in such a case difference arises amongst the Fuqahaa’.

- Is it permissible to fight those who do not take up arms against the Muslims, during the war, from
amongst the disbeliever civilians?

- Or is it obligatory to restrict the fighting against those who bear arms alone from among the individuals
of the army and the armed resistance elements from those who oppose the Muslims and stand in their
way?

In any case, the legal legitimacy of declaring Al-Jihaad against the peoples and lands which refuse or reject
Islaam or the submission to the Islamic rule, by peaceful means, this legal legitimacy in this circumstance
represents a matter upon which there is no disagreement or difference of opinion within the Islamic Fiqh
between the two approaches or directions which we are addressing.

- The approach or direction stating that the ‘Illah (Shar’iy reasoning) for fighting the Kuffaar (disbelievers)
is Kufr (disbelief) and the rejection or refusal to accept the Islamic system.

- And the approach stating that the ‘Illah (Shar’iy reasoning) for fighting the disbelievers is that they are
participating in the fighting (Al-Muhaarabah).

In light of what has preceded, we understand what Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his book “As-Siyaasah Ash-
Shar’iyah, whilst he is from those who held the view that the ‘Illah (Shar;iy reasoning) for fighting the
Kuffaar is Al-Muhaarabah (i.e. that they engage in fighting or warfare), we understand what he says in a
sound manner, without making the error in understanding him so as to attribute to him the opinion that
he is views that the disbelievers and there affair should be left be as long as they do not make war against
the Muslims, or that the legal legitimacy to Al-Jihaad, in his view, is restricted to defence against the
aggression alone.

We will now quote, what we have pointed to from the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah, to see how despite his
view about the impermissibility of killing many of the categories of the disbelievers who are non-actual
combatants, he states alongside that: The legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad for the purpose of establishing the
Deen of Allah over the ‘Ibaad (i.e. servants with the meaning of the people). Ibn Taymiyyah said: “And in
the case when the origin of the legally legitimate Qitaal is Al-Jihaad, its aim is to for the Deen to be
entirely for Allah and for the word of Allah to be the highest, and so whoever prevents that is fought
against, a matter has been agreed upon by the Muslims. As for those who are not from the people of
resistance and combatants like the women, the boys (under the age of puberty), the elderly Sheikh, the
blind, the chronically ill and those like them, then they are not killed according to the view of the majority
of the ‘Ulamaa’ unless they engage in fighting by Qawl (statement) or Fi’l (action), although some of them
(i.e. the ‘Ulamaa) viewed the permissibility of killing all of them due to the mere Kufr (disbelief) apart
from the women and the boys … The first view is the correct one. That is because the fighting (Qitaal) is
focused upon those who fight us if we are aiming to make the Deen of Allah prevail … That is because
Allah has made it permissible to kill the lives according to what is needed in respect to what is in the good
for the creation. That is as Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ْ ‫َو ْالفِ ْت َن ُةَأَ َش ُّدَم َِن‬

َ‫َال َق ْت ِل‬
And Fitnah is worse than killing (Al-Baqarah: 191).
Or

ْ ‫َو ْالفِ ْت َن ُةَأَ ْك َبرَُم َِن‬

َ‫َال َق ْت ِل‬
And fitnah is greater than killing (Al-Baqarah: 217).

(Translator’s note: There was a conflict in the book between the Aayah quoted and Aayah referenced and so I have presented
both).

Which means: If killing involves Sharr (bad) and Fasaad (corruption), then within the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) there is a Fitnah and Fasaad (corruption) that is even greater. Therefore, whoever does not
prevent the Muslims from establishing the Deen of Allah, then their Kufr (disbelief) does not harm other
than themselves. For this reason, the Fuqahaa’ said: “The one calling to a Bid’ah (innovation) contrary to
the Kitaab and the Sunnah is punished with that which the silent one is not punished”.

It was mentioned within the Hadeeth: “The sin, if it is hidden, does not harm except the one who
undertakes it. However, if it appeared and is not denounced, it harms the general masses or
public” (1). For this reason, the Sharee’ah has made fighting the disbelievers obligatory and it did not
make obligatory the killing of those who are under control. Rather, if a man from amongst them is taken
as captive during the fighting or outside of the fighting! Like if a ship cast him off to us or he lost his way”
Or was tricked or caught in a ruse! Then the Imaam does with him that which is more beneficial than
killing him, like enslaving him or freeing him or ransoming him …” (2).

This is what Ibn Taymiyyah said in which it is made clear that Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) to
establish the Deen against all whom stand in the way or prevent its establishment … And it is obvious for
us to perceive that the meaning of the establishment of the Deen of Allah in other lands is the application
of the system which the Deen of Allah comprises upon the lands and where the ruling is in the hands (i.e.
authority) of the Muslims to establish this Deen … After that, whoever remains upon his Kufr (disbelief)
from amongst the disbelieving individuals from the inhabitants of the lands, after the ruling has been
taken out of their hands, no longer pose a harm due their disbelief; not to the Muslims and not to the
State, in such a situation or circumstance … Rather, the harm of his disbelief only returns to and affects
him himself … That is contrary to when the rule in those lands remains in the hands of the disbelievers
implementing the systems of disbelief over them … In such a case, there is no way to say that the
Muslims are implementing the Deen of Allah in those lands whilst they witness that the Deen of Allah is
being ruled over and the Deen of Kufr (disbelief) or its system is the ruler … In this situation, if the
people in authority in those lands do not hand over the rule to the Muslims by peaceful means so that the
Deen of Allah be established, Al-Jihaad is legally legitimate (Mashroo’) against anyone preventing that
from the disbelievers and even if they did not initiate an aggression or hostility against the Muslims …

[(1) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 7/278. He said: At-Tabaraaniy related it in Al-Awsat, (2) “As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn
Taymiyyah: p132-133].

As for those who do not prevent the Muslims from accomplishing what they want, then they are from the
non-combatants … Even in respect to these (non-combatants), Ibn Taymiyyah specifies from them
concerning the prohibition of targeting them, those whom the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ have
mentioned to be prohibited to kill, and they are: Those whom the Shar’a have mentioned in the text that
they are not to be killed like the women and the children, the monk according to some reports and those
who are incapable of taking up arms to fight like the blind ...! Outside of these from among the non-actual
combatants, Ibn Taymiyyah did not say that it is prohibited to kill them and even if their killed is not
obliged i.e. killing such a person is not Haraam and not obligatory, rather permissible! That is in the case
when his land has prevented the establishment of the Deen of Allah within it, as we have indicated to.
Indeed, he states more than that when he states that the one whom we have captured from them by way
of accident, coincidence or ruse, and even if it was not during the state of fighting, that it is permitted to
kill him … in the manner that came in his speech … Concerning this subject area, although we have dealt
with it within the third volume of this paper (doctorate), it was nevertheless necessary to point to it here,
due to what has taken place or resulted in terms of confusion in relation to the understanding of this
Mas’alah, as a result of not placing what the majority of Fuqahaa’ had said concerning the ‘Illah (legal
Shar’iy reasoning) for fighting the disbelievers being that they partake in fighting (Al-Muhaarabah) and
that the ‘Illah is not Kufr (disbelief), in its correct place and context, and as a result of not placing the
aforementioned speech of Ibn Taymiyyah, also within its correct context.

We will now move on to the third Mas’alah of this current study after completing the discussion of this
one.

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): What are the circumstances in which it is permitted
to fight the one whom in origin it is prohibited to kill, from amongst the individuals
of the enemy, during war?

I say: Irrespective of the definition of those whom it is Haraam (prohibited) to kill from the enemies,
during war, according to the different Ijtihaadaat (deductions) concerning this Mas’alah, which we have
presented … Those whom it is prohibited to kill, have that Shar’iyah immunity lifted or removed from
them, and it is permitted to direct the weapons towards them (i.e. fight them to kill them) in the following
circumstances:

The First Circumstance: If the one whom it is Haraam to kill from the enemies, takes up arms against
the Muslims, or engages in actions which are considered to be military actions, or assists the enemies to
fight the Muslims … This is clear from the reasoning of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬for his denunciation of the killing
of the woman from the enemies, in that she was not engaged in the fighting or as stated in the text: “This
one (i.e. the woman) was not those who are meant to fight” (1).

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2669, 3/72-73].

Ibn Hajar said: “Its Mafhoom (understanding) is that: Had she fought she would have been killed” (1).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “Concerning his Qawl (statement): “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬forbade
the killing of the women and the Sibyaan (boys below the age of puberty)” (2), then the ‘Ulamaa have held
a consensus over acting upon this Hadeeth and upon the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing women and
boys if they do not fight. If, however, they fight, then the majority of the ‘Ulamaa have said: They are
killed …” (3).

The same applies in respect to all those who are not considered to be from the Ahl -ul-Qitaal (those who
are fought). It is not Halaal (permissible) to kill such a person unless he actually fought or through the
meaning of opinion, obedience, incitement and what is similar to that …” (4).

The Second Circumstance: When attacks or raids (Ghaaraat) are undertaken against the enemies, during
the night or day, and what is required in warfare is used against them in terms of igniting fires in their
lands, using heavy weaponry, explosive projectiles and what is known as weapons of mass destruction.

In this circumstance, it is not possible to distinguish between those whom it is permissible to kill and
those whom it is not permissible to kill from among the people of war within, those hostile lands.
Concerning this, the Shar’iyah texts have brought the legal legitimacy of this type of fighting. That is even
if that collective targeting leads to victims, unintentionally, whether small in number of large, from those
lives which are prohibited, in origin, whilst its aim is to destroy the Sufoof (rows or ranks) of the enemies.
In relation to this, there are a variety of Shar’iyah texts.
1 - There are texts which have made permissible the undertaking of attacks or raids (Ghaaraat)
against the lands of the enemy which result in the deaths of women and children.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, Ibn Hajar: 6/148, (2) In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3014-3015, “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 6/148 and Saheeh Muslim:
1744, 3/1364, (3) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 7/324, (4) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/101. Refer also
to: “Man’h ul-Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Sayyidiy Khaleel”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Aleesh: 3/145, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:
4/223, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/504, “Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/402, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, Ibn Hajar: 6/148,
“nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/216 and “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/532-533].

It was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim: That Sa’b Bin Jath’thaamah said: “The Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
was asked about the women and children (Dharaariy) of the Mushrikeen, when they are attacked
at night (yubayyatoon) and as a result their woman and children are killed or wounded? He said:
They are from them”. This is the Lafzh (wording of Muslim) (1) and in a narration of Al-Bukhaariy:
“And he ‫ ﷺ‬was asked about the people of the Daar (i.e. houses), when they are attacked at
night, from the Mushrikeen, and then women and their children are killed or wounded? He said:
They are from them” (2).

- Ibn ul-Atheer said: “Yubayyitoon: Means to come at the enemy during night, whilst they are heedless,
for the purpose of a raid or to plunder (booty) … The meaning of “They are from them” is that they
take their Hukm (ruling) and the Hukm of their people equally and that is similar to his statement in one
report: “They are from their fathers” (3).

- Ibn Hajar said: “Concerning his statement: “The people of the Daar”: means their houses … “They
are from them” means: In respect to the Hukm (ruling) in that circumstance whilst the intended meaning
is not to provide the permission to kill them by intentionally targeting them. Rather, the intended meaning
is that if you are unable to reach their fathers except by passing through their women and children, then if
they are killed or wounded, due to their being mixed with them, their killing was permissible …” (4).

- And he (Ibn Hajar) also said: “And the meaning of the Bayaat mentioned in the Hadeeth: Is that the
Kuffaar (disbelievers) are attacked or raided at night, in the situation where their individuals are
indistinguishable” (4).

And Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “This Hadeeth which we have mentioned in respect to the
permissibility of attacking at night and killing the women and children during this, represents our
Madh’hab (i.e. the Shaafi’iyah), the Madh’hab of Maalik, Abu Haneefah and the Jumhoor (majority
opinion of the Fuqahaa’. The meaning of Al-Bayaat and Yubayyitoon is that they (the disbelievers) are
attacked or raided during the night in the case where the man is not distinguishable from the woman and
child … This Hadeeth contains a Daleel (evidence) for the permissibility of attacking or raiding those
whom the Da’wah had reached, without announcing them aware of it” (5).

The above relates to the attacks or attacking raids against the enemy.

2 - There are other Shar’iyah texts which have permitted, by way of weapons used against the
people of war, the igniting or lighting of fires in the lands of the enemy.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1745, 3/1364, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3012, 3/1364, (3) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/733, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”,
Ibn Hajar: 6/147, (5) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/325].

It is known, that as a result of that, a small or large number of lives could be taken, of those who are
unable to flee from or escape the spreading fires, whilst it is common in such a situation for those whom
it is Haraam to target to be killed, from the women, children and incapable elderly amongst others similar
to them, to be caught up in that, if it is agreed that their presence in the place of those fires.
- In Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy, under the chapter heading: “The Chapter of burning the houses and date palm
trees”, the following was related: “Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, he said: “The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬burnt down the date palm trees of Bani An-Nadeer” (1).

It was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Concerning his (Al-Bukhaariy’s) statement: “The chapter of burning
the houses and date palm trees”: It means: Those belonging to the Mushrikeen (polytheists or
disbelievers) … And the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) have adopted the permissibility of burning and
bringing destruction within the lands of the enemy, whilst Al-Awzaa’iy, Al-Laith and Abu Thawr disliked
it (i.e. viewed it to be Makrooh). They used as evidence the instructions of Abu Bakr to his armies to not
undertake any of that (2). At-Tabariy answered this saying: The Nahiy (forbiddance) is understood to be
related to deliberately targeting that which is in contrast to the situation of when they are afflicted by it,
during the fighting. That is like what happened when the catapults were set up to attach At-Taa’if, and
that is towards that which was answered to in respect to the forbiddance of killing the women and the
children. This is what most of the people of knowledge said and the similar to that is killing by drowning.
Others said, Abu Bakr only forbade his army from doing that because he knew that those lands will be
opened (or conquered) and so he wanted to keep them preserved for the Muslims. And Allah knows best”
(3). After quoting this, Ash-Shawkaaniy commented saying: “And it is not unknown that what happened
or issued from Abu Bakr is not valid to oppose what has been established or authenticated from the Nabi
‫ﷺ‬, due to what has been established in respect to the Qawl (statement) of the Sahaabiy not being a
valid evidence” (4).

- And in the Sunan of Abu Dawud under the chapter heading: “Chapter concerning the burning in the
land of the enemy”, the following text was related:

“‘Urwah said: He (Usaamah) told me: That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had charged him saying: “Attack
Ubnaa in the morning and burn!” (5).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3021 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/154. Muslim related it also in his Saheeh: 1746, 3/1365, (2) Sunan Al-
Baihaqiy: 9/90, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/154-155, (4) “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/266 and also refer to “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy:
4/51-52 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 4/1756, (5) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2616, 3/53].

Ibn ul-Atheer said “Abnaa and Yubnaa is the name of a location between ‘Asqalaan and Ar-Ramlah from
the lands of Palestine” (1).

3 - There are other Shar’iyah texts which have urge the use of projectile weaponry.

Ar-Ramy (hurling), as is known, includes within its generality, all old and modern weapons fired at the
enemy from a distance, whether it is an arrow fired from a bow, heavy rocks hurled as projectiles, flaming
hot chunks and pieces of burning metal, bombs or grenades fired from cannons and aircraft, or missiles
launched from bases … All of these war tools are included with the meaning of the Ramy (hurling)
weapon which the Prophetic Sunnah has come encouraging the use of.

In Saheeh Muslim it was recorded that ‘Uqbah Bin ‘Aamir related: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
whilst he was upon the Minbar, saying:

َ َ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ ْمىَُأ‬

ْ ََّ‫الَإِن‬
َُ ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ ْم‬
‫ى‬ ْ َّ‫َالقُ َّو َةَالرَّ ْمىَُأَالََإِن‬
ْ َّ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَ ُه ْمَ َماَاسْ َت َطعْ ُت ْمَمِنْ َقُ َّوةٍَأَالََإِن‬
And prepare for them as much as you are capable in terms of power or strength of force (Al-
Anfaal: 60). Verily, the strength (lies) is in Ar-Ramyu (hurling, shooting). Verily, Verily, the
strength (lies) is in Ar-Ramyu. Verily, the strength (lies) is in Ar-Ramyu” (2).
Concerning this, it is obvious that when these projectiles are shot, thrown or launched against the enemy
from a distance, they do not distinguish between those who are struck by them and hit by its resulting
explosions, between those whom it is permissible to kill and those from the people of war whom it is
impermissible to kill … In spite of that, the hurling, launching or shooting (Ramy) weapon) is Mashroo’
(legally legitimate). Indeed, the Shar’iyah texts have reaffirmed its usage and concern given to it is greater
than what has been given to other than it … This is a matter that indicates to the legal legitimacy of what
is a consequence from it in terms of its results and effects … That is in addition to what was related in
respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬erecting catapults against the people of At-Taa’if (3) and that falls under the
category of the type of throwing, hurling or shooting (Ramy) weapon … as was explained in a previous
study.

[(1) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/617, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1917, 3/1522, (3) “Nsb ur-Raayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Hidaayah”:
3/382-383. Aldo refer to: “Al-Maraaseel”, Abu Dawud: 299, p165, Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/84 and the following came mentioned
in the Haashiyah of ‘Aabideen”: Catapult (Manjaneeq) is a Persian word which has been arabized. It can be masculine but
feminine is better. It is a machinery used to hurl large rocks. I say: It’s use has been abandoned today as it has become
redundant by modern machinery”: 3/344. And in “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy, he comments upon the Hadeeth of the
catapult set up against the people of At-Taa’if saying: “The Hadeeth contains an evidence (Daleel) that it is permissible to kill
the disbelievers if they are fortified by use of catapults and analogy is made upon it to other forms of cannons and what is
similar to or like them”: 4/54].

The Third Circumstance: In which it is permissible to kill those whom are prohibited, in origin, to kill,
from the enemies, during war.

It is the circumstance of “At-Tatarrus” (taking of shields): This is when the enemies take their children,
women, elderly and those similar as human shields to protect themselves. That is because of their
knowledge that it is Haraam upon the Muslims to kill the children, women and those similar to them,
from amongst those whom it is not permitted to target. Consequently, they adopt such tactics as a means
to protect themselves from the Muslims striking them.

However, the reality is that in this situation or such circumstances, the Fuqahaa of the Muslims have
adopted the permissibility of striking the human shields based upon the necessity to reach those whom
they are protecting. That is the Daroorah (necessity) or the Malsahah (interest) dictates that.

The following was stated in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Al-Maqdisy: “If they (the enemy) take shields
during war with women, children and those whom it is not permissible to kill, it is permitted to fire
(Ramy) at them whilst those targeted (or intended) are the fighters. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬fired at
them from catapults whilst they had women and children alongside them (or in their midst) and because if
the Muslims refrain or hold back from them it would lead to the suspension of Al-Jihaad. That is because
if they (the enemy) become aware of that, they would shield themselves by them when they are frightened
and particularly if contact (in battle) has begun because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not hold back with the shooting
or hurling (Ramy) when the war was underway” (1).

With that we have reached the end of this Mas’alah (issues) and now move on to our final Mas’alah to be
discussed in this current area of study, concerning those whom it is prohibited to direct the weapons
towards from among the individuals of the enemy.

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): Does the person in authority have the right to
prohibit the killing of particular people or groups from the enemies during the war?

The answer: Yes, it is the right of the person in authority or ruler to issue a command to the army to not
target particular persons or those with particular attributes or descriptions distinguishing them from
others (2), to be killed. That can be either based upon a Maslahah (interest) that he sees or in order to
build an international or bilateral agreement, connecting the Islamic State to other states.

[(1) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/402. Also refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/504, “Qawaaneen Al-
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p165, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224, “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/261, “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”,
Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/533, “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/49, “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 4/1447-1554 and in this
last book refer to the Mas’alah: Burning the enemies’ ships and drowning them whilst there are women and children with the
disbeliever fighters: 4/1447, (2) In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: Ibn ‘Abbas related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to his companions
on that day (i.e. the day of Badr): “I have known that men from Bani Haashim and others have gone out to fight, out of
compulsion, they have no need (or want) to fight us. So, whomever from you meets one of Bani Haashim (in battle) do not kill
him. And whoever comes across Abu Al-Bakhtariy Bin Hishaam Bin Al-Haarith Bin Asad, do not kill him. And whoever meets
Al-‘Abbaas Bin Abdul Muttalib, the uncle of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, then don’t kill him, for verily he was brought out by
way of coercion …”: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf: 3/39].

This type of conduct is only from the angle of the Amaan (security) that the vested Islamic authority
grants in respect to that, to individuals or groups within the hostile lands.

A matter such as this must be encompassed by conditions and precautions which prevent its exploitation
by the enemies to inflict harms upon the Muslims.

Based upon this, it is Haraam (prohibited) upon the Islamic army, during fighting clashes or engagement
with the army of the enemies, or when it is conquering their lands, to deliberately target to kill those
persons from the enemy whom a command has been issued concerning them, that they not be killed. That
is whether they are from the (news) correspondents or reporters and photographers who are stationed in
the battle fields during modern-day wars, or if they were politicians, people of knowledge, workers in
factories, those in hospitals, whether patients or doctors and staff, or from the regular individuals … in
accordance to the commands issued in respect to this matter.

In this regard Ibn Hazm, who, as mentioned previously, was from those who viewed the permissibility to
kill of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) during war, with the exception of women and children, (also) views that
the Muslims do not target to kill the traders (Tujjaar) during the Islamic conquests, which was based upon
this angle that we are addressing here i.e. from the angle of the choice of those in authority to not kill
them based upon the Maslahah that they saw in that and not because killing them has been prohibited by
the Shar’iy text.

The same applies in respect to Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, according to what is in his book “Al-Umm”, as
we have seen previously, when he preferred that the monks not be killed due to following Abu Bakr As-
Siddeeq, may Allah be pleased with him, in respect to his instruction not to kill them … That is whilst it
has not been established from him that killing them (i.e. the monks) is prohibited based upon a Shar’iy
text … And yet, in spite of that, it was his preference to not kill them in following of Abu Bakr As-
Siddeeq when he exempted them from that …

It is understood from this, that the Waliy ul-Amr (ruler) has the right to grant protection from killing to
particular groups from the enemy lands whom in origin it is permitted to direct the weapons towards (to
kill), like the others during war.

Concerning the right of the person in authority to grant security to particular persons or groups from
amongst the people of the hostile lands and to protect them from being killed during the war with the
enemy, in accordance to what the interest dictates … I say: We approach the beginning of the end of this
study which has revolved around the Ahkaam related to the non-combatants from the enemies during the
times of war.
As for the end by which we will conclude this study, then we will leave it to the presentation of a number
of the views that stand out from the previously discussed Masaa’il (issues), to extract the following brief
observations from them:

1 - It appears to us (as being correct) that the ‘Illah (Shar’iy reasoning) in respect to the killing of the
woman during war is an ‘Illah (reasoning) composed of her being a woman alongside her being from
those who do not fight and not only because she does not fight. As such it represents an ‘Illah restricted
to the women and Qiyaas (analogy) is not made to men … This provides us with the explanation that all
those whom the prohibition to kill them has been mentioned in the acceptable texts and the non-
acceptable ones, that the Nahy (forbiddance) to not kill them mentioned in them was not connected to
the ‘Illah (reasoning) that they were not from those who fight. Rather, the texts were restricted to merely
specifying that they not be killed without reasoning being provided, with the exception of the woman, as
the Nahy (forbiddance) to kill her was connected to the mention of the ‘Illah i.e. that she does not fight.
All of this makes us lean towards the view that the ‘Illah (reasoning) in respect to not killing her is an ‘Illah
Murakkabah (‘Illah composed of more than one element) based on her being a woman and upon her not
fighting.

2 - As for the ‘Aseef (labourer) in respect to whom the Nahy to kill him was mentioned, then the
commentators have explained it as meaning the Ajeer. That is in the case where it is known that the Ajeer
(hired worker) in accordance to the Fiqhiy Istilaah (terminological convention) applies to the one upon
whom a contract has been made for him to undertake any work or service in return for a wage or
recompense (Ajr). Based upon this, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy, applied the name ‘Usafaa’ (plural of ‘Aseef) upon the
‘Ujaraa’ (plural of Ajeer i.e. hired worker) absolutely without restriction (Mutlaqan) and upon the
Fallaahoon (farm or field workers). His mention of the Fallaahoon here, in their description as being
‘Usafaa’ (hired workers or labourers) is based upon the consideration that they have been contracted to
farm the land and all that is connected to that in terms of the matters of agricultural work. Based upon
that, we stated, during the study, that the name “Al-‘Usafaa’” applies to the hired workers in the factories,
plants, the various staff in hospitals and those employed to clean areas and towns etc… That is in
accordance to the explanation of the ‘Aseef being the Ajeer (hired worker) Mutlaqan (absolutely without
restriction).

However, within these concluding observations of what has been discussed in this study, we would like to
mention here that the word ‘Aseef also has an ‘Urfiy (customary) indicated meaning which is connected to
a type of work actions that the Ajeer (hired worker) undertakes, just as it is connected to the view of the
society towards this Ajeer (hired worker), according to what he undertakes of work actions, and it (the
word ‘Aseef) is not only refer to the Ajeer according to the Fiqhiy terminological convention (Istilaah) i.e.
according to the definition of anyone who works for others for an Ajr (wage or recompense). This Urfiy
(customary) indication linked to the view of the society towards the Ajeer indicates to that which has
come mentioned in “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet” (dictionary) for the article of: “َ‫ف‬ َ ‫‘( ” َع َس‬AaSaFa). It stated:

“‘Asafa so and so means: He used him … and their Dai’ah (‫ض ْي َعة‬ َ ) [i.e. ‘Asafa (he used) their Dai’ah]: And
Ra’aahah (‫( )رعاها‬Took care of it) and sufficed them with its affair. It is upon him and to him i.e. ‘Asafa
‘Alaa (upon) so and so or ‘Asafa Li (to) so and so person] which means he worked for him. The ‘Aseef is:
the ‘Ajeer (hired worker) and the slave from whom help or assistance is sought by or via him. ‘Fa’eel’ (the
form of the word) is according to the meaning of ‘Faa’il’ (another word form indicating the doer) taken
from: ‘Asafa Lahu (he was used for him). It is like the form of the words: Nadeem, Jalees upon the
measure of ‘Fa’eel’ holding the meaning of ‘Faa’il’ like: Al-Munaadim and Al-Mujaalis …. And here it is
according to the meaning of the worker for a person and the one providing service to him. This Ism ul-
Faa’il is taken from the Fi’l ul-Laazim, Al-Mu’taddiy bil Harf like was mentioned: “‘Asafa Lahu” i.e. ‘Amila
Lahu (worked for him). As such, this Faa’il of the ‘Asf here is the same as the Ajeer (hirded worker)
himself. And the ‘Asf here means ‘Al-‘Amal (work) and Al-Khidmah (service). Then the author of Al-
Qamoos ul-Muheet” says: “Or it is a Maf’ool from ‘Asafahu: He used him” (1). In other words, the word
‘Aseef upon the form (Wazn) of Fa’eel is upon the meaning of Maf’ool like the Ajeer is understood
according to the meaning of the Musta’jar (the hired person), which is Ism Maf’ool, or Qateel with the
Meaning of Maqtool (the killed person) … And in this case, the word ‘Aseef is according to the meaning
of the Maf’ool taken from the Fi’l ul-Mu’taddiy itself from ‘Asafahu i.e. he used him. Based upon this, the
Faa’il (doer) of the ‘Asf here is the Musta’jir (the one who hires) and not the Ajeer (hired person) because
the ‘Asf here is according to the meaning of Al-Istikhdaam (usage). The Musta’jir is the Faa’il (doer) of the
Istikhdaam (usage) whilst the Ajeer (hired person) is the one whom the action of the doer falls upon i.e.
he is the one who is used by the one who has the work to offer i.e. it is understood according to the
meaning of the Maf’ool.

What is observed here, is that restricting the meaning of the Faa’il (doer) here for the word ‘Aseef, in the
case where it is taken or derived from the Fi’l ul-Laazim Al-Muta’addiy bi l-Harf, as he mentioned by his
statement: “Fa’eel according to the meaning of Faa’il from: ‘Asafa lahu” … Concerning this, I say: This
restriction or limitation is not necessary because he mentioned at the beginning of his speech, that which
establishes that ‘Asafa came with the meaning: To serve (Khadama) that is Muta’addiy with itself, without
the need for the Harf (preposition like: li) … He (i.e. the author of Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet) said: “‘Asafa
(he used) their Dai’ah]: And Ra’aahah (‫[ )رعاها‬Took care of it) and sufficed them with its affair” (2) …

[(1) “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet”: 3/181, (2) In “An-Nihaayah” by Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/236-237, the following was stated: “Al-‘Usafaa’
(pl. of ‘Aseef) means: Al-Ujaraa’ (hired workers) and the singular is called ‘Aseef. ‘Aseef is: Fa’eel with the menaing of Maf’ool
like “Aseer” (prisoner or captive) or the meaning of Faa’il like “‘Aleem” (knowledgeable person). It so from Al-‘Asf meaning
“Al-Jawr” (injustice) or “Al-Kifaayah” (sufficiency). It is said: “Huwa Ya’sifuhum” i.e. he suffices them and “Kam A’asifu
‘Alaika” meaning: How much do I do for you … And that meaning is found in the Hadeeth: “Verily my son was an ‘Aseef
upon this” i.e. he was an Ajeer (hired worker)”.

As such, it is permitted for ‘Aseef to be of the meaning of the Faa’il (doer): The one who undertakes (or
provides) the service and so it is derived from the Fi’l ul-Muta’addiy itself also … just as it is permitted for
‘Aseef to be the meaning of the Maf’ool (that which is done to): That which the usage occurs upon and
that is likewise derived from the Fi’l ul-Muta’addiy itself.

However, the verb for ‘Aseef according to the meaning of the Faa’il (doer) is ‘Asafa (َ‫ف‬
َ ‫)ع َس‬
َ with the
meaning of Khadama (to serve).

Whilst the verb for ‘Aseef according to the meaning of the Maf’ool (being done to) is ‘Asafa (َ‫ف‬
َ ‫)ع َس‬
َ with
the meaning of Istikhdama (utilised or made use of).

We have found it necessary to delve into clarifying what came mentioned in “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet” due
to our evaluation that the text was in need of such clarification.

And the purpose behind quoting this from Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet is to demonstrate that the word “Al-
‘Aseef” does not only mean the Ajeer (hired worker) as was mentioned by those who commentated upon
the Hadeeth. Rather, it also indicates upon the level of what the Ajeer has been hired upon (to undertake)
and that is the undertaking of actions related to providing service. This is confirmed by what came
mentioned in the commentary or margins of Al-Qamoos, by those upon it commented to explain its
meaning. It was said: “Concerning his statement: “Al-Musta’aan Bihi (‫( )المستعانَبه‬i.e. the ‘Aseef and the
‘Abd slave, whose is being used for assistance) has come like that in all of the versions whilst what should
be stated and is correct is: “Al-Mustahaan Bihi” (‫ )المستهانَبه‬which is the text of “Al-Ubaab” and “Al-
Lisaan” (other dictionaries). Nabeeh Bin Al-Hajjaaj said:

“I obeyed the Nafs in respect to the desires until it returned to me ‘Aseefan as the Abd of the Abd (slave)
…” (1).
Concerning this I say: The ‘Aseef then, is not only or merely the one who is used or made use of and
sought assistance with, rather, he is the one who is used and sought assistance with, in accordance to the
nature of the types of work or services that he associated with.

The connection of the ‘Aseef with actions of service of the level indicated to, according to the societal
view, is confirmed by what came in the narration of the incident of the fornicator (Zaaniy), as recorded in
Al-Bukhaariy and indicated to previously. In the Sunan of Ad-Daaramiy this incident was narrated stating:
“Verily, my son was an ‘Aseef for so and so people or household, and then he committed Zinaa
(fornication) with his (i.e. man’s) wife …” (2).

Consequently, the ‘Aseef mentioned in this text is the one who has been hired to serve the people of the
household in respect to their needs in various forms of usage …

[(1) “Al-Qamoos ul-Muheet”: 3/181. The “Lisaan” mentioned in the text is referring to the well-known “Lisaan ul-Arab”. As
for “Al-‘Ubaab” then it refers to “Al-Ubaab Fil Lughah” by As-Saaghaaniy [Asmaa ul-Kutub], Abdul Lateef Bin Muhammad
Riyaadiy: p201, (2) Sunan Ad-Daaramiy: 2317, 2/233].

This has also been indicated to by other sources in which this word has been utilised during the time when
it was still widely used. It was stated in “Asaas ul-Balaaghah”: “Kam A’asifu ‘Alaika i.e. how I make effort
(‫ أسعى‬As’aa) upon you, working for you, frequently seeing to your needs and (it is said) “Wa Saufa
Nu’eenuka Bi-Wusafaa’inaa Wa ‘Usafaa’inaa” (We will aid you with our Wussafaa’ and ‘Usafaa’ i.e. those
who aid and assist)” (1).

Based upon what has preceded and been presented, we do not view that the word “Al-‘Aseef” should be
expanded to cover everyone upon who the term “Ajeer” (hired worker) applies, like what has been
indicated by the commentators who explained its meaning to be the ‘Ajeer absolutely and without
restriction (Mutlaqan). Rather, we view that its scope be restricted in respect to whom this word or term
applies upon within the scope that we have indicated to previously.

We do not see here, the necessity to specify those groups or categories of people from the lands of the
enemy upon who this name applies. Rather, the one in authority is required to define those categories
which he views the description of ‘Usafaa’ (pl. of ‘Aseef) applies upon according to an examination of the
reality of those groups within the societies of those lands. He would then issue his commands to the army
to not target them during the fighting.

We will now move on to another observation.

3 - We view that the Nahy (forbiddance) of killing the decrepit elderly man (Ash-Sheikh ul-Faaniy) from
the lands of the enemy, if we have accepted the Hadeeth concerning him, is Khaas (specific) as was
expressed in the Hadeeth in terms of him being a Sheikh (elderly) alongside his being decrepit (i.e. in a
weak and feeble state), meaning: his capability to bring benefit or harm has ended or dissipated in him.

Therefore, the elderly man (Sheikh) who has not reached to this level and still remains beneficial to the
enemy or harmful to the Muslims, is not covered by the Shar’iyah immunity in respect to the prohibition
of being killed. The intended meaning of the Sheikh Al-Faaniy is not only that he no longer has the
capability to fight alone, but rather the generality of the description indicates to the stipulation that the
disbeliever Sheikh (elderly man) no longer possesses any capability of bringing benefit or harm, in order
for the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing him be applied to him.

As such, Ash-Shawkaaniy was not precise in his book “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, when he denied the permission
to kill the Sheikh ul-Faaniy from the disbelievers if he was from somebody possessing opinion (i.e. to
affect others) whilst restricting the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing the Sheikh to his loss of capability to
engage in fighting alone. Concerning this he said: “… Al-Ahaadeeth have indicated to the forbiddance of
killing the Sheikh ul-Faaniy … and it is necessary for the Sheikh to be Faaniy (i.e. lost ability due to
feebleness) and not if there remains in him the capability to fight, in which case he is killed and even if he
does not fight (i.e. it is permissible to target him) …

[(1) “Asaas ul-Balaaghah”, Az-Zamakhshariy: 301-302 and “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: “Al-‘Usafaa (pl. of
‘Aseef) means those who are utilised and the Wusafaa’ are the Mamaaleek (pl. of Mamlook i.e. slaves)”: p41].

As for the permissibility of killing the person of opinion (Dhu r-Ra’y), then there has not come mentioned
in the texts that which indicates to that, beyond the describing of him with the description that obliges the
impermissibility of killing him, in terms of him being a Sheikh. That is unless it is said: That the harm
inflicted upon the Muslims as a result of what is issued from him in terms of opinion could be greater and
more severe than the fighting of the fighter. However, such a statement would represent merely an
opinion whilst the specification of the evidences by the mere opinion (Ra’y) is not valid amongst those
who are equitable …” (1).

This is what Ash-Shawkaaniy stated in his book “As-Sail ul-Jarraar” although his opinion in his book
“Nail ul-Awtaar” is closer to the correct view in respect to affirming the permissibility of killing the
disbeliever Sheikh from the lands of the enemies if he possesses the opinion which is capable of bringing
benefit (to the enemy) and harm (to the Muslims), as was presented at the beginning of this study
alongside its deduction (Istidlaal).

4 - In addition to what we have mentioned, in respect to narrowing the scope of those whom it is
prohibited to kill from the lands of the enemy during war, and restricting that to those whom the texts
have validated that they should not be targeted, then alongside that, we view that the legitimate person in
authority has the right to expand or narrow the scope in respect to whom he commands not to be killed
from those whom it is not Haraam (prohibited) in origin to kill them; in terms of individuals or categories
of the people of those hostile lands. That is done in accordance to what he views to be in line with the
Maslahah (interest).

Through this combination, between the Shar’iy narrowing in respect to the scope of those whom it is
prohibited to target, from amongst the non-combatant individuals of the enemy, and the wide jurisdiction
of the person in authority to prohibit or permit the killing of other than those whom the Shar’iy texts have
mentioned (not to be killed), from those who are not actually involved in the fighting or combat …
Concerning these two matters together, I say: Through this narrowing and those wide powers or
jurisdiction, the person in authority can feel that he has a number of options available to him, in relation
to confronting the enemy. That is where it is possible for him, in light of these matters, to take the military
decisions that he believes will meet the necessary conditions to win the war, when considering the sensed
reality concerning that.

- The matter may necessitate, for example, that the person in authority resort to threaten the elimination
of large sectors of actual non-combatants, from those whom the Shar’iyah texts have not prohibited that
they be killed, whilst it is easy to eliminate them with a single strike or a number of strikes … The purpose
of such a threat would be to apply pressure upon the enemy to surrender.

[(1) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/532-533].

- On the other hand, the reality could dictate that the person in authority resort to that which will win
over the international or global public opinion, the public opinion within the lands of the enemy or certain
personalities or particular groups of people who have influence within the hostile lands … He could resort
at such a time to issuing g commands to the Islamic army to not target those persons or categories of
people. In this way, based upon the Shar’iy narrowing in respect to the persons who it is prohibited to kill
and leaving the right to the person in authority in respect to granting security or to take it away from
others from the individuals of the enemy, the Muslims are capable of confronting different situations,
circumstances and developments that they may face during war; on a local or international global level.
They can confront these realities according to what the Maslahah (interest) of the Muslims dictates and
the Maslahah of the Islamic Da’wah, which in the end represents the Maslahah of the whole of humanity
in its entirety.

With these observations we will close the pages of this current area and topic of study and move on to
open the pages of the next study, by the help of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

The Second Study

The ruling related to the spies from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)

- The Daleel (evidence) presented by the Fuqahaa’ related to the Hukm (ruling or judgement) applied
upon the spies of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb).

- In respect to killing the Kaafir Al-Harbiy (disbeliever warring) spy who is not a Mu’aahad (under
covenant) and not a Musta’min (granted security and safety), is it obligatory?
- If the disbeliever warring spy enters the Islamic State by the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Amaan (security) or the
Hukm (ruling) of Al-Mu’aahadah (covenant) made with the Islamic State, and then spies upon the
Muslims, what is the Hukm (judgement) in relation to him?

The Second Study

The ruling related to the spies from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)

In this subject of study, we will address the following matters:

- The Daleel presented or brought by the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Hukm (judgment) to be applied upon
the spy from the people of war.

- Then the Hukm applied upon the disbeliever warring spy who is not under covenant (Mu’aahad) or been
granted a security (Musta’min).

The Daleel related to the Hukm to be applied upon the spy from the people of war
The Fuqahaa’, when issuing their judgements or rulings upon the disbeliever spy from the people of war,
based that upon the Hadeeth which we have previously presented in the previous chapter which has been
recorded in a number of the books of the Sunnah, including Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim.

- In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: Iyyaas Bin Salamah Bin Ak’wah related from his father Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’:

ُ ‫ث‬
َ‫َث ََّم‬ ُ ‫سَعِ ْندََأَصْ َح ِابهَِ َي َت َح ََّد‬ ْ ‫أَ َتىَال َّن ِبيَّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَ َعيْنَم َِن‬
َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ َ‫َ َف َجل‬،‫ِين ََوهْ َوَفِيَ َس َف ٍر‬
ْ َ"ََ‫َ َف َقا َلَال َّن ِبيُّ َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلم‬،‫ا ْن َف َت َل‬
‫َ َف َق َتلَهَُ َف َن َّفلَهَُ َسلَ َب َُه‬."َُ‫اطلُبُوه ََُوا ْق ُتلُوه‬

A spy from the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) came to the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬while he was travelling. The
spy sat with the companions of the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and started talking and then snuck away. The
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said (to his companions), “Go after him and kill him”. So, he (Salamah Bin
‘Akwa) killed him. He (‫ )ﷺ‬then gave him the share booty and extra on top of that from him
(i.e. the spy) (1).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3051 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168].

- In Saheeh Muslim and narrated by Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ himself through ‘Ikramah Bin ‘Ammaar, he
said:

“We fought Hawaazin along with the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬. (One day) when we were having
our breakfast with the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, a man came riding a red camel. He made it kneel
down, extracted a strip of leather from its girth and tethered the camel with it. Then he began to
take food with the people and look (curiously around). We were in a poor condition as some of us
were on foot (being without any riding animals). All of a sudden, he left us hurriedly, came to his
camel, untethered it, made it kneel down, mounted it and urged the beast which ran off with him.
A man on a brown she-camel chased him (taking him for a spy). Salamah (the narrator) said: I
followed on foot. I ran on until I was near the thigh of the she-camel. I advanced further until I
was near the haunches of the camel. I advanced still further until I caught hold of the nose-string
of the camel. I made it kneel down. As soon as it placed its knee on the ground, I drew my sword
and struck at the head of the rider who fell down. I brought the camel leading it along with the
man’s baggage and weapons. The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬came forward to meet me and the
people were with him. He asked: Who has killed the man? The people said: Ibn ul-Akwa’. He
said: Everything of the man is for him” (1).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1753, 3/1374 and in Sunan Abu Dawud: 2654, 3/66].

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “It is apparent from the Hadeeth of ‘Ikramah (i.e. the above
Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim), that the motive for killing him was that he had discovered or gathered
information about the weak spots of the Muslims and had rushed off to inform his companions so that
they could take advantage of their heedlessness or inattention. His killing represented a Maslahah (interest)
for the Muslims” (1).

And in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy, he said: “This Hadeeth includes the permissibility of
killing the warring disbeliever spy (Al-Jasoo Al-Kaafir Al-Harbiy) and that has been agreed upon by the
Muslims …” (2).

Regarding this matter, I say: This spy whom An-Nawawiy had stated there is a consensus in respect to his
killing, only relates to the disbeliever warring spy if he was not from the citizens or subjects of the state
under covenant or treaty (with the Muslims) or was not from the Musta’mineen (those who had been
granted an Amaan (security)), whether this spy was overcome outside of Daar ul-Islaam or he slipped into
it in an unlawful manner. For that reason, the following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The spy who has
been mentioned made it appear that he was from those who have been granted an Amaan (security) and
then when he finished his spying needs, set off hastily and was caught out. It is therefore apparent that he
was a Harbiy (from the people at war) who had entered without an Amaan (security granted to him)” (3).

Moving on, two matters still remain to be known:

Firstly: Is it obligatory to kill the non-Mu’aahad and non-Musta’min disbeliever spy from the people at
war, if he is caught? Or is it permissible to kill him? Meaning, that the ‘Ijmaa’ (consensus) has been agreed
upon in relation to the permissibility of killing him, however despite that, it is also permissible to not kill
him, if the Maslahah (interest) is seen in not killing him.

Secondly: If the disbeliever spy from the people at war enters the Islamic State by the Hukm (ruling) of
Amaan (security) or by a treaty made with his state, i.e. if he entered in a legally legitimate and lawful
manner and then spied upon the Muslims, what then is the Hukm (judgment) to be passed upon him?

Firstly: In relation to the first matter related to the spy who is not a Mu’aahad (under covenant or treaty)
and not a Musta’min (under security and safety granted to him by the State), we say:

What has been presented previously in relation to the commentary upon the Hadeeth of the spy indicates
that the Hukm (ruling) of this spy is that he be killed without further detail i.e. without indication to the
killing being obligatory or permissible?

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/169, (2) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Muslim”: 7/247 and refer to “Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”,
Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 6/201, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/169].

This is whilst it is already known that the disbeliever from the people of war who has not been granted an
Amaan (security) or is not under treaty or covenant (Mu’aahad), that if the Muslims overcome him, it is
permissible to kill him just as it is permissible to not kill him (1). However, this disbeliever here, in this
circumstance, has undertaken spying against the Muslims, and so does this action of his make the choice
to kill him necessary or inevitable?

Understood from what came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, in respect to the explanation of the
description of the command of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to kill the spy (of Hawaazin), is that his killing was
only according to the judgment of what was in the interest (Maslahah) of the Muslims. That is as Ibn
Hajar said in the quote above: “His killing represented a Maslahah (interest) for the Muslims” (2). The
meaning of that is that his killing is not inevitable (or necessarily) has to be undertaken … It may be
understood from this speech that the command of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to kill the spy from Hawaazin
could have been issued because the spy had been able to obtain information that would benefit the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers), concerning the military situation of the Muslims, and had fled to deliver that
information to them, Consequently, in such a circumstance, it was necessary to prevent the spy from
delivering that information which he had obtained to the enemy, which made it necessary to chase after
him and kill him if caught and overcome before he makes his escape completely … That is particularly in
the case where in origin his blood was permitted to be spilled due to him being a Kaafir Harbiy
(disbeliever at war) with no Amaan (security) for him. That is also because killing him by his pursuers is
easier than capturing him and not killing him. That could make it more difficult for the pursuers and
increase the likelihood of the fleeing spy escaping.

This then, is what is said concerning the directing of the command to kill the spy of Hawaazin who was
not under treaty or possessor of an Amaan (security) i.e. That the surrounding circumstances of the matter
of spying here are what determined the choice of killing that spy and not because this Hukm (judgement
or ruling) represents the single ruling that must be implemented if the spy is caught.

That is from one angle of understanding, and in contrast, it is also possible that the command of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to kill the spy of Hawaazin was only issued because the Hukm (ruling) for the
spy is that it is obligatory to kill him Mutlaqan (absolutely and without restriction) when he is caught and
even if he has not been able to attain any information or deliver it, as long as his undertaking of spying has
been established and proven. Based upon this, the statement of the Fuqahaa’ that the Hukm (ruling) of
the spy is that he be killed, can be understood from this angle due to what it contains in terms of being a
deterrent to prevent anyone else from undertaking such an action or engaging in it.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/169].

- In “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said: “Asbagh said: The Harbiy (warring) spy is killed” (1).

- It was recorded in “Al-Kharaaj” of Abu Yousuf, that Haroon Ar-Rasheed asked him about the Hukm
(ruling) of the spy. He said: “And you asked, O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, about the spies … If they are from
Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), then strike their necks” (2).

Based on what we have presented, we have selected in respect to the spy that the Hukm of killing him is
that it is obligatory in accordance to what the command of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to kill him indicates to
apparently or evidently. That is because the measure of killing is stronger in respect to deterring this
activity being undertaken against the Islamic State … However, this is unless great or far reaching dangers
arise as a result of killing him which the Muslims are unable to confront. In such circumstances, the harm
resulting from the killing the spy are greater than the harm resulting from not killing him, and
consequently the implementation of killing him is halted. That is because, even if killing him is Waajib
(obligatory), it is established in the Shar’iyah that: “The Darar (harm) is repelled, by leaving or not
undertaking the Waajib (obligatory act), if a way to repel the harm is designated” (3).

Secondly: As for the second matter, which is:

If the Kaafir Al-Harbiy enters the Islamic State by the Hukm (ruling) of the individual Amaan (security)
granted to him personally or according to a treaty or covenant which has been agreed to with his state (or
land) and which permits the citizens of that land to enter the territories of the Islamic State, without the
need to apply or request an individual security (Amaan) i.e. without the need for an entry visa for every
individual … If this Kaafir Harbiy enters the lands of Islaam through this legally legitimate path and
thereafter spies upon the Muslims, what is the Hukm (ruling or verdict) in relation to him?

- According to the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf:

We have mentioned previously that the opinion of Abu Yousuf is that the Kaafir Harbiy spy be killed.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 4/1772, (2) “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: p205, (3) “Al-Furooq”, Al-qaraafiy: 2/123].

However, concerning this, the Istilaah (term) “Al-Kaafir Al-Harbiy” in its absolute and unrestricted
import, applies upon the Mu’aahad (one at treaty) and the Musta’min (one granted security), just as it
applies to those who have no Amaan (security) or ‘Ahd (covenant or treaty). Each of these two represent
the Kaafir Harbiy and only at the time of restriction or narrowing (At-Taqyeed) is the intended meaning
specified according to the mentioned restriction or narrowing demarcation (Qaid).
Therefore, Abu Yousuf rules upon this spy that he be killed as has been indicated by the unrestricted
quoted statement: “And you asked, O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, about the spies … If they are from Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war), then strike their necks” (1).

As for Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-hasan, then he has not viewed the permissibility of killing such a
Musta’min or Mu’aahad spy. Rather, he rules, he be subjected to a Ta’zeer (discretionary) punishment.
That is unless he entered the Islamic lands only for the purpose of spying whilst his request for an Amaan
(security) was only a cover to facilitate this task or mission of his. In such circumstances, it is permissible
to kill him but not obligatory, even if it is preferable or more proper to kill him so that would be a lesson
for others to take heed from.

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” by the two Imaams, Muhammad Bin Al-
Hasan and As-Sarakhsiy: “… And similarly, if it (spying) is undertaken by a Musta’min amongst us, then
he does not become in breach of his Amaan (security) … although he is subject to a punishment … That
is because he perpetrated that which is not lawful for him to do and he aimed to bring harm to the
Muslims through his act. And if, when he requested or sought the Amaan, the Muslims said to him: “We
have granted you a security (Amaan) if you are not a spy against the Muslims” and then it became
apparent that he was a Harbiy spy, then there is no security for him and there is no issue or problem in
killing him … And if he (the Imaam) views to take him as booty (i.e. as a slave), then there is likewise no
issue in that just like the other captives. Although, it is preferable that he be killed so that others take heed
through that. And if it was a woman instead of a man, then likewise there is no problem in killing her as
well” (2).

- As for the Maalikiy Madh’hab:

There are Fiqhiy texts from them which make the killing of the Musta’min or Mu’aahad spy permissible
i.e. not obligatory. That means it is permissible to kill the spy just as it is permitted to not kill him …
There are also other Fiqhiy texts within their Madh’hab which make the killing of such a spy designated
(Muta’ayyin).

[(1) “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: p205, (2) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: 5/2041-2042].

The following was stated in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer: “And it is permissible to kill the spy
(Al-‘Ain) i.e. the spy (Jasoos) who gathers information about the weak points of the Muslims and
transmits their information to the enemy, even if he is someone who has been granted an Amaan i.e. he
entered the land by an Amaan (security) granted to him. That is because the provision of security does not
cover his being a spy, it does not require it and it is not permissible to contract upon it” … And it was
mentioned in the Haashiyah of Ad-Dasooqiy in commentary of what proceeded: “His statement: And it is
permitted to kill the ‘Ain (spy) i.e. it means Kaafir. Suhnoon said: As long as the Imaam does not select to
enslave him. That is problematic (however), because enslaving him does not repel his harming,
contemplate (that)” (1).

That is whilst An-Nawawiy attributed to the two Imaams, Maalik and Al-Awzaa’iy, the view that it is
permissible to kill such a spy or enslave him. He said: “As for the Mu’aahad (one at treaty) spy and the
Dhimmiy, Al-Maalik and Al-Awzaa’iy said: He becomes in breach of the ‘Ahd (treaty or covenant). Then,
if he (the Imaam of the Muslims) sees that he should be enslaved, then he does so and it is permissible to
kill him. The Jamaaheer (majority) of the ‘Ulamaa have stated: His covenant is not breached (or nullified)
by that” (2).

There has also come, contrary to this aforementioned view, also within the Maalikiy Fiqh that which
makes it necessary (i.e. obligatory) to kill such a spy unless he announces his Islaam (i.e. states that he is
Muslim). The following was stated in “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: “And the spy is killed i.e. the spy spying over the
Muslims … even if he has been granted an Amaan (security). Indeed, even if the spy was a Dhimmiy,
amongst us (i.e. a subject under the contract of protection), or a Harbiy (from the people at war) who had
been granted a security (Amaan) … Killing is specified in respect to him, unless he embraces Islaam. And
it was transmitted from Suhnoon: If the Imaam views that he be enslaved then he can do that, but that is
problematic because it does not repel his evil (or harm)” (3).

- In respect to the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab:

- It was stated in the book “Al-‘Umm”: “I said to Ash-Shaafi’iy: What is your opinion concerning those
who correspond about the weakness or weak points (‘Awraat) of the Muslims from those who are
Musta’min (been granted a security [Amaan]) or Muwaadi’ (i.e. Mu’aahad, under treaty or covenant)? He
said: They are given a discretionary (Ta’zeer) punishment and imprisoned as a punishment. This does not
breach or nullify the ‘Ahd (covenant) thus making it Halaal (permissible) to enslave them or take
possession of their properties and blood” (4).

- The following was stated in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy, in relation to our Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy issue):

[(1) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasooqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/182, (2) Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim: 7/347, (3)
“Man’h ul-Jaleel Sharh ‘Alaa Mukhtasar Sayyidy Khaleel”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Alaish: 3/162-163, (4) “Al-Umm”, Ash-
Shaafi’iy: 4/350].

“As for the Mu’aahad and Dhimmiy spy … The majority of the ‘Ulamaa’ said: His ‘Ahd (covenant) is not
breached or nullified by that. Our companions (i.e. the Shaafi’iyah) said: Unless it was stipulated upon him
that the ‘Ahd (covenant) would be breached by that” (1).

- In “Al-Minhaaj Wa Sharhuhu Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” it was stated: “An Amaan (security) harming the
Muslims is not permitted and it is not valid, that is like the spy and gatherer of information. That is due to
the report: “There is no Darar (harm) and no Diraar (harming)” (2). And it is necessary, as the Imaam
said, that he does not deserve or have the right to reach a place of security (Ma’man i.e. outside of the
Islamic land) and so he is assassinated because the entry of his likes represents a Khiyaanah (treachery)”
(3).

This is what has come from the Shaafi’iyah. If we wanted to reconcile between these Fiqhiy texts within
the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab, we would say:

A - What came stated in the book “Al-Umm” relates specifically to the Kaafir Al-Harbiy who had been
granted an ‘Ahd (covenant) and an Amaan (security), whilst not engaging in spying had not been
stipulated upon him and when he was granted the Amaan (security) he was not planning to spy upon the
Muslims, according to what was apparent, and then after his obtaining of the security (Amaan) he
undertook some spying activity … Regarding such a spy, his judgment or ruling (Hukm) is that he is
imprisoned and given a Ta’zeer (discretionary) punishment, whilst it is not permitted to kill him under the
pretext that he had breached and nullified the Amaan (security). That is because a spy such as this, in these
circumstances, is not considered to be in breach of his covenant (‘Ahd).

B - As for the Fiqhiy text found in the explanation of Saheeh Muslim, then it explains a new matter within
the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab and that is: That if the Kaafir Al-Harbiy was granted an ‘Ahd (covenant) or an
Amaan (security) upon the condition that he would not spy upon the Muslims and then violated that
condition, he would then be considered to be in breach of his ‘Ahd (covenant). This means that he will
then be dealt with according to the treatment of the Kaafir Harbiy who does not have an ‘Ahd or an
Amaan. Similar to that, is the case of the Dhimmiy, upon whom it was stipulated, during the contraction
of the Dhimmah, that he would not spy and thereafter violated that condition. The Hukm (ruling or
judgment) for this spy is: “The Imaam chooses either that he be killed, made a slave, let go or be
ransomed. If he becomes Muslims before the choice then the killing, enslaving and ransom is abstained
from …” (4) i.e.: It is permissible and not obligatory to kill this type of spy as long as he has not accepted
Islaam.

[(1) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 7/347, (2) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 6/644, Ibn Maajah: 2340, 2/784 and Ash-Sheikh
Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 1895, 2/39, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/238, (4) “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/259].

C - As for the text found in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: It applies to the Kaafir Al-Harbiy (disbeliever from
the people at war) who had been provided with an Amaan (security) or an entry visa to enter the lands or
territories of the Islamic State. Then it was established by the Islamic intelligence department that he is an
individual working within a spy ring, for example, however it has not been established that he had
undertaken any spy activity yet. Regarding such a person, his presence within the lands is a source of
danger for the State and as such he must be removed by informing him that his Amaan (security) has been
withdrawn and that his remaining is undesirable or unwelcome. He is expelled to outside of the borders of
the Islamic State and does not have the right to be delivered to his place of security or safety within his
own land … Then, outside of the borders of the State he is assassinated if he does not manage to flee and
escape to safety. That is because after he had been expelled outside of the State he became a Harbiy
(person at war) with no Amaan (security) for him and hence killing him is valid or assassinating him, if he
is within its grasp. That is just like others from among the warring disbelievers, indeed it is more of a
priority to eliminate him than others due to the danger that he poses to the State due to his being a spy
working within a spying organisation against the Muslims.

The above then, represents what has come mentioned regarding this issue within the Madh’hab of the
Shaafi’iyah.

- The view of the Hanaabilah in relation to this issue:

They have mentioned that the ‘Ahd (covenant) of the Dhimmiyeen (Ahl udh-Dhimmah i.e. non-Muslim
subjects of the Islamic State) is breached and nullified by the engagement in spying in addition to other
violations which have been listed: “That is whether the Imaam stipulated that if they were to do that, then
their ‘Ahd would be breached or he did not stipulate that, according to the most correct of the attributed
reports (i.e. opinions)” (1).

Based upon this, then by greater reason, the ‘Ahd (covenant) of the Kaafir Al-Harbiy who is a Musta’min
or Mu’aahad would be breached and nullified by engaging in spying. That is because the Amaan of the
Musta’min or the Mu’aahad is weaker than the ‘Ahd of the Dhimmah.

They said: “Concerning the one from them, whom we have ruled or judged to be in breach of his ‘Ahd,
the Imaam has a choice between four options: To kill, enslave, ransom or let him go free, just like the
prisoner from the people of war. That is because he is a Kaafir (disbeliever) whom we have caught in our
land without an ‘Ahd (covenant) and no ‘Aqd (contract) or what resembles that. He therefore resembles
the Harbiy (one at war) thief …” (2).

This is according to the most authentic report (attributed to the Hanaabilah) which dictates the
nullification or breach of the ‘Ahd as a result of engaging in spying in addition to other violations which
they have listed …

[(1) “Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/802 and refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/608 and “Ash-Sharh
ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/634, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/609].

As for the second report (attributed to the Hanaabilah) then it states: “He does not breach or nullify his
‘Ahd by it rather the Hadd (prescribed set punishment) is established upon him in respect to that which
obliges the Hadd or the Qiassa is applied in relation to that which obliges the Qisaas, whilst he is given a
Ta’zeer (discretionar) punishment in relation to other than that, according to what will deter others from
doing what he did …” (1).

This is whilst spying does not fall under the category of the Hudood (set prescribed punishments) nor
does it fall under the remit of Al-Qisaas (retaliatory punishment for murder and inflicting of wounds).
Rather, it falls under the scope of the Ta’zeeraat (non-Hudood punishments) and consequently, the
Dhimmiy and those who are attached to him (in ruling) from the disbelievers like the Musta’mineen and
the Mu’aahadeen, are punished with a Ta’zeer punishment that serves as a deterrent to others. It is not
permitted to pass the judgment of execution upon the spy from among them, in accordance to this
second opinion attributed to the Hanaabilah.

This is the opinion that Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy attributed to the majority of the ‘Ulamaa, as previously
mentioned, and he attributed it to the Shaafi’iyah as well, in the situation of no prior stipulation of a
condition upon them to refrain from spying activities.

The above then is what we find within the Madh’hab of the Haanbilah in respect to the Mas’alah of the
spies of the warring people from the disbelievers, who are Musta’mineen and or Mu’aahadeen, joining
them to the spies of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, according to what is apparent.

There is the attributed opinion stating: That the ‘Ahd is breached and nullified in respect to them and this
represents the most authentic opinion attributed to them.
And the attributed report that agrees with the opinion of the majority.

Finally: What is our opinion in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)? I.e. the Mas’alah of the
Kaafir Al-Harbiy who has entered the Islamic State by a lawful manner by obtaining an entry visa for
example or if a peace Mu’aahadah (treaty) existed between his state and the Islamic State, that permitted
the subjects of each of these states to move between the two states without the need for an entry visa, that
concerning this Musta’min, Mu’aahad or Muwaadi’ disbeliever from the people at war, what is the Hukm
(ruling) to be applied upon him, in the case where he engages in spying upon the Muslims?

I say: We choose here, what we have chosen in respect to the Hukm (ruling) applicable upon the warring
spy who does not possess an Amaan or ‘Ahd, and that is the Hukm of execution and the implementation
of that Hukm, unless dangers and harms result from that which are greater that the harm of not
implementing the ruling or judgement upon him.

The reason for us selecting this Hukm is also the Hadeeth about the spy of Hawaazin. That is the Hadeeth
that we previously relied upon to specify the Hukm of execution upon the Kaafir Al-Harbiy who has no
Amaan (security) and no ‘Ahd (covenant).

That is because concerning this spy, the spy of Hawaazin, it is possible to understand that he did not have
an Amaan (security) or an ‘Ahd (covenant), but only deceived the Muslims in respect to that. Based upon
that, Al-Bukhaariy placed this Hadeeth under the heading of: “The chapter or topic (Baab) of the Harbiy
who entered Daar ul-Islaam (i.e. land of the Muslims) without and Amaan” (1). I say: It is also possible to
understand that he had entered the Muslim military camp with an Amaan as is indicated to by what is
apparent from his conduct and behaviour. That is according to what is understood apparently from the
texts: “Then he sat amongst his companions speaking …” (2) i.e. amongst the companions of the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, “Then he went on to have lunch or food with the people” (3) … Based on what is
understood apparently (Zhaahiran) Abu Dawud placed this Hadeeth in his Sunan under the heading:
“Chapter or topic concerning the Musta’min spy” (4). That is because he considered the spy to be a
Musta’min who had entered the Muslim camp by an Amaan (granting of security). He then quoted the
Hadeeth in which it was mentioned: “Then he crept or snuck off, so the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: Go after
him (or seek him out) and kill him” (5). That was after his affair had been discovered whilst his
behaviour indicates that he had come to engage in spying and he took the security which he had obtained
as a means to cover his activities, as it appears.

I say: In the case where it is possible to understand that the spy of Hawaazin did not have an Amaan
(security), as is understood from the classification of Al-Bukhaariy, and it is also possible to understand
that he had already obtained a security (Amaan) as was stated in the classification of Abu Dawud for the
same Hadeeth … As long as both of these possible understandings are possible, then the descriptive
characteristic (Wasd) which represents the Manaat (reality) of the Hukm of execution to be applied upon
the spy, this description combines both of these two possible understandings together. This description
(Wasf) is that he is a Kaafir Harbiy spy, regardless of whether he had a prior Amaan (security) or didn’t
possess one.

As such, the opinion which we choose in relation to this spy is the Hukm of killing him as an obligation,
in accordance to the apparent meaning of what the command of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to kill him indicated
to. It is also because applying the death sentence represents a stronger deterrent to prevent the damaging
and harmful activity of spies against the Islamic State, than the mere imprisonment and imposition of the
Ta’zeer (discretionary) punishment.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of this study related to the spies from the people at war (Ahl
ul-Harb) and we now move on to our next study by the help of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168. The Baab (Chapter or topic heading) number: 173 from the Book of Al-Jihaad and As-Siyar, (2)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3051, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1754, 3/1374, (4) Sunan Abu Dawud: Chapter
number: 110 from the Kitaab of Al-Jihaad, (5) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3653, 3/66].

The Third Study

Employing lying and deception with the enemies during war

We are still in the chapter discussing how the Muslims deal with the enemies during war, in relation to that
which is included within the war policy dictated by the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. It is also the title of the
volume; the chapters and studies of which we are addressing.

Within this context, is it permissible, in our dealings with the enemy during war, for us to utilise styles of
At-Tawriyah (concealment, allusion), Al-Khidaa’ (deception), Al-Kadhib (lying) and what is similar from
that which the need calls for usually with the aim of deceiving the enemy so that it cannot, for example,
discover the war plans which have been drawn to strike it, and also so that it is not enabled to put down a
successful plan which targets striking the Muslims?

This is the subject area of this study.

As such, as we see it, there are two points that this study revolves around:

1 - The First Point: Is the utilisation of deception in war a necessary or essential (Darooriy) matter? And
what is intended by it amongst the specialists in military affairs? With examples of that from the Prophetic
Seerah.

2 - The Second Point: The Shar’iyah texts which make the use of styles of deception and trickery
permissible with the enemy and the statements of the ‘Ulamaa’ concerning this.
1 - The First Point: Is the utilisation of deception in war a necessary or essential (Darooriy)
matter? And what is intended by it amongst the specialists in military affairs? With examples of
that from the Prophetic Seerah.

- Brigadier General Dr. Muhammad Daahir Witr said the following in his book: “The Military
Administration”:

“It (i.e. the deception) represents a part of military science and it is Darooriy (necessary or essential) in
battles upon the tactical (1) and strategic (2) level. It is the art of: Feigning, camouflaging and covering or
concealing the true reality and undertaking acts of deception, to divert the enemy from the main
directions, places and acts” (3).

The utilisation of this military art has been used a lot in battles and military expeditions during the ere of
the Prophethood.

An example of that is when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬set off on a military expedition to Bani Lihyaan:

He set off towards the north from Al-Madinah, upon the route to Ash-Shaam (Syria), whilst this enemy
was located in the region falling between Amj and ‘Usfaan (4), which is in the south close to Makkah.
After continuing in the march north for a while he quickly turned towards the south towards the land of
the enemy, to take them by surprise in their own heartland, after they had felt assured by the news that
came to them, informing them that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was busy upon the northern front, north of Al-
Madinah (5).

This represents an example of the practise of feigning or camouflaging in respect to the direction and in
respect to the intended location …

[(1) “Tactics (At-Takteek): This refers to what takes place during the actually fighting in the battlefield and includes the
different combat actions, their management, arrangement, leaderships and in summary it is: “The art of combat”. The word
“Takteek” has been used in some writings to express that this matter is localised and its impact is limited in contrast to the
strategy”, “Introduction to the Islamic military doctrine and strategy”: p528, Brigadier General: Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen
‘Ali Mahfouzh, (2) “The higher or greater or comprehensive strategy represents the coordination and directing of all of the
political, economic, societal and military capabilities of the state etc. towards the accomplishment of the objective of the war
policy. This means that the armed forces represent no more than one single tool from amongst the strategic tools to realise and
accomplish the highest aims and objectives of the state … The strategy (i.e. not higher, greater or comprehensive): It is specific
to the military aspect alone, in terms of the military struggle, with the aim of accomplishing the goals which the higher strategy
has specified. It is therefore a speciality of the military leadership and deals with issues of the higher military, like the
distribution of armed forces along the (battle) fronts, the management and distribution of supplies related to the needs of war,
commanding the general war, upon this high level. In summary it is: “The art of leading or commanding the war”. The strategy
aims to gain military victory alone because the concern of what happens after the war, is the speciality of the higher strategy.
And sometimes the term “strategy” is used to express about the main or major policy or plans or to express about the great
importance of a matter …”: The same reference as previous quote, (3) “Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah” (Military Administration):
Muhammad Daahir Wir: p83, (4) These two locations can be found in “The Atlas of Islamic History”: map number: 41 p. 65
and in the “Atlas of Arab History” by Shawqiy Abu Khalil: p31, (5) Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/297 and
“Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/276].

An example of feigning and camouflaging in respect to the actions, is that which took place in the
Ghazwah of Mu’tah when the Muslims, who numbered 3000, confronted their enemies of Roman and
Arabs who totalled more than 200,000 in number. The following came mentioned in the reports about
this Ghazwah:

“When Abdullah Ibn Rawaahah was killed, the Muslim ranks broke up and were overcome until two were
not seen together. Then when they gathered around Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed Allah defeated the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers)” and in another narration: “Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed brought the rear to the front
and shifted the right and left flanks and so the enemy disbelieved their situation (i.e. seeing new fighters
they had not seen before). And they said: They have come with reinforcements! And so they were terrified
and they were taken in defeat fleeing, and the Muslims took most of what they had had with them as
booty” (1) … This is in relation to the first point.

2 - The Second Point: The Shar’iyah texts which make the use of styles of deception and trickery
permissible with the enemy and the statements of the ‘Ulamaa’ concerning this.

The origin in respect to the behaviour and conduct of the Muslim is that he is characterised by clarity,
frankness and truthfulness. However, these elevated characteristics are not permitted to be adhered to
during war with the enemy, if by its nature, it could cause harm to befall the Muslims or prevent them
from being victorious in the battles and wars.

Concerning this, the Shar’iyah texts have come providing permission to discard these values during these
times. Indeed, they encourage or urge the use of what contradicts them in terms of styles, in their
description as being tools to be used against the enemy to inflict defeat upon it.

The reality of the legally legitimate war is that it is permitted in it that which is not permissible (Mubaah)
outside of it. As such, if the blood of the enemies, outside of the legal war, is in origin, prohibited and not
permitted to spill it … Then when the legal war arrives the Haraam of that blood becomes Halaal!

In the same manner, it is not strange that the prohibited styles in respect to dealing with the enemy,
outside of war, in terms of lying, deceiving and deception, become Mubaah (permissible) when war ignites
between the Muslims and that enemy.

[(1) “As-Seerah An-Nabawiyah”, Ahmad Zainiy Dahlaan upon the margins of “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 2/274. Also refer for
further information about this Ghazwah in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/70 and onwards].

Another point is that the objective behind utilising those indicated to styles during war, is only for them to
be a means to securing the victory and hastening the end of the fighting. That is with the intended
purpose of limiting the shedding of blood or loss of life from both sides; the Muslims and their enemies.
As such, this provides this styles with a positive value within the scope and context of what they are being
utilised for.

In any case, we will now present those Shar’iyah texts which have come providing the (exceptional)
permission (Rukhsah) or the encouragement to employ the styles of deception against the enemy during
the wars and during the preparation for them.

1 - In respect to “At-Tawriyah” (concealment or allusion): The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy and Muslim and related from Ka’b Bin Maalik: “It was rare when the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬wanted to undertake a Ghazwah except that he concealed it by another …” (1). In “Fat’h ul-
Baariy” it was stated: Warraa (i.e. Tawriyah) means: Satar (to cover or conceal) and it used to portray or
give the impression of a matter whilst something else is intended … And it is said: That in war it means
taking the enemy by surprise” (2). “Also mentioned in it was: “That the intended meaning is that he
intended a matter but did not reveal it. That is like intending to undertake a military expedition (Ghazwah)
is the East but ask about a matter situated in the West and then prepare for travel, whilst those who saw
him or heard him would think that they were intending to head west” (3).

This is what has come mentioned in relation to “At-Tawriyah” (i.e. concealing the true intentions) and by
its nature it is designed to deceive the enemy and misdirect or mislead it. Indeed, the Shar’iy text has come
providing the permission (Rukhsah) to:
B - Utilise blatant deception or it has urged its use, in respect to dealing with the enemy during war: In
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim, it was related from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that
he said: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: Al-Harb Khud’ah” (war is deception or trickery) (4).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2948, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/113. Saheeh Muslim: 2769, 8/212. In “Al-Qastalaaniy ‘Alaa l-Bukhaariy”:
5/111, he mentions a definition for At-Tawriyah in respect to it referring to an expressed wording that can be understood with
two meanings where one of them comes to the mind more than the other. However, his definition could have been more
general to encompass its meaning and application. Refer to “At-Talkhees Fee ‘Uloom il-Balaaghah”, Al-Qazweeniy Al-Khateeb:
p359, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/113, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/159 and refer to “Subul us-Salaam”: 4/48, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:
3030, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/158. Saheeh Muslim: 1740, 3/1362. In “Fat’h ul-Baariy” it was stated: “Al-Khattaabiy said … “The
origin of Al-Khad’u means: Displaying or revealing a matter whilst concealing the opposite of it”: 6/158].

In “Fat’h ul-Baariy” it was stated: “It includes an encouragement to be alert during war and
recommendation of deceiving the disbelievers, and that the one who is not alert to that is not secure or
safe that the matter won’t be reversed against him. Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said: The Khidaa’ (deception) in war
takes place takes place by allusion or indication and by concealing and other than that. The Hadeeth
includes an indication to utilise Ar-Ra’y (opinion) during war, indeed the need for it is more certain that
bravery. And for this reason, the restriction fell upon what is indicated to by this Hadeeth …” (1).

And in the Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: “And the ‘Ulamaa have agreed upon the
permissibility of deceiving the disbelievers during war when or however the deception is possible to
accomplish, unless it relates to the breaching of an ‘Ahd (covenant) or Amaan (security), as that is not
Halaal” (2).

An example of this is what came related about the incident of Abu Baseer shortly after the Sulh (treaty) of
Al-Hudaibiyah:

“And so Abu Baseer said to one of the two men: “By Allah, I do not see that this sword of yours is
good”. And so the other unsheathed it and said: “Yes, by Allah, I have experience with it!” (i.e. its use).
Abu Baseer then said: “Let me look at it”. He then let him take it and he (Abu Baseer) struck him until he
was dead” (3).

Another example of such deception of trickery: “And what ‘Ali Bin Abi Taalib, may Allah reward him, did
on the day of Al-Khandaq (the battle of the trench) when he engaged in single combat with ‘Amr Bin
Wudd. He said: “Did you not come to face me on the basis that you will not seek assistance with others
against me? So, who are those who you have invited (to join you)?”. And so he turned like the one trying
to disprove it, then ‘Ali struck his two legs with a blow that severed them …” (4).

The above is some of what had come mentioned in relation to the practise of deception or trickery in war.

C - Concerning, lying in war, the following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim:

“Umm Kulthoom Bint ‘Uqbah Bin Abi Mu’ait related that she heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/158, (2) Sharh An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim: 7/320. Also refer to “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah”: p174, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/396-397 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/446, (3) Sunan Abu
Dawud: 2765, 3/114. Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh” in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2403, 3/531, (4) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: 1/120 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/446].

‫َأَ ْوَ َي ُقولَُ َخيْرا‬،‫ِيَخيْرا‬ ِ ‫َال َك َّذابُ َالَّذِيَيُصْ ِلحَُ َبي َْنَال َّن‬
َ ‫َ َف َي ْنم‬،‫اس‬ ْ ‫ْس‬َ ‫لَي‬
“The one who reconciles or rectifies between the people, by building upon the good or saying
good”.
Ibn Shihaab said: And I have not heard that he made permissible anything of what the people say. “It is a
lie except in three (realities): Al-Harb (war), Al-Islaah (reconciliation) between the people and the speech
of the man to his wife and the speech of the wife to her husband” (1). The following came mentioned in
the Sharh of An-Nawawiy of Saheeh Muslim:

“At-Tabariy said: The lying permitted during war is only that which is by way of allusion or intimation,
which is less than the reality of lying, as it is not Halaal. This is his speech, although what is apparent is the
permissibility of undertaking real lying. However, limiting it to allusion and intimation is better or
preferred. And Allah knows best” (2).

Concerning this, the provision of the Rukhsah (special permission) to lie during war, the following came
mentioned about the incident of the killing of Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 2605, 4/2011. Concerning this, Ibn Shihaab, here, did not reach the second half of the Hadeeth. It is
however in any case Saheeh (authentic) because it (the chain) is connected (Mawsool) in another Riwaayah (report). Al-Albaaniy
said that it is Saheeh and mentioned it in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 4113, 3/930. The Hadeeth in Sunan Abu Dawud is:
4921 and 4/386.

In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim it was related from Jaabir: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:
Who will be designated for Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf? For verily he has insulted Allah and His
Messenger!” Muhammad Bin Maslamah said: “O Messenger of Allah! Do you wish that I kill
him?” He said: “Yes”. He said: “Do you permit me to utilise certain speech (Fallaaqul)!” He
said: “Speak (i.e. use the type of speech you see fit)!” (1).

What is intended here, is that the matter may require lying when speaking to Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf to make
him feel assured and secure in the presence of Maslamah and his companion i.e. the team that had been
delegated with the mission to kill Ka’b. Then when this assurance took place, killing him became an easy
matter to accomplish. The permission provided to Maslamah by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to say what he deemed fit,
was in order to facilitate his successful completion of his task.

When commenting upon the permission of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬provided to Maslamah to say what he
wanted to say, Ibn Hajar said: “Included within this permission if to lie explicitly and by insinuation. Ibn
ul-‘Arabiy said: Al-Kadhib (lying) during war is a permissible exception by way of the text for Muslims to
employ according to their need for it and the ‘Aql (mind) has no place in regards to it. Had the prohibition
of the action been by way of the ‘Aql (mind) the Halaal would not have been overturned” (2).

In summary, this study revolves around what the battle with the enemy dictates or requires in respect to
“Ar-Ra’y, Wa l-Harb, Wa l-Makeedah” (Opinion, war and scheming” (3). The Islamic Sharee’ah has
therefore not restricted the one in whose hand lies the matter of war, in respect to utilising the styles that
fall under this scope and even if it means resorting to blatant or explicit lying, according to the (Fiqhiy)
view that has been given preponderance to, according to what the Shar’iyah texts have indicated to. That
is as long as it falls under the legally legitimate Maslahah (interest) and the limits that have been explained
during the course of this study.

With that, we conclude the discussion concerning the legal legitimacy of utilising the styles of deception,
trickery and lying with the enemy during war, and we now move on to the discussion of another study by
the help of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla.

[(1) Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy: 3032, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/160. The wording presented here is from Saheeh Muslim: 1801, 3/1425,
(2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/159, (3) This was said by Al-Habaab Bin Al-Mundhir in relation to what he indicated to the Messenger
‫ ﷺ‬on the occasion of the battle of Badr, in respect to moving his forces to the nearest water towards the position of the
Quraish instead of the currently chosen location which was the closest water source to Al-Madinah. To then bury the other
wells and build a basin for the well that they were stationed at. In that way the water would be made available to the Muslims
and be cut off from the army of the Mushrikeen! The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬approved of this expression used by Habaab and his war
advise that he indicated to. He then issued the command for the forces to move to where Habaab Bin Al-Mundhir had
indicated to. Refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/36].

The Fourth Study

The Enemy Corpses

This is the final study of the chapter specifically allocated to the issue of the treatment of the enemies
during war.

In the case where the discussion of the former studies of this chapter have revolved around what is
Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) and what is not Mashroo’ in relation to the treatment of the enemies, whilst
they are living, this final chapter will revolve around what is legal and illegal in respect to the treatment of
those enemies who have been left dead as a result of the bloody clash upon the battlefield and the lifeless
bodies.

According to the plan of this paper, this study related to the corpses of the enemy is focused around the
following issues:
1 - The First Issue: At-Tamtheel (mutilation) of the corpses of the enemies.

2- The Second Issue: The dissection of the corpses of the enemies for the purpose of medical research.

3 - The Third Issue: Burying the bodies of the enemies.

4 - The Fourth Issue: Delivering the corpses of the enemies to their people.

The First Issue

At-Tamtheel (mutilation) of the corpses of the enemies

The discussion of this issue will revolve around the following matters:

1 - The First Matter: What is meant by the Tamtheel of the corpses?

2 - The Second Matter: What are the Shar’iyah texts which have come related to this issue?

3 - The Third Matter: What are the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa concerning the mutilation of the corpses of
the enemy?

4 - The Fourth Matter: What is the opinion that we view and weigh to be strongest in respect to this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)?

A - The First Matter: What is meant by the Tamtheel of the corpses?

- In (the dictionary “Misbaah ul-Muneer” it was stated: “Mathaltu Bil Qateel Mathlan” from the angle of:
Killing and beating, if you severed or mutilated a part of him and the effects of your act are apparent, as
torture or maltreatment (Tankeel). The Tashdeed (i.e. Shaddah upon the letter “Thaa’” is to indicate the
exaggeration. Its Ism (noun) “Al-Muthlah” upon the form of “Ghurfah” (1). It was also mentioned in it
ُ ْ‫)جدَ ع‬
(i.e. Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”): “Jada’tu (َ‫ت‬ َ Al-Anf Jad’an (I cut off the nose), from the angle that
establishes: Qata’tuhu (I cut or severed it) and the same applies in respect to the ear, hand and lips …” (2).

Therefore, “Al-Muthlah” or “At-Tamtheel” with the corpse linguistically means: Severing or separating
any part or organ of the body and disfiguring it. This is what the Fuqahaa’ and Muhadditheen (scholars of
Hadeeth) came with in relation to the definition of “Al-Muthlah” or “At-Tamtheel”. That is like their
statement: “Al-Muthlah: That the killed person is mutilated (by cutting), or gauged (like his eye) or an
organ or body part is severed” (3).

[(1) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p215, (2) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p36, (3) “Talabat ut-Talabah”, An-Nasafiy: p167].

“It is said: Math’thala (َ‫ ) َم َّث َل‬Bil Qateel (He mutilated the killed person): If he cut off his nose, ear, or
tongue, or any part of him” (1) and “Math’thala Bil Qateel” (He mutilated the killed person): If he cut
(mutilated) him or disfigured his natural features or form” (2).

Also, naturally entering under this category, is severing the heads of the killed and sending then here and
there, for certain ends. In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” it was stated: “Capitating the heads is
Muthlah (i.e. mutilation)” (3).

The above is what relates to the first matter i.e. the intended meaning of At-Tamtheel (mutilation) of the
corpses.

B - The Second Matter: What are the Shar’iyah texts which have come related to
this issue?

A number of reports have come related to the mutilation of the corpses; concerning their reality and
Hukm (legal ruling). The following represents some of what has been reported in respect to that:

- From the reports related to the Ghazwah of Uhud, in which the Muslims were afflicted and their killed
were mutilated:

In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy the following was related: “Abu Sufyaan said: A day for a day (i.e. Uhud for Badr)
and war means misfortunes (or reversal of fortunes). You will find mutilations that I did not order to be
undertaken and yet have not bothered me” (4).

Concerning that mutilation, where the Mushrikeen disfigured the corpses of the Muslims at Uhud, the
following came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ibn Ishaaq said: Saalih Bin Kaisaan said: Hind (5)
alongside other women went out (on to the battlefield) mutilating those who had been killed, cutting off
their ears and nose, so that Hind could make from that packages and necklaces. And she gave the
packages and necklaces to Wahshiy as a reward for killing Hamzah! She cut the liver of Hamzah and
chewed it but was unable to swallow it and thus spat it out!” (6).

[(1) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/46, (2) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 2/210, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
1/110, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy”, from the Hadeeth of Al-Baraa’: 4043, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/350, (5) Hind Bin ‘Utbah Bin
Rabee’ah, the wife of Abu Sufyaan and her father was killed at Badr, (6) “fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/352].

- In the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy, with a Saheeh Sanad (authentic chain of narrators), concerning this issue
also, it was related from Ubayy Bin Ka’b, may Allah be pleased with him: “He said: On the Day of Uhud,
sixty-four of the Ansar were killed, and six from the Muhaajireen, one of whom was Hamzah, and they
mutilated them, so the Ansar said: “If, (in the future) we are able to kill them on a day like this, we would
mutilate from among them as twice as they (mutilate from among us)”. He (the narrator) said: Then, on
the day of the Conquest of Makkah, Allah revealed:

َ‫ين‬ ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ ‫َّاب َِر‬ َ ‫ِنَص َبرْ ُت ْمَلَه َُو‬
َ ‫َۖولَئ‬ ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُوقِ ْب ُت‬
َ َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف َعاقِب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience, then
it is better for those who are patient (16:126).

Then a man said: “There shall be no Quraish after today”. But the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬said:
“Leave the people, except for four”” (1)

- And in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “That the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, when he saw that which he
saw (i.e. the mutilation of his paternal uncle Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him): “If it would not
bring grief and sadness to Safiyah (2), and for it to be a Sunnah after me (i.e. which I leave), I would have
left him (i.e. Hamzah) to be in the stomachs of predatory or scavenger beasts and the pickings of birds.
And if Allah makes me prevail over Quraish, on a battlefield from amongst the battlefields, I would
certainly mutilate 30 men from them” (3). When the Muslims saw the grief of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬and his severe anger upon those whom did that to his paternal uncle, they said: “By Allah, if Allah
grants us victory over them on a day in time, we will certainly mutilate them, in a manner that none of the
Arabs have done before” … Ibn Ishaaq said: I was told by one I don’t question that Ibn ‘Abbaas said:
Verily, Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla revealed concerning that, in relation to the statement of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and what his companions said:

َ‫ين‬ ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ ‫َّاب ِر‬ َ ‫ِنَص َبرْ ُت َْمَلَه َُو‬
َ ‫َۖولَئ‬ ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُوقِ ْب ُت‬
َ َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف َعاقِب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience, then
it is better for those who are patient (16:126).

The Messenger of Allah (then later) chose to pardon and forbade the practise of mutilation” (4).

- And recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy it was related: “Abdullah Bin Yazeed related from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:
That he forbade the Nuhbaa (robbery) and the Muthlah (mutilation)” (5).

[(1) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 3129, 5/299-300. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Hasan Saheeh ul-Isnaad” in his “Saheeh Sunan At-
Tirmidhiy”: 3501. 3/67, (2) Safiyah: The sister of Hamzah and paternal aunt of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, (3) In another related version it
was stated: “I would certainly mutilate seventy men from them”, “Asbaab un-Nuzool”, Al-Waahidiy: p192, (4) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/171. Refer to: “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaa as-Saheehaini”, Al-Haakim, where he quoted the Hadeeth
of the mutilation of Hamzah and the statement of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Had it not been that Safiyah would be grieved or saddened
…”, then he said: “Saheeh upon the Shart (conditionality) of Muslim, but they (i.e. Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record
it”: 3/196-197, (5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/119 and in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2474].

In the Sharh (explanation) of this text, the following was mentioned: “… “An-Nuhbaa”: Is from the word
“An-Nahb” and that is when a person takes something that is not his in an open or blatant manner” (1).
“Al-Muthlah”: Means disfiguring the natural features or form, like the cutting off of body parts or
severing the tongues and what is similar” (2).

- In Saheeh Muslim, from the Hadeeth of Buraidah, which we have mentioned previously frequently, the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would say to the commanders of his armies and military expeditionary forces:

‫واَولِيدا‬ َ ُ‫ُواَوالََ ُت َم ِّثَل‬

َ ُ‫واَوالََ َت ْق ُتل‬ ِ َّ ‫َب‬
َ ُّ‫اّلل ََوالََ َت ُغل‬
َ ‫واَوالََ َت ْغ ِدر‬ ِ َّ ‫يل‬
ِ ‫ََّللاَ َقا ِتلُواَ َمنْ َ َك َف َر‬ ِ ‫ِيَس ِب‬ ِ َّ ‫واَبسْ ِم‬
َ ‫ََّللا ََوف‬ ِ ‫اغ ُز‬
ْ
 “Go out to fight in the name of Allah, in the way of Allah. Fight those who have disbelieved in
Allah and do not cheat in respect to the spoils of war or be treacherous, nor mutilate, and do not
kill a child …” (3).

These texts indicate to what is intended by the “Tamtheel” (mutilation or disfigurement) of the bodies and
how it takes place. Similarly, they indicate to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to this mutilation, and that
is what we will discuss in the third matter of this issue.

C - The Third Matter: What are the opinions of the ‘Ulamaa concerning the
mutilation of the corpses of the enemy?

- The First Opinion:

It is that the “Tamtheel” (mutilation) of the bodies of the enemies was permissible in Islaam, upon the
condition that the treatment be like for like and equal. Then this permissibility was abrogated and the
mutilation became Haraam and even if the enemy mutilates the bodies of the Muslims.

At-Tabariy said in his Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُوقِ ْب ُت‬

َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف ََعاقِب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted (An-Nahl: 126).

“Some of them said: It was revealed because the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions had sworn,
when the Mushrikeen did what they did to the Muslims who had been killed in terms of mutilation, on the
day of Uhud, that they would exceed their acts of mutilation if they were granted victory over them in
battle (in the future). Then, Allah forbade them from that in this Aayah and commanded them to restrict
the mutilation of them, if they have defeated them, to the like or equal to what they did. Then He
commanded them, after that, to not undertake mutilation and to give preference to remain patient before
that. That was with His Qawl:

‫َباللَّـ َِه‬
ِ ‫كَإِ َّال‬
َ ‫ص ْب ُر‬
َ َ‫َواصْ ِبرْ ََو َما‬
And be patient, [O Muhammad], and your patience is not except with Allah (An-Nahl: 127).

Consequently, that was abrogated in their view (i.e. in the view of some of the ‘Ulamaa’) that which had
been permitted to them to undertake in terms of mutilation” (4).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 5/120, (2) “Jaami’ ul-Usool”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 10/273, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, 3/1257, (4) “Jaami’ ul-
Bayaan Fee Tafseer il-Qur’aan”, At-Tabariy: 14/131]

Also upon the direction of the opinion stating that the mutilation of the bodies of the enemy is
prohibited, is what came mentioned in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah” from the books of the
Maalikiy Madh’hab: “It is not permissible to transport the heads of the disbelievers from one land to
another nor to transport them to the disbelievers” (1). This statement appears to be related to the
mutilation of the bodies of the enemy because the severing of the head from the body after having been
killed for the sake of sending it to this place or that, falls under the reality of mutilation. That is whilst “Al-
Muthlah” (or At-Tamtheel i.e. mutilation) is Haraam according to the Madh’hab of the Maalikiyah. Ibn
Rushd said: “And the forbiddance of “Al-Muthlah (mutilation) has been verified or affirmed” (2).

- Also in line with this view i.e. that which states the prohibition of the mutilation of corpses of the
enemy, As-San’aaniy said, in relation to what the Imaam should instruct the commander of the army or
military expeditionary force with, when he dispatches them towards the enemy: “Then he (the Imaam)
informs him (the commander) with the prohibition of cheating with the Ghaneemah (booty), the
prohibition of treachery, the prohibition of Al-Muthlah (mutilation) and the prohibition of killing the
children of the Mushrikeen. These are prohibited matters (Muharramaat) by way of ‘Ijmaa’ (agreement or
consensus)” (3). And before As-San’aaniy, Az-Zamakhshariy mentioned that which establishes the Ijmaa’
(consensus) over the Tahreem (prohibition) of At-Tamtheel (mutilation). He said in his Tafseer: “There is
no difference (of opinion) or disagreement (Khilaaf) in respect to the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-
Muthlah (mutilation and disfigurement)” (4).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy also said, concerning this: “And concerning his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “And do not
mutilate”: This indicates the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Muthlah (mutilation or disfigurement)” (5).

- The Second Opinion:

This is that the mutilation (Tamtheel) of the enemy corpses takes the Hukm of Al-Karaahah An-
Tanzeehiyah only i.e. It is permissible and not Haraam, even if it is better (Afdal) to not mutilate.

I say: This opinion, upon its unrestricted (Mutlaq) form, establishes the permissibility of At-Tamtheel with
Karaahah (dislike) being attached to the act, whether the enemies had mutilated the bodies of the Muslims
or refrained from that.

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “Some of them said: The Nahy (forbiddance) of mutilation is a Nahy
Tanzeeh (i.e. a forbiddance less than Tahreem) and not Haraam” (6). It appears that An-Nawawiy, who is
from amongst those who outweigh the opinions of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab, inclines towards this view. For
that reason, he said in his explanation of the previously mentioned hadeeth related by Buraidah: “The
words of this Hadeeth contain Fawaa’id (benefits or matters that have been established) that there is
consensus upon …

[(1) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p165, (2) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”: “Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej
Ahaadeeth ul-Bidaayah”: 6/25, (3) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/46, (4) “Tafseer Al-Kash’shaaf”: 2/503, (5) “Nail ul-
Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/263, (6) Sharh An-Nawawiy Alaa Saheeh Muslim: 7/177].

These are: The prohibition of treachery, cheating or being treacherous with the booty, the killing of boys
(Sibyaan i.e. under the age of puberty) if they do not engage in the fighting and the Karaahah (dislike) of
Al-Muthlah (mutilation)!” (1).

It is apparent from what has been presented above, that there is no Ijmaa’ (consensus) in respect to this
Mas’alah; neither in relation to the Tamtheel (mutilation) being prohibited, nor upon it being Makrooh
Karaahatan Tanzeehiyatan alone and not prohibited.

And it appears to me, that An-Nawawiy intends by the Karaahah (dislike) that is agreed upon by
consensus, that which is shared or in common between the Karaahah At-Tanzeehiyah and the Karaahah
At-Tahreemiyah, and that commonality is the absolute (Mutlaq) request to leave or not do, irrespective of
whether it was a Talab Jaazim (decisive request) or indecisive request. Concerning this Talab (request) to
leave or not do, then it applies upon it, that it is Makrooh and that is agreed upon as well, as Al-Imaam
An-Nawawiy stated, albeit with the meaning that we have explained.

- The Third Opinion:

It is the permissibility of mutilating the bodies of the enemy if the Maslahah (interest) dictates that. This
permission here is according to the meaning of “Al-Ibaahah” (Hukm of permissibility). The evidence is
that the origin of the Hukm of “At-Tamtheel” (mutilation), according to this opinion, is that it is
Karaahah (dislike) only and not Tahreem (prohibition).
The following came in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah from the Hanaabilah: “The transporting of the
heads of the Mushrikeen from one land to another is disliked in addition to the mutilation of their killed
and torturing them … Az-Zuhriy said: A head was not carried (or transported) to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬ever and
a head was taken to Abu Bakr and he condemned it … And it is Makrooh (disliked) to hurl them in
catapults. Ahmad spoke upon this and if they did that for a Maslahah, it is permitted, due to what we have
related, that when ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas was besieging Alexandria, a man from the Muslims was overcome
and they took his head. His people then went to ‘Amr in anger and so he (‘Amr) said to them: “Take a
man from them and cut off his head and then hurl it to them with the catapult. And so they did that and
then the people of Alexandria hurled the head of the Muslim back to his people!” (2).

In “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”, from the Fiqh books of the Ahnaaf, it was stated that Abu Bakr
As-Siddeeq said: “Heads are not transported to me, rather letters and news informing is sufficient alone”
(3) … Consequently, according to what is apparent in the Hadeeth (i.e. the statement of Abu Bakr), some
of the ‘Ulamaa adopted that: It is not Halaal to transport the heads to the Wulaah (rulers) because they are
(from) corpses and the correct manner (or conduct) is to bury them so as to remove the harm…

[(1) “Sharh An-Nawawiy ‘Alaa Saheeh Muslim”: 7/311, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/565-566. Also refer to “Ash-
Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/459-460, (3) Refer to Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/132].

That is because the decapitation of the head is “Al-Muthlah” (mutilation) and the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬forbade the “Muthlah” and even if it is done by a voracious dog (1) … The majority of our
Mashaayikh (i.e. from the Ahnaaf), may Allah’s mercy be upon them, viewed that is that was undertaken
to repress and rage for the Mushrikeen or to soothe the hearts of the Muslims, in the case where the one
killed is from the commanders of the Mushrikeen or their prominent chiefs and leaders, then there is no
problem in doing that …” (2).

The above is a brief summary of what has been stated by the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue) of mutilating the bodies or corpses of the enemy … In conclusion from what has been presented,
the Fiqhiy opinions concerning this issue vary between:

- At-Tahreem (prohibition), like some have stated, Al-Karaahah (dislike), as others have stated, and Al-
Ibaahah (permissibility) due to a legitimate Maslahah (interest), as others still have stated. With that, we
come to the end of this third matter of this issue and now precede onto the fourth matter.

D - The Fourth Matter: What is the opinion that we view and weigh to be strongest
in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)?

We view as strongest, the opinion transmitted by At-Tabariy, in his Tafseer, from some of the ‘Ulamaa,
who have said that it is Mansookh (abrogated)! Its summary is: That this “Tamtheel” (mutilation) of the
bodies of the enemy is permissible upon the condition that it is like for like … We, however, view that
this Hukm remains in place and is not Mansookh (abrogated), just as some of them have stated.

To further elaborate that we say:

A - We have already mentioned that the Hadeeth of At-Tirmidhiy concerning the mutilation of the
Muslims who had been killed at the battle of Uhud, is a Saheeh Hadeeth. And that in relation to it the
following Aayah was revealed:

ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ‫َّاب ِرَي َن‬ َ ‫ِنَص َبرْ ُت ْمَلَه َُو‬
َ ‫َۖولَئ‬ ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُو ِق ْب ُت‬
َ َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف َعا ِقب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience, then
it is better for those who are patient (16:126).
Consequently, it is permissible for the Muslims to mutilate those killed from the enemy, however upon
the condition that is according to the treatment of like for like, where it is undertaken in an equivalent
manner, just as the Aayah indicates to explicitly. This means, that is the enemy refrains from mutilating
the killed Muslims, it is Haraam for the Muslims to mutilate their killed. If, however, the enemy dares to
mutilate the killed Muslims, then it is permissible for the Muslims, in return, to mutilate the bodies of the
killed enemy, whilst it is Haraam for them to mutilate more than the number that the enemy has
mutilated.

[(1) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/249. Al-Haithamiy said: It was related by At-Tabaraaniy and its Isnaad is Munqati’ (interrupted),
(2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/110].

Despite that, it is better for the Muslims to not treat the enemy like for like i.e. it is recommended
(Mandoob) for them to not mutilate the bodies of the enemy and even if they have mutilated the bodies
of the Muslims. The Daleel for that recommendation is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ين‬ ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ ‫َّاب ِر‬ َ ‫ص َبرَْ ُت ْمَلَه َُو‬
َ َ‫َولَئِن‬
But if you have patience, then it is better for those who are patient (16:126).

This type of style indicates to the recommendation of having patience in respect to this subject area,
meaning: The Muslims holding themselves back from treating the enemies like for like (i.e. equal
retribution) and even if that treatment of equal retribution was permissible and not Haraam.

It appears to me, that this Hukm, i.e. the permissibility of the like for like treatment with the
recommendation to pardon, represents a specific (Khaass) Hukm (ruling) for the Muslims alone and is not
addressed to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬because the address in the Aayah is specifically related to them alone: “But if
you (plural) have patience”. As for the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, concerning his treatment of the disbelievers in a like for like
manner, as a recompense for what they did to his uncle Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him, then the
ruling is not merely a recommended command to not it, in respect to him. Rather, in relation to him ‫ﷺ‬
the command is binding i.e. it is obligatory for him to be patient and not think about revenge. This is
indicated to by the Aayah that comes directly after the previously mentioned one. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫ْقَ ِّممَّاَ َيمْ ُكر‬

َ‫ُون‬ َ َ‫َباللَّـ ِهَ ََۚو َالَ َتحْ َزنْ َ َع َلي ِْه ْم ََو َالَ َتكَُفِي‬
ٍ ‫ضي‬ ِ ‫كَإِ َّال‬
َ ‫ص ْب ُر‬
َ َ‫َواصْ ِبرْ ََو َما‬
And be patient, [O Muhammad], and your patience is not but through Allah. And do not grieve over them and do not be in
distress over what they conspire (An-Nahl: 127).

In the previous Aayah the address was directed to the Muslims: “But if you (plural) have patience” and it
indicates to recommendation (An-Nadb). As for the Aayah that came after it, then the address in it was
directed to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬specifically with the command form “And be patient”, which indicates that he is
being requested with more than what the Muslims were requested with, in terms of the mere
recommendation to not mutilate. This may be supported by what has been related that following the
revelation of this Aayah: “The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Indeed, we will be patient” and he held back from
what he had wanted to do and made expiation for his Yameen (oath)” (1).

According to the above understanding, the view of abrogation, which At-Tabariy transmitted from some
of the ‘Ulamaa’ who held this view, is only applicable to the Hukm (ruling) of At-Tamtheel (mutilation) if
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had wanted to undertake it, avenging his paternal uncle Hamzah, may Allah be pleased
with him, as is understood from his Qawl Ta’Aalaa: “َْ‫”واصْ ِبر‬
َ “And be patient”. That is if it is affirmed that
this Aayah was revealed after the Aayah before it. In which case the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬would have been
encompassed firstly by the Hukm of the patience and not undertaking the act of mutilation being
recommended. Then another Hukm was revealed, specifically related to him, commanding him to be
patient and not undertake revenge … However, as long as that is not affirmed or established i.e. that the
revelation of “َْ‫”واصْ ِبر‬
َ “And be patient” was not revealed after “But if you (plural) have patience” in the previous
Aayah, then the Hukm of At-Tamtheel (mutilating) is initially the permissibility of the Muslims
undertaking it as a like for like treatment or conduct and the impermissibility of that in respect to the Nabi
‫ﷺ‬.

[(1) “Asbaab un-Nuzool”, Al-Waahidiy: p192].

B - Consequently, the Ahaadeeth which have come forbidding the Tamtheel (mutilation), only indicate to
its prohibition in other than the previous circumstance or situation i.e. in other than the like for like
treatment. In this way, the Aayah indicating to the permissibility of the like for like treatment concerning
this Mas’alah (issue) is brought together (or reconciled) with the Ahaadeeth indicating the forbiddance of
mutilation. That is whilst, as is known, the reconciling or bringing together of two evidences is more
appropriate (Awlaa) than saying that one of the two evidences abrogates the other; whether that is in
respect to what Allah ruled in the Qur’aan Al-Kareen in respect to the permission of mutilation, as
previously presented, or it is concerning what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬ruled with in terms of the Nahy
(forbiddance) of mutilation. That is as long as there does not exist a narration from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬or
Daleel (evidence) indicating that one has abrogated the other.

Concerning a matter such as this Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said: “It is not permissible for it to be said, that
one of them is Naasikh (abrogating), unless it is due to a report from the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. And
they both continue to proceed according to their understandings as longs as there is a way for them to
both proceed, where the Hukm of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and the Hukm of His Messenger, proceed
together (i.e. continue to apply)” (1).

This then is what we have viewed to be the strongest opinion in relation to this Fiqhiy issue (Mas’alah).

A final point of observation remains in addition to what has preceded. It is that what we mentioned
previously, represents the Hukm (ruling) that we view to be applicable following the revelation of the
Aayah:

َ‫ين‬ ِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ ‫َّاب ِر‬ َ ‫ِنَص َبرْ ُت ْمَلَه َُو‬
َ ‫َۖولَئ‬ ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُوقِ ْب ُت‬
َ َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف َعاقِب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience, then
it is better for those who are patient (16:126).

Concerning this, if this Aayah had been revealed directly after the declaration or announcement of the
Muslims of their resolve and determination to attain revenge through the mutilation of the bodies of the
killed Mushrikeen in forthcoming battles if they were to gain the upper hand over them, then that means
that the Hukm is as we have mentioned … This is what the narration recorded in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam has indicated to … The same would apply if this Aayah had been revealed in Makkah before the
Hijrah, like the Soorah which it came mentioned within, as some of the Mufassireen have stated (2). Based
upon this, then what has come mentioned in respect to it having been revealed in respect to Tamtheel
(mutilation), would only represent returning to it to, indicate that the Hukm in respect to the mutilation is
subject to the mentioned Aayah.

- If, however, the Aayah:

َ‫ين‬ َِ ‫َخيْرَلِّلص‬
َ ‫َّاب ِر‬ َ ‫ِنَص َبرْ ُت ْمَلَه َُو‬
َ ‫َۖولَئ‬ ِ ‫ُواَبم ِْث ِلَ َماَعُوقِ ْب ُت‬
َ َ‫مَب ِه‬ ِ ‫َوإِنْ َ َعا َق ْب ُت ْمَ َف َعاقِب‬
“And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience, then
it is better for those who are patient (16:126).
Had been revealed at the time of the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah as the narration of At-Tirmidhiy
indicates to, then this would mean that between the period of the battle of Uhud and the conquest of
Makkah, the Hukm (ruling) of mutilating the bodies of the enemy had been permissible as a response to
what the Mushrikeen had done at Uhud, without the restriction of the treatment or conduct being like for
like. That would mean that it would have been permissible for the Muslims to mutilate more of the bodies
of the enemies than the disbelievers had mutilated from the Muslims.

[(1) “Kitaab ul-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/241, (2) Refer to the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan” 10/201
and the Tafseer of Al-Aaloousiy: 14/257].

The Daleel (evidence) for that increase is that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had declared that increase and his
statement represents legislation. And even if he ‫ ﷺ‬had not declared or announced that increase
and it was only the Muslims who had announced it, whilst the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬remained silent over
that and did not object to it, according to what was stated in the Saheeh Hadeeth of At-Tirmidhiy,
then his silence would represent approval, which is also represents legislation.

This Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is not cancelled by the fact that it has not been established that the Muslims in the
time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not act in accordance to it and hence did not mutilate any corpse of the
disbelievers. That is has not been established that they did so in increase over what the Mushrikeen had
done at Uhud nor that they undertook it in accordance to the like for like ration … I say: the Hukm of the
permission of mutilating the bodies of the disbelievers is not cancelled out, within the mentioned scope or
context, as a result of the Muslims not having acted upon it. That is because this Hukm provides them
with the right to mutilate which does not mean the obligation to undertake that action.

In any case, the legislation settled in the end, according to what we have viewed to be the strongest view,
which is the permissibility to undertake the mutilation in a like for like manner, within the scope of
equivalent treatment, without any increase over that, a matter which we have provided details of
previously.

In a concluding summary and in light of what has been presented, we view the following:

1 - The original position is that the mutilation of the bodies of the enemies is Haraam due to the
previously quoted Ahaadeeth which forbid mutilation.

2 - If the enemies have mutilated the bodies of the Muslims, it is permissible for them to do the same
upon a like for like basis due to the Aayah that has provided the Rukhsah (special permission) for that and
prohibited an increase upon the like for like or equivalent treatment. Just as the mutilation is prohibited in
origin if the enemy refrains from undertaking it.

3 - It is obligatory upon the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to have Sabr (patience) and to refrain from mutilation with
the intended aim of getting revenge for his paternal uncle, Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him.

4 - It is recommended for the Muslims to exhibit Sabr (patience) and hold back or refrain from mutilating
to avenge those of the Muslims who had been mutilated.

This is the summarised conclusion of our opinion in relation to this Fiqhiy issue (Mas’alah) (1) and by that
we have reached the end of the discussion of the first issue related to the mutilation of the corpses of the
enemy. We now move on to the second issue of this current study.

[(1) This is the opinion we have arrived at however our Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy weighed as strongest the opinion that
mutilation is prohibited Mutlaqan (absolutely and without restriction) and even if the enemy has mutilated the bodies of the
Muslims. Refer to: “Al-Fiqh ul-Islamiy Wa Adillatuhu”: 6/720 and “Aathaar ul-Harb”: p460].
 The Second Issue
The dissection of the enemies’ corpses for the purpose of medical research

The classical or earlier Fuqahaa’, in addition to those who came later or recently, have studied the
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of undertaking post-the dissection of bodies.

- As for the classical or earlier Fuqahaa’ then they studied this issue within the study area of the “Janaa’iz”
(funerals) upon two plains:

Firstly: It is permissible to cut open the belly of the woman if she died whilst pregnant to extract the
foetus from who stomach.

Secondly: Is it permissible to cut open the belly of the dead person to remove what he had swallowed in
terms of materials that hold value like pearls or gold? (1).

- As for the recent Fuqahaa’, then they studied this Mas’alah upon a new plain which the reality of centres
of medical research and criminal research in the world have imposed. This reality is that medical research
centres and similarly faculties of medicine undertake the dissection of the bodies of the dead for the
purpose of acquiring knowledge of the internal human make-up, with the aim of benefiting that which will
treat the living human.

As for the criminal research centres, then they dissect or perform post-mortems upon the bodies of the
dead who have been assaulted so as to find out the cause of death and consequently to identify the
perpetrator of the crime and bring him to justice.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 2/142, “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”: 3/592-593, “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar Wa Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 1/938,
“Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 1/138, “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy, “Sharh ul-Muhadh’dhab”: 5/300-302, “Ash-Sharh
ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer, the “Haashiyah” (commentary) of Ad-Dasooqiy upon it: 1/429 and “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah. “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/413, “Ash-Shrh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 2/414-415, “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm:
5/166-167, and As-sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 1/336-337].

I say: This new reality in the world of medical and criminal research, has obliged the recent or
contemporary Fuqahaa’ to study this Fiqhiy issue (Mas’alah); the Mas’alah of the dissection or post-
mortem of corpses, so as to provide the Hukm of Islaam in relation to it, each according to what his
Ijtihaad has led him to arrive to (1).

However, the issue that we are addressing now, is the dissection of the enemy bodies for the purpose of
medical research, whilst we are not examining the subject area upon the same plain that the classical or
early Fuqahaa’ examined it, just as we are not examining it from the angle that the recent scholars have
addressed it from. That is because, such a study, would take us away from our subject area related to Al-
Jihaad, whilst we have guided in the references to the classical points of reference and some modern-day
studies which have addressed that subject.

That which relates specifically to the issue that we are currently addressing is:

- Is the Maslahah (interest) resulting from the dissection of the corpse, as is apparent, a cause or reason
for the permissibility of mutilating the bodies of the enemy, just as the enemy undertaking the mutilation
of the Muslim corpses is considered to be a cause for the permissibility of Muslims mutilating or
dissecting the corpses of their enemies?
This is the subject area related to what we are addressing in the study area of the Muslim’s treatment
towards their enemies when they are dead after war has left behind those who have been killed in terms of
corpses.

For that reason, we will not delve into that which the classical Fuqahaa’ delved into, nor those who have
come in recent times. Rather, we will only focus upon the study around that which is related to the issue
that we are addressing, which we have indicated to. As such, the matters which need to be dealt with are
the following:

1 - The First Matter: Is the dissection of the corpse or body a form of mutilation or not?

2 - The Second Matter: If the mutilation of the corpses of the enemy had come according to like for
like, then is it permitted to benefit from or take advantage of that for the purpose of medical research.

3 - The Third Matter: Is it permitted to mutilate the bodies of the enemy in accordance to the Maslahah
(interest) just as it is permitted to do that in accordance to the treatment of like for like.

[(1) “Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 3/521-522, “Qadaayaa Fiqhiyah Mu’aasarah”,
Muhammad Burhaan ud-Deen As-Sanbahliy: p61-68, “Fatwaa permitting the dissection of the dead for educational purposes
and establishing the crime”, Ash-Sheikh Husnain Makhloof, the previous Mufti of Egypt in: “Hadhaa Halaal Wa Haadhaa
Haraam”, ‘Abdul Qaadir Ahmad ‘Ataa: p416-417, “Shifaa’ At-Tabaareeh Wa l-Adwaa’ Fee Hukm At-Tashreeh Wa Naql Al-
A’adaa’”, ‘Allaamah Ash-Sheikh Ibraheem Al-Ya’qoubiy: p103].

1 - The First Matter: Is the dissection of the corpse or body a form of mutilation or not?

We have become aware during the discussion of the first issue of this study that the “Tamtheel”
(mutilation) of the corpse is undertaken by disfiguring that body or by cutting off any part of it.

Consequently, leaving the dissecting knife or scalpel to work within the body here and there to acquire
knowledge about what is inside this make-up created by the creator, Subhaanahu, conforms to the
meaning of disfiguring the body. That is because its reality is disfigurement and even if it is not the
intended purpose of the one holding the scalpel to disfigure the corpse that is stretched out before him
upon the dissecting table. Here, the matter is related to the reality of the act and not the intended purpose
of the one undertaking the action. This is what relates to the first matter.

2 - The Second Matter: If the mutilation of the corpses of the enemy had come according to like
for like, then is it permitted to benefit from or take advantage of that for the purpose of medical
research.

The answer: It appears, that it is permissible, as long as the prohibition of mutilating the corpses of the
enemy with the aim of disfigurement and avenging the enemy, has been lifted or removed and become
permissible. This mutilation, with the aim of benefiting in medical research, is more entitled to be
permissible.

The mentioned intended reason i.e. attaining that which will benefit medical research, is a legally legitimate
(Mashroo’) matter generally, and the action that is being undertaken i.e. the mutilation of the corpse of the
enemy, is also a legally legitimate matter when its Shuroot (conditions) are met. Consequently, there is no
sin, in such a case, to undertake a legally legitimate or lawful matter by way of or utilising a lawful matter.

By that we have concluded the second point and proceed to the third.
3 - The Third Matter: Is it permitted to mutilate the bodies of the enemy in accordance to the
Maslahah (interest) just as it is permitted to do that in accordance to the treatment of like for like.

The answer: We have adopted the view, in the study of the preceding issue, that this is permissible, as has
come mentioned in the books of Fiqh of the Ahnaaf and the Hanaabilah. Just as the mutilation is
permissible with Karaahah (dislike), without it be restricted to the Maslahah, according to what An-
Nawawiy from the Shaafi’iyah mentioned … And all of that is without consideration to the treatment of
like for like (or equivalence).

Therefore, based upon this opinion, it is permissible for the Muslims to undertake the dissection of the
bodies of the enemies to benefit from that in medical research and even if the enemy did not mutilate the
bodies of the Muslims.

However, in the case where we have viewed to be strongest, in the study of the previous issue, that the
mutilation of the corpses of the enemy is permitted upon the condition that it is like for like treatment (i.e.
equal to what the enemy has done to the bodies of the Muslims), then the opinion that we view to be
strongest here, based upon what has preceded, is that it is permissible for Muslims to deliver a number of
enemy bodies to the research centres, for them to be dissected and benefited from, in accordance to the
limits of the like for like treatment alone, according to the manner that we have previously explained. As
such, if the enemy refrains from mutilating or dissecting the bodies of the Muslims, then it is not
permissible, in this situation or circumstance, for the Muslims to engage in the dissection of any enemy
body.

Conclusion: We repeat in the conclusion of the discussion of this issue, that we are not discussing the
wider issue of the dissection or post-mortem of the bodies, in general, for the purpose of benefiting from
that in medical and criminal research, in respect to it being Mashroo’ (lawful) or not? That falls outside of
our subject area and hence, we have only addressed this Mas’alah from the angle relating to the bodies of
the enemies during war and the possibility of benefiting from them in medical research.

And by that we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the second issue and now proceed on to
the next.

The Third Issue

Burying or concealing the bodies of the enemy

The speech in respect to this issue will revolve around the following matters:

1 - The First Matter: Some of what the Fuqahaa’ have said concerning the burial of the bodies of the
enemies, during war.

2 - The Second Matter: The Shar’iyah texts that have come connected to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and
some of what has been issued in relation to them in terms of commentary.

3 - The Third Matter: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to the Hukm (legal ruling) of
the burial of the bodies of the enemies.
1 - The First Matter: Some of what the Fuqahaa’ have said concerning the burial of the bodies of
the enemies, during war.

- The following came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” in respect to the forbiddance of Abu
Bakr As-Siddeeq related to the transporting of the (decapitated) heads of the disbelievers to him: “Some
of the ‘Ulamaa’ took the apparent or evident (Zhaahir) meaning of the Hadeeth and said: “It is not Halaal
to transport the heads to the Wulaah (rulers) because it is a corpse. Therefore, the (correct) way or path
(to follow) is to bury them to ward of the harm” (1).

- And in the “Haashiyah (commentary) of Ad-Dasouqiy upon Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, the following was
stated:

“If a Kaafir is found dead and he does not have anyone of his Deen with him and no Muslim relatives
whilst it is feared that he (i.e. his body) will be lost or ruined, it is obligatory to bury or conceal
(Muwaaraat) him, as was stated in “Al-Mudawwanah”, and apparently even if he was a Harbiy (i.e. from
those at war). And it is said: The Harbiy is left for the dogs to eat” (2).

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: 1/110, (2) “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa sh-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 1/430. Also refer to:
“Al-Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 1/534-535, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/587 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 6/143].

In “Fat’h ul-‘Azeez”, by Ar-Raafi’iy, the Sharh of “Al-Wajeez” by Al-Ghazaaliy from the Fiqh of the
Shaafi’iy, concerning the burial of the Kaafir (disbeliever) Harbiy, the following was stated:

“… And concerning the obligation of burial there are two views: The first: It is obligatory because the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded that in respect to the killed of Badr. The second: It is not obligatory, rather it is
permitted to entice or lure dogs to them. If he does do it (bury) them then that is that (i.e. fine), so that
the people are not harmed by its smell” (1).

- In “Al-Majmoo’” of An-Nawawiy, Sharh ul-Muhadh’dhab of Ash-Sheeraaziy, also within the Shaafi’iy

Fiqh, the following was stated:

“Branch (issue) concerning the burial of the Kaafir (disbeliever): We have mentioned that our Madh’hab
(i.e. opinion) that the Muslim should wash him, bury him and follow his burial. Ibn ul-Mundhir
transmitted that from the Ashaab ur-Ra’y (people of opinion i.e. Qiyaas) and Abu Thawr. Maalik and
Ahmad said: The Muslim should not wash him or bury him. However, Maalik said: He should conceal
him (Muwaaraat i.e. possibly less than full burial)” (2).

I say: This text, through its unrestyricted form (Mutlaq), covers the Kaafir Al-Harbiy and the non-Harbiy.

- In “Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, by Al-Faraa’ from the Hanaabilah, he said: “And whoever is killed for
them is concealed from sight and it is not binding upon him (i.e. the Ameer of the army) to shroud him”
(3).

- In Ibn Hazm’s “Al-Muhallaa”, he stated the following: “Issue: And the burial of the Kaafir ul-Harbiy,
and other than him is Fard …!” … He then said, in support of his opinion: “His ‫ ﷺ‬forbiddance of
mutilation has been affirmed or validated and leaving the person unburied is (the same as) mutilation …”
(4).

- Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy views the obligation of concealing (or burying) the bodies of the
enemies during war. Concerning that he says:
[(1) “Fat’h ul-‘Azeez Bi Sharh ul-Wajeez”, printed with the commentary (Haamish) of “Al-Majmoo’” by An-Nawawiy: 5/150,
(2) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 5/153, (3) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Faraa’: p34 and also refer to “Al-Ahkaam us-
Sultaaniyah” of Al-Maawardiy: p53, (4) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 5/117].

“If we were to assume that the enemy did not bury its own dead, then what is the Islamic position
towards that? Leaving the dead upon the open ground makes him susceptible to rotting. That would lead
to harming the passers-by and the people would keep their distance due to its stench or smell. For that
reason, it is obligatory to conceal the corpse to preserve the general public well-being” (1). He then
presented a number of evidences to support this opinion and from amongst them was the disposal of the
killed Mushrikeen at Badr in the well. Concerning this he said:

“And throwing them in a well is not due to contempt but rather the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬disliked bringing
hardship to his companions due to the large number of bodies of the disbelievers by ordering them to
bury each of them. Therefore, lacing them in that hole was easier for (or less of a burden upon) them” (2).

The above, then, is what relates to the first matter concerning some of what has been said by the Fuqahaa’
in relation to the concealing of the bodies of the enemies.

2 - The Second Matter: The Shar’iyah texts that have come connected to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue) and some of what has been issued in relation to them in terms of commentary.

In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim it is recorded that ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood related: “That the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬was praying at the House (Al-Bait i.e. precincts of the Ka’bah) whilst Abu Jahl and his
companions were sitting there. One of them said to the others: “Who amongst you will bring the
uterus sack of a camel of Bani (the tribe of) so and so and place it on the back of Muhammad,
when he prostrates?” The most wretched of them (3) got up and brought it. He waited till the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬prostrated and then placed it on his back between his shoulders. I was watching
but could did not have the preventative force (Mana’ah) (4) to do anything. I wish I had some
people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and falling on one another…

[(1) “Aathaar ul-Harb”: Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p466, (2) Same source: p467, (3) He was ‘Uqbah Bin Al-Mu’ait:
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/350, (4) “he said that because in Makkah he did not have a clan (supporting him). That was because he was
an allied Hudhaliy and his allies at that time were disbelievers”, “Fat’h ul0Baariy”: 1/350. The wording recorded by Muslim
was: “If I possessed Mana’ah I would have thrown it off the back of the Messenger of Allah ‫”ﷺ‬: 1794].

… Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬was in prostration and he did not lift his head up till Faatimah (the
Prophet's daughter) came and threw that (camel's uterus sack) off his back (1). He raised his
head and said thrice: “O Allah! Punish Quraish”. So it became a heavy burden or hardship upon
Abu Jahl and his companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a
conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city (Mecca). The Prophet
(‫ )ﷺ‬said: “O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, ‘Utbah bin Rabi’a, Shaibah bin Rabi’ah, Al-Waleed bin
‘Utbah, Umaiyah bin Khalaf, and ‘Uqbah Bin Al-Mu'ait and he mentioned the seventh whose
name I cannot recall (2). By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those
persons listed by Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬in the Qaleeb (well), the well of Badr” (3).

And in another narrated version (Riwaayah): “I saw all of them killed during the battle of Badr and
their bodies were thrown into a well apart from the body of Umaiyah … That was because he was
a large and heavy man. Then when they pulled him, his limbs were severed before he was thrown
into the well” (4). And in yet another recorded report from Al-Bukhaariy it was stated: “His limbs were
severed and so he was not thrown into the well” (5).
- In “Fat’h ul-Baariy”, when commentating upon this Hadeeth, Ibn Hajar said: “The ‘Ulamaa’ said: “They
were only commanded to throw them into the well so that the people not be harmed from their stench,
otherwise the burial of the Harbiy is not obligatory” (6).

- And in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam, with a sound (Saheeh) Sanad (chain): “Ibn Ishaaq said: Yezeed Bin
Roomaan related from ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair from ‘Aa’ishah, who said: “When the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬commanded the killed to be thrown into the well, they were thrown in it apart from Umayyah Bin
Khalaf as he had swollen in his armour and filled it. They went to move him and his flesh fell off. And so
they left him there and threw upon him that which covered him in terms of soil and stones …” (7). In the
narration Al-Bukhaariy narrated by Ibn Mas’ood the reason or cause for his swelling was explained: “The
(heat of the) sun had changed him and it was a very hot day” (8).

[(1) In Saheeh Muslim it was stated: “She cast it off his back”: 1794, (2) He was ‘Ammarah Bin Al-Waleed. “Some of them
found a problem in counting ‘Ammaarah Bin Al-Waleed amongst those who were mentioned because he was not killed at
Badr. Rather, the writers of the Maghaaziy (battles i.e. Seerah) mentioned that he died in the lands of Al-Habashah (Abyssinia).
The answer is: The speech of Ibn Mas’ood about him seeing the killed in the well is understood to refer to the majority and this
is indicated to by ‘Uqbah Bin Mu’ait not being thrown in the well, but was rather killed after travelling a distance from Badr.
Similarly, Umayyah Bin Khalaf was not thrown into the well as he was, but rather in pieces because he was large in size”: “Fat’h
ul-Baariy”: 1/351-352, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 240 and Fat’h ul-Baariy: 1/350. Saheeh Muslim: 1794, 3/1418, (4) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 3185, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/283, (5) Al-Bukhaariy: 3854, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/165, (6) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/352, (7)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/50-51, (8) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3960, 7/293. From “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “He said:
“The sun had changed him” i.e. it had changed his colour to black or changed the bodies to make them swell”].

- In “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”, commentating upon what came mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam, the
following was stated:

“And if it is said or asked: What is the meaning of them being thrown into the well and what does that
indicate to in terms of Fiqh?

Then we have said: It was from his Sunnah ‫ﷺ‬, in respect to his battles, that when he passed by a
human corpse, that he would command that it be buried, whilst it was not asked whether he was a
believer or disbeliever. This is what came in the Sunan of Ad-Daaru Qutniy and throwing them into the
well fell under this category (of action). However, he ‫ ﷺ‬disliked overburdening his companions due to
the large number of the disbelievers’ corpses by commanding them to bury them all. Therefore, dragging
them into the well was easier upon them” (1).

- And in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy, concerning this matter, it was stated:

“They were only placed inside the well as a display of contempt towards them! And so that the people are
not harmed from their stench. It is not representative of burying (Ad-Dafn) and tat is because it is not
obligatory to bury the Harbiy (i.e. one at war with the Muslims from Daar ul-Harb). Our companions (i.e.
those who have Fiqhiy opinions in Fiqhiy Mas’aa’il within the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab) said: Indeed, they (i.e.
the dead enemy) are left in the desert unless harm would result from that” (2).

The above is connected to the reality of the killed at Badr in terms of texts and commentary. There are
other texts related to the concealment (or burial) of the killed disbelievers from the people of war,
however they are do not reach the sufficient level of authenticity. They include:

- “‘Ikramah related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬saw a killed woman at At-Taa’if. And then he said: “Did I not
forbid the killing of the women?” Who killed this woman?” A man from amongst the people said: “It was
I O Messenger of Allah. I made her ride behind me and then she attempted to kill me and so I killed her”.
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then commanded that she be concealed or buried (Muwaaraah)” (3).
[(1) “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”, As-Suhailiy: 3/63 and the Takhreej of the Hadeeth of Ad-Daaru Qutniy will be presented shortly, (2)
Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 7/435, (3) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/82. The Hadeeth is Mursal as is Zhaahir (apparent or
evident). And “Al-Mursal is in origin weak and rejected due to it not possessing a condition from among the conditions of
acceptability, which is that the Sanad (chain) be connected (i.e. from beginning to end). The form of the Mursal is: “That the
Taabi’iy says (whether he was someone young or old) that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said or did such a thing, or that a
certain matter or act was done in his presence …” “Tayseer ul-Mustalah Al-Hadeeth”: Dr. Mahmoud At-Tahaan: p70-71. For
further detail concerning this refer to: “’Uloom ul-Hadeeth” of Ibn As-Salaah: p51 onwards, “Qawaa’id ul-Hadeeth”,
Muhammad Jamaal ud-Deen Al-Qaasimiy: p133 onwards, “Minhaj An-Naqd Fee ‘Uloom il-Hadeeth”, Dr. Noor ud-Deen ‘Itr:
p369 onwards, and a nice paper concerning “Al-Hadeeth ul-Mursal” by Dr. Muhammad Hasan Heetoo. This Hadeeth which
we are dealing with was related by ‘Ikramah who was a Taabi’iy and had not seen the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. Consequently, it is possible
that he related it from another Taabi’iy who is unknown and that is the basis of its weak (Da’eef) classification].

- Ya’laa Bin Murrah said: I travelled with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on more than one occasion and I
did not see him pass by a corpse and then move on from it until he had commanded that it be buried. It
was not asked if it was a Muslim or a disbeliever” (1).

In addition, some of the what has come mentioned within other Shar’iyah texts also address the issue of
the concealing or burying (Muwaaraah) of the bodies of the enemies during war.

With that, we conclude the second matter of this issue and now move on to the third.

3 - The Third Matter: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue).

After examining what the Fuqahaa’ have said concerning this issue and after referring back to the
Shar’iyah texts that have come related to it, we view the Muwaaraah (concealing or burial) of the bodies of
the enemies during war to be obligatory, according to what is possible. That is in light of the following
matters:

A - The original position (Al-Asl) in respect to the dead with restriction (i.e. Mutlaq), is that he be buried
or concealed and not left out in the open land. That is since the time that Qaabeel killed his brother
Haabeel:

َ‫اريَ َس ْو َء َةَأَخِي ِه‬ ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬

َ ‫ضَلِي ُِر َيهَُ َكي‬
ِ ‫ْفَي َُو‬ ْ ‫ثَ ف‬ُ ‫ثَاللَّـهَُ ُغ َراباَ َيب َْح‬
َ ‫َف َب َع‬
Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace associated to (the body of) his brother
(Al-Maa’idah: 31).

B - It has not been reported from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he left a corpse of any Kaafir Harbiy without
commanding that it be concealed or buried.

C - It has been affirmed that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded the concealment or burial of the killed
Mushrikeen at Badr.

D - The intended meaning of the Tahqeer (contempt) which Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy mentioned as being
behind the concealing of the killed of Quraish in the well at Badr, is that he did not place one of them or
sets of twos and threes of them in specific graves, but rather he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded that they be concealed
from sight alone within the well. I say: This intended meaning, if we were to validate it, does not affect the
obligation of concealing or burying the corpses of the enemies from the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war), as is
evident from the command of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to undertake that and is evident from the
implementation of the Sahaabah of that command.
E - It is verified in respect to Umayyah Bin Khalaf that those taking care of the burial of those who had
been killed could not pull or drag him to the well in the state or form that he was in, without his limbs
being severed. As such, he was concealed or buried in soil and stones where he was and was not left out
upon the ground in the open, which consequently gives weight to the command of burying the killed
being obligatory.

[(1) Sunan Ad-Daaru Qutniy: 4/116. In the chain of the Hadeeth is ‘Umar Bin Abdullah Bin Ya’laa and he was the grandson of
the Sahaabiy who related it. Ibn Hajar said about him that he is ‘Da’eef’ (weak): “Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb”: p414: Biography
number: 4933].

F - Added to that is what is understood from the speech of Ibn Hazm in respect to that leaving the body
without concealment or burial exposes it to being eaten by dogs and other wild beasts, and consequently
that would be considered to be from At-Tamtheel (mutilation) and disfigurement that the Muslims would
have been complicit in, whilst mutilation is prohibited as previously stated. Therefore, it is strange that
some of the Shaafi’iyah have said in respect to the affair of the dead Kaafir Harbiy: “It is permissible to
lure or entice the dogs upon him” as previously quoted!

G - All of the above is if we were to assume that leaving the corpses of the enemies without concealment
or burial did not lead to a resultant harm. However, if harm was a result of that, as some of the Fuqahaa’
have indicated to, and Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy alerted to, then that adds, in such a case, an additional
reason from amongst the reasons establishing the obligation of burying or concealing the dead bodies of
the enemies, during war.

This is the view that we weigh to be strongest in this Mas’alah. As such, we have now concluded the third
issue of this current study and move on to the discussion of the final issue which is: Delivering the bodies
of the enemy back to their people.

The Fourth Issue

Returning or delivering the corpses of the enemies to their people

This issue will focus around the following question:

- If the enemy requests from the Muslims to hand over the bodies of its killed or to enable them to collect
or take them, is it permissible to enable them to do that?

- The answer: Yes, that is permissible.

- The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” under the heading: “The chapter or topic (Baab) of casting
the corpses of the Mushrikeen into the well whilst no price was taken for them”: “Concerning his (i.e. Al-
Imaam ul-Bukhaariy) statement: “Whilst no price was taken for them” then he is indicating by it to the
Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas: That the Mushrikeen wanted to purchase the body of a man from among the
Mushrikeen but the Bani ‫ ﷺ‬refused to sell him to them”; related by At-Tirmidhiy and others. Ibn
Ishaaq mentioned in “Al-Maghaaziy”: That the Mushrikeen asked the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to sell them the body of
Nawfal Bin Abdullah Bin Al-Mugheerah after he had breached the trench (i.e. in the battle of Al-Khandaq
[the trench]). Then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “we are in no need for his price nor his body”. Ibn Hishaam
said: “It has reached us from Az-Zuhriy that they spent 10,000 for him! And taking it from the Hadeeth
of the Baab (topic heading) (1): from the angle that the custom testifies that had the families or people of
the killed at Badr understood that he would have accepted from them a ransom for their bodies, they
would have spent what ever Allah willed for the sake of that …” (2).

[(1) This is referring to that Al-Bukhaariy only related the Hadeeth that indicates to the throwing of the killed Mushrikeen at
Badr into the well whilst he did not relate that which indicates that he did not take a price for them had the Mushrikeen offered
that, as indicated to in the heading of Al-Bukhaariy: “The chapter or topic … A price was not taken for them”. As such what is
the angle of indication of the Hadeeth: “He throw the corpses of the Mushrikeen into the well” according to this heading? (2)
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/283].

This incident was mentioned in “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal” as follows:

“‘Ikramah related that the horse of Nawfal or Ibn Nawfal throw him down on the day of Al-
Khandaq (battle of the trench) and he was then killed. Abu Sufyaan then sent a message to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬offering 100 camels as a ransom for him. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬refused and said: Take him!
Verily, it is an bad ransom for a bad body” (1).

- Al-Baihaqiy also related in his Sunan two narrations of this incident under the heading: “The corpse of
the Mushrik is not sold” and both were related via Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both:

The first one stated: “And so the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade them to sell the corpse of the Mushrik
(polytheist or disbeliever)”.

And the second included: “… The Mushrikeen sent to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying: “Send
his corpse to us and in return we will give you 12,000!” The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “There
is no good in his body and not in its price” (2).

- At-Tirmidhiy also related this incident from Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both, under
the heading: “The chapter or topic (Baab) concerning what came related to ransoming the corpses to
those who had been taken”. Then after relating the Hadeeth he said: “This Hadeeth is Hasan Ghareeb”
(3).

I say: Based upon the above, as mentioned previously, it is permissible for the Muslims to undertake
available facilitations at their disposal to enable the enemy to receive the corspses of their killed soldiers
and those who are subordinate to them.

We have now reached the conclusion of the final issue of this study which we have singled out to discuss
the corpses of the enemy. In doing so, we have also reached the conclusion of the second chapter of the
fifth volume and will now, by the will and Tawfeeq of Allah move on to the third chapter of this volume.

[(1) “Kanz ul-‘Ummaal”: 30102, 10/455. And the Hadeeth is via the path of Ibn Abi Shaibah. It is in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi
Shaibah: 18671, 14/423, (2) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/133, (3) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 1715, 4/214. For the opinion of the
authenticity of this Hadeeth, refer to “’Uqood ul-Jawaahir ul-Manfiyah, Fee Adillah Madh’hab Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah,
Mimaa Waafaqa Feehi Al-A’immah As-Sittah Aw Ahaduhum”, Az-Zubaidiy: 1/196-197. Refer for the incident to the Seerah of
Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/275-276. Also refer to: “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim, where he quotes the Hadeeth of
Ibn ‘Abbaas as follows: “A man from the Mushrikeen was killed on the day of (the battle of) Al-Khandaq (the trench) and so
they requested that they bury him. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬refused until they gave him a ransom …” This Hadeeth is
Saheeh in its Isnaad but they (Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) did not record it: 3/32. I say: The statement: “Until they gave him a
ransom” must be interpreted with the meaning that he handed over the body of the killed person when they offered money for
him and when he refused to accept it, whilst the Hadeeth does not mean that he took the money (Diyah) … That is understood
through a reconciliation (Jam’u) of the different narrations. Similarly, the statement: “They requested that they bury him, but he
refused” is interpreted to mean that the refusal of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was not related to the burial of the killed person in an absolute
manner but rather related to the handing over of the body to the enemy so that they bury him …Upon this basis, I have
preferred to select the opinion that it is permissible to hand over the body of the enemy and that it is not obligatory].

Chapter Two
The actions and different conducts during war: Between permission and
forbiddance

This chapter revolves around matters and practises related to war or from its dictates and requirements.
The Hukm in respect to them differs in accordance to the difference of circumstances and surrounding
conditions encompassing each of them, just as the Hukm also differs in respect to them, in accordance to
the different viewpoints of the Fuqahaa’ who have addressed those matters through study and
examination.

In this chapter, we have examined the most important or significant matters and practises which can be
included within the wide title of this chapter, addressing the most significant aspects of those matters and
practises, in a suitable level of depth, according to our evaluation, in terms of presenting Fiqhiy treatments
or solutions related to them, whilst outweighing from those Ahkaam, that which we view to be the
strongest, when the opinions are contrary to one another, in accordance to the strength of evidence.

The discussion in this study will revolve around the following subjects of study:

1 - The First Study: The Hukm of fighting the enemy if he is using human shields from the Muslims or
non-Muslims.

2 - The Second Study: The use of weapons which encompass non-combatants with harm: Weapons of
mass (or comprehensive) destruction.

3 - The Third Study: Some of the practises of combatants in war and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad
concerning them.
The First Issue: The delay of the performance of the Salawaat (prayers) from their (set) times.

The Second Issue: Abduction in its different forms or types.

The Third Issue: Suicidal or martyrdom operations.

The Fourth Issue: Violation of the A’araad (honours) and the concept of the enemy being mad Halaal in
respect to the Nafs (life), ‘Ird (honour) and Maal (wealth or property).

The First Study

The Hukm of fighting the enemy when he is using human shields from the
Muslims or non-Muslims

In the preceding studies it was required from us to present aspects of the Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) which
are connected to this study. It was necessary to do that in those places and now we will address the most
significant or important aspects which enter this subject area, by discussing two issues, which are:

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): What is meant by shielding in this study? And who are those are meant
by human shields which the enemy shields itself with?

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to fighting the enemy if he uses
human shield.

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): What is meant by shielding (At-Tatarrus) in this

study? And who are those are meant by the human shields which the enemy shields
itself with?

A - The First Point: What is meant by shielding in this study?

- It was stated in (the dictionary) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: “At-Tattarus: Concealment or hiding (At-
Tasattur) with At-Turs (a shield)” (1).

- In “Misbaah ul-Muneer”: The (meaning of) Turs (shield) is well-known and At-Tatarrus with a ting
means making it into a shield and concealing or hiding with it” (2).

[(1) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p63, (2) “Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p43. The statement of the classical dictionaries that the “Turs”
(shield) is well-known is because it was used for the tools of war that were well-known to be used in the wars of old. It
represented a defensive weapon to confront the enemy in terms of sword blows and spear jabs etc. Many examples of these old
metal shields can be found in the war museum inside the fence of the Sultan Sulaiman Masjid in Damascus].
The intended meaning of “At-Tatarrus” in this study is that the enemy takes a group from the people as
shields through whom it protects itself, in the case where it is previously known, that the opponent will
hesitate greatly to hit them (the shields) in order to reach those behind them (the enemy).

Modern examples which take the ruling of “At-Tatarrus” (shielding) include the case when the enemy
surrounds or fills his headquarters or strategic military facilities with hostages. That is with the intended
aim of protecting these places from being exposed to military strikes from the opposing side. In this
manner modern weaponry has expanded the concept or scope of shielding. Indeed, this concept in
contemporary or modern-day examples or forms is more evident than the examples of the past.

That is because in the past, the opposing combatant would seek protection is a person belonging to the
opposing side and would hold him before him to guard against the strikes of his opponent. The same
would apply in respect to the army when it would place in front of it rows of the enemy prisoners or
captives for example to guard against the sword blows and jabs of the spears etc. In such a situation, it
was possible for the other side which was concerned to not expose the live or human shields to harm, it
was possible for them to keep away as much as possible from hitting those shields. As for the situation
today, with the existence of modern developed weaponry, which include weapons which can turn its
target and those around it into dust, then the shielding in the modern-day form which we have indicated
to, would by its nature compel the opposing side or foe to either refrain from the idea of fighting due to
its concern for the life of the human shields, or it could accept the idea of sacrificing the life of this shield
and declare war with the use of these weapons of mass destruction, or it could resign itself to conducting a
long drawn-out war against the opponent with traditional weaponry whilst it may not be in its interest to
engage in this type of war which prohibits it from benefiting from weapons of mass destruction. That is
due to its concern for the life of its hostages held by the enemy who will be the first victims of those
weapons of mass destruction, in the case where it had wanted to utilise them. Consequently, the shielding
in the modern-day form is more powerful in respect to accomplishing and realising its objectives than the
form employed in the past.

In any case, this shielding, in any form from amongst its forms consists of human shields. Consequently,
are these shields all of one kind or are there a number of kinds or types, in respect to the Muslims when
the enemy uses them against them? This is the subject area of the next point.

B - The Second Point: Who are those are meant by the human shields? Or what are the kinds or
types of human shields intended in this study?

There are two main kinds of human shields which the enemy can use against the Muslims:

1 - Muslim human shields; whether they were from the subjects of the Islamic State whom the enemy had
made into captives for this purpose or they were not subjects of the Islamic State (1).

Attached to the Muslims in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of human shields, are the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (i.e.
non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic State) in addition to those who take their ruling who are subjects of
other states but under the Amaan (security) of the Muslims. If the enemy takes any of those as human
shields by which to protect themselves, one single ruling applies upon all of them.

The author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab” said: “And if they (i.e. the disbelievers from Ahl ul-Harb [people at
war]) use the Ahl udh-Dhimmah as shields or those who have a security (Amaan) between us and them,
then the Hukm (ruling) in respect to them is the same as if they had shielded themselves with Muslims.
That is because it is Haraam (prohibited) for them to be killed just as it is prohibited for Muslims to be
killed” (2).
2 - The human shields from the disbelievers of Ahl ul-Harb, from amongst those whom it is Haraam for
the Muslims to target their fighting towards, like the women and children. That is whether they belong to
the enemy that we are fighting or belong to another enemy, whom those we are fighting have taken as
shield to protect themselves with.

With that we have concluded the first Mas’alah (issue) and now move on to the next.

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to fighting the
enemy if they use particular human shields to shield themselves with.

The Hukm in respect to this Qitaal (fighting) differs according to two matters:

A - The kind or type of human shield that the enemy is protecting itself with.

B - Is there a necessity that calls for or demands the fighting of the enemy or the continuation in fighting
against it, or is there no such necessity?

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/275, (2) “Al--Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/234 and refer also to “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/224].

In light of these two matters, we will address this Mas’alah (issue) through the following points:

- The First Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) calling to or demanding that
the enemy be fought exists and is present, whilst it is protecting itself with Muslim human shields and
those who follow or fall under their Hukm (ruling).

- The Second Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) calling to or demanding
that the enemy be fought exists and is present, whilst it is protecting itself with human shields from those
who in origin it is Haraam (prohibited) to target in fighting.

- The Third Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) to fight the enemy does not
exist, whilst it is protecting itself with Muslim human shields and those who fall under their ruling.

- The Fourth Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) to fight the enemy does
not exist, whilst it is protecting itself with human shields from those who in origin it is Haraam
(prohibited) to target in fighting.

1 - The First Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) calling to or
demanding that the enemy be fought exists and is present, whilst it is protecting itself with
Muslim human shields and those who follow or fall under their Hukm (ruling).

Before discussing the Ahkaam (rulings) of Al-Qitaal in this case or circumstance and the situations
following g it, it is first best to make clear the intended meaning of the case of Daroorah (necessity) which
calls to (or demands) fighting. Through knowledge of that we will then know, as a result, the meaning
which is contrary or opposite to it … As such, we will understand the reality upon which the Ahkaam
related to all of the situations or circumstances, which we will discuss, apply.

- The intended meaning of the case of the Daroorah (necessity) calling to (or demanding) that
fighting is undertaken:
Within the Fiqhiy sources of references, the expression of the state or situation of emergency manifests in
a number of forms or examples. These include: That the enemy attacks the Muslims (1) and that the
Muslims are in a situation of close combat or struggle with the enemy in respect to the Qitaal (fighting)
(2). This is where it is feared as the resulting consequence of not fighting that the Muslims will be
surrounded, eliminated, defeated, that a large number of them will be killed or any Darar (harm) afflicts
them (3).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/274, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/234, (3) Refer to: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”:
5/448, “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa sh-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/178, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/505, “Al-Ahkaam us-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p27, “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p42, “Subul us-Salaam”: 4/49, “Fataawaa Ibn
Taymiyah”: 4/254 and “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/533].

My opinion concerning this, is that the case or situation of Daroorah (necessity) that drives the Islamic
army to engage in war with the enemy, regardless of their use of particular human shields, is referred back
to the evaluation of the person possessing the authority (i.e. the ruler or one he delegates), which is made
or undertaken in accordance to the circumstances and conditions … Therefore, the war could be a
necessity (Daroorah), that must be undertaken, in a particular case, and even if the human shields who the
enemy has taken to protect itself contains a large number of Muslims, who will be exposed to death as a
result of that Harb. Just as the war, in another case or situation, could be not at the same level of
necessity, where the person possessing the authority (or ruler) views that it is in the interest to cancel the
declaration of war against the enemy or to cease its continuation, for the mere reason that the enemy has
resorted to the light use of human shields, through which it has fortified itself … and even if this shield
only consists of a single individual from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah or the Musta’mineen (i.e. those who have
been granted an Amaan (security) by the Islamic state) … Indeed, he may do that due to the use of human
shields consisting of individuals from the enemy itself, in terms of women and children …!

The above is what is said regarding the case of the Daroorah (necessity) which calls to (or demands) the
engagement in fighting.

We will now begin the discussion around the points that we are addressing:

The Hukm (legal ruling) of fighting the enemy in the case of necessity that calls for that, whilst
the enemy protects itself via human shields consisting of Muslims and those who follow their
ruling:

The word of the majority (Jumhoor) of the Fuqahaa’ has agreed upon the obligation of fighting the enemy
if the necessity calls for or demands that and even if the fighting leads to the killing of the shield that the
enemy is protecting itself with (1). However, two matters are obligatory upon the Muslims in such a
situation:

The First Matter: To avoid striking the shield as much as they possibly can, unless that strike was by
accident (i.e. unintentional) or due to compulsion or dire necessity (Idtiraar) (2).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/447, “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy”: 2/178, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/505, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: “Takmilat ul-Majmoo’”: 19/296 and “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:
4/224].

The Second Matter: That the intent (Qasd) to strike the individuals of this shield is not within the heart,
even if the sensory intent (Qasd) (1) exists due to compulsion or dire necessity (Idtiraar) i.e. that the
motive in the heart for the strike is the wanting to eliminate the enemy and not the wanting to eliminate
the human shield itself. And if there exists a situation of compulsion or dire need (Idtiraar), the Muslims
are made to resort to targeting the human shield with a strike i.e. in terms of the sensed directing towards
it and not from the directing of the heart, upon the consideration that the sensed targeting must be
undertaken in order to reach the enemy and eliminate it. That is whilst there is no Daroorah (necessity) in
relation to the intention of the heart, in respect to striking or hitting the shield, as it remains in the sphere
of the Muharramaat (prohibitions) (2).

The above is what is to be said regarding the Hukm of Al-Qitaal (fighting) and striking the shield
consisting of Muslims and those who fall under their ruling (i.e. Ahl udh-Dhimmah and Musta’mineen) if
the Daroorah (necessity) makes resorting to that necessary … according to the majority of the Fuqahaa’.

- There is also a Fiqhiy opinion stating that even in the case of the Daroorah (necessity) to kill the
disbelievers, this Qitaal (fighting) is Haraam as long as it inevitably leads to the killing of one of the shields
which the enemy is shielding itself with, even if it is one single Muslim or Dhimmiy from the Islamic
subjects. Indeed, even if the threat was in respect to a single Musta’min from the subjects of the other
states!

Expressing this opinion, the following came stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:

“… Unless the Daroorah (necessity) calls for them to be targeted by projectiles [i.e. targeting the
disbelievers with weapons like arrows, catapults etc], when they are shielding themselves by them (i.e.
human shields) during the fighting, in the case where if we were to refrain from them, they would defeat
us and their harms resulting from that would be many, then at such a time, according to the most correct
opinion, it is permissible to target them. We mean by this, fighting the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) whilst
attempting to protect and guard the Muslims and Ahl udh-Dhimmah as much as possible. That is because
the Mafsadah (detriment and harm) associated with not fighting is greater than the Mafsadah (detrimental
harm) of undertaking it, whilst it is expected that a group (or number) will be killed in order for the
Baidah (1) of Islaam to be protected, whilst all matters are taken under consideration. And the second
opinion (i.e. the second opinion contrary to the most correct in relation to the Hukm (ruling) in this
matter] is to refrain, if it is not possible to target the disbelievers without targeting the Muslim or the
Dhimmiy or the one like the Dhimmiy like the Musta’min!” (4).

[(1) The Hanafiyah Fuqahaa’ used the word “Qasd” (intent) with the meaning of the determination or resolve (‘Azm) of the
heart (Al-‘Azm Al-Qalbiy): “Al-Hidaayah”: 5/448. And the Fuqahaa’ of the Maalikiyah have used the word “Qasd” with the
meaning of actual directed sensed strike (or attack) upon the shield, if the matter dictates that, when the prohibition if lifted (i.e.
doesn’t apply because of the circumstances): “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa sh-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/178, and “Man’h ul-Jaleel
Sharh Mukhtasar Sayyidi Khaleel”: 3/151, (2) “Al-Hidaayah” (Fat’h ul-Qadeer): 5/448, (3) “i.e. its society due to the
resemblance between it and the ostrich egg because the egg (Baidah) is the place where the offspring is gathered”: “Al-‘Inaayah
‘Alaa l-Hidaayah”: 5/447, (4) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224].

Despite that, the author did not provide reasoning for this opinion. It appears that the ‘Illah (reasoning) to
forbid or prevent the fighting in this case when there is a Daroorah (necessity) calling to the engagement
in fighting, accompanied by great harms befalling the Muslims from the enemies and defeat, if they don’t
fight, it appears that the ‘Illah (reasoning) that this is based upon, is that it is Haraam for the Muslims to
engage in the killing of the Muslim, Dhimmiy or Musta’min who are human shields. That is in accordance
to the explicit (Sareeh) general evidences related to the Hurmah (inviolable sanctity) of the Muslim and
those that fall under the same Hukm … The case or situation of the Daroorah, does not permit the
Muslim to squander the blood of the inviolable and protected (Ma’soom). It is therefore obligatory,
according to those of this opinion, to refrain from fighting the enemy in such a situation or circumstances,
so that the Muslims do not fall into the prohibited act of shedding the Haraam blood, which is the human
shield in this case. Then, concerning the enemy overcoming the Muslims as a result of the adoption of this
opinion where many Muslims die, then the Muslims are Shuhadaa’ (martyrs). Even if the enemy turn upon
the Muslims from the shields that they had protecting themselves with and kill them as well, after they had
fulfilled the purposes that the enemy had wanted them for, then the Muslims who refrained from fighting
the enemy would not be sinful for that. That is because they themselves had not engaged in killing anyone
of the Muslims from this protective shield.
I say: This (i.e. the loss of life, negative repercussions and defeat etc) can possible be excused or pardoned
based upon this opinion … However, as we have stated, the majority of the Fuqahaa’ have permitted the
Qitaal in such a situation of Daroorah (necessity) and even if the consequence of that is the killing of the
Muslim shields and those who fall under their ruling (i.e. Ahl udh-Dhimmah and Musta’mineen) … The
following are extracts from the speech of Al-Qurtubiy concerning this: “I said: It could be permissible to
kill the shield and for there not to be disagreement or difference of opinion in respect to that In Shaa’
Allah. That is if the Maslahah (interest) was a holistic Darooriy (absolutely necessary or essential). The
meaning of it being Darooriy is that: The disbelievers are not able to be reached unless it is by killing the
shields. The meaning of being holistic (Kulliyah) is: That it is general for all Muslims so that the Maslahah
of all the Muslims is realised through the killing of the shields. The meaning of this being definite
(Qat’iyah) is: That this Maslahah will happen or be realised, as a result of killing those (human) shields,
definitely … Our ‘Ulamaa say: This Maslahah (interest) with these restrictions do not need to differed
upon in respect to its consideration”. He then said: “A reasoning or sound-minded person would not say:
The shield is not killed in such a scenario because the going away of the shield, Islaam and the Muslims is
necessary. However, when this Maslahah (interest) is not free of the Mafsadah (detrimental harm) the
person who has not scrutinized that keeps clear from it! That is because that Mafsadah (detrimental harm)
in relation to what happens from it does not exist or like it doesn’t exist. And Allah knows best” (1).

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/287-288].

I say: It is not our purpose here to examine the deductions permitting the striking or targeting of the
human shields which we are discussing, to discuss them and outweigh which is the strongest opinion from
amongst them … What has been quoted in the two previous texts is sufficient in respect to the Adillah
(evidences) for this opinion just as it is enough to now that the majority of the Fuqahaa’ have stated the
obligation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) and striking or targeting the shields when there is a Daroorah (necessity)
to do that, regardless of the different paths they took to reach that Hukm (ruling) (1).

After that, we will no move on to the next point.

2 - The Second Point: The case of Daroorah (necessity) in respect to fighting the enemy, when it
is protecting itself with human shields from its (own) individuals, like the women and children.

There is no difference of opinion amongst the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the permissibility of fighting in this
circumstance whilst it is attempted as much as possible to avoid the targeting or hitting of these human
shields. If the Daroorah (necessity) calls for or demands that it be struck, that is according to the Hukm of
Al-Idtiraar (compulsion or essential necessity) whilst the intent of the heart and mind is that the target for
the strike is only the enemy fighters or combatants and not those women and children.

The following came stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “If war is underway and
they shield themselves with women and children, it is permissible to strike them if the Daroorah
(necessity) calls for that whilst we are wary of those mentioned (i.e. to avoid hitting them as much as
possible). That is so this situation cannot be used as an excuse to prevent the undertaking of Al-Jihaad and
so that it doesn’t become a path (or means) for the defeat of the Muslims …” (2).

In line with what has proceeded, the books of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib have addressed this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue) and there is no need for us to go into length to present the texts within them indicating to what we
are examining … As for the proof or evidential argument (Hujjah) in respect to hitting those whom it is
Haraam to fight, in terms of women and children, with the aim of reaching the enemy itself, in the case
when there is a Daroorah to fight, then what we have already mentioned regarding the permissibility of
striking the shields when they are Muslims is by greater reason a Hujjah (proof or evidence) for when the
shields are from the individuals of the enemy, from the women and children, according to what is evident
or apparent (Zhaahir).
[(1) Refer to “Al-Ahkaam Fee Usool il-Ahkaam”, Al-Aamidiy: 4/394, “Dawaabit Al-Maslahah”, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed
Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy”: 331-33, “Dustoor ul-Akhlaaq Fil Islaam”, Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Daraaz - Al-Haashiyah: p49, (2)
“Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: 2/234, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/504, “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-
Shar’iyah”: p165 and “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 4/1554].

3 - The Third Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) to fight the enemy
does not exist, whilst it is protecting itself with Muslim human shields and those who fall under
their ruling.

There are two opinions amongst the Fuqahaa’ related to this:

1 - An opinion permitting the fighting of the enemy and even if that leads to the death of the Muslim
shields or those who take the same ruling. This is the opinion of the majority of the Ahnaaf, Al-Maalikiyah
and Al-Imaam Ath-Thawriy (1).

2 - The opinion that forbids this Qitaal and this is the opinion of the Shaafi’iyah, Hanaabilah, Al-Hasan
Bin Ziyaad from the followers of Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah and some of the Maalikiyah (2).

In “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, from the books of the Ahnaaf, concerning the discussion about striking the
fortresses of the disbelievers and even if Muslims are inside them, and about the issue of the enemy taking
Muslims (human) shields, the following was stated:

“… There is no issue (or problem i.e. prohibition) in respect to targeting them (i.e. the disbelievers inside
the fortresses) with projectiles (i.e. arrows, catapults etc.) and even if they contained a Muslim prisoner or
trader. Indeed (there is no issue), even if they shielded themselves with Muslim prisoners and their
children … whether it was known that if they refrain from firing at them, that the Muslims would be
defeated, or if they didn’t know that, However, no one is intentionally targeted by their firing except for
the disbelievers … According to the three A’immah (Imaams) it is not permissible to fire at them in the
situation of human shields unless refraining from firing at them in this case would lead to the defeat of the
Muslims. That is the stated opinion of Al-Hasan Bin Ziyaad” (3).

I say: The Madh’hab of Ash-Shaafi’iy and Ahmad Bin Hanbal is like what has come mentioned in the text.
As for the Madh’hab of Al-Imaam Maalik, then what has been mentioned in the books of the Madh’hab,
in relation specifically to the situation of taking of human shields, is that it is permissible to fight the
enemy whilst avoiding targeting the (human) shield itself, in the case where there was no Daroorah
(necessity) for this Qitaal.

- In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, by Ad-Dardeer, which is from the books of the Maalikiyah, it was stated: “If
they shield themselves with a Muslim, they are fought against, whilst the shields are not targeted by the
firing (i.e. of the projectiles)” (4).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/448, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/273, “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/151, (2) Refer to: “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/244, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/505, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/448, “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/151 and “Al-Jaami’
Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/287, (4) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/178].

The following came in “Man’h ul-Jaleel” which is also from their books (of Fiqh) when presenting the
different cases of the shields:

“Secondly: When it is not feared from them (i.e. from the enemy and meaning that there is no Daroorah
(necessity) to fight). If they shield themselves with a Muslim, they are fought whilst the shield is not
targeted …” (1). Then, after that, he mentions an opinion stating that this fighting is not undertaken …
Consequently, the majority of the Ahnaaf and the Maalikiyah say: It is permissible to fight the disbelievers
in this case or circumstance and even if there was no Daroorah (necessity) demanding or calling for the
fighting to be undertaken, whilst paying attention or care to not target the shield which the enemy is
protecting itself with.

The Hujjah (proof) for this opinion is the establishment of the Fard (obligation) of Al-Qitaal (fighting)
against the enemy and so that the door of Al-Jihaad is not obstructed (2).

The Shaafi’iyah, the Hanaabilah and those who agreed with them from the Ahnaaf and the Maalikiyah
have said concerning this issue: It is Haraam to fight here as long as there is no Daroorah (necessity)
calling for it. That is so that the lives of those Muslims or those who take their ruling, who have been
taken as human shields, are not exposed to danger.

In “Al-Minhaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” the following was stated: “And if they shield
themselves with Muslims and even by one, or with the people of Dhimmah, then if the necessity doesn’t
call to firing (e.g. with catapults) at them (the enemy), we leave them, as an obligation, to preserve the
Muslims and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah” (3).

And in Al-Mughniy by Ibn Qudaamah: “And if they shield themselves by a Muslim and the Haajah (need)
does not call for firing at them (e.g. with catapults), due to the war not being underway or due to the
possibility of overcoming them without its use, or due to being secure from their evil (or harm), then it is
not permitted to fire at them” (4). Al-Qurtubiy from the Maalikiyah also held this view. After transmitting
the view of Al-Imaam Maalik about the impermissibility of throwing fire upon the boats or (transport)
vessels of the disbelievers when they have Muslim prisoners with them, Al-Qurtubiy stated when
commentating upon that: “And similarly if the Kaafir has shielded himself with a Muslim, it is not
permitted to fire at him” (5).

Now what is the Hujjah (proof) of those who have said that fighting in this case or circumstance is
prohibited (Haraam)?

[(1) “Man’h ul-Jaleel, Sharh ‘Alaa Sayyidiy Khaleel”: 3/151, (2) Refer to “Al-Badaa’i”, Al-Kaasaaniy: 7/101 and “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 5/448-449, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224 and also refer to “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: 2/234, (4) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/505, (5) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/287 and refer to “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/151].

Concerning this they say: Our fighting against the enemy here (i.e. in such a situation), when there is no
Daroorah (necessity) to fight and it exposes the life of the human shield to danger, only represents, in
reality, the undertaking of a matter which is Mahzhoor (prohibited) and that is the killing of the Muslim
shield and those who follow their Hukm (ruling) for the sake of reaching, through that, to a Mubaah
(permissible) matter, which is the killing of the enemy or fighting him … after the shield that he was
protecting himself with had fallen or been brought down … That is whilst it is established that
committing the prohibited act for the sake of reaching or accomplishing the Mubaah (permitted act), is a
matter that is not permitted in accordance to the Shar’a (1).

In addition, the Mafsadah (detriment or harm) of killing the Muslim (i.e. from the shields) is above the
Maslahah (interest) of killing the Kaafir hiding behind the shield (2). This means that the Qaa’idah Ash-
Shar’iyah stating “that the repelling of the Mafaasid (detriments or harms) takes precedence over the
attaining of the Masaalih (interests)” dictates that the fighting in this situation is Haraam (3).

That which we view to be strongest here is the view of those who have stated that it is prohibited to
engage in the fighting that leads inevitably to striking the prohibited shields. That is due to the
consideration that there is no Daroorah calling to the engagement in fighting in this situation and in view
of the strength of the Adillah (evidences) which those of this opinion used in their deduction.
As for the opinion of those who permit the engagement in fighting in this scenario due to it representing
the establishment of a Fard (obligation) whilst making the (human) shielding a reason to prevent
establishing this Fard would mean blocking the door to Al-Jihaad i.e. making redundant a Hukm Shar’iy
which is obligatory to remain in continuance until the Day of Judgment. The answer to this, is that the
presence of the mentioned shielding is only a temporary preventing reason for the undertaking of the
obligation of Al-Jihaad and does not represent the blocking of the door of Al-Jihaad. In addition, there are
other preventative causes preventing the Muslims from undertaking the obligation of Al-Jihaad which are
not considered to be blocking the door of Al-Jihaad. That is like the weakness of the Muslims and waiting
for the strength to become available to enable them to undertake this Fard … Or like the peace treaties
which the Islamic State signs with other states if the Maslahah (interest) calls to that. The Jihaad in this
case is prohibited against those states as long as the treaties are present and continuing, whilst this does
not imply the closing or blocking of the door of Al-Jihaad.

Also, the enemy which is protecting itself with Muslim human shields and those who fall under their
ruling, only do that on some occasions, or upon some fronts or in specific points or key places which they
are concerned about protecting, as dictated by reality … Consequently, the door of Al-Jihaad remains
open outside of those times, fronts or places which have been indicated to.

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/287, (2) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/448, (3) Refer to the Qaa’idah (principle)
number 30 from Al-Majallah page 15].

In any case, the Hujjah (evidential proof) represented in the obligation of keeping the door of Al-Jihaad
open does not in contradiction with or opposing to ceasing the fighting against an enemy protecting itself
with human shields consisting of Muslims or those who follow their ruling (i.e. the Ahl udh-Dhimmah
and the Musta’mineen), whilst waiting for a better opportunity to fight it, if it was not possible to fight this
enemy without exposing the lives of the shields to danger or threat.

With that we have concluded the third point and now move on to the next.

4 - The Fourth Point: The case or circumstance when the Daroorah (necessity) to fight the enemy
does not exist, whilst it is protecting itself with human shields from its (own) individuals, like the
women and children.

- The majority, from the Ahnaaf, the Shaafi’iyah (according to their relied upon opinion) and the
Hanaabilah, permit the fighting in this situation (1).

- That is whilst the Maalikiyah prohibit this Qitaal (fighting), in the case when it inevitably leads to the
killing of the disbeliever children and women of the enemy. They make the leaving of the fighting
obligatory in origin when those children and women are exposed to death! (2).

- Regarding the Ahnaaf, from among the majority, there is no need for us to examine their Hujjah (proof
or evidence) in respect to this situation or circumstance that we are discussing. As long as they state that
this fighting is permissible when the shield consists of Muslims, then by greater reason they state the
permissibility of fighting when the human shields consist of enemy disbelievers; women, children and
those similar. That is because those, under any circumstance, are less in respect to their Hurmah
(inviolability) than the Muslims.

- As for the Shaafi’iyah, then their main recognised opinion, is the permissibility of fighting in this
situation or these circumstances, even though there is another opinion attributed to them forbidding this
Qitaal (3).
The following was stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, when explaining what has
been said concerning this Hukm in this situation and what the main recognised (Mu’tamad) opinion is,
with its Daleel: “And if they defend themselves with them [i.e. use their women and children as shields to
defend themselves] whilst the Daroorah (necessity) does not dictate firing at them, then the most apparent
(ruling) is to leave them, as an obligation. That is so that it does not lead to killing them without the
Daroorah (necessity) to do that whilst we have been forbidden from killing them” …

[(1) “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 4/1554, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224, and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/504, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/178, “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/150 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
6/147, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224].

… He then mentioned the other opinion saying: “And the second (opinion): Is the Mu’tamad (main relied
upon opinion in the Madh’hab) and that is the permissibility of firing at them just as it is permitted to
erect catapults against the fortress even if it hits them. That is so that it is not taken as an excuse or pretext
to suspend Al-Jihaad or does not become a stratagem to keep the fortresses in their hands …” (1).

- That is whilst the author of “Al-Mughniy” from the Hanaabilah decisively stated the permissibility of the
Qitaal (fighting) in this scenario, without difference of opinion, just as he mentioned Adillah similar to
those of the Shaafi’iyah (2).

- There only remains the matter which arouses real wonder and that is the view of the Maalikiyah:

That is because they, here, in the case where there is no Daroorah (necessity) to engage in the fighting,
have prohibited this fighting, so that the human shields from the children and woman of the enemy are
not exposed to danger or threat … That is whilst they, as mentioned earlier in the discussion of the
previous point, permit this fighting when the shields are actually Muslims, even though there is no
Daroorah (necessity) to engage in the fighting! That is even if it is obligatory, naturally, to not target the
Muslim shields by firing at them or striking them (i.e. by weapons that fire, hurl etc..).

This strange differentiation in respect to the Hum between these two situations could provide an
indication that the Hurmah (inviolability) of the children and women disbelievers of the enemy is greater
than the Hurmah of the Muslims themselves. That is in the case where here we forbid the Islamic army
from engaging in Al-Qitaal (fighting), in origin, when the enemy could be protecting itself by women and
children … Whilst we do not prevent or forbid the Islamic army from engaging in Qitaal when those
enemies are protecting themselves my Muslim human shields!

Concerning this Hukm held by the Maalikiyah, the following was stated in “Man’h ul-Jaleel”, in a text that
we have previously quoted when listing the different circumstances of taking shields. The author stated:
“The third (case): That it is not feared from them (i.e. from the enemy, meaning there is no Daroorah to
fight). Then if they shield themselves with a Muslim, they are fought against, whilst the shield is not
targeted (i.e. he is not the target and not aimed at) … And if they shield themselves with children
(Dhurriyah), they are left (i.e. not fought)” (3). i.e. They are left without being fought and the intended
meaning of Dhurriyah here is there children whilst their women are attached to them (4) …

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/224, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/504, (3) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/151, (4) “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/178].

… In “Fat’h ul-Baariy” it was stated: “Maalik and Al-Awzaa’iy said: “It is not permitted to kill the women
and children under any circumstance and even if the people of war shield themselves by them or are
fortified in a fortress or ship, whilst they have placed the woman and children with them. It is not
permissible to fire at them or set fire to (or burn) them” (1).

Concerning the difference in the viewpoint of the Maalikiyah towards these two situations or cases:
- The case of Muslim human shields, where it has been permitted to fight!
- And the case of the women and children disbelievers of the enemy being used as shields, where it has
been prohibited to kill them!

The difference between these two cases, as is apparent from the speech of the Maalikiyah is:

That Muslims are naturally inclined to hate the enemy from the disbelievers. Therefore, if we permitted
the fighting of this enemy and requested from the fighters of our army to not target the human shields
consisting of their disbelieving women and children, it would then be feared that those fighters will be
negligent in respect to caution to not hit those shields, due to what they carry inside them in terms of
hatred of the disbelievers in general … Due to this, we have blocked this path for the Islamic army and
forbidden them from fighting in origin, so that they do not fall into this prohibited act.

- However, when those human shields, which the enemy is protecting itself by, are Muslim, then the
fighters of the Islamic army would naturally have a strong motive to truly avoid striking those Muslim
human shields accompanied by a strong internal monitoring mechanism to keep check to avoid falling
into any error during this fighting … Consequently, there is no fear, in such a situation, that the fighters
will be negligent in respect to keeping their strikes or firing away from their Muslim brothers. Based upon
this, comes the permissibility of fighting the enemy whilst avoiding the Muslim human shields, according
to the opinion held by the Maalikiyah (2).

I say: In spite of what this analysis contains in terms of delving into what lies inside the Muslims and the
emotions that dominate them, in addition to what controls them in terms of incentives and what leads to
the loss of control over their motives, in some situations, in respect to outbursts … it nevertheless
provides the image or perception of a single nature for the psychological or Nafsiy disposition of the
Muslims, upon which this analysis is applicable. That is whilst this image or perception is not guaranteed
or constant in every time and in every generation! As such, the sounder approach, in respect to what we
are addressing, is to explain the Ahkaam of Qitaal and to not build these Ahkaam upon psychological
analysis.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/147, “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 7/261 and “Subul us-Salaam”: 4/49, (2) Refer to “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/150].

And we should rely upon what the Shaafi’iyah and the Hanaabilah have said which is the opposite of what
the Maalikiyah have said, in respect to both the situations or cases we have mentioned i.e. the fighting
should be prevented or forbidden in the case where the human shields which the enemy is protecting
itself by consists of Muslims.

Just as the fighting is permissible to be undertaken in the case when the shields which the enemy is
protecting itself by consist of its women and children. That is in accordance to the Shar’iyah evidences
which have previously been explained in relation to this subject area.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of this fourth point of this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and
consequently, we have also reached the end of this current study. We now move on, by the help of Allah
and His Tawfeeq, to the next topic of study.
 The Second Study
The use of weapons which encompass non-combatants with harm: Weapons of
mass (or comprehensive) destruction

Introduction:

The First Issue: Concerning weapons which cause the destruction of human and animal life, and
vegetation, in addition to the destruction of buildings, like nuclear weapons, what is the Hukm in relation
to using them in war?

The Second Issue: Concerning weapons that lead to the destruction of human and animal life, and
vegetation, but do not destroy buildings, like neutron bombs and chemical and germ warfare weaponry
etc., what is the Hukm in relation to using them in war?

The Introduction:

The weapons and means of warfare, utilised when fighting the enemy, in the era of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the
era of the Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, were represented in swords, spears, arrows,
catapults, cutting trees and setting fire to them (1) and the buildings (2) etc. Similarly, pelting fire between
the Muslims and the disbelievers was from the host of means of warfare utilised in the wars during the era
of the Sahaabah (3), may Allah be pleased with them.

[(1) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3021, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/154 (2) Al-Bukhaariy: 3020, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/154, (3) Refer to
“Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/502 and the Sunan of Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2647 and 2648, 2/244].

However, since the beginning of the modern era, modern weaponry came into being, including rifles that
shoot bullets and cannons which fire shells etc… The Fuqahaa’ who lived during the time of their
development and spread examined them and permitted the Muslims to use them adding them to the
weapons that were already existent from the past.
- Ibn ‘Aabideen said in relation to the definition of the catapult: “It is a instrument (or machinery) which
hurls large rocks. I said: It has been abandoned today due to being made redundant by modern cannons”
(1).

- Ibn ‘Aabideen also stated in respect to arrows, the permissibility of using modern weapons which
resemble them. He says: “… Like bullets which could make arrows redundant in our current age” (2).

- Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy: “It is permissible to kill the disbelievers is they are fortified with catapults and
analogy is made to apply that permissibility to other than it, in terms of cannons and others similar
weapons” (3).

- When explaining his Shar’iy Ijtihaad concerning the prohibition of using weapons which do not
distinguish between those whom it is permitted to kill from the individuals of the enemy during war, when
there is no Daroorah (necessity) for that, Al-Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy says regarding they weapons that to
not distinguish: “… (They are) like the firing with catapults and cannons and what is similar to that” (4).

In our current time new weapons of mass destruction have been developed. They include those which
encompass the destruction of buildings and facilities alongside the elimination of manifestations of
human, animal and plant life, like nuclear bombs … or those which are limited, mostly, to wiping out
manifestations of human, animal and plant life but do not destroy the buildings and facilities, like the
neutron bomb, chemical and germ weapons and what is similar to them …

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/344. This is whilst Muhammad Ameen Bin ‘Aabideen passed away in the year 1252 AH,
1836 CE: “Al-‘I’laam”: 6/263, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/344, (3) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/54. And
Muhammad Bin Isma’eel As-San’aaniy died in the year 1187 AH, 1767 CE: “Al-I’laam”: 6/263, (4) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-
Shawkaaniy: 4/535. And Muhammad Bin ‘Ali Ash-Shawkaaniy passed away in the year 1250 AH, 1834 CE: “Al-I’laam”:
7/190].

Concerning these weapons, is it permissible to use them against the enemy during war (before mastering
them), for the sake of hastening the elimination of the enemy or to force the enemy to surrender?

And what if there were, upon the hostile fronts which were being targeted by those weapons, those whom
it is prohibited to target to kill, whether they are Muslims, or women and children from the enemy, or
others?

This is the subject area of our study and consequently our discussion here, in relation to this type of
weaponry, will be divided into two issues:

The First Issue: Concerning the weapons that wipe out the human, animal and plant life alongside the
destruction of buildings, like the nuclear bomb, what is the Hukm in respect to utilising them during war?

The Second Issue: Concerning the weapons which wipe out human, animal and plant life without
destroying the buildings, like the neutron bomb and chemical and germ weapons amongst others, what is
the Hukm (ruling) related to utilising them during war?
 The First Issue
Concerning the weapons that wipe out the human, animal and plant life alongside
the destruction of buildings, like the nuclear bomb, what is the Hukm in respect to
utilising them during war?

We will address this issue through the discussion of two further Fiqhiy issues (Mas’alah):

- The First Mas’alah (issue): The old weapons and means of war which wipe out the manifestations of
life and destroy facilities, and the stance of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to them. And do the modern weapons
of mass destruction fall under their category?

- The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the Hukm (legal ruling) concerning the use of weapons of mass
or complete destruction against the hostile directions containing those whom it is Haraam to kill, like the
Muslims and the women and children from the enemy subjects?

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): The old weapons and means of war which wipe out the
manifestations of life and destroy facilities, and the stance of the Fuqahaa’ in respect to them.
And do the modern weapons of mass destruction fall under their category?

We may not find amongst the old weapons and means of war, a single weapon which produces mass or
comprehensive destruction and death, like that which we find within modern weapons. However, we
could find a number of old weapons and means of warfare which have been mentioned within the Fiqhiy
sources of reference, presented within the examination of what is permitted to be utilised and what is not
permitted to be utilised in war against the enemy, and when used together and collectively, these weapons
could produce the same result i.e. death and destruction. That is even if that was within a narrow and
limited scope as compared to modern weapons.

Included within those weapons and means of war of the past were the catapults, burning or setting alight,
drowning, smoke, cutting of trees, damaging crops, running buildings, cutting off water supplies and
polluting them for the enemy within its lands by throwing poisons, blood and impurities in the, which was
undertaken with the aim of eliminating the enemy by their mere consumption of it … And similarly,
insects and living creatures could be dispatched, which by their nature could kill those they bite or sting;
like snakes, scorpions and what is similar to them (1).

These weapons and means of warfare of the past, were mentioned in the old (or classical) books of
reference, and they contained details concerning what was permitted and what was not permitted to be
used against the enemy in war, in addition to the circumstances which justified their use. Despite, that
there is no difference of opinion amongst the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the permissibility of using them all
against the enemy and even the most severe of those means of warfare in terms of horror or terror. That
is like hurling fire upon the fighters of the enemies in the circumstance of war and what is similar to that
… That is when it was of the nature of the enemy fighters to use these weapons against the Muslims … or
when the battle could not be won against the enemy except with the use of weapons and means like these
(2).
 In addition, some of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib have permitted these mentioned weapons and means of
warfare against the enemy, even when it is possible to defeat it with traditional weapons of the past like
the sword and spear etc. Concerning this, within the Shaafi’iy Fiqh, in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy
ul-Muhtaaj”, Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said: “It is permissible to besiege the disbelievers in the lands and
fortresses, to dispatch water towards them and hurl fire at them, use catapults, take them by surprise or
unaware under the cover of the night (3)”. And the explainer (Shaarih) commented upon what has been
mentioned in terms of means of warfare and said: “Included within the meaning of that is the
demolishment of their houses, cutting the water supply off from them, and casting snakes and scorpions
upon them, and even if amongst them there were women and children. That is due to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ْ‫َو ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََواح‬

َ‫ص ُرو ُه ْم‬
And capture (or take) them and besiege them (At-Taubah: 5).

And in the Saheehaini (i.e. Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim), it has been related that he laid siege to At-Taa’if (4)
…

[(1) Refer to: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/100, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/447, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer Wa Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy”:
2/177, “Al-Qawaaneen Ash-Shar’iyah”: p165, “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/243, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/223, “Al-Mughniy”,
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/502-505 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 4/1467 and 1475, (2) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/447, “Bidaayat ul-
Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd (“Al-Hidaayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/26”), “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/148 and “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/502, (3) “This is the attack or raid by night whilst they (the enemy) are heedless”: “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/223, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4325, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/44 and Saheeh Muslim: 1778, 3/1402].

… And Al-Baihaqiy related that he ‫ ﷺ‬set up a catapult (1) against them and analogy is made with its
meaning to apply upon that which causes widespread or general destruction through its use!” He then
said: “The apparent or evident (Zhaahir) meaning of their speech is that is permissible to cause damage to
them through that which was mentioned and even if we are able to get the better of them (the enemy)
without using it!” (2).

Also, some of the Fiqhiy opinions have forbidden the use of fire specifically, against the enemy, whatever
the reasons may be.

Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “Allah ahs commanded the killing of the Mushrikeen and He did not specify for us
the description that it is undertaken by and did not make it obligatory upon us to not to except this or
that. As such, there is nothing preventing killing them with any cause (or means) of killing including
hurling or firing, stabbing, drowning, demolishing, pushing off from a high place or what is similar to that.
And no prevention or forbiddance (Man’un) has come stated (i.e. in the texts), apart from burning
(Tahreeq). That is because it has been established in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and by other than him, from a
Hadeeth related by Abu Hurairah:

َ"َ‫ار‬ ِ ‫اَوفُالَناَ َفأَحْ ِرقُو ُه َم‬

ِ ‫اَبال َّن‬ َ ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَفِيَ َبعْ ثٍَ َف َقا َلَإِنْ ََو َج ْد ُت ْمَفُالَن‬ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬َ ‫أَ َّنهَُ َقا َلَ َب َع َث َن‬
َ ‫اَوفُالَن‬
َ َّ‫َوإِن‬،‫ا‬ َ ‫اَال ُخرُو َجَ"َإِ ِّنيَأَ َمرْ ُت ُك ْمَأَنْ َ ُتحْ ِرقُواَفُالَن‬ ْ ‫ِينَأَ َر ْد َن‬
َ ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَح‬ ِ َّ ‫َرسُول‬ َ ‫ُث َّمَ َقا َل‬
‫َ َفإِنْ ََو َج ْد ُتمُو ُه َماَ َفا ْق ُتلُو ُه َما‬،ُ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ُ‫ارَالََ ُي َع ِّذب‬
َّ َّ‫َب َهاَإِال‬ َ ‫ال َّن‬
That he said: Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬sent us in a mission (i.e. an army-unit) and said: “If you
find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire”. When we intended to depart, Allah's
Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “I ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah
Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them (i.e., don't burn them)” (3).

This Hadeeth has indicated to the forbiddance of burning under all circumstances. That is because the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said, after giving the command to burn two men of the Mushrikeen who had been extreme in
their harm (4) towards the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and consequently deserved to be killed. He then
provided reasoning by way of this ‘Illah (reasoning) which establishes that it is impermissible to burn
anyone from the ‘Ibaad (servants) of Allah, with fire, whether it was a Mushrik (disbeliever) or a non-
Mushrik, and regardless of the extent of his sinfulness and rebellion against Allah. What has been reported
from the Sahaabah (i.e. that they used fire) is understood upon the basis that the Daleel (evidence i.e. this
Hadeeth) had not reached them” (5).

I say: The origin is the permissibility to fight the enemy and to kill him with every kind of weapon, as long
as that is during the state of war before the enemy’s surrender or capturing him. That is because the
Shar’iyah texts did not define or specify a particular tool or means of war to be used against the enemy,
concerning the matter we are discussing …

[(1) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/72, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/223, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2954, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/115 and
also number 3016 “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/149. Sunan Abu Dawud: 2674, 3/74. And a narration related from Hamzah Al-Aslamiy
recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud states: “If you find so and so people, then burn them”: 2673, 3/74, (4) For the explanation of
that refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/149-150, (5) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/534-535. Concerning what he indicated
to in respect to the acts of some of the Sahaabah, refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3017, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/149].

That is like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ‫َو َقا ِتلُ َواَفِيَ َس ِب‬

‫يلَاللَّـ َِه‬
Fight in the way of Allah … (Al-Baqarah: 190).

And His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْثَ َثقِ ْف ُتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫َوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
And kill them wherever you overtake them (Al-Baqarah: 191).

From the dictates of this absolute or unrestricted (Mutlaq) address in respect to the fighting (Qitaal) and
the killing (Qatl) is that it indicates to the Ibaahah (permissibility) of every weapon and means of war that
leads to their fulfilment, as long as there is no specifying Daleel prohibiting a specific means from
amongst them … Similarly, also from the dictates of this unrestricted (Mutlaq) address that has come in
the Shar’iyah texts, is that it is permissible to use all the weapons and means of war to fight against the
enemy without any restriction (Qayd). I mean: Even if the enemy did not use weapons like those weapons
used in the war with it and even if it was possible to overcome it with weapons or means which were less
dangerous than those it was using against the enemy.

Therefore, we weigh to be strongest that which came in the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab permitting the use of the
weapon of fire, destruction, drowning and what is similar to that, during war, against the enemy, and even
if it was possible to defeat the enemy with weapons or means that are less than that. That is working in
accordance to the Shar’iyah evidences in their generality and their unrestricted form.

Yes, if there was any legally legitimate interest (Maslahah) which based upon avoiding the weapons that
were most dangerous in terms of destruction and loss of life and using those which were lesser than them,
without that leading to any harm inflicting the Muslims, then that should be observed. That is because this
matter falls under the jurisdiction of the person in authority who must follow that which is most beneficial
from the options presented to him, according to the Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) establishing that the
conduct of the Imaam, in relation to that which he has been delegated by the subjects for, is not based
upon desires, but rather only upon the Maslahah (interest) (1).
- As for the Shubhah (suspicion or doubt) which Ash-Shawkaaniy raised amongst others, concerning the
use of fire against the enemy and the text that indicates to the Tahreem (prohibition) of burning the
enemies, then we answer that as follows:

A - In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, there is that which indicates explicitly (Saraahatan) that the forbiddance of
burning the enemy is only specific to when that burning is after the enemy has been taken i.e. after his
capture and detaining him, and not in the circumstance of fighting …

[(1) Refer to “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p621 and “Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah”, Ali Ahmad An-Nadawiy:
p123].

In respect to this, it was stated in the narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy:

َ‫َ َفإِنْ َأَ َخ ْذ ُتمُو ُه َما‬،ُ‫ََّللا‬ ِ ُ‫ارَالََ ُي َع ِّذب‬

ََّ َّ‫َب َهاَإِال‬ َ ‫َوإِنَّ َال َّن‬،َ ‫ار‬ َ ‫تَأَ َمرْ ُت ُك ْمَأَنْ َ ُت َحرِّ قُواَفُالَن‬
ِ ‫اَوفُالَن‬
ِ ‫اَبال َّن‬ ُ ‫إِ ِّنيَ ُك ْن‬
‫َفا ْق ُتلُو ُه َما‬
Previously I ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so with fire, but as punishment with fire is
done by none except Allah, if you have captured (or taken) them, kill them, (instead) (1).

Here the wording “If you have captured (or taken) them” (‫ )أَ َخ ْذ ُتمُو ُه َما‬is explicit in respect to the
forbiddance of burning the enemy is only applied upon after they have been captured i.e. after detaining
them, whilst it does not apply to the situation of war or fighting, before that.

Therefore, the previously quoted narration “If you find them” (‫ ) َفإِنْ ََو َج ْد ُتمُو ُه َما‬means: “If you captured
them” as a result of reconciling between the two evidences. This is reaffirmed by what came in the Sunan
of Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor concerning the same incident: “That Habbaar Bin Al-Aswad afflicted or struck
Zainab the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with something whilst she was riding in a carriage (or
wooden frame) on a camel (2) and so she had a miscarriage. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then sent out
an expedition and said: “If you find them (3) then place them between two bundles of firewood and
set fire in it”. Then he said: “Verily, I am shy of Allah, no one should punish with the punishment
of Allah” … The narration then states: “The expedition did not catch him but a caravan on its way to Al-
Madinah caught him. He then accepted Islaam and was brought to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. It was then said to him:
“This is Hubbaar, he is reviled and reviles!” he was a man who reviles (i.e. abuses or curses). The Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬came to him walking and stood over him! And then said: “O Hubbaar! Insult the one who has
insulted you. O Hubbaar! Insult the one who has insulted you!”” (4).

This narration indicates explicitly that the former command in respect to burning, only meant after taking
hold of and detaining the intended man, which is also understood from (the words) “place him between
two bundles of firewood” … It is this command that the Nahy (forbiddance) was issued in respect to it …
Consequently, burning the enemy at the time of battle, remains upon the original ruling of permissibility.

Yes, it is true that according to the majority of the Fuqahaa’: The forbiddance of burning the enemy
applies upon the situation or case of war as well, upon the condition that it is possible, without a great
hardship, to defeat the enemy without the use of fire. If, however, defeating them dictated or required the
use of fire, then it is permissible to use it in such circumstances.

Concerning this, the following came stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: He said: “And its place (i.e. the Nahy
(forbiddance) of using fire) is when the burning has not been designated in order to accomplish the defeat
of the enemy, during war” …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2954, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/115, (2) Here it is discussing when she had migrated from Makkah to Al-
Madinah: “She was followed by Al-Hubbaar Bin Al-Aswad and a companion of his. They agitated her camel and she miscarried
(as she was pregnant) and she became ill as a result of that”: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/150, (3) “It appears that Hubbaar was
mentioned alone as he represented the origin (or main culprit) of the matter whilst the other was following him”: “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 6/150, (4) Sunan sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2646, 2/244 and the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq: 9417, 5/214].

He then said: “The Salaf (predecessors) have differed concerning the issue of “At-Tahreeq” (burning). As
such, ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbaas disliked that amongst others absolutely (Mutlaqan), whether its Sabab
(cause) was Kufr (disbelief) or during the engagement in war or as Qisaas (retributory punishment). That
is whilst ‘Ali and Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed amongst others permitted it. Al-Mulahhab said: This is not a
Nahy (forbiddance) of prohibition (Tahreem) but rather from the angle of At-Tawaadu’ (humility). And
the permissibility of burning is indicated to by the actions of the Sahaabah … And the majority of the
‘Ulamaa’ of Al-Madinah permit the burning of the fortresses and ships to encompass those people in
them. Ath-Thawriy and Al-Awzaa’iy said that” … Ibn Hajar then said: “As for the Hadeeth of the chapter
(i.e. about the burning), then the apparent (Zhaahir) meaning is Tahreem (prohibition) and it represents a
Naskh (abrogation) of the previous command … And it is understood to apply upon the one he had
intended in respect to a particular (or specific) person” (1).

I say: It appears, as stated previously, that the wording: “If you have captured (or taken) them”
(‫ )أَ َخ ْذ ُتمُو ُه َما‬in the Hadeeth, and the command in relation to the one who had harmed the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, by
harming his daughter, before he had become Muslim, to place him between two bundles of firewood and
set fire to them … It appears that this was before the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬issuing his forbiddance from that. This
all specifies that the context of the Nahy (forbiddance) of burning, was only related to after the capture
and gaining the upper hand or control over the enemy … That is particularly the case as the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
had already actually utilised burning, in its description as being from the means of warfare, just like what
happened with the burning of “Al-Buwayrah” (2) ... That is whilst it is known, that the nature of these
fires, will kill those consumed by it from those who were unable to flee …

B - In addition, during the time of the Sahaabah, May Allah be pleased with them, the fire was used as a
weapon against the enemy from amongst the people at war (Ahl ul-Harb). In the Sunan of Sa’eed Bin
Mansoor it was recorded: “That Junaadah Bin Abi Umayyah Al-Azdiy (3) and ‘Abdullah Bin Qais Al-
Fazaariy amongst other commanders of the sea who came after them, that they used to hurl fire at the
Roman enemy and others and burn them, those for those and those for those (i.e. they and the enemy
would both use the weapon of fire)” (4). And “It was related about ‘Abdullah Bin Qais Al-Fazaariy that he
used attack the people upon the sea in the era of Mu’aawiyah and he used to hurl fire at the enemy. He
would burn them and they would burn him. And he said: The affair of the Muslims is still upon that (i.e.
they still engage in that type of warfare on the sea)” (5).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/149-150, (2) “Al-Buwayrah”: It is a small well and it is the name of a location where the Jews of Bani
An-Nadeer resided, outside of Al-Madinah”, “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: 1/232. The Hadeeth about using fire against them is in
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2326, 5/9 and Saheeh Muslim: 1746, 3/1365, (3) “Whether they were Sahaabah has been disagreed upon
… The correct view is that they were two: a Sahaabiy and a Taabi’iy”: “Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb”: 973, p142, (4) Sunan Sa’eed Bin
Mansoor: 2647, 2/244 and refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/502, (5) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2648, 2/244 and
refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/502].

Based upon all that has preceded, we weigh to be strongest the view of the permissibility of using all
means or warfare and weapons against the enemy which produce death and destruction, including the
weapon of fire, means of destruction, and particularly when it is normal for the enemy to use such
weapons and means of war against the Muslims or of the Daroorah (necessity) dictated their use. It was
stated in the Sharh of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “The Daroorah (necessity) concerning it is: That there is not
another path or way that will enable them to achieve the victory over them (i.e. the enemy) or that a great
difficulty (Haraj) or severe Ma’oonah (‫ )مؤونة‬will afflict them if they took the other path or approach. In
such circumstances to avert and repel this Ma’oonah, it is Mubaah (permissible) for them (the Muslims) to
use fire” (1).
This is what relates to the first part of this Mas’alah (issue) that we are currently addressing i.e. the old
weapons and means of war which produce destruction to the manifestations of life and destroy the
buildings and facilities, and the positions of the Fuqahaa’ towards them.

As for the second part of this Mas’alah (issue), it is:

Do the modern weapons of mass destruction like the nuclear bombs and similar such weapons, fall under
the same category as the weapons and means of war of the past which produce (widespread) death and
destruction?

The answer: Yes, that is attached to the other, even if there exists between them a great difference in
respect to the extent of danger or threat posed and damage that can be caused. The reason for attaching
one to the other, is because the modern weaponry falls under the understanding of the Shar’iyah texts
which in the absolute (Mutlaq) form indicate to the permissibility of using every or any military weapon or
means of war against the enemy when engaged in battle. That is because concerning that which results
from the launching of these weapons and their potencies which result in fires or scorching which destroys
life, buildings and vegetation, concerning this, the Shar’iyah texts have also indicated to the permissibility
of utilising them in the state of war before the enemy surrenders or is captured, according to what has
been explained previously.

Built upon that, it is permitted to use modern weaponry like the atom bomb (2) and what is similar to it.
That is even if they contain different destruction potencies in respect to their nature and extent, to that of
the weapons and means of warfare utilised in the past. That is in accordance to the generality of the
Shar’iyah texts and their unrestricted (Mutlaq) form …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1554, (2) “A bomb of severe explosive capacity reliant upon the power generated from the
transformation of a part of the element by demolishing the atom nucleus of some of the basic elements like Uranium …” “The
Political Dictionary”: p938].

This is especially in the case where the states today, place these modern weapons at the disposal of the war
machinery, whenever the matter dictates it … irrespective of the extent of their denunciation of that or
regardless of the conventions prohibiting their use they have signed up to … That is when they view it to
be in their interest to resort to them in order to deal decisively with the enemy.

Concerning this matter Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy said: “Nuclear weapons are permitted
for the Muslims to use in their wars against the enemy and even if that was prior to the enemy using them
against them. That is because the states, all of them, have permitted the use of the nuclear weapons in war
and so it is permissible to use them. That is even though nuclear weapons are Haraam (prohibited) to be
used because they destroy humanity whilst the aim of Al-Jihaad is to give live to humanity via Islaam and
not to wipe it out” (1).

We have already presented the details regarding the Fiqhiy directions in respect to the permissibility of
utilising these types of weapons; whether this in a Mutlaq (absolute or unrestricted) form or according to
specific conditions? And in discussion of the forthcoming Mas’alah (issue) there will be further discussion
about the conditions which the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned in relation to the use of these weapons.

- The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the Hukm (legal ruling) concerning the use of weapons
of mass or complete destruction against the opposing hostile directions containing those whom it
is Haraam to kill, like the Muslims and the women and children from the enemy subjects?

It is evident or obvious that the use of weapons of mass destruction, which have been developed and
produced in the modern era, were not (specifically) addressed with a Fiqhiy treatment by the classical
sources of reference. However, in the case where the same applies to these modern weapons as applies to
the old weapons and means of war of the past which produce death and destruction, like catapults,
burning and drowning etc … in the case where the use of those weapons and means of war of the past
had been subject to a Fiqhiy treatment within the classical sources of reference … then, that which these
references brought in relation to them in terms of Ahkaam, also consequently apply to the weapons of
mass destruction in the modern era.

In respect to this, some of the Fiqhiy views within the classical sources have made the Hukm in this issue
the same as the Hukm related to the Mas’alah of “At-Tatarrus” (taking of human shields for protection)
which was explained in the preceding study … Also, some other Fiqhiy views have made the Hukm
different in some respects to that Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

[(1) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/168. Also refer to “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-
Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah and his stipulation of “Like for like treatment” in respect to the
permissibility of using nuclear bombs against the enemy: “i.e. only if the enemy actually aggresses with its use and so it is fought
within a limited scoped and that is to prevent it from continuing in its crime”: p102].

A summary concerning the Ahkaam (rulings) related to this Mas’alah is as follows:

A - It is permissible to utilise these weapons against the opposing hostile directions of the people of war
who have amongst them those whom it is prohibited (Haraam) to target to kill, in terms of Muslims or
women, children and those like them from the disbelievers. That is whether the Daroorah (necessity)
called for the fighting to be undertaken or the Daroorah did not dictate that. Rather, it is only in
accordance to the fulfilment of the Fard (obligation) of Al-Jihaad alone. This whilst, naturally, observing
the condition of the permissibility of using these weapons, and that is the inability or difficulty of
defeating the enemy without using them. This was the opinion of the Ahnaaf (1).

B - It is permissible to use these weapons against the opposing hostile directions of the people at war,
even if the Daroorah (necessity) did not call for the fighting to take place and even if the capability was
present to defeat the enemy without using those weapons. However, it is stipulated here, that the Muslims
be few in number in the directions being targeted to be struck (by these weapons) although it is Awlaa
(better or more appropriate), in such a circumstance, to not utilise those weapons … If, however, the
number of Muslims were large, in those directions, then it is not permissible to use those weapons to
strike them, out of caution for there not to occur fatalities or casualties from the Muslims, as would
appear most likely in such a situation, as long as there is no necessity (Daroorah), in origin, that dictates
the fighting be undertaken. This is the view that the Shaafi’iyah adopted (2).

C - It is Haraam to use these types of weapons, like fire and what is similar, in other than the
circumstances of severe necessity, in the case where the directions which are being struck, contain
Muslims or children and women of the enemy. If, however, there were only enemy combatants in that
direction, it is permissible to strike them (i.e. with these weapons). This was the opinion of Al-Imaam
Maalik, in respect to his stipulation that the opposing direction, in which it is permitted to utilise burning
and drowning, be free or empty of Muslims. That is based upon the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ِينَ َك َفرُواَ ِم ْن ُه ْمَ َع َذاباَأَلِيما‬

َ ‫لَ ْوَ َت َز َّيلُواَلَ َع َّذ ْب َناَالَّذ‬
If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment
(3).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/447, “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 4/1554, “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/344. Al-Kaasaaniy in “Badaa’i As-
Sanaa’i”, however, did not stipulate the presence of incapability or difficulty as a condition for the permissibility of using these
weapons: 7/100, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: “Takmilah Al-Majmoo’”: 19/297 and “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/225-
226, (3) Refer to “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 2/24-25].
Ibn Qudaamah in his “Al-Mughniy”, which is from the books of the Hanaabilah, also used this Aayah as
evidence to indicate the forbiddance of striking the fortresses which contain Muslims (1) … However, the
Hanaabilah, from another angle, have permitted targeting the fortresses with fire, whilst the women of the
enemy and its children are within them, as long as it is empty of Muslims (2).

The summary in respect to the Aayah indicated to here is: That the Kuffaar of Makkah, when they
prevented the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims from performing the ‘Umrah in the year of Al-Hudaibiyah, the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was inclined to fight those disbelievers and he consulted the Sahaabah about that (3). However,
Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, diverted the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims from the fighting, due to the presence of
some male and female believers amongst the people of Makkah, whom it was feared that they would be
casualties in any attempt of the Muslims to attack and overrun Makkah.

Yes, it is true that if those believers were distinguishable from the disbelievers and not mixed amongst
them, it would have been permitted for the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims to conquer Makkah and attack it.
Concerning this the following Aayah came:

ِ ‫ون ََو ِن َساءَم ُّْؤ ِم َناتَلَّ ْمَ َتعْ لَمُو ُه ْمَأَنَ َت َط ُئو ُه ْمَ َف ُتصِ ي َب ُكمَ ِّم ْنهُمَ َّم َعرَّ ة‬
َ‫َب َغي ِْرَعِ ْل ٍمََۖلِّي ُْد ِخ َل‬ َ ‫َر َجالَم ُّْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫َولَ ْو َال‬
‫ِينَ َك َفرُواَ ِم ْن ُه ْمَ َع َذاباَأَلِيما‬ َ ‫ِيَرحْ َم ِتهَِ َمنَ َي َشا ُءََۚلَ ْوَ َت َز َّيلُواَلَ ََع َّذ ْب َناَالَّذ‬
َ ‫اللَّـهَُف‬
And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know (4) - that you might trample them (5) and there
would befall you because of them dishonour (6) without [your] knowledge (7) - [you would have been permitted to enter
Makkah]. [This was so] that Allah might admit to His mercy whom He willed. If they had been apart [from them] (8),
We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment (9) (Al-Fat’h: 25).
[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/505, (2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer ‘Alaa Matn Al-Muqni’”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/390, (3) Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy: 4176-4179, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/543, (4) “Metaphor for mixing”, “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 26/114, (5) “Its meaning
is that you would trample them to death and fall upon them”: “Tafseer Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 5/54, (6) i.e.
Makrooh and Mashaqqah (unpleasant and hardship) and the intended meaning is: That the disbelievers would say in respect to
the believers: They killed the people of their own Deen. It is also said: That it refers to regret and pain as a result of killing
them”, “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”, “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”: 26/113, (7) The meaning is: If it wasn’t for the hatred attached to believers
perishing amongst the disbelievers, whilst being unaware, where killing them is a hateful matter, if it hadn’t been for that, then
your hands would not have been refrained from them (i.e. the disbelievers of Makkah”: “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: “Rooh ul-
Ma’aaniy”: 26/114, (8) To distinguish: “Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy”: 16/286, (9) “Painful punishment”: This means Al-Qatl (killing),
Al-Asr (being made captives) and Al-Qahr (vanquishing)”: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 5/54].

As such, the Aayah, according to this understanding, indicates to the forbiddance of fighting against the
directions of the enemy where Muslims are mixed amongst the disbelievers, whilst it is feared that some of
the Muslims will be killed in the midst of this fighting … What this Aayah indicate to applies to the use of
weapons of mass destruction against the opposing hostile directions in which there are Muslims … For
this reason, the use of these weapons is forbidden in such a situation or circumstances.

Concerning this, Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas of the Ahnaaf discussed this Daleel and said: As for the use of
evidence of those who used as evidence His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َر َجالَم ُّْؤ ِم ُن‬

َ‫ون ََو ِن َساءَم ُّْؤ ِم َنات‬ ِ ‫َولَ ْو َال‬
And if not for believing men and believing women (Al-Fat’h: 25).

To indicate that it is forbidden to target the disbelievers with projectiles (Ar-Ram’y) due to the Muslims
being present amongst them. The Aayah does not contain an indication over a place of disagreement and
that is because the most of what it contains is that Allah held back the Muslims from them because there
were a Muslim Qawm (people) amongst them, whom the Muslims were not assured of not inflicting if
they were to have entered Makkah by the sword. That only indicates to the Ibaahah (permissibility) of not
firing at them and proceeding upon them. There is no indication indicating the prohibition of proceeding
upon them whilst knowing that Muslims are amongst them. That is because it is permissible to permit
holding back or refraining from them due to the Muslims (being amongst them), just as it is permissible
also to permit the proceeding upon them, upon the basis of their being a choice. As such, there is no
Dalaalah (indication) contained in it (i.e. the Aayah) to prohibit the proceeding (i.e. to attack them)” (1).

This is what Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said and similar to that came stated in “Al-Umm” of Al-Imaam Ash-
Shaafi’iy, when he said: “If there were Muslim prisoners or captives in the Daar (i.e. Daar ul-Harb, land of
war), or traders who were Musta’mineen (those granted security by the Islamic state), it is Makrooh
(disliked) to target them with that which its effect is general or widespread like burning and drowning, but
it is not Muharram (prohibited) by a Bayyin (manifest) Tahreem (prohibition). That is because if the Daar
is permissible (i.e. to engage in warfare) then this is not prohibited due to the presence of a Muslim within
it whose blood is Haraam. Rather, than is only disliked (Makrooh) out of precaution or caution. Because it
is Mubaah (permissible) for us, even if there was no Muslim in it, to bypass it and not fight it (i.e. the
enemy in their land). If we did fight, we fight it with other than that which its effect is widespread in terms
of burning and drowning” (2).

I say: This is what we view to be the strongest opinion in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue). That is
because the “Bai’ut ur-Ridwaan” (Pledge of pleasure i.e. at Al-Hudaibiyah under the tree) was in relation
to the resolve to fight the disbelievers of Makkah,before the completion of the treaty with them, which
was convened in the absence of the Muslims being removed from being mixed amongst the disbelievers
of Makkah. This therefore indicates to the permissibility of fighting in such a situation. That is whilst
fighting includes, in its indicated meaning, all that which falls under it, like striking the lands of the enemy,
even if Muslims reside with them, like the situation today.

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/275, (2) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/244].

Consequently, it is permissible to utilise weapons of destruction against the opposing hostile directions
which are not empty of Muslims. However, in spite of that, and in accordance to the established Shar’iyah
Qaa’idah (principle) which states that the Imaam’s conduct is tied to the Maslahah (1), it is not permissible
to undertake any conduct of this kind. I mean: to resort to weapons of mass destruction in respect to that
which does not realise a preponderant interest for the Muslims.

By that we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the first issue of this current study and now
we move on to the next.

[(1) Refer to: “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p121 and “Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah”, ‘Ali Ahmad An-
Nadwiy: p123].
 The First Issue
Concerning weapons that lead to the destruction of human and animal life, and
vegetation, but do not destroy buildings, like neutron bombs and chemical and
germ warfare weaponry etc., what is the Hukm in relation to using them in war?

The discussion concerning this issue does not differ from that of the previous one. That is because the
Shar’iyah texts have come in an unrestricted form (Mutlaq) regarding the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy)
of killing the enemy and fighting him in war, without specifying a means or weapon by which this killing
or fighting is undertaken, a has been previously explained. As such, the weapon which eliminates the
manifestations of human, animal and plant life, but not the physical civilisation manifestations in terms of
buildings, factories and facilities … this weapon falls under the scope of the legal legitimacy, in accordance
to the Hukm (ruling) of those unrestricted or absolute (Mutlaq) Shar’iyah texts. Consequently, in the case
where the use of weapons which destroy or wipe out life and building structures is a permitted matter,
according to its conditions which were explained, then by greater reason (Min Baab Awlaa) it is
permissible to utilise weapons which eliminate only one aspect of the two that have been mentioned
whilst keeping the other aspect intact. This is one angle.

From another angle, texts of the Fuqahaa’ have come permitting the use of insects or creatures, which kill
by their poison, against the enemy, like snakes and scorpions etc. These means of war, according to
modern terminology, are referred to as being types of biological weapons (3) …

[(1) A weapon that kills without destroying. It is a type of nuclear bombs which are limited to the energy of radiation in their
effect without emitting other energies, like flames and pressure (or combustion). Refer to “The Neutron Bomb”, Samuel
Cohen, translated by Brigadier Muhammad Sameeh As-Sayyid: p22, (2) “Chemical weapon: By definition it is a poisonous
substance and the means that are employed in battle with the aim of destroying the enemy and finishing it off, by afflicting its
living forces …”: “Chemical weapons; biological prohibition and guarding against its dangers”, Dr. Salaah Yahyaawiy and
Engineer Mu’tazz Al-‘Ajlaaniy: 49, (3) Under the heading of “Biological weaponry”, the Brigadier general Mahmoud Sheit
Khattaab said: “The biological war means the utilisation of some living organisms or their poisons to radiate (or spread)
sickness or death amongst the human forces of the enemy or bring harm to their animals and agricultural supplies. These living
organisms could be of different kinds; like insects (small creatures) and parasites. And all of these are present in our
surroundings …”, “Al-Wajeez Fil ‘Askariyah Al-Israa’eeliyah”: p146-147].

They are sufficient to wipe out manifestations of human and animal life within a land, if a sufficient
quantity of them are cast into it. Similarly, there are also insects or small creatures which can also destroy
plant life and vegetation.
In addition to that, the Fuqahaa’ have permitted the spoiling of the water supplies of the enemy by
throwing or inserting poisons within them, just as they permitted the damaging of their trees and crops, in
accordance to what has been stated within the Shar’iyah texts in relation to cutting down the enemy’s trees
and setting fire to them (1).

The meaning of all of this, is that the Fuqahaa’ mentioned the means which are utilised against the enemy
during war and which result in the elimination of the manifestations of life, without those means having
an effect upon the physical civilizational manifestations in terms of buildings and facilities … Those
Fuqahaa’ naturally did not mean, through that, to divide the weapons and means of war utilised against
the enemy, into two types or categories, as has become a subject of concern in our current age: A type
which destroys every manifestation of life and material manifestations, and a type which eliminates the
manifestations of life whilst not having any effect or impact upon the physical material structures …
However, despite that, what has been mentioned by the classical Fuqahaa’ in terms of weapons and means
of war, which are permissible to be used against the enemy during war, provides this result or conclusion.
That is because it is possible to categorise the poisons and small creatures which they have permitted to be
used, within the category of chemical and biological weapons, according to the modern day terminology
(2).

Based upon the above, the weapons which threaten the manifestations of life with destruction, like the
neutron bomb which focuses all of its destructive capability within its radiation potency, and like the
chemical and germ (3) weapons, which focus upon the human without targeting building structures, these
modern weapons and what is similar to them fall under the scope of legal legitimacy, as has been
explained.

[(1) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2326, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/9, (2) “Chemical warfare is in general very old … What has
changed overtime is related to its scope of reach and the technical aspects related to its use”, from the book “Modern
weapons”, translated by Akram Dairiy: p103, (3) “The strategy of the major states, when a possible world war 3 breaks out, will
depend upon three categories of weapons of mass destruction. That is nuclear, chemical and biological weapons … which has
been widely known also as “germ warfare””, “Chemical and biological weapons”, Dr. Salaah Yahyaawiy and Engineer Mu’tazz
Al-‘Ajalaaniy: p119].

The legal legitimacy of the utilisation of these types of weapons does not mean that the ideology from
which this legal legitimacy was derived has placed the material value and aspects of civilizational
infrastructure higher than the value or worth of life and the human being … That could be the case
regarding those of other non-Islamic ideologies and cultural civilisations. As for the Islamic ideology, then
the legal legitimacy of utilising weapons such as these, only means increasing the number of available
options related to the use of the weapon which poses greater pressure upon the enemy, so that he
surrenders at the quickest possible time without the war being extended. It also represents a deterrent to
prevent the enemy from thinking about aggression.

In addition, the Fuqahaa’ have indicated to the preference of not utilising weapons of ruin and destruction
within the enemy lands when it is believed most likely that the lands will come to be under the Islamic
rule, and even if they remain upon their old religion (1).

Finally, as we have stated in respect to the first issue of this current study, the one responsible for making
the decision concerning the use of these dangerous weapons should not rush or be hasty to resort to them
and to not do so unless it is built and based upon the preponderant Maslahah (interest), in accordance to
the Shar’iyah principle: “The conduct of the Imaam is tied by the Maslahah” (2).

By that, we have reached the end of the discussion of this issue and consequently we have also reached
the conclusion of the current study concerning weapons of mass destruction. We now move on, by the
help of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, to the next topic of study.
[(1) Refer to: “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/257 and Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/85-86, (2) refer to: “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-
Suyootiy: p121 and “Al-Qawaa’id Al-Fiqhiyah”, ‘Ali Ahmad An-Nadwiy: p123].

The Second Study

Some of the practises of fighters in war and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad
concerning them

Introduction:

In this study we will discuss the activities and actions undertaken by the fighters during war; whether these
were collective practises or individual ones. And whether they were connected to matters of war like
abducting individuals from the enemy, undertaking martyrdom or suicide operations, or had no relation to
the matters of war apart from it taking place within the circumstance of Some of the practises of
combatants in war and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad concerning them war or as a result of war. It is a
subject area, as is clear, which has a wide scope where it is possible for numerous matters and practise to
be included within it. Despite that, we do not intend by opening up this expansive scope within an
independent study, to address everything that could possible fall within it, in terms of Masaa’il (Fiqhiy)
issues and practises related to war or which can occur during war. Rather our intention behind this study
is to extract some of the important issues from the main subject areas that they belong to and to then
address them as separate independent issues within this current study. That is with the intention of
highlighting them and shedding light upon them due to the particular importance that they have or
because they have already stirred some discussion or because they are from the widespread practises
which need to be subjected to the Shar’iy Ijtihaad and Ahkaam be issued concerning them.

Based upon this premise, we have divided this study into main issues consisting of a number of Masaa’il
(Fiqhiy issues) through which we have chosen to address them. That is as follows:

1 - The First Topic: Delaying the performance of the prayers from their times due to the Sabab (reason)
of war.

2 - The Second Topic: Abduction and taking of hostages.

3 - The Third Topic: Suicide or martyrdom operations.

4 - The Fourth Topic: Violation of the honours (Al-A’araad): The concept of the enemy being made
permissible in respect to the Nafs (life), ‘Ird (honour) and Maal (property).

The First Topic

Delaying the performance of the prayers from their times due to the Sabab (reason)
of war

The books of Fiqh examine how the obligatory prayers are performed in the state of fear (Haalat ul-
Khawf) of the enemy, under what is known as “Salaat ul-Khawf” or “Salaatu Shiddat ul-Khawf” (Prayer
of fear or prayer of extreme fear). It is not our purpose here to address this Mas’alah here, but rather the
purpose is that the commanders of the Islamic army may need to command the individuals of this army,
during the situation of war, to delay the obligatory prayers beyond their times of performance as set and
established by the Shar’a, until the end of the war. Is such a procedure a justified matter within the Shar’a?
And is it permissible for the individuals of this army to delay the prayers from their set times, under the
pretext of preoccupation with the matter of war, even if orders had not been issued concerning that? Or is
it necessary to perform those prayers in their set times, according to what is possible, and even if it only
by gesturing (i.e. not undertaking the full motions); whether the Musalliy (one who prays) is flying in the
sky, diving in the sea or upon the ground walking upon his two feet, or stuck in a war machinery that he is
driving and fighting with (i.e. like a tank) etc? This is the subject area of the main issue that is before us
and which we will address by discussing the following two points:

1 - The First Point: The Fiqhiy opinions related to this Mas’alah and their evidences.

2 - The Second Point: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

The First Point: The Fiqhiy opinions related to this Mas’alah and their evidences.

1 - The opinion of the Ahnaaf and some of the Fuqahaa’:

The Ahnaaf mentioned that the performance of the obligatory Salaah in the situation of being occupied in
the acts of war in terms of walking, striking and what is similar to that, which has been called the Salaah of
extreme fear, is Baatil (invalid). Consequently, it is obligatory upon the fighters, if they are compelled out
of necessity, due to being occupied in the actions of war, to delay the obligatory prayer in that time until
after the end of the war … This is what the Ahnaaf have stated in their books and what has been
transmitted or quoted from them, within the books of other Madhaahib (1).

- Within the books of the Ahnaaf, the following was stated in “Al-Bidaayah Wa n-Nihaayah”: “And they
do not fight in the state of the Salaah (prayer) and if they did that, their Salaah would be Baatil (invalid).
That is because he ‫ ﷺ‬was preoccupied from four prayers on the day of Al-Khandaq (2) and had it been
permitted to be performed alongside the Qitaal (fighting or combat) then he would not have left it (i.e. its
performance)” (3).

- The following came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “The Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of
fear) is only when they are stationed or standing for the enemy. As for the situation when swords are
crossed, spear jabs exchanged, and archery is taking place, then the Salaah is not correct (to be performed)
because this represents an action (that is being carried out) whilst the Salaah is not correct whilst being
occupied in an action that is not from it. Rather, they delay the Salaah until they have finished from that
(i.e. the actions). This is because, the Salawaat (prayers) that they have missed can be caught up with after
that, whilst what they would miss by being occupied in the Salaah and refraining from the engagement in
the Qitaal (fighting), in this situation, cannot be made up or caught up with. The origin of this is in the
Hadeeth of Sa’eed Bin Al-Khudriy, who said: “We were held back from performing the Salaah on the day
of Al-Khandaq until a certain hour of the night”” …. It was then mentioned: “This contains a Daleel for
the permissibility of delaying the Salaah due to the occupation in Qitaal (fighting or battle)” (4).
[(1) Refer to “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/244-245, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 2/100-102, “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 1/887, “Al-Majmoo’”,
An-Nawawiy: 4/433 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/270, (2) The hadeeth is in the Sunan of Ad-Daaramiy: 1/430, 1524:
“Sa’eed Ibn Al-Khudriy said: “We were held back from performing the Salaah on the day of Al-Khandaq until a certain hour of
the night until we were sufficed. That was as stated in the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa: “And sufficient was Allah for the believers in
battle, and ever is Allah Powerful and Exalted in Might” (TMQ: Al-Ahzaab: 25). The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬then called for Bilaal and
commanded him, so he made the Iqaamah and performed the Zhohr prayer. He performed it in the same perfection as he
would pray it in its right time. He then commanded him and he made the Iqaamah for ‘Asr, then he prayed it, then he
commanded the Iqaamah for the Maghrib prayer and then prayed it, then he commanded the Iqaamah of the ‘Ishaa prayer and
then prayed it. That was before: “And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding” (Al-Baqarah: 239) was revealed”. Similar to this
was also related by An-Nasaa’iy from Abu Sa’eed: 2/17 and Al-Albaaniy verified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan An-
Nasaa’iy”: 638. In addition, in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy it was related from Jaabir that the Salaah which was delayed was the ‘Asr
prayer: 596, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/68 and it was also recorded in Saheeh Muslim: 631, 1/438. In “Al-Muwatta’” of Maalik it was
recorded that Azh-Zhohr and Al-‘Asr were delayed until after Maghrib: “Tanweer Al-Hawaalik”: 1/149. An-Nawawiy said
concerning this: “The way to reconcile these narrations is that the battle of Al-Khandaq took place over days and so some of
them applied to certain days and others to others”: “Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy”: 3/329, (3) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 2/100-102,
(4) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/227-228 and refer to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/436].

- In “Al-Mughniy”, from the books of the Hanaabilah, the following was stated: “Abu Haneefah and Ibn
Abu Laylaa (1) said: He (the Muslim) does not perform Salaah during sword combat nor when he is
walking, because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not perform the Salaah on the day of Al-Khandaq, and delayed the
Salaah” (2).

- In “Al-Majmoo’”, by An-Nawawiy, from the books of the Shaafi’iyah, it was stated: “In the view of the
Madhaahib of the ‘Ulamaa concerning the Salaah of extreme fear: It is permissible by way of Ijmaa’
(consensus) apart from what Ash-Sheikh Abu Haamid (3) narrated in respect to some of the people saying
that it is not permissible. Rather, it is obligatory to delay the Salaah until the fear has disappeared, just as
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did on the day of (the battle of) Al-Khandaq” (4).

This then represents the opinion of the Ahnaaf and some of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy issue) of delaying the prayers from their times if the fighters are compelled to do that due to the
time being occupied in acts of war. Their Daleel (evidence) is the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬delaying the obligatory
prayers during the days of the battle of Al-Khandaq (the trench), until he was enabled to perform them.

2 - The Opinion of the Jumhoor (majority):

The majority of the Maalikiyah, Shaafi’iyah and Hanaabilah, viewed that it is not permissible to delay the
prayers from their set times due to being occupied in war. Rather, it is obligatory to perform them in their
times as much as is possible or able, even if it is a state of walking, running, riding and striking the enemy
… The prayer performer (Musalli) gestures in respect to the bowing and prostration and it is not
stipulated that he face towards the Qiblah, if that is not easy to accomplish. The Maalikiyah also permitted
speech in it, such as that which may be required when engaging in warfare; whether that is giving a
command, issuing a forbiddance or warning (5).

- In relation to this, the following came from the Maalikiyah: “At the time of contest, or breakout of war,
the Salaah is delayed until it is feared that its time will elapse …

[(1) “Muhammad Bin Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Laylaa [74-148 Hijriy, 693-765 C.E] Al-Ansaariy Al-Koufiy: Qaadi and Faqeeh
from the Ashaab ur-Ra’y … He has news reported with Abu Haneefah and other than him …” “Al-A’laam”, Az-Zarkaliy:
7/60-61, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/270, (3) Al-Qaadiy: Abu Haamid, Ahmad Bin ‘Aamir … Al-Marwarroodhiy [362
Hijriy, 973 CE], Faqeeh, Shaafi’iy … Authored “Al-Jaami’ Fil Madhaahib” and “Sharh Mukhtasar Al-Muzniy”. Refer to
“Wafayaat Al-A’ayaan”: 1/69-70, “Al-A’laam”, Az-Zarkaliy: 1/139, the book “Al-Ijtihaad Wa tabaqaat Mujtahidee Ash-
Shaafi’iyah”: Dr. Muhammad Hasan Heetoo: p156-157, (4) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/433, (5) Refer to “Al-Qawaaneen
Al-Fiqhiyah”: p98, “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/426 and 433, and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/270-271].
Then he prays however is able; walking, riding, running, by gesturing for the Rukoo’ (bowing) and Sujood
(prostration), towards the Qiblah and other than towards it, whilst what he requires in terms of statements
and actions are not prevented” (1).

- The Shaafi’iyah said similar to that apart from the matter of speech because there is no need for it and
they stated the Tahreem (prohibition) of delaying the Salaah from its set time. Concerning this, the
following was stated in “Al-Majmoo’” by An-Nawawiy: “It is obligatory for him to perform the prayer of
Salaat Shiddati l-Khawf (The prayer of extreme fear); whether he is engaged in Qitaal or not. And it is not
permitted to delay it (i.e. the Salaah) from its (set) time. This is our Madh’hab (opinion on the issue) and
the Madh’hab of the Jumhoor” (majority) (2).

- Similar to the view of the Shaafi’iyah was what came mentioned from amongst the Hanaabilah (3),
although there is one attributed report amongst them stating the permissibility to delay the Salaah in the
situation of engagement in fighting (4).

- Concerning the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) Ibn Hazm stated: “As for delaying it from its (set) time,
then that is not Halaal (permissible) at all. That is because Allah Ta’Aalaa has not permitted its delay, nor
has His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

‫َفإِنْ َ ِخ ْف ُت ْمَ َف ِر َجاالَأَ ْوَر ُْك َبانا‬

And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding (Al-Baqarah: 239)” (5).

The above therefore represents what has been stated in accordance to the Madh’hab (opinion ) of the
Jumhoor (majority).

Now it is necessary to become aware of the following:

The First Matter: The Daleel (evidence) of the Jumhoor (majority) to support the validity (Sihhah) of the
Salaah when walking, riding, fighting, sufficing with signing (Ishaarah) and gesturing (Iemaa’), and
pointing or facing in any direction according to what is possible or able.

The Second Matter: The response of the Jumhoor (majority) to the Daleel (evidence) of the Ahnaaf in
respect to delaying the Salaah from its set times due to occupation in war.

- Concerning the first matter: Shar’iyah texts have come providing the Rukhsah (exempting permission)
to leave some of the Arkaan (pillars) of the Salaah in the situation of Al-Qitaal and analogy is made upon
other than it which compels out of necessity the leaving or not undertaking some of the Arkaan.

Concerning the performance of the Salaah in the situation of severe fear (Al-Khawf Ash-Shadeed) Allah
Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫َفإِنْ َ ِخ ْف ُت ْمَ َف ِر َجاالَأَ ْوَر ُْك َباناََۖ َفإِ َذاَأَمِن ُت ْمَ َف ْاذ َُكرُواَاللَّـ َهَ َك َماَ َعلَّ َم ُكمَمَّاَلَ ْمَ َت ُكو ُنواَ َتعْ لَم‬
َ‫ُون‬
And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding. But when you are secure, then remember Allah [in prayer], as He
has taught you that which you did not [previously] know (Al-Baqarah: 239).

[(1) “Al-Qawaaneen ul-Fiqhiyah”: p98. Refer also to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 1/394 and “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 1/456,
(2) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/433, (3) Refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/270, (4) Refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 2/139 and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/253, (5) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 5/35].

The following came stated in the Tafseer of At-Tabariy: “So if you have feared from an enemy of yours,
O people! That you fear for your lives from them in the situation or case that you come into contact with
them, you pray standing upon the ground on your feet in obedient submission (Qunoot) to Allah (1). So
perform the prayer walking upon your feet whilst you are engaged in war, fighting and Jihaad against your
enemy, or when riding upon your animals. At such a time it is permitted for you to not stand …” (2).

This is what At-Tabariy said and similar to that was mentioned in “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy” by Al-Aalousiy.
Although he is from the Fuqahaa’ of the Ahnaaf, he inclined in his Tafseer of this Aayah towards
supporting the view of the Shaafi’iyah and Jumhoor (majority), in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).
He stated: “If standing is not possible, our Imaam (i.e. Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah) held the view that
walking and fighting invalidates it (i.e. the Salaah) and if the matter dictates it, it (the Salaah) is delayed and
then performed when secure (and safe)”. He then said: “You are aware, if you are fair, that the apparent
(Zhaahir) meaning of the Aayah is explicit supporting the Shaafi’iyah opinion” (3) i.e. the opinion of the
validity of the performance of the Salaah during the Qitaal (fighting) according to what is required in
terms of leaving some of the Arkaan (pillars) whilst undertaking some acts in accordance to the necessity
of warfare.

- Concerning this, that which indicates that this Aayah is specific to the performance of the Salaah in the
situation of severe fear, is what came recorded in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah: “It was related from Ibn
‘Umar that he said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said in respect to the Salaah of Khawf (fear) …
until the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said, then if the fear is more severe or extreme (Ashaddu) than that, then
(perform it) whilst on your feet or riding” (4). i.e. Then pray the prayer of extreme or sever fear, whilst
upon your feet or riding …

[(1) Al-Qurtubiy said in “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: 3/214: “It is said: The origin of Al-Qunoot linguistically is: The
continuance upon doing something. In the case where the origin of Al-Qunoot linguistically is the continuance upon
something, it is permitted to call the one who continues in obedience as someone who is Qaanit. Similarly, it can be applied to
the one who makes his Qiyaam (standing in prayer), recitation and Du’aa in the Slaah long or who makes the Khushoo’ and
Sukoot (silence) long. All of them are performing Qunoot”, (2) “Tafseer ut-Tabariy”: 2/355, (3) “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy, Al-
Aalousiy: 2/157-158, (4) Sunan Ibn Maajah: 1258, 1/399 and Al-Albaaniy classified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Ibn
Maajah”: 1040].

- In a narrated version, recorded by Al-Bukhaariy, also of this Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar, that the Bani ‫ﷺ‬
said: “And if it was more or greater (Akthar) than that then pray whilst standing and riding” (1).

- And it was related in a further report, also from Ibn ‘Umar and recorded by Al-Bukhaariy: “Then if
there was a fear greater or more severe than that, pray upon your feet, standing upon your feet or
riding, facing the direction of the Qiblah or not facing it”. Maalik said: Naafi’ said: I do not view that
‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar said that except that he was relating it from the Messenger of Allah ‫( ”ﷺ‬2).

- In the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah, this Hadeeth came indicating that which decisively raises (i.e.
connects) it to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬as follows: “Naafi’ said: Verily Ibn ‘Umar related that from the Messenger
of Allah ‫( ”ﷺ‬3).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The meaning (i.e. of the Hadeeth): is that, if the fear
becomes severe or extreme and if the enemy has become large in number, and then separation is feared
(i.e. into two groups: One guards whilst the other prays or the take turns in following the Imaam), it is
permissible at that time to perform the Salaah according to what is possible or able and it is permitted to
leave the observation of what he (i.e. the Muslim) is not able to perform from the Arkaan. So, he would
move from the standing to the Rukoo’ (bowing) and from the Rukoo’ and the Sujood (prostration) to
gesturing, to other than that. And this is what the Jumhoor have stated” (4).

- And from the Ahaadeeth which establish and affirm the occurrence of the Salaah by gesturing (Al-
Iemaa’) in the situation of severe fear, is what came in the Hadeeth of Abu Dawud about the incident of
the Sahaabiy, Abdullah Ibn Unais, who the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commissioned to kill Khaalid Bin Sufyaan Al-
Hudhaliy who was residing in the direction of ‘Arafaat, because he was gathering a force to wage war
against the Muslims. Included within this Hadeeth was the statement of Abdullah Ibn Unais: “… Then I
saw him (i.e. Al-Hudhaliy whom he had been commanded to kill) and the time of Salaat ul-‘Asr had
arrived … And so I set off walking towards him, whilst performing the Salaah through gesturing … until
he said … until he enabled me to strike him with my sword until he was dead” (5).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 943, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/431, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4535, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/199, (3) Saheeh Ibn
Khuzaimah: 1366, 2/306, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/433, (5) Sunan Abu Dawud: 1249, 2/24-25. It is a Hasan Hadeeth and its
Isnaad is Jayyid as was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/437 and Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/295. Also refer to Sunan Al-Baihaqiy:
3/256 and “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: Al-Haamish (commentary): 5/750].

Ash-Shawkaaniy said when commentating upon the Hadeeth of Abdullah Ibn Unais: “Such a matter (i.e.
action), undertaken by this Sahaabiy who had been sent to undertake this important matter, would not
have been hidden from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and it contains evidence that he did what he was able
to and even if that was by gesturing and in other than the direction of the Qiblah” (1).

- Also from the realities or incidents, during the era of the Sahaabah, confirming that the Salaah in the
situation of fear was undertaken when riding upon animals, is what came recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn
Abi Shaibah who said: “Thaabit Bin As-Simt (2) or As-Simt Bin Thaabit was on a march in the state or
situation of fear. Then the time for the Salaah came and he performed it whilst riding. Al-Ashtar (3)
descended (from his mount). Then he (i.e. the Ameer Thaabit) said: What’s he doing? They said: He
descended to pray. He said: What he has violated will be violated with him?” (i.e. words of censure) (4).

The books of Fiqh have reasoned or provided the ‘Illah (reasoning) for the opinion held by the majority in
relation to the prayer of severe or extreme fear, according to what is easy, where they provided a Rukhsah
(exceptional permission) to leave some of the Arkaan (pillars of the prayer) whilst they are undertaking
those actions which the fighting requires, the books of Fiqh reasoned that with the severity or extremity
of the need (Haajah), Daroorah (necessity) and upon what came within the Shar’iyah texts in respect to
providing a exceptional permission (Rukhsah) for him (the Musalli) to do that (5).

The above relates to the Adillah (evidences) of the Jumhoor (majority) in respect to the performance of
the Salaah in the situation of severe fear, in whatever way or manner can be facilitated.

As for the second matter, in relation to how the Jumhoor responded to the opinion of the Ahnaaf, in
respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬not performing some of the Salawaat (prayers) in the battle of Khandaq and
then made up for them as a Qadaa performance after their times, and that this indicates to the
permissibility of delaying the prayers from their fixed set times due to being occupied in the acts of war?

[(1) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 1/314 and compare it to his own opinion in “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 3/367: “And the
deduction for that (i.e.: the permission to perform the Salaah in the situation of severe fear) is not fulfilled by the Hadeeth of
Abdullah Bin Unais unless it is through the assumption that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬approved that action of his. Otherwise, it is an act
of a Sahaabiy and there is no Hujjah (evidential proof) in it”. I say: This assumption is what is Zhaahir apparent. That is
because the Sahaabiy would not do that in the era of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬unless such a matter was legally legitimate, via prior
knowledge or that he did it according to his won Ijtihaad and then asked the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬concerning it. In the case where the
Sahaabiy related the incident after the era of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬according to the manner that he related it, then it is believed most
likely (Ghalabat Azh-Zhann), that this prayer of his, in the manner that he had performed it, represented a legally legitimate
Salaah. In addition, Abdullah Ibn Unais related from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his children related from him … and he passed away in
Ash-Shaam (Greater Syrian region) in the year 53 AH: “Al-Isaabah: 2/270, 4550”, (2) “Thaabit Bin As-Simt: Ibn Hibbaan said
he is the brother of Shurahbeel, Sudooq (truthful) from the third” i.e. from the middle level of the Taabi’een “Taqreeb At-
Tahdheeb”: 816, p132, (3) Al-Ashtar An-Nakh’iy: 37AH, 657 C.E.: Maalik Bin Al-Haarith from the Ansaar of ‘Ali Ibn Abi
Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him. Refer to: “Al-A’laam”, Az-zarkaliy: 6/131, (4) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah: 2/461, (5)
refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 1/394, “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 1/456, “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/426, “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/270-271 and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 2/138].
- The majority responded to this by stating, according to what was mentioned in “Al-Majmoo’”: “As for
the incident of Al-Khandaq, then it is Mansookh (abrogated). That is because it occurred before the
revelation of the Aayah of fear and it is obligatory to perform the prayer of severe fear, whether engaged
in fighting or not. It is not permitted to delay it from its set time. This is our Madh’hab (i.e. opinion) and
the Madh’hab of the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’)” (1).

- Similar to this came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah. He said: “As for delaying the Salaah on
the day of Al-Khandaq, the Abu Sa’eed related that this occurred before the revelation of the prayer of
fear (Salaat ul-Khawf)” (2).

However, the Ahnaaf have relied upon, to support their opinion regarding the delay of the performance
of the Salaah due to war, that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬prayed the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) in the Ghazwah
of Dhaatu r-Riqaa’, which was before the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq. Then as the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not
perform the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) at Al-Khandaq (Battle of the trench) and delayed the prayer,
this indicates that he only left the performance of the fear prayer because he was unable to perform it
without being occupied in the actions of war (at the same time). Consequently, that indicates to the
invalidity of the Salaah whilst be occupied in the war. Therefore, it is obligatory to delay it for that reason.

Al-Jassaas, who was from the A’immah (Imaams) of the Ahnaaf, said concerning this: “If it is said: “You
cannot deny that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not pray of the day of Al-Khandaq only because the payer of fear
(Salaat ul-Khawf) had not yet been revealed? It would be said back to him: Muhammad Bin Ishaaq and
Al-Waaqidiy have both mentioned that the Ghazwah (battle) of “Dhaatu r-Riqaa’” was before Al-
Khandaq (3) whilst the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had performed the Salaat ul-Khawf in it (Dhaatu r-Riqaa’) …

[(1) “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/433, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 2/271, (3) refer to: Seearh Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd
ul-Unuf”: 3/246. I say: There is disagreement concerning the time of the battle of Dhaatu r-Riqaa’, in respect to whether it was
before Al-Khandaq or after it? And we will weigh this issue to see which view is preponderant within this Mas’alah. Also refer
to “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/416-417, “Fiqh us-Seerah”, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadaan Al-Boutiy”: p235-236. The opinion
stating that the battle of Dhaatu r-Riqaa’ occurred after Al-Khandaq depends upon that Abu Mousa Al-Ash’ariy, may Allah be
pleased with him, mentioned that he had been present at the battle of Dhaatu r-Riqaa’ and that he had not gone to the Nabi
‫( ﷺ‬i.e. in Al-Madinah) until Khaibar in the 7th year, whilst Al-Khandaq took place in the 4th year Hijriy. I answer that saying:
That the Ghazwah (battle) that he attended was another different Ghazwah also named by this name. I say: In the case where it
has been established by a Saheeh Sanad (chain) in the view of all, that Jaabir Bin Abdullah had attended the Ghazwah of
Dhaatu r-Riqaa’ and from the reports of the battle that Jaabir attended, there is that which indicates that it took place before
the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq, then it is necessary to adopt the view that there was another different Dhaatu r-Riqaa’ which was
attended by Abo Mousa, and there is nothing that prevents such a view. In this way all of the narrations are worked with in the
case where they are all Saheeh (authentic)].

… And that indicates that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not perform the Salaat ul-Khawf (at Al-Khandaq) only due
to the Qitaal (fighting) because it (the fighting) prevents its validity and inconsistent with it” (1).

Concluding summary: The Jumhoor (majority) oblige the performance of the Salawaat (prayers) in their
set times during the state of war, according to what is possible (in terms of actions) and ability, whilst the
Ahnaaf view the obligation of delaying them until after the fighting or combat ahs ceased if the
participation in war prevents its performance according to its legally legitimate form.

We now arrive to the second point of this main issue.

The Second Point: The opinion that we view to be strongest in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue): Is
it permissible to delay the Salaah from its set time due to being occupied in war, or is not permissible?
 The view that we weigh to be strongest in relation to this Mas’alah rests upon matters which are not
included within the purpose of our examination here, although it is necessary to point to some of that
which our requirement needs from these matters, just as it is necessary to weigh the preponderance of
some matters which have been disagreed upon. That is so that we can reach, in the end, to that which we
weigh to be the strongest view concerning this Mas’alah which we are currently addressing. Upon this
basis we say:

1 - In relation to the fear of the enemy, there are two types of Salaah, by which the obligation is fulfilled:

- A Salaah called “Salaat ul-Khawf” (The prayer of fear) and it is performed as a Jamaa’ah (congregation)
according to a number of specific forms. The details of which have been explained in the books of Fiqh
and Hadeeth, and there is not striking or fighting involved in them … Amongst these forms is the Salaah
mentioned in Soorah An-Nisaa’ in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ك ََو ْل َيأْ ُخ ُذواَأَسْ ل َِح َت ُه ْمَ َفإِ َذاَ َس َج ُدواَ َف ْل َي ُكو ُنواَمِن‬ َ ‫ْتَلَ ُه ُمَالص ََّال َةَ َف ْل َتقُ ْمَ َطا ِئ َفةَ َِّم ْنهُمَ َّم َع‬ َ ‫ِيه ْمَ َفأ َ َقم‬
ِ ‫نتَف‬ َ ‫َوإِ َذاَ ُك‬
ََ َ‫ك ََو ْل َيأْ ُخ ُذواَح ِْذ َر ُه ْم ََوأَسْ ل َِح َت ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َۗو َّدَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِينَ َك َفرُواَلَ ْو‬ َ ‫صلُّواَ َم َع‬ َ ‫صلُّواَ َف ْل ُي‬ َ ‫َو َرا ِئ ُك ْم ََو ْل َتأْتَِ َطا ِئ َفةَأ ُ ْخ َر ٰىَلَ ْمَ ُي‬
َ‫َب ُك ْمَأَذىَمِّنَ َّم َط ٍر‬ ِ ‫ان‬َ ‫ونَ َعلَ ْي ُكمَ َّم ْي َلة ََوا ِح َدةَ ََۚو َالَ ُج َنا َحَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَإِنَ َك‬ َ ُ‫ِح ِت ُك ْم ََوأَمْ ت َِع ِت ُك ْمَ َف َيمِيل‬
ََ ‫ونَ َعنْ َأَسْ ل‬
َ ُ‫َت ْغفُل‬
‫ينَ َع َذاباَم َُِّهينا‬ َ ‫َۖو ُخ ُذواَح ِْذ َر ُك ْمََۗإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَأَ َع َّدَل ِْل َكاف ِِر‬ َ َ‫ضعُواَأَسْ ل َِح َت ُك ْم‬ َ ‫ض ٰىَأَنَ َت‬ َ ْ‫أَ ْوَ ُكن ُتمَمَّر‬
And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry
their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward
which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms. Those who disbelieve wish
that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is
no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allah has
prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment (An-Nisaa’: 102).

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 2/163-164].

… This type of the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) has been accepted by the Jumhoor (majority), as a
whole, including the Ahnaaf, apart from Al-Hasan Bin Ziyaad, Abu Yousuf in his last attributed opinion
(1) and Al-Muzniy from the Shaafi’iyah.

- There is another kind of the Salaah during war which is called “Salaatu Shiddat il-Khawf” (The Salaah of
extreme fear) and in this Salaah some of the Arkaan (pillars) of the prayer fall and it is performed when on
the move, striking, stabbing or jabbing in terms of what fighting the enemy dictates or the fear from it. In
relation to this Salaah the majority explained the Aayah of Al-Baqarah to be applicable upon it:

‫َفإِنْ َ ِخ ْف ُت ْمَ َف ِر َجاالَأَ ْوَر ُْك َبانا‬

And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding. (Al-Baqarah: 239).

Just as this Salaah has been mentioned in some of the Ahaadeeth, as has been stated previously.

It is this type of Salaah, “Salaatu Shiddati l-Khawf” (The prayer of extreme or severe fear) which has been
denied by the Ahnaaf (2), as has been explained previously.

- The preponderant view is that the Salaat ul-Khawf is a legally legitimate (Mashroo’) Salaah after the
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬just as it was in his era. The evidence for that is the continuance of the Sahaabah acting
upon it during their era without being repudiated by anyone for that (3).

- Just as the preponderant view is that the prayer of extreme or sever fear (Salaatu Shiddati l-Khawf) is
also legally legitimate in accordance to the Zhaahir (apparent) meaning of the Aayah:
 ‫َفإِنْ َ ِخ ْف ُت ْمَ َف ِر َجاالَأَ ْوَر ُْك َبانا‬
And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding. (Al-Baqarah: 239).

The “fear” stated in this Aayah is Mutlaq (unrestricted) and it has not been restricted (Muqayyad) to being
in the absence of fighting or walking. As such, it applies to the fear in which walking and fighting falls
under, just as it applies upon the fear in which none of that occurs, according to the state of fear, and
according to what the Musalli (one praying) is compelled along with that fear to undertake of actions or
Arkaan pillars which fall (i.e. not undertaken, like Rukoo’ or Sujood etc.) In addition, the incident of
Abdullah Ibn Unais, who was dispatched by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬with the mission to assassinate Al-Hudhaliy,
who was located in the area of ‘Arafaat, affirms or establishes the validity of the performance of the Salaah
in the situation of extreme fear, accompanied by walking and being undertaken by gesturing (Al-Iemaa’)
… as was mentioned in the narration of the incident.

[(1) Refer to: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 1/242. The Hujjah (evidential proof) used by Abu Yousuf to state that the Salaat ul-Khawf
(prayer of fear) is specific to a Jamaa’ah (congregation), with the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa: (َ‫َفأَ َقمْتَ َلَ ُه ُم‬
‫“ )الص ََّالََة‬And so you led them in the prayer” (An-Nisaa’: 102). As such, it is not performed if he is not present, (2) Refer to: “Al-
Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/405. The Hujjah (evidential proof) of Al-Muzniy, to support that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not perform
the Slaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) during Al-Khandaq, but rather delayed it and prayed it as Qadaa’, due to the consideration
that the Salaat ul-Khawf was legislated before that, which indicates, in his view, to the abrogation of the prayer of fear, (3) The
Ahnaaf said: Concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa: (‫خ ْفَُت ْمَ َف ِرجَ االَأَ ْوَ ُر ْكبَانا‬
ِ َ ْ‫“ ) َفإِن‬And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding.
(Al-Baqarah: 239)”, there is no expression to permit walking and fighting. That is because the “Rijaal” is applied to those
standing upon their feet and not necessarily that they be in a state of walking, striking (with swords) and stabbing. Refer to
“Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan il-Kareem”, Al-Jassaas: 2/164, (3) Refer to “Al-Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 4/406].

2 - It appears that the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) was legally legitimate or legislated (Mashroo’) prior
to the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Khandaq. That is in accordance to the opinion of Ibn Ishaaq and others, in
respect to the Ghazwah (battle) of “Dhaatu r-Riqaa’”, in which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬performed the Salaat ul-
Khawf (prayer of fear), only having been before the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq. Ibn Ishaaq has presented
the events of the Seerah, concerning this, according to that which supports his view. The following are
extracts from what came mentioned in his book of Seerah:

“The Ghazwah of “Dhaatu r-Riqaa’” took place in the fourth year. Ibn Ishaaq said: Then the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬resided in Al-Madinah after the Ghazwah of Bani An-Nadeer in the month of Rabee’ ul-
Aakhar and after Jumaadaa. He then attacked Najd targeting Bani Muhaarib and Bani Tha’labah from
Ghatafaan …

Ibn Ishaaq said: Until he reached “An-Nakhl” (1) and it was the Ghazwah of “Dhaat ur-Riqaa’” … Ibn
Ishaaq said: There he met a great host of Ghatafaan. The people then approached each other but there
was no war between them. The people were fearful amongst each other to the point that the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬prayed the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) with the people. Then the people left … Ibn
Ishaaq said: Wahb Kaisaan told me from Jaabir Bin ‘Abdullah: He said: I set out with the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to the Ghazwah of Dhaati r-Riqaa’ from Nakhl upon a weak camel that I had …” (2) Then
Jaabir, in this Hadeeth, mentioned to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that he had married a previously married woman,
following the martyrdom of his father at Uhud, so that she could be at service to seven younger sisters of
his, whom his father had left behind. He gave the reasoning of why he had married an older previously
married woman instead of a young virgin woman, because the married older woman had experience which
was more beneficial for the care of his sisters than others would be (3) …

Following that, Ibn Ishaaq mentioned the events of the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq. The following was
included within that:
“Ibn Ishaaq said: Sa’d Ibn Meenaa told me from Jaabir Bin ‘Abdullah, who said: We worked with the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in the Khandaq (trench) and I had a lamb …

[(1) “Nakhl: A place of Najd from the land of Ghatafaan”, “Tahdheeb ul-Asmaa’ Wa-l-Lughaat”, An-Nawawiy: 3/38 and in
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “A place two days distance from Al_Madinah”: 7/418, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/246-
247, (3) Also refer to: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4052, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/357. In it, it was stated that the girls numbered 9 and in
another narration of Al-Bukhaariy: 2309, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4/485 it stated: “I wanted to marry a woman who had experience,
who had lost something of her …”. Al-Qastilaaniy said: “i.e. who had lost some of her youth and had spent her lears in matters
that she had gained experience in”: “Al-Qastilaaniy ‘Alaa l-Bukhaariy”: 4/155].

… So, I said: By Allah, if we prepared it for the Messenger of Allah ‫( !ﷺ‬i.e. it would be good) He said:
So, I commanded my wife and she cooked something for us with barley (i.e. lamb with the barley
preparation) …” (1).

I say: From this established ordering of events, the preponderant held view of Ibn Ishaaq is clear, in
respect to the Ghazwah of Dhaat ur-Riqaa’, in which the Salaat ul-Khawf was performed, having occurred
prior to the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq. The concluding summary in respect to reaching this conclusion
from what has preceded is as follows:

- That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬performed the Salaat ul-Khawf (prayer of fear) in the Ghazwah of Dhaat ur-Riqaa’,
and this is not denied by anyone.

- That Jaabir, during this Ghazwah of Dhaat ur-Riqaa’, spoke about his contracting of marriage (2) in
relation to having married an older previously married woman so that she could take care of his seven
younger sisters whom their father had left behind following his martyrdom at Uhud.

- Then in the battle of Al-Khandaq, the wife of Jaabir comes into the picture as she prepares food for the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

This indicates that the Ghazwah (Battle) of Dhaat ur-Riqaa’, in which the Salaat ul-Khawf (fear prayer)
was performed and in which Jaabir spoke about the contracting of marriage, occurred prior to the
Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq in which the wife of Jaabir prepared food for the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬.

Consequently, it is established that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬delayed the performance of the Salaah at the battle of
Al-Khandaq at a time when the Salaat ul-Khawf (fear prayer) had already been legislated prior to this
battle.

3 - As for the Salaah Shiddat il-Khawf (The prayer of extreme or severe fear), in which it is permitted
when performing it to be in movement and fighting, whilst sufficing oneself with Al-Eimaa’ (gesturing)
instead of performing the Rukoo’ (bowing) and Sujood (prostration), then it was not related that the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬performed it during the battle of Al-Khandaq. That is while Abu Sa’eed ul-Khudriy, stated that the
Aayah related to it had not yet been revealed (3).

‫َفإِنْ َ ِخ ْف ُت ْمَ َف ِر َجاالَأَ ْوَر ُْك َبانا‬

And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or riding. (Al-Baqarah: 239).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/260, (2) Al-Bukhaariy: 5079, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 9/121, (3) It should be
mentioned here that the Aayah of “extreme fear” follows the Aayah: ( ََ‫َوقُومُواَلَِلَّـهَِ َقانِتِين‬ ْ ‫َِوالص ََّالة‬
َ ‫َِالوُ سَْ َط ٰى‬ َ ‫صلَ َوات‬ ُ ‫)حَ اف‬
َّ ‫ِظواَ َعلَىَال‬
“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient” (Al-Baqarah: 238).
It was related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said during the Ghazwah (battle of) Al-Khandaq: “They kept us busy from the Salaat ul-
Wustaa (middle prayer), Salaat ul-‘Asr” [Saheeh Muslim: 628, 1/437]. This indicates that the Aayah of “Shiddat ul-Khawf”
(extreme fear), which is ordered following the Aayah of the “Salaat ul-Wustaa” (the middle prayer), had been revealed along
with it and that both had been revealed prior to Al-Khandaq or during the battle in the very least. That is a matter that could
conflict with the Hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed ul-Khudriy which states that the Aayah of “Extreme fear” (Al-Baqarah: 239) had not
yet been revealed. The answer: The Hadeeth: “They kept us busy from performing the Middle prayer, Salaat ul-‘Asr”
does not necessarily indicate to the well known Aayah, as it is possible that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬gave it that name during the
battle of Al-Khandaq. Then the revelation descended after that with that name. As such, this Aayah and the one that followed
it “And if your fear …” (Al-Baqarah: 239) had not been revealed prior to the battle of Al-Khandaq. And it is possible that the
Aayah of “Salaat ul-Wustaa” (the middle prayer) was the only Aayah to have been revealed before Al-Khandaq and then the
Aayah “And if you fear…” was revealed at a time after that, and then placed following it in order due to its relationship with it.
Similarly, it is possible that the two Aayaat related to the “Salaat ul-Wustaa” and the “Extreme fear”, were both revealed during
the battle of Al-Khandaq after the Salaah had been delayed … Due to that, he ‫ ﷺ‬expressed his anger at the disbelievers by
saying: “They kept us busy from performing the Salaat ul-Wustaa” … In such a case the statement of Abu Sa’eed Al-
Khudriy would be applicable in respect to the Aayah: “If you fear …” in relation to it not having been revealed before the delay
of the Salaah i.e. that it was only revealed shortly after the delay, if its revelation had been during the battle of Al-Khandaq].

4 - It was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim amongst others: “’Abdullah Bin ‘Umar said:

َ ‫فَ َع ِنَاألَحْ َزابََِ"َأَنْ الَ ُي‬

َّ‫صلِّ َينَّ أَ َح ٌد ال ُّظ ْه َر إِال‬ َ ‫ص َر‬ َ ‫ََُّللاَصلىََّللاَعليهَ َوسلمَ َي ْو َمَا ْن‬ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬ َ ‫َنادَىَفِي َن‬
ََّ‫صلِّيَإِال‬ َ ‫ُونَالََ ُن‬
َ ‫َآخر‬ َ ‫َ َو َقا َل‬.َ‫ونَ َبنِيَقُ َر ْي َظ َة‬ َ ‫صلُّواَ ُد‬ َ ‫َال َو ْقتَِ َف‬ ْ ‫ت‬ َ ‫َ َف َت َخ َّو‬.َ" ‫فِي َبنِي قُ َر ْي َظ َة‬
َ ‫فَ َناسَ َف ْو‬
ْ ‫ف ََواحِداَم َِن‬
َِ ‫َال َف ِري َقي‬
‫ْن‬ ْ ‫َصلىََّللاَعليهَوسلمَوإِنْ َ َفا َت َن‬
ُ ‫اَال َو ْق‬
َ ‫تَ َقا َلَ َف َماَ َع َّن‬ َ ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬
‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ْثَأَ َم َر َن‬
ُ ‫َحي‬

On the day he returned from the Battle of Ahzaab, the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬announced that
nobody would perform his Zhohr (1) prayer except in the quarters of Banu Quraizhah. (Some)
people, being afraid that the time for prayer would expire, performed their prayers before
reaching Banu Quraizhah. The others said: We will not perform our prayer except where the
Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬has ordered us to say it even if the time expires. He (‘Abdullah) said:
Neither of the two groups were reprimanded by him (2).

And in a narration recorded by At-Tabaraaniy: “… Some of them said: Pray, for verily the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not intend that you leave the performance of the Salaah! Some of them said: It has been
determined for us that we do not perform the Salaah until we reach Bani Quraizhah. We are only acting in
accordance to what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬determined, and so there is no sin upon us.
Consequently, one of the groups performed the ‘Asr in a state of Imaan and anticipation of Allah’s
reward, whilst a group did not perform the Salaah until they reached Bani Quraizhah after the sun had set.
Then they prayed in a state of Imaan and anticipation of reward from Allah. Then the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬did not reprimand either of the two groups” (3).

The following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The conclusion of what took place in the incident is that
some of the Sahaabah understood the Nahy (forbiddance) literally and did not concern themselves with
the passing of the time by outweighing the second forbiddance over the first; which was to not delay the
prayer from its time. They used this as evidence for the permissibility of delaying (the prayer) in respect to
those occupied in the matter of war like what happened in those days during the battle of Al-Khandaq …
That was due to their being occupied in the matter of war and so they (i.e. Fuqahaa’) permitted for that to
be general (‘Aamm) in respect to every occupation related to the matter of war, and particularly whilst the
time was the time of legislation. That is whilst some understood the Nahy (forbiddance) to not be literal
and that it represented a metaphor meaning that haste should be made and hurry to reach Bani Quraizhah.
The Jumhoor deduced by that there was no sin upon the one who made Ijtihaad and that is because he
‫ ﷺ‬did not reprimand either of the two groups …
[(1) In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy it states “Salaat ul-‘Asr” (and not Azh-Zhohr): 4119, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/407-408. For the
reconciliation between the two related versions refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/409 and Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy:
7/385, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1770, 3/1391, (3) Related by At-Tabaraaniy and its Rijaal (men i.e. transmitters) are Saheeh apart
from Abu l-Hudhail and he is Thiqqah (reliable): “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/140. It was also recorded in “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-
Haakim with a similar form, related from ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her. He said: “This Hadeeth is Saheeh upon the
conditionality of the two Sheikhs (i.e. Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) … but they did not record it” and Ad-Dhahabiy agreed with
him: 3/35].
… Ibn ul-Munayyir (1) however was unique in claiming that the group which prayed Al-‘Asr when its time
came upon the route, only prayed it whilst they were riding upon their animals … Then Ibn Hajar said:
The claim that they prayed whilst they were riding requires a Daleel (evidence) to substantiate it and I have
not found anything indicating that amongst the paths of the narrations concerning this incident” (2).

5 - The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Anas said: I was present at the clash of the
fortress of Tustar (3) at the time when the light of dawn rose whilst the breakout of fighting had increased
in severity or intensity and they (the Muslims) were unable to pray. And so they did not pray except after
the day had risen (i.e. after Fajr) and then we prayed it, whilst we were with Abu Mousaa. Then the
fortress was conquered for us. Anas said: And the whole world and all that it contains was not more
pleasing to me that that Salaah (prayer)” (4).

Ibn Hajar said in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “That which comes to mind from this is that he is referring to the
exultation and delight of what happened. The intended meaning of the Salaah, is the making up of the one
that had passed whilst the angle for his delight was because they had not occupied themselves from the
‘Ibaadah (act of worship) [i.e. the Salaah] except with an act of ‘Ibaadah even more important that was
before them [i.e. Al-Jihaad and specifically in respect to that victory] (5). They then made up that which
they had missed and made Qadaa’ for it” (6). Ibn Hajar then responded to those who claimed that the
intended meaning of Anas from his speech, was his inability to perform the Fajr prayer that had passed its
set time due to the preoccupation with the conquest and as such he was in opposition to Abu Mousaa Al-
Ash’ariy in respect to his Ijtihaad to delay the Salaah until after its time, so that the fortress could be
conquered i.e. Anas Bin Maalik had preferred to leave the siege of the fortress and move away from it, to
perform the Fajr prayer within its fixed time and then return back to the siege and fight …

[(1) “Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Mansoor … Naasir ud-Deen Ibn ul-Munayyir … Al-Iskandariyah. Born in 620 Hijriy and
was a Scholar of virtue and he authored Taraajim of Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy. He passed away in 683 Hijriy at Ath-Thugr (i.e.
Alexandria)”, “Fawaat ul-Wafayaat, Al-Katabiy: 1/149, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/410 and refer also to “Sharh Muslim”, An-
Nawawiy: 7/385-386, (3) “The largest or greatest city in Khurustaan”, “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: 1/263, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
2/434, (5) What was mentioned by Ibn Hajar in respect to giving preponderance to Al-Jihaad over the Salaah at its set time in
terms of importance in that circumstance or such a situation, could indicate to what came recorded in Saheeh Muslim in
relation to the heading attached to the delay of the Salaah in the instance of the Ghazwah of Bani Quraizhah. That is because
the heading stated: “The Baab (chapter or category): Launching into battle and giving priority to the most important of two
matters which are conflicting with each other”: “Saheeh Muslim: 3/1391, (6) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/435].

… Concerning this I say: Ibn Hajar responded to that by saying: “Had that been the case, Anas would
have prayed by himself and even by way of A’-Iemaa (gesturing). However, he went a long with Abu
Mousaa and those with him, so how can that be considered to be opposition?!” (1).

I say: After all that has been presented, we weigh the following view to be strongest, in relation to this
Mas’alah that we are addressing:

- In the situation of engagement in war, it is permissible to perform the Salaah in its fixed times according
to the form of the “Salaat ul-Khawf” (Prayer of fear) or the form of “Salaatu Shiddati l-Khawf” (Prayer of
extreme or severe fear), in accordance to the situation which designates this Salaah or that one, in a
manner that does not result in harm afflicting the Muslims as a consequence or lead to the loss of the
Maslahah (interest) of Al-Jihaad and Al-Qitaal.

- Similarly, it is permissible, from another angle, to delay the prayers from their established fixed times,
upon the basis that they will be made up afterwards, if the necessity of warfare dictates that.

- It is also permissible for the Islamic leaderships, in the situation of war, to issue their command to the
Muslim fighters to not occupy themselves from what they are engaged in, like the continuation of striking
the enemy or continuing without stopping to monitor the particular devices or technical tools related to
war etc … that they should not occupy themselves with anything away from that and even if it was for the
performance of the Salaah. That is in accordance to what the command of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the Sahaabah,
to not pray until they reached Bani Quraizhah, indicated to. The silence of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in respect
to not explaining the intended meaning of that command in terms of: Did it mean to actually and really
delay the Salaah from its set time? Or did it merely represent an urging to hasten and hurry without
actually delaying the prayer? I say: His silence ‫ ﷺ‬in relation to explaining the intended meaning of what
he had said after he knew that some of the Sahaabah had understood from his speech that the Salaah be
actually delayed from its fixed time … this silence from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, in this circumstance or situation,
represents a Daleel (evidence) for his approval of this understanding. Consequently, the person in
authority can issue a command with that which is established upon this understanding, if the necessities of
war calls for that.

This opinion is supported by what we presented earlier in respect to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬having delayed some
of the prayers at Al-Khandaq, even though the “Salaat ul-Khawf” (prayer of fear) had been legislated prior
to that.

The view is also further supported by the Sahaabah delaying their Fajr prayer during the era of the rightly
guided Khulafaa’ when they were laying siege to the fortress of Tustar until they had defeated the enemy
or accomplished the conquest.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/436].

It was towards this opinion, permitting the delay of the prayer from its set times, due to being
preoccupied in warfare, which Al-Imaam Al-Bukhaariy himself inclined to.

In addition, some of those occupied in the Islamic field, in terms of contemporary writers and Fuqahaa’,
also inclined to this opinion in respect to the permissibility of delaying the Salaah due to preoccupation in
the engagement of war.

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy said in his book: “Fiqh us-Seerah”:

“And from the ‘Ulamaa’ there are those who have relinquished the specific set time for the Salaah due to
the excuse of Al-Qitaal. That is the Madh’hab (opinion) of Al-Bukhaariy and others. This is also the
nearest to the correct view in my opinion. That is because the ordering of the obligations entrusted upon
the necks of the servants is from the most important matters defining the message of the Muslim in life.
Indeed, he will not understand his Deen correctly unless he understands this required ordering … The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬viewed that attacking Bani Quraizhah before they complete their war
preparations and strengthen their forts, represented the number one obligation of the hour and hence the
Muslim should not occupy himself with anything from that, and even if it was the Salaah. That is because
the limits of the time of the Salaah vanish before the necessities of Al-Qitaal” (2).

Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy, in his Fiqhiy encyclopaedia “Al-Fiqh Al-Islamiy Wa Adillatuhu”
says: “And the one who delayed his Salaah from its time due to a legally legitimate or legislated (Mashroo’)
excuse, is not sinful, and from the excuses is the fear of the enemy” (3) … He then supported that by the
delay of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬of some of the prayers during the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq.

We will suffice ourselves with what we have presented in connection to this main issue or topic: “The
delay of the prayers due to being occupied in war” … and we now moved on to the discussion of the next
main issue of this study.
[(1) Refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/436, the book “Al-Imaam ul-Bukhaariy and his Saheeh”, Dr. Abdul Ghaniy Abdul Khaaliq:
p146 and “Tafseer Ibn Katheer”: 295-296, (2) “Fiqh us-Seerah”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p337, (3) “Fiqh ul-
Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 2/130].

The Second Topic

Styles of abduction, targeting subjects of the hostile states and taking them as
hostages

The style of abducting people who belong to hostile directions between struggling parties has become
widespread in our current day and the organisers of such abductions adopt a number of paths to reach
their sought after aim.

- A person could be abducted from his house, office, upon the road or in a similar manner and then kept
in an unknown or known location (1).

- The hijacking of planes could be resorted to which could include among its passengers, particular
personalities which are the target of the hijacking operation (2).

- A ship could also be hijacked which is transporting subjects or citizens of a hostile state, for the sake of
accomplishing particular objectives (3).

[(1) “Lebanon was a theatre of this kind (of abduction) and it was not restricted to diplomats, journalists and foreign professors
alone. But rather encompassed even Lebanese citizens themselves from different factions …” “Terrorism and political
violence”, Muhammad As-Sammaak: p22-23. From among the famous abductions was the Israeli intelligence services
abduction of the German lieutenant colonel Eichmann on 22/05/1960 in Argentina and taking him secretly to Palestine. He
had disappeared after Germany’s defeat like others from the Nazi leaders until the time of his kidnapping. Israel then executed
him on 31/04/1962 under the charge of hostility to Jews and his actions related to exterminating them, during the Nazi rule in
Germany. His body was burnt and his ashes were thrown into the sea: Refer to “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The political
dictionary): p159, (2) In the year 1957 the French authorities hijacked a civilian plane carrying the Moroccan flag and had five
leaders of the Algerian revolution on board including Ahmad Bin Ballaa. France held the leaders of the revolution as prisoners
until the independence of Algeria in the year 1962: “Terrorism and political violence”: p10-11, (3) In October 1985 a group
from the Palestinian resistance hijacked a cruiser liner, the Acille Lauro, transporting Italian passengers from the port of
Alexandria and a person holding American citizenship was killed. America responded by the following: A) It hijacked a civilian
Egyptian plane carrying the hijackers of the Italian boat to Tunsia so that the PLO could put them on trial. It forced the plane
to land in the US base in Sicily. B) It provided logistical facilitation to the Israeli air force to bomb the headquarters of the PLO
in Tunisia. C) America launched an air raid against Tripoli and Benghazi under the pretext that Libya supports terrorism and
included within that terrorism was the hijacking of the Acille Lauro cruiser liner: “Terrorism and political violence”: p52].

It is not our concern here to examine all of the paths that can be taken in relation to this matter nor to
explain the short-term or long-term aims which those who resort to this style from amongst the styles of
terrorising and pressure, against opposing parties, are aiming to achieve. Rather, we are concerned here
with the matter of whether it is permissible for the Islamic State to resort to this style of abduction and if
it is considered to be from among the legally legitimate styles that can be utilised against the hostile or
enemy states and their citizens? And if that is the case, then what are the limits of that legal legitimacy? We
will include in this discussion a mention of some of the goals that are hoped to be accomplished by
resorting to this style from among the styles of warfare. This represents the subject area of this topic
which we will address through discussion around two points:

1 -The First Point: Is the style of abducting the citizens of the enemy, as individuals or groups, by a
means or path, included within the legally legitimate styles in Islaam? What is its reality from the Shar’iy
perspective? And what are the limits of its legal legitimacy?

2 - The Second Point: Some of the goals that are sought or hoped for from resorting to the use of this
style, as observed through some of the instances or incidents related to that within the books of the
Sunnah and the Prophetic Seerah.

1 -The First Point: Is the style of abducting the citizens of the enemy, as individuals or groups, by a
means or path, included within the legally legitimate styles in Islaam?

- And what is its reality from the Shar’iy perspective? And what are the limits of its legal legitimacy?

I say: The abduction of citizens of the enemy, as individuals or groups, are considered to be from the
legally legitimate styles in Islaam, in their consideration as representing an act from amongst the acts of
war.

Its reality from the Shar’iy perspective is that it represents the taking of the disbelievers who are from the
people at war (Muhaaribeen) by force and subjugation or by surprise. That is followed by taking them as
prisoners of the Muslims and then dealing with them in their description as prisoners of war, until their
matter is settled, according to the manner that will be detailed in the next volume of this doctorate (1).
However, what are the limits attached to this legal legitimacy?

The answer: It is stipulated for the legal legitimacy of this act, for those abductees, in their description as
hostages or prisoners of war, to not be from the subjects or citizens of the enemy who enjoy the right of
Amaan (security) with the Muslims.

These include:

1 - The ambassadors of states and those who follow their ruling like emissaries and envoys who have been
dispatched or delegated by the enemy party# for the purpose of conducting discussions or negotiations
with the Muslims or something similar to that. It is not permissible to abduct them if they have entered
the Daar (homeland) of Islaam and even if that was without an entry visa i.e. without obtaining a prior
Amaan (security), as long as they have which establishes and affirms that they have come for the purpose
of ambassadorial work or to convey messages between the enemy parties and the authorities of the
Islamic State.
- Concerning emissaries not being detained or imprisoned, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ْ ُ‫الََأَحْ ِبس‬
ََ‫َال ُبرُد‬
I do not imprison Burud (messengers or envoys) (2).

Ibn ul-Atheer said: “…“Al-Burud” is the plural of Bareed and he is the messenger that comes to you from
(another) party. He says: I do not hold them back from their people and do not prevent them from
returning to them” (3)If it is not valid to detain the messengers of envoys, by greater reason it is not
permitted to kill them and even if they belonged to lands which were in an active state of war with the
Muslims or if they were from the states which had a treaty but had breached it with the Muslims and
consequently become states at war.

[(1) In the sixth volume - The fifth chapter - The first study -The first topic - Fourthly: The Hukm is respect to the Asraa
(prisoners of war or captives). In this forthcoming section it will be stated that there are five options in respect to the
judgement upon the prisoners of war which include hostages according to the current day custom, in the case when their
abduction or imprisonment was lawful. These five options are: Death (i.e. execution), letting them free, taking a ransom,
enslavement or they can be granted citizenship by the Islamic state! The judgement upon one of these five options must be
upon the basis of the outweighing interest accomplished by that judgement. Similarly, any judgement from these five options
which results in bringing any harm that is greater than the Maslahah that is hoped to be accomplished, must be avoided, (2)
Sunan Abu Dawud: 2758, 3/110. Al-Albaaniy authenticated it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2396, 2/527, (3)
“Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/652].

- It has been authenticated that a man called Ibn An-Nawwaahah came to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in his
description as a messenger sent by Musailamah Al-Kadh’dhaab. The Nabi said to him:

َ‫ْتَ ُع ُن َق َك‬ َ َ‫َرسُولَل‬

َ ‫ض َرب‬ َ ‫ك‬َ ‫لَ ْو َالَأَ َّن‬
“If you had not been an envoy or messenger (Rasool), I would have struck your neck (i.e. killed
you)” (1).

- Ibn Mas’ood said: “The Sunnah has continued (to be applied) in that the messengers or envoys (Rusul)
are not killed (2).

- An example of this is that when Abu Sufyaan, the head of Quraish in Makkah, went to Al-Madinah after
the Quraish had violated the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not seek to detain him as hostage
or prisoner and he did not kill him, even though he had come to be considered at that time, after the
breaking of the treaty, from the disbelieving Ahl ul-Harb (people at war), whom it is permitted to kill
when they are in their homeland, just as their blood is permitted if they enter Daar ul-Islaam (the
homeland of Islaam) without a previous Amaan having been provided to them. However, when he came
in the description or capacity of an envoy of Quraish to negotiate the matter of the treaty, the Hukm of
the Musta’min (one granted a security) was applied upon him, like the one who entered the lands of
Islaam with a prior security (Amaan) having been provided to him.

Concerning this, Ibn ul-Qayyim established, when presenting the discussion about the Ahkaam that can
be deduced from the Ghazwah of Al-Fat’h (i.e. conquest of Makkah): “That the messenger or envoy of
the disbelievers is not killed because Abu Sufyaan was from those whom the ruling of being in breach of
the treaty applied but the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬didn’t kill him, in the case where he was the messenger
of his people sent to him” (3).

- Within the context of the discussion about those who enter Daar ul-Islaam from the citizens of the
states which have no treaty made with them and without a prior Amaan (security), the following has been
stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “If he said: I am the messenger or envoy (Rasool) of the
King to the Khalifah, it is not believed or affirmed, and he is regarded as Fa’i (4). That is because this is a
claim of security from him, for verily the messenger or envoy is secure from both sides. This is how it was
practised in Jaahiliyah and in Islaam. The matter of treaties or Al-Qitaal (fighting and war) are not dealt
with except by way of the envoy. It is therefore necessary for the messenger to be made secure for him to
be able to deliver or convey the message. When the messenger spoke to the people, in front of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with that which he should not have spoken to them about he said: “If you had
not been a messenger (or envoy) I would have killed you” (5). It is clear from this that the messenger
is secure however his mere claim does not affirm that he is a messenger or envoy.

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2762, 3/111-112 and Al-Albaaniy authenticated it in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2400, 2/529, (2)
Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/212, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/422, (4) Meaning: The Hukm (ruling) of Fa’i (booty) is applied upon him
with the consideration that he himself is a booty (Ghaneemah) just as prisoners (of war) are considered to be kinds of
Ghanaa’im (booties). The detail of this matter in respect to their Hukm will be discussed in the forthcoming volume, (5) This
messenger, indicated to here, spoke to the people about the prophethood of Musailamah Al-Kadh’dhaab in addition to the
prophethood of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. In any case, he would have been deserving of being killed had he not been an envoy].

If he then brings out or presents a letter which resembles that which is letter of their king and claims that
it is a letter from their king, he is secure so that he can convey the message” (1).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to have messengers from the disbelievers
come to him and none of his companions ever interfered with or opposed any of them. That was a
continuous constant approach and an evident Sunnah (i.e. practise). The matter with the non-Muslims in
terms of the Kings of disbelief was the same. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to communicate with them without a
prior Amaan for his messengers or envoys whilst none of them were interfered with” (2).

The above relates to the matter of the messengers of envoys and those who fall under their ruling. It is
not permissible to abduct or detain them under the description of hostages and then bargain with their
lives with opposing or enemy parties.

2 - Similar to these in respect to the Hukm (legal ruling) are those who enter Daar ul-Islaam by a lawful
manner from the citizens of warring states i.e. those who enter via a prior Amaan (security) or what has
been named an entry visa today. It is not permissible to abduct or detain these Musta’mineen (those
granted an Amaan or security) as hostages and even if war erupted between the Muslims and the states
that they belong to. However, it is permitted to deport them or letting them remain within the lands
according to what the Maslahah (interest) dictates, as long as the time of the Amaan or visit visa or
temporary residency granted to them, has not expired … Whoever from these wishes to travel to his land
during that period he is not prevented from that and whoever desires to remain is similarly not prevented.
That is unless there is a fear that a harm will result from their remaining in the land, in which case they are
commanded to leave. They are given a final date to leave the land and then in respect to whoever stays
back from traveling at the end of that period, it is permitted to make him a subject of the Islamic State,
considering him as being from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, as long as no harm befalls the Muslims as a
consequence of that. However, in the case where it is feared that any harm would arise from those
Musta’mineen (those possessing an Amaan), then it is necessary to take precautions for that by placing
them under guard for as long as is required, until the process of deporting them from the land is
completed.

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/296, (2) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: 4/560. Also refer to: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/138-139 and in
3/613 Ibn ul-Qayyim also says: “The messenger or envoy is not killed and even if he was a Murtadd (apostate)”].

Concerning this, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy said in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “If it
happens that the Musta’mineen are non-elusive in the camp of the Muslims, then it is appropriate for the
Ameer to default with them (1) and so he should make them join to their place of security (i.e. outside
Daar ul-Islaam) and if refuse to leave … then it is necessary for the Ameer to offer to them in respect to
that a means of notice and to defer them to a time that will make it easy for them to reach their place of
safety within that time. He does not overstrain or burden them in respect to that period of notice so that
it does not lead to harm befalling them! And he (the Ameer) says (to them): “If you have joined your place
of security (or safety) the so be it, otherwise you are a Dhimmah and we will impose Al-Kharaaj (2) upon
you, and we will not let you return to your place of security (i.e. in your lands) after that”. And if they have
not left after the expiry of the set period of time, that would be an evidence of acceptance from them for
them to be a Dhimmah (i.e. from the people of Adh-Dhimmah) equivalent to the contraction of the
Dhimmah by text, of the standing of the Musta’mineen in our Daar if they extend their residency or stay.
And if the Ameer of the military feared, that if he was to meet their enemy that they (the Musta’mineen)
would turn against their military (i.e. of the Muslims), or he feared that they would kill the Muslims at
night, then he would command them to join to their place of security or safety (Ma’man i.e. outside Daar
ul-Islaam) and he would set a time for that, as we have explained, paying regard to the Muslims. Then he
would command them, on every night, until that time expires, to be gathered in a certain place or location
and placed under guard …” (3),

This is what Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy said regarding this matter.

Therefore, the abduction of the Musta’mineen or their detention, and considering them to be hostages
against their will and preventing them from travel to their lands, represents an aggression against the
sanctity of the Amaan (security) which had been granted to them, and that is not permissible!

3 - In addition, it is not permissible to abduct individuals or groups from the subjects or citizens of those
states which have a peace treaty with the Muslims, because those subjects follow the Hukm (legal ruling)
of the Musta’min and even if they were residing in their lands and had not entered Daar ul-Islaam.

4 - Similar to them, are the citizens of the states at war, if they were residing in states which had a peace
treaty with the Muslims … It is therefore not permissible to kill them or abduct them as long as they are
residing in the states which have a treaty with the Muslims. That is because they, in this situation, follow
under the Hukm (ruling) of the Mu’aahideen (those who have a treaty with the Muslims), as the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa applies upon them:

[(1) The intended meaning: Inform them that the state does not want them to remain in the land in accordance to the Amaan
(security) granted to them until the expiry of a set time period. He said in “An-Nihaayah”: “Nabdh Al-‘Ahd, if he breaches it,
and to throw it to the one between him and him it was”: 5/7, (2) I.e. Al-Jizyah. The author said in “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”:
p64: “Al-Kharaaj and Al-Kharj: What is obtained from the yields of the land and it also used to refer to the Jizyah”, (3) “Sharh
As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/287-288].

َ ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْمَ ََۖو َالَََت َّتخ ُِذواَ ِم ْن ُه ْم ََو ِل ّي‬
َ ‫﴾َإِ َّالَالَّذ‬٨٩﴿َ‫اَو َالَ َنصِ يرا‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َفإِنَ َت َولَّ ْواَ َف ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
ُ ‫َحي‬
َ ُ‫يَصِ ل‬
َ‫ونَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or
helper. Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty (An-Nisaa’: 89-90) (1).

This means that it is permitted to take the disbelievers from those at war in an absolute (Mutlaq) manner),
by force and openly or by way of abduction at a time when they were heedless or by surprise. Just as it is
permitted to kill them in any place we were able to get the better of them. That is unless they had reached
to a land that has a treaty with the Muslims or a peace charter. In that case it is not permissible to target
them to be killed or abduction!

5 - It is also not permissible to abduct individuals or groups of the disbelievers if they belong to a land
that the Islamic Da’wah has not yet reached. Similar to them are the lands which the Da’wah has reached
but they are still within the agreed period of time for them to study the Da’wah (invitation) that had been
presented to them and had not yet officially made a decision in respect to it; whether they would reject the
invitation or accept it, with conditions or without them, according to the manner that has been outlined in
previous studies of this paper.

It is therefore not permissible to direct abduction operations targeting the subjects or citizens of these
lands because they are not considered from the lands which we are in a state of war with and even if there
is no peace treaty contracted between them and us.

Concerning this, there is that which was related from Ubayy Bin Ka’b. He said: The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a force to Al-Laat and Al-‘Uzzaa. They then attacked or raided (them in) an area
of the Arabs and they took their fighters, women and children as booty. They (those who had
been taken) then said: O Messenger of Allah! They attacked us without making a (prior)
invitation)! And so, he asked those of the military expeditionary force about that and they
confirmed what the captives had said. And so, he said: “Return them to their place of security
and safety (Ma’man) and then invite them!” (2).

[(1) Soorah An-Nisaa’: 89-90. Refer to the Sharh of As-Siyar ul-Kabeer: 5/1764, where it is said in respect to the one who is in
the land of those at treaty, from the individuals of the people of war, who had entered by way of a contract of Amaan (security
i.e. entry visa) to the land that has a treaty with us, it is stated: “Whoever has an Amaan with them, then he is in their hands,
and he is from those whom the rule of their ruler applies. Therefore, his situation is like that of the people of their land. Do you
not see that if he left their land to come to us he did not require a new Amaan, like the status of the one who was from the
people of their land?”. I say: However, if the text of the treaty stipulated placing those seeking Amaan in those lands under
treaty, does the same apply to them as applies upon the subjects of the lands of treaty in respect to them not requiring a
contract of security (entry visa) to enter the land of Islaam, or is it necessary that they have to obtain the contract of Amaan? It
is better that this matter be made clear in the writing of the treaty, (2) “Mataalib Al-‘Aalaiyah”, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy: From
the Musnad of Al-Haarith: 1964, 2/167. Also, in the time of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil ‘Azeez, a case was raised to him by the people of
Samarkand which resembles this. They complained about Qutaibah Bin Muslim Al-Baahiliy and that he took their land by
treachery. The following was stated in the Taareekh (history) of At-Tabariy: [6/568]: “They came to ‘Umar and then ‘Umar
wrote to Sulaimaan Bin Abi As-Sirriy: “If this letter reaches you then place them before a judge so that he can investigate their
matter. If he judges in their favour then let them go back to their camp, so that they are as they were and you are as you were
before Qutaibah overcame them”. He (the narrator) said: Sulaimaan then placed Jumai’ Bin Haadir Al-Qaadiy An-Naajiy as a
judge to hear them. He then judged that the people of Samarkand go back to their camp and let them free. Then there would
be new treaty or war! The people then said: “We are pleased with what was and we will not renew a war”. And then they
mutually agreed to that”].

Outside of the cases which have been mentioned and those were the cases of the messengers or envoys,
the Musta’mineen and the subjects of the states of treaty, the subjects of the warring states if they are
resident in the states of treaty, and the subjects of lands whom the Islamic Da’wah has not reached, where
there is no actual war between them and the Muslims and no state of war, apart from these cases, which
have been mentioned, then the individuals and groups, outside of that scope, from the subjects or citizens
of the states actually at war with the Muslims, or from the subjects of the states in a state of war with the
Muslims, even if war was not ongoing between them, those individuals and groups are permitted,
according to the Asl (origin), to be targeted in abduction operations and to be detained, whether they are
in their own lands or other lands at war, or upon the international seas or air, in ships and aircraft, and
what is equivalent to that …That is because these operations, in realty, are from the acts of warfare which
fall under the scope of taking or capturing the warring disbelievers as prisoners (of war) of the Muslims, in
accordance to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ْ‫َو ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََواح‬

َ ْ‫ص ُرو ُه ْم ََوا ْق ُع ُدواَلَ ُه ْمَ ُكلََّ َمر‬
‫ص ٍَد‬
… And capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush (At-Taubah: 5).

Then, after that, their fate is determined in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to captives,
which will be explained in the forthcoming volume.

It is however necessary to mention here, that even though this act of abducting the subjects or citizens of
the enemy, according to what has been mentioned, is an act from amongst the lawful acts of warfare, on
the state of war, its matter is nevertheless like the matter of war itself and submits to the person in
authority within the Islamic State. That is because war is from the mandator powers or jurisdiction of the
head of state i.e. the Khalifah of the Muslims.

Consequently, it is for him to define and specify the styles and actions of warfare through which the
enemy will be confronted and to prevent the use of styles and actions, according to what the interest calls
for or dictates, as has been established previously.

As such, when the Khalifah views that it is not in the Maslahah (interest) to follow the style of abduction
in origin, with a particular enemy or that the abduction of personalities with a particular attribute or
description could lead to harm befalling the Muslims, then the Khalifah, in such a situation, draws out a
sound war policy in relation to that and does not leave the matter to the fighters or leaderships of the
Dunyaa to act according as they wish or desire in respect to this Mas’alah (issue).

Similarly, it is necessary to mention here, from another angle, concerning the Muslims subjects of other
states outside of the Islamic State, that it is permitted for them in the view of the Shar’iyah, when they
revolt against the authorities which rule their lands, even if they were lands tied by a peace treaty with the
Islamic State, that it is permissible for those involved in a revolt to use the abduction card or option
against those they have declared a revolt against. That is to apply pressure upon the ruling authority for
the purpose of realising the legally legitimate demands.

The Islamic State, in such a scenario, does not bear any responsibility for their conduct and actions. That
is because they are not from their own subjects and not subject to its authority. That is like what the group
or band of Abu Baseer, may Allah be pleased with him, did, against the disbelievers of Makkah during the
period of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah which was agreed between the Quraish and those allied with them
on one side and the Muslims in Al-Madinah with those who had allied with them, on the other side. That
made the Quraish, in the end, respond to the demands of this armed band revolting against the people of
Makkah, as has been explained in the books of Seerah and has been mentioned previously in this paper in
previous studies (1).

The above therefore represents the most important of what is to be said here, concerning the first point
about that which is connected to the legal legitimacy of the abduction of enemy subjects or citizens, the
limits of that legal legitimacy and its reality in respect to it being an act from amongst the legally legitimate
acts of warfare.

2 - The Second Point: Some of the goals that are sought or hoped for from resorting to the use of this
style, as observed through some of the instances or incidents related to that within the books of the
Sunnah and the Prophetic Seerah.

In the discussion of this point, we will present examples, from the books of the Sunnah and Seerah An-
Nabawiyah, of abduction operations or of imprisonment and detainment of individuals of the enemy
whilst explaining the objectives that were behind undertaking them. That is to indicate that in respect to
any objective that it is permitted for the Muslims to seek, it follows as a consequence, that it is permissible
for legally legitimate abduction operations, to represent a means for their attainment.

The following are some examples of those operations which embody what we have mentioned.

[(1) Refer to: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/308-309, “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/32 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/525].

1 - In respect to that which is connected to the year of Al-Hudaibiyah, when the Quraish prevented the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims from entering Makkah to perform the rites of the ‘Umrah. At that time, the
hearts of the Muslims were filled with scorn against the disbelievers of Quraish causing them to be
afflicted by pain as a result of the collapse of their hopes which they had been yearning to see fulfilled in
respect to visiting the Bait ul-Haraam.

It has been related that this extreme scorn gave vent to some of the Muslims to abduct a number of the
disbelievers from the inhabitants of the Haram (in Makkah) before the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah was agreed
with the Mushrikeen … However, the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, who was hoping to arrive at a truce treaty with the
Quraish commanded that those abductees be let free as a means to make smooth the path towards
accomplishing that which he was seeking to accomplish.

- The following came stated in the Tafseer of At-Tabariy with its Sanad and related from Mujaahid, who
said: “The Nabi of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬came to perform the ‘Umrah. Then his companions took (captive) some of
the people from the inhabitants of the Haram whilst they were heedless. Then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬let them go
free” (1).

- From this report, it is clear that the aim of the Sahaabah, behind the abduction of some of the
disbelievers from the subjects of Makkah, was to satisfy their thirst of revenge against the disbelievers of
the Haram in general as they had opposed the Muslims preventing their entry into Makkah to perform the
‘Umrah … It is also possible for the objective, behind abducting them, to have been to use that as a
means to apply pressure upon the Quraish to open up the way for the Muslims to visit the Bait (House of
Allah i.e. the Haram) in exchange for releasing those they had taken.

2 - Also concerning the incident of Al-Hudaibiyah, the following has been recorded in Saheeh Muslim:
Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ said: “When we and the people of Makkah had concluded the peace treaty and the
people of one side began to mix with those of the other, I came to a tree, swept away its thorns and lay
down (for rest) at its base. (While I lay there), four of the polytheists from the people of Makkah came to
me and began to talk ill of the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬. I got enraged with them and moved to another
tree. They hung their weapons (to the branches of the tree) and lay down (for rest). (While they lay there),
somebody from the lower part of the valley cried out: Run up, O Muhajirs! Ibn Zunaim has been
murdered. I drew my sword and attacked these four while they were asleep. I seized their arms and
collected them up in my hand, and said: By the One Who has conferred honour upon Muhammad, none
of you shall raise his head, else I will strike his face.

[(1) “Jaami ul-Bayaan Fee Tafseer il-Qur’aan”, At-Tabariy: 26/59].

(Then) I came leading them along to the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬. (At the same time), my uncle ‘Aamir came (to
him) with a man from Abalaat (1) called Mikraz. ‘Aamir was leading him to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
on a horse with a thick covering on its back along with seventy polytheists. The Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬
looked at them and said: Let them go (so that) they may prove guilty of breach of trust more than once
(before we take action against them). So, the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬pardoned them. And Allah
revealed the Qur'anic verse:

َ ‫ُمَب َب ْط ِنَ َم َّك َةَمِنَ َبعْ دَِأَنْ َأَ ْظ َف َر ُك ْم‬

َ‫َعلَي ِْه ْم‬ ِ ‫َوه َُوَالَّذِيَ َكفَّ َأَ ْي ِد َي ُه َْمَ َعن ُك ْم ََوأَ ْي ِد َي ُك ْمَ َع ْنه‬
It is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had granted you a
victory over them (Al-Fat’h: 24) (2).

I say: It appears that Salamah Bin Al-‘Akwa’ and his uncle ‘Aamir adopting those Mushrikeen or taking
them as captive, was according to their evaluation that the Sulh (treaty) that had been convened had been
abrogated or abolished due to the Mushrikeen having breached it, in the case that they killed a Sahaabiy
“Ibn Zunaim”. Hence, they believed that the disbelievers of Makkah had returned to the status of people
Ahl Harb (people at war), whom it is permissible to take and take as prisoner, just as was the case prior to
the truce treaty (Sulh). However, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not wish to consider the killing of Ibn Zunaim as a
breach of the treaty; either because his killing was not based on a command issued by the Quraish or their
consent, or because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬actually wanted to oversee that due to the Maslahah (interest) of
maintaining the treaty, even though this violation to the inviolable sanctity of the treaty, in evaluation and
regard would have most likely taken the ruling of breaking or breaching it.

From this example, it is clear that the aim behind abducting a number of the Mushrikeen following the
killing of Ibn Zunaim, was to take revenge for the killed Sahaabiy, against the disbelievers in general and
even if it had not been specified whom the perpetrators of the crime of murder were. That is particular as
amongst those abductees there were inevitably those whom had no hand in the killing of the Sahaabiy.
That included, in the very least, those four who had been asleep when the crime took place … Despite
that, according to the evaluation of Salamah and his paternal uncle ‘Aamir, the treaty had become void
due to the violation by the Mushrikeen of its inviolable sanctity, and hence it became permissible to
abduct or capture whoever they could get the better of, and avenge the killed Sahaabiy. However,
concerning Salamah and ‘Aamir, may Allah be pleased with them, it did not come to their minds to kill
those whom they had captured before returning to the high leadership to give its opinion and judgement
concerning the matter of the treaty and the matter of those who had been taken and detained …

[(1) They were from Quraish from the children of ‘Abd Shams Bin ‘Abd Manaaf and they were: Umayyah Al-Asghar, and his
two brothers Nawfal and Abdullah, who were attributed in name to their mother from Bani Tameem. Her name was ‘Ablah
Bin ‘Ubaid and so they were named ‘Abaliy. Refer to “Sharh Muslim” by An-Nawawiy: 7/455 and the lineage tree of ‘Abd
Shams Bin ‘Abd Manaaf ins the “Atlas of Islamic History”: p6, 87, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1807, 3/1434-1435].

However, as we have seen, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬preferred to pardon and maintain the truce treaty (Sulh) intact,
due to the greater Maslahah lying in that course of action.

3 - The goal behind the abduction operation of some people of the enemy could also be to detain them by
the Islamic authority from the purpose of demonstrating the capability against them and to surround them
with dispositional effects that could remove from them the idea of hatred and hostility towards Islaam.
That is with the hope that they will be turned towards the ranks of the Muslims and consequently direct
their hatred towards the other camp.

This was the case of the abduction of Thumaamah Bin Ithaal the master of the people of Al-Yamaamah.

It was reported that ‘Alaa’ Bin Al-Hadramiy was dispatched by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to the king of
Bahrain, Al-Mundhir Bin Saawaa, to invite him to Islaam … and after the king of Bahrain embraced
Islaam:

“‘Alaa’ returned to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and informed him about what happened with Al-Mundhir and his quick
acceptance of Islaam. He then said: “O Messenger of Allah! I passed by Thumaamah Bin Athaal Al-
Hanafiy and he said (to me): “Are you the messenger of envoy of the Muhammd?” I replied: “Yes”. He
said: “By Allah, you will never arrive back to Muhammad!” And he wanted to kill me! But his uncle
‘Aamir Bin Salamah prevented him. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬then said: “O Allah guide ‘Aamir and enable me
against Thumaamah. Thereafter, ‘Aamir embraced Islaam and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬commanded everyone who
went out towards a direction (saying): “If you overcome (or get the better of) Thumaamah, then capture
him!” Muhammad Bin Salamah went out in one of the dispatches (expeditions) and the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had
instructed him. He then reached Batn Nakhl (1) and there they came across a people preparing food and
amongst them was Thumaamah Bin Athaal. Muhammad Bin Salamah then took him and shackled him.
He then sent him with Abu Naa’ilah and four others. When they brought him (Thumaamah) to the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬he commanded that he be tied to one of the pillars of the Masjid” (2).
[(1) Batn Nakhl: A place in Najd from the land of Ghatafaan, “Al-Asmaa’ Wal-Lughaat”, An-Nawawiy: 3/38, (2) “Nasb Ar-
Raayah”: 3/392-393, from the narration of Al-Waaqidiy in the book of “Ar-Riddah” (apostacy). And the Hadeeth of
Thumaamah is recorded in the Saheehaini (two Saheehs i.e. Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim).

To provide completion to this story or incident, the following was recorded in Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim:
“The Prophet went to him and said: “What have you got, O Thumaamah?” He replied: “I have
got a good thought, O Muhammad! If you should kill me, you would kill a person who has
already killed somebody, and if you should set me free, you would do a favour to one who is
grateful, and if you want property, then ask me whatever wealth you want”. He was left till the
next day when the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said to him: “What have you got, Thumaamah?” He said:
“What I told you, i.e. if you set me free, you would do a favour to one who is grateful”. The
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬left him till the day after, when he said,: “What have you got, O Thumaamah?”
He said: “I have got what I told you”. On that the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “Release Thumaamah”.
So he (i.e. Thumaamah) went to a garden of date-palm trees near to the Mosque, took a bath and
then entered the Mosque and said: “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except
Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger! By Allah, O Muhammad! There was no face on
the surface of the earth most disliked by me than yours, but now your face has become the most
beloved face to me. By Allah, there was no religion most disliked by me than yours, but now it is
the most beloved religion to me. By Allah, there was no town most disliked by me than your
town, but now it is the most beloved town to me. Your cavalry arrested me (at the time) when I
was intending to perform the `Umrah. And now what do you think?” The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬gave
him good tidings (congratulated him) and ordered him to perform the `Umrah. So, when he
came to Makkah, someone said to him: “You have become a Sabian?” Thumaamah replied: “No!
By Allah, I have embraced Islaam with Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. No, by Allah! Not a
single grain of wheat will come to you from Yamaamah unless the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬gives his
permission” (1).

- In further completion of the story of Thumaamah, the following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “He (i.e. Thumaamah) then departed for Al-Yamaamah and he forbade them from transporting
anything to Makkah. And so they (i.e. the people of Makkah) wrote to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬: “You
command maintaining the ties of the womb (Silaat ur-Rahm) but you have cut off our wombs and have
killed the fathers by the sword and sons through hunger!” Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wrote to
him to free the way for transportation to resume between him and them” (2).

- The following was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” when presenting a discussion about the benefits that
can be taken from the narration concerning Thumaamah: “Al-Ihsaan (i.e. acting in the best manner or by
the best treatment) removes the hatred and establishes love … And it (the incident) contains within it the
matter of dealing kindly with the one whom it is hoped will become Muslim from the captives if that was
in the Maslahah of Islaam and particularly in respect to the one who many of his people would follow him
into Islaam ….

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4372, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/87. Saheeh Muslim: 1764, 3/1386, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 4/245 and refer also to: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/277].

… It also contains within it that expeditions are sent out to the lands of the disbelievers and to capture
those found from them. And then the option after that is either to kill them or to retain them” (1).

- There is mentioned within “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf” that which indicates that the capture and abduction of
Thumaamah specifically and placing him in detention or captivity was not for the purpose of revenge in
spite of the hostility that he had towards the Islamic Da’wah and its Messenger in addition to its base that
it was spreading out from (i.e. Al-Madinah) … Rather, it represented a sincere targeting in that winning
such a man would represent a win for Islaam if he was to turn towards it. That is whilst, in the case of
such a man, the only way to make him move towards it would be by employing such a violent or
aggressive style that would shake him deeply inwardly. That was so that when he was granted a generous
pardon, the experience would motivate him revise his view and dispositional feelings towards this Da’wah
and then become aware after that revision where the truth stood in the struggle that was taking place
within the Arabian Peninsula … And this is what came to pass and Thumaamah decided to stand with the
Haqq (truth) which had manifested clearly to him … That happened as explained previously, like what
came mentioned in “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: “That when Thumaamah said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “If you should
kill me, you would kill a person who has already killed somebody” the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to him: “O Allah,
eating the a Jazoor (2) is preferable to me than (taking) the blood of Thumaamah”. He then let his
go free and then he (Thumaamah) went off to purify himself and embraced Islaam. His Islaam was sincere
and Allah benefited (the cause of) Islaam greatly by him. Following the passing of the Messenger of Allah
‫ﷺ‬, he took a praiseworthy position when Al-Yamaamah apostatised along with Musaylamah. He stood
amongst them and addressed them saying: “O Bani Haneefah! Where have your minds escaped to?! (And
recited):

ِ ‫ِبسْ ِمَاللَّـهَِالرَّ حْ َم ٰـ ِنَالرَّ ح‬

َ‫ِيم‬
َّ ْ ‫َِو َق ِاب ِلَال َّت ْوبَِ َشدِيد‬
‫َِال ِع َقابَِذ‬
ََۖ‫ِيَالط ْو ِل‬ َ ‫﴾َ َغاف ِِرَا َّلذنب‬٢﴿َ‫َال َعل ِِيم‬ ْ ‫يز‬ ْ ‫َُال ِك َتابَِم َِنَاللَّـه‬
ِ ‫َِال َع ِز‬ ْ ‫نزيل‬
ِ ‫﴾َ َت‬١﴿َ‫حم‬
ْ ‫َالَإِلَ ٰـ َهَإِ َّالَه َُوََۖإِلَ ْيه‬
‫َِالمَصِ ي َُر‬
In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman ir-Raheem, Ha Meem. The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Might,
the Knowing. The forgiver of sin, acceptor of repentance, severe in punishment, owner of abundance. There is no deity except
Him; to Him is the destination (Ghaafir: 1-3).

“(He continued) Where does this stand as compared to: “O frog, pure just as two pure things, no drink
you will spoil and no water you will prevent”, which was from that which Musaylamah had made up. As a
result, 3000 obeyed him and went over to the side of the Muslims, significantly weakening the strength of
Bani Haneefah as a consequence” (3).

I say: As such the incident of Thumaamah, may Allah be pleased with him, represents an example of what
abduction operations undertaken by Muslims can lead to in terms of results and bringing a change in the
correct direction in respect to the life of the one who was abducted himself, in addition to the blessed
change in respect to the history of a people that this abducted person belonged to.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/88-89, (2) Al-Jazoor: “Male of female camel”, “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/266, (3) “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 4/253].

4 - It has also come within the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah that which indicates that one of the objectives
behind abducting and capturing subjects of the enemy, was to use them as a means to rescue Muslim
captives from the enemies, and that was via the means of ransoming and the exchanging of prisoners. It
could be that the one who had been abducted and captured did not himself belong to the enemy which
was detaining Muslim captives but only belonged to a people who were allied to that enemy. However,
despite that, it was the nature of such an abduction that it would lead in the end to the saving or rescuing
of the Muslim captives, in accordance to the relations of alliance existing between the enemies of the
Muslims.

- The following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “Imran b. Husain said: The tribe of Thaqeef was the ally
of Banu 'Uqail. Thaqeef took two persons from amongst the Companions of Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬as
prisoners. The Companions of Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬took one person at Banu Uqail as prisoner, and
captured Al-‘Adbaa (1) along with him. Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬came to him and he was tied with ropes.
He said: “O Muhammad” He approached him and said: “What is the matter with you?” Thereupon he
(the prisoner) said: “Why have you taken me as prisoner and why have you caught hold of that which
proceeds those going to Hajj (i.e. the camel)”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “(I (my men) have caught hold of you for the
crime of your allies, Banu Thaqeef”. He ‫ ﷺ‬then turned away. He again called him and said: “O
Muhammad, Muhammad” and since Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬was very compassionate, and tender
hearted, he returned to him, and said: “What is the matter with you?” He said: “I am a Muslim”,
whereupon he ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Had you said this when you had been the master of yourself, you would have
gained every success” (2). He then turned away. He (the prisoner) called him again saying: “O
Muhammad, Muhammad”. He came to him and said: “What is the matter with you?” He said: I am
hungry, feed me, and I am thirsty, so provide me with drink”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “This is your requirement”.
He was then ransomed for two persons (i.e. two Muslims who had been taken prisoner by Thaqeef)” (3).

[(1) The camel Al-‘Adbaa: One that has had its ears cut. This camel of Al-‘Uqailiy came into the possession of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
following his being taken as captive. It was a she-camel of noble breed that preceded those going to Hajj and was not
proceeded. It was not actually ‘Adbaa’ (i.e. ears cut) but rather this was its name. Refer to: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/629, (2) “The
meaning of this: Had you said the Kalimah of Islaam before being taken as captive, when you were in charge of your affair (i.e.
independent), you would have had full success, because it would not have been permissible to take you as a prisoner had you
embraced Islaam before that, and you would have succeeded through your embracing of Islaam, not being made captive and
saved from your property being taken as booty. However, declaring your Islaam after the capture takes away the option of
killing you, whilst the option of taking you as a slave, freeing you and ransoming you remains”: Sharh Muslim, An-Nawawiy:
7/112-113, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1641, 3/1262-1263].

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said: “The statement of the Messenger of Allah ‫“ ﷺ‬I have taken you for the
crime of your allies” i.e. Thaqeef, is only because the one taken is a Mushrik whose blood and property is
Mubaah (permissible to take) due to his Shirk (i.e. disbelief), from all angles! Whilst pardoning him is
(also) Mubaah. So, when the matter is like that, it is not condemnable for it to be said: You were taken i.e.
you were detained due to the crime of your allies: Thaqeef. And to detain him based upon that, to go on
to free whom it is wanted and they proceed towards that which is wanted!” He then says: “In the case
where detaining such a person is Halaal in the absence of the crime of other than him and letting him free
is also Mubaah, it is consequently permissible for him to be detained for the crime of other than him, due
to it being warranted in respect to himself (in origin). He is then freed, voluntarily, if the one detaining
him accomplishes some of what he wanted to accomplish through his detention!” (1). Ash-Shaafi’iy then
reasoned the returning of Al-‘Uqailiy to the land of disbelief following his acceptance of Islaam, and after
having accomplished the purpose behind his detention, saying: “This ransoming of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬with
Al-‘Uqailiy and returning him to his land, which was a land of Kufr, was due to his knowledge that they
would not harm him or dare to do anything to him because of his station and his position of honour
amongst them” (2).

5 - It has also been recorded in the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, that included among the goals of abducting
individuals from the enemy, is to attain specific information that are important for the Muslims in relation
to war. That is like when the Sahaabah abducted some of the servant boys accompany Quraish, on the eve
of the battle of Badr, for the sake of attaining all that they could of essential information concerning the
enemy … From those who had been captured, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬became aware of the nobles of Quraish
who had departed to fight at Badr just as he was able to deduce from them, that the size of the
Mushrikeen army numbered between 900 and 1000 (fighters)” (3).

The above therefore represent some of the sought after objectives or goals behind abduction operations
or taking as captive individuals from among the citizens or subjects of the enemy, during the state of war,
as has been mentioned within the books of the Seerah An-Nabawiyah. It is not intended here to examine
the events that took place related to this matter and all of the objectives and aims that were sought from
them … Rather, the intention is to explain the legal legitimacy of this type of actions from the acts of war
and to demonstrate some of the purposes or aims that can be targeted from undertaking them. For that
purpose, this presentation was to provide examples of the operations involving abduction, capturing and
detaining.
[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/253. Ibn ul-Atheer however reasoned the capture or Al-‘Uqailiy upon the breach of the treaty
or covenant (‘Ahd). He said: “There was a treaty between the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and Thaqeef. Then when they breached
it, Banu ‘Uqail did not renounce and condemn that and hence became like them in respect to the breaching of the treaty”:
“Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/629, (2) “Al-Umm”: 4/253, (3) Refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1779, 3/1403-1404, Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-
Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/24, “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/175 and “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 2/161].

Finally, concerning the words of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy when commentating upon the capture of
Al’Uqaily: “… It is consequently permissible for him to be detained for the crime of other than him, due
to it being warranted in respect to himself (in origin). He is then freed, voluntarily, if the one detaining
him accomplishes some of what he wanted to accomplish through his detention!”, it may be that within
these words there is that which indicates that the capturing of individuals of the enemy or abducting them,
could represent a beneficial means, in the hands of the Muslims, to pressurise the enemy or to use for
bargaining, in order to reach that which wanted to be reached (in terms of goals or purposes) …
Consequently, there is no harm or problem after that, to release those who have been detained and free
them from their captivity, in the case where the objectives behind taking and detaining them had been
accomplished.

Within this generality which Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy has indicated to, there is enough to explain the legal
legitimacy for detaining captives for a variety of purposes or objectives including those which are: military,
related to peace, security, moral scientific or knowledge based, or material, and what is similar to these in
respect to every or any legally legitimate purpose.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of this topic: “Styles of abduction, targeting subjects of the
hostile states and taking them as hostages” and now move on to the discussion of the next topic, by the
help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.
 The Third Topic
Suicide or martyrdom operations: What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to
these?

It is possible to categorise these operations from the perspective of the reasons and conditions or
circumstances surrounding the death or martyrdom of those undertaking them into four types, as follows:

1 - The First Type: There is no ambiguity in respect to it that it is from the accepted martyrdom.

2 - The Second Type: That in which there is detail related to the Hukm according to the situation that
those operations occur in, in terms of the existence of the necessity to undertake them or its non-
existence.

3 - The Third Type: That which falls under the prohibited suicide.

4 - The Fourth Type: That in which the points of view are numerous in respect to it.

1 - The First Type: There is no ambiguity in respect to it that it is from the accepted martyrdom.

This type of martyrdom operations is manifested in that in which those undertaking them are determined
to attain martyrdom, without any thought or planning to escape with their lives … That is through
clashing with the enemy during the fighting with the aim of inflicting harm against them. That is either by
inflicting casualties within the ranks of the enemy in terms of deaths and wounded, or to spread terror,
fright and anguish within the breasts of their fighters and subjects, in addition to generating the courage of
the Muslims against them … regardless of the strength or power of that enemy and even if they were ten
times the strength of the Islamic forces which were confronting them … indeed, even if one single
Muslim was to confront 1000 disbelievers with it!

This type of operations is considered to be from “Al-Qitaal Al-Mabroor” (accepted fighting) and the one
killed in this fighting is a Shaheed (martyr) of the Dunyaa and the Aakhirah.

Concerning this kind of Qitaal (fighting or combat), the following came mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-
Qurturbiy: “Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan said: “If one single man took on 1000 of the Mushrikeen
(disbelievers), whilst alone, then there would be no problem with that if he wanted to (still) be saved or
wanted to bring damage to the enemy” (1). Al-Qurturbiy then said regarding this type of Qitaal i.e. one
confronting 1000 and what is similar to that: “And if in that, there was a benefit for the Muslims, where
he destroyed himself in order to bring honour and strength to the Deen of Allah and weaken the
disbelievers, then that represents a noble position which Allah has praised the believers for when He said:

ْ ‫ُمَبأَنَّ َلَ ُه ُم‬

َ‫َال َج َّن َة‬ ِ ‫ِينَأَنفُ َس ُه ْم ََوأَمْ َوالَه‬ ْ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَا ْش َت َر ٰىَم َِن‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
 Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise
(At-Taubah: 111).

In addition to other Aayaat of praise in which Allah commends the one who expends his life” (2).

- Concerning this type of Qitaal (combat), the following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim:

“Anas bin Maalik related, that on the day of the Battle of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬
was left alone with seven men from the Ansar and two men from the Quraish. When the enemy
advanced towards him and began to overwhelm him, he said: “Whoever turns them away from us
will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise”. A man from the Ansaar came forward
and fought (the enemy) until he was killed. The enemy advanced and began to overwhelm him
again and he repeated the words: “Whoever turns them away, from us will attain Paradise or will
be my Companion in Paradise”. And so, another man from the Ansaar came forward and fought
until he was killed. This situation continued until the seven Ansaar were killed (one after the
other). Now, the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬said to his two Companions: “We have not done
justice to our Companions” (3).

And we have already explained the opinion in respect to this type of Qitaal (fighting or combat) and
consequently we will not repeat that here. That is found in the study: “The Qitaal of Al-Ghaarah (raiding)
for the purpose of attaining the property of the enemy”.

It is observable in this type of fighting that the one killed from the Muslims is only killed at the hands of
the disbelievers and by their weapons … As such, there is no ambiguity in respect to these types of
military or combat operations being from the accepted (i.e. lawful) martyrdom operations.

[(1) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 2/364 and refer also to: “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/163-164, (2)
Tafseer Al-Qurtuniy: 2/364, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1789, 3/1415. Also refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 12/316 when he transmitted
from Al-Muhallab his statement: “They have agreed upon the permissibility of rushing into (grave) danger or peril during Al-
Jihaad”].

2 - The Second Type: That in which there is detail related to the Hukm according to the situation
that those operations occur in, in terms of the existence of the necessity to undertake them or its
non-existence.

An example of such an operation of this type is when a combatant places bombs or explosives materials
in his car or he wraps his body with a belt of explosives, and then breaches the enemies in their
headquarters or gives the appearance that he wants to surrender to them … then he detonates those
explosives or bombs with the intended aim of eliminating the enemy before him and even if that is by way
of inevitably sacrificing his life.

It is observable in these kind of operations is that the death of the combatant here is by the act of his own
hand and his weapon, which is undertaken deliberately and not by accident or error. That is even though
the main aim behind undertaking these operations is to eliminate the enemy or inflict harm upon it.

It appears that these kinds of operations apply to fighting the enemy if they fortify and shield themselves
with Muslims, as covered in the previous study, although the shield in these kinds of operations which we
are discussing here, are represented in the fighter himself. In addition, in the case of the enemy taking
Muslims as (human) shields, it is the enemy who has exposed this human shield to the danger and threat.
However, in this situation, where the fighter attaches an explosive belt to himself or something similar to
that, then it is the Muslim fighter who exposes himself to danger and threat to his life. Despite that, the
important matter, in both cases, is that the killing of the enemy is only reached by way of killing the
Muslim shields at the hands of the Muslim fighters and their weapons, like in the first case … and by the
Muslim killing himself by his hand and weapon, in the second case i.e. the case of the fighting strapping
an explosive belt to his body or something similar to that.

In the case where the second case takes the Hukm (ruling) of the first, then the conclusion in respect to
this Hukm, as explained in the study concerning the human shields, is as follows:

A - If there was a necessity (Daroorah) to fight the enemy, in the case where Muslims would be inflicted
with major harm as a result of refraining from fighting, which is greater than the harm that would inflict
them by initiating the fighting and continuing in it, then in such a circumstance: The Muslim shields are
sacrificed for the sake of reaching the enemy, fighting it and killing it.

The same applies in respect to this Mas’alah, if there was a necessity (Daroorah) to fight the enemy and
kill him, according to the manner that we have explained, when it is not possible to reach the enemy
except via these martyrdom operations which we are discussing. These operations are therefore
undertaken and the Muslims undertaking them are sacrificed in order to reach the enemy, kill him and to
repel the greater harm from inflicting the Muslims, if the Muslims were not designated to confront the
enemy with operations such as this.

B - However, in the situation where there is no Daroorah (necessity) to fight the enemy (i.e. at that time),
then in the circumstance of human shields, as we became aware of previously, the Muslim shields should
not be struck. This means: To refrain from fighting to preserve the blood of the Muslims who are being
used as shields; so that it is not squandered without a necessity to do so or without a legally legitimate
Maslahah (interest), according to what was detailed previously in the study about human shields.

The same is said in relation to the reality we are dealing with here: When there is no Daroorah (necessity)
to reach the enemy to kill him or inflict harm upon him, martyrdom operations should not be undertaken,
so as to preserve the life of the fighters so that they are not lost by their hands, without the existence of a
necessity or legally legitimate interest.

The above represents the summary of what is to be said regarding the martyrdom operations through
analogy upon the Mas’alah (issue) of human shields. What has been said in relation to providing the
justification of Muslims going ahead to kill their Muslim brothers who are being used as human shields
(by the enemy), in the circumstance of the Daroorah (necessity), applies here, in relation to providing the
justification of those undertaking martyrdom operations killing themselves, also in the situation or
circumstance of the Daroorah (necessity). That is whilst the true aim or target from the killing, in both
cases, is the enemy disbeliever, and naturally not the Muslim.

There is therefore no need to repeat what has previously been said in the study related to the human
shields in terms of Shar’iyah evidences which provide the justification for striking the shields consisting of
Muslims.

It is known that a Muslim killing another Muslim is a greater crime than the Muslim killing himself (1).
Therefore, if there is no issue (Haraj) to undertake that which is greater in criminality, not from the
perspective of the ruling of the permissibility of a Muslim killing another Muslim, but only from the angle
of the Daroorah, which is necessary in the situation of war, in order to repel or avoid a greater harm, then
by greater reason, there should be no Haraj (issue) in respect to the Muslim going ahead to undertake that
which is less criminal, not from the perspective of the permissibility of committing suicide or the Muslim
killing himself, but rather only according to the ruling of the Daroorah (necessity) which is necessary to
undertake in the situation of war, to avoid a greater harm.

With that we conclude the discussion around the second type of the martyrdom operations and we now
come to the discussion of the third.
3 - The Third Type: That which falls under the prohibited suicide:

The example of this type is manifested in the fighters committing suicide so that they do not get captured
by the enemy, or to escape from torture befalling them or expected to befall them, or to release
themselves from the pain of a wound etc.

The Hukm of suicide (Al-Intihaar) in such conditions or surrounding circumstances is At-Tahreem

(prohibition). That is because of the many Ahaadeeth that have come in respect to the promise of
punishment for killing oneself being applicable to it. Included amongst them is what came recorded in
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim, related by Jundub, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬:

ْ ‫تَ َعلَ ْيه‬

َ‫َِال َج َّن َة‬ َ ‫ِيَب َن ْفسِ ه‬
ُ َْ‫َِحرَّ م‬ ِ ‫ِيَع ْبد‬ َّ ‫انَ ِب َرج ٍُلَ ِج َراحَ َف َق َت َلَ َن ْف َسهَُ َف َقا َل‬
َ ‫ََّللاَُ َب َد َرن‬ َ ‫َك‬
A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: “My slave has
caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him” (1).

And in another narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy:

َُ‫ىَماتَ َقا َلََّللا‬

َ َ ‫َب َهاَ َي َدهَُ َف َماَر َقأََال َّد ُم‬
‫َح َّت‬ ِ ‫َرجُلَ ِبهَِجُرْ حَ َف َج ِز َعَ َفأ َ َخ َذَسِ ِّكيناَ َف َح َّز‬
َ ‫انَ َق ْبلَ ُك ْم‬
ََ ‫انَفِي َمنْ َ َك‬
َ ‫َك‬
‫َِالج َّن ََة‬
َ ‫ْتَ َع َل ْيه‬ ُ ‫َِحرَّ م‬َ ‫ِيَب َن ْفسِ ه‬
ِ ‫ِيَع ْبد‬ َ ‫َ َبا َد َرن‬:‫َت َعالَى‬
There was amongst those before you a man who had a wound. He was in [such] anguish that he
took a knife and made with it a cut in his hand, and the blood did not cease to flow till he died.
Allah the Almighty said: My servant has taken his life hurriedly; so I have forbidden him Paradise
(2).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy”: 1364, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/237 and Saheeh Muslim: 113, 1/107, (2) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 3463, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/496].

Commenting upon this Hadeeth, the following was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The Hadeeth contains:
The Tahreem (prohibition) of killing the Nafs (self) … And it includes: Speech about the previous nations
of the past and the virtue of remaining patient in the face of trials and to avoid discontentment or
dissatisfaction from the pains, so that it doesn’t lead to even more severe pain or suffering than it. It (also)
includes: The Tahreem (prohibition) of engaging in the causes (Asbaab) leading to the killing of the self”
(1).

I say: It is clear from what has preceded that the presented Hadeeth has stated the prohibition of the
suicide which has been caused by the lack of patience and attempt to hasten death to escape pains or
sufferings. Consequently, the view of the possibility of the permissibility of undertaking suicide, for such
reasons, clashes with the Shar’iy text, as is Zhaahir (evident). By this view, I mean: That which came
mentioned in the book “Al-Jihaad Wa-l-Fadaa’iyah Fi-l-Islaam” when discussing the matter of the enemies
capturing a Muslim fighter and torturing him until death. It was said: “If the suicide is because he has
become sure that they will kill him, but they will torture him before that as a malicious act and to enrage
the Muslims, then if he was to commit suicide in this situation, then it would be Haraam although it will
not be a Kabeerah (major sin) from the Kabaa’ir (major sins), and its permissibility is not improbable!!”
(2). The author of the book then indicates to his leaning towards the opinion or view of permissibility,
saying: “The reality, is that in such situations, the Muslim is not considered to be the killer of himself.
Rather, his killer is his enemy because his enemy is the one who gained control over him and tortured
him, and he is the one who won’t leave him until he has killed him” … He then said: “This is my opinion
in the subject, because there is no text for it and I haven’t seen a Fatwaa of any of the ‘Ulamaa’, although
there may exist a Fatwaa that I have not seen” (2).
I say: The previously presented Shar’iy text, which was related in the two Saheehs, and established the
Tahreem (prohibition) of the Muslim killing himself with the intended aim of relieving himself of what he
was suffering from in terms of pains, injury and punishment … this text indicates, in its absolute
unrestricted (Mutlaq) form) to the Tahreem (prohibition) of suicide, whether the motivation for that was
the torture of an illness which man has no hand in or the torture that the enemy inflicts.

There could however still be some doubt or question left, in respect to the opinion stating the possibility
of the permissibility of committing suicide, in order to relieve the pains or sufferings. This doubt or
question lies in that the suicide in this situation realises or fulfils the Maslahah (interest) of the human who
has given up hope about remaining alive; whether that was due to sickness, a wound, or as a captive of the
enemy, when he is sure that he will die sooner or later under torture (or equivalent suffering and pain to
torture). This Maslahah (interest) is reflected in cutting off the pains and sufferings from him, via suicide,
according to what is apparent.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/500, (2) “Al-Jihaad Wa-l-Fadaa’iyah Fi-l-Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Hasan Ayoub: p167].

Concerning this, I say: It could be this Shubhah (doubt or questioning) which lies behind the opinion of
the permissibility of committing suicide to relieve the pains and sufferings, according to the consideration
that Islaam came to realise and fulfil the Masaalih interests).

However, when the ‘Ulamaa of Usool, when studying the Maslahah (interest) and when taking it as a
Hujjah (proof) in relation to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, they agreed upon that if Shar’iyah texts came
indicating that a particular Maslahah was not considered to be from the legally legitimate or legislated
(Mashroo’ah) Masaalih (interests), then in such a situation, it would be considered to be from the Masaalih
Al-Mulghaah (cancelled or abolished interests) which are not permitted to be relied upon, to state the
permissibility of actions or conducts that lead to their realisation …

In respect to the Mas’alah which we are now addressing, a Shar’iy text has come indicating to the Tahreem
(prohibition) of killing the Nafs (self) for the purpose of ridding oneself of torture, pains and sufferings.
This means: The Shar’a has cancelled or abolished the consideration that ridding the pains and torture
represents a legally legitimate Maslahah (interest), where it is made permissible to kill oneself to realise it
(i.e. the Maslahah).

Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy has presented a number of examples of the cancelled interest (Al-
Masaalih Al-Mulghaah), which includes within them that which we are addressing. He said: “And the
examples of that are numerous, like: Dealing with Ribaa (usury), making the matter of Talaaq (divorce) the
decision of the judge or the woman, the sick person who has given up hope of being cured killing
himself” (1).

- To clarify the intended meaning of “Al-Masaalih Al-Mulghaah”, Dr. Muhammad Az-Zuhailiy said:

“Al-Masaalih ul-Mulghaah: These are the Masaalih (interests) which the Ahkaam have come cancelling out
or abolishing (Ilghaa’) them and to not observe them. That is because they are interests from what is
apparent whilst they conceal behind them harms and corrupting matters (Mafaasid), in addition to dangers
to the Deen and society. That is like Ribaa (usury) because it contains an apparent Maslahah to the one
loaning with interest and to the one taking the loan so as to benefit from it. And like the sick person who
has given up hope of being cured killing himself …” (2).

In addition, in some of the Fiqhiy books, the prohibition of killing the one who has given up hope or is in
despair in respect to remaining alive, has been stated: “The one who has done to him that which he does
not live with (i.e. sickness that leads to death or something similar) then it is not permitted to give him
anything that will hasten his death” (3).
[(1) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Al-Ustaadh, Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy : 2/754, (2) “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”: The Second
Year - Kulliyah Ash-Sharee’ah: Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa Az-Zuhailiy: p199, (3) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/165].

Based on what has preceded, the suicidal act which the Muslim fighter undertakes so as to rid himself of
the punishment or torture encompassing him, is from the prohibited acts.

Yes, it is true that the fighter could undertake actions that lead to certain death by his hand and yet the
Hukm upon those actions differs, in respect to whether or not it falls under the prohibited suicide? That is
according to the angle through which they are regarded and this is what we will examine in the fourth and
last category or type of the acts of suicide or martyrdom.

4 - The Fourth Type: That in which there are different points of view in respect to whether they
are suicidal or martyrdom acts.

The Fuqahaa’ provided the example of this type through that of the ship which the enemy sets on fire
whilst there are Muslims onboard who are compelled to choose one of two options: Either to die by
burning to death in the fire or to through themselves overboard to die by drowning in the sea.

It was stated in “Al-Mudawwanah” of Al-Imaam Maalik: “The speaker was Suhnoon asking his Sheikh
Ibn ul-Qaasim, the student of Al-Imaam Maalik: What is your opinion if the enemy burns a ship and
Muslims are onboard? Did Maalik view it to be Makrooh (disliked) for them to throw themselves? Did he
view that they were assisting themselves against themselves (i.e. to kill themselves)? He said: It has reached
me that Maalik was asked about this and said: I do not see a problem with it. They are only fleeing from
one death to another death! Ibn Wahb said: Rabee’ah said: Any man who flees from the fire into a matter
that he knows will kill him, then he should not do that, as he is only fleeing from a death to another death
which is easier for him, and there has come that which is not Halaal for him. If however, through that, he
was hoping that he may survive … then anyone who chooses that which he hopes that being saved lies in
that, there is no sin on him and even if he is destroyed by that choice (i.e. he dies anyway) …

He said: And it has reached me from Rabee’ah that he said: If he remains patient then that is a more noble
course In Shaa’ Allah …” (1).

- The following came in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Al-Fiqhiyah”, concerning this Mas’alah (issue):

“There is difference of opinion concerning the boat that has been set on fire: Does the man throw himself
overboard to drown or not? And as for if he is being fought, then he does not drown himself, rather
stands to fight until death” (2).

[(1) “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 2/25, (2) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p165].

- In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer, some details concerning this Mas’alah have been presented:

“It is permissible to move from one cause (Sabab) of death to another like when they burn a ship and if
he (the Muslim) remains onboard, he will perish and if he throws himself overboard into the sea, he will
perish (1). It is obligatory to move (from one to the other) if the saving of his life is hoped for or that his
life will be extended and even if alongside that something happens to him which is more severe than the
death! That is because the preservation of the lives is obligatory as much as is possible!” (2).

Ad-Dasouqiy commented upon the above saying: “The assumption of the matter is that both matters are
equal: i.e. he (i.e. the Muslim) knows that if he remains (i.e. upon the burning ship) that he will die
immediately. And if he throws himself overboard in the sea he will die at once. However, if he knew that
if he was to descend into the sea, that he would remain living, and even by a degree, or thought that, or
had doubt in respect to that! And that if he remained onboard (the burning ship) he would die
immediately, then it is obligatory to descend into the sea!” (3).

- The following came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah concerning this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue):

“If the disbelievers cast fire upon a ship containing Muslims and it set ablaze upon it, then whatever they
believe most probable in relation to finding safety (or staying alive), whether that means remaining on the
ship or throwing themselves into the water, then it is most appropriate for them to do that. If the two
matters are equal in their view, then Ahmad said: He does what he wishes. Al-Awzaa’iy said: They are two
deaths and so he chooses the easiest of the two! Abu l-Khattaab said: There is another narration that they
must keep where they are. That is because if they throw themselves into the water, then their deaths
would be by their hands whilst if they remained where they were, their deaths would be by the action of
others” (4).

I say: It is observable from the statements or opinion of the Fuqahaa’ above, that the fighter going ahead
to commit suicide by killing himself, by his (own) weapon, to flee or escape from fire which has engulfed
him or his surroundings, represents a matter that is not conceivable and even if the situation he is in
means that the pains and sufferings and punishment or torture will be extended until death. From another
angle, it appears from the opinion permitting moving from one circumstance of death that the enemy has
imposed upon the Muslim to another circumstance of death that he chooses for himself, if he has the
ability to do that, in the situation when both circumstances are equal … it appears from this opinion, that
throwing oneself into the water only means going ahead to commit suicide by drowning in the case where
he does not know how to swim and is not capable in respect to it … Concerning this the author of the
book “Al-Jihaad Wa-l-Fadaa’iyah Fi l-Islaam” states the possibility of the permissibility of the fighter who
is suffering under torture to commit suicide by killing himself to escape from what he is in or suffering …

[(1) The wording used in “Man’h ul-Jaleel” her was: “Like throwing himself in a sea whilst not knowing how to swim”: 3/165,
(2) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer and “Haashiyah” (Commentary) of Ad-Dasouqiy upon it: 2/183-184, (3) “Haashiyah
Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 1/184, (4) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/554-555 and refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/389].

… That is because there is apparently no difference between the suicide by drowning, which some of the
Fuqahaa’ have permitted, and between suicide by one’s weapon, which the Fuqahaa’ did not go on to
mention in relation to this (1).

I say: this is how it seems from what is apparent.

However, I view that the thought of permitting suicide didn’t come to the minds of the Fuqahaa’, who
have stated the permissibility of throwing oneself into the water, in the situation which has been indicated
to, whether that was by water or by other than water … Rather, the only matter in their minds or line of
thought was the thought or idea of fleeing from a circumstance that leads to certain death which the
enemy had imposed upon the Muslims. This fleeing is permissible in their view regardless if what he is
fleeing to leads to being saved or to his death. That is because the act, which was the context of their
study, was the fleeing from a circumstance which the enemy had imposed upon the Muslims and the
evidence for that is that they studied this Mas’alah (issue) within the subject area of fleeing from fighting
when facing the enemy; when it is permitted and when it is not permitted?

Therefore, whoever has fire set ablaze in his ship and is certain that he will perish, it is permissible for him
to flee from the fire, according to those Fuqahaa’, and even if there was no place for him to flee to apart
from the water, the consequence of which is a certain death.

In spite of that, it absolutely does not fall under the category of fleeing from fire, that the person engulfed
in the fire or surrounded by it, goes ahead to kill himself by a weapon, or hanging, or cutting his arteries or
something similar to that. That is because this, in reality, does not represent fleeing from the circumstance
that he is in for it to be given the Hukm (ruling) of fleeing. Rather, it means going ahead deliberately to
commit suicide and that is a Munkar (evil) in Islaam that has been given the most severe of denunciations.

Therefore, those of the Fuqahaa’ who observed the aspect of fleeing, in relation to the Mas’alah we are
addressing, stated the permissibility of moving from the fire into the water, with the intention of fleeing
the fire.

And those of the Fuqahaa’ who observed the aspect of the fighter throwing himself by his hand and by
his act into destruction (or to his death), stated the prohibition of moving from the fire into the water.

I say: That which I view to be correct here, is that if the intended purpose of the fighter in respect to his
conduct in such a circumstance we are discussing, was to flee from what he was facing in terms of death,
then there is no fault upon him and even if he was not hoping to be saved in the circumstance that he was
fleeing to.

[(1) Refer to: “Al-Jihaad Wal-Fadaa’iyah Fi l-Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Hasan Ayoub: p167].

However, if the intended purpose of his behaviour was to commit suicide and to hasten death, then that is
suicide and the fighter in such circumstances is the Faqeeh of himself, according to the basis of: “Verily
acts are only by the intentions and every person will attain what he intended” (1). His account will
then be with Allah … As for acting upon what is apparent, then those who have undertaken such acts or
behaviours are not considered to be from those who have committed suicide as long as what is apparent is
that their act had been inline with fleeing from death or destruction.

By that we have reached the conclusion of this current topic and now move on to the discussion of
another.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/9, Saheeh Muslim: 1907, 3/1515-1516].

The Fourth Topic

Violation of the A’araad (honours or sanctities) of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb):
Is it a general permissibility in respect to them and their life (Nafs), honour (‘Ird)
and property Maal)?

The intended meaning of the violation of the ‘A’araad here, is making permissible (Istibaahah) the
committing of Zinaa with the women of Ahl ul-Harb from the disbelievers. And the intended meaning of
Istibaahah (making permissible) of their ‘A’araad (‫ )أَعَْ َراض‬within the scope of the general making
permissible (Al-Istibaahah Al-‘Aammah) of the warring disbelievers, is it take their women as Sabaayaa
(i.e. booty) and the fighters having intimate relations with them as they do with their wives.
This is the subject area which we are addressing in this topic. That which caused us to make this subject
area a topic from amongst the topics of this study: i.e. “The practises of the fighters and the position of
the Shar’iy Ijtihaad concerning them”, is that a lot of speech has taken place around this topic and
practises or conducts have been transmitted concerning it, amongst fighters in our current time …
Consequently, it was necessary to acquire knowledge of the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy concerning this subject.

It is known that what relates specifically to this topic, which we want to address, falls within the Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy) of Al-Asraa’ (Prisoners of war or captives) and As-Saby (those taken as slaves as booty) as part of
it, in addition to what is connected to that in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of Al-Istirqaaq
(enslaving) … However, despite that, we will not delve into this Mas’alah here from all of its angles, but
rather will restrict ourselves to that which relates directly or firmly to the scope of our subject of
discussion.

Based upon that, we will approach and address this topic through the following points:

1 - The First Point: Is it permissible to engage in Zinaa (fornication) with the women of Ahl ul-Harb
(people at war) from the disbelievers?

2 - The Second Point: What is the intended meaning of As-Saby from the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war)?
And what is the position of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to enslaving the Saby?

3 - The Third Point: What is built upon the Hukm of enslaving the Saby in terms of consequences, in
relation to what specifically concerns us here? Is As-Saby (taking women as booty) and Al-Istirqaaq
(enslavement) permitted in our current day?

1 - The First Point: Is it permissible to engage in Zinaa (fornication) with the women of Ahl ul-
Harb (people at war) from the disbelievers?

We will approach this point through the discussion of the following matters:

Firstly: The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to Az-Zinaa.

Secondly: Is there a Shubhah (doubt or question mark) in respect to making permissible Zinaa with the
women disbelievers of the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war)?
Thirdly: The Haqq (truth) in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

Firstly: The Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation to Az-Zinaa.

- From amongst the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah which are known from the Deen by necessity (Daroorah), is
that Az-Zinaa is Haraam and that it is a Kabeerah (major sin) from among the Kabaa’ir (major sins). That
is due to the numerous evidences that have come stating its repugnance and abomination and reviled the
one who perpetrates it. That is like the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ِّ ‫َو َالَ َت ْق ََرب‬

َ ‫ُواَالز َن ٰىََۖإِ َّنهَُ َك‬
َ‫انَ َفا ِح َشة ََو َسا َءَ َس ِبيال‬
And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way (Al-Israa’: 32).

And His Qawl ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

َ‫ِينَاللَّـهَِإِنَ ُكن ُت ْم‬ ْ َ ‫َج ْل َد ٍةَ ََۖو َالَ َتأْ ُخ َْذ ُكمَبه َم‬َ ‫حدٍَ ِّم ْن ُه َماَمِا َئ َة‬ َّ ‫لزا ِن َي ُة ََو‬
َ ‫الزانِيَ َفاجْ لِ ُدواَ ُكل‬ َّ
ِ ‫اَرأ َفةَفِيَد‬ ِِ َِ ‫ََّوا‬
ْ ‫َۖو ْل َي ْش َه ْدَ َع َذا َب ُه َماَ َطا ِئ َفةَم َِّن‬
ََ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
‫ِين‬ ْ ‫َِو ْال َي ْوم‬
َ َ‫َاْلخ ِِر‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫ُت ْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬
ِ
 The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred
lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And
let a group of the believers witness their punishment (An-Noor: 2).

- And when the Faahishah (evil indecent immoral act) of the Zaaniy (male fornicator) or Zaaniyah (female
fornicator) occurs after marriage, then the punishment awaiting them both is to be stoned to death. That
is according to what has come recorded in Saheeh Muslim and other sources in respect to the stoning of
“Maa’iz Al-Aslaamiy” and “Al-Ghaamidiyah”, amongst others (1).

- Concerning the warning about this Faahishah (evil indecent act), the following was recorded in Saheeh
ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim, as related by Abu Hurairah who said that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫ِينَ َي ْزن‬
َ‫ِيَوهْ َوَم ُْؤمِن‬ َّ ‫الََ َي ْزن‬
َ ‫ِيَالزانِيَح‬
The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing
illegal sexual intercourse (2).

[(1) Refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1695, 3/1321-1322 and Sunan Abu Dawud: 4413-4425, 4/202-218, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2475,
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/119, Saheeh Muslim: 57, 1/77. An-Nawawiy said in Sarh Muslim: “The ‘Ulamaa’ have differed in respect to
the meaning of this Hadeeth. The Saheeh (correct) view stated by those who verified is that its meaning is: He does not do
these sinful acts whilst he is in Kaamil (complete) Imaan. This is from the wordings that is used to negate a matter and it
intends the negation of its Kamaal (completeness) and its Mukhtaar (what is superior of it??). It is like the statements: There is
no knowledge except that which benefits, there is no wealth except for the camel, there is no life except the life of the hereafter
… We have applied Ta’weel to it due to the Hadeeth related by Abu Dharr and others: “Whoever has said Laa Ilaaha Illallah
has entered Jannah and even if he has committed Zinaa and (Saraqah) theft”; Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1237, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
3/110, Saheeh Muslim: 94, 1/94 … Then he said: “This Ta’weel (interpretation) is agreeable to the language (i.e. its rules and
forms) and if two different Hadeeth (i.e. containing contrary or conflicting meanings) are found it is obligatory to reconcile
them … and that is what we have done!”: “Sharh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 1/382-383].

And also related from Abu Hurairah and recorded in “Al-Mustadrak” of Al-Haakim: The Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “If a servant commits Zinaa he has exited from Al-Imaan (belief) and he was like
Azh-Zhullah (canopy i.e. that encompasses him). If he pulls himself away from it he returns back
to the Imaan” (1).

These Shar’iyah texts in addition to many more indicate that Az-Zinaa is prohibited absolutely (Mutlaq)
which includes the Zinaa with disbelieving women from the enemies of those at war, during war and in
the land of war. That is in accordance to the dictates of the generality and unrestricted import of the
Shar’iyah texts.

Secondly: Is there a Shubhah (doubt or question mark) in respect to making permissible Zinaa
with the women disbelievers of the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war)?

To answer this question, we will present the Aayah which has been thought to represent a Shubhah
(doubt or questioning) concerning this matter. We will present what has come related to its Tafseer and
then explain the angle of Shubhah (questioning) in relation to it.

In the context of enticing the performance of Al-Jihaad and making clear what awaits the Mujaahideen in
terms of great reward for the hardships that they endure and what they bear down and inflict upon their
enemy in terms of punishment, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ار ََو َال‬

َ ‫َال ُك َّف‬ ُ ‫ونَ َم ْوطِ ئاَ َيغ‬
ْ ‫ِيظ‬ َ ‫َِو َالَ َي َط ُئ‬
َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬ َ ‫الَ َم ْخ َم‬
ِ ‫صةَفِيَ َس ِب‬ َ َ ‫صب ََو‬ َ ‫َظ َمأ ََو َالَ َن‬ َ ‫َبأ َ َّن ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َالَيُصِ ي ُب ُه ْم‬ ِ ‫ك‬َ ِ‫ٰ َذل‬
ََ ‫َالَيُضِ يعَُأَجْ ََرَا ْل َُمحْ سِ ن‬
‫ِين‬ َ ‫صالِحََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬َ َ‫َِع َمل‬ ِ ‫ِبَلَه‬
َ ‫ُمَبه‬ َ ‫ونَمِنْ َ َع ُدوٍّ َ َّنيْالَإِ َّالَ ُكت‬َ ُ‫َي َنال‬
That is because they are not afflicted by thirst or fatigue or hunger in the cause of Allah, nor do they tread on any ground that
enrages the disbelievers, nor do they inflict upon an enemy any infliction but that is registered for them as a righteous deed.
Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good (At-Taubah: 120).

[(1) “Al-Mustadrak”, Al-Haakim: 1/22: And he said: “This is a Saheeh Hadeeth upon the conditionality (Shart) of the two
Sheikhs (i.e. Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim)” and Adh-Dhahabiy agreed with him (i.e. affirmed the Hadeeth as such)].

At-Tabariy stated in his Tafseer of the Aayah: “And they do not tread on any place of treading” means:
ground. He says: And they do not tread upon a ground that the disbelievers are enraged that they have
stepped upon it and they do not inflict upon the enemy of Allah and their enemy anything in terms of that
related to their wealth (property), lives and children (Awlaad) except that Allah has written for them,
through all of that, the reward of a righteous act …” (1).

And Al-Qurtubiy said: “He (i.e. Allah) has made the treading (upon the ground) in the homelands of the
disbelievers equal to or like inflicting them in respect to their properties and driving them from their
lands, and it is that which enrages them and brings humiliation upon them, and so it is like the standing of
inflicting them in respect to taking booty, killing and taking captives” (2).

This is what the Noble Aayah has indicated to in respect to what is related to treading upon the grounds
or lands of the disbelievers and inflicting them as has been mentioned within the books of Tafseer. i.e.
that the intended meaning of that treading in respect to the disbelievers and inflicting them, is to kill the
enemies, take them as captives, invade their lands and take possession over their properties and
possessions etc.

However, the following came in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy concerning the Aayah which we are
addressing: “According to what Al-Jalaal As-Suyootiy transmitted, Abu Haneefah, may Allah Ta’Aalaa be
pleased with him, deduced: The permissibility of engaging in Zinaa with the women of Ahl ul-Harb in
Daar ul-Harb!” (3). And Al-Aalousiy did not make any comment at all upon this statement!

It appears that the Itlaaq (making unrestricted) the permissibility of any treading or stepping upon that
which enrages the disbelievers and the permissibility of the Muslim fighter inflicting anything upon them
or taking anything from them … I say: It appears that this absolute and unrestricted application of “Al-
Wat’u” (treading or stepping) and “An-Nail” (inflicting and taking) is at the heart of the Shubhah (doubt
or questioning) behind what has been said regarding this matter, upon the assumption of the authenticity
of the transmission in relation to what was said (i.e. the opinion attributed to Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah).

In any case, can this Shubhah by merit be attributed to the Itlaaq (absolute and unrestricted form) that has
come within the Aayah? This is what we will address within the third matter of this current point.

Thirdly: The Haqq (truth) in respect to this Mas’alah:

The truth or correct view in this Mas’alah is that Az-Zinaa, with the women of the people of war, in the
lands of the disbelievers, is Haraam in the Shar’a, due to the Shar’iyah texts which have prohibited Zinaa
Mutlaqan (absolutely and without restriction).

[(1) Tafseer At-Tabariy: “Jaami’ ul-Bayaan”: 11/47, (2) Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”: 8/292. Also
refer to: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/1017 and “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/372, (3) Tafseer Al-Aalousiy:
“Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”: 11/47].

As for the Shubhah (doubt or question) that was indicated to earlier, then it has no place in a sound
examination. That is due to the following:
A - The understanding of every word in the language is only specified by what the context in which it has
been stated dictates. So, concerning the word “Al-Wat’u” and the word “An-Nail”, even if each of them,
when expressed in an absolute and unrestricted manner, could indicate to the particular relationship
between the man and the woman, the context in which they have been stated however is only related to
war and fighting the enemy. Consequently, “Al-Wat’u” here must be restricted to the meaning that is
connected to war and fighting. As such, in this case, “Al-Wat’” can either carry the meaning of “Al-Batsh”
([violent] force) or it means stepping into the lands of the enemy to conquer it and open it to Islaam, as
mentioned previously (1).

Similarly the word “An-Nail” in respect to the enemies, according to the ruling of how it has been stated
within the context of the speech about warfare and fighting, only means everything that is connected to
bringing or inflicting harm against the enemies and themselves by way of fighting, wounding, taking
captive, and taking booty of their properties … All of this is connected to warfare, in light of which the
meanings of the words “Al-Wat’u” and “An-Nail” must be explained.

In addition, committing Zinaa with the women disbelievers from the warring people is not connected to
warfare, for it to be said that the words “Al-Wat’u” and “An-Nail” are indicative in their unrestricted form
to anything that they could possible apply upon, including the committing of Zinaa with the people of
war. Therefore, concerning any connection or relation, from that which concerns us here, between the
fighter and any female captive, from the women of the people of war, before the Hukm of enslavement
(Riqq) has been passed upon her (2), before the fighter has taken possession of here as a female slave and
before her being considered to be like the wife in respect to guardianship, enjoying intimacy and affirming
the lineage of those she gives births to, through that relationship, in terms of children … I say concerning
this: Any connection or relationship, from that which concerns us, between the fighter and between that
woman from the women of the people of war, before the fulfilment of what we have mentioned, is only
equal to committing the prohibited Zinaa.

B - It is valid for each of the words “Al-Wat’u” and “An-Nail” to also be applied to committing rebellious
sinful acts (Fisq) with males …

[(1) The following was stated in the Hadeeth: “O Allah! Be hard (‫ك‬ َْ ‫َو‬
ََ ‫طأَ َت‬ َ ْ‫ )أ ْشدُد‬upon the tribe of Mudar… and the people of the
east were against him at that time!”: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 804, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/290. It was stated in “Had’y us-Saariy: “َ ْ‫أ ْشدُد‬
ََ ‫”و ْطأ َ َت‬
‫ك‬ َ means make your punishment and affliction upon them severe”: p206, (2) “Ar-Riqq” means: Al-Milk (i.e. possession or
property owned) and Ar-Raqeeq: Al-Mamlook (i.e. that which or who is owned) and it is upon the “Fa’eel” form according to
the meaning of the “Maf’ool”. The word “Raqeeq” could also be applied upon a group or collective. It is said: Raqqa l-‘Abd
and Araqqahu and Istaraqqahu”: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn Atheer: 2/251].

And yet has anybody said that war with the disbelievers against the disbelievers has made it permissible to
commit Fisq (rebellious sinful acts) with their males!? And if it is said: The Fahsh (indecent corrupt
behaviour) with males is from the Muharramaat Al-Kabaa’ir (major prohibited acts) and that the (presence
in the) lands of disbelievers and the state of war do not make this act Mubaah … Then similarly it is said:
That committing Zinaa with women is also from the Muharramaat Al-Kabaa’ir (major prohibited acts)
Mutlaqan (absolutely without restriction) and that the (presence in the) lands of the disbelievers and the
state of war do not make it from the permissible (Mubaah) acts.

C - Yes, there is indeed a difference of opinion or disagreement related to this Mas’alah i.e. the Mas’alah
of committing Zinaa with the females of Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) in the lands of the Harb (war).
However, this difference is not concerning whether Zinaa is Haraam or Mubaah (permissible) because the
word is agreed upon its prohibition. The difference here is only regarding: Is it obligatory to apply the
Hadd (set prescribed punishment) upon the one who perpetrates this Faahishah (evil corrupt conduct)
which did not take place within the Islamic State, or is it not obligatory to apply the Hadd upon him, even
if what he did was Haraam in any case? (1).
Despite that, it is not our concern to delve into this Mas’alah … Rather, what concerns us is the opinion
of the prohibition of what we are addressing and that is what there is no difference of opinion or
disagreement upon.

This is indicated to by what was recorded in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq with a Sanad where all of its
transmitters are Thiqaat (reliable): “He said: Shurahbeel Bin As-Simt was in command over an army and
he said to his army: You have descended upon a land containing many women and beverages (i.e. Khamr).
So, whomever from you is afflicted by a Hadd (i.e. an act deserving of the prescribed punishment) then he
should come to us and we will purify him. And so, thereafter, people came to him! That matter then
reached ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab and so he wrote to him: You, you have no mother, the one who
commands the people to uncover the cover of Allah that He has covered them with!” (2).

This Hadeeth indicates that committing Haraam with the women in the land of war is like drinking
alcohol, in that it is from the Muharramaat (prohibited acts) which oblige the application of the Hadd (set
prescribed punishment) …

[(1) Refer to the book “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: “Establishing the Hudood in Daar ul-Harb (Land of war)”: 7/354 and
“Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/516 in which he said: “Some people have imagined that when Ibn ul-Maajshoon said:
“Verily, the one who commits Zinaa in Daar ul-Harb when engaged in warfare does not have the Hadd applied upon him” that
it means it is Halaal! And that represents ignorance in respect to the Usool of the Sharee’ah” … He (ibn ul-‘Arabiy) then said:
“However, Abu Haneefah views that there is no Hadd in Daar ul-Harb and Ibn ul-Maajshoon disputed that with him. That is
because, as for the prohibition, then it is agreed upon! And so do not allow yourselves to fall into carelessness in respect to that
Mas’alah”, (2) Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq: 9371, 5/197-198].

And that ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattaab had denounced the commander of the army requesting those who had
been weak before the temptations of those prohibited acts to come to him admitting what they had
perpetrated, so as to apply the Hadd upon them … My opinions, is that the Awlaa (preferred position), as
long as no one from the people has been made aware of the act of disobedience, is for the person who
perpetrated it to restrict it to Taubah in respect to what is between him and his Rabb (Lord).

D - In addition, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫تَأََْي َما ُن ُه ْمَ َفإِ َّن ُه ْمَ َغ ْي َُرَ َملُوم‬

َ‫﴾َ َف َم ِن‬٦﴿َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫﴾َإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَأَ ْز َوا ِج ِه ْمَأَ ْوَ َماَ َملَ َك‬٥﴿َ‫ون‬ ُ ‫َحاف‬
َ ‫ِظ‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَ ُه ْمَلِفُرُو ِج ِه ْم‬
ْ ‫كَ ُه ُم‬
ََ ‫َال َعا ُد‬
‫ون‬ َ ِ‫ا ْب َت ََغ ٰى ََو َرا َءَ ٰ َذل‬
َ ‫كَ َفأُولَ ٰـ ِئ‬
And they who guard their private parts. Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not
be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors (Al-Mu’minoon: 5-7).

This Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa indicates explicitly to restricting the permissibility of men being intimate with
women to wives and those whom their right hand possesses. And it states in the text that whoever wishes
or seeks to have intimate relations with other than the wife or the one whom he owns, then he has
transgressed the Halaal Hudood (limits) and infringed upon the Hurumaat (inviolabilities) of Allah (1).

Consequently, concerning the women of the people at war, prior to being captured, ruled upon to be
slaves and then distributed to the fighters, where one or more of them is designated to a single man,
before that, it is not permissible for them to have intimate relations with them in the absence of a Shar’iy
marriage.

From among the established Shar’iyah Qawaa’id (principles) is: “The Asl (origin) in respect to Al-Abdaa’
َ ‫ األَ ْب‬i.e. private parts and implying intercourse) (2) is Tahreem (prohibition)” (3). Consequently, every
(‫ضاع‬
Bud’in (َ‫ بُضْ ٍع‬i.e. private part and intercourse) is Haraam apart from that which the Shar’a has excluded
from this origin by way of marriage or through what the right hand possesses. Concerning the previously
quoted Aayah:
 َ ‫َال ُك َّف‬
َ‫ار‬ ُ ‫ونَ َم ْوطِ ئاَ َيغ‬
ْ ‫ِيظ‬ َ ‫الَ َي َط ُئ‬
َ َ ‫َو‬
… Nor do they tread on any ground that enrages the disbelievers (At-Taubah: 120).

It is not valid to deduce from it, the making permissible of Zinaa with the women of the people of
disbelief in the lands of disbelief, because Zinaa is Haraam Mutlaqan (absolutely or in an unrestricted
manner) … Concerning this and in respect to the Aayah, Ibn Hazm said: “Allah Ta’Aalaa has only
commanded us to enrage them by that which He has not forbidden us and not by that which He has
made Haraam upon us to do!” (4).

By that, we have reached the end of the first point of this topic and now we come to the second point.

[(1) Refer to the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 12/106, (2) “‫ ”األَ ْبضَاع‬is the plural of “َ‫ ”بُضْ ع‬and it was stated in “Hady us-Saariy”: “It
is the Farj (private part of the women) and it is used to refer to intercourse”: p88, (3) “Al-Ashbaah Wa-n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-
Suyootiy: p61, (5) Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/295].

2 - The Second Point: What is the intended meaning of As-Saby from the Ahl ul-Harb (people at
war)? And what is the position of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to enslaving the Saby?

Firstly: What is intended by As-Sab’y (‫?)الس ْب ُي‬

َّ

- It was stated in “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” (dictionary): “As-Sabyu and As-Sibaa’u means: Al-Asr (making
captive or taking as prisoner of war) e.g. Qad Sabaitu Al-‘Aduwwa (I have captured the enemy) means
Asartuhu (I captured him or took him as a prisoner of war). And As-Sabiyyatu is: A female who has been
captured (or taken as a prisoner of war)” (1).

- The following was stated in “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: Al-Ghulaam refers to: A Sabiyy and Masbiyy (i.e. a
boy who has been taken as a prisoner of war or captive) and “Al-Jaariyah” refers to: A Sabiyyah and
Masbiyyah (i.e. female captive). Its plural is: Sabaayaa like the word ‘Atiyyah and its plural ‘Ataayaa. And a
Qawm Saby (people captured) is: A Wasf (description) by way of the Masdar (verbal noun)” (2).

The term As-Sab’y can be applied upon all those who have been captured or made prisoner from the
enemy, including the men, women and children. This is like how it has come stated in some of the
Shar’iyah texts: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬returned six thousand Sabiyy from Hawaazin including
men, women and children when they embraced Islaam …” (3). That is because the word Sabaa (‫)س َبى‬ َ here
َ
is according to the meaning of Asara (َ‫ )أ َس َر‬linguistically (i.e. to take as captive or prisoner of war).
Consequently, it is permissible to use it in respect to the men just as it has been used in respect to the
women and the children … It was stated in “Al-Umm” by Ash-Shaafi’iy: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
Sabaa (took captive) me (Rijaal) from Hawaazin. So what we have known is that he asked about the
husbands of the female captives; were they made captive (Sabiy) alongside them, before them or after
them? Or were they not taken as captives?” (4).

Despite that, according to the general and most frequently used terminology the words “Al-Asr” (making
captive), Al-Asraa (captives) and what is similar (in derivation) is applied to men whilst the word As-Sab’y
is predominantly used to refer to the women and children.

Al-Maawardiy said in respect to the discussion about “Al-Ghaneemah” (booty or spoils of war): “It
comprises of categories: Asraa (male captives), Sab’y (female and children captives), land (Aradeen) and
properties (Amwaal). As for the Asraa: they are the male fighters of the disbelievers if the Muslims
overtake them and take them as captives whilst they are alive …” (5). Then he says: “As for the Sab’y:
They are the women (An-Nisaa’) and the children (Al-Atfaal) …” (6).
Therefore, the intended meaning of As-Sab’y (َ‫)ال َّس ْب ُي‬, when utilised, is the women and the children of the
subjects or citizens of the enemy who have become captives (i.e. of the Muslims). However, by As-Sab’y
here, in respect to the matter that we are currently addressing, we mean the women specifically and alone,
from the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) who have fallen into captivity. This is what we are referring to and
intend by the word As-Sab’y here.

[(1) “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah” (dictionary): p243, (2) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p101, (3) “’Uqood Al-Jawaahir Al-Munfiyah Fee
Adillah Madh’hab Al-Imaam Abi Haneefah”, Az-Zubaidiy: 1/204, (4) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/270, (5) “Al-Ahkaam us-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p131 and refer to “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p125, (6) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”,
Al-Maawardiy: p134 and Al-Farraa’: p127].

Secondly: What is the position of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to enslaving the Saby?

- It has come within the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf that the Imaam has the right to enslave the Sab’y just as
he can let them free to return to their lands, by way of ransom (1), when the necessity exists.

Regarding this, the following was stated in the “Haashiyah” of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “The women are not killed.
Nor the children. Rather, they are made slaves for the benefit of the Muslims” (2). And it was mentioned
in “Radd ul-Mukhtaar”: “And they agreed that the women and children are not ransomed … unless it is
for a Daroorah (necessity)” (3).

- As for the Maalikiy Madh’hab, then they leave the fate of the Sab’y to the Imaam according to the
manner explained by Ibn Juzayy: “As for the women and children, then he (the Imaam) has the option in
respect to them, between Al-Mann (freeing) (4), Al-Fidaa’ (ransom) and Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving)” (5).

- As for the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab, the following was stated in “Al-Minhaaj and its Sharh Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: “If the women of the disbelievers and their children are made captives they are made slaves i.e.
they become slaves by becoming captives (automatically)! And so, the fifth in respect to them goes to the
people of the Khums (fifth) (i.e. those eligible) (6), whilst the rest goes to those who take the booty. That
is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to divide the Sab’y just as he used to divide (and distribute) the Mal
(property and wealth). The intended meaning here of As-Sab’y is: the women and the children” (7).

And Al-Maawardiy mentioned, from among the Ahkaam of the Sab’y, is that it is permitted for the Imaam
to ransom them for property or wealth (Maal) or for Muslim prisoners or captives held by the enemy, as
long as he compensates the fighters who took them as booty by giving them an equivalent amount in
exchange for what they had taken.

[(1) “i.e.: To let their captives go free in exchange of something in their place, either Maal (property or wealth) or a Muslim
prisoner”, “Haashiyah”, Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/354, (2) “Haashiyah” Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/353, (3) “Haashiyah” Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/354,
(4) “To let them go free i.e. for free without taking anything from them whether immediately or later”, “Haashiyah Ad-
Dasoouqiy ‘Alaa sh-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/184, (5) “Qawaaneen ul-Ahkaam”: p166 and it is restricted in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”,
by Ad-Dardeer, to “Al-Istirqaaq Wa-l-Fidaa’” (i.e. enslaving and ransoming without releasing them for free): 2/194. And
similarly in “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/166, (6) They are those mentioned in Aayah 41 of Soorah Al-Anfaal: “And know that anything
you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the
orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveller” [TMQ], (7) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/227 and refer to “Al-Iqnaa’”, Al-
Maawardiy: p178].

And whoever from those who took booty abstained from giving up his share of the Saby he is not
compelled to step down until he accepts it” (1).

This then is what has been stated by the Shaafi’iyah or in the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab.

- As for the Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah: The following came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah:
“Whoever is made a captive or prisoner (of war i.e. Aseer) from the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) falls
under one of three categories: One of them is the women and the children. It is not permissible to kill
them and they become Raqeeq (slaves) to the Muslims by their capture. That is because the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
forbade killing the women and the children … And he ‫ ﷺ‬used to enslave them when he captured them
(i.e. they became Sab’y)” (2).

And Al-Farraa’ mentioned that from the Ahkaam related to the Sab’y according to the Hanaabilah, is that
it is not permissible to ransom them for Maal (money, property) nor for Muslim prisoners being held by
their people … just as it is not permissible to let them go free (3).

The summary of what we have presented relate to that which concerns us, is that the enslaving of the
women who fall into captivity, from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), represents a matter that has been
agreed upon by all of the Madhaahib of Fiqh, according to the manner explained above. And that this
enslaving is an automatic matter as a result of being made captive, and that there is no choice belonging to
anybody in respect to that, according to the Shaafi’iyah and the Hanaabilah. As for the Hanafiyah: Then it
is as the result of the decision of the person in authority or the one who has jurisdiction in respect to that,
accompanied by the permissibility of that decision being to ransom them when the necessity demands
that. As for the Maalikiyah: The enslaving of the female captives is not an inevitable matter in their view.
Rather, it is for the person possessing the jurisdiction to choose between the ruling of enslavement or
ransom concerning them. And in one opinion attributed to the Madh’hab: It is permissible to let them go
free in exchange of nothing …

Following on … What is built upon the Hukm (ruling) of enslaving the female captives or prisoners of
war from the citizens of the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) in terms of consequences? This is what relates to
our final point of discussion of this current topic.

3 - The Third Point: What are the consequences built upon the Hukm (ruling) of enslaving the
Sab’y (captives)? And is it permissible to enslave the Sab’y (captives) in our current time?

[(1) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”: p134, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/400, (3) “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-
Farraa’: p127-128 and in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah there are further details and opinions presented related to the
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of Al-Mufaadaah (ransoming)”: 10/405].

Firstly: What are the consequences built upon the Hukm (ruling) of enslaving the Sab’y
(captives)?

Here, when referring to the Sab’y, we are specifically referring to the women captives from the citizens of
the people at war (Ahl ul-Harb). Built upon the Hukm (ruling) of enslaving them (Al-Istirqaaq) is the
annulment (Faskh) of the Nikaah (marriage contract) between them and their husbands from the
disbelievers if they had husbands, according to the details explained by the Fuqahaa’ concerning this
matter … Similarly, as a consequence built upon their enslavement, it is permitted to have intimate
relations with them just as they have intimate relations with their wives, from those who have become
theirs following their distribution amongst the fighters.

Under the heading: “The topic or chapter of: The permissibility of having intimate relations with the
female captive after Al-Istibraa’ (i.e. that she finishes from her pregnancy or is affirmed to not be pregnant
or known that she is virgin etc..) and even if she had a husband previously - her marriage contract
(Nikaah) is annulled by being taken as captive (As-Sab’y)”, the following was recorded in Saheeh Muslim:

“Abu Sa'eed al-Khudriy (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's
Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬sent an army to Awtaas (1). They then encountered the enemy and fought them. They
overcome them and took captives. Some of the companions of Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬appeared to fear
the sin of having intercourse with the captive women because of their polytheist husbands. Then Allah
Ta’Aalaa revealed concerning that:

َ‫تَأَ ْي َما ُن ُك ْم‬

ْ ‫اتَم َِنَال ِّن َسا ِءَإِ َّالَ َماَ َملَ َك‬ َ ْ‫َو ْالمُح‬
ُ ‫ص َن‬
And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (An-Nisaa’: 24).

(I. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Iddah period came to an end” (i.e. that she finishes from her
pregnancy or is affirmed to not be pregnant or known that she is virgin etc..) (2).

[(1) Awtaas: A location by At-Taa’if and it is a valley in the lands of Hawaazin and the stronger preponderant view is that it is
not the valley of Hunain. Refer to: “Tahdheeb ul-Asmaa’ Wal-Lughaat”, An-Nawawiy: 3/19, Sharh Muslim by him: 6/231,
“Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: 1/132 and “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 6/343, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1456, 2/1079].

Therefore, it is permissible for the fighters to have intimate relations with those female captives from the
people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) who had been distributed (or allocated) to them after (the Hukm of) Ar-Riqq
(enslavement) had been applied over them. That is whether the purpose of that was for pleasure and
procreation or pleasure alone whilst avoiding, guarding and taking precaution against pregnancy and
bearing children. The Sahaabah, during the era of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to sometimes restrict their intimacy
with those enslaved females to the aspect of seeking pleasure alone whilst coveting the hope that the
people of those captives would come with a ransom which would be pleasing to those who owned them,
so as to then let them go free …

The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “Abu Sa’eed ul-Khudriy related: That during the
Ghazwah (battle) of Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) took some females captives (Sabaayaa) and intended
to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them and so they asked the Nabi (‫)ﷺ‬
concerning Al-‘Azl (coitus interruptus …” (1). And in another related version of the Hadeeth Abu Sa’eed
related: “We took female captives from the Sab’y of the Arabs. We desired women and our distance away
from intimate relations had become intense and yet we loved ransom money. As such we wanted to
practise Al-‘Azl (coitus interruptus) (2) … And so we asked (i.e. the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬about that …” (3).

It is not a hidden matter that what results from the enslavement of the female war captives in terms of
taking pleasure in them by those whom they have come to belong to, only represents a form of
maintenance and preservation for them, in the sense that it represents a legally legitimate way of
instinctual satisfaction for them … Then, if the bearing of children results from this intimacy, this
enslaved female captive rises to become “Umm Walad” (i.e. takes the title of the mother of the child by
name) which makes her like the free wife, according to the details which have been explained in the books
of Fiqh. Similarly, the permissibility of having intimate relations with the female war captives or prisoners
of war, after they have been made slaves, represents a maintenance and preservation of the society as well,
so that indecency does not spread within it as a result of the presence of female slaves, who had, as a
result of the aggression of their people and their aversion to the Haqq (truth), fallen between the pressure
of the instinct and need from one angle and between the desires of the diseased hearts from another
angle. This is a matter which in the absence of a Hukm Shar’iy to shelter them, take care of them and
permit the intimate relationship between them and those who own them, would lead to the spread of
indecency within the society.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 7409 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/391, (2) In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim it was narrated by Jaabir:
“We used to practise Al-‘Azl (coitus interruptus) in the time of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. That reached the Nabiy of Allah
and he did not forbid it”. This is the wording of Muslim: 1440, 2/1065 and in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 5208 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
9/305, (3) Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/74].

It may be that within the context of the following text there is that which indicates to this:
“Sa’eed Bin Jubair said: We went to Ibn ‘Abbaas during the heart of the day and we found that he was
fasting. We then went to him at the time of eating and we found that he had already eaten! And so we
asked him: Had you not been fasting?” He replied: No, but rather a female slave of mine came to me and
she pleased me and I had relations with her. The fast was only voluntary and will make it up on another
day. I will tell you more. She had been a prostitute and so I fortified her. And he had separated or been
isolated (‘Azal) from her. Sa’eed said: Therefore, we learnt four matters within one single Hadeeth” (1).

The above is what relates to the effect of enslaving female captives from the people of war in respect to
the matter we are examining. We now come to the second part of the final point of this topic.

Secondly: Is it permissible to enslave the Sab’y (captives) in Islaam in our current time?

The answer to this question rests upon knowing: Did Islaam approve of the Istirqaaq (enslaving) of the
Sab’y (captives) when it established its state and waged war against its enemies, based upon a like for like
treatment, at a time in which the system of enslavement existed, in general, as practised by the old systems
which were usual in the world until the appearance of Islaam? (2).

Or is the Hukm of Istirqaaq (enslavement) from among the established Ahkaam (rulings) related to Al-
Jihaad, considering it to be a result from amongst is results or consequential effects? And consequently, as
long as Jihaad continues it is not permissible to suspend it and make it redundant, when its legal causes are
met. That is because as long as Al-Jihaad continues, its effects and consequences also remain in
continuance and there is no suspension of them?

This is what must be known before answering the former question …

In any case, addressing this subject sufficiently could lead us to examining many matters which will
lengthen the path towards arriving at the answer and this is not desirable. For that reason, we will restrict
ourselves, regarding this matter, to the following matters, which will be presented in a summarised
manner:

A - Is Islaam’s approval of Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement) reasoned (i.e. by way of an ‘Illah) according to like
for like treatment?

[(1) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2041, 2/59, (2) Refer to: “Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadiy”, As-Sayyid Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa:
p252, “Al-Falsafah Al-Qur’aaniyah”, ‘Abbaas Al-‘Aqqaad: p82-83, “Al-Islaam Wa-l-Istibdaad As-Siyaasiy”, Ash-Sheikh
Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p123, “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”: Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/238, “Ash-
Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa-l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm”, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p333, “Al-Islaam Nizhaam Insaaniy”, Dr.
Mustafaa Ar-Raafi’iy: p118, “Al-Islaam Deen ul-Fitrah Wa-l-Hurriyah”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Abdul -‘Azeez Jaaweesh: p67-76 and
“Asraa l-Harb Fee t-Taareekh”, ‘Abdul Kareem Farhaan: p6, 107-108].

B - Do the conditions of modern wars dictate, according to the Shar’a or the reality, that the Istirqaaq
(enslavement) of the Sab’y (captives) be prevented?

C - Are their circumstances or cases in which it is possible to enslave the Sab’y (captives), meaning the
women specifically here, making intimate relations with them permissible as a consequence, in a sound
manner according to the Shar’a in the modern time?

D - How is it possible to reach the judgment of the prevention of enslaving the Sab’y (captives) according
to the Shar’a in the modern time?

We will now address the issue of answering these questions …

A - Is Islaam’s approval of Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement) reasoned (i.e. by way of an ‘Illah)
according to like for like treatment?

In many of the Islamic writings of the modern or contemporary time it has been stated that Islaam’s
approval of enslaving the Sab’y (captives) was only based upon the like for like treatment (1). The meaning
of this is that if the enemies cease or refrain from enslaving those whom they take as captives from the
Muslims during the state of war, then it is not permissible, according to the Shar’a, based upon the like for
like treatment, for the Muslims to enslave those whom they take captive or as prisoners of war from
among the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war).

There is no doubt that the good intention to defend Islaam and to respond to the campaigns of the
enemies, in respect to their unjust attack against it and their false distortion of its image, is what motivated
the pronouncement of the view of this legislative connecting between the approval of Islaam for Istirqaaq
(enslaving) and the reality of the past … However, in general, we find that many of the Islamic writers
accept the thought of placing Islaam in the dock of accusation due to what it came with or approved of
and established in terms of particular Ahkaam (rulings), which may not be pleasing to the enemies or
which they could find within them a means which enables them to use these Ahkaam to distort the image
of Islaam, in respect to the public taste, after formulating that taste upon the form and shape that they
want … I say: It is this matter, which motivated many of the Islamic writers to defend Islaam in a manner
which those enemies, who fire those accusations and instigate that distortion, find accepting.

[(1) Refer for example to: “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islamiyah Wa l-Qanooniy Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm”, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p333,
“Huqooq ul-Insaan Baina Ta’aaleem Al-Islaam Wa ‘I’laan Al-Umam Al-Mutahhidah”, Al-Ghazaaliy: p113, “Fiqh us-Sunnah”,
As-Sayyid Saabiq: 2/688, “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah: p116, “Mafaaheem Islaamiyah”,
Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Aali Yaaseen: p64. Abu Zahrah said: “If the enemies practised enslaving then the Muslims
could practise enslaving upon the basis of like for like treatment and if they did not practise enslaving then it is not Halaal for
the Muslims to practise enslaving, because that would be considered to be an act of aggression and they are forbidden from
that”: “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah”: p116].

It is not my intention to promote the system of enslavement so that we can return to it and even if it is
upon the noble form that Islaam brought, where the slaves who lived under it, lived a more noble and
dignified life than that lived by many of the free peoples; both male and female, under other non-Islamic
systems in olden and recent times.

Rather, my intention behind what I have presented is: There does not exist that which indicates to this
causal relationship or this reasoning (Ta’leel) between the legal legitimacy of enslaving the Sab’y (captives)
in Islaam and between how widespread this system and practise was at that time, which would then make
this legal legitimacy become invalid, if this system or practise in respect to treatment or dealings between
states and peoples subsided or disappeared …

As such, the Hukm of enslaving (Istirqaaq) the Sab’y ([female] captives) in Islaam, even if the enemy has
abolished it from his side, remains a legally legitimate weapon from among the weapons of pressure and
striking fear into that enemy. It is allowed to brandish it in his face if the Maslahah (interest) calls for that
and no harm results as a consequence of using it.

B - Do the conditions of modern wars dictate, according to the Shar’a or the reality, that the
Istirqaaq (enslavement) of the Sab’y (captives) be prevented?

Some of the modern or contemporary Islamic writings, concerning the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of
enslaving the captives (Sab’y) have inclined towards the opinion that the nature of the wars of old used to
provide the justification for the occurrence of making women and children captives and then enslaving
them … As for the modern-day wars, then they do not contain that which facilitates the occurrence of
those incidents …
To make this thought clear and explain what it is based upon in terms of Adillah (evidences), we will
present some extracts from what came mentioned in the book “The Islamic Personality” by Ash-Sheikh
Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani, who said:

“In the Ghazwah of Hunain, the Mushrik fighters brought their women and children along with them to
the battlefield to swell their numbers and to provide motivation to their men. Then when they were
broken in the battle the women and children became Sab’y (captives), whom the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
distributed among the Muslim fighters. Then when he was requested to revise this matter he asked the
Muslims to grant what they had in terms of right over these captives voluntarily and then he returned the
Sab’y (captives i.e. women and children) to their people (1) …

[(1) Regarding this refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2539-2540, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/169, Saheeh Muslim 1656, 3/1277 and Seerah
Ibn Hishaam “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/152-153].

… This then indicated to the permissibility of enslaving the Sab’y (captives) and these were the women
and children who accompany the men into the battlefield to swell their numbers and provide
encouragement to the men …

This is in the case if the women and the children have accompanied the army in the war. If, however, they
remained in their houses then there is nothing in respect to them, either in terms of making captives and
prisoners (Al-Asr) or in terms of making them Sab’y (captives which can be enslaved) …!” (1).

I say: As long as the legal legitimacy of As-Saby (taking captives) and enslaving them is restricted, in
Islaam, to what this speech dictates, within the sphere of when the women and children accompany the
fighting army, like what used to happen in the past, then the meaning of that is that this Sab’y (captive)
and subsequent enslaving is not legally legitimate in Islaam, if the nature of wars has changed where the
women and children do not go out alongside the armies to the war (and battlefield) … Upon this basis, it
is valid to say that Islaam prevents Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) in the modern era, in light of what has
preceded … This is what the speech of Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen establishes when he said: “And
through that it (i.e. Islaam) has eliminated Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) and particularly when it has become
redundant for the people to bring out the women and children alongside the armies to swell their numbers
and for encouragement, as is the current case in respect to the modern wars which have been taking place
for centuries up until today. Therefore, there does not remain, not a single circumstance at all in which Al-
Istirqaaq (enslavement) can take place and by that Islaam has prevented Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement)” (2).

The above is what has come mentioned in the book “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah” (The Islamic
Personality) …

That which appears to be the case, as is witnessed, is that the female element has not disappeared from
the modern wars. Indeed, this element still has a presence and existence within the armies of the states in
the modern era; whether that is for the purpose of bearing arms and participating in wars or for the
purpose of providing services which those armies require …

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy, when discussing the war that took place between the Arabs and the
Jews at the time of establishment of the state of Israel, stated the following: “And we saw during the
recent war of Palestine how the young Jewish women fought with might that surpassed that of the men in
respect to being daring and taking risks” (3).

[(1) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah” (The Islamic Persoanlity), Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/240-241, (2) The previous
source: 3/241, (3) “Al-Islaam Wa l-Istibdaad As-Siyaasiy”: Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p134].

In addition, abundant news has reached us concerning the copious female element within the colonial
allied armies which invaded the Gulf recently (1) …
Therefore, the norm or custom of women going out alongside the fighting army has not become
redundant and still exists … that is from the reality of the modern wars. And as for restricting the legal
legitimacy of taking Sab’y (captives) and enslaving them to those women and children who go out
alongside the army, then it appears here as well, from the pursuance of the incidents recorded in the
Seerah An-Nabawiyah and the Shar’iyah texts, that this legal legitimacy is not actually restricted to the
scope of those who go out alongside the fighting army only and does not apply to those women and
children who remain in their houses …

Concerning that, the surprise attacks used to be undertaken in the era of the Prophethood against hostile
directions, whether that was under the leadership of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬himself like in the Ghazwah of Bani
Mustaliq (2) or under the leadership of his men from the Sahaabah, like what happened in other
Ghazawaat (military expeditions) (3). They used to take captives from these attacks and enslave them …
That was whilst the nature of the war, in the circumstances of these attacks prevented the women and
children from participating with the enemy fighting army by inciting encouragement or swelling the
numbers … Rather, what happened in these types of clashes or confrontations, was that some men would
flee whilst other stood and fought. As for the women and children, then they would be amongst those
who were displaced and hoping to be saved, or they would be in their houses awaiting their fate in terms
of being made captives or being in safety via the return of the fighters back to their homes without being
exposed or subjected to anything.

This then represents the nature of the attacks or battles … As-Sab’y (captives) used to be taken in them
and these captives were enslaved to serve the role of demolishing the stubbornness of the enemy and to
break its defiance and will … That was until, as a result of that, the enemy would return to its senses, and
then Shar’iyah measures would be taken to return the captives to their people in one manner or another,
after having enslaved them (4).

[(1) Refer to the Syrian Ba’thist Newspaper: 17th Rajab 1411 Ah, 1/2/1991, p11 column 1, (2) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:
2541, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/170, Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/8-9, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1755, 3/1375-1376,
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/228, (4) That is like the letting go free of the Sab’y (captives of Bani Mustaliq and
the taking of captives of Hawaazin … The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬adopted to different courses of action in respect to them. Refer to
Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/9-152].

This signifies the wisdom in maintaining the legal legitimacy of enslaving as a suitable and viable weapon
to be utilised when necessary so that it can fulfil the role of applying pressure upon the enemy and striking
fear in it, and even if the women and children did not participate alongside their people within the fighting
army in any material or physical fighting activity from among the activities of warfare.

It is also wise to work quickly to expend serious attempts to free the enslaved captives if the enemy
returns to its senses and the right course, just as what occurred in respect to the captives (Sab’y) of Bani
Al-Mustaliq and the captives of Hawaazin.

It may be that the following texts indicates to that which clarifies the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of
As-Sab’y and even if it is from inside the houses and also clarifies its use as a means from amongst the
means of applying pressure upon the enemy to make them stop and refrain from their aggression and
respond positively to the legitimate demands of the Muslims.

It came mentioned in the books of Sunnah and the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, concerning the ‘Umrah of Al-
Hudaibiyah or the Ghazwah of Al-Hudaibiyah, that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a spy from
his side from the tribe of Khuzaa’ah of the Mushrikeen (1), to spy for him about the stance of the Quraish
towards the determination and resolved of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to enter Makkah with his Sahaabah to
perform the ‘Umrah, in accordance to the local ‘Urf (custom) related to the relations between the Arab
entities and tribes at that time, in respect to them not blocking or preventing the visiting of the house (i.e.
the Ka’bah) and even if they were in a state of dispute or conflict with Quraish.

The Khuzaa’iy spy came to inform the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that the Quraish were determined to block the Muslims
from performing the ‘Umrah and that they had gathered their allies from those residing around Makkah to
fight him and his companions if he insisted upon entering Makkah to visit the house (i.e. the Ka’bah and
Masjid Al-Haraam). It was at this point that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said to his Sahaabah the following as recorded
in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq:

“Advise me! Do you believe that we should head off to the women and children of those who are
assisting them and afflict them! If they remain, they will be afflicted and regretful and if they do
not come they (i.e. Quraish) will be left alone for us to fight? Or do you see that we should head
to the house (i.e. the Ka’bah and Masjid Al-Haraam) and then fight whoever blocks us?” …

[(1) Concerning the Fiqh of the incident of Al-Hudaibiyah: “Seeking assistance of the trusted Mushrik (disbeliever) in respect to
Al-Jihaad at the time of need or requirement. As his Khuzaa’iy spy was a disbeliever at that time and the interest was served in
him as he could get closer to mix with the enemy and gather information from them”: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/301].

… They said: “The Messenger of Allah knows better! O Prophet of Allah! We came here as those
intending to perform the ‘Umrah and we did not come to fight anyone, however, if anyone comes
between us and the house (the Ka’bah and Masjid and Al-Haraam) then we will fight them”. The
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Then go then” (1).

This Saheeh Hadeeth states the permissibility of targeting the women and children of the people of war.
Those intended here are the women and children from those who remained in their homes around
Makkah and did not accompany their fighting men from the allies of Quraish, to oppose the Muslims (2)
… And it is known that the statement of the Messenger ‫“ ﷺ‬and afflict them” (‫ ) َفََنصِ يب ُه َْم‬did not intend
the meaning of killing them and that is because he has forbidden the killing of the women and the
children, as has been mentioned in the prior studies. Rather, the intended meaning was to take them by
way of making them Sab’y (captives), considering this measure of taking captives from the houses, to
represent a means from among the means of applying pressure upon the allies to divert them away from
assisting the Quraish. Then, if they did not abandon their provision of assistance, their being deprived
from their women and children through taking them as captives and enslaving them would break their will
and strength, weakening them, and in turn weakening those whom they are assisting; the Quraish.

As such, it is permissible to take women and children from the people of war as captive and even if that
was by abducting them from their homes, when the disbelievers are aggressing against the Muslims and
refuse to respond positively to what they are being called to, considering that to be representative of a
style from among the styles of applying pressure and striking fear, to divert the enemy from his aggression
and to demolish his vigour, tenacity and will!

[(1) Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaaq: 9720, 5/330-331, Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4178-4179 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/453, (2) In “Zaad
ul-Ma’aad”, by Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/302 concerning the Fiqhiy benefits from the incident of Al-Hudaibiyah, he said: “From
among them: The permissibility of taking the women and children of the Mushrikeen as Sab’y (captives) if they are separate or
isolated alone from their men, before fighting the men!”. In Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy he said: “Adh-Dharaariy: They are
the women and the children”: 7/325. In “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, by Al-Khattaabiy: “(The statement) “Do you believe that we
should head off to the women and children of those who are assisting them and afflict them?” represents a Daleel
(evidence) for the permissibility of taking the women and children (Dharaariy) of the Mushrikeen as Sab’y (captives) before
fighting the men”: 4/76 and in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” [5/352] concerning the Hadeeth of Al-Hudaibiyah: “And within it are matters
related to Al-Jihaad including: The permissibility of taking as captive the Dharaariy (women and children) of the disbelievers if
they are separate or isolated alone from the fighters and even if that was before the commencement of Al-Qitaal!”].

We now come to another matter which we mentioned to be necessary to discuss within this point we are
addressing.
C - Are their circumstances or cases in which it is possible to enslave the Sab’y (captives),
meaning the women specifically here, making intimate relations with them permissible as a
consequence, in a sound manner according to the Shar’a in the modern time?

The Fuqahaa’ of latter eras, at a time when slavery was still widespread, mentioned that it is not
permissible, in general, to have intimate relations with the women of Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) from
those who fell into the captivity of the fighters. That was due to the existence of a Shubhah (doubt or
suspicion) regarding the validity of the fighters’ ownership of them, after it became widespread that the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i related to the distribution of spoils and booty (Ghanaa’im) and dividing them
according to the legally legitimate manner amongst the fighters and those who had a right to it from the
people of Al-Khumus (the fifth) (1), were no longer being applied.

Despite that they mentioned: There are cases or circumstances in which it is valid to for the fighter to take
ownership of the one who falls under his hand from the women of the people of war and even within
then scope of a particular Madh’hab. That is due to those cases having no relationship with the Ghanaa’im
(booties) and their division and no relationship with those deserving the Khumus (Fifth), which makes the
fighter’s possession of that which falls under his dominance pure from any other matter interfering in it
…

Consequently, it is permissible, within the limits of those cases, to have intimate relations with those
women just like the intimate relations undertaken with wives.

We will now present some of those realities mentioned by the Fuqahaa’ whilst not intending to examine
them thoroughly or discuss all the opinions that have been stated in respect to them.

- The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “If the Imaam gives extra (2) to a people in Daar ul-
Harb (land of war) and said: “Whoever takes a woman (Jaariyah) then she is his. And then a man took a
woman from them and made sure that she was free from menstruation (i.e. confirmed that she was not
pregnant), whilst he was in Daar ul-Harb, then according to an opinion of Abu Haneefah, may Allah be
pleased with him: He should not have intercourse with her until he takes her out (of Daar ul-Harb) to
Daar ul-Islaam. This is also the opinion of Abu Yousuf, may Allah’s mercy be upon him. The opinion of
Muhammad, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, is: He can have intercourse with her because his ownership
of her has been specified in a way that there is no share in respect to her to anyone …

[(1) Refer to: “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p61-63 and the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/373-375, (2) This is
referring to when the commander gives from what he has taken possession of during the war or from the Ghaneemah in excess
of the share or allotment that the fighter is entitled to, for the purpose of motivating and providing extra incentive to him in
respect to the fighting or as a reward for what he undertook].

Abu Haneefah and Abu Yousuf, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: “The ownership in respect
for the extra gifting is only established for the one who has been given it by way of taking and so this
ownership is not completed or fulfilled prior to the acquisition in Daar il-Islaam, of the (same) status as
the ownership that is established or affirmed for the Mutalassis in Daar ul-Harb” (1).

I say: In respect to clarifying the last part of the speech in this text concerning the Mutalassis, then the
intended meaning of the Mutalassis here is the one enters Daar ul-Harb (the land of war) without the
provision of a prior Amaan (security) i.e. the one enters by way of sneaking in without obtaining an entry
visa from the authorities, whilst nobody had permitted him to enter, by way of seeking a security (Amaan).
Regarding this man who has snuck into Daar ul-Harb (the land of war), even if it was not for the purpose
of Al-Jihaad, but rather to take possession of what he possibly could from the people of war, in terms of
properties or women etc. under the consideration that Daar ul-Harb is a land of Ibaahah (permissibility)
and the Daar of Nuhbah (land fit for plunder) and the Daar of Sab’y and Istirqaaq (land of capturing and
enslaving) (2).

I say: If this Mutalassis, was to overcome a woman from the women of Ahl ul-Harb, she would become
his property and it would be Halaal for him to have intimate relations with her but upon the condition
that he takes her out of Daar ul-Harb and brings her into Daar ul-Islaam. That is because his overcoming
her within Daar ul-Harb is in danger of disappearing because he has no preventative force within that land
and as such his ownership of her is not a complete ownership. Therefore, she is not Halaal for him in this
circumstance or situation which is opposite to the case if he was able to take her with him to Daar ul-
Islaam and he attained the protective force of the Muslims (3).

- It was mentioned in “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaa’ir” by As-Suyootiy, who was from amongst the
Shaafi’iyah, if one or two or a similar (small) number entered Daar ul-Harb by sneaking in, and then one
of them took a woman captive (as Sab’y) from the people at war (Ahl ul-Harb), that there are two
opinions in respect to this Mas’alah: An opinion that states: That this woman is shared between the one
who took her and the people entitled to the Khumus (fifth). He has four-fifths and the remaining fifth
part belongs to the people entitled to the fifth, just like the Hukm (legal ruling) in relation to the
Ghanaa’im (booty). Based upon that, this woman is not a possession purely owned by the one who took
her as captive and consequently she is not Halaal for him (4).

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2278-2279, (2) refer to: “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/355 and 5/1943, “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”:
4/549 and “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/244, (3) Ash-Shaafi’iy in “Al-Umm” quoted the view of Abu Yousuf in respect to
denouncing intimate relations with this female captive before taking her out into Daar ul-Islaam. He said: “Abu Yousuf said:
Do you see that if a man attacked by himself and enslaved a girl, is it permitted for him to have intercourse with her before
taking her out to Daar ul-Islaam, whilst he has not yet taken full possession of her?”: 7/352. And concerning the Muslim
overcoming a woman from the people of war, within Daar ul-Harb (land of war) and taking her to Daar ul-Islaam, the
following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “It is specified here in respect to her if he overcame her that he be
alone in possessing her in Daar ul-Islaam and that there is no Khumus (fifth) due on her”: 1/337, (4) It was mentioned in the
Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen that which establishes that the one who owns the woman taken from the people at war (Ahl ul-
Harb) whilst there is a doubt or question concerning her Khumus (fifth) in respect to his ownership, where he himself is from
those eligible for the Khumus (fifth) of the Ghanaa’im (booties) like if he was Faqeer (impoverished) for example, then he has
the right to own that remaining fifth of himself according to this consideration. By that he attains the complete or full
ownership of the woman and consequently she is Halaal for him at that time. Refer to the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/374].

The other opinion states: That this woman does not have the Khumus (fifth) taken in respect to her and
she is not subject to the Hukm (ruling) of the Ghanaa’im (booty and spoils) and their division (or
distribution). Rather, the whole of her belongs to the one who made her captive as an ownership that is
solely belonging to him. That is because he gained possession of her solely by his endeavour and by his
force or strength alone and not by the Mana’ah (force) of the Muslims and their assistance. As such he
does not share her with anyone. Consequently, she is Halaal for him according to this opinion or view …

Then As-Suyootiy says concerning this matter: “The Jaariyah (female captive) taken upon this form (or in
this manner) holds this difference in opinion and avoiding her takes the position of Godfearingness (or
caution)” (1).

We now move on to the final Mas’alah (issue) of this current point of discussion:

D - How is it possible to reach the judgment of the prevention of enslaving the Sab’y (captives)
according to the Shar’a in the modern time?

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa said in his Tafseer “Al-Manaar”: “If the Muslims see that the
Khair (good) and Maslahah (interest) in some circumstances or conditions, is that the Sabaayaa (female
captives) be returned to their people, it is permissible for them to do that or obligatory in accordance to
the Qaa’idah (principle): “Jalb ul-Masaalih and Dar’u l-Mafaasid” (Drawing the interests and repelling the
harmful or corrupting elements)” (2).
And the following came in the Tafseer “Al-Maraaghiy”: “Islaam did not oblige the taking of Sab’y (female
captives) and did not prohibit it. That is because it could be for the good of the Sabaayaa (captives)
themselves in some circumstances like in the case where the war wiped out all of the males from a tribe
which consisted of a limited number. Then if the Muslims saw that there is good in returning the Sabaayaa
(female captives) to their people. That is permissible for them according to the Qaa’idah (principle):
“Dar’u l-Mafaasid Muqaddam ‘Alaa Jalb il-Masaalih” (Repelling the harmful or corrupting elements has
precedence over drawing the Masaalih)” (3).

I say: Based upon this, the matter of enslaving (Istirqaaq) the Sab’y (captives), in the contemporary time is
only left to what the Maslahah (interest) in this Mas’alah (issue) dictates. Consequently, the enslaving is
not forbidden or prevented by the Hukm Shar’iy in an absolte manner as long as the Manaat (reality) in
respect to it being utilised or cancelled being represented in the Maslahah (interest). This is a matter of
evaluation which differs in accordance to the difference of conditions and circumstances in addition to
differences in the points of view of those in authority, in relation to this Mas’alah. It is therefore possible
for there to exist Sab’y (captives) and Istirqaaq (enslaving) according to the Shar’a in the modern or
contemporary age.

However, from another angle, it is possible to commit to not resorting to As-Sab’y (taking captives) and
Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement) of women from the people at war (Ahl ul-Harb), from the Shar’iyah
perspective, by another way. That is by way of a convention or agreement made with other states which
agrees upon not resorting to this system at all …

[(1) “Al-Ashbaah Wa n-Nazhaah’ir”, As-Suyootiy: p63, (2) “Tafseer ul-Manaar”: 5/5 and refer to: “Al-Wahyu Al-
Muhammadiy”: p254-256, (3) “Tafseer Al-Maraaghiy”, Ash-Sheikh Ahmad Mustafaa Al-Maraaghiy: 5/5].

Then, if a war breaks out between the Muslims and those states, it is permitted to make permissible of
those lands and their citizens everything that war permits apart from that which has been included in that
convention or agreement. If, however, the treaty or agreement is broken, the making permissible
(Istibaahah) returns to its origin as it was prior to the agreement.

Making agreements and conventions (Ittifaaqiyaat) with the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) over specific
matters is Mashroo’ah (legally legitimate) and they follow the Hukm (ruling) of the Mu’aahadaat (treaties),
which are obligatory to commit to within the limits of the issues that they encompass and even when war
between the parties of that convention breaks out, if that is within the text of the convention.

Concerning this, the following came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “And if they stipulate (i.e. the Ahl ul-
Harb from those whom specific issues have been agreed with them) that we will not kill their captives or
prisoners of war if we capture them, then there is no problem if we take them as prisoners and for them
to be a Fa’i (spoil of war) (1) but not kill them … And if they stipulate that we do not take any of them as
a captive or prisoner, then we cannot take them as prisoners and kill them … That is unless treachery
manifests from them, where they had committed themselves to not kill or take as captive any of us and
then they did that. At such a time, this would represent a breaking or breaching of the covenant by them
and then there would be no problem if we kill their captives and take prisoners, just like the case was prior
to the covenant or convention (Al-‘Ahd)” (2).

Therefore, if agreements or conventions have been agreed with other states that women will not be taken
as captives and will not enslaved, even in the situation where war erupts (between them), then it is
obligatory according to the Shar’a to abide by what those agreements dictate as long as they are respected
by the others, The women of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) would be in such a case regarded in
accordance to the Hukm (ruling) of those who had been given an Amaan (security i.e. for their safety). If
women are granted an Amaan (security) they become Aaminaat (those who are safe and secure) and no
hand can be laid upon them, even if their lands were in a state of war with the Muslims.
It is in such a manner that it is possible to arrive at the prevention of enslaving the female captives within
our current age.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of our discussion around this current topic and we have also
reached the conclusion of the final study of the final chapter of the fifth volume in which the discussion
revolved around the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to the war policy. After this, we will move on, with the
help of Allah and His Tawfeeq, to the sixth volume of this doctorate paper (Ph.D).

[(1) Al-Fai’: This is what the Muslims obtain from the Amwaal (properties) of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in the absence of war
and Al-Jihaad”: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/472, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 1/303].

Volume Six
The Reasons or Causes (Asbaab) for Halting the Qitaal (fighting) In Islaam
And its Impact and Effect in Respect to the Spreading of the Da’wah, Establishing Peace and Preserving
lives

In the previous studies we became aware of the causes (Asbaab) which call the Muslims to declare Al-
Jihaad and wage war against the states, entities and peoples which do not follow the Deen of Islaam.

Now, we wish to become aware, in respect to Al-Jihaad, about the other side of what has been presented
previously, and by that I mean the Asbaab (causes) which call to closing the page of war against those
states, entities and peoples, and to opening the page of peace with them. That is whether that is in a
permanent manner or temporary one, in accordance to the cause or reason (Sabab) that called to putting
out the flame of war before it was set alight, or to put out its fires after it had been lit.

When addressing this, we will dedicate a specific separate chapter for each of the causes from amongst
those that halt the fighting, which will deal with the most important Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) related to it
and which are directly and firmly related to clarifying the image of Al-Jihaad in Islaam, in addition to the
impact of those causes which forbid the state of war with the enemy, in respect to the preservation of
blood and lives, and other effects which we will present generally, in a manner that does not make us veer
away from to discuss and examine issues which are not closely related to the subject of killing and
fighting. Upon this basis, this volume will be divided into the following chapter headings:

1 - Chapter One: The enemies entering Islaam and the consequences resulting from that in terms of
ending the state of war and preserving the blood (lives).

2 - Chapter Two: The payment or giving of the Jizyah and the people of war accepting to submit to the
Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam.

3 - Chapter Three: The Mu’aahadaat (treaties) and Al-Amaan (the security).

4 - Chapter Four: Al-Ash’hur Al-Hurum (The sacred months).

5 - Chapter Five: Defeat, surrender and captivity.

 Chapter One
The enemies entering Islaam and the consequences resulting from that in terms of
ending the state of war and preserving the blood (lives)

In this chapter we will address the most important Masaa’il (issues) related to it as follows:

The First Mas’alah (issue): The Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (evidences) indicating to the obligation of halting
the Qitaal when the enemy declares that it accepts Islaam.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Awakening the desire of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) to enter Islaam
and refrain from fighting.

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The effect of the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) embracing Islaam in respect
to preserving their blood and other effects in general.

The First Mas’alah (issue): The Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (evidences) indicating to the obligation of
halting the Qitaal when the enemy declares that it accepts Islaam.

The Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) obliging the halt of Al-Qitaal (fighting) by the enemy merely declaring their
acceptance of Islaam and their entry in it are numerous. Included amongst those texts is the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُ
َ ‫سَ َشدِيدٍَ ُت َقا ِتلُو َن ُه ْمَأَ ْوَيُسْ لِم‬
َ‫ُونََۖ َفَإِنَ ُتطِ يعُواَي ُْؤ ِت ُك ُم‬ ٍ ‫َاألَعْ َرابَِ َس ُت ْد َع ْو َنَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَأولِيَ َبأ‬ ْ ‫ِينَم َِن‬
َ ‫قُلَلِّ ْلم َُخلَّف‬
‫اَح َسناَ ََۖوإِنَ َت َت َولَّ ْواَ َك َماَ َت َولَّ ْي ُتمَمِّنَ َق ْبلَُي َُع ِّذ ْب ُك ْمَ َع َذاباَأَلَِيما‬
َ ‫اللَّـهَُأَجْ ر‬
Say to those who remained behind of the Arab Bedouins (1): “You will be called to [face] a people of great military might
(2); you may fight them, or they will submit. So, if you obey, Allah will give you a good reward; but if you turn away as you
turned away before (3), He will punish you with a painful punishment” (Al-Fat’h: 16).

[(1) In the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 16/268: “Mujaahid and Ibn ‘Abbaas said: Meaning the Arab Bedouins of Ghifaar,
Muzainah, Juhainah, Aslama, Ashja’a and Ad-Deel. They were the Arab Nomads who resided around Al-madinah and stayed
back from accompanying the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬when he wanted to travel to Makkah in the years of Al-Fat’h (the
conquest) [He means: the year of Al-Hudaibiyah as the Sulh (treaty or truce) of Al-Hudaibiyah that was convened in it was
called a Fat’h (conquest or victory), because it facilitated and laid the ground for the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah] after he called
them out in a general call to go out alongside him … that was to make it known to the people that he did not want war … but
they did not accompany him ….”, (2) It is said: Those intended are Hawaazin and Thaqeef and they had been called to fight
them during the time of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬in the Ghazwah of Hunain. And it is said: It is referring to Bani Haneefah who
apostatised and were from the followers of Musailamah Al-Kadh’dhaab and they were called to fight against them during the
time of Abu Bakr. And it is said: It refers to the Persians and Romans and they were called to fight them in the time of Abu
Baskr and ‘Umar. That is whilst Al-Qurtubiy denied that the intended meaning for it be referring to the Mushrikeen of
Hawaazin in respect to the Ghazwah (battle) of Hunain during the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. He said: “That is because the one
calling them cannot be the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬because He Ta’Aalaa said in Soorah At-Taubah Aayah 83 [TMQ]: “You will never go
out with me and you will never fight an enemy with me”. Therefore, this indicates that the one calling or inviting is other than the Nabi
‫ ”… ﷺ‬I say: It appears that the Aayah of At-Taubah which Al-Qurtubiy indicated to is only related to the Munaafiqeen
(hypocrites) who stayed back from going out for the Ghazwah of Taabook and their punishment would be that they be
deprived of the honour of going out in battle with the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬. That is whilst the Aayah we are addressing is related to
the Arab Bedouins residing around Al-Madinah who did not respond positively to the invitation or call of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
to go out with him to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaibiyah. And those were prevented alone from going out with the
 Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to Khaibar following the convening of the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah as is stated in the previous Aayah in
Soorah Al-Fat’h Aayah 15 [TMQ]: “Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty (i.e. Khaibar)
to take it: “Let us follow you” … Say: “You will never follow us”” … continued in next page references …]

This Aayah indicates to, concerning the matter we are addressing, that the enemy entering into Islaam
ends the state of war with them. Concerning this Aayah, the following was stated in the Tafseer of At-
Tabariy: “You fight those whom you have been called to fight or they become Muslim without war and
without fighting” (1).

- Also from the evidences is what came recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim: ‘Abdullah Ibn
‘Umar related that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َوي ُْؤ ُتوا‬، َ ‫َو ُيقِيمُواَالص ََّال َة‬، ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬

َ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ََّللاَُ َوأَنَّ َم َُحمَّد‬
َّ ‫َإال‬ َ ْ‫َح َّتىَ َي ْش َه ُدواَأَن‬
َّ ‫َالَإلَ َه‬ َ ‫تَأَنْ َأ ُ َقا ِت َلَال َّن‬
َ ‫اس‬ ُ ْ‫أُمِر‬
ََِّ َ‫َو ِح َسا ُب ُه ْمَ َعل‬،
‫ىََّللا‬ ِ ْ ‫َب َح ِّق‬
َ ‫َاإلسْ َال ِم‬ َّ ‫صمُواَ ِم ِّنيَ ِد َما َء ُه ْم ََوأَمْ ََوالَ ُه ْم‬
ِ ‫َإال‬ َ ‫كَ َع‬ َ ِ‫الز َكاََة؛َ َفإِ َذاَ َف َعلُواَ َذل‬
َّ
I have been commanded to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and until they establish the
Salaah and pay the Zakaah. And if they do that then they will have gained protection from me (2)
for their lives and property, unless it is due to the right (Haqq) of Islaam (3), and their reckoning
will be with Allah (4) (5).

[… Consequently, the gains taken from Khaibar were for those who attended Al-Hudaibiyah alone. Therefore, the invitation of
the Arab Bedouins who stayed behind from going to Al-Hudaibiyah to fight remains open in respect to that which followed the
battle of Khaibar during the time of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and after that. Just as in respect to those of great military might whom
those Arab Bedouins were called to fight against, then it is permitted for the intended meaning of them to be: Hawaazin and
Thaqeef from the time of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬, or Bani Haneefah, or the Persians and Romans during the times of Abu Bakr
and ‘Umar. Refer to Al-Qurtubiy: 16/272-273, (3) i.e. in respect to responding to the invitation of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to go
out to Makkah to perform the ‘Umrah in the year of Al-Hudaibiyah, …. References for this page: (1) Tafseer At-Tabariy:
26/52, (2) “i.e. they are safeguarded, preserved and protected by way of force”, Al-Qastalaaniy: 1/107, (3) “There blood is not
squandered or spilled and their property is not made permissible to take from following their protect by becoming Muslim
unless it is due to a reason from amongst the reasons in which Islaam has provided the right (Haqq) in respect to taking the life,
or a Hadd (prescribed punishment), or a fine for damage or the leaving of the Salaah”, Al-Qastalaaniy: 1/106, (4) “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 1/77: ““And their reckoning will be with Allah” means: In their secret or concealed matters … This contains a Daleel
for the acceptance of the apparent acts and passing judgment according to the dictates of the Zhaahir (i.e. what is apparent or
evident and not hidden). If it is said: The Hadeeth dictates: Fighting everyone who has refrained from Tawheed, then how can
fighting against those who give the Jizyah or the Mu’aahad (one under treaty) be abandoned? The answer to that has angles to
it: Firstly: The claim of abrogation in the case where the permission to take the Jizyah and Mu’aahadah (treaty) came after these
Ahaadeeth … Secondly: That it is from the ‘Aamm (general) some of which has been specified … So, if some of it falls back
due to a Daleel it does not malign the generality. Thirdly: That is from the ‘Aamm (general) through which the Khaas (specific)
is intended. As such, the intended meaning of ‘An-Naas’ (the people) in the statement “To fight the Naas (people)” is: the
Mushrikoon and not the Ahl ul-Kitaab … Fourthly: That the intended meaning in respect to what has been mentioned of the
Shahaadah (testimony) and other than it - that it represents an expression related to raising the word of Allah the highest and
making those who oppose submit. That happens with some by way of killing and some others by way of the Jizyah and others
still by way of a Mu’aahadah (treaty). Fifthly: That the intended meaning of Al-Qitaal is fighting itself or that which takes its
place in terms of the Jizyah. Sixthly: That it is said: The purpose or intended aim behind imposing the Jizyah, is to compel
them towards Islaam whilst the cause of the cause is a cause. It is like he said: Until they become Muslim or commit to that
which leads them towards Islaam …, (5) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 25, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/75, and Saheeh Muslim: 22, 1/53].

In Saheeh Muslim from a relation of Abu Hurairah of this Hadeeth, it stated:

َ‫صمُوا‬ َ ِ‫َبهَِ َفإِ َذاَ َف َعلُ َواَ َذل‬

َ ‫كَ َع‬ ِ ‫ت‬ ُ ‫يَو ِب َماَ ِج ْئ‬ َّ َّ‫َح َّتىَ َي ْش َه ُدواَأَنْ َالََإِلَ َهَإِال‬
ِ ‫ََّللاُ ََوي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
َ ‫واَب‬ َ ‫تَأَنْ َأ ُ َقا ِت َلَال َّن‬
َ ‫اس‬ ُ ْ‫أُمِر‬
ََِّ َ‫اَو ِح َسا ُب ُه ْمَ َعل‬
‫ىََّللا‬ ِ َّ‫ِم ِّنيَ ِد َما َء ُه ْم ََوأَ ْم َوالَ ُه ْمَإِال‬
َ ‫َب َح ِّق َه‬
I have been commanded to fight against the people, till they testify that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah, and believe in me and what I have come with. Then if they do that, their
blood and wealth enjoy protection from me except in that in which there is a right, and their
reckoning is with Allah (1).
In another Hadeeth, also recorded in Saheeh Muslim, Abu Maalik relates from his father who said: I heard
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying:

ِ َّ َ‫َُو ِح َسا ُبهَُ َعل‬

َ‫ىََّللا‬ َ ‫َُودَ ُمه‬ ِ َّ ‫ون‬
َ ‫ََّللاَ َح ُر َمَ َمالُه‬ َّ َّ‫َمنْ َ َقا َلَالََإِلَ َهَإِال‬
ِ ‫ََّللاُ ََو َك َف َر‬
ِ ‫َب َماَيُعْ َب ُدَمِنْ َ ُد‬
Whoever said that there is none worthy of worship other except Allah and disbelieved in all that is
worshipped besides Allah, his wealth and blood are Haraam (inviolable) and his account is with
Allah (2).

These Ahaadeeth and those similar to them, explicitly state that the people entering Islaam, where they
declare their Imaan (belief) in all that Islaam has come with and declare themselves free of all beliefs and
thoughts contrary to it, makes the protection of their blood and wealth or properties obligatory i.e.
fighting is lifted from them and the state of war with them ends (3).

- In the Hadeeth related by Buraidah, as recorded in Saheeh Muslim, which has been repeated over and
over again (i.e. in this study), the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

ِ ْ َ‫َا ُ ْد ُع ُه ْمَإِلَىَا‬:‫َع ْن ُه ْم‬

َ َ ْ‫إلس‬
َ ْ‫ال ِمَ َفإِن‬ َ َّ‫َو ُكف‬, َ ‫َ َفأ َ َّي ُتهُنَّ َأَ َجابُو‬،‫ال‬
َ ‫َ َفا ْق َبلَْ ِم ْن ُه ْم‬,‫كَإِلَ ْي َها‬ ٍ ‫ص‬َ ‫َف ْاد ُع ُه ْمَإِلَىَ َث َالثَِ ِخ‬
َ ‫أَ َجابُو‬
‫كَ َفا ْق َبلَْ ِم ْن ُه َْم‬
Then invite them to three (possible) courses of action. Then whichever of them they respond
positively to accept it from them and hold back from them (i.e. from fighting them): Call them to
Islaam and if they respond positively, then accept that from them … (4).

Also recorded in Saheeh Muslim: Miqdaad Bin Al-Aswad related: That he said: “I said: “Tell me, O
Messenger of Allah! What is your opinion if I was to come across a man from the disbelievers.
Then he fought against me and cut off (one of) my hands with his sword. He then hides from me
behind a tree and (then) says: “I have submitted to Allah (i.e. as a Muslim)”. Shall I kill him O
Messenger of Allah, after he has said that?” He (‫ )ﷺ‬replied: “Do not kill him”. He (Miqdaad)
related: So, I said: “But, O Messenger of Allah! He cut off one of my hands and only then he said
that”. The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬then replied: “Do not kill him, for if you do so, he will be in
the position in which you were before you killed him (i.e. he will be considered a Muslim and
thus his life will be inviolable), and you will be in the position in which he was before he made
his testimony (i.e. your life will not be inviolable, because his heirs can ask for Qisaas [life for
life])” (5).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 21, 1/52, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 23, 1/53, (3) In respect to establishing that refer to the Fiqhiy sources:
“Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i: 7/105, “Haashiyah Ad-Dasouqiy ‘Alaa Ash-Sharh il-Kabeer”: 2/176, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”: 2/239 and “Al-
Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p31, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 95, 1/95].

The following was mentioned in the Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy concerning this Hadeeth:
“Its meaning, is that he is Ma’soom Ad-Dam (his blood or life is protected and inviolable) and it is
prohibited to kill him following his statement: Laa Ilaaha Illallah (There is no deity (worthy of worship)
other than Allah). Just like you were before killing him. And that you, after killing him are not Ma’soom
Ad-Dam (your blood is no longer protected or inviolable) and killing is no longer prohibited, just as it had
been before his saying of Laa Ilaaha Illallah …” (1).

Regarding this matter, the Fuqahaa’ examined how the people are judged to have entered into Islaam? Is it
acceptable for one from among them to only say: Laa Ilaaha Illallah (There is no deity (worthy of worship)
other than Allah) for him to be judged to be Muslim, based upon that, as has come in some of the
Ahaadeeth? Or must he acknowledge that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, in addition, for his
Islaam to be valid? And is it sufficient for the person to say: I am Muslim, or something similar to that, to
be counted after that to be amongst them?

I say: It is observable, that the Fuqahaa’, in relation to this Mas’alah, used to look at and examine the
belief that the person had held previously before expressing his entry into Islaam. That is in the case
where they stipulate, in respect to the expression which the person uses to express his Islaam, what ever it
may be, that it indicates to the denial of the false beliefs that he used to carry or hold, just as it indicates
that he has entered into a new Deen.

It is not our intended purpose here to delve into the details of this Mas’alah although we will quote some
extracts from “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh” to provide a clear brief picture concerning this Mas’alah.
It states:

“The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to fight the worshippers of idols (Awthaan) and they were a people
who did not believe in a single deity. So, whoever from them said: Laa Ilaaha Illallah (There is no deity
(worthy of worship) other than Allah), that would be considered as an evidence that he had embraced
Islaam. The conclusion is that he is judged to be Muslim if he establishes or affirms that which is contrary
to what was known in respect to his previous belief … As for the Jews and Christians, when they say: Laa
Ilaaha Illallah (There is no deity (worthy of worship) other than Allah), then these words are not a Daleel
(evidence) to indicate or establish that they had embraced Islaam, as in the time of the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬they did not affirm his message (Risaalah) [i.e. they did not attest to his messengership]. As such, the
evidence establishing that they had accepted Islaam, in respect to them, was their attestation to that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah … As for today, in the lands of Iraq, then they bear witness to and
testify to Laa Ilaaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah. However, despite that, they he was a messenger
sent to the Arabs and not to Bani Israa’eel (Children of Israel) whilst holding on to the Zhaahir (apparent
understanding) of His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َرسُوالَ ِّم ْن ُه ْم‬ َ ‫ِيَاأل ُ ِّمي‬

َ ‫ِّين‬ ْ ‫ثَ ف‬َ ‫ه َُوَالَّذِيَ َب َع‬
It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves (Al-Jumu’ah: 2).

[(1) “Sharh Saheeh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 1/467, (2) I say: From among the Aayaat indicating that the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬has been sent to the whole of mankind and not just to the unlettered Arabs (Ummiyyeen) is
His Qawl Ta’Aalaa: “‫ُون‬ ِ ‫اَولَ ٰـكِنَّ َأَ ْك َث َر َال َّن‬
ََ ‫اس ََال َ َيعْ لَم‬ َ ‫اَو َنذِير‬
َ ‫اس َبَشِ ير‬ َ ‫( ” َو َماَأَرْ َس ْل َنا‬And We have not sent you
ِ ‫ك َإِ َّال َ َكا َّفة ََلِّل َّن‬
except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know) (Soorah
Saba’: 28)].

So, whoever from among them attests to Muhammad being the Messenger of Allah would not be
considered to be Muslim until he disclaims association from his previous Deen alongside that (1) or attests
that he has entered Islaam” …

The book then goes on to mention that the statement of the Christian or the Jew: “I am Muslim” or “I
have embraced Islaam”, does not represent a Daleel (evidence) that he has entered into Islaam and that is
because Islaam means submission and compliance (Al-Inqiyaad), in respect to the general linguistic
meaning. Both the Christian and the Jew claim to be a Muslim who submits to the Haqq (truth) which
they believe in” … It then states: “And if the Majoosiy says: I have embraced Islaam” or “I am Muslim”,
he is judged to have entered Islaam (i.e. to be a Muslim) and that is because they have not made this claim
for themselves (i.e. prior to that according to their beliefs). Rather, it was regarded to represent an insult
amongst them by which one would insult his son! Consequently, that (statement) would represent an
evidence of his Islaam (i.e. that he is Muslim)” (2).

The above is what came mentioned in the Sharh of As-Siyar Al-Kabeer.

Consequently, that which concerns us in our study here, in relation to this Mas’alah, is that the declaration
made by the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) of their entry into Islaam, in an explicit manner, ends the war
with them. And if there was some ambiguity, in respect to whether their declaration was sufficient to
consider them as Muslims or not, then in such a case, it is necessary to cease the fighting and seek to
clarify the matter. Them if what the declared enters them into the folds of Islaam, then that is accepted.
Otherwise, the way by which they enter into the ranks of the Muslims is explained to them and if they
respond positively to that, this is what is desired and if not, waging war against them remains legally
legitimate.

After that, we will now move on to the next Mas’alah (issue).

The Second Mas’alah: Awakening the desire of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) to enter Islaam
and refrain from fighting.

The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬adopted a number of ways to awaken the desire of the people of war (Ahl l-Harb) to enter
Islaam, which by their nature would lead the preservation of the blood and bring the fighting to an end.

- From amongst those ways which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬adopted to arrive at that objective, was his pledge to
keep the leaders of the warring states in the position of authority, if they entered Islaam and announced
their subservience to the Islamic State. Concerning this matter, is that which came mentioned in some of
the letters of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the Kings and heads of state, in relation to this Mas’alah. That is like what
came mentioned in his letter to the King of ‘Umaan Jaifar and his brother ‘Abd, which stated:

[(1) I say: In light of this, the one who belongs to groups possessing beliefs some of the thoughts of which
clashed with the Islamic Aqaa’id (beliefs), and he comprehends that, he is not considered to be from the
Muslims and even if he used to say: Laa Ilaaha Illlallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah, as long as he remains
adopting the thoughts contradicting the Islamic beliefs and does not deny, renounce or disassociate from
them, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/150-252 and refer to: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”:
p394-396, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/223, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/101-104 and
“Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/316-317].

“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem. From Muhammad Bin Abdillah to Jaifar and ‘Abd, the
two sons of Al-Julandaa: Peace upon the one who follows the guidance. Thereafter … I call call you both
by the invitation of Islaam. If you accept Islaam you will be safe. For verily I am the Messenger of Allah to
all of mankind, to warn the one who is alive and establish the word against the disbelievers. If you two
accept Islaam, I will appoint you (in authority) and if you refuse to accept Islaam, then your kingdom will
disappear from you and my horses will fill your plains and my prophethood will prevail over your
kingdom” (1).

The following was also stated in the letter sent by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the person in authority of Al-
Yamaamah, Hawdhah Bin ‘Ali: “In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem, from Muhammad the
Messenger of Allah to Hawdhah Bin ‘Ali: Peace upon the one who follows the guidance. And know (or be
informed) that my Deen will prevail (and dominate) to the ends of Al-Khuff and Al-Haafir (2). So, if you
embrace Islam you will be safe and I will appoint you over what is (currently) under your hands (i.e.
authority) …” (3).

- Also, from the ways which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬followed to make the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) incline
towards entering Islaam, was his pledge to keep them in the position or standing that the people of
capabilities and specific talents, from amongst them, possessed, and to give them precedence over others
in respect to the matters that they excelled in, whilst making them understand that Islaam raises their
stature and provides them with the standing that they deserve … That was manifested in the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
seeking to make Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed incline to enter the folds of Islaam.

In some of the books of the Seerah, it was related from Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, that he said: “When he
‫ ﷺ‬came to perform the Qadaa ‘Umrah (4), I was absent and did not witness his entry (i.e. to Makkah).
My brother Al-Waleed Bin Al-Waleed (5) had entered with him ‫ﷺ‬. He then sought me out but did not
find me and so he wrote a letter to me. Within it, the following was stated: “In the name of Allah Ar-
Rahman Ar-Raheem. Thereafter, I have not seen a more astonishing matter than the going of your
opinion away from Islaam and the lack of your intellect! And is it for anybody to be ignorant of the likes
of Islaam? The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬asked me about you and said: “Where is Khaalid?” I said: “Allah
will bring him!” He replied: “Those like him are not ignorant or heedless of Islaam and if he brought his
strength alongside the Muslims against the Mushrikeen (polytheists) it would be better for him and we
would give him precedence over others!” …

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/693, (2) A metaphor for the camels and horses and it is as follows: A metaphor for the prevailing of
Islaam over all lands which these means (of transport) used by the Muslims and their armies reach, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”:
3/696, (4) This is the ‘Umrah which followed the year of the treaty (Sulh) of Al-Hudaibiyah and Khaalid, at that time, was from
the Mushrikeen of Makkah. He left Makkah when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬entered to perform the ‘Umrah so that he would not see him!,
(5) Al-Waleed was the brother of Khaalid and had become Muslim shortly after the battle of Badr. Refer to “Al-Isaabah”:
Number: 9153, 3/603].

… So, revise and reassess my brother, that which you have missed out on and what you have missed in
terms of righteous matters”. Khaalid said: Then when this letter came to me, I was emboldened to set out;
my desire in respect to Islaam increased and the statement of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬pleased me
…”.

- Then Khaalid related the story of his Hijrah to Al-Madinah and the declaration of his Islaam before the
Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. He said “Then I said: I bear witness that there is no deity (worthy of worship) other than
Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah ‫”ﷺ‬. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “All praise to the One who guided
you. I had seen reason (or intellect) in you and hoped that it would not make you submit to anything other
than good!”. The author of the Seerah said: From the time that Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed, may Allah be
pleased with him, embraced Islaam, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬continued to appoint him over the reins
of the horses and so he would be at their fore (i.e. in battle)” (1).

- Also from the ways adopted by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to incline the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) to embrace
Islaam, was to expend money to them generously, when that represented a means towards them declaring
their joining to this Deen.

It was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “Anas (Bin Maalik) said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was not asked
for something by someone, to embrace Islaam, except that he would give that to him! A man came to the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and he gave him a herd of sheep scattered between two mountains. When he returned to
his people, he said to them: “O my people! Embrace Islam because Muhammad gives like one who has no
fear of poverty”. Some people would embrace Islaam only for worldly gains, but soon after that Islaam
becomes dearer to them than the world with all what it contains!” (2).

Also recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “Ibn Shihaab said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬undertook the military
expedition of Al-Fat’h (the conquest) and conquered Makkah. Then the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
departed alongside those who were with him (from the Fat’h of Makkah) and they fought together at
Hunain and Allah gave victory to His Deen and the Muslims. And on that day the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬gave Safwaan Bin Umayyah 100 Na’am (camels) (3)! Then (another) 100! And then (another) 100!
Ibn Shihaab said: Sa’eed Ibn ul-Musayyib related that Safwaan said: By Allah! The Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬has given me whilst he was the most detested of people to me! And he continued to give me until he
was the most beloved of people to me!” (4).

[(1) “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/70-71. The meaning of the end of the Hadeeth is: That he gave him the leadership of the
cavalry in the army and that is like tanks in respect to modern armies. The following came stated in the book “Al-Harb” (War)
by the general Muhammad Safaa: p424: “The role of the cavalry in the battle was the same role as that the tanks or armoured
vehicles have in modern warfare …”, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 2312, 4/1806, (3) ““An-Na’am”: One of the An’aam (creatures) and it
represents the wealth of the Raa’iyah (shepherds?) and this name is often used to refer to camels”: “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”:
p575, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 2313, 4/1806].

Concerning this, it has been mentioned that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to utilise this means with the leaders of
the warring states to make them incline and awaken the desire within them to embrace Islaam and to
remove from within them the thought of waging war against the Muslims. This is like what he did with
the leader of the Mushrikeen at the battle against Hawaazin, Maalik Bin ‘Auf, following the defeat of the
disbelievers and when this leader fled to At-Taa’if and fortified himself there, which was followed by the
delegation of Hawaazin coming to declare that they had embraced Islaam.

The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam in relation to this incident: “And the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬asked the delegation of Hawaazin about what Maalik Bin ‘Auf had done? They said: He is in
At-Taa’if with Thaqeef. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then said: Inform Maalik, that if he comes to me as
a Muslim I will return his family and his wealth to him in addition to giving him 100 camels! And so
Maalik was attracted by that and departed from At-Taa’if to head to him. Maalik had feared for himself
that if Thaqeef knew that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had said to him what he said, that they would
imprison him! He therefore departed at night and then later arrived to the Messenger of Allah ‫ … ﷺ‬He
‫ ﷺ‬then returned to him his family and property and gave him 100 camels. He embraced Islaam and
kept to his Islaam well. Maalik Bin ‘Auf said when he embraced Islaam: I have not heard amongst all of
mankind of a man like Muhammad!.

And then the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬appointed him over those who had embraced Islaam from his
people and those tribes were: Thumaalah, Salamah and Fahm. He used to fight Thaqeef alongside them
…” (1).

- Regarding the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬inclining the people to enter into Islaam so that it would lead to the cessation
of fighting and end the state of war with them, he ‫ ﷺ‬used to accept from the people of war (Ahl ul-
Harb) to stipulate the inclusion of some conditions which they regarded to represent a guarantee for the
realisation of their interests, from their viewpoint, related to the management or administration of their
affairs and the affairs of the region in which they resided. These were from the matters, which in origin
are left to the person in authority in Islaam to administer according to his opinion and Ijtihaad without
being restricted to a specific form of administration and caretaking. However, in this situation, when the
entering of the people of war into Islaam rests upon the acceptance of their conditions which are of this
mentioned type, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to refrain from fighting them and accept to commit to these types of
conditions due to his love for them to become Muslim, as long as these conditions fell within the category
of the Mubaahaaat (the permissible matters) and that there was no harm resulting from their application
…

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/153].

That was like his commitment to the condition of Thaqeef , the people of At-Taa’if, for them to enter
Islaam, which stipulated that their Ameer (leader) whom he ‫ ﷺ‬chooses to have leadership over them,
be a man from their own people and not from another people, amongst other conditions that they listed
…

Included within the letter of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Thaqeef was the following:

“In the name of Allah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem. This is a letter from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to
Thaqeef … They are (to be regarded) as being an Ummah (people) from the Muslims engaging or
interacting with the Muslims as they wish … And the Messenger and the believers support them against
those who oppress or transgress against them. And whoever they do not wish to enter upon them from
the people then they do not enter upon them … And the trade and sale takes place in the extensions of
the homes and that none will be appointed over them except that it will be one from amongst them
…etc.” (1).

Al-Imaam Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam, commentated upon this letter and its contents saying:

“It contains that conditions were stipulated at the time of their acceptance of Islaam which were specific
to them to the exclusion of others. That was like: His prohibition of their valley, that their group, that no
one enters it to take dominance over it and that no one is appointed over them except from amongst
them. This is from that which I have said to you (previously): That the Imaam looks over Islaam and its
people. If he fears that an enemy will overcome him whilst he is unable to repel them and is not able to do
that except by giving them some kind of material recompense, then he can do that. That is like what the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did with the Ahzaab during the battle of Al-Khandaq. Similarly, if they refuse to accept Islaam
unless it is upon the basis of being given something, in the case where their embracing of Islaam brings
strength to Islaam, whilst their potential harm and force is not secured from (i.e. if they do not embrace
Islaam), then they are given that in order to incline their hearts to Islaam. That is what the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did with Al-Mu’allafatu Quloobuhum (those who were given to incline or bring their hearts
together with Islaam) (2), so that they incline towards embracing Islaam and their intention in respect to it
is good. This is permitted only in respect to that which does not contravene the Kitaab and the Sunnah.
This is made clear by the fact that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not concede to them, from the matters
that he gave them, that Ribaa (usury) be Halaal. Do you not see that he stipulated upon them that they
only have their original capital (3)?

[(1) “Al-Amwaal”, Al-Imaam Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam: p87, (2) “These were the nobles of the Arabs and the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to soften their hearts, by giving them material gifts, so that they become Muslim. A people from
amongst them embraced Islaam and so he gave to them as a way of reinforcing their Islaam”: Tafseer An-Nasafiy: 2/232. And
in “An-Nihaayah”: 1/60 it was stated: “At-Ta’leef means: Turning and inclining to reinforce the conversion to Islaam out of
the desire to attain that which was given to them in terms of money or property”, (3) This was from amongst the items
mentioned in the letter that was indicated to in respect to this Mas’alah: “And what they had in terms of debt owed by the
people to them, then they can have no more than the original capital or sum (i.e. no increase through Ribaa): “Al-Amwaal”:
p87].

Its origin (i.e. Ribaa) was in Jaahiliyah (i.e. pre-Islamic times) whilst in Islaam it was given the severest of
prohibitions and said more explicitly, it was not permissible. It has been related in some Hadeeth that they
had also asked him before that to acquiesce to making Zinaa (fornication), Ribaa (usury) and Khamr
(alcohol) Halaal, but he refused that which led them to return back to their land before returning again
desiring to enter Islaam. Then this letter was written for them” (1).

Concerning this, I say: It appears from the conditions that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬accepted and those that he
refused or rejected, during the discussions that took place between him and the delegation of At-Taa’if,
concerning their entry into Islaam, that the conditions which are permissible to accept and pledge to
maintain, if the people of war embraced Islaam upon their basis, are conditions which relate that which is
called today administrative organisation and what is similar to them. These represent those matters, many
of which are more appropriate to be left far away from central administration i.e. that their affair is left to
local administration in each province of the provinces of the State, without applying a specific form of
regulation which the state imposes upon them in relation to these matters. That is like the Tahreem
(prohibition) of As-Said (hunting) and the cutting of trees (2) in some regions or areas, to protect the
climate and natural environment which they are in. Or like specifying the architectural shape of buildings,
defining working hours, matters related to transport and forms of dress which the people of each
Wilaayah wear, or other such matters which fall under the administrative matters. That is all naturally
within the limits of what is legally legitimate.

In concluding summary of this Mas’alah (issue), the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to be very eager and keen to end the
state of war with the disbelievers through their entry into Islaam and by inclining them towards it via a
variety of legally legitimate means which were available to him …

[(1) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam: p88, (2) Concerning the prohibition related to the valley, indicated to
within the letter of Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to Thaqeef, refer to: “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 5/39-40].

We will now move on to the final Mas’alah (issue) of this current chapter.

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The effect of the Ahl ul-Harb (people at war) embracing Islaam in
respect to preserving their blood and other effects in general.

Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) declaring their entry into Islaam, occurs via their acceptance of the choice of
Islaam from the three choices or options that the Islamic state presents to them. They are: Al-Islaam (i.e.
become Muslim), or Al-Jizyah or Al-Harb (war) and their details have been explained previously.

- This acceptance to the choice of Islaam could occur immediately upon the presentation or offering of
the three options to the warring lands without war breaking out between them and the Islamic army.

- Just as this acceptance could occur after the leaders of the other lands chose the option of war, and then
during the fighting, and before the victory was settled in the favour of the Muslims and control over the
warring lands was realised, the disbelievers could view that it is in their interests to accept the choice of
Islaam and hence declare their acceptance of Islaam and the joining of their lands to those of the Islamic
State.

- It is also possible that they choose to accept Islaam after the Islamic army imposes a siege over the
warring lands for a period that could extend for a long or short time. The leaders of those who are being
fought could view, following such a siege, that they should declare their Islaam and join to the Islamic
State, to break that siege which had been imposed upon them! In all of these circumstances, in which the
Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) declare their Islaam, it is obligatory to halt the fighting with them, if fighting
had already been taking place against them and to break the siege if one had been imposed, just as it is
obligatory to cancel the state of war if there had not been fighting or a siege.

The most important of the effects resulting from the people of war embracing Islaam, which concerns us
in our study, is the preservation of the blood (i.e. lives), in addition to what is part of that in terms of the
protection of their Aa’raad (honours) and their Amwaal (properties or wealth). That is just like the case of
the blood of the Muslims, their honours and properties, and that is because they have actually become a
part of the Muslims. It is therefore not permissible to subject them to any harm or bad just as it is not
permissible to subject any Muslim from amongst the Muslims to that. That is in accordance to the
statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫َُو َمالُه‬
ُ ْ‫َُوعِ ر‬
‫ض َُه‬ ْ َ‫َُّالمُسْ لِمَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَالمُسْ ل ِِم‬
َ ‫َح َرامَ َد ُمه‬ ْ ‫ُكل‬
ِ
The whole of the Muslim is inviolable to his fellow Muslim; his blood, his wealth and his honour
(1).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim, related by Abu Hurairah: 2564, 4/1986].

There are also Ahaadeeth which we have presented previously indicating to this ‘Ismah and Hurmah
(protection, inviolability and sanctity).

In addition, there is that which came recorded in the Sunan of Abu Dawud which provides a picture of
the effects of Islaam (i.e. becoming Muslim) in respect to the (‘Ismah) protection of the blood and
property, and their inviolable sanctity (Hurmah). He related: “‘Ali ibn Sahl related that his father told him
that ‘Ali and Ibn al-Musaffaa said: “The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬sent us on an expedition. When we
reached the place of attack, I galloped my horse and outstripped my companions, and the people of that
locality received me with the noise of voices and calling for help. I said to them: Say: There is no deity
(worthy of worship) other than Allah and you will be protected. They said this. My companions then cast
blame upon me, saying: You deprived us of the booty. When we came to the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬,
they told him what I had done. So, he called me, and commended me for what I had done, and said: Allah
has recorded for you so and so (a reward) for every man of them. AbdurRahman (one of the
narrators) said: I forgot the reward (1).

I would like to make the point here that we should not understand from the above narrated incident and
the dominant spirit which used to motivate the Muslims to undertake Al-Jihaad was the desire to attain
booty, as could be deduced from the blame of those who cast blame upon the noble Sahaabiy. We should
not understand that and that is because that which defines that motivating spirit to undertake Al-Jihaad is
the Qiyaadah (leadership) and this Qiyaadah had expressed its satisfaction and contentedness with the
conduct of that noble-minded Sahaabiy and it (the leadership) praised his guiding the people of the
warring land to that path that protects and preserves their blood, properties and honours.

As for the regret of the fighters in respect to what passed them by in terms of attaining the booty, then
that could have been due to their belief that this declaration of Islaam, was only done for the sake of the
people of war protecting themselves from being killed and their properties from being taken from them,
and not as a result of accepting Islaam truthfully and based on definite Imaan (belief), according to what
was apparent (to them) … The expressed regret was therefore upon this basis, in respect to losing the
booty for a matter that was not established upon certainty in respect it being representative of a true and
real entry into Islaam.

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 5080, 4/438. Al-Albaaniy did not include it in his Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud: 3/957. In any case, the
textual indication indicates to what we intend here and other Saheeh Ahaadeeth have come in respect to the protection and
inviolability of the blood and property as a mere result of the declaration of becoming Muslim. Our intention behind presenting
this incident was only to provide a picture of that protection resulting from embracing Islaam from the angle of the reality,
even if they were lands at war, based upon the position of their leaders, in respect to the Da’wah (invitation to embrace Islaam)
… but their people announced their Islaam in spite of that, whether the leaders submitted to the desire of the masses after that,
fled or remained as isolated, dissenting or pursued individuals].

Even if this display of regret actually means that some of the fighters, whether small or large in number,
used to covet the Ghaneemah (booty) and then they lost that opportunity as a result of the people
declaring their Islaam, then I say: Even if that regret referred to this matter, then it represents a matter
that could exist. At such a time, those who possess such a material desire and prefer it to the people of
war embracing Islaam, and even if it was just an apparent declaration of Islaam initially, require more
Tarbiyah (culturing) and direction, so that they develop their Islamic Nafsiyahs (dispositions) according to
what is demanded. This is indicated to in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫ض‬
‫َال َح َياةَِال ُّد ْن َيا‬ َ ْ‫الَ َتقُولُواَلِ َمنْ َأَ ْل َق ٰىَإِلَ ْي ُك ُمَالس ََّال َمَلَس‬
َ ‫تَم ُْؤمِناَ َت ْب َت ُغ‬
َ ‫ونَ َع َر‬ َ َ ‫َو‬
 … And do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace “You are not a believer” seeking to attain the goods of the
worldly life … (An-Nisaa’: 94) (1).

Concerning this Aayah At-Tabariy said: “And do not say, to the one who has surrendered to you and did
not consequently fight you, whilst displaying to you that they are from the people of your belief and
Da’wah, that you are not a believer, and then fight against them seeking the material goods of the Dunyaa
(life of this world) …” (2).

Az-Zamakhshariy said in his Tafseer of this Aayah: “And do not say that this Tahleel (i.e. declaration of
the Kalimah of Islaam: “Laa Ilaaha Illallah”) has been said just for protection from being killed and that it
is not sincere or truthful in intention, and then use that as a justification to make their blood and property
permissible, whilst Allah has made that Haraam” (3).

Ibn Hajar said: “The Aayah contains a Daleel (evidence) indicating that in respect to the one who
manifests or displays signs of Islaam (i.e. that he has embraced it), his blood is not Halaal until his matter
is investigated and that is because peace is the greeting of the Muslims whilst their greeting in Jaahiliyah
(prior to Islaam) was different or contrary to that” (4)

I say: This Aayah indicates that some of the Muslims during war, as is found in the cause of its revelation
(5), could go forward to kill the one who has declared his Islaam from among the disbelievers or someone
who has displayed or manifested that which indicates to his entry into Islaam, when the weapon is raised
against him and fears being killed.

[(1) Soorah An-Nisaa’: 94. “ََ‫ ” َعرَ ض‬refers to the goods and vanities of this world, intending here: That which is taken from the
killed person and the spoils of war, (2) Tafseer At-Tabariy: 5/140, (3) Tafseer Az-Zamakhshariy: 1/428-429, (4) “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 8/259, (5) Refer to: Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/529, Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: 5/336 onwards, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/258-259,
Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 30303, 5/240, “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 7/8-9, and Saheeh Muslim: 96, 1/96 and 97, 1/97-98].

- Some Muslims could move forward to kill a man such as this coveting the taking of his wealth as booty
and this is what the Aayah came warning about.

In summary of this issue we are addressing: The resulting effects of the people at war’s declaration of
Islaam or that which indicates to their acceptance of it, is the obligation to end the state of war with them
and the protection of their blood (i.e. lives), properties and honours, like that which applies to all Muslims.
It also means that they transform to being carriers of the Islamic citizenship and their land is joined to the
Islamic State. This matter in turn dictates that they be ruled by Islaam and the abolishment of the systems,
legislations and laws which are contrary to the Islamic system.

The following was narrated in the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy: Abu Al-Bakhtariy related: “An Army from the
armies of the Muslims, whose commander was Salmaan Al-Faarisiy, besieged one of the Persian castles.
They said: “O Abu 'Abdullah! Should we charge them?” He said: “Leave me to call them (to Islam) as I
heard the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬call them”. So, Salmaan went to them and said: “I am only a man
from among you, a Persian, and you see that the Arabs obey me. If you become Muslims then you will
have the likes of what we have, and from you will be required that which is required from us. If you
refuse, and keep your religion, then we will leave you to it, and you will give us the Jizyah from your hands
(1) while you are submissive (2)” (3).

It is not our intended purpose here, within the subject area of Al-Jihaad, to go into detail concerning all of
the effects resulting from the people at war’s declaration of Islaam. That is because that which concerns us
most from amongst those resulting effects is that the embracing of Islaam represents a Sabab (cause) for
the ending of the state of war with the disbelievers. As such this has dictated that we indicate to the most
important or significant of the effects resulting from their Islaam (4) which indicates to the ending of the
state of war with them.
By that we have reached the end of this Mas’alah and in doing so we have reached the conclusion of this
chapter. We will now move on, by the help of Allah, to a new chapter.

[(1) “If its intended meaning is the hand that gives: Then it means the hand that gives voluntarily and does not hold back or
refrain. That is because the one who refuses and holds back has not given (freely) by his hand. And if it intends the hand that
takes: then it means by the hand that has overcome and taken over or it means bestowing favour upon them because the
acceptance of Al-Jizyah from them and leaving their lives (i.e. not killing them) represents a blessing or favour (Ni’mah)
bestowed upon them”: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/595, (2) “As-Saghaar (submissive): This means that the Hukm (ruling) of Islaam is
applied over them”, “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn Hazm: 7/346, (4) Related by At-Tirmidhiy and he classified it as Hasan: 1548, 4/119,
(5) For details regarding the resulting effects of the disbelievers declaring their Islaam refer to “Aathaar ul-Harb” by Al-Ustaadh
Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p626-631].
 Chapter Two
The payment or giving of the Jizyah and the people of war accepting to submit to
the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam

Our concern in this chapter relates to the giving of the Jizyah by the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) and their
commitment to submit to the Islamic rule, being considered a cause (Sabab) from amongst the causes
(Asbaab) of ceasing the Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam. As such, the Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) which we will
address in this chapter are restricted to this angle or aspect i.e. the angle of the cessation of Al-Qitaal
(fighting) if the contract of Adh-Dhimmah is contracted with the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb); a matter
which dictates that their giving or the Jizyah and submission to the Islamic rule, which consequently
signifies their becoming Islamic subjects who hold the subject status or what is also called or known as the
Islamic citizenship.

During this chapter we will not address many of the issues which fall under the study of the Jizyah as
delving in that would require an independent paper, from one angle, just as it would divert us away from
the objective which the chapter has been presented for, from another angle. That purpose is to discuss a
cause from amongst the causes for the cessation of fighting in Islaam.

Yes, it is true that our study may require that we address a number of Masaa’il connected to the topic of
Al-Jizyah and that is due to the importance of these issues in respect to clarifying this cause from amongst
the causes of ceasing the fighting in Islaam. That includes for example: Who is permitted to cease fighting
against them from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) and whom it is not permitted from, if they pay the
Jizyah and declare their acceptance of the ‘Aqd (contract) f Adh-Dhimmah (i.e. to become protected
subjects of the Islamic State)? And what are the conditions for the obligation of Al-Jizyah? And what can
take its place?

Based upon this, the Masaa’il (issues) which we will address in this chapter are as follows:

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): What is meant by Al-Jizyah? What are the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences)
indicating to the obligation (Wujoob) of stopping the Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl ul-Harb (people of
war), if they give the Jizyah and the contract of the Dhimmah is completed for them?

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): Who from the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) is the Jizyah accepted in
addition to their entry into the Dhimmah (protection and subject status) of the Muslims?

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Shuroot (conditions) of the obligation (Wujoob) of Al-Jizyah.

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): The substitute of the Jizyah.

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): What is meant by Al-Jizyah? What are the Shar’iyah Adillah
(evidences) indicating to the obligation (Wujoob) of stopping the Qitaal (fighting) against the
Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), if they give the Jizyah and the contract of the Dhimmah is
completed for them?

Firstly: What is meant by Al-Jizyah?

The following was stated in “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah” (dictionary): “xAl-Jizyah: What is taken from the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah. The plural: Al-Jizaa. Like Lihyah (beard) and its plural: Lihaa” (1).

It was stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “It is the Wazheefah (2) taken from the Kaafir so that he can reside in
Daar il-Islaam, on an annual basis” (3).

The word “Al-Jizyah” is also used to refer to the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah as well just as it is used
to refer to the Dareebah (4) or the Maal (money) that the Ahl udh-Dhimmah are obliged to pay to the
Islamic State annually.

Concerning the definition of the word Al-Jizyah, the following was stated in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “It is
expressed to apply upon the ‘Aqd (contract) and the Maal (money) that is binding (to be given)” (5). Al-
Imaam An-Nawawiy also explained in “Al-Minhaaj” how the Imaam (leader) of the Muslims or the one he
has deputised and delegated apply the contract of the Dhimmah or the contract of the Jizyah with the Ahl
ul-Harb. Regarding this he stated:

[(1) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p86, (2) In “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer” (dictionary) on page 255 it states: “The Wazheefah: It is what
is evaluated from the work, Rizq (sustenance), food and other than that …”. The intended meaning here is: That which is
Wuzh’zhifa i.e. that which is evaluated in respect to what the Ahl udh-Dhimmah give to the Islamic authorities in terms of
financial taxes, upon a periodical basis annually, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/567, (4) Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy called
the Jizyah with the name “Dareebah”. Refer to his “Al-Umm”: 4/200, (5) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Sharbeeniy Al-Khatteeb:
4/242 and also refer to “Tuhfat ut-Tullaab”, Sheikh ul-Islaam, Zakariyaa Al-Ansaariy: p278].

“The form of how it is contracted: I settle you in Daar ul-Islaam or I have granted permission for you to
reside in it upon the basis that you give a Jizyah and submit to the rule of Islaam” (1).

This, in brief, is what relates to the intended meaning of the word “Al-Jizyah” and it is hoped that this
quick look at this definition is sufficient for our requirements here and that there is no need to discuss it
any further than what we have mentioned.

Secondly: What are the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) indicating to the obligation (Wujoob) of stopping
the Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), if they give the Jizyah and the contract of the
Dhimmah is completed for them?

The origin in respect to halting the Qitaal (fighting) against Ahl ul-Harb when they give the Jizyah and
accept the Hukm (ruling) of Islaam, is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َُو َرسُولُ َُهَ َو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬

َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬ ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ َ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيدٍَ َو ُه ْم‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِين ََأ ُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah (2) or in the Last Day (3) and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful (4) and who do not adopt the religion of truth (5) from those who have been given the
scripture (6), until they give the Jizyah (7) willingly while they are humbled (8) (At-Taubah: 29).

This Aayah states the end aim, upon which the fighting against the disbelievers should come to an end.
That is the giving of the Jizyah and their commitment to As-Saghaar i.e. their submission to the Islamic
rule, in other than that which has been approved for them in terms of ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship), foods,
drinks, clothing and affairs of marriage etc.

[(1) “Al-Minhaaj”, An-Nawawiy: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/242, (2) “Negating from them the Imaan in Allah because the Jews
believe in two and the Christians believe in three”: “Al-Kashaaf”: 2/217, (3) “That is because they are contrary to what is
obligatory in the case where they claim that there is no food or drink in Jannah”: Tafseer An-Nasafiy: 2/217, (4) “Because they
do not make Haraam that which has been made Haraam in the Kitaab and the Sunnah or do not act in accordance to what is
contained in the Taurah or the Injeel”: Tafseer An-Nafasiy: 2/217, (5) “They do not believe in the Deen of Islaam which is the
Haqq (Truth)”, An-Nasafiy, (6) The Ahl ul-Kitaab of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) are the Yahood (Jews) and Nasaaraa
(Christians) due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa in Al-An’aam Aayah 156: TMQ: “[We revealed it] lest you say: “The Scripture
was only sent down to two groups before us, but we were of their study unaware””. The Aayah has dictated that the Ahl ul-
Kitaab are two groups”, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/282, (7) “i.e.: If they don’t embrace Islaam”: Tafseer Ibn Katheer:
2/347. Also refer to the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy: “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”: 10/78 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/259, (8) Soorah At-
Taubah: 29. Ash-Sheeraaziy said: “As-Saghaar: It is that the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Muslims are applied upon them”, “Al-
Muhadh’dhab”: 2/253 and refer also to “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p143].

Al-Qurturbiy said in his Tafseer: “An end point (Ghaayah) has been provided for the Qitaal (fighting) and
that is the giving of the Jizyah instead of being killed” (1).

And Ibn Qudaamah said: “The giving of the Jizyah has been made the Ghaayah (end point) of fighting
them and so, when they give it, it is not permissible to fight them” (2).

Also among the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences), related to this issue, is what came related in Saheeh Al-
Bukhaariy. Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah said the following to the governor of Kisraa prior to the battle of
Nahaawand (3) in the lands of the Persians: “Our Nabi commanded us, the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬of our Rabb
(Lord) for us to fight you until you worship Allah alone or give the Jizyah. And our Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬informed
us from the message of our Rabb (lord) that whoever is killed form amongst us will go to the gardens of
paradise of bliss that none at all have seen the like of it, and whoever remains (alive) from us takes
possession over your necks” (4).

This Hadeeth states the command to fight the disbelievers until one of two matters occurs in respect to
them: Either the worship of Allah alone i.e. their entry into Islaam, or that they give the Jizyah. The
meaning of that is the obligation of refraining from fighting and ceasing the state of war with the
disbelievers if they respond positively and accept the Jizyah, in the case where they choose not to embrace
Islaam. The intended meaning of Al-Jizyah here, is the Jizyah that the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who submit to
the Islamic rule and become Islamic subjects, are obliged to pay. The intended meaning is not the Jizyah
that the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) pay based upon a contract of Al-Muwaada’ah (treaty) i.e. a peace
treaty with them that dictates the cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) against them whilst they remain
independent within their lands and not subservient to the Islamic rule. This is inline with what Ibn Hajra
established when he said: “That the Jizyah applies to the Ahl udh-Dhimman and the Muwaada’ah (treaty)
applies to the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)” (5).

Also from among the Shar’iyah evidences in relation to the acceptance of the Ahl ul-Harb to pay the
Jizyah representing a Sabab (cause) from among the Asbaab (causes) of the cessation of fighting and the
end of the state of war with them, is what came stated in the Hadeeth of Buraidah recorded in Saheeh
Muslim. It concerned the instructions of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the Ameer (commander) of every army or
Sariyyah (military expeditionary unit), which he dispatched towards the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war),
including some of the Islamic manners which must be observed when fighting them, in addition to the
nature of the demands presented to them before engaging in or waging war against them, and what makes
it obligatory to stop fighting them if they respond to those demands.

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/110, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/577, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”:
6/264, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3159 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/258, (5) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/259].

The following came stated within this Hadeeth: “If they refuse (i.e. to enter into Islaam) then ask them for
the Jizyah (1). If they respond positively to you, then accept that from them and refrain from them (i.e.
from fighting)” (2).

This Hadeeth states the obligation of refraining from fighting the people of war if they respond positively
to abiding by the giving of the Jizyah, which means entering into the Dhimmah and their acceptance of
the rule of Islaam, as was explained in relation to the Aayah of the Jizyah (i.e. At-Taubah: 29).
Based upon these Adillah from the previous Shar’iyah texts, the texts of the Fuqahaa’ came affirming the
obligation of ending the state of war with the disbelievers if they respond positively to the giving of the
Jizyah.

- The author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab” said: “It is not valid for the Dhimmah to be contracted except by the
Imaam or the one whom the Imaam has delegated. That is because it is from the major interest and its
responsibility belongs to the Imaam. Whoever requests the contraction of the Dhimmah, in the case
where he is from those whom it is permissible from the disbelievers to affirm with the giving of the
Jizyah, then it is obligatory to contract it with him” (3).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy exempted from this obligation some cases in which it is feared that harm will
befall the Muslims as a result of the contraction of the Jizyah or the Dhimmah. He said: “Apart from the
spy who we fear” (4).

- Ibn Qudaamah said: “If they give the Jizyah, it must be accepted, and it is Haram to fight them” (5).

It is important to note here, to that the acceptance of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) of the choice or
option of Al-Jizyah or the contraction of the Dhimmah, could occur before the Islamic State sends its
forces out to fight them. i.e. this acceptance could take place as a result of the mere offer of the three
options before them and then they incline to the option or choice of the Jizyah from the beginning …

[(1) It was stated in the Sharh of Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/313: “And they (i.e. Fuqahaa’) differed in respect to the amount of
the Jizyah, Ash-Shaafi’iy said: The least amount is one Deenaar upon the rich (Ghaniy) and a Deenaar upon the Faqeer as well,
to be paid annually. And its largest amount is that which has been agreed upon mutually (i.e. by the disbelievers and the Islamic
state). Maalik said: It is four Deenaar upon the people of gold and forty Dirham upon the people of silver. Abu Haneefah, may
Allah be pleased with him, and others from the scholars of Kufa, in addition to Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
The Ghaniy (rich or wealthy) must pay forty-eight Dirham, the middle income twenty-four Dirham and the Faqeer (poor)
twelve Dirham”. And in “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” by Ibn ul-Himaam: 6/45 he said: “And Ath-Thawriy said in a relation from Ahmad:
It is not given a (specific or fixed) amount. Rather, it is delegated to the opinion of the Imaam …”. Refer also to “Al-Mughniy”,
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/575, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, 3/1357, (3) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/253, (4) “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”, Ash-Sharbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/244. And Ash-Sharbeeniy generalises in his Sharh of Al-Minhaaj saying: “Unless it is
requested to be contracted by a person whose plottimng or scheming if feared like if the one requesting was a spy who we
feared, in which case we do not accept it, due to the harm that is feared could happen”, same reference, (5) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/577].

Their acceptance to pay the Jizyah could also occur after war has begun with them and then before their
defeat is completed and victory is settled for the Muslims, they take the initiative to announce their
acceptance of the Jizyah and the contract of the Dhimmah. It is also permissible for their acceptance of
the giving of the Jizyah to occur after the imposition of a siege over them for a long or short period.
Then, they see the wisdom, in such a circumstance, to accept the rule of the Jizyah and enter into the
Dhimmah, for the sake of breaking the siege imposed over them and their lands.

I say: In all of these cases or circumstances, the people of war’s announcement to accept entering into the
Dhimmah of the Muslims represents a Sabab (cause) from among the Asbaab (causes) of halting the
Qitaal, in Islaam.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of this Mas’alah (issue) and now move on to the discussion of
the following issue.

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): Who from the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) is the Jizyah
accepted in addition to their entry into the Dhimmah (protection and subject status) of the
Muslims?
The Fuqahaa’ hold a number of various opinions in respect to whom it is permitted to convene the
contract of the Dhimmah for from the Kuffaar (disbelievers). We will summarise these opinions in the
following:

1 - The Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf:

In “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’” it was stated: “The taking of the Jizyah and the contracting of the legally
legitimate Dhimmah is a right of all of the disbelievers apart from the Arab Mushrik apostates, as the
Jizyah is not accepted from them” (1).

2 - The Madh’hab of Maalik, Al-Awzaa’iy and the Fuqahaa’ of Ash-Shaam:

Al-Qurturbiy said: “Al-Awzaa’iy said: The Jizyah is taken from every worshiper of a Wathan (idol), fire, or
atheist and denier, and that is the Madh’hab of Maalik also. He viewed that the Jizyah be taken from all
categories of Shirk and disbelief, whether Arab or non-Arab, Taghlibiy or Qurashiy, whoever it may be,
apart from the Murtadd (apostate)” (2).

[(1) “Tuhfat ul-Fuqahaa’”, As-Samarqandiy: 3/526. Refer aslo to “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/110-111, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 6/49 and
the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/414, (2) “Al-Jaami’u Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/110. Refer also to “Qawaaneen
Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p175, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer with the Haashiyah (commentary) of Ad-Dasouqiy:
2/201 and “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/213-214].

3 - The Madh’hab of the Shaafi’iyah:

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy defined the one whom it is permissible to contract the Dhimmah to and accept
the Jizyah from. He said: “Ash-Shaafi’iy said: It is not accepted except from the Ahl ul-Kitaab and the
Majoos, whether Arab or non-Arab” (1).

4 - The Madh’hab of the Hanaabilah:

The following came stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “Outside of the Jews, Christians and Majoos, the Jizyah is
not accepted from them and they are not settled by it. Nothing but Islaam is accepted from them and if
they do not embrace Islaam they are killed. This is the Zhaahir (apparent view) within the Madh’hab of
Ahmad. And it was related from him (Hasan Bin Thawaab): It is accepted from all of the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) apart from the Arab idol worshippers” (2).

This is in general what has come within the Fiqh of the Madhaahib in relation to the issue of whom it is
permissible to contract the Dhimmah to and take the Jizyah from, from the disbelievers of the Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war) and whom this is not permissible?

To summarise what has been presented and explain how we can connect those Fiqhiy opinions to the
reality of the non-Islamic groups in the current time, in consideration of the differences and variety in
their categories and beliefs, we say:

- There is an opinion of the Ahnaaf and an opinion attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad stating that all
of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) are permitted to have the Dhimmah contracted to them with the exception
of the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists). What is meant by them is all those who belong to the Arab category
and do not follow the Jewish, Christian or Majoos religions or beliefs. That is due to the Shar’iyah texts
that have come specifying the permissibility of contracting the Dhimmah to these categories.

Based upon this view or opinion, then in our current age, it is permissible for the Islamic State to contract
the Dhimmah with non-Muslims from all of the non-Arab peoples, whatever their religion and beliefs,
and even with the atheists and communists. As for the non-Muslim Arabs, then if they are from the Jews
or Christians or the Majoos, the Dhimmah is permitted to be contracted with them … If, however, they
were other than that, in the case where they embraced the belief of communism or atheism for example or
any thoughts contrary to the Islamic Aqaa’id (beliefs) or pretended or claimed to be Muslims (whilst not
being so), then it is not permissible to contract the Dhimmah with them. Consequently, the war against
them remains legally legitimate. This is regarding the first opinion.

[(1) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 7/313. Refer to: “Al-Iqnaa’”, Al-Maawardiy: p189, “Al-Minhaaj Wa Sharhuhu
Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/244, “Al-Iqnaa’ Fee Hall Alfaazh Abi Shujaa’”: 2/194, “Haashiyah Al-Bajairmiy ‘Alaa l-Iqnaa’”: 4/249-
250, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/259, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/573 and also refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdasiy: 584-585].

- The second opinion states: It is permitted to contract the Dhimmah with all of the Kuffaar
(disbelievers) whatever their religions and beliefs (Aqaaa’id), like the Jews, Christians and even those who
believe in communism or are atheist etc. That is regardless of their categories (of origin), whether they
were Arab or belonged to other non-Arab peoples and origins. This is what came within the Maalikiy
Madh’hab and the opinion of Al-Awzaa’iy, amongst others. Therefore, in our current time, it is
permissible for the State, which adopts Islaam as its basis, to contract the Dhimmah with non-Muslims of
the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) whatever their religious affiliation is; even with those who believe in
communism or are atheists, and if they belong to an Arab origin.

- The third opinion in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) is the view of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab and
the Zhaahir (apparent or evident) opinion of Ahmad. It is summarised as follows:

That there is no room within the Islamic State for non-Muslim subjects to belong to it apart from those of
the Samawiyah (revealed) religions like the Judaism and Christianity and those resembling the Samawiy
religions like Al-Majoosiyah, and hence it is permissible to contract the Dhimmah with them. That is
whilst it is impermissible to contract the Dhimmah with other than them from those of other religious
affiliations and beliefs, like paganism, idolatry and communism or atheism, whether they were Arab or
non-Arab. Consequently, the war against them remains legally legitimate with those.

It is required here to present the evidences from the Shar’iyah texts which the previous opinions were
based upon before presenting the opinion that we view to be preponderant and strongest in accordance to
the indications of those texts.

Firstly: The Adillah (evidences) of the previous opinions:

1 - The opinion that concerning the non-Muslims, if they are Arab and not from the Jews, Christians and
Majoos, that nothing apart from Islaam is accepted from them or death, in terms of the Shar’iyah texts, is
based upon His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫سَ َشدِيدٍَ ُت َقا ِتلُو َن ُه ْمَأَ ْوَيُسْ لِم‬ ْ ُ

َ‫ُون‬ ٍ ‫َس ُت ْد َع ْو َنَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَأولِيَ َبأ‬
You will be called to [face] a people of great military might; you fight them, or they submit (as Muslims) (Al-Fat’h: 16).

That is according to the consideration that the “Uoli l-Ba’sin Shadeedin” (Those of great or significant
military strength) refers to the Arab Mushrikeen and Murtaddeen (apostates) and not to other than them.
The Aayah states that they have two options before them alone; Islaam or to be fought against (1).
Consequently, it is not permitted to conclude the contract of the Dhimmah with them.

Concerning this Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy said: “As for the Arab polytheists
(Mushrikeen), then neither a Sulh (treaty) or Dhimmah is accepted from them. Rather, they are invited to
Islaam. If they embrace Islaam they are left be otherwise they are fought. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:
 َ ‫سَ َشدِيدٍَ ُت َقا ِتلُو َن ُه ْمَأَ ْوَيُسْ لِم‬ ْ ُ
َ‫ُون‬ ٍ ‫َس ُت ْد َع ْو َنَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَأولِيَ َبأ‬
You will be called to [face] a people of great military might; you fight them, or they submit (as Muslims) (Al-Fat’h: 16).

The Aayah is in relation to those whom the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to fight and they were the Arab
idol worshippers. It therefore indicates that they are fought if they do not embrace Islaam” (2).

The author of “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” also quoted a Hadeeth from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬related by Ibn ‘Abbaas, in
which he said:

‫َاإلسْ َال ُمَأَ ِوَال َّسيْف‬

ِ ‫َالَ ُي ْق َبلَُمِنَ ُم ْش ِركِيَال َع َربَِإِ َّال‬
Nothing is accepted from the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists) except for Islaam or the sword (3).

Concerning those who have apostatised from Islaam, after having entered the Deen, regardless of the
origin they belong to (i.e. Arab or non-Arab), nothing is accepted from them also, according to all of the
Fuqahaa’, apart from their return to Islaam. Otherwise, war with them remains legally legitimate until they
repent or come to an end. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said in respect to the Murtadd (apostate):

ُ‫َمنْ َ َب َّد َلَ َد ِي َنهَُ َفا ْق ُتلُوه‬

Whoever changes their Deen, then kill him (4).

- The opinion stating permissibility of concluding the contract of Ah-Dhimmah with the Ahl ul-Kitaab
(people of the book) is based upon the Aayah of Al-Jizyah (At-Taubah: 29) and that includes the Arabs.
Also, the opinion stating the permissibility of concluding the contract if the Dhimmah with the Majoos is
based upon what came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy as related by ‘Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf: “That the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬took it (i.e. the Jizyah) from the Majoos of Hajar (5)” (6). In addition, the Daleel
(evidence) for the acceptance of the Jizyah and Dhimmah from the non-Arab Majoos was mentioned
earlier, within the Hadeeth of Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah when he met the governor of Kisraa.

[(1) Refer to “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 4/1693, Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 26/105, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ibn ul-Himaam:
6/49, (2) Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islamiyah, the third volume: p204, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy, (3) “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”, Ibn ul-Himaam: 6/49. I have not discovered the text of this Hadeeth in other than this book, (4) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 6922, from Ibn ‘Abbaas (Marfoo’an) and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 12/267, (5) “Al-Hajar: City within the base of Bahrain.
And it is said: An area of Bahrain which is covered by rocky terrain and this is correct”, “Maraasid Al-Ittilaa’”: 3/1452, (6)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3157 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/257].

Concerning the matter of Al-Jizyah, the following was mentioned in “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar ‘Alaa Matn
Tanweer il-Absaar”:

“It is imposed or placed upon the Kitaabiy (i.e. from Ahl ul-Kitaab), the Majoosiy, and even if he was
Arab, due to him ‫ ﷺ‬placing it upon the Majoos of Hajar” (1).

Therefore, in respect to those outside of those whom a specific Daleel (evidence) has come stating that
the Jizyah is accepted from them, the war against them remains legally legitimate due to the general
evidence:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
… Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them … (At-Taubah: 5).

- The opinion stating the permissibility of concluding the contract of the Dhimmah with all of the
disbelievers of all beliefs and religious affiliations, Arab and non-Arab, is based upon the generality of the
aforementioned Hadeeth related by Buraidah in Saheeh Muslim: “If you have met your enemy from the
Mushrikeen, then call them to three options … (until he said) … Then if they refuse (or reject) (i.e. to
enter into Islaam), then ask them for the Jizyah. Then if they respond positively to you, then accept that
from them and refrain from (fighting) them …” (1).

This Hadeeth indicates that the enemy of the Mushrikeen are offered the option of Al-Jizyah and that the
Dhimmah is contracted for them, built upon that, if they accept it and reject entering into Islaam.

The worded expression used in the Hadeeth of “Mushrikeen” (polytheists) encompasses, in its generality,
all of the categories of the Arabs and non-Arabs, just as it encompasses all religions and beliefs, other than
Islaam … This opinion is what has been viewed to be the strongest by the Maalikiy Madh’hab and it is the
view of Al-Awzaa’iy and the Fuqahaa’ of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), amongst others.

- Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said when explaining the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “This is what Maalik used for his
deduction as evidence and Al-Awzaa’iy, in respect to their agreement in relation to taking the Jizyah from
every or any Kaafir (disbeliever); Arab and non-Arab, Kitaabiy (i.e. Christian or Jew), Majoosiy or other
than them…” (2).

- As-San’aaniy said: “The Hadeeth contains a Daleel (evidence) indicating that the Jizyah is taken from
every disbeliever; Kitaabiy or non-Kitaabiy, Arab or non-Arab. That is due to his statement “Aduwwak”
(your enemy) which is ‘Aamm (general) … He then says … That which is apparent is the generality of
taking the Jizyah from every Kaafir (disbeliever) due to the generality of the Hadeeth of Buraidah. As for
the Aayaat (he means the Aayah of Al-Jizyah which commands fighting the Ahl ul-Kitaab [people of the
book] until they give the Jizyah willingly whilst they submit), then it established the taking of the Jizyah
from the Ahl ul-Kitaab but did not address taking it from other than them, just as it did not indicate that it
is not taken from them. That is whilst it is the Hadeeth which explains that it be taken from other than
them (i.e. other than the Ahl ul-Kitaab) and the wording “Aduwwak” (your enemy) is applicable to the
Ahl ul-Kitaab, in respect to the scope that the term reaches …

[(1) Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/414, (2) Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/313].

… Until he said … As for not taking it from the Arabs, then that is because it was legislated except after
“Al-Fat’h” (Conquest of Makkah), after the Arabs had entered into Islaam and no one was left to fight
from them. As such, after the Fat’h (conquest of Makkah) there no longer remained anyone to take as
booty or anyone to impose the Jizyah upon. Rather, concerning anyone of them who left Islaam after that,
then there is no choice apart from the sword or Islaam, as that is the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to the
Ahl ur-Riddah (people of apostacy) … He then says … And this Hukm continued after his time ‫ﷺ‬.
The Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them opened and conquered the lands of the Persians and
Romans and their subjects included Arabs and particularly the lands of Ash-Shaam (Syria) and Iraq, whilst
they did not distinguish between the Arab or non-Arab. Rather, they applied the ruling of taking captives
as booty and the Jizyah generally upon all whom they gained control over. Consequently, it is understood
that the Hadeeth of Buraidah was revealed after the revelation of the obligation of the Jizyah and that it
was obligated after Al-Fat’h (the conquest of Makkah) as it was obliged in the eighth year as part of the
revelation of Soorah Baraa’ah (i.e. At-Taubah)” (1).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy said in “An-Nail ul-Awtaar”, concerning the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “His statement:
Then ask them to give the Jizyah, is evident in respect to not distinguishing between the non-Arab Kaafir
(disbeliever), the Arab and the non-Kitaabiy (i.e. those who were not from the Ahl ul-Kitaab; Jews and
Christians) …” (2).

- Ash-Shawkaaniy also stated the following in his book “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: “The Zhaahir (apparent or
evident meaning) of the evidences dictates that the Jizyah be taken from any Kaafir whom it is obligatory
to stop fighting … like it has come or been indicated to within the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “Whenever the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬would appoint an Ameer (commander) over an army or a Sariyyah
(small military expeditionary group) … he then went on to mention … Then if they refuse, then ask
them for the Jizyah. Then if they respond positively to you, accept that from them and refrain
from (fighting) them”. The statement: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬used to …” indicates that this
used to be his affair in respect to every army that he dispatched, and this does not negate the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa in respect to the Ahl ul-Kitaab:

َ‫ون‬
َ ‫صاغِ ُر‬
َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫طواَ ْال ِج ْز َي َة‬
… Until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are humbled (At-Taubah: 29).

That is because the Ahl ul-Kitaab are a category from amongst the categories of the disbelievers whom it
is obligatory to refrain from fighting, if they give the Jizyah. That also does not negate what has come in
respect to the command to fight the Mushrikeen in the Aayah of As-Saif (the sword) (3) and other Aayaat.
That is because fighting them is obligatory unless they give the Jizyah, in which case it is obligatory to
refrain from fighting them just as it is obligatory to refrain from them if they embrace Islaam …

[(1) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/47, (2) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 7/245, (3) i.e. It refers to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa
(TMQ): “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them …” (At-Taubah: 5). In the Tafseer of Al-
Aalousiy: 10/50 he stated: “This is upon what Al-Jalaal As-Suyootiy said in respect to this Aayah … And Al-Allaamah Ibn
Hajar said: The Aayah of the sword is: “And fight the Mushrikeen altogether …” (TMQ: At-Taubah: 36. And it is said that it
refers to both”. And in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer: 2/322. He said: “It refers to the Aayah of Al-Jizyah” (At-Taubah:29)].

… This generality is also not negated by what came from him ‫ ﷺ‬in relation to the command to expel
the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (1). That is because his intended aim was that it is not
permitted to make peace with them by the Jizyah within the Arabian Peninsula which does not negate the
permissibility of making peace with them through the imposition of Jizyah upon them, if they were in
other than the Arabian Peninsula. Consequently, whoever claims that it is not permissible to impose the
Jizyah upon a particular group or categories from the disbelievers, but rather they are given the option
between accepting Islaam or facing the sword, then he must have a Daleel (evidence) and there is no
Daleel by which the proof is established except for what has come in relation to the Murtadd (apostate)
…” (2).

Concerning this, Ibn ul-Qayyim viewed as strongest that it is permissible to take the Jizyah and contract
the Dhimmah to all of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) from every category, type or Deen (religion). That is built
upon the permissibility of taking it from the Majoos, who are not from the Ahl ul-Kitaab, and
consequently all of the disbelievers (3). Regarding this he said:

“And a group said: In respect to all of the nations, if they give the Jizyah, it is accepted from them. The
people of the two books due to what has been stated in the Qur’aan and the Majoos due to what has
come stated in the Sunnah. Other than them are joined to them (i.e. the Majoos), because the Majoos are
a people of Shirk and possess no book. Consequently, taking it from them represents a Daleel (evidence)
for taking it from all of the Mushrikeen (polytheists). He ‫ ﷺ‬only did not take it from the Arab idolaters
because they had all embraced Islaam prior to the revelation of the Aayah of Al-Jizyah as it was revealed
after Tabook. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had finished fighting the Arabs and all of them had sought to
bind themselves to him by Islaam. For that reason, he did not take it from the Jews whom he waged war
against because it had not been revealed yet. Then when it was revealed, he took it (i.e. The Jizyah) from
the Christian Arabs and from the Majoos. Had there been remaining at that time any from the idol
worshippers to give the it (i.e. the Jizyah) he would have accepted it from them, just as he accepted it from
those who worshipped the crucifixes and fires! …
[(1) It was recorded in Saheeh Muslim: “I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the
Arabian Peninsula until I will not leave except a Muslim”: 1767. And it was recorded in the two
Saheehs: “Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula”. In Al-Bukhaariy: 3053, “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 6/170 and in Saheeh Muslim: 1637, 3/1258. Refer also to “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 9/345-346. What is
intended here by “Jazeerat ul-‘Arab” (The Arabian Peninsula) is not its geographical borders which are
known today. Rather what is intended in the Hadeeth is: The outer borders of Al-Hijaaz, or Makkah and
Al-Madinah … amongst other opinions. Refer to: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 1/268 and “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 6/171, (2) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/570-571, (3) This is the Daleel of the
Madh’hab of Maalik in respect to taking the Jizyah from all of the disbelievers apart from the Murtaddeen
(apostates). In the “Mudawwanah” of Al-Imaam Maalik, 3/46, it was stated: “Maalik said concerning the
Majoos of the Barbar (Berbers): Concerning the Jizyah, it was taken from them by ‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Affaan.
Maalik said, concerning the Majoos, what has reached you from Abdur Rahman Bin Auf, that he said: The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Follow the Sunnah (way or manner) with them, the same Sunnah
(way) as the Ahl ul-Kitaab”. Therefore, all of the nations are of the same status as the Majoos in my
view”.

… And there is no difference or impact in respect to the Kufr (disbelief) of some groups or categories
being greater than that of others (1). In addition, the Kufr (disbelief) of idol worshippers is not greater
than the Kufr of the Majoos, and what is the difference between the idol worshipers and the fire
worshippers?! Indeed, the Kufr of the Majoos is the deepest or most severe. The idol worshippers used to
accept the Tawheed (oneness) of Ar-Ruboobiyah (2) and that there was no Khaaliq (creator) other than
Allah. They only worshiped their deities to draw close to Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa, whilst they did
not accept that there were two creators of the world: One of them being: The creator of good, and the
other: The creator of bad or evil, like the Majoos said (3). They also did not seek to make Halaal marriage
with mothers, daughters and aunties, and they were upon the remnants of the Deen of Ibraheem, Alaihi s-
Salaam. As for the Majoos, then they were in origin not upon a book and they did not follow the religion
of any of the Anbiyaa’ (Prophets), neither in respect to their Aqaa’id (beliefs) or their Sharaa’i (pl. of
Sharee’ah). Concerning the report stating that they had a book but it was removed and that their Sharaa’i
(legislations) were removed when their King fell upon his daughter, is not Saheeh (authentic) at all (4).
Even if it was authenticated, they would not be considered to be Ahl ul-Kitaab by that as their book was
removed and their Sharee’ah was invalidated, and as such they did not remain upon anything from it. That
is whilst it is known that the Arabs had been upon the Deen of Ibraheem, Alaihis Salaam, and he had
Suhuf (scriptures) and a Sharee’ah. The idol worshipper’s changing of the Deen of Ibraheem, Alaihi s-
Salaam, and his Sharee’ah was not greater than the change of the Majoos to their Prophet and their book,
if that was assumed to be authentic (in the first place). It is not known of them that they held onto
anything from the Sharaa’i of the Prophets, ‘Alaihim is-Salaam, in contrast to the Arabs! How then can the
Majoos, whose Deen is the most reprehensible of religions, be placed as being in a better condition than
that of the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists)?” Ibn ul-Qayyim then declares the opinion that he believes to
be strongest in that the Jizyah is taken from all of the disbelievers and even from the Arabs who do not
follow the religion of Judaism, Christianity or Majoosiyah. He states: “This opinion is the most correct in
respect to the Daleel (evidence) as you can see” (5). This is what ibn ul-Qayyim said.

[(1) The speech indicates to a rebuttal of the Ahnaaf and the Hanaabilah concerning this thought: Refer to “Badaa’i As-
Sanaa’i”: 7/110/111, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 6/49 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/573, (2) In the book “Ad-Deen Al-
Khaalis” by As-Sayyid Muhammad Sadeeq Hasan: 1/182-183, he said: “The Kuffaar (disbelievers) whom the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬fought against used to affirm the Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyah and that none creates, provides sustenance and manages
or disposes of the matter except for Him … However, the other matter, which made them disbelievers, is that they did not
bear witness to the Tawheed Al-Uloohiyah and that is that none other than Him alone are supplicated to, worshipped, feared,
hope placed in, relied upon for help and assistance”. Refer to “Ar-Rawdah An-Nidiyah Sharh Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasatiyah”: p9-
10, (3) Refer to: “Al-Malal, Wa n-Nahl”, Ash-Shahrastaaniy: 1/233 and onwards. This is in respect to the speech about the
Majoosiyah and the divisions or groupings that branched from it, (4) The report is in “Al-Umm” of Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/173-174,
in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaaq: 10029, 6/70-71, Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/188-189, “Ad-Diraayah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-
Hidaayah”: 2/134 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/261, (5) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 5/91-92].
Secondly: The opinion that we view or weigh to be preponderant or strongest:

I say: From all that has preceded we cannot view an opinion to be stronger or more preponderant than
the opinion that states the permissibility of the Islamic State contracting the contract of the Dhimmah
with all of the disbelievers from all categories and types or origin, religions and beliefs (1) with the
exception of those residing in the Arabian Peninsula (according to the borders adopted by the state) who
are commanded to leave and not reside within it except for a temporary period of time or just passing by
or through. It is permitted to contract the Dhimmah with them on the basis that the locations of their
permanent residence are outside of the specific borders. In the case where those inside of the Arabian
Peninsula refrain from departing to outside of the Peninsula reliant upon their force or military strength,
then fighting them would be legally legitimate until they enter Islaam or leave the Peninsula.

Similarly, in respect to any of them whom it has been confirmed that they were Muslims or had entered
Islaam, and then apostatised, then fighting them is obligatory to continue until they return to Islaam or
their affair is ended.

In the above way all of the texts that have come related to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) have been brought
together.

It is therefore permitted for the State in Islaam to contract the Dhimmah with all of the groupings, types
and categories, and even with those who belong to Arab origins and do not follow a Samawiy religion (i.e.
attached in origin to a revealed book), like communists and atheists, with the exception of apostates, in
accordance to what has previously been explained.

In this way, the contraction of the Dhimmah and the giving of the Jizyah from the Ahl ul-Harb represents
a general Sabab (cause) from among the Asbaab (causes) of ceasing the Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

We now come to the third Mas’alah (issue).

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Shuroot (conditions) of the obligation (Wujoob) of Al-Jizyah.

The discussion about the conditions of the obligation of Al-Jizyah, according to its financial meaning,
upon the individuals whom the Dhimmah has been contracted with, does not represent one of the
Masaa’il (issues) that has a strong connection to the subject that this chapter has been brought to discuss.
That is as the subject area is related to the giving of the Jizyah and submission to the Islamic rulings, being
representative of a cause from among the causes for stopping the Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

[(1) Our Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy has also found this opinion to be the strongest, in respect to permitting the
contraction of the Dhimmah with all of the disbelievers, without regard to the origin or religion. Refer to: “Aathaar ul-Harb”:
p701-701].

For that reason, we will pass through this Mas’alah (issue) with a quick presentation of these Shuroot
(conditions) according to what has been mentioned in some of the Fiqhiy sources without pausing to list
the evidences, further discussion or delving into the Fiqhiy opinions related to this issue … That is so that
we can be loyal to the plan of this doctorate from one angle, and from another angle, so that we do not
depart from our subject area by examining that which we see no necessity in going into detail about.

- Concerning the conditions of the obligation of the Jizyah upon those whom the contract of the
Dhimmah has been concluded with, the following was stated in “Badaa’ As-Sanaa’i”: “As for the Sharaa’it
(conditions) of the obligation, then they include: Al-Aql (sound mind), Al-Buloogh (past the age of
puberty), being male and being healthy … and so it is not obligatory upon the one who has been sick
during the entirety of the year … and they (the conditions) include that the person is free from chronic
illness (Zamaanah), blindness and is not elderly in age … It is also not obliged upon the Faqeer (poor)
who does not work … As for the people of the places of worship or monasteries, then the Jizyah is
obligatory upon them if they were capable of work, because they are considered to be from the Ahl ul-
Qitaal (the people of combat). Not working whilst having the capability to work does not prevent the
obligation … Also, from the conditions is Hurriyah (freedom) and so it is not obligatory upon the ‘Abd
(slave), because the slave is not from those who possess property …” (1).

Concerning these conditions that have been presented above, then there are a number of various points
of view amongst the Fiqhiy Madhaahib, which can be found in the Fiqhiy references, and which we do
not see the necessity to delve into, as mentioned previously.

We now come to the final Mas’alah (issue) of this chapter.

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): The substitute of the Jizyah.

We have brought this Mas’alah (issue) for the purpose of presenting the point of view of Ash-Sheikh
Muhammad Abu Zahrah, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, concerning generalising the application of Az-
Zakaah upon non-Muslims just as it is applied upon Muslims. That is as a substitute for the Jizyah that is
obliged upon them.

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/111. Refer also to: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 6/50 onwards which represents the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf.
Refer, for the Fiqh of the Maalikiyah to: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p175, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer with the
Haashiyah of Ad-Dasouqiy”: 2/201 and “Al-Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/214. Within the Shaafi’iy Fiqh: “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-
Sheeraaziy: 2/252 and “Al-Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/245. Within the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/581 onwards and “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/595 onwards].

- Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah, in the context of the draft Zakaah law presented to the Egyptian parliament in
the year 1367 Hijriy, 1947, he said:

“In origin the obligation of Az-Zakaah is not obligatory except upon the Muslim and it is not obligatory
upon the non-Muslim, apart from what has been found amongst the opinions of some of the Shee’ah.
However, the Islamic states must meet the needs of needy from amongst the non-Muslims. That is
because the societal Islamic responsibility is general and is not specific to a particular group to the
exclusion of another. That is because it represents a Rahmah (mercy) of Allah and the mercy is applicably
upon all generally … ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, used to spend upon non-Muslims from the
revenues of the Jizyah.

And now, the Jizyah is not imposed, and so nothing remains except to impose the Zakaah upon them in
observation of the law of equality. And what is taken from them is returned to them. Above that, the
Zakaah is a Sharee’ah ‘Aammah (general legislative law) within all of the Samaawiy religions (i.e. also
within Judaism and Christianity). And our non-Muslim neighbours are the people of a Samaawiy religion”
(1).

I say: Regardless of the rationalities mentioned by Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah to support his suggestion
concerning the general application of the obligation of Zakaah upon the non-Muslims of the Islamic
citizenry, the question that concerns us here is: Is it permissible for the Islamic State, if it viewed the
existence of a Maslahah (interest), to conclude the contract of the Dhimmah with a particular people from
amongst the non-Islamic peoples, upon the basis of imposing the Zakaah upon them, in accordance to
acting upon the basis of equality with the Muslims, considering that to take the place of the obligatory
Jizyah, and to then change its name from Jizyah to Zakaah or Sadaqah?
The answer to this question is that the Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ have made that permissible for
the Imaam, when the Maslahah calls to that, albeit with differences in respect to the details of this
Mas’alah, which doesn’t fall within our purpose here to delve into.

- In “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, of the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf, concerning the discussion about the Jizyah imposed
upon the Ahl udh-Dhimmah via a treaty (Sulh) and agreement, the following was stated: “The Jizyah is set
by mutual agreement and a treaty (Sukh) upon it. It is evaluated according o what the agreement stipulates
and consequently it is not increased upon so as to be on guard against treachery. Its origin (i.e. this type of
Jizyah) is the Sulh (treaty) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with the people of Najraan, who were a
Christian people close to Yemen, upon the giving of two thousand Hullah (garments) annually, according
to what was recorded by Abu Dawud and narrated by Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both,
who said: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with the people of Najraan upon two
thousand Hullah (garments). Half to be given in (the month of) Safar and the other half in
Rajab” (2).

[(1) “’Aqd Adh-Dhimmah fi t-Tashree’ Al-Islaamiy”, Muhammad Abdul Haadiy Al-Matradiy: p230, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud:
3041, 3/227 and refer to: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 2/636-637].

And ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, made a Sulh (treaty) with the Christians of Taghlib (1) upon
the basis that every year double what is taken from the Muslim from the obligatory wealth, is taken from
them, and so that became binding …” (2).

I say: Upon this basis, when the agreement is made upon the basis that the same amount is taken from
those whom the contract of the Dhimmah is being concluded with, as is taken from the Muslims in terms
of the Zakaah, and no more or less than that, this is permitted according to the ruling (Hukm) that the
Jizyah which is from the kind which is established by way of mutual agreement and treaty, is only
observed in accordance to what has been agreed upon.

- Ibn Rushd discussed this type of Jizyah stating: “It is that which is being volunteered in order to make
the Muslims refrain from (fighting) them. This is not defined (or specified), not in respect to the Waajib
(obligation), nor the one upon whom it is obliged and not when it is obligatory upon him. All of that (i.e.
the details of these matters) is referred back to the agreement that occurred between the Muslims and the
people of the treaty …” (3).

I say: Concerning this Jizyah made via a Sulh (treaty or agreement), based upon this speech as well, if the
agreement in respect to it was concluded upon that it be applied upon the basis of the Ahkaam of the
Shar’iyah Zakaah, which is applied upon the Muslims, then this is legally legitimate.

- in “Al-Muhadh’dhab” from the Shaafi’iy Fiqh, the following was mentioned: “If a people refrain from
paying the Jizyah with the name of Jizyah and they said: We will give it under the name of Sadaqah (i.e.
Az-Zakaah) and the Imaam viewed for it to be taken (i.e. the Jizyah) under the name of Sadaqah, then that
is permissible. That is because the Arab Christians said to ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: “We will
not give that which the non-Arabs give, but rather take from us under the name of Sadaqah just as it is
taken from the Arabs!” ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, refused and said: “I will not approve of
anything other than Jizyah for you” …

[(1) In the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: “Taghlib Bin Waa’il Bin Rabee’ah … A people who became Christian in the time of
Jaahiliyah and they lived close to the Romans. They refused to give the Jizyah and so ‘Umar made a treaty with them upon the
giving of double our Zakaah. Even if this was Jizyah, in terms of meaning, he nevertheless did not observe its conditions …
Rather, the conditions of the Zakaah and its Asbaab (causes) …”. Concerning this, the Hanaabilah and the Ahnaaf agreed upon
that and so the Zakaah is taken from the female Dhimmiy for example based upon what has preceded … refer to: “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/591-592. As for the Shaafi’iyah, they said: If the Jizyah is taken under the name if Az-Zakaah
and according to the calculations of Az-Zakaah, the conditions of the Jizyah are nevertheless observed in respect to it and so it
is not taken from the wealth of the woman and nor the boy, for example. Refer to: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/252, (2) “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 6/44 and refer to Bani Taghlib within “Kitaab ul-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: p129-130 and “Kitaab ul-Amwaal”, Abu
Ubaid: p20, (3) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd “Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth ul-Bidaayah”: 6/101. Refer also to:
“Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/643].

… They replied: “Take from us double what you take from the Muslims”. And he refused that from them.
Then they wanted to join to the Daar ul-Harb (land of war i.e. outside the Islamic territories). And so,
Zur’ah Bin An-Nu’maan or An-Nu’maan Bin Zur’ah said to ‘Umar: “Bani Taghlib are Arabs and they
possess strength or force (Quwwah) and so take from them that which they will give and do not push
them to join with your enemy”. And so, he made a treaty with them upon the basis that they pay double
the amount of the Sadaqah …” (1).

The following was stated in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” in respect to this: “And he took it as a Jizyah under the
naming of Sadaqah and no one from the Sahaabah differed or disagreed with him (i.e. ‘Umar), thus
representing an Ijmaa’ (consensus). And the Dhimmah was contracted for them permanently … The most
correct view is that there is no difference, in respect to that, between the Arabs and the non-Arabs … He
then said: And the doubling (i.e. of the amount of the Zakaah) is not designated or specified (i.e. it doesn’t
have to be agreed upon that amount) …” (2).

- And from the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah, the following was stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah:
“Banu Taghlib Bin Waa’il are from the Arabs, from Rabee’ah Bin Nizaar. They moved to Christianity
during the Jaahiliyah (period prior to Islaam). ‘Umar invited them to give the Jizyah but they refused and
were adamant! They said: “We are Arabs! Take from us that which you take from yourselves, using the
name of Sadaqah”. ‘Umar said: “I do not take Sadaqah from a Mushrik”. And so some of them went to
join the Romans. An-Nu’maan Bin Zur’ah then said: “O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen! This people have power
and strength and they are Arabs who are adamant to not accept the giving of the Jizyah! So do not assist
your enemy by them (i.e. if they go to the Romans). And take the Jizyah from them using the name of
Sadaqah”. ‘Umar then discussed their request and he rejected it but accepted upon making it double upon
them … The opinion of ‘Umar settled and none of the Sahaabah differed or disagreed with him, and as
such it became an Ijmaa’ (consensus), and the Fuqahaa’ held the opinion following the Sahaabah. They
included: Ibn Abi Laylaa, Al-Hasan Bin Saalih, Abu Haneefah, Abu Yousuf and Ash-Shaafi’iy …” (3).
This is what came mentioned in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah.

Within that which has been presented, the State has room to enable it to observe different circumstances
and sensitivities, when carrying Islaam and calling other peoples or nations to enter it, or to enter under its
rule and hence witness the qualities of Islaam, a matter which over time will encourage and awaken the
desire and wish within them to embrace it.

[(1) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/250-251, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/251-252, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah:
10/590-591 and it was mentioned in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas: “And nothing is memorised or preserved from
Maalik in respect to Bani Taghlib”: 4/286].

In addition, it is an obvious matter that it is not from the legally legitimate or legislated Maqaasid (aims) to
bring harm upon the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, whether by word or action. Rather, the Fuqahaa’ have stated
that in respect to the Dhimmiy: “It is Haraam to backbite him like the Muslim because the Dhimmah has
been contracted for him and hence what is obligatory in respect to us is obligatory in respect to him. As
such, if it is Haraam to backbite a Muslim it is likewise Haraam to backbite him. Indeed, they said: The
Zhulm (oppression or transgression) against the Dhimmiy is even more severe or worse!” (1).

Similarly, they state that the Muslim is forbidden from saying to the Dhimmiy: “O Kaafir or O enemy of
Allah or to bring harm by any such statements and that the Muslim is deserving of a Ta’zzeer (i.e.
punishment) for doing that” (2).
The reality is that the warning concerning abuse against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, in general, falls under the
forbiddance of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in respect to oppressing or transgressing against them or disparage them in
any way at all, like what came mentioned in his statement ‫ﷺ‬:

َ ‫سَ َفأ َ َن‬

َ‫اَح ِجي ُجهَُ َي ْو َم‬ ِ ‫صهَُأَ ْوَ َكلَّ َفهَُ َف ْو َقَ َطا َق ِتهَِأَ ْوَأَ َخ َذَ ِم ْنهَُ َشيْئ‬
ٍ ‫اَب َغي ِْرَطَِيبَِ َن ْف‬ َ ‫أَالََ َمنْ َ َظلَ َمَ ُم َعاهِداَأَ ِوَا ْن َت َق‬
‫ْالقِ َيا َم َِة‬
Beware, if anyone wrongs a Mu’aahid (someone under covenant), or diminishes his right, or
burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall be his
opponent arguing against him on the Day of Judgement (3).

Based upon this, when the Islamic State sees that perhaps the non-Muslims from other peoples or
nations, would feel encouraged to enter into the Dhimmah of the Muslims if it was not upon the basis of
the word “Al-Jizyah”, which they regard to be disparaging of them or insulting of their right, in relation to
taking the required money from them upon its basis … In such a case I say: When or if the Islamic State
sees such a reality, there is no harm or sin upon it, in accordance to the Maslahah (interest), to change the
word “Al-Jizyah” for the word “Zakaah” based upon the wish of the non-Muslims themselves, and to
equalise between them and the Muslims in respect to the application of the Ahkaam of Zakaah upon
them, even if the angle in respect to the commitment to this Zakaah differs.

Consequently, the Muslim abide by it as an act of ‘Ibaadah (worship) from amongst the acts of ‘Ibaadah,
in which there is absolutely no choice.

And the non-Muslims abide by it as a tax (Dareebah) from among the taxes (Daraa’ib) that must be given.

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/386, (2) Refer to: “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/418, (3) “Sunan Abu Dawud”: 3052, 3231,
related from a number of the companions of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. Al-Albaaniy classified it as Saheeh in his book “Saheeh Sunan Abi
Dawud”: 2626, 2/590. In “An-Nihaayah” of Ibn ul-Atheer he said: “Hajeejihi means: The one who will argue against him and
over him and manifest the proof against him …”: 1/341 and the intended meaning here is: I will be your opponent on the Day
of Judgement. Also in “An-Nihaayah”: “Al-Mu’aahid is: The one who has an ‘Ahd (covenant) between you and him and it is
most often used in speech to refer to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah but it could be used to refer to other than them from the
disbelievers if a treaty is made with them to leave the war for a particular period of time (i.e. ceasefire or truce)” :3/325].

Also, the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions) in relation to changing the name of Jizyah
for Zakaah in respect to Bani Taghlib, represents the best Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy of
undertaking such a measure or course of actions (1) …

With that we come to the end of the discussion of this Mas’alah and also to the conclusion of this chapter.
We now move on to another chapter by the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.

[(1) It is worth mentioning in this regard, as well, that in the year 89 Hijriy, in the time of Al-Waleed Bin Abdul Malik, a
contract of Dhimmah was concluded with a non-Arab people who were called “Al-Jaraajimah” upon conditions. Within them,
and related to what we are discussing, the following was stated: “That they settle down wherever they wish to within Ash-
Shaam … and that they be permitted to wear the same clothing as the Muslims …!”, “Futooh ul-Buldaan”, Al-Balaadhariy:
1/324].
 Chapter Three
The Mu’aahadaat (treaties) and Al-Amaan (the security)

This represents the third Sabab (cause) from amongst the Asbaab (causes) of ceasing the Qitaal (fighting)
against the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), in Islaam. As we have pointed to previously, we have decided to
make the discussion in these chapters of this volume restricted to the most important Masaa’il (Fiqhiy
issues) and Ahkaam which we view to be essential to address, aiming to explain that which is related to
each cause from amongst the causes of the cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) … And how that represents a
way to accomplish and realise the interest of the Muslims and indeed all mankind, in respect to the work
to spread the Islamic Da’wah and establish peace.

In accordance to that this chapter will address the following Masaa’il:

1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): The definition of the Mu’aahadah (treaty), its legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) and the Hukm related to abiding by it, in addition to a mention of the reasons and
purposes that call for them to be contracted or concluded.

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Mu’aahadah (treaty) with the non-Islamic states upon the
condition of paying the Jizyah to the Muslims.

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Mu’aahadah (treaty) concluded upon the basis of the Muslims
paying money (or its equivalent) to other states in exchange for a cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting and war)
against the Muslims.

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): Other Mu’aahadaat (treaties) which are concluded according to
(particular) conditions or circumstances.

5 - The Fifth Mas’alah (issue): Al-Amaan (security): What is it? What is the Daleel for its Mashroo’iyah
(legal legitimacy)? And what is its role in respect to stopping the Qitaal (fighting or war) with the Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war)?
1 - The First Mas’alah (issue): The definition of the Mu’aahadah (treaty), its legal legitimacy
(Mashroo’iyah) and the Hukm related to abiding by it, in addition to a mention of the reasons
and purposes that call for them to be contracted or concluded.

Firstly: The definition of Al-Mu’aahadah:

Al-Mu’aahadah: It represents an interaction between two parties where the two parties mutually commit,
by way of an ‘Ahd (covenant or agreement) in accordance to which they are bound together. The “‘Ahd”
linguistically has many meanings. It was stated in “An-Nihaayah”: “The mention of the ‘Ahd has been
repeated in the Hadeeth. It has come with the meaning of “Al-Yameen” (oath), “Al-Amaan” (security),
“Adh-Dhimmah”, “Al-Hifaazh” (preservation), “Ri’aayat ul-Hurmah” (Caretaking the inviolable sanctity)
and “Al-Wasiyah” (will). The Hadeeth which have come do not depart from one of these meanings” (1).

The suitable meaning for our subject area here, is that the ‘Ahd means the “Amaan” (security) which has
been mutually contracted upon. It could be reinforced by the Aymaan (pl. of Yameen i.e. oath) and the
display of commitment to be loyal or faithful to it (2).

The following came stated in “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: “Al-‘Ahd: Al-Amaan (security), Al-Mawthiq (that
which is bound upon) and Adh-Dhimmah. And from its meaning is that it is said to the Harbiy (i.e.
person from the people of war or Daar ul-Kufr) for him to enter by way of the Amaan (security), meaning
possessing a covenant or agreement (‘Ahd) or as a Mu’aahid (someone under covenant). The Faa’il (doer)
is called Al-Mu’aahid and the one it has been done to (Maf’ool) is called Mu’aahad, because the Fi’l (act)
takes place from two (i.e. parties). And so each does with the other like what the other does with him. As
such each one falls into the meaning of the Faa’il (doer) and the Maf’ool (one being done to)” (3).

And in respect to the article (or infinitive i.e. in the dictionary) of Wathaqa (‫ )وثق‬he said: “Al-Mawthiq and
Al-Meethaaq mean: Al’Ahd” (4).

And in respect to the article (or infinitive) of Dhamama (‫ )ذمم‬he said: “And the Dhimmah is explained or
interpreted by (the meaning of) Al-‘Ahd and by Al-Amaan” (5).

The above is what has come stated in the language (i.e. in respect to the linguistic meaning).

As for the Mu’aahadah according to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention), then its definition has
been stated to be: “The Musaalahah (making a treaty) with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), to leave the
Qitaal (fighting) for a particular period of time, for a recompense or other than that” (6).

[(1) “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/325, (2) Refer to: “Tafseer Aayaat ul-Ahkaam”, As-Saayis: 3/17, (3) “Al-Misbaah ul-
Muneer” (dictionary): p165, (4) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer” (dictionary): p248, (5) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer” (dictionary): p80, (6)
“Tuhfat ut-Tullaab Bi Sharh Matn Tahreer Tanqeeh Al-Labaab”, Sheikh ul-Islaam, Zakariyaa Al-Ansaariy: p281. Also refer to:
“Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/108, “Al-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 3/24 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/517].

The “Mu’aahadah” has taken a number of names within the books of Fiqh in addition to the word
“Mu’aahadah”. It has been called: “Al-Hudnah” (1), “Al-Muhaadanah”, “Al-Muwaada’ah” (2), “As-Sulh”,
“Al-‘Ahd” and “Al-Amaan” … And an example of that is what came mentioned in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”,
in respect to the wordings that can be used to express it and the contract be made upon its basis. He (the
author) said: “Al-Muwaada’ah, or Al-Musaalamah, or Al-Musaalahah, or Al-Mu’aahadah or that which
leads to the fulfilment of the meaning of these expressions” (3).

Secondly: The legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of the Mu’aahadah and the Hukm related to abiding by it.
The Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of the Mu’aahadah has come within the Kitaab and the Sunnah:

- From the (Shar’iyah) texts that have come in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem, concerning its legal legitimacy, is
that which came related to the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to the situation of if a Muslim from Daar ul-
Islaam kills a person from the Daar (homeland) of the people of war, whilst there was a Mu’aahadah
(treaty) or “Meethaaq” (treaty or agreement) between them and the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam. In this
context Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

‫َُر َق َبةٍَم ُّْؤ ِم َن ٍَة‬ َ ‫انَمِنَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاقَ َف ِد َيةَ ُّم َسلَّ َمةَإِلَ ٰىَأَهْ لِه‬
َ ‫َِو َتحْ ِرير‬ َ ‫َوإِنَ َك‬
And if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment (blood money) is to be presented to
his family and the freeing of a believing slave (An-Nisaa’: 92).

This Aayah affirms the existence of Mu’aahadaat or Mawaatheeq (pl. of Meethaaq) between the Muslims
and the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war or Daar ul-Harb/Kufr). Ibn ul-Arabiy said in his Tafseer of this
Aayah: “Al-Meethaaq: It is the affirmed ‘Ahd (covenant) which binds and commits. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: This
is in respect to the Kaafir (disbeliever) to whom there belongs an ‘Ahd (covenant) for him and his people.
It is obligatory upon his killed to give Diyah (blod money) and to make Kaffaarah (expiation) to Allah
Subhaanahu. This is the opinion held by a Jamaa’ah (group) from the Taabi’een and Ash-Shaafi’iy” (4).

- Also, from that is what has come regarding the affirmation or establishing of the Amaan (security) to the
people of war from the enemy when they enter the lands or territories of another state of war which has a
peace treaty between it and the Muslims in place.

[(1) “The origin of “Al-Hudnah” is: “As-Sukoon” (state of rest, peace or calm). And the meaning of “Haadantuhu is the same
as Saalahtuhu (i.e. I made peace or a treaty with him)”, “An-Nuzhum Al-Musta’dhab Fee Sharh Ghreeb ul-Muhadh’dhab”,
Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Bataal Ar-Rakbiy: 2/259, (2) “Al-Muwaada’ah: is the meaning of “Al-Muhaadanah” and its
meaning is (also): Al-Mutaarakah”: same reference as above: 2/259, (3) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/108 and refer also to: “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 5/455, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/517, “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p51 and “Ahkaam Ahl udh-
Dhimmah, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/475, (4) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/477].

Concerning this Allah Ta’Aalaa said, within the context of inciting the Muslims against their enemies:

َ ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو َُه ْمَ ََۖو َالَ َت َّتخ ُِذواَ ِم ْن ُه ْم ََو ِل ّي‬
َ ‫﴾َإِ َّالَالَّذ‬٨٩﴿َ‫اَو َالَ َنصِ يرا‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َفإِنَ َت َولَّ ْواَ َف ُخ ُذو ُه ْم ََوا ْق ُتلُو ُه ْم‬
ُ ‫َحي‬
َ ُ‫يَصِ ل‬
َ‫ونَإِلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or
helper. Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty (An-Nisaa’: 89-90).

This Aayah contains the legal legitimacy of entering into peace Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with the Ahl ul-Harb
from the disbelievers. Al-Qurtubiy said: “This Aayah contains a Daleel to affirm the Muwaada’ah (treaty
or truce) between the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) and the Ahl ul-Islaam (people of Islaam), if the
Muwaada’ah (treaty) contained a Maslahah (interest or benefit) for the Muslims” (1).

- Also, from the texts that have come related to the legal legitimacy of the Mu’aahadah (treaty), is that
which came in respect to the provision of support (Nusrah) to the Muslim subjects of Daar ul-Harb, when
oppression befalls them from the lands citizens or from the state that they are affiliated to, and they then
request the Muslims in Daar ul-Islaam to come to their aid. Concerning this Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َبَْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek your support in respect to the religion, then you must provide the support, except against a people between
yourselves and whom there is a treaty (Al-Anfaal: 72).
This Aayah also affirms the existence of treaties (Mu’aahadaat) and Mawaatheeq (pl. of Meethaaq i.e.
treaty) between the Muslims and the Ahl ul-Harb (people of non-Islamic states). Al-Qurtubiy said in his
Tafseer of this Aayah: “Unless they seek your support against a disbelieving people who have a treaty
(Meethaaq) with you. In which case, you do not support them against them and do not breach the ‘Ahd
(covenant) until its time period has expired” (2).

- Also, included within the evidences is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َهاَ َو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ َِه‬
َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah (Al-Anfaal: 61).

Ibn Hajar said: “This Aayah indicates to the legal legitimacy of Al-Musaalahah (making a peace treaty)
with the Mushrikeen … Ibn ‘Ubaid said: As-Salm and As-Silm mean one thing and that is As-Sulh (peace
treaty)” (3). Ibn Hajar then establishes: “Concerning the matter of the Sulh (treaty), it is restricted to when
the greater interest is for the Muslims to convene the Musaalahah. If, however, Islaam was prevailing
against the Kufr and there was no interest (Maslahah) in convening the Musaalahah, then no (i.e. it is not
concluded)” (4).

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer of this Aayah:

“And if they “Janahoo” means if they “Maaloo” (incline). “Li-s-Silmi” (to peace), then incline to them and
accept that from them …

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 5/309, (2) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 8/57, (3)
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/275, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/275-276].

For that reason, when the Mushrikeen requested the Sulh (peace treaty) in the year of Al-Hudaibiyah and
to cease the war between them and the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬for nine (1) years, he responded positively to
them in respect to that, alongside what they stipulated in terms of other conditions … Ibn ‘Abbaas,
Mujaahid, Zaid Bin Aslama, ‘Ataa’ Al-Khuraasaaniy, ‘Ikramah, Al-Hasan and Qataadah said: “This Aayah
is Mansookhah (abrogated) by the Aayah of the sword in Soorah At-Taubah [Aayah: 29]: “Fight those
who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day …” [TMQ]. There is some examination due here as well
(i.e. in respect to that view), because the Aayah of Baraa’ah (i.e. At-Taubah) contains the command to
fight them if that is possible (or capability exists). If, however, the enemy is dense (or large and strong in
number), then it is possible to make a truce or treaty (Muhaadanah) with them, as has been indicated to
within the Noble Aayah. And that is like what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did on the day of Al-Hudaibiyah. There is
therefore no negation, abrogation or Takhsees (specification). And Allah knows best” (2).

I say: In addition, concerning this Aayah, there is no negation between it and the Aayah of Soorah
Muhammad:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن‬
ْ ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلمَ َوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken (3) and call for peace while you are superior (4) (Muhammad: 35).

That is as this Aayah establishes the forbiddance of the Muslims ceasing the Qitaal (fighting) against the
Ahl ul-Harb and inclining towards making peace treaties with them, when the Muslims are in the strongest
position and when there is no Maslahah (interest) for them to resort to peace. That is because resorting to
peace, where there is no Maslahah (interest) in that, and they are in the strongest position or side, only
means falling into the embrace of weakness and feebleness. This is what the Aayah came forbidding.
Consequently, it is not permitted in such a situation, as the one mentioned, for the Muslims to incline to
the policy of making treaties or truces (Muhaadanah) with the enemy, without adopting a decisive position
with it; either that they enter Islaam or submit to the Islamic rule.
Reconciling between the Aayaat calling to Al-Qitaal (i.e. the engagement in fighting) and the Aayaat calling
to As-Silm (i.e. to make peace), Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas said: “What has been mentioned in respect to the
matter of making peace, if the Muslims incline towards that, then its Hukm (legal ruling) is established as
well. The difference of Hukm in the two Aayaat is only due to the differences of the two circumstances.
The situation in which peace has been commanded is the situation when the Muslims are small in number
and the enemy are large in number …

[(1) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 4/196. Ibn Katheer, himself, quoted the narration that states: “… This is what Muhammad Bin
Abdullah made a treaty with Suhail Bin ‘Amr upon, to cease war for ten years, providing security to the people, and they refrain
from each other …”. Refer to the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 2766. It appears that his (Ibn Katheer’s) mention of nine years was
due to forgetfulness. Refer in this Tafseer to 4/181, (2) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/322-323, (3) “i.e.: Do not weaken from the
enemy”, Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 4/181, (4) “i.e.: In the case where you are superior to the enemy. If, however, the disbelievers
possessed a string force and large number in proportion to the Muslims, and the Imaam viewed that there was a Maslahah
(interest) in making a peace treaty or truce (Mu’aahadah or Muhaadanah), then he can do that, just like the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬did when the disbelievers of Quraish were standing in opposition to him …”: Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 4/181].

And the situation when fighting the Mushrikeen is commanded and fighting the Ahl ul-Kitaab (people of
the book) is undertaken until the give the Jizyah, is when the Muslims are large in number and their power
or force is great over their enemy. Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن ََواللَّـهَُ َم َع ُك ْم‬

ْ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُنواَ َو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلم ََوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ
So, do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and whilst Allah is with you (Muhammad: 35).

Therefore, He forbade making peace at a time when the power or strength exists to defeat the enemy and
kill them. That is like what our companions (i.e. from the Fuqahaa’) have said: If some of the Ahl uth-
Thughoor (i.e. the Mujaahideen on the frontiers) are capable of fighting the enemy and resisting them, it is
not permissible to make peace with them and it is not permissible to affirm them upon their disbelief
unless it is via the Jizyah. If, however, they are too weak to fight them, it is permissible to make a peace
with them, just like the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made peace with many categories of the disbelievers and made a treaty
or truce with them, to stop the war between them, without the Jizyah being taken from them” (1).

It is hoped that within the previous Aayaat and the accompanying statements of the Mufassireen (Scholars
of Tafseer), there is enough to indicate to the legal legitimacy of contracting peace treaties (Mu’aahadaat)
with the enemy when the Maslahah (interest) calls to convening such treaties. There is therefore no need
for us to list the opinions in addition to the opposing and differing opinions, regarding this Mas’alah, to
then reach the same conclusion at the end of that.

- In addition, the practical Sunnah An-Nabawiyah has also indicated to the legal legitimacy of concluding
peace treaties like that which has been pointed to, in relation to the treaty (Sulh) of Al-Hudaibiyah (2).

From among the narrations related to the Sulh (treaty) is that which was narrated by Sahl Bin Hunaif, who
said: “We were with the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬on the Day of Hudaibiya. If we had seen that
fighting was necessary, we could have fought. This was in the truce between the Messenger of
Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬and the polytheists. Umar b. Khattab came, approached the Messenger of Allah
(‫ )ﷺ‬and said: O Messenger of Allah, are we not fighting for truth and they for falsehood? He
replied: Of course. He asked: Are not those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed from
their side in the fire? He replied: Yes. He said: Then why should we put a blot (3) upon our Deen
and instead return, while Allah has not decided the issue between them and ourselves?

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/255, (2) Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy for the narration of the incident of Al-
Hudaibiyah in full: 2731, 2732, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/329,333 and Saheeh Muslim: 1783, 3/1409-1410, (3) i.e. Something that is
incomplete or and incomplete situation or falling short: Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/425. By this he (‘Umar) was referring
to what the treaty (Sulh) was made upon in terms of some conditions within it. Like: Returning back from Makkah in that year,
delaying their visit (to perform ‘Umrah) until the following year. And like: Whoever came from Makkah to Al-Madinah as a
Muslim, must be returned and sent back by the Muslims to Makkah, but if the opposite happened, where someone went to
Makkah from Al-Madinah as an apostate from Islaam, then the people of Makkah do not need to return him etc… Refer to
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2731-2732, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/331 and Saheeh Muslim: 1784].

He said: O son of Khattaab, I am the Messenger of Allah. Allah will never bring me loss. (The
narrator said): Umar then went away, but he could not contain his rage and approached Abu
Bakr …” (1).

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy commented upon the Hadeeth of the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah saying: “It
contains: That the Imaam has the right to contract the treaty upon that which he sees to be in the
Maslahah of the Muslims and even if that is not initially apparent, at first, to some of the people. It also
contains: The possibility of incurring a small Mafsadah (negative consequence) to repel a greater one or to
attain a Maslahah (interest) that is greater than it, if it is not possible to accomplish one without the other”
(2).

The above is what relates to the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of the Mu’aahadah (treaty). As for the
Hukm (legal ruling) in relation to being faithful to it, then the answer to that is summarised as follows:

1 - The obligation of stopping the Qitaal (fighting) against the enemy and being faithful to the
Mu’aahadaat (treaties) which have been contracted with it, as long as it was legally legitimate, and its time
period has not expired, and as long as it hasn’t been breached by the enemy or been thrown back or
repudiated i.e. the contract has been annulled before the end of its time period; either by the mutual
agreement of both parties or by one of them (3), whilst taking into account the difference of opinion
amongst the Fuqahaa’ in respect to the permissibility of annulling or repudiating it or non-permissibility,
by the Muslims, in accordance to the Maslahah (interest), if there did not exist fear of treachery and a
betrayal of the ‘Ahd (covenant or agreement) (4).

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1785, 3/1411-1412. Also refer to: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3182 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/281, (2) “Sharh
Saheeh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 7/419, (3) Refer to “Subh Al-A’ashaa”, Al-Qalqashandiy: 14/108-109. Two models to repudiate
the treaties: i.e. annul them. The book stated: “The first chapter: Al-Faskh (annulment). It is what happens from one of the two
sides without the other”. And from that which came concerning the form of the letter of repudiation, disavowal or annulment:
“This is in respect to what a person has made Istikhaarah to Allah regarding (i.e. to make the decision) … That he annuls what
is between him and the other in terms of the treaty … He wrote a notice or presented a warning … And this annulment was
written from a certain person to another certain person, that he had annulled his covenant …” He then said: “The second
chapter: The Musaafakhah, and that is when it is annulled mutually by both sides together”. And from that which came in
respect to the form of the letter or writing of the repudiation or the Musaafakhah with the approval of both sides, was the
following: “This is what so and so and so and so and so have chosen, in respect to annulling what was between them in terms
of a Muhaadanah (peace treaty) … that has taken place between them based upon the approval of each of them to relight the
fire of war which had been extinguished … they cast it aside (i.e. the treaty) mutually, where each believes that the Maslahah
(interest) is in his favour … and approving to leave it to the fate of the swords … that was born witness to by Allah and by His
creation, and by the one who attended and the one who heard and saw, and that it was issued on such and such a date”, (4) The
majority (of the Fuqahaa’), with the exception of the Ahnaaf, view that the contraction of the Hudnah (peace treaty or truce)
must be abided by until the expiry of its time as long as indications of treachery have not appeared, in which case it is valid to
cast it aside (or annul it). For the Maalikiy Fiqh refer to: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p175, the Shaafi’iy Fiqh: “Al-
Muhadh’dhab”: 2/263, and the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaaamah: 10/520-521. As for the Fiqh of the
Ahnaaf: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/109 in which it is stated: “As for the description of the contract of the Muwaada’ah (treaty),
then it is a Ghair Laazim (non-committal or abiding) contract, which is open to the possibility of being breached. The Imaam
can throw it back at them”. Also refer to: “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, Al-Kjhataabiy: 4/63-64 and “Ahkaam Ahl udh-Dhimmah”,
Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/482: 2/482 onwards. Ash-Shawkaaniy said, in “Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/57 concerning the meaning of “An-
Nabdh” (casting aside, repudiating): “An-Nabdh in respect to its linguistic origin is: (At-Tarh (to cast something out or away).
The meaning here is, informing the Mushrikeen that the Dhimmah (i.e. the Amaan) has been breached and to give them notice
of war, if they do not embrace Islaam or give the Jizyah willingly and submit”].

The Adillah (evidences) indicating to the obligation of being faithful, fulfilling and abiding by the legally
legitimate Mu’aahadaat, with the disbelievers, until the end of the set or fixed time are plentiful. Included
amongst them, concerning the obligation of faithfulness and commitment to the one from the disbelievers
who has preserved his ‘Ahd (covenant) with the Muslims, is the Qawl (statement) of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َال ُم َّتق‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َفأ َ ِتمُّواَإِلَي ِْه ْم‬
ْ ُّ‫َع ْه َد ُه ْمَإِلَ ٰىَ ُم َّدت ِِه ْمََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ ُيحِب‬
So complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him] (At-
Taubah: 4).

Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said: “He commanded faithfulness towards the one who kept to his ‘Ahd (covenant) until
its period or term” (1).

Ibn Katheer said, concerning this Aayah: “Whoever has an ‘Ahd (covenant) for himself, then its term lasts
until its set time period which the covenant had been made upon … That is upon the condition that the
Mu’aahid (one under covenant or agreement) does not break his covenant and does not provide support
to anyone against the Muslims i.e. assist others against them. This is the one whom his Dhimmah and
‘Ahd are committed to and fulfilled until the expiry of its time period and for that reason Allah urged that
this be fulfilled faithfully and said: “Verily, Allah loves the Mutaaqeen” (i.e. those who obey and fear
Allah) i.e. those (the Muttaqoon) are those who fulfil their ‘Ahd” (2).

The following was stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn Qudaamah: “And if he (i.e. the Imaam) concludes) the
Hudnah (i.e. treaty), he must be faithful in abiding by it due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَأَ ْوفُواَ ِب ْال ُعقُو ِد‬

َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
O you who have believed, fulfil (all) contracts (Al-Maa’idah: 1).

And Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫َفأ َ ِتمُّواَإِلَي ِْه ْم‬

َ‫َع ْه َد ُه ْمَإِلَ ٰىَ ُم َّدت ِِه ْم‬
So complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended] (At-Taubah: 4).

That is because if he did not fulfil it, he would not be trusted with his contract, whilst he could need to
contract it” (3).

2 - To complete the knowledge of the Hukm of abiding by the Mu’aahadaat (treaties), we need to know
when the obligation of abiding by them comes to an end. This is summed upon within the following
circumstances:

A - When the term or period of time of the Mu’aahadah with the enemy comes to an end. That is due to
the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

[(1) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 2/888, (2) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/235, (3) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/520-
521].

َ ‫َفأ َ ِتمُّواَإِلَي ِْه ْم‬

َ‫َع ْه َد ُه ْمَإِلَ ٰىَ ُم َّدت ِِه ْم‬
So complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended] (At-Taubah: 4).

The Mafhoom (understood meaning) deduced from this text, is that following the expiry of the time
period or term of the ‘Ahd or Mu’aahadah, the state of war between the Muslims and their enemies
returns, just as it had been prior to the contraction of that Mu’aahadah.

B - If the enemy breaks the contracted treaty between it and the Muslims and even if that breaking or
breach was of one single Shart (condition) from among the Shuroot (conditions) of the Mu’aahadah. That
 is because Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla has commanded being faithful to those whom a treaty has been made with,
in the text quoted above, upon the condition that they commit to preserving the treaty, in relation to what
had been contracted between them and the Muslims, without breaching anything from it, as has come in
His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫اَولَ ْمَ ُي َظا َِهرُواَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَأَ َحداَ َفأ َ ِتمُّواَإِلَي ِْه ْم‬
َ‫َع ْه َد ُه ْمَإِلَ ٰى‬ ُ ‫ِين‬
َ ‫َث َّمَلَ ْمَ َينقُصُو ُك ْمَ َشيْئ‬ ْ ‫ِينَ َعا َهد ُّتمَم َِّن‬
َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬ َ ‫إِ َّالَالَّذ‬
‫ُم َّدت ِِه َْم‬
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in
anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended] (At-Taubah: 4).

C - Also understood from the previous text, within His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َولَ ْمَ ُي َظا ِه ُرواَ َعلَ ْي َُك ْم‬

And have not supported anyone against you (At-Taubah: 4).

Is another circumstance from among the circumstances in which fighting the disbeliever people at treaty
(Mu’aahideen). That is when the Muslims clash (militarily) with other than them in war and then the state
which has a treaty with the Muslims provide help or assistance to those warring enemies; whether that
assistance was by providing supplies to the fighters, by the provision of military ammunition or anything
similar to that which strengthened the enemy … In such a circumstance, that state which has a treaty with
the Muslims is considered to have broken the treaty (‘Ahd), from its side, with the Muslims, and hence
fighting them becomes Mashroo’ (legally legitimate or lawful).

D - It is also lawful to fight those who are in a treaty, albeit after throwing it back to them and repudiating
it (i.e. by giving them notice that the treaty has been abolished), when signs appear or manifest indicating
that those people at treaty are engaged in conspiring and drawing plans to commit treachery and break the
treaty which had been concluded with the Muslims. Concerning this, Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫ِين‬ ْ ُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬

ََ ‫َال‬
َ ‫خا ِئن‬ َ ‫انب ْذَإِلَي ِْه ْمَ َعلَ ٰى‬
َ ‫َس َوا ٍءََۚإِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬ ِ ‫َوإِمَّاَ َت َخا َفنَّ َمِنَ َق ْو ٍمَ ِخ َيا َنةَ َف‬
If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Verily,
Allah does not like traitors (Al-Anfaal: 58).

Al-Quturbiy said: “An-Nabdh means: Ar-Ramy (throwing) and Ar-Rafd (rejection) … And the meaning
(of the Aayah) is: That if you fear (strongly) from a people with whom you have an ‘Ahd (treaty or
covenant), then throw the ‘Ahd back at them i.e. Say to them: We have thrown back your treaty to you
and I will fight you so that you can be aware of that, and so they will be aware of that equally with you.
And do not fight them whilst there is (still) an ‘Ahd (treaty, agreement or covenant) between you and
them, and they are trusting of you. In such a case that what be treachery and a betrayal. This was then
made clear with His Qawl:

ْ َُّ‫َالَ ُيحِب‬
َ ‫َال َخا ِئن‬
َ‫ِين‬ َ ‫إِنَّ َاللَّـ َه‬
Verily, Allah does not love those who practise treachery (Al-Anfaal: 58) (3).

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurturbiy: 8/32].

Concerning the mention of treachery here, Ibn Katheer stated: “i.e. even if it was in respect to the
disbelievers, He still does not love it” (1).

This means, if the people of war, who have a treaty with the Muslims, did not manifest the breaching of
the treaty explicitly, but rather there was only doubtful indications or signs indicating their lack of
credibility in respect to abiding by that treaty, then in such a situation, it is not permissible for the Muslims
to aggress against them by war, based upon those signs or indications, without first providing prior notice
to them that the treaty had been abolished. That is because such an aggression by war, without the giving
of prior notice and warning, is considered to be treachery, whilst Allah does not like treachery, and even if
it is in respect to the disbelievers who have undertaken that which casts doubt over their maintaining of
the ‘Ahd with the Muslims (2).

We will now move on to discuss the final point of this current Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

Thirdly: The reasons and purposes that call for peace treaties to be contracted or concluded with
the enemy.

Within what has preceded in the discussion of this current Mas’alah and also within the previous studies,
there has been some mention of these reasons and purposes, and now, on the occasion of discussing these
specifically, we will revisit the most important or significant of these reasons or purposes.

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy said concerning this matter: “If the Muslims are in a weak position to fight the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers) or a group from amongst them, due to their distance from their land (of origin),
or due to their great number, or the Muslims are facing problems (Khallah) (3) from themselves or from
those from them that are adjacent to them, then it is permissible for them to refrain from them (i.e. not
fight) and to make a treaty (Muhaadanah) with them upon the basis of not taking anything from the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers i.e. in return) and if the Mushrikeen were to give them something small or large
(in exchange) they can (or should) take it …”

He then said: “I prefer for the Imaam, if a calamity befalls the Muslims, although I hope that Allah ‘Azza
Wa Jalla does not make them befall that, by His will Ta’Aalaa, to make a treaty (or truce) where the
consideration, in respect to it, is for them (i.e. in their interest) …

[(1) Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/320, (2) How do we regard this from the consideration of the treaties alone: “The scrapping or
shredding of paper as the Chancellor of the German Empire, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. He said that in the year 1914
when his armies invaded the lands of Belgium, breaking by that its neutrality which his country had made a treaty upon with
many of the major states”: “Ash-Shar’u Ad-Dawliy Fee ‘Ahd Ar-Rasool” (International law in the era of the Messenger), Dr.
Abdul Wahhaab Kalziyah: p85, (3) Meaning provided in “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 2/72/73. Its intended meaning is:
flaws and instability related to affairs].

And they should not make a treaty or truce (Muhaadanah) except for a (set) period of time and that period
should not exceed that of the people of Al-Hudaibiyah, whatever the calamity that befell them was! Then
when or if the Muslims possess the power of strength (Quwwah) they fight the disbelievers after the
expiry of the period. But if the Imaam does not have the power or strength to do that, there is no
problem in renewing the period, for a similar time or less than that …” (1).

The author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab said concerning this matter: “It is not permissible to conclude a Hudnah
(treaty or truce) for a region or a large area except for the Imaam or the one whom the Imaam has
delegated. If the Imaam was in a dominant position, the matter is examined: If the Hudnah (treaty or
truce) did not contain a Maslahah, it is not permissible to contract it, due to His Qawl ‘Aza Wa Jalla:

َ‫َاألَعْ َل ْو َن ََواللَّـهَُ َم َع ُك ْم‬

ْ ‫واَو َت ْدعُواَإِلَىَالس َّْلم ََوأَن ُت ُم‬
ِ َ ‫َف َالَ َت ِه ُن‬
So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you (Muhammad: 35).

And if it contained a Maslahah (interest), in terms of their Islaam being hoped for (i.e. that they embrace
Islaam), or give the Jizyah or that they will assist them to fight others, then it is permissible to make a
treaty with them” … He then says: “And if the Imaam was not in a dominant position, like in the situation
where the Muslims have weakness or a small number, whilst the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) have strength
and a large number, or if the Imaam was in a dominant position but the enemy was distant and to get to
them he would require a burdensome amount of provisions, then it is permissible to conclude the
Hudnah (treaty) for a period of time, according to the requirement. The majority of them are ten years
because the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty (Hudnah) with the Quraish for ten years at Al-
Hudaibiyah …” (2).

I say: It is understood from the above, that the Maslahah (interest) of Islaam and the Muslims represents
the pivot which the contraction of Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with the enemy should revolve around. The
evaluation of this Maslahah returns to the Khalifah of the Muslims or the one whom he has delegated to
deal with this issue. That is whilst there are no defined, set or precise principles in respect to the
evaluation of this Maslahah.

Concerning this matter, Mahjoub Abd un-Noor said: “The Fuqahaa’ have restricted the priority of the
Imaam, in respect to contracting the Sulh (treaty) on behalf of the Muslims, to the Maslahah (i.e. the
realisation of the interest). However, they did not mention defined parameters or measures for this
Maslahah, in most cases, although some of them inclined to mentioning examples through which the
Maslahah is taken in consideration, which stipulated it (i.e. the concluding of the treaty) upon the Imaam
…

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/189. Refer also to: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/108, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”:
p174-175 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/517, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/259-260. However, the
Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa) have not restricted the Mu’aahadah (treaty) to ten years. Rather, its specification returns
back to the Maslahah (interest), whether it is more than ten years or less than that. The matter in respect to that is easy (i.e.
open) in the case where the Shaafi’iyah permitted the renewal of the Mu’aahadah whenever the need called for it to be renewed
… For the opinions of the Madhaahib concerning this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) refer to: In the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf: “Fat’h ul-
Qadeer”: 5/456, the Fiqh of the Maalikiyah: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Jizayy: p175 and the Fiqh of the
Hanaabilah: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/518-519].

That is like the weakness of the Muslims and the strength of their enemy, or the hope that those under
treaty will embrace Islaam or pay the Jizyah (i.e. accept to be subjects) …” (1).

In relation to this matter, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy mentioned some of the reasons or
purposes behind the Muslims contracting Mu’aahadaat (treaties) with the enemy, which realise the
Maslahah (interest):

“The permissibility of the Hudnah (peace treaty or truce) is restricted (Muqayyid) to the presence of a
Maslahah (interest) that Al-Jihaad or the spread of Islaam dictates. That is because news reached the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬before his march to Al-Hudaibiyah about a collusion between the people of
Khaibar and the people of Makkah to attack the Muslims (2). Then, following his return from Al-
Hudaibiyah, he immediately took the initiative to attack Khaibar. He also took the initiative to send
messengers to the kings and rulers (of the region) inviting them to Islaam, which indicates that the
Hudnah (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah was concluded for a Maslahah related to Al-Jihaad and the spread of
the Da’wah. That was because he was able to free himself to focus on war against Khaibar and inviting the
kings and leaders as a result of the treaty he made with Quraish” (3).

He also said: “It is permissible for the Islamic State to conclude a good neighbourly treaty with the
neighbouring or adjacent states just as it is permissible for it to conclude non-aggression (or cessation of
hostilities) treaties with non-neighbouring states, for a particular time period, if through that there was
seen a way for the Islamic Da’wah to be spread, or the Muslims protected or the realisation of any
Maslahah for the Muslims or Islaam, or to facilitate the Islamic da’wah. The Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty
with Bani Mudlij and Bani Damrah (4) to secure the path that his army was using to fight its enemy and he
made a treaty with Yoohannaa Bin Ru’bah at Tabook (5) to secure the border of the State from the
direction of the Romans upon the borders of the lands of Ash-Shaam (greater Syria” (6).
[(1) “As-Sulh” (the treaty), Mahmoud Abd un-Noor: p213, (2) Concerning the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah the following came
stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “This was taking into consideration what was between the people of Makkah and the people of
Khaibar in terms of collusion, that if the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬head out to one of the two parties, the other one would
attack Al-Madinah. And so he ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with the people of Makkah to secure their side if they were to head out to
Khaibar”: 1/298, (3) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabahaaniy: 3/183, (4) Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬travelled until he stopped at “Al-‘Ushairah” from the depths of “Yanba’”. He stayed
there in Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa and (some) nights of Jumaadaa Al-Aakhirah. He made a treaty, whilst there, with Bani Mudlij and
their allies from Bani Damrah, and then he returned to Al-Madinah”: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/21], (5) In the Seerah of Ibn
Hishaam: “When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reached Tabook, Youhannaa Bin Ru’bah, the ruler of “Ailah” approached him
and the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with him and he gave him the Jizyah”: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/178, (6) “Ash-Shakhsiyah
Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabahaaniy: 3/187-188. Also refer to: “Ash-Sharu Ad-Dawliy Fee ‘Ahd Ar-
Rasool ‫( ”ﷺ‬The international law in the era of the Messenger), Dr. Abdul Wahhaab Kalziyyah: p100].

I say: The word “Maslahah” (interest) which represents the Shart (condition) for the legal legitimacy of
concluding treaties with the enemy, encompasses every legitimate reason that calls for the Muslims to
contract those treaties, just as it encompasses every legally legitimate purpose that is sought to be
accomplished from them.

Therefore, in our current age, in the case where the Muslims have fallen behind other peoples and the
advanced nations in the fields of science, manufacturing, machinery and technical production, and military
equipment and materials etc., it may be within the Maslahah (interest) to conclude treaties with some of
those states, which leads to the transferral of some of what they possess in these fields to the Muslim
lands, to accomplish the benefit which is above the possible Mafaasid (negative or harmful consequences)
that could arise from such treaties, as was indicated in what Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy stated and quoted a
short time ago.

Similarly, in this current time, where we witness the presence of colonial states, which are looking for any
excuse to justify (in the view of the world) the taking of hostile acts against the Muslims, and take any
suitable opportunity to take control over the Muslims’ resources, divide their unity and destroy their vital
facilities or infrastructures … when we find such a reality of colonial states like this, then the Maslahah
(interest) of Islaam and the Muslims makes it necessary upon those who are in the positions of
responsibility to avoid anything that stirs those criminal states to bear their teeth and reveal their claws.
They must, in such a situation and circumstances, contract with the enemy legally legitimate treaties, in
which its benefit is greater than its harm in respect to Islaam and the Muslims. That is to cut the avenues
to the occurrence of major dangers and great harms or negative consequences (Mafaasid). That is whilst it
is obligatory at the same time to seriously treat the reality of weakness and humiliation that the Muslims
are living due to what they face in terms of hostilities, fragmentation, division and due to having fallen
behind (i.e. in terms of progress).

It is hoped that in respect to what has been presented, there exists that which points to the legally
legitimate reasons and purposes, including both those which have been (explicitly) mentioned and those
which were not, which call for the Muslims to contract treaties with the enemy. We will now move on to
the discussion of the next Mas’alah (issue).

2 - The Second Mas’alah (issue): The Mu’aahadah (treaty) with the non-Islamic states upon the
condition of paying the Jizyah to the Muslims.

In the discussion of this Mas’alah (issue), we will address two points:

1 - The First Point: The Daleel (evidence) for the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy0 of this Mu’aahadah
(treaty).
2 - The Second Point: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the legal legitimacy of concluding
treaties with other peoples and nations upon the condition of the giving of Al-Jizyah to the Muslims.

1 - The First Point: The Daleel (evidence) for the Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of this
Mu’aahadah (treaty).

The Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy or lawfulness of this treaty (Mu’aahadah) is what came
recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy under the heading: “Chapter: If the Imam makes a treaty (Muwaada’ah)
with a king of a town (or place), does it apply upon those under his authority: Abu Humaid As-Saa’adiy
said: “We accompanied the Nabi (‫ )ﷺ‬in the Ghazwah (military expedition) of Tabuk and the
king of “Ailah” presented a white mule to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and he (1) gave him a cloak. And the
Nabi (‫ )ﷺ‬wrote for him (to keep authority) over their sea (2)” (3).

Concerning this it was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Concerning his statement: “And he wrote for him
their sea” means: Over their lands or the intended meaning is the people of their sea because they used to
reside on the coast by the sea i.e. He affirmed it for him over them in return for what they committed to
give him in terms of the Jizyah” (4).

Also, concerning this, it was transmitted from Ibn ul-Munayyir: “That the king who gifted only demanded
that his kingdom remain and his kingdom would only remain by his subjects remaining. And so it is
deduced from this that his treaty was a treaty for his subjects” … Ibn Hajar then said: “Ibn Battaal said:
The ‘Ulamaa’ hold a consensus upon that if the Imaam makes a treaty with the King of an area, the rest of
them (also) enter into that treaty or under it” (5).

I say: The above-mentioned Hadeeth establishes that if the leaders of the other peoples or states, from the
people of war, conclude the contract of the Muwaada’ah (treaty) (i.e. the peace treaty with the Islamic
State), then the Amaan (security) which the treaty dictates covers and encompasses, alongside the rulers,
those subjects who are under their rule … In this situation, it is therefore not permissible for the Muslims
to target them or subject them to anything. And when such a treaty stipulates the payment of a particular
Jizyah which those peoples and states give to the Muslims, whether that Jizyah was in the form of money
or other commodities etc., then the war against them is forbidden according to the Shar’a as long as they
committed to fulfilling that condition. However, if they do not fulfil the mentioned condition, the war
against them returns to being legally legitimate and lawful as it had been prior to the concluding of that
treaty.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/266 and in a narration recorded by Muslim it was stated: “And he gifted him a Burd (cloak)”: 1392,
4/1785, (2) Sharh Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawiy: 9/144: “Their sea means their land and Al-Bihaar (seas) means Al-Quraa
(towns). And Allah knows best”, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3161 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/266, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 3/346, (5)
“fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/267].

In addition, it has been mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam that the treaty concluded between the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and Youhannaa, the king of “Ailah” was upon the basis that he pay a specific Jizyah. He said:
“And when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reached Tabook, Youhannaa Bin Ru’bah, the ruler of “Ailah”
came to him and made a treaty with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and gave him the Jizyah” (1). It was
recorded by Al-Balaadhuriy that this Jizyah 300 Deenaar (2).

It appears, as it was mentioned in the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Bukhaariy about the king of “Ailah”, that
this treaty concluded with this king was only a treaty of the kind of the Muwada’ah i.e. from the types of
foreign treaties which are not concluded upon the basis of the contraction of the Dhimmah, submission
to the Islamic rule and the commitment of the Islamic state to protect the region of “Ailah” and its
people.

Therefore, the Jizyah which the king of “Ailah” committed himself to was only like the kind of a Fidyah
(ransom) (3) which someone pays to stop the fighting being undertaken against it only. That is whilst it
doesn’t mean the same as the other type of the Jizyah which means the joining or annexation of the lands
paying the Jizyah to the Islamic State and its people entering into the Dhimmah (protection) of the
Muslims under the consideration of them being subjects of the State.

Concerning this Al-Balaadhuriy said: “Concerning all the people of the ‘Ahd (covenant or treaty) the
Muslims do not fight those behind them (4) whilst they apply their own Ahkaam over themselves within
their land and as such are not under the Dhimmah. Rather, they the people of Fidyah (ransom) so they are
refrained from as longs as they refrain (from fighting) and they are dealt with faithfully (according to the
treaty) as long as they are faithful to it …” (5).

It is worth mentioning here, that considering this Jizyah here within the foreign peace treaties as being a
kind of Fidyah (ransom) is only from the perspective of those paying that Jizyah. As for from the
perspective of the Muslims, the taking of that Jizyah is considered to be a kind from what falls under Al-
Jihaad. That is because, it falls under Al-Jihaad, that the properties of the disbelievers are made Halaal for
them just as their blood is, and this reality falls under this category (6).

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/178 and “Makaateeb Ar-Rasool”: 1/164, (2) “Futooh ul-Buldaan”, Al-
Balaadhuriy: p71 and refer to “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”: 3/160, (3) Refer to: “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej
Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/39 and “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/109, (4) i.e. defending them, (5) “Futooh ul-Buldaan”, Al-
Balaadhuriy: p162, (6) Refer to “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, ibn ul-Himaam: 5/459].

That is despite this taking of the property her, within the circumstance of a treaty, being restricted to a
specific amount of property or money upon the basis of which the contraction of the treaty was
concluded. As such, it is not permissible to increase it without the approval and acceptance of the other
party.

The above represents a brief summary of what is to be said concerning the first point.

2 - The Second Point: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ in relation to the legal legitimacy of
concluding treaties with other peoples and nations upon the condition of the giving of Al-Jizyah
to the Muslims.

The Fuqahaa’ have affirmed the legal legitimacy or lawfulness of these types of peace treaties with the
enemy when the need (Haajah) or the interest (Maslahah) calls for them to be concluded just as they have
affirmed that legal legitimacy when there is no Haajah (need) for them nor Maslahah (interest) calling for
them.

- The following was stated within “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” from the books of the Ahnaaf: “If the Imaam sees
that he should make a Muwaada’ah with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) and for the Muslims to take
Maal (money or property) upon that, it is permissible. That is because, if it is permitted for him to do that
without (receiving) Maal (money etc.) then by greater reason it is permissible to do that in exchange for
money, as the benefit is greater. However, this is when the Muslims have a need (Haajah). If there is no
need however, then he does not make a Muwaada’ah (treaty of this type) with them”. He then said: “As a
result of taking money from them, this has the effect of breaking their might and reducing their material
(strength or wealth). As such, taking it according to this meaning is considered to be from Al-Jihaad! And
not an Ujrah (fee) being paid to abandon!” (1).
The meaning of the last statement of this text, is that the Muslims do not leave Al-Jihaad and the fighting
of the enemy merely due to receiving the Jizyah or Fidyah (ransom), as if that represents a fee being paid
for them to abandon Al-Jihaad which is obligatory according to the Shar’a. Rather, they suspend the
fighting of the enemy for a specific term or time period according to the treaty that has been stipulated
with the payment of the Jizyah, due to a Haajah (need or requirement) of the Muslims in relation to
concluding that treaty and due to it being more appropriate or of greater priority than fighting in relation
to accomplishing the sought Maslahah. Therefore, if the Maslahah is seen in respect to contracting that
Mu’aahadah (treaty) without a Jizyah or Fidyah (ransom), the Muslims should bind themselves to it free of
attaining those material benefits … This matter confirms that when the Jizyah is paid to the Muslims in
the peace treaties, when they are concluded upon its stipulation, that Jizyah is not equivalent to an ‘Ujrah
(fee).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ibn ul-Himaam: 5/458-459].

Also, mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” and taken from “Al-Mabsoot” of As-Sarakhsiy, was the following:
“If they make a treaty (i.e. if the Ahl ul-Harb make a treaty with the Muslims) upon the basis that they pay
s set known amount annually and upon the basis that he (i.e. the Imaam of the (Muslims) does not apply
upon them in their lands the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Muslims, that is not done unless there is good in
that for the Muslims. That is because through this Muwaada’ah (treaty) they are not bound to abide by the
Ahkaam of the Muslims and they do not go outside from being considered Ahl ul-Harb (people of war),
whilst abandoning the Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl ul-Harb is not permitted unless that is good (or
better) for the Muslims” (1).

Also, in relation to this matter, the following came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “The
people of Shirk (i.e. disbelief) should not have a treaty (Muwaada’ah) made with them when the Muslims
have power over them, because that means leaving the Qitaal (fighting) that has been commanded to be
undertaken or delaying it! And that is considered to be from that which the Ameer (leader) should not do
unless there is a Haajah (requirement) … If the Muslims do not however have power or strength over
them, then there is no problem with concluding the Muwaada’ah because the Muwaada’ah (treaty) in such
a situation is better for the Muslims. Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla said:

َ ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ ََنحْ َلَ َه‬

‫اَو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ َِه‬ َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah (Al-Anfaal: 61).

This is considered to fall under the management and undertakings of Al-Qitaal (fighting and war). That is
because the fighter must first preserve his own power or strength and then seek dominance and victory
when he is made able to do that” (2). He then said in respect to the Jizyah stipulated as a condition
alongside the Muwaada’ah (treaty): “That which is taken from them with the Muwaada’ah (i.e. the money
or something equivalent, which they agreed upon), is considered to be sound or unblemished (Saalim) for
the Muslims (to take)” (3).

Stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, from the books of the Maalikiyah, there was
mentioned that which indicated that the basis of the legal legitimacy of the treaties with the enemy, was
only the presence of the Maslahah (interest) and not only (or merely) the presence of the Maal (money or
a material equivalent). Concerning this, the following was stated: “And if it (i.e. the contract of the treaty
with the enemy) was concluded for other than the Maslahah (interest i.e. of Islaam and the Muslims), then
it was not permissible, and even if the enemy paid money (as part of that). And if it was for (the
attainment of) a Maslahah (interest), like due to the absolute inability to engage in Al-Qitaal or in respect
to a particular timing (i.e. circumstance at that time), then it is permissible, whether that was with a
financial compensation or without one” (4).
The author of “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, within the Fiqh of the Shaafi’iyah, the following was expressed: “And
it is permissible to contract the Hudnah (peace treaty or truce) upon the basis of money which is taken
from them, because that represents a Maslahah (interest) for the Muslims” (5).

- And in “Al-Mughniy”, from the books of the Hanaabilah, when commenting upon the permissibility of
concluding the treaty upon the basis of the Maslahah and in consideration to the Muslims, the author
stated: “And it is not permissible unless it is in consideration to the Muslims. Either because they have a
weakness preventing them from fighting them (i.e. the enemy) or coveting that they would enter into
Islaam as a result of their treaty, or that they would give the Jizyah and commit to abide by the Ahkaam of
the Millah (i.e. the Deen of Islaam), or other than that in terms of Masaalih (interests)” …

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ibn ul-Himaam: 5/462, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1689, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
5/1691, (4) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p174 and also refer to “Al-Furooq”, Al-Qaraafiy: 3/24, (5) Al-
Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/260].

He then said: “And it is permissible to make a treaty with them upon other than (the receipt) of Maal
(money or a material equivalent), because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made a treaty with them on the day of Al-
Hudaibiyah upon other than Maal (money etc.). And it is permissible upon the basis of money that he (i.e.
the Imaam) takes from them. That is because, if it was permissible upon the basis of no money then by
greater reason it can be taken upon the basis of the receipt of money” (1).

- And the following came mentioned in “Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyah” by Al-Farraa’, when presenting the
explanation of the effect resulting from the abidance or non-abidance of paying the financial amount
stipulated in the treaty: “And it (i.e. the money that is given according to the treaty) has two forms: The
first: That they give it at their time and they do not make it a continuing Kharaaj (2) … That would be an
Amaan (security) in respect to refraining, by it, from fighting them during this Jihaad, whilst fighting them
at a later time is not prevented (or forbidden) … And it is not permissible for the Jihaad to be returned as
long as they are undertaking the giving of the money, due to the stability of the Muwaada’ah (treaty) upon
it. And if one of them was to enter Daar ul-Islaam, based upon the Muwaada’ah (treaty) he would have an
Amaan (security) in respect to his life and property. If they then refrain from giving the money, the
Muwaada’ah ceases to remain in place and the Amaan (security) is wavered or lifted, and it is necessary to
fight them like others from the Ahl ul-Harb” (3).

At this point, we come to the conclusion of this Mas’alah related to the peace treaty made with other
peoples and states which are not subservient to the Islamic system and are concluded upon the stipulation
of the payment of Al-Jizyah to the Muslims. We now move on to the discussion of the third Mas’alah.

3 - The Third Mas’alah (issue): The Mu’aahadah (treaty) concluded upon the basis of the
Muslims paying money (or its equivalent) to other states in exchange for a cessation of Al-Qitaal
(fighting and war) against the Muslims.

This Mas’alah has already been addressed during the previous study which was entitled: “A brief
presentation of the incidents of the wars and their cessation by treaties within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah”
and that was during the presentation of the discussion concerning the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Khandaq
(The Trench).

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/517/519, (2) “Al-Kharaaj” means: “Al-Itaawah” (amount given to a ruler or Ummah
(nation) as an evidence for their subservience like a cost for their security), “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: p145, (3) “Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: 32. And this came in the context of some words being missing which we filled in from “Al-Ahkaam
As-Sultaaniyah” by Al-Maawardiy: p51].
For that reason, we will not spend long addressing this Mas’alah and our discussion concerning it, in brief,
will revolve around the following points:

1 - The First Point: The Daleel (evidence) from the Shar’iyah texts indicating to the permissibility of the
treaty concluded upon the payment of money (or a material equivalent) from the Muslims in return for a
cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting).

2 - The Second Point: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ of the Madhaahib in relation to the legal legitimacy
of treaties which stipulate the payment of money (or a material equivalent) to the enemy, if the Daroorah
(necessity) calls for that.

3 - The Third Point: Some of Bani Umayyah made a Muwaada’ah (treaty) with the enemy, paying money
(or an equivalent) to them, in return for them refraining from fighting the Muslims.

1 - The First Point: The Daleel (evidence) from the Shar’iyah texts indicating to the permissibility
of the treaty concluded upon the payment of money (or a material equivalent) from the Muslims
in return for a cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting).

The Shar’iy text which the Fuqahaa’ have mentioned in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) is the
negotiations of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬withal-Haarith Al-Ghatafaaniy, one of the leaders of the alliance formed
against the Muslims who had surrounded Al-Madinah during the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq (Battle of the
Trench). The negotiations revolved around the Muslims giving the side of Ghatafaan, from amongst the
allied forces, a certain amount of the fruit produce of Al-Madinah for that year, upon the basis that thus
Haarith abandoned the allies and caused a split in it, to make the siege break and the allies return home to
their lands.

As mentioned, we have presented in a previous study what took place in that negotiation and how it
concluded and how the Fuqahaa’ have pointed to it as an evidence for the legal legitimacy of this conduct
at the time of necessity (Daroorah) (1). Consequently, there is no need to repeat what we have written
whilst it is best to not go and repeat, as much as possible.

2 - The Second Point: The opinions of the Fuqahaa’ of the Madhaahib in relation to the legal
legitimacy of treaties which stipulate the payment of money (or a material equivalent) to the
enemy, if the Daroorah (necessity) calls for that.

- Within the Fiqh of the Ahnaaf: The following came stated in “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: “And there is no
problem for the Muslims to request a treaty from the disbelievers and upon that to give Maal (money or
material equivalent), if they are compelled to by necessity. That is due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َه‬

‫اَو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ َِه‬ َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah (Al-Anfaal: 61).

[(1) Concerning what took place in the negotiation in terms of what was to be agreed upon refer to “Majma’ A-Zawaa’id”:
6/132-133. Al-Haithamiy said: It was related by Al-Bazzaar and At-Tabaraaniy from Abu Hurairah. Then he mentioned that
contained within the chain of transmitters (Isnaad) was: Muhammad Bin ‘Amr and his Hadeeth are Hasan whilst the rest of the
Transmitters of Thiqaat (relied upon)”. Also refer for the Hadeeth to: “Kashf ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id Al-Bazzaar”: 1803,
2/331-332].

Allah Subhaanahu has made the Sulh (treaty) Mubaah (permissible) for us Mutlaqan (without restriction)
and so it is permitted to be undertaken with a (monetary) exchange or without one. That is because the
treaty undertaken upon the basis of money to repel the evil of the disbelievers, to deal with the present
(situation) and to prepare for the second (i.e. future), falls under the category of undertaking Al-Jihaad
with wealth (Maal) and the life (Nafs). Therefore, it is permissible” (1).

The following was stated in “Tanweer ul-Absaar” and its Sharh (explanation): “The truce is permissible
upon the basis of leaving the Jihaad with them via the payment of money from them or from us, if that is
better, due to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َه‬

‫اَو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ َِه‬ َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah (Al-Anfaal: 61).

And Ibn ‘Aabideen commented upon his statement: “or from us” saying: i.e. by Maal (money or its
equivalent) which we give to them, if the Imaam fears destruction for himself and the Muslims, by any
way (it may be)” (2).

The books “Al-‘Inaayah” and “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” presented the deduction for the legal legitimacy or
lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of this type of Muwaada’ah (treaty), via the negotiation that took place between
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and some of the leaders of the allied armies which had surrounded Al-Madinah. After
establishing the forbiddance of the Imaam of the Muslims to conclude a treaty with the disbelievers upon
the basis of money being paid to them due to what that contains of disgrace, he said: “However, if Al-
Hilaak (destruction and ruin) was feared, meaning to himself and the lives of the rest of the Muslims, then
at such a time (and circumstance) there is no problem to pay the money, due to what was related, that
when the Mushrikeen had surrounded the (Muslims) at the (battle of the) trench and the Muslims had
become or reached the state that Allah Ta’Aalaa informed us of:

‫واَز ْل َزاالَ َشدِيدا‬

ِ ُ‫ون ََو ُز ْل ِزل‬ ْ ‫كَا ْب ُتل َِي‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِم ُن‬ َ ِ‫ُه َنال‬
There the believers were tested and shaken with a severe shaking (Al-Ahzaab: 11).

… That when this happened, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent to ‘Uyainah Bin Hisn (3) and requested
him to return back with those whom he had come with upon the basis that he would give him annually (4)
a third of the fruits of Al-Madinah but he rejected and would not accept other than half …” (5).

[(1) “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/109, (2) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/348, (3) He and Al-Haarith Bin ‘Auf Al-Ghatafaaniy, who
was mentioned before, were the two leaders of Ghatafaan during this battle. Refer to the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬by Ibn
Hishaam with the checking of Muhammad Muhyiudeen Abdul Hameed: 3/239, (4) The narration is in “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”
as previously mentioned: 6/132-133. However, the negotiation over the payment of the money was only for that year and not
every year, (5) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/459].

And the following came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: “If the Muslims fear the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers) and then sought to make a treaty with them but the Mushrikeen refused to
make a treaty with them until the Muslims give them Maal (a financial recompense) in exchange for that,
then there is no problem, when circumstance of necessity is verified” … Then after quoting the report
concerning the negotiation of the treaty over some of the fruit produce of Al-Madinah during the
Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq, he said: “This Hadeeth contains an explanation: That, at the time of weakness,
there is no problem with this (type of) Muwaada’ah (treaty). The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬wanted to
conclude it when he sensed the weakness of (the situation of) the Muslims. At the time of strength, this
(type of) Muwaada’ah (treaty) is not permissible”. He then went on to say: “And it (i.e. the treaty upon the
basis of the payment of Maal (a financial recompense) to the disbelievers) contains the meaning of
accepting humiliation, and for that reason the Ansaar hated to pay some of the fruits. That is whilst this
humiliation is not permissible for the Muslims to accept and be content with unless the Daroorah
(necessity) has been affirmed” (1).
I say: We sum up, based on what has preceded, that the Ahnaaf, concerning this type of treaty in which
the Muslims pay Maal (money or a material equivalent) to the disbelievers, use a number of evidences to
deduce its legal legitimacy. They are summed up as follows:

A - That the Shar’iy text permitted making the treaty with the disbelievers in an absolute unrestricted
(Mutlaq) form i.e. it was not restricted to preclude the Muslims committing to pay money or its equivalent
(Maal) to the disbelievers. In accordance to this unrestricted (Mutlaq) form in respect to the legal
legitimacy of the Mu’aahadah (treaty), it is permissible to contract or conclude it with a financial
recompense or without one (i.e. in exchange).

- According to what Al-Kaasaaniy said, the author of “Al-Badaa’i”, however when the payment of the
money to the disbelievers is for the purpose of their stopping their fighting against the Muslims … this
contains the meaning of humiliation, and consequently, it is not permissible for the Muslims to resort to
such a treaty unless the Daroorah (necessity) has been affirmed.

B - That the report of the negotiation with the disbelievers for a Sulh (treaty), during the Ghazwah of Al-
Khandaq (battle of the trench), represents a Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy of the treaty
containing the clause that money be paid to the disbelievers by the Muslims at the time of weakness.
Whilst it is not permissible to do that at other than the time of weakness … That is because when the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬felt from the Ansaar the ability to remain steadfast and resolute in the face of the disbelievers
and said to him: “By Allah, we will not give them anything apart from the sword” (2), he ‫ ﷺ‬refrained
from continuing with that treaty.

C - The obligation of repelling destruction or ruin (Al-Hilaak) from the Muslims i.e. when the treaty with
the disbelievers represents a means to repel ruin and destruction from befalling the Muslims, such a treaty
becomes obligatory to protect the Muslims from destruction and ruin …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1692-1695, (2) Seerat un-Nabiy by Ibn Hishaam and the checking of Muhammad
Muhyiudeen Abdul Hameed: 3/239. Also refer to: Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy: “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”: 14/133].

Concerning this, the following was stated in “Al-Hidaayah”: “(That is) because the repelling of destruction
or ruin (Al-Hilaak) is Waajib (obligatory) by any possible means” (1).

This is what came from the Ahnaaf and the remainder of the Madhaahib did not depart in respect to this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) from the scope which the Ahnaaf mentioned regarding the legal legitimacy of these
types of Mu’aahadaat (treaties) in which the Muslims give Maal (a financial or material compensation) to
the Kuffaar (disbelievers).

- According to the Maalikiyah: The following came stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”:
From the conditions of the permissibility of concluding the Sulh (treaty) with the disbelievers, is that it
(i.e. the contract of the treaty) is free from a Faasid (corrupting) Shart (condition) and they provided an
example of such a Faasid Shart: “The giving of money (Maal) to them in the absence of fear. Whilst, it is
permitted when the fear is present” (2).

- In respect to the Fiqh of the Shaafi’iyah: In the “Mukhtasar Al-Muzaniy”, concerning the discussion
about the Imaam of the Muslims making a (peace) treaty or truce (Muhaadanah) with the disbelievers, he
said: “Ash-Shaafi’iy, Rahimuhullah, said: And it is not permissible to make a treaty with them upon the basis
that the Muslims give them anything, at all. That is because Muslims being killed is “Shahaadah”
(martyrdom) and Islaam is of greater honour and dignity than for him to give (something) to a Mushrik,
so that he (this Mushrik) refrains from (attacking) his people. That is because his people, those who fight
and those who are killed, are prevailing upon the Haqq (truth). That is unless they fear eradiation or being
wiped out, in which case they give from their properties (or wealth) or release captives. There is no issue
(or problem) with that, because this represents a situation of the Daroorah (necessity)” (3). In addition, we
have also previously quoted the following from “Al-Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj” in connection to this Mas’alah:
“If the Daroorah (necessity) calls for it to be paid (i.e. the Maal (money etc.) to the Kaafir), where they
were torturing the captives and as such we pay the ransom for them, or if they surround us and we fear
that we will be wiped out, then it is permissible to pay them, indeed the most correct opinion is that it is
Waajib (obligatory) to do so …” (4).

Similar to this came mentioned with the Fiqh of the Hanaabilah in connection to the matter of paying
money or its like as part of the contract of the treaty concluded with them …

[(1) “Al-Hidaayah - Sharh Bidaayat ul-Mubtadiy” - “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/460. In “Al-‘Inaayah, it was stated: “Regarding his
statement: “By any possible means”. It is said: That in this generalisation there is a Shubhah (doubt or question mark). That is
because, if it was not possible to repel the destruction from oneself except by saying words of disbelief, killing another or by
committing Zinaa (fornication or adultery), then the repelling of the destruction of oneself via those means is not Waajib
(obligatory). Rather, he has a Rukhsah (exceptional permission) in respect to that. However, even if he was killed in that by his
patience to refrain from that, he would be Shaheed. I answer this (i.e. what has been said) saying: The meaning of the speech
“By any possible means” is outside of the matters in which he has been given a special permission (Rukhsah) and it was not
obligatory for him to undertake, I say: The “Waajib” (obligation) here is with the meaning of “Ath-Thaabit” (established) and
so these are also undertaken”: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/460. I say: It is understood from this speech that killing another to repel
destruction (Al-Hilaak i.e. death) of the life has been given a Rukhsah (special permission). It appears (to me) that this must be
restricted to the killing of the likes of the aggressor or attacker (Saa’il), (2) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: 175, (3)
“Mukhtasar Al-Muzaniy”: p279 which was printed with “Al-Umm” of Ash-Shaafi’iy, volume 8. And refer to “Al-Umm”:
4/188-189, (4) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/261].

The following was stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “If the Daroorah (necessity) calls for it and that is when it is
feared that the Muslims will perish or be made captive, in which case it is permitted. That is because it is
permitted for the captive or prisoner (of war) to ransom himself by money, and therefore the same applies
here (in this case)” (1).

Also related to this matter, then we have already previously presented within the presentation of the
discussion concerning the Ghazwah (battle) of Al-Khandaq (trench) and what was gained from it, during
the brief summary of the wars and treaties as mentioned within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah, more of the
statements and opinions of the ‘Ulamaa’ concerning the legal legitimacy of concluding the treaties which
are stipulated by the condition of paying money to the disbelievers at the time or circumstance of
Daroorah (necessity), in addition to their deduction of that, based upon the negotiations that took place
between the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and some of the alliance forces, during that battle, which were being undertaken
for the sake and purpose of breaking the siege that had been imposed upon Al-Madinah, in return for a
specific quantity of its produce, which the Muslims would pay to them (2).

We now arrive to the final point of this Mas’alah (issue):

3 - The Third Point: Some of Bani Umayyah made a Muwaada’ah (treaty) with the enemy,
paying money (or an equivalent) to them, in return for them refraining from fighting the
Muslims.

The Islamic State could (possibly) pass through and face severe crises and very difficult circumstances;
internally or externally. As a result of that it may be compelled out of necessity to conclude a treaty or
truce with its enemy and even by acceding to some of what the enemy covets in terms of the wealth that it
possesses. The State, in such a case, realises that this represents a dangerous path to follow and potentially
rough ride, however, despite that, it compels itself upon it, so as to avoid that which is even more terrible
and reprehensible, according to the estimation and evaluation of those in the positions of authority, in
respect to making a choice between the evils …
This is what took place in some of the early periods of the Islamic history, at the hands of some of the
leaders of the Muslims from Bani Umayyah. For example, in the year 70 after Al-Hijrah, during the era of
the rule of Abdul Malik Bin Marwan. Al-Balaadhuriy said: “A Roman cavalry went out to the mountain of
Al-Lukaam (3) and it had a commander from the commanders appointed over it. They then went on to
Lebanon and a large number of the people of Jaraahimah, Nabateans and runaway slaves from the slaves
of the Muslims were taken by it (i.e. the cavalry). Therefore, Abdul Malik was compelled by necessity to
make a treaty with them upon the basis of paying them 1000 Deenaar every Jumu’ah (Friday). He made a
treaty with the Roman tyrant on the basis of paying him money in order to preoccupy him or divert him
from fighting him and due to his fear that he (the Roman) would launch into Ash-Shaam and feat or
conquer him (4) …

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/519 and refer also to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 10/573, (2) “Bidaayat ul-
Mujtahid”, ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah BiTakhreej Ahaadeeth Al-Bidaayah”: 6/41-42, (3) From the mountains of the lands of
Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria). Refer to: “Aathaar ul-Bilaad Wa Akhbaar ul-‘Ibaad”, Zakariyaa Bin Muhammd Bin Mahmoud Al-
Qazwainiy: p206, (4) The following was stated in “Taareekh (history of) At-Tabariy”: 6/50: “Then the year 70 came … During
this year, the Romans rose up and they mobilized against those in Ash-Shaam, in terms of the Muslims. And so Abdul Malik
made a treaty (Sulh) with the king of the Romans upon the basis that he pay to him 1000 Deenaar every Jumu’ah, due to his
fear for the (well-being of the) Muslims”].

… In respect to his Sulh (treaty) he was emulating Mu’aawiyah when he was occupied in war against the
people of Iraq, as he made a treaty with them upon the basis that he would give them Maal (money or a
material equivalent) and he ransomed from them hostages who had been placed in Ba’labakk” (1).

And it goes without saying, that the strength of Taqwaa within the people in the positions of authority,
their great concern for the (fulfilment of the) interests of the Muslims, their immense eagerness to
maintain the Islamic might and honour, accompanied by the alert awareness over different matters, to
secure the prevention of errors, in respect to the conditions and circumstances … All of this makes the
scale or the Daroorah (necessity) or Idtiraar (compulsion due to necessity), which is returned to when
resorting to these types of Mu’aahadaat (treaties), precise and accurate in terms of estimation and
provision of judgment. And so, they (i.e. those in authority) do not incline towards the realisation of
personal interests against the general public interests … However, when those who are in the position of
decision-making within the Ummah, do not possess those values, then the scale of the Daroorah
(necessity), in such a case, it would become a scale and measure which is played with by the desires of a
specific group or faction, the evils of whom the people are put to trial with! Then, the wealth and
resources of the Ummah would be made a plunder for her enemies under the excuse or pretext of the
Daroorah (necessity). However, if that is possible to be applicable to some of the people, it does not apply
upon many of them … And more important than that, is that this claimed and exposed argument, the
argument of Daroorah or Idtiraar, not be allowed, in accordance to the scales and measure of Islaam, in
respect to what they undertake, and in spite all unacceptable attempts, to be used by the people in
authority to wrongfully usurp a Shar’iyah covering for that (i.e. that they must not be allowed to permit
the plundering of the Ummahs wealth and resources using the pretext and excuse of the necessity
(Daroorah)).

After that, we will now move on to the discussion of the next Mas’alah (issue) from the Masaa’il of this
current chapter.

4 - The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): Other Mu’aahadaat (treaties) which are concluded according to
(particular) conditions or circumstances.

- We have become aware from the legally legitimate Mu’aahadaat (treaties) in Islaam, within this current
chapter in addition to previously addressed studies, of a model of the Sulh (treaty) of Al-Hudaibiyah,
according to which the fighting between the Muslims and the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) was brought to
a halt. That is even though this treaty did not dictate that the land at war pay a Jizyah, nor that they submit
to the Islamic system, just as it did not permit for the Islamic Da’wah to spread within their land (i.e. of
the people of war) or the prevention of any harm befalling the believers who were amongst their subjects.

- We also became aware of a model of the treaty concluded with the king of “Ailah”, Youhannaa Bin
Ru’bah, according to which fighting between the disbelievers and the Islamic State was forbidden whilst a
Jizyah was to be paid to the Muslims. That is even though the treaty did not dictate that the non-Islamic
lands be annexed to or join to the Islamic State or that they submit to the Islamic system.

[(1) “Taareekh ul-Buldaan”, Al-Balaadhuriy: p164].

- We also became aware of a model of treaty that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬was interested to conclude or
contract but (in the end) it was not completed, because it became that the Daroorah (necessity) for it to be
resorted to was not urgent or dire. That was the model abstracted from the treaty of Al-Khandaq (the
trench) which was not concluded … Had it been concluded, it would have dictated that the Muslims pay
the disbelievers a particular amount of their resources or wealth, in return for them refraining to fight the
Muslims and break the siege which had been imposed upon them in Al-Madinah.

Concerning these I say: We have become aware, in what has preceded, of these models of truces and
treaties, and in this Mas’alah (issue), which we are addressing now, we want to know if it is obligatory
upon the Islamic State, when it resorts to the concluding of a particular treaty from among the treaties
with other states, for that treaty to be restricted to these models which have been indicated to or similar to
those which have been found within the Seerah An-Nabawiyah or Sunnah Al-Mutahharah?

The answer to this question: It is that the Shar’iyah texts which have established the concluding of
Mu’aahadaat (treaties) have not restricted their legal legitimacy to particular or specific models or forms.
Rather, they came in a Mutlaq (unrestricted) form, free of any restriction (Qaid). That is like the Qawl of
Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَ َب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek your support in respect to the religion, then you must provide the support, except against a people between
yourselves and whom there is a Meethaaq (treaty) (Al-Anfaal: 72).

The word “Meethaaq” in this Aayah is a Mutlaq (unrestricted) Lafzh (worded expression) and not a
Muqayyad (restricted) one. As such, it applies to any Mu’aahadah, whether it was from those types which
have been indicated to or another type of treaty which the Maslahah of Islaam and the Muslims has
dictated to be concluded, naturally within the limits of the Shar’a, which result in the cessation of fighting
or hostilities between the Islamic State and other states.

- Consequently, it is permissible for the Islamic State, for example, to conclude a treaty with another state
upon the basis that this state concedes to the Muslims some of its foreign sovereignty alone, whilst
maintaining its internal sovereignty. That means that it would be subservient to the Islamic State in its
foreign policy, whilst at the same time, it would be independent from it in respect to its internal or
domestic policy and the ruling system within it (1). I say: It is permissible for the Islamic State to contract
such treaties with other states when it views the accomplishment of the Maslahah (interest) of Islaam and
the Muslims within it … Therefore, these types of treaties would also represent being a Sabab (reason)
from among the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for the cessation of fighting between the Islamic State and the
state which it has concluded a treaty with.

[(1) Refer for the nature of this type of Hukm to: “Al-Mabaadi’ Ad-Dustooriyah Al-‘Aammah”, Dr. Muhammad Hilmiy: p139,
140, 142].
- Similarly, it is permissible for the Islamic State, for example, to conclude a treaty with a state from
among the other states upon the Shart (condition) that it will implement or apply some of the systems or
Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam, within its internal or domestic policy. That could be like the commitment to
abide by the Ahkaam of Islaam in relation to its tourism policy for example. It could be that those in
authority that such a treaty would realise an evident Maslahah (interest) for the Muslims …

It is not hidden that such a condition within the treaty, could be of concern to the Islamic State. That is in
the case where the State sees the Muslims going to that state for tourism and in such a case, the condition
which has been indicated to, would be designed to preserve the Muslims in respect to their conduct and
morals … Just as it makes the mode or model of life, in that state which the treaty has been concluded
with, in some of its aspects, closer to the mode or model of life in the Islamic State. This represents a
matter which lightens, within the breasts of the inhabitants of that land, the feeling of disparity in respect
to the way of life between that which they are accustomed to and that which the Muslims are upon; that
feeling which generates, when it increases, usually, clinging vehemently to the way that they live and repels
them from the way others live.

As such, removing this feeling or lessening it, from the breasts of the people of those lands, via a treaty,
represents a means or path towards the acceptance of living upon the Islamic way and manner, which in
turn, facilitates, bit by bit, the acceptance to submit to the Islamic system, upon the basis of the contract
of Adh-Dhimmah (i.e. that they join the Islamic State as its subjects). Such a treaty would therefore
represent a practical means in respect to the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah i.e. by the way of non-
Muslims living under it and touching upon the reality of what it carries to the people in terms of thoughts
and Ahkaam (rulings) … That is whilst it is known that the Da’wah (call and invitation) to a matter
possessing a tangible and live reality differs from the theoretical Da’wah to thoughts and Ahkaam devoid
of a practical reality (in terms of application) and have no sensed presence, in respect to the effect that it
has upon the people.

- In addition, the Islamic State could conclude a treaty establishing a common market with some of the
non-Islamic states, upon the condition that the Islamic economic system be applied upon this market, or
in the least, that the Islamic State does not commit to anything contrary to Islaam, regarding the activity of
that market, its relations and the system that governs it (1). That is as long as no harm befalling the
Muslims results from it. Such treaties can represent a means of strengthening the Islamic State and of
making others aware of the Da’wah that it is carrying, thus removing dispositional obstacles opposed to
Islaam and its people, existing within the subjects of those states; a matter which would smooth the path
and facilitate their embracing of the Islamic thought or entering into the Dhimmah of the Muslims.

[(1) Refer to: “Reservation over the international treaties, within the general international law, and the Islamic Sharee’ah”,
Abdul Ghaniy Mahmoud: p21].

- It is also permissible for the Islamic State to conclude treaties with other hostile or enemy states or make
agreements with them, related to the regulation of the cessation of hostilities or fighting, when war had
ignited between them. That is upon the basis of a short truce (Hudnah) from time to time, for the purpose
of clearing the battle field of martyrs, wounded and bodies, if such a truce was in the interest (Maslahah)
of the Muslims.

- Just as it is permissible for treaties or agreements to be made with warring states in relation to refraining,
during battle, from bombing or targeting places of worship, residential areas or heritage sites … and what
is similar to that in terms of that which is not used in relation to military affairs; all of which would
naturally be within the limits of that which the Maslahah (interest) calls to.

In summary, it is permissible for the Islamic State to conclude any treaty with the enemy which the
Maslahah (i.e. interest of Islam and the Muslims) dictates or calls to.
The reality of these Mu’aahadaat (treaties), in truth, is that they represent the contracting of a Hudnah
(truce) with the enemy, in which the Qitaal (fighting) comes to halt, upon particular conditions which
differ from one treaty to another. Those conditions, as Al-Qalqashandiy said in his “Sub’h ul-A’ashaa”:
“They do not have a limit that they are restricted to, and do not have a control controlling them. Rather,
they are according to what the necessity (Daroorah) calls to, in relation to that Hudnah (treaty or truce)
according to the situation of the reality” (1).

Concerning this, Al-Qalqashandiy provides examples of what it is possible for the person in authority, in
Islaam, to stipulate, as conditions, upon his counterpart within the warring lands, within the Hudnah or
Mu’aahadah which is being concluded with them. He said:

“Included within this (i.e. the conditions), is that he stipulates that the state allies with his allies and is
hostile to his enemies … And that anyone who seeks to breach the treaty be taken to task … If he was
from the people of obedience and the fighter, if he was from those who violated it, and that if one of the
people of his kingdom committed a crime, he must be presented or taken to task for the crime …

Also, from that, is that he stipulates that they refrain or hold back from his land, the internal hands within
his Jamaa’ah (collective or grouping) … and that he does not prepare an army fro it and does not attempt
to undertake a military attack or invasion …

[(1) “Sub’h ul A’ashaa Fee Sanaa’at ul-Inshaa”, Al-Qalqashandiy: 14/9].

Also included within that (i.e. the possible conditions), is that he stipulates upon it that those which are
being held by them, from those who had been taken as captive, be released …

And, that it be stipulated upon it, that money be delivered to him annually or that which he has selected or
chosen, in terms of fortresses, castles, outskirts or coasts, be handed over to him, from that which they
(the other state) had (previously) gained control of from the Islamic lands, or which he wants to take from
them … from the lands which he concluded a treaty with from the kings (or rulers) of disbelief!

And, that he stipulates upon it that they do not subject the traders of his kingdom and those travelling
from amongst his subjects; across land or sea, with any harm, in respect to themselves or their properties
…

And, that he stipulates upon it, that if some of the time period of the truce or treaty remains, a time close
to what is needed for making preparations (for resumption of war), for it to inform him about what they
want to do, in terms of treaty or other than that …

And, that he stipulates upon it, that if the time period of the truce expires for one of the two parties,
whilst he is within the lands of others, that he would be provided with security until he reaches back to his
place of security … amongst other matters that the agreement can be made upon, the great number of
which are enumerable!” (1).

We will now move on to the final Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of this current chapter.

5 - The Fifth Mas’alah (issue): Al-Amaan (security): What is it? What is the Daleel for its
Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy)? And what is its role in respect to stopping the Qitaal (fighting or
war) with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)?

We have already pointed out that it is not the intended purpose of these chapters of this volume, and
from the Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) which we are addressing within each chapter, to examine them in an
exhaustive manner. Rather, the intended purpose is to address them from the angle that thy represent a
cause or reason (Sabab) from among the Asbaab (causes or reasons) for the cessation of Al-Qitaal
(fighting or hostilities) in Islaam, whether from an individual or partial perspective …

[(1) “Sub’h ul A’ashaa Fee Sanaa’at ul-Inshaa”, Al-Qalqashandiy: 14/9-11].

… It may be that we address some issues within these chapters with more detail, because the dominant
purpose of this volume, as a whole and according to our estimation, calls for that expansion in terms of
detail in relation to addressing those particular issues.

Based upon this premise, we do not see the requirement, within this Mas’alah, to deal with all of the
aspects which the Fuqahaa’ have dealt with in respect to it. We will therefore suffice here, to become
aware about what the Amaan (security), which concerns us in this Mas’alah, is? And what the Daleel
(evidence) for its Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) is? And what its role is in respect to the cessation of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) against the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)?

- Firstly: Al-Amaan: What is it?

“Al-Amaan” according to the author of “Fat’h ul-Qadeer” is: “It is a kind or type of Muwaada’ah (treaty)”
(1).

The author of “Al-‘Inaayah” reasoned it to be considered to be a kind of Muwaada’ah saying: “Because it

contains the leaving of Al-Qitaal (fighting) like the Muwaada’ah” (2).

Consequently, the “Amaan”, the meaning of which we intend here, is the mutually exchanged Amaan
(security) that is granted from each party to the other; between the Muslims and the Ahl ul-Harb (people
of war) … That is whether the party being granted the Amaan (security) is an individual or more than that,
according to the details which the Fuqahaa’ have discussed concerning that … Based upon this, the
reason for the Amaan being considered as a kind or type of Muwaada’ah, becomes clear i.e. the
Mu’aahadah (treaty) that we have spoken about.

We have only mentioned, within the explanation of the intended meaning of Al-Amaan here, that it is the
mutually exchanged Amaan (security) that is granted from each party to the other, whilst not restricting it
to the Amaan (security) that the Muslims grant to the disbelievers, because that which concerns us here,
within this Mas’alah (issue), is the Amaan (security) which acts as a Sabab (reason or cause) for the
cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting and hostilities) against the people of war, and even if that is in an
individual or partial form … This cessation of fighting could be the result of the Amaan which the
disbelievers grant to the Muslims just as it could be as a result of the Amaan (security) that the Muslims
had granted to the disbelievers … Therefore, in each of these two cases, it is obligatory to cease the
fighting against those disbelievers from the people of war; whether they were from those granting the
Amaan or they were those whom the Amaan had been granted to … It is upon this basis that it stands out
that this Amaan represents a type of the Muwaada’ah (treaty). However, as the Amaan (security) granted
to the people of war could be granted by an individual Muslim to an individual or more from the
individuals of the enemy, whilst that Muslim individual does not possess the authority or jurisdiction to
contract the Muwaada’ah or the Mu’aahadah, with non-Muslims, then, for that reason, it became
necessary to explain the Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy of this Amaan (security) which we are
discussing. That is because the Daleel for the permissibility of concluding the Mu’aahadah does not cover
this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), in the case when it is not the person in authority who is granting the security
to the disbelievers from among the people of war.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ibn ul-Himaam: 5/462, (2) “Al-‘Inaayah ‘Ala l-Hidaayah”: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/462].

- Secondly: What is the Daleel for the legal legitimacy of a normal or regular Muslim granting the
Amaan (security) to the enemy, in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue)?
The Daleel for this Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy), is what came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy as
related by ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬who said:

َ ‫اسَأَجْ َمع‬
َ‫ِين‬ ِ ‫َِوال َّن‬ ِ َّ ‫َ َف َمنْ َأَ ْخ َف َرَمُسْ لِماَ َف َعلَ ْيهَِلَعْ َن ُة‬.‫ىَب َهاَأَ ْد َنا ُه َْم‬
َ ‫ََّللا ََو ْال َمالَ ِئ َكة‬ ِ ‫ِين ََوا ِح َدةَ َيسْ َع‬ ْ ‫ِذ َّم ُة‬
َ ‫َالمُسْ لِم‬
And the Dhimmah (protection) of the Muslims is one (i.e. it covers all of them) even if it is
granted by one of the lowest social status among them. And whoever breached the covenant of a
Muslim in this respect will incur the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people … (1).

Concerning this Hadeeth, the following came stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The Dhimmah of the Muslims
is one: It means: There Amaan (security) is Saheeh (valid). Therefore, if one of the provides Amaan
(security) to a Kaafir (disbeliever) it is Haraam upon anyone else to infringe upon him” (2).

Based upon this, when Umm Haani’, may Allah be pleased with her, provided security (Amaan) to two
men from the relatives of her husband, from the Mushrikeen (polytheists), on the day of the Fat’h
(conquest) of Makkah, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬permitted her Amaan … That prevented her brother ‘Ali Ibn Abi
Taalib from attacking them, which he had intended to do … these two men had not been from those who
had been covered by the general security which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had granted to the Mushrikeen of the
people of Makkah and had encompassed all apart from a group of individuals whom he had named, due
to their particular crimes. That was because these two had not abided by the condition of this security,
which was to remain inside their houses or in the Masjid. They were from those who had taken up arms
and fought on that day.

Concerning this incident and Umm Haani’, the following came related in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and
Muslim: “I went to Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬on the day of the conquest of Makkah and found that he
was taking a bath, whilst his daughter Fatima was screening him. I said Salaam to him and he asked: “Who
is that?” I said: “It is I, Umm Haani’ bint Abi Taalib”. He said: “Welcome, O Umm Hani”. When he had
finished his bath, he stood up and offered eight Raka’aat while dressed in one garment …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1870, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4/81 and Saheeh Muslim: 1370, 2/998, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4/86].

I said: “O Allah's Messenger (‫ !)ﷺ‬My brother `Ali has declared that he will kill a man to whom I have
granted security. The man is so and-so bin Hubairah”. Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “O Umm
Haani’! We will grant asylum to the one whom you have granted asylum”. Umm Haani’ said: That
(visit) took place at the time of Duhaa (i.e. forenoon) (1).

And the following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “That Umm Haani’ the daughter of Abi
Taalib said: When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬reached the top part of Makkah, two men from the
relatives of my husband, from Bani Makhzoom, fled, and she had been staying at the place of Hubairah
Bin Abi Wahb Al-Makhzoomiy. She said: ‘Ali (i.e. ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib), my brother, entered and said: By
Allah, I will kill them both and so I closed the door of my house upon them both. I then went to the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was at the upper part of Makkah …” (2).

The following came mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: Abu l-‘Abbaas Bin Suraij and others said: They were
Ja’dah Bin Hubairah and another man from Bani Makhzoom. They were amongst those whom Khaalid
Bin Al-Waleed fought and who had not accepted to receive the Amaan (security i.e. which had been
offered). And so Umm Haani’ provided them with sanctuary or protection, and they were from her
husband’s relatives” (3).
Based on what has preceded, the granting of Amaan (security) to a Kaafir (disbeliever) from the people of
war (Ahl ul-Harb) places him in or under s security and consequently it is not permissible for the Muslims
to aggress against him in any way or in respect to any matter …

In order to safeguard or maintain the right of the provision of security (Amaan) from any harm that can
possibly befall the Muslims as result of it, the Fuqahaa’ have stipulated, for it to be considered to be valid,
that the one who is being granted the Amaan be free of any accusation and that the Amaan (security)
which is granted, be free of any Mafsadah (corrupting or harmful element) (4).

We now arrive to the final point of our discussion of this current Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).

Thirdly: The role of the Amaan (security) in relation to stopping the fighting with the Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war).

The role of the Amaan (security) in respect to halting the Qitaal (fighting) with the people of war who
have been granted the Amaan, is a clear matter, as there is no meaning to the Amaan, if the fighting
(Qitaal) remains continuing, in such a case … This is what the Madhaahib of the Fuqahaa’ have affirmed.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 357, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/469 and Saheeh Muslim: 336, 1/498, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 4/93, (3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/470. Also refer to “At-Ta’leeq As-Sabeeh ‘Alaa Mishkaat il-Masaabeeh”, Muhammad
Idrees Al-Kandahlawiy: 4/285-286, (4) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/464, “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p173, “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/238 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/432-434].

- The following was stated in “Al-Hidaayah”: “If a free (1) man or free woman grants security (Amaan) to
a Kaafir or a group … Their Amaan (security) is valid for them and none of the Muslims are permitted to
fight against them” (2).

- In “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, in respect to the case if the Muslim grants security to a man
from the disbelievers or a limited number from among them, it was stated: “The Imaam and other than
him are bound to fulfil it, as long as it did not contain that which brings harm, whether there was benefit
in it or not” (3).

- Concerning the matter of the Amaan; the effect resulting from it and concerning the one who can or has
the right to grant it, the following came mentioned in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj: “Al-Amaan: It is the opposite
of “Khawf” (fear), and here this meaning is added to, to include abandoning the fighting of the
disbelievers … And the contracts which establish security (Al-Amn) for them are three: Amaan (a
security), Jizyah (i.e. the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah) and the Hudnah (truce or peace treaty). That is
because if it is related to a limited group or number, it is an Amaan. If it was not limited, and it was for a
particularly period which expires, then it is a Hudnah. Otherwise it is Jizyah. And these two (i.e. the
Hudnah and the Jizyah) are the special remit of the Imaam, in contrast to the Amaan” (4).

- Under the topic heading of “Al-Amaan” the following was stated in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Al-
Maqdisiy:

“And the Hujjah (proof) of that is: That if the Amaan is provided to the Ahl ul-Harb, it is Haraam to kill
them, what they possess (is also Haraam) and to target or subject them (to harm)” (5).

In respect to this, we have already indicated to that the Amaan which we intend during the examination of
this Mas’alah, is the mutually exchanged Amaan granted from each party or side to the other, between the
Muslims and the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war).
Consequently, it is not permissible for the Muslims who have been granted an Amaan by the disbelievers
to launch any fighting against them or target and subject them to anything, because that would be
treachery or betrayal.

[(1) The three Madhaahib (i.e. excluding the Ahnaaf) have not stipulated as a condition that the Muslim who gives the Amaan
be Hurr (free) and therefore it (i.e. granting of an Amaan) is valid from the ‘Abd (slave). Refer to: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah”: p173, “Al-Muhadh-dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/235 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/432, (2) “Al-
Hidaayah Sharh Al-Bidaayah”, Al-Margheenaaniy: 5/462, (3) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p173, (4) “Mughniy ul-
Muhtaaj”: 4/236, (5) “Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/555 and also refer to “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/432].

In the book “Al-Umm” it was stated: “Ash-Shaafi’iy, may Allah Ta’Aalaa’s mercy be upon him, said: “If a
group from the Muslims enter the land of war via an Amaan (security), then the enemy is secure from
them until they depart from them or the period of their Amaan reaches its expiry. They cannot transgress
against or oppress them not betray or be treacherous to them” (1).

Finally, a problematic issue could arise in respect to this issue, and that is related to how is it permissible
for the Muslim fighter, or someone similar, to provide a security to an individual or group from the
disbelievers, during the state of war, or upon the battle front, for example, and then this individual or
group, enter the midst of the Muslims, under the Hukm (ruling) of this security, which could lead to great
dangers, which it is possible the one volunteering this Amaan did not fully comprehend at the time, and
particularly within the circumstances in which modern warfare takes place today? Therefore, does the
Haqq (right) of this Muslim to provide or grant an Amaan (security) to the people of war, in general,
represent a door or gateway by which the winds of harm can be made to reach the Muslims?

The answer to this problematic issue is found in what was previously presented in relation to the opinion
of the obligation of stipulating the condition of preventing the harm and the Mafsadah, for this Amaan to
be valid.

In any case, it is permissible for the legitimate person in authority, in relation to this matter, to regulate the
Muslims’ utilisation of the practise of this Haqq (right) in a manner that does not mean the cancellation or
abolition of the right, from one angle, whilst at the same time encompasses the measures and conditions
which guarantee that it isn’t taken as a means for bringing harm, from another angle. Those measures and
conditions would fall under the remit of the regulation of the utilisation of this right and this regulation
falls under the remit of taking care of the affairs which has been made the responsibility of the legitimate
person in authority, which is necessary and not objected to, in accordance to the statement of the Nabi
‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫اع ََوه َُوَ َمسْ ؤُ ولَ َعنَ َرعِ َي ِت ِه‬

ٍ ‫َر‬
َ ‫اإل َما ُم‬
ِ
The Imaam is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock (i.e. subjects) (2).

Within “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, some of the styles which the person in authority can utilise in relation
to this matter and which prevent the exploitation of this right in that which could bring harm to and plots
against the Muslims, it was stated:

“If he (i.e. the Ameer of the war or the commander of the Muslim army) commands that the people of
the fortresses are called to, written to or an envoy sent to them, saying: If one of the Muslims provides
you with a security, then do not be deceived by his Amaan (offer of security), because his (granting of an)
Amaan is Baatil (invalid) …

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/248, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2409, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/69 and a similar narration is found in
Saheeh Muslim: 1869, 3/1459].
Then, a man grants them security and they then descend based upon that Amaanah, and then become Fa’i
(booty) (1). That is not due to the consideration that the Amaan (security) provided by the Muslim is not
valid after this forbiddance, but rather because this statement from the Imaam is equivalent to casting it
back to them (i.e. annulment) and just as it is valid to annul it after the Amaan was provided, it is also
valid to annul it prior to the (provision of the) Amaan … It is only valid to annul it before the Amaan was
provided to repel harm from the Muslims and if that was not valid, then it would enable some of the
Faasiq (rebelliously disobedient) Muslims to prevent them (the Muslims) from conquering their (i.e. the
enemy’s) fortress by providing them with security, whilst the Imaam then has to annul that one after the
other, which would mean that they would never conquer the fortress. Therefore, to repel this harm, it is
valid to annul prior to the provision of the Amaan by way of providing warning and notice!” (2).

In this way, it is clear, how the Mas’alah (issue) of the Amaan, that even if the cessation of Qitaal results
from it against an individual or individuals from the people of war, it is nevertheless encompassed by
Ahkaam Shar’iyah which prevent the exploitation of that Amaan (security) in a manner that brings harm
to the Muslims.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of this Mas’alah and consequently we have also reached the end
of this current chapter. We now move on to the next chapter with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq.

[(1) i.e. they are considered prisoners of war, as a part of the Ghanaa’im (booty or spoils of war), (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: 2/580].

Chapter Four
Al-Ash’hur ul-Hurum (The Sacred Months)

This represents the fourth Sabab (reason or cause) from among the Asbaab (reasons or causes) for the
cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting), in Islaam.

The discussion of this cause will be addressed through the following Masaa’il (issues):

The First Mas’alah (issue): What is intended by Al-Ash’hur ul-Hurum (The Sacred Months): What are
they? What does the Tahreem (prohibition) of the scared months mean? What are the Adillah (evidences)
for the Tahreem (prohibition) of Qitaal (fighting) in the sacred months? And what is the Hikmah
(wisdom) in respect to the prohibition of Al-Qitaal within them?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): The opinion stating the Naskh (abrogation) of the prohibition of Al-
Qitaal (fighting) in the sacred months accompanied by a presentation of the Adillah (evidences).

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The opinion stating the continuance of the prohibition of fighting in the
sacred months and a discussion of the Adillah of the majority in respect to the abrogation (Naskh) of the
Tahreem (prohibition) in them.

The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): The preponderant opinion in respect to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue).
The First Mas’alah (issue): What is intended by Al-Ash’hur ul-Hurum (The Sacred Months):
What are they? What does the Tahreem (prohibition) of the scared months mean? What are the
Adillah (evidences) for the Tahreem (prohibition) of Qitaal (fighting) in the sacred months? And
what is the Hikmah (wisdom) in respect to the prohibition of Al-Qitaal within them?

Firstly: What are the Sacred Months (Al-Ash’hur Al-Hurum):

The sacred months were specified and designated as being four in the Khutbah (speech) of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
which he gave on the day of An-Nahr (slaughter) during the farewell pilgrimage (Hajjat ul-Wadaa’”, as was
recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslims and related by Abu Bakrah, who said:

َ ُ‫َِو ْالم َُحرَّ ُم ََو َر َجب‬ ْ ‫َِو ُذ‬

َ ‫وَالحِجَّ ة‬ ْ ‫َذ‬،
َ ‫وَال َقعَْ َدة‬ ُ ‫َ َثالَثَ ُم َت َوالِ َيات‬،‫َأَرْ َب َعةَ ُحرُم‬،‫َاث َناَ َع َش َرَ َشهْراَ ِم ْن َها‬
ْ ‫ال َّس َن ُة‬
‫ان‬ َ ‫ض َرَالَّذِيَ َبي َْنَ ُج َماد‬
ََ ‫َىَو َشعْ َب‬ َ ‫ُم‬
The year is twelve months, four of which are sacred. Three of them are in succession; Dhul-
Qa'dah, Dhul-Hijjah and Al-Muharram, and (the fourth being) Rajab Mudar (1) which stands
between Jumaadaa (Ath-Thaaniy) and Sha'baan (2).

Secondly: The meaning of the Tahreem (prohibition) of the Ash’hur ul-Hurum (Sacred Months).

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas, in respect to what is intended by the Tahreem (prohibition) of the Ash-hur ul-
Hurum, said the following in his Tafseer of the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ْ‫َِو ْاألَر‬
َ‫ضَ ِم ْن َهاَأَرْ َب َعة‬ َ ‫َخلَ َقَال َّس َم َاوات‬ ْ ‫إِنَّ َعِ َّد َةَال ُّشهُورَعِ ندََاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِاث َناَ َع َش َرَ َشهْراَفِيَ ِكََتابَِاللَّـهَِ َي ْو َم‬ ِ
ُ‫ِيهنَّ َأَنفُ َسك َْم‬ ْ َ ْ َ ٰ
ِ ‫كَال ِّدينُ َالََق ِّي ُمََۚ َفالَ َتظلِمُواَف‬
َ ِ‫ُحرُمََۚذل‬
Verily, the number of months with Allah (3) is twelve [lunar] months in the Kitaab (register) (4) of Allah [from] the day
He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the sound (5) Deen, so do not wrong yourselves in
them (At-Taubah: 36) (6).

Al-Jassaas says: “Concerning His Qawl Ta’Aalaa: “Of them four are Hurum (Sacred)”: Then they are
those which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬main clear that they are Dhu l-Qa’dah, Dhu l-Hijjah, Al-Muharram and Rajab.
The Arabs says: Three consecutive and one by itself or single (Thalaathah Sard Wa Waahid Fard) (7). They
have called them “Hurum” for two reasons: One is the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting during them,
and the people of Jaahiliyah (i.e. pre-Islamic period) used to also believe in the prohibition of fighting in
them … And secondly, magnifying the severity of the violations of the Mahaarim (forbidden acts) within
them, in a manner which is greater or more severe than in other than them, and also the magnifying of the
greatness of good and pious acts within them” (8).

[(1) It was stated in Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/193: “He only restricted it with this restriction (i.e. Rajab Mudar)
for emphasis … They said: There was a dispute between Mudar and Rabee’ah (i.e. two tribes) concerning Rajab. Mudar made
Rajab the month which is known to us today and that is the month between Jumaadaa and Sha’baan. That is whilst Rabee’ah
made it Ramadhaan. It was therefore for this reason that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬attached “Mudar” to it. It has also been said: That is
because they use to magnify or extoll its greatness more than others. And it is said: The Arabs used to call Rajab and Sha’baan
the two Rajabs. And it is said: They used to call Rajab and Jumaadaa the two Jumaadaas and call Sha’baan Rajab”. Refer also to:
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/325 and “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 1/266, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4662, 8/324 and Saheeh Muslim: 1679,
3/1305, (3) “i.e.: In the Hukm of Allah”, Tafseer ul-Qurtubiy: 8/132, (4) “i.e.: In the Lawh ul-Mahfoozh. And it is said: In
respect to which He established and made obligatory upon His servants to take (and follow)”: Tafseer Al-Aalousiy: 10/89, (5)
“i.e.: Al-Mustaqeem (straight, correct), the Deen of Ibraaheem and Ismaa’eel, Alaihimi -s-Salaam. The Arabs used to hold on to
it as an inheritance from them both. They used to venerate the sacred months, to the extent that if a man came across the killer
of his father or brother he would not target him. And they called Rajab “Al-Asamm …”, Tafseer Al-Alousiy: 10/91. The
meaning of “Al-Asamm”: Is due to the silence of the sounds of weapons during it. And in “Ta’weel Mushkil Al-Qur’aan”, Ibn
Qutaibah: 454 it was stated: “Ad-Deen means: Al-Hisaab”, (6) Soorah At-Taubah: 36. In Tafseer Al-Qurtubiy, it was stated: “In
respect to the Zhulm there are two opinions: The first: Do not wrong yourselves in respect to them (i.e. the months) by
fighting … The second: Do not wrong yourselves in them by committing sins, because if Allah Subhaanahu elevates the
greatness of a matter via a single direction (or aspect), it comes to possess a single Hurmah (inviolable sanctity) and if He
elevates its greatness from two angles or aspects, its Hurmah is numerous and as such the punish is multiplied by the bad
action, just as the reward is magnified through the righteous act”: 8/134, (7) In “Mukhtaar As-Sihaah” (the dictionary): p250:
“Their statement in respect to the “Ash’hur ul-Hurum” being: “Thalaathah Sard” means consecutive … Whilst the “Waahid
Fard” refers to Rajab”, (8) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 4/308. Al-Jassaas continues in his explanation of the Hikmah
(wisdom) in respect to the specification of some of the times and places, in relation to their Hurmah (inviolable sacredness) and
the effect of that in terms of the multiplication of reward for obedience and multiplication of sin for the sinful act, in these
times or places, saying: “Allah Ta’Aalaa has said that due to what that contains in respect to the Maslahah (interest or benefit) in
abandoning the Zhulm (transgression) within them due to their great status in the Hukm (judgement) of Allah and to
encourage the rushing towards acts of obedience … Therefore, leaving the Zhulm (transgression) and Qabaa’ih (ugly or
repulsive acts) during these months and in these places, represents an incentive to leave them in other than them, so that the
undertaking of the acts of obedience and continuing upon them with regularity during these months and these honourable
places (i.e. the like of Al-Masjid Al-Haraam and Al-Masjid An-Nabawiy) represents a motivation to undertake similar to that
outside of them (i.e. the sacred months), due to having become habituated upon them, in addition to the Tawfeeq from Allah
that comes when someone turns towards Him in obedience to Him, in addition to what attaches to the servant in terms of
failure as a result of his pursuit of the sinful acts, being renowned by them and his inclination to them. Therefore, by elevating
the greatness of some of the months and some places, the interests were made greater in respect to calling to the pursuit of acts
of obedience and leaving the abominable acts. And because matters pull towards their like and pull away from their opposites,
then seeking increase in the acts of obedience calls to their like, whilst seeking increase in the acts of disobedience calls for their
like”].

The evidence establishing that the Arabs in the period of Jaahiliyah (prior to Islaam) used to refrain from
fighting if they were within one of these months, is that which came recorded in Saheeh Al-Bukhaariy, as
related Abu Rajaa’ Al-‘Utaaridiy, who said: “We used to worship stones, and when we found a better
stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone
then we would collect some Jushwah (pieces of soil) (1) from the earth and then bring a sheep and milk
(2) that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaaf around it. When the month of Rajab came, we would say:
“(The month) to get rid of the teeth” (i.e. the iron of the weapons) (3). That is because we would not leave
a spear or and arrow except that we removed the iron from them, (in) the month of Rajab” (4).

Thirdly: What are the Adillah (evidences) for the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in
the Ash’hur ul-Hurum (scared months)?

The Adillah (evidences) for the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting in the scared months are summarised as
follows:

A - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َِ‫َِو ْال َمسْ ِجد‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬

ِ ‫َِو َُك ْفر‬
َ ‫َبه‬ ِ ‫ص ٌّدَ َعنَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫الَفِي َِهََۖقُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبيرََۖ َو‬ ٍ ‫َال َح َر ِامَقِ َت‬ َ ‫َيسْ أَلُو َن‬
ْ ‫كَ َع ِنَال َّشه ِْر‬
ْ ‫ْال َح َرام ََوإِ ْخ َراجَُأَهْ لِهَِ ِم ْنهَُأَ ْك َبرَُعِ ندََاللَّـ ِهَ ََۚو ْالفِ ْت َن ُةَأَ ْك َبرَُم َِن‬
َِ ‫َال َق ْت‬
‫ل‬ ِ
They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin] but averting [people] from
the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haraam and the expulsion of its people
therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And Fitnah is greater than killing (Al-Baqarah: 217).

In the Tafseer of Al-Alousiy, the following was stated: “(Concerning) “Say: Fighting in it is great [sin]”, it
means: Great in terms of Wizr (burden of sin). It contains the establishment of the Hurmah (inviolable
sanctity and prohibition) of fighting in the Shahr ul-Haraam (sacred month) and what has been believed,
in respect to that he ‫ ﷺ‬made the fighting within it Halaal, is Baatil (false) …

[(1) “Jushwah: It refers to pieces of the earth, soil or dirt which are gathered together so that they become a pile and its plural is
“Jushaa”, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/91, (2) Ibn Hajar quoted this statement in “Fat’h ul-Baariy” saying: “We brought a sheep and
milked it upon it”: 8/91, (3) “Stripping (or removing) the iron from the weaponry because of the month of Rajab. This is an
indication that they abandoned the fighting because they used to remove the iron from the weaponry in the sacred months …”
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/91, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4376 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/90].
… And what occurred from his ‫ ﷺ‬companions (in terms of acts) was only representative of an error in
respect to Ijtihaad and that is pardoned. Indeed, whoever makes Ijtihaad and makes a mistake has one Ajr
(reward), as has come stated in the Hadeeth (1)” (2).

Here, within what Al-Aalousiy established, in relation to what took place from the Sahaabah in terms of
Qitaal within the sacred month (Ash-Shahr ul-Muharram), as being only from the angle of an error in
relation to Ijtihaad, represents an indication to the Sabab un-Nuzool (reason or cause of revelation) of the
previous Aayah … Regarding this, there are a number of narrations, the summary of which are: That the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent out an gathering information expedition or unit (Sariyyah), under the leadership of
Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, during Rajab in the second year of Al-Hijrah, to a location called “Nakhlah” (3),
which was between Makkah and Taa’if. It was for the purpose of obtaining information and news about
Quraish and not for the purpose of fighting … The unit reached Nakhlah. Then on the last night of Rajab
which was from the sacred months, it was agreed that this unit (Sariyyah) came across a trade caravan
belonging to Quraish, coming from Taa’if and on its way to Makkah. Accompanying this caravan was
‘Amr Bin Al-Hadramiy, ‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Abdullah Al-Makhzoomiy, his brother Nawfal and Al-Hakam Bin
Kaisaan, the Mawlaa of Hishaam Bin Al-Mugheerah … A discussion then took place among those of the
Sariyyah (dispatched unit) concerning attacking this caravan and seizing the opportunity that had
presented itself …

Concerning this, the following came stated with the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Some of them (i.e. members
of the military expedition) said: By Allah, if we were to leave these people be on this night, they will
certainly enter the Haram and so they will prevented you from it! And if you were to kill them you would
have killed them in the sacred month. The group was therefore hesitant or indecisive and they were afraid
of preceding. They then encouraged one another and agreed to kill those whom they were able to get the
better of from them and to take what they had in their possession. So, Waaqid Bin Abdullah At-
Tameemiy fired an arrow at ‘Amr Bin Al-Hadramiy and killed him and they took ‘Uthmaan Bin Abdullah
and Al-Hakam Bin Kaisaan as captives, whilst Nawfal Bin Abdullah escaped them … Then Abdullah Bin
Jahsh and his companions along with the caravan and the two prisoners set off until they reached the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in Al-Madinah … Ibn Ishaaq said: Then when they reached the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬in Al-Madinah he said: I did not command you to fight in the sacred month! The caravan and
the prisoners were then put on hold … and their Muslim brothers scorned them for what they had done!

[(1) This is pointing to what has been recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim in a Hadeeth related by ‘Amr Bin Al-‘Aas:
That he heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬saying: If the Haakim (judge or ruler) judges and then makes Ijtihaad and gets it
right, then he has two rewards (Ajraan) and if he passes judgement and then errs then he has one reward (Ajr)”. Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 7352, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 13/318 and Saheeh Muslim: 1716, 3/1342, (2) Tafseer “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”, Al-Aalousiy:
2/108, (3) The location “Nakhlah” in “The Atlas of Islamic History”, map: 32 and 36].

Quraish then said: Muhammad and his companions have made the sacred month Halaal (i.e. for taking
blood and property etc.) and spilled blood in it, taken property and taken men as captives! Then some
Muslims who were in Makkah replied to them saying: They only took or inflicted what they did in the
month of Sha’baan (i.e. that Rajab had passed) … Then when the people had immersed themselves in that
(i.e. debate and accusations), Allah revealed upon His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َِ‫َِو ْال َمسْ ِجد‬

َ ‫َبه‬ َ ‫يلَاللَّـه‬
َِ ‫َِو ُك ْفر‬ ِ ‫ص ٌّدَ َعنَ َس ِب‬ َ ‫َۖو‬ َ َ‫الَفِي ِهََۖقُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبير‬ ٍ ‫َال َح َر ِامَقِ َت‬ َ ‫َيسْ أَلُو َن‬
ْ ‫كَ َع ِنَال َّشه ِْر‬
ْ ‫ْال َح َرام ََوإِ ْخ َراجَُأَهْ لِهَِ ِم ْنهَُأَ ْك َبرَُعِ ندََاللَّـ ِهَ ََۚو ْالفِ ْت َن ُةَأَ َْك َبرَُم َِن‬
َِ ‫َال َق ْت‬
‫ل‬ ِ
They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin] but averting [people] from
the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haraam and the expulsion of its people
therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And Fitnah is greater than killing (Al-Baqarah: 217).
Ibn ul-Qayyim comments upon what was revealed from the Qur’aan in relation to the Sariyyah
(expedition) of Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, saying:

“The intended meaning is that Allah Subhaanahu judged between His Awliyaa’ and His enemies by justice
and fairness and He did not free or declare innocent his Awliyaa’ from the committing of the sin of
fighting in the sacred month. Rather, he informed that this represented a Kabeer (major sin)! And what
His enemies of the Mushrikeen were upon was greater in sin (and affair) than the mere fighting in the
sacred month. They therefore deserve the censure, condemnation and punishment more and particularly
because they (the Muslims) were interpreting (1) in respect to their fighting or falling short in some
manner which Allah forgave them for, in the context of what they had done in terms of Tawheed, Taa’aat
(acts of obedience), making Hijrah with His Messenger and giving preference to that which was with Allah
(i.e. over the Dunyaa). They are therefore as it is said: And if the Habeeb (beloved) comes with one sin,
his good qualities have come with 1000 interceding! And so how can he be compared to the loathsome
enemy which has come with all abhorrence, and not be entitled to a single intercession from all the good
qualities?!” (2).

The above is what has ben said concerning the first Daleel (evidence) from among the evidences for the
Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred month. Its summary is as follows:

Concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫قُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبير‬

Say: Fighting in it is great [sin]

This Qawl which came in relation to the incident of the Muslims initiating the fighting against the
disbelievers, during the expedition led by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, may Allah be pleased with him, indicates to
the Tahreem (prohibition) of this type of Qitaal.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/23-24 and Tafseer At-Tabariy “Jaami’ ul-Bayaan”: 2/202. Also refer to Sunan
Al-Baihaqiy where a narration of this incident is quoted with a connected (Muttasal) Sanad: From Al-Hadramiy, from Abu As-
Siwaar, from Jundub Bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him: He said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬dispatched a group
…”: 9/11. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said concerning this Hadeeth recorded by Al-Baihaqiy: “Its Sanad (chain) is Saheeh if this
“Al-Hadramiy” is Ibn Laahiq as it has been said that it is not him and that he is Majhool (unknown)”. “Fiqh us-Seerah” by
Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy and the Takhreej (verification) of its Ahaadeeth by Al-Albaaniy: p230-231. Al-Baihaqiy also quoted
the narration that we transmitted from Ibn Ishaaq with a Saheeh Sanad but Mursal from ‘Urwah Bin Az-Zubair: 9/58-59, (2) It
may be that the interpretation that Ibn ul-Qayyim is pointing to here, is like that which came within some of the narrations of
At-Tabariy, stating that the occurrence of this incident was only at the end of Jumaadaa Ath-Thaaniyah …: “And the Muslims
considered or believed (by estimation) that it was the last day of Jumaadaa but it was the first day of Rajab, and so the Muslims
killed Ibn ul-Hadramiy …”: Tafseer At-Tabariy: 2/204-205. However, this does not fall under Ta’weel (interpretation) but
rather it falls under the category of mistake and error. What can be counted to be interpretation (Ta’weel) is what came
mentioned within some of the narrations in which some of the Sahaabah defended fighting in the month of Rajab when they
said: “We are indeed only fighting those who expelled us from the sacred land in the sacred month”: “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”:
6/66, (3) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/170-171].

Al-Qurtubiy said: “(Concerning the Qawl): “Fighting in it is a great [sin]” this means: It is reprehensible
(Mustankar) because the prohibition of fighting during the sacred month had been established at that time
when the Muslims initiated it” (1).

B - Another Daleel (evidence) for the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting during the sacred months was
mentioned in “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan” by Al-Jassaas, who said:

(Concerning) His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫صاص‬ ُ ‫َال َح َر ِام ََو ْال ُح ُر َم‬

َ ِ‫اتَق‬ ْ ‫َبال َّشه ِْر‬ ْ ‫ال َّش ْهر‬
ِ ‫َُال َح َرا ُم‬
 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution
(Al-Baqarah: 194).

It was related from Al-Hasan that the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists) said to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: Have you
forbidden fighting us during the sacred month? He said: Yes. And the Mushrikeen wanted to attack or
raid him during the sacred month and fight him. Then Allah Ta’Aalaa revealed:

َ‫صاص‬ ُ ‫َال َح َر ِام ََو ْال ُح ُر َم‬

َ ‫اتَ ِق‬ ْ ‫َبال َّشه ِْر‬ ْ ‫ال َّش ْهر‬
ِ ‫َُال َح َرا ُم‬
[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution
(Al-Baqarah: 194).

Which means: If they seek to make anything Halaal in respect to you during the scared month, then seek
to make Halaal from them the like of what they have sought to make Halaal (i.e. in terms of life and
properties etc.). Allah Ta’Aalaa then followed that with His Qawl within the same Aayah:

َ‫َِبم ِْث ِلَ َماَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫َف َم ِنَاعْ َتد َٰىَ َعلَ ْي ُك ْمَ َفاعْ َت ُدواَ َعلَ ْيه‬
So, whoever aggressed against you, then aggress against him in the same way that he has aggressed against you (Al-Baqarah:
194).

This established that if they (the enemy) fought them during the sacred month, they must fight them
within it, even if it is not permissible for them (i.e. the Muslims) to initiate the Qitaal against them” (2).

C - Also from amongst the evidences for the prohibition of Al-Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months,
is His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫َِو َالَال َّشه َْر‬

َ‫َال َح َرا َم‬ َ ‫واَالَ ُت ِحلُّواَ َش َعائ َِرَاللَّـه‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَآ َم ُن‬
O you who have believed, do not violate the Sha’aa’ir (rites) (3) of Allah and not [the sanctity of] the sacred month (Al-
Maa’idah: 2).

The following was stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: (Concerning) His statement: “and not [the sanctity
of] the sacred month”: Then it represents an Ism Mufrad (an individual noun) referring to the Jins (kind) in
respect to indicating to all of the sacred months, which are four … And its meaning is: Do not seek to
make it Halaal (permissible) to undertake Al-Qitaal (fighting) or an attack or raid …” (3).

And in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, he stated: (Concerning) “and not [the sanctity of] the sacred month”:
It means by that, its Tahreem (prohibition) and acknowledgement of its magnitude, and to leave what
Allah has forbidden to be undertaken or engaged in during it, in terms of initiating the Qitaal (fighting) …

[(1) “Al-Jaaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/45, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 1/325 and refer also to
Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy: 2/354, (3)

… Just as Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫الَفِي ِهََۖقُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبير‬

ٍ ‫َال َح َر ِامَقِ َت‬ َ ‫َيسْ أَلُو َن‬
ْ ‫كَ َع ِنَال َّشه ِْر‬
They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin] (Al-Baqarah: 217).

… ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talhah related from Ibn ‘Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them both, concerning His
Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫َو َالَال َّشه َْر‬

َ‫َال َح َرا َم‬
And not [the sanctity of] the sacred month (Al-Maa’idah: 2).
That it means: Do not seek to make the Qitaal Halaal (permissible) within it. Muqaatil Bin Hayyaan and
‘Abdul Kareem Bin Maalik Al-Jazariy held the same view and it was also the choice of Ibn Jareer” (1).

D - Also from the Adillah (evidences) for the prohibition of engaging in fighting during the sacred
months, is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa which we have previously quoted:

َ ْ‫َِو ْاألَر‬
َ‫ضَ ِم ْن َهاَأَرْ َب ََعة‬ َ ‫َخلَ َقَال َّس َم َاوات‬ ْ ‫إِنَّ َعِ َّد َةَال ُّشهُورَعِ ندََاللَّـه‬
َ ‫َِاث َناَ َع َش َرَ َشهْراَفِيَ ِك َتابَِاللَّـهَِ َي ْو َم‬ ِ
ُ‫ِيهنَّ َأَنفُ َسك َْم‬ ْ َ َ َ َ ْ َ ٰ
ِ ‫كَال ِّدينُ َالق ِّي ُمََۚفالَتظلِمُواَف‬ َ ِ‫ُحرُمََۚذل‬
Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the Kitaab (register) of Allah [from] the day He
created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the sound Deen, so do not wrong yourselves in them (At-
Taubah: 36).

The following came stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “The statement: “And do not wrong yourselves in them” means:
During the four (months) by making the fighting Halaal (within them). And it is said: It means: By not
committing the Ma’aasiy (sinful acts of disobedience pl. of Ma’siyah)” (2).

We have also previously quoted that which came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim, in relation
to the Khutbah Al-Wadaa’ (the farewell speech), in which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬specified the intended meaning
of the Ash’hur ul-Hurum (sacred months), when he said: “The year has twelve months, four of which
are Hurum (sacred and inviolable)”.

In his Tafseer, Ibn Katheer comments upon the Aayah of the sacred months and the farewell Khutbah
(speech), in respect to defining the sacred months, stating: “This indicates to the continuation of its
prohibition until the end of time, as is the opinion of a group from the Salaf” (3).

Concerning the meaning of Ibn Katheer’s statement about the continuation of the Tahreem (prohibition)
of fighting during the sacred months until the end of time, then that is based upon Soorah At-Taubah,
which contains the Aayah mentioning the sacred months, was from the last of what was revealed from the
Qur’aan in relation to the subject area of Al-Qitaal (fighting), as it was revealed in the ninth year of Al-
Hijrah. That is whilst the farewell Hajj speech, in which those months were specified as being four and
named, took place in the tenth year of Al-Hijrah i.e. in the last stage of revelation and legislation.

[(1) “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 2/4. Refer also to: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 3/291, “Zaad ul-
Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/341 and “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”, Al-Aalousiy: 6/53, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/324, (3) “Tafseer ul-
Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 2/4].

E - In conformity to the opinion of the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, is what came
recorded in the Musnad of Al-Imaam Ahmad, with a Saheeh Sanad (chain of transmission):

“It was related from Jaabir Bin ‘Abdullah that he said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not undertake
Ghazwaat (battles or military expeditions) in the Shahr ul-Haraam (sacred month) unless he was
attacked or if he was engaged in battle (i.e. prior to the month). Then, if that came (i.e. the
month), he would halt (i.e. hostilities) until its end” (1).

The meaning of the statement “Unless he was attacked” is that the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬would fight in the
sacred month in the situation of defence and repelling the aggression or hostilities but would not initiate
the attack against the enemy during it, in other than the circumstance of defence.

And the meaning of the statement “Or if he was engaged in battle” means that when he undertakes a
military expedition or engages in a battle, prior to the sacred month, then if the month came whilst he was
in battle or conducting a military expedition, he would halt the fighting until the month had passed and
until the time in which the Qitaal is Halaal had come. I say: This halt, naturally, would be if he wasn’t in
the position of defence or driving away or pursuing the aggressors.

The above then, represents what is to be said regarding the Shar’iyah texts indicating to the Tahreem
(prohibition) of the Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months.

Fourthly: What is the Hikmah (wisdom) in relation to the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal
(fighting) during the sacred months?

As-Suhailiy answered this question within the context of his discussion concerning the Tahreem
(prohibition) of fighting in the sacred months. He mentioned: “The prohibition of fighting during the
sacred months represented a Hukm that was acted upon from the time of Ibraaheem and Ismaa’eel
(Alaihima s-Salaam). It was from the Hurumaat of Allah (inviolable and sacred sanctities), from which a
Maslahah (interest and benefit) for the people of Makkah was made.

[(1) Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal: 3/334 and 3/345 with the wording: “If he attended it he would halt …”. And in the Tafseer
of At-Tabariy the wording was: “Until he attended that …”: 2/201-202. And it was stated in “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/66: “It
was related by Ahmad and his transmitters are of the Saheeh” and Ibn Katheer also authenticated its Isnaad (chain) in his
Tafseer: 1/228].

Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َْ ‫اس ََوال َّشه َْر‬

َ‫َال َح َرا َم‬ ْ ‫ْت‬
ِ ‫َال َح َرا َمَقِ َياماَلِّل َّن‬ ْ ‫َُال َكعْ َب َة‬
َ ‫َال َبي‬ ْ ‫َج َع َلَاللَّـه‬
“Allah has made the Ka’bah, the Sacred House, standing for the people (1) and [has sanctified] the Sacred month” (Al-
Maa’idah: 97).

That was when Ibraaheem called to his offspring in Makkah, whilst they were in a valley without
vegetation, to make hearts from among the people incline towards them. Therefore, there was within that
which was made obligatory upon the people in terms of making Hajj to the Bait (Masjid Al-Haraam), a
pillar for their interests and living. Then the sacred months were made four; there of which were
consecutive and one by itself, which is Rajab. As for the three, then it was to provide security the Hujjaaj
(pilgrims) coming to Makkah and departing from it before the month of the Hajj and the month after it,
allowing time for the one riding (i.e. travelling) from the furthest Arab lands to arrive and then return (i.e.
in safety), as a Hikmah (wisdom) from Allah. As for Rajab, then that was those performing ‘Umrah,
securing and providing safety to them whilst coming and returning; half the month to come and half the
month to return, in the case where the ‘Umrah was not (performed) from the furthest lands of the Arabs
like the case of Hajj … The furthest distance of those performing ‘Umrah was a distance of 15 days.
Therefore, the foodstuffs would come to them in the Mawaasim (seasons of pilgrimage) whilst it would be
interrupted during the remainder of the year … As such, in Rajab, there was security (and safety) for those
heading to it (i.e. Makkah) and an interest for its people, and representing a regard from Allah to them,
which He put in place, and He kept it from the religion of Ibraaheem, without it changing (3) until the
coming of Islaam, and the fighting during it was Muharram (prohibited) …” (4).

Therefore, according to the opinion stating the continuance of (the Hukm of) the prohibition of fighting
in Islaam, during these sacred months, then the Hikmah (wisdom) in respect to that, is also not hidden,
even if the old or original Hikmah (wisdom) related to this prohibition had ended due to the whole of the
Arabian Peninsula entering under the rule of the Muslims and security was spread throughout it, as a
result.

It appears, that included within the wisdom (hikmah) of keeping the prohibition during those months, in
this case, is for these months to represent a period of time for the fighter to rest. That is because the affair
of the Mujaahideen is lightened from the burdens of the fighting and they can spend their time during that
period to engage in other acts of ‘Ibaadah (worship), through which they can purify their Nufoos (selves)
and elevate their souls, like performing Hajj, ‘Umrah, fasting, Dhikr and Da’wah to Allah … amongst
other acts …

[(1) ““Standing for the people”: i.e. A way of rectification and living to secure the people by it. And so, Allah, Subhaanahu, extolled
the Bait ul-Haraam in their hearts. Whoever, sought refuge in it, was protected by it … The ‘Ulamaa said: So, in the case where
it had been a specified place which every oppressed person did not know of it and every fearful person did not attain it, Allah
made the sacred month another place of refuge”: Tafseer ul-Qurtubiy: 6/325, (2) He means: That the month of Rajab did not
change, by “Nasi’u” (delaying it), from its place between the months, in contrast to the other sacred months, like Muharram for
instance, as they had been putting it in the place of Safar and moved Safar to the place of Muharram, whilst calling that
“Nasi’u” i.e. delaying Muharram from its place. They did that due to the dislike of there of the sacred months being consecutive
without being able to undertake Qitaal (fighting) and raids to plunder and steal. Refer to: “Al-Amaaliy” by Abu ‘Ali Al-Qaaliy:
1/4. And in “Tafseer Aayaat ul-Ahkaam” by As-Saayis, it was mentioned that they used to even change Rajab from its place:
3/27, (4) “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”, As-Suhailiy: 3/29].

That is because every act of worship (‘Ibaadah) in Islaam has a role which could be more effective than
another act in respect to healing some of the diseases of the heart and what lies within the people … In
that way, by alternating different acts of worship; some of which are characterised by violence and some
by gentleness, the refining and elevation of the Muslims takes place leading to the assent towards
perfection or completion.

In addition, when the Muslims used to open and conquer the lands by Al-Jihaad, it was necessary for their
concern not only to be the submission of those lands to the rule of Islaam by the force of the weapon,
before moving on to the next land in continuous conquests … rather, it was necessary to focus,
concentrate or consolidate this opening or conquest (Fat’h) so that the land does not rise up against the
Muslims i.e. so that there is no opportunity for the enemy to stir up internal revolutions within those lands
against the Muslims, if they are being preoccupied in other lands … This concentration and consolidation
of the conquest takes place by focusing the efforts, in those lands, upon spreading the Islamic Da’wah
within them and seriously making efforts to guide the non-Muslims to enter into the new Deen …
Consequently, and in line with this, these sacred months, in which the clattering of weapons falls silent,
provide a suitable opportunity for them to engage in and undertake this noble task (i.e. that of spreading
the Islamic Da’wah).

We will suffice ourselves here, with the amount that we have presented, concerning the first ‘Mas’alah
(issue) of this current chapter, and now move on to the discussion of the second.

The Second Mas’alah (Issue): The opinion stating the Naskh (abrogation) of the prohibition of
Al-Qitaal (fighting) in the sacred months accompanied by its Adillah (evidences).

The Jumhoor (majority) of the Muslim Fuqahaa’ have adopted the opinion that the Qitaal during the
sacred months was prohibited in Islaam, apart from in the situation of repelling the aggression, meaning
that it was not permissible for the Muslims to initiate fighting against the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), by
declaring Al-Jihaad against them during these months, if an aggression had not come from the disbelievers
against the Muslims … However, when the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) aggress against the Muslims,
during these months, repelling the aggression during them is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate or lawful) … this
is what the Hukm in Islaam was upon, at the beginning of the matter, and then this Hukm (ruling) was
abrogated and replaced by the legal legitimacy of undertaking Al-Jihaad and initiating the fighting against
the disbelievers, at all times, including the sacred months.

Ibn ul-Qayyim stated the following concerning this: “There is no disagreement in respect to the
permissibility of fighting during the sacred month if the enemy initiates it. The disagreement or difference
is only regarding the initiation of the fighting. The Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa’) have permitted it
and have said that the Tahreem (prohibition) of the fighting is abrogated. This is the Madh’hab (opinion)
of the four A’immah (Imaams), may Allah’s mercy be upon them” (1).

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/340. Refer also to: “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/93 and “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”:
3/337].

As for the evidences which the majority of Fuqahaa’ relied upon to support the opinion concerning the
abrogation of the Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months (Al-Ash’hur ul-
Hurum), then they are as follows. Even if they have not all agreed upon all of these evidences (1), we will
nevertheless quote all that has come mentioned in relation to this Mas’alah:

Firstly: The Adillah (evidences) from the texts of the Qur’aan:

A - The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُيََقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّف َة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively (as a whole) as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36) (2).

Concerning this text, they said: “Allah commanded them to fight the Mushrikeen (polytheists or
disbelievers) without any restriction to time. The text therefore indicates, in its Zhaahir (i.e. apparent or
evident meaning), to the fighting within the sacred months being Mubaah (permissible)” (3).

B - They also used as evidence the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).

Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan, determined, in respect to this text, that it: “Establishes the
permissibility (Ibaahah) of killing them during every time and place” (4).

The following came stated in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy: “The majority view that this Hukm (i.e. the
Tahreem (prohibition) of Al-Qitaal during the sacred months) is abrogated by the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫َفإِ َذاَان َسلَ َخَا ْألَ ْش ُهر‬
ْ ُ‫َُال ُح ُر ُمَ َفا ْق ُتل‬
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).

The intended meaning of the sacred months (Al-Ash’hur ul-Hurum) (i.e. in this Aayah) are the specific
months in which it was permitted for the Mushrikeen to travel freely in them (5), due to His Qawl
Ta’Aalaa:

ِ ْ‫ِيَاألَر‬
َ‫ضَأَرْ َب َع َةَأَ ْشه ٍُر‬ ْ ‫َفسِ يحُواَف‬
So, travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months (At-Taubah: 2).

[(1) Refer to “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/147, (2) Soorah At-Taubah: 36. Refer to: Al-Itqaan Fee ‘Uloom il-
Qur’aan”, As-Suyootiy: 2/22 and “Mabaahith Fee ‘Uloom il-Qur’aan”, Ash-Sheikh Mannaa’ Al-Qattaan: p243, (3) “Aayaat ul-
Ahkaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad As-Saayis: 3/28, Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/355, Tafseer At-Tabariy: 3/206, “Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/147, “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/43, “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim:
3/341, (4) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 1/93 and refer: “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/337, (5) In “Ahkaam Ahl udh-
Dhimmah”, by Ibn ul-Qayyim: 2/481, it was stated: “The Mufassiroon differed in respect to these sacred months. They are the
months of Tasyeer (travelling) according to (different) opinions … The second: The first of them was the day of Al-Hajj Al-
Akbar (i.e. the day An-Nahr [sacrifice], the 10th of Dhu l-Hijjah, in the 9th year of Al-Hijrah) according to what has been
transmitted from Mujaahid, As-Saddiy and others, and this is the correct view. As such the last of them was the 10 th of the
month of Rabee’ ul-Aakhar” i.e. during the 10th year of Al-Hijrah. Refer to: Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 2/332 and Tafseer At-Tabariy:
10/44].

Its intended meaning is therefore not the sacred months which occur every year. The restriction to them
(i.e. these four months mentioned in the Aayah) therefore establishes that killing them after their expiry is
commanded to be undertaken in all places and all times” (1).

C - They also used as evidence the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬

َ‫َاْلخ ِِر‬ ِ ِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day … (At-Taubah: 29).

Al-Imaam Al-Jassaas established the angle of deduction of this Aayah in respect to abrogating the
prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, saying: “Because it came (or was revealed) after the
prohibition of fighting within the sacred month” (2). i.e. The command “Fight” in this Aayah is ‘Aamm
(general) without restriction to a specific time and consequently it encompasses all times including the
sacred months … Therefore, this general text in respect to the command to fight Mutlaqan (i.e. without
restriction), abrogates the specific text prohibiting the Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred month.

These Aayaat, presented above, and others like them which are general in respect to the command to
fight, are what were used as evidence by the majority of the Fuqahaa’ to state the abrogation (Naskh) of
the prohibition of Al-Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months.

Secondly: The Adillah (evidences) to support the opinion of the Jumhoor (majority) taken from
the Seerah An-Nabawiyah:

The Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) mentioned a number of Ghazawaat (battles) and other similar related
incidents in relation to this, which occurred within the sacred months from one angle … and took place
following the Sariyyah (expedition) of ‘Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, from another angle … therefore indicating to
the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in those sacred months; that prohibition which came within
His Qawl Ta’Aalaa in connection to the incident of Abdullah Ibn Jahsh:

َ‫الَفِي ِهََۖقُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبير‬

ٍ ‫َال َح َر ِامَقِ َت‬ َ ‫َيسْ أَلُو َن‬
ْ ‫كَ َع ِنَال َّشه ِْر‬
They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin] (Al-Baqarah: 217).

Al-Imaam At-Tabariy summarises for us, in his Tafseer, what was mentioned within the Seerah An-
Nabawiyah and the Sunnah Al-Mutahharah, concerning those Ghazawaat and similar realities, within the
context of his weighing the opinion of the majority (Jumhoor) to be strongest or preponderant. He stated:

“And the correct view in relation to that … Is that the Nahy (forbiddance) to fight the Mushrikeen during
the sacred months is abrogated (Mansookh) and that is due to what has been demonstrated within the
reports concerning the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬having undertaken a Ghazwah (expedition) against
Hawaazin at Hunain, Thaqeef at At-Taa’if, and dispatched Abu ‘Aamir to Awtaas to wage war against
those Mushrikeen who were there, during some of the sacred months …

[(1) Tafseer “Rooh ul-Bayaan”, Al-Aalousiy: 2/108, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 1/401 and refer also to: “Ahkaam ul-
Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/147].

That was in Shawwaal and some in Dhu l-Qa’dah, which are from the sacred months. It was therefore
known that had fighting within them (i.e. these months) been Haraam and comprised of an act of
disobedience (Ma’siyah), he ‫ ﷺ‬was the remotest of people to have done it. Another angle: All of the
people of knowledge of the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not hide that the Bai’ah (pledge) of
Ar-Ridwaan which was made to fight Quraish, took place in Dhu l-Qa’dah and that he ‫ ﷺ‬invited his
companions to that on that day because news had reached him that the Mushrikeen had killed ‘Uthmaan
Bin ‘Affaan, when he had sent him to them with a message. And so he took the pledge (Bai’ah) upon that
they would fight the people and wage war against them. That was until ‘Uthmaan returned with a message
and the Sulh (treaty or truce) was concluded by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and consequently refrained from waging
war against them and fighting them. That was all in Dhu l-Qa’dah which is from the Ash’hur ul-Hurum
(sacred months). Therefore, if it was like that, then it makes clear the correctness of what we have said
concerning His Qawl: “They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great
[sin]”, in that it was Mansookh (abrogated)” (1).

This is what At-Tabariy said in relation to the deduction and use of evidence of the Jumhoor (majority of
Fuqahaa’), from the Prophetic Seerah, in respect to the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months being
abrogated. With that, we have reached the end of this Mas’alah and now move on to the next.

The Third Mas’alah (issue): The opinion stating the continuance of the prohibition of fighting in
the sacred months and a discussion of the Adillah of the majority in respect to the abrogation
(Naskh) of the Tahreem (prohibition) in them.

The opinion of the continuance of the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting during the sacred months
without it be subject to An-Naskh (abrogation) became well known from ‘Ataa’ Bin Abi Rabaah from
among the Taabi’een. Ibn Juraih related: He said: “I said to ‘Ataa’: “They ask you concerning the sacred month,
(about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin]” (TMQ: Al-Baqarah: 217). I said: What is their issue, and if
the matter is like that, it is not permissible to fight against the people of Shirk (i.e. disbelievers) during the
Shahr ul-Haraam (sacred month), and yet they did fight or attack them during it!?”

Then he (‘Ataa’) took an oath by Allah (saying): “It is not Halaal (permissible) for the people to undertake
Ghazawaat (i.e. offensive military action) in the scared month or fight during it, and it has not been
abrogated!” (2) i.e. the Aayah stating: “Say: Fighting in it is great [sin]” was not abrogated and consequently it
still indicates to the continuance of the prohibition of fighting during the sacred month, just as it always
was …

[(1) Tafseer “Jaami’ ul-Bayaan”, At-Tabariy: 2/206. Refer also to: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/147, “Al-Jaami’ Li
Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/43, “Tafseer Al-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 2/335 and “Rooh ul-Ma’aaniy”, Al-
Aalousiy: 10/92. Also refer to: “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, As-Sarakhsiy: 1/93, (2) “Jaami’ ul-Bayaan”, At-Tabariy: 2/206,
“Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 1/401. Here, we brought together what came mentioned by At-Tabariy and Al-Jassaas, to
rectify the arrangement of the narration].

Al-Qurtubiy stated the following: “‘Ataa’ used to say: The Aayah is Muhkamah [i.e. an acceptable evidence
has not come to abrogate its Hukm (ruling)] and Al-Qitaal (fighting) is not permissible within the sacred
months, and he swore by that, because the Aayaat which came after it [i.e. after the Aayah: “Say: Fighting in
it is great [sin]” which the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) used as evidence for the abrogation of the
prohibition] are general (‘Aammah) for all times, whilst this is Khaass (specific) and the ‘Aamm (general)
does not abrogate the Khaass (specific), by agreement (i.e. the Fuqahaa’ agree upon that principle). And
Abu Az-Zubair related from Jaabir who said: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not used to fight during
the sacred month unless he was attacked” (1).

We have already become aware previously about the Adillah (evidences) of the Jumhoor (majority of
Fuqahaa’) in relation to the opinion of the abrogation (Naskh) of the Tahreem (prohibition of Al-Qitaal
(fighting) during the sacred months. In the next section, we will return to those evidences, without
repeating what has been mentioned previously in respect to the angle of deduction of those evidences to
support the opinion of the Jumhoor, sufficing with what has been presented … Rather, we will quote
what other than the majority have said concerning those Adillah (evidences) in a manner that does not
make them contradict the opinion of the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months.

First: The texts of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem:

A - Concerning His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫ِينَ َكا َّفةَ َك َماَ ُي َقا ِتلُو َن ُك ْمَ َكا َّف َة‬ ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively (as a whole) as they fight against you collectively (At-Taubah: 36)

They said: the word “Kaaffah” (as a whole) here, means generality in respect to the people. He (the
author) said in “Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah”: “Al-Kaaffah: All of the people. It is said: ‘Laqeetuhum Kaaffatan’
(I met or came across them all) i.e. all of them” (2). And in each of the two places, as was stated in
“Aayaat ul-Ahkaam”, by As-Saayis, it represents: “A Haal (case or circumstance) of the Faa’il (doer) or the
Maf’ool (done to). The meaning according to the first second (when the word Kaaffah is considered to be
a circumstance [Haal] of the Faa’il) is: Fight the Mushrikeen in the circumstance (Haal) when you are all
together, cooperating with one another, and not letting each other down, just as they fight against you
whilst they are gathered together and cooperating with each other and not letting each other down. The
meaning according to the second (i.e. when the word Kaaffah is considered to be a circumstance [Haal] of
the Maf’ool) is: Fight the Mushrikeen in the circumstance when they are gathered together and there is no
difference between a faction from them, just as they fight you all together without consideration being
given to one group of you to the exclusion of another” (3).

I say: Upon this understanding, there is no conflict between this Aayah, in relation to what it indicates to
in respect to the generality of the people, whether they are the fighters (i.e. Faa’il) or the ones being fought
(Maf’ool), and between the Aayah or the Aayaat which specify the time of the sacred months to forbid the
Muslims from initiating the fighting against the Mushrikeen. That is because the subject area of the Aayah
“Fight” represents a request for all of the Muslims to fight all of the disbelievers, whilst it does not discuss
the timing of this required fighting explicitly, in terms of when it takes place and when it doesn’t?

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/43-44 and the Hadeeth has been previously referenced, (2) “Mukhtaar
As-Sihhaah”: p494, (3) “Aayaat ul-Ahkaam”, As-Saayis: 3/29].

That is whilst the subject area of the Aayah or Aayaat related to the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting
within the sacred months i.e. forbidding the Muslims from initiating the fighting against the disbelievers
during a specific time, which is during the sacred months. Consequently, there is no conflict between the
two subject areas, in this case.

As such, each of the two evidences function or are applicable in the subject area that each relates to.
Therefore, the following is extracted from working with or employing both evidences: Fight, O Muslims,
all together, all of the Mushrikeen (polytheists i.e. disbelievers), except during the sacred months, and so
do not initiate the fighting within them.

Concerning this, Ash-Sheikh Abdul ‘Azheem Az-Zurqaaniy, in “Manaahil Al-‘Irfaan” determined that the
generality of the persons does not necessity the generality of the times (1).

B - Concerning the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ َ ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ش ِرك‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َْ ‫واَال ُم‬
Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).
They said: The word “Haithu” (Wherever) here, indicates to generality in respect to the places i.e. Fight
the disbelievers in any (or every) place. However, as Ash-Sheikh Az-Zurqaaniy said: “The generality of the
places (Amkinah) does not necessitate the generality of the Azminah (times)” (2). Consequently, that
means that there is no conflict between this Aayah which requests fighting the Mushrikeen (i.e.
disbelievers) in every place and between the Aayaat which specify the time of the sacred months to not
initiate the fighting within them.

C - In relation to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ‫َب ْال َي ْوم‬ َ ‫َباللَّـه‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬

َ‫َاْلخ ِِر‬ ِ َِ ‫َِو َال‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫ِين‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day … (At-Taubah: 29).

This Aayah indicates to the generality of fighting the disbelievers mentioned here and as was mentioned
previously, there is no conflict between the Aayah indicating to the generality of the disbelievers whom
war is to be waged against and between the Aayah or Aayaat which forbid the initiation of waging war
against those disbelievers during a specific time, which is the sacred months.

[(1) “Manaahil Al-‘Irfaan”, Ash-Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Azheem Az-Zurqaaniy: 2/156 and refer also to: “Diraasaat Al-Ahkaam Wa-
Naskh Fil Qur’aan il-Kareem”, Muhammad Hamzah: p153, (2) “Manaahil Al-‘Irfaan”, Az-Zurqaaniy: 2/156].

Secondly: The evidences used from the Seerah An-Nabawiyah:

A - The majority (Jumhoor) have said that the Ghazwah (battle) against Hawaazin and what was
connected to that in terms of the Ghazwah of Awtaas and the siege of At-Taa’if, took place partly within
the sacred months.

In the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, when responding to (or refuting) the validity of the deduction based upon
this Daleel for the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months, he said: “The
believers were granted permission to fight the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) during the sacred month if
they (i.e. the disbelievers) had initiated it … The answer is similar in relation to the siege undertaken by
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬over the people of At-Taa’if, and its continuance or accompaniment of the
circumstance (Istishaab ul-Haal), until the sacred month was entered, because it represented a completion
of the Qitaal (fighting) against Hawaazin and their allies from Thaqeef (i.e. in At-Taa’if). That is because it
was they who initiated the Qitaal and gathered the men (i.e. forces to fight) and called to war and battle. It
was then, following that, that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out to them (i.e. for battle), as previously
mentioned. Then when they fortified themselves At At-Taa’if he went to them to make them come down
from their fortresses. They then afflicted the Muslims and killed a group of them and the siege continued
with the use of catapults and other weapons for close to forty days (1). It had begun in a Halaal month
and entered into the Haraam month (i.e. sacred) and continued during it for some days. He then left them
because what is excusable in continuation is not excusable in respect to initiation (2). This is an established
matter and it has many similar comparisons and Allah knows best” (3). This is what Ibn Katheer
mentioned in his response to the usage of evidence by the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) of the siege of
At-Taa’if, following the Ghazwah against Hawaazin and Awtaas, to state that the prohibition of fighting in
the sacred months had been abrogated, because some, in the very least, of the siege of At-Taa’if had fallen
within the month of Dhu l-Qa’dah.

Ibn ul-Qayyim makes this clear when he said:

“The Fat’h (opening or conquest) of Makkah took place and there was ten days remaining from
Ramadhaan. After the conquest he resided there for 19 days in which he shortened the Salaah (4). He then
went out to Hawaazin and twenty days remained of Shawwaal. Allah then gave him victory over Hawaazin
and he divided the spoils (of war i.e. booty). He then went from there to At-Taa’if and laid siege to them.
Concerning the events of At-Taa’if, Anas Bin Maalik related: “Then we laid siege for forty days, but they
were hard and impregnable (5)” …

[(1) Refer to Saheeh Muslim: 1059, 2/737, (2) Refer to “Qawaa’id ul-Fiqhiyah”, An-Nadawiy: p397, (3) “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-
Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 2/256, (4) refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1080 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/561, (5) Saheeh Muslim: 1059,
2/737].

… This siege occurred during Dhu l-Qa’dah, without doubt. As such, there is no evidence within the
incident [i.e. for the abrogation of the prohibition of the fighting during the sacred months] because the
Ghazwah (military expedition) of At-Taa’if represented the completion of the Ghazwah against Hawaazin,
and it was they who had initiated the Qitaal (fighting) against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. Then, when
they were defeated their king (Maalik Bin ‘Auf An-Nasriy) entered with Thaqeef within the fortress of At-
Taa’if, waging war against the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. Therefore, fighting them represented a
completion of the Ghazwah (i.e. fighting) that they had begun. And Allah knows best” (1).

He then said: “And whoever used as evidence that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬sent Abu ‘Aamir in a military expedition
or unit (Sariyyah) to “Awtaas” during Dhu l-Qa’dah, then he has deduced without an evidence (to support
that). This is because that represented the completion of the Ghazwah which the Mushrikeen initiated
through fighting, whilst he ‫ ﷺ‬did not initiate it during the sacred month” (2).

B - As for the majority of Fuqahaa’ using the “Bai’ah” pledge of “Ar-Ridwaan” as evidence to support the
abrogation of the prohibition of initiating the Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months (i.e. what was
indicated within it in respect to the determination or resolve of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to fight the Mushrikeen
during Dhu l-Qa’dah if it had been established that they had indeed killed ‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Affaan, may
Allah be pleased with him). Then, those denying the abrogation have responded to this evidence stating:
This bai’ah (pledge) and resolve to fight, was in defence and repelling of aggression, and did not represent
an initiation of Al-Qitaal (fighting). And this is Mashroo’ (legally legitimate) during the sacred months, as
explained previously.

Concerning the use of the Jumhoor of the “Bai’at ur-Ridwaan” as evidence, Ibn ul-Arabiy stated the
following in his “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”:
There is no Hujjah (evidential proof) within this. That is because the news had reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that
‘Uthmaan had been killed in Makkah and that they (i.e. the Mushrikeen) were resolved to wage war against
him. Therefore, they pledged to repel them and not to initiate (fighting) against them” (3).

Similar to this, is what Al-Qurtubiy said, describing the usage of evidence of the “Bai’ut ur-Ridwaan” for
the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting during the scared months, as a weak deduction (4).

And concerning the deduction based upon the “Bai’ut ur-Ridwaan” as evidence, Ibn ul-Qayyim stated:
“There is no Daleel (evidence) in that. That is because he only took the pledge from them upon that due
to the news that had reached him, that they (the Quraish) had killed ‘Uthmaan and wanted to fight. At
that time the Sahaabah gave the Bai’ah (pledge). And there is no disagreement or difference (of opinion)
in respect to the permissibility of fighting during the sacred month, if the enemy has initiated it.

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/240-241 and also refer to 3/502 and 558, (2) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/341, (3) “Ahkaam
ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 1/147, (4) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 3/43].

Rather, the disagreement or difference is in respect to initiating the fighting during it. The majority
(Jumhoor) permitted it and said: The Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting is Mansookh (abrogated). This
represents the Madh’hab (opinion) of the four A’immah (Imaams). ‘Ataa and others, however, viewed that
it (the Hukm i.e. ruling) was Thaabit (remained standing) and was not Mansookh (abrogated). ‘Ataa swore
by Allah: Fighting during the sacred month (Ash-Shahr ul-Haraam) is not Halaal and its prohibition has
not been abrogated by anything” (1).

The above therefore represents how those who viewed the continuance of the prohibition of fighting
during the sacred months responded to the evidences of those who held that this prohibition had been
abrogated.

The Fourth Mas’alah (issue): What is weighed to be strongest or preponderant in respect to this
Mas’alah (Fihiy issue)?

Before presenting the opinion which we see to be preponderant in respect to this Mas’alah, we believe we
should first remind ourselves of the most important matters which we have used for insight to arrive to
this preponderant view.

A - We have become aware, in what has preceded, that there is no disagreement or difference in relation
to the Tahreem (prohibition) of fighting during the sacred months having been established in Islaam.

B - We have also become aware that there is no Khilaaf (disagreement or difference) regarding the
permissibility of fighting during the sacred months in response to aggression if that aggression occurred
during the sacred months or occurred prior to the sacred months but the response of the Muslims
dictated that they continue the fighting to repel the aggressors and pursue them, even if that made them
enter those sacred months, whilst engaged in that.

C - Just as we have become aware that the Istidlaal (use of evidence) regarding what occurred following
the Ghazwah of Hunain against Hawaazin, in terms of the battle of “Awtaas” and the siege of At-Taa’if,
and that some of that, in the least, took place during the sacred month of Dhu l-Qa’dah … I say: We have
come to know that the use of this as evidence to support the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting
during the sacred months, represents a weak use of evidence, just as was explained by Ibn ul-‘Arabiy, Al-
Qurtubiy and Ibn Katheer, who are from amongst the Jumhoor (i.e. renowned Fuqahaa’) … just as Ibn
ul-Qayyim also made that clear. That is even though Ibn ul-Qayyim did not agree (in origin) with the
Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) in respect to their opinion that: The prohibition of Al-Qitaal during the
sacred months being abrogated.

D - Based upon what has preceded, the Mas’alah (issue) becomes restricted or limited to the Aayah or
texts which indicate to the prohibition of Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months and whether what
was revealed following them, in terms of Aayaat indicating to fighting the disbelievers in every time (i.e.
which would include the sacred months) …

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/240].

… Whether these Aayaat revealed later indicating to the legal legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers at all
times, are valid or suitable to abrogate the previous Hukm (ruling), which is the Tahreem (prohibition) of
fighting during the sacred months, as indicated by the earlier texts, in relation to that?

This is what I view the Mas’alah (issue) to revolve around and consequently based upon the answer to this
question the Tarjeeh (weighing of preponderant view) takes place. I say: Ash-Sheikh Az-Zurqaaniy
mentioned, as previously quoted, that the generality (‘Umoom) in relation to the persons of the Kuffaar
(disbelievers), concerning whom the permission came to fight within the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬

َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفة‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively (as a whole) (At-Taubah: 36).
And the generality (‘Umoom) in respect to the places concerning which the legal legitimacy to fight them
came, according to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).

This generality (‘Umoom) in respect to the persons of the disbelievers and the places, in relation to the
matter we are addressing, does not dictate the generality of the times i.e. these two texts do not indicate to
the legal legitimacy or lawfulness of fighting in all of the times and consequently there is no conflict
between them and the prior text which prohibits fighting during the sacred months, which is:

َ‫الَفِي َِهََۖقُلَْقِ َتالَفِيهَِ َك ِبير‬

ٍ ‫َال َح َر ِامَقِ َت‬ َ ‫َيسْ أَلُو َن‬
ْ ‫كَ َع ِنَال َّشه ِْر‬
They ask you concerning the sacred month, (about) fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is great [sin] (Al-Baqarah: 217).

Therefore, the Qitaal (fighting) during the sacred months remains prohibited according to this text just as
fighting all of the disbelievers, from the people of war, in all places, is legally legitimate or lawful according
to the latter texts which indicate to the generality (‘Umoom) in respect to the persons and places.

This is what the statement of Az-Zurqaaniy indicated to: “The generality of the persons within the first
Aayah and the generality of the places in the second Aayah; neither of them dictates the generality of
times. Therefore, there is no conflict and no Naskh (abrogation) … Each of them do not negate the
prohibitive nature of fighting within the Shahr ul-Haraam (sacred month) …” (1).

However, my view concerning this, is that the generality in respect to the times or non-restriction in
respect to the validity of all times, including the sacred months, in relation to the legal legitimacy or
lawfulness, as found within the texts which came after the text prohibiting the fighting in the sacred
months, like:

ْ ُ‫َو َقا ِتل‬

َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ‫ِينَ َكا َّفة‬
And fight against the disbelievers collectively (as a whole) (At-Taubah: 36).

And:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْثَ َو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (At-Taubah: 5).

… I view that this generality or unrestricted form which has been indicated to, is not deduced
(Mustafaad), as I see it, from the generality of the persons or the generality of the places, so as to
conclude: That the generality of the persons and places does not dictate the generality of the times …
Rather, this is only deduced (Mustafaad) from the command to kill and fight in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa: “Then
kill the Mushrikeen” and “And fight the disbelievers”, without the specification of a specific time in which the
killing and fighting takes place …

What is Zhaahir (evident or apparent) from the Mutlaq (unrestricted) command, is that every time is
suitable or valid for this command to be implemented within it, including within that, the sacred months
…

[(1) “Manaahil ul-‘Irfaan”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Abdul ‘Azheem Az-Zurqaaniy: 2/156].

That is until one of these matters is realised or accomplished: Either the people of disbelief accepting and
embracing Islaam, or that they submit to the Islamic rule, or a peace treaty is concluded with them, if the
legitimate person in authority views that this should be done, in light of the Islamic Maslahah (interest).

There is then a defined (or limited) conflict between the unrestricted (Mutlaq) texts and the texts which
restrict the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of fighting during the sacred months.

Accordingly, it is possible to say here, that the answer to this conflict is as follows:

In the case where there is no Daleel (evidence) explicitly stating the abrogation of the prohibition of
fighting during the sacred months, but rather this is Mustafaad (deduced), according to those who hold
this view, from the apparent (Zhaahir) conflict between the evidences … As long as the matter is like that,
then if this conflict is removed by any path from amongst the acceptable paths or manners of reconciling
between evidences, it is Awlaa (more appropriate or correct) to state that the latter text, from the
conflicting texts, abrogates the former. That is working in accordance to the established Usooliy Qaa’idah
(principle): “Utilising both evidences is Awlaa (more correct) than utilising one and abandoning the other”
as is the view of the Jumhoor (majority of the Fuqahaa’) when bringing together and reconciling between
conflicting evidences (1), which we have stated many times previously.

Based upon this, the Mutlaq (unrestricted) evidences in relation to the lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of
fighting the disbelievers, covers within its time indication, all of the times, with the exclusion of the sacred
months, in accordance to the Daleel (evidence) which specifies these months with the prohibition of
engaging in Al-Qitaal (fighting) during them.

In this manner, both evidences are worked with without being compelled to make one of them Naasikh
(abrogating) and the other Mansookh (abrogated).

From another angle, the indication of generality (‘Umoom) in respect to all of the times as found within
the Mutlaq (unrestricted) evidences which have come indicating the legal legitimacy and lawfulness of
fighting, is only in accordance to the Zhaahir (i.e. what is apparent) (2), whilst the indication of the
specification of the sacred months with the prohibition of fighting during them, has come in a Sareeh
(explicit) text …

[(1) Refer to: “Usool ul-Fiqh Al-Islaamiy”, Al-Ustaadh Doctor Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 2/1182 and “‘Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh”, ‘Abdul
Wahhaab Khallaaf: p273, (2) “Tafseer Aayaat ul-Ahkaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali As-Saayis: 3/28].

That is whilst it is known that when a Sareeh (explicit) text conflicts with the Zhaahir (apparent) text, the
Sareeh (explicit) text is given preponderance within the scope or context in which the conflict has
occurred, as has been established within the principles of Usool as well … (1).

We therefore view that the opinion stating the prohibition to initiate the fighting during the sacred
months, according to its previously presented details, to be the strongest or preponderant opinion in this
Mas’alah (2).

[(1) The following was stated in “Usool ul-Fiqh” by Al-Bardeesiy: p387: “If the Zhaahir (apparent) conflicts with the Nass
(another grade of strength in terms of clarity), then it is the Nass which is outweighed on the condition of equality in respect to
the grade (Rutbah)” i.e. he means that the conflicting texts both be Aayaat or two Hadeeth of the same level in respect to
power. In “Tafseer un-Nusoos” by Doctor Muhammad Adeeb Saalih: 1/153, he said: “the Nass is given priority over the
Zhaahir, when they come together (in conflict)”. Also refer to: “Manaahij Al-Usooliyah”, Dr. Fathiy Ad-Durainiy: p53-54, (2)
Some of the contemporary ‘Ulamaa’ have also adopted this opinion including: Ash-Sheikh As-Sayyid As-Saabiq in his “Fiqh us-
Sunnah”: 2/660-661, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah in his “‘Alaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”: p108-109 and also refer
to “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-Karim”, Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot: p310].
 Chapter Five
Defeat, surrender and captivity

This represents the fifth Sabab (reason or cause) from among the Asbaab (causes) for the cessation of Al-
Qitaal (fighting); by the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy or the Hukm ul-Waaqi’ (of the reality). It is the occurrence of
defeat befalling one of the two warring sides or the announcement of surrender, and what follows that
normally, in terms of the defeated side being taken as captives or prisoners of war. In light of this, the
discussion within this chapter, in brief, will proceed as follows:

The First Study: The defeat of the enemy and their surrender.

The First Issue: The defeat and cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting); the taking of prisoners (Asraa) and their
different circumstances. The treatment of the prisoners and the Hukm related to the prisoners (of war).

The Second Issue: The Hukm (ruling) in respect to the surrender of the enemy:

- Is it permissible to kill the enemy if he has surrendered during the battle and handed himself over to be
taken as prisoner?

- What is the Hukm is respect to the enemy’s army or people of war (Ahl ul-Harb), refraining with their
force, if they surrender to the Muslims without a specification (Qayd) or condition (Shart)?

The Second Study: The defeat of the Muslims by the enemy and their surrender.

Introduction: A brief look at the Asbaab (causes) of victory (An-Nasr) and defeat.

The First Issue: What should the Muslims do if they are defeated by the enemy?

The Second Issue: Is it permissible for the Muslims; individuals or groups, to surrender and hand over
or cede their land to the enemy?

The Third Issue: What is the duty of the Muslims towards their prisoners, from the Muslims and Ahl
udh-Dhimmah, if they are taken by the enemy?

The Third Study: Hostages: Do they differ from Asraa (prisoners of war or captives)?

The First Study

Defeat of the Enemy and its Surrender

The First Issue

The defeat and cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting); the taking of prisoners (Asraa) and
their different circumstances. The treatment of the prisoners and the Hukm related
to the prisoners (of war).

First: The defeat and cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting):

When fighting takes place between the Muslims and their enemy and then the glad tidings of victory
appear upon the horizon and visions of defeat appear within the ranks of that enemy, in such a situation,
is it valid for the Muslims set out to halt the military or combat operations, by restricting themselves to
enclosing those remaining of the enemy forces to compel them to lay down their weapons and then taking
them as prisoners of war? Or should they work to wear out the men of the enemy as much as is possible,
by focusing efforts upon reaping them and eliminating a great number from them, until, through that, the
Muslims reach the level of “Al-Ithkhaan” (1) with their enemy. At that time, when that has been realised,
the fighting then comes to an end and take the (remaining) men as prisoners of war?

Which of these two approaches should the Muslims rely upon in their wars, when confronting their
enemies?

To answer this, we will quote that which came stated in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, in relation to the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َح َّت ٰى‬ َ ‫واَال َو َث‬

َ ‫اقَ َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬ ُ ‫َِح َّت ٰىَإِ َذاَأَ ْث َخن ُتمُو ُه ْمَ َف‬
ْ ‫ش ُّد‬ َ ‫بَالرِّ َقاب‬ َ ‫َفإِ َذاَلَقِي ُت ُمَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِينَ َك َفرُواَ َف‬
َ ْ‫ضر‬
َ ‫َال َحرْ بُ َأَ ْو َز‬
‫ار َها‬ ْ ‫ض َع‬ َ ‫َت‬
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them
(Ithkhaan), then secure their bonds (i.e. take them as prisoners), and either [confer] favour (i.e. letting them go free)
afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens (Muhammad: 4).

(1) “Al-Ithkhaan”: It means “Al-Qahr” (vanquishing and subduing). And it is said: To increase in respect to the killing. And it is
said it represents the exaggeration in respect to killing the enemy and it is said that is means “At-Tamakkun (to consolidate and
firmly establish)”: “Talabat ut-Talabah”, An-Nasafiy: 175-176].

The following came stated in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer: “Allah Ta’Aalaa says, guiding the believers that
which rely upon in their wars against the Mushrikeen (disbelievers): “So when you meet those who disbelieve [in
battle], strike [their] necks” i.e. When you confront them, reap them with your swords, thoroughly. “Until,
when you have inflicted slaughter upon them (Ithkhaan)” i.e. made them perish by killing. “then secure their bonds” i.e.
the prisoners of war which you take as prisoners. Then after the war has come to an end and the battle
has finished, you are given the option between two matters: If you wish you can confer favour upon them
by letting the captives or prisoners go for free (i.e. without ransom), and if you wish you can ransom them
for a monetary recompense (Maal) which you take from them which you stipulate upon them” (1).

This then represents the approach that the Muslims must adopt or be reliant upon in their wars against
the disbelievers. There should be no cessation of the Qitaal (fighting) even if the Muslims were winning,
dominating and expecting or anticipating(victory), in the case where the weapons had not fulfilled their
requirement in terms of inflicting death and wounds upon the enemy, broken the backbone of the people
of war and implanted awe within them of the Muslims, when the Maslahah (interest) dictates that.

Second: The taking of Al-Asraa (prisoners of war or captives) and their different circumstances:

After the Muslims have fulfilled the requirement of “Al-Ithkaan” in terms of inflicting death and wounds
upon the enemy, in accordance to the Maslahah (interest), the process of gathering the enemy and placing
them under captivity begins.

Here, it is required to know that those who are targeted to be taken as captives or prisoners from the
ranks of the enemy or the people of war in general and then those who actually fall under captivity or
imprisonment, are not the same in respect to the Hukm (legal Shar’iy ruling).

Rather, the Hukm of their being taken as captives and the Hukm upon them after being taken as captives,
according to their circumstances, differs. Their circumstances are numerous and from them, we will
summarise the following:
1 - The case of those who declare their acceptance of Islaam before being taken as a captive or
prisoner of war.

These could be come across within the battlefield or from amongst those whom the Muslims came across
when invading their lands. In such a case the matter is examined:

[(1) Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer: 4/173].

- If those who declared their Islaam possessed the capability in themselves i.e. they possessed the power
or strength to engage in fighting, but despite that they gave preference to declaring Islaam and
surrendering, over remaining upon Kufr (disbelief) and fighting, then the Hukm in respect to them is that
they are free Muslims and their Islaam protects them from being killed or being taken as captives. It also
protects their children from being taken as Saby (booty) because they follow them (in ruling), just as it
assures protection to their wealth and properties from being taken according to the ruling of the
Ghaneemah (taking of booty and spoils of war) … This applies even if the Muslims believed in most likely
that it was within their capability to defeat them had they remained upon disbelief and waged war against
them … That is acting in accordance to the Qawl of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬:

َ‫َوي ُْؤ ُتوا‬،

َ ‫َو ُيقِي َُمواَالص ََّال َة‬، ِ َّ ‫اَرسُول‬
َ ‫ََُّللا‬ َ ‫ََّللاُ ََوأَنَّ َم َُحمَّد‬
َّ ‫َإال‬َّ ‫َالَإلَ َه‬ َ ْ‫َح َّتىَ َي ْش َه ُدواَأَن‬
َ ‫اس‬ َ ‫تَأَنْ َأ ُ َقا ِت َلَال َّن‬ ُ ْ‫أُمِر‬
ِ َّ َ‫َو ِح َسا ُب ُه ْمَ َعل‬،
‫ىََّللاَ َت َعالَى‬ ِ ْ ‫َب َح ِّق‬
َ ‫َاإلسَْ َال ِم‬ َّ ‫صمُواَ ِم ِّنيَ ِد َما َء ُه ْم ََوَأَمْ َوالَ ُه ْم‬
ِ ‫َإال‬ َ ‫ع‬ ََ َ‫ك‬ َ ِ‫الز َكا َة؛َ َفإِ َذاَ َف َعلُواَ َذل‬
َّ
I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and until they establish the
Salaah and pay the Zakaah. And if they do that then they will have gained protection from me for
their lives and property, unless [they commit acts that are punishable] in Islaam, and their
reckoning will be with Allah (1).

And it is pointed out here, that what we have mentioned in relation go the Hukm (ruling) upon those,
does not prevent stripping them of their weaponry and detaining them, although not according to the
Hum of “Al-Asr” (imprisonment or captivity), but rather in accordance to the Hukm (ruling) of the
Maslahah, which could call for such measures in certain circumstances … until matters have returned to
order and stabilised.

This relates to the case when those who have declared their Islaam before surrendering possess the
capability and power or force (to fight) and cannot be overcome except via engagement in fighting.

- As for when or if those who declare their Islaam do not possess the power or force by which they can
withstand others, but rather they have been overcome and fallen under the grip of the Muslims; whether
they were on the battlefield or in houses and places of refuge or sanctuary when the Muslims invaded their
lands as conquerors, then in such a case, the men from among them are considered to be “Asraa”
(captives or prisoners of war), whether they were actual combatants or if they were (merely) from those
who possessed the capability to engage in fighting, even if they had not actually been involved in it …
That is in accordance to the details presented in the former study: “The Ahkaam of the enemy
combatants” within the fifth volume.

The Hukm (ruling) of “Asraa” (prisoners of war or captives) is applied upon them, as will be explained at
the end of this issue’s discussion. However, they are protected, via their declaration of Islaam, in respect
to their blood (i.e. lives) alone and as such, it is impermissible to kill them. As for their women and
children, then they are considered to be “Saby” (i.e. booty) and the Hukm in respect to them has also
been discussed in a prior study.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 25, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 1/75, Saheeh Muslim: 22, 1/53 and the Hadeeth is from the relation of Ibn
‘Umar].
Concerning these matters, the following was stated in “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “And if the Ameer of
the troop (or army) of the Muslims conquered a fortress from among the fortresses of the people of war
(Ahl ul-Harb) and within the fortress there was a place of refuge or shelter which contained a people who
were fighting and then became Muslim … then if the Muslims had overcome them, they are (regarded as)
Fai’ (booty) (1) … That is because even if they were not withstanding and had been overcome, they had
nevertheless come to fall into the hands (and grasp) of the Muslims before declaring their Islaam. Their
Islaam does not invalidate the right of the Muslims Hence, they are not killed, because they are Muslims
and Islaam protects and safeguards them from being killed, but does not protect and safeguard them from
being enslaved.

- If, however, they had been withstanding (i.e. possessed the capability and force to fight) within the
shelter and they were not reachable except by fighting, and the strongest opinion (amongst the Muslims)
was that they would be victorious over them (those in the fortress), then they (occupant s of the fortress)
became Muslim … (in such a circumstance) they are free and there is no way over them (i.e. in terms of
targeting them in respect to their lives or wealth etc.). That is because when they were withstanding, they
had not yet fallen under the grip or hold of the Muslims. These had declared their Islaam before the grip
of the Muslims was established over them and as such they were free people, because the Muslim is not
(permitted to be) enslaved. They are like or of the same status as those people of the fortress who are
besieged and then embrace Islaam whilst in that besieged state. They are free and there is no way over
them, and the same applies here, in this reality” (2).

I say: The same applies in the circumstance that we mentioned (at the beginning). The same that has been
mentioned within “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” applies to that case also because the Manaat (reality) in
these circumstances are all one and the same, as is evident. We now move on to discuss another
circumstance.

2 - The case of those who declare their acceptance of the Dhimmah before being made prisoners
of war or captives or before their surrender.

In relation to this case, then again, it is according to their situation in respect to withstanding (by force)
and their capability to fight, or their lack of capability to withstand, in accordance to the details mentioned
previously.

- If they were withstanding by their force (i.e. still had the capability to fight and defend themselves), the
Dhimmah is accepted from them, if their land had been conquered and annexed to Daar ul-Islaam. They
and their children are free and their wealth and properties or possessions are theirs, and there is no way
over them (Laa Sabeelah ‘Alaihaa) … And if there land had not yet been conquered, then their Dhimmah
is accepted from them upon the condition that they transform to Daar ul-Islaam so that their submission
to the Islamic rule applies and is affirmed for them; as is the stipulated condition in respect to the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah … This is they were holding back with their (potential) force.

[(1) I.e. they were considered to be from the sum of the Ghanaa’im (booties and spoils of war), (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
5/2195. Refer also to: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228-229 and “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/253].

- If, however, they had not been withstanding by their force (i.e. they didn’t possess the capability to fight
or defend themselves) at the time when they offered their acceptance of the Dhimmah and then
surrendered or they were taken control over, then in such a situation, the person in authority has a choice
regarding them between considering them (people of a ) Dhimmah or judging upon them with the ruling
of the “Asraa” (captives or prisoners), according to the manner which will be explained at the end of this
current issue’s discussion.
In relation to a similar reality to the one which we are discussing and in completion of the quote we
presented earlier, the following was stated in the Sharh (explanation) of “As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”:

“The same applies in respect to the people of the shelter if they invited them to become (people of a)
Dhimmah to them [i.e. to the Muslims who are besieging them] and to set out with them to the lands of
the Muslims. If they were not withstanding (i.e. didn’t have the capability to protect themselves and fight),
it is allowed for the Muslims (as a choice) to not provide them with a Dhimmah. That is because they had
come to be in the hands or under the hold of the Muslims and they are taken as Saby (i.e. slaves as booty).
And whoever requests the Dhimmah after having been made a Saby (i.e. slave), is not responded to in
respect to that (1). However, if the Muslims wish, they can make them a Fa’i (booty) and if they wish they
can kill the combatants and make their women and children Saby (i.e. slaves). And if they were
withstanding (i.e. had the capability to fight and defend themselves), whilst the Muslims view that they will
defeat them, the Ameer of the Muslims should not prevent them from that (i.e. request for the
Dhimmah). Rather, he should make them free (people of the) Dhimmah. That is because if they requested
the Dhimmah before the time for booty (i.e. before defeat) they are not prevented from that, because the
Dhimmah represents an alternative to Islaam within the Ahkaam of the Dunyaa” (2).

Third: The treatment of the Asraa (captives or prisoners of war).

If prisoners of war (Asraa) are taken and then detained until the person in authority passes judgement in
respect to them, what is the basis of how they should be treated during that time? This is the subject area
of this section.

Allah Ta’Aalaa said when commending those who treat well those of the people who are downtrodden
and weak:

‫اَوأَسِ يرا‬ َ ‫َوي ُْط ِعم‬

َّ ‫ُون‬
َ ‫َالط َعا َمَ َعلَ ٰىَ ُح ِّبهَِمِسْ كِين‬
َ ‫اَو َيتِيم‬
And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive (Al-Insaan: 8).

[(1) i.e. It is not responded to as a matter of obligation or necessity because the answer in this case rests with the person in
authority in respect to his choice in accordance to the Maslahah, as will be discussed later, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
5/2196].

The following came stated in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubiy (concerning the meaning of this Aayah): “Ibn
‘Abbaas said: The Aseer (prisoner) [being referred to] is from the people of polytheism (Ahlu sh-Shirk)
who are in their hands (i.e. under their hold in captivity) …’Ataa said: The Aseer (prisoner) [being referred
to] is from the people of the Qiblah and other than them. I (i.e. Al-Qurtubiy) said: The feeding of the
Mushrik prisoner (Aseer) is regarded to be an act of gaining closeness (Qurbah) to Allah Ta’Aalaa
however it is from the voluntary Sadaqah. As for the obligatory (Sadaqah), then no. And Allah knows
best” (1). Al-Qurtubiy then mentioned what had been said regarding the revelation of this Aayah and what
was connected to it. He said: “It has been said: It was revealed in relation to those who fed or provided
for the prisoners or captives (Asraa) of Badr. They were seven from the Muhaajireen: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar,
‘Ali, Az-Zubair, ‘Abdur Rahmaan Bin ‘Auf, Sa’d and Abu ‘Ubaidah, may Allah be pleased with them” (2).

Also, in relation to this matter, the following came stated in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer: “Ibn ‘Abbaas
said: At that time their captives were Mushrikeen (polytheists) … The evidence for that is that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬commanded his companions on the day of Badr to honour the prisoners or
captives (Asraa). They then gave preference to them over themselves at the time of meals” (3).

The following was stated in “Al-Kash’shaaf”: “Al-Hasan related: “A captive used to be brought to the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and he would direct them to come of the Muhsineen (those who do good). He
would then say (to them): Treat him (i.e. the captive) well. He (the captive) would then remain with
him for two or three days and he (the Muslim) would give preference to him over himself. And according
to the majority of the ‘Ulamaa: It is permissible to treat the disbelievers well (or in the best of ways) in
Daar ul-Islaam and the Waajibaat (obligations or responsibilities) were not directed towards them” (4).

In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam, it was stated: “Ibn Ishaaq said: Nabeeh Bin Wahb, the brother of Bani
‘Abd Ad-Daar, told me: That when the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬received the prisoners of war (of Badr)
he distributed them amongst his companions and said: Adopt a good position (in terms of treatment)
with the prisoners. He (Ibn Ishaaq) said: Abu ‘Uzair said: My brother Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair passed by me
and a man from the Ansaar who took me as captive. He (i.e. Mus’ab) said (to the man of Ansaar): Take
hold of him well! For verily his mother possesses wealth and it may be that she ransoms him from you!
He (Abu ‘Uzair) said: And I was amongst a group from the Ansaar when they brought me back from Badr
…

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 19/129, (2) The same: 19/130, (3) “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-Kareem”, Ibn
Katheer: 4/454-455, (4) “Tafseer Al-Kash’shaaf”, Az-Zamakhshariy: 4/534].

Then when their food was served for the meals they would single me out for bread whilst they ate dates!
(1) because of the instruction which the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had given to them in respect to us (i.e.
how we should be treated). No piece of bread fell into the hands of any one of them except that he
presented it to me. He said: Then I felt shy about that and would return it to one of them and he would
return it back and not touch it!” (2).

In relation to this, we have already mentioned within the discussion of the issue “The style of capturing
the enemy”, what came recorded in Saheeh Muslim concerning the prisoner Al-‘Uqailiy, when he called to
the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬: “O Muhammad, O Muhammad”. He ‫ ﷺ‬then went to him and said:
“What is the matter?” He replied: “I am hungry so feed me and thirsty so provide me with
something to drink!” He ‫ ﷺ‬responded: “This is (to satisfy) your Haajah (need or requirement”
(3). Ash-Shawkaaniy said: “And the meaning of his statement: “This is your Haajah” is: “َ‫َحاضرةَيؤتى‬،‫أي‬
!‫(”إليهاَبهاَالساعة‬Note: Attempted translation of meaning: This is something that is at your disposal!)” (4).

I say: Regarding this, the author of the book “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islamiyah Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-
‘Aamm” said the following when expressing his feelings about the treatment afforded to the Asraa
(captives or prisoners of war) in Islaam:

“This is an example of the sources of pride which a man-made international law, which still remains mere
ink on paper, cannot be insolent towards! And the implemented international principles will never be able
to reach its heights” (5).

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah provides reasoning for this warm Islamic instruction in respect to
honouring the prisoners of war (Asraa) saying:

“They were taken as prisoners whilst the flames of war were still enflamed and there could have been
amongst them some who had killed and as such assaulting such a person with severity could have
represented a healing process for the fury and satisfy the love for revenge. That is just like the Europeans
and Americans did in respect to those whom they called “war criminals”. However, had Allah Ta’Aalaa
exchanged their victory for defeat, then according to this strange logic (behind which is nothing but the
law of vengeance), they would have been the war criminals! …

[(1) This indicates that bread was more precious to them than dates and that was due to the scarcity of wheat and barley in
contrast to the plentiful supply of dates. As such, giving preference to the captive in respect to the bread is indicative of
honouring and hospitality. And perhaps, there was even a belief that barley was more precious than dates absolutely. That is
because within the speech of Kisraa when he was impressed by the intellect of Ghailaan Bin Salamah in Jaahiliyah, there is that
which indicates to that. Kisraa said to him: “What is your diet?” He said: “Bread of barley”. He replied: “This intellect has come
from barley and not from milk and dates!”, “Qisas ul-‘Arab”, Muhammad Ahmad Jaad ul-Mawlaa and his colleague: 1/19.
Gheelaan had become Muslim alongside the people of At-Taa’if. Refer to “Al-Isaabah”: 6926, 3/186, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam
“Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/54. Similar to that was recorded by At-Tabaraaniy in his “As-Sagheer” and his “Al-Kabeer”. Al-
Haithamiy said: “Its Isnaad (chain) is Hasan”, “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/86 and in respect to “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/66, Al-
Haithamiy said: “Its Isnaad is Hasan”, “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/86. And in respect to “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/66 As-Suhailiy
said: “And Abu ‘Uzair embraced Islaam and related the Hadeeth and his brother Abu r-Room and Abu Yazeed became
Muslim, whilst the Islaam of his brother Mus’ab is not a hidden matter. And Az-Zubair Bin Bakaar was in error when he said:
Abu ‘Uzair was killed in the battle of Uhud as a disbeliever … and it may be that the one killed at Uhud was another brother of
his”, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1641, 3/1262-1263, (4) “Nail ul-Awtaar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 8/326, (5) “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah
Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm”, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p334].

… However, (in contrast) Islaam urged honouring and good treatment to be provided to the prisoner thus
preventing and countering the emergence of that harsh spirit or revenge. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used gave
instruction in respect to the captives of Badr as if they were to be treated like guests and not prisoners!”
(1).

Despite this, it is observable, concerning some of the Islamic writers, when presenting the picture of the
Islamic position towards matters like the one we are addressing; like the position of Islaam in respect to
prisoners of war etc, that you see them restricting the picturing of this aspect, which we have presented, to
mentioning the kindness towards the prisoners, treating them well and excessiveness in honouring them,
without revealing another aspect related to the treatment of the prisoners, which the prisoners should be
treated with at the time of the Haajah (need). That is due to their belief, that revealing that aspect could
damage the glowing image of Islaam which has been presented for Islaam in respect to this reality …

It is my view, however, that this method of talking about Islaam and its position in respect to issues of life
and its problems in general, makes Islaam appear distanced from the reality of life and the provision of a
true solution or treatment to that which the people live and face, in terms of issues and problems … This
represents a matter which could lead to generating an impression amongst the people that Islaam is a
system that is impractical in respect to its provision of solutions and treatments (for human life). We
would have then, in such a case, done a disservice to Islaam whilst believing that we are doing good. In
addition, this method which we are talking about here only reflects concealing an aspect of the Ahkaam
Ash-Shar’iyah and Islamic facts or truths … This falls within those warned about matters which every
Muslim should avoid, let alone those who take it upon themselves to talk about Islaam. This applies of
course and naturally when the matter requires presenting the Islamic position, from all of its aspects or
angles, in relation to a particular issue that has been proposed.

Consequently, it is valid for us to say in respect to the treatment of prisoners in Islaam: That if the need
(Haajah) calls for treating them with severity and violence, it would be incorrect to avoid that.

It was mentioned amongst the reports of the events of the battle of Badr that before the two armies met,
some of the Muslims who had been tasked to gather information about the Quraish, came across two
serving slaves from among the servants of the Mushrikeen who were gathering water supplies for the
army. So, they took them as captives and brought them to the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was in prayer.

The two prisoners were asked about information concerning the Mushrikeen and they duly informed
them about what they knew. However, when the Sahaabah did not like what they had told them and
consequently thought that they were lying and covering for the Mushrikeen, they took to beating them to
make them admit to the truth …

[(1) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fi l-Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p115].

… Then, under the pressure of beating the two servants provided information that pleased those who
were asking. That took place in the presence of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was still performing his Salaah.
The following was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam:
“And the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬bowed and prostrated twice and then said Salaam. He then
said: “When they tell you the truth you beat them and when they lie to you, you let them be! They
told the truth by Allah! They belong to Quraish! (1) Inform me about Quraish”. They (the two
captives): “They, by Allah, are behind this sandhill”” (2).

Similar to this above report has also been related within Saheeh Muslim (3) and Abu Dawud placed it
under the category heading: “The chapter: In respect to the Aseer (prisoner), he is afflicted, beaten …”
(4). Al-Khattaabiy said when discussing this Hadeeth: “Within it, the permission to beat the disbeliever
captive is indicated to, if there is a benefit in beating him” (5).

And Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said in relation to the Fiqh of this Hadeeth: “It includes the permissibility to
beat the disbeliever who has no ‘Ahd (treaty or covenant) for himself and even if he was an Aseer
(prisoner of war or captive)” (6).

I say: Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy may not intend that beating the prisoner is legally legitimate or lawful in an
unrestricted or absolute (Mutlaq) form as it appears from his speech. That is because the beating of the
two captives, mentioned within the Hadeeth, was only due to a specific circumstance, as is clear … In
addition, according to the principle of reconciling or bringing together (Al-Jam’u) between evidences
which are in apparent conflict, it is necessary to reconcile between the evidences which have stated
treating the prisoner with Ihsaan (i.e. the best manner), and the evidences which have come permitting the
beating to take place. That reconciliation is realised by saying: That the Ihsaan (best manner of treatment)
afforded to the Aseer (prisoner of war) is a required matter, however, it is permissible to treat him with
severity and violence at the time of the Haajah (need) for that. That could be like making him provide
information that concerns the Muslims based upon a belief (Zhann) that he possesses information that
the Muslims can benefit from.

[(1) The Sahaabah had thought that the two servants were part of the caravan of Abu Sufyaan which the Muslims had gone out
to take possession of. That is what the Sahaabah had wanted and what the two servants were denying. The beating was for that
reason so that they admit that they were part of Abu Sufyaan’s caravan and not a Quraishiy army as they had been saying. That
was due to their dislike of hearing the news of the arrival of an army to protect the caravan. Then as a result of the beating, the
two servants admitted to the opposite of the true reality and that they were part of the caravan, to satisfy the questioners, and
so that the beating would stop!, (2) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/34, (3) Saheeh Muslim: 1779, 3/1403, (4)
Sunan Abu Dawud: 2681, 3/77-78, (5) “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, Al-Khattaabiy: 4/19, (6) “Sharh Saheeh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy:
7/411].

Fourth: The Hukm (ruling) in respect to the Asraa (prisoners of war or captives):

The opinions related to the male Asraa (prisoners of war or captives), in respect to their Hukm, amongst
the Fuqahaa’ and Madhaahib are numerous. That is in the case where some of them gone into details of
the different situations of the prisoners in terms of the nationality that they belonged to and the Deen
(religion) that they followed. We do not however see the need to delve into all of those details because
that does not fall within the fundamental aims of this doctorate.

We will suffice ourselves by addressing this subject area, in a general manner, by mentioning the
Ahkaam which it is allowed for the person in authority to adopt in respect to the prisoners, as indicated to
by the Shar’iyah texts and evidences. We will also point to the opinions of the Madhaahib and Fuqahaa’ in
respect to each Hukm (ruling) from those Ahkaam.

It should be observed that the choice of those in authority in respect to implementing any Hukm (ruling)
from among those Ahkaam which they are permitted to adopt in respect to the prisoners, does not return
to the right of absolute choice, without restrictions, in respect to choosing a particular Hukm. Rather, it is
obligatory to determine the most fitting Hukm according to the differences in circumstances and
conditions, so as to adopt it and implement it. Consequently, if the Maslahah (interest) dictates a certain
Hukm (ruling) and not another, or the Maslahah dictates the selection of a particular Hukm (judgement)
for some of the prisoners whilst selecting another for others and a third judgment for others still, then it is
obligatory, according to the Shar’a, to follow that which the Maslahah dictates in respect to that … In this
regard, Ibn Qudaamah has said the following in respect to the Imaam or person in authority being
restricted by the Maslahah (interest), in respect to the passing of judgment upon the Asraa (prisoners of
war):

“This represents a selection based upon a Maslahah and Ijtihaad and not based upon a desire (Shahwah).
Consequently, when he views the Maslahah in a certain choice from amongst the choices, that is
designated for him (to adopt it), and it is not permissible for him to divert from that …” (1).

We will now present the Ahkaam related to the Asraa (prisoners of war) supported by their Adillah
(evidences) from the Shar’iyah texts and realities.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/402 and refer to “Al-Minhaaj”, An-Nawawiy and its Sharh: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”:
4/228].

1 - Al-Mannu ‘Alaa Al-Asraa (Benevolence upon the prisoners i.e. releasing them without
receiving any ransom in return):

This refers to letting them go free without a ransom i.e. without anything in exchange. The Daleel
(evidence) for this Hukm is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or Fidaa’ (ransoming) (Muhammad: 4).

That is in addition to what was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and related by Jubair Bin Mut’im: “That
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said concerning the Asraa (captives) of Badr: “Had Al-Mut’im Bin ‘Adiy been alive
(today) and then spoke to me concerning those Natnaa (prisoners) (1), I would have left them to
him” (2). And in the Sunan of Abu Dawud the following wording was recorded: “I would have set
them free to him” (3).

Ibn Hajar said in his “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “Ibn Battaal said: The angle of evidential deduction from it, is that
it is not permissible in respect to him ‫ ﷺ‬to inform that if something happened he would do such and
such, if that was not permissible. It therefore indicates that it is the right of the Imaam to grant freedom
to the prisoners without receiving a ransom, in contrast to those who forbade that” (4).

Al-Khattaabiy also commentated upon this Hadeeth stating: “This contains evidence for the permission of
freeing or releasing the Aseer (prisoner or captive) and to show benevolence upon him (by releasing him)
without a Fidaa’ (ransom fee)” (5).

This Hukm (ruling) is the opinion of the Jumhoor and that includes the Maalikiyah, the Shaafi’iyah, the
Hanaabilah, Al-Hasan Al-Basriy, ‘Ataa’ Bin Abi Rabaah and Sa’eed Ibn Jubair, amongst others (6).

[(1) In “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, Al-Khattaabiy: 4/24 it was stated: “An-Natnaa: It is the plural of An-Natin and it refers to the
Muntin (putrid, foul). It is like the saying (i.e. in form): Zamina r-Rajul (the man became chronically ill) and he (the ill person) is
called Zamin and the plural is Zamnaa. And it was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/324: “And the intended meaning of “An-
Natnaa” here is: The Mushrikeen prisoners of Badr. And his statement: “I would have left them to him” means: without a
Fidaa’ (ransom fee)”. And here Ibn Hajar mentioned the reasoning behind letting the prisoners of Badr go free for the sake of
Al-Mut’im, had he still been living, as an intercession for them … that this represented a recompense for him due to assistance
he had given to the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. He said: “The intended meaning of the aforementioned assistance is in relation to what
happened when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬returned from At-Taa’if and then re-entered Makkah under the protection of Al-Mut’im Bin
‘Adi … and it is (also) said: “The intended meaning of the aforementioned assistance was that he was of the strongest of those
who stood up for the annulment of the document which the Quraish has written against Bani Haashim and those Muslims with
them, when they laid siege (or implemented an embargo) upon them within the Shi’b (mountain sides)” … He then said: “At-
Tabaraaniy related: Al-Mut’im Bin ‘Adiy said to Quraish: You have done with Muhammad what you have done so be from
those who refrain and hold back most from him! And that was following the Hijrah, Then Al-Mut’im passed away prior to the
battle of Badr and he had reached the age of just over 90 years. Al-Faakihiy mentioned with a Mursal Isnaad that Hassaan Bin
Thaabit made an oration for him when h died! As a recompense for him due to what he had done for the Nabi ‫”ﷺ‬, (2)
Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4024 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/323, (3) Sunan Abi Dawud: 2689, 3/82, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/243, (5)
“Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, Al-Khattaabiy: 4/24, (6) Refer to: “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: p166, “Al-Muhadh’dhab”,
Ash-Sheeraaaziy: 2/236 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/440-441].

The Ahnaaf said, as has come stated in “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: “Al-Mann (benevolence) is not permitted upon
the prisoners and that is to let them go free back to the Daar ul-Harb without attaining anything in
exchange for that” (1). And their Daleel is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
… Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them … (At-Taubah: 5).

This text is in Soorah Baraa’ah (At-Taubah) and was from the last that was revealed of the Qur’aan and its
revelation was after the incidents of Al-Mann (benevolence by allowing them to go free) in respect to the
prisoners of war, which indicates that the Hukm (ruling) of Al-Mann with the prisoners is Mansookh
(abrogated).

The answer to this is: That the Aayah of “Baraa’ah” (At-Taubah) was related to the disbelievers before
being detained as prisoners and the Daleel (evidence) for that is the permissibility of enslaving the Asraa
(prisoners of war) and not killing them, which is also the opinion of the Ahnaaf themselves (2).

In addition, within the Sunnah and the Seerah An-Nabawiyah a number of cases have been mentioned in
which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬let the prisoners from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) go free. Examples of that
include:

- Abu Al-‘Aas Bin Ar-Rabee’, the wife of Zainab the daughter of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, was released for free and
he had been one of the Mushrikeen prisoners during the battle of Badr, as was related in the Sunan of
Abu Dawud (3).

- It was stated in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam that from those who were let free from the prisoners of Badr,
without receiving a ransom fee in return, also included: “Al-Muttalib Bin Hantab (4) from Bani
Makhzoum, Saifiyy Bin Abi Rifaa’ah also from Bani Makhzoum … And the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬released out of
benevolence ‘Ali (Abu ‘Azzah) Ash-Shaa’ir from Bani Jumah and that was because he inclined the heart of
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬by mentioning his daughters and his poverty … And so the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬took his word or
oath that he (Abu ‘Azzah) would not support anyone against him, and released him upon that basis (5) …

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/475, (2) Refer to: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/476, “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/354, “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/402. For the proofs to support not granting “Al-Mann” over the prisoners of war and also response to it, refer
to: “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”, Al-Khattaabiy: 4/25-26, (3) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2692, 3/83. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said the
Hadeeth is Hasan in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2341, 2/513 and for the report about his becoming Muslim and return to
Zainab refer to “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/69, (4) And Ibn Hantab embraced Islaam. Refer to: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/126, (5)
Seerah Ibn Hishaam, “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/6061. Despite that, Abu ‘Azzah was not faithful to his oath and was taken as
prisoner again at Uhud and then killed. For the incident of his killing refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/175
and Sunan Al-Baihaqiy: 9/65].

- We have also mentioned previously, within a previous study that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬released Thumaamah
Bin Uthaal, the chief of the people of Al-Yamaamah, without receiving anything in return (1).
- Similarly, it has been recorded in Saheeh Muslim that he ‫ ﷺ‬released out of benevolence 80 prisoners
from the Mushrikeen who he had captured whilst they were seeking a moment of carelessness from the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the Muslims to betray them and assault them (2).

The above is what is to be said regarding the matter of Al-Mann (i.e. releasing out of benevolence or
goodwill without receiving anything in return) without Fidaa’ (ransom).

2 - Al-Fidaa’ (ransom) which is the second Hukm (ruling) from the Ahkaam of the Asraa
(prisoners of war):

The Daleel (evidence) for “Al-Fidaa’” (ransom) is the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوإِ ََّماَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or Fidaa’ (ransoming) (Muhammad: 4).

The Jumhoor (majority) of the Fuqahaa’ from the Maalikiyah, Shaafi’iyah and Al-Hanaabilah in addition to
Al-Hasan Al-Basriy, ‘Ataa’ Ibn Abi Rabaah and Sa’eed Ibn Jubair adopted this Hukm (ruling) (3). The
Fidaa’ (ransom) could take place by the payment of money or it could occur through the exchange of
prisoners between the two sides.

- Ash-Shawkaaniy stated: “Al-Fidaa’ is more general than being via (the payment of) “Maal” (money) or
the freeing of prisoners from them and prisoners from us, as all of that is Fidaa’” (4).

I say: The Fidaa’ (ransom) could also be by way of actions or services which the prisoners themselves
undertake. That is like what happened in respect to the prisoners of Badr where the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
“Ransomed some of them upon the basis of teaching a group of the Muslims how to write” (5) … The
Fidaa’ could also be in exchange for specific benefits like knowledge based, manufacturing, economic
benefits or what is similar to that …This could be undertaken or overseen by the State or a body which
the prisoners are affiliated to, for the interests of the Islamic State.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4372, “Fat’h ul-Baariy: 8/87, Saheeh Muslim: 1764, 3/1386 and refer back to: “The Issue: The style of
abducting (or capturing) the enemies” from the “Fifth Volume”, (2) refer to: Saheeh Muslim: 1808, 3/1442 and the Sharh of
Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/463, (3) “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-
Shirbeeniy Al-Khateeb: 4/228, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/405 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/401, (4)
“As-Sail ul-Jarraar”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 4/567, (5) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 5/65 and refer also to: “Al-Amwaal”, Abu
‘Ubaid: p54-55].

Despite that, the Ahnaaf, in respect to the Fidaa’ (ransoming) of the Asraa (prisoners of war) stated the
following, as mentioned in the “Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen”:

“And ransoming them is Haraam (prohibited) i.e. releasing the prisoner by taking something in return for
them; either Maal (money or financial recompense) or a Muslim prisoner (i.e. in exchange).

Concerning the first: [i.e. the Fidaa’ (ransoming) for money] It is not permissible in respect to the
“Mash’hoor” (what is well-known or the norm) but there is no problem with it at the time of Al-Haajah
(the need) … As for the second: [i.e. ransom for the release of Muslim prisoners they are holding] It is not
permissible according to his opinion (i.e. Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah) but it is permitted in their view” (1)
i.e. in the opinion of Abu Yousuf and Muhammad, the students of Abu Haneefah, may Allah’s mercy be
upon them.
The evidential proof (Hujjah) for the impermissibility of ransoming the prisoners for money is their
statement: That is so that those prisoners do not return to fight in war against the Muslims (2) and
because Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla rebuked the taking of the Fidaa’ (ransom money) for the prisoners of Badr
when He Ta’Aalaa said:

ْ ‫اَواللَّـهَُي ُِري ُد‬

ََۗ‫َاْلخ َِرََة‬ َ ‫ضَال ُّد ْن َي‬ َ ‫ضََۚ ُت ِري ُد‬
َ ‫ونَ َع َر‬ َ ْ ‫َح َّت ٰىَي ُْثخ َِنَف‬
ِ ْ‫ِيَاألر‬ َ ‫ونَلَهَُأَسْ َر ٰى‬
َ ‫انََِل َن ِبيٍّ َأَنَ َي ُك‬
َ ‫َماَ َك‬
َ ‫َواللَّـهَُ َع ِزيز‬
َ‫َحكِيم‬
It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts (a lot of) killing [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land. Some
Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might
and Wise (Al-Anfaal: 67).

Ash-Shawkaaniy responded to the use of this Aayah as evidence saying: “The intended purpose of the
meaning of this Aayah is that priority should be given to “Ithkhaan” (inflicting of a lot of killing) over the
ransom, whilst it does not indicate that the Fidaa’ (ransoming) is not permissible!” (3).

In addition, the practise of ransoming the prisoners of the disbelievers for money and for Muslim
prisoners held by them, has been affimed to have taken place during the time of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬which
indicates to the permissibility of ransoming and even if the disbelievers return to their lands to wage war
against the Muslims. The return of those prisoners to war against the Muslims applies also to Al-Mann
(i.e. releasing them without the Fidaa’” and the Jumhoor (i.e. majority of Fuqahaa’) have weighed the
permissibility of that and its non-abrogation. As such, releasing them for a ransom is permissible by
greater reason.

The following are some of the incidents related to the legal legitimacy of ransoming the prisoners from
the people of war:

- In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, in relation to the ransoming of the prisoners of Quraish from the battle of Badr,
the following was related by Anas Bin Maalik, may Allah be pleased with him:

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/354, (2) refer to: “fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/475, (3) “As-Sail ul-Jarraar”: 4/568].

“Some men of the Ansaar requested Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬to allow them to see him, they
said: “Allow us to forgive the ransom of our sister’s son (1), Abbas” The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “By
Allah, you will not leave a single Dirham of it!”” (2).

- It was also narrated in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy that Al-‘Abbaas said: “I ransomed myself and I ransomed
‘Aqeel” (3) i.e. they were from the prisoners taken captive at Badr.

- In the Sunan of Abu Dawud: “Ibn ‘Abbaas related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made the price of ransom (Fidaa’)
for the people of Jaahiliyah on the day of Badr, 400” (4).

- And it came mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬accepted the ransom of the
two captives taken during the expedition (Sariyyah) of ‘Abdullah Bin Jahsh” (5).

The above relates to the ransom by “Maal” (money). As for ransoming them for Muslim captives held by
the disbelievers, then it has been affirmed in Saheeh Muslim, as mentioned previously concerning the
Hadeeth of the Sahaabah taking as prisoner the ‘Uqaily man from the allies of Thaqeef and that the Nabi
‫ ﷺ‬exchanged him for two men from his companions who had been taken prisoner by Thaqeef (6).

[(1) In “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/168, it was stated: “‘Abbaas: He is the son of ‘Abdul Muttalib. The intended meaning was that they
were the maternal uncles of his father “Abdul ul-Muttalib” and the mother of Al-‘Abbaas was Tutailah … who was not from
the Ansaar. They therefore intended by that, that the mother of Abdul Muttalib was from them because she was Salmaa Bint
‘Amr Bin Uhaijah who was from Bani An-Najjaar … In support of this, is what happened in the Hadeeth about the Hijrah, in
that he ‫ ﷺ‬stayed with his maternal uncles of Bani Najjaar. That is whilst his maternal uncles in truth were only Bani Zahrah
and Bani Najjar were the maternal uncles of his grandfather Abdul Muttalib. Ibn ul-Jawziy said: “They only said: “The son of
our sister” so that the benevolent release would be upon them (i.e. to do), in contrast to if they had said: “Your paternal uncle”
in which case the benevolent release would have been due upon him ‫ﷺ‬. This is due to the strength of cleverness and good
manners in respect to the form of speech. He ‫ ﷺ‬only refrained from acceding to their request so that there would not
appear within the Deen a kind of preferential treatment”. However, in the Tafseer of At-Tabariy, with a Hasan chain of
transmission (Isnaad), it was mentioned that Al-‘Abbaas had informed the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, whilst he was a captive, that he was
Muslim: 10/35. Refer to “Al-Mujtama’ Al-Madaniy”, Dr. Akram Diyaa’ Al-‘Umariy: p55. And in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam it
was stated: “And Al-‘Abbaas used to have respect for his people and hated to be in opposition to them and used to conceal his
Islaam”, “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/55, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2537 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/167-168, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy:
3049, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/168. Ibn Hajar said: “He means Ibn Abi Taalib. It is said: he was taken prisoner with them both as
well: Al-Haarith Bin Nawfal Bin Al-Haarith Bin Abdul Muttalib and that Al-‘Abbaas also paid his ransom!” I say: It was stated
in “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/125-126 that he was from the prisoners taken at Badr: “Nawfal Bin Al-Haarith Bin ‘Abdul Muttalib
and that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬requested from him to ransom himself: “he said: I do not possess the money to ransom
myself by it. He said: ransom yourself with your spears that are in Jeddah …!”, (4) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2691, 3/82-83. Al-
Albaaniy said: It is Saheeh with the exception of the words “400”: “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2340, 2/512, (5) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam, with the verification by Muhammad Muhyiy ud-Deen Abdul Hameed: 2/242, (6) Saheeh Muslim: 1641, 3/1263].

This then is what is to be said regarding the ransoming of the “Asraa” (captives or prisoners of war) and
we now move on to the discussion of another Hukm (ruling) from amongst the Ahkaam related to them.

3 - Al-Qatl (to kill them):

It is permissible for the person possessing the authority (i.e. legitimate ruler) to pass judgement upon the
disbelieving prisoners of the enemy; all of them or some of them, that they be killed, when the Maslahah
obliges this judgement. This is what the Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’) of the Ahnaaf, Maalikiyah,
Shaafi’iyah and Hanaabilah have stated.

There is however an opinion contrary to this and that is what Ibn Katheer mentioned in his Tafseer, when
he said: “Some of them said: The Imaam has only the option of choosing between “Al-Mann” (i.e.
releasing the prisoner without Fidaa’) or ransoming him alone and it is not permissible to kill him” (2).

And the following came mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: Al-Hasan, may Allah be pleased with him,
used to dislike the killing of the Aseer (prisoner) unless it was during the war to strike fear into the enemy.
Hammaad Bin Abi Sulaimaan, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, used to dislike the killing of the prisoner
or captive (Aseer) after war had laid down its burdens (i.e. come to an end) …. They based their opinion
upon what was related in that Abdullah Ibn ‘Aamir sent a prisoner to Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased
with them both, to kill him. And he said: By Allah he is detained and shackled and so I will not kill him i.e.
after you have bound him and made him your prisoner, I will not kill him”. It was then stated: “The
interpretation of the Hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar is that he disliked killing him whilst his hands were bound and
that it was not said due to him being wary of killing him, after he had been made a prisoner. Here, we say:
It is preferable or more correct to not kill the one whose hands are bound, if it was not feared that he run
away or kill some of the Muslims” (3). In his Tafseer, Al-Jassaas quoted some reports attributed to Al-
Hasan, ‘Ataa and Ibn Seereen in which they stated the Karaahah (dislike) of killing the Aseer (prisoner of
war or captive). He said: “It was related concerning Ibn ‘Umar that one of the chiefs of Istakhr (4) was
brought to him to be killed but he refused to kill him and recited the His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or Fidaa’ (ransoming) (Muhammad: 4) (5).

[(1) Refer to: “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/353, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228
and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/400, (2) “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan Al-Kareem”, Ibn Katheer: 4/173, (3) “As-Siyar ul-
Kabeer”: 3/1024-1026, (4) ““Istakhr”: It is a land of Persia from which a group of ‘Ulamaa’ came from”: “Wafayaat ul-
A’ayun”: 2/75, (5) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/269].

In “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, its author stated: “And a people (or group) said: It is not permissible to kill the
Aseer (prisoner or captive) and Al-Hasan Bin Muhammad At-Tameemy spoke about is being Ijmaa’ As-
Sahaabah (consensus of the companions)” (1).

The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Aalousiy: “And the Zhaahir (apparent meaning) of the
Aayah is … refraining from killing after the imprisonment (i.e. was completed). And this was the opinion
of Al-Hasan” (2).

In addition, many of the contemporary Islamic writers have inclined towards the opinion forbidding the
killing of the prisoners apart from in specific circumstances due to the Daroorah (necessity) (3).

The Hujjah (evidential proof) for not killing the prisoner is the Aayah stating “Al-Mann” (releasing
without ransom) or “Al-Fidaa’” (releasing by a ransom), which restricts the Hukm (judgment) of the
prisoners to these two matters (alone).

I say: It appears to me that the word “‫( ”إِمَّا‬Immaa [either]), as the ‘Ulamaa of language have stated, has
come with numerous meanings and it does not necessarily indicate a choice with restriction or limitation
(Hasr) in respect to every place or context it comes in (4) … So, here, in respect to the Qawl of Allah
Ta’Aalaa concerning the Hukm (ruling) of the Asraa (prisoners of war):

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعَْ ُد ََوإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or Fidaa’ (ransoming) (Muhammad: 4)

Here, the word “‫( ”إِمَّا‬Immaa [either]) does not indicate a choice restricted or limited to either the release
without any return in exchange (Al-Mann) or the release in return for a ransom (Al-Fidaa’) alone. That is
because of the existence of other evidences which establish the permissibility of killing the prisoners of
war (Al-Asraa), enslaving them or making them from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah (i.e. subjects of the State),
besides the options of “Al-Mann” and “Al-Fidaa’”. Similar to the “‫( ”إِمَّا‬Immaa [either]) in this text, in
respect to not establishing the restriction or limitation, is what came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and
Muslim concerning the choice provided to the Waliy (guardian or relative) of the person who had been
killed (i.e. murdered) in respect to the Hukm (judgement) to be imposed upon the killer. He ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫َىَوإِمَّاَ ُي َقا ُد‬ ِ ‫َب َخي ِْرَال َّن َظ َري‬

َ ‫ْنَإِمَّاَيُود‬ ِ ‫َو َمنْ َ ُق ِت َلَلَهَُ َقتِيلَ َفه َْو‬
And whoever has a relation of his killed he has the right to choose one of two matters; either the
provision of blood money or retaliation (i.e. by having the killer killed) (5).

This means: Either blood money of the killed relative be given to the Waliy (guardian or relative) of the
blood if he wills that, or he seeks Al-Qasaas (retribution i.e. death for the killer), if he wishes that …
Concerning this, it is known that even though the word “‫( ”َإِمَّا‬Immaa [either]) came in this Hadeeth,
restricting or limiting the choice of the Waliy of the blood (i.e. relation of the killed), according to what is
apparent, between the right of accepting the blood money (Diyah) and the right of Al-Qasaas (retribution)
against the killer, there are nevertheless other Adillah (evidences) establishing that the Waliy also has the
right to pardon the killer in addition to the options of accepting blood money or demanding the Qisaas
(retribution) ...

[(1) Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej Ahaadeeth ul-Bidaayah”: 6/10, (2) Tafseer “Rooh ul-
Ma’aaniy”, Al-Aalousiy: 26/40, (3) Refer to Ash-Shakhsiyah Volume Three (now Two), Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-
Nabhaaniy: p162, “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fil Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p175, “Aathaar ul-Harb”:
p415, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy, “Al-Jihaad Wa n-Nuzhum Al-‘Askariyah”, Dr Ahmad As-Shalabiy: p127, “Al-
Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah”, Dr. Kamaal Salaamah Ad-Daqs: p296 and “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah Fi l-Qur’aan Wa s-Sunnah”, Dr.
Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: p220, (4) Refer to: “Mughniy ul-Labeeb, Ibn Hishaam when he said: “Immaa (‫ )إِمَّا‬has five meanings
…” he then mentions them and provides examples: p62-63. Refer also to: Al-Kulliyaat Al-Kafawiyah”: 10/306, (5) Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy: 6880, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 12/205 and Saheeh Muslim: 1355, 2/988].

Consequently, these evidences take away from the word “‫( ”إِمَّا‬Immaa [either]) the indication of the Hasr
(restriction or limitation) (1).

It has also been said in respect to the Aayah of “Al-Mann” and “Al-Fidaa’” in relation to the Asraa
(prisoners of war): “Concerning:

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم َّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوَإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either (Immaa) Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or [either (Immaa)] Fidaa’ (ransoming)
(Muhammad: 4)

Concerning this, the “Immaa” [either] (‫ )إِمَّا‬here, does not establish (or indicate) limiting the Hukm (ruling)
in respect to the prisoners of war to “Al-Mann” and “Al-Fidaa’” alone, in the case where there are other
Adillah (evidences) establishing the permissibility to kill or enslave” (2).

As for the evidences for the permissibility of killing the prisoners of war or captives (Asraa)?

- Amongst the evidences is what came concerning the captives of Badr from the army of the Mushrikeen.
‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbaas related the incident in full from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab and the following extract is
from that, as recorded in Saheeh Muslim:

“The Muslims that day (i.e. the day of the Battle of Badr) killed seventy persons and captured
seventy. The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬said to Abu Bakr and `Umar (Allah be pleased with
them): What is your opinion about these captives? Abu Bakr said: They are our kith and kin. I
think you should release them after getting from them a ransom. This will be a source of strength
for us against the disbelievers. It may be that Allah guides them to Islaam. Then the Messenger
of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬said: What is your opinion, Ibn ul-Khattaab? He said: No by Allah, O Messenger
of Allah, I do not hold the same opinion as Abu Bakr. I am of the opinion that you should hand
them over to us so that we may strike their necks. Hand over ‘Aqeel to ‘Ali that he may strike his
neck, and hand over such and such relative to me that I may strike his neck. They are leaders of
the disbelievers and its notables (Sanaadeed) (3). The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬then favoured
what Abu Bakr had said and not to what I had said …” (4).

I say: This Hadeeth which came in Saheeh Muslim indicates within what it indicates to, to the
permissibility of killing all of the prisoners and not just some of them only. That is because the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬
did not denounce the opinion of ‘Umar in respect to killing them …

[(1) The following was stated in “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim:: 3/454: “The Waliy has four options in respect to that:
Pardon without anything else, pardon with blood money and Al-Qisaas (retribution), and there is no disagreement concerning
his choosing between these three. And the fourth: Al-Musaalahah (reconciliation) above more than the Diyah (blood money).
There are two views regarding this: The most well-known is: Its permissibility. And the second: He does not possess the right
for pardoning upon the basis of Maal (receiving money etc.) apart from the blood money or less than that. This is the
preponderant Daleel (evidence)”, (2) Refer to “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej Ahaadeeth Al-
Bidaayah”: 6/16, (3) Concerning “Sanaadeed”: Its singular is “Sindeed”: “As-Sayyid Ash-Shijaa’” (The courageous master):
“Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p217, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 1763, 3/1385].

Had the killing of the prisoners or some of them, in the least, from those who had not inflicted Muslims
with harm in the past and from those whom no harm was expected from them (at that time), not been
legally legitimate, then the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬would have denounced the opinion of ‘Umar.
- Also, from the Adillah (evidences) for the permissibility of killing the disbeliever prisoners of war is what
came recorded by At-Tabaraaniy: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬ransomed the
prisoners of war of Badr and the ransom fee of each man from among them was four thousand.
And he killed ‘Uqbah Bin Abi Mu’ait before the ransoming. ‘Ali Bin ‘Abi Taalib stood over him
and killed him Sabran (i.e. after he had been made captive and been bound as a prisoner)” (1).

“Ibn ‘Abbaas said: On the day of Badr the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬killed three men Sabran (i.e.
after they had been bound and made captive). He killed An-Nadr Bin Al-Haarith from Bani Abd
id-Daar, Tu’aimah Bin ‘Adiy from Bani Nawfal and ‘Uqbah Bin Abi Mu’ait” (2).

- In the Sunan of At-Tirmidhiy, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said in relation to the
polytheist captives at Badr: “Do not release anyone except by ransom or striking the necks!” (4).

This Hadeeth indicates that the killing of the prisoners represents a legally legitimate Hukm in respect to
all those from the disbelievers who fall into the captivity of the Muslims and that it is not limited alone, as
has been said, to specific cases of those who had previously exhibited severe hostility and extreme harm to
Islaam and the Muslims, or what is similar to that, like those whom today have been labelled “war
criminals”. That is because all of the prisoners of Badr from the Mushrikeen did not fit this description.

Despite that, as we have stated previously, the Hukm (ruling or judgement) in respect to the prisoners
must be in accordance to the Maslahah, as an obligation. Therefore, if the Maslahah (interest) dictates that
they not be killed, it is not permissible in such a case to pass judgement upon them to be killed. In
addition, it is also possible to arrive to the judgement of refraining from killing the prisoners through
treaties and agreements with other states which relate specifically to this issue. As such, if the Islamic State
is bound with another state by a treaty stipulating that the prisoners of war not be killed, then it is
impermissible in such a case to break that treaty, as long as the other parties are adhering to it. That is in
accordance to what has previously been presented regarding the treaties.

[(1) It was stated in: “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p126: Sabr refers to: “Anything with a Rooh (life) which is fettered or tied up
until it is killed has been killed Sabran”, (2) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”, Al-Haithamiy: 6/89. He said: It was related by At-
Tabaraaniy in his “Al-Kabeer” and “Al-Awsat”. Its Rijaal (i.e. transmitters) are Rijaal As-Saheeh, (3) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”, Al-
Haithamiy: 6/89-90. He said: It was related by At-Tabaraaniy in his “Al-Awsat” and it (i.e. the Isnaad) includes Abdullah Bin
Hammaad Bin Numair and I did not know him and the rest of its Rijaal (transmitters) are Thiqaat (reliable), (4) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/175 and “As-Sunan Al-Kubraa”, Al-Baihaqiy: 9/65, (5) Sunan At-Tirmidhiy: 3084, 5/271. At-
Tirmidhiy said: This Hadeeth is Hasan].

Concluding summary:

The Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) permit the killing of the prisoners of war, as one of the legally valid
options in respect to the judgment to be passed upon them. That is unless the Maslahah dictates other
than that or unless the Muslims are bound by a treaty that obliges them to not kill the prisoners of war.

We will now move on to discuss the fourth Hukm from among the Ahkaam of the prisoners of war,
which is:

4 - Al-Istirqaaq (enslavement):

The Hukm (ruling or judgement) of Al-Istirqaaq in respect to the Asraa means imposing Ar-Riqq (slavery)
upon them i.e. to make them slaves. Then the same applies upon them as is applied upon those who are
owned, in terms of distribution, or sale or setting free etc … just as is done in respect to the women and
children Saby (i.e. those taken as booty in war). This Hukm (ruling) of the legality of enslaving the
prisoners, when the Maslahah (interest) dictates it, was the opinion of the majority from the Ahnaaf,
Maalikiyah, Shaafi’iyah and Hanaabilah (1).

We have previously mentioned that there are from the Fuqahaa’ those who do not see other than “Al-
Mann” releasing without receiving anything in return) and “Al-Fidaa’” (ransoming), in respect to the
Hukm of the prisoner. They included Al-Hasan, ‘Ataa and Sa’eed Ibn Jubair (2) … And we explained, at
that time, that the Aayah:

َ‫َفإِمَّاَ َم ّناَ َبعْ ُد ََوإِمَّاَفِ َداء‬

Then, it is either Mann (i.e. releasing them without anything in return) or Fidaa’ (ransoming) (Muhammad: 4)

We explained that it does not establish restricting or limiting the Hukm (ruling) of the Aseer to these two
matters and that is due to the other evidences which have added to the Hukm of “Al-Mann” and the
Hukm of “Al-Fidaa’” and establish the application of other Ahkaam upon the Aseer (prisoner) like Al-
Qatl (killing) and Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) …

As for the Daleel (evidence) for Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) the prisoner of war (Al-Aseer) from those who
are men mature of age, then that is Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions). During the
discussion of the issue of the prisoners of war (Asraa) the following came stated in “Bidaayat ul-
Mujtahid”: “The Sahaabah held an Ijmaa’ (consensus) after him ‫ ﷺ‬upon enslaving the Ahl ul-Kitaab
(people of the book); their males (Dhukraan) and females” (3).

[(1) Refer to “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/119, “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184, “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228 and “Al-
Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/400, (2) Refer to: “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Al-Jassaas: 5/269, “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-
‘Arabiy: 4/1689, “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/227, “Tafseer ul-Qur’aan ul-‘Azheem”, Ibn Katheer:
4/173 and “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/400-401, (3) “Bidaayat ul-Mujtahid”, Ibn Rushd: “Al-Hidaayah Bi Takhreej
Ahaadeeth ul-Bidaayah”: 6/15].

The word “Dhukraan” used in the above speech applies upon men who have reached the age of puberty
just as it applies upon the young (As-Sighaar) from those whom the name “As-Saby” is applied along with
the females …

This is what the Ijmaa’ (consensus) occurred upon during the era of the Sahaabah … As for the era or
time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, then we have already become aware in previous studies that the enslaving of the
Saby (women and children) represented a widespread matter or occurrence during his time and within his
Seerah, although our discussion here is not about that now … As for enslaving the mature men prisoners
of war, then Ibn ul-Qayyim mentioned that this did not take place during the era of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬.
In “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, he stated the following: “It has been affirmed, from him ‫ﷺ‬, in respect to the
Asraa (prisoners of war), that he killed some of them, freed some of them without anything in return (i.e.
Al-Mann), ransomed some of them for Maal (money) and some of them for Muslim prisoners in
exchange and enslaved some of them, although what is known (Ma’roof) is that he did not enslave a man
past the age of puberty” (1).

The meaning of what Ibn ul-Qayyin said regarding the Istirqaaq (enslaving) of some of the Asraa
(prisoners of war), whilst at the same time stating that he did not enslave men who had reached the age of
maturity, is that those whom he enslaved were only the children and women from the Saby (i.e. women
and children captives from war) alone.

However, Al-Imaam As-San’aaniy determined other than that when he stated: “Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving)
occurred from him ‫ ﷺ‬with the people of Makkah and then he freed them” (2). It appears however that
the ruling of enslaving the people of Makkah merely represents a deduction from the statement of the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to them directly following the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah, whilst he was standing upon the
door of the Ka’bah: “O assembly or community of Quraish! What do you think I should do with
you (all)? They said: Good. Noble (generous) brother and the son of a noble brother! He said:
Go, for verily you are those who have been set free (Tulaqaa’)!” (3).

Under the assumption of the correctness of this text, it does not however designate that the meaning of
letting the people of Makkah go, is that he was freeing them from being enslaved, based upon a ruling
which had previously been applied upon them, after falling under the grip of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as is
understood from the speech of As-San’aaniy.

[(1) “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 5/65, (2) “Subul us-Salaam”, As-San’aaniy: 4/55, (3) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 4/92-93. Ibn Ishaaq related this text with his statement: “Some of the people of knowledge informed me that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬stood upon the door of the Ka’bah and then said: …”. Concerning this, As-Sheikh ul-Albaaniy said
that the relation is: ““Da’eef” (weak) and Ibn Ishaaq related it Mu’dalan” in his Takhreej (examination) of the Ahaadeeth of
“Fiqh us-Sunnah” by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: p415. Abu ‘Ubaid also related it in his “Amwaal” with a Mursal
Sanad (chain): p52].

What is apparent (Zhaahir) concerning this and its meaning, is that if the disbelievers from the people of
Makkah were considered to fall under the Hukm (ruling) of Asraa (prisoners of war) following the
conquest of Makkah, then the meaning of the statement of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to them: “Go, for verily you are
those who have been set free (Tulaqaa’)!” would be that they are let free or released by way of “Al-Mann”
without a “Fidaa’” (ransom). Abu ‘Ubaid said when enumerating the number of occurrences of “Al-
Mann” being applied upon the prisoners during the era of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬: “Including with “Al-Mann” is
what he did with the people of Makkah. We have already discussed it and how his conquest of it took
place. Then he did not target the lives (2) or wealth of any of its people. He then called out to them:
“Indeed, no wounded will be finished off, no fleeing person will be pursued, no prisoner (Aseer) will be
killed and whosever closes his door, then he is safe and secure” (3).

In any case, it appears that there is nothing which supports that the statement: “You are Tulaqaa’ (set
free)” means that that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬had enslaved the people of Makkah and then freed them from the
slavery after that.

It remains, that the evidence for enslaving the prisoners of war is the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of
the companions). However, there is a Hadeeth recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy which indicates to the
Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy) of owning the neck (Riqaab i.e. enslaving) of the people of disbelief and it
may be that it is the Daleel (evidence) which was the reason or cause for the convening of the Ijmaa’ As-
Sahaabah during the era of the Sahaabah for the permissibility of enslaving the prisoners of war.

- In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, it was related from Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah, that he stated the following to
the governor of Kisraa (i.e. the Persians): “Our Nabi, the Messenger of our Rabb (Lord) ‫ﷺ‬
commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah alone or give the Jizyah. And our Prophet
informed us, concerning the message of our Lord, that whoever from us is killed will be in Jannah
(paradise) in bliss, the like of which none has ever seen, and whoever from amongst us remains
would own your necks!” (4).

[(1) The following was stated in “Al-Madrasah Al-‘Askariyah”, Muhammad Faraj: p578-579: “After the victory of Allah was
fulfilled and the Muslims entered Makkah, everyone who was in Makkah from the Quraish became an Aseer (prisoner of war”.
He then said: “Then the stance of the Messenger towards the prisoners of Quraish was a general pardon for them”, (2) I say:
Apart from those whom the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬voided their blood (i.e. lives) and even if they attached themselves to the coverings of
the Ka’bah. Refer to: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4286, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 8/15, Saheeh Muslim: 1357, 2/990 and Sunan Abu Dawud:
2683, 3/79-80. Also refer to: “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”, Al-Albaaniy: 2337, 2/510, Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”:
4/92-93 and “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”, Ibn ul-Qayyim: 3/411, (3) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin salaam: p51. Refer to the
same source p55 and it is observed there that the non-finishing off of the wounded … is only a manifestation from the
manifestations of “Al-Mann” in respect to them after they had fallen into the hands of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. Concerning this the
following came mentioned in Saheeh Muslim: “And whoever entered the house of Abi Sufyaan, then he is safe and
secure (Aamin) and whoever throws down (his) weapons is safe and secure and whoever closes his door upon
himself, he is safe and secure”. Saheeh Muslim: 1780, 3/1408, (4) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3159, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/258. It
was recorded in the Sunan of Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: “That ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, was brought
prisoners and distributed them! And he did not kill any one of them”: 2669, 2/251].

The apparent understanding of the “ownership of the necks” mentioned here, is the Istirqaaq (enslaving)
of those from the people of war who were not killed during the fighting and fell as captives to the
Muslims and under their grip or hold ...

In addition, numerous Adillah (evidences) for the legal legitimacy or lawfulness of enslaving the prisoners
have been mentioned. However, we not find them to be strong in evidential import or indication to
support this matter, and as such, there is no need to present them … From among these evidences is what
was understood from His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫واَال َو َث‬
َ‫اق‬ ُ ‫َح َّت ٰىَإِ َذاَأَ ْث َخن ُتمُو ُه ْمَ َف‬
ْ ‫ش ُّد‬
Until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them (Ithkhaan), then secure their bonds (i.e. take them as prisoners)
(Muhammad: 4).

Here, the securing of the bonds or ties has been interpreted to mean Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) (1).
However, the Zhaahir (apparent or evident meaning) of “securing the bonds” here, as it appears, refers to
securing the hold over those who fall into captivity or are taken prisoner from amongst the people of war
or those who surrender, so that they are unable to flee if the guarding over them is lightened … In
relation to this Aayah Ibn ul-‘Arabiy said: “The meaning is: Kill them until you have done that a lot (i.e.
killed a lot) and you have taken those who remain and secured their bonds. Then you either let them go
free without receiving anything in return as a “Mann” or you ransom them” (2).

Despite that, many of the contemporary Islamic writers have determined that the enslaving of prisoners of
war during the ‘Ahd (era) of the Sahaabah was only based upon a like for like treatment. Regarding this,
Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah said:

“Why was slavery found during the era of the Rightly Guided (Khulafaa’”? The answer to that is that the
texts of the Qur’aan did not forbid it explicitly even if they were more inclined towards forbiddance. And
the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not approve of it, even if he did not forbid it. And the matter remains in respect to it,
to what the law of like for like treatment dictates. Therefore, if the enemies used to enslave, then it was for
the Muslims to enslave based upon the like for like treatment. And if they did not used to enslave, it is not
Halaal for the Muslims to enslave …” (3).

That is similar to what As-Sayyid Saabiq also determined: “It has been established that the Rightly Guided
Khulafaa’, may Allah be pleased with them, used enslave some of the prisoners of war (Asraa) upon the
basis of like for like treatment” (4).

[(1) Refer to: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228, (2) “Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: 4/1689, (3) “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah
Fi l-Islaam”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p116, (5) “Fiqh us-Sunnah”, As-Sayyid Saabiq: 2/688. As-Sayyid Saabiq
went on to say: “They did not permit the slavery in every form like was the case with the other divine and man-made
legislations but rather limited it to the legally legitimate war that the Muslims declared against their disbeliever enemy whilst it
cancelled or nullified every other form and considered it to be prohibited by the Shar’a and not permissible under any
circumstance”. He then explained that Islaam limited the sources of slavery to the legally legitimate war and from another
aspect it opened the door wide for the freeing of the slaves. He listed those doors including: Al-Kaffaaraat (expiations), Zakaah,
oaths (Nudhoor), slaves being able to free themselves for an amount of money … refer also to: “At-Takmilah Ath-Thaaniyah li
l-Majmoo’”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Najeeb Al-Mutee’iy, Sharh “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 16/3-4].

I say: During our discussion about the “Saby” in a previous topic of study, we mentioned that there is
nothing to connect or tie the legal legitimacy of Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) to the like for like treatment.
In any case, the enslaving of the prisoners of war (Asraa) does not represent a necessary or binding
(Laazim) Hukm (ruling) in relation to this Mas’alah (issue). Rather, it represents one of the lawful options
or choices in respect to it. Consequently, when the Maslahah (interest) dictates not resorting to the choice
of enslaving in relation to the Hukm (ruling or judgement) of the prisoners of war, it is not permissible for
the person in authority, in such a circumstance, to rule with enslaving them merely based upon his desire
to do that. In addition, if the contemporary Islamic writers view today that it has no relation to the
Maslahah, then Islaam establishes its non-legal legitimacy or unlawfulness built upon that basis i.e. upon
the basis of the Maslahah which the Fuqahaa’ made the Manaat (determining reality) in respect to selecting
the Hukm (ruling or verdict) upon the prisoners, from amongst the Ahkaam (rulings) that Islaam has
brought. There is no need, after that, to invalidate the legality of enslaving from its original basis, as long
as we are able to reach the sought after purpose through a valid Shar’iy path.

It is therefore possible, as previously pointed to, to reach the forbiddance of Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving) by
the Hukm of Islaam, through another Shar’iy path. That is the agreement of the Islamic State with other
states to not resort to the enslaving of prisoners … Via such an agreement the enslaving in such a
circumstance would be Haraam, as long as the agreement remains preserved and nothing has occurred to
annul it from a Shar’iyah perspective (1).

We now move on to the discussion of the final Hukm (ruling) related to the Asraa (prisoners of war) …

5 - ‘Aqd udh-Dhimmah:

Contracting the Dhimmah with the prisoners of war from the disbelieving people of war (Ahl ul-Harb)
means making them citizens of the Islamic State i.e. that they become Ahl udh-Dhimmah who are
subjects of the State, like the Muslims …

[(1) The following came stated in: “Aathaar ul-Harb” by Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: p418 in the commentary: “The
system of slavery remained worked with during the Middle ages and after that until the European states denounced the slavery
trade in a genral manner in the conference of Vienna 1815 C.E. They signed many conventions following this date, the last of
which was the addition Geneva convention on the 7th of September 1956, which abolished slavery and trading in slaves in
addition to realities similar to it”. Refer also to “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah Wa l-Qanoon Ad-Dawliy Al-‘Aamm”, ‘Ali ‘Ali
Mansoor: p334].

They have what the Muslims have within it (i.e. in terms of rights) and are bound by what the Muslims are
bound by (i.e. in terms of obligations).

Concerning the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of contracting the Dhimmah to non-Muslims from the
prisoners of the enemy, is matter which the word (or opinion) of the Madhaahib have agreed upon. That
is as follows:

- In “Tanweer ul-Absaar” and its Sharh (explanation) “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar”, from the books of the
Ahnaaf (i.e. Hanafiy Madh’hab), in relation to what the Imaam has the right to do with the prisoners of
war (Asraa), it was stated: “And he kills the prisoners of war, if he willed, if they don’t embrace Islaam, or
he enslaves them, or he leaves them free as a Dhimmah (contract of protection) for us …” (1).

- From the books of the Maalikiyah, concerning this issue, the following came stated in “Qawaaneen Al-
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”:

“As for the men, then the Imaam has the choice between five matters in respect to them: Al-Qatl (to kill
them), Al-Mann (releasing them without receiving anything in return), Al-Fidaa’ (ransoming them), Al-
Jizyah (i.e. become subjects of the Islamic State) or Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving), and he does (or chooses) what
is most in the Maslahah from those” (2). And the meaning of his statement “Al-Jizyah” is the contracting
of the Dhimmah with the prisoners of the men, which is followed, naturally, by the giving of the Jizyah
and adherence to the Ahkaam of Islaam that they are commissioned to abide by.

- And it was stated in “Al-Muhadh’dhab” which is from the books of the Shaafi’iyah: “And the Imaam
does not choose in respect to the prisoner (Aseer), in terms of killing, enslaving, Al-Mann or Al-Fidaa’,
except that which is in the favour or interest of Islaam and the Muslims, because he looks into them [i.e.
he takes into account the interests of Islaam and the Muslims) and he does not do or choose except that
which takes these both into account (i.e. where the interest [Maslahah] lies). If the prisoner expends the
Jizyah and he requests that the Dhimmah is contracted for him, whilst he is from those whom it is
permitted to contract the Dhimmah with, then in such a circumstance, there are two points of view: First:
It is obligatory to accept it just as it is obligatory to accept it if he was to give it whilst not being a prisoner
… Second: It is not obligatory, because that (i.e. the obligation) has fallen in respect to that due to what
has been established in terms of the choice of killing, enslaving, Al-Mann (releasing without ransom) and
Al-Fidaa’ (ransoming)” (3). And it was stated in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “There is no disagreement (in
opinion) in respect to the permissibility of accepting that (i.e. the Jizyah and contract of Adh-Dhimmah)
from him and there are two points of view in respect to the obligation of that. It was said in “Ash-
Shaamil” (4): And if he (i.e. the prisoner) gives the Jizyah …

[(1) “Haashiyah Ibn ‘Aabideen”: 3/353 and refer also to: “Badaa’i As-Sanaa’i”: 7/121, (2) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-
Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: p166 and refer to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184, (3) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy:
2/236, (4) “Ash-Shaamil Fi l-Fiqh”, Abu Nasr Abd us-Sayyid Bin As-Sabbaagh and “Ash-Shaamil Fi l-Fiqh”, Abu l-Qaasim Al-
Baihaqiy, Ismaa’eel Bin Al-Husain Bin Abdullah: “Asmaa’u -Kutub”: p181, ‘Abdul Lateef Bin Muhammad Riyaadiy Zaadah].

… it is Haraam to kill him and the Imaam has the choice outside of the option of killing, just like if he
became Muslim. And Ar-Raafi’iy verified that within the Baab (Chapter category) of Al-Jizyah” (1).

- Ibn Qudaamah from the Hanaabilah stated in “Al-Mughniy”: “If the prisoners from the people of the
book (Ahl ul-Kitaab) ask to be left be upon the basis of the giving of the Jizyah, that is not permissible in
respect to their women and children, because they have become a Ghaneemah (booty) as Saby. As for the
men: Then that is permissible in respect to them and the established choice still remains in respect to
them. And those of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab said: It is Haraam (prohibited) to kill them, just like if they had
become Muslim” (2).

The concluding summary is as follows:

The contraction of the Dhimmah for the Asraa (prisoners of war) can be the Haqq (right) of the person in
authority which he practises as a choice if he wills, in accordance to the Maslahah, as has been stated by
the Ahnaaf, Maalikiyah and Hanaabilah, or it can be the Haqq of the prisoners from the enemy
themselves, where they request it, at which time it is prohibited (Haraam) to kill them, as has been stated
by the Shaafi’iyah, in the manner explained previously.

And it has come mentioned concerning the reasoning for the permissibility of this Hukm (ruling) from
among the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Aseer (prisoner of war), that: “If it is permissible to release him by way
of “Al-Mann” without it being in exchange for Maal (money) or (it is permissible to release him) in
exchange for Maal on a one off payment, then by greater reason it is permissible to release him for Maal
(money) that is taken from him on an annual basis” (3). This has also been deduced based upon what
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, did in respect to the people of war who feel
under the ruling of prisoners of war from the lands which were opened by force, by the power of the
sword, during his era. He left them to be free and made them from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah who paid the
Jizyah from themselves and the Kharaaj from that which was under their hand from the agricultural lands
(4).
Abu Yousuf said in his “Kitaab ul-Kharaaj”: “As for the people of the Quraa (towns), lands, cities, their
inhabitants and what is within them, then the Imaam has the choice: If he wishes, he can leave them upon
their land, homes, house and make their properties secure for them, whilst placing (or imposing) the
Jizyah and Kharaaj upon them …” (5).

With that, we will suffice ourselves here in relation to our discussion of this current issue and now move
on to the discussion of the second issue.

[(1) Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228 and refer also to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/152, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/403 and
refer also to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisy: 10/409, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/228, (4) “Al-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf:
p27-28, (5) “Al-Kharaaj”: p74].

The Second Issue

The Hukm (ruling) in respect to the surrender of the enemy

Concerning this subject area, we will discuss two issues:

A - Is it permissible to kill the enemy if he has surrendered during the battle and handed himself over to
be taken as prisoner?

B - What is the Hukm (legal ruling) concerning the enemy army or people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) in general,
who are withstanding in their fortresses or by their (military) strength, if they surrender to the Muslims,
without a proviso or condition?

A - Is it permissible to kill the enemy if he surrenders during the battle and hands himself in to be
made a prisoner?

In answer to this question, we say: There are circumstances:

Firstly: If one of the individuals of the enemy surrenders during the war (i.e. he hands himself over to be
made a prisoner or captive of the Muslims), whilst the Muslims have yet to reach the stage of “Al-
Ithkhaan” (i.e. killed many) in respect to the enemy’s ranks, then he should be killed. That is because the
time before the completion of “Al-Ithkhaan” is the time for killing and not the time for taking prisoners.
That is naturally if the matter dictates “Al-Ithkhaan”. This is in accordance to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ ْ ‫َح َّت ٰىَي ُْثخ َِنَف‬

ِ ْ‫ِيَاألر‬
َ‫ض‬ َ ‫ونَلَهَُأَسْ َر ٰى‬
َ ‫انَ ِل َن ِبيٍّ َأَنَ َي ُك‬
َ ‫َماَ َك‬
It is not for a Prophet (1) to have captives [of war] until he inflicts (a lot of) killing [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land (2)َ
(Al-Anfaal: 67).

Ash-Shawkaaniy said concerning this Aayah: “It is not for a Prophet to take prisoners of war until he has
exaggerated in the killing the disbelievers and been excessive in that (i.e. killed many)” (3).

[(1) “It is not for a Nabi (Prophet)” means: It is not correct and not the right course”, “Al-Kash’shaaf”, Az-Zamakhshariy:
2/184, (2) In “Al-Misbaah Al-Muneer” (Dictionary): p31 it is stated: “Athkhana Fil Ardi Ithkhaanan”: Proceed to the enemy
and be excessive in killing them”, (3) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”, Ash-Shawkaaniy: 2/325].

It was in line with this, that Sa’d Bin Mu’aadh, may Allah be pleased with him, disliked that the Sahaabah
rushed to take the Mushrikeen as captives after it appeared that they had been defeated, before
undertaking the “Ithkhaan” amongst them (i.e. before killing many of them) …

The following was recorded in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to him:
“By Allah, It appears that you dislike what the people are doing?” He replied: “Yes, by Allah, O
Messenger of Allah. It was the first battle that Allah made to take place with the people of Shirk and so
Al-Ithkhaan (being extensive) in the killing of the people of Shirk (polytheism) is more beloved to me
than seeking to keep the men (i.e. alive and profitable for ransoming)” (1).

Following that, the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa was revealed:

َ ْ ‫َح َّت ٰىََُي ْثخ َِنَف‬

ِ ْ‫ِيَاألر‬
َ‫ض‬ َ ‫َُأَسْ َر ٰى‬ َ ‫انَ ِل َن ِبيٍّ َأَنَ َي ُك‬
َ ‫ونَلَه‬ َ ‫َماَ َك‬
It is not for a Prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts (a lot of) killing [upon Allah 's enemies] in the landَ(Al-
Anfaal: 67).

Therefore, prisoners should not be taken before “Al-Ithkhaan” amongst the enemy and it is the same in
respect to this, whether they are taken by force or through their surrendering to become prisoners. This
was indicated to by the Ansaar, in the battle of Badr, proceeding to kill Umayyah Bin Khalaf and his some
‘Ali, even though they had already surrendered to become prisoners.
The following came recorded in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “‘Abdur Rahman Ibn ‘Auf said: Umayyah
had been a friend of mine in Makkah … until it came to the day of Badr and I passed him whilst he was
standing with his son, ‘Ali Bin Umayyah taking him by his hand. I had armours (i.e. like breast plates)
which I had taken (i.e. from the enemy) and I was carrying them. When he saw me, he said: Do you have
any benefit in me? Because I am better for you than these body armours which are with you! He said: I
said: Yes … So, I casted the body armours from my hand and took him and his son by hand … Then, by
Allah, I was leading them both when I saw Bilaal by me! And it was he (Umayyah) who had tortured Bilaal
in Makkah to make him leave Islaam. He would take him out into the heated sands of Makkah when it
was hot and make him lie down upon his back before ordering that a large rock be placed upon his chest.
Then he would say to him: Will you remain like this (i.e. in this state under the rock) or will you leave the
Deen of Muhammad! Bilaal would say: Ahad Ahad (One, One)! (2). He (Abdur Rahman) said: Then when
he (Bilaal) said (i.e. when he saw him at Badr): The head of disbelief Umayyah Bin Khalaf, I will not be
saved today if he is saved! (i.e. woe to me if he is saved). He (‘Abdur Rahman) said: I said (i.e. to Bilaal):
He is my prisoner “Aseer”! he replied: I will not be saved today if he is saved!

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/39, (2) Meaning: Allah Ahad, Allah Ahad (Allah is One … Allah is One)
which was used to indicate that he would not respond positively to what was being demanded of him and demonstrating his
resolve to remain firm holding on to the Deen of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬, the Deen of Tawheed, regardless of the torture that he was
being subjected to].

He (Abdur Rahman) then related: Then he shouted out with his loudest voice! O Ansaar of Allah! The
head of disbelief Umayyah Bin Khalaf, I will not be saved if he is saved! He (‘Abdur Rahman) related:
They then surrounded us … and I said (to myself): Save yourself, there is no rescuing of you! For by Allah
it will not benefit you in the least. He said: And so, they cut them up with their swords until they were
finished with them both …” (1).

Regarding the same incident the following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: ‘Abdur Rahman said:

“… So, a group of Ansaar went out with Bilal to follow us (`Abdur-Rahman and Umayyah). Being afraid
that they would catch us, I left Umayyah’s son for them to keep them busy but the Ansaar killed the son
and insisted on following us. Umayyah was a fat man, and when they approached us, I told him to kneel
down, and he knelt, and I laid myself on him to protect him, but the Ansaar killed him by passing their
swords underneath me, and one of them injured my foot with his sword” (2).

I say: The incident of the surrender of Umayyah Bin Khalaf with his son and their being killed at the
hands of the Ansaar without attempting to keep them as prisoners of war indicates that if and individual
from among the individuals of the enemy surrenders during the war, before the Muslims have reached the
stage or level of “Al-Ithkhaan” (i.e. inflicted a lot of killing) amongst the enemies, that individual should
be killed in such a circumstance. That is because the time, is a time for killing and not the time for taking
prisoners, which is undertaken in accordance to what the Maslahah (interest) dictates.

Secondly: If, however, the Muslims had reached the stage or level of “Al-Ithkhaan” (i.e. inflicted heavy
losses) in respect to the enemy and then one of them surrendered and offered himself up to be a prisoner,
then, even in such a circumstance, it is also permissible for the Muslim to kill him, without taking (or
accepting) him as an Aseer (prisoner of war) … That is because, before he is actually taken as a prisoner,
he is not considered to be an Aseer (prisoner or captive of war) and is therefore still considered to be a
Harbiy (enemy war combatant), whose blood is Mubaah (permissible i.e. to be spilt), even if he has
surrendered … “Because the security from being killed is only established by Al-Amaan (the provision of
a security) or by Al-Imaan (i.e. becoming Muslim)” (3) as was stated in the Sharh of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”.
Consequently, surrendering does not protect the blood of the one who surrenders because the “Amaan”
(security) has not be established for him and therefore killing him remains Mashroo’ (lawful).
[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/40-41. And Al-Arnaa’oot said in the “Haashiyah (commentary) of Zaad ul-
Ma’aad”: 3/186: “Its Sanad is Hasan”, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2301, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4/480, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
3/1025].

Thirdly: As for the when the one who surrenders from the enemies is actually taken as a prisoner and the
description of the “Aseer” (prisoner or captive of war) is confirmed for him, is it then permissible, in such
a circumstance, for him to be killed by the Muslim fighters, before the Imaam or person in authority rules
or passes judgement in respect to him?

- Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy, stated the following, in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the Aseer:

“And if a man kills the Aseer (prisoner) before reaching the Imaam and after it, in Daar ul-Harb, and after
leaving from it, without the command of the Imaam, then he has done wrong …” (1).

- The following was stated in the Sharh of “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:

“Any Muslim who has killed an Aseer (prisoner) before he is handed over or sold or distributed, there is
nothing upon him, because he has spilt permissible blood. It is like the one who has killed a Murtadd
(apostate) or the one who has had judgement passed upon to be stoned. However, that is disliked for him
to do. That is because, if he was a prisoner of someone else, then by killing him he would have caused him
to lose out. And that is Mamnoo’ (forbidden) due to the Hadeeth related by Jaabir, may Allah be pleased
with him, that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said: “None of you should take the prisoner of another of you if he has
taken him first and then kill him …” (2).

- And if it was him who imprisoned him then by killing he would have acted arbitrarily over the opinion
of the Imam and invalidated the choice that is established for him (i.e. the Imaam), and that is Makrooh
(disliked) … That is unless the Aseer (prisoner) attempts something and seeks to escape from his grasp, so
that he is incapable of bringing him to the Imaam, as in such a time there is no problem or issue in respect
to his killing him. More than one of the Sahaabah did that” (3).

Ibn Qudaamah said in “Al-Mughniy”:

“And whoever takes a prisoner as prisoner it is not for him to kill him until he has brought him to the
Imaam to see what his opinion is regarding him. That is because if he has become an Aseer (prisoner of
war) the choice in respect to him comes to belong to the Imaam” (4).

[(1) “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 4/276, (2) “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 6/333 as related by Samurah Bin Jundub. He said: “Ahmad
and At-Tabaraaniy related it and it includes within it (i.e. the Isnaad): Ishaaq Bin Tha’labah who is Da’eef”. It was also related in
the Sunan of Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2682, 2/252, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 3/1027-1028, (4) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn
Qudaamah: 10/407 and refer also to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdisiy: 10/403].

The concluding summary of this issue is as follows:

The one who surrenders from the enemies and is taken as prisoner (i.e. the description of being a prisoner
has been confirmed in respect to him), then the matter in respect to him returns back to the person in
authority (i.e. the Imaam). As such, he should not be killed before the ruling is issued upon him with one
of the Ahkaam (rulings) that we have previously explained. That is unless the Daroorah (necessity) of war
has called for his killing prior to that.

We now move on to the discussion of the second Mas’alah (issue) after having completed this one.
B - What is the Hukm (legal ruling) concerning the enemy army or people of war (Ahl ul-Harb)
in general, who are withstanding in their fortresses or by their (military) strength, if they
surrender to the Muslims, without a proviso or condition?

This Mas’alah (issue) is governed by the incident of Bani Quraizhah following the battle of Al-Ahzaab.
When they breached the covenant or treaty with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬whilst he was occupied in his war with
Quraish and their allies, they became people of war in actuality. As such, when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬finished
with the war of Al-Khandaq or Al-Ahzaab, he set off for the location of Bani Quraizhah and besieged
them for twenty-five nights whilst they were withstanding in their fortress and still possessed the
capability to engage in fighting … Then Allah hurled fear into their hearts and they surrendered to the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and to his judgement in respect to them, without placing any proviso or stipulating a condition
…

The Jews of Bani Quraizhah had been from the allies of Al-Aws from the Ansaar during the pre) Islamic
period (Al-Jaahiliyah). In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam the following was narrated: “The Aws persisted
saying: “O Messenger of Allah, they are our allies and not the allies of the Khazraj” … Then, after the
Aws had spoken to him the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Would you be content or pleased, O assembly
of Al-Aws, that a man from amongst you passes judgement over them?”

They said: “Yes, Indeed (we would)! He said: “Then the decision of that goes to Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh” …
Sa’d said: Then, verily I rule or judge in respect to them, that the men be killed, the properties be divided
and the children and women be taken as Saby (i.e. booty as slaves) …” (1).

And it was narrated in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬expressed his support of the
judgement issued by Sa’d saying:

‫ل‬ ِ َّ ‫َب ُح ْك ِم‬

ََّ ‫ََّللاَ َع َّز ََو َج‬ ِ ‫ِيه ْم‬ َ ‫لَ َق ْد‬
َ ْ‫َح َكم‬
ِ ‫تَ ف‬
You have indeed judged in respect to them by the Hukm (judgement) of Allah “Azza Wa Jalla (2).

As such, those who surrendered to the Muslims were dealt with according to the treatment of the Asraa
(prisoners of war) in respect to the Hukm (judgement) over them.

[(1) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/269, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4121, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/411, Saheeh Muslim:
1768 and 1769, 3/1389].

We have become aware that there are five choices or options related to the judgement to be passed over
the prisoners who are men. They are: “Al-Mann” (to be let free without receiving anything in return), to
ransom them (i.e. free them in return of a ransom), to kill them, to enslave them or to make them subjects
of the Islamic State by contracting the contract of Adh-Dhimmah with them. That is in accordance to the
details that have been mentioned previously and upon the condition that the choice for a particular ruling
and judgement from amongst those rulings, only be based upon the Maslahah (interest i.e. of Islaam and
the Muslims) and not based upon whims and desires. It may be clear that Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh’s choosing of
a Hukm (verdict) for the Jews of Bani Quraizhah, to kill their men and take their women and children as
Saby (booty as slaves), instead of choosing one of the rest of the legally legitimate or lawful Ahkaam, was
because those Jews had previously had a peace and good neighbourly treaty with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and the
Muslims, and then they broke this treaty in the most devastating of times and circumstances experienced
by the Muslims; manifesting their treachery and betrayal, when they decided to join the Quraish and their
allies from the Ahzaab (confederates), to surround Al-Madinah and eliminate the Muslims within it …
Consequently, the just verdict serving the Maslahah (interest) in this situation, according to the estimation
of Sa’d, was that Hukm (judgement) that he issued upon them and as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬informed us, that
Hukm was in conformity to the judgement of the heavens as well.
The following are extracts from the books of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib related to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue),
the issue of the surrender of the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) to the Muslims, without a proviso or
condition, to be then judged according to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i (Islamic rulings).

- From the books of the Ahnaaf, the following came mentioned in the Sharh (explanation) of “As-Siyar
Al-Kabeer”: “And if the people of the fortress descend upon the basis that they will be judged by a man
from the Muslims, then that is permissible, due to his (i.e. the Messenger’s) ‫ ﷺ‬statement: “But
(rather), make them descend upon the basis of your judgement and then pass judgement upon
them” (1). And because the narrations have differed in respect to the descent of Bani Quraizhah (i.e.
from their fortress), where some of the people (i.e. scholars) of “Al-Maghaaziy” (i.e. Seerah focused on
war incidents) mentioned that they initially descended upon the basis of being judged by Sa’d Ibn
Mu’aadh, may Allah be pleased with him. The most well-known (narration of events) however, is that they
descended upon the basis of judgement being passed upon them by the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and then
(after that) the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬delegated Sa’d Bin Mu’aadh to pass judgement over them, by
their consent…” … until he (author) said: “Then if the judge judges that the fighters (or combatants) be
killed or that they be made (people of) Adh-Dhimmah, or that they be made a FA’i (booty or spoils), then
all of that is permissible to be implemented, based upon what Sa’d judged with…” …he then said: “And it
has been mentioned that ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote to the commanders of the armies
in their different locations:

[(1) The wording of this Hadeeth in Abu Dawud: “But (rather), make them descend upon the basis
of your judgement and then pass judgement upon them after as you wish”: 2612, 3/51. Al-Albaaniy
said: “Saheeh”. Refer to: “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”, Al-Albaaniy: 2276, 2/495. And in Saheeh Muslim
from the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “But (rather) make them descend upon the basis of your
judgement”: 1731, 3/1358].

“That they should kill those whom the shaving blade has been used upon (1) and do not make any from
the ‘Ulooj (non-Arab disbelievers) (2) Saby (booty captives)”. He only forbade that, taking the Muslims
into consideration and so that they do not target them in a bad manner. Have you not seen that when they
are not excessive in observing his forbiddance, they are put to trial with such a reality and so Abu Lu’lu’
(3) killed him (i.e. as a result of not observing the forbiddance) and he had been a Majoosiy” (4).

- From the books of the Maalikiyah, the following came in “Mukhtasar Khaleel” and its Sharh “Man’h ul-
Jaleel”, concerning this Mas’alah: “And they are forced or compelled, i.e. the disbelievers held up in their
fortress, town or coming to the land of Islaam towards trade, if they descend via an Amaan (security and
offer of safety) upon the basis of facing the judgement of a particular person, and then a judgement is
passed, those who descend upon the basis of receiving his judgement are compelled to implement or
execute that judgement …” (5).

And in “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer: “If the Imaam makes them descend upon the basis of
receiving the judgement from other than him and then he (the other) passes judgement that they be killed,
or taken as prisoner, or have the Jizyah imposed upon them, or other than that, they are compelled to
abide by that Hukm (verdict or judgement)” (6).

In the “Haashiyah” of Ad-Dasouqiy, he said: “If the army besieges a fortress and then the people of the
fortress said: We will descend to you upon the basis of being judged by so and so person or we will accept
the judgement of so and so person over us, who is from amongst those in the army, whilst believing that
it is most likely that this such and such a person will judge leniently upon them, like passing the judgement
of Fidaa’ (ransoming), for example … Then when they descend he judges that they be killed or taken
prisoner (i.e. enslaving) (7), according to what he views to represent the Maslahah (interest), they are then
compelled upon that Hukm (judgement) and there is no value to their statement, following their descent
and after the judgement of that person has been passed over them, that: We are not content with his
ruling because we thought that he would be lenient with us and then we discovered that he was like that!”
(8).

[(1) This is a Kinaayah (metaphor) for the removal of the pubic hair and its being shaved by a shaving blade, because that in
most cases, indicates the reality of the males who have reached the age of maturity (i.e. classified to be men), (2) In “Al-Misbaah
ul-Muneer”: p161: “Al-‘Ilj: A large man from the non-Arab disbelievers and some of the Arabs use the word ‘Ilj to refer to the
disbelievers absolutely and without restriction (Mutlaqan) and the plural of ‘Ilj is ‘Ulooj or A’alaaj”, (3) for the incident of the
killing of ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, refer to the history of At-Tabariy: 4/191, (4) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
2/587-592, (5) “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/168-169 and refer to: “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184-185, (60 “Ash-Sharh ul-
Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/185, (7) The intended meaning of ‘Asr’ (taking as prisoner) here is Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving): That is
because “Al-Istirqaaq” is from the lawful Ahkaam in respect to the one who falls into captivity (Al-Asr). Refer to: “Ash-Sharh
ul-Kabeer”, Ad-Dardeer: 2/184. Ash-Shawkaaniy also used the word “Asr” (taking as prisoner) with the intended meaning of
Al-Istirqaaq. Refer to “An-Nail ul-Awtaar”: 8/58, (8) “Haashiyah” of Ad-Dasooqiy upon “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 2/185].

- The following came stated in “Al-Muhadh’dhab” which is from the books of the Shaafi’iyah:

“And if he (i.e. the Imaam or commander of the army) besieges a fortress and its people descend upon the
basis of being judged by a judge, that is permitted, because Banu Quraizhah descended upon the basis of
receiving the judgement of Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh” … He then said: “And the Haakim (ruler or judge) does not
pass judgement except in accordance to that which contains a Maslahah for the Muslims, whether that is
Qatl (killing), Istirqaaq (enslaving), Al-Mann (releasing for free) or Al-Fidaa’ (ransoming). And if he rules
that the Dhimmah be contracted for them and Jizyah taken, then there are two opinions: The first: That it
is not permitted except through their consent or assent because it represents a contract of mutual giving
and receiving, and as such it is not permissible without their approval. Second: It is permissible, because
they descended upon the basis of accepting his Hukm (verdict) (i.e. they gave their right of decision away
by accepting the judgment of the judge) … Then, if he ruled that they be killed and then he (the judge) or
the Imaam viewed that they be released for free (i.e. Al-Mann), that is permissible. That is because Sa’d
Ibn Mu’aadh, may Allh be pleased with him, passed the verdict that the men of Bani Quraizhah be killed,
and then Thaabit Al-Ansaariy asked the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to grant him Az-Zubair Bin Baataa (1)
the Jew, and he did so!” (2).

- From the books of the Hanaabilah, Ibn Qudaamah in “Al-Mughniy” said:

- “If he (i.e. the judge) rules that the combatants be killed and their women and children be taken as Saby,
his judgement is executed because Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh judged with that in respect to Bani Quraizhah.

- If he judges that the combatants be released for free (i.e. Al-Mann) and the women and children be
taken as Saby, the Al-Qaadiy said: His verdict is binding, and this is the Madh’hab (view) of Ash-Shaafi’iy,
because the Hukm (verdict) is for him to make according to what he sees is in the Maslahah (interest) and
he has the right to let them go for free (Al-Mann) just as the Imaam has in respect to the Aseer (captive).
Abu l-Khattaab (however) viewed: That his verdict is not binding, because he must rule with a judgement
that benefits the Muslims and there is no benefit in “Al-Mann” (i.e. freeing them without anything in
return)!

- And if he judges that the women and children are released without anything in return (Al-Mann), then
that should not be permitted. That is because the Imaam does not possess the right to grant “Al-Mann”
(freedom without receiving a return) to the women and children if they have been made Saby and the
same therefore applies in respect to the one passing the judgement. However, it is possible for that to be
permissible because those (i.e. women and children) have not had As-Saby (i.e. the status of being slaves
of booty) designated or specified for them, as opposed to those who had been taken as Saby (booty
captives), as such a person would become a slave through the process of As-Saby itself.
- And if the judgment that they be ransomed (i.e. Al-Fidaa’) is passed upon them, that is permissible,
because the Imaam has the choice between killing, ransoming, enslaving and Al-Mann (releasing without
receiving a return in exchange) the prisoners of war (Asraa), and as such, the judge has the same choice.

[(1) For the incident of Az-Zubair Bin Baataa refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf:
3/270”: and refer to p284, (2) “Al-Muhadh’dhab”, Ash-Sheeraaziy: 2/238-239].

- And if he judges that they give the Jizyah, his Hukm (verdict) is not binding because the contract of
Adh-Dhimmah is a contract of mutual giving and taking and cannot be contracted except by mutual
agreement (between the two parties).

- And if they become Muslim before the passing of the judgement upon them, their blood and properties
is secured for them, because they embraced Islaam whilst they were free … and their properties belong to
them. It is therefore not permissible to enslave them in contrast to the Aseer (prisoner of war), because
the hold over the prisoner of war has been established just as it is established over the women and
children, and hence it is permissible to enslave them (i.e. the Asraa).

- And if they become Muslim after the verdict has been passed upon them, then if the verdict was them to
be killed, that verdict is dropped because whoever becomes Muslim, his blood is protected and secure …”
(1).

The above therefore represents some of what has been mentioned within the Fiqhiy books of the
Madhaahib concerning the people of the fortresses or the people of the town and what is similar to their
reality in terms of the armies of the enemy or people of war in general, in the case where they are
withstanding (i.e. still have the capability to engage in fighting), if they surrender to the Muslims without a
proviso or condition (i.e. in unconditional surrender), upon the basis that a verdict be passed upon them
according to the Ahkaam of the Shar’a (i.e. Islamic rulings).

The summary of what has been presented concerning those who surrender:

- If they became Muslim before the judgement was passed upon them, then they have made themselves,
their families (i.e. women and children) and properties secure, and they have entered amongst the ranks or
numbers of the Muslims, by doing so.

- If they have not declared their acceptance of Islaam, it is possible for the one who has been delegated to
pass judgement over the, to pass the judgement of “Al-Mann” i.e. to let them go free (without anything in
exchange for that freedom).

In addition, if their land has been opened (to Islaam) or conquered and become Daar ul-Islaam, it is
permissible to vacate them from Daar ul-Islaam, just like the Jews of Bani Qanuqaa’ (2) and the Jews of
Bani Nadeer (3) were expelled or made to leave their lands. It is also permissible to keep them within their
land under the description or status of being Musta’mineen (i.e. those possessing a security), like what
happened in respect to the Jews of Khaibar, in their description as Musta’mineen who had been allowed
by contract to work in the land which had fallen into the possession of the Muslims, whilst it is
permissible for the Muslims to expel them from it, when they wish to …

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/546-547, (2) For the incident of their expulsion refer to: “As-Seerah Al-Halabiyah”:
2/222, (3) For the incident of their expulsion refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/241 and “As-Seerah
Al-Halabiyah”: 2/278, (4) For this incident refer to the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/43-44 and “Badaa’i As-
Sanaa’i”: 7/119-120].

- It is also permissible to pass judgment over those who have surrendered to make them be from the Ahl
udh-Dhimmah i.e. subjects of the Islamic State.
- Just as it is also permissible to pass the judgement of Al-Fidaa’ (Ransoming) over them or Al-Qatl (to be
killed) or Al-Istirqaaq (enslaving), according to the details that have previously been stated.

By that, we have reached the conclusion of the discussion of the second issue of this first study of this
current chapter.

We now move on, with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq to the next topic of study.

The Second Study

Defeat of the Muslims by the Enemy and their Surrender

Introduction: A brief look at the issue of the Asbaab (causes) of An-Nasr (victory) and Al-Hazeemah
(defeat).

The First Topic: What is required of the Muslims if they are defeated by the enemy?

The Second Topic: Is it permissible for the Muslims, as individuals or collective groups, to surrender and
hand over their lands to the enemy?

The Third Topic: What is the duty of the Muslims towards their Muslim and Dhimmiy prisoners or
captives, when or if they fall into the hands of the enemy?

Introduction: A brief look at the issue of the Asbaab (causes) of An-Nasr (victory)
and Al-Hazeemah (defeat)
Any historical event like that of victory and defeat, only occurs as a result of Asbaab (causes) which Allah
‘Azza Wa Jalla has placed which leads to that event, just as His will is determined by that. So, whoever
takes into account the causes of victory, it will occur based upon them, and whoever takes in account
(practically) the causes of defeat, it will occur based upon them, and this is the Sunnah of Allah in respect
to His creation:

َ‫َۖولَنَ َت ِجدََلِ ُس َّنةَِاللَّـهَِ َت ْبدِيال‬ َ ‫ُس َّن َةَاللَّـهَِالَّتِيَ َق ْد‬

ْ َ‫َخل‬
َ َ‫تَمِنَ َق ْب ُل‬
[This is] the established way (Sunnah) of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in respect to the Sunnah
(established way) of Allah any change (Al-Fat’h: 23).

Amongst those Asbaab (causes) which lead to the Nasr (victory) or lead to the Hazeemah (defeat), are
matters which intertwine in the course of the events, which are not part of the nature of those events and
the human has no hand in respect to them; like the wind, clouds and rainfall … amongst other matters
which were unexpected, when they happen whilst the war is taking place, and which could represent
factors which provide an edge or advantage … In this circumstance: If those factors gave an unexpected
advantage to the Muslims, then they are (to be considered) to be from the Jund (soldiers) of Allah,
through whom He aids the believing servants, and to Allah belongs the praise and graciousness. And if
those factors provided an advantage to the enemy, then they (are to be considered to be) Al-Qadaa and
Al-Ibtilaa’ (test and trial) in respect to which the human has no say or power and is not held to account
for them. Consequently, there is no blame upon the Muslims if defeat befalls them in the case where those
factors and what is similar to them, were the cause for that, as long as they did not fall short or neglect any
matter in respect to the taking into account (practically) the sensed Asbaab (causes) that they possessed,
which normally lead to the accomplishment of the victory.

The Muslims are not held to account or taken to task in such circumstances. Rather, they are only held to
account or taken to task when they are negligent in respect to observing the sensed Asbaab (causes) of
victory, which they have the capability to prepare and make ready. That is like preparing the force and
power (Quwwah) which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has commanded to be prepared to the utmost limit of
capability, to confront the enemy, in respect to the different forms of that power or force. That is like
what came in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ ُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوٍَة‬

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power (Al-Anfaal: 60).

Being held to account also applies when the Muslims are negligent in respect to standing steadfast before
the enemy or are negligent in their adherence to the commands of the leadership, within the lawful limits
… in addition to other matters which impact upon the course of the battles … In those circumstances,
being taken to task and held to account is applicable, because in spite of representing the side of Imaan
confronting the disbelief, they nevertheless did not complete or fulfil the Asbaab (causes) of victory,
which Allah Ta’Aalaa had commanded them to take into account and implement; in terms of preparing
the force, strength, the obligatory steadfastness before the enemy and adherence to the obligatory
obedience to the leadership, amongst other matters which Islaam has come with and promised the victory
upon its basis.

And Allah Ta’Aalaa attached his Nusrah (support) to the Muslims against their enemy upon the basis of
their provision of Nusrah (support) to Allah, as has come in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِّتَأَ ْق َدا َم ُك ْم‬

ْ ‫صرُواَاللَّـ َهَ َينصُرْ ُك ْم ََو ُي َثب‬ َ ‫َياَأَ ُّي َهاَالَّذ‬
ُ ‫ِينَآ َم ُنواَإِنَ َتن‬
O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet (Muhammad: 7).
And the Muslims providing Nusrah (support) to Allah means abiding by His Shar’a, adhering to His
Ahkaam (rulings) and responding to His commands. And from the Shar’a of Allah, His Ahkaam and
commands, related to the war of Muslims against their enemy, is that they do not weaken or be negligent
in respect to their preparation of power and force which Allah has commanded them to make ready and
prepare, that they are not negligent in relation to drawing out and setting plans and styles and that they do
not fall short in respect to utilising all that from its nature realises the superiority of the Muslims over their
enemies.

All of this is included within the meaning of the Nusrah (support) of the Muslims to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla
to accomplish what Allah has commanded to be accomplished … If the Muslims fulfil this Shart
(condition) with Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, Allah will realise for them His conditioned promise, and then Allah
would have granted then victory over their enemy, in confirmation of his Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ص ُرهََُۗإِنَّ َاللَّـ ََهَلَ َق ِويٌّ َ َع ِزيز‬

ُ ‫َولَ َينص َُرنَّ َاللَّـهَُ َمنَ َين‬
And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might (Al-Hajj: 40).

It is obvious that practically taking into account the causes (Asbaab), in a general description or manner,
to reach the results of those causes (Musabbabaat), which includes taking into account the natural causes
(Asbaab) to win the battles and realise victory over the enemy … it is obvious that this does not diminish
the truthfulness of having Tawakkul (dependence) upon Allah and relying upon Him, in respect to
bringing about the sought after results and removing the obstacles which obstruct those adopted Asbaab
(causes) from producing their effects and results … How is that the case? That is as taking account of the
Asbaab (causes) only means abiding by or adhering to the laws of creation and the Shar’iyah laws, in
relation to this matter! Al-Imaam Al-Jawziy explained this Mas’alah (issue) and reiterated that the reliance
upon the Asbaab in a general description or manner, including the use of the means of wear, is only from
the Shar’a and that does not conflict with having Tawakkul (dependence and reliance) upon Allah. In his
book “Said ul-Khaatir”, he stated:

“… And the Asbaab (causes) still remain in the Shar’a (1) like His Qawl (statement) Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ك ََو ْل َيأْ ُخ ُذواَأَسْ ل َِح َت ُه ْم‬ َ ‫ِيه ْمَ َفأ َ َقم‬
َ ‫ْتَلَ ُه ُمَالص ََّال َةَ َف ْل َتقُ ْمَ َطا ِئ َفةَ ِّم ْنهُمَ َّم َع‬ َ ‫َوإِ َذاَ ُك‬
ِ ‫نتَف‬
And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry
their weapons (An-Nisaa’: 102).

The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wore two suits of armour, one over the other and he consulted with two doctors, and
when he went to At-Taa’if he could not re-enter Makkah until he had sent to Al-Mut’im Bin ‘Adiy asking
him if he could enter under his protection. That is whilst it was possible for him to enter with Tawakkul
without a reason. Therefore, if the Shar’a has made matters reliant upon causes (Asbaab) my turning away
from the causes would represent a repelling of the Hikmah (2). And if I had a bad stomach and viewed
that eating Al-Balloot (a known type of food) is from that which prevents it and that drinking tamarind
was better, which is based on medical knowledge. Then if I do not take or drink that which will help me
and is suitable (i.e. for the ailment) and say: O Allah grant me recovery! The Hikmah has told me: Have
you not heard: Tie it (i.e. the camel) and have Tawakkul)? (3) Drink (i.e. the medicine) and say: Grant me
recovery. And do not be like the one whose crops are blocked by a handful of dirt from a river but is to
sluggish to lift it away by his hand and then he stands to pray the prayer for rainfall! ...

[(1) i.e. they are still present and acknowledged: “Haashiyah Said ul-Khaatir”, (2) In the “Haashiyah”
(commentary): “He intends to say: That the Hikam (pl. of Hikmah, i.e. wisdom(s)) and Asbaab (causes)
are from the creation of Allah and if taking account of them does not bring benefit, then there existence
would be equal to their non-existence” (i.e. there would be no point to them), (3) The Hadeeth was
related by Ibn Hibbaan from ‘Amr Bin Umayyah Ad-Damriy with the wording: “A man said to the Nabi
‫ﷺ‬: Shall I let my she-camel roam free and have Tawakkul? He ‫ ﷺ‬said: Tie it and have Tawakkul”:
Hadeeth number: 729, 2/56 from: “Ihsaan Bi Tarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan”. Ash-Sheikh ul-Albaaniy said:
“hasan”. Refer to “Takhreej Ahaadeeth Mushkilat ul-Faqr”: p23. It was also related by At-Tirmidhiy from
Anas Bin Maalik: 2517, 4/668 from “Sunan At-Tirmidhiy” and also refer to “A-Bayaan Wa t-Ta’reef Fee
Asbaab Wurood Al-Hadeeth Ash-Shareef”, Ibn Hamzah Al-Husseiniy: 1/112].

… This case is like that of the person who travels without any provisions (1) (for his journey) and he only
does that in order to experiment with his Lord, whether he provides the Rizq or not? That is whilst the
command has already been issued to him:

‫َو َت َز َّو ُدوا‬

And take provisions (197).

But he says: I won’t take provisions! Such a person has perished before he makes himself perish …
Therefore, be warned of that which is in the actions of peoples who have been meticulous and then
strayed from the conventions of the Deen, whilst they believed that the completion or perfection of the
Deen is attained by exiting from the innate nature and to violate the conventions. And had it not been for
the power of knowledge and deep-rootedness in it, I would not have been able to explain this (matter) and
I would not have known about it! So, comprehend what I have indicated to” (2).

I say: After this introduction about the necessity of being reliant upon the natural Asbaab (causes) leading
to the Nasr (victory) in respect to that which the Shar’a has come urging to be fulfilled, and to avoid the
Asbaab (causes) leading to defeat, in respect to that which the Shar’a has warned about its surrounding
conditions … After this … It could occur that the Muslims fail to accomplish victory when they meet the
enemy in battle and be beset by defeat, as a result of their negligence or in the absence of negligence, and
therefore, in such a situation, if that happens, what has been designated for the Muslims to do? And is it
permissible for them to surrender to the enemy? This is the subject area of the current study which we will
address through the discussion of the following topics:

1 - The First Topic: What are the Muslims to do is they are defeated by the enemy?

2 - The Second Topic: Is it permissible for the Muslims, as individuals or (collective) groups, to
surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy?

3 - The Third Topic: What are the Muslims to do in respect to the prisoners that have been taken from
the Islamic subjects, Muslims or non-Muslim, by the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war)?

[(1) “i.e. without provision or company. This type of travel is a sinful act as it violates the Sunnah, and the pivot in respect to
the acts of obedience is that they are all undertaken in following and emulation to what the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬has brought, whilst
there is no good in that which is in opposition to the Sunnah”, “Haashiyah Said ul-Khaatir”, (2) “Said ul-Khaatir”, Ibn ul-
Jawziy, checking by Naajiy At-Tantaawiy and revised by ‘Ali At-Tantaawiy: 1/123-124. I say: Also refer to the book “Al-
Filaakah Wa l-Maflookoon”, Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Ad-Dalajiy: Death: 838 Al-Hijrah: “The Third Chapter: Concerning that At-
Tawakkul does not negate attachment to the Asbaab (causes)”. It contains a precious discussion about this subject area and
explains the types of causes (Asbaab) which lead to their resulting effects definitely, those which lead to them in most cases in
addition to what is imagined to lead to particular results … This is whilst he defined At-Tawakkul as: “Continuously
maintaining a good observation to the Qadaa and Qadar in respect to all incidents or occurrences, without restricting the view
to the natural causes (Asbaab)”. And he said: “Continuously maintaining the good observation joins to the attachment to the
Asbaab (causes) and does not negate them”. He then laments those who neglect practically taking into account the Asbaab
from the types which are definite or most likely, saying: “And the neglect of that represents an aversion to the Hikmah
(wisdom) of Allah Ta’Aalaa in respect to upholding the Asbaab (causes) and it represents an ignorance in respect to the Sunnah
of Allah and His worship”. For the case of repelling the army of Napoleon, by the reading of Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, from Cairo,
whilst he was on his way there in the month of Al-Muharram 1213 AH, 1798 C.E., refer to “Al-Mukhtaar Min Taareekh ul-
Jabratiy”: 3/247 and concerning the battle of “Al-Tall ul-Kabeer” refer to “Qawaa’id At-Tahdeeth”, by Al-Qaasimiy: p266].
 The First Topic
What are the Muslims to do if they are defeated by the enemy?

When the Muslims are defeated by the enemy, for any reason from amongst the reasons, it is designated
upon the Muslims to seek recourse in Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla for Him to grant them patience and
perseverance (Sabr) for what has befallen them, and for them to ask Him to grant them the Tawfeeq so
that they exchange their weakness for strength, their defeat for victory, and to guide and direct their steps
as they search for the flaws which led to this defeat, so as to eliminate them, and return to oppose the
enemy at a near time, when they are able to do that. That is to cleanse any trace that the defeat could have
left behind upon the dispositions of the Muslims; whether they were fighters or not.

This has been indicated to by what the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did following the Ghazwah (battle) of Uhud. After the
Muslims were defeated in this Ghazwah, following the violation of most of the archers to the commands
of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, after he had designated for them their position upon the mountain overlooking the
battlefield. He said to them:

َ ‫َرأَ ْي ُتمُو ُه ْم‬

‫َظ َه ُرواَ َعلَ ْي َناَ َفالََ ُت َِعي ُنو َنا‬ َ ‫َرأَ ْي ُتمُو َناَ َظ َهرْ َناَ َعلَي ِْه ْمَ َفالََ َتب َْر ُح‬
َ ْ‫واَوإِن‬ َ ْ‫َإِن‬،‫الََ َتب َْرحُوا‬
Do not leave this place; if you should see us winning against the enemy, do not leave this place,
and if you should see them winning against us, do not (come to) assist us (1).

After the Muslims were defeated in this battle following the disobedience of most of the archers to the
commands of the leadership and the Mushrikeen returned back to their land in victory whilst the Muslims
retreated back to Al-Madinah carrying the bitter taste of defeat … In that situation and on the second day
following that Ghazwah (battle), the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬decided to make the Mushrikeen forget the taste of their
victory before they had returned back to their land, renew within the breasts of the Muslims their
confidence in the victory of Allah and to restore their own worth in the case where they are people
carrying a message and Da’wah carriers who adopt Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeeilillah as a Tareeqah (method) to
raise high Allah’s word and demolish every obstacle that lies in its way, just as he wanted to restore their
stature and awe associated with them, amongst the forces of disbelief surrounding them.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4043 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/349].

Indeed, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was determined to accomplish all of that in the very next day following the defeat
of Uhud, and so he issued his command to the Muslims, who were still dressing and bandaging their
wounds, that they would march out to chase and pursue the enemy, before they can escape them!

The following was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “The day of Uhud was Saturday in the
middle of Shawwaal (1). Then on the next day, Sunday, of the 16th night that had passed of Shawwaal, the
Mu’adh’dhin of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬made an Adhaan amongst the people announcing that they
would seek or go after the enemy! The Mu’adh’dhin announced that none shall go out apart from those
who had gone out on the previous day … The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬went out with the purpose of
alarming and frightening the enemy and to send a message to them that he had gone out after them so
that they believe that he possess power and strength! And that what had afflicted them had not weakened
them from being able to face their enemy … And so the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬set off until he reached
“Hamraa’ ul-Asad” which is located 8 miles from Al-Madinah (2) … He remained there on Monday,
Tuesday and Wednesday before returning back to Al-Madinah” (3).

In this way, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬accomplished what he had wanted to accomplish from this Ghazwah (military
expedition) of “Hamraa’ ul-Asad”. The Mushrikoon had been determined to return to Al-Madinah to
finish off the Muslims, however, the setting off of the Muslims to pursue them made them change their
opinion. In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam he stated: “As for Abu Sufyaan Bin Harb, then when they had
departed on the day of (the battle of) Uhud, he had wanted to return to Al-Madinah to eliminate the
remainder of the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. Then Safwaan Bin Umayyah said to them
(i.e. the Mushrikeen): “Don’t do that because the people have become enraged (4) and we have feared that
they have more fighting in them than before! So, return back” … And so they returned” (5).
In any case, the matter which is obligatory upon the Muslims to do or undertake if they are defeated, is to
dress their wounds, pull themselves together, display endurance before the enemy as much as possible and
return to their ranks, to reorder themselves and gather their strength, so as to rebuild it, to revise the
causes of the defeat so as to avoid and cast them out, and settle themselves upon vengeance for the Haqq
(truth) and upon restoring the status, standing and awe of the Muslims, in the quickest possible time or
opportunity available to them, so that they combat any feelings making them incline through resignation
to the spirit of defeat and to be reassured that they are the “A’alawna” (superior), by Allah’s permission, as
stated in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َاألَعْ لَ ْو َنَإِنَ ُكن ُتمَم ُّْؤ ِمن‬

َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫واَوأَن ُت ُم‬
َ ‫واَو َالَ َتحْ َز ُن‬
َ ‫َو َالَ َت ِهَُن‬
So, do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers (Aali ‘Imraan: 139).

We will now move on to the discussion of the next topic.

[(1) “From the third year”, i.e. Al-Hijrah: “Zaad ul-Ma’aad”: 3/193, (2) The mile is equal to: “4000 Dhiraa’ (arm spans) = 1848
m = ½ Saa’ah = 1000 Baa’”: “Al-Figh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu”, Al-Ustaadh Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhailiy: 1/74, (3) Seerah Ibn
Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/173-174, (4) The meaning of ‫( حربوا‬Huriboo): Suliboo and Nuhiboo (i.e. plundered) and
Huriboo also means: Ghadiboo (enraged or angered) and that is more appropriate in this context: “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-
Atheer”: 1/358, (5) Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/175].

The Second Topic

Is it permissible for the Muslims, as individuals or (collective) groups, to surrender
and hand over their lands to the enemy?

The First Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for Muslims as individuals to surrender to the enemy?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for a Jamaa’ah (group or collective) of the Muslims in
their lands, to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy?

The First Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for Muslims as individuals to surrender to the
enemy?

The enemy could surround an individual or individuals from the Muslims, during war, to the point that
they have no way out with the enemy. In such a circumstance, the Muslim individual could find himself
restricted or limited to one of two possible options, where the best of them is bitter:

- Either, he throws down his weapon from his hand, announces his surrender and hands himself over to
become an Aseer (prisoner of war) of the enemy.

- Or, he refuses the surrender available to him and exposes himself to certain death.
Therefore, which of the two options should the Muslim take in such a circumstance?

The answer to this question is that it is permissible in such a situation for the Muslim to surrender i.e.
hand himself over to be taken as a prisoner, if he hoped that he would escape being killed by surrendering,
and hoping by that, that he would return to face the enemy, when an opportunity opens up to enable him
to do that.

It is similarly permissible for him to refuse and reject surrender and even if he faced certain death. And
this has been indicated to in the incident of the people of “Ar-Rajee’” (1).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/379-380: He mentioned that “Ar-Rajee’” is a location from the lands of “Hudhail” which was situated
close to it. He then mentioned that the Ghazwah of Ar-Rajee’ was the Sariyyah of ‘Aasim … and it was with “Adal” and “Al-
Qaarah” affiliated with Bani l-Hoon Bin Khuzaimah Bin Mudrikah Bin Ilyaas Bin Mudar … And between this Ghazwah and
the Ghazwah of B’ir Ma’oonah, is that B’ir Ma’oonah was a Sariyyah of Al-Qurraa’ As-Sab’een (Seventy villages) and it was
with “Ri’l” and “Dhakwaan” affiliated with Bani Sulaim … The Ghazwah of “Ar-Rajee’” was at the latter stages of the third
year whilst the Ghazwah of “B’ir Ma’oonah” was during the early part of the fourth year Al-Hijriy. He quoted what Al-
Waaqidiy mentioned in that the news (or report) of B’ir Ma’oonah and the news (or report) of the people of “Ar-Rajee’”
reached the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬in one single night. This is whilst the region of Ar-Rajee’ is located close to ‘Usfaan to the North of
Makkah in the direction of the Red Sea, whilst B’ir Ma’oonah is located between Makkah and Al-Madinah, and closer to Al-
Madinah, inclining in the direction of Najd towards the east. Refer to map 4 from the book “Muhammad Al-Qaa’id”, war
general Muhammad Abdul Fattaah Ibraheem and the map of the Islamic State in the era of ‘Umar in the book: “Umar Ibn Al-
Khattaab, Al-Farooq Al-Qaa’id” by Colonel Muhammad Sheit Khattaab].

Al-Bukhaariy and Abu Dawud related from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said:
“The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬dispatched ten (men) on a spying mission (1) and appointed ‘Aasim bin
Thaabit as their commander. About one hundred men of Hudhail (2) who were archers came out
to (attack) them. When ‘Aasim felt their presence, they took cover in a hillock. They called to
them “Come down and surrender and we make a covenant and pact with you that we shall not
kill any of you”. ‘Aasim said “I will agree to the protection of a disbeliever. Then they shot them
with arrows and killed ‘Aasim in a company of seven persons. The other three persons agreed to
their covenant and pact. They were Khubaib, Zaid bin Ad-Dathinnah and another man (3). When
they overpowered them, they untied their bow strings and tied them with them”. The third
person said “This is the first treachery. I swear by Allah, I shall not accompany you. In them (my
companions) is an example for me. They pulled him, but he refused to accompany them, so they
killed him. Khubaib remained their captive until they agreed to kill him (4)” (5).

[(1) It was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/380: “And in the Riwaayah (narration) of Ibraaheem Bin Sa’d: … He dispatched ten
(men) to spy for him … In the narration of Abu l-Aswad from ‘Urwah: He dispatched them as spies to gather information
about Quraish … And Al-Waaqidiy mentioned that the reason for this was the rebellion of Bani Lihyaan against them was the
killing of Sufyaan Bin Nubaih Al-Hudhaliy …”. I say: We have mentioned in previous studies the incident of the dispatch of
Abdullah Ibn Unais, may Allah be pleased with him, on a single man mission to kill this Sufyaan because he had been gathering
forces to attack Al-Madinah, and that was close to ‘Arafaat, (2) It was stated in a narration recorded by Al-Bukhaariy: 3989,
“Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/308: “Until they reached Al-Haddah between ‘Usfaan and Makkah, they were named after an area of
Hudhail and were called Banu Lihyaan …” And in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/380, he mentioned that the name of the location is Al-
Haddah and Al-Had’ah and Al-Hadaah and it lies 7 kilometres from ‘Usfaan, (3) In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/225 he said: “As for Zaid Bin Ad-Dathinnah, Khubaib Bin ‘Adiy and ‘Abdullah Bin Taariq. They yielded as they
wanted to live, surrendered and then they were taken as prisoners. They were then taken to Makkah for them to be sold there”,
(4) In Al-Bukhaariy, 4086, 7/379: “Banu l-Haarith Bin ‘Aamir Bin Nawful then purchased them and it was Khubaib who had
killed Al-Haarith on the day of Badr”. And in the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-Unuf”: 3/225, he stated: “As for Zaid
Bin Ad-Dathinnah, Safwaan Bin Umayyah bought him as he (Zaid) had killed his father, Ummay Bin Khalaf”. And in “Fat’h ul-
Baariy”: 7/383, he said: “In the Riwaayah (narration) of Sa’d: They then imprisoned them both until the passing of the sacred
months. They then brought them both out to the place of execution and killed them both”, (6) This is the wording recorded by
Abu Dawud: 2660, 3/69 and we chose it here because of is summarised length whilst it is longer in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and
contains manifestations of the assistance provided by Allah and His Karaamah to ‘Aasim the Shaheed and Khubaib the
prisoner. Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3989 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/308 and number 4086 (Al-Bukhaariy) and 7/378 (Al-
Fat’h)].
Within this incident of “Ar-Rajee’” we find that some of the Sahaabah refused to surrender and preferred
to fight, whilst some of the Sahaabah surrendered to the disbelievers trusting the promise that they had
been given in respect to that they will not be killed … even if the matters after that, in the end, led to all
of them achieving the success of martyrdom.

Concerning this, the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬did not denounce either of the two groups of Sahaabah; neither those
who surrendered nor those who refused or rejected surrendering. This there represents an Iqraar
(approval) of the Mashroo’iyah (lawfulness) of both conducts, in the situation when the enemy has
surrounded the Muslim (in the manner previously described).

- Al-Khattaabiy said in relation to the Fiqh (understanding) of this Hadeeth: “In terms of ‘Ilm (knowledge)
it contains: That the Muslim fights the enemy when being defeated by it and does not seek to be
imprisoned by it as much as is possible to avert and refrain from that” (1). And Al-Mundhiry said: “It (i.e.
the incident) contains: That it is permissible for the Muslim to seek an Amaan (security) and some said:
There is no problem if he refuses that, just like ‘Aasib did” (2).

- Ibn Hajar said: “Contained in the Hadeeth, is that the Aseer should refrain from accepting the Amaan
(security) and to had himself over, even if he is killed, in rejection to having the Hukm (judgement) of the
Kaafir applied upon him, and this is if he wishes to take the strong position. If, however, he wanted to
take the Rukhsah (special circumstances permission), then he can seek an Amaan (security) (i.e. safety for
himself if he surrenders). Al-Hasan Al-Basriy said: There is no problem (or fault) in that. And Sufyaan
Ath-Thawriy said: I view that to be disliked (i.e. Makrooh)” (3).

- And in “Al-Minhaaj” of An-Nawawiy and its Sharh (explanation): “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, details came
concerning what the Muslim and Muslimah must do or is permitted for them to do, in different
circumstances, when any of them are targeted by the enemy. The following was stated:

“The one from the Mukallafeen (i.e. those charged with adherence to the Shar’a and held accountable for
their adherence) who is targeted, and even if it was a slave, woman, sick person or similar to that … He
repels the disbelievers from him as much as he possible can, if he knew that he would be killed if they
took him (i.e. alive) … And if the mentioned Mukallaf is given the choice between being taken prisoner or
be killed, then he should defend his life (i.e. attempt to save it) and surrender, if he was a man, because
combatting at that time means hastening death, whilst imprisonment holds the possibility of release. That
is if he knew that if he refrained from surrendering, he would be killed …

[(1) “Ma’aalim As-Sunnah”, Al-Khattaabiy: 4/9, (2) “Mukhtasar As-Sunan”, Al-Mundhiry quoted in “Ma’aalim As-Sunan”: 4/9,
(3) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/384].

Otherwise, he abstains from surrendering. As for the woman: Then if she knew that hands would reach
out for her to commit obscene and indecent acts (Al-Faahishah) upon her (if she surrendered), then she
must repel and even if she is killed. That is because Al-Faahishah (indecent and immoral acts) are not
permitted at the time of the fear of death. And if these hands did not reach for her now but she expected
that to occur after she was taken as captive, it is probable (Muhtamal) that her surrender is permissible and
then she would repel (later) if they want to do that to her …” (1).

- Concerning what the best course of action for the Muslim to take in respect to this Mas’alah, Ibn
Qudaamah said:

“If being taken as a prisoner is feared, then the Awlaa (more appropriate or better) is that he fights until
he is killed and not to surrender himself to be taken as a prisoner. That is because he will succeed with the
attainment of the reward of the elevated level and save himself from the disbelievers taking control over
him to practise torture, use him and from Fitnah. And if he seeks to be taken as a prisoner, that is
permissible.
- Then Ibn Qudaamah uses the incident of ‘Aasim Bin Thaabit, Khubaib Bin ‘Adiy, Zaid Bin Ad-
Dathinnah and their companion as evidence. He said: And so ‘Aasim took the ‘Azeemah (i.e. original rule
of not surrendering) and Khubaib and Zaid took the Rukhsah (special permission outside of the
‘Azeemah i.e. by surrendering). And all of them are commended and not dispraised or blame cast upon
them” (2).

The above represents what is to be said concerning the matter of the Muslim individual surrendering or
individuals from the Muslims, to the enemy when they are surrounded (i.e. overcome). We have therefore
concluded this Mas’alah (issue) and now move on to the discussion of the next.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for a Jamaa’ah (group or collective) of the
Muslims in their lands, to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy?

When the enemy attacks the Islamic lands and for one reason or another this is enemy was able to
surround a region from amongst its regions, or a town or city from amongst its towns and cities, and
coerces them to surrender upon the basis of particular conditions which include the giving up of their
authority and control of that region or town, regardless if they permitted them to stay there following that
within the land as the enemy’s subjects or if they stipulated that they leave … In this situation or these
circumstances, if those Muslims who are surrounded and besieged do not possess the sufficient or capable
strength or power themselves or do not have the strength and force that can be provided to them by their
brothers outside of the land, through which they can repel the enemy from their lands, in such a case, is it
obligatory upon them to fight to the best of their ability and capability or as much as they possible can
until all of them fall to their deaths or are taken as prisoners of war? …

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/219, (2) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/553].

… Or is it permissible for them to surrender to the enemy upon the basis of giving up their control over
the land whilst attaining what they are able to attain within the conditions of the surrender, related to
saving what they can of their rights to their properties and their societal and religious life, whilst hoping
behind that, that they will be able to follow a course which will enable them to acquire possession of the
force and power through which they will be able to confront the enemy, defeat it, liberate the land and
restore the control and authority of the Muslims over it?

I say: Which of the two matters is it obligatory upon the Muslims to follow in respect to this Mas’alah
(issue)?

- To fight to the death and fall into captivity from which there is no way out or means to deter that? Or to
surrender to the enemy according to the manner explained above? The answer to this question is: That the
same applies in this Mas’alah (issue) as the previous Mas’alah related to the surrender of individuals to the
enemy.

Just as it is permissible for the individual Muslim, when surrounded (and overcome), to fight until he is
killed or falls into captivity against his will, it is permissible for him, from the beginning or outset, to
surrender himself to the enemy, and give himself up to be taken as a prisoner of war (Aseer).

Similarly, it is said here: That concerning the collective of the Muslims within a region from among the
Muslim regions or a town from its towns, if surrounded (and overcome) by the enemy whilst having no
means to repel this enemy:

- It is permitted in their collective or individual description to fight until they are killed or be taken as
prisoner against their will.
- Just as it is permissible for them, from the outset, to surrender to the enemy, according to the manner
explained previously.

Concerning this, what we quoted from “Al-Minhaaj” by Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy and its explanation
(Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj), during the discussion of the previous Mas’alah (issue), regarding the legality of
fighting to the death or surrendering into captivity, was originally within the context of explaining the
Hukm Shar’iy (legal ruling) related to fighting the enemies when “They enter a land or town (Baldah) of
ours” (1) as stated by An-Nawawiy … i.e. when the Ahl ul-Harb aggress against the Islamic lands by
invasion and occupation.

Therefore, that which is permissible for the Muslim individual within his land, if he is surrounded by the
enemy, is also permissible for all of the Muslim individuals in their lands, if the usurping enemy has
surrounded them i.e. it is permissible for them to fight until they are killed, just as it is permissible for
them to surrender.

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/219].

Then, in the case where it is permissible to surrender to be taken as prisoner, as was stated in “Al-
Minhaaj” and its Sharh (explanation i.e. Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj), whilst the possibility remains that they will
be killed as consequence or any other Hukm (ruling) from those related to being taken as a prisoner be
applied upon them, including the plundering of wealth and properties or expulsion from the land, then
surrendering upon the basis of conditions that preserve some of their rights and provide them with the
hope of being enabled later, to confront the enemy again, defeat it and expel it, would by greater reason be
permissible (1) … It was upon this understanding, that the surrender of the Muslims in Grenada, their last
kingdom in Andalus, to the enemy which had encompassed them, took place.

In the book: “Al-Futoohaat Al-Islaamiyah” (The Islamic Conquests) by the Muftiy Ash-Shaafi’iyah, in
Makkah Al-Mukarramah, As-Sayyid Ahmad Zainiy Dahlaan, the author talks about Grenada more than
100 year prior to its surrender. He mentioned that the Sultaan of the Muslims in it was weak (or in a weak
position) before the enemy … He said: “The Sultaan Abu l-Waleed Bin Al-Ahmar in Grenada, made
concessions on many occasions, and Jizyah had been placed upon him (2) (i.e. to the enemy). He accepted
that due to his inability to defend it” (3).

And finally, the Muslims were incapable of defence and surrendered to the enemy and handed Granada
over to it in the year 897 Al-Hijriy. The author of “Al-Futoohaat Al-Islaamiyah” said:

“And when the enemy besieged Grenada the Muslims, during the time of the siege, were afflicted by
severe hunger and the situation continuously worsened, Therefore, they wrote to the enemy, stipulated
conditions, contracted agreements and they enabled the enemy over Grenada. The conditions numbered
67 and included among them:

[(1) This is indicated to by what came in “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: “That the Hurmah (inviolability) of the Muslim is greater than
the Hurmah (inviolability) of the Daar (i.e. homeland)”: 4/220. Therefore, in the case where it is permissible for the Muslim to
surrender himself to the enemy, during the siege, at the time of necessity or compulsion (Al-Idtiraar), then it is permissible in
respect to the Daar (homeland), which is less in terms of the Hurmah (inviolability) than the Muslim, to hand it over at the time
of compulsion (Al-Idtiraar) to preserve that which is greater than it in Hurmah and that is the collective of the Muslims …
And if they prefer or favour not handing over the land except upon their bodies and attaining the success of martyrdom, then
that represents the stance of those of a great firm will from amongst the men! In any case, the work to restore this land to the
Muslims would remain obligatory upon the necks of the Muslims; whether that was upon those who were present at the time
when the land was surrendered or upon those who came after them. This obligation does not fall from them except via the
actual restoration of the land. And the sin for not restoring it is not lifted apart from those who actually engage in the work that
leads, directly or indirectly, to the restoration of that usurped land to the rule and control of the Muslims, (2) I say: We do not
see the correctness of the usage of the wording “Al-Jizyah” for Maal (i.e. financial remuneration) which the Muslims were
compelled to give to the enemy to refrain from (attacking) them. That is because this wording came to be used, in the most
part, terminologically upon that which the non-Muslims gave to the Islamic State in exchange for attaining the Islamic subject
status and submission to the Islamic rule … In addition, even though the Islamic references have permitted the payment of
money (or its equivalent) to the disbelievers, so that they refrain from the Muslims, in the time of necessity, the sources did not
use the term “Al-Jizyah” for that money which was given. In the case where the Nasaaraa (Christians) of Bani Taghlib did not
accept this term in disdain, then should we use it ourselves in respect to the Muslims? (3) “Al-Futoohaat Al-Islaamiyah”:
1/427].

Securing (the safety) of the young and elderly in respect to the Nafs (life), Al-Ahl (family) and Maal
(wealth or property). They also included: The people remaining in their places, houses, quarters and
properties. And they included: The establishment of their Sharee’ah upon what it had been and that none
of them be judged except by their Sharee’ah. And it included: That the Masaajid be kept as they are and
the Awqaaf as well. And that the Christians do not enter the home of a Muslim, that none are usurped
from, that a Christian or Jew is not appointed over the Muslims in respect to the Ahkaam (rulings or
judgments), and that those who had been imprisoned from them be released. The stipulations also
included: If they wanted permission to go to Al-Maghrib (Morocco) that would not be prevented and that
whoever killed a Christian from amongst them during the war will not be taken to task for that …
amongst other conditions … Then (after that), the Christians breached those conditions, bit by bit and
betrayed it knot by knot, until the situation reached the point where they were pressurising the Muslims to
embrace Christianity … As a result, a large number from the countryside and built up areas (i.e. cities and
towns) embraced Christianity, whilst a people refused to become Christian. They isolated themselves from
the Christians and gathered in some of the villages fortifying themselves within them. The enemy then
gathered a large host against them and eradicated them all by killing and taking them as slaves. Their
remained a group of Muslims who had ascended a mountain and sought protection there. They fought the
enemy and killed a great number of them. They then left upon the basis of a security to Faas (Fez in
Morocco) with their children and what little remained of their properties and wealth … And the Muslims
who fortified themselves in some of the mountains confronted the Christians on many occasions before
the Christians overcame them, whilst Allah had not destined a Naseer (helper and supporter) for them!
That continued until the Christians removed them finally in the year 1010. Then thousands of Muslims
went to Fez (in Morocco) and thousands to Tilmasaan and Wahraan, whilst the majority of them went to
Tunisia … And the Sultaan from whom Grenada was taken was the last of the Sultaans of Bani Al-Ahmar
… He was Sultaan ‘Abdullah Muhammad … Al-Ansaariy Al-Khazrajiy … This Sultaan ended up in the
city of Fez with his family and children in a state of apology for what he had left behind …! He (the
author) said in “Naf’h ut-Tayyib” (1): And he has been with his descendants in Fez until now, 1037, taking
from the wealth allocated for the impoverished and poor and they are considered to be from the collective
of beggars! Wa Laa Hawla Wa Laa Quwwata Illa Billah Al-‘Aliy ul-‘Azheem” (2).

[(1) “Naf’h ut-Tayyib Fee Ghusn il-Andalus”, a book of the political and literary history of Andalus, Ahmad Bin Muhammad
Bin Yahyaa, Abu l-‘Abbaas Al-Maqqariy, the historian, writer and Haafizh. Born in 992 and passed away in 1042 Al-Hijriy.
Refer to “Al-A’alaam”, Az-Zarkaliy: 1/226, (2) “Al-Futoohaat Al-Islaamiyah”, As-Sayyid Ahmad Zainiy Dahlaan: 1/432-433.
Refer also to: “Atlas Taareekh ul-Islaam”, Dr, Mu’nis: p190, “Al-Mu’aahdaat Wa l-Muhaadanaat Fee Taareekh il-‘Arab”,
Muhammad Abdul Ghaniy Hasan: 59-60 and “Taareekh Ash-Shu’oob Al-Islaamiyah”, Brockelman: p343-344].

I say: It may be that the previous speech from the Mufti of Makkah, the author of “Al-Futoohaat”,
contains that which indicates to the reason which made the Muslims in Andalus, who surrendered to the
enemy but did not leave their land, fail after that, to overcome the enemy and restore their authority over
the land, and that was when he said: “… before the Christians overcame them, whilst Allah had not
destined a Naseer (helper and supporter) for them!” The Meaning of this, is that had someone been
destined to support those of the Muslims who had remained in Andalus at that time and had the leaders
and commanders of their armies in the rest of the regions of the Islamic world come to their aid, instead
of being preoccupied in struggles amongst themselves, then they (i.e. the Muslims of Andalus) would not
have been overcome and they would have restored their lost haven!

It can be wondered, have the leaders of the Muslims and the commanders of their armies in our current
times, become aware of the lesson of what happened in Andalus and as such worked to prevent the
repetition of the tragedy in Palestine and other lands which have been usurped by the enemy within the
Islamic world? Or, does the statement: “How today resembles yesterday!” apply?

We have come to the conclusion of the discussion of the second Mas’alah (issue) of this current topic and
we will now move on to the second topic.

The Third Topic

What is the duty of the Muslims towards their Muslim and Dhimmiy prisoners or
captives, when or if they fall into the hands of the enemy?

To answer this question, we will first present some of the Shar’iyah texts concerning rescuing the
prisoners from the Islamic lands if they fall into the hands of the enemy. We will then, secondly, present
the stated opinions of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib in respect to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to this Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy issue) … We will then, thirdly, mention what we view to be the preponderant and strongest view
in relation to this Mas’alah.

Firstly: Some of the Shar’iyah texts concerning the rescue of the prisoners of war (Asraa) from the
Islamic lands, if they fall into the hands of the enemy:

1 - Al-Bukhaariy recorded in his Saheeh, under the heading: “The chapter: Freeing or releasing the Aseer
(prisoner of war or captive)”, from Abu Mousaa Al-Ash’ariy, may Allah be pleased with him, who said:
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫يض‬
َ ‫واَال َم ِر‬ ْ ‫َـَوأَ ْط َِعم‬
ْ ‫ُواَال َجائ َِع ََوعُو ُد‬ َ ‫ير‬َ ِ‫واَال َعان َِيَـَ َيعَْنِيَاألَس‬
ْ ‫فُ ُّك‬
Set the captives free, - meaning the Aseer -, feed the hungry and visit the sick (1).

In “Fat’h ul-Baariy” he stated: “(Concerning) his statement: “The chapter: Freeing the Aseer” it means:
From the hands of the enemy by means of Maal (money or its equivalent) or by other means. Al-Fikaak
means At-Takhlees (freeing or releasing) … Ibn Battaal said: Freeing or getting the Aseer (prisoner of
war) released is a Waajib ‘Alaa Al-Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) and this is the opinion of the
Jumhoor (majority of Fuqahaa’). Ibn Ishaaq Bin Raahuwaih said: It is from the Bait ul-Maal” (2) (i.e. they
are freed by ransom from the state treasury and funds).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3046, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/167. And he mentioned that the Tafseer for the word “Al-‘Aaniy” in the
Hadeeth, in that it means “Aseer” was from Jareer or Qutaibah, who were from the transmitters of the chain of this Hadeeth
(i.e. the addition in the Hadeeth). It was also stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 9/519: “And it is said for the Aseer “Aanin” from
‘Anaa Ya’noo: (meaning) When he submits (or is made to)”, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/167].

I say: It is most probable that the intended meaning of the word “َ‫( ”ا ْل َعان َِي‬Al-‘Aaniy) [mentioned in the
Hadeeth] i.e. the “Aseer” (prisoner of war), only refers to the one who fell into the hands of the enemy
from the Islamic army or from the people of the Islamic lands in general, whilst the meaning of the
wording does not encompass the prisoner of the enemy when he falls into the hands of the Muslims …
That is because Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah has brought five options in respect to this Kaafir Aseer
(disbeliever prisoner), as has been detailed and explained earlier. However, this prisoner whom it is
required to free has not been restricted to his being Muslim and as such it also applies upon the Dhimmiy
prisoner just as it applies upon the Muslim prisoner of war.

2 - In Saheeh Muslim and the Sunan of Abu Dawud, concerning the freeing of the Muslim prisoners from
the hands of the enemy, it was related from Salamah Bin Al-Akwa’ who said:

“We undertook a military expedition (Ghazwah) against Fazaarah, and Abu Bakr was the
commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬. When we were
only at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made
a halt during the last part of the night to rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached
their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were
taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest
they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain.
When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So, I brought them, driving them along. Among them
was a woman from Banu Fazaarah. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter
who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr
who bestowed that her daughter upon me as an extra giving. Then, we arrived back to Al-
Madinah. I had not yet disrobed her (1) when the Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬met me in the
market and said: “Give me the woman, Salamah”. I said: O messenger of Allah, by Allah, she is
to my liking and I have not yet disrobed her. He kept silence, and when the next day came the
Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬met me in the market and said to me “Give me the woman, Salamah. I
said: “O Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I have not yet disrobed her”. Then (later)
Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬again met me, he said: O Salamah, grant me the woman. I said: O
Messenger of Allah She is for you, O Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her.
The Messenger of Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬dispatched her to the people of Makkah and ransomed her for a
number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Makkah!” (1).

[(1) In Sharh Muslim by An-Nawawiy: 7/349: “… This is a Kinaayah metaphor for consummation …”, (2) Saheeh Muslim:
1855, 3/1375-1376 and Sunan Abi Dawud: 2697, 3/86].

Al-Imaam An-Nawawiy said in relation to the Fiqh of this Hadeeth: “It contains the permissibility of
ransoming and the permissibility of ransoming the men for disbelieving women” (1).

We have also already presented the Hadeeth of the man who the Sahaabah took as prisoner from Bani
‘Uqail, as was recorded in Saheeh Muslim, and it mentioned within it that the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
ransomed him for two men from the Sahaabah who had been taken as captives by Thaqeef (2).
Secondly: The stated opinions of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib concerning the freeing of the prisoners of
the Islamic lands held by the enemy:

A - From the books of the Ahnaaf, the following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”:

“There is no issue for Muslim prisoners to be ransomed with the prisoners of the Mushrikeen who are in
the custody of the Muslims, in terms of men and women, and this is the opinion of Abu Yousuf and
Muhammad. It is also the most apparent of the two opinions attributed to Abu Haneefah, may Allah
Ta’Aalaa be pleased with him. In another opinion attributed to him he said: It is not permissible to
ransom the Aseer (prisoner) for the Aseer. The apparent angle of deduction of the first attributed report
(to Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah) is: That the release of the Muslim prisoners being held by the Mushrikeen is
Waajib (obligatory) and that cannot be achieved except via ransoming. That is whilst, it doesn’t represent
anything greater than not killing the Mushrikeen prisoners and that is permitted to do for the benefit of
the Muslims … The angle of deduction for the second reported opinion attributed to Al-Imaam Abu
Haneefah is: The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ُ ‫َحي‬
َ‫ْث ََو َجد ُّتمُو ُه ْم‬ ْ ُ‫َفا ْق ُتل‬
َ ‫واَال ُم ْش ِرك‬
َ ‫ِين‬
… Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them … (At-Taubah: 5) (3).

That is whilst ransoming means abandoning the killing which is Fard and it is not permissible to leave the
Fard (obligation) whilst being enabled to establish it at that time” (4).

B - From the books of the Maalikiyah, concerning the issue of the freeing of Muslim prisoners, the
following came stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: “It is obligatory to seek to rescue them
from the hands of the disbelievers by fighting and if the Muslims are incapable of that, it is obligatory
upon them to ransom them with money. It is obligatory upon the rich or wealthy to ransom himself and
upon the Imaam to pay the ransom for the poor from the Bait ul-Maal. And if that is short then all of the
Amwaal (money or properties) of the Muslims are designated to be used for this …!” (5).

[(1) “Sharh Muslim”, An-Nawawiy: 7/349, (2) Saheeh Muslim: 1641, 3/1262-1263, (3) Soorah At-Taubah (Baraa’ah): 5. And we
have previously mentioned that the Aayah is in respect to the Mushrikeen before falling into captivity as Asraa (prisoners of
war). As for after being taken as prisoners then they have a number of Ahkaam applicable to them as detailed previously, (4)
“Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1587 and refer also to 4/1650, (5) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn ul-Juzayy:
p172].

In “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer” by Ad-Dardeer, it was stated: “It is permissible to ransom the prisoner from
the Muslims for the prisoners of war of the combatant disbelievers that we hold captive i.e. those whose
affair if fighting, if they (the people of war) do not accept other than that. That is because their fighting
against us is expected whilst the freeing of the prisoner is certain … And it is permissible to ransom them
with Al-Khamr (alcohol) and swine (Khinzeer), in respect to what is best, and the description of how this
is done is: That the Imaam commands the Ahl udh-Dhimmah to pay that to the enemy and he takes or
deducts the value of that from what is due upon them in terms of the Jizyah …” (1).

Concerning this issue, Al-Imaam Al-Qurtubiy, from the Maalikiyah, expressed his pain regarding the
negligence of the Muslims in his age, in respect to freeing the prisoners held by the disbelievers, due to the
clashes taking place between the Muslims themselves, and some of the Muslims seeking assistance with
the Kaafir (disbeliever) enemy against their brothers from the other Muslims. In relation to this he said:

“Some of us have sought assistant over others from us! If only it had been Muslims! But rather it (the
assistance being sought) was of disbelievers! Until we left our brothers lowly, humiliated and subdued,
where the rule of the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) is applied over them. And so Laa Hawla Wa Laa
Quwwata Illa Billahi l-‘Aliy ul-‘Azheem! Our ‘Ulamaa’ said: Ransoming of the (prisoners) is Waajib
(obligatory) and even if not a single Dirham remains (i.e. in the Bait ul-Maal). Ibn Khuwaiz Mindaad: The
reports have come stating that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬freed the prisoners and commanded that they be freed, and
the Muslims preceded upon that and an Ijmaa’ (consensus) was established for that. It is obligatory to free
the prisoners from the Bait ul-Maal (state treasury) and if there is not enough, it is obligatory upon all of
the Muslims, and those who undertake it from them relieve the obligation from the remainder” (2) … The
above is what came mentioned by the Maalikiyah …

C - As for the Madh’hab of the Shaafi’iyah, then the opinion concerning freeing the prisoners held by the
enemy shifts or fluctuates between Al-Istihbaab (recommendation) and Al-Wujoob (obligation) … In
“Mughniy Al-Muhtaaj” the following was stated: “Al-Bulqeeniy held that it was recommended
(Mustahabb) to free the prisoners as long as they were not being punished and if they were being
punished (i.e. afflicted with suffering or torture) then it is obligatory to free them. Al-Ghaziy viewed that it
was recommended upon individuals and obligatory upon the Imaam, and this is Awlaa (more correct)”
(3).

D - And in “Al-Mughniy”, by Ibn Qudaamah, from the books of the Hanaabilah, the following was
stated:

[(1) “Sharh ul-Kabeer”: 2/208 and refer also to: “Man’h ul-Jaleel”: 3/233, (2) “Al-Jaami’ LiAhkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy:
2/23, (3) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/261 and refer also to 4/212 and 220].

“And it is obligatory to ransom the Muslim prisoners, if it is possible (or capability exists). This is the view
of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez, Maalik and Ishaaq …” (1). He also discusses freeing the prisoners from the
Ahl udh-Dhimmah if they fall into the hands (i.e. captivity) of the enemy. He (i.e. Ibn Qudaamah) said:

“The Zhaahir (apparent or evident meaning or understanding) of the speech of Al-Khiraqiy, is that it is
obligatory to ransom them (the Ahl udh-Dhimmah); whether they were in support or assistance or not.
This is the view of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez and Al-Laith. That is because we have committed to their
preservation via their treaty and by taking Jizyah from them, and as such we have committed to fighting in
defence of them. If we were unable to do that and we are capable of freeing them, we are compelled to do
that …” (2).

In relation to explaining the ways that the Muslims should deal with the prisoners from the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah like the Muslim prisoners are dealt with, in respect to striving to free them all, Al-Imaam Ibn
Taymiyyah stated the following in his “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah”:

“And the Christians have known, all of them, that when I addressed the Tatars in respect to freeing the
prisoners and Ghazaan released them … And so, he permitted the release of the Muslims … He said to
me: But we have Christians with us who we have taken from Al-Quds, and those will not be set free! And
so, I said to him: Indeed, you will free all whom you have with you from the Jews and Christians who the
people of Dhimmah. We will have them freed and we will not leave a prisoner, not from the people of
our Millah (i.e. Deen) and not from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah! And so, he released the Christians as Allah
had willed it …!” (3).

And linked to what Ibn Qudaamah indicated to in respect to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez holding the view
that it is obligatory to ransom the prisoners of war (Asraa), the following was recorded in the Sunan of
Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor, which supports that:

“Related from ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez that he said: If the Roman leaves with a prisoner from the
Muslims, it is not Halaal for the Muslims to let be returned to Al-Kufr and so they must ransom him with
what they can …!” (4) The following was also recorded within this Sunan (i.e. of Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor):
“It was related from ‘Abdur Rahman Bin Abi ‘Amrah that he said: When ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez
dispatched him to ransom the Muslim prisoners from Constantinople, I said to him: What is your opinion,
O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, if they refuse to ransom a man for a man? What should I do?

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 10/498, (2) “Al-Mughniy”: 10/497-498, (3) “Ar-Risaalah Al-Qubrusiyah”, Ibn Taymiyyah:
“Majmoo’ah Ar-Rasaa’il Al-Mufeedah”: p247. Refer also to: “Ibn Taymiyyah” by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah: p384
where he presents the text indicted to on p22 of that “Ar-Risaalah”, (4) Sunan Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor: 2819, 2/293].

‘Umar said: Give them more! I said: If they refuse to give one man in exchange for two? He said: (Then)
give them three! I said: And if they refuse except the number of four? He said: Then give them in
exchange for every Muslim what they ask of you! For by Allah, one man from the Muslims is more
beloved to me than all of the Mushriks (disbelievers) that I have with me! (i.e. as prisoners of war).
Indeed, whatever you have ransomed a Muslim for, you have won! Indeed, you are only purchasing Islaam
…! Then the envoy of ‘Umar said, in respect to the ransoming of the prisoners: So I made a treaty with a
leader of the Romans, that every single man from the Muslims be exchanged for two Roman men.
Ismaa’eel (Ibn ‘Ayyaash who was one of the narrators of the report) said: And some of companions added
that ‘Abdur Rahman asked ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul ‘Azeez about the Ahl udh-Dhimmah and he said: Ransom
them like how you ransom other than them!” (1).

Thirdly: The view that we weigh to be preponderant or strongest:

Based on what has preceded, the view that we weigh to be strongest, is that the Fidaa’ (ransoming) of the
Asraa (prisoners) from the people of the Islamic lands, whether Muslims or from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah,
is Waajib (obligatory) upon the Muslims. If that ransoming is undertaken through the exchange of
prisoners from both sides, then it would take place like that. As has been mentioned, the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
exchanged prisoners. And if that exchange does not take place, in the case for instance when the Muslims
do not have any prisoners of their own to exchange for their prisoners held by the enemy or for any other
reason, it is obligatory for the Muslims to ransom the prisoners by payment of Al-Maal (money or a
financial equivalent) or by any lawful manner of ransoming. This is what has been indicated by the
unrestricted (Mutlaq) form of his statement: “َ‫( ”فُ ُّكواَا ْل َعان َِي‬Free the prisoner or captive (i.e. Aseer)). This
demanded freeing was not restricted by any particular manner, which indicates, according to the Zhaahir
(apparent or evident) indication, to the lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of ransoming them by payment of Al-
Maal (money or financial equivalent), just like ransoming them through the manner of exchanging
prisoners between the two sides.

In addition, this Fidaa’ (ransoming), when undertaken by Al-Maal (money), is taken from the Bait ul-Maal
if there is a sufficient amount within for that. That is because the Bait ul-Maal’s purpose is to meet and
fulfil the needs of the Muslims through the funds that it has (2). That is done naturally according to the
specific Ahkaam related to the Bait ul-Maal. And if the Bait ul-Maal has insufficient funds, it is obligatory
upon the Muslims as an obligation of sufficiency (Waajib Kifaa’iy) to meet the necessary funds needed to
free the prisoners. That is because the matter which has been requested from the Jamaa’ah (collective) of
the Muslims, is not in the individually designated description or capacity, but rather in their collective
description, like what was stated in the previous text: “َ‫( ”فُ ُّكواَا ْل َعان َِي‬Free the prisoner or captive (i.e. Aseer)).
The obligation is only imposed upon the one who possesses the capability to undertake what is required,
and in this issue of ours here, that means the Aghniyaa’ (rich and wealthy etc.) Therefore, a Dareebah (tax)
is determined for them to meet the sufficiency of this need from amongst the needs of the Muslims and
to fulfil the undertaking of this Fard of sufficiency.

[(1) Sunan Sa’eed Bin Mansoor: 2822, 2/293-294, (2) In “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 2/499 it is stated that: “Verily, the Maal
(funds) of the Bait ul-Maal (treasury) are there in waiting or ready to meet the calamities or ups and owns of the Muslims”.

The Hukm (ruling) in respect to freeing the prisoners from the Ahl udh-Dhimmah does not differ from
the Hukm of freeing the Muslim prisoners, in accordance to the dictates of the contract of the Dhimmah
which dictates that they have what the Muslims have in terms of “Insaaf” (justice in treatment) and that
upon them is what is upon the Muslims in terms of “Al-Intisaaf” (to do justice) (1). ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib,
may Allah be pleased with him, said: “They only gave the Jizyah so that their blood would be like our
blood, and their properties like our properties” (2).

This is the opinion that we view to be strongest in relation to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the Asraa
(prisoners) from the people of the lands of Islaam, when they fall into the hands or captivity of the enemy.

With that we have reached the end of this current topic and by that we have also reached the conclusion
of this current study. We will now move on, with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq, to the final study of
this chapter.

[(1) Refer to: “Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar, Sharh Tanweer ul-Absaar”, the Haashiyah of Ibn ‘Aabideen: 3/343, (2) “Al-Mughniy”,
Ibn Qudaamah: 10/497].

The Third Study

Hostages: Do they differ from Asraa (prisoners of war or captives)?

In this study we will address the following:

Firstly: What is meant by “Ar-Rahaa’in” (hostages) in this study?

Secondly: What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to those hostages (Rahaa’in)?

Firstly: What is meant by “Ar-Rahaa’in” (hostages) in this study?

A - The First Point: The Rahaa’in according to the ‘Urf (custom) of the Hadeeth (speech).

B - The Second Point: The Rahaa’in within the Islamic Fiqh.

A - The First Point: The Rahaa’in according to the ‘Urf (custom) of the Hadeeth
(speech).

Within the political domain, the word “Rahaa’in” (hostages) is used to refer to a variety or number of
groups, of those who have been detained under this description, by parties which undertake their
detention. These groups include:
1 - Kidnapped people from the citizens of the lands which those undertaking the kidnapping operation
belong to. That is undertaken with the aim of holding on to those they have kidnapped, as hostages
(Rahaa’in), for the sake of applying pressure upon parties or bodies who are made anxious by this
kidnapping, so that they hold negotiations with the kidnappers and meet their demands. This type of
kidnapping operation could also be undertaken merely to make discord, problems and crises erupt in the
face of the ruling government in the land, with the aim of weakening it or bringing it down … amongst
other possible purposes.

2 - Kidnapped people of foreign nationals residing in the land as those who had been granted a security;
whether they were individuals of a political nature or residing as visitors or tourists, or as traders, or those
who had been contracted by the state or within the private sector … This kidnapping is undertaken to
reach particular goals which the kidnappers demand from the state which those kidnapped belong to or
from those who are concerned with their affair …

3 - The state itself, which those foreigners are residing in, could itself prevent them from leaving the land
only, without resorting to kidnapping them or imprisoning them. They could undertake this measure with
some of those foreigners, but not all, aiming to apply pressure upon the states that they belong to, for the
sake of attaining certain goals which concern the land which has detained them and taken them as
hostages, until they accomplish what they want … That state could refer to those it has detained as
“guests” and deny describing them as “hostages”, although whatever name is used, it doesn’t change the
reality of matters.

4 - Also from amongst those who are referred to as hostages, are those foreigners who are kidnapped
whilst they are residing in lands other than the land of the kidnappers or hostage takers, whether they
were residing in their land or another land, and whether they were from hostile states or states that had a
peace treaty with the state of the hostage takers … That is undertaken with the purpose of applying
pressure upon the states of those who have been kidnapped or taken as hostage, or the states that they
have been kidnapped from, with the aim of accomplishing some demands.

These people, described above, and those of similar realities to them, are those who are referred to as
“Rahaa’in” (hostages) according to modern custom. We have previously explained details regarding them,
within the study in which we discussed the style of taking individuals who belong to hostile parties … And
we mentioned there, those whom it is permitted to take from amongst those people and consider them as
prisoners (Asraa) of the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), and consequently are judged by one of the five
Ahkaam which it is permitted to judge the prisoners of war with, in addition to those whom it is not
allowed to take and not consider to be prisoners of war. Therefore, there is no need to repeat that
discussion, which we have previously discussed, during our study of this Mas’alah (1).

B - The Second Point: “Ar-Rahaa’in” (hostages) within the Islamic Fiqh.

“Ar-Rahaa’in” or “Ar-Ruhanaa’u” or “Ar-Ruhun” according to the Fiqhiy Istilhaah (terminological

convention) are:

Those people whom their state or their people delivers or hands over to those whom they have contracted
a treaty from among the treaties which stipulate upon both parties, or one of them, to present human
hostages to the other side, as a guarantee for their faithfulness to it (i.e. the treaty), upon the basis that
those hostages are returned to their people after the termination of the term of the treaty.

[(1) Refer to: “The style of kidnapping directed against the citizens of hostile states and taking them as hostages”, The Second
Topic of the Third Study of the Third Chapter of the Fifth Volume of this paper: p1381 onwards (in the original Arabic print)].
Concerning this, it had been a norm between states or people which convened treaties to cease the war
between them, to present hostages like this according to the manner mentioned.

The following war recorded with its Sanad in the book “Al-Amwaal” by Abu ‘Ubaid: “That the Romans
made a truce with Mu’aawiyah upon the basis that he gives them an amount of money (Maal) whilst
Mu’aawiyah took hostages from them, whom he then placed in Ba’labakk (village in East Lebanon). The
Romans then acted treacherously (i.e. against the truce) by Mu’aawiyah and the Muslims refused to kill
those they held from them as hostages and let them go free, and then sought an opening against them (1).
And they said: Loyalty or faithfulness in the face of treachery is better than meeting treachery with
treachery (or betrayal with betrayal)!” (2).

Consequently, the intended meaning of “Ar-Rahaa’in” in this current study are those whom this name is
applied to within the Fiqhiy Istilaah (terminological convention).

Secondly: What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to these Rahaa’in (hostages)?

It appears that taking human hostages for the purpose of guaranteeing faithfulness (or commitment) to
treaties between the Islamic State and other states or peoples, was not wide spread during the Islamic
history. Consequently, we do not find the Fiqhiy sources of reference very concerned with the subject of
these hostages … And the source which discussed a number of issues related to this subject area the most,
is “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” by Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan Ash-Shaibaaniy and its “Sharh”
(explanation) by Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy.

It is true that this subject area, according to this Fiqhiy understanding, is no longer in origin found in
modern times, in the case where the treaties between the states no longer include the taking of hostages as
a means to guarantee commitment to them. Yet, despite that, it is still necessary to shed some light upon
an aspect of this old subject, in the case where this paper (Doctorate) is discussing the subject area of Al-
Jihaad and the matters attached to it, during the time of legislation and the era of the Sahaabah, in addition
to the time that we are currently living.

[(1) They requested from Allah to open for them (a way) and support them against the enemy, through this good deed which
was commitment (to the treaty) and not killing the hostages! (2) “Al-Amwaal”, Al-Qaasim, Abu ‘Ubaid Bin Sallaam: p76. Refer
also to: “Futooh ul-Buldaan”, Al-Balaadhariy: p164, in which he stated in the narration of the incident: “And they took
hostages from them and placed them in Ba’labakk].

And because we dealt with the issue of hostages according to the modern-day terminology when
discussing the subject of the style of kidnapping or taking individuals from hostile parties, we should
subsequently, be aware of something about those known by this name of hostages (Rahaa’in) in the ages
which preceded.

We will suffice ourselves here, with the following Masaa’il (issues) from that which “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer
and its Sharh” addressed from among the Masaa’il of this subject matter:

1 - Is it permissible for the Islamic State to give human hostages from the Muslims to their enemies as
part of a certain Mu’aahadah (treaty)?

2 - Can the Islamic State stipulate in the treaty with the enemy, that it takes human hostages from it? And
what is their fate if the enemy betrays the Muslims?

3 - What if the Muslims were in a situation of compulsion and gave human hostages to the enemy as part
of a particular treaty. Then the term of the treaty came to an end and the enemy refused to hand over the
hostages to prevent the Muslims from undertaking Al-Jihaad upon their frontier?
4 - What if the Muslims were compelled and provided human hostages as part of a particular treaty and
then the enemy threatened to kill the hostages if the Muslims undertook some legitimate acts which the
enemy deemed to be harmful to its interests?

The above represent, in our view, the most important Masaa’il (issues) which arise in relation to this
current discussion …

We will now present, in a summarised manner, what came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”,
in response or answer to these Masaa’il:

1 - Is it permissible for the Islamic State to give human hostages from the Muslims to their
enemies as part of a certain Mu’aahadah (treaty)?

The following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh”: “And if the Mushrikoon” (i.e.
disbelievers) request in the treaty that we give them hostages from the men of the Muslims in exchange
for men that they give as hostages in the same way, then that is Makrooh (disliked) and the Muslims
should nit respond affirmatively to it without the necessity being established. That is because they are not
trusted over the (lives of the) Muslim men whilst the Zhaahir (apparent and evident) matter is that their
difference in belief would carry them to kill them. There is no deterrent in terms of belief that would deter
them from that …” (1).

And it was said in a different place (in the book): “And if the people of Islaam and people of war make a
treaty upon the basis that they have a truce with each other for a year … And they wanted from each
other for hostages to be provided for that, upon the basis that if one of the two side betrays, the blood of
the hostages of the other becomes Halaal! Then there is no problem (Ba’s) in providing hostages upon
this, as long as the hostages from the Muslims are content and accepting to that, because it is assured
about the Muslim hostages that they will not go back from Islaam. What is evident (however) is that they
would not be content and accepting to that if they feared them in respect to their lives …” (2)

However, what if none of the Muslims volunteer themselves to become a hostage in the hands of the
disbelievers?

In the same source, the following was stated:

“The Imaam should not compel anyone from the Muslims upon that unless the Mushrikeen (disbelievers)
possess a great and severe might and the Muslims fear for themselves from them. At such a time or
reality, there is no problem (Ba’s) to compel the hostages upon that, due to what that brings in terms of
the benefit to the Muslims in general, and there exists a fear that as a result of refraining from the treaty,
the Jamaa’ah (collective) of the Muslims will perish (or be destroyed), whilst by going ahead with it, this
fear concerning the collective of the Muslims will be repelled. Therefore, this Wilaayah (i.e. right to
decide) has been established for the Imaam and even if it was feared for the well being of the Khaass
(specific) i.e. the hostages! That is due to the well-known Asl (basis or principle): “Whoever is being tried
by two trial, then he must chose the lighter of them” …” (3).

This is what is to be said regarding the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of providing human hostages from
themselves to the enemy in accordance to the dictates of a treaty convened with them. We will now move
on to the following question.

2 - Can the Islamic State stipulate in the treaty with the enemy, that it takes human hostages from
it? And what is their fate if the enemy betrays the Muslims?
The answer: As has been indicated to previously, it is permissible for the Muslims to stipulate upon the
enemies that they provide human hostages from themselves, and that is in order to hold them to
commitment to the treaty …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1750, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1663, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1663].

… Then if those enemies betray and break that treaty, it is not Halaal to kill those hostages who are in the
hands of the Muslims.

The following was stated in the book “Al-Amwaal” by Abu ‘Ubaid: “And Al-Awzaa’iy said concerning
such a reality: The hostages are not killed as a result of their Ghadar (treachery or betrayal)” (1) i.e. by the
betrayal of their people from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war). The Daleel (evidence) for this Hukm
(ruling) is the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.

It was stated in “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: “And if they stipulated in the basis of the treaty that if they
betrayed and killed the Muslim hostages, then the blood of their hostages held by us is Halaal, and then
they did kill our hostages, then the blood of their hostages is not Halaal for us, due to what was related in
that such an incident occurred in the time of Mu’aawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, where he and
the Muslims with him held an Ijmaa’ (consensus) that they would not kill the disbeliever hostages, because
they had been provided an Amaan amongst us and as such their blood is not Halaal for a crime that was
committed by other than them. And the Shart (condition) that had been made was contrary to the Hukm
Ash-Shar’iy, and was therefore Baatil (invalid)” (2).

In another place in the book, in relation to this Mas’alah, the following was said: “If the disbelievers
(Mushrikoon) betray and kill the hostages, then it is not Halaal for the Muslims to kill the hostages they
have in their hands and it is also not Halaal to enslave them because they were in security (Amaan)
amongst us. Therefore, their security is not invalidated by the treachery or betrayal of the disbelievers, due
to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫َو ْز َرَأ ُ ْخ َر ٰى‬

ِ ‫از َرة‬ َ ‫َو َالَ َت ِزر‬
ِ ‫َُو‬
And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another (Faatir: 18) … (3).

What then is the fate of the hostages of the enemy held by the Muslims, in such a situation? The previous
source of reference (i.e. Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer) goes on to say: “However, the Muslims do not let
them return to their lands and make them of the Dhimmah because they accepted residence in our Daar
(homeland) until our hostages be returned to us, which had become an impossible matter! They were
therefore detained in our Daar (homeland) permanently by their acceptance whilst the Kaafir does not
reside permanently in our homeland (Daar), insistent upon remaining upon his disbelief, except through
the Jizyah” (4).

In relation to this, Al-Imaam As-Sarakhsiy quoted a historical incident concerning this matter and that was
that it occurred among some of the ‘Umaraa’ (rulers) during the era of Abu Haneefah, that they made a
treaty with a people from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) that stipulated the mutual exchange of hostages
from both sides … It then happened that the people of war killed the Muslim hostages they held and so
the Ameer referred back to the ‘Ulamaa asking them about the Hukm (legal ruling) in respect to killing the
hostages of the disbelievers who they held, and if that was permissible?

[(1) “Al-Amwaal”, Abu ‘Ubaid, Al-Qaasim Bin Sallaam: p76, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1753, (3) and (4) “Sharh As-
Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1664].

As-Sarakhsiy said in relation to this: “And so he gathered the ‘Ulamaa of his time and asked them what he
should do with the hostages? They said to him: You can kill them due to the condition that was stipulated!
Amongst them was Abu Haneefah, may Allah Ta’Aalaa be pleased with him, who was silent! And so he
(the Ameer) asked him: What’s the matter why are you not speaking? He replied: If they have said to you
this based on Ra’y (i.e. Qiyaas) then they have made an error. And if they said it based upon your desire,
then they have deceived you! That is because you do not have the right to expose anyone of them to death
or to Saby (i.e. to be taken as slaves). He asked: And why not, when that is what was stipulated? He said:
Because they stipulated upon you that which is not Halaal and you stipulated upon them that which is not
Halaal in the Shar’a. And every condition not in the Kitaab of Allah is Baatil (1). Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ‫َو ْز َرَأ ُ ْخ َر ٰى‬

ِ ‫از َرة‬ َ ‫َو َالَ َت ِزر‬
ِ ‫َُو‬
And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another (Faatir: 18)

This statement was tough for him and he said: I do not invite you for a matter of concern ever except that
you come to me with something I don’t like! Stand (i.e. addressing the ‘Ulamaa) and leave! They then left
and he gathered them again on the following day. He said (to Abu Haneefah): It has become clear to me,
that what you have said is the correct view! So, what should I do with them then? He (Abu Haneefah)
said: Ask the ‘Ulamaa! And so he asked them and they said: We don’t have any knowledge regarding that!
Abu Haneefah, may Allah Ta’Aalaa be pleased with him then said: Apply the Jizyah upon them. He asked:
Why? He ansered: Because they are held by you with their consent until the hostages are returned whilst
that possibility no longer exists! And so he (the Ameer) viewed his opinion well and commeneded him
responding to him generously!”

As-Sarakhsiy continued on to say:

“Therefore, if it is said: If this condition was from that which is not Halaal, then why did he say: There is
no problem (Ba’s i.e. it is not prohibited) to provide them with hostages upon this basis? We said: Because
the Muslims needed that and nothing is lost by the mere stipulation and nothing is affirmed, which cannot
be (later) addressed! Contrary to the killing the hostages by that condition!” (2).

I say: It appears that the verdict passed by the ‘Ulamaa to kill the hostages was in accordance to the
condition or stipulation (Shart), even though the case of the incident which occurred during the time of
Mu’aawiyah had reached them when the Muslims held a consensus (Ijmaa’) upon not killing the hostages
… It appears that they understood that this Ijmaa’ (consensus) was upon the legal legitimacy or lawfulness
of not killing the hostages and not upon the Tahreem (prohibition) of killing them …

[(1) The following was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2168 and “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4.376, as related from ‘Aa’ishah from the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬concerning the story of Bareerah: “Any condition which is not in the Book of Allah is invalid even if it is a hundred
conditions. The decree of Allah is truer and the conditions of Allah are firmer”. Concerning the permissibility of unlawful
conditions at the time or circumstances of Al-Haajah (need), whilst they are cancelled in any case, and their presence is like their
non-presence, refer to: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/191 and Saheeh Muslim: 1504, 2/1143. Refer to Sharh Saheeh Muslim by An-
Nawawiy: 6/358-359, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1664-1665].

However, the report of Abu ‘Ubaid for the incident stated: “And so Mu’aawiyah and the Muslims refused
to make the killing of those in their hands from the hostages Halaal” and therefore supports that the
Sahaabah prohibited the killing of the hostages and not just agreed upon refraining from killing them, in
the case where their not making that Halaal means that they did not find the killing of them to be Halaal!
(1).

We now arrive to the third question:

3 - What if the Muslims were in a situation of compulsion and gave human hostages to the enemy
as part of a particular treaty. Then the term of the treaty came to an end and the enemy refused to
hand over the hostages to prevent the Muslims from undertaking Al-Jihaad upon their frontier?

Concerning this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), the following came stated in “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”:
“And if the term of the treaty passed and the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) said: If you fight against us, we
will kill your hostages, then there is no problem (Ba’s) in fighting them … Just like if they were to use
Muslim children as human shields, there is no problem in fighting them, and similarly if they held Muslim
prisoners and said: If you fight us we will kill the prisoners, there is no problem in fighting them ….
Similarly, if he (i.e. the Imaam) dispatched messengers to them for a need with the consent of the
messengers or without their consent, and then they (the enemy) detained them and said to the Muslims: If
you fight us we will kill your messengers or envoys, then there is no problem to fight them. This is
because none of that represents a betrayal of the Imaam to a Muslim people. Rather, it only represents a
Mazhlamah (injustice) perpetrated by the disbelievers against the Muslims. And fear from that does not
excuse the Muslims from fighting them” (2).

The concluding summary concerning this Mas’alah (issue) is that the Mas’alah of the enemy using
Muslims as human shields to prevent the Muslims from fighting against them applies upon it and we have
already examined this issue and the Shar’iyah Ijtihaadaat related to it. We will now move on to the next
question.

4 - What if the Muslims were compelled and provided human hostages as part of a particular
treaty and then the enemy threatened to kill the hostages if the Muslims undertook some
legitimate acts which the enemy deemed to be harmful to its interests?

[(1) Concerning this, there is a report attributed to Ahmad Bin Hanbal permitting the killing of the disbeliever hostages from
the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) if the people of war perpetrate betrayal and kill the Muslim hostages. Refer to “Al-Ahkaam As-
Sultaaniyah”, Al-Farraa’: p33 and “Al-Ahkaam us-Sultaaniyah”, Al-Maawardiy: p15, (2) “Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 5/1759-
1760].

Within the source which we are relying upon (i.e. Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer), there is an example of those
legally legitimate matters which the Muslims wish to undertake, which the people of war, at treaty with the
Muslims, consider to represent a threat to their interests, and as a consequence threaten to kill those
hostages they are holding, if the Muslims undertake that which they wanted to. In answer to this issue, the
following came stated:

“If some of the towns or cities of Shirk (i.e. disbelief) wish to be a Dhimmah to the Muslims whilst a King
who has a treaty with the Muslims dislikes that and as such says: “If you do that then we will kill your
hostages! Or enslave them! And if you don’t do that, then we will return your hostages to you”. The
Imaam of the Muslims examines that! Then if refraining from providing the Dhimmah until the hostages
have been taken or retrieved, then it is better for the Muslims to refrain from that! And if the acceptance
of the Dhimmah from those who requested it, is better, then the Imaam does that. That is because he is
an overseer for the Muslims and he chooses that which has the most evident benefit … However, the best
option is that he chooses that which includes the saving or rescuing of the Muslims from the hands of the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers). Do you not see that if the people of a town requested a Dhimmah from them
(i.e. the Muslims), then the king of the enemy said: If you refuse that request from them, then I will let
free your prisoners, but if you accept that (request) from them, I will kill your prisoners, then he (the
Imaam) selects that which is most beneficial for the Muslims. If saving or rescuing the prisoners is better,
he does that, and it represents the best of two angles! And if the acceptance of the Dhimmah from those
(requesting it) is better, due to what he sees from that in respect to the strength of the Muslims against
them, through the might of those who requested the Dhimmah! Then, the Imaam accepts the Dhimmah
from them and does not pay regard attention to the aspect of the prisoners! Do you not see, that if he
besieged the people of a great city and oversaw its conquest, then the king of the enemy said: Leave and in
return we will give you your prisoners who are held by us! Then, the Ameer examines that, and then does
what is best for the Muslims … And that is according to the same way mentioned above” (1).
The above then, represent some of the Masaa’il (Fiqhiy issues) related to the “Rahaa’in” which were
included in treaties contracted between the Muslims and between the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb, in some
circumstances …

We wanted, through addressing these issues and presenting the number of quotes which we did, even
though they have no reality in our current age, to examine an aspect of the circumstances and issues which
Al-Jihaad and relations of Muslims with others, in general, used to encounter …

[(1) “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/1760-1761].

That is whilst this presentation which we have presented for those issues is not completely free of benefit
related to the subject area of Al-Jihaad, and cases which the Muslims could encounter with the enemies, in
the current age.

With that we reach the end of the third study and consequently also reach the conclusion of the fifth
chapter which is the final chapter of the sixth volume of this Doctorate (PHD), which we dedicated to
addressing the subject area of the causes for the cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting) in Islaam.

Yes, indeed there remains from amongst the causes for the cessation of Al-Qitaal a sixth cause and that is
withdrawal from the battle and leaving the arena of the Qitaal (fighting and war), when the Maslahah
dictates that. However, we did not feel the need to dedicate a specific chapter to that as this Mas’alah has
been dealt with in previous studies when we discussed the issue of flight or fleeing from the battle,
breaking the siege of At-Taa’if and the withdrawal of Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed with the Muslim army from
the battle of “Mu’tah”. For that reason, we have seen no need to make this chapter longer to only repeat
that which has already been covered.

We will now move on, with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq, to the seventh and final volume of this
Doctorate (PHD).

[(1) As for what is connected to the subject of the “Rahaa’in” according to the modern customary usage, then we have
previously pointed out within the discussion of the first point of this study, that we had already addressed this subject within
the discussion of the second topic: “The style of kidnapping directed against the citizens of the hostile states and taking them as
hostages”. We became aware during the discussion of that topic that those whom it is valid to capture and imprison from those
hostages, are dealt with according to the treatment of the Asraa (prisoners of war) in respect to the Hukm (judgement or ruling)
to be applied upon them i.e. it is permissible to rule upon him according to one of the five options, in accordance to the
Maslahah (interest): Either he is killed, enslaved, released for free without receiving anything in return (Al-Mann), ransomed
(Al-Fidaa’) or the Imaam grants him subject status of the Islamic State”!. As for those whom it is not permitted to kidnap, take
or imprison, then taking him as a Raheenah (hostage), according to the modern custom, represents a legally illegitimate act …
That is as is clear from the details of the Ahkaam (rulings) related to this subject matter, as found in the discussion about the
types of people who are targeted to being kidnapped and taken as hostages. That is in the topic indicated to from p1792
onwards (in the original Arabic edition)].

Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal
 Fee
As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah
Doctorate About Al-Jihaad in the Early Period of Islam, the Islamic Fiqh and the
Current Era

Volume Seven
Al-Jihaad in the Current Age

Author:

Doctor Muhammad Khair Haikal

Lecturer in the Fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah and Comparative Fiqh of Family Law in the
Islamic University of Umm Durman (Damascus Branch) in the Department of Graduate Studies.

Volume Seven
Al-Jihaad in the Current Age

The intended purpose of this volume is to present something related to Al-Jihaad in the modern age
which we are living in. That is whether it is related to Al-Jihaad from a theoretical aspect, meaning what
has come in relation to its definition and thoughts which revolve around that within the Muslims’ and
non-Muslims’ writings, or related to Al-Jihaad in the modern age from the practical aspect, meaning that
which relates to the fighting activities within the reality of war.

It is true that many of the Masaa’il (issues) which can fall under this category or that, have already been
addressed within the previous studies, however, in this volume we wanted to stop or pause a little in
respect to some of those issues which we have not previously addressed. As for what we have already
addressed from these issues then we will not turn to that or if the matter dictates it, it will only be
addressed in a passing manner.

We will proceed in our addressing of this volume as follows:

The First Chapter: Al-Jihaad as found in theoretical studies:

The First Study: Al-Jihaad according to contemporary Muslim writers.

The Second Study: Al-Jihaad as found in the writings of non-Muslims and encyclopaedias.

The Second Chapter: Al-Jihaad in the reality of war:

The First Study: Military alliances where the Muslims participate in fighting alongside others against
other regions or lands.

The Second Study: Leasing military bases and airports, selling weapons and strategic materials, and the
provision of other forms of assistances.

The Third Study: Wars within the Islamic regions or lands amongst themselves.

- The First Topic: The Shar’iy regulation for wars between Islamic regions or lands.

- The Second Topic: The position of the non-combatant Muslims in respect to these wars.

- The Third Topic: The position of those forced or compelled to fight in respect to these wars.

The Fourth Study: The fighting or military organisations within the Islamic world.

- The First Topic: The theoretical bases upon which those organisations are built upon and the position
of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to them.

- The Second Topic: The different directions for financial, military and political support which the
organisations depend upon and the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to them.

- The Third Topic: Their types in respect to their fields of operations:

The First Branch: The border activities against the enemy.

The Second Branch: The guerrilla combat or commando (freedom fighter) activities against the enemy;
inside the occupied lands or the lands of the enemy.
The Third Branch: Activities inside the Islamic lands against the state or some of its factions.

- The Fourth Topic: Fighting between the organisations and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in
respect to that.

- The Fifth Topic: The position of the Muslims in respect to internal fighting between the organisations.
 The First Chapter
Al-Jihaad as found in theoretical studies

The First Study

Al-Jihaad according to contemporary Muslim writers
We will extend the discussion in this study as we have previously presented, within the third volume of
this paper (PhD), many extracts that have been brought by the writers and contemporary Islamic thinkers
related to the definition of Al-Jihaad and the Asbaab (causes) for its declaration … However, it could be
beneficial here to present other extracts concerning what has been written in relation to Al-Jihaad by the
thinkers and writers of the contemporary Muslims; whether this came in their Islamic writings or within
the general encyclopaedias which have been issued …. The purpose of that is to cover all of the points
which the chapter we are dealing with revolves around.

In this study we will briefly address two points:

1 - The First Point: Extracts related to what has been said concerning Al-Jihaad and its definition
amongst contemporary Muslims.

2 - The Second Point: A quick discussion of the previous extracts.

1 - The First Point: Extracts related to what has been said concerning Al-Jihaad and
its definition amongst contemporary Muslims.

A - Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy said: “If it is said that Islaam made war obligatory upon its Messenger and
the first Muslims to defend themselves and remove paganism or idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula, and
that it, due to it being a practical Deen which goes along with the Sunan (natural ways) of the existence
and human developments, made war permissible for its adherents if the necessity of Al-Ijtimaa’ (the right
to societal life) called for it, and remains calling for it …

[(1) p586-596 (Arabic print edition)].

… then that is correct and there is nothing to condemn in respect to it …” (1). The author then discusses
that the Jews engaged in war to safeguard their existence and for the purpose of extending its conquests
and that the Christians also engaged in Al-Qitaal (fighting and war) after it had a state adopting it under
the leadership of Constantinople to eradicate paganism from the Roman empire. Then when the Church
gained the temporal authority, it made war ones of its means … Then the author also spoke about the
human massacres which the followers of previous religions perpetrated in the name of religion and then
said: “And so Islaam is not unique, as you have seen, in respect to it being a Deen of war, according to the
meaning that we have mentioned. However, it was unique, as it is accustomed to, in respect to alleviating
these human massacres, to the possible minimum level, without undermining the wellbeing of the
territory. That is because it set limits for the war and stipulated conditions upon the fighters, all of which
built respect for human blood (i.e. life) and to work according to the most elevated manners of
compassion in respect to humanity. And it did not neglect, with that, to indicate to its adherents, that a
time could come in which war could be regarded to be from the barbaric means! That is when humanity
reaches a level of elevation which permits those who are disputing amongst each other to resolve their
disputes by way of adjudication, due to their abhorrence or feeling of disgust in respect to resorting to the
taking of human lives. They (i.e. the Muslims) are commanded to enter into such a new development and
respect the world opinion regarding it. He said:

ْ ‫اَو َت َو َّكلَْ َعلَىَاللَّـ ِهََۚإِ َّنهَُه ََُوَال َّسمِيع‬

َ‫َُال َعلِي ُم‬ َ ‫نَج َن ُحواَلِلس َّْل ِمَ َفاجْ َنحْ َلَ َه‬
َ ِ‫َوإ‬
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing
(Al-Anfaal: 61) (2).

The above is what Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy said.

B - Concerning the definition of Al-Jihaad, the following came stated in “Al-Mawrid” encyclopaedia:

“Al-Jihaad is a hold war, that is launched in the way of Allah, to expand the territory of the Diyaar (lands)
of Islaam or in defence of these lands, if an aggressor threatens them with aggression or actually engages
in an aggression against them. This war is obligatory upon the Muslims in numerous places in the Qur’aan
Al-Kareem …” (3).

C - In the “Al-Arabiyah Al-Muyassarah” encyclopaedia, concerning the definition of Al-Jihaad, the

following was stated:

“Jihaad: Repelling the enemies of Islaam to prevent the continuation of their aggression or assault. And so
it is not lawful except in defence and included within its forms is to attack the one who is preparing to
attack …

[(1) “Al-Islaam Deen ul-Hidaayah Wa l-Islaah” (Islaam the Deen of Guidance and Reform), Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy: p192,
(2) The same reference: p166. Also refer to the article of “Al-Jihaad” in “Daa’irat Ma’aarif Al-Qarn ul-‘Ishreen” also by
Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy: 3/255 onwards, Daar ul-Ma’rifah - Beirut - Lebanon, (3) “Mawsoo’ah (encyclopaedia) Al-Mawrid
Al-‘Arabiy”: 1/400 (Al-Ba’labkiy].

And the wars of the Muslims were undertaken upon (the basis) of inviting to Islaam or a treaty or fighting
… And it is Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency), for which the Ummah makes necessary
preparations, unless the enemy enters the lands of the Muslims, in which case it becomes Fard ‘Ain (a
duty upon every individual)” (1).

The above represents some of what has been written in relation to the definition of Al-Jihaad from the
Muslim writers and following that presentation we have concluded the first point …

2 - The Second Point: A quick discussion of the previous extracts.

- Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy limited the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah) of Al-Jihaad or Al-Harb (war) to
the following reasons (Asbaab):

A - Muslims defending themselves.

B - Removing idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula.
C - If the necessity of Al-Ijtimaa’ (the right to societal life) calls for war to be undertaken.

He then determined that if an age came in which the relations between the peoples and states developed
to the point where disputes between disputants were solved by adjudication and peaceful means, whilst
resorting to war to solve those disputes were regarded to be from among the barbaric means, then Islaam
commands its adherents to enter into such a new development and to respect the world opinion!

I say: The Mashroo’iyah (legal legitimacy or lawfulness) of Al-Jihaad to defend the Muslims represents a
matter that there is no difference of opinion or disagreement upon. The same applies in respect to
removing idolatry or paganism from the Arabian Peninsula and we have discussed some detail regarding
this last issue in the previous volume.

As for the legal legitimacy of undertaking Al-Jihaad if the necessity of Al-Ijtimaa’ calls to that or dictates
that, then the idea or thought in this expression of words is not defined because the terminology
“Daroorat ul-Ijtimaa’” (necessity of meeting) could possible restrict the lawfulness of Al-Jihaad to the
narrowest of limits which is defending Muslim in respect to the right in relation to societal life. That’s
even if the sovereignty within this societal life was for other than Islaam and the authority within it was in
the hands of the enemy, as long as the Muslims were not deprived of their right in respect to the societal
life, however that may be … Therefore, the necessity of Al-Ijtimaa’, here, does not call for the declaration
of Al-Jihaad against the enemy to remove the authority from him and to restore the weave of the societal
life by the threads of the Islamic systems.

[(1) “Al-Mawsoo’ah Al-‘Arabiyah Al-Muyassarah” (Simplified Arab Encyclopaedia), Overlooked by Muhammad Shafeeq
Gharbaal: p653].

It is also possible for it to be said regarding the concept or understanding of the terminology “Daroorat
ul-Ijtimaa’”, in its consideration as being a cause from among the causes of declaring Al-Jihaad in Islaam:
That the Deen is a societal necessity and that the Deen with Allah is Islaam because it is the last of the
divine messages sent to earth and through it, Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has abrogated all of the previous
religions … Due to this, Islaam, specifically, represents the societal necessity … Based upon that, the
societal necessity dictates that Islaam be the societal system which governs the human existence and as
such, Al-Jihaad is lawful and legally legitimate to accomplish and realise this societal necessity! In other
words: Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’ (lawful) to make the lands of the world ruled by the Islamic system and even
if the people or inhabitants of these lands did not enter Islaam, according to the details which have been
presented previously.

I say: The aforementioned terminology “Daroorat ul-Ijtimaa’” (Societal necessity), as being a cause from
among the causes of Al-Jihaad in Islaam, according to Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy, can possibly be
understood according to the two understandings mentioned above. The narrow understanding and the
wider understanding, so which of these did the author mean and intend?

The intention behind this question is not to provide an answer. Rather, the intention is to point out that
the expression used by the author is deficient in respect to defining the thought which he has adopted in
respect to Al-Jihaad. That’s even if it appears that he meant to say: That Al-Jihaad is lawful to defend the
life lived by the Muslims and the Islamic lands, in the case where the authority over them belongs to their
people.

We now come to the last issue related to the speech of Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy concerning Al-Jihaad.
This point is that Islaam commanded the Muslims to respect the world opinion in respect to considering
war as being barbaric if it is possible to resolve disputes between them and others by peaceful means.

Here we ask: If the Muslims came to have a major state, resumed their Islamic life and came to carry
Islaam to the world which represents the highest of its scales of priorities of its foreign policy …

In such a situation, if this state presented to the other peoples and nations for them to enter Islaam or to
provide loyalty and obedience to the Islamic system, even if they do not enter Islaam, as the Hukm Ash-
Shar’iy has stated, and then those peoples and states reject these two choices, in spite of utilising all
peaceful means with them to accomplish this objective, thus leading to a dispute between the Muslims and
others around this issue …

Would it then be barbaric, in such a situation, to declare Al-Jihaad against the non-Muslims so as to apply
the Islamic system over them? i.e. Is Al-Jihaad prohibited for the Muslims in the case where those peoples
and states have not initiated any aggression against the Muslims and no ban has been imposed upon the
Da’wah (invitation) to Islaam, although they have abstained from joining under the Islamic system?

What we understand from the speech of Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy is that: Yes, it is Haraam to undertake
Al-Jihaad in such circumstances and it would be barbaric and impressible to be resorted to …

It appears that what he intended by disputes which must be resolved by peaceful means, are those
disputes related to rights which are differed upon like the borders, water and river rights etc. Disputes
related to these matters should not lead to war for the sake of resolving them unless the state insisted
stubbornly and does not handover that right to its rightful people. Here, in this case, war is legitimate to
the level that restores the rights to its people alone and not beyond that … This is the understanding of
the disputes which must be resolved by peaceful means according to Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy, whilst
the refusal of other lands to provide loyalty to the Islamic State and abstaining from the application of the
Islamic system upon them, does not fall under the understanding of dispute which he has presented. This
is origin, as understood from the speech of Wajdiy, is not from the rights of the Muslims to demand from
others unless it was undertaken by means of offering or presentation alone, but not by way of imposition
or the use of force to implement it. Consequently, based upon this understanding, the rejection or refusal
of those peoples and states to provide loyalty to the Islamic system, must not be considered to be from
the matters of dispute in which Al-Jihaad is used to settle and resolve them, according to what the speech
of Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy dictates.

Concerning this, then we have already addressed and treated this Mas’alah (issue) in detail previously and
as such, we will not repeat what we have said here. In that prior study, we found the strongest opinion,
according to our understanding of the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences), to be that the Islamic State has the
right to declare Al-Jihaad against others in order to impose the Islamic system over them by force and
even if they have not aggressed against the Da’wah or the Muslims, when the Maslahah (interest) calls for
or dictates that and when the consequence of such a declaration does not bring harm as a consequence …
That is undertaken to raise the word of Allah the highest upon the earth and to free the deceived and
overcome peoples from the nightmare of the man-made and applied systems which lie, by deception or by
force, upon the breasts of the people, so that after that, they can enjoy the life under the Islamic system,
and then, whoever from amongst them wishes to believe, can do so, and whoever wishes to remain in
disbelief, can do so.

The above covers our commentary upon the speech of Muhammad Fareed Wajdiy.

- As for what came in the “Al-Mawrid” encyclopaedia, concerning the definition of Al-Jihaad, in that
it is a war in the way of Allah, undertaken to expand the land area of the Dityaar (lands) of Islaam, or in
defence of these lands, if an aggressor threatens them with an act of aggression or if it actually engages in
an act of aggression against them, then in respect to this definition, it is possible to accept it, upon the
consideration that it provides an understanding that Al-Jihaad is for the sake of presenting Islaam to the
other peoples and states, just as it is undertaken for the purpose of defence and repelling the aggression.
That is because the war in the way of Allah means, within its meaning, Al-Jihaad to raise high the word of
Allah i.e. it includes the removal of the material obstacles in terms of the entities and military forces which
obstruct the presentation of Islaam to the people or their turning to it, or prevent their living under the
system which it has come with … The natural consequence of that is then the expansion of the territory
of Daar ul-Islaam within which the sovereignty is to the Shar’a and the Sultaan (authority) belongs to the
Muslims … The definition in “Al-Mawrid” encyclopaedia also did not neglect to state that Al-Jihaad is
lawful as well in defence of Daar ul-Islaam and even if that defence was offensive i.e. to repel an expected
or anticipated aggression … However, despite that, we observe that this definition did neglect to include
the legal legitimacy or lawfulness (Mashroo’iyah) of Al-Jihaad to defend the Muslims in the case where
they are present or residing in other than Daar ul-Islaam, even though this case has been stated in the
Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ينَ َف َعلَ ْي ُك ُمَال َّنصْ رَُإِ َّالَ َعلَ ٰىَ َق ْو ٍمَََب ْي َن ُك ْم ََو َب ْي َنهُمَمِّي َثاق‬
ِ ‫ص ُرو ُك ْمَفِيَال ِّد‬
َ ‫َوإِ ِنَاسْ َتن‬
And if they seek support from you for the Deen, then you must provide support, except against a people between yourselves
and whom is a treaty (Al-Anfaal: 72).

Concerning this, we have already presented the details of this Aayah in respect to this Mas’alah (issue).

- As for the “Arabiyah Al-Muyassarah” encyclopaedia: It mentioned that Al-Jihaad is Mashroo’

(legally legitimate or lawful) to defend against the aggression and that includes the offensive defence. It
then mentioned that the wars of the Muslims were established upon the basis of Da’wah to Islaam, or the
making of a treaty or engagement in Al-Qitaal (fighting).

I say: If the intended meaning of the “Mu’aahadah” (treaty) mentioned here is the contract of Al-Jizyah
i.e. what this contract includes in terms the lands entering under the Islamic sovereignty and the people of
those lands entering amongst the numbers of the Islamic subjects, then that is in conformity with what
has come stated within the Shar’iyah texts, in relation to presenting three choices or options to the non-
Islamic lands: Al-Islaam (i.e. to accept Islaam and become Muslim), or the Jizyah, or war … If, however,
the intended meaning of “Al-Mu’aahadah” (the treaty) here was the foreign treaty i.e. the convening of
peace agreements or conventions or mutual non-aggression treaties, or something similar, with other
lands, without their joining to Daar ul-Islaam, then that is in conformity with the opinion that limits the
legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad to the case of defence alone … And this is, as it appears, what is intended in
the “Al-Arabiyah Al-Muyassarah” encyclopaedia, which is established by its statement in the definition of
Al-Jihaad: “And it is not lawful except for defence”. Therefore, Al-Jihaad which is undertaken for the
purpose or aim of reaching to the type of treaty which has been indicate to, is considered to be a kind
from among the kinds of defence, which means that Al-Jihaad is lawful against other peoples and states,
so that they submit to a peace treaty with the Islamic State, the consequence of which would be the
prevention of their aggression against the Muslims or against the Da’wah … The understanding of this is
that Al-Jihaad is not legitimate or lawful to make other peoples and nations join under the Islamic
sovereignty.

And as we have mentioned previously, we have already exhausted a detailed discussion in respect to this
Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), within the third chapter of this paper (or doctorate). However, this brief return to
the discussion here, is only for the purpose of covering all of the points which this final chapter of ours
revolves around.

Before departing from this current point of discussion, we would like to indicate that the word “Al-
Jihaad” in many of the contemporary writings has come to be used according to the meaning of “Al-
Juhood” (i.e. efforts) which are expended in the way of public good; whether that refers to efforts exerted
in respect to education, or efforts associated with exhortation and providing guidance, or efforts related to
the political work or action, or linked to the building of institutions which the masses of the Ummah can
obtain benefits from etc…

An example of this is what Abdur Rahman Ar-Raafi’iy mentioned in his biography of the Egyptian leader
Muhammad Fareed under the heading: “The Jihaad of the leader in the year 1909” (1). He mentioned that
included amongst the acts of Al-Jihaad of this leader, during the year indicated to, was that he directed his
political party “Al-Hizb ul-Wataniy” (National Party) in Egypt to “establish night schools for the people”
(2) just as he: “He concerned himself with the founding of trade unions for the labourers and factory
workers to raise their material state and morale. And so he established in Boulaaq, in the year 1909, the
first union for labourers in Egypt under the name of the union of factory labour workers” (3). Ar-Raafi’iy
also mentioned, as being included within the Jihaad of this leader, during that year as well: “The
accomplishment of a statue of Mustafaa Kaamil” (4). Concerning this Ar-Raafi’iy said the following:

[(1) “Batal Al-Kifaah, Ash-Shaheed Muhammad Fareed”, Abdur Rahman Ar-Raafi’iy: 69, (2) Same source: p71, (3) Same
source: p72, (4) Same source: p76].

“An article was published in some of the papers, in which its writer called to the abandonment of the
work on the statue because it, as he claims, means reviving idolatry. And so the one I am writing a
biography about (i.e. Muhammad Fareed) became resolved to put a stop to this wavering and saw the best
means to accomplish the statue was to form an executive committee concerned with the matter. The
executive committee promised him (Muhammad Fareed) that they would call one of the famous
sculptures in Europe to make the statue! And it advised the government to select the most suitable or
fitting place for the statue to be placed upon its arrival …” (1).

I say: The word “Al-Jihaad”, as I mentioned above, when used in respect to activities such as these, only
refers to the efforts expended for the public general well-being or benefit, according to the belief of the
one using this word! That is even if under this sublime word a lot of unworthy matters or activities have
been listed, on occasion, alongside those which are valuable! Therefore, the word “Al-Jihaad” here,
obviously does not mean the Shar’iy Jihaad or the Haqeeqiy (literal linguistic meaning), which is Al-Qitaal
against the enemies to raise the word of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla, high, and what is connected to this fighting
in terms of urging the Muslims to be regulated within the regiments of Al-Jihaad or to spend in its way, as
has been indicated to in the Hadeeth:

َ‫َبأَمْ َوالِ ُك ْم ََوأَ َنفُسِ ُك ْم ََوأَ ْلسِ َن ِت ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َجا ِه ُدواَالم ْش ِرك‬
ِ ‫ِين‬
Undertake Al-Jihaad against the Mushrikeen (i.e. disbelievers) with your properties (or wealth),
lives and tongues (2).
Concerning this, and also in relation to the usage of this word “Al-Jihaad”, according to the meaning of
efforts which have been expended for the public good, but in respect to a field which is blessed, which
there is no issue with, and that is the field of being occupied in providing Deeniy guidance and building
Islamic awareness amongst the ranks of the Muslims … Concerning this, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed
Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, in his book “Min Al-Fikr Wal l-Qalb”, within the context of calling the ‘Ulamaa of
the Muslims of Ash-Shaam to unify their ranks, expunge the disputes between them and engage in the
serious process of building or spreading Islamic awareness, stated the following: Has the time not come O
honourable notables, to close the book of clashing and disputing amongst yourselves … The eyes of the
people have become fixed, yearning for the day of you launching out (i.e. to engage in Islamic work) …

[(1) “Batal Al-Kifaah, Ash-Shaheed Muhammad Fareed”, Abdur Rahman Ar-Raafi’iy: 76, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2504, 3/16,
Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 6/7 with the wording “Wa Aydeekum” (And your hands) instead of “Anfusikum” (your lives”. And Al-
Albaaniy verified it as Saheeh in his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2186, 2/475 and his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 2991,
2/672. Ash-Sheikh Al-Arnaa’oot said: “Its Isnaad is strong and Ibn Hibbaan verified it as Saheeh: 168, Al-Haakim in his
Mustadrak: 2/81 verified it as Saheeh and Adh-Dhahabiy corroborated that. An-Nawawiy also classified it as Saheeh in Riyaad
As-Saaliheen” at the end of the chapter of Al-Jihaad”, “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: Al-Haashiyah (commentary): 2/565. Also, concerning
the meaning of Al-Jihaad by the tongue refer to: Sunan An-Nasaa’iy with the Sharh of As-Suyootiy: 6/7 and the Mukhtasar of
the Sunan of Abi Dawud by Al-Mundhiry: 2394, 3/366-367].

Their necks have become dry (or tired) as they are extended awaiting the hour of you Jihaad … So, when,
O honourable ‘Ulamaa’?! (i.e. when will that happen and when will you do that?)” (1).

Also inline with this application of the word of Al-Jihaad, according to the meaning of expending the
effort in respect to spreading Islamic awareness and what contains a Maslahah (interest and benefit) of the
Muslims amongst the Muslim masses, is what came stated in the book “Al-Mujaddidoon Fil Islaam”, by
Ash-Sheikh Al-Muta’aal As-Sa’eediy, within the context of his biography of Ash-Sheikh Muhammad
Abduh. He said: “He (i.e. Muhammad Abduh) then participated with his Ustaadh Jamaal ud-Deen is his
Jihaad! And so he began to call, alongside him, to reform, and to work to alert the Egyptians from their
heedlessness” (2).

It therefore appears that the insistence of some of the writers to use the word “Al-Jihaad” according to its
general meaning and not its specific meaning related to fighting, was only for the purpose of providing an
air of sacredness to the activity which they wanted to direct the masses to … And there is nothing
preventing that as long as the activity which is be called to, engages in that which contains goodness for
the people and for the Islamic Da’wah … Indeed, there good be instances within this usage of Al-Jihaad,
according to its general meaning, which surpass the instances of Al-Jihaad according to its specific Shar’iy
meaning … And there is good in all of this and Allah i Al-Muwaffiq.

We have now reached the end of this study and will move on to the second study with the help of Allah
and His Tawfeeq.

[(1) “Min Al-Fikr Wa-l-Qalb”, Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy: p270, (2) “Al-Mujaddidoon Fil Islaam”: Ash-
Sheikh Abdul Muta’aal As-Sa’eediy: p532. Also refer to the book “Al-Imaam Al-Bukhaariy”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-
Nadawiy, in the case where this author used the word “Al-Jihaad” when referring to the efforts of Al-Imaam Al-Bukhaariy
which he expended when compiling his book “As-Saheeh” and to the service he provided in respect to the Prophetic Hadeeth:
p93. This word “Al-Jihaad” was also used by the major Da’ee Abu l-Hasan An-Nadawiy in the introduction of this book when
referring to knowledge-based efforts: p5-7. Just as he used it is his beneficial book “What the world lost by the decline of the
Muslims”, with both its specific and general or metaphorical meanings: p98-99].
 The Second Study
Al-Jihaad as found in the writings of non-Muslims and encyclopaedias

We will address this study area through discussion centring upon two points:

1 - The First Point: Extracts related to Al-Jihaad as found within the writings and encyclopaedias of non-
Muslims.

2 - The Second Point: A quick discussion of the previous extracts.

1 - The First Point: Extracts related to Al-Jihaad as found within the writings and
encyclopaedias of non-Muslims.

A - Carl Brockelmann, under the heading or title of “Al-Jihaad” stated: “That waging war against non-
Muslims is a religious obligation. Concerning the idolaters, then they must be attacked without hesitation.
As for the Christians and Jews, then it is not permissible to attack them until they have been invited to
embrace Islaam and have refused three consecutive times. Even if the enemies of the religion were
defeated, the fate of their men would be death …” (1).

This is what Carl Brockelmann wrote concerning his understanding of Al-Jihaad.

B - Phillipe Fondasi, the Head of the French Fifth Office i.e. related to French spying interests, under the
title: “Holy War - Jihaad”, said the following about war in Islaam:

[(1) “The History of the Islamic Peoples”, Carl Brockelmann, translated by Nabeeh Ameen Faaris and Muneer Al-Ba’labkiy:
p78].
“It was sometimes a means resorted to by some of the Muslim conquerors or some of the Islamic states,
to wage war against the disbelievers or foreign control” (1).

C - Under the heading of “Al-Jihaad”, Dominique Sourdel stated:

“Jihaad is not a personal obligation but rather one of solidarity …. A set number of the individuals of the
Ummah undertake the Jihad against the polytheists neighbouring the land of Islaam. However, before
those fight, they invite to Islaam and then if they accept Islaam they enter into the collective of the
Ummah. Otherwise their lands are occupied by force or following surrender. In the first case: the head has
the absolute authority over the prisoners of war and in the second case: The Jews and the Christians, in
the description as being the people of the book, enjoy special privileges and it is permitted for them to
practise the rite of their religion on the condition that they pay the Jizyah. Some of the groups from this
category or faction were considered to be like some of the Indians pagans …” (2)

D - The following came mentioned within the encyclopaedia of Butrus Al-Bustaani:

“Al-Jihaad according to the terminological convention (Istilaah) of the Shar’a is: Fighting or waging war
against the one who is not Muslim and it is also known as Maghaazi. It holds a great merit for them to
expend the life in it and to ride the hardships and perils (associated with it). The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬made it come
in order of merit following the prayer and good obedient treatment of the two parents (Birr ul-
Waalidain)” … He then said: “It is expending the effort in the way of Allah; directly or by assistance
through money, opinion or increasing the numbers or other than that …” (3).

E - In the “Islamic Encyclopaedia” issued in the German, English and French languages and translated
into Arabic, which a number of orientalists participated in its editing, the following came under the
heading of “Al-Jihaad”:

“The spread of Islaam by the sword is Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency) upon all of the Muslims”.
It then stated: “The Makkiyah Suwar called to patience (and perseverance) in the face of aggression and
there was no way or option other than that. As for in Al-Madinah, then the right to repel the aggression
became clear and then that right came to dictate, step by step, that the Muslims fight the people of
Makkah, their enemies and subdue them …

[(1) “French colonialism in black Africa”: “Study about Islaam in black Africa”: p48. Published in Paris 1951, Daar ul-Fikr ul-
Islaamiy for authoring, translation and publishing, (2) “Al-Islaam”: Dominique Sourdel, translated by Dr. Khaleel Al-Jarr: p52-
53, (3) Encyclopaedia of Butrus Al-Bustaani: 6/572].

… It is doubtful that Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬saw that his situation dictated waging war against the disbelievers
in a continuous manner, without them instigating it against him, until they entered into Islaam! The
Ahaadeeth are explicit in this matter however the Aayaat of the Qur’aan talk continuously about the
disbelievers who must be subdued when it discusses the disbeliever aggressors. Then there is the story of
the writing of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the rulers of the surrounding lands, which makes clear that this stance in
respect to all of the people was upon his mind and pervaded it, even if the realisation of this developed
directly following his death when the Islamic armies marched armies outside of the Arabian Peninsula and
the Jihaad became Fard Kifaayah (an obligation of sufficiency) …. From there, the continuation of
undertaking the Jihaad until all of the people enter the rule of Islaam was obligatory …” (1).

Concerning the above speech, in the commentary of the encyclopaedia, Ash-Sheikh Ahmad Muhammad
Shaakir, commented with the following:

“It is understood that the writer of the article writes under the influence of his own belief in relation to
Islaam and the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. As for the Muslims and those who are fair minded, then if they
understood the Qur’aan according to its right understanding, were aware of the aims of Islaam and its
spirit, and studied the Sunnah of the Messenger and his Seerah, they would have known that the Islamic
legislation in respect to Al-Jihaad is a precise legislation and does not develop or improvise in respect to
opinion. Rather, it is only Wahy (divinely inspired revelation) from Allah, to make this Deen the Deen of
humanity as a whole and to make it prevail over all Deens (religions or ways of life), just as Allah
promised and what He promised will come to pass, and you will certain knows its news after a period of
time” (2).

The above is what came stated in the “Islamic Encyclopaedia” about Al-Jihaad concerning our subject
matter.

The above represents a small sample of what came from the orientalists and non-Muslims concerning the
subject area of Al-Jihaad whilst it is not our intended purpose here, of course, to delve deeply into this
area.

As such we end the discussion of the first point and now move on to the second.

[(1) “The Islamic Encyclopaedia”: 7/188-189. The author of this article of Al-Jihaad in the encyclopaedia was the orientalist
McDonald. Refer to: “Al-Jihaad and international rights”: Zhaafir Al-Qaasimiy: p212 and “The modern Islamic thought and its
connection to western colonialism”, Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiy: p547-548, (2) “The Islamic Encyclopaedia”: 7/189].

2 - The Second Point: A quick discussion of the previous extracts.

A - Carl Brockelmann:

1 - Carl Brocklemann was wrong in his differentiation between the idolaters and the people of the book in
respect to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to inviting them to Islaam before the engagement in the fighting.
That is because he said that the people of the book are not permitted to be attacked before the invitation
in contrast to the idolaters, in the case where it is obligatory to attack them without hesitation (or delay),
as he said i.e. without inviting them to Islaam, as is understood from the context of his speech.

I say: This speech is not correct because the Shar’iy text, in relation to the obligation of inviting to Islaam
before fighting, came in a general form encompassing all of the Mushrikeen and the idolaters
(Wathaniyoon) fall under their category just as the people of the book do. Indeed, it includes the
Wathaniyoon (idolaters) before others because they were the ones who were in the face of the military
expeditions when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬used to direct them to fight and he commanded them to call them to
Islaam prior to engaging them in that. The following was mentioned in the Hadeeth of Buraidah: “And if
you come across your enemy from the Mushrikeen, then call them to three options. Whichever
one they respond or accept to from them, accept it from them and refrain from them. Then call
(or invite) them to Islaam …” (1).

2 - Brockelmann mentioned concerning the disbeliever combatants, if defeated following the fighting (i.e.
when they fall under the grip of the Muslims), that their fate is that they be killed.

I say: We have previously mentioned, within the previous volume, concerning the fighters or combatants
who fall under the grip or hold of the Muslims, following their defeat in the fighting, that the person in
authority chooses between five rulings in respect to them, whilst it is not permissible for him to choose
any Hukm (ruling or verdict) from these five, except based upon the Maslahah that is evaluated to be
strongest. These (five) Ahkaam are: That they be killed, that they be enslaved, that they be let free without
receiving anything in return, that ransom be accepted for them or something similar to that, or that they
are granted the Islamic subject or citizen status, meaning that they are made to be from the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah and citizens of the Islamic State.
It is therefore not correct for their fate to be death alone. We also mentioned in the previous volume that
if a treaties or conventions are convened between the Muslims and others upon abstaining from some of
these options related to the verdict applicable to the prisoners of war or captives (Asraa), and those who
follow their ruling, like abstention from killing them or enslaving them, for example, then in such a case it
is obligatory for the Muslims to fulfil those treaties and be faithful to them.

[(1) Saheeh Muslim: 1731, 3/1357].

B - Phillipe Fondasi:

1 - Fondasi explained that Al-Jihaad used to be resorted to for one of two purposes:

The first purpose: To fight or wage war against the disbelievers. The second purpose: To fight or wage
war against foreign control.

I say: The reality is that these two purposes are from the cases in which Al-Jihaad is legally legitimate to be
undertaken in i.e. that Al-Jihaad has been made legally legitimate to fight the disbelievers for the sake of
applying the Islamic system upon them, if they refuse to enter into Islaam, just as it is legally legitimate to
fight against the disbelievers who are aggressing against the Muslims and the Muslim lands. It would have
been better for the writer to have explained the purpose at which the fighting ends and that is the entry of
the disbelievers into Islaam or their acceptance of the Islamic sovereignty (i.e. rule) and their entry into the
obedience of the Muslims.

C - Dominique Sourdel:

1 - This author means by his statement “That the Jihaad is not a personal obligation but rather one of
solidarity”, that Al-Jihaad is not a Fard ‘Ain but rather a Fard Kifaayah, as has been explained previously
within the explanation of the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad. We mentioned there that the Jihaad could be Fard
‘Ain, on occasions, in some of the cases, like when defending against the aggression if the matter
demanded the participation of all of the people of the region upon whom the aggression took place.

2 - The writer explained the ruling related to the Asraa (prisoners of war) as follows:

- If they fall under the hold of the Muslims following the defeat, then the Hukm (verdict) regarding them
returns to the head of the authority … Despite that, the writer did not explain that the head of authority is
restricted to one of the five options when passing judgment upon them, as mentioned previously. And
that this choice is also restricted by the Maslahah (interest) which is seen to be preponderant or strongest
resulting from the verdict that is chosen … That is if the prisoners of war fall into the hands of the
Muslims as a result of defeat befalling them.

- If, however, the disbelievers fall into the hands of the Muslims by their surrender to them, the writer
mentioned that if they were from the Ahl ul-Kitaab or those who are attached to them (i.e. in ruling) like
the Majoos, whom he referred to as being “some of the idolaters (Wathaniyeen) of the Indians”, then
these enjoy special privileges and it is permitted for them to practise the rights or practices of their
religions upon the condition that they give the Jizyah … It may be that the writer intends by the special
privileges their being pardoned from the punishment applied to the one who drinks alcohol and eats pork
amongst similar matters related to their non-abidance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah in specific areas
connected to foodstuffs, drinks, clothing and matters related to marriage … That is in the case where it is
permitted for the Ahl udh-Dhimmah of the citizens, in respect to these matters, to regulate them
according to the teachings of their religions.

However, the author limited the right, of those disbelievers who surrendered, to enjoy these privileges and
the practice of their specific religious rites, he limited this right to the Ahl ul-Kitaab (people of the book)
and those who follow their ruling in terms of the Majoos. It is consequently understood from this that if
those disbelievers who surrender to the Muslims were not from the people of the book or the Majoos,
they would not enjoy the right to these privileges and those practises. By that he means that it is not
accepted from them that they become Ahl udh-Dhimmah and indeed, that those have no option before
them except to accept Islaam or be killed … That is whilst we have already previously explained within
the previous volume that this was the opinion of a group of the Mujtahideen, although there is another
group among them who view that the door to enter into the Dhimmah and obtain citizenship of the
Islamic State is open to all categories of the disbelievers with their differences in religions and types. An
this is the opinion which we viewed to be the strongest in this Mas’alah (issue).

D - The “Encyclopaedia” of Butrus Al-Bustaaniy:

Al-Bustaaniy did not provide a specific conception of his about “Al-Jihaad” in Islaam. Rather, he only
transmitted that which came mentioned within the books of Islamic Fiqh concerning its definition and the
explanation of many of the Ahkaam related to Al-Jihaad (1).

E - “The Islamic Encyclopaedia” of the orientalists:

The encyclopaedia raises numerous issues. The most significant of which are the following:

1 - The spread of Islaam by the sword is Fard Kifaayah.

Many Islamic writers have responded or refuted this statement (2) and explained that Islaam rejects
coercing or forcing the people to become Muslims …

[(1) For the definition that Al-Bustaaniy presented refer to “Durr ul-Mukhtaar” and the Haashiyah
(commentary) of Ibn ‘Aabideen upon it: 3/336, (2) For example, refer to: “Abqariyah Muhammad”,
‘Abbaas Mahmoud Al-‘Aqqaad: p19 onwards, “Ash-Sharee’ah Al-Islaamiyah”, ‘Ali ‘Ali Mansoor: p243
onwards, “At-Tabsheer Wa l-Isti’maar”: Dr. Mustafaa Khaalidiy and Dr. ‘Umar Farrookh: p41-42, “Al-
Madrasah Al’Askariyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Muhammad Faraj: p99 onwards, “Minhaaj ul-Islaam Fil Harb Wa
s-Salaam”. ‘Uthmaan Jumu’ah Dameeriyah: p134, “Iftiraa’aat Hawla Ghaayaati l-Jihaad”, Dr. Muhammad
Na’eem Yaaseen: p11 onwards

… And they used as evidence concerning this His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َِّ‫ينََۖ َقدَ َّت َبي ََّنَالرُّ ْش ُدَم َِنَ ْال َغي‬

ِ ‫َالَإِ ْك َرا َهَفِيَال ِّد‬
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the Deen. The right course has become clear from the wrong (Al-Baqarah:
256).

My view in respect to this issue is: That this response is correct if the intended meaning of the statement
“spreading Islaam by the sword” is the coercing of the people to enter it. That is because Islaam does not
compel non-Muslims in origin or even the Arab idolaters to enter it. That which provokes or raises some
ambiguity in this subject matter are numerous issues. These are:

A - The issue of the “Wathaniyoon” (Idolaters) in general i.e. other than the Ahl ul-Kitaab and the
Majoos; whether Arab or non-Arab, according to the Shaafi’iyah and Hanaabilah, or Arab only according
to the Ahnaaf. It is legally legitimate to undertake Al-Jihaad against those Wathaniyoon (Idolaters) until
they enter Islaam and there is no other choice for them, according to those Fuqahaa’. Although other
Fuqahaa’ from the Maalikiyah viewed that they also have the option of entering into the Dhimmah
amongst other matters, the details of which were previously explained. However, even according to the
first Madh’hab (i.e. view or opinion), the Madh’hab of the Jumhoor (majority), where are those
Wathaniyoon whom the spread of Islaam happened amongst them by their entering it by way of the
sword? i.e. via force.

- As for the Arabs: They had the choice in respect to departing from the Arabian Peninsula according to
its Shar’a boundaries (Al-Hijaaz alone and close to that). And they were actually given the choice, as
previously explained, however they entered Islaam after that voluntarily. A group of them did actually
intend to leave the Jazeerat ul-‘Arab (Arabian Peninsula) or were riding on their way to leave it, but then
halted and thought deeply about the matter and were then guided by their thinking to return and enter the
new Deen … This is concerning the Arabs.

- As for the non-Arabs: Then what is famous and well-known in respect to the Islamic conquests is that
other than the Jews and Christians, were all considered to be from the Majoos and even the Berbers in
North Africa. The ruling of the Majoos was applied upon them and those who did not become Muslim
entered into the Dhimmah of the Muslims i.e. they became subjects of the Islamic State.

Concerning this, we have already discussed the opinion related to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue), in a
previous volume and therefore we will not repeat the opinion here.

B - The second issue which stirs some ambiguity in respect to the subject of coercing people to accept
Islaam, is the Mas’alah (issue) of compelling the Murtaddeen (apostates) to return back to Islaam. As
explained earlier, this represents a specific Hukm in relation to the apostates. Having said that, how many
apostates have there been during the whole Islamic history, who were compelled to return back to Islaam,
for it to be valid to then describe the wide movement related to the spread of Islaam, to be for the reason
of compelling the people to enter it? Even if some of the Arab tribes, in Al-Yamaamah and its like, were
compelled, following their apostacy, to return to the folds of Islaam, would the wide spread of Islaam to
the lands of Persia, Ash-Shaam, Egypt, Africa and other regions, also be considered to represent forcing
the people to embrace Islaam? Which logic what state that apart from the logic of those who are internally
biased and their minds defective? Then if we were to assume that those Arabs had not apostatised from
Islaam following the death of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬but rather stayed faithful and committed to their Islaam,
would that then make the spread of Islaam, in the view of the orientalists, a natural movement which had
no relationship to force in respect to its expansion? Is it not clear that the matter, in respect to those
orientalists, is only that they attach themselves with anything that they imagine could be used to distort the
amazing image which has become deeply-rooted within the minds and hearts of the masses about Islaam,
in respect to its representing a torrential force in itself which can not be stood against, because it
harmonises with the Fitrah (nature) of the human and his minds, due to what it contains of realism and
the Haqq (truth), and because it responds and meets all that which all the people aspire for, in terms of
justice which they were deprived of by the beliefs and systems that they had previously been living upon
or under?

C - The third Mas’alah (issue) in this subject area, is the matter of spreading Islaam by force or
compulsion. This relates to: If the decision was issued by the Islamic authority to kill the prisoners of war;
all of them or some of them, then in such a case, there would be no escape for those prisoners from death
apart from their entering into Islaam, according to the view of some of the Fuqahaa’. That is even if other
Fuqahaa’ have said that if the prisoners of war request to be granted citizenship or subject status of the
Islamic State, where they enter into the Dhimmah, that this also pardons them from death (i.e. when the
decision to kill them has been issued), as has been detailed in the previous volume. According to the first
view, the what seems to be apparent, is that this represents coercion or compulsion to embrace Islaam …
However, when scrutinised, as I see, this issue is not one of compulsion to enter Islaam, but it is rather
related to the implementation of the Hukm (ruling) issued in relation to the prisoners of war … If this
matter contains anything in respect to coercing or compulsion, then in reality, it represents compelling or
forcing a reality upon the Muslims and not upon the prisoners, where the killing is lifted from them if they
declare by their tongues the Kalimah (declaration) of Islaam, and then following that, the Muslims have
no right to say: This Islaam was only declared to save yourselves from being killed …

And we stated: It represents compelling or forcing a reality upon the Muslims. By that we mean making
the Muslim lift the killing of those prisoners of war who have declared their entry into Islaam … Despite
being compelled to do that, it is nevertheless the affair of Muslims to be overflowing in joy to lift the
killing of those prisoners due to their declaration of Islaam, and not to feel the feelings of someone who
has been compelled to do something that they didn’t want to do!

In relation to this, it is observable that when enemies fall into the grasp or hold of the non-Muslims and
then they pass judgement upon them that they be killed, the declaration of those enemies to enter into the
religion of the victors (or captors), in most cases, would not change anything in respect to the verdict that
had been issued or passed upon them … Therefore, when Islaam lifts the judgement of death from the
prisoners as a result of their entry into Islaam, that falls under the mercy of Islaam in respect to the Hukm
(verdict) passed upon those who have fallen into their captivity as prisoners, whilst it does not fall under
the category of them being forced or compelled and then entering it.

I say: This applies if the intended meaning of “spreading Islam by the sword” was that the spread of
Islaam only occurred by forcing the people to enter it.

If, however, the intended meaning of this statement, was that the Muslim utilise the sword (i.e. force) to
remove the obstacles which prevent or stand in the way of people entering Islaam voluntarily, or to
remove the obstacles which do not encourage the entry into it i.e. the removal of the entities and
authorities which reject or refuse to submit to the Islamic authority … and then the Muslims assume that
authority and enable the non-Muslims to live under the shade of the Islamic system, then witness the
good qualities of Islaam, consequently desire to embrace it and then the spread of Islaam takes place
amongst the masses as a result of that … then in such a case, the sword (or force) which assumed the
authority and established the Islamic rule, was the cause, not in respect to compelling the people to
embrace Islaam, but rather to make the people see the true reality of Islaam and then enter it willingly and
out of longing.

I say: If the intended meaning of the statement of “spreading Islaam by the sword” is this, then there is no
fault in it, even if this selected wording to describe this reality contains vagueness and ambiguity, which
lead to understanding the opposite of the true reality and hence contains a distortion of the image of Al-
Jihaad in Islaam … This is what many of the orientalists deliberately sought to do and accomplish by
using these types of expressions and wordings, even if they were aware of the truth and knew the correct
way of expressing that. However, they did not do that because their intended aim was to distort the image
of Islaam and not to clarify its true image amongst the people of their nations and amongst those from the
Muslims who eat from their polluted dining tables; those who have been deceived or dazzled by them, or
those who are guided by personal interests.

2 - The “Islamic Encyclopaedia” also raised the issue of the development of the purpose of Al-Jihaad. It
claimed, as can be understood from its speech, that the Qur’anic Aayaat restricted the legal legitimacy of
Al-Jihaad, in respect to fighting the disbelievers, to the condition that they be aggressors … However,
(according to it) the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬later viewed that the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad be extended to cover all
the disbelievers i.e. even if they did not initiate any aggression. The letters sent by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬to the
kings and rulers inviting them to Islaam reflects this new stance or position … That was followed by the
advance of the Islamic armies directly following his death ‫ﷺ‬, beyond the Arabian Peninsula,
embodying that new development or newly adopted position.

This is what is understood from “The Islamic Encyclopaedia” and this encyclopaedia wants, from this
speech, to give the impression that the legal legitimacy of Al-Jihaad, in the Qur’aan, is restricted to defence
alone. However, when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬subdued his aggressor opponents, his ambition drove him to
subdue all of the disbelievers and even if they were not aggressors …. He therefore made from the legal
legitimacy of Al-Jihaad, the fighting of the disbelievers in general to make them submit to the ruling of
Islaam and that this was accomplished, in practise, during the time of the Sahaabah after complete control
was spread over the Arabian Peninsula.

In response to this speech I say:

If we were to assume, for argument’s sake, the absence of Quranic texts making from the legal legitimacy
of Al-Jihaad, the fighting of the disbelievers in an unrestricted (Mutlaq) form, even if they were not
aggressors, for the purpose of applying the Islamic system over them … If we were to assume that, then
the Sunnah of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, which has come in respect to the lawfulness of Al-Jihaad against all of the
disbelievers, without stipulating that they aggress against the Muslims, is sufficient to make that from the
lawful objectives of Al-Jihaad in Islaam, just as if the text had come from the Qur’aan. That is because
that which came via the path of the Sunnah Al-Qawliyah (spoken Sunnah), the ‘Amaliyah (practical
Sunnah) and the Taqreeriyah (approved of Sunnah by way of silence or consent), is just like if the text for
it had come mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem:

ْ ‫َو َماَََينطِ ُقَ َع ِن‬

َ ‫﴾َإِنْ َه َُوَإِ َّال ََوحْ يَي‬٣﴿َ‫َال َه َو ٰى‬
َ‫ُوح ٰى‬
Nor does he speak from [his own] desire (or whim). It is not but a divinely inspired revelation that is revealed (An-Najm: 3-
4).

The matter is therefore not dependent upon a development which was motivated by the personal
ambition of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬after the circumstances permitted that for him. This matter, in reality, is related
to the Aqeedah (belief) of the writer of this study or section in the encyclopaedia who is not Muslim. He
therefore stated what his imagination deluded him to or led him to perceive, or his biased Nafs adorned
for him. This is what Ash-Sheikh Ahmad Shaakir was indicating to within his comment which we quoted
previously, in relation to what came mentioned within the encyclopaedia.

Solving this knot or problem amongst the non-Muslims would not occur by providing arguments to
refute their opinion in respect to this subject matter itself. Rather, it would only occur via an examination
of the Aqeedah from the basis and an examination of the correctness of the Prophethood of Muhammad
‫ … ﷺ‬Otherwise, discussing with them, removed from establishing this Prophethood, would be futile
(1). In addition, in reality, many texts within the Qur’aan Al-Kareem have come calling to Al-Jihaad
against the disbelievers in an absolute or unrestricted (Mutlaq) form, without that lawfulness or legal
legitimacy being restricted to those being fought against being aggressors. That is like His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ‫ِين‬
َ ‫ونَد‬ َ ‫َُو َرسُولُه‬
َ ‫َُو َالَ َيدِي ُن‬ َ ‫اَحرَّ َمَاللَّـه‬
َ ‫ُونَ َم‬ ْ ‫َِو َالَ ِب ْال َي ْوم‬
َ ‫َاْلخ ِِر ََو َالَي َُحرِّ م‬ َ ‫َبالَلَّـه‬ َ ‫َالَي ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
ِ ‫ون‬ َ ‫َقا ِتلُواَالَّذ‬
َ ‫ِين‬
ِ
ََ ‫صاغِ ر‬
‫ُون‬ َ َ‫ٍَو ُه ْم‬ ْ ‫ط‬
َ ‫واَال ِج ْز َي َةَ َعنَ َيد‬ ُ ْ‫َح َّت ٰىَيُع‬
َ ‫اب‬ ْ ‫ِينَأُو ُت‬
َ ‫واَال ِك َت‬ َ ‫ْال َح ِّقَم َِنَالَّذ‬
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are subdued (At-Taubah: 29).

In this way, the false claim of the encyclopaedia stating that: “The Aayaat of the Qur’aan always discuss
fighting the disbelievers who must be subdued to the case where they are disbelieving aggressors only”, is
refuted.

3 - Finally, the “Islamic Encyclopaedia” (compiled by the orientalists) mentioned that Islaam obliges “The
continuation of Al-Jihaad until all of the people (or mankind) enter into the ruling of Islaam”.
This statement is correct, as long as it is possible to accomplish something of this aim, without that
resulting in harms which are seen to be most likely to result from that. That is because the original aim or
purpose from undertaking Al-Jihaad is to enter all of mankind into the rule of Islaam i.e. to grant them
subject status or citizenship of the Islamic State and to apply the Islamic system upon them, so that they
can realise through that, the true reality of Islaam in practice and then incline towards it or desire to
embrace it … That is whilst the aim or purpose of Al-Jihaad is not to enter them into Islaam by force …
In this way, it becomes evidently clear that the spread of Islaam by the sword, according to the meaning of
coercing or forcing the people to enter it, has no reality to it in origin.

Therefore, concerning the use of force in Islaam so that the people live under the shade of the Islamic
system, so that they can regard its greatness and qualities, in respect to its fulfilment of the needs of the
human and its solving of problems, and so that they are made citizens within the Islamic state, where they
have the same rights and obligations of the Muslims, even if they do not believe in Islaam, but merely live
under its system alone …

[(1) This does not prevent responding to them is respect to their opinions concerning Al-Jihaad and other opinions. That is for
the purpose of making clear that their forgery and falsifying of the true realities will not pass or be accepted with ease amongst
the Muslims and for the purpose of exposing their misguided and deceitful approach when addressing the Islamic issues, to the
Muslims or non-Muslims who read from them, so that they are not fooled or deceived by them, and so that they can become
aware that they are not trustworthy in respect to what they write about Islaam, and that they should instead refer back to the
authentic sources related to this area].

I say: The utilisation of force in Islaam for this purpose, is more noble and honourable in respect to the
human, by every measure, amongst all peoples, than the utilisation of the major colonialist powers in these
days, of force to subjugate the weak and afflicted peoples to make them submit to living under the system
that they enforce upon them … Then after that, they declare with complete boastfulness and in a
shameless and insolent manner, that they wish, through that, to establish a just safe system, where these
peoples live in security and safety under it! That is whilst the truth of the matter, is that they strive to
shackle those peoples by that system or regime which they have imposed upon them, so that they do not
mobilise to prevent those colonialist states from plundering their resources and taking control over and
seizing their natural resources (1), and live according to the system which their Deen has obligated.

From the underhandedness and repulsiveness of these colonialist states, in this regard, is their claim that
the majority of the states of the world support them in respect to what they want, even though the sword
of instilling terror and fear and the gold of enticement, represent the two matters which motivate most of
those states to give that phoney support … falling under this category, is that support which they receive
from the corrupt band which colonialism itself placed in the position to suffocate their peoples in order to
exploit them for their purposes and satisfy the covetous greed.

The above, therefore, represents in brief, some of what non-Muslims have mentioned regarding Al-Jihaad
and the Masaa’il (issues) around that, which we viewed necessary to be discussed.

With that we come to the end of this second study of this chapter and now move on, by the help of Allah
and His Tawfeeq, to the second chapter.

[(1) In the Syrian magazine “Al-Fikr ul-‘Askariy”, in respect to the discussion about the new world order, which includes the
security arrangements of peoples of the poor states, the following was stated: “… So will this system merely mean taking the
side of the rich and powerful states against the poor states? And will it be a new form of colonisation? And if it is like that, the
will that mean the return to colonial competition? Or will it take the form of a union to monopolise the natural resources of the
world and divide them, redistributing them in a collective fashion to guarantee the interests of the rich and powerful states, in
the first degree?”: p25, from the article: “Al-Madhaahib Al-‘Askariyah Wa t-Tuqaanah”, Bassaam Al-‘Asaliy: “Al-Fikr ul-
‘Askariy”: Issue: Sha’baan-Ramadhaan 1411 AH, Mrach 1991, issue number 2, 19th year].
 The Second Chapter
Al-Jihaad in the reality of war: “In the Modern Age”

The intended purpose of this chapter is not to deal with all that falls under this heading or the heading of
the studies and issues included within them, in an exhaustive manner. If that was the intention, then that
would have dictated that we write an independent paper (PhD). That is whilst, in this chapter, we are
walking our final steps towards the conclusion of this (PhD) paper. As such, we will address the presented
issues which we will come across in a manner that is restricted to explaining the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah of
the most significant matters connected to war and Al-Qitaal (fighting), within this current age that we are
living in.

As mentioned at the beginning of this volume, this chapter will be divided into the following four studies:

The First Study: Military alliances where the Muslims participate in fighting alongside others against
other regions or lands.

The Second Study: Leasing military bases and airports, selling weapons and strategic materials, and the
provision of other forms of assistances.

The Third Study: Wars between the Islamic regions or lands.

The Fourth Study: The fighting or military organisations within the Islamic world

We will now, by the help and Tawfeeq of Allah, proceed to address the first study.

The First Study

 Military alliances where the Muslims participate in fighting alongside others against other regions or
lands

We will address this study by discussing the following Masaa’il (issues):

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are military alliances? And What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to
Muslims being linked to other states within these alliances?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Concerning the military alliance which allows for or provides the
justification for war to be declared against Islamic regions or provinces, is it permissible for the Muslims
to enter it?

The Third Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for the Muslims to enter a military alliance which restricts
the legality of declaring war to non-Islamic regions?

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are military alliances? And What is the Hukm
Ash-Shar’iy in respect to Muslims being linked to other states within these
alliances?

Firstly: What are military alliances?

The following was stated in (the dictionary) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: “The Hilf (alliance): It is the ‘Ahd
(covenant or treaty) between the people. He “Haalafahu” means he “‘Aahadahu”, and “Tahaalafuoo” is
the same as “Ta’aahadoo” (i.e. they may an alliance or treaty with each other) …” (1).

And it was stated in (the dictionary) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: “And Al-Haleef (ally) is: Al-Mu’aahid (one
under treaty). It is said: Tahaalafaa (they (two) allied with each other) when they Ta’aahadaa (they both
made a treaty with each other) and made a mutual contract between them both that their affair would be
one (i.e. it would be joint together) in respect to An0Nusrah (support) and Al-Himaayah (protection)” (2).

[(1) “Mukhtaar us-Sihhaah”: p125, (2) “Al-Misbaah ul-Muneer”: p56].

The above represents what has been mentioned in a general manner about the meaning of “Al-Hilf” (the
alliance).

As for what military alliances are according to its modern day or contemporary understanding?

Then Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy stated the following when discussing its definition:

“Military alliances: They are agreements which are contracted between two states or more, which make
their armies fight together against a shared or joint enemy, or make military information and war
machinery exchanged between the them, or if one of them falls into war, they consult for the other to
enter alongside it or to not enter it according to the Maslahah which they both view …” He then said:
“And all of these alliances, whether they were bilateral treaties or multilateral, makes it inevitable that the
army fights alongside its ally to defend it and its entity, whether the alliance had many leaders or a single
leadership …” (1). This then represents the reality of military alliances according to the well-known or
widespread meaning in our current day.

Secondly: What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to Muslims being linked to other states
within these alliances?
Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy, following his preceding definition of military alliances, said the following
in respect to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy related to Muslims being linked with other states within these
alliances: “These alliances are Baatil (invalid) from their basis and are not contracted accorded to the
Shar’a and the Ummah is not bound by them and even if the Khalifah of the Muslims contracted them,
because they contravene the Shar’a …” He then explained the angle of the contravention of the Shar’a
with its Daleel, saying: “The Nahy (forbiddance) has come stated within the Saheeh Hadeeth concerning
the Qitaal (fighting) undertaken under the banner (Raayah) of the disbelievers and under their command.
Ahmad and An-Nasaa’iy recorded from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ‫ِين‬ ْ ‫ار‬
َ ‫َال ُم ْش ِرك‬ ِ ‫الََ َتسْ َتضِ ي ُئ‬
ِ ‫واَب َن‬
Do not seek light with the fire of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) (2).

Which means do not make the fire of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) a light for you. The “Naar” (fire) is a
metaphor for “Al-Harb” (war). And it is said: “Awqada Naara Al-Harb” (Kindled the fire of war)
meaning: “Awjada Sharrahaa Wa Hayyajahaa” (brought its spark into existence and inflamed it) …

[(1) Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/184-185 (Note: It is now volume 2 and not
3). Refer also to: “At-Tawaazun Al-Istraateejiy”, Bassaam Al--‘Asaliy: p218 and “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”: p27, (2) Musnad
Ahmad: 3/99 and Sunan An-Nasaa’iy: 8/177].

“Naaru t-Tahweel” means: It is the fire which the Arabs in Jaahiliyah used to kindle at the time of making
alliances (1). And the Hadeeth is metaphorically speaking about the war undertaken with the Mushrikeen
and taking their opinion. The Nahy (forbiddance) of undertaking war with the Mushrikeen is therefore
understood …” (2).

In summary, based upon what Ash-Sheikh An-Nabhaaniy stated regarding military alliances in addition to
their Hukm (3) and that which I view in relation to this Mas’alah, is that the deduction of the Hukm Ash-
Shar’iy in respect to Muslims entering these military alliances with other states, rests upon the following:

A - Is there a Saheeh Shar’iy text indicating with a clear Dalaalah (indication) to the Tahreem (prohibition)
of Muslims entering a military alliance with non-Islamic states, in an absolute (Mutlaq) manner?

B - What is the general Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) which the issue of military alliances with non-
Muslims, falls under?

Let us now examine these two points:

A - The First Point: Is there a Saheeh Shar’iy text indicating with a clear Dalaalah (indication) to the
Tahreem (prohibition) of Muslims entering a military alliance with non-Islamic states, in an absolute
(Mutlaq) manner?

We have become aware, from what was quoted above, that Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy,
deduced the Tahreem (prohibition) of entering military alliances with the non-Muslims, based upon the
Hadeeth recorded by Ahmad and Nasaa’iy, which he said is a Saheeh Hadeeth. It is that Anas said: The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Do not seek light with the fire of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers)”.
The Sheikh commented upon the Hadeeth saying: “i.e. do not make the fire of the Mushrikeen
(disbelievers) a light for you and that the Naar (fire) is a metaphor for war …”. I say: It is good here to
quote what has been mentioned by the Shurraah (explainers of the meanings of the Hadeeth) concerning
this Hadeeth and then explain its level in terms of it being authentic or not.
[(1) I say: According to Ath-Tha’aalibiy in his “Thimaar ul-Quloob Fi l-Mudaafi Wa -l-Mansoob”: “Naaru t-Tahweel means: It
was the custom to light or kindle a fire to scare away the lions as they fear it. And when the lion spots a fire it stares at it and
looks attentively at it, which often preoccupies it away from the main frequented paths or roads!”: p579. Having said that, the
fire which is lit or kindled at the time of making alliances was called “Naar ul-Hilf” (Fire of alliance). Refer to the same source
“Thimar ul-Quloob”: p577, (2) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy: 3/185 (Note:
Volume 2 now), (3) It is possible to read the speech of the Sheikh in its whole length in the paper or dissertation of the
colleague Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan: “Al-‘Alaaqaat Ad-Dawliyah”: p354-355 under the heading: “Al-Mu’aahadaat Al-
Mahzhoorah” (The prohibited alliances)].

- Al-Imaam As-Sindiy said: “Concerning his Qawl (statement: “Do not seek light with the fire of the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers)” it means: Do not approach or drawn near or close to them … And it is said:
The intended meaning of “Naar” (fire) here is: The opinion i.e. do not consult them so as to make the
opinion like a light at the time of perplexity” (1).

- Similar to this was found mentioned in the Sharh (explanation) of Al-Imaam As-Suyootiy of the Sunan
of An-Nasaa’iy. He said: “Concerning: “Do not seek light with the fire of the Mushrikeen
(disbelievers)”. It was stated in “An-Nihaayah”: The intended meaning of “An-Naar” (fire) here is: Ar-
Ra’y (the opinion) i.e. do not consult them. The opinion was made to resemble the light at the time of
perplexity” (2).

- And in “Jaami’ ul-Usool” by Ibn ul-Atheer, who is also the author of “An-Nihaayah”, he said:
Concerning: “Do not seek light with the fire of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers)” it means: Do not
consult them and do not work according to their opinions. Therefore (metaphoric) resemblance was made
to the taking of their opinion and acting by it, with seeking light by fire” (3).

- Similar to that came mentioned in “Al-Majaazaat An-Nabawiyah” by Ash-Shareef Ar-Radiy. He said:

“Concerning his statement ‫ﷺ‬: “Do not seek light with the fire of the people of Shirk
(disbelievers)”, then it is said: That the intended meaning is that you should not consult them in respect
to your affairs and then act in accordance to their opinions and hence refer to their statements or opinions
… Resemblance was made between seeking guidance or direction via their opinion, with seeking light
from fire, in the case where one is like the other in terms of making clear the obscurity and lightening the
dark” (4).

The above is what has been said concerning the explanation of the Hadeeth. The summary of which is:

That the Nahy (forbiddance) of seeking light with or by the fire of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers), either
means the forbiddance of getting close to them; the intended meaning of which is the forbiddance of
residing in lands of Kufr (disbelief), by undertaking a Hijrah to it from Daar ul-Islaam, or it means the
forbiddance according to the meaning of deterring the consultation of non-Muslims in addition to a
warning about acting according to what they have directed to, in respect to their consultation.

- As for the first meaning, which is the forbiddance of residing in the lands of disbelief and seeking to
make Hijrah from Daar ul-Islaam to it, then we have previously discussed the details of this Mas’alah
(issue) and explained in detail that there are cases in which it is obligatory to make Hijrah, cases in which it
is permissible to undertake Hijrah (migration) and cases in which the Hijrah is Haraam (prohibited) and is
obligatory to reside in Daar ul-Kufr, amongst other details of Ahkaam related to different conditions and
circumstances, which we mentioned, just as we indicated to the different evidences which indicate to
those Ahkaam.

[(1) “Haashiyah As-Sindiy ‘Alaa Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”: 8/177, (2) Sunan An-Nasaa’iy, “Sharh Al-Imaam As-Suyootiy”: 877 and
refer to “An-Nihaayah”, Ibn ul-Atheer: 3/105, (3) Jaami’ ul-Usool: 4/711, (4) “Al-Majaazaat An-Nabawiyah”, Ash-Shareef Ar-
Radiy: p181-182].
- As for the second meaning provided for the Hadeeth, which is the Nahy (forbiddance) to consult the
non-Muslims and the Nahy (forbiddance) to act in accordance to their opinions or views, the this, as is
clear, is not to be understand in an absolute or unrestricted manner. That is because the Hikmah (wisdom)
is the guide of the believer, wherever he finds it then he should take it and whatever vessel it (the wisdom)
came from does not harm him (1), after it has been confirmed for him that it is a correct wisdom and that
there is no harm or deception in it … In addition, there is the generality of His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

َ ‫َالَ َتعْ لَم‬

َ‫ُون‬ ِّ ‫َفاسْ أَلُواَأَهْ َل‬
َ ‫َالذ ْك ِرَإِنَ ُكن ُت ْم‬
So ask the people of the Dhikr if you do not know (2).

This indicates that the people of knowledge in respect to a matter, even if they were non-Muslims,
represent a source that is referred back to, in that matter which they have knowledge about and are
experts in it … Therefore, there is no harm or sin in consulting them in respect to that which they
specialise in … The believer, after that, as is his affair, is a Kayyis Fatin (3), who is aware of the
consultation that benefits him and so acts by it, and he is aware of that which is intended to deceive him
and entangle him and so keeps clear of that.

Based upon this, if the meaning of the Hadeeth “Do not seek light with the fire of the people of Shirk
(disbelievers)” was the Nahy (forbiddance) of residing in Daar ul-Kufr (the non-Islamic lands) then it
has no relationship to the Mas’alah (issue) of military alliances which we are addressing. And if its meaning
was the forbiddance of consulting the non-Muslim, then that does fall under this Mas’alah (issue). That is
because consultation between the allies is dictated by the military alliances. Otherwise, as we have stated, it
does not indicate to warning against consulting them in an absolute and unrestricted manner, but rather is
specific to the warning of that which leads to harm in relation to this matter. As for that which
accomplishes a benefit, then it is required of the Muslim to take hold of it and do so eagerly, just as has
been indicated o within the generality of the statement of the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬: “Guard with great concern
that which benefits you, seek help of Allah and do not give up …” (4).

Therefore, the Hadeeth which we are dealing with, according to what has been mentioned by the
explainers of the Hadeeth, does not address the issue of the entry of Muslims alongside others into
military alliances, except from the angle of such alliances including the matter of consultation, whilst we
have become aware of that which has been warned about in relation to that angle as well.

[(1) This statement has been reported as being from the Prophetic Ahaadeeth (“The Hikmah is the Daallah (guide) of the
believer”, however it is not affirmed (i.e. Saheeh), even if its meaning is correct. For details of its Isnaad refer to: “Al-Maqaasid
Al-Hasanah”, As-Sakhaawiy: p191-192, (2) Soorah An-Nahl: 43 and Al-Anbiyaa’: 7. Refer also to “Tafseer Al-Aalousiy”: 17/12-
13, (3) The statement “Al-Mu’min Kayyis Fatin, Hadhir” has also not been affirmed to be from the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. Refer to
“Musnad Ash-Shihaab”, Al-Qudaa’iy: 1/108, (4) Saheeh Muslim: 4664, 4/2052].

Yes, it is true that the “Naar” (fire) mentioned in the Hadeeth could be a metaphor for “Al-Harb” (war)
just as it could be a metaphor for the military alliance.

- Ash-Shareef Ar-Radiy, when discussing this Hadeeth, said: “… “They should not see each other’s
fires” (1) i.e. the Muslim and the Kaafir. The explanation is that this Hadeeth has two points of view in
respect to what is intended from it. He said: “The first view: That the intended meaning is that the Muslim
should not live with the Mushrik within his land … The second view is: That the intended meaning of the
fire here, is the Naar (fire) of the Harb (war) because they used to use fire as a metaphor to mean war.
Upon this meaning the following Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa was revealed:

‫ُكلَّ َماَأَ ْو َق ُدواَ َناراَلِّ ْل َحرْ بَِأَ ْط َفأ َ َهاَاللَّـ َُه‬

Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it (Al-Maa’idah: 64) (2)”.
This is in respect to relates to the bringing of the fire according to the meaning of the metaphor for war.

As for its meaning being a metaphor for the “Hilf” (alliance), then the following was stated by Ath-
Tha’aalibiy:

“Naar ul-Hilf (The fire of the alliance): This is what the Arabs used to alight or kindle in respect to the
alliances and so they would not convene their alliance except by it (i.e. the fire) and they would mention
by it its terms and supplicate to Allah against the one who breaks the covenant in that they be deprived of
its benefits. They also approach it to the point that it is nearly burning them and exaggerate the affair in
respect to it” (3).

I say: If we were to understand the Shar’iy text “Do not seek light with the fire of the people of Shirk
(disbelievers)” according to the meaning of the “Fire of war”, the meaning would then be: “Do not
request from the army of the disbelievers to protect you from your enemies and adversaries, in defence of
you.

And if we were to understand this text according to the meaning of the military alliance, its meaning
would be:

“Do not enter a military alliance with the disbelievers i.e. seek to be protected by it from the enemies and
the adversaries.

[(1) Sunan Abu Dawud: 2645 and its text is: “I am free of any Muslim who resides between the backs of the Mushrikeen”. They
said: “O Messenger of Allah, why?” He said: “They should not se each other’s fires”: 3/62. Al-Albaaniy verified it as Saheeh in
his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2304, 2/502, (2) “Al-Majaazaat An-Nabawiyah”, Ash-Shareef Ar-Radiy: p180, (4) “Thimaar
ul-Quloob Fil Mudaaf Wa l-Mansoob”, Ath-Tha’aalibiy: p577].

The end result of both meanings is actually one meaning and what is meant is: “Do not rely upon the
Kuffaar (disbelievers) in respect to your security arrangements and the defence of your homelands …
Rather, your dependence here should be upon your own self-produced forces or strengths and capabilities
…

It is worth observing that the expression: “Do not seek light …” indicates that the Nahy (forbiddance) in
the text is only relates to the situation in which the Muslims are the weak side seeking light which is
seeking light from others; whether that was the light of the fire of war to fight in defence of them! Or the
light of the fire of the alliance, through a military alliance with the one who declares the provision of its
protection upon them!

As such, this text does not relate to the disbelievers seeking light with the fire of the Muslims, when the
Muslims are the stronger side, meaning that the disbelievers request from the Muslims to enter under the
protection of the Islamic army in respect to the war … Or they request from the Muslims to enter a
military alliance with them coveting protection through this alliance from their enemies.

Concerning the disbelievers seeking the light (or assistance) of the Muslims, according to this meaning,
then we have previously discussed this matter (1), when discussing the subject of the legal legitimacy of
fighting the disbelievers when they have aggressed against other disbelievers upon whom the Muslims
have extended their protection … and if those who have been aggressed against represent an independent
entity from the Muslims … We have mentioned there, that the Daleel (evidence) for the legal legitimacy
or lawfulness is: The declaration of war by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬against Quraish when their allies Bani Bakr,
aggressed against the allies of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬of Khuzaa’ah, as we detailed previously.

The summary: The Hadeeth: “Do not seek light with the fire of the people of Shirk (disbelievers)”
indicates to the forbiddance of the Muslims from seeking Nusrah (support) against their opponent,
adversary and their enemy from the armies of the disbelievers, or to seek to enter into a military alliance
with the disbelievers, for the sake or purpose of seeking support and assistance against the adversary or
enemy through that alliance. In respect to all of that, the Muslims are the weak side in respect to whom
the strong or powerful disbelievers declare to provide protection. As for when the Muslims are the strong
ones or in the powerful situation and others request their support or to enter under their wing within a
military alliance to be protected by the Muslims, then the Hadeeth, which we are dealing with, does not
address this Mas’alah (issue), although the Shar’iy Daleel has come for the lawfulness of this issue …

[(1) Refer to the Second Mas’alah (issue): “The aggression against the allies of the Muslims …” from the Fourth Study, the First
Chapter of the Third Volume: p702 (in the Arabic print) onwards].

That evidence was the entry of Khuzaa’ah into an alliance with the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬and his declaration of war
against Quraish due to the aggression of their allies against his allies.

The above is in relation to the Dalaalah (indicated meaning) of the Hadeeth: “Do not seek light with the
fire of the people of Shirk (disbelievers)”.

- As for the grade of the Hadeeth in terms of its Sihhah (authenticity) or lack of authenticity, then what is
apparent is that the Hadeeth is not Saheeh from the perspective or angle of its Sanad! That is because the
one who narrated it from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, was “Azhar Bin Raashid” and Ibn Hajar
said about him in “At-Taqreeb”: “Majhool (unknown) (1) and as such this Hadeeth is not viable to be
used as evidence on the basis that it is a specific text (Nass Khaass) which addresses this issue which we
are treating.

In the case when the specific text related to the Mas’alah (issue) of military alliances is not Saheeh
(authentic), it becomes necessary to look for a Qaa’idah Shar’iyah (Shar’iyah principle) which the Mas’alah
(Fiqhiy issue) of alliances, falls under, and deduce from it a ruling for it. This is the subject area of the
second point of the discussion of this current Mas’alah (issue).

B - The Second Point: What is the general Shar’iyah Qaa’idah (principle) which the issue of military
alliances with non-Muslims, falls under?

The answer to this question is: That the Qaa’idah (principle) under which the issue of military alliances
with non-Muslims falls under is: “Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar” (There is no harming and no reciprocation
of harm) (2).

[(1) Refer to “Taqreeb At-Tahdheeb”, Ibn Hajar: p97 where he mentioned three relators by name: “Azhar Bin Raashid”; the
first of them: “Al-Basriy” and An-Nasaa’iy related for him in his Sunan and he is Majhool (unknown) as has been indicated to.
The second was: “Al-Kaahiliy” and An-Nasaa’iy related for him in “Musnad ‘Ali” and he is Da’eef (weak. And the third: “Al-
Hawzaniy” and he is Sudooq (trustworthy) but he doesn’t have a narration in the six books (i.e. the Sunan) including the Sunan
of An-Nasaa’iy. As such, the “Azhar Bin Raashid” here is designated as being “Al-Basriy” who is Majhool (unkown). Ah-
Sheikh Al-Albaaniy overlooked this Hadeeth and di not include it within his “Saheeh Sunan An-Nasaa’iy”. Refer to: 3.1060 of
this reference (i.e. Saheeh Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy). It is worth indicating that the Hadeeth is in the Musnad of Ahmad and via
the same transmission path which came in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’iy, (2) This Qaa’idah (principle) is a text of the Prophetic
Hadeeth and has come via many transmission paths. An-Nawawiy said concerning it: “Hadeeth Hasan”. Refer to “Al-
Arba’een” (Forty) of An-Nawawiy, Hadeeth number: 32, p74. Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaaniy said: “Saheeh”. Refer to his: “Saheeh
Sunan Ibn Maajah”: 1896, 2/39 and the following came in the Sharh (explanation) of the Hadeeth: “The meaning of his
statement “Laa Darara” is: The man does not harm his brother or take or diminish anything from his Haqq (right). And “Ad-
Diraar” if the “Fi’aal” form from “Ad-Darr” meaning: Do not requite him in respect to his harm by making the Darar (harm)
include him. And “Ad-Darar” is the act of one, whilst “Ad-Diraar” is the act of two, or “Ad-Darar” is the initiation of the act
and “Ad-Diraar” is the recompense or requital in respect to it. And it is said: “Ad-Darar” is that which you harm your
companion by it whilst you benefit from it, whilst “Ad-Diraar” is that which you harm him with, without benefiting yourself!
And it is said: They are of the same meaning and it was stated like this for the purpose of reiteration”: “As-Siraaj ul-Muneer,
Sharh Al-Jaami’ is-Sagheer”, Al-‘Azeeziy: 3/433].

Ash-Sheikh Mustafaa Az-Zarqaa’ said the following when discussing this Qaa’idah (principle):
“And this Qaa’idah (principle) is from the Arkaan (pillars) of the Sharee’ah; many texts in the Kitaab and
the Sunnah support it and it represents the basis for preventing (or forbidding) the harmful act. Its text:
Negates the Darar (harm) completely and so obliges that it be prevented absolutely. The Darar (harm)
encompasses the Khaass (specific) and the ‘Aamm (general) and it that includes repelling it before it
happens by the possible preventative means, and removing it after it has happened according to what is
possibly available in terms of undertakings which remove its effects and prevent its reoccurrence, just as it
indicates to the obligation of choosing the weaker (or lesser) of the two evils (Sharraini) to repel the
greater of them, because that represents a lightening or lessening of the Darar (harm), when it is not
possible to prevent it completely …” (1).

I say: Based upon this, then all that by its nature leads to harm bring brought against the Muslims is
prohibited in the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. And there is no doubt that the military alliance with the major states,
as the reality indicates to within the current contemporary reality, in that it would lead to harm befalling
the Muslims. That is because the nature of these states is that they are colonial states who have designs
over the Muslims and their resources or they conceal religious animosity towards them … amongst other
matters like that. With the reality being as such, a military alliance with states like these would represent
opening a door for them to bring harm threatening the entity of the Muslims, just as it would make a way
for the disbelievers over the believers, whilst Allah Ta’Aalaa has said:

َ‫َس ِبيال‬ ْ َ‫ينَ َعل‬

َ ‫ىَالم ُْؤ ِمن‬
َ ‫ِين‬ َ ‫َولَنَ َيجْ َع َلَاللَّـهَُل ِْل َكاف ِِر‬
And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way (An-Nisaa’: 141).

Just as these alliances would open the door of harm upon the Muslim lands and that would be reflected, in
the least, by the control over their resources in terms of production, export and pricing among other
matters … under the pretext or acting in accordance to the Maslahah (interest) of the military alliance. By
this, and according to the reality, I mean: Those major states which the Muslims join in military alliances,
only aim from behind that alliance, to be enable to proceed according to a policy, which by its nature
would consolidate them as the major powers which dominate over and control the fate of the Muslims;
their resources and capabilities, just as it consolidates the Muslims remaining in a position and situation of
being behind, in a state of dispute, weakness and fragmentation … That is in addition to preventing the
following of a course or path that would make them, one day, a major power themselves which has
influence upon the international situation … That is because if that was to be accomplished, that would
mean, in the view of the current major states in the world today, harmony and responsiveness of the
world, which suffers under the hegemony of those states, with the message of the Islamic Ummah and
consequently their aspiration to free themselves from the vicious hegemony through that message
designed for humanity which the Muslims carry the banner for, so that all can find shade under its shade!

[(1) “Al-Madhkal Al-Fiqhiy”, Ash-Sheikh Mustafaa Az-Zarqaa’: p972].

It is this result which the major states today fear and hence attempt to block the path leading to it, using
various means, which include amongst them, binding Muslims with them in military alliances and alliances
which are not equal. As such, being tied or connected with the major states within a military alliance, in
light of what has been mentioned, represents a danger upon the Islamic lands and a crime against the
Muslims, indeed against humanity, and it is Haraam in the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy.

However, in the case where that harm is safeguarded or secured from as a result of that alliance, like the
case was with “Khuzaa’ah” when they made an alliance with the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, as mentioned in Saheeh ul-
Bukhaariy, when it was said regarding them: “They were the close advisors of the Messenger of
Allah” (1), then, in such a case, there is nothing preventing the contraction of military alliances between
the Muslims and other entities. The reality of these legitimate alliances, in such a case, regardless of what it
comprises in terms of the Muslims offering protection to others, is that it represents seeking assistance of
non-Muslims in respect to the Qitaal. That is whilst seeking assistance with disbelievers in respect to
fighting, as mentioned previously, is Mashroo’ (lawful) when no harm (Darar) is the consequence of that.
That is like the case of the Islamic army seeking the assistance of individuals or limited groups of fighters
or similar to them (i.e. those who can assist in warfare). That is upon the condition that they fight under
the banner of the Muslims and submit to the leadership of the Muslims. Similarly, it is also permitted to
seek assistance by way of the disbelievers, within the scope of providing or supplying the Muslims with
weaponry by way of purchase, leasing or borrowing, as long as that does not result in any harm …
Therefore, if the military alliances with non-Muslims took place within these secure or safeguarded limits,
there is not harm or problem with them. Indeed, they could be required if the Maslahah dictated that.

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2731, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/329. The completion of that text from the Hadeeth is: “’Aibah (‫ )عيبة‬Nush
(advice) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬from the people of Tuhaamah” He (Ibn Hajar) said in Al-Fat’h: “Al-‘Aibah: Is that
which clothing is placed inside to preserve it. It therefore means: A place of advice for him and Amaanah (trust) in respect to
his secret matters … It is as if analogy is made between the chest which is the place where the secret is deposited and between
the ‘Aibah which is the place where clothing is deposited (to keep it secure). And concerning his statement: “From the people
of Tuhaamah” means: Because Khuzaa’ah werer from amongst the whole of the people of Tuhaamah … That is Makkah and
what surrounds it. Ibn Ishaaq added in a Riwaayah (narration): And Khuzaa’ah were the ‘Aibah (i.e. close counsel) of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ;ﷺ‬their Muslims and Mushriks. They did not conceal anything from him which was happening in
Makkah Then Ibn hajar said: And what is understood or gained from that is: The permissibility of seeking councel or advice
from some of the Kings (or leaders) of the enemy, to seek support against others, whilst that is not considered to be
Muwaalaah (taking as friends and allies) of the disbelievers or of the enemies of Allah. Rather, it is from the angle of utilising
them and reducing their unified power or strength and using some of them against others. That does not at all necessitate the
permissibility of seeking assistance with the Mushrikeen”: “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/337/338].

However, in the case where it is feared that by seeking assistance though the disbelievers, that could bring
harm upon the Muslims, whether in the short or longer term, then this type of seeking assistance is not
lawful (Mashroo’). That is just like the case if that seeking of assistance was with large military companies,
which the Muslims have no power over (to contain) to enter the lands of the Muslims to fight an enemy
alongside the Islamic army. That is even if these military companies placed themselves under the Islamic
command. That is because their size and power, as indicated to previously, could represent a threat that
threatens the Muslims and their lands. The danger would be even greater, naturally, if its leadership was
independent from the leadership of the Muslims.

Consequently, the military alliances which comprise of this type of Isti’aanah (seeking of assistance),
would be Mahzhoor (prohibited) in the Shar’a, in accordance to the Shar’iyah principle: “Laa Darara Wa
Laa Diraara” (There is no harming and reciprocating of harm).

Concerning the matter of seeking assistance via non-Muslims, in that which is lawful and that which is not
lawful, the following was stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”:

“There is no problem for the Muslims to seek assistance by the Ahlu sh-Shirk (people of disbelief) of the
Hukm (rule) of Islaam is prevalent or dominant over them. That is equal to utilising dogs as assistance
when fighting the Mushrikeen. The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬indicated to that by his statement: “Verily
Allah Ta’Aalaa will certainly assist or support this Deen by peoples who have no share in the
hereafter” (1). And that which was narrated in that when the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬saw the regiment of Hasnaa’ on
the day of (the battle of) Uhud, he asked: “Who are they?” It was said: “The Yahood of Bani (tribe)
so and so! The allies of Ibn Ubayy”. He then said: “Verily we do not seek assistance with those
who are not upon our Deen” (2). The interpretation of that: Is that they were people of Mana’ah
(capable protective force)! And they were not fighting under the Raayah (banner) of the Messenger of
Allah ‫ !ﷺ‬And in our view (i.e. our Fiqhiy opinion): If they (i.e. military group) are of this description, it
is Makrooh (disliked) to seek assistance by them …” (3).
In addition, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan explained why the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬rejected the assistance of
the Yahood (Jews) from the allies of Ibn Ubayy, whilst they were from the Ahl ul-Mana’ah (capable
protective and fighting force) i.e. a large or major force which is capable in most cases of preventing
others from defeating them. He said: “He ‫ ﷺ‬feared that they would turn against the Muslims if they
sensed any weakness! For that reason, he turned them away …

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 3062, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 6/179 and Saheeh Muslim: 111, 1/106 and the wording of the text in them
both is: “Verily, Allah will certainly support this Deen by the Faajir man” although the wording recorded by Muslim doesn’t
include the “Laam” of reiteration (i.e. without certainly), (2) Refer to Al-Mustadrak of Al-Haakim: 2/122, Musannaf Ibn Abi
Shaibah: 12/394, “Al-Mataalib Al-‘Aaliyah: “Al-Haashiyah”: Its Isnaad is Hasan: 4/222, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”, As-
Sarakhsiy and Muhammad Bin Al-Hasan: 4/1422-1423].

In our view (i.e. our Madh’hab): If the Imaam views that the correct view is not to seek assistance by the
Mushrikeen (disbelievers) due to the fear of Al-Fitnah, then he can turn them away (1).

The above represents the most significant of what has been said concerning the first Mas’alah (Fiqhiy
issue) of this current study.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): Concerning the military alliance which allows for or
provides the justification for war to be declared against Islamic regions or
provinces, is it permissible for the Muslims to enter it?

The concise answer to this question is: That from that which is known from the Deen by Daroorah
(necessity), is that the fighting of the Muslims against their brother Muslims, is from the greatest of the
Kabaa’ir (major sins) and represents the worst or most hideous of crimes.

In Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, Muslim and others, it was recorded that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫َح َم َلَ َعلَ ْي َناَال ِّسالَ َحَ َفلَي‬

‫ْسَ ِم َّنا‬ َ ْ‫َمن‬
Whoever takes up arms against us, is not from us (2).

And in affirmation of the Hurmah (prohibited inviolable sanctity) of the blood of the Muslim, it was
recorded in Saheeh Muslim that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬said:

َ ‫َُو َمالُه‬
ُ ْ‫َُوعِ ر‬
‫ض َُه‬ ْ َ‫َُّالمُسْ لِمَ َعل‬
َ ‫ىَالمُسْ ل ِِم‬
َ ‫َح َرامَ َد ُمه‬ ْ ‫ُكل‬
ِ
The entire Muslim is Haraam in respect to the Muslim; his blood, his wealth and his honour (3).

Therefore, entering into any military alliance which dictates raising weapons against the Muslims and
violating their inviolable sanctities, would represent a pretext for that which is prohibited in the Shar’a and
consequently, such an alliance would of course be Haraam.

The Third Mas’alah (issue): Is it permissible for the Muslims to enter a military
alliance which restricts the legality of declaring war to non-Islamic regions?

The answer to this question is: If an alliance (Hilf) like this was to accomplish the interest (Maslahah) of
the Muslims and no Darar (harm) of Mahzhoor (prohibited act) was the consequence of it, and the
Muslims were fighting under their Raayah (banner) and not subservient, in the war, to their leadership,
whilst there was nothing contained within it which compelled them to fight when they did not want to
fight or did not repel them from fighting when the Maslahah called for that, and the Muslim’s entering
into this alliance did not represent a cause for strengthening the disbelievers who joined it, in the case
where that would present a threat against the Muslims …

… In such a situation or case, there is no problem to enter into such an alliance. That is because the war
based upon an alliance like this, would either realise a Maslahah (interest) for the Muslims, in which case
the Hukm in respect to it is clear … Or, it would realise a joint Maslahah (interest) between the Muslims
and those with them in the alliance …

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1423, (2) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 6874, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 2/192 and Saheeh Muslim: 98,
1/98].

The Muslims must therefore aim, through this war, to realise the Maslahah (interest) of the Muslims alone,
raise high the word of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and undertake the Fard (obligation) of Al-Jihaad, without
aiming to strengthen the side of their allies from the disbelievers and without taking them as friends and
protectors or raising the word of Kufr (disbelief) high!

In “Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa” by Ibn Hajar Al-Haitamiy, in an answer to question concerning the Muslims
joining the disbelievers’ side against other disbelievers, the following was stated:

“If the Muslims assisted one of two parties of the disbelievers, in their wars, and fought others with them,
without there being a Daroorah (necessity) or Haajah (need), or they are killed in the wars, is that
permissible or not? And is the Muslim rewarded by that due to his killing of the Kaafir (disbeliever) or as a
result of him being killed? And is he dealt with according to the treatment of the Shaheed (martyr) in
respect to not having the Ghusl (ritual washing of the entire body) performed for him and not having the
prayer performed over him? (1).

Ibn Hajar Al-Haitamiy answered these questions and explained firstly that there is no Mahdhoor (matter
to beware or warned about) in respect to: “Inciting some of the disbelievers against others because finding
the means for the killing of the Harbiy (enemy combatant) is permitted, indeed Mahboob (beloved), by
any means or way available (or possible)”. He then said: “And if a Muslim or more than one assist one of
the two parties and then one of the people of war kill him, he is Shaheed (a martyr); who does not have
the Ghusl (performed upon him) and who the prayer is not performed over him. He also attains the
reward, and what a great reward that is! If he has fought to make the word of Allah the highest …” (2).

By that, we have reached the conclusion of this current Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and consequently we have
also concluded the current study. We will now move on, by the help and Tawfeeq of Allah to another
study.

[(1) “Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa”, Ibn Hajar Al-Haitamiy: 2/25. Also refer to: 4/222, (2) “Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa”, Ibn Hajar Al-
Haitamiy: 2/25 and refer also to: “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1515 onwards].
 The Second Study
Leasing military bases and airports, selling weapons and strategic materials, and the provision of other
forms of assistances

The subject area of this study is: Is it permissible for the Muslims to make contracts with other states for
them to hire military bases and airports within the Islamic lands, or to contract deals with them to sell
strategic materials or weaponry which they possess, or provide types of assistance and aid to those other
states related to military matters or affairs, in return for compensation or with no compensation; a matter
which will make them proceed upon the path of strength, as a result of those deals and assistances? I say,
concerning this: Is it permissible for the Muslims to deal with the other states in such a way that has been
mentioned above?

This is the subject area of the study which we will address through the discussion of the following points:

1 - The First Point: What is meant by military bases and strategic materials?
2 - The Second Point: Are there specific Shar’iyah texts related to the Masaa’il (issues) presented in this
study?
3 - The Third Point: What are the general Shar’iyah principles which these presented issues fall under?
What are the views of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib concerning that? And what is the opinion that we view to be
preponderant or stronger in relation to this?

1 - The First Point: What is meant by military bases and strategic materials?

Firstly: The intended meaning of military bases:

Concerning the definition of these bases, the aim or purpose for their establishment and the means which
are pursued with smaller nations in respect to them, “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The Political Dictionary)
stated that the military bases are: “Strategic locations (1), in terms of secrecy, or coastal, which major
states establish inside the regional borders of other states via the agreement of their governments in
exchange for an annual rent, or favour, or financial or monetary aid …” He then said: “The foreign bases
are normally established upon the basis of bilateral agreements between the major state and the
government of another state. This action is considered to represent a colonial means to gain control and
expand political and military influence, since the time that the styles of colonialism have developed. For
this reason, the United States, a state which did not engage in the old form of colonialism, was the first of
the major states which took military bases as a means to extend its influence. It is a policy which was
known, following the Second World War, of new or neo-imperialism (2). These major states, when
contracting these bilateral agreements, do not rely or depend upon economic incentives alone, but rather
upon psychological factors, to spread the spirit of fear and alarm in respect to the possible dangers
threatening these states and the ruling regimes within them. The preservation and maintaining of military
bases is considered to represent a part of mutual or joint defence agreements.

The above is related to the intended meaning of military bases.

Secondly: The intended meaning of strategic materials:

In “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The Political Dictionary), also, in respect to the definition of the word
“Strategic” it stated: “It is a word of Greek origin which according to its terminological convention means:
The art or knowledge/science of general leadership in war i.e. all of the necessary arrangements to realise
the victory”.

[(1) “The term “Strategic centres” refers to the locations of military significance or importance in respect to winning the battles;
whether in defensive war or offensive. The selection of military bases which some of the major states establish in foreign lands
are established upon the strategic importance of those locations in light of the developments of the styles of modern warfare”:
“Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”: p55, (2) It is: “The policy of dividing the world into regions of influence between the major capitalist
states … transforming the world into international hegemonies which conspire against the smaller (or weaker) peoples and
obstruct the forces of production within them. For that reason, imperialism in its modern conception is considered to be a
form of traditional colonialism which the old colonialist and capitalist states resort to, to extend their political and economic
control over the developing states by way of granting, loans, exporting foreign capital sums accompanied by reducing the prices
of its raw material products. And consequently, to the reduction of the living standards within them and the increase of the
financial deficit in their budgets. Under this system or regime, international economic competitions transform into monopolies
which do not serve except the interests of the major capitalist states”: “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”: p117. Refer also to:
“Mawsooa’h Al-Hilaal Al-Ishtiraakiyah”: p56-57, (30 “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”: p941].

He then said: “And the name “Strategic materials” is used to refer to all the raw materials which enter into
the execution of the operations of warfare and are used o assist the winning of the war. Today this
includes hundreds of types of raw and artificial manufactured materials …” (1) i.e. like petrol (2) and so
on.

The above is what is related to strategic materials. With that we conclude the first point of our discussion
and now move on to the second point.

2 - The Second Point: Are there specific Shar’iyah texts related to the Masaa’il
(issues) presented in this study?

There are a number of specific Shar’iyah texts dealing with the issues presented in this study. We will
quote them and explain the extent of their relationship with what we are addressing, in addition to the
grade of their authenticity.

A - There is a Shar’iy text concerning the Nahy (forbiddance) of selling weapons to the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war), which came stated in the book “Al-Hidaayah” from the books of the Ahnaaf. Its text is:
“That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the sale of weaponry from the people of war and taking it to them”
(3).

However, the Hadeeth which the author of “Al-Hidaayah” presented has not been affirmed and Ibn Hajar
said: “I did not find it” (4).

B - There is a Shar’iy text concerning the Nahy (forbiddance) of selling weaponry at the time of Al-Fitnah
(strife) and the Fuqahaa’ have used it as evidence to forbid the selling of weaponry to the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war). That is due to the commonality in respect to the ‘Illah (reasoning) that was the cause for
that Nahy (forbiddance).
[(1) “Al-Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”, Ahmad ‘Atiyullah: p55, (2) “Petrol oil”: It is a mineral liquid from an organic origin which is
found in the layers close to the surface of the earth’s crust including the seabed and it is considered to be one of the most
important sources of heat and kinetic energy. For this reason, the raw material of (petrol) oil is considered to be of the world’s
strategic materials. Its production, storage and hoarding or monopolisation is tied to international politics as manifested in the
struggle between a host of major states” … He then said: “It is observed that the Arab (petrol) oil reserves amount to
approximately 55% of the total world oil reserves. For this reason, this oil has a significance in relation to global strategy”, “Al-
Qamoos As-Siyaasiy”: 181-182. And in the book “Siraa’u l-Bitrool” by Dr. Suweilim Al-‘Umary, he said: “Most of the petrol of
the Middle-East is on Arab soil and its reserves equals 70% of the global petrol oil reserves”: p121. And in “Al-‘Aalam Al-
Islaamiy”, by Muhammad Shaakir: p127, he said: “The Islamic world occupies the first place amongst the states of the world
which produce oil … As for its reserves, then it is equivalent to 81% of the global reserves, (3) “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/460, (4)
“Ad-Diraayah Bi Takhreej in-Nihaayah”, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy: 2.117, no: 705 and also refer to: “Nasb ur-Raayah”, Az-
Zai’la’iy: 3/391].

… And that is: That this sale represents a means to the perpetration of the Haraam and that (Haraam) is
the killing of the one whom it is not permissible to kill. The text being indicated to here is: “‘Imraan Bin
Husain related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the selling of weaponry in Al-Fitnah” (1).

However, this text is also not affirmed or established to be from the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬as the ‘Ulamaa of Hadeeth
have determined.

C - There is a Shar’iy text, recorded in the Musnad of Ahmad and Sunan of Abu Dawud, from which the
permissibility to sell weaponry to the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) can be understood. This text is:

“Related by Dhu l-Jawshan who said: I approached the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬, after he had finished with the people
of Badr, with a colt of mine. I said: “O Muhammad, verily I have come to you with colt of Al-‘Arjaa’ (2)
for you to take”. He said: “I have no need in respect to it. However, if you wish, I will exchange it for a
selection of the body plate armour from Badr! (i.e. taken from the booty)”. I replied: “I can’t give you the
colt in exchange today”. He ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Then I have no need for it”. He ‫ ﷺ‬then said: “O Dhu l-
Jawshan, why don’t you become Muslim and consequently be at the forefront of this matter?” I said:
“No”. He asked: “Why not?” I said: “I have seen that your people belittle you!” He said: “How is that, has
the news of their destruction at Badr reached you?” He (Al-Jawshan) said: I said: “The news reached me!”.
I said: “If you defeat Makkah and inhabit it!” He said: “It may be, that if you live, you shall see it!” He
‫ ﷺ‬then said: O Bilaal, take the satchel of the man and give him provisions of Al-‘Ajwah (dates). Then
when I turned he said: “Verily, it is from the best of Bani ‘Aamir” …

[(1) Related by Al-Bazzaar and At-Tabaraaniy in “Al-Kabeer”. Al-Haithamiy said: “It (i.e. the chain of narration) includes within
it Bahr Bin Kunaiz As-Saqqaa’ and he is Matrook (i.e. left and his Hadeeth are not taken)”, “Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id”: 4/87 and
108. And in “As-Sunan Al-Kubraa”, Al-Baihaqiy, he stated: “To make it Marfoo’ (i.e. raised to the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬is delusion and it
being Mawqoof (i.e. stopping in the chain before reaching the Nabi ‫ )ﷺ‬is Asahh (most correct”: 5/327. Refer also to: “Nasb
ur-Raayah”: 3/391, “Ad-Diraayah”: 2/117-118, “Al-Kaamil Fee Du’afaa’ ir-Rijaal”, Ibn ‘Adiy: 6/2269, (2) The name of his
horse and according to Abu Dawud it was called “Al-Qarhaa’” and it may be that the word “Al-‘Arjaa’” is misplaced].

…He (Dhu l-Jawshan) said: “By Allah, I was with my people (family) in Al-Ghawr (valley or depression),
when a rider approached”. So I said: “Where are you from?” He said: “From Makkah”. So I said: “What is
the news of the people?” He said: “Muhammad defeated them!” He said: I said: “May my mother be
bereaved! By Allah, had I embraced Islaam on that day, and then asked him about the disturbance, he
would have brought ruin to me! …” (1).

The point that is taken from this Hadeeth in respect to using it for evidence for the legality of selling
weapons to non-Muslims from the other peoples and states, is that the body plate armour is considered to
be from the defensive weapons (2) and here the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬offered to sell it to a man from the people of
war (Ahl ul-Harb).
I say: However, if we wanted to scrutinise this deduction from this Hadeeth, we observe that what the
Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬wanted to exchange for the defensive body armour, was another form of weaponry which is
considered to be from the offensive weaponry. That is because the horses or steeds, at that time, were
equal to the role of armed vehicles in our current age! (3). It appears that the weaponry which Dhu l-
Jawshan was offering was more precious or valuable than the weaponry which was being offered to him in
exchange, and as such he declined the deal … Consequently, there is no indication within the Hadeeth for
the absolute or unrestricted (Mutlaq) permissibility of selling weaponry to the people of war. That is
because the reality here was the exchanging of a weapon of lesser value for one of higher value whilst
there is no objection in respect to that (4).

In any case, this Hadeeth is not Saheeh (authentic) and is not valid to be used as evidential proof (5).

D - Also included amongst the Shar’iyah texts related to the lawfulness of selling weapons to the Ahl ul-
Harb (people of war), is what came recorded in “Nasb ur-Raayah”. He said: “An Ibn Hibbaan said in his
Saheeh: Concerning the (following) Hadeeth of Khabbaab Bin Al-Aratt …

[(1) Musnad Ahmad: 3/484 and a shorter version up to “Then I have no need for it” in the Sunan of Abu Dawud: 2786, 3/122.
We chose to present the narration recorded in the Musnad (of Ahmad) here because it makes clear that the man who narrated
the incident was a Kaafir and had not yet embraced Islaam, just as he was from the Ahl ul-Harb and not from the Ahl udh-
Dhimmah from the inhabitants of Al-Madinah, (2) Refer to: “Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah Fee Huroob ir-Rasool ‫”ﷺ‬, General
Colonel, Dr. Muhammd Daahir Watar: p50, (3) Refer to: “Al-Harb”, by Colonel Muhammad Safaa: p424, (4) “Al-Kharaaj”,
Abu Yousuf: p204, (5) Al-Haafizh Al-Mundhiriy said: “This Hadeeth is not affirmed and it revolves between Al-Inqitaa’ (i.e.
chain is broken) or a narration of someone whose narration is not dependable upon”, “Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Dawud”: 4/90.
Al-Albaaniy also did not include it within his “Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud”: 2/356. It is also pointed out here that the narration
in the Musnad of Ahmad is from the same path (of transmitters) as that in the Sunan of Abu Dawud].

- “I was the ironsmith in Makkah. I made a sword for Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il and so I went to him to demand
payment”, the permissibility of selling weaponry to the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) has been understood!
However, that is a weak understanding because this incident was before the obligation of Al-Jihaad. The
Fard (obligation) of Al-Jihaad and the command to fight the Mushrikeen was only after the people of
Makkah expelled the Messenger of Allah ‫( ”… ﷺ‬1).

E - Also, from that which has been used as evidence from the texts for the legal legitimacy of providing
weaponry to the disbelievers of those who are under treaty (Mu’aahideen), via some lawful contracts, is
that which came recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim, around the story of Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf
who had been from the Jews around Al-Madinah under treaty and how he breached the ‘Ahd (covenant
or treaty), which was followed by the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬delegating the people to kill him and relieve the Muslims
from his evil. The following was recorded concerning this incident as related by Jaabir Bin ‘Abdullah:

Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said: “Who would kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His
Messenger?” Muhammad bin Maslamah then said: “I will kill him”. So, Muhammad bin Maslamah went
to Ka`b and said: “I want a loan of one or two Wasqs (2) of food grains”. Ka`b said: “Pledge (Rahn) your
women as a security to me”. Muhammad bin Maslamah said: “How can we pledge (Rahn) our women,
and you are the most handsome among the Arabs?” He said: “Then pledge (Rahn) your sons as a security
to me”. Muhammad said: “How can we pledge (Rahn) our sons, as the people will abuse them for being
pledged for one or two Wasqs of food grains? It is shameful for us. But we will pledge our arms to you”.
So, Muhammad bin Maslamah promised him that he would come to him next time. They (Muhammad
bin Maslamah and his companions) came to him as promised and murdered him. Then they went to the
Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and told him about it” (3).

[(1) “Nasb ur-Raayah”: 3/391. Refer to Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2275, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 4/452. Here Ibn Hajar said about this
Hadeeth in respect to our subject matter: “(Concerning) his (Al-Bukhaariy’s) statement: “Chapter: Does the man hire himself to
a Mushrik in the land of war? He quoted within this (heading) the Hadeeth of Khabbaab, who was Muslim at that time, in
respect to the work he had done for Al-‘Aas Bin Waa’il, who was a Mushrik. That was in Makkah and it was a Daar (land) Harb
(of war) at that time. The Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬was aware of that and approved of that, but the author did not resolve upon the Hukm
(ruling) due to the possibility that the permissibility was restricted to the Daroorah. Or that the permissibility of that was before
the permission to fight the Mushrikeen and struggle against them (was revealed). And before the command for the Muslim not
to degrade himself. Al-Muhallab said: The people of knowledge viewed that as Makrooh (disliked) except in the case of
Daroorah (necessity), upon two conditions: The first: That his action is that which is Halaal for the Muslim to do and the
second: That it does not assist him in respect to that which the harm will fall upon the Muslims …”, (2) “Al-Wasq: It is 60
Saa’an”: “Jaami’ ul-Usool”: 8/228 i.e. of foodstuffs. It was stated in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/338: “It came in the relation of
‘Urwah: I would like that you loan us food. He said: Where is your food? … etc.” Refer to Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar-Rawd ul-
Unuf”: 3/140, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 1801, 3/1425].

This story has been used as evidence for the permissibility of providing weaponry to the people of war
(Ahl ul-Harb) within the lawful transactions if they were bound by a peace treaty with the Muslims.

The angle of evidential deduction from this incident is what was mentioned in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: “If it had
not been usual amongst them to pledge weaponry as a security with the people at treaty (Ahl ul-‘Ahd) they
would not have offered it [i.e. they would not have offered weaponry to the Jew Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf]. Had
they offered him something outside of their custom or norm, it would have created doubt or suspicion in
his mind and they would have lost the opportunity to fulfil what they want from their scheming, So when
they were planning their act of deception for him, they made him see that what they were doing was that
which was permissible for them to do! …”. This means that the deception undertaken by Muhammad Bin
Maslamah and his companions against the Jew, Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf, was only through making him
imagine that the Muslim still regarded and considered him to be from those under treaty of covenant
(Mu’aahid) and for that reason it was permissible to pledge (Rahn) the weaponry with him. That is whilst,
in reality, he had come to be from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) who had breached the ‘Ahd (covenant
or treaty) due to his acts undertaken to harm Allah and His Messenger … In such a case it would not be
permissible to present weaponry for sale or pledging (Rahn). Rather, it is permissible to deceive him and
eliminate him … This is what they concealed from him until the deception had been completed and they
had dealt with him.

Concerning this, in “Al-Fat’h ul-Baariy” the view of the permissibility of selling weaponry was mentioned
and pledging it with the enemy if it was in a peace treaty with the Muslims, as was related from “Ibn ut-
Teen”. Ibn Hajar said: “Ibn ut-Teen said: It is only permitted to sell it and pledge (Rahn) it (i.e. weaponry)
as a security with those who have a Dhimmah or ‘Ahd, by agreement (i.e. of the scholars)” (2).

I say: The lawfulness of this conduct with the combatants or the people of covenant or treaty (‘Ahd) is
taken from this Hadeeth according to this provided explanation. As for the legal legitimacy of undertaking
this conduct with the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then that it taken from the Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be
pleased with her, as was recorded in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy and Muslim: “That the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬purchased
food from a Jew to be paid for at a later date and he pledged his body armour or shield as a
security” (3). Ibn Hajar said in “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: This (Hadeeth) includes in it, the permissibility to sell,
pledge as a security, lease and other than that, from the Kaafir (disbeliever), as long as he is not a Harbiy
(i.e. from the people of war)” (4).

The above therefore represents what has come in terms of Shar’iyah texts related to the Mas’alah (issue)
of selling weaponry or something that falls under its meaning, to non-Muslims … With that, we have
reached the conclusion of this point and now move on to the third point of this study.

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/143, 3/1226, (2) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/143, (3) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 2509, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/142 and
Saheeh Muslim: 1603, (4) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/141].

3 - The Third Point: What are the general Shar’iyah principles which these
presented issues fall under? What are the views of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib
concerning that? And what is the opinion that we view to be preponderant or
stronger in relation to this?

Firstly: The issues presented in this study revolve around what is provided to the non-Muslims in the
other states, in terms of military assistances and what falls under that category like the provision of bases
within the Islamic lands to store weaponry within them, airports to be used in war or military exercises,
the sale of weaponry or strategic materials which are used in military affairs … Regarding these matters
and those similar to them, is it permissible for the Muslims to provide them to the enemy?

- We have become aware, during the previous point, that there are Shar’iyah texts which are viable to be
used as evidence in relation to this matter. However, regarding what has been understood from the
Hadeeth about the “pledging of weapons as security” in respect to the incident with Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf,
which was recorded in Al-Bukhaariy and Muslim, some have denied that the incident in origin indicates to
the legal legitimacy of pledging the weapons as a security to the people of war. It was stated in “Fat’h ul-
ْ ‫ك‬
Baariy”: “Ibn Battaal said: There is nothing in their statement (َ‫َالأل َم َة‬ َ ‫[ ) َنرْ َه ُن‬As mentioned in the Hadeeth:
i.e. We will pledge you weapons or armour), which indicates to the permissibility of mortgaging or
pledging as a security (Rahn) weaponry. Rather, that was only from the usage of speech to conceal the true
objective or reality (i.e. to mislead), which is permissible to practise in war and other than it” (1).

In any case, upon the assumption of the validity of using this incident to deduce the legal legitimacy of
providing weaponry to the enemies in lawful transactions, and upon the assumption of the authenticity of
the Hadeeth of Dhu l-Jawshan which was recorded by Abu Dawud in his Sunan, under the chapter
heading: “The Chapter of carrying weaponry to the land of the enemy!” (2), then there exists a general
Qaa’idah Shar’iyah (Shar’iyah principle) which all of the lawful transactions fall under and that is the
principle which we mentioned in the previous study, the Qaa’idah of: “Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar” (There
is no harming and reciprocation of harm) (3).

[(1) “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/143, (2) Sunan Abu Dawud: 3/122, (3) We have previously stated that this Qaa’idah (principle)
represents the text of a Prophetic Hadeeth which we have previously referenced. And An-Nawawiy said about it in his
“Arba’een” (Forty) that it is: “Hadeeth Hasan”, Hadeeth number: 32, p74].

Based upon this, anything that by its nature produces Ad-Darar (harm), in terms of conducts or things,
would be prohibited in the Shar’a. That is even if those conducts and things are from the Mubaahaat
(permissible matters) in origin. That is because individual elements which lead to Ad-Darar (harm) are
exempted from the Mubaah things or from the lawful conducts, and are forbidden via the Hukm (ruling)
of the principle of Ad-Darar (harm). That is whilst those individual elements outside of those which lead
to Ad-Darar (harm) remain Mubaah (permissible) and Mashroo’ (legally legitimate or lawful) upon their
origin.

This is because, even if the general origin is the legal legitimacy of trade, leasing, providing assistance to
others and even if they are non-Muslims, in respect to all that these contracts, conducts and assistance
deal with in terms of services or in terms of the materials which are lawful to deal with, however, when
there is any contract from among the contracts with the disbelievers, or any material from among the
materials, which they request to buy or any service or assistance provided to them …

- When any of thee matters leads to harm afflicting the Muslims, it would be Mahzhoor (prohibited)
according to the Hukm (ruling) of the Qaa’idah of “Ad-Darar” (Harm).

As for the cases, in which these matters do not lead to the harm (Darar), then there is no Haraj (problem
or sin) to provide or undertake them.
In light of what has preceded in respect to the definition of the military bases and strategic materials, we
find that making contracts with major states around these matters, according to the reality of international
relations as exists today, would naturally lead to extreme dangers or risks where the existence of the
Muslims is exposed to the most serious calamities and harms. Consequently, these types of contracts with
those states, in respect to providing these particular matters to them, is Haraam according to the Hukm
ush-Shar’i.

The above is what relates to the Shar’iyah principle underneath which the presented issues of this current
study fall.

Secondly: As for what is connected to the opinions of the Fiqhiy Madhaahib around these Masaa’il
(issues):

- Then in respect to the Madh’hab of the Ahnaaf, we will present the following extracts:

Abu Yousuf, in his book “Al-Kharaaj” said: The Imaam should not let anyone from the Ahl ul-Harb
(people of war) to enter with an Amaan (security) or a Messenger (or envoy) form their kingdom to leave
with anything in terms of slaves (1), weaponry or anything which will give them power or strength against
the Muslims. As for garments (clothing) and general goods or commodities, then this and what is like that,
is not forbidden from them (2)” (3).

And he (the author) said in “Al-Bidaayah” and its Sharh (explanation) “Al-Hidaayah”: “Weapons should
not be sold to the Ahl ul-Harb and they are not equipped. That is because the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the sale
of weaponry to the people of war and providing it to them (4), and because it means strengthening them
to fight the Muslims. That is therefore forbidden or prevented. The same applies in respect to Al-Kuraa’
(5) due to what we have explained and also iron, because it represents the origin of weaponry (6). Similar
to that applies following the Muwaada’ah (treaty) because it could be infringed upon or expire, and then
they will be at war against us” (7).

And he (the author) said in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuhu”: “If a trader enters their lands to take that
which they have benefit from in their lands, then it is inevitable to take to them some of that which exists
within our lands. As such, we have provided a Rukhsah (permission) for the Muslims in respect to that
apart from Al-Kuraa’ (5), the Saby (slaves) and the weapons. That is because none of that is taken to them
- That (opinion) is transmitted from Ibraheem An-Nakh’iy, ‘Ataa Bin Rabaah and ‘Umar Ibn Abdil
‘Azeez, may Allah be pleased with them all. That is because they (i.e. the people of war) protect
themselves with the Kuraa’ and weapons to fight against the Muslims, whilst we have been commanded to
break their power, might or strength, kill their fighters and repel the Fitnah of their warring. That is as
Allah Ta’Aalaa has said:

َ‫ونَ ِف ْت َنة‬
َ ‫َالَ َت ُك‬ َ ‫َو َقا ِتلُو ُه ْم‬
َ ‫َح َّت ٰى‬
Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah (Al-Baqarah: 193).

We have therefore become aware that there is no Rukhsah in respect to strengthening them or increasing
their power to fight against the Muslims” (8).

[(1) “That is because either he fights by himself or there is someone from them who fights. Strengthening him with a fighter is
above strengthening him (i.e. the Harbiy) with a tool of fighting (i.e. weapon)!”: “Sharh As-Siyar ul-Kabeer”: 4/1409, (2) “That
is because he ‫ ﷺ‬commanded Thumaamah to provide for the people of Makkah whilst they were people of war for him … It
is said: Maara Ahlahu: it means: To bring food to them”: “Al-Hidaayah and its Sharh: Al-‘Inaayah”: “Fat’h ul-Qadeer: 5/461”
and we have previously mentioned the chain of transmission for the Hadeeth of Thamaamah. Also, in “Sharh As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer”: 4/1409: “And this is because the Muslims require some of what exists in their lands in terms of medicines and goods.
Therefore, if we were to prevent or forbid them from what we have in our lands, then they would also forbid or prevent us
from what is in their lands!”, (3) “Kitaab ul-Kharaaj”, Abu Yousuf: 204, (4) It has been mentioned before that the Hadeeth
does not exist with this Lafzh (wording) in the books of Sunnah, (5) “It is said that this refers to a group of horses or steeds:
Kuraa’, (6) In “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: “And Fakhr ul-Islaam in the Sharh of Al-Jaami us-Sagheer held (the opinion) that it is not
Makrooh when he said: And this is in respect to the weaponry. As for that which is not fought with (or used in fighting) except
by manufacturing it, then there is no problem with that”, (7) “Al-Hidaayah”, “Fat’h ul-Qadeer”: 5/461, (8) “Sharh As-Siyar ul-
Kabeer”: 4/1409].

The above is what came stated by the Ahnaaf in connection to this current Mas’alah (issue).

- As for the Maalikiyah, the Sahnoon asked his Sheikh Ibn ul-Qaasim about the opinion of Al-Imaam
Maalik in relation to what we are examining.

The following came stated in “Al-Mudawwanah”: “I said to Ibn ul-Qaasim: In respect to the people of
war, are they sold anything from amongst things like horses (steeds), goods, weaponry, saddles, copper or
other things, according to the opinion of Maalik? He said: Maalik said: As for anything which represents a
strength against Islaam through what they are strengthened by in their wars like horses (steeds) or
weapons or Khurthiy (i.e. that which does not have a high value but nevertheless assists the enemies in
war) or anything which is known that it represents power in war like copper or other than that, then they
are not sold that” (1).

And the following came stated in “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”: “If the people of war come to
our lands, it is permitted to purchase from them however they are not sold that which they can use to
assist them in war and terrorise the Muslims with like horses, weapons, banners, iron and steel …” (2).

- And from the Shaafi’iyah, the following was stated in “Al-Majmoo’”, of An-Nawawiy, in relation to this
issue:

“As for the sale of weaponry to the Ahl ul-Harb, then that is Haraam by Ijmaa’ (consensus). And if it is
sold to him (i.e. from the Ahl ul-Harb), the sale contract is not convened according to the Madh’hab Ash-
Saheeh (i.e. correct opinion). And this is the opinion held by the majority of the companions (i.e. those of
the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab). They used as evidence for the opinion as they (the Ahl ul-Harb) preparing the
weaponry to fight against us. Therefore, delivering to them is a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience) and
as such he becomes a seller who is incapable according to the Shar’a to deliver it, and hence it is not
contracted … As for the sale of weaponry to the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, (residing) in Daar ul-Islaam, then
concerning this there are two paths: The first: This is the opinion held by Imaam ul-Haramain and the
Jumhoor (majority) which is that it is valid. That is because they are in our hands (i.e. rule) and it is like the
trade to a Muslim … The second: There are two perspectives in respect to its validity: As for the sale of
iron to the Ahl ul-Harb, then the Ashaab (i.e. those of the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab) agreed upon its validity
because it has not been designated to be used as weaponry and they could use it for tools of profession
like the one who uses shovels to dig and others …” (3).

This is what has come stated in the Shaafi’iy Madh’hab.

[(1) “Al-Mudawwanah”, Al-Imaam Maalik: 4/270, (2) “Qawaaneen Al-Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah”, Ibn Juzayy: 319, (3) “Al-
Majmoo’”, An-Nawawiy: 9/354 and refer to “Al-Umm”, Ash-Shaafi’iy: 3/74].

As for the Madh’hab of the Haanibilah, then the following came stated in “Al-Mughniy” of Ibn
Qudaamah:

“The Hukm (ruling) in respect to all that has been intended is that it is Haraam. That is like the sale of
weaponry to the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) or to highway robbers or in the time of Al-Fitnah or what is
similar to that. This is Haraam and the ‘Aqd (contract) is Baatil (invalid)” (1).

Concerning this, Ibn Hazm also determined the prohibition of trading and taking weaponry and what is
similar to it, to the lands of the disbelievers. He said: “And it is not Halaal for weapons to be taken to
them, nor horses or anything that they gain strength or power by against the Muslims. This the opinion of
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul ‘Azeez. ‘Ataa, ‘Amr Bin Deenaar and others”. He then used as evidence for that, the
generality of the texts. He said: “Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

ِ ‫ىَاإل ْث ِم ََو ْالع ُْد َو‬

َ‫ان‬ ِ ْ َ‫ىَال ِبرِّ ََوال َّت ْق َو ٰىَ ََۖو َالَ َت َع َاو ُنواَ َعل‬
ْ َ‫ََو َت َع َاو ُنواَ َعل‬
And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

And Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫َبهَِ َع ُد َّوَاللَّـه‬
َ‫َِو َع ُد َّو ُك ْم‬ َ ‫َال َخي ِْلَ ُترْ ِهب‬
ِ ‫ُون‬ َ ‫َوأَعِ ُّدواَلَهُمَمَّاَاسْ َت َطعْ َُتمَمِّنَقُ َّوة‬
ْ ِ‫ٍَومِنَرِّ بَاط‬
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah
and your enemy (Al-Anfaal: 60).

It is therefore Fard (obligatory) upon us to strike fear or terror in them and whoever assists them with that
which is taken or provided to them, has not struck fear into them, but rather assisted them upon
sinfulness and aggression” (2).

In addition, the modern Islamic thought has also addressed to the issue which we are addressing. From
that is what came stated in “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah” (The Islamic Personality) by Ash-Sheikh
Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani, in respect to the Hukm (ruling) of selling the warring disbelievers that
which acts to strengthen them or increase their power. He said: “Selling weaponry and war materials to
them is forbidden, due to what that means in terms of strengthening the enemy against the Muslims. And
if the permission to sell weapons and war materials to them is mentioned within the treaty, this condition
is not abided by, because it is in violation of the Shar’a, and any Shart (condition) that contravenes the
Shar’a is Baatil (invalid) and is not contracted” (3).

The above therefore represents a sum of what has been said in relation to the Mas’alah (issue) of selling
weapons and strategic materials or that which means or leads to the strengthening of the enemy against
the Muslims.

[(1) “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah: 4/284. Also refer to “Ash-Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-Maqdasiy: 4/41, (2) “Al-Muhallaa”, Ibn
Hazm: 7/349-350, (3) “Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah”, Ash-Sheikh Taqiy ud-Deen An-Nabhaani: 3/194 (Note: Volume 2
today)].

Thirdly: My opinion in respect to this Mas’alah: It is as follows:

As long as there is no specific established text prohibiting dealing with the people of other lands, in any
contract from amongst the Shar’iyah contracts, which includes the lawful materials, services and
assistances, then that which governs this Mas’alah in this case, as previously explained, is the Shar’iyah
Qaa’idah (principle) of Ad-Darar (harm).

Consequently, all that leads to the Darar (harm) is Haraam whilst there is no problem or sin in respect to
all that does not lead to Ad-Darar (harm). This is inline with the speech of the Fuqahaa’ mentioned above,
in the case where they made the place or reality of application (Manaat) of the Tahreem, in respect to
selling weapons or what is similar, to the disbelievers of the people of war, related to that which leads to
the strengthening of the enemy against the Muslims. In other words, such a sale or provision leading to
harm being brought upon the Muslims.

As such, if the Darar (harm) was negated or not present in some of the cases or circumstances of the
dealings with the disbelievers, it is permissible to provide the weaponry and other matters to them.

We will now present some of the Fiqhiy texts which support what we have we mentioned:
- In “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer), concerning the people of war (Ahl ul-Harb) requesting from the Imaam
of the Muslims to supply them with weaponry in exchange for releasing Muslim prisoners whom they
held, it was mentioned that this is permissible. The following was stated: If they have requested from the
Imaam of the Muslims to ransom them [i.e. the Muslim prisoners held within the lands at war] for their
equal number of the Mushrikeen (disbelievers) or [in exchange] for steeds (horses) or weaponry, it is
permissible for him to do that, in order to release them from imprisonment or captivity, and even if they
were strengthened by what they took from the Muslims” (2).

This means that the Maslahah (interest) in such a deal is weighed to be greater than what it includes of
harm. And for this reason, it was permissible and lawful.

- And concerning that which relates to the making of contracts with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) for
them to extract the natural resources and minerals from what lies within the earth within the Islamic lands,
thus including that which is known as strategic materials, then the following was also stated in “As-Siyar
Al-Kabeer”:

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1518].

“If the Harbiy (person from the people of war) under a security (Amaan) asked permission from the
Imam in respect to seeking treasures and minerals, and the Imaam provided him with permission upon
the basis that the Muslims would take half of what he obtained whilst he kept half, and then he acted in
accordance to that and obtained treasure or minerals, then the Imaam takes half of what he obtained and
the Harbiy takes half” (1).

- And concerning making contracts with the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) for them to utilise the Islamic
lands as a point of passage for their military forces to cross over or through, so that they can reach their
enemies who are other disbelievers not under treaty, for the sake or purpose of waging war against them
… Concerning such a contract or agreement between them, the following was mentioned in “As-Siyar Al-
Kabeer” as well:

“If a people from the Ahl ul-Harb (people of war) entered Daar ul-Islaam, with an Amaan (security), on
the basis that they pass through Daar ul-Islaam to reach another Daar of Harb (land of war i.e. non-
Muslim land), where they were unable to defeat them in fighting except by passing through the Daar
(land) of Islaam, if they were to defeat them. As such they desired for that to occur via Daar ul Islaam, to
terrify the enemy more! And so the Imaam permitted that for them upon the basis that the Muslims
would take half of what they obtained whilst they kept half. Then they went on to attain Ghanaa’im
(spoils) and the Imaam took half and what remained was for them” (2).

It therefore appears that within these Fiqhiy texts and those which we have quoted previously, from the
different Madhaahib, around the matter of making contracts with other states in respect to military affairs
or matters and facilitations offered to the Ahl ul-Harb etc., it appears that these texts include that which
clarifies that the Manaat (reality of application) of the imposition of an interdiction or ban upon these
types of contracts made with the non-Islam peoples and states, is only the Darar (harm) that afflicts the
Muslims as a result of them.

Therefore, if there were specific cases in which no harm was realised or where the Maslahah (interest) in
respect to them was weighed to be greater than the Darar, then there is no Haraj (problem), in such a
circumstance, to contract such matters. That could take place or apply (for example) if the state which
wished to establish contracts around these matters, was a weak state and the public opinion within it was
inclined towards the Muslims against their enemies from the other non-Islamic peoples and states, and
their were indications suggesting the possibility of the subjects of that weak state entering into Islaam or
joining the Islamic State upon the basis of the ‘Aqd (contract) of the Dhimmah, amongst other matters
which include a dominant Maslahah for Islaam and the Muslims.

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2169, (3) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 5/2171].

It is important to bring attention here, to the point that it is obligatory upon the people of authority within
the Islamic lands, when they are evaluating whether there is Darar (harm) in dealing with this state or that,
concerning the matters we have presented in this study, to not rush or be hasty to pass judgement in
negation of the harm, in respect to any dealing of this kind, due to their mere not sensing the presence of
that harm, behind that dealing, within the current time or near future. Rather, they must be characterised
by a high and sharp sensation in respect to this subject matter just as they must be characterised by long
term thinking and insight, so that they do not become entangled in any contracts or agreements which
drag the Muslims towards disaster and woes.

In relation to this, from that which can protect the people of authority from making a poor judgement or
evaluation in these matters, is the presence of the Taqwaa of Allah within themselves and their sincerity to
their Ummah. Similarly, the aware and outspoken public opinion is from that which imposes correct
conduct upon the people of authority in relation to taking decisions in all of the political affairs, including
those decisions related to that which we are discussing here.

It appears, that the majority (Jumhoor) of the Fuqahaa’ were not confident that these indicated guarantees
could be fulfilled; neither by those in authority or in respect to the public opinion amongst the Muslims.
As such, they issued the Hukm (ruling) prohibiting the sale of weaponry and what is similar to that, to the
Ahl ul-Harb (people of war), without elaboration or providing detail! It is natural that when the reins of
the matters or affairs slips out of the hand (or control) of the Ummah whilst desires and whims dominate
over those who hold the reins of these matters and affairs, and carelessness, recklessness or
irresponsibility is feared in respect to the contraction of these suspicious deals with the disbelievers, for
the Hukm (ruling) to then be that which the majority of the Fuqahaa’ have stated (i.e. Tahreem).

The above represents our opinion in respect to the Masaa’il (issues) presented in this study and with that
we have reached the conclusion of this current study and now move on, with the help of Allah and His
Tawfeeq, to the examination of another area of study.
 The Third Study
Wars within the Islamic regions or lands amongst themselves

The purpose of this study is not to list the incidents connected to armed or military disputes and wars
which have taken place, within the modern time, between the regions or lands of the Islamic world,
including the Arab world. Similarly, the intended purpose, from this study, is also not to thoroughly study
the causes and factors which led or lead to the wars in those regions. That is because that subject matter is
long in scope, deals with a wide range of aspects and requires an independent study, from one angle. And
from another angle, delving into it, would make us depart from the issues (Masaa’il) which we are
addressing within this final volume. They are the issues which revolve around what has been said
concerning Al-Jihaad in our current age related to the war practises connected to Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah
(in the way of Allah). We have previously become aware, at the beginning of this PhD paper, that Al-
Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah according to the Shar’iy Istilaah (terminological convention), according to what we
have weighed to be strongest or correct, is the Qitaal (fighting) of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) to raise high
the word of Allah and what is connected to that. However, in the case where some of the leaders of
commanders of the Muslims, in these wars which we are dealing with here, have called what they
undertake against their Muslim brothers, in terms of killing and destruction, also as being a Jihaad Fee
Sabeelillah, with the intended aim of providing a Shar’iyah covering to the war that they are engaging in
and to win the Islamic public opinion over to their side … in such circumstances, it became essential to
deal with these wars, in a broad manner, to make clear that the field or place for Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah,
is the struggle or clash between the Muslims and the Kuffaar (disbelievers) and not amongst the Muslims
themselves.

We will therefore restrict our treatment of this study, and in a brief manner, to the following topics:

The First Topic: The Shar’iy qualification for the wars between Islamic regions.
The Second Topic: The stance or position of the Muslims, who are not participating in the fighting, in
respect to these wars.

The Third Topic: The stance or position of those compelled to partake in the fighting in respect to these
wars.

The First Topic

The Shar’iy qualification for the wars between Islamic regions

The closest qualification for the Qitaal (fighting) that takes place between the Islamic regions in our
current day, according to a general description, is that it is Qitaal Fitnah (a fighting of sedition, strife and
discord)! We have previously explained the true reality of “Qitaal ul-Fitnah” within the first volume of this
PhD paper and as such there is no need to revisit the details regarding it here. We became aware there that
this Qitaal (fighting) only occurs in the following cases or circumstances:

A - The case where the one who represents the Haqq (truth) is not apparent from the one who represents
the Baatil (falsehood).

B - The case where both groups struggling against each other are both oppressors.

C - The case where the participation in the fighting with one of the struggling sides, occurs in the absence
of a Bayyinah (clear proof), in the case where there is no Imaam who calls to fighting one of the two sides.

D - The case of fighting to seek the authority.

Following on, it is rare for the wars which have emerged today between the Islamic regions to be free of
one or more of these meanings or circumstances which were previously detailed in the study which we
dedicated to the issue of Qitaal ul-Fitnah (the fighting of discord). That is particularly so because in our
current time there is no Khalifah for the Muslims to issue what he views in terms of a Hukm Shar’iy in
relation to providing support to one group against another, when the process towards reconciliation
between the two sides reaches a dead end and when it becomes evident to him which of the two sides is
on the side of justice and which is Baaghiy (transgressing without right or justification)? Or in the least, to
weigh which of the two groups is closer to justice and which is closer to illegitimate transgression?

I add to that, a matter which has been confirmed in the current reality, that the absence of the direction or
body to issue the binding Hukm Ash-Shar’iy, i.e. the Khalifah of the Muslims, has led to the Shar’iy
decision which is used to solve these struggles or clashes and explain the one in the right and the one in
the wrong, represents a decision which is varied and contradictory, in correlation with the number of
bodies or parties involved in the clash or those who are sympathetic to one side of the conflict or the
other …
It was very clear, not so long ago, during the dispute that happened in the Gulf, how, very regretfully, each
side had its own conference and their own ‘Ulamaa’ who would issue their Shar’iy decision or verdict
which distributed the attributes of the Haqq and Baatil upon the two contesting factions or sides. So, for
example, we witnessed a decision issued from a conference refuting as Baatil (false) that side which
another conference said were upon the Haqq, whilst stating that those whom the other side were in the
Baatil were on the Haqq. That is whilst each decision called for support to be provided to the side or
faction which was in their view upon the Haqq, and to fight against the other side or faction. This
represented a matter which generated a painful shock amongst the Muslims which led them to lose trust
in the Islamic bodies and directions and their decisions or verdicts.

In any case, it is not our purpose here to delve into this particular Mas’alah. Rather, the aim is to explain
that the contradictory position of the ‘Ulamaa’ of the Muslims in respect to what took place, makes it
preponderant to consider the fighting that had broke out, to be the Qitaal of Fitnah (discord), where the
one upon the Haqq and the one upon Baatil is not evident. This is the reality of the Qitaal of Fitnah, as
mentioned previously, even if each side has his semblance of an evidence or argument (Shubhah) that he
is the one in the right and is fighting for the sake of preserving the Haqq or to reach the Haqq (i.e. what is
right).

The explanation of that: The reality of the fragmentation and partition which colonialism imposed upon
the Islamic world. It was intended from that, from the host of what was intended, for these tragic results
which we have seen occur to take place and to continue to do so.

- This reality, beside a host of other factors, was the cause which lit the match of conflict and it is the
cause which gave each party or side, according to their perspective, a right possessed by the other side
which was unobtainable due to that detestable reality which colonialism had brought about and generated.
Those who inherited that reality from colonialism were enthusiastic to maintain it because they found
within it a way to realise their own greed and what they coveted, even if that was at the expense of the
interests of the Islamic Ummah whom they were ruling over.

It was then from human nature for every party which was prevented from reaching its Haqq (right) or
what it viewed to be its right, due to this reality, whether that right was a natural resource or necessary
passageway upon the sea or access to drinkable water (1) amongst other such rights … I say, it was from
the human nature that each party prevented from attaining its right, or what it viewed to be its right, due
to the reality of fragmentation or partition, to attempt to use force to take that which it believed it had a
right to, or to use force to maintain and preserve that or attempt to restore it, when it possessed the
capability to do that and when it saw that there was no other way of attaining what they want except by
using force.

[(1) Refer to: “Ihtilaal Al-Kuwait” (The Occupation of Kuwait), Maajid al-Maajid: p31].

This, in my opinion, represents the basis of the Shubhah (dubiousness) that drove each of the two sides or
parties to take up arms against each other and then engage in fighting or war, as we witness, within a
Qitaal of Fitnah. That is because each party or side is transgressing against the other in respect to usurping
some of what the other has in terms of rights. That is whilst we have become aware that the Qitaal of Al-
Fitnah includes when the two parties at conflict against each other are both Zhaalim (transgressing).

This is if we wish to keep the curtain draped over the causes which were being prepared in a concealed
manner to ignite the war which took place, for the sake of accomplishing many objectives which concern
those who have interests within the Islamic world and outside it, and to suffice ourselves with the
apparent and near causes for this war. That is whilst the view towards those hidden or concealed causes,
strengthens the consideration that the fighting which took place was a Qitaal (fighting) of Fitnah, as well!
Continuing on, it was a duty upon those of the Muslims who wanted to attempt to bring reconciliation
and settle all the matters, before the final eruption that took place, whether upon a political level or
Islamic level, to examine the causes which made this conflict erupt and make that the basis for the
treatment. It was a duty upon the sincere and aware to expose to the Ummah those who were pushing the
matters towards an increase and escalation of tensions through their inflexible stances or positions … and
those who were pushing them, as a consequence, towards this inflexibility, for the sake of making the
dispute develop from something bad to something worse. That was so that would facilitate them, after
that, to insert themselves amongst the disputing brothers and then direct the conflict in the direction
which serves their interests, at the expense of the interests (Masaalih) of the Ummah …. This is what took
place and this is what these matters have reached to.

I say: It was obligatory upon the Muslims, who were embarking to resolve this crisis, to make all of this
clear to the public opinion. That is because it is known that in respect to the conspiracies, plots and
schemes, the Ummah only falls into their ropes and snares when they are deceived about their true reality.
However, when these are exposed and made plain to them, then the majority refrain from accepting them
and proceeding along with them. Indeed, it is uprooted and then makes those involved to search for new
conspiracies, plots and schemes to fool or deceive the people by.

This is the reality of the conspiracies, plots and schemes which are hatched and contrived in secret and
when they are chosen to be passed upon the matter and when they are not passed? It is therefore exposing
them which blocks the path before them and prevents them from attaining their fruits.

Or, I wonder, have we have reached the situation in which it has become, as is said, an open disclosed
game, undertaken by those who have interests; the heads from them and their followers or henchmen, to
the point where no regard or account is given to the Ummah or to the public opinion?!

I say: As was previously pointed to, it is not our intended aim, during the discussion of this topic, to pass a
verdict upon what happened concerning that which we have brought up, just as it is not our aim here, to
deal with any particular reality from among the realities of the wars which have taken place between the
Islamic lands, by undertaking a detailed study. Rather, the purpose is to explain the Islamic qualification
for those wars, in a general manner, and we have explained that the closest qualification for them, is that
they represent a type of kind of Qitaal ul-Fitnah (the fighting of disorder, dissension and strife), due to the
reasons that we have pointed out.

With that we reach the conclusion of the first topic of discussion and not move on to the second.

The Second Topic

The stance or position of the Muslims, who are not participating in the fighting, in
respect to these wars

Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla makes clear what the position of the Muslims, who are not participating in the
fighting, should be, in respect to these war, in His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:
َ‫ىَاأل ُ ْخ َر ٰىَ َفََقا ِتلُ َواَالَّتِيَ َت ْبغِي‬
ْ َ‫تَإِحْ َدا ُه َماَ َعل‬ ْ ‫ِينَا ْق َت َتلُواَ َفأَصْ لِحُواَ َب ْي َن ُه َماََۖ َفإِنَ َب َغ‬ ْ ‫انَم َِن‬
َ ‫َالم ُْؤ ِمن‬ ِ ‫َوإِنَ َطا ِئ َف َت‬
َ﴾٩﴿َ‫ين‬ َ ِ‫َال ُم ْقسِ ط‬ْ ُّ‫طواََۖإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهََُيحِب‬ ُ ِ‫اَب ْال َع ْد ِل ََوأَ ْقس‬
ِ ‫تَ َفأَصْ لِحُواَ َب ْي َن ُه َم‬
ْ ‫َح َّت ٰىَ َتفِي َءَإِلَ ٰىَأَم ِْرَاللَّـ ِهََۚ َفإِنَ َفا َء‬
َ َ‫ونَإِ ْخ َوةَ َفأَصْ لِحُواَ َبي َْنَأَ َخ َو ْي ُك ْم‬
ََ ‫َۚوا َّتقُواَاللَّـ َهَلَ َعلَّ ُك ْمَ ُترْ َحم‬
‫ُون‬ ْ ‫إِ َّن َم‬
َ ‫اَالم ُْؤ ِم ُن‬
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the
other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make
settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. The believers are but brothers, so
make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy (Al-Hujuraat: 9-10) (1).

This Shar’iy text has established that the stance of those Muslims outside the sphere of the conflict is
obligatory to be the stance of Al-Islaah (reconciliation and resolution) between the two conflicting parties.

This obligatory reconciliatory stance, by those Muslims, is based upon the basis that the two conflicting or
disputing parties, be unified by the bond of Islamic brotherhood, in spite of the bloody conflict or dispute
which has broken out between them. For that reason, it is not permissible to leave the Muslim blood to
flow at the hands of its own people, without an intervention by the other Muslims to make peace and stop
the spilling of blood.

This reconciliatory or rectifying (Islaahiy) stance is also based upon the basis that those undertaking the
rectification are themselves bound by the bond of Islamic brotherhood with each of the two conflicting
parties i.e. even with that party or side which it has become apparent that it is the transgressing aggressor.
As such, it is not permissible for the brother to abandon his brother, whether he was the Zhaalim
(transgressor or oppressor) or the Mazhloom (oppressed), to a fate through which his existence comes to
an end …

[(1) This text (Al-Hujuraat: 9) is used in relation to Qitaal ul-Fitnah just as it is sued as evidence for Qitaal ul-Baghiy (i.e. the
transgressor), according to its Istilaahiy (terminological convention) which was previously presented in the study: “Qitaal Ahl
ul-Baghiy” within the forst volume of this PhD paper. Also refer to: “Al-Mughniy”, Ibn Qudaamah, “Sharh ul-Kabeer”, Al-
Maqdasiy: 10/48 and “Fataawaa”, Ibn Taymiyyah: 4/236-237].

Rather, he must deter his oppressing brother from undertaking his oppression, to preserve (both) him and
those who fall under his oppression. If he did not succeed in that attempt, then this rectifying (Muslih)
brother must stand with the Mazhloom (oppressed or wronged), to the level that restores his right to him
and mends the rifts between the hearts and ranks, without exceeding that to avenging, satisfying ones
thirst for revenge or the occurrence of any new act of oppression or injustice, which leaves raw wounds
within the person, which wait for the opportunity to be avenged, and so on …

In this manner, the previous Shar’iy text makes clear to us what the stance or position which the Muslims,
not involved in the conflict, are obliged to take in respect to what occurs in terms of wars between Islamic
groups or factions, in addition to making clear the basis which dictates this stance or position upon them.

Concerning this, Al-Imaam Al-Qurtubiy has provided for us some detail related to how this rectification
or reconciliation task, between the two conflicting sides, is to be undertaken. In his commentary upon the
above Shar’iy text, he stated the following:

“The ‘Ulamaa’ said: When two groups or factions from the Muslims fight each other it is either that: They
fight against each other as an act of Baghy (wrongful transgression) by each of them, firstly … If it was
the first (case): Then the obligation in respect to that is to proceed amongst them both in a manner to
reconcile between them so that they refrain from each other and make peace. If they do not refrain from
each other and do not make peace whilst remaining upon the Baghy (wrongful transgression), then
proceed to fight them both!
… As for the second case, and that is when one is wrongfully transgressing against the other, then the
obligation is to fight the transgressing side until it refrains and repents. If it does that, then reconcile
between the two sides fairly and by justice. If war broke out between them both due to a Shubhah
(suspicion or dubious matter) that had entered amongst them, whilst each of the two sides believed that it
was in the right, then it is obligatory to remove the Shubhah (suspicion) by a clear proof and decisive
evidence guiding to the Haqq (i.e. what is right). However, if they continue upon their dispute and do not
act upon that which they have been guided to and advised with, in terms of following the (position) of the
Haqq, after it has been made clear to both of them, then you are faced with two Baghiy (transgressing and
rebellious) factions” (1).

I say: If the Islamic Khilafah was present, it would be the one which possesses the decision to pass
judgement upon what could arise in terms of disputes or conflicts amongst the Islamic regions which
submit under its authority.

[(1) “Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam il-Qur’aan”, Al-Qurtubiy: 16/317].

- Was the Baghiy (wrongful transgression) from all of them or from some against others?

- Or did there exist one side or party that was alone in inflicting the transgression against others and then
those whom the transgression was falling upon?

Based upon that (i.e. assertation of the reality), peace or reconciliation is sought. Then if, through the
process of attempting to make peace, reconcile or rectify, the resolution of the conflict was not reached,
then the Khilafah issues its decision to use force, via other regions which are not involved or party to the
dispute or conflict, to put an end to that conflict; either by fighting both disputing parties or one of them,
in light of what Al-Qurtubiy said.

That is if the Islamic Khilafah was present.

However, in our current time, in the absence of that Khilafah, the question that comes to mind here is:
What is the body or direction which can pass judgement upon this dispute, which the involved disputing
parties could submit to, in respect to reaching peace, or which other Islamic forces, not involved in the
dispute, would respond to when its decision is issued to them, for the sake of intervening to decisively
resolve the conflict, if the peace or reconciliation process does not lead to a result? I say: What is this
direction or body which can arise to fully fulfil this role and task?

Before answering this question and announcing the proposed direction or body to undertake this role, I
would like to begin by saying that this solution which we will present remains a temporary one and it is
not certain in respect to leading to the resolution of the dispute. As for the decisive and fundamental
resolution, then that is, as previously pointed to, is the establishment of the Islamic Khilafah and joining
all of the Islmic regions under its flag. In such a case, the decision of the Khalifah in respect to resolving
the dispute would be binding according to the Shar’a, due to the obligation of obeying the Imaam, which,
according to the ruling of Islaam, supersedes obedience to other leaderships; including political and
military leaderships, in all regions of the state, in addition to its military forces, as long as the decisions or
decrees of the Imaam, of course, do not include a command for a Ma’siyah (sinful act of disobedience to
Allah), even if there were other Ijtihaadaat which determine other than what he relied upon in terms of
decisions or decrees. That is in addition to the mandatory powers or jurisdiction he possesses in respect to
mobilising what is necessary to be mobilised from other forces, to extinguish the Fitnah which has been
ignited, when the matter dictates or necessitates that.

Now, we return to our current reality and to the question that has been posed, which is:
Until Allah guides the leaders of the Muslims so that they proceed upon the path of the work to restore
the Khilafah, what is the body or direction which can, in our current day, undertake the role of Al-Islaah
(reconciliation, rectification or bringing peace), and issue a military decision that is binding according to
the Shar’a to resolve the dispute of conflict taking placed between Islamic regions?

The answer is: That the leaders of the Islamic lands, altogether, assume their responsibilities and behind
them, the Islamic Ummah who they rule, in respect to applying serious and sincere pressure upon both
disputing sides, so that they halt the fighting between them and return back to the Shar’iy judgment in
Islaam. One party would send a judge or referee from his side and the other party would send theirs, so as
to resolve the standing dispute and that would take place in light of the following:

A - Defining the jurisdiction of the two judges in respect to the issuing of the judgements which are
necessary to resolve the problems which are the cause of the dispute.

B - Making the sources of the Islamic legislation the single reference for the issuing of those judgements
and solutions, which render judgment in respect to the issues of the dispute.

C - Taking a covenant from each party of the dispute and from all of the leaders of the Islamic lands to
accept the ruling and lawful solutions issued by the two judges to resolve the particular dispute, upon the
basis that it is obligatory to execute or implement according to the ruling (Hukm) of Islaam, and that
departing from it and accepting such a departure means sinfulness according to the Shar’a.

D - If one of the two sides or parties, or both of them, refuse or reject the ruling of the two judges, the
side which rejects it is considered to be the transgressing rebellious (Baghiy) side or party; whether the
rejection came from one of the two parties or from both of them. It is then obligatory according to the
Shar’a for the Islamic forces within the other Islamic regions, to place themselves at the disposal of what
the two judges issued in terms of military decisions, related to intervening to resolve and settle the dispute
by force, in a manner which does not result in the occurrence of harms and dangers which are greater
than the harm of the actual ongoing dispute or conflict.

E - Included in the mandatory powers or jurisdiction of the two judges, by way of agreement, would be
the issuing of decisions which relate specifically to the manner of how the armed forces be mobilised
within the other Islamic regions, for the purpose of solving the standing dispute or conflict, in light of
what has been explained previously.

I say: It may be that resorting to such a method to resolve the disputes or conflicts between the Islamic
regions, is sufficient to prevent any outside power from intervening in the disputes of the Muslims under
the pretext that some of the parties of the dispute called for such an intervention … and then exploit this
opportunity to conspire against the Muslims and work to escalate those disputes and impose the
resolution that it desires, where its interest alone is realised, and then the Muslims suffer, after that, from
the effects of that resolution, worse than what they were suffering from the Fitnah of the dispute itself …
This suffering does not bother or concern these outside powers at all. Indeed, this suffering is from
amongst the concerns which were imposed to explode that calamitous resolution. We said: It may be that
resorting to judgment or arbitration, in the manner which we have explained, blocks the path in the face
of those foreign powers which cover and desire to bring corruption and harm to the ranks of the
Muslims.

The binding quality, according to the Shar’a, for the resolution that is made via the passing of judgment or
arbitration, as we have presented, is based upon the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah (consensus of the companions).
That is because all the Sahaabah held a consensus, during the period of the dispute that broke out
between ‘Ali and Mu’aawiyah, to resort to arbitration and to accept its judgement. That applied equally in
respect to the Sahaabah who were with ‘Ali, the Sahaabah who were with Mu’aawiyah and the Sahaabah
who isolated themselves from both sides, like Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Ibn ‘Umar amongst others, may
Allah be pleased with them all (1).

Concerning this, it should not be said: That the arbitration at that time did not lead to the resolution of
the dispute, which consequently indicates that the arbitration is not binding and does not lead to a result
… That should not be said because the dictates of the acceptance of all of the Sahaabah to resort or
return to arbitration means: That their decisions were binding according to the Shar’a as long as that fell
within the mandatory powers or jurisdiction provided to the two judges.

As for that arbitration or adjudication not actually resolving the dispute which occurred, then it appears
that from among the reasons for that, was the non-prior defining of the issues of the dispute to be
provided to the two judges who were duty bound to limit their solutions to the scope of those issues
alone…

[(1) Refer to: “Al-‘Awaasim Min Al-Qawaasim Fee Tahqeeq Mawaaqif As-Sahaabah”, Ibn ul-‘Arabiy: p172 onwards. Refer also
to: “Al-Khulafaa’ Ar-Raashidoon”, An-Najjaar: p426 onward, “Khabar At-Tahkeem Fee Taareekh”, At-Tabariy: 5/48 onwards,
“Abqariyat ul-Imaam”, Al-Aqqaad: 71 onwards and “Al-Islaam Deen Wa Dunyaa”, Raaghib Al-‘Uthmaaniy: p111 onwards].

However, it doesn’t fall within the context of our current study to delve into this issue now and it is
enough for us to extract, from the occurrence of the arbitration, that the Sahaabah held a consensus to
resort to adjudication and had the binding quality been absent from their decisions, then resorting to such
a process would have been pointless. It is not our concern here to examine the causes which made that
adjudication or arbitration fail in respect fulfilling its function.

In addition, if the events of the Islamic history are only studied for the sake of benefiting from its
positives and take heed from its negatives and the errors that occurred, then the negatives and errors
which surrounded the arbitration between ‘Ali and Mu’aawiyah, may Allah be pleased with them both,
should be studied so as to avoid the repeat of them (in the future).

In most cases, the selection of the two judges based upon the Deeniy, intellectual, political aspects in
addition to their concern for the Ummah, alongside defining the issues of the dispute and the
responsibilities of the two judges and their jurisdiction, and an ardent concern to preserve the legally
legitimate interest of the two disputing parties, as much as possible …

I say: In most cases, all of the above, should lead to the success of the resolution which comes from the
path of the decisions issued by the two judges, by Allah’s permission.

Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

َ ‫إِنَي ُِري َداَإِصْ َالحاَي َُو ِّف ِقَاللَّـهَُ َب ْي َن ُه َماََۗإِنَّ َاللَّـ َهَ َكا َنَ َعلِيم‬
‫اَخ ِبيرا‬
If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all
things] (An-Nisaa’: 35).

It would then be the responsibility of the ‘Ulamaa’ of the Muslims in the remainder of the Islamic regions
to broadcast and spread amongst the Ummah that the arbitration represents the Shar’iy solution and that’s
its decisions are binding based upon Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah. That is to make the disputing regions refer to
the Shar’iy solution. It is also the duty of the ‘Ulamaa’ to take a stance against the invitations to convene
numerous conferences which issue contradictory and opposing decrees!

This is therefore my view in respect to the Mas’alah which has been presented in this current topic of
discussion, which is: “The stance of the non-combatant (or participant) Muslims in respect to the wars
which take place amongst the Islamic regions”. We will now move on to the final topic of this current
study.
 The Third Topic
The position of those forced or compelled to fight in the wars which take place
amongst the Islamic regions

Concerning the one compelled or forced to participate in fighting in these wars which take place between
Islamic regions, which in reality are wars of Fitnah, what is the position or stance that he must adopt in
relation to that compulsion or coercion?

Al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah answered this question within the context of the following text which came
within his “Fataawaa”: “As for the initiation of the Qitaal (fighting) of the Fitnah, then there is no doubt
that it is not permitted”. He then stated: “It is obligatory upon him (i.e. the Muslim), if he is coerced to
attend (i.e. the battlefield), to not fight, and even if the Muslims kill him. It is just like if the disbelievers
were to compel him to be present amongst their ranks to fight against the Muslims or just like if a man
coerced a man to kill another innocent Muslim. That is because it is not permissible to kill him, as agreed
upon by the Muslims, and if they coerce him by threat of death, then the preservation of his life by killing
that innocent is not given precedence over the opposite of that. He does not have the right to commit the
act of transgression against another, where he kills him (i.e. the other) so that he himself is not killed …”
(1).

I say: It is understood from this, that responding positively to attend the battlefield due to coercion or
compulsion, is not sinful. Rather, the sin is to practise or engage in the acts of fighting which afflict other
Muslims. This is not permissible for the Muslim to comply with and even if he was being coerced.

This is what is understood also from what came stated in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer Wa Sharhuh”, even though
the context of the speech in “As-Siyar Al-Kabeer” is related to the coercion of Muslim prisoners by the
disbelievers, held by them, to fight alongside them against the Muslims. Despite that difference, the
mentioned Hukm (ruling) also applies upon the reality of leaders or commanders of the Fitnah (strife and
dissension) coercing fighters under their control, to fight other Muslims. The following came stated in
“As-Siyar Al-Kabeer and its Sharh:

[(1) “Fataawaa”, Ibn Taymiyyah: 4/350-351].

“If the disbelievers said to the Muslim prisoners they held: Fight with us against the Muslims and if you
do not, we will kill you, they cannot fight against the Muslims because that is Haraam upon the Muslims
in itself (‘Ainihi) and therefore it is not permissible to proceed towards that due to the threat of being
killed. It is like if they said to him: Kill this Muslim or I will kill you. If they threaten them, they stand with
them in the rank, but do not fight against the Muslims. I hope (by that) that they will be safe (i.e. from sin)
because now (in this case) they are not doing anything against the Muslims …” (1).

He (the author) then explained after that, that if there was no coercion or threat, and if only in respect to
being present amongst the ranks of the enemy, without engagement in fighting, then it is not permissible
to attend or be present, because by attending it would assist in inserting fear into the Muslims due to the
large number of the enemy that they see before them. However, under coercion and threat (to life), then
that which has been given a Rukhsah (special permission) in such a circumstance, is merely attendance
with the disbelievers, without fighting.
The above is what relates to the matter of coercion in respect to initiating the Qitaal (fighting) against the
Muslims.

The question now is: If the fighter or combatant attends the battlefield, during the Qitaal of Fitnah, due to
coercion, what should he do?

The answer is: In light of what has been mentioned previously, he must not engage in any act which
results in the killing of Muslims. That is either by refraining or abstaining from fighting in origin, or by
making his fighting actions not lead to the spilling of the blood of the Muslims, like if he was to direct
missiles or projectiles in directions that would not hot anyone whom it is Haraam for him to kill.

However, what about the case if he had agreed and then met his Muslim brother in battle from the others’
ranks, out of coincidence, face to face, whilst that other was in a position to kill him with the weapon that
he had?

- Does he surrender to being killed in such a case and then be from the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the
Aakhirah, as previously explained?

- Or does he fight the Qitaal of defence, and then if he killed the other, he would be excused in respect to
that and not be sinful, because he was defending himself or his life, whilst if he was killed, he would be
from the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs) of the Aakhirah, as previously detailed?

Al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, when explaining some of the Fiqhiy opinions related to this Mas’alah (issue) i.e.
the Mas’alah of defence or refraining from defence in the Qitaal of Fitnah, said:

[(1) “Sharh As-Siyar Al-Kabeer”: 4/1517].

“It is known, that is a person attacks him, it is permissible to repel, according to the Sunnah and the
Ijmaa’. They (the Fuqahaa’) only disputed in respect to whether it is obligatory upon him to repel by Al-
Qitaal (fighting or physical force)? There are two views and they are two Riwaayahs (reports) attributed to
Ahmad (Bin Hanbal). The first is: It is obligatory to defend oneself … And the second: It is permissible to
defend oneself. As for initiating the Qitaal (fighting) in the Fitnah, then that is impermissible, without
doubt” (1).

I say: More Fiqhiy details related to this Mas’alah (issue) were previously mentioned during the study of
“Qitaal ul-Fitnah” and therefore it is not from the aims of this current study to readdress them. During
that study, we weighed to be strongest, that the opinion stating that defence of one’s life or self, in respect
to what we are addressing, is Mubaah (permissible), unless abstaining from the defence results in harms
which are greater than the harm of surrendering oneself to be killed, in which case the defence would be
Waajib (obligatory).

In light of what has preceded, if those who have been coerced go out, in the Qitaal of the Fitnah, to the
battlefield, and then the opportunity was presented to them to surrender to the other side, to be prisoners
only, so as to avoid be compelled to fight the Muslims, then it is obligatory for them to surrender, because
in such a situation a way to avoid falling into Haraam has been designated for them, just as it represents
resorting to the weaker or lesser of the two evils.

This then, as we see it, represents the stance or position that those who are compelled to fight must resort
to, in respect to the wars of Fitnah which take place amongst Islamic regions.
With that we have reached the conclusion of this topic of discussion and consequently have also
concluded the third study. We will now, with the help of Allah and His Tawfeeq, move on to the fourth
and final study of the seventh and last volume of this PhD paper.

[(1) “Fataawaa”, Ibn Taymiyyah: 4/350].

The Fourth Study

The fighting or military organisations within the Islamic world. What is the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in relation
to their activities?

The discussion or examination in this study will not be restricted to those organisations which were
fundamentally established upon the basis of the utilisation of arms or weapons to accomplish their
objectives. Rather, it will also address those organisations or groups which utilise those weapons
sometimes or those which it has been attributed to them, that they have utilised arms or material means to
accomplish particular aims.

We did not intend, through this final study of this PhD paper for it to represent a study or semi-study,
about all of the organisations or groups within the Islamic world, during recent times, in terms of what
arose from them and how time dealt with them, or what remains until this day of them and their premises,
directions, goals and activities.

I say: we did not intend through this study to attempt anything like that because such an aim, regardless of
it requiring an independent research paper and not merely a study within a paper, would make us depart
from our intended purpose of this study which we are addressing. That purpose is: The position of the
Ijtihaad Ash-Shar’iy in relation to the fighting (or military) activities or armed actions, which organisations
and groups undertake, in terms of what is Mashroo’ (lawful or legally legitimate) and what is not? And
also, what from these activities or actions falls under the category of Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah?

Based upon that, we will restrict our address of this study to the Masaa’il (issues) which the following
topics incorporate:

The First Topic: The most important philosophical bases which these organisations are based, in respect
to their taking up of arms and the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in relation to them.

The Second Topic: The different directions or sources, for the financial, military and political support,
which the organisations depend upon and the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to that.

The Third Topic: The types of organisations from the angle of the areas or grounds where they
undertake their operations.

- The First Branch: The border activities against the enemies.

- The Second Branch: The guerrilla war (Fadaa’iy) activities against the enemies inside the occupied
lands or the lands of the enemy.

- The Third Branch: The activities undertaken inside the Muslim lands against the state or some of its
factions.

The Fourth Topic: Fighting between the organisations and the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to
that.

The Fifth Topic: The stance or position of the Muslims towards the internal fighting between
organisations.
 The First Topic
The most important philosophical bases which these organisations are based, in
respect to their taking up of arms and the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in relation to them

There are two issues in this topic:

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are the most important or significant bases which the fighting
organisations are based on in relation to taking up arms for the purpose of fulfilling their goals or
objectives?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in relation to those bases? I.e. in
terms of the Mashroo’iyah (lawfulness) of taking up arms based upon those bases or the unlawfulness and
illegitimacy of that?

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are the most important or significant bases which
the fighting organisations are based on in relation to taking up arms for the
purpose of fulfilling their goals or objectives?
It does not concern us here, what the organisations which have been established upon this basis or that
basis, from among the bases which we will present, are, apart from that which has been presented as
examples. Similarly, it does not concern us here, whether those organisations depend upon a single basis
or more than that, for their launching out to practise their activities. Rather, all that concerns us here, in
this Mas’alah, is to present those bases or the most significant of them, which those organisations have
depended upon for the taking up of arms to reach their objectives. Then, we will go on to deal with the
second Mas’alah related to the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in relation to those bases.

1 - From among the bases which some of the organisations have been established upon and depended
upon for the legal legitimacy of taking up arms, is the basis of the liberation of the Islamic lands from the
occupation of the colonialist disbelievers. That is like: “The Algerian National Liberation Front” or the
Palestinian “Fatah” organisation.

- The following came stated in “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The Political Dictionary) in respect to the
definition of “The Algerian National Liberation Front” and the basis upon which it was established: “(It
is) a national Algerian organisation or body, formed since 1951, and it incorporated the leaders of secret
guerrilla war organisations and sincere political personalities. And it was this organisation or body which
declared the armed revolution against the French colonialists on the 1st of November 1954” (1).

- In respect to the definition of the “Fatah” organisation, the following was also stated in “Al-Qaamoos
As-Siyaasiy”:

“Al-Fatah Organisation: A Palestinian guerrilla war organisation and its name was derived from a
shortening of the wording: “The liberation of Palestine movement” (2). It was established upon the basis
of acquiring freedom upon the principle that the restoration of Palestine would not occur except by
carrying arms in the face of the Zionist occupation represented in the Israeli authorities. That would be by
undertaking attacks inside the occupied area and destroying and blowing up Israeli installations, whilst
being reliant in the undertaking of its activities upon guerrilla warfare. The organisation set up a military
apparatus within it known as the “Army of the storm” to accomplish the objectives which the
organisation was established for …” (3).

2 - Also from among the bases which some of the fighting organisations were established upon, was to
work to detach some parts or areas of the Islamic lands subservient to independent states existing within
the Islamic world. The objective of that was the establishment of new small independent states within the
Muslim lands. That is like the “Polisario Front” which works to establish a (Western) “Saharan Republic”
in the Moroccan desert, which includes the region of As-Saaqiyah Al-Hamraa’ and Al-Waadiy Adh-
Dhahab, after they were included within the territory of the Moroccan state, following the exit of the
Spanish colonialism from that land (4).

[(1) “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiy”, Ahmad ‘Atiyullah: p1954. Also refer to: “Taareekh Al-‘Arab Al-Hadeeth Al-Mu’aasar”, Dr.
Lailaa Sabbaagh who said: “France exited from Algeria after a bitter, hard and honourable struggle in the year 1387 AH, 1962
CE”: p316. Refer to: “Ath-Thawrah Al-‘Arabiyah Al-Mu’aasarah Wa l-‘Ab’aad Al-Fikriyah Wa t-Tanzheemiyah”, Muhammad
Abdul Hakeem Diyaab: p244-245, (2) I said: he means the first letter of each word beginning from the last part of that wording,
(3) “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiy”: p1241-1242. Refer to: “Taareekhiyah Al-‘Azmah Fee Fat’h”, Nazeeh Abu Nidaal: p7 onwards,
(4) Refer to: “Qadaayaa Al-‘Aalam Al-Islaamiy Wa Mushkilaatu As-Siyaasiyah Baina l-Maadiy Wa l-Haadir”, Dr. Fathiyah An-
Nabraawiy and Dr. Muhammad Nasr Muhannaa: p421. The following came mentioned in it on pages 408-409: “Spain handed
over the authority in the Sahraa (desert area) to both Morocco and Mauritania on the 27th of February 1976. Immediately
following that, discussions began between Morocco and Mauritania in respect to an agreement about division. According to
that agreement Mauritania attained the southern third of the desert (The area of Rewadiy Awrad) …” he then said: “On the day
that Spain declared the discarding of its authority, the Polisario leadership declared the “Desert Republic” whilst in exile in
Algiers (Algeria). It then began to organise armed resistance against the two new administers (of the region), Morocco and
Mauritania ...”.
Also, included within this type, are the fighting or military organisations which some of the Kurds
established in Iraq and its surroundings, in an attempt to establish an independent separate state
incorporating the Kurds of the region (1).

3 - From among the bases upon which some of the organisations or groups have been established upon
within the Islamic world, is the undertaking of assassinations against personalities who the organisation or
group has judged to have betrayed the Deen or nation, believing that such physical eliminations protect
Islaam or the lands from the danger of the role which they personalities partake in or what those
personalities are attempting to do in respect to the politics or policies of the land etc …

From amongst the organisation of this category is the Iranian “Fedayeen Islaam” association.

This association was defined in “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiyah” as follows:

“Fedayeen Islaam: It is an Iranian political association, which has a doctrinal character. It played a
prominent role in the political struggle in Iran following the second world war. Its establishment was
attributed to “Nawwaab As-Safawiy”. From its principles was that the assassination of traitors against the
Deen and Watan (nation) was not regarded to be a crime. Then, its name was tied to a number of
assassinations. That was particularly after it came under the leadership of the religious leader Ayatollah
Kashani after the imprisonment of its head “Nawwaab As-Safawiy”. On the 7th of March 1951, one of the
members of “Fedayeen Islaam” assassinated the Prime Minister General Razmara due to his pro-western
petrol (or oil) policy …” (2).

4 - From among the bases upon which some of the organisations, within the Islamic lands, were
established, was the work to overturn the ruling systems or regimes, within the current states within the
Islamic world and to establish the Islamic State upon their rubble or ruins.

[(1) Concerning these organisations and the objectives behind them, the following was mentioned in the book “As-Siyaasah
Baina s-Saa’il wa l-Mujeeb”: “The Kurds today continue their struggle against the two governments of Iraq and Iran, and to a
lesser degree, militarily, against the Turkish government. The objectives of the numerous Kurdish organisations differ however
most of them realise that the realisation of an independent Kurdish state is a far-off matter. The preponderant objective is the
accomplishment of a limited autonomous rule inside each of the states”: 2/251. This speech belongs to Hugh Schofield the
former researcher and commentator for the Arab British broadcasting Corporation. It was translated by the “Ahraam Centre
for Translation and Publcishing”, (2) “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The Political Dictionary), Ahmad ‘Atiyullah: p856].

From those organisations established upon this basis is “Jama’at ul-Jihaad” in Egypt.

Dr. Muhammad ‘Amaarah, in relation to his presentation of the fundamental thought upon which this
group was established, said the following: “The removal of the Kufr (disbelieving) state which has
apostatised from Islaam and the establishment of the Islamic State and restoration of Islaam to the
Muslims, and launching forth to restore the Islamic Khilafah. That represents the thought of Jamaa’at ul-
Jihaad, as has come stated within the few pages of the book “Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah” (1) (The Absent
Obligation) …” (2).

And when explaining the tool which Jamaa’at ul-Jihaad rely upon to accomplish these aims, Dr. ‘Amaarah
said: “Al-Jihaad (3) is the way to establish the Islamic State. And the Jamaa’ah Al-Mujaahidah (i.e.
undertaking Jihaad) is the tool of Al-Jihaad to establish the state. From a minority or small group that
believes in Al-Jihaad, this group is formed which will overcome and defeat the opposing (stubborn)
majority, by Allah’s permission”. Dr. ‘Amaarah quotes the following text from the book “Al-Fareedah Al-
Ghaa’ibah” (The absent obligation), which this group issued. The text states: “The basis of the presence
of the colonialism within the lands of Islaam are those rulers. Therefore, beginning by eliminating the
colonialism represents an action which unproductive and not beneficial. It is nothing but a waste of time.
We must therefore focus upon our Islamic issue and that is the establishment of the Shar’a of Allah first
in our land and make the word of Allah the highest. There is no doubt that the first battlefield of Jihaad is
to uproot those disbelieving leaderships and replacing them with the complete Islamic system. From here
is where the launching forth or out occurs” (6).

[(1) The book “Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah” (The absent Obligation) and it is attributed to the Marhoom Engineer Muhammad
Abdus Salaam Faraj Khaamis who was executed for the assassination of President Sadat. “Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaa’ibah (The
Absent Obligation): Presentation, dialogue and evaluation”, Dr. Muhammad ‘Amaarah: p19, (2) The same reference: p48, (3)
The intended meaning of Al-Jihaad here is: The specificity of Al-Qitaal. Refer to: The previous reference source by Dr.
Amaarah: p48, (4) The same source, Dr. ‘Amaarah: p41 and the text in the original book of the group is on p25].

Following on, these therefore represent the most significant bases upon which some of the organisations
and groups, which we have made as a model for others and which took up arms within the Islamic world
to accomplish their objectives, were established.

By that we end the discussion of the first Mas’alah (issue) and now arrive to the second.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in relation
to those bases? I.e. in terms of the Mashroo’iyah (lawfulness) of taking up arms
based upon those bases or the unlawfulness and illegitimacy of that?

The answer to this question, in brief, is as follows:

Firstly: Taking up arms upon the basis of fighting the enemy who has usurped the Islamic lands, is from
the Jihaad which has been made obligatory upon the Muslims as a whole in all of its regions and not only
upon the people of the land which has been usurped alone. That obligation remains until the occupied
land is liberated by the elimination of the enemy, or its expulsion from the land, or by its surrender and
the application of the Islamic Hukm (ruling) upon it according to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related
specifically to this matter. We have previously detailed the opinion in respect to that within the third
volume when discussing the reasons for the declaration of Al-Jihaad and also within the sixth volume
when discussing the causes for the cessation of Al-Qitaal (fighting).

- Dr. Fat’hiy Ad-Durainiy, in relation to the discussion about the Hukm (ruling) of fighting the
disbelievers to liberate the Islamic lands from occupation, stated the following:

“The Hukm, according to the Shar’a, if a land is separated from the lands of Islaam, is that it is a duty
upon all of the Muslims to fight the enemy and to rid this land from the enemies of Allah … This is Fard
‘Ain (an individual obligation), it is obligatory upon all of the Muslims in the rest of their lands to go forth
in Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah …” (1).

Based upon this, some of the leaders of the Palestinian fighting organisations, which are active in this
field, urge the Muslims from every region and origin, to join with the procession of Al-Jihaad to liberate
Palestine.

One of the leaders of these organisations said the following:

“This blessed land is not the land of the Palestinians or the land of the Arabs. This is the land of Islaam
and its liberation is a right and obligation, an individual (‘Ain) obligation and not Fard Kifaayah
(obligation of sufficiency) …

[(1) “Al-Islaam Wa l-Ihtilaal As-Sahyooniy Li Filasteen” (Islam and the Zionist occupation of Palestine): p38. Words that were
spoken on the occasion of: The World Al-Quds day, which was held by the Cultural Office of the Islamic Iranian Republic in
Damascus, on the last Jumu’ah of Ramadhaan 1408 AH].
…It is Fard ‘Ain upon every Muslim to advance with what he possible can undertake for the sake of the
liberation of this Muslim land, the land of Palestine” (1).

He then said the following in relation to some of the projects which were being put forward towards the
recognition of the Zionist entity and to give up some parts of Palestine to Israel, in order to restore other
parts of those usurped lands, to establish a Palestinian state upon that:

“It is not the right of a Palestinian, Arab or Islamic person to say: This land is not Palestinian or this land
is not Islamic. This is the property or ownership of Islaam and it is not the right of anyone, whether he is
Palestinian or Arab, or for any international conference or international body or international negotiations,
to state the legal legitimacy of the (Zionist) entity, and to state that a part of the land of Palestine be given
up” (2). He then stated: “In the name of those who struggle from your Palestinian brothers, we make a
covenant with Allah, the Messenger of Allah and we pledge (by covenant) to every Muslim that we will
remain raising the banner and remain carrying arms as long as we have a pulse. We will never surrender
(or give up) …

This land, the land of the Arabs and Muslims, must be victorious in the end. This is a covenant (‘Ahd).
This is a covenant pledged by all revolutionaries and the covenant of every Palestinian who carries a rock
inside the occupied land to strike the usurper enemy …” (3).

In addition, to reiterate that the issue of Palestine is an issue of all of the Muslims in the Islamic world and
that they must undertake their obligation to retake all of it from the usurper enemy, and that it is not
permissible for them to not undertake this Waajib (obligation), to reiterate this issue, the cultural attaché
of the Iranian Islamic Republic, in Damascus, Dr. Saadiq Aeenah Wand said: “The issue of Al-Quds Ash-
Shareef and (our) dear Palestine, is not an Arab-Jewish issue. Rather, it is beyond that …

[(1) “Islam and the Zionist occupation of Palestine”: p28 from the speech delivered by “Abu Mousaa, the secretary of the
temporary leadership of the Fatah movement of the Intifada, (2) Same reference: p32, (3) Same reference: p33].

It is war between Islaam and Zionism. This monstrosity born for the arrogance of the world and
abominable germ which was planted by the odious British colonialism within the Islamic lands. Those
who wish to make the issue of Al-Quds and Palestine an Arab-Jewish issue alone and struggle within the
limits of their specific region, are working to distance or remove the moral and material strength of 800
million Muslims, who believe in one Deity, one Nabi, perform the same Salaah and believe in one single
joint value system. The distancing of that power or force represents an unforgivable sin and an unsound
act” (1).

The above therefore represents what is to be said in respect to the basis upon which some of the fighting
organisations have been established with the objective of restoring Islamic lands from the Kaafir
colonialist, which include, amongst them, the organisations which work to liberate Palestine.

It is not our concern here, to enter into the discussions that revolve around whether it is within the
capability of those organisations to continue in their material fight until they succeed in drawing the
Muslims into a peoples’ war through which the land is liberated, or if its role is restricted alone to
undertaking limited military acts or operations to keep the plain of the struggle against the enemy hot (and
alive) so as to maintain the spirit of Al-Jihaad lit within the breasts of the Ummah, until different
circumstances are made ready or come into existence for the liberation of the land in a decisive manner to
take place, though war and regular (state) armies (2).

I say: It is not our concern here to enter into these discussions. What is important, is the basis which the
armed struggled relied upon in respect to confronting the usurper enemy, is a Mashroo’ (legally legitimate)
basis, and that the fighting upon this basis is from Al-Jihaad Fee Sabeelillah (in Allah’s way). The one who
has made his intention good in respect to this Qitaal (fighting) has the reward of the Mujaahideen and the
one who is martyred ha the reward of the Shuhadaa’ (martyrs). That applies equally whether this armed or
military activity leads to the liberation of the land in the end or is limited to the current situation in order
to keep the enemy within a continual state of fear and watchfulness from that which afflicts it in terms of
the guerrilla war acts which rob them of their sleep from time to time. That is because all of that is Jihaad
which is accepted and rewardable (Mabroor).

[(1) “Islam and the Zionist occupation of Palestine”: p12. In addition, the following was stated in “Jihaad Ad-Da’wah”: p190,
by Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaaliy: “The number of Jews in the world are 16 million whilst we exceed a billion!”, (2)
Refer to: “Ath-Thawrah Al-Filasteeniyah” (The Palestinian Revolt) , Colonel Mustafaa Talaas: p62 and “Al-Muqaawamah Al-
Filasteeniyah” (The Palestinian Resistance), Talaal Khaalidiy: p8].

Secondly: As for taking up arms upon the basis of the work to establish states which are partitioned from
the body of the current standing independent states within the Islamic world, then this is not a Mashroo’
(lawful or legally legitimate) act. That is because it is contrary and in opposition to the Shar’iyah texts and
principles (Qawaa’id), from which the Da’wah (call) to the unity of the Muslims in one single entity and
one single State is understood.

We have previously detailed and explained the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) concerning this Mas’alah in
the previous study under the heading: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) for the sake of the unity or unification of the
Islamic lands”, within the first volume (1).

We have also previously pointed to the fact that in this final volume of this PhD paper, we have not
included it for the purpose to readdress subjects which the titles present within it indicate to, in the case
where all or most of them have been studied within the contexts of the previous studies. Rather, we only
intended from this current volume, which includes these subject areas, to draw attention to them and then
indicate to the contexts of their address within this (PhD) paper.

Thirdly: As for taking up arms (or engaging in material force) to undertake assassinations and eliminating
personalities, which those undertaking these acts upon this basis, have judged to be criminal traitor
personalities against the Deen and nation, believing that undertaking this terrorising represents a means to
deter those running the affairs of the land and those similar to them, from proceeding upon a path of
deviation, conspiring and policies which harm the interests of the Ummah and their caretaking of the
affairs of the Muslims according to the teachings of Islaam …

I say: Bearing weapons (or engaging in these material acts), upon this basis, is not Mashroo’ (lawful), as we
viewed to be the strongest opinion within the studies connected to this Mas’alah. That is like the study:
“Al-Qitaal (fighting) to defend the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah (Public inviolable sanctities)”, the study “Al-
Qitaal (fighting) against the deviation of the Haakim (ruler)” and “Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the
Islamic State” (2). The summary or conclusion of the opinion is that when the society is not an Islamic
society, where the relationships and systems within it do not proceed in accordance to the teachings of
Islaam, then the correction of the deviation of the deviators within it, is not undertaken by way terrorising
and assassinations. Rather, it is only undertaken by working to establish the Islamic society and then by
the protection of that society from the deviations of the deviators, from the people in authority or others
…

[(1) Page 323 (of the original Arabic) and onwards, (2) “Al-Qitaal in defence of the Hurumaat Al-‘Aammah”, Fifth study, First
volume, p89 onwards, “Al-Qitaal (fighting) against the deviation of the Haakim (ruler)”, Sixth study, First volume: p111
onwards and ““Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State”, Eleventh study, First volume: p285 onwards].

That is undertaken by way of commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar, accounting those in
positions of responsibility and preparing the public opinion to make them abide by the Ahkaam of Islaam
and submit to its laws in respect to penalising those who violate them.
Also, included within the studies indicated to above, there are many details which clarify the issue which
we are addressing, in light of differences in circumstances and conditions. This is from one angle.

From another angle, the organisation is its description as an organisation, does not, according to the
Shar’a, possess judicial authority or the authority to execute, neither within an Islamic society or a non-
Islamic society. Therefore, how can it be valid for it to issue a judicial judgement to kill someone and then
go ahead to execute that judgement? And how often is it that this type of thought has been exploited for
lowly objectives or to secure personal gains or interests?!

Fourthly: As for taking up arms (or engaging in material acts) upon the basis of overturning the ruling
systems (or regimes) currently present within the states of the Islam world today, for the sake of
establishing the Islamic State, then we have addressed this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) in detail in the study
titled: “Al-Qitaal for the purpose of establishing the Islamic State” … A brief summary of the view related
to taking up arms for the sake of accomplishing this aim is as follows:

Concerning the lands in which it is wanted to establish the Islamic State within them, if the public opinion
within them is for this thought, the circumstances are all favourable or agreeable, the available power is
sufficient for its establishment, according to the preponderant view based upon precise and aware
evaluations and complete calculations, which are far removed from rashness and foolhardiness of those
who are driven by the desire to rush or hasten the taking of the rule … then in such a situation or case,
the Islamic State would be latent within the womb of the Ummah and the elements of life would have
become complete within her, whilst nothing would remain apart from that coming out to manifest. If,
then, the birth of the Islamic State happened in a peaceful manner, in one form or another, then that
represents a matter which is sought and is like what happened in respect to the birth of the Islamic State
within the society of Al-Madinah, during the time of the Nabi ‫ﷺ‬. However, if the birth of this state was
difficult via the natural peaceful approach, in the situation indicate to above, due to the presence of some
problems and obstacles, do we the leave that latent state existing within the womb of the Ummah to
suffocate and die, which could then, as a result, lead to serious ramifications for the Ummah itself? Does
not a surgical operation or caesarean section, as it is called, to bring out this state, in these circumstances,
not represent the saving or rescuing of that state, just as it means rescuing the life of the Ummah at the
same time? I do not want to say, through this question, that the Shar’iy basis for taking this caesarean
process to extract the Islamic State from the womb of the Ummah, is based upon the analogy of taking
out the live foetus from the womb of the mother via a surgical operation, if the matter required or
necessitated that …

No, I do not want to say that. That is because the Shar’iy basis, in respect to this reality, is the “Bai’at ul-
Harb” (pledge of war) which the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬contracted with the Ansaar at Al-‘Aqabah, just before the
Hijrah. Amongst its meanings is the readiness for the possibility or probability of the Islamic State being
targeted when the decision for its birth was taken, in Al-Madinah, due to some difficulties which were
posed. Therefore the “War” which the Bai’ah (pledge) was contracted upon for the purpose of eliminating
those difficulties was representative of that surgical operation to bring out that new living born entity
which existed latently within the society of Al-Madinah i.e. it represented the caesarean procedure to bring
out the Islamic State to practical existence and to protect it from the schemes which were being hatched
or planned to suffocate it before its establishment or after it! This applies in the case where the land which
is wanted to establish the Islamic State in, upon the basis of a military act, possessed a dominating or
prevailing public opinion which has embraced this thought, with the conditions that have been previously
mentioned.

- As for the situation when the public opinion in that land in which it is wanted to establish the Islamic
State had not embraced this thought or the circumstances were not favourable or agreeable, and the
power was not available, as has been mentioned previously, then in such a situation, the inability to
establish the State would be a Shar’iy ‘Udhr (excuse) to delay the attempts targeting its establishment and
Allah does not burden a soul more than he has the ability to bear. Rather, going ahead with these exploits
within this domain, in which many tragedies and sufferings arise, represents a great error and those who
undertake the exploits carry its burden and responsibility (and sin) according to what they committed in
terms of shortcomings in respect to the calculations and evaluations they based it on.

The above represents in brief what is to be said concerning this Mas’alah. As for the details, then they
have been presented earlier in the study: “Al-Qitaal (fighting) to establish the Islamic State”.

With that, we have reached the conclusion of the first topic in this current study and we will now move on
to the second.

The Second Topic

The different directions or sources, for the financial, military and political support,
which the organisations depend upon and the stance of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in
respect to that

There are two Mas’alah (issues) in this topic:

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are the directions or sources from which the support, in its various
types, come from, for these organisations?

The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the position of Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to receiving the support
from those different directions?

The First Mas’alah (issue): What are the directions or sources from which the
support, in its various types, come from, for these organisations?

There are numerous directions from which different types of support come for the organisations:

A - In the domain of financial support, the support could come from itself and by that, I mean through
those affiliated themselves to the organisation or group. That is like a continuous monthly contribution or
subscription made by those who are affiliated, into a fund of the body they are affiliated to.

This source from among the sources of financial support for organisations or groups, in general, and the
extent that this can reach in terms of a huge size which has a major impact upon the activity of those
organisations or groups, was elaborated upon in the book “Mudhakkiraat Ad-Da’wah Wa d-Daa’iyah” by
Ash-Sheikh Hasan Al-Bannaa, the founder of Jamaa’at ul-Ikhwaan ul-Muslimeen, in Egypt and its
Murshid Al-‘Aamm. That came in his disclosure about the financial sources which provide Jamaa’at ul-
Ikhwaan with the necessary finances to cover what their activities require in terms of huge expenditures.
That was to dispel the suspicions which had been raised concerning this matter.

He, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, said concerning this: “It happened that the Da’wah was in need of
money, after its activity expanded somewhat in Cairo in the year 1357 AH, corresponding to 1938. Then
Al-Ustaadh Abdul Hakeem ‘Aabideen put forward the suggestion of “Da’wah share”. The general
committee ratified this proposal and its summary was: That each of them (i.e. those affiliated to Jamaa’at
ul-Ikhwaan) would give up a fifth of his income or a tenth, in the least for the Da’wah! And the brothers
(i.e. members of Ikhwaan) rushed to implement that willing …” (1).

There is also the support that comes in the form of contributions from outside of the organisation or
Jamaa’ah; whether those contributions were from ordinary individuals who were expressing their support
for the activities of that organisation or from governments or official institutions within the Islamic lands.

In relation to this, the following was also mentioned in the book “Mudhakkiraat Ad-Da’wah Wa d-
Daa’iyah” by Ash-Sheikh Hasan Al-Bannaa: “The council of the governate of Ad-Daqhilliyah decided in
its sitting convened on the 14th of Rabee’ ul-Awwal in the year 1356, 24th of May 1937, to grant the branch
of Ikhwaan ul-Muslimeen in Mansoura annual assistance worth 150 Egyptian pounds” (2).

Concerning this also, is what came in respect to the support of Arab governments provided to the
Palestinian Liberation Organisation, in a major way, during some of its phases, regardless of the concealed
motives behind the provision of that support.

Regarding this, Talaal Al-Khaalidiy said:

“The reactionary Arab and regional regimes shouted with joy the slogan: “Independent identity for the
Palestinian people” and they increased upon that by determining that the Palestinian people were
represented by its their organisation (PLO), which alone has the right to determine their destiny! Huge
amounts of finances were thrown into supporting the organisation (i.e. PLO) and to consolidate its entity”
(3).

B - Also among the varieties of support provided to the fighting organisations existent within the Islamic
world, is the military support. By this, I mean all that which is connected to the provision of weaponry,
training of fighters and what is upon these lines.

[(1) “Mudhakkiraat Ad-Da’wah Wa d-Daa’iyah” by Ash-Sheikh Hasan Al-Bannaa, p258, (2) Same source: p245, (3) “Al-
Muqaawamah Al-Filastaniyah; Nazhrah Ilaa l-Maadiy wa Nazhrah Ilaa l-Mustaqbal”, Talaal Khaalidiy: p14. Within which it was
said: “The Palestinian revolution was considered to be the richest of the revolutions of the world absolutely”, same source].

In relation to this the following came mentioned in the book “Qadaayaa Al-‘Aalam Al-Islaamiy” about the
military support provided to the Polisario Front:

“The Polisario were armed, then trained and financed via Algerian-Libyan support” (1).

This support could also come from outside of the Islamic world and in respect to this, within the same
source, and in relation to the Polisario Front, its military operations against Morocco and the directions
which provided it with support, the following was mentioned:

“The Polisario implemented styles of guerrilla warfare with focused assaults and with large numbers,
consisting of between 4-5 thousand fighters in one single assault! They used advanced weaponry and
specifically land to land missiles, land to air in addition to medium and short-range artillery”. He then said:
“It was observed here, that the Algerian-Libyan assistance played a pivotal role in respect to this military
advancement in addition to the prominence of the Cuban and Vietnamese role” (2).

Within the same book, in another part, he (the author) said: “On the 7th of May 1980, the Moroccan
minister responsible with the affairs of the desert area, in the Moroccan government, said that Morocco
faced an international conspiracy undertaken by the Soviets, in the case where they were providing the
Polisario with advanced weapons from the most modern weapons of the Warsaw pact” (3).

C - Also from the varieties of support provided to the fighting organisations within the Islamic world, is
the political support. This support means a variety of forms in terms of the assistance of states to those
organisations in respect to the issues upon the basis of which they were established. Included within that,
is states which support a particular organisation, arranging their foreign relations with some other states
upon the basis of their stance towards that organisation.

[(1) “Qadaayaa Al-‘Aalam Al-Islaamiy Wa Mushkilaatuhu As-Siyaasiyah, Baina l-Maadi Wa l-Haadir” (Issues of the Islamic
world and its political problems, between the past and the present), Dr. Fat’hiyah An-Nabraawiy and Dr. Muhammad Nasr
Muhannaa: p420, (2) Same reference source: p428, (3) Same reference source (Commentary notes): p437].

Also included within that, is what some states do in terms of granting the organisations independent
programmes within their radio broadcasting services just as some Arab countries do in relation to some of
the fighting factions within the Palestinian resistance (1).

The political support for the organisations could also come from outside the Islamic world, like that
represented in the support of Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union provided to the Polisario Front in the
Moroccan desert region (2) or like the support of many states, in the outside world, to the PLO
(Palestinian Liberation Organisation) (3).

The above therefore represent various faces or forms of the support provided to fighting organisations
within the Islamic world and the difference in respect to the directions from which this support comes. I
mean from within the organisations themselves or from outside of them, from inside the Islamic world
and from outside of it.

With that we have concluded the discussion of the first Mas’alah and now move on to the second issue.

The Second Mas’alah (issue): What is the position of Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to
receiving the support from those different directions?

The study or examination of this Mas’alah, naturally, only relates specifically to the legally legitimate
organisations in respect to the bases which they have been established upon and in relation to the
activities which they undertake or practise. In respect to the other organisations, as long as they are
unlawful or illegitimate in their bases or foundations and their activities, then the subject of their support
and their receipt of that support would also be legally illegitimate or unlawful, regardless of the type of
that support or assistance and regardless of where it came from in terms of its source. The following Qawl
of Allah Ta’Aalaa applies upon such a type of support which is rejected (from its basis):

ْ ‫َۚوا َّتقُواَاللَّـ َهََۖإِنَّ َاللَّـ ََهَ َش َِدي ُد‬

َِ ‫َال ِع َقا‬
‫ب‬ ِ ‫ىَاإل ْث ِم ََو ْالع ُْد َو‬
َ َ‫ان‬ ِ ْ َ‫ىَال ِبرِّ ََوال َّت ْق َو ٰىَ ََۖو َالَ َت َع َاو ُنواَ َعل‬
ْ َ‫َو َت َعا َو ُنواَ َعل‬
And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe
in punishment (Al-Maa’idah: 2).

[(1) Refer to: “Al-Qaamoos As-Siyaasiy” (The Political Dictionary): p1238. For other varieties of political support provided to
organisations refer also to: “Nahnu Wa l-‘Aduw, Wa l-‘Amal Al-Fdaa’iy” (Us and the Enemy and the Fedayeen work), Colonel
Muhammad Ash-Shaa’ir: p225, “Abdun Naasir Wa th-Thawrah Al-Ifreeqiyah”, Muhammad Faayiq: p63, “Qadaayaa Al-‘Aalam
Al-Islaamiy …”, Dr. Al-Nabraawiy and Dr. Muhannaa: p431 and “As-Siraa’ As-Siyaasiy Fee Shibh ul-Jazeerah Al-‘Arabiyah”,
Ford Holiday, translated by Haazim Saaghiyah and Sa’d Mahyoo: p138, (2) “Qadaayaa Al-‘Aalam Al-Islaamiy …”, Dr. Al-
Nabraawiy and Dr. Muhannaa: p431, (3) “Ath-Thawrah Al-Filasteeniyah”, Colonel Mustafaa Talaas: p84].

As for what relates to the answer to question about the legally legitimate organisations receiving support
from these different directions or sources and what the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to that is? Then this
is summarised as follows:

Firstly: The political support, in its different varieties, is a matter, specifically related to the directions or
sources which grant or provide that support and the benefit attained by the organisations from this, is a
matter which is clear (or irreproachable), even if that direction or source from which that support came
was affiliated to non-Muslims or from outside the Islamic lands.

However, it is necessary to observe here, that it is not permissible for the organisations to compromise or
step down from anything related to their legally legitimate issues which are necessary, as a result of that
support. That applies equally whether that step down or compromise was by way of acknowledging the
good of those directions or sources which had provided a type from among the types of support, or in the
way of attaining that sought after support itself.

It may be that we find within the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬that which points to the legal legitimacy of
accepting political support from non-Islamic directions or sources, and indeed, considering that support
as a goodly act which is retained (i.e. in appreciation) in respect to the one who provided it and which is
then returned to them at the time of their need for it. It has been related that the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬forbade the
killing of some of the Mushrikeen in the battle of Badr due to their previous political positions in terms of
refraining from harming the Islamic Da’wah and its companions in Makkah and violated or went against
that which the Mushrikeen had agreed upon, in respect to this matter (i.e. of how the Da’wah and its
carriers were to be dealt with) (1).

Thirdly: The financial and military support. Here, there are two angles in respect to this type of support:

A - If this support was provided in the way of a gift or assistance, not in exchange for anything open or
concealed, then it is permissible to accept it and even if it is from non-Muslims, in the case where this
support is applied to the Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) of the present (or gift). That is as the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬accepted
the gifts from the disbelievers (2) and even if they were from outside of the lands (Diyaar) of Islaam.

[(1) In the Seerah of Ibn Hishaam: “Rawdat ul-Unuf”: 3/39-40: Ibn Ishaaq said: The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬only forbade the
killing of Abu l-Bakhtariy because from his people he was from those who refrained the most from the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬in Makkah and he was from among those who stood up to break the document which had been written by Quraish
against Bani Haashim and Bani ul-Muttalib” i.e. the document of the boycott in Makkah. For this extract refer to the same
reference source: 2/101, (2) Refer to: Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: “The chapter heading of accepting the gift (or present) from the
Mushrikeen”, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 5/230].

In addition, it may be that in the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬borrowing of weaponry from Safwaan Bin Umayyah,
following the Fat’h (conquest) of Makkah, and before his acceptance of Islaam, for the purpose of
preparing for the battle of Hunain (1), there is that which indicates to the legal legitimacy (Mashroo’iyah)
of this matter which we are addressing.

Indeed, the indication of this borrowing exceeds the legal legitimacy of accepting this military support to
also the legitimacy of requesting it.

However, in any case, if it was from the nature of accepting such support or assistance, that it would result
in arousing suspicions and question marks, as it is said, which harm the reputation of the organisations
and bring harm to them, and even if that support was unconditional without there being anything behind
it exchanged in return, whether open or hidden, then in such a case, accepting it should be refrained from
in order to avoid the suspicions. That is in accordance to the Qaa;idah (principle): “Laa Darar Wa Laa
Diraar” (There is no harming and reciprocating of harm) (2) and the principle: “Repelling the Mafaasid
(corrupt elements) is given precedence over drawing the Masaalih (interests)”.

The above is in the case when the financial and military support or assistance was not provided in return
for anything.

B - As for if that support aimed to realise particular or specific objectives; whether those objectives were
stipulated openly or understood implicitly, based upon the consideration that the norm or custom dictated
that such support would not be provided except in exchange for something … I say: If the support or
assistance targeted specific objectives in exchange for that, there are two matters related to this:

- If that matter given in return was the control over the organisation or group, it is not permissible in this
case to accept that support, whether the direction providing it was a foreign direction from outside of the
Islamic world (3) or a direction or source inside the Islamic world, which wants, through the provision of
the support, to take control of the politics or policies of the organisation, in such a way that it prevents it
from undertaking its legally legitimate or lawful activities, in accordance to suspicious and questionable
ends.

[(1) Refer to: Seerah Ibn Hishaam: “Ar--Rawd ul-Unuf”: 4/123, (2) refer to “Mudhakkaraat Ad-Da’wah Wa d-Daa’iyah”, Ash-
Sheikh Hasan Al-Bannaa, under the heading: “Hibbat ul-Qitaaal” during the discussion of the contribution or donation of this
company and the foreigners had 500 Junaih for Ikhwaan ul-Muslimeen. And how the acceptance of this gift that aroused a lot
of suspicions in the face of Ikhwaan and it was “supported by false Fatawaa” as the Sheikh says. Even if he responded to that
under the heading: “The crooked Fiqh” saying: “This is our wealth, not the wealth of the Khawaajaat (i.e. westerners), and the
canal is our canal, and the sea is our sea, and they are usurpers …”. Refer to the mentioned source: p95-96. I say: It may be
within this incident that which supports what I have mentioned above in respect to not accepting any donation or contribution
if by its nature it arouses suspicions and harms the reputation, (3) Refer to: The Lebanese “As-Safeer” newspaper, date: 21st of
February 1989, concerning the American provision of financial assistances to numerous Afghani organisations which were
working against the communist rule in Afghanistan and mentioned the amounts given to each organisation].

- If the matter demanded to be given in exchange behind the support was to undertake specific legally
legitimate actions, then there is nothing preventing the acceptance of that support in exchange for
undertaking those actions, in such a case, as long as this arrangement does not include any harm or matter
which is prohibited in the Shar’a.

By that we have reached the end of the discussion of this Mas’alah (issue) and have subsequently also
reached the conclusion of the discussion around the second topic of this current study area. We now
come to the third topic.
 The Third Topic
The types of organisations from the angle of the areas or grounds where they
undertake their operations

Among the fighting organisations are those which restrict their armed operations against the enemy upon
the border strips between them and it and from among them are those which raid the enemy’s positions in
the depths of the occupied territories.

There are others, the activities of which, extend to inside the colonialist states themselves and that is when
those states are from those which have colonies beyond their borders. There are some which direct or
point their weaponry towards the state which they are in i.e. the currently standing states in the Islamic
world, with the aim of applying pressure upon then to accomplish particular goals or objectives or to
overthrow the ruling regime within them.

There are those organisations which raise weapons against a particular faction from amongst the factions
which reside in that state.

I say: It is not necessary that every organisation from among the organisations be restricted to one field or
area from among the mentioned fields. It could be that one of these organisations to be engaged in
activity upon a number of fields. The intention here, in this topic of discussion, is not to present or list the
fighting or military organisations which had or still have activity going on within the Islamic world, nor is
it to present or list the areas or fields which each organisation has or continues to work in. Rather, the
intended aim is to address the concern which is lived and which every Muslim should live when he is
carrying his weapon upon his shoulders and places his Rooh in his hand, whilst going forth upon a path,
which he doesn’t know how many corpses it will result in? And doesn’t know when he will become a part
of that host of corpses, whilst proceeding upon that path?

That concern which every Muslim fighter must have is summed up by the questions: What is lawful and
what isn’t lawful in respect to those activities that the fighter engages in with the organisation that he is
affiliated to? And when the fighter, when proceeding upon his path is upon the Haqq (truth or right)
when he kills or when he is killed? This represents the concern which every Muslim fighter must live and
this is what is important in this current issue we are addressing.

Yes, it is true that the answer to these questions presented here are known from the subject areas which
have previously been addressed; whether in this study or the preceding studies, and as such there is
nothing new then. However, as previously pointed to, the intended purpose of this final volume, which
we are in, is that in our current time period, discussion revolves around a number of issues related to
armed struggle. It was therefore viewed best to address these issues under the headings which they fall
under and to deal with that which has not previously been addressed or dealt with from them. As for what
has already been addressed, then it is sufficient to point to the places where that has been dealt with or
addressed, without the need to repeat what was said there.

Based upon this, we will make the discussion limited to branches in respect to this topic. These branches
are:

- The First Branch: The border activities undertaken against the enemies.

- The Second Branch: The guerrilla (Fidaa’iy) activities undertaken against the enemies inside of the
occupied territories or inside of the lands of the enemy.

- The Third Branch: The activities inside of the Islamic lands against the state or some of the factions
within the state.

The First Branch: The border activities undertaken against the enemies.

Military skirmishing or military activities, which are undertaken by fighting or militant organisations upon
the stretch of the borders with the Kaafir enemy, are considered to be Al-Jihaad fee Sabeelillah. That is
because fighting the disbelievers to raise high the word of Allah ‘Azz Wa Jalla conforms to its reality, in
the case where the word of Allah (Kalimatullah) refers to AL-Islaam and what it came with. From that
which Islaam brought, is that the enemy which enters the lands of the Muslims is to be fought against
according to the consideration that this Qitaal (fighting) is Fard ‘Ain upon every Muslim. That is
according to what has previously been detailed during the discussion about the causes or reasons for the
declaration of Al-Jihaad, within the third volume and during the discussion about the Ahkaam of Al-
Jihaad in the fourth volume.

In addition, the Muslim defending the Nafs (life, Maal (property), ‘Ird (honour) or Ard (land), against the
colonialist disbelievers, even if it takes the form of the defence against the attacking aggressors, that does
not preclude it from the concept or understanding of the terminological convention (Istilaahiy) of the
meaning of Al-Jihaad in the Islamic Sharee’ah, as long as this defence was directed against the disbelievers
and in response to the command of Allah, ‘Azza Wa Jalla, in respect to the obligation of fighting them (1).

[(1) Dr. Muhammad Sa’eed Ramadhaan Al-Boutiy, in the context of the discussion around “Al-Jihaad Al-Qitaaliy” in his “Fiqh
us-Seerah” viewed: “that the Qitaal which is undertaken in defence of the life, property, honour or land, does not fall,
according to the terminological convention (Istilaah) under the name of Al-Jihaad within the Islamic Sharee’ah but rather only
falls under the heading or category of “As-Siyaal” (aggression and being attacked or assaulted)”. I say: We have addressed the
subject of “As-Siyaal” in respect to that which relates to the aggression of people against each other with some detail during the
study: “The Qitaal in defence of the Hurumaat Al-Khaassah” within the first volume p77 onwards].

It was upon this basis that the Fuqahaa’ of the Muslims dealt with this defensive fighting under the
heading of “Al-Jihaad” within the chapters of the books of Islamic Fiqh.

Also, the defensive wars during the Seerah of the Nabi ‫ ﷺ‬were Al-Jihaad. That included the defence of
Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah in the Ghazwah of Al-Khandaq (the trench, aka Al-Ahzaab). For that
reason, it was mentioned in Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy, in respect to the speech about this Ghazwah (battle):
“That the Muslims who were undertaking the defensive fortifications around Al-Madinah were chanting
the following line of poetry during their digging of the trench:

“We are the ones who gave Muhammad the pledge over Al-Jihaad as long as we remain forever”

The Second Branch: The guerrilla (Fidaa’iy) activities undertaken against the
enemies inside of the occupied territories or inside of the lands of the enemy.

This Fidaa’iy (guerrilla war) activity which also strikes the enemy in the depths of the occupied territories,
is also from the Shar’iy Jihaad. That is because it is fighting the disbelievers who have aggressed against
the Muslims and entered their lands. Indeed, this Qitaal (fighting) is the most binding forms or kinds of
Al-Jihaad. In “Al-Minhaaj” of An-Nawawiy and its Sharh: “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, the following came
stated in relation to what we are addressing:

“Al-Jihaad in the era (or time) of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was Fard Kifaayah (obligation of
sufficiency) and it could have been, during his time, Fard ‘Ain (an obligation upon every individual), in the
case where the enemy surrounded the Muslims who had gathered together in hosts around Al-Madinah.
That is because that dictates that the Jihaad of the Muslims is designated for them (i.e. as a Fard ‘Ain). As
for after him ‫ﷺ‬, then the Kuffaar have two cases (in respect to them): The first: That they are in their
land, settled in it and not targeting anything from the Muslim lands and so the Fard is Kifaayah (of
sufficiency) just as has been indicated by how the rightly guided Khulafaa’ proceeded (in respect to them)
…” (2). He then stated: “The second of the two cases related to the disbelievers: They enter a town or
provincial area of ours and as such the people of that place must repel (and defend) as much as they are
possibly able and Al-Jihaad at that time would be Fard ‘Ain … and it has been said Kifaayah…” (3).

[(1) Saheeh ul-Bukhaariy: 4099, “Fat’h ul-Baariy”: 7/492, (2) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”, Ash-Sheikh Muhammad As-Shirbeeniy Al-
Khateeb, the Sharh of Al-Minhaaj by An-Nawawiy: 7/492, (3) The same reference: 4/219 and we have already quoted this text
previously and only repeated it due to the need here in this context].

Therefore, the Muslims repelling the enemy which has entered their lands and occupied their territory,
with what is possible from them and with what they have available to them, even if what was available to
repel them was throwing rocks at the enemy! (1) … I say: The Muslims repelling the enemy by any
possible or available way, is from Al-Jihaad just as has come stated in the previous Fiqhiy text and it is
then Fard ‘Ain, as has been stated previously.

In addition, Al-Jihaad is not restricted to resisting the enemy or striking it within the Islamic lands which
they occupy, alone. Rather, also entering into the category of Al-Jihaad, is that activity of striking the
enemy even within its own land outside of the Islamic world. That is because Al-Jihaad conforms to the
reality of fighting the disbelievers in any place, even if it means breaching their lands or raiding them for
this purpose, as long as there is no legally legitimate peace treaty between them and the Muslims. If that is
the case, then what about the situation or case when they were from the aggressors and the colonialists?
Consequently, it is permitted for the fighting organisations to extend their fighting and Fidaa’iy (guerrilla
war) activities to striking the enemy inside their lands themselves.

The Third Branch: The activities inside of the Islamic lands against the state or
some of the factions within the state.

There are two issues (Mas’alataani) concerning this:

- The First Mas’alah (issue): Taking up of arms (or engaging in military or physical acts) by
organisations against the state which they are resident in from among the states currently standing within
the Islamic world. We became aware previously, that this fighting activity:

- If it aimed at applying pressure upon the state, for the purpose of correcting the deviant situations, by
eliminating the symbols of corruption and what is similar to that, then this type of activity is prohibited in
the Shar’a, as explained a short while ago. That is because Islaam has drawn another path, other than
taking up arms, to deny the Munkaraat and resist or oppose the deviations. That way is commanding the
Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar, spreading awareness and working to form an upright public opinion,
which imposes itself to straighten the crooked and correct the situations.

[(1) “Mughniy ul-Muhtaaj”: 4/225].

That is according to the manner that was explained in detail in the study: “Al-Qitaal to defend the public
(or general) sanctities” and the study: “Al-Qitaal against the deviation of the ruler”, which were both
examined within the first volume of this PhD paper (1).

- If, however, the aim for taking up arms in the face of the state was to topple it and to establish the
Islamic State, then we have previously stated, a little earlier within the previous topic of discussion, what
the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is in relation to this Mas’alah (Fiqhiy issue) and the details concerning that.

That is if the carrying of weapons (or engagement in material acts) was directed against the state, which is
the first Mas’alah (issue) of this branch.

As for the second Mas’alah (issue): i.e. if the bearing of weapons was directed towards some of the
factions which live within the state, and the most prominent manifestation of that is the fighting which
occurs, sometimes, between the Muslims and the Ahl udh-Dhimmah, then I say: This issue as well, has
been discussed previously in detail within the study: “The Qitaal against the Ahl udh-Dhimmah” and as
such, we will not repeat that here. That was discussed within the first volume of this PhD paper.

With that, we have concluded the discussion about this current topic and now move on to discuss the
next topic.

[(1) The Fifth and Sixth Studies from the first volume: p89 and 111 (from the original Arabic edition)].

The Fourth Topic

Fighting between the organisations and the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in
respect to that
The domain of the military struggle, which works within the field of liberation and resisting or opposing
the usurper of the Muslim lands, has witnessed, from time to time, incidents of internal clashing between
the active organisations, in that domain (1). Indeed, the struggle or clash, could, on occasions, could erupt
between wings and factions of the same fighting organisation (2). There is no need for us to present the
incidents or events of this clash or that because the news about them, which pains the hearts, is
frequented upon the radio and tv broadcasts and books, newspapers and magazines record this
occurrence.

The important matter here is: What is the position of the Shar’iy Ijtihaad in respect to this intern