NO

TERRORISM
AND
RADICALISM

(ISSUES ABOUT JIHAD)

Prepared by:

Sameer Murad
Adnan al-Sous
Introduction

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and
blessings upon His chosen servants.

There’s no doubt that East and West have gathered a

hundredfold of all means and material powers than what
the Muslims have gathered with which that they became
more powerful and prevailing over their opponents.

It’s also no doubt that faith and creed preparation in the

Islamic nation is at a much lower level than what is hoped
to deserve victory, dignity and triumph.

It’s no doubt that most Muslims at this time and age have
been hit with many distortions and intellectual
misguidance, they don’t have the pure and accurate
understanding of their current affairs, they don’t
differentiate between their friends and allies, and many of
them believe the liar and belie the truthful, mistrust the
faithful and trust the unfaithful. With that, they reached
the description of “al-Ghuthaiyah” (a term used by the
prophet resembling the abundance in numbers as the
scum over the top of the water) that prophet Mohammad,
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has described
the Muslim nation with at the times where all other
nations will contend for.

2
One of the forms of intellectual distortions that hit many
was the lack of knowledge of the reality of the
relationship amongst each other and between them and
their disagreeing opponents in the rules of religion and
shari’ah. Some of them start off their hostile position and
do not separate between a soldier, a free non-Muslim in a
Muslim state, and a secured citizen, supporting their
opinion with some of the scripts (according to their
understanding) such as “and fight the pagans all
together as they fight you all together.” sura at-
Tawba, verse 36, and “then fight and slay the pagans
wherever ye find them” sura at-Tawba, verse 5.

Unfortunately, some of them can barely separate

between the allies of Allah and the allies of Satan and so
sees that affection, love and support has to exist
amongst them without regard to the difference in creed
and faith.

Islam is right at moderation in between these two

extremes.

This subject that where about to discuss in this research

is regarded as one of the most serious and critical at this
time and age; not for the fact that it’s leading the priorities
of the obligations in the Muslim community that need
verification but for the consequences of the
misunderstanding of its rules and regulations that could
lead to actions and positions that would entirely damage

3
the cause of Islam. It could lead to label Islam with
“terrorism” and block and close the door in the face of
those who are interested in indulging in it, or it could
bring the collapse of Islamic states because of
implementing a policy full of errors, or it could claim the
lives of hundreds and thousands of youthful Muslim
callers, or it could be the direct cause of occupying
Muslim lands and humiliating and disgracing and
dishonoring the people, or it could be used to defend the
enemies of the Muslims and implementing their interests
and goals.

This serious issue is the issue of jihad or fight, and it is a

branch of the relationship between the Muslims and their
disagreeing opponents in rules of the religion that
undertake many affairs and issues, and we will present
the most important and critical of them to the seekers of
knowledge, asking Allah to guide us to the straight path.

Prepared by:
Sameer Murad
Adnan al-Sous
Amman, Jordan
Email: sameeralshafae@yahoo.com
Email; adnansous@yahoo.com

4
First Issue

Are the “sword verses” nullifiers of the “jihad

verses”?

Before we present the sayings of the scholars in this

issue, we’ll present a general rule about nullifiers and
nullified [verses]:

1) Definition of nullification: to remove a

previous rule with a new one.
2) Elements of nullification: a) nullifier b)
nullified c) nullified from, which means the
act of the nullified or altered worship.
3) Rules of nullification:
i) That the nullifier [rule] has been
revealed at a period after the
nullified one.
ii) Nullification can’t be established
except with contradiction. (Al-Bahr
Al-Muheet, ch. 4/74, al-Zarkashi),
(Contradiction and Favoring, al-
Barazanji, ch. 1/312), (Al-
Muswaddah 229).
iii) That the rule in the verse, which
claims the nullification, is not
restricted by a time where the rule
expires with the expiration of the

5
 said time. (Contradiction and
Favoring, al-Barazanji, ch. 1/313).
iv) That the nullified [rule] is possible
and considered among the
secondary rules away from all
rules of the principles of creed
and faith (i.e. the attributes and
names of Allah). (Contradiction
and Favoring, al-Barazanji, ch.
1/314). Nullification doesn’t touch
on the principles of “Tawheed” in
any case, because Allah, All
Mighty, have always existed with
all of His names and attributes.
(Al-Bahr Al-Muheet, ch. 4/79, al-
Zarkashi)..
v) The saying of a Sahabi (a
companion of prophet
Mohammad) that such and such
is nullified is not, by itself, a proof
for nullification. Because this
could be the result of his own
endeavor in the matter and it is
not an obligation to follow him in
it. (Establishments in Explaining
the Papers, Ibn Qawan, p. 379).
- The saying of a
Sahabi: “this was
the rule, then it was

6
 nullified…” is not a
proof, because it
could be his own
endeavor and
interpretation and
we’re not obligated
to follow it. (Al-
Mahshool, al-Razi,
ch. 3/381).

There’s no doubt that the last verses discussing jihad and

fighting were the ones in sura at-Tawba which mentioned
many clear verses, such as verse 5: “But when the
forbidden months are past then fight and slay the
pagans wherever ye find them”, and verse 36: “and
fight the pagans all together as they fight you all
together”, so some jurisprudents thought that these two
verses (sword verses) have nullified what was previously
revealed discussing fighting and the various stages of
jihad, such as verse 77 in sura Al-Nisa’a (the Women):
“Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were
told to hold back their hands (form fight) but
establish regular prayers and spend in regular
charity?”, and verses 39-40 in sura Al-Hajj (the
Pilgrimage): “To those against whom war is made
permission is given (to fight) because they are
wronged and verily Allah is Most powerful for their
aid. those who have been expelled from their homes
in defiance of right”, and verse 90 in sura Al-Nisa’a (the

7
Women): “if they withdraw from you but fight you not
and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace then
Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against
them)”, and verse 61 in sura Al-Anfal: “But if the
enemy incline towards peace do thou (also) incline
towards peace and trust in Allah: for He is the one
that heareth and knoweth (all things)”, and verse 190
in sura Al-Baqara (the Cow): “Fight in the cause of
Allah those who fight you but do not transgress
limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors”, and verse
8 in sura Al-Mumtahina: “Allah forbids you not with
regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor
drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and
justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just”.
And so many other verses where those scholars and
jurisprudents believed that the sword verses oblige the
Muslims to fight continuously in any state where the
polytheists are at towards the Muslims (at war or not),
and they consider the two verses as nullifier verses to
what was previously revealed in the Quran calling to
truce and peace with non-Muslims. (International
Relationships in the Quran and Sunnah, Dr. Mohammad
Ali al-Hasan, p. 100).

Accordingly, did the sword verses nullify the verse: “But

if the enemy incline towards peace do thou (also)
incline towards peace and trust in Allah” [sura Al-
Anfal, verse 61] and similar verses? The answer to this
question has two sides:

8
First: the sayings of Al-Mufassereen (the
commentators):

Al-Qurtubi reported two opinions in the interpretation of

this verse:
i) reported by Qatada and Ikremah that it was
nullified by the verse 36 in sura at-Tawba.
ii) Al-Saddi and Ibn Zaid reported that it was not
nullified, and Ibn Al-Arabi said that it depends
upon the state of the Muslims: if they were at
power then there is no peace and if there is
interest in peace then it is permissible.

Then, Al-Qurtubi reported from Al-Qusheiri similar to what

Ibn Al-Arabi said and added a certain period of time for
the truce. Then, he mentioned the saying of Al-Shafi
where he doesn’t permit truce with the polytheists for a
period more than 10 years and the saying of Malik where
he permits the truce.

Al-Tabari in his interpretation reported the sayings of

Qatada, Ikremah, and al-Hasan al-Basri where they said
of nullification, and also reported the saying of validity by
Al-Saddi, Ibn Isaac, and Ibn Zaid, then he said:
‘regarding what Qatada and similar people have said of
nullification of the verse, there is no evidence in Quran,
Sunnah or logic’ 10/34. And the saying of Allah in sura at-
Tawba, verse 5 doesn’t deny His rule in verse 61 of sura

9
Al-Anfal. That is because His saying “.. then yield to it…”
was meant for the people of Quraitha and Allah has
permitted for the believers to have peace and truce with
the people of the scriptures and taking Jizyah (tax) from
them. And the saying of Allah in verse 5 of sura at-Tawba
about the polytheists was meant for the polytheists of
Arabia who used to worship idols and was not allowed
for the believers to take Jizyah from them. So there is no
contradiction or denial to any rule over the other in the
two verses’.

Ibn Kathir in his interpretation said:

‘… Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Zaid Ibn Aslam, Ata’a Al-
Khurasani, Ikremah, Al-Hasan, and Qatada said that this
verse has been nullified by the sword verse in sura at-
Tawba, verse 29: “Fight the ones that don’t believe in
Allah nor the Day of Judgement”. And there is another
opinion in this because verse 5 in sura at-Tawba contains
an order to fight when it’s possible, but if the enemy was
large then it is permissible to strike peace with him as
evident from the verse and the action of the prophet
Mohammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,
on the day of Hudaybiyah. So, there’s no contradiction,
nullification, nor specialization and Allah is most
Knowledgeable’.

Al-Shawkani in his interpretation said about verse 4 of

sura Mohammad: “Therefore when ye meet the
Unbelievers (in fight) smite at their necks…”:

10
‘Many scholars said that the verse is firm and that the
Imam (leader) has the choice between killing and taking
captives, and has the choice in releasing or ransoming
captives… and that is what’s favored’ (ch. 5/36-37).

Al-Bukhari has a chapter in his book which he called:

reconciliation and peace with the pagans with money and
other and the sinning of whom doesn't fulfill the
agreement [ch. 3, p. 1158]. Ibn Hajar commented on the
chapter by saying: 'verse 53 of sura Al-Anfal is a proof for
the validity of having truce with the pagans' (Fath Al-Bari
6/275).

In Sunan Al-Baihaqi Al-Kubra, ch. 9, p. 11: regarding

what was mentioned about reconciliation with the pagans
and nullifying the order of abstaining from fighting until
fought and abstaining from fighting during the sacred
months, Al-Shafi said: 'all of this nullifying was said by
Allah saying "And fight them on until there is no more
tumult or oppression".' and he referred it to Ibn Abbas.

Ibn Al-Arabi said: 'whoever said that it is nullified by the

saying of Allah "then kill the pagans" is only a claim and
the rules of nullifying are not valid here'. (From the Rules
of Quran 876).

Al-Zamakhshari said: 'the truth of the matter that this

issue is at the hands of the ruler considering the well
being of Islam and Muslims whether going to war or

11
inclining to peace'. (Al-Kashaf 2/133).

Sheik Mohammad Al-Amin Al-Shanqiti said in the

interpretation of verse 190 of sura Al-Baqara “Fight in
the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not
transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors”:
'there are three opinions of the scholars; the first is that
what is meant by "those who fight you" are the ones
who actually fight you, not including women, children,
elderly people and priests. The second opinion is that the
verse is nullified by the sword verse which points to
fighting them infinitely. The third opinion is that what is
wanted by the verse is to inflate the Muslims to fight the
unbelievers. The first opinion is the ones that is more
appealing'. (Adwa'a Al-Bayan, ch. 1, p. 99).

Ibn Kahtir rejected the saying that verse 190 of sura Al-
Baqara was nullified and said: 'the claim of nullifying is
debatable, because the saying of Allah "those who fight
you" is an agitation and an encouragement against the
enemy who intends to fight Islam and Muslims, meaning
as they fight you then fight you them as Allah said: " and
fight the pagans all together as they fight you all
together ".'

Also Al-Tabari is of the opinion that the verse (verse 90 of

sura Al-Baqara) in not nullified and he attributed his
conclusion to Omar Bin Abdel-Aziz and Ibn Abbas. (ch.
2/190).

12
What aids the opinion that the verse is not nullified is the
scholars who categorized the Quran according to the
studies of nullifier verses and nullified ones and they
didn't mention verse 61 of sura Al-Anfal among those
verses. One of those scholars was Al-Siyooti in his book
"Al-Itqan", ch. 3, p. 61-62. He counted 21 nullified verses
in the Quran, and mentioned that the claim of any verses
being nullified other than those 21 verses has no merits.

13
Implementing the rules of nullifying:

It becomes clear, from what has been mentioned above,

that the truth is in the sayings of the scholars that the
verses are solid and not nullified and that each verse
carries a rule which suits the time period in which the
Muslims have lived during, because the rules of Dawa
are transitory according to the level of power, weakness
and interest of the Muslims. So, if the situation of the
Muslims is like the one in Mecca, then the rules of Mecca
would apply to them and if their situation is the like the
one in Medina, then the rules of Medina would apply and
so on and so forth. And to clarify the matter even more,
let's implement the rules of nullifying upon the sword
verses: verse 5 of sura at-Tawba "But when the
forbidden months are past then fight and slay the
pagans wherever ye find them and seize them
beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war); but if they repent and establish
regular prayers and practice regular charity then
open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving
Most Merciful", and verse 36 of sura at-Tawba "…and
fight the pagans all together as they fight you all
together. But know that Allah is with those who
restrain themselves". The rules of nullifying are:
1) The delay in revelation, which is valid for the two
verses.
2) Contradiction, which is not valid here because
contradiction means that the two verses have to contain

14
two totally differing rules that are impossible to be
combined. The contradiction that is claimed here is
between those two verses and verse 61 of Al-Anfal "But
if the enemy incline towards peace do thou (also)
incline towards peace" and the likes of this verse. And
looking in the meaning of the two scripts, we find that the
sword verses carry out an indication that fits a certain
stage where facing the enemy in fighting is because of
the existence of power and shield for the Muslims and
because the enemy is not inclined towards peace. But,
the second script "if the enemy incline towards peace"
also represents an independent stage where abandoning
fighting the enemy is more suitable. With that, the
contradiction is not valid.
3) That the rule of the script (verse) which is claimed to
be nullified is not restricted by a certain period of time
that expires the rule by the expiration of the time period.
And there is no indication in the sword verses that makes
the other verses restricted by a time period which
expired. Because that requires fighting the non-believers
infinitely without allowance for peace or agreements of
truce, and in the states of the prophet and his
companions strong proofs that support our opinion and
that the verse of "if they incline towards peace" is solid
and not nullified.
4) A nullified verse can't contain any of Allah's attributes,
as in verse 190 of sura Al-Baqara "Fight in the cause of
Allah those who fight you but do not transgress
limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors". Because

15
Allah doesn't like the killing of children, women and
elderly people who are not fighters for that is a form of
aggression, and that doesn't prohibit having truce and
peace with the enemy when it is in the interest of the
Muslims. This is also evidence that the verse is solid and
not nullified.
5) The claim of nullifying is not proven by the saying of a
companion because nullifying is a legislation (rule) that
requires a report by the prophet, peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him, and there is no room for endeavoring.

In summary, the claim of nullifying is rejected because it

was not attributed to the prophet, it contradicts an
attribute of Allah, the restriction of time is not apparent
and contradiction is invalid.

Al-Tabari says: 'We have proven in many places in our

book that a nullifier verse can't be established unless it
totally denies the rule of the nullified verse in every
aspect'. Therefore, the verses of jihad are all solid and
firm verses which carry transitory rules according to
ability and interest, and if said of nullifying then it is
'carried upon the nullifying of prohibiting fighting in the
sacred months and in the sacred place (Mecca)'. (Look
the book of "Al-Bayan" in the jurisprudence of Imam Shafi
12/74).

Al-Zarkashi said: 'With this verification it becomes clear

the weaknesses that many of the interpreters of Quran

16
have come up with in saying that they (the verses) are
nullified by the sword verses, and it is not so. This means
that every order that has been given (in Quran) has to be
established at a certain period of time for a reason that
obliged such rule then it is transmitted along with the
transmission of such reason or cause into another rule
and not with nullifying because nullifying means total
removal of the rule or the order.

Similarly, the saying of Allah in verse 105 of sura Al-

Maida (The Table): "O ye who believe! guard your own
souls: if ye follow (right) guidance no hurt can come
to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is to
Allah: it is He that will show you the truth of all that
ye do". This was at the beginning of the matter, but when
the Muslims became powerful, enjoining good and
forbidden bad and fighting for such cause became an
obligation upon them. Then, later on if they become weak
again, like what the prophet Mohammad have said: 'Islam
began in a strange state and it will return as such as it
began' then the rule (in the verse) would apply once
again. And prophet Mohammad said: 'If you see an
inclination that's followed and a stinginess that's obeyed
and the liking of every person of his own opinion, then
you should stick with your own self'.

Allah, exalted and glorified He be, is All Wise and has

revealed upon His prophet, peace and blessings be upon
him, at the time of weakness what suits and fits such

17
state and phase in the Islamic era out of mercy and
compassion for the prophet's followers, and if the case
wasn't so then it would have been a hardship. Then,
when Allah has dignified and triumphed Islam He
descended what matches that phase of demanding that
the non-believers embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah- if
they were from among the people of the scripts (the Jews
and Christians)- or they would be fought and killed (if
they were not from the people of the scripts) when they
reject Islam.

Having said so, these two rules (peace and truce at time
of weakness and fighting at time of power and might)
would apply according to the state of the Muslims, and
the rule of fighting doesn't nullify the rule of peace and
truce, rather each would be applied when needed. (Al-
Burhan 2/173).

Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradawi commented on what Al-

Zarkashi mentioned by saying: 'This interpretation by Al-
Zarkashi regarding the sword verse would only be
acceptable at times of obliged jihad, as in fighting in jihad
an enemy that has occupied a Muslim land and the
Muslims have failed to resist such an enemy- like in the
example of the occupation of the Russians of the Muslim
states in the former Soviet Union. In this case, we would
say: jihad in resisting such an enemy would be delayed
until it is applicable and the opportunity is given to do so.
But the interpretation of delay here that in the times of

18
weakness we don't fight the people and in times of power
and might we fight the whole world (whoever fight or
doesn't or even want peace with us), that is we totally
reject and deny because it contradicts all other verses in
suras Al-Baqara, Al-Nisa'a, Al-Anfal, Al-Mumtahina and
others, and even in sura at-Tawba itself and some of the
verses in it that were said that they're the sword verses
like "and fight the pagans all together as they fight
you all together.” Because the verse here orders to
reply with the same manner, and that is what has been
established as just and fair and no two persons would
disagree upon.

Is it sensible to tell the people (the Americans and their

likes) that we don't have to fight you now because we are
not militarily able and we don't own the kind of weapons
and arsenal that you do? But, when we become able and
own what you own or close to it, we will fight you all! It is
not acceptable to say to others that we have abandoned
fighting you because of our weakness, but when we're
powerful we will come to your own land for battle until
you embrace Islam or pay us the Jizyah in humiliation.

When we say such things we tempt the whole world to

become our enemy and to come to war with us in fear of
our expansion and greed, and we would unite them to
stop our danger and advancements!!

They would say that our manners are irregular, that we

19
allow to ourselves in times of power what we don't allow
in times of weakness and that we are un-worthy of peace
and truce because we would only respect peace when
we're weak and we would change when our state
changes, and that our religion permits us to do what has
been forbidden against us in dealing with others.

This, without doubt, is an awful reputation for Islam and

Muslims that harms them and their propagation of their
religion'. (An article for Al-Qaradawi on "Islam Online",
dated 22/7/2003).

The sayings of scholars about the phases of jihad

Most scholars have agreed upon saying that jihad is in

stages and here are some of what they have said:

The school of Imam Abu Hanifa:

Al-Aini said: 'The prophet was ordered at first to forgive

and abstain from fighting the non-believers… then, he
was ordered to invoke and pray, preach, and argue in
goodness… then, he was ordered to argue when
argument is initiated by the non-believers… then, he was
ordered to initiate war'. (Al-Binaya Sharh Al-Hedaya 7/94-
95).

The school of Imam Malik:

20
Al-Dardeer said: 'Know that jihad before Hijra
(immigration) was unlawful, then it was absolutely
permitted except in the sacred months. Then it was
permitted without restrictions'. (Al-Sharh Al-Saghir 2/267).

The school of Imam Shafi:

Ibn Hajar Al-Haitami said: 'Jihad was forbidden at the

times of the prophet before Hijra (immigration) because
the prophet was ordered at first to only convey the
message and to warn from the wrath of Allah and to
persevere and be patient in receiving the harm of the
non-believers. Then afterwards, Allah permitted the
Muslims to go to war, after He forbade it in more than 70
verses in the Quran if the non-believers initiate the fight,
and He said: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who
fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah
loveth not transgressors”... then, He allowed initiating
of war by the Muslims except in the sacred months…
then, in the 8th year and after the conquest of Mecca
Allah permitted it absolutely by saying: "and fight the
pagans all together as they fight you all together",
and this is the sword verse'. (Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj bi Sharh
Al-Minhaj 4/181).

The school of Imam Ibn Hanbal:

1) Ibn Qudama said: 'The people of the scriptures and

Majoos should be fought and conveyed with the

21
message because they have knowledge of it, and the
worshippers of idols should be called to Islam before
being fought'.
Imam Ahmad said: 'Islam has been conveyed and spread
but there might be some people behind the Romans and
some behind the Turks whom it is not permitted to fight
them until the message of Islam has reached them, the
proof to that is the hadith of the prophet narrated by
Buraida: "if you meet your enemy from the pagans
then call them towards three…", narrated by Muslim
and Abu Dawood. This was probably at the beginning
before the spread of Islam, but nowadays Dawa'a has
spread out and the message has been conveyed. That's
why calling the people has been left out… (Excerpts from
Al-Mughni, ch. 8, p. 361).

2) Ibn Taymeyah said: 'When Allah sent His prophet with

the message and ordered him to call all people to His
religion, he didn't give him permission to fight or kill
anyone until he immigrated to Medina and the
permission was given to him and the Muslims in verse 39
of sura Al-Hajj: "To those against whom war is made
permission is given (to fight) because they are
wronged and verily Allah is Most powerful for their
aid". Then, He [Allah] obliged the Muslims to fight in
verse 216 of sura Al-Baqara: "Fighting is prescribed
for you and ye dislike it…". (The book of Fatwas, ch.
28, p. 349-355).

22
3) Ibn Al-Qayyem said: 'The prophet stayed over ten
years after his prophethood warning the people and
calling them to Islam without fighting nor Jizyah and he
was ordered (by Allah) to abstain from responding to
harm and to persevere and forgive. Then, he was
permitted to immigrate and to fight whoever fights him
and the Muslims and to abstain from fighting whoever
doesn't fight or harm him and the Muslims. Then, he was
ordered to fight the pagans until the religion is
established for Allah…'. (Zad Al-Ma'ad, ch. 3, p. 59).

4) 4) Also look the opinion of Sheikh Mohammad Bin

Saleh Al-Othaimain in the book "Al-Sharh Al-Mumti'a Ala
Zad Al-Mustanqa'a, chapter 3, page 467.

From all of what has been mentioned of the opinion of

the scholars which gives evidence that jihad was in
multiple stages and phases and that the last stage of it
was that permission was absolutely given for fighting
some thought that this contradicts abstaining from
fighting whoever doesn't fight us and it is not so.

23
Summary of research:

It is apparent that all verses of fighting are solid firm

verses and not nullified ones, and that each verse carries
a rule of a stage that is applicable to the following stage
whenever the conditions and characteristics of the people
of that stage are available, and that the opinion of
nullifying is weak and rejected, and Allah is All Knowing.

24
Second Issue

Is the relationship between the Muslims and non-Muslims

based on peace or war?

Before we attempt to answer this question we have to

note that if the basis of the relationship between the
Muslims and non-Muslims is peace, then that means that
this is the general rule and that war is an exceptional
option outside of the rule, and that people are naturally
peaceful and relationships are established in between
them accordingly even if there were no treaties or
agreements unless war erupts.

And if war was the basis of relationships between people

and nations then this would mean that war is the general
rule and that peace is the exception. This also means
that war is considered declared between the Muslims and
other nations unless treaties and accords are
established. And truce is then considered peace. (Asking
Assistance of Non-Believers, Dr. Abdullah Al-Tariqi, page
97).

According to the forth mentioned, it becomes clear the

vast difference between the opinions of scholars in
determining the basis of relationship, whether peace or
war. We will present the most important and strong
proofs and evidences in our opinion that each side

25
depended on in arguing and discussing the issue, without
regard to what is weak in evidence.

The first opinion is that the basis of relationship is war

and they brought proofs as such:

* The following verses, which some of are called the

"sword verses":

1) “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you

all together.” [sura at-Tawba, verse 36].
2) “then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find
them” [sura at-Tawba, verse 5].
3) "Be not weary and faint-hearted crying for peace.
When ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you
and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds."
[sura Mohammad, verse 35].
4) "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers
unbelievers rather than believers..." [sura Al Imran,
verse 28].
5) "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah
and the Last Day loving those who resist Allah and
His Apostle..." [sura Al-Mujadelah, verse 22].
6) "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or
oppression and there prevail justice and faith in
Allah..." [sura Al-Baqara, verse 193].

* Haidths:

26
Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated
that the prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him, said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they say
la ilaha illa Allah (there is no deity worthy of worship
other than Allah). So, whoever says it he has shielded his
wealth and self from me except in its right and his
account is with Allah'. [Bukhari and Muslim].

The other opinion went on saying that the basis of

relationship is peace. And they took evidence from the
following verses:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but

do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not
transgressors” [sura Al-Baqara, verse 190].

“and fight the pagans all together as they fight you

all together.” [sura at-Tawba, verse 36].

“Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight

you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your
homes from dealing kindly and justly with them: for
Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids
you with regard to those who fight you for(your)
Faith and drive you out of your homes and support
(others)in driving you out from turning to them (for
friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them
(in these circumstances)that do wrong.” [sura Al-
Mumtahinah, verse 8-9].

27
“But if the enemy incline towards peace do thou
(also) incline towards peace and trust in Allah: for
He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things).”
[sura Al-Anfal, verse 61].

“…therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you

not and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace
then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war
against them).” [sura Al-Nisa'a, verse 90].

"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands

out clear from error...” [sura Al-Baqara, verse 256].

Hadiths:

1) Nafi'a narrated that Abdullah Ibn Omar, may Allah be

pleased with him, has told him that 'A woman was found
killed at one of the prophet's battles, so the prophet,
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, rejected the
killing of women and children'. [Bukari and Muslim].

2) Yahya Ibn Said narrated that Abu Baker Al-Siddiq, may

Allah be pleased with him, sent an army to Sham... '…
and I give you three advices, do not kill a woman, a child
nor an elderly person…'. [The Great Sunan 9/89. The
hadith is authentic].

28
Discussion:

• Discussion of the first opinion:

It is clear from the sayings of the first scholars that

fighting and going to war means to fight the people who
reject embracing Islam or paying the Jizyah and that
going to peace with them has to be established based on
interest, based on the verse 35 of sura Mohammad: "Be
not weary and faint-hearted crying for peace. When
ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you and
will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds." This
is a proof that war is the basis of relationship among
those scholars, even though those scholars never used
these modern terms and definitions. A proof to that is the
saying of Al-Ramly in the book "Nihayat Al-Muhtaj,
8/106", which is considered to be one of the most
important books that contains the fatwas (edicts) of the
late scholars of that school of thought: 'Truce is to be
held based on a certain interest, such as our weakness
in number or arsenal. That was the basis of the truce at
the year of Al-Hudaybiyah, or it was for hoping that they
[the pagans] would embrace Islam or that they would pay
Jizyah'.

This saying of Al-Ramly about the weakness in state at

the time of the truce of Al-Hudaybiyah contradicts the
saying of Allah about Al-Hudaybiyah in the verses 18-27
of sura Al-Fath (The Conquest): "If the Unbelievers

29
should fight you they would certainly turn their
backs then would they find neither protector nor
helper." For more information, look up the sayings of the
scholars in the following references:

Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudama, 8/361-363. Kashaf Al-Qina'a, Al-

Bahouti, 3/103-104. Al-Mabsout, Al-Sarkhasi, 10/86. Al-
Majmou'a Sharh Al-Muhathab, 19/439.

Arguing the first evidence (the sword verses):

It is necessary for any researcher to note our conclusion

that the sword verses do not nullify the verses revealed
before them.

Establishing that these verses are not proofs that the

basis of relationship between the Muslims and non-
Muslims is war:

1) Verse 36 of sura at-Tawba: the meaning of the verse is

that if the non-believers fight us we would fight them with
the same manner; assembled, united, and strong. (Look
Iarab Al-Quran, Al-Darwish, 3/214). Also, Al-Qurtubi said
in the interpretation of this verse: 'And fight the ones who
associate idols with Allah, Oh believers assembled and
united as the pagans fight you assembled and united'.
Then he reported this meaning from Al-Saddi and Ibn
Abbas and Qatada, and said: 'Some scholars said: the
purpose of this verse was given to the elite, then this was

30
nullified and made as collective duty'. Ibn Atiyah said:
'What he said was not noted that the prophet has obliged
all Muslims to fight, rather the meaning is to encourage
and instigate and to unite and assemble in fighting the
non-believers. Then, he restricted it with "as they fight
you all together". So, according to their assembly and
unity in fighting us the obligation is established in fighting
them back. And Allah is All Knowing. 8/87. Also, look the
interpretation of Ibn Kathir about this verse in 2/357.

This is supported by what Al-Tabari mentioned in his

interpretation through Ibn Abbas as saying: 'Do not fight
the women, the children, the elderly man, nor whoever
throws peace at you and abstain his hands from fighting
you. And if you do, then you are aggressors'. (Al-Tabari
2/190).

2) Verses 5-6 of sura at-Tawba: these two verses talk in

particular about the pagans of Quraish, because they
expelled the Muslims from their houses and lands and
they put them to affliction and distress which in turn has
obligated the Muslims to go to war with them in their own
land and kill them except for those whom their accord
has not ended or they acquired safety. Verse 191 of sura
Al-Baqara clarifies this even more: "And slay them
wherever ye catch them and turn them out from
where they have turned you out; for tumult and
oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them
not at the Sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you

31
there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the
reward of those who suppress faith". Al-Tabari pointed
to this meaning in his interpretation as well.

Imam Shafi said about the verse: 'it was revealed

regarding the people of Mecca…'. (Ahkam Al-Quran
2/14). And Al-Jasas said: 'This was the description of the
pagans of Mecca, for that either Islam or war is their
option. And the people of the scriptures (Jews and
Christians) are not included in this rule'. (Ahkam Al-Quran
1/325).

Ibn Kathir said, authenticating the interpretation to Ali Ibn

Abi Talib: 'The prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him, was sent with four swords; one sword in the
Arab pagans, Allah said: "then kill the pagans
wherever you find them". (2/337)

3) Verse 35 of sura Mohammad: this verse carries the

opposite of the meaning which they seek, for it (the
verse) allows peace and truce even in the state of power
and might. This is supported by the saying of Jaber Ibn
Zaid that the verse was nullified with the sword verses.
And if what we said was not true then Ibn Zaid wouldn't
have rejected it with the claim of nullifying.
Note: we brought this verse in spite of the weakness of
its meaning because it appears strong. But the other
verses are all weak in meaning and we left discussing
them in fear of being too lengthy.

32
Arguing the second evidence (the Haidths):

Abdullah Ibn Omar reported that the messenger of Allah,

peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: 'I was
ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is
god but Allah and that Mohammad is the messenger of
Allah, to establish prayers and to pay Zakat. If they do
that they would safeguard their blood and wealth from
me except with what is the right of Islam and their
account is with Allah'. [Narrated by Bukhari in the chapter
of Al-Iman and by Muslim through Abu Huraira in the
chapter of Al-Iman].

The apparent meaning of this hadith may contradict

verse 29 of sura at-Tawba: "Fight those who believe
not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden
which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle
nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they
are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya
with willing submission and feel themselves
subdued". You might understand from the hadith that the
purpose of fighting all people is to bring them to Islam
and from the verse that the purpose of fighting the people
of the book (Christians and Jews) is for them to pay
Jizyah. At such contradiction, scholars tend to reconcile
between the proofs and implementing them instead of
ignoring them. Some of the answers for this contradiction
is what Ibn Hajar mentioned in (Fath Al-Bari, 1/77):

33
1- That the general term is not so general. Meaning that
the saying of the prophet 'to fight the people' means the
pagans or non-believers other than the people of the
book. A proof to this is the narration of Al-Nasai': 'I was
ordered to fight the pagans…'.
2- The claim of nullifying that the permission to take the
Jizyah and to establish accords and agreements of truce
and peace came later than these hadiths. A proof to that
is that this hadith came later than the saying of Allah:
"kill the pagans".
3- To speak of a certain group of people in general terms.
4- That what is meant by Shahada and other things (in
the hadith) is to raise the word of Allah and for the
disobedient to submit. So, some would deserve killing
and some would pay the Jizyah and some would be
brought to truce and peace with based on their
responses.
5- That fighting itself is what is meant or paying the
Jizyah or other things.
6- To be said that the purpose of obliging Jizyah is to
drive them to Islam and the cause of a reason is a cause
itself. As if he said: 'until they submit [to Islam] or commit
to what drives them to Islam'. And this is better, and Allah
is All Knowing.

Al-Nawawi said through Al-Khitabi that what's meant by

'the people' are the idolaters without the people of the
book; because they didn't say "la ilaha illa Allah" (there is
no god but Allah). Thus they would be killed.

34
Al-Qadi Ayyadh said of the same meaning by Al-Khitabi
and added: 'what's meant by this are the pagans of
Arabia and the idolaters and whoever doesn't worship
Allah alone'. [Sahih Muslim in the explanation of Al-
Nawawi, 1/26-207].

In summary, we would say that the proof in the Hadith

that the basis of relationship between Muslims and non-
Muslims is war would be weak, because we didn't find
any of the scholars' opinions that would support this
claim.

• Discussion of the second opinion:

The verses:

We said previously that the verses mentioned in proving

that the basis of relationship is peace are solid firm
verses and not nullified ones.

1- “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you

but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not
transgressors”. The meaning of this verse is to fight
whoever fights us and to abstain from the ones who don't
fight us. And this meaning is general and can't be
restricted except with evidence. Many of the scholars
went on saying that the transgression that's mentioned in
the verse is to kill the non-militant, such as the women,

35
children, and priests during war or killing whoever pays
the Jizyah, and they didn't say of abandoning fighting
whoever abstains from fighting us taking proof from the
sword verses.

Al-Tabari mentioned the sayings of the interpreters about

this verse, some of which is the saying of Ibn Abbas:
'meaning, don't kill the women or the old man or whoever
asks you for peace and abstains his hands from fighting
you, and if you do kill them then you have transgressed'.
Then, he favored this meaning and said: 'The meaning of
"do not transgress" is don't kill an infant, a woman, nor
whoever pays you Jizyah from the people of the book
and Majoos, for Allah doesn't love the transgressors that
surpass His limits and make lawful the things He
prescribed as unlawful upon them in killing the women of
the pagans and their children'. (The Explanation of the
Quran, 2/190).

If you look at the saying of Ibn Abbas you would see:

a) What Al-Tabari and other scholars went on saying that

the transgression is to kill the non-militant of the women
and others during war, even though they don't say of
killing those type of people outside of wars as well.

b) Transgression is also to kill whoever wants peace with

us and abstains from fighting us. And here, it's not
permitted to say that the saying of Ibn Abbas means to

36
abstain from fighting the people who wants peace with us
during wars only, because this is of the general rules that
need evidence to particulate.

Therefore, the saying of Ibn Abbas remains general. And

it includes the two sides whether it was during the war or
before it. The proof to this is the agreement of scholars
on prohibiting the killing of the pagans' women and
children and their likes outside war without reason.

Ibn Taymiyah said: 'essentially the human blood is

preserved and safeguarded and not to be killed without
reason. And killing infidels is not what all laws have
agreed on'. [The Drawn Sword on the Curser of the
Prophet, page 104].

Similarly, truce is permissible during and before war

according to the rules and conditions of interest to the
Muslims.

Abdulrahman Ibn Mohammad Al-Jawzi reported in his

interpretation of the Quran four sides to the meaning of
transgression that was mentioned in the verse:
1- That it is the killing of women and children.
2- That it is not to fight whoever doesn't fight you.
3- That it is to commit what was prohibited.
4- That it is to initiate the war during the sacred month.
[Zad Al-Maseer, 1/198].

37
Notably, Ibn Al-Jawzi differentiated between the two
meanings and didn't make them as one proof upon killing
women and children. And if it was said about the second
saying 'don't fight whoever doesn't fight you' that it is
during the war, we have already proven that this opinion
is weakly supported.

Also, Ibn Kathir mentioned some of the interpreters'

opinions in the explanation of the verse, then favored the
meaning, which says that it is: 'instigating and agitating
the enemies that intend to attack Islam and Muslims. As
they fight you, you fight them'. And we mentioned this in
the previous issue.

Ibn Taymiyah said: 'if the basis of the lawful fighting was
Jihad and the purpose of it is for all religion to be for Allah
and for His word to be superior over all, then whoever
rejects that would be fought according to all Muslim
scholars unanimously. But for those who are not from
among the ones who reject the message of Islam and
they are not fighters (such as women, children, priests,
elderly people, blind… etc.) then they are not to be fought
or killed according to the majority of the Muslim scholars
unless they fight Muslims or attack Islam verbally or
through physical actions, even though some scholars are
of the opinion that fighting such people is lawful just for
their denial of Islam and insisting on being infidels except
for women and children. But, I favor the first opinion
because fighting is for the ones who fight us [Muslims] if

38
we wished to triumph the religion of Allah as Allah said in
Quran: "and fight in His cause those who fight you
and do not transgress for Allah does not love
transgressors".' (Al-Fatawa 28/354).

Ibn Al-Qayyem said: '… the prophet of Allah, peace and

blessings of Allah be upon him, never forced anyone to
embrace Islam, but he used to fight whoever fought or
attacked him… and whoever contemplates upon his life
story would realize that he (the prophet) never forced
nor coerced anyone to embrace Islam, but he fought the
ones who fought him'. (Hidayat Al-Hayara, page 13-15).

Sayyed Sabeq said: 'and if the basis was peace and war
was the exception then there is no justification for this
war-in the sight of Islam- whatever the circumstances
might have been, except in two situations: the first is:
defending one's self, honor, wealth, or land at time of
transgression according to verse 190 of sura Al-Baqara:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but
do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not
transgressors”. And the second is: defending the
religion of Allah and the propagation of it if anyone
stands in its way by subjugating whoever believes in it or
by being an obstacle in the way of embracing it or by
prohibiting its propagation. And the proof for this- and he
mentioned eight of them- and said in the fifth one: all the
battles of the prophet were defensive and didn't contain
any transgression. And in the sixth he said: infidelity by

39
itself was not the reason nor the purpose to fight the
pagans'. (Fiqh As-Sunna, pages 613-617).

The verse is in relation with one of the attributes of Allah

"Allah loveth not transgressors". And we said
previously that one of the rules of nullifying is for the
nullified not to be one of the attributes or names of Allah.
And since we have proven from many ways that it is not
lawful to kill or fight women and children and their likes
during war and was considered as one of the forms of
aggression that Allah does not like or love, then this
attribute of Allah "Allah loveth not transgressors"
applies to the other from of aggression outside of war.
This means that Allah doesn't love transgressors in or
outside war. And at the same time, this doesn't mean that
Jihad was legislated only in the defensive state when our
lands are occupied or when our enemy moves towards
us, but Jihad is also lawful in the offensive situation to
triumph and aid our religion and creed when it is or any of
its citizens are assaulted, or if we were prevented from
propagating our religion even if we were not attacked.
Because it is not sufficient to use peaceful means to
resolve such assaults, if using the force is in the interest
of Islam and Muslims.

2- The verse: “and fight the pagans all together as

they fight you all together. But know that Allah is
with those who restrain themselves”: we said
previously that we fight the non-believers when they fight

40
us according to the state which they are on; united,
gathered and strong, as noted in the verse: "… as they
fight all of you".

According to this, the verse is strong evidence that it is

not lawful to fight or go to war except if we initiate it
against the enemies or if they prevent us from
propagating our religion to whomever we desire. And
supplementing the verse (at the end by saying Allah is
with those who restrain themselves) adds to the strength
of this opinion, when the rules and conditions are
available, which is gaining the piety by doing what the
verse implies. And if Muslims linger then Allah would not
be with them, and this proves that the rule is in relation
with the cause which weakens the opinion of nullifying.

3- The verse: “Allah forbids you not with regard to

those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you
out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with
them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only
forbids you with regard to those who fight you
for(your) Faith and drive you out of your homes and
support (others)in driving you out from turning to
them (for friendship and protection). It is such as
turn to them (in these circumstances)that do wrong.”
[sura Al-Mumtahinah, verse 8-9].

This verse has a very strong evidence that peace is the

basis of relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims

41
by Allah allowing it and making it lawful for those who
don't initiate fighting Muslims or prevent their
propagation. So, Allah allowed and made lawful the kind
and just dealing with them.

Al-Tabari said in the interpretation of this verse: 'and the

most correct opinion about this verse is whoever said:
this verse meant that Allah does not forbid you to deal
kindly and justly in regard to those who don't fight you in
your religion from all kinds of religions and sects. Allah
has made it general by saying: "with regard to those
who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of
your homes" for whoever fits this description and He
didn't particulize some over others. And it's meaningless
to say that this is nullified.' (14/66).

Ibn Kathir said: 'it means He [Allah] did not prevent you
from being kind to the pagans and non-believers whom
didn't fight you in your religion or aided in expelling you
from your lands, such as women and children. But it
doesn't mean that this rule only applies to women and
children because the rule that was used in the verse is
general and not particular'.

We would like to mention some of Al-Shanqiti's

interpretation:
1) The verse is firm and solid and not nullified.
2) Some of the pagans didn't show any enmity towards
the Muslims in any way or form, and it is not lawful to

42
treat those people kindly and justly.
3) This kind of dealing is a priority, especially in this day
and age, due to the extreme inter-relations between
nations and the inability of detachment.
(8/98-10).
The Hadiths:

1- Nafi' narrated that Abdullah Ibn Omar, may Allah be

pleased with him, told him that 'a woman was found in
one of the battles of the prophet, peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him, dead. So, the prophet rejected the
killing of women and children'. (Al-Bukhari No. 3014,
Muslim No. 1744, and others).

2- Yahya Ibn Said narrated that Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, may

Allah be pleased with him, sent armies to Sham… 'I am
advising you with ten, don't kill a woman, a child, nor an
elderly person… etc.'. (The Great Sunan, 9/98. And the
hadith is authentic).

After checking the other hadiths which contained the

prohibition of killing the elderly and the worshippers (such
as priests), we found them weak according to what Ibn
Hajar mentioned and according to Sheikh Al-Albani. But,
the saying of Abu Bakr supports the hadith because it
was at the time of the companions of the prophet and
none of them was in conflict with him in this matter, and
that made it an agreement amongst the scholars.

43
Based on this, we say:
Illustrating the justification of the scripts:

The notion of the word upon the legislative rule is divided

into three parts:
1] That the word (term) indicates the rule by form and
rhythm.
2] That the word (term) indicates the rule by sense and
notion.
3] That the word (term) indicates the rule by meaning and
sense, and this is the measurement.

I said that it is known with its reason by its script or

deduction. And the cause is a reason in the
establishment of the rule that needs establishment…
whenever the justified meaning is found, the rule
becomes known. And Allah never ordained a thing
without having an interest in it for His creation, and He
never prohibited a thing without it containing harm for
them. And any diligent scholar with sense would realize
so.

The role of a diligent scholar in establishing what is

needed is to investigate and make sure that a particular
matter is contained within the general rule and that the
cause in the scripts or that has been agreed upon in
existent in that particulization. And his role in amending is
to amend the reason or show it because it does exist.
Rather, his role in it is to amend what's in the script only

44
and to take what benefits the reason and to abandon the
rest, then attach other things to it that shares the same
reasons.

And the role of the diligent scholar in explaining is to

make sure that the rule is justified then deduce a number
of reasons that may be beneficial to reason the rule with.
Then, he should present of them then investigate its
existence in the secondary matter. And this is the
measured diligency. (from the explanation of Rawdat Al-
Nather by Dr. Abdulkareem Al-Namlah, ch. 4, pages
2097, 2120, 2139).

And since it is evident to us that the scripts are reasoned

either literally, by hint, or by deduction, and if we look at
the scripts at hand that prohibits the killing of women and
children and elderly people, our research would enable
us to give the same description and rule to those people
who share the same reason with the mentioned in not
being killed, noting that the hadiths that mention the
prohibition of killing the people of the hermitages and
churches are weak which obliges us to share them in the
rule and it is ok to share others in the same rule as well if
they fit the description.

Note:

If this issue is faced with the issue of the lawfulness of

throwing the fighters with mangonel which may kill

45
women and children and the issue of the lawfulness of
killing the prisoner of war and the wounded [soldiers], we
would say that the answer would be the same. There is a
difference in killing with intention and killing without
intention, and there's also a difference between killing
whoever fights and doesn't fight and killing whoever has
the ability to kill us if given the chance.

What comes to our aid in this matter is that the person

who has true with us is not to be killed according to the
hadith of the prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him, with the pagan woman who drank from her
supply, and the hadith in which the prophet asked a
pagan shepherd for some milk, and he [the prophet]
didn't kill either one. And the two hadiths also prove what
we mentioned previously that disbelief in Allah by itself is
not a sufficient reason to ordain killing.

Summary:

It is clear to us from all what was mentioned that the

basis of relationship between the Muslims and non-
Muslims is peace and not war, and Allah is All Knowing.

46
Third Issue

At the absence of the Muslim state or the great Imam

(Muslim leader), are the current states and countries' rule
valid which makes the pledge of allegiance to them
authentic and correct and makes Jihad with them valid
and under their permission and order and their
relationships with other nations have a legal face?

Before answering this question we have to note that

there is a difference between ability and failure when it
comes to establishing obligations and prohibitions. Imam
Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah be merciful with him, said: 'from
this, it becomes clear the falling of many of these things
even if they were obligations or unlawful due to the
inability of conveying the proof of Allah in the obligation
or the prohibition. Because failure or inability omits
obligations and prohibitions even if it was a must
originally'. (The Conclusion of the Fatawa, 20/60-61).

'In another meaning, there is a difference between the

state of choice and the state of compulsion, and whoever
doesn't differentiate between the two states doesn't
realize what is sensible or narrated'. (Al-Awasem and Al-
Qawasem in Defending the Sunna of Abu Al-Qasem,
8/174). This is due to verse 173 of sura Al-Baqara: "but
if one is forced by necessity without willful
disobedience nor transgressing due limits then is he

47
guiltless" and verse 119 of sura Al-An' am: "when He
hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to
you except under compulsion of necessity…".

So, this issue at research is a branch that derives from a

prime issue, which is the rule of the establishment of
Imama (leadership of the Muslims).

It is known that 'Imama is put forth to precede the

prophethood in protecting and safeguarding the religion
and the matters of this life. And its establishment to the
one who applies it in the Muslim nation is a must and an
obligation according the consensus of the scholars'. (The
Sultanic Rules by Al-Mawardi, page 5).

This Imama has rules and conditions, and some of its

rules is the rule of the multiplicity of Imams (leaders)
which has several opinions:

The first opinion: is the opinion of Al-Karamiyah that

allows it absolutely whether in the state of ability or
failure, taking evidence from the incident of Ali and
Mu'awiyah in which they were both Imams (leaders) that
were obliged to be obeyed by the parties they ruled and
taking evidence also from the time where two prophets
were sent at the same time where it didn't invalidate the
prophethood of either one of them. But, Al-Qurtubi
refuted their arguments in his interpretation of the Quran
where Allah says in verse 30 of sura Al-Baqara: "I will

48
create a vicegerent on earth…".

The second opinion: is the opinion of the majority of the

scholars that say that the multiplicity of Imams is not
permissible due to the saying of the prophet: 'if two
Imams were given the pledge of allegiance then kill the
latter of them'. (narrated by Muslim in Al-Imara, No.
1853), and his saying in the hadith: 'whoever comes to
you where your matter is in the hands of one person
(leader) desiring to split you apart or disassemble your
unity then kill him'. (narrated by Muslim in Al-Imara, No.
1852), and the saying of the prophet in the hadith:
'whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to an Imam and
gave him the oath of his hand and the fruit of his heart
then he should obey him if he is able to. And if another
one comes to contend the first in his rule then strike his
neck'. (narrated by Muslim, No. 1844).

Some of the scholars who are of the opinion of the

unlawfulness of the multiplicity of the great Imam are:

Al-Nawawi: where he replied to whoever said of the

permissibility of the multiplicity of Imams in the case of
the outspread of the Muslim borders by saying: 'this is
unsound and contradictory to what the predecessors and
the successors have agreed upon and what is apparent
from the hadiths'. (The explanation of Sahih Muslim,
12/232). He also said: 'it is not permissible to install two
Imams (leaders) at the same time even if they rule two

49
provinces apart from each other'. And Abu Ishaq said: 'it
is permissible to install two Imams in two different
provinces if needed, and this is the choice of the great
Imam, but what is favored is the first opinion'. (Rawdat Al-
Talibeen, 10/47).

Mohammad Al-Khatib Al-Shirbini said: 'it is not

permissible to install the Imama for more than one
person even for different provinces that are way apart
from each other due to the possibility of having different
opinions and disunity'. (Mughni Al-Muhtaj, 4/132).

Ibn Hazm Al-Thahiri said: 'it is unlawful in this life to have

more than one Imam at one time, and the pledge should
be given to the first'. (Al-Muhalla, 9/360).

And Al-Mawardi said: 'if two Imams were installed in two

different states then their rules are invalid, because it is
not permissible to install two Imams for the Muslim nation
at the same time even if some people made it
permissible'. (The Sultanic Rules, page 9).

The third opinion: that is permissible when urgently

needed, and has three forms:

The first form is if the provinces are way apart. And some
of the scholars who are of this opinion are:

1- Al-Shawkani where he said: 'after the spread of Islam

50
and its borders it is known that each province and state
has its own Imam or leader and none has the authority in
the province or state of the other. So, it is tolerable to
have multiple Imams and leaders and it is a must to obey
each after giving the pledge of allegiance to in his
province or state. And if a person comes to contend the
Imam or leader in his province or state and doesn't
repent then he should be killed, and there is no obligation
at the citizens of the other province or state to obey him
or enter under his rule due to the vast distance in
between the states. Because it might not come to their
awareness what occurred to that Imam or leader or they
might not realize who was established of them or died.
And this is well known to whoever has knowledge of the
state of people and lands.

So, know this because it is suitable for the legislative

principles and confirms the evidences, and leave what
contradicts this because the difference between the time
of the first Islamic statehood and what it is right now is
clearer than sunlight. And whoever denies this is a
slander and doesn't deserve to be argued with reason'.
(Al-Sayl Al-Jarrar, 4/512).

2- Ibn Kahthir said after mentioning the opinion of the

scholars who didn't permit the multiplicity: 'the Imam of
Al-Haramain narrated about Abu Ishaq that he permitted
the installation of two Imams if the provinces become
spread out, and the Imam of Al-Haramain hesitated in

51
this opinion. I said that this is similar to the state of the
Abbasi leaders in Iraq, and the state of Al-Fatimi leaders
in Egypt and the Amawis in Morrocco…'. (The
explanation of Ibn Kahtir, 1/74).

3- Al-Qurtubi said after narrating the hadith of 'if two

Imams were given the pledge of allegiance…': 'this is a
clear evidence that it is not permissible to install two
Imams because this leads to hypocrisy, disobeyment,
disunity, and disturbance and the vanishing of the graces
of Allah. But, if the borders and the provinces become
distant then it is permissible as in the case of Andalusia
(Spain) and Khurasan'. (The explanation of Al-Qurtubi,
1/273).

4- Ahmad Bin Ghunaim Bin Salem Al-Maliki said: 'it is not

permissible to have multiple leaders except when the
states become multiple'. (Al-Fawakih Al-Dawani, 1/396).

5- Abu Ishaq: where Ibn Kathir and Al-Nawawi reported

his opinion in the permissibility of installing two Imams or
more if the Islamic state becomes vast and distant.

The second form is for superiority. And some of the

scholars of this opinion are:

1- Ibrahim Bin Mohammad Bin Salem Bin Dhuyan said:

'and he said that it is not permissible to have multiple
Imams, and that if every sultan has sovereignty over an

52
area of land then he rule would be that of an Imam'.
(Manar Al-Sabeel, 2/353). Bin Dhuyan died in 1353 Hijri.

2- Al-Sanani said: 'his saying about obeying means

obeying the Khalifa (Muslim leader) which the people
agreed to pledge the rule to, as if it means a Khalifa
(leader) for every province or state since the Muslims
never agreed upon one Khalifa from the time of the
Abbasis when every province became dependent on
their governor away from the rule of the Islamic Khilafa'.
(Subul Al-Salam Sharh Buloogh Al-Maram Min Adellat Al-
Ahkam, 3/499).

3- Mohammad Bin Abdelwahab said: 'all scholars of

every school unanimously agreed that whoever gains
authority over a province or several provinces would
have the rule of an Imam in all matters, and if this wasn't
so then things would be in chaos because people from a
long time before the time of Imam Ahamd Ibn Hanbal
until our day didn't agree and unite over one Imam and
they have no knowledge of any scholar that mentioned
that the rules can't be established without the existence
of the great Imam'. (Al-Durar Al-Sunniya in Al-Ajweba Al-
Najdiya, 7/932).

The third form is failure or disobedience or similar things.

And some of the scholars who said of the permissibility of
having multiple Imams due to failure or disobedience are:

53
Ibn Taymiyah who said: 'the Sunna is to have only one
Imam and the rest would be his deputies. But if
presumably some of the nation disobeyed or failed and
had several Imams (leaders) then each of them would
have to establish borders and fulfill duties…'. (Majmo'a
Al-Fatawi, 34/175-176).

Examples of multiple Imams in the Islamic history:

1- From the sayings of jurisprudents:

* Mohammad Bin Abdelwahab said: 'because the people

from a long time before Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal until
our this day never agreed upon one Imam'.

* Al-Sanani said: '… the Muslims never agreed upon one

Khalifa from the time of the Abbasis when every province
became dependent on their governor away from the rule
of the Islamic Khilafa'.

* Ibn Kathir said: 'I said that this is similar to the state of
the Abbasi leaders in Iraq, and the state of Al-Fatimi
leaders in Egypt and the Amawis in Morrocco…'.

* Al-Shawkani said: ' after the spread of Islam and its

borders it is known that each province and state has its
own Imam or leader'.

* Ibn Taymiyah said: 'whoever looks upon the state of the

54
world at this time would know that this group-the
Mamloukis- is the most upholding of Islam in knowledge,
deeds and Jihad throughout the east and west… and the
people of Yemen are weak and unable of Jihad and they
are wasteful of the kingdom of this land… but most of the
people of Hijaz are outlaws to the rules of Shari'ah
(Islamic laws)… and the people of faith and religion has
the weak and unable amongst them, and the might and
power in this time is for the non-Muslims in this land…
and the nomads in Africa are the majority and they are
the worst kind of people…and in the far west, the
Europeans have occupied most of the lands and the
people do not struggle in Jihad against the Christians,
and many of the Christians who hold the crosses are in
their armies.

This and other things proves that the group in Sham at

this time is considered the battalion of Islam, and their
dignity and honor is the dignity and honor of Islam, and
their humiliation is the humiliation of Islam…'. (Majmoa
Al-Fatawi, 28/533-534).

2- From the atlas of Islamic history:

The atlas demonstrated in explanation and maps the

history of Islam since the appearance of Islam until the
fourteenth century, then summarized all of them in
historical tables (from page 35-42) where he put the
years on the horizontal axis and the provinces on the

55
vertical axis. And following is a display of the number of
Islamic states in the selected years:

184-288 Hijri [the Abbasis in most of the Islamic world at

that time + the Aghaliba in Africa and Tripoli + The
children of Rustom Al-Khawarij in the mid-west + the
Adarisa in the far west + the Amawis in Andalusia + the
Aghaliba in the islands of the mid-west].

597 Hijri [the Abbasi state in Iraq + Indian states in east

of India + the Ghouris in north and central India + Qarra
Khitai beyond the river + the Ghouris in Afghanistan +
Shahat Khawarizm in Iran + the Hashashis in Kavkaz +
the children of Salghour in Kavkaz + the Atabika of
Azerbijan in Kavkaz + the Saljouqis in Iraq + the
Ayyoubis in Yemen and Adan + the Qaramitah in east
and central Arabia + the Fatimis in Sham and Egypt + the
Kingdom of Cyprus + the Ayyubis in Egypt and Tripoli +
the Mowahhidoon in Morocco and Andalusia + the
Islamic State of Ghana].

803 Hijri [the number of countries totaled 22, we ignored

mentioning them for fear of length]. (The Atlas of the
History of Islam by Dr. Hussein Mo'anis, Cairo).

What is strange about the Muslim revivals is that they

unfortunately think that multiple Islamic states never
existed in Muslim history like they exist now, knowing that
Indian states alone exceeded over 25.

56
I said: taking in consideration the purpose of legislations
that show the importance of national security and that
one of the purposes of Islamic state is to protect the
citizens, the land and the religion, and if we assume that
saying those small Islamic states are not real and that
they're not as lawful as the mother state, then people
would quarrel and contend endlessly to establish their
existence and authority which would lead to wasting
lands and human souls and violating of rights thus
making this saying a pure mistake. And we, by saying
that these small states are legal and with authority similar
to the bigger state, would resolve any quarrel or
argument and would apply the rules of Islamic laws like:
1- The harm would be removed- the spread of tribulations
would remove a rule or lessen it.
2- Establishing goals is prior to discussing means.
Because applying these principles in installing the
sovereignty and legal authority of these states would
produce what protects and preserves the five rights
(necessities) that each nation came to protect and
preserve. And Allah is All Knowing.

Saying what is contradictory to what we've said is far

from the truth and leads to chaos and corruption. And the
Islamic laws came to shield and protect the wealth,
blood, and honor of humans. So, how about the blood of
Muslims, free non-Muslims under Muslim rule or others
and their wealth and honor? It's like allowing or shedding

57
in vain the wealth, blood and honor of people, which
absolutely comes in conflict with the rules and principles
of Islamic law.

Based on that we would come to the following

conclusion:

1) It is permissible to have multiple Imams (leaders)

when urgently needed.
2) Each Imam (leader) would have the same authority of
the Great Imam in: [a] Interior affairs. [b] Foreign affairs.
And this establishes: [a] Financial affairs in and outside
the state. [b] Political affairs in and outside the state. [c]
Military affairs in and outside the state. [d] The ruler has
the authority to be obeyed and that the affairs we
mentioned are at his command and order. [e] He has the
rights of an Imam and the obligations and duties to his
subjects (citizens) all in accordance with the legal interest
and the boundaries of the law, as possible.

58
Fourth Issue

The conditions of triumph/victory

It is well known that fighting in the cause of Allah is an

obligation (duty) which is dependent on ability, and the
scholars have decided that whoever is unable of an
action is not obligated to begin with due to what could
reach him of discomfort or embarrassment according to
the saying of Allah in verse 286 of sura Al-Baqara: ”On
no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can
bear". It is also well known that fighting was legislated
and made lawful to establish a favorable interest aiding
the religion and protecting the propagation of it. Also, the
basis of relationship between the Muslims and non-
Muslims is peace and not war, and this was reached in
the study and research in the second issue (in this book).

The conditions of victory are divided into legal and

universal, legislated in the Book (Quran) and Sunna. If all
were achieved and available, the victory of Allah will
materialize and vice versa. These conditions are:

First: realization of faith:

It is a legal condition that contains all elements of faith; in

saying, deeds and belief. This means that it is consisted
of the deeds of the heart and organs according to verse
47 of sura Al-Rum: "and it was due from us to aid

59
those who believed", and verse 51 of sura Ghafir: "We
will without doubt help Our apostles and those who
believe (both) in this world's life and on the Day
when the Witnesses will stand forth", and verse 55 of
sura Al-Nur: "Allah has promised to those among you
who believe and work righteous deeds that He will of
a surety grant them in the land inheritance (of power)
as He granted it to those before them; that He will
establish in authority their religion the one which He
has chosen for them; and that He will change (their
state) after the fear in which they (lived) to one of
security and peace: `They will worship Me (alone)
and not associate aught with Me", and many other
verses in the Quran.

We have to realize that absolute faith (which is

establishing all duties and abstaining from all
prohibitions) doesn't have to be fully achieved to have
this condition achieved in all members of the Muslim
society without exceptions, but it has to be achieved fully
in the majority of the Muslim nation, according to verse
11 of sura Al-Ra'ad (The Thunder): "Verily never will
Allah change the condition of a people until they
change it themselves (with their own souls).". What's
important is the majority of the people because there's
not a single society that's free of hypocrites and
disobedients even if they were few, that was even in the
society of the Medina at the time of the prophet, peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the times of the

60
great four Khalifas. And whoever calls for the condition of
absolute faith to be achieved in all of the society without
exception is in contradiction. The prophet was not
ordered to immigrate to Medina until Islam was embraced
by the majority over there (and not by all), all by the
grace of Allah then by the efforts of Musab Bin Omair and
those who embraced Islam through him. This is clarified
even more by seeing that faith didn't reach the majority of
the society in Mecca before immigration to Medina due to
the hard hearts of the pagans. So, it was crucial to look
for a softer society that would accept the religion and for
faith to be achieved in the majority of its members so that
this condition would be realized. And the society of
Medina was a perfect choice when the people of Taif
rejected the call of the prophet to Islam.

Looking at the Muslim nation nowadays, is faith achieved

in the majority of the Muslims in all of the Muslim nations
or even in some of them? And if the answer was positive,
then where?

Whoever will decide this, has to be well learned of the

religion from all sides and he has to be aware of the
affairs of the people away from any misguiding
propaganda, especially in those deceiving years that
we're living through, which makes the truthful to be
viewed as a liar and a liar as a truthful and a trustworthy
person as a traitor and vice versa. And we can learn from
the death of the third Khalifa (Othman Bin Affan) and how

61
some of the Muslims were convinced that he was an
unjust and oppressive ruler and that even some has
called him an infidel when he was the best human being
walking on the face of earth at that time according to the
hadith of the prophet.

Second: achieving material preparation

(might/power):

This is also a legal and universal condition according to

verse 60 of sura Al-Anfal: "Against them make ready
your strength to the utmost of your power including
steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the
enemies of Allah and your enemies and others
besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah
doth know." and verse 66 of sura Al-Anfal: "For the
present Allah hath lightened your (task) for He
knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: but (even
so) if there are a hundred of you patient and
persevering they will vanquish two hundred and if a
thousand they will vanquish two thousand with the
leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently
persevere."

Al-Qurtubi says: 'Against them make ready: means that

Allah ordered the believers to prepare all the strength
and power against the enemies after assuring
mentioning taqwa (piety) in advance'. And about the
meaning of strength, Al-Qurtubi mentioned some of the

62
hadiths like the hadith of Oqba Bin Amer saying: I heard
the prophet saying when he was at the pulpit: 'Against
them make ready your strength to the utmost of your
power: the strength is shooting, the strength is shooting'.
(narrated by Muslim).

The word "strength" in the verse came as an indefinite

noun speaking in general, whether this strength was
military, economical, political or any other thing. And in
the meaning of "to strike terror into (the hearts of) the
enemies of Allah and your enemies", Al-Qurtubi said:
'meaning to scare with it the enemies of Allah and your
enemies'.

To achieve this material preparation (strength) that

produces the terror in the hearts of the enemy, there has
to be:

1- Utilization of all kinds of possible power and strength,

whether it was military, economical or political according
to verse 60 of sura Al-Anfal: "Against them make ready
your strength to the utmost of your power including
steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the
enemies of Allah and your enemies and others
besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah
doth know.", and the hadith of the prophet where he
says: 'A strong believer is best and more beloved to Allah
than a weak believer, and there's good in both…'.
2- The level of preparation has to reach a level where our

63
enemy would fear us and take good account before he is
ready to face us. This means that we should own a
deterrent power and this is not going to be achieved
(these days) except by owning advanced modern
weapons that other nations produce and own.

The Noble Quran defined the minimum level of needed

strength to deter our enemies where we are not allowed
to retreat from the field of war unless to be in a stratagem
of war or to retreat to a troop of our own as indicated in
verses 56 and 66 of sura Al-Anfal: "O apostle! rouse
the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst
you patient and persevering they will vanquish two
hundred: if a hundred they will vanquish a thousand
of the unbelievers: for these are a people without
understanding. For the present Allah hath lightened
your (task) for He knoweth that there is a weak spot
in you: but (even so) if there are a hundred of you
patient and persevering they will vanquish two
hundred and if a thousand they will vanquish two
thousand with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with
those who patiently persevere".

Al-Tabari said about those two verses: 'many of the

scholars of interpretation of Quran said what's similar to
what we've said. And Al-Laith said: each man was equal
to ten men (in strength), then it became as each man
was equal to two men where he is not supposed to turn
his back from them on the day of war. And Ibn Abbas

64
said: when this verse was revealed the Muslims felt
hardship that twenty of them would have to face two
hundred in the battle field… so, Allah lessened the rule
upon them and nullified the verse with another one and
said: "For the present Allah hath lightened your (task)
for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: but
(even so) if there are a hundred of you patient and
persevering they will vanquish two hundred and if a
thousand they will vanquish two thousand" and said:
they were if faced by the enemy not allowed to turn their
backs and retreat from them, and if not faced by the
enemy they wouldn't have to engage in war and fight and
they were allowed to be in a stratagem of war'. (10/38-
39).

From among the scholars who permitted the retreat from

the battle field in such case:

* From the Hanbali school:

- Ibn Qudama Al-Maqdisi said: 'steadfastness becomes

an obligation by two conditions: that the non-believers'
army is no more than double the number of the Muslim
army. So, if the number of the enemy goes over double
then it is permissible for the Muslims to retreat according
to verse 66 of sura Al-Anfal: "For the present Allah
hath lightened your (task) for He knoweth that there
is a weak spot in you: but (even so) if there are a
hundred of you patient and persevering they will

65
vanquish two hundred". (Al-Mughni, 8/484). And he
also said: 'and if the number of the enemy's army is more
than double the number of the Muslim army but the
Muslims realized that victory is on their side then it's
better for them to be steadfast in the battle field, and if
they retreat it's also permissible because they might not
be safe from defeat'. (Al-Mughni, 8/485).

- Mansour Bin Younis Bin Idris Al-Bahouti said: 'if the

number of the enemy exceeds double the number of the
Muslims then they are permitted to retreat', then he
mentioned the saying of Ibn Abbas: 'the apparent
meaning that it is permissible to retreat with the minimum
number of increase… and if they assume victory then
steadfastness becomes a priority, rather it is likened'.
(Kishaf Al-Qina'a from Matn Al-Iqna'a, 3/41).

- Ibrahim Bin Dhuyan permitted retreat due to the number

exceeding double in his book "Manar Al-Sabeel" in
chapter 1, page 271.

- Ibrahim Bin Mohammad Bin Abdalla Al-Hanbali also

permitted retreat due to the number exceeding double.
(Al-Mubdi'a, 3/316).

* From the Shafi' school:

- Imam Shafi' said: 'I don't like for the Muslims to retreat
even if the number of the enemy is more than double,

66
and I don't see that they deserve the wrath of Allah if they
do retreat'. (the Rules of Quran, 2/34 and Al-Umm,
4/196).

- Al-Muti'i said: 'when the number of the non-believers

exceed double the number of the Muslims then they can
retreat… and if they think that they won't be killed then
it's better for them to be steadfast and not retreat so that
the Muslims won't be defeated, and if they think that they
would be killed then there are two opinions in this matter;
one is that they must retreat according to verse 195 in
sura Al-Baqara: "and make not your own hands
contribute to your destruction", and the second is that
it is likened for them to retreat but they're not obliged to'.
(Al-Majmou', 19/291).

- Al-Syed Al-Bakri Al-Dumiati said: 'if they assume that

they would be killed then it is a must that they retreat
according to the verse: "and make not your own hands
contribute to your destruction", and if the number of
the enemy doesn't exceed the double then it is forbidden
to retreat'. And he said in his explanation: 'and if they
exceed double our numbers, like if they were two
hundred and one weak men facing one hundred strong
men'. Then, he said: 'and if they don't exceed the double
they're permitted to retreat, like if the Muslims were 100
weak men facing 199 strong men of the non-believers.
And this is better because the lesson is by resisting not
by the numbers and this doesn't contradict the verse.

67
What governs the rule, as Al-Zarkashi and Al-Balqini
said, is that there has to be enough power in the Muslims
so that they would assume victory over their enemy even
if the number of the enemy is more than double'. (Ianat
Al-Talibeen, 4/198).

* From the Maliki school:

- Abu Al-Hasan Al-Maliki, Salih Bin Abdlesami'a Al-Azhari,

and Ali Al-Saidi Al-Adawi permitted retreat when the
number of the enemy exceeds double the number of the
Muslims.

* From the Hanafi school:

- Ala'Eddin Al-Kasani said: 'the rule in this is not restricted

by the numbers but is according to what is assumed of
strength and the ability to resist and fight the enemy. So,
if they assume that they can resist, they have to
steadfast in the battle field even if they were less in
numbers, and if they assume defeat then it's permissible
that they retreat to a group of Muslims to seek their aid
even if they were more in number than the enemy'.
(Badai'i Al-Sanai', 7/98). And Ali Bin Al-Hussein Al-Saghdi
said in his edicts: 'it's not lawful to retreat from the battle
field, and it's not lawful for a man among the Muslims to
retreat from two men of the non-believers, but if he
retreats from three men then he is allowed to and if he
remains fighting until he is killed then that would be

68
alright'. (Al-Saghdi's Fatawa, 2/712).

- Al-Shawkani says: 'and if they (the Muslims) realize with

strong evidences that the non-believers are victorious
over them then they have to abstain from fighting them
and increase the number of the mujahideen (Muslim
soldiers) and seek the aid of the Muslims, according to
verse 195 of sura Al-Baqara: "and make not your own
hands contribute to your destruction"... It is well
known that whoever dares upon the enemy while
realizing captivity or defeat is like the one who throws
himself towards destruction... if the number of Muslims is
half the number of the non-believers (in the battle field),
then it's prohibited for them to retreat, otherwise it is
permissible, and Allah made an exception for those who
would trick the enemy (in the form of retreat to re-attack)
or those who would retreat to another group of Muslim
fighters to aid them in the battle, and this is not
considered from the forbidden retreat'. And he also said:
'but if they assume defeat and didn't retreat, then it is
permissible for them to retreat according to two opinions.
Imam Yahya said: the best of the two opinions is that
they must retreat according to the verse: "and make not
your own hands contribute to your destruction".
(Nayl Al-Awtar, 8/78).

69
Lessons:

1- The retreat of the Muslim army in the battle of Mu'ata

under the leadership of Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, may Allah be
pleased with him, due to the Romans' army being more
than the Muslims' both in number and artillery. The
Muslims gathered up in Maan to consult each other about
the battle until some advised to return back to Medina
and others asked for reinforcement. And if the
companions of the prophet understood the sending of the
army for battle by the prophet as an ordained duty
whatever the circumstances might have been they would
have never gathered up for a meeting of consultation and
the proof to that is that if they decided to retreat back to
Medina according to the opinion of some they wouldn't
have been considered outside the boundaries of the
Islamic laws in protecting and preserving the blood of the
Muslims and to perfect their preparations for meeting the
enemy in battle. Also, it wasn't reported that the prophet
didn't affirm their decision when they returned to Medina.

2- The defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in

2002 facing the most powerful armies of the globe
headed by the Americans, as it was a must to accept a
political settlement based on the American request to
prevent the eruption of the war. And to say that the
United States would have stricken Afghanistan even if the
Taliban responded to their request is a form of socialist
political deceit that the Muslims have fallen into many of

70
times and still are. And by responding, this wouldn't be
considered as a form of betrayal or falsehood but would
be considered as preserving lives and protecting the land
of the Muslims.

3- In Ramadan of 1973 the Egyptian forces won the war

against the Israelis in Sinai and when the United States
of America intervened to aid the Israelis in the war
President Sadat declared many of times that he can not
defeat the United States and with that he preserved and
protected his armed forces and country. But unfortunately
the malicious leftists and whoever was affected by them
of the Muslims incited a grudgeful campaign against this
victory until it was viewed as a defeat in the eyes of many
and against the character of Sadat until they shed his
blood, and years later they regretted their bad deed and
apologized for assassinating him, which is considered a
good deed but it was too late.

4- In 1980 a group called "Juheiman" attempted to

overthrow the Saudi regime, in spite of all warnings from
the Muslim scholars headed by Sheikhs Ibn Baz, Al-
Albani and Abu Bakr Al-Jazaeri, claiming the appearance
of Al-Mahdi Mohammad Bin Abdalla Al-Qahtani and they
stirred up a disorder in the Meccan sanctuary where
circumambulation of the Kaaba was suspended for more
than a week. The attempt was thwarted and many of the
Muslim young men were killed as a result. It was later
found that this particular group, along with their false

71
claims, was a mount for a socialist revolutionary act and
if they took lessons from history or listened to the calls of
the scholars they wouldn't have been bitten.

5- The Islamic Jihad group of Egypt attempted to

overthrow the current Egyptian regime in spite of the
warnings issued by the scholars of Al-Azhar in Egypt and
the Council of the Great Scholars in Saudi Arabia. And
after two years of fighting the group announced an
initiative to reform the ideology of the group based on
reconciliation (and not a truce) with the regime and to
return to spreading and propagating the Islamic dawa
among the Muslims. And this initiative was considered a
strategy not a tactic (as was declared), and if they also
took lessons from history or listened to the scholars they
wouldn't have been bitten. For more, look up the book
(The Islamic Movement from Confrontation to Revision)
by one of the Islamic Jihad's biggest (Dr. Kamal Al-Said
Al-Habib).

6- The Algerian Rescue Front attempted a similar

experience in the nineties where tens of thousands of
Muslims were victims of such attempt, all in spite of many
warnings by the scholars who were asked for Islamic
edicts, such as Sheikh Naserddin Al-Albani, may Allah be
merciful with him, and the scholars of Al-Azhar in Egypt
and the Council of the Great Scholars in Saudi Arabia as
well. And here they are, for more than two years, revising
themselves inside the Front hoping that the revision will

72
crystallize soon.

7- And now we have "Al-Qaida" taking the same steps of

its sister movements and attempts not taking lessons or
listening to the warnings of the Muslim scholars in Saudi
Arabia and Al-Azhar and others, striking here and there in
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and
still challenging.

Aren't the works of Al-Qaida harmful to the interest of the

Muslims? Rather, aren't their works locking the hearts in
front of the overgrowing Islamic propagation in the United
States and the West??!!

Was it not the works of Al-Qaida the main reason in

toppling the Islamic regime- with some of the mistakes in
it- in Afghanistan???!!!

Doesn't the works of Al-Qaida serve the enemies of

Islam, headed by the socialists who defend their works
with the excuse of fighting the capitalist United States
and its allies and friends?

Isn't it possible that Al-Qaida would re-account their

deeds, even if later on, and change its policies to return
back to building Islam in the hearts of the people?

And if it too took lessons from history or listened to the

scholars, it wouldn't have been bitten.

73
"Suspicions"

First suspicion:

Some claim that warning the Muslims from confronting

their enemy without establishing the sufficient material
preparation (strength and power) is considered a form of
spreading falsehoods and stirring up seditions or
betrayal, as in verses 60-61 of sura Al-Ahzab: "Truly if
the Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a
disease and those who stir up sedition in the City
desist not We shall certainly stir thee up against
them: then will they not be able to stay in it as thy
neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a
curse on them: wherever they are found they shall be
seized and slain (without mercy)".

And to clarify the meaning of "stirring up seditions" in

reply to their claims, Al-Tabari says: 'and His saying "and
those who stir up sedition in the City": those people in
Medina say lies and falsehoods… and they used to say:
a well equipped and big numbered army is coming onto
you..' (The Explanation, 22/48). And Al-Qurtubi says:
'stirring up sedition means to spread lies and falsehoods
to take advantage. And it was said that it meant: to stir up
hearts. It is said: the earth was stirred, meaning it moved
and shook (The Interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, 14/246).

74
So, the hypocrites and the ones whom the lust of adultery
is in their hearts and those who stir up seditions in
Medina, all are taking one position to harm the Muslims
in the battle of Al-Ahzab, and they weren't keen upon the
interest of the Muslims. That's why Allah cursed them and
permitted killing them for their betrayal and hidden
treacherous act against Islam and Muslims. Based on
this, attributing betrayal and spreading falsehoods to the
scholars who said of the necessity of perfect preparation
is pure ignorance and fabrication on those scholars,
whom the saying of Allah: "and make not your own
hands contribute to your destruction" and verses 65-
66 of sura Al-Anfal and applying the fundamental
principles were the incentive and motive behind their
views and opinions.

Second suspicion:

Some of the people- among them some who are

questionable- spread among the youthful Muslims the
necessity of Jihad, with their few numbers and little
equipment, in confronting the whole world- especially the
nations that fight the left- whatever the power of those
nations might be, whether united or not and the Unites
States being on top of their list, taking excuse that Allah
will triumph them for their faith, by forming cluster cells
that would strike the opponent here and there without
differentiating between combatants, peace lovers, or

75
secured people nor between civilians or militants, taking
evidence with verse 249 of sura Al-Baqara: "How oft by
Allah's will hath a small force vanquished big one?".
And the issue in research here responds to their
suspicion. And let those people know that balance of
power between Muslim and non-Muslim combatants is
considered in the Islamic laws and legislations which has
its rules and restrictions and that the matter is not built
upon the zealous of martyrdom in the cause of Allah
alone as if this zealous in the souls of the young Muslims
became one of the traps for the simple-minded and
foolish that are taken advantage of by the leftists that are
hidden among the Muslims disguising themselves to
attack their opponents. And this new Marxist style
exposes the persistence of the modern communist
danger not its alleged death.

Third suspicion:

Some would understand from the hadith of the prophet

narrated by Jaber Bin Abdalla: 'There still will be a group
from my umma (nation) fighting on the right until the Day
of Judgment, and then Jesus will descend…' (narrated in
Muslim No. 156, in Musnad of Abi Iwana No. 7499 and
No. 7500, ch. 4/505, and Abu Dawood No. 2484) that
confrontation with the enemy is an everlasting incident
without regard to whether the conditions of victory are
established or not. So, if you say to them that preferable
interest isn't established by Jihad nowadays in such and

76
such place they would say to you: then where are we
from those hadiths that necessitate the everlasting
existence of the fighting group in reality?

An answer to this would be:

1] That this hadith with its various narrations stated many

descriptions of the "victorious group" other than the
"fighting group", some of which are:

* Always on the right path: the prophet said: 'there will

still be a group from my umma (nation) that will always
be on the right path not being harmed by whoever lets
them down until the order of Allah comes and they are on
that state' (narrated in Al-Bukhari by Al-Mughira, and in
Muslim No. 1920 by Thawban, and in the Musnad of Abi
Awana No. 7509, and others. And this narration is for
Imam Muslim).

* Victorious: the prophet said: 'there will still be a group

from my umma (nation) that will always be victorious not
being harmed by whoever lets them down until the hour
(Day of Judgment) is established' (narrated in Al-Tirmithi
No. 2192, ch. 4/485, and in Ibn Majah 1/4).

* Conquerors to their enemies: the prophet said: 'there

will still be a group from my umma (nation) conquerors to
their enemies not being harmed by whoever contradicts
them until the hour (Day of Judgment) comes to them'

77
(narrated in Musnad Abi Awana No. 7507).

* Rising with the order of Allah: the prophet said: 'there

will still be a group from my umma (nation) rising with the
order of Allah not being harmed by whoever lets them
down… until the order of Allah comes while they are on
that state' (narrated in Musnad Abi Awana No. 7501,
4/505).

Based on that, Ibn Taymiyah didn't understand from the

hadith that confronting the enemy in war is ongoing
without interruption. Rather we find him, may Allah be
merciful with him, taking evidence from the different
narrations of the hadith in showing the descriptions of the
victorious group, where the hadith was mentioned in his
book "Majmo'a Al-Fatawa" in seven different places as
follows:
1- Confronting the people of bida'a (innovations in
religion). (27/329).
2- In demonstrating the virtues of the people of Sham.
(27/507).
3- In Jihad. (28/416), (28/505).
4- In the Mamaleek 'in Egypt, Sham and the neighboring
states, the ones who fight defending the religion of Allah
and who are considered to be from among the victorious
group rightfully'. And note that he said 'from among the
victorious group' and didn't say the only victorious group
because it was a fighting one. (28/531).
5- In demonstrating the Hanafi school confronting the

78
religion of the Tatars. (28/552).
6- In the meaning of aiding the messengers and the
believers. (28/640).
That's why Al-Hafez Ibn Hajar said about the description
of the victorious group in what he reported from Al-
Nawawi and agreed with: 'it is permissible that the
victorious group could be a group of various believers; a
brave man, an expert of war, a jurisprudent, a scholar of
hadith, an interpreter of the Quran, an ascetic, and a
worshiper and they don't all have to be gathered in one
state…it is permissible to vacate the whole earth from
some of them until only one group remains in one state,
and when they get extent then the order of Allah will
come'. (Fath Al-Bari 13/295). And he also said: 'they are
the people of the hadith'. (Fath Al-Bari 1/140).

2] The word 'still remains' (in the hadith) doesn't mean

that it won't be halted or discontinued but it means that it
will remain until the Day of Judgment where the last of us
will fight the Anti-Christ. Otherwise, what does it mean
that the scholars have agreed on the permissibility of
reconciliation and establishing truce and peace accords
according to what's know in the books of jurisprudence?

So, it is clear to us that the victorious group could be a

fighting one either with weapons or with communiqué to
defend the Quran and Sunna and to repel the suspicions
of the atheists and the people of desires and lusts. And to
say that the meaning only states a fighting group has no

79
supporting evidence.

Fourth suspicion:

Some people still states that the delay in victory doesn't

mean the delay of the promise of Allah in settling his
patrons and they take evidence from verse 2 of sura Al-
Ankaboot: "Do men think that they will be left alone
on saying "We believe" and that they will not be
tested?" and other verses and hadiths and the saying of
Imam Shafi': 'A man is not settled (on earth) until he is
tested (by Allah)'. They take evidence from all of this to
prove the correctness of their endeavoring in their Jihad
in spite of all the defeats, killings, expelling, and
imprisonment that they were hit with.

The answer:

1- It is not necessary that the result of tests (tribulations)

would be settlement on earth, because many of the
prophets and their followers were tested and not settled
on earth. But it is true that every person who got settled
on earth was tested. And not all tests and tribulations are
one kind, meaning that not every person who got settled
was tested with confronting his enemy in war where lots
of killing occurred. We can see that prophets Joseph and
Moses, peace be upon them, were in fact settled on earth
by the order of Allah and they didn't confront their enemy
in war (suras Yousef 21-26 and Al-Qasas 6).

80
The test of Joseph was being thrown in the well and his
imprisonment, and the test of Moses and his people was
being patient on the detriment of the Pharaoh to them to
the degree that Moses and his people fled away from the
Pharaoh and his soldiers. And if it is said that Moses was
not yet permitted to fight, I would say that this is true and
it supports what we've reached in this research that:
there are stages for fighting and going to war, and the
necessity of establishing the minimum material
preparations (strength and power) to confront the enemy,
and that the stage of weakness relieves the Muslims from
confrontation. That's why fighting was legislated and
prescribed upon the Israelites at a later age after the
destruction of Pharaoh and his army when they (the
Israelites) were ordered to enter the holy land as fighters
and said to Moses: "Go thou and thy Lord and fight ye
two while we sit here (and watch).". At that time when
they weren't ordered to fight, the interest was not in
fighting the Pharaoh and his army. Rather it would have
been a bigger harm and damage to the propagation and
call of the religion and could have led to the vanishing of
the propagation of the religion on the hands of the
Pharaoh and his army.

2- There is a difference between pushing away a calamity

and bringing it. Pushing away calamities and
catastrophes is a legal duty due to the saying of the
prophet: 'Do not wish to meet the enemy (in confrontation

81
of war)'. But unfortunately, this small band stood up in the
name of Jihad, steered and programmed in advance and
generously financed by some countries and leftist fronts
with their various names, and brought on catastrophes by
antagonizing the powerful western (capitalist) front-which
they confessed of after their defeat in Afghanistan on the
hands of the United States and its allies- and they forgot
that few years back their interest coincided with the
western interest in their war with the filthy communism
that killed hundreds of millions of Muslims in the Soviet
Union and China and others in a period of only 70 years.

That's why what has hit the fighting young Muslims of

defeats, killing and expelling is not considered a form of
affliction as much as:
First: it is considered bringing destruction upon
themselves as the endeavoring scholars of all schools
decided.
Second: this Jihad of theirs pours into the interest of our
prime enemy of Zionist socialists not in the interest of
Islam as they think, just like the renegades- and they're
not renegades- when they abandoned making Jihad
against Islam's first enemy and moved toward fighting
whom they thought were apostates from the Muslims,
thus serving the enemy and mischiefing on earth with
their corrupt interpretations. And this doesn't mean that
we should accuse them in their intentions as they
unfortunately do us, but how many of good wanting
people who don't get good as a result. And being good-

82
intended doesn't mean being infallible. And we ask Allah
to grant their dead the highest place in Paradise.
Third: also why don't they learn from the revisions of the
struggling groups in Egypt and others that pursued this
path before them and then refuted the suspicions that
they used to make excuses with?

Fifth suspicion:

They say that Jihad is ongoing in spite of benefits and

blights because Jihad to them is an absolute benefit.

The answer to this would be from different sides:

1- Benefits are divided into three sections:
a) Necessities: each nation came to preserve
necessities, which they are preserving one's religion,
mind, wealth, honor, and offsprings. And Islam legislated
what preserves and protects these necessities.
b) Needs: that are related to removing
embarrassments in worshipping and dealing and other
things.
c) Improvements: that are related to the best of
manners.
2- The position of Shari'a (Islamic law) from benefits and
blights:
a) Al-Ezz Ibn Abdelsalam said: 'and know that
putting as priority what is more beneficial and warding off
what is harmful is an inborn natural character in humans
created by the Lord of the universe'. And he also said:

83
'and all of Shari'a (Islamic law) is benefits that either
wards off blights or brings about interests'.
b) Ibn Taymiyah says: '… benefits have to be
favored in ordained duties and likened matters over
blights, and this is what the messengers of Allah and the
heavenly books were sent and revealed with'.
3- For more, look:
a) I'alam Al-Mowaqeen, ch. 3/15-17.
b) The purposes of Islamic law and their
relationship with legal evidences, by Dr. Mohammad
Saad Al-Youbi, page 389-400.
c) The cure of the ill, by Ibn Al-Qayyem, page 206.
d) Al-Mowafaqat, by Al-Shatibi (1/349, 2/26-38).

It is clear to us that the laws of religion and life are

subject to the principle of benefits and blights as decided
by Islamic law, which not a single rule (personal or for a
group, related to Muslims or non-Muslims, or related to
dealings or policies) can replace it. And based on this,
the following is decided:

1] That Jihad is part of the religion and is subject to the

principle of benefits and blights, and that the scholars are
the ones authorized to prove whether it is a benefit or a
blight.
2] That it not be from the matters of the religion- and not
a single Muslim has a say in it- and to be from the
matters of life, which are also subject to the principle of
benefits and blights.

84
3] That it not be from the matters of life or religion, and
that it is from the foolishness of the some people.

Third condition: Establishing justice which is the

basis of rule:

Which is a legal condition. Allah said in verse 90 of sura

Al-Nahl: " Allah commands justice the doing of good
and liberality to kith and kin and He forbids all
shameful deeds and injustice and rebellion: He
instructs you that ye may receive admonition" and in
verse 152 of sura Al-An'am: "whenever ye speak speak
justly even if a near relative is concerned" and in
verse 8 of sura Al-Maida: "and let not the hatred of
others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart
from justice . Be just: that is next to Piety". Also, in
the Qudsi hadith Allah says: 'Oh my servants I have
made oppression forbidden upon Myself and made it
forbidden between you too'. (Narrated by Muslim and Al-
Tirmidhi).

Also, Abdallah Bin Amro Bin Al-Aas, may Allah be

pleased with them, said: the messenger of Allah, peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: 'the people of
justice are at minarets of light with Allah: those who do
justice in their rule, their people, and those who are they
are responsible for'. (Narrated by Muslim).

Justice has sides that must be established:

85
1- Justice from the leader to the citizens.
2- Justice from the citizens to the leader.
3- Justice between the citizens themselves.

Justice has decreased in all of these sides due to the

success of the enemies in founding casteism with all of
its forms through activating the law of the socialist
communist caste system struggle, which is a product of
the global Zionist movement in all of the vulnerable
countries, so it became:

- The caste system between the ruler and the ruled that
mistrust became its basis, where the ruler would always
be fearing that the ruled will disobey and revolt against.
And that's when labeling people with being "went astray"
started. And the ruled also started fearing the ruler until
that pushed him to neglect his duties toward his ruler and
country or abstaining from it until the relationship
between both sides started taking a hostile curve. In the
book "Zionist Leaders' Protocols": 'but you specifically
know that for a crowd to scream for this hope, it is a must
that disturbance in relationships between the people and
the their governments in all countries has to continue,
and as a result animosities, wars, hatred, and dying as
martyrs would continue as well along with famine,
poverty and the spread of diseases. And all of this would
expand to the limit where the Goyems (non Jews) will
see no entrance to their problems but to take refuge in
our wealth and absolute authority' (the tenth protocol).

86
That's why those wicked people fear the good
relationships between the people and their regimes. But
they found an answer to this. They say: 'we fear the
alliance of the regimes with their blind subjects, but we
took all procedures to prevent this from occurring. We
established a great barrier between the two forces
founded on horror that is felt by both towards each other.
With this, the force of the people stays as a support in
our side, and we alone shall be its leaders and we will
direct it to reach our goals and objectives' (the ninth
protocol).

Carefully examine these sayings. And to familiarize

yourself with the means and tools used to achieve these
goals, get familiar with the directive policies that the leftist
parties practice and whoever got deceived with its
ideologies and political analysis from among the Muslims
in general and Hizb Al-Tahrir (the Liberation Party) in
particular. And this is what Marx and Ingles wrote in the
communist communiqué in pages 63, 55 and 84.

- The caste system between the scholars and the rulers

on one side and the scholars and the general public on
the other side until issuing fatwas (religious edicts) ended
up in the hands of the unworthy, and the prestige of the
scholars fell dramatically which led the people to turn to
the ignorant, except for a few, and the relationship
became founded on slandering the scholars and
mistrusting them, and whoever gets close to the rulers

87
from among the scholars would be called the worst of
names and would fall from the eyes of the people without
a crime committed.

The Protocols say about degrading the scholars and

religious people: '… but we have succeeded in making a
mockery and ridicule out of them in the eyes of the stupid
subjects' (the fifth protocol). And also said: 'and we have
taken great care of degrading the dignity of the religious
scholars from among the Goyems (non Jews) in the eyes
of the people. And with this, we've succeeded in
damaging their message which could have been an
invincible obstacle in our way. The influence of the
religious scholars is decreasing day after day' (the
seventeenth protocol).

Dr. Tariq Hajji identified the real position of communism

against religion through showing the most dangerous
communist document against Islam containing 22 plots,
issued, as he said, the magazine "Word of Truth" in its
issue of the month of Muharram in the year 1387 Hijri
(April 1967), which was surrounded by great secrecy in
the Soviet Union. Some of what it contained was:
1- Taming Islam so that it would be dominated. And this
taming should be for a while only so that we guarantee
control over it and attract the Arabs towards socialism.

2- Defaming the reputation of scholars and religious

rulers and accusing them with treachery with colonization

88
and Zionism. (from the book "Communism and Religions,
pages 48-49, edition of Dar Al-Nahdha, Cairo).

This had actually happened to the people of the church in

Europe ages ago. And here they are now trying hard to
implement their goals in the noble Muslim scholars. And
they have succeeded greatly in attracting many of the
'stupid subjects' from among the Muslims, as they
described them, but the accurate description for those is
the wise prophetic description 'a foam, just like the foam
on top of a flood'. And this reminds us of the hadith of the
prophet where he says: 'and Allah does not seize
knowledge by taking it away from the people, but He
seizes knowledge by seizing scholars (bringing death to
them) until when no scholar is left, the people will take
fools as heads (chiefs) where they would be inquired and
they would answer and issue fatwas (religious edicts)
without knowledge, which they would go astray and lead
people astray' (narrated by Muslim No 2673).

Whoever is able to degrade the solemnity of the scholars

from the hearts of the public succeeds in killing their
knowledge while they are still alive. And this has occurred
with many, unfortunately. At times they (the scholars) are
called the scholars of sultans- as if a ruler is forbidden
from having some of the people of knowledge in his
entourage-!! At other times, they are described as tyrants,
postponers, forsakers, and other things which are hinted
by the infiltrators among the Muslim youth; the revival

89
youth!!

So what would the destiny be if those true scholars die or

were all annihilated at the hands of the socialist revolt all
along the Muslim lands, and leave for us distorted
images that are directed in a way which serves their evil
aims with which they would remove an insurmountable
obstacle from their way to establish the 'Great
Israel'???!!!

- The caste system between the rich and the poor, where
the poor is deprived of the money of the rich. That's why
he (the poor) is spiteful of the rich and the rich feels that
the poor wants to take his wealth away so he hates him
and doesn't grant him any of it. With this, animosity
settles between the two and justice is absent from
society. The Protocols state: 'we govern the sects by
taking advantage of the feelings of envy and hatred that
are agitated by distress and poverty. And these feelings
are our means with which we sweep away everyone that
stands in our way' (the third protocol).

The previously mentioned communist document states in

plot number (10): 'deceiving the crowd by claiming that
Christ is a socialist and the leader of socialism. He is
poor and from a poor family and his followers are poor
workers and he called for fighting the wealthy…(and the
same would be said about Mohammad), he is poor and
was followed by poor people, and he fought the

90
monopolizing wealthy, the usurers, and the capitalists
and revolted against them…'.

Justice became absent with all its forms with this caste
system; a matter that led oppression to be dominant
upon Muslim societies. And nothing despises this matter
as much as the absence of justice replaced by
oppression despises it, because this is founded on:
1- The absence of legal rules in terms of activating them
in the societies.
2- The implementation of the order of Allah that is rested
upon supporting the just and defeating the oppressor.

* Ibn Taymiyah translated this to reality when he said:

'and the matters of people are straightened in this life
with justice that contains participation in the various
types of sin more than they're straightened with
oppression of rights even if they don't participate in sin.
That's why it was said: Allah settles the just state
(country) even it was a disbelieving one, and does not
settle the oppressive one even it was Muslim. And it is
said: life lasts with justice and infidelity, and doesn't last
with oppression and Islam. And the prophet, peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him, said: there is no sin that's
punishable quicker than transgression and severance of
kin relations'. A transgressor is killed in this life even if he
was forgiven and being merciful with in the hereafter,
because justice is the regulation for everything. So, if the
matters of life were established with justice they would

91
erect even if its owner has nothing in the hereafter. And
whenever life isn't established with justice it wouldn't
erect even if its owner is full of faith which is rewarded in
the hereafter'. (Majmo'a Al-Fatawa, ch. 28/146).

* Also Ibn Khaldoun pointed to the importance of justice

in a story he narrated by Al-Masoudi of the Persians
about Al-Mobithan, a man of religion among the Persians,
when he advised King Bahram Bin Bahram and said to
him: 'Oh king, kingdom doesn't get its prestige fully
accomplished except with Sharia' (religious laws) and
standing for Allah with obedience and disposing within
His orders and prohibitions. And there is no substructure
for Sahria' except with kingdom, and there is no kingdom
except with men, and there is no establishment for men
except with wealth, and there is no way to wealth except
with building, and there is no way to building except with
justice, and justice is the erected balance in between the
creatures; erected by the Lord and made an
establishment for it which is kingdom' (the introduction of
Ibn Khaldoun 287).

This saying of Al-Mobithan that attracted Ibn Khaldoun

proves that he is wise because he correlated between
the establishment of Sharia' and the king accurately
when he pointed out the king to the role of the entourage
of the king and his subjects (men) in assuming
responsibility, and the role of money in building and that
there is no building without justice and that justice is the

92
balance, meaning: laws and legislations. In other words,
as if he's saying to him: if you want to succeed in
implementing the rules of Allah and replacing oppression
in reality, you have to first reform the people. And this is
the saying of Allah: "Allah does not change what is in
a nation until they change what is within
themselves", and not what the people of Hizb Al-Tahrir
insist on that change can only be established by the ruler.

I said: from what has been forth mentioned, it is clear that

justice is the balance of universe, and it is wanted for
Allah. So, if it becomes absent, victory will be the reward
of whoever is with it (justice), and look at the justice of
the West and where it reached in all of the classes of
society that we've mentioned.

Fourth condition: mastering military principles and

the arts of war and implementing them:

This condition is a universal one that has a principle in

Shar'a, and its proof is:

1- Taking precautions during congregational prayers (fear

prayer) in battle. Allah says in verse 102 of sura Al-
Nisa'a: "When thou (O Apostle) art with them and
standest to lead them in prayer let one party of them
stand up (in prayer) with thee taking their arms with
them…" until He says: "… but take (every) precaution
for yourselves. For the unbelievers Allah hath

93
prepared a humiliating punishment".

Al-Qurtubi says: 'in the verse there is the biggest

evidence upon taking the means and everything that
safeguards those with sane minds and reaches them to
safety and the honorable place'. (Al-Jami'a for the Rules
of Quran 5/372).

2- The defeat of the Muslim army in the battle of Hunain

at the beginning because they didn't take the necessary
precautions- which are principles of war and causes of
victory- and because they were conceited with their big
number; they reached 12000 fighters in that battle- a
number they have never reached before. Allah said about
it: "and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great
numbers elated you but they availed you naught the
land for all that it is wide did constrain you and ye
turned back in retreat", in verse 25 of sura Al-Tawba.

3- The shifting of victory into defeat in the battle of Uhud

because the archers went down from the hill and left the
back of the Muslim army open due to not complying with
military principles and belittling them. The verses 165-
168 from sura Al-Imran pointed out the reason behind
defeat and reproached the Muslims for it. Allah said:
"What! when a single disaster smites you although
ye smote (your enemies) with one twice as great do
ye say? "Whence is this?" Say (to them): "It is from
yourselves: for Allah hath power over all things" until

94
the end of the verses. (Ibn Kathir 1/425-428). And Al-
Qurtubi said about the verse "Say (to them): "It is from
yourselves": 'it means: the disobedience of the archers'.
(4/265).

4- On the day of Mu'ata, the victorious leader Khalid Ibn

Al-Walid was able, by a clever military experience and
using the arts of war, to retreat with the Muslim army and
avoid a vanishing defeat, which was considered to be a
victory in itself.

5- In 1973, the Egyptian army was able, by a clever

military experience and using the arts of war, to surprise
the enemy and destroy the legend of the Israeli army that
couldn't be defeated- according to what the Jews claim-
in spite of the superiority of the enemy in number and
equipment.

6- The defeat of the Muslim army in Afghanistan led by

the Taliban for not considering this condition and the
second one as well.

Testimonies to this condition in reality are in abundance.

I said: if all of these four conditions met, the victory will be

established by the will of Allah, and if any of them is
delayed or postponed, then the victory will be delayed or
postponed as a result, either partially or totally based on
its importance. But, take notice that these means and

95
conditions are needed in all nations to become victorious.
Based on that, some nations might win over others even
with neglecting some conditions not all if the other side is
more neglecting than them.

Real testimonies to this is that the leadership of the

Egyptian army in 1973 and the Jordanian army in1968-
which are two un-socialist leaderships!!- were able to
defeat an army that is much more powerful than them,
even though they were less in creed and material
preparation but the enemy was weak in the fourth
condition when he underestimated his opponent and was
conceited with his military might, which is a fatal mistake
just like what happened to the Muslims in the battle of
Hunain.

The Taliban went by the misdeed of whoever issued the

fatwa for them from within by not pressuring Bin Laden to
leave Afghanistan and left the choice for him to decide. It
didn't implement the conditions of victory legally nor
universally yet to engage in a war that it must have
avoided. And if it did implement- as some claim- the first
condition (faith), it shouldn't have engaged in this war
because it needed to fulfill all other conditions. That's why
it destroyed its regime with its own hands by its
ignorance, and if it listened to the calls of advice of the
scholars and others then whatever happened wouldn't
have happened. It is worth mentioning here that
communism led by the Soviet Union along several

96
decades failed to defeat the United States militarily while
an infant state in all of its affairs did. It is truly wondrous,
and we have to study all means and reasons that made
from among them enemies to their ownselves so that we
can avoid them in the future and not be bitten by it again.
But, this won't be established until we change what is
within ourselves.

Being careful and cautious of the programmed socialist

deceit according to the most modern advanced sciences
of psychology and sociology is considered to be a form of
change.

The question which should be strongly asked is: why do

we always get bitten from the same burrow and commit
the same mistakes? And if we're good in learning lessons
from the mistakes of the previous battles and wars, and
we report that in our preaching lectures and author books
and comments about it, then why can't we benefit from all
of this for our future incidents? Is it ignorance again, or is
there something else that we should research?

Let us remember our real description in this time and

age: 'foam like the foam on top of a flood'. Then, what's
this drift that makes a 'foam' out of us? Isn't it an
ideological drift?

97
The four states of fighting in Islam and the legal rule
for them:

* The stage of weakness (un-establishment of conditions)

1- Fighting is not a must and the Muslims assume defeat.

So, if they fight they would throw themselves into
destruction with their own hands, and if they persevere
and abstain from fighting they would win.

2- If we're forced to fight and the Muslims assume defeat

but fight anyway they would bring destruction to
themselves with their own hands, and if they retreat from
fighting or towards another group for support then they
would win.

* The stage of power (establishment of conditions):

1- Fighting is not a must and the Muslims assume victory,

then if they fight they would be transgressors and if they
lurk to their enemy then they would win.

2- If we're forced to fight and the Muslims assume victory,

then if they fight they would be victorious and if they
retreat and refrain they would be punished.

At the end, let everyone know that we write so that

98
people could be enlightened and so that the flood
wouldn't take the reset of us. We ask Allah more of His
bounties and guidance. And the last of our prayers is
Praise of Allah, the Lord of the universe.

Amman, Jordan
April 30th, 2004

99
 Contents

Introduction.................................................................................... ......................2
First Issue................................................................................ ............................5

100