What is 'jihadism'? The term is used frequently (along with the associated noun and adjective 'jihadist') but is at risk of being poorly defined in popular discourse. One clear example of this problem is in the discussions about various insurgent groups in Syria, some of which have been participating in Turkey's incursion against the Syrian Democratic Forces. In that case, the term 'jihadist' is thrown around simply to mean a group that commits abuses and human rights violations.
An accurate definition of 'jihadism' should have a clear conception of the grand narrative underpinning it. This is most clearly found in a text called al-Faridha al-Gha'iba ('The Neglected Duty' or 'The Absent Obligation'), written by Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj, who was from Egypt. Faraj was responsible for organizing the Egyptian jihadist group Tandhim al-Jihad ('The Jihad Organization') and was involved in the assassination of Egypt's president Anwar al-Sadat in 1981 CE. In the following year, the Egyptian state executed along him with Khalid al-Islambouli and others. It would appear that this work was composed and circulated internally among Tandhim al-Jihad in the period 1979-1981 CE.
By making al-Faridha al-Gha'iba readily accessible online with the full original text and translation, I hope to provide readers a better sense of 'Jihadism 101'.
While jihadist groups today may not cite Faraj's work in their output that is now considered prolific in comparison with the past, the grand narrative contained in al-Faridha al-Gha'iba underpins the thinking of pretty much all of them. For this reason, al-Faridha al-Gha'iba should be considered a classic text of jihadism.
In summary, the grand narrative of this text is as follows:
The Muslim world is living in lowly status and humiliation. The rulers of the Muslim world do not rule by God's law (which is valid for all times and places) but by man-made laws, and they have apostasised from Islam. They are of the Tawagheet (idolatrous tyrants), and the Tawagheet of the Earth will only disappear by the sword. To revive the Muslim world's former glory, we must return to the neglected duty of jihad, which continues against the disbelievers until the Day of Judgement and ultimately aims to make the word of God supreme over the Earth. The neglecting of the jihad is the reason for our lowly status and humiliation. We must focus on overthrowing the rulers and regimes in our lands, in order to establish an Islamic state that should be the nucleus of reviving the Islamic Caliphate.
This grand narrative should be borne in mind for a definition of jihadism, which we can define as follows: an ideology that seeks the overthrow of existing rulers and regimes in the Muslim world by means of violent jihad in order to establish Islamic states and governments ruling by God's law in the totality. These steps are to lead to the revival of the Caliphate, which itself should eventually encompass the entire world.
The idea of establishing an Islamic state and restoring the Islamic Caliphate in the modern era was not unique to Faraj, but what distinguishes his approach in this context is his insistence that the goal can only be accomplished through jihad: indeed, jihad must be taken up.
Faraj's optimism in his proposed solution for the Muslim world's present troubles is reinforced by his highlighting prophecy on the inevitable revival of the Caliphate and future conquest such as the capture of Rome in Italy. One may recall for comparison here the Islamic State's highlighting of prophecy when it titled its English language magazine Dabiq and a subsequent magazine Rumiya (Rome). Also note the section in which Faraj attempts to refute 'those who despair' regarding the future.
In his insistence on the necessity of jihad, Faraj responds to other ideas at the time concerning Islamic revival. For example, he says that Islamic charities affiliated with the state will not accomplish the obligation of establishing an Islamic state, even as they may encourage people to fulfil other Islamic obligations like prayer and zakat. Faraj also rejects the idea that the present lowly status is caused by lack of obedience to God in the form of personal piety and worship. Rather, he says, the one who wishes to obey God should wage jihad, which embodies the pinnacle of Islam. In a similar vein, he argues that while pursuing Islamic knowledge ('Ilm) is desirable, it cannot detract from the obligation of jihad.
More importantly, Faraj offers his refutation of alternative approaches to establishing an Islamic state. Attempting to fill state positions with true Muslims will not work in a bid to establish an Islamic state will not work in his view because for anyone to attain a ministerial position requires loyalty to the regime. While Faraj does not reject the idea of da'wa (religious outreach), he argues that the idea that da'wa and forming a broad base of support (qa'ida arida) will bring about the Islamic state is erroneous: on the contrary, the Islamic precedent shows that those who establish the state are the few and not many, and it is only through being enabled in the land (tamkin) and conquest that the many will be won over, as illustrated in Surat al-Nasr. One can arguably see in this idea a precedent to more recent debates about whether the jihad needs a 'popular support base' (hadhina sha'abiya) to succeed. From Faraj's work, the answer to that question would appear to be no. A related point that Faraj makes in another part of the work is that Muslim armies have managed to overcome adversaries many times their size. Thus, though jihad now is an incumbent duty upon every Muslim, the impression is that the jihad movement is inevitably going to be small in number relative to its enemies: an elite vanguard, as it were.
Finally, note that Faraj rejects the idea attributed to the 'Takfir wa Hijra' ('Takfir and Migration' movement, though properly speaking the 'Jama'at al-Muslimeen led by Shukri Mustafa) that one should migrate to another land and establish an Islamic state elsewhere and then return as conquerors.
To emphasize the need for jihad now, Faraj asserts that the present era is analogous to the times of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyya (who is cited repeatedly in the work) and the Mongol invasions of the Levant. That is, the rulers of the Muslim world are of the Mongols of the present era. One could see this analogy as partly intended to heighten the sense that the Ummah is facing an existential crisis, but the more important point is to illustrate why jihad is legitimate against the present rulers and their followers who may affirm that they are Muslims. The key arguments, drawing on Ibn Taymiyya, are as follows:
. The Mongols did not implement God's law but rather had their own law code called al-Yasiq, which borrowed from Judaism, Christianity and Islam and contained various arbitrary opinions. So the rulers of today are similar in that they do not implement God's law, which can only truly be implemented in full. So the argument is that the approach of the rulers amounts to cherry picking from the religion at best, which constitutes kufr (disbelief) and apostasy. But in truth, the current laws put in place by the West are more criminal than al-Yasiq as they have connection to Islam or any religious laws.
. The Mongols did not accord supreme status to Islam, but treated the pronouncements in Surat al-Kafireen ('I will not worship what you worship...for you is your religion and for me is my religion' etc.) as definitely authoritative. In contemporary Egypt, the pronouncements of 'religious brotherhood' and 'complex of religions' are similar and worse.
. It is obligatory to fight those who abandon any of the laws of Islam, refuse to command what is right and forbid what is wrong, refuse to prohibit things like interest and gambling etc. This is so even if those people profess the two shahadas (i.e. if they profess that there is no deity but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God).
. The Mongols honoured the command of their ruler more than the command of God, and took allies and friends not on the basis of someone's Islam and piety, but rather loyalty to their king. The rulers of today are similar: they take allies on the basis of loyalty to the ruler and regime, and esteem their own whims and commands above the commands of God.
. In so far as the Mongols had willing allies among those professing to be Muslims, they were heretics, hypocrites (munafiqeen) and/or grossly immoral (faasiqeen: conveying the sense of being disobedient against God's law). There may also have been Muslims compelled to fight in the ranks of the Mongols' armies. However, the presence of those Muslims in the Mongols' armies would not negate fighting the Mongols' armies as a whole, as you cannot superficially distinguish the compelled Muslim from the others. In any case, if those compelled Muslims are killed, they will be judged on their intentions by God. The implication is that today there may be e.g. Muslim conscripts in the armies of the regimes, but their presence should not deter jihad against those regimes even if it leads to the killing of those Muslim conscripts.
. The Mongols were not a mere 'people of transgression' (ahl al-baghi) with whom the disagreement of matters of interpretation (ta'wil) is such that conciliation can be achieved. Instead, they were renegades waging war against God and His Messenger. The point then is that the rulers of today are not mere 'people of transgression' with whom you can reach an understanding. Rather they must be deposed from power and cast down.
In short, the conclusion is that the rulers today are enemies of Islam and Muslims and have usurped power in lands of Muslim populations. They are even worse in their rebellion against Islam than the Khawarij, and no one disputed that the Khawarij should be fought. Jihad against the rulers is a duty incumbent on every Muslim.
Faraj also addresses some general debate and ideas regarding jihad, which can be summarized as follows:
. Jihad entails fighting. You cannot claim for example that da'wa constitutes the equivalent of jihad through fighting.
. Jihad is not solely for defensive purposes. It can be offensive or defensive in nature.
. Those who cite verses of the Qur'an in an attempt to negate the obligation of jihad overlook that those verses have been abrogated by later verses such as 9:5 (the 'verse of the sword') and 2:216 ('fighting has been prescribed for you').
. While it is true that Ibn al-Qayyim spoke of jihad against the self and Satan as well as against the disbelievers and hypocrites, he meant these types of jihad as classes of jihad and not stages of jihad. That is, the idea you should wage jihad against the self and Satan before fighting the disbelievers and hypocrites is a misrepresentation of Ibn al-Qayyim. Rather, you wage these jihads all at once.
. As Ibn al-Qayyim noted, the claimed hadith of returning from the lesser jihad (fighting the disbelievers) to the greater jihad (against the self) is a fabricated one. Incidentally, I note the following here: Faraj says that Ibn al-Qayyim assertion the hadith was fabrication can be found in Ibn al-Qayyim's work al-Manar al-Munif, but I cannot find it in this work. I presume Faraj actually meant to cite Ibn Taymiyyah, who said that the hadith was baseless.
. The lack of a caliph or amir is not an impediment to waging jihad. Those who claim it is an impediment to jihad are the ones who hinder the formation of a leadership for jihad.
Perhaps one of the most significant concepts in Faraj's work is the distinction drawn between the 'near enemy' (al-'adu al-qarib) and the 'far enemy' (al-'adu al-ba'id), which is one of the most frequently discussed issues in secondary literature on jihadism. For Faraj, priority is given to fighting the 'near enemy' (i.e. the apostate rulers and regimes ruling over the Muslims in their respective countries), because fighting the 'far enemy' in the form of colonialism and colonialist projects like Israel is a waste of effort if the Muslims' own house is not in order and the Muslims do not fight under an Islamic banner. One can see Faraj's distinction of the 'near enemy' and 'far enemy' as deriving from the view that the apostate is worse than the original disbeliever, which is mentioned in the writings of Ibn Taymiyya cited by Faraj. Therefore, the priority should be on fighting the apostate. Compare this sentiment with the Islamic State's creed manifesto, which mentions that the priority is to fight the apostate as apostasy is worse than original disbelief.
In general, al-Qa'ida's strikes on U.S. targets in the late 1990s and then 9/11 in 2001 are seen as a move towards the 'far enemy' strategy, in that it was believed that striking the main external support for the regimes and rulers in the Muslim world would lead to the collapse of those regimes and rulers. Today though, jihadism is primarily embodied in a variety of local and regional insurgencies focusing their efforts on targeting local governments (not all of which are nominally Muslim: witness the Islamic State's 'Central Africa' affiliate) and foreign forces stationed within those lands in support of those governments (e.g. the French forces in Mali and African forces in Somalia): in other words, the 'near enemy' in the literal sense of distance. That said, the Islamic State's affiliates in different places arguably take things even further in also fighting local 'apostate' insurgent rivals (e.g. the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qa'ida's affiliate in Yemen) in the arenas of conflict: another kind of 'near enemy.'
Besides discussing the rationale for why jihad is necessary now, Faraj delves into questions of tactics in warfare. Some of the discussion on these matters can be seen as foreshadowing the assassination of al-Sadat. Specifically, Faraj highlights that deception in warfare is permitted, and uses the stories of the assassinations of the Jewish poet Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf and the chief of the Banu Lahyan (both of which were approved by the Prophet Muhammad) as evidence that it is permitted to carry out assassination missions against the disbelievers by outwardly showing loyalty and kufr to them. For comparison, note that the assassination of al-Sadat was carried out by members of the Egyptian army: people ostensibly showing loyalty to the Egyptian president.
In addition, Faraj has a section on the permissibility of carrying out inghimas attacks: that is, attacks that involve plunging into the ranks of the enemy's forces, even if that means a high probability the attacker will be killed. In other words, an attack that is virtually suicidal, even though Faraj does not explicitly discuss the idea of a suicide bombing. In a way, the assassination of al-Sadat could be seen as an inghimas attack, as it was conducted amid an Egyptian army parade. Did the attackers necessarily think they would get out alive?
Whatever the case, note that the concept of inghimas attacks has become more familiar to observers on account of the Islamic State's extensive use of inghimas operatives in conducting attacks.
Some other points discussed in relation to the conduct of jihad warfare:
. Night-raids are permitted even if the attacks may lead to the killing of women and children of the idolaters. The point then is that attacks that may lead to 'collateral damage' are allowed. At the same time, one should refrain from intending to kill women, children and the elderly.
. It is allowed to cut and burn the trees of the idolaters. The implication is that it is allowed to destroy enemy property that may not be of use.
. One must be sure of the purity of one's intentions in jihad: to make supreme God's word and rule. It should not be carried out for desire of earthly glory (i.e. so that people can commend you as a brave warrior) and worldly gain of war spoils for their own sake.
. Certain types of people should be excluded from waging the jihad and the ranks should be purified. In particular those who cause people to hold back (takdhil) and cause demoralization and consternation (irjaf). The problem of takdhil is also discussed in other jihadist literature such as that of the Islamic State.
Before proceeding with the text and its translation, it should be noted that the edition I am using here includes an introduction by an Egyptian who is otherwise anonymous and three appendices. The introduction hails Faraj as a 'martyr' and situates him among other figures in Egypt supposedly killed merely for saying their Lord is God: including Hassan al-Banna (who founded the Muslim Brotherhood), Sayyid Qutb, Saleh Siriya (a doctor of Palestinian origin who led the Military Technical Group and attempted to take over the Egyptian state through a coup) and Karim al-Anadouli (an associate of Siriya). The first appendix is a general explanation on rules of jihad and the nature of the obligation in different circumstances. The second appendix is an account of some of the judicial proceedings against Khalid al-Islambouli and associates for their role in the assassination of al-Sadat, in the form of a letter by al-Islambouli. The third appendix is a poem written during the imprisonment of the conspirators, emphasizing Egyptian identity as synonymous with adherence to Islam. The poem was reputedly composed by Anwar Okasha, one of the accused in the assassination of al-Sadat. The contents of the second and third appendices very much reflect the thinking of Faraj.
As far as the text reading is concerned, main issue in going through this edition has been the large number of typos. If anyone spots more typos and other errors, feel free to contact me.
Finally, for some accessible further reading, I highly recommend Aaron Zelin's 2012 paper in the International Journal for Arab Studies on al-Faridha al-Gha'iba, providing a retrospective on the text and secondary literature analysis of the text on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of al-Sadat's assassination.
Written by Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj
Jihad: al-Faridha al-Gha'iba
Written by Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
To the soul of the martyr Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj and his dear brothers!
'Whoso kills a life not in retaliation for another life or the sowing of corruption in the land: it is as though he has killed all mankind.'
(God Almighty has spoken the truth)
'The disappearance of the heavens and the Earth is easier upon God than the killing of a Muslim man without right.'
(The Messenger of God has spoken the truth).
And you were killed without right, oh brother, Muhammad bin Abd al-Salam Faraj, just as your brothers were killed: Khalid al-Islambouli, Abd al-Hameed Abd al-Salam, Ata Tail, and Hussein Abbas.
You were killed without right, merely for saying our Lord is God! Just as those before you were killed: Hassan al-Banna, Abd al-Qadir Aouda, Sayyid Qutb, Saleh Siriya, Karim al-Anadouli and Yahya Hashim, so that you should be the darlings of the pearl in that unique bond!
You were killed in implementation of the order of their masters from the Jews who made your pure and precious blood a price for the grains of sand of the Sinai, just as your predecessor brothers were killed in implementation of the order of the Russians and the Americans!
But, have you lost anything? Your souls- like the souls of your brothers before- is in the bellies of green birds that roam freely from Paradise where they will, exploring its rivers and eating its fruits then taking refuge in cages of gold hanging under the throne: read if you will the words of God (Exalted and Almighty is He):
'And never reckon that those who have been killed in the path of God are dead but rather they are living with their Lord, being nourished, joyful at what God has brought them from His grace, and they rejoice about those who have not yet joined them from after them: in that there is no fear upon them and they are not sad.
They rejoice in bounty from God as well as grace and indeed God does not make the reward of the believers go to waste' (God Almighty has spoken the truth).
Yes my brothers and my loved ones. I almost hear your beloved voice from Paradise.
'If only my people would know in what my Lord forgave me and made me of the ennobled ones.'
As for your killers, they are the losers in this world and the Hereafter, and let them await the revenge of God that came upon a people before them: 'And We did not bring down on his people after him from soldiers of Heaven and We were not doing so. And it was only one shout, and behold, they were wiped out.'
So let them await the threat of God: 'And they have plotted- and among God is their plot, and if their plot is that the mountains will vanish because of it, so do not reckon God goes back on His promise to His Messengers: indeed God is mighty, the one of revenge.'
'And likewise your Lord seizes as when He seized the villages and they were committing wrong: indeed His seizure is harshly painful.'
Have they been able to kill your da'wa through killing you? Never. Indeed your pure purifying blood will nourish its tree, so its roots will be implanted in the land and its branches will extend into the sky, bringing its fruit on every occasion by the permission of its Lord! Have they been able to suppress your words? Indeed your words live in our ears and hearts: the words of Khalid al-Islambouli and the words of Abd al-Salam Faraj, and the words of others besides you.
And these are the words that the brother Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj wrote being printed and distributed after his killing: thousands of copies for the second printing!!
- Do you see: are they not after that losers?
- And are you not, oh our martyrs, beneficiaries by God's permission?
Yes, you are the beneficiaries, you are the beneficiaries, and they are the losers, and they will abide forever by God's permission in the Fire. 'And those who have wronged will know what end they reach.'
Your brother in God
From the bereft land
The Muslim land of Egypt.
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
'Has not the time come for those who have believed that their hearts should fear for mention of God and what He has revealed of truth and they should not be like those who were given the Book before and time passed upon them so their hearts became hardened and many of them are grossly immoral'- (al-Hadid).
Abdullah bin al-Mubarak said: Sani' al-Mari' narrated to us from Qatada on the authority of Ibn Abbas he said: God waited a long time for the hearts of the believers so He reproved them after thirteen years of the revelation of the Qur'an, so He said: 'Has not the time come for those who have believed....' (the verse).
Praise be to God Whom we praise, Whose help, forgiveness and guidance we seek. And we seek refuge in God from the evils of our souls and from the evils of our deeds. The one God guides, none can mislead him, and the one He misleads, there is no guider for him. And I bear witness that there is no deity but God alone with no partner for Him and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger. As for what follows: indeed the most true hadith is the Book of God Almighty and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (SAWS) and the evil of affairs is their innovations and every innovation is bid'a and every bid'a is error and every error is in the Fire
As for what follows:
The jihad in the path of God, despite its paramount importance and greatest significance to the future of this religion, the 'ulama of the age have neglected it and ignored it despite their knowledge of the fact that it is the sole path for the return and raising of the edifice of Islam anew and every Muslim has preferred his desired ideas and philosophies to the best path God the Exalted and Almighty has traced for the might of His servants.
And what cannot be doubted is that the Tawagheet of this earth will not vanish except by the force of the sword and therefore SAWS says: 'I was sent with the sword before the Hour so that God alone should be worshipped with no partner for Him and my provision has been under the shade of my spear and humiliation and lowliness have been placed upon the one who has contravened my command, and whoso resembles a people is of them' (brought out by Imam Ahmad on the authority of Ibn Omar).
Ibn Rajab says: 'And SAWS' words: I have been sent with the sword': meaning that God sent him as one calling with the sword to Tawheed of God after his call with the proof, so whoso does not respond to Tawheed in the Qur'an and the proof and the affirmation, he is to be called by the sword.
The guidance of SAWS in Mecca: as the Messenger of God (SAWS) was addressing the Tawagheet of Mecca as he was in it: 'Listen oh group of Quraysh, by the One in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, I have brought you the slaughter.'[i] So the people took up his word such that there was no man among them except as though upon his head a bird was standing and such that the strongest of them had to encounter him with the best he could say such that he should say: set out oh Abu al-Qasim rightly-guided as you are, for by God you have not been not ignorant. And the Messenger of God (SAWS), by his words 'I have brought you the slaughter,' laid out the path in which there is no debate or flattery with the leaders of kufr and the leaders of error, and he was in the heart of Mecca.
Islam Is Coming
And the establishment of the Islamic state and the revival of the Caliphate was foretold by the Messenger of God (SAWS), and this is in addition to the fact that it is one of the commands of the Lord (Exalted and Lofty is He): an obligation upon every Muslim to expend the utmost efforts to implement it.
a) The one upon whom be prayers and peace says: 'Indeed God folded for me the land so I saw its east and west and indeed my Ummah will attain sovereignty over it in what He folded to me of it.' Narrated by Muslim and Abu Dawoud and Ibn Majeh and al-Tirmidhi. This has not happened until now, as there are lands the Muslims have not conquered in any past age until now, and it will happen if God wills.
b) The one upon whom be prayers and peace says: 'This matter will indeed reach what the night and day have reached. And God will not leave a house of the madar or wabar without bringing this religion into it with great might or lowly humiliation: a might by which God makes Islam mighty and a humiliation by which He humiliates the disbelievers'- narrated by Ahmad al-Tabarani and al-Haithami said: its men are the men of authenticity.
al-madar: people of villages and cities.
al-wabar: people of towns and villages.
c) And in the authentic hadith Abu Qubail says: we were with Abdullah bin Amro bin al-Aas and he was asked which of the two cities would be conquered first: Constantinople or Rumiya. So Abdullah summoned for a chest of his. He opened it and took a book out of it. He said: so Abdullah said: while we were around the Messenger (SAWS) we were writing as the Messenger of God (SAWS) was asked which of the two cities would be conquered first: Constantinople or Rumiya. So the Messenger of God (SAWS) said: 'The city of Heraclius first' (narrated by Ahmad and al-Darami).
Rumiya is Rome as in Mu'ajam al-Buldan and it is the capital of Italy today.
And the first conquest was realized at the hands of Muhammad al-Fatih al-Othmani and that was more than 800 years after the news of the Prophet (SAWS) about the conquest and the second conquest will be realized by God's permission and it is inevitable and indeed its report will be known after a time.
d) The Prophethood will be among you what God has willed it to be then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then there will be a Caliphate on the Prophetic Methodology so it will be what God has willed it to be then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then there will be a tormenting king so he will be what God has willed him to be, then He will remove that when He wills to remove it, then there will be a jabiri king so it will be what God has willed it to be, then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then there will be a Caliphate on the Prophetic Methodology implementing among the people the Sunna of the Prophet and Islam will be imposed through it in the land. So the one who dwells in the sky will be pleased with it, as will the inhabitants of the earth. The sky will not leave a portion of blessing without pouring it down in showers, and the earth will not leave anything of its bounties and blessings without bringing it forth- mentioned by Hudhaifa as marfu' and narrated by al-Hafiz al-Iraqi through Ahmad and he said this is sound authentic. And the tormenting king has come to an end and the jabiri king is through the coups implemented by the ones responsible for them against the rule despite the will of the people.
And the hadith is of the good tidings of the return of Islam in the present age after this Islamic awakening, and it shows that they have a splendid future in terms of economy and agriculture.
Responding to Those Who Despair
Some of those who despair about this hadith and these good tidings have brought a hadith of the Prophet (SAWS) on the authority of Anas: 'Be patient, for there will not come a time without the one after it being worse until you meet your Lord- I heard this from your Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him'- al-Tirmidhi said it is sound authentic. And they say there is no reason to waste effort and time on dreams, and here we recall the words of the Prophet (SAWS): 'My Ummah is a blessed Ummah, it is not known whether the first of it is better or the last of it.' Narrated by Ibn Asakir bin Amro bin Othman: al-Suyuti pointed out it is sound. There is no inconsistency between the two hadiths as the address of the Prophet was directed to the generation of the Companions until they should meet their Lord. So the hadith is not wholly general but rather it is from the designated generality and also note herr the evidence of the hadiths of the Mahdi who will appear in the last age and fill the land with fairness and justice after it has been filled with injustice and tyranny.
And God gave glad tidings to a sect of the believers in the words of the Almighty and Exalted: 'God has promised those of you who have believed and have done just deeds that He will certainly make them successors in the land just as He made those before them successors, and indeed He will enable their religion for them with which He has been pleased for them: and He will bring in place security after their fear, as they worship Me and do not associate anything as partner with Me. And whoso disbelieves after that, those people are the grossly immoral' (al-Hadid 55).
We ask God (Exalted and Almighty is He) to make us among them.
Establishment of the Islamic State
It is an obligation some of the Muslims have denied and some have overlooked despite the evidence that the obligation for the rise of the state is abundantly clear in the Book of God (Blessed and Almighty is He) for God- Exalted and Almighty is He- says: 'And judge among them by what God has revealed' and He says: 'And whoso does not judge by what God has revealed, those people are the disbelievers.' And the Exalted and Lofty says in Surat al-Nur on the obligation of the rulings of Islam 'A sura We have revealed and imposed.' And from this, the ruling of the establishment of the rule of God on this earth is a duty on the Muslims and the sway of God over ruling is an obligation on the Muslims so therefore the rise of the Islamic state is an obligation on the Muslims, because that without which the obligation cannot be fulfilled is an obligation and also if the state is not to arise except by fighting, then the fighting is an obligation upon us.
And the Muslims have agreed that the duty of establishing the Islamic Caliphate and declaring the Caliphate depends on the existence of the nucleus and it is the Islamic state and whoso dies and does not have an allegiance on his neck dies the death of Jahiliya so every Muslim must strive to revive the Caliphate with earnestness lest he fall under the penalty of the hadith and the meaning by allegiance is allegiance to the Caliphate.
The Abode in Which We Live
And it seems appropriate here to ask: are we living in an Islamic state? Among the conditions of the Islamic state is that the rulings of Islam are supreme in it and the Imam Abu Hanifa gave the opinion that the abode of Islam becomes an abode of kufr if three conditions appear together:
1. That the rulings of kufr become supreme over it.
2. The disappearance of aman for the Muslims.
3. Becoming adjacent or neighbouring: in that that abode is neighbouring the abode of kufr so it becomes a source of danger to the Muslims and a reason for the disappearance of security.
And Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf the companions of Abu Hanifa gave the opinion that the ruling of the abode belongs to the rulings that are supreme in it so if the rulings that are supreme in it are the rulings of Islam (it is an abode of Islam) and if the rulings that are supreme in it are rulings of kufr (it is an abode of kufr).
And the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya gave the opinion in his book al-Fatawa part four (Book of Jihad): when he was asked about a land called Mardin that ruled by the ruling of Islam then it was taken over by people who established in it the ruling of kufr: is it an abode of war or peace? So he responded that this place in which the two meanings have come together for it is not in the position of the abode of peace upon which the rulings of Islam apply and it is not in the position of the abode of war whose people are disbelievers but rather it is a third type in which the Muslim should be dealt with according to what he deserves and the one rebelling against Islam should be dealt with according to what he deserves. And the truth is that these sayings do not mean there is inconsistency between the words of the imams: for Abu Hanifa and his companions did not mention that its people are disbelievers for peace is for the one who deserves peace and war for the one who deserves war: for a state can rule by the rulings of kufr despite the fact that most of its people are Muslims.
The One Who Rules by That Besides Which God Has Revealed
And the rulings that are supreme over the Muslims today are the rulings of kufr and indeed they are laws put in place by disbelievers upon which they have made the Muslims proceed, and God the Exalted and Almighty says in Surat al-Ma'ida:
'And whoso rules by that besides which God has revealed, those people are the disbelievers' (5:44), so after the disappearance of the Caliphate definitively in the year 1924 and the removal of the rulings of Islam entirely and their replacement with rulings put in place by disbelievers: their state became the same state of the Tatars as proven in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir for the Exalted and Almighty's words in Surat al-Ma'ida: 'So is it the ruling of Jahiliya they desire? And who is better than God in ruling for a people who are certain?' Ibn Kathir said: 'God Almighty condemns the one who has gone out from the ruling of God- the ruling and conventions that the best Forbidder of every evil has described- and has turned to something besides it from opinions and arbitrary whims and conventions that men have put in place without recourse to the Shari'a of God, like that by which the people of Jahiliya used to rule from errors and ignorant rulings which they made with their opinions and whims. It is also like that which the Tatars rule from kingly politics taken from their king Genghis Khan who placed for them al-Yasiq and it represents a book of a collection of rulings borrowed from the different laws of Judaism, Christianity and the Islamic path and others and in it are many rulings taken from nothing but his views and arbitrary whims, so they became a law to be followed that they favour over ruling by the Book of God and the Sunna of the Messenger of God (SAWS) so whoso does that is a disbeliever who must be fought until he returns to the ruling of God and His Messenger and nothing besides it should rule from much or little'- Ibn Kathir Part 2 p. 67.
And the rulers of this age: the gates of kufr by which they have gone out from the path of Islam have multiplied as the matter has become without doubt to all who have followed their lives- this in addition to the issue of the ruling.
The Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya says in the Book of al-Fatawa al-Kubra in the Chapter on Jihad p. 288: part four: 'And it is known by necessity from the religion of the Muslims by the consensus of all of the Muslims that the one who desires to follow something besides the religion of Islam or follow a Shari'a besides the Shari'a of Muhammad (SAWS) is a disbeliever and it is as the disbeliever of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book as the Almighty has said: 'Indeed those who disbelieve in God and His Messengers and want to distinguish between God and His Messengers and say we believe in some and disbelieve in some and want to adopt a path between that: those people are the disbelievers in truth and We have prepared for the disbelievers a contemptible torment.'
The Rulers of the Muslims Today Are in Apostasy From Islam
So the rulers of this age are in apostasy from Islam raised on the tables of colonialism- whether Crusaderism, Communism or Zionism- for they only bear the names from Islam, even if one of them prays and fasts and claims to be Muslim. As Ibn Taymiyya says p. 293: 'And the Sunna has established that the punishment of the apostate is greater than the punishment of the original disbeliever from multiple angles among them that the apostate is to be killed even if he is unable to fight, whereas the original disbeliever who is not of the people of fighting is not to be killed in the view of most of the 'ulama like Abu Hanifa and Malik and Ahmad. And therefore the view of the majority has been that the apostate is to be killed as is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad. Also the apostate does not inherit, is not to be married, and the meat of the animal he slaughters is not to be eaten, whereas the original disbeliever is besides that in terms of the rulings. And if apostasy from the principle of the religion is greater than disbelief in the principle of the religion, so apostasy from its laws is greater than the disbeliever and the departure of the person who goes out from its laws by his origin.'
Therefore, what is the position of the Muslims on these people?
Ibn Taymiyya also says in the same chapter p. 281:
'Every group that has gone out from a Shari'a of the manifest and well-established laws of Islam must be fought by agreement of the imams of the Muslims even if it pronounces the two shahadas: so if they profess the two shahadas and refrain from the five prayers they must be fought until they pray and if they refuse to give zakat they must be fought until they give zakat likewise and if they refuse to fast in the month of Ramadan or perform the Hajj of the ancient House and likewise if they refuse to forbid the abominations or fornication or gambling or wine or other forbidden things of the Shari'a and likewise if they refuse the ruling on blood, wealth, property and goods and the like in accordance with the ruling of the Book and the Sunna.
Likewise if they refuse to command what is right and forbid what is wrong and to wage jihad against the disbelievers until they submit and pay the jizya by hand and they are subdued, and likewise if they show acts of bid'a that contravene the Book and Sunna and following of the predecessors. Likewise if they show heresy in the names of God and His verses or declare His decree of date and judgement to be false or declare to be false that upon which the Jama'at of the Muslims has been upon since the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, or if they attack the first predecessors of the muhajireen and ansar and those who followed them with Islam, or if they fight the Muslims until they enter into obedience to them that necessitates going out from the Shari'a of Islam and the likes of these matters. The Almighty has said: 'And fight them until there is no more fitna and religion belongs wholly to God.' And thus the Almighty has said: 'Oh you who have believed, fear God and give up what remains of interest if you are believers. For if you do not, then be informed of a war from God and His Messenger.' And this verse came down against the people of al-Ta'if when they entered into Islam and embraced the prayers and fasting but they refrained from abandoning the interest so God made clear to them that they are waging war against Him and His Messenger if they do not cease from interest which is the last thing God prohibited and if it what should not be taken with the contentment of its owner so if these people are waging war on God and His Messenger jihad must be waged against them. So this is all the more so for the one who abandons many of the laws of Islam or most of them like the Tatars and the 'ulama of the Muslims have agreed that the group that refrains from some of the manifest and well-established obligations of Islam must be fought if they profess the two shahadas and refuse to perform prayer, zakat, fasting of the month of Ramadan or hajj of the ancient House. Likewise if they refuse ruling among them by the Book and Sunna or refuse to prohibit the abominations, wine, marriage of those of the maharim, making fair game lives and wealth without right, interest or gambling. Likewise if they refuse to wage jihad against the disbelievers and impose the jizya tax on the people of the Book and the like from the laws of Islam. They should be fought on the basis of these things until religion belongs wholly to God.
Comparison Between the Tatars and the Rulers of Today
1. It is clear from Ibn Kathir's words in the tafsir of the Almighty's words- 'So is it the ruling of Jahiliya they desire? And who is better than God in ruling for a people who are certain?'- p. 6 in this book that he did not distinguish between all who went out from the ruling by what God has revealed- whosoever they might be- and the Tatars. And in truth the fact that the Tatars ruled by al-Yasiq which was borrowed from the different laws of Judaism, Christianity, the Islamic path and others and among them are many rulings taken from nothing but his views and arbitrary whims. So there is no doubt that al-Yasiq is less criminal than laws put in place by the West that have no connection with Islam or any of the religious laws.
2. And in a question directed to the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya from a proud Muslim: the questioner says describing their state to the Imam: 'These Tartars who are advancing to al-Sham time after time and have professed the two shahadas and have not remained on the kufr that were upon in the beginning: must they be fought? And what is the ruling on the one they have brought out with them in compulsion (i.e. they join the Muslims to the ranks of their army in compulsion: conscription)? And what is the ruling on the one who is with their military from those who claim affiliation with 'Ilm, fiqh, tasawwuf and the like? And what is to be said on the ones who despite the fact that they are Muslims and the fighters for them are Muslims, and both of them are wrongdoers? Is one not to fight with any of them? (And it is the same resemblance) present now and it will be clarified if God wills: al-Fatawa al-Kubra 280-281 Issue 516.
3. And Ibn Taymiyya says in describing the Tatars: 'And they have not had with them in their state a helper for them except those who are of the worst of creation: whether a munafiq heretic who does not believe in the religion of Islam inwardly- i.e. he shows the religion of Islam outwardly- or the one who is worse than this: the people of bid'a like the Rafidites, Jahmites and the like- and they are of the people of bid'a- or of the most immoral and grossly immoral people and they are in their land and despite their capability they do not perform Hajj of the ancient House and even if there are among them those who pray and fast, the majority of them do not establish the prayers and give zakat'- is that not the reality now?
4. And they fight for the king Genghis Khan (the name of their king) so whoso enters into obedience to them, they make him their ally even if he is a disbeliever, and whoso goes out from that, they make him an enemy even if he is of the best of the Muslims. They do not fight for Islam and do not impose jizya and subjugation, but rather the goal of many of the Muslims among them of the seniors of their amirs and ministers is that the Muslim should be among them as the one they honour of the idolaters of the Jews and Christians'- al-Fatawa p. 286.
Note: are not these qualities the same qualities of the rulers of this age? They and their loyalist followers who have honoured the command of the rulers more than their honouring of their Creator.
5. And on p. 287, the Sheikh of Islam adds describing those loyal to Genghis Khan: he writes on those who, in so far as they outwardly showed Islam, made Muhammad as Genghis Khan. Otherwise, although they outwardly showed Islam, they honoured the command of Genghis Khan just as they were fighting the Muslims. Indeed these disbelievers glorified expending obedience and submission to him, bringing him wealth and representing him in deputization, and they did not contradict what he commanded them to do except as the one who goes out from obedience to the Imam contravenes the Imam. And they waged war on the Muslims and showed the greatest hostility to them and demanded from the Muslims obedience to them and expenditure of wealth and entry into what the disbelieving idolater king- resembling Pharaoh, Nimrod and the like- placed for them. Indeed he is of greater corruption in the land than the other two.
6, And Ibn Taymiyya adds and says: 'Whoso enters into their Jahiliya obedience and kufr evil is their friend and whoso contravenes them is their enemy even if he is of the Prophets, Messengers and allies of God'- p. 288.
7. The Sheikh of Islam adds in discussing the judges in the age of the Tatars and says: 'And likewise their foolish minister by the name of al-Rasheed judges over these types and prefers the worst of the Muslims like the Rafidites and the heretics to the best of the Muslims- the people of 'Ilm and faith- such that the one who assumes responsibilities of the judiciary is the one closer to the heresy, atheism and disbelief in God and His Messenger- as his agreement with the disbelievers and hypocrites of the Jews, Qaramites, atheists and Rafidites on what they desire is greater than the one besides him. And they feign adherence to what is necessary for them from the Shari'a of Islam for the sake of those there are of the Muslims, such that their minister- this evil atheist hypocrite- made the following pronouncement:
'That the Prophet (SAWS) was content with the religion of the Jews and the Christians and that he did not condemn them and they are not to be dhimmis or turned away from their religion or commanded to move to Islam.' And the ignorant evil person cited as evidence the Almighty's words: 'Say: oh disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. And I will not worship what you have worshipped. Nor will you worship what I worship. For you is your religion and for me a religion.' And he claimed that this verse necessitates that he be content with their religion. And he said this verse is authoritatively valid in ruling and not abrogated- pp. 288-289: al-Fatawa al-Kubra. So Subhanullah: is not the pronouncement of the minister of the Tatars the same pronouncement of 'religious brotherhood' and 'the complex of religions'? Indeed the latter is more scandalous and criminal.
A Collection of Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya That Are Beneficial in This Age
And here it is useful for us to quote some of the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya in ruling on these people. And we had mentioned his fatwa on the ruling of the land of Mardin that was ruled by the Tatars with laws bringing together the Shari'a of the Jews and Christians and part of Islam and part of the Jewish mindset so he said: as for whether it is an abode of war or peace it, in it the two meanings are brought together, so it is not in the position of an abode of peace upon which the rulings of Islam apply for the fact that its soldiers are Muslims, and it is not in the position of an abode of war whose people are disbelievers, but rather it is a third type in which the person is dealt with according to what he deserves and the one who goes outside the Shari'a of Islam is fought according to what he deserves.
What is the Ruling on Supporting Them and Helping Them?
The Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya says in response to this question p. 280 (Bab al-Jihad): 'And supporting those who go out from the Shari'a of the religion of Islam is forbidden, whether they are the people of 'Mardin' or others besides them. And the one residing in it: if he cannot establish his religion, he must migrate. Otherwise, he need not make hijra and it is not obligatory. But for them to help the enemy of the Muslims in lives and wealth is forbidden upon them and they must remove themselves from that by any means they can from disappearance, speaking equivocally or flattery. So if that is only possible by migration, it is mandatory to do so.'
And Ibn Taymiyya adds- intending in his words the people who cooperate with the Tatars- 'the ruling authority': 'And it is not allowed to disparage them in general with hypocrisy but rather the vituperation and charge of hypocrisy depend on the aforementioned qualities in the Book and Sunna, so some of the people of Mardin and others besides them come under them.' That is, not all of them.
P. 280 Issue 513 on a soldier man not wanting to serve. The response: if the Muslims have a benefit in them and he is capable of that he does not have to abandon that for something besides an interest that works to the benefit of the Muslims. Indeed the fact is that he offers benefit to the jihad that God and His Messenger make to be better than voluntary acts of worship like voluntary prayer and the Hajj and voluntary fasting and God knows best.
The Ruling on Their Wealth
Issue 514: when the Tatars entered al-Sham and plundered the wealth of the Christians and Muslims then the Muslims plundered the Tatars as they despoiled the slain of them. Is what is taken from their wealth and despoiling them halal or not? The response: all that has been taken from the Tatars is deemed khums and it is allowed to benefit from it (and the meaning of deemed khums means spoils).
The Ruling on Fighting Them
Ibn Taymiyya says on p. 298 issue 217: fighting the Tatars who have come to Bilad al-Sham is obligatory in the Book and Sunna for God says in the Qur'an: 'And fight them until there is no more fitna and religion belongs wholly to God.' And the religion is obedience, so if some of the religion is to God and some of it to one besides God, it is obligatory to fight until religion belongs wholly to God and therefore God Almighty has said: 'Oh you who have believed, fear God and give up what remains of interest if you are believers. For if you do not, then be informed of a war from God and His Messenger.' And this verse came down against the people of al-Ta'if when they entered into Islam and embraced the prayers and fasting but they refrained from abandoning the interest.
So God made clear to them that they are waging war against Him and His Messenger, so if these people are waging war on God and His Messenger jihad must be waged against them. This is all the more applicable to one who abandons many of the laws of Islam or most of them like the Tatars. And the 'ulama of the Muslims have agreed that the group that refuses- when it refuses to do some of the manifest Islamic obligations- must be fought even if they profess the two shahadas. Thus it is if they refuse to perform prayer and give zakat or fast in the month of Ramadan or perform the Hajj of the ancient House or ruling among them by the Book and Sunna. So also if they refuse to prohibit the abominations or wine or marriage of the people of maharim or making fair game lives and wealth without wealth or interest or gambling. So also if they refuse to wage jihad against the disbelievers and impose the jizya on the people of the Book and the like from the laws of Islam. They are to be fought on the basis of these things until religion belongs wholly to God. And it has been established in the two authentic collections that when Omar debated with Abu Bakr about those who refuse to pay zakat, Abu Bakr said to him: how can I not fight the one who has abandoned the rights that God and His Messenger mandated like zakat, even if he has converted to Islam? And he said to him: zakat is of its right and by God if they barred me from the she-kid they used to pay to the Messenger of God (SAWS), I would fight them for preventing it.
Omar said: thus I only saw that God had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to fight so I knew that it was the truth.
And it has been established in the authentic hadith in another place that the Prophet (SAWS) mentioned the Khawarij and said about them: one of you will consider his prayers as insignificant compared with their prayers and his fasting as insignificant compared with their fasting and their recital insignificant compare with their recital: they read the Qur'an and it does not surpass their throats. And they glance through Islam as the arrow passes through prey. Where you find them, kill them for the reward with God for those who kill them on the Day of Judgment. Were I to find them I would kill them with the slaughter of the 'Ad.
And the predecessors and Imams agreed on fighting these people and the first who fought them as Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him) and the Muslims remained in the chest of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates with the amirs even if they were wrongdoers. And al-Hujjaj and his deputies were those who fought them. So all the Imams of the Muslims command that they should fight the Tatars and the likes of them (the likes of the rulers of today) who are greater in their rebelling against the Shari'a of Islam than those who refuse to pay zakat and the Khawarij of the people of Ta'if who refused to abandon interest. So the one who doubts about fighting them is the most ignorant of people of the religion of Islam and so long as fighting them is obligatory they are to be fought even if the compelled one is among them.
Is Fighting Them Fighting Transgression?
Ibn Taymiyya says p. 282 Bab al-Jihad: 'Some may falsely suppose that these Tatars are of the muta'awwal people of transgression and the ruling on them is like these rulings in so far as those who refuse to pay zakat and the Khawarij have been brought under this ruling (and we will make clear the corruption of this false supposition if God wills). And Ibn Taymiyya says on p. 296: 'As the Prophet (SAWS) said in the authentic hadith: 'Whoso is killed defending his wealth is a martyr and whoso is killed defending his blood is a martyr and whoso is killed defending his taboos is a martyr.' So it is all the more so for fighting these people who go outside the laws of Islam, waging war on God and His Messenger whose attack and transgression is the least of what is in them: for fighting the attacking transgressors is established in the Sunna and consensus and these people are attacking transgressors against the Muslims in their lives and wealth and taboos and they are of the worst of the oppressing muta'awwal transgressors. But the one who has claimed that they are to be fought as the muta'awwal transgressors are to be fought is mistaken, for the feature of the latter is that they have a permissible interpretation by which they have rebelled. Thus they have said that the Imam should correspond with them so if they mention a doubt he should clarify it and if they mention a grievance he should remove it. So what doubt is there for these people who wage war on God and His Messenger striving to sow corruption in the land and going out from the laws of the religion? Indeed they say that they are more grounded in the religion in 'Ilm and deed than this group.
The Ruling on the One Loyal to Them Against the Muslims
Ibn Taymiyya says on p. 291 (Bab al-Jihad): 'And all who mobilize to them from military amirs and non-amirs, their ruling is their ruling and what is in them from apostasy from the laws of Islam in so far as they have apostasised from the laws of Islam. And if the predecessors called those who refused to give zakat apostates despite the fact they fasted and performed prayers and did not fight the Jama'at of the Muslims. So it is all the more so for the one who sides with the enemies of God and His Messenger and fights the Muslims.'
And Ibn Taymiyya says on p. 293: 'And thus it becomes clear that whoso was Muslim by origin is worse than the Turks who were disbelievers for the Muslim by origin, if he apostasises from some of its laws, is in a worse state than the one who has not yet entered into those laws as a practitioner of fiqh, tasawwuf, businessman or writer or other such things. So these people are worse than the Turks who have not entered into those laws and have insisted on kufr. Therefore the Muslims find these people to be harmful to the religion in a way they do not find from those people and they are more greatly subject to Islam, its laws and obedience to God and His Messenger than these people who have apostasised from some of the religion and have been hypocrites in some and have feigned affiliated with 'Ilm and faith.'
The Ruling on the One Who Goes Out to Fight in Their Rank Under Compulsion
Ibn Taymiyya says on p. 292 also that none of those who show Islam outwardly join them voluntarily except a hypocrite, heretic, grossly immoral or immoral. And those they have brought with them under compulsion, they are established on their intention and we must fight the military forces entirely as the compelled cannot be distinguished from the one besides him. And Ibn Taymiyya says warning the compelled in p. 295 Bab al-Jihad: 'The one compelled to fight in the fitna is not to fight but must rather corrupt his weapons and endure until he is killed when wronged, so that is all the more so for the one compelled to fight the Muslims with the group that goes out from the laws of Islam like those who refuse to give zakat and the apostates and the like, for there is no doubt that this person must not fight, if he is compelled to attend, even if the Muslims kill him. And if they compel him to kill, the preservation of his life in killing that sacrosanct person is not of greater priority than the contrary, so he does not have the right to oppress one besides him and kill him so that he should not be killed.'
Opinions and Arbitrary Whims
But there are opinions in Islamic judgement to remove these rulers and establish the rule of God (Almighty and Exalted is He) so what is the extent of the truth of these opinions?
1. Charitable Associations
There are those who say that we should establish associations affiliated with the state, pushing the people to establish prayers and give zakat and works of charity. Prayer and zakat and works of charity: those are commands from God (Almighty and Exalted is He) that we must not ignore, but if we ask are these deeds themselves and acts of worship that will establish the Islamic state? The immediate answer without further thought is no. This is so in addition to the fact that these associations are subject from the outset to the state and bound by its registers and proceeding by its orders.
2. Obedience and Education and Much Worship
And there are those who say we must be preoccupied with obedience to God and educating the Muslims and we must strive in worship because all this humiliation in which we live has been imposed on us from our sins and deeds. And sometimes they cite the maxim from Malik bin Dinar: God the Almighty and Exalted says: 'I am God the King of Kings. The hearts of kings are in My hand. So whoso obeys me, I will make them a mercy upon him, and whoso disobeys me, I will make them a revenge upon him. So do not preoccupy yourselves with cursing the kings but rather repent to Me. I will make them sympathetic to you.'[ii]
And the truth is that the one who thinks that this maxim abrogates the obligations of jihad and commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong has destroyed himself and has destroyed the one who has obeyed him and listened to him. And the one who wants in truth to be preoccupied with the highest degrees of obedience and to be at the peak of worship must wage jihad in the path of God and that is without neglecting the rest of the pillars of Islam. And the Messenger of God (SAWS) describes jihad as being the pinnacle of Islam and SAWS says: 'Whoso does not perform an expedition or resolve himself to go on one, dies a death of Jahiliya or on a branch of hypocrisy.'
And therefore the mujahid in the path of God Abdullah bin al-Mubarak who made al-Fadhil cry says:
Oh worshipper of the two holy sites, were you to notice us, you would know that you are playing in worship.
Whoso dyes, take him by his tears, for our throats are dyed with our blood.
And some say that preoccupation with politics hardens the heart and distracts from remembering God. And the likes of these people seem as though they are ignoring the words of the Prophet (SAWS): 'The best jihad is the word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.' And the truth says: whoso speaks of these philosophies: either he does not understand Islam or he is a coward who does not want to stand in firmness with God's ruling.
3. Striving to obtain positions
And there are those who say that the Muslims strive to obtain positions so the centres should be filled with the Muslim doctor and Muslim engineer and thus the disbelieving regime will fall by itself without efforts and the Muslim ruler will be constituted. And the one who hears these words for the first moment will think them to be imaginative or farcical but the truth is that in the field of Islam whoso philosophizes matters in this way and talk, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it from the Book and Sunna, the reality is an obstacle that will prevent its realization. For however much the matter comes to the bringing forth of Muslim doctors and Muslim engineers, they are also of the building blocks of the state and the matter will not lead to the conveying of any Muslim personality to any ministerial position unless he is completely loyal to the regime.
4. Da'wa only and forming a broad base
And among them are those who say that the path to establish the state is da'wa only and establishing a broad base and this does not realize the rise of the state despite the fact that some have made this point the basis of their retreat from the jihad and the truth is that those who will establish the state are the believing few, and those who keep to the command of God and the Sunna of the Messenger of God (SAWS) are always few per the evidence of the words of God (Almighty and Exalted is He): 'And scarce is the gratitude from My servants' and the words of the Exalted:
'And if you follow most of those who are on the earth, they mislead you from the path of God.' And that is the Sunna of God in His earth so from where will you bring this hoped for multitude? And the Exalted says: 'And most of the people, even if you make efforts, are not believers.'
And Islam is not constrained by the multitude for God the Exalted and Almighty says: 'And how often has a small group overcome a big group by the permission of God.' And the Exalted says: 'And on the day of Hunayn when you marveled at your multitude, it did not benefit you at all. And the earth became narrow for you even as it was wide.'
And SAWS says:
'It will be that the nations summon each other against you as people eating invite each other to their food. And someone said: and will that be because of our small numbers then? He said: 'But rather on that day you will be numerous but you will be like scum that flows through the streets, and indeed God will remove fear of you from the hearts of your enemy, and will throw wahn into your hearts. And someone said: oh Messenger of God, and what is wahn? He said: love of this world and hatred of death.'
Then how can the da'wa attain this broad success when all of the media means now are under the control of disbelievers and grossly immoral people and those waging war against the religion of God? So the beneficial effort in truth is in order to liberate these media apparatuses from the hands of these people: and it is well known that only by victory and tamkin will there be a response for the Exalted and Almighty says: 'When the victory of God and the conquest come, and you see the people entering into the religion of God in companies.'
And we should on exposition of this point respond to those who say that the people must have Muslims before applying Islam upon them so they will respond to it and so there is no failure in applying it: the one who speaks in high sounding terms about these words is indeed accusing Islam of deficiency and inability without realizing: for this religion is the one that is just for application in every time and place and it is capable of managing the Muslim, disbeliever, grossly immoral one, just, knowledgeable and ignorant.
And if the people have been able to live under the rules of kufr, then they can all the more do so when they find themselves under the rule of Islam which is entirely justice.
And the one who understands these words of mine to mean stop da'wa (da'wa of people to Islam) has misunderstood, for the foundation is that you take up Islam as a whole, but that is in response to the one who makes his cause to be forming the broad base and becomes preoccupied away from jihad for the sake of it so he stops and halts the jihad.
And there are those who say that the path to establish the Islamic state is hijra to another land and establishing the state there then returning again as conquerors, and to make available the effort of these people they must establish the Islamic state in their land then they go out from it as conquerors. Is this hijra Shari'i or not? To respond to this question you should consider the types of hijra and the ones that come in the Sunna in the tafsir of hadith: 'So the one whose hijra is to God and His Messenger his hijra is to God and His Messenger, and the one whose hijra is to some worldly thing he can attain or a woman he can marry, his hijra is to what he has made hijra towards.' And Ibn Hajer says: 'And hijra is to the thing and moving oneself to it away from something else besides it.' And in the law: 'Abandoning what God has forbidden.' And it has come in Islam under two types:
1. Moving from the abode of fear to the abode of security as in the two hijras of Abyssinia and the beginning of the hijra from Mecca to Medina.
2. The hijra from the abode of kufr to the abode of faith and that is after the Prophet (SAWS) became established in Medina and those Muslims he could enable to migrate migrated to it. And there is no surprise in that, for there are those who say they will migrate to the mountain then return and encounter the Pharaoh just as Moses did and after that God will make the Pharaoh and his soldiers sink beneath the earth.
And all these escapades have only resulted because of abandoning the sole correct Shari'i method to establish the Islamic state. So what is the correct method? God Almighty says: 'Fighting has been prescribed for you and you dislike it. Perhaps you hate something that is good for you and perhaps you love something that is bad for you.' The Exalted also says: 'Fight them until there is no more fitna and religion belongs wholly to God.'
6. Preoccupation with seeking 'Ilm
And there are those who say that the path now is to be preoccupied with seeking 'Ilm and how can we wage jihad when we are not on 'Ilm? And seeking 'Ilm is an obligation, but we have not heard of the words of anyone who permits abandoning a Shari'i command or one of the obligations of Islam on the pretext of 'Ilm especially if this obligaton is the jihad. For how can we abandon an individual duty for the sake of a collective obligation? Then how can it be that we will have known the least of the Sunan and desired things and we emphasize them then abandon an obligation that the Messenger (SAWS) made great? Then the one who has plunged into 'Ilm to the degree that he has known the small and big, how can he overlook the value of the jihad and the consequence of delaying it or falling short in it? And whoso says that 'Ilm is jihad must know that the obligation is to fight because God the Exalted and Almighty made clear: 'Fighting has been prescribed for you.' And it is well-known that a man who testified the two shahadas before the Messenger of God (SAWS) then came down to the field of fighting and fought until he was killed before doing anything whether in knowledge or worship, the Messenger of God (SAWS) gave him good tidings for this small deed and much reward. And the 'ulama have specified that whoso knows the obligation of prayer must pray and whoso knows the obligation of fasting must fast likewise and whoso knows the obligation of jihad must wage jihad and whoso cites his lack of knowledge of the rulings of jihad as an excuse must know that the rulings of Islam are easy and straightforward for the one of pure intention to it.
So this person must intend for jihad in the path of God and after that the rulings of jihad can be easily studied and in a very short time so there is no monopoly over 'Ilm as 'Ilm is available to all. As for delaying the jihad on the pretext of seeking 'Ilm, that is the pretext of the one who has no real pretext. And there have been mujahideen since the beginning of the da'wa of the Prophet (SAWS) and in the times of the followers up till the recent times who were not 'ulama and God granted the conquest of big cities at their hands and they did not cite the pretext of seeking 'Ilm or getting to know the 'Ilm of the hadith and the principles of fiqh but rather God (Exalted and Almighty is He) placed victory for Islam at their hands. It was not the 'ulama of al-Azhar who realized that on the day that Napoleon and his soldiers entered al-Azhar with horses and sandals. What did they do with their 'Ilm before that farce? For knowledge is not the striking and cutting weapon that will cut the root of the disbelievers but this is the weapon that the Lord (Almighty and Exalted is He) mentioned to us: 'Fight them: God will punish them at your hands and ruin them and grant you victory over them and heal the hearts of believing people.' And we do not belittle the value of 'Ilm and the 'ulama but rather we emphasize it but we do not cite it as an excuse to abandon obligations God has mandated.
Statement that the Ummah of Islam Differs From the Other Nations in the Matter of Fighting
God Almighty makes clear that this Ummah differs from the other nations in the matter of fighting for in the prior nations God- Exalted and Almighty is He- brought down His punishment on the disbelievers and the enemies of His religion by the cosmic Sunnan: inferiority, division, cry and wind. And this matter differs with the Ummah of Muhammad (SAWS) for God the Exalted and Almighty addresses them saying: 'Fight them: God will punish them at your hands and ruin them and grant you victory over them and heal the hearts of believing people.' That is, that the Muslim must first implement the command to fight at his hands then after that by the intervention of God the Exalted and Almighty through the cosmic Sunan the victory is thus realized at the hands of the believers from God the Exalted and Almighty.
Revolting Against the Ruler
It has come in Sahih Muslim in al-Nawawi's commentary on the authority of Janada bin Abi Umayyah: he said: we came upon Ubada bin al-Samit and he was ill so we said: tell us a hadith. May God make you well with a hadith by which God benefits that you heard from the Messenger of God (SAWS): so he said: the Messenger of God (SAWS) called us so we gave allegiance to him so it was in what he took upon us that we pledged allegiance to him to hear and obey in our enthusiasm and compulsion and in our adversity and ease and its impact on us and that we should not dispute the command he deemed apt. He said: unless, you should see bawah kufr in your eyes and in it is proof from God. And bawah: i.e. open. And the meaning of kufr here is acts of disobedience. The meaning in your view and in it is proof from God: that you know it from the religion of God and al-Nawawi says in explaining the hadith: the judge al-Ayadh said: the 'ulama have agreed that the Imamate is not contracted for a disbeliever so if kufr comes upon him he is to be removed. He said: and likewise if he were to abandon the establishment of prayers and calling to it. And likewise he said: in the view of the majority of them, acts of innovation. He said: and some of the Basrites said: it is contracted for him and help up for him because he is muta'awwal. The judge said: if disbelief comes upon him or alteration of the law or innovation, he goes out from the ruling of wilaya and obedience to him is removed and the Muslims must rise against him and remove him and put in place a just Imam if they can do that (Sahih Muslim- Bab al-Jihad). And this chapter is also a refutation of those who assert that it is not allowed to fight except under a Caliph or amir. And Ibn Taymiyya says: 'Every group that goes outside a Shari'a of the manifest well-established laws of Islam, they must be fought by the agreement of the Imams of the Muslims even if they profess the two shahadas' (al-Fatawa al-Kubra Bab al-Jihad p. 281).
The Near Enemy and the Far Enemy
And there are those who say that the field of jihad today is to liberate al-Quds as a holy land and the truth is that liberating the holy lands is a Shari'i command obligatory on every Muslim but the Messenger of God (SAWS) described the believer as astute and clever.
That is, that he knows what is beneficial and what is harmful and he offers the decisive root solutions and this point needs to be clarified as follows:
1. Fighting the near enemy is of greater priority than fighting the far enemy.[iii]
2. The blood of the Muslims will bleed even if victory is realized. So the question now is: is this victory for the interest of the existing Islamic state? Or is this victory for the interest of the disbelieving ruler and cementing the pillars of the state that goes outside the law of God? And these rulers indeed take advantage of the opportunity of nationalist ideas of these Muslims in realizing their un-Islamic objectives even if they are outwardly appear to be for Islam. So fighting must be under a Muslim banner and Muslim leadership and there is no disagreement on that.
3. The foundation of the presence of colonialism in the land of Islam is these rulers so beginning to destroy colonialism is not useful or beneficial work and is indeed only a waste of time. So we must focus on our Islamic cause and it is establishing the law of God first in our land and making the word of God highest. So there is no doubt that the first field of jihad is doing away with those disbelieving rulers and replacing them with the complete Islamic system and from here one can set out.[iv]
Responding to the One Who Says that Jihad in Islam is For Defense Only
In this context we must respond to the one who has said that jihad in Islam is for defense and that Islam did not spread by the sword and this is a false assertion repeatedly asserted by a great number of those who are prominent in the field of Islamic da'wa and the truth is the response of the Messenger of God (SAWS) when he was asked: 'What is jihad in the path of God?' He said: 'The one who fights so that the word of God should be highest is in the path of God.'
So fighting in Islam is to raise the word of God in the land whether in attack or defense, and Islam spread by the sword but in the face of the leaders of kufr who concealed it from men and after that no one is compelled, so the obligation on the Muslims is to raise the swords in the faces of the leaders who conceal the truth and show falsehood. Otherwise the truth will not reach the hearts of the people, and read with me the message of the Prophet (SAWS) to Heraclius, on the authority of Ibn Abbas in Sahih al-Bukhari and its text is as follows:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful: from Muhammad the servant of God and His Messenger to Heraclius the Great of the Romans:
'Peace be upon the one who follows guidance. As for what follows: I call you by the call of Islam. Convert to Islam. If you convert to Islam. God will double your reward. If you turn away, upon you is the sin of the Arisin. 'Oh people of the Book, come to a common word between us and you. Do we not worship but God as we associate nothing in partnership with Him and we do not take each other as lords besides God. Then, if they turn away, say: bear witness that we are Muslims."
And we add the text of the message of the Prophet (SAWS) to Chosroes the Great of the Persians: 'Peace be upon the one who follows the guidance and believes in God and His Messenger. And I call you by the call of God, for I am the Messenger of God to all mankind to warn whoso is alive and establish the words of truth against the disbelievers: convert to Islam. And if you refuse, then the sin of the Majous is upon you' (brought out by Bin Hazir via Ibn Ishaq).
And al-Baihaqi brought out the text of the message of the Messenger to the people of Najran and it is as follows: 'In the name of the God of Ibrahim, Ishaq and Ya'qoub from Muhammad the Messenger of God to the bishop of Najran and the people of Najran. Salutations to you. I commend the God of Ishaq and Ya'qoub to you. As for what follows: I call you to worship of God away from worship of men, and I call you to the wilaya of God away from the wilaya of men. If you refuse: the jizya. If you refuse, I inform you of war. And peace.'
And the Messenger (SAWS) sent similar messages to al-Maqouqas, the king of al-Yamama, al-Mundhar bin Sawi the Great of Bahrain, al-Harith bin Abi Shammar al-Fani, al-Harith bin Abd Kalal al-Humairi, the king of Oman and others besides them.
(The Verse of the Sword)
And most of the interpreters have spoken on one of the verses of the Qur'an and they have called it the verse of the sword and it is the words of God the Exalted and Almighty: 'So when the sacred months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every opportunity' (al-Tawba 5).
al-Hafiz bin Kathir said in interpreting the verse: 'al-Dahhak bin Mazahim said: that it abrogated every pact between the Prophet (SAWS) and any of the idolaters and every pact and period and al-Awfi said on the authority of Ibn Abbas on this verse: there has remained for none of the idolaters a pact or dhimma since dissolution was revealed.'
And al-Hafiz Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhamad bin Jazi al-Kalbi the author of the Tafsir al-Tashil li-Ulum al-Tanzil said: 'And here what has come from abrogation has annulled the issue of the disbelievers and pardoning them and avoidance and enduring their harm by the command for that to override its repetition in its places, so from it in the Qur'an 114 verses from 54 suras are wholly abrogated by His words: 'And kill the idolaters where you find them'; 'Fighting has been prescribed for you.'
And al-Hassan bin Fadhl said what regarding what is in the verse of the sword: this has abrogated every verse in the Qur'an in which there is mention of turning away and enduring the harm of the enemies. So the wondrous thing is the one who cites the abrogated verses as evidence of abandoning fighting and jihad. And Imam Abu Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hazim who died in the year 56 AH said on what abrogates and what is abrogated: 'The notion of turning away from the idolaters (in 114 verses in 48 suras) is abrogated entirely by the words of the Almighty and Exalted: 'So kill the idolaters where you find them.' We will mention them in their places if God Almighty wills.'
And al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Abu al-Qasim Habbat Allah bin Salama says: 'Kill the idolaters wherever you find them: the third verse is the third verse and it is the ninth but it has abrogated from the Qur'an 114 verses, then the last of it has been abrogating the first of it and it is the Almighty's words: 'But if they repent and establish prayer and give zakat, let them go' (Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh).
So When You Meet Those Who Have Disbelieved, Strike Their Necks
And al-Siddi and al-Dahhak said that the verse of the sword is abrogated by the verse: 'So when you meet those who have disbelieved, strike their necks until you have inflicted slaughter on them so bind their bonds so either confer favour afterwards or ransom...' (Muhammad 4). And it is harsher upon the idolaters than the verse of the sword and Qatada said on the contrary. And I do not know anyone who has contradicted the assertion of what is abrogated except al-Suyuti who said in the Kitbat al-Ittiqan that the command is when there is weakness and lack of ability to be patient and pardon. Then it was abrogated by the obligation to fight, and this in truth is not abrogation but rather it is of the summits of postponement as the Almighty said: 'Or we postpone it.' So the postponement is the command to fight until the Muslims are strong and in the event of weakness the ruling is that they must endure harm, and thus what many have asserted in the claim that the verse in that matter is abrogated by the verse of the sword is on weak grounds. It is not so but rather it is of postponement. And he said: his group mentioned that what has come from the address, timing and objective like His words in al-Baqara- 'So forgive and pardon until God brings His command'- is an unabrogated ruling because it is postponed for a time. End-quote from al-Suyuti.
And despite al-Suyuti's contradiction of all the prior assertions, what leaves no room for doubt is that the correct thing to do is to take up the first assertion. So in addition to that, mistaken is the one who has understood that the assertion of lack of abrogation of the verses of pardon and forgiveness has in mind the obligations of jihad and commanding what is right and forbidding what is right, or that the obligation of jihad is brought down. For the Messenger of God (SAWS) says: 'And jihad continues until the Day of Judgement.' And al-Ustadh Abd al-Wahhab Khalaf says in Kitab 'Ilm Usul al-Fiqh p. 227: 'So the fact that it continues to the Day of Judgement shows that it remains so long as the world remains.'
And impeding the jihad on the pretext of postponement is not only stopping the expedition but it is also stopping the intention of the expedition and the danger of that is in the words of SAWS: 'Whoso does not go on an expedition or intend himself to go on the expedition, dies a death of Jahiliya.' And the matter is agreed upon is that the Muslims, in order to wage jihad, must have force, but how can this force be realized when you impede the obligation of jihad and God the Exalted and Almighty says: 'Had they wanted to go out, they would have made preparation for it, but God disliked their being sent so He kept them back' (al-Tawba 46). So the fact that you do not want to go out is followed by abandoning the preparation so the Muslim who has stopped the obligation of jihad: the time has come for him to take up the causes of force and SAWS says: 'If the people hoard the dinar and dirham and sell to each other by the 'aina, and abandon jihad in the path of God, and they take the tails of the cow, God will bring upon them from the Sky tribulation which He will not remove from them until they go back to their religion.'
Stances of the Muslims in Fighting
The armies of the Muslims through the ages have been few in number and preparation and confronting armies multiple times their size and some make the pretext that that is particular to the Messenger (SAWS) and his noble companions and the response to that is that God's promise of victory is permanent so long as the Heavens and Earth exist and it is possible for you to review what happened with Zahir al-Din Babar who faced the Hinduki king Dana Sanmaji and his army was only 20,000 while the army of the Hinduki king was 200,000 and the Muslim leader was victorious after his repentance from drinking wine. And besides him are many.
And there are those who claim that we are living in a Meccan society by which they mean to obtain permission to abandon the jihad in the path of God for the one who places himself in a Meccan society to abandon the obligation of jihad must abandon fasting and prayers and eat up interest because interest was only forbidden in Medina. And the truth is that Mecca is the time of the beginning of the da'wa and God the Exalted and Almighty says:
'And today I have perfected for you your religion and completed for you My blessing and I have been pleased with Islam as a religion for you.'
All of these ideas have been annulled by the pretext that we are Meccans as we cannot begin as the Prophet (SAWS) began but we take up what the law ended with. And we are not in a Meccan society and we are also not in a Medinan society but you know the society in which we live: see the section 'The Abode in Which We Live.'
Fighting Now is an Obligation on Every Muslim
And God the Exalted and Almighty when He imposed the obligation of fasting said: 'Fasting has been prescribed for you.' And in the command of fighting He said: 'Fighting has been prescribed for you.' That is, that fighting is an obligation and that is in response to the one who says that the obligation is jihad and from here he says if I undertake the obligation of da'wa I have undertaken the obligation because that is jihad. And if I go out to seek 'Ilm I am on the path of God such that I come back with the text of the hadith and thus I have fulfilled the obligation.
But the obligation is clear in the Qur'anic text that it is fighting: i.e. confrontation and blood. The question now is: when is jihad an individual duty? The jihad becomes obligatory in three places:
1. When two marching columns and lines meet each other, it is forbidden for the one present to turn back and it is obligatory for them to remain as per the Almighty's words: 'Oh you who have believed, when you meet those who have disbelieved in a marching column, do not turn back on them.'
2. When the disbelievers descend upon a land it is obligatory for its people to fight them and repel them.
3. When the Imam summons a people to mobilize, the mobilization is obligatory for them as per the Almighty's words: 'Oh you who have believed, what is the matter with you when it is said to you mobilize in the path of God, and you have clung heavily to the earth? Have you been content with this worldly life over the Hereafter? But the enjoyment of this worldly life is but little in the Hereafter. If you do not mobilize, He will torment you with a painful punishment and replace you with another people and you cannot harm Him at all. And God is powerful over everything.'
And SAWS said: 'If you are summoned to mobilize, mobilize.' End quote.
And regarding the Islamic regions, the enemy are established in their abode, and indeed the enemy has come to possess the reins of affairs and that enemy is these rulers wo have usurped the leadership of the Muslims, and from here jihad against them is an individual obligation. This is so in addition to the fact that Islamic jihad today needs the drop of sweat of every Muslim.
And know that if jihad is an individual obligation there is no requirement to take the permission of the parents to go out to jihad as the jurists have stipulated so it is like prayer and fasting.
Classes of Jihad and Not Stages of Jihad
The clear point is that jihad today is an individual obligation on every Muslim and despite that we find that there is the one who cites as pretext that he needs to educate himself and that jihad is stages and that he is still in the stage of jihad of the self and he cites as evidence for that the words of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, who divided jihad into classes:
1. Jihad against the self.
2. Jihad against Satan.
3. Jihad against the disbelievers and hypocrites.
And this citation of evidence reveals behind him either complete ignorance or monstrous cowardice. That is because Ibn al-Qayyim divided the jihad into classes and not stages. And otherwise, we must cease from waging jihad against Satan until we finish the stage of jihad of the self and the truth is that the three classes proceed together in a straight line and we do not deny that the strongest of us in faith and those of us most waging jihad for their soul are the most steadfast of us. But the one who considers the Sira finds that whenever the caller of jihad would call, all mobilized in the path of God, even those who committed the great sin and the newly converted to Islam. And it is narrated that a man converted to Islam during the fighting and came down to the battle so he fell as a martyr so SAWS said: 'Little work and great reward.'
And the story of Ibn Mahjan al-Thiqfi who was addicted to wine and his tribulation in the conquest of Persia is well-known and Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that the hadith- 'We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad; it was said: what is the greater jihad oh Messenger of God? He said: jihad against the self'- is a fabricated hadith (al-Manar al-Munif) and the only intention in fabricating this hadith is to diminish the matter of fighting by the sword to preoccupy the Muslims away from fighting the disbelievers and hypocrites.
Fear of Failure
And there are those who have said that we fear that we establish the state then after a day or two a response occurs that destroys all we accomplished.
And the response to that is that establishing the Islamic state is implementing the command of God and we are not demanding results, and the one who brags with these rewards, there is no agenda behind him except to keep the Muslims away from carrying out their Shari'i duty in establishing the law of God. He has forgotten that by merely the fall of the disbelieving rule everything will become in the hands of the Muslims, so with that the fall of the Muslim state will be impossible. Then indeed the laws of Islam are not deficient or unable to subjugate every sower of corruption in the land outside the command of God. And in addition to that, all the laws of God are justice that will only find all mutual welcoming even from those who do not know Islam. And to clarify the position of the hypocrites in their hostility to the Muslims, those who fear failure should take reassurance in the words of the Lord in Surat al-Hashr: 'Have you not seen how those who have been hypocrites saying to their brothers who have disbelieved from the people of the Book: if you are expelled, we will surely go out with you. And we will not obey anyone against you ever. And if you are fought, we will surely support you. And God bears witness that they are indeed liars.' And this is the promise of God, for they (the hypocrites), if they see that the force is in the ranks of Islam, they will return submissive so do not be deceived by these voices, for as soon as they are subdued they will be extinguished.
And the position of the hypocrites will be the position of all of the enemies of Islam and God Almighty says: 'If you support God, He will support you and plant firm your feet.'
And there are those who cite as pretext the lack of presence of a leadership leading the course of the jihad and there are those who connect the command of jihad with the presence of an amir or Caliph: and those who assert this assertion are those who have made the leadership go to loss and have stopped the course of the jihad and the Messenger (SAWS) urges the Muslims in his hadiths to constitute the leaderships. Abu Dawud narrates in the book of Jihad that SAWS said: 'If three go out on a journey, let them make one of them as an amir.' And from here we realize that the leadership of the Muslims is in their hands: they are those who show it. And SAWS says: 'Whoso appoints a man over a group- and among them is the one more pleasing to God than he- has betrayed God, His Messenger and the Jama'at of the Muslims'- narrated by al-Haki and al-Suyuti pointed out to its soundness.
So it must be for the one best in Islam and SAWS says to Abu Dhir: 'You are weak and it is an amana.' And it must be for the strongest and the matter is relative, and what we conclude is that the leader of the Muslims comes out from among them and there is no pretext for the one who asserts that the leadership is lacking for they can bring out the leadership from among themselves. And if there is in the leadership something of shortcoming there is nothing that cannot be gained. As for holding back on the pretext of lack of leadership, this is not allowed. For we may find a jurist but he is not knowledgeable in circumstances of the time, leadership and organization, and we find the opposite but all this does not absolve us from finding the leadership and bring out the one most qualified of us for our leadership in the presence of Shura and shortcomings that can be perfected and now there is no longer a pretext for a Muslim in abandoning the obligation of jihad cast on his shoulder so he must begin and with all effort in organizing the operation of jihad to restore Islam to this Ummah and establish the state and destroy Tawagheet who are no more than being men who have not found before them the one who can convince them of the command of God the Exalted and Almighty.
Allegiance Pledge on Fighting and Death
al-Bukhari brought out on the authority of Salima (may God be pleased with him) who said: 'I pledged allegiance to the Prophet (SAWS) then turned away to the shade of the tree. So when the number of people diminished he said: oh Ibn al-Akwa', will you not pledge allegiance?' I said: I have pledged allegiance oh Messenger of God. He said: 'And again.' So I pledged allegiance to him the second time. So I said to him: 'Oh Abu Salima, upon what thing were you giving allegiance on that day.' He said: 'Upon death.' And also Muslim and al-Tirmidhi brought it out. And al-Bukhari p. 415 also brought out on the authority of Abdullah bin Zayd (may God be pleased with him): he said: 'So when it was the day of al-Harra, someone came to him and said to him that Ibn Hanzhala is contracting the allegiance pledge of the people upon death. He said: 'I will not pledge allegiance to anyone upon this after the Messenger of God (SAWS).' Muslim also brought this out in the source p. 15 and al-Baihaqi.
And the prior narration shows that it is permissible to pledge allegiance upon death and we are not in the business of studying the position of Abdullah bin Zayd and there is a difference between allegiance pledge of death and absolute allegiance pledge to the Caliph only and the meaning of that is not that the amir of the soldiers is not to be obeyed. The Messenger of God (SAWS): 'Whoso obeys me, has obeyed the God. Whoso disobeys me, has disobeyed God. And whoso obeys the amir, has obeyed me. And whoso disobeys the amir, has disobeyed me' (muttafiq alayhi).
And on the authority of Ibn Abbas on the Almighty's words ('And obey God, and obey the Messenger and those entrusted with affairs among you'): it was revealed concerning Abdullah bin Hudhafa whom God sent into a squadron: i.e. a position of amir of jihad.
Inciting to Fight in The Path of God
The Muslim must prepare himself for jihad in the path of God.
And the Messenger (SAWS) says: 'God has promised the one who has gone out in the path of God and is only brought out by jihad in the path of God with faith in Him and believing in His Messenger that he is guaranteed to enter Paradise or return to his place of residence from which he came out, having attained what he has attained from reward or spoils'- muttafiq alayhi.
And SAWS says: 'Whoso asks for shahada sincerely, God will convey him to the places of the martyrs even if he dies on his bed'- narrated by Muslim and al-Baihaqi. On the authority of Abu Huraira: and a man came to the Messenger of God (SAWS) and said: show me a deed that equals jihad. He said: I cannot find it. He said: Can you, when the mujahid goes out, enter your mosque and perform the prayers and not cease and fast and not break the fast? He said: who can do that? Abu Huraira said: even when the horse of the mujahid moves about on its rope, good things are prescribed for him'- narrated by al-Bukhari.
And SAWS says: 'The martyr with God has six qualities: he is forgiven from the first drop of blood and is shown his seat from Paradise and is freed from the torment of the grave and secured from the great terror and he is adorned with the garment of faith and marries from al-hour al-ayn and intercedes for seventy people of his relatives' (al-Tirmidhi).
The Consequence of Abandoning the Jihad
Abandoning the jihad is the reason the Muslims today live in humiliation, degradation, separation and splitting for the words of the Lord (Almighty and Exalted is He) have spoken the truth about them: 'Oh you who have believed, what is the matter with you when it is said to you mobilize in the path of God, and you have clung heavily to the earth? Have you been content with this worldly life over the Hereafter? But the enjoyment of this worldly life is but little in the Hereafter. If you do not mobilize, He will torment you with a painful punishment and replace you with another people and you cannot harm Him at all. And God is witness over everything' (al-Tawba 38-39).
And Ibn Kathir says in the tafsir of these verses: 'This concerns the punishment of the one who abandoned the Messenger of God (SAWS) in the Tabuk expedition as the shade and fruits were good amid the intensity of the war, so the Almighty said: 'Oh you who have believed, what is the matter with you when it is said to you mobilize in the path of God, and you have clung heavily to the earth?' That is, when you are called to jihad in the path of God, you have clung heavily to the earth- that is, you have been lazy and inclined to stay in indifference among shade and good fruits. 'If you do not mobilize, He will torment you with a painful punishment: Ibn Abbas said: the Messenger of God (SAWS) asked God to forgive some of the Arabs, for they turned away from him so God held back the rain from them and it was their torment. 'And He will replace you with another people': that is, to support His Prophet and establish His religion, as the Almighty said: 'And He will replace you with another replace and you will not harm Him at all.' That is, you cannot harm Him at all by your turning away from jihad and turning away from Him.'
And SAWS says: 'If the people hoard the dinar and dirham and sell to each other by the 'aina, and abandon jihad in the path of God, and they take the tails of the cow, God will bring upon them from the Sky tribulation which He will not remove from them until they go back to their religion.' And the Muslim must not be content to be now in the ranks of the women as the Messenger of God (SAWS) reported that their jihad is in al-Hajj and al-Umara.
Doubts of Jurisprudence and Responding to Them
And there are those who fear entering into this type of fighting, citing as pretext that those they are confronting are soldiers among whom is the Muslim and among whom is the disbeliever, so how can we fight the Muslims and the Messenger of God (SAWS) says that the killer and killed are in Hellfire?
And the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya faced the same question as it was one of the issues of al-Fatawa al-Kubra (517) on soldiers refraining from fighting the Tatars and saying that among them are those who are going out under compulsion (and in response) Ibn Taymiyya says: 'The one who doubts fighting them is the most ignorant of people in the religion of Islam and it has been obligatory to fight them they are to be fought even if there is among them the compelled. This is so by the agreement of the Muslims as al-Abbas said when he was taken prisoner on the day of Badr: Oh Messenger of God, I came out in compulsion. So the Prophet (SAWS) said: as for your outward show, it is upon us. Ad as for your inward feeling, it is upon God. And the 'ulama have agreed that the army of the disbelievers, if they use as shields i.e. protect themselves with those they have of prisoners of the Muslims and harm is feared for the Muslims if they are not fought, they should be fought even if that leads to the killing of the Muslims by whom they have shielded themselves. But if there is no fear for the Muslims, there are two well-known opinions of the 'ulama on the permissibility of the fighting that leads to the killing of these Muslims. And these Muslims, if they are killed, are martyrs and the obligatory jihad is not to be abandoned for the sake of the one killed as a martyr, for if the Muslims fight the disbelievers, the one of the Muslims who is killed is a martyr and whoso is killed and on the inside does not deserve to be killed for the interest of Islam is a martyr.
And it has been established in the Sahih on the authority of the Prophet (SAWS): 'An army of the people will attack until they are in Baida' of the earth when it swallows them up.' And it was said: Oh Messenger of God, and what if among them are the compelled? He said: 'They will be resurrected on the basis of their inner intentions.'
So if the torment God brings on the army that attacks the Muslims is also brought down by Him on the compelled, it is all the more so the case for the torment by which God will torment them at the hands of the believers, as the Almighty has said: 'Do you await for us except one of the two best things while we await for you that God should afflict you with a torment from Himself or our hands?' And we know that you cannot distinguish between the compelled and the one besides him, so if we kill them by the command of God we are in that rewarded and excused and they are upon their inner intentions, so whoso could not refrain as he was compelled, he will be resurrected on his inner intention on the Day of Judgment, so if he is killed for the sake of the rise of the religion, that is no greater than the killing of the one who is killed from the army of the Muslims.
And as for if one of them flees, there are among the people those who place fighting them in the rank of fighting the muta'awwaleen transgressors. And these people if they have a group that refrains, is it permitted to pursue the one of them who flees, kill their prisoner and deliver the coup de grace to their wounded person?
According to two well-known opinions of the 'ulama, it is said: that should not be done because of the call of Ali bin Abi Talib who on the day of the Camel urged that no one should be pursued and there should be no coup de grace against a wounded person and no killing of a prisoner. And it has been said: on the contrary that should be done because on the day of the Camel they did not have a refraining group and the intention from fighting was to repel them so when they were repelled there was no need for that in the place of repelling the aggressor. But it has been narrated that on the day of the Camel and Saffin their matter was otherwise, so the one who places them in the rank of muta'awwaleen transgressors places in them these two opinions.
And the truth is that these people are not of the muta'awwaleen transgressors for these people do not have a permissible interpretation from the outset but rather they are of the type of the renegade Khawarij and those who refuse to give zakat and the people of Ta'if and al-Haramiya and the like who have been fought according to what they have left of the laws of Islam and this is a matter that has been doubtful to many of the people of the jurists.'
The Appropriate Method of Fighting
With the progress of time and development of humanity it seems appropriate to ask: there is no doubt that the modern methods of fighting may differ somewhat from the methods of fighting in the time of the Prophet (SAWS), so what is the way of fighting for the Muslim in the modern age? And is it for him to apply his mind and opinion?
Among the Arts of Fighting in Islam
The Messenger (SAWS) says: 'War is deception.' And al-Nawawi says in explaining the hadith: 'The 'ulama have agreed that it is permissible to deceive the disbelievers in war and the deception can be done by any means unless there is in it annulling of a pact or aman, so then it is not allowed.' And it is well known that there is no pact between us and them as they are waging war on the religion of God the Exalted and Almighty and the Muslims are free to choose the appropriate method of fighting on the basis of the realization of deception and that is victory with the fewest losses and easiest means.
The Method of Fighting in the Expedition of al-Ahzab
After the seniors of the Jews succeeded in assembling the disbelieving parties against the Prophet (SAWS) and his da'wa and the situation became dangerous the Muslims quickly drew up a singular plan the Arabd had not heard of before for they did not know except fighting of the open fields and that plan was advised by Salman the Persian and that was to dig a deep trench surrounding al-Medina from the side of the plain and separating between the defenders and the attackers, so the method of fighting is not revelation or established Sunna and the Muslim can apply his mind and manage and plan and the matter goes back in it to Shura.
Deceiving the Enemies
And it has been established in the hadith that deception is allowed in three things. Al-Tabari said indeed from lying in war it is allowed to engage in insinuation beneath the fact of the lie, which is not in itself permitted. This is his words. And it is apparent that the fact of lying itself is permitted but limitation to insinuation is better and God knows best (from al-Nawawi's commentary).
Through study of the squadrons the Muslim comes out with Islamic plans and fighting deceptions whose rulings pass upon many of the Muslims and we mention for example:
1. The squadron of the killing of Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf in the third year of the Hijra: in Sahih al-Bukhari on the authority of Jaber bin Abdullah: SAWS said: who will rid me of Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf? For he has harmed God and His Messenger. So Muhammad bin Maslama arose and said: oh Messenger of God, do you want me to kill him? He said: yes. He said: so permit me to say something (and it is seeking the permission of the Prophet- SAWS- to say words even if they are denying the faith and that it to show kufr outwardly before Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf so he permitted it).
SAWS said: say it. So Muhammad bin Maslama came to him and said: indeed this man (he means the Prophet- SAWS) asked us for a sadaqa. And he said: he has preoccupied us (and these words are outwardly condemning the sadaqa and attacking SAWS and this is kufr). And the point is that the Muslim may show his wholesale loyalty to the enemy in war even if the matter reaches outwardly showing idolatry and kufr.
And I have come to you asking for a loan. He said: And also by God you will be more grieved. Indeed we have followed him so we do not wish to abandon him until we can see what will be outcome of his affair. And we wanted you to loan us a wasq or two. Ka'ab said: yes, give me a pledge of security. They said: what thing do you want? He said: give me your women as pledge of security. They said: how can we give you our women as pledge of security when you are the most handsome of the Arabs? He said: give me your sons as pledge of security. They said: how can we give you our sons as pledge of security so one of the will be cursed and it will be said he was given as a pledge of security for a wasq or two. This is same upon us, but we will give you the coat of mail as pledge of security (i.e. weapons). So he arrange with him to come to him suddenly by night and with him Abu Na'ila and he was the brother of Ka'ab from nursing so he called them to the fortress so he came down to them so his wife said to him: where are you going out at this hour? He said: Indeed it is Muhammad bin Maslama and my brother Abu Na'ila. And all narrators except Amro have said that she said: I hear a voice as though blood is dripping from it. He said: But rather it is my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and with him two men. According to Sufyan, Amro named them as al-Harith bin Bashr and Abad bin Bashr. According to Amro: so Muhammad bin Maslama said: when he comes, I will touch his hair and smell it. So when you see me having grabbed his head before you, strike him (and that is the way to be able to kill him as he was of big body and powerful strength).
And in this story are many useful lessons in the art of fighting and some of the orientalists and those in whose hearts is a disease have claimed that the killing of Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf was treachery and betrayal against him. And the response to them is that that disbeliever was eager to harm the Muslims and the Jews came to the Prophet (SAWS) after the killing of Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf and said: oh Muhammad, there has been struck (i.e. killed) our companion during the night and he is one of our lords. He was killed in assassination, not a crime or incident we have known. SAWS said: had he fled as others besides him have fled of those who are of like-minded opinion, he would not have been assassinated. But he harmed us and attacked us with poetry and none of you has done this unless it has been for the sword (al-Sarim al-Maslul 'ala Shatim al-Rasul p. 71 by Ibn Taymiyya).
2. The squadron of Abdullah against Abu Sufyan and it was in the fourth year and its cause was that the Prophet (SAWS) informed him that Sha'aban bin Khalid al-Hadhali was established in 'Amranah and was gathering forces to wage war on the Muslims so the Messenger of God (SAWS) ordered Abdullah bin Unais al-Jahani to kill him. Abdullah said: oh Messenger of God: describe him to me so that I may know him. SAWS said: 'When you see him, remember Satan and the sign of what is between you and him is that.' He said: and I sought the permission of the Messenger of God (SAWS) to say (the same permission of Muhammad bin Maslama) so he granted him that permission then he said to me (claim affiliation with the Khoza'a) (and this is a lie but it is permitted).
Abdullah said: so I knew him by the description of the Messenger of God (SAWS) and I felt fear of him and said: the Messenger of God has spoken the truth. Abdullah said: and the time of afternoon had entered when I saw him so I feared that there would be between me and him an attempt distracting me from prayers so I prayed and as I walked towards him to make a gesture with my head. So when I came to him he said: from where are you, man? I said: from the Khoza'a. I heard you are gathering against Muhammad so I have come to be with you (so in these words is showing outwardly loyalty). He said: indeed I am gathering against him. Abdullah said: so I walked with him and spoke to him, so he praised my words and I encouraged him and said to him: wondrous indeed is what Muhamad has contrived from this invented religion: he has denigrated the ancestors and berated their dreams (and these words are kufr). Abu Sufyan said he had not met anyone like him, as he reclined on a stick pulling down the land until he headed to his tent and his companions separated from him to dwellings near him and they were surrounding him. He said: come near, oh brother of Khoza'a. So I drew near to him. He said: sit. Abdullah said: so I sat with him until the people lay down to rest and slept, so I assassinated him and killed him and took his head then went out and left his wives devoted to him. So when I came to al-Medina I found the Messenger of God (SAWS) so when he saw me he said: the face has been triumphant. I said: your face has been triumphant, oh Messenger of God. Then I placed the head before him and informed him of my report.
3. The story of Nu'aim bin Mas'oud in the expedition of al-Ahzad. When Nu'aim bin Mas'oud came as a Muslim, he advised him to conceal his Islam and returned him to the idolaters to cause problems among them. So Nu'aim went to the Banu Qurayza and said to them in the guise of advice: do not fight with the people (meaning the Quraysh and the Ghatfan) until you take a mortgage from their noble ones who should be in your hands.
And that was after he convinced them that the Quraysh and Ghatfan are not of the people of Medina so if something happens they should join their land and leave them to the Prophet (SAWS) so they said to him: your opinion has made sense. Then he came to Quraysh and informed them that the Jews of Banu Qurayza had regretted their alliance with you and have sent envoys to Muhammad saying: does it please you that we should take from the two tribes a man of their noble ones and their necks should be struck? And he came to Ghtfan and said similar words. So Abu Sufyan and the heads of the Ghatfan sent to the Banu Qurayza Ikrima bin Abi Jahl in a delegation of Quraysh and Ghatfan so they said to them: 'Prepare to fight so that we may fight Muhamad.' So they responded that this is the day of Saturday in which we do nothing and we will not fight with you until you give us a pledge from your men who should be in our hands as a trust for us for we fear that you will head back to your land the fighting becomes intense for you. So when the envoys returned the Quraysh and Ghatfan said: By God what Nu'aim bin Mas'oud has told you is the truth. We by God will not hand over to you one man from our men. So the Banu Qurayza said: what Nu'aim mentioned to you is the truth. And from here Nu'aim became affiliated in the ranks of the Ahzab.
It is permitted for the Muslim to carry out inghimas into the ranks of the disbelievers if there is in that an interest for the Muslims. Ibn Taymiyya says in Bab al-Jihad p. 296:
Muslim narrated in his Sahih collection on the authority of the Prophet (SAWS) the story of the companions of al-Akhdud: 'And in it that the boy was ordered to kill himself for the interest of the religion and thus the four imams permitted that the Muslim can carry out inghimas into the rank of the disbelievers even if it seems likely to him that they will kill him, if there is in that an interest for the Muslims.' And Ibn Taymiyya's words mean that it is permitted for the Muslim to carry out inghimas in the ranks of the disbelieving army even if that leads to his killing even before he should see with his own eye the benefit of his inghimas.
Da'wa Before The Fighting
It is permitted to attack the disbelievers whom the da'wa of Islam has reached without warning. Imam Muslim narrated from Ibn Uday, who said: I wrote to Nafi' asking him about the da'wa before fighting. He said: so he wrote back to me: that was the first of Islam, the Messenger of God (SAWS) attacked the Banu al-Mustalaq and they were out pasturing and their livestock were drinking water so he killed their fighters and took prisoners and he obtained on that day- Yahya said (I reckon him as having said)- Juwariya- or he said al-Batta- the daughter of al-Harith.
The commentary: al-Nawawi said on this hadith that it is permitted to attack the disbelievers whom the da'wa has reached without warning of the attack and in this issue are schools of thought mentioned by the qadi al-Mazari: one of them that there must be warning absolutely, asserted by Malik and others. And this is weak. And the second is that the da'wa need not reach them and they need not be notified but it is desirable and this is the correct position and it is asserted by Nai' Mawla ibn Omar al-Hassan al-Nasri and al-Thawri and al-Layth and al-Shafi'i and Abu Thur and Ibn al-Mundhar and it is the assertion of most of the Ahl al-'Ilm. End quote (Muslim- Sharh al-Nawawi).
The Permissibility of Night Raids Against the Disbelievers and Striking Them Even If It Leads to The Killing of Their Children
On the authority of Ibn Abbas on the authority of Sa'ab bin Jahama: he said: I said: oh Messenger of God, we will strike in the night-raids children of the idolaters. He said: they are of them (narrated by Muslim).
Explanation: the Messenger of God (SAWS) was asked about the ruling on the youth of the idolaters whom they strike in the night so some of their women and children are killed, so he said: they are of their parents. That is, there is no problem because the rulings of their parents apply to them in inheritance, marriage, retaliation, blood money and other things and the meaning is when they are only attacked out of necessity. End quote (Muslim: Sharh al-Nawawi Bab al-Jihad).
Refraining From Intending to Kill The Women, Children and Elderly
On the authority of Ibn Omar: he said: I found a woman slain in some of the expeditions of the Prophet (SAWS) so the Messenger of God (SAWS) forbade the killing of women and children (narrated by the group except al-Nisa'i).
And Ahmad and Abu Dawud narrated that in one of the expeditions the Messenger of God (SAWS) came upon a slain women who had been struck by the forefront so they halted gazing at her that is they were wondering at her form, until the Messenger of God (SAWS) joined them and said: 'This person was not to be killed.' So he said to one of them: join up with Khalid and tell him: do not kill children or a hired servant.
And the previous hadith of Ibn Abbas on the permissibility of killing the children does not contradict this hadith as each of the two states has a state of affairs that differs from the other.
Seeking Help In An Idolater
On the authority of A'isha (may God be pleased with her) said: the Messenger of God (SAWS) went out so when he reached Harrat al-Wabara a man saw him and he was known for his boldness and courage. So the companions of the Messenger of God (SAWS) rejoiced when they saw him so when he saw him the Messenger of God (SAWS) said to him: 'Do you believe in God and His Messenger?' He said: No. So he said: Go back, for we will not seek help in an idolater.' Then it came to pass that when we were under the tree the man saw us and said to him as he said the first time so the Prophet (SAWS) said to him as he said the first time as he said: 'God back, for we will not seek help in an idolater.' He said: then he went back so he saw us in al-Baida' and so he said to him as he said the first time: 'Do you believe in God and His Messenger?' He said: yes. So SAWS said to him: 'Set out' (narrated by Muslim). Al-Nawawi says: another hadith has come that the Prophet (SAWS) sought help in Safwan bin Umayya before his Islam so a group of the 'ulama have taken up the first hadith in its absolute while al-Shafi'i and others have said that if the disbeliever is of good mind towards the Muslims and the need calls for seeking help in him one can seek such help. Otherwise it is disliked.
And the two hadiths have borne these two cases, and if the disbeliever seeks permission it is granted for him to participate and sahm is not given to him.
And this is the madhhab of Malik and al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa and the majority, while al-Zahri and al-Awza'i said sahm is to be given to him and God knows best. End quote (Muslim in Sharh al-Nawawi: Bab al-Jihad).
And Malik says on seeking help in the idolaters and disbelievers: 'Only if they are in service to the Muslims is it permitted.' And Abu Hanida said: 'One can seek help in them and they can cooperate absolutely whenever Islam is the dominant force upon them but if the rule of idolatry is predominant it is disliked.'
And al-Shafi'i said: it is allowed and that is under two conditions: one of them is that the Muslims should be few in number and the idolaters many in number.
And the second is that good thought of the idolaters towards Islam and sympathy to it should be known from them, and whenever help is sought in them it is granted to them and there is no sahm granted to them (i.e. you give them compensation but you do not give them a share in the saham of the Muslims from war spoils).
Permissibility of Cutting Trees of the Disbelievers and Burning Them
Imam Muslim narrated on the authority of Nafi' bin Abdullah bin Omar that the Messenger of God (SAWS) burnt and cut the date palms of the Banu al-Nadhir and the Boudaira. Qutaiba and Ibn Rafah added in their hadith, so God (Almighty and Exalted is He) revealed: 'What you have cut from what is flexible or left standing on its foundations, it is by the permission of God, and He will indeed destroy those who are grossly immoral' (al-Hashr 5) (Muslim- Sharh al-Nawawi Part 12).
Al-Nawawi said in commentary on the hadith: in this hadith it is permitted to cut the trees of the disbelievers and burn them (Muslim Sharh al-Nawawi Bab al-Jihad). On the authority of Abu Huraira: 'The Messenger of God (SAWS) sent out a squadron of spies and put in charge of them Aasem bin Thabit al-Ansari, so they set out until when they were in al-Hada'a and it is between Affan and Mecca, they were mentioned to the Banu Lahyan, so around two hundred men marched forth to them, all of them archers, and they followed their tracks. But when Aasem and his companions saw them, they fled to a high pace, and the people surrounded them. So they said to them: Come down and give what is in your hands but the pact and covenant are that we should not kill any of you.'
So Aasem bin Thabit the amir of the squadron said: 'As for myself, by God I will not come down today into the pact of a disbeliever. Oh God inform Your Prophet about us.' So so they struck them with arrows and killed Aasem and six others. So three men came down and accepted the pledge and covenant from them: Habib al-Ansari, Ibn Dathna and another man. So when they got hold of them, they undid strings of their bows and bound them. So the third man said: this is the first betrayal. By God I will not go with you. In these people is an example- by which he meant those who were killed. So they dragged him and demanded him to accompany them but he refused, so they killed him and set out with Habib and Ibn Dathna until they sound them in Mecca after the occasion of Badr. And he mentioned the story of the killing of Habib, until he said: God answered Aasem bin Thabit on the day he was struck, for He informed the Prophet (SAWS) of their news and what they were afflicted with.
Summary of Ahmad, al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud on Organizing the Muslim Army
On the authority of Ammar bin Yaser: 'That the Messenger of God (SAWS) preferred that the man should fight under the banner of his people'- narrated by Ahmad.
On the authority of al-Bara' bin Aazib: the Messenger of God said: 'Indeed you will meet the enemy tomorrow so if your banner...they will not be victorious'- narrated by Ahmad.
And on the authority of al-Hassan on the authority of Qaimis bin Abad: he said: 'The companions of the Messenger of God (SAWS) hated shouting on fighting'- narrated by Abu Dawud.
On the authority of Ka'ab bin Malik: 'That the Prophet (SAWS) went out on Thursday in the Tabuk expedition and he liked to go out on Thursday' (muttafiq alayhi).
And on the authority of Al al-Nu'amal bin Maqran: 'That the Prophet (SAWS), if he did not fight at the beginning of the day, used to delay the fighting until sunset and blowing of the wind as the victory came down' (narrated by Ahmad).
And Abu Dawud and his companion al-Bukhari: and he said: 'I wait until the winds blow and the prayers come.'
The Desirability of Praying For Victory on Encountering the Enemy and Prayers of Fighting
Among the prayers of SAWS in fighting: 'Oh God, revealer of the Book, disperser of the clouds, and defeater of the Ahzab: defeat the and give us victory over them" (Sahih Muslim).
An Important Matter One Must Note
Purity of intention for jihad in the path of God, and the purity of intention is the realization of intention of getting near to God (Almighty and Exalted is He) away from all defects. And it has been said it is creation's forgetfulness of always looking towards the Creator.
And on the matter of Iblis' deception against those who on the expedition, the Imam Ibn al-Jawzi says: 'Iblis' deception of creation is great for they have gone out to jihad and their intention is to be boastful and proud so it can be said so-and-so went on an expedition, and perhaps the intention was that he should be called brave or there was the desire for war spoils. And indeed deeds are in intentions.'
On the authority of Abu Mousa: a man came to the Prophet (SAWS) and said: 'Oh Messenger of God, have you seen the man fighting brave and with zeal and fighting with pride? So what does that mean: to be in the path of God?' SAWS said: 'The one who fights so that the word of God should be highest is in the path of God.' And on the authority of Ibn Mas'oud (may God be pleased with him): he said: beware that you should say: so-and-so died a martyr or was killed as a martyr, for indeed the man may fight to take spoils or fight to be remembered or fight to see his place.
And in the isnad on the authority of Abu Huraira (may God be pleased with him): he said: The first of the people He judges on the day of Judgement are three: a man who was martyred so He has brought him and made him know the blessing so he has acknowledged them. Then He said: what did you do with them? He said: I fought for You until I was killed.
He said: you have lied, but rather you fought so that it could be said that he is brave and so it was said. Then He ordered for him to be dragged on his face and be thrown into the Fire.
And a man who learnt 'Ilm and taught it and read the Qur'an so He made him know His blessings so he acknowledged them. Then He has said: what did you do with them? He said: I learnt 'Ilm for Your sake and I taught it and read the Qur'an. He said: you have lied, but rather you learnt so that it can be said he is a knowledgeable person and so it was said. And you read the Qur'an so it can be said he is a reader, and so it was said. Then he ordered for him to be taken away on his face and to be thrown into the Fire.
And a man granted fortune by God as He gave him various kinds of wealth, all of it. So He brought him and made him know His blessings so he acknowledged them. Then He said: what did you do with them? He said: I did not abandon the path You love for it to be spent in. Namely, I spent it for You. He said: you have lied, but rather you did that so it could be said he is generous and so it was said. Then He ordered him to be dragged on his face until he was thrown into the Fire (brought out by Muslim).
And on a marfu' isnad from Abu Hatem al-Razi: he said: I heard Abdo bin Suleiman saying: we were in a squadron with Abdullah bin al-Mubarak in the land of the Romans so we encountered by chance the enemy. So when the two sides met, a man from the enemy came out and called for the duel, so a man came out and he chased him for an hour then stabbed him and killed him. Then another, so he killed him. Then he called for the duel, so a man masked by his sleeve came out, then he took one side of his sleeve and stretched it out. So behold, it was Abdullah bin al-Mubarak. So he said: And you, oh Abu Amro, are of those who slander us.'
I said: so behold- may God have mercy on you- this purely devoted lord: how he feared for his purity of devotion as the people beheld him and praised him so he masked himself. And there was Ibrahim bin Adham who was fighting, but when they took war spoils he took nothing of the spoils so that the reward should be made available to him as Iblis has deceived the mujahid when he takes war spoils. For perhaps he has taken from the war spoils what is not for him, for he is of little knowledge as he considers that the wealth of the disbelievers is permitted for the one who takes it and does not know that ghalul of the war spoils is an act of disobedience and in the two authentic collections from a hadith of Abu Huraira: he said: we went out with the Messenger of God (SAWS) to Khaybar so God granted us conquest. But we did not take gold as war spoils or silver and we took as war spoils personal baggage, food and clothes. And we set out to the valley with the Messenger of God (SAWS) so when we got down, the slave boy was unsaddling the camel for the Messenger of God (SAWS) when he got hit by an arrow by which he died. We said to him: congratulations to him for the martyrdom oh Messenger of God.
But he said: by no means, for by the One in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, the cloak he took from war spoils on the Day of Khaybar that did not come under the divisions of distribution will burn upon him in fire. He said, so the people were dismayed. So a man brought a sandal strap or two and said: I obtained it on the Day of Khaybar. So the Messenger of God (SAWS) said: a sandal-strap of the Fire or two of the Fire.
And the person on expedition may know of the prohibition but he sees something he cannot turn away from. And perhaps he has thought that his jihad will repel from him what he has done. And here one must note the text of faith and knowledge. It has been narrated in an isnad on the authority of Haibara bin al-Ashaf on the authority of Abu Obeida al-'Anbari. He said: When the Muslims came upon al-Mada'in and brought together the shares of spoils, a man came with a box in his possession and he gave it to the owner of the spoils so those with him said: we have not seen anything like this. What we have does not equal it or even compare with it. So they said to him: have you taken anything from it? He said: no by God, were it not for God, I would not have brought you it. So they knew that the man was of some importance. So they said: who are you? He said: no by God, I will not tell you so that you can praise me or others besides you so that they can honour me, but I praise God and I am pleased with His reward. So they had a man follow him until he departed to his companions, so he asked about him. Behold, he was Aamer bin Abd Qais.
There Are Those Who Are to be Distanced From the Path
So be resolved: the adversities are to be welcomed. And leave aside what whims adorn.
So he asks from them youthful belonging and calls them to express what they have veiled from the incentive of the love of leisure and avoidance of hardship and it is the same incentive that the Qur'an mentioned regarding those who hold back: 'Those who hold back have rejoiced in their staying behind the Messenger of God and they have hated to wage jihad with their wealth and lives in the path of God and they have said: do not go forth in the heat. Say: the fire of Hell is stronger in heat, if they would understand.'
Indeed these people are an example in weakness of zeal and lack of will and many are those who feel anxiety from complaints and turn away from earnestness and prefer cheap leisure to noble exertion and prefer lowly peace to noble danger and they collapse in feebleness behind the serious marching ranks that are aware of the burdens of the calls but these ranks remain in their path filled with obstacles and difficulties because they realize in their innate character that the struggle against obstacles and difficulties is an innate nature of man and he is stronger and finer than sitting back, refraining and stupid leisure that is in men. In the Shade of the Qur'an (1-26): 'These people who have preferred leisure over earnestness in the hour of adversity and refrained from the stirrups in the first instance these people are not fit for the struggle and are not to be sought for the jihad and it is not permitted for them to be taken up in litigation or for the honour of the jihad from which they have willingly refrained to be available to them: 'So if God returns you to a group of them and they ask your permission to go out, say: you will not go out with me ever and you will not fight an enemy with me. You were content to sit back in the first instance so sit back with those who refrain.' Indeed the da'was are in need of solid, straight and steadfast natures that are steadfast in the long hard struggle and the rank that is penetrated by the weak and slackers will not be steadfast because they will forsake them in the hour of hardship so they will spread in it the forsaking and weakness and disturbance so those who are weak and hold back must be disposed of far away from the rank to prevent them from causing fracturing and defeat. And tolerating these people is a crime against the whole rank.
Fatwas of the Jurists on Purifying the Rank
The predecessors had many sayings on that so the first example of the words of the predecessor regarding that is the exposition by Imam al-Shafi'i in the Kitab al-Umm of consecutive events of the hypocrites concerning the participation in the noble expeditions of the Prophet, and his warning regarding the one who becomes known among the generations of the Muslims after that with the likes of how these hypocrites were described, for his affair is crooked upon them and he is to be punished just as they were punished.
Al-Shafi'i says: 'The Messenger of God (SAWS) launched an expedition and there participated in the expeditions with him those known for their hypocrisy, so they held back the Day of Uhud as three hundred then they witnessed with him the Day of the Trench so they spoke in what God- Almighty and Exalted is He- spoke from their words- We did not promise God and His Messenger except in deception. Then the Prophet (SAWS) launched an expedition against the Banu Mustalaq so a number bore witness with him of that, so they spoke in what God said of their words and hypocrisy.
Then he carried out the expedition of Tabuk so a people of them bore witness of it with him and they went out on the night of al-Aqaba to kill him, but God saved him from their evil. And others of them held back among those in his presence. Then God revealed in the expedition of Tabuk some of their news as He said: 'And had they wanted to go out, they would have made preparations for it, but God hated that they should be sent out so He kept them back and it was said: sit back with those who sit.'
Al-Shafi'i said: so God showed to His Messenger their secrets and the news of those who listen to them and their desire to tempt those with him in lying and irjaf as He warned about them for He informed him that He disliked that they should be sent out so He kept them back as they were on this intention and there has been among them what has shown that God commanded that those known by what they have been known by should be prevented from going on expeditions with the Muslims because it is harmful to them.
Al-Shafi'i says: So the one who has been seen with the likes of what God described the hypocrites, it is then allowed for the Imam to leave him aside from going on the expedition with him as he seeks to rouse fitna and causes takhdil among them and if among them are those who listen to him in ignorance, relation and friendship this may be harmful to them from many of their number- Imam al-Shafi'I 8904.
And the jurisprudence continued on this basis such that Ibn Qadama al-Maqdisi received his banner and said: The amir should not bring with him the causer of takdhil as he is the one who keeps the people back from the expedition and their reluctance in going out to it and fighting and hardship: for example he mentions the heat or the strong cold and the hardship is intense and the defeat of this person is not assured. Nor should he bring the one who causes irjaf, and he is the one who says: the squadron of the Muslims was destroyed, and they do not have of numbers and they have no power against the disbelievers while the disbelievers have force, numbers and patience. And no one is steadfast for them, and the like. He should also not bring the one who helps the disbelievers in spying against the Muslims and gives them review over the defects of the Muslims and writes to them of their news and indicates to them their blemishes, or gives refuge to their spies. Nor should he bring the one who causes enmity among the Muslims and strives to sow corruption on account of the Almighty's words: 'But God disliked they should be sent out so He kept them back and it was said: sit with those who stay. Had they gone out with you, they would have only caused confusion among them and they would have been active among you, seeking to cause fitna among you.' And because these people are harmful to the Muslims, he must keep them back (al-Mufti bin Qadama 8-251).
The Delusion of the Jurisprudent Prevents His Being Made Amir
We find in the fiqh of Omar bin Abd al-Aziz (may God have mercy on him) what allows to keep away the honest person of good from responsibility if there is in him a love of appearance and arrogance as a pre-emptive measure and preventing likelihoods of being subject to temptation and committing outrage against himself and the da'wa.
And it has been narrated that al-Rashid al-Khamis, when he assumed the Caliphate, sent envoys to Abu Obeid al-Muzji and he was a trusted jurisprudent in the hadith from the sheikhs of al-Awza'i and Malik and the one in whom the Caliph Suleiman bin Abd al-Malik seeks help, so Omar said to him: this road to Palestine and you are of its people, so go to it. It was said to him: oh Amir al-Mu'mineen, if only you had seen Abu Obeid as you consult him for good. So he said: that person has been more deserving for us not to subject him to a temptation, in which he has been haughty to the masses, the refinement of refinement.
So the leaders of the groups of the Muslims today must say to every preacher who seeks renown, rank, and elevated social position as what Omar said to Abu Obeid.
And they should make hi understand as follows: you have been mistaken at the beginning of the path to your desire for you have passed by the abode of the da'wa of humbleness and exertion and planned compliance and this is the path to the abode of the likes of you so join them.
And the last of our calls is that praise be to God the Lord of the Worlds.
Appendix 1: The Ruling of Jihad
Praise be to God who has made us mighty in jihad, and has lowered us in refraining from it. Praise be to God who has opened the doors of Paradise to the mujahideen, and has made the fire for those who refrain. And prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God, the Imam of the mujahideen and the leader of the esteemed ones. As for what follows:
Jihad in the law of God varies between collective obligation and individual obligation. As for collective obligation, it is that which some of the Muslims capable of fulfilling it undertake, representing the Ummah in its entirety, so if no one does it, that is a sin of all the Muslims. And jihad is a collective obligation, if the disbelievers are in their land, and have not mobilized to fight the Muslims. And the minimum of this obligation is to man the fronts with the mujahideen, and to undertake a campaign against the disbelievers even if once per year at the minimum. The Almighty has said: 'And the believers were not to mobilize entirely, for a group of every division of them should not mobilize in order to gain understanding in the religion and warn their people if they return to them in the hope that might take heed' (al-Tawba 122).[v] So this verse is clear in making clear the collective obligation.
As for the noble hadiths, the words of the one upon whom be peace: 'Jihad continues to the Day of Judgement: it is not prevented by oppressive tyranny or fair justice.'[vi] So this hadith makes clear that it is not allowed to stop the jihad in any circumstances so in ordinary circumstances if soe of them undertake it, that suffices, but in a continuous sense.
And the one upon whom be prayers and peace said: 'There is no hijra after the conquest but jihad and intention and if you are summoned to mobilize, mobilize.' So this hadith shows that the hijra after the conquest of Mecca came to an end, and the requirement from the Muslims has been to undertake the obligation of jihad as the collective.
As for the words of the one upon whom be peace: 'And if you are summoned to mobilize, mobilize'-[vii] this shows its obligation upon us if the Imam demands that from the Muslims, or the enemy occupies an Islamic land, or the enemy takes prisoner a Muslim individual.
There has come in the Hashiyat Ibn Abideen: 'The Imam must send a squadron to the abode of war every year once or twice and the citizens must help him. So if he does not send, the sin is upon him.'[viii]
As for the individual obligation: it is what all the Muslims in the land undertake whether men or women, young or old, and every person falling short in undertaking it has committed a sin in law except those who have Shari'i excuses and the fate of the one who holds back will be the Fire as we will subsequently make clear if God wills.
The Almighty has said: 'Go forth, lightly and heavily armed, and wage jihad with your wealth and lives in the path of God: that is better for you if you know.'[ix]
There has come in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir: 'God Almighty commanded the general mobilization with the Messenger of God- prayers and peace be upon him- in the year of the Tabuk expedition to fight the enemies of God of the disbelieving Romans of the People of the Book, and He underlined to the believers to go out with him in every circumstance of enthusiasm and compulsion, adversity and ease. For the Almighty has said: 'Go forth lightly and heavily armed.' Ibn Zayd said on the authority of Anas on the authority of Abu Talha: middle-aged and young. God the Exalted did not hear the excuse of anyone who then went out to al-Sham and fought until he was killed, and in a narration: Abu Talha read Surat Bara'a then he came upon this verse: 'Go forth lightly and heavily armed and wage jihad with your wealth and lives in the path of God.' So he said: I see our Lord has summoned us to mobilize as old and young so prepare me my children. His children said: may God have mercy on you. You went on the expeditions with the Messenger of God (SAWS) until he died and with Omar until he died, so we will go on the expedition on your behalf. He refused, so he set out on the sea and died but they did not find for him an island in which they might bury him except after nine days but he did not change so they buried him in it.
And thus has it been narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Ikrima and Abu Saleh and al-Hassan and al-Basri and Suhail bin Attiya and Muqatil bin Hayan and al-Sha'abi and Zayd bin Muslim.[x]
And here we may ask: why did He summon all the Muslims to mobilize in the Tabuk expedition? Because fighting will be with a powerful and fierce enemy that requires them to be mobilized entirely.
The Almighty has said: 'And fight the idolaters as a whole just as they fight you as a whole, and know that God is with the pious.'[xi] There has come in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir: 'Just as they fight you as a whole': i.e. all of them.[xii] And here the noble verse makes clear that the one who fights us and is brought together, we must fight that side as we are brought together and this is the meaning of individual obligation. Likewise there comes under these meanings when the enemy manages to occupy an Islamic land for here all the Muslims are obliged to rescue it. Otherwise, they have all sinned, so the women can go out without the permission of her husband and the boy without the permission of his parents, and the slave without the permission of his master, and the debtor without the permission of the one to whom he owes, and the four jurisprudents have agreed on this.
There has come in Fatah al-Qadir by Ibn al-Hamam: 'So if they attack a place of the land of the Muslims, it becomes of the individual obligations on all the people of that place to mobilize and likewise whoso is near to them. But if there is not sufficiency in their people and likewise those near or they are idle or rebel and such, the obligation expands until it becomes obligatory on all the people of Islam in east and west.'[xiii]
And it has come in al-Bahr al-Ra'iq by Ibn Najim: 'And the individual obligation is if the enemy attacks. So the woman and the slave can go forth without the permission of her husband and his master respectively.'[xiv]
And there has come in Nihayat al-Muhtaj by al-Ramli: 'So if they enter a place of ours or there is between us and them a distance less than that of the fortress, its people are obliged to repel. This is so even upon the one who does not have the obligation of jihad upon him from poor and his son, debtor, slave and woman.'[xv]
And there has come in al-Ittisaf by al-Mardawi: 'If the disbelievers come down upon the land of the Muslims it becomes obligatory upon its people to mobilize against them.'[xvi]
And there has come in the Hashiyat Ibn Abideen: 'And an individual obligation if the enemy attacks one of the fronts of Islam so it becomes an individual obligation on the one who is near them. As for those behind them at a distance from the enemy, it is a collective obligation if they are not needed. But if those near the enemy are unable to resist with the enemy or they are not unable to do so but rather they are idle and do not wage jihad, it becomes an individual obligation like prayers and fasting on those who follow them. They cannot abandon it. Then it continues until it becomes an obligation upon all the people of Isla east and west, and on this gradation.'[xvii]
Thus is the ruling of jihad if the enemy occupies an Islamic land, so what is the ruling of jihad if the enemy attacks a Muslim individual and kills him or takes him prisoner?
Indeed the sacrosanctity of the blood of the Muslim in God's eyes is stronger than the sacrosanctity of the Ka'aba. The one upon whom be prayers and peace said in addressing the Ka'aba: 'Indeed I know that your sacrosanctity in God's eyes is great but the sacrosanctity of the blood of the Muslim in God's eyes is greater than your sacrosanctity.' And the one upon whom be prayers and peace said: 'The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim: he does not oppress him, forsake him or hand him over.' That is, he does not abandon him if he seeks help in him against his enemy, and so he does not hand him over to the enemy to be killed or oppress him.
And the one upon whom be prayers and peace said: 'The Muslims are equal in blood and the lowest of them is included in their asylum and they are one hand against those besides them'- and this shows that the Muslims' lack of support for each other denies to them the quality of Islam.
And the one upon whom be prayers and peace said: 'The likeness of the believers in mutual affection, compassion and sympathy is the one body. If a part of it complains, the rest of the parts call each other to it with sleeplessness and fever'- or as the one upon whom be prayers and peace said.
From this starting point the 'ulama of Islam have all agreed that if a Muslim is taken prisoner by the enemy the Muslims must all save him from their imprisonment. And for you is the statement of the jurisprudents on this issue:
There has come in Fatah al-Bari: 'As for rescuing the prisoner, its obligation is upon all of the people of the east and west who have knowledge.'[xviii] And it has come in Nihayat al-Muhtaj: 'And if they take a Muslim prisoner, the most correct response is the obligation of embarking against them: an individual obligation to free him if we expect it. And even if improbable in aspects like their entry into our abode indeed it is all the more urgent as the sacrosanctity of the Muslim is greater.'[xix]
So after we have known the ruling of jihad when the enemy attacks an Islamic land or Muslim, what is the ruling of jihad in Palestine today?
Indeed Palestine differs from any Islamic land except Mecca and Medina, for it is a holy and blessed land about which more than eight verses were revealed speaking of its holiness and blessedness. And there are many noble hadiths speaking about its holiness and blessedness so it is then a part of the creed of the Muslims. Whoso curses it or denies its holiness denies a text known from the religion by necessity, and thus has committed kufr by the consensus of the 'ulama. And thus every inch in it is holy, and it is not allowed for anyone, whoever he may be, to compromise on it with the disbeliever in law, and whoso compromises commits kufr against what was revealed to Muhammad because he has disparaged the ruling of God and has allied with the enemies of God and here we must make clear fact that the enemies of the God from the Jews and their helpers of the collaborators try to attach to the people of the blessed land, and it is that they sold their land to the Jews!!
Indeed Palestine does not concern its inhabitants alone for it is recorded from God the Exalted and Almighty in the name of all of the Muslims till the Day of Judgement, so every Muslim is responsible for liberating it and recovering it for it is a part of his 'aqeeda and therefore Omar bin al-Khattab the Arab conquered it and Salah al-Din the Kurd and Qutuz al-Mamluki liberated it.
And if jihad becomes an individual obligation on every Muslim or Muslim woman when the enemy occupies an Islamic land, it is surely all the more so when the enemy occupies the blessed land and first of the two qiblas and the third of the two noble mosques? Indeed there is no doubt it becomes more intense in its obligation and all who abandon it commit a sin in law.
The Session Before the Last in the Farcical Theatrics[xx]
What happened was expected but indeed we were surprised that these theatrics should continue all this time. We were surprised that it should bear legal discussions and the usual defense and as though this farce is a true case that needs a defense and pushback, and despite his[xxi] repeated attempts to end this farce in a form that inspires respect of the law sometimes by setting a date for the defense and sometimes by barring some of the lawyers from entering and sometimes by cutting off the lawyers and preventing them from acting without restraint in the legal proceedings on the grounds of repetition, or asking them to speak about specific parts in the case- he has nonetheless failed. And he prevented us all from speaking on our case: repeating you do not know your interest and I know it, and as though the ruling is known, so he could not continue in performing the role. And the higher pressure for haste in ending or putting an end to the trial increased and especially before the humiliating visit for Israel, so he was compelled to reveal what he strove to conceal for a long time.
In the session of last Monday the Ustadh Abd al-Haleem Ramadan pushed the lawyer to end the trial proceedings because of the case of conflict of speciality between this court and the supreme court of state security that is also asking to put us on trial: which imposes by force of the 'man-made' law on all of the conflicting litigation parties to end consideration of the case until the judgement is issued about which of the two has greater right and that is from the constitutional court. And here the judge Samir Fadhil rejected implementing the law and preferred to apply the 'the orders': so he ordered to remove the Ustadh Abd al-Haleem Ramadan, accusing him of disrespect to the trial committee.
And as soon as a group of the military intelligence and the military police came and with them the order to detain and take the Ustadh Abd al-Haleem, 'the lawyer' was arrested and referred to interrogation before the military prosecutor?! Then the remaining lawyers insisted that the law requires to stop the case and that there is no need for the court to take any measure against the Ustadh Abd al-Haleem 'the lawyer', because he speaks in the name of the defense committee entirely. So behold, the judge orders for the lawyers to be expelled and appointed a group of the hired lawyers of the government as assigned men. Then in the Wednesday session of the same week, the session in which 24 accused were defended in two hours of time! So we went to the court to know that the original lawyers for the clients and the assigned had been prevented from entering into the court hall, and it was expected along with a lot of what happened with the lawyers and with the defence witnesses, not one of whom was heard!! And we entered the hall dark with oppression so we found five of the hired lawyers who are traitors to the religion and homeland. And the judge entered so we all declared that we rejected these lawyers entirely and our sticking to our assigned defence and that each of us was capable of assigning another lawyer who trusts in his honour and Islam, but by no means, by no means! For the day was set to be the session before the last, so the judge insisted on his request from the lawyers to begin the legal proceedings, in a case they did not review, a case file of 1500 pages, so we broke out chanting, all from the depths and hearts:
In Your protection, our Lord, in the path of our religion,
Annihilation does not frighten us, so take charge of our victory,
And guide us to the Sunan.
So the judge ordered to remove us all from the fall so that the hired lawyers could undertake the legal proceedings without the presence of any of us, so we declared our insistence on our particular with the court panel, and the session was adjourned so that the members of the military police could remove all of us.
So we preferred to go out, and we went out, so await the armoured vehicles outside the court hall, bound by the hands, not knowing what was happening from the parts of the theatrics inside the supreme hall of military theatrics.
And two hours of time passed, and oh what a woe, and how dark were those two hours! Then the judge ordered to bring in the accused against whom judgement had been passed into the hall as it was necessary for the theatrics to be photographed. But we all rejected. So he ordered to bring us in by force, and the soldiers came together to force us to enter as we learnt that the defense for us had been finished, so we gave our appearance to the court panel and we extricated ourselves as we all chanted:
The free man knows what the court wants,
And his judges beforehand have drunk his blood,
He has no expectation of pushback against slander he has been charged with by the tyrants:
The criminals sitting on the chairs of judges.
And the judge tried to speak but he could not so he called while laughing for one of the military intelligence officers and he ordered him to inform us that the sentencing session would be immediately on the following Saturday. So it was!! So that the curtain could be drawn on the last session of the repeated farcical theatrics: theatrics, the trial of Islam, against persons of the Muslims. And here we stand to bear witness before God, His angels and those who undertake justice from the foremost of knowledge, and then we bear witness before you all: there is no deity but God alone with no partner for Him and Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. And we bear witness before our people, and whoso hears, that we disavow what they worship of lords besides God- in humans like rulers and presidents who command disobedience against God and His Messenger, and likewise in every law or legislation that was not revealed from God in the Qur'an and Sunna like the man-made laws and the capitalist, communist, democratic, socialist and nationalist ideas etc.
And we say to the governmental 'ulama of the Muslims who have sold their religion and have been content with the cheap display of this world.
We say to them: if you do not declare the truth, then God alone is our reliance and He suffices as trustee.
And we declare this as a warning from God to every Muslim who has a heart or has given ear and bears witness: that these rulers have deceived you and have made themselves gods upon you, so you have obeyed them and feared them, and have thought that there is an excuse that will benefit you in the eyes of God. Those are their records. So we say to all of the Muslims: 'So flee to God: indeed I am a clear warner for you from Him. And do not make another god with God: I am a clear warner for you from Him.'
Khalid al-Islambouli and his companions
(A poem from inside prison)
Egypt: The Grave of the Invaders[xxii]
Egypt is the grave of the invaders, Egypt is the router of the tyrants,
Egypt refuses to be mild to the tyrants who rule over us.
Egypt will never bend its forehead one day to the transgressors.
One day to the transgressors.
The best of the soldiers of God are in that. Here we are the lions.
We will remain as we have lived: brothers who refuse inertia.
So let a state arise for the religion, above the shoulders of the defiant.
Above the shoulders of the defiant.
Egypt will live in Islam, high above the sky.
Egypt is a fortress for Tawheed. Egypt is a light for this world.
Egypt is for the religion. Egypt is self-sacrifice for the religion.
Egypt is self-sacrifice for the religion.
Egypt is the pride of time. It will not be lowered or humiliated.
So long as it strives for the religion, it will live in security.
But if it is content with kufr, it will live in degradation.
It will live in degradation.
Egypt is the grave of the invaders, Egypt is the router of the tyrants,
Egypt refuses to be mild to the tyrants who rule over us.
Egypt will not bend its forehead one day to the transgressors.
One day to the transgressors.
Those accused in the case of al-Sadat the Pharaoh of Egypt.
[i] Al-Sira by Ibn Hisham part 1 p. 209.
[ii] Qudsi hadith.
[iii] So the people of Egypt for example: their enemy is the disbelieving ruling regime there, and the people of Palestine their near enemy is the occupation.
[iv] There are those who think that jihadi work must be on two fronts: the ruling regimes to uproot them, and colonialism to prevent its advance. And the principle is not to impede the obligation.
[vi] Sahih al-Bukhari.
[vii] Sahih al-Bukhari part 2 p. 216.
[viii] Hashiyat Ibn Abideen part 3 p. 238.
[ix] Al-Tawba verse 41.
[x] Tafsir Ibn Kathir part 3 p. 259.
[xi] Al-Tawba verse 36.
[xii] Tafsir Ibn Kathir part 3 p. 255.
[xiii] Fatah al-Qadir part 5 p. 191.
[xiv] Nihayat al-Muhtaj by al-Rami part 8 p. 59.
[xv] Nihayat al-Muhtaj by al-Rami part 8 p. 59.
[xvi] Al-Ittisaf part 4 p. 117.
[xvii] Hashiyat Ibn Abideen part 2 p. 34.
[xviii] Fatah al-Qadir part 5 p. 191 and see al-Bahr al-Ra'iq part 5 p. 32.
[xix] Nihayat al-Muhtaj part 8 p. 58.
[xx] This letter was written by Khalid al-Islambouli hours before the issuing of the judgements.
[xxi] He means the judge.
[xxii] A poem signed and sent to the outside of prison by Khalid al-Islambouli several hours before the judgements were issued. And the poe is of the composition of Anwar Okasha one of those accused in the case of the Pharaoh of Egypt.