Chapter 4

Second Topic: Fighting the Rebellious (Ahl al-Baghy) ¶

- Who are the rebellious (Ahl al-Baghy)? - What is the obligatory duty in dealing with the rebellious (bughat)? - Is fighting the rebellious considered jihad in the technical shariah sense? ¶

I will keep it with me, because this book is very useful for my study and research. If you ever need it, please let me know, and I will give it to you. Thank you for your kindness; may Allah grant you the best reward. Wassalam, your sincere friend, Muhammad Abdullah. ¶

Second Topic: Fighting the People of Rebellion (Ahl al-Baghy) ¶

We limit the discussion regarding the rebels (Bughat) to that which concerns our subject of fighting and what is essential for it. Therefore, we will discuss the following points: - Who are the people of rebellion (Ahl al-Baghy)? - What is the obligation regarding them? - Is fighting the rebels considered jihad in the Shariah sense? ¶

* Who are the people of rebellion? The people of rebellion are a group of people who combine three characteristics: 1. Rebelliousness against the authority of the state by refusing to fulfill obligations, disobeying laws, or working to overthrow the head of state. 2. Possession of strength by the rebels that enables them to exercise control. 3. Khuruj (armed uprising) (1). The term 'Khuruj' refers to what is synonymous with it today in expressions such as: armed revolution, civil war, internal conflict, or the use of weapons or violence for the purpose of achieving the political goals for which the revolution was initiated. ¶

(1) Al-Tashri' al-Jina'i fi al-Madhahib al-Khamsa: 1/148-150. Al-Jarima wa al-'Iqab fi al-Fiqh al-Islami: 160. ¶

The term 'khuruj' (rebellion/exiting) here does not necessarily imply that they must initiate the use of weapons against the state; this may be the case, or it may involve resistance with weapons if the state seeks to subjugate them by force. ¶

In this regard, the majority of jurists (fuqaha) stipulate that for the rebels to be considered 'ahl al-baghy' (the transgressors), there must be a shari'ah-based suspicion—that is, a plausible interpretation (ta’wil), even if weak, upon which they rely in inciting the revolution. Some, however, do not impose this condition, considering those who rebel to seize power without any interpretation or suspicion as also being 'bughat' (rebels). ¶

Those who rebel based on an interpretation or suspicion are exemplified by the opponents of Ali ibn Abi Talib during the battles of Jamal and Siffin, who claimed that he knew the killers of Uthman and was capable of punishing them, but refrained from seeking qisas (retribution) due to being in collusion with them. ¶

Those who rebel for worldly gains, such as seizing power, are exemplified by the rebellion of Marwan ibn al-Hakam in Syria against Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, after the oath of allegiance (bay'ah) had already been given to Ibn al-Zubayr in Iraq, Egypt, the Hijaz, and by a large segment of the people of Syria. ¶

Regarding the conditions of suspicion or plausible interpretation, I hold the view that the verse which is the foundation in this chapter does not mention this condition; rather, it is absolute. The verse states: 'And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses (baghat) the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah...' The words 'baghat' and 'tabghi' are absolute and not restricted by the condition of a plausible interpretation, as we observe in the verse. Indeed, the faction that revolts solely for worldly gains, with no interpretation justifying their rebellion, is sinful. As for those who revolted based on a suspicion or interpretation which led them to believe that the revolution was an obligation, they are mujtahidin (those exercising independent legal reasoning). ¶

They are mistaken, yet excused; indeed, Ibn Hazm says that they are entitled to a single reward for their intention of goodness (1). Even if both rebellious groups consist of some who have an interpretation (ta'wil) and others who have none, it is obligatory to direct combat against both of them so that they may return to obedience. ¶

* What is the obligation in dealing with the rebels (al-bughat)? Imam al-Shafi'i says in 'al-Umm'—on the occasion of Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) combat against those who withheld Zakat due to miserliness, or due to the doubt that it should only be paid to the one whose prayer is a source of tranquility for them, namely the Messenger (PBUH), and since he passed away, they were not obligated to pay it to Abu Bakr: Regarding these rebels, al-Shafi'i states: 'Whoever withholds what Allah the Almighty has obligated upon him, and the Imam is unable to collect it from him due to his resistance, the Imam shall fight him, even if it leads to his (the rebel's) death... If he resists this, or any part of it, with a group, and when told to pay it, he says: "I will not pay, and I will not initiate combat unless you fight me"—then he is to be fought for it, because he is being fought for withholding a right that was binding upon him (2).' ¶

Al-Nawawi says in 'al-Minhaj': 'The Imam shall not fight them until he sends to them a trustworthy, intelligent, and sincere person to ask them what their grievances are. If they mention an injustice or a doubt, he shall remove it. If they persist—meaning: after the doubt is removed, or if they mention no doubt but have emerged for worldly reasons, such as seizing power, for example—he shall advise them, and then inform them of the intent to fight (3).' ¶

Al-Kasani says in 'Bada'i' al-Sana'i' regarding the rebels: 'It is mandatory for everyone whom the Imam calls to fight them to respond to that call, and it is not permissible for him to refrain if he has the capacity and ability, because obedience to the Imam in matters that are not sinful is a religious duty (fard), so how could it not be so in a matter that is in itself an act of obedience (4)?' ¶

It is stated in Tafsir al-Qurtubi: 'In this verse—namely: "And if two factions among the believers fight..."—there is evidence for the obligation to fight the rebellious group (fi'ah baghiyah) whose rebellion against the Imam or against someone else is established.' ¶

regarding the Muslims, and the unsoundness of the opinion of those who forbade fighting against the believers... then he says: It is a communal obligation (fard al-kifayah); if some perform it, the obligation is lifted from the rest. For this reason, some of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, abstained from these confrontations, such as Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdullah ibn Umar, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, and others. Ali ibn Abi Talib affirmed this for them, and each of them offered an excuse which he accepted (1). ¶

Thus, we see from these jurisprudential narrations that the obligatory ruling regarding the rebels (ahl al-baghy) is to fight them with the intention of deterring them and returning them to obedience, not with the intention of killing or exterminating them. Their fighting is a disciplinary combat, not a war of annihilation (2). ¶

Indeed, some Hanbalis have explicitly stated that fighting the rebels is superior to jihad, based on the argument that Ali, may Allah honor his countenance, was occupied throughout his caliphate with fighting them rather than jihad. Al-Alusi says in his Tafsir after citing this opinion of the Hanbalis: "The truth is that this is not absolute; rather, it applies if the abandonment of fighting them is feared to cause a great corruption, the repulsion of which is more important than the benefit of jihad (3)." I say: This is a remark that aligns with the well-known Shariah maxim: "Repelling harm takes precedence over securing benefits (4)." Except if the jihad is to repel an enemy invading Muslim lands; in this case, jihad is prioritized over fighting the rebels if the state cannot perform both duties simultaneously, because the corruption of an enemy occupation of Muslim lands is more severe than the corruption of the rebels. Thus, we choose – out of necessity – the lesser of the two evils, acting upon the Shariah maxim: "The lesser of two evils is chosen," and the other Shariah maxim: "If two corruptions conflict, the greater of them is considered in terms of harm by committing the lighter one (5)." ¶

* Is fighting the rebels considered jihad in the path of Allah in the Shariah sense? Answer: No, fighting the rebels is not jihad in its Shariah sense. ¶

Firstly: Because Jihad is the combat against disbelievers to elevate the Word of Allah, whereas fighting the rebels (bughat) is fighting Muslims who have deviated from obedience, for the purpose of disciplining them and returning them to the fold of obedience. ¶

Secondly: Because one of the signs of 'Jihad' is that the Muslim combatants killed in it are considered martyrs (shuhada) in both this world and the hereafter; they are not washed (ghusl), nor are they shrouded with anything beyond their own garments, provided those garments are sufficient, and they are buried in that state. Whereas others who die or are killed outside of Jihad remain under the original ruling regarding washing, shrouding, and funeral prayer, even if they are 'martyrs of the hereafter' (shuhada al-akhira), such as one who drowns or dies under the rubble—subject to a detail that will follow in the discussion on 'The Martyr and Types of Martyrdom'. The one killed from the side of the just group while fighting the rebels falls into this category, because one of the aspects mentioned regarding 'martyrs of the hereafter' applies to him, based on the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: 'Whoever is killed defending his property is a martyr, whoever is killed defending his blood (life) is a martyr, whoever is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and whoever is killed defending his family is a martyr,' and, 'Whoever is killed defending his rights is a martyr.' Ibn Hazm states: 'It is established that whoever is killed by rebels has been killed for one of these reasons, thus he is apparently a martyr,' meaning he is a martyr only in the hereafter. Therefore, he is not treated like a martyr of this world and the hereafter in terms of omitting his ghusl or shrouding him in more than his clothes, provided those clothes cover his entire body. ¶

Based on this, as long as those killed in conflicts other than the war against disbelievers to elevate the Word of Allah are not considered martyrs of both this world and the hereafter, it implies that the war in which they were killed is not Jihad in the path of Allah, even if they attain the reward of the mujahideen martyrs. ¶

This is the view we favor on this subject, although there are jurisprudential opinions stating that they are martyrs like those killed in battle against the disbelievers, and thus they should not be washed nor should funeral prayers be performed over them. Indeed, the author of... ¶

In 'Subul al-Salam', it is stated that jihad in the Shariah means: 'exerting one's utmost effort in fighting the disbelievers or the transgressors (al-bughat)'. From this perspective, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah honor his face) viewed his combat against the transgressors as part of jihad in the path of Allah. This is clearly evidenced in several of his sermons in 'Nahj al-Balagha': - Among them is his saying in a famous sermon: 'Amma ba'd, verily jihad is one of the gates of Paradise which Allah has opened for His special friends... whoever abandons it out of disdain, Allah clothes him in the garment of humiliation and the covering of affliction... and truth is taken away from him due to the neglect of jihad. Beware, I have called you to fight these people by night and by day, secretly and openly, and I told you: Attack them before they attack you...' By 'these people', he meant the faction of Mu'awiyah, the transgressors; thus, the discourse on jihad here is clearly a discourse regarding the transgressors (al-bughat). - Among them is his saying in another sermon while mobilizing the people against the transgressors of al-Sham, when his companions showed reluctance: 'Woe to you, I am weary of rebuking you. Have you accepted the life of this world in exchange for the Hereafter?... Whenever I call you to fight your enemy, your eyes roll as if you are in the throes of death...' - Among them is his saying in a third sermon: '...I called you to jihad but you did not respond, I made you hear but you did not listen... I recite wisdom to you and you recoil from it... I urge you to jihad against the people of transgression, and before I reach the end of my words, I see you scattered like the tribe of Saba...' And similar sentiments are found in other places. I (the author) say: If Imam Ali (may Allah honor his face) held the view that fighting the transgressors is jihad in the path of Allah, then... ¶

Another Companion, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him), held the view that jihad is restricted to fighting the disbelievers and that combat between Muslims does not constitute jihad. We understand this from the narration recorded by al-Tabarani: 'Ibn Sirin said: When it was said to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, "Will you not fight? You are among the people of the Shura (consultation), and you are more entitled to this matter (leadership) than others," he replied, "I will not fight until you bring me a sword that has two eyes and two lips, which can distinguish between a believer and a disbeliever, for I have performed jihad and I know what jihad is!"' It is stated in Majma' al-Zawa'id that its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim). ¶

His statement, "which can distinguish between a believer and a disbeliever," and his assertion, "I know what jihad is," are explicit in that jihad, according to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, is confined to fighting the disbelievers—a point which has already been established and preferred. ¶

Umdat al-Rusul (By: Maulana Muhammad Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi), Published by: Maktaba Faiz al-Qur'an, Lahore. ¶

Third Topic: Fighting the Muharibun (Highway Robbers, or Hirabah/Brigandage) ¶

- Who are the Muharibun? - What is the obligatory duty in dealing with the Muharibun? - Is fighting the Muharibun considered 'Jihad' in its Shari'ah-defined sense? ¶

This is the commentary on 'Mabadi al-Usul' (Principles of Fundamentals). The author of 'Mabadi al-Usul' stated: 'Al-Usul is the plural of asl, and the asl is that upon which something else is built.' In light of this, the definition of the science of Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) is: 'Those rules and regulations through which a mujtahid (jurist) knows the method of deriving Shariah rulings from their detailed proofs.' This definition clarifies the purpose and objective of the science of Usul al-Fiqh. ¶

Third Section: Fighting the Muharibun (Highwaymen) ¶

We limit our discussion of this topic to the following aspects—briefly: - Who are the Muharibun (highwaymen)? - What is the obligation regarding them? - Is fighting them considered 'Jihad in the path of Allah' in its Shariah-defined sense? ¶

* Who are the Muharibun? They are a terrorist group, whether composed of Muslims, apostates, or Dhimmi, who emerge relying on the power and weaponry they possess, with the intent of robbery, plunder, killing, or terrorism and spreading fear among the people. They are—usually—outside of cities, in villages, mountains, plains, deserts, and the like. This also includes trains, airplanes, and vehicles outside of cities, or any place where no immediate rescue or aid can arrive. ¶

Likewise, if they seize a house within a city and prevent its occupants from seeking help, or if they take control of a town where the authorities have become too weak to provide rescue or protection, then all of them fall under the designation of 'Muharibun or highwaymen,' regardless of whether their numbers are many or few. ¶

What is the obligation regarding the Muharibun (those who wage war/brigands)? The obligation regarding these Muharibun is to invite them to lay down their arms and surrender through exhortation and admonition. If they desist, well and good; otherwise, they are to be fought. It is the duty of the state to dispatch a force to fight them and to cut off their harm from the Muslims. Once apprehended, or if they surrender either before or after combat, they are subject to specific legal rulings which are sought in the books of Fiqh, and it is not the purpose of this research to elaborate upon them. ¶

Is fighting the Muharibun considered Jihad in the path of Allah? It is stated in 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya' (in the Maliki school of thought): 'Fighting them—meaning the Muharibun—is Jihad. Whoever is killed from the Muharibun, his blood is wasted, and whoever they have killed is a martyr.' In Ibn Taymiyyah’s 'Al-Fatawa al-Kubra', it is stated: 'Abu al-Abbas—meaning Ibn Taymiyyah—said regarding soldiers who fought Arabs that had plundered the wealth of merchants in order to restore it to them, that they are Mujahideen in the path of Allah.' What appears to me is that if the Muharibun are apostates, in this case, the definition of Jihad as 'fighting the disbelievers to elevate the word of Allah' applies to fighting them, thus their combat is considered Jihad in the path of Allah. However, if they are Muslims, the definition of Jihad does not apply to fighting them. As for if the Muharibun are 'Ahl al-Dhimmah' (protected non-Muslim subjects) among the state's citizenry, if it was stipulated upon them at the time of the covenant that their engagement in such terrorist acts would be considered a breach of the covenant, then fighting them in this case is fighting disbelievers who have no covenant or protection; thus, it is Jihad in the path of Allah. But if no such condition was stipulated upon them, then fighting them is merely fighting a group that has a covenant, for the purpose of subduing them to apply the 'Hadd' (prescribed punishment) of 'Hirabah' (brigandage) upon them, similar to the combat against 'Muharibun' from among the Muslims. ¶

Reaching the point of implementing the Shariah-prescribed punishments (hudud) upon them... In this situation, fighting them is not considered to be in the category of jihad for the sake of Allah, as they possess the status of dhimmah (covenant of protection). The jurists have explicitly stated that regarding the subject of 'hirabah' (banditry/highway robbery), Dhimmis are treated the same as Muslims in terms of legal rulings. In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it is stated: 'The Muslim and the Dhimmi are equal in that regard.' ¶

As for the Musta'minun—those who have entered the lands of the Muslims with temporary residency—if they commit such aggressive terrorist acts, their guarantee of safety (aman) is revoked, because the safety of the Musta'minun is weaker than that of the 'Ahl al-Dhimmah'. Such terrorist acts result in the nullification of the treaty of safety, as mentioned in the book Al-Muhadhdhab in Shafi'i Fiqh. Therefore, fighting them in this situation is categorized as jihad for the sake of Allah. ¶

105 ¶

from whom the narration was taken. 5. Its isnad (chain of transmission) to the one from whom the narration was taken. 6. Modes of transmission (e.g., his saying: he informed us, he narrated to us, from, he said...). 7. Matn (text) of the Hadith, which is: the wording of the Hadith at which the isnad terminates. ¶

Second: The Pillars of Isnad: Isnad has two fundamental pillars: 1. The Narrators (al-ruwat): These are the individuals who transmitted the Hadith from the primary source to the compiler (al-mukharij). 2. The Connection (al-silah): This is the link between each narrator and the one following him, which is usually established through continuous contact (listening/sama', authorization/ijazah, or correspondence/mukatabah...). ¶

Third: The Importance of Isnad: Isnad is a distinct characteristic of this Ummah and one of the great gateways for the preservation of the Shariah. Through it, the authentic (sahih) Hadith is distinguished from the defective (saqim) one, and through it, criticisms against Islam are repelled. No one can attribute to the Prophet (PBUH) anything he did not say without their lie being exposed; this is due to the precise 'scale of isnad' established for the scrutiny of reports. ¶

Fourth: Conditions for the Acceptance of a Hadith (via Isnad): For a Hadith to be accepted, the following conditions must be met in the isnad: 1. Continuity of the chain (ittisal al-sanad): That each narrator meets the one above him, hears from him, or receives authorization from him. 2. Integrity of the narrators ('adalat al-ruwat): That every narrator be a Muslim, adult, sane, and free from causes of immorality and vices that impair one's dignity. 3. Precision of the narrators (dabt al-ruwat): That every narrator possesses perfect memory (if narrating from memory) or perfect accuracy of the text (if narrating from his book). 4. Freedom from irregularity (al-shudhudh): That the narrator does not contradict someone more reliable than himself. 5. Freedom from latent defects ('illah): That the Hadith does not contain a hidden defect (an obscure cause) that undermines its authenticity. ¶

Fourth Section: Fighting in defense of private sanctities: life, honor, and property. «Fighting against the aggressor (Sayyal)». - Introduction: Definition of 'Sayl' (aggression) and the general Shariah evidence for fighting in defense of private sanctities. - What are private sanctities? - Defense through fighting for private sanctities: First: Fighting in defense of life. Second: Fighting in defense of honor. Third: Fighting in defense of property. - Is fighting against the 'Sayyal' (aggressor) for the defense of private sanctities considered Jihad in the Shariah sense? ¶

Chapter: Explanation of the Rulings of Sajdat al-Tilawah (Prostration of Recitation) Sajdat al-Tilawah is mandatory. It becomes obligatory upon reciting or hearing a verse of prostration (whether intentionally or unintentionally), as well as during prayer (regardless of whether the intention for the prostration of recitation was present or not). Method: The method for Sajdat al-Tilawah is to say 'Allahu Akbar' and go into prostration, then recite 'Subhana Rabbiyal A'la' three times, then say 'Allahu Akbar' and rise. Issue: There is no Takbir Tahrima (initial opening takbir) or Taslim (salutation) for Sajdat al-Tilawah. Issue: A person who is in prayer and hears a verse of prostration behind an Imam must perform the prostration with the Imam. If the Imam does not perform it, the follower (muqtadi) should not perform it either. However, if one is praying alone, they must perform the prostration. Issue: If a verse of prostration is recited repeatedly in a single gathering, one prostration is sufficient. If the gathering changes, then a prostration is required each time. Issue: Purity (taharah), facing the Qibla (istiqbal al-qibla), covering the awrah (satar al-awrah), and the intention (niyyah) are necessary conditions for Sajdat al-Tilawah. ¶

Section Four Combat in Defense of Private Sanctities: Life, Honor, and Property. ¶

Introduction to the definition of 'Siyal' (Assault), and the general Shar'i evidence for combat in defense of private sanctities. ¶

Jurists discuss this type of combat under the topic of 'Siyal'. Linguistically, 'Siyal' means to assault or pounce upon someone. In Shariah, it refers to assaulting a 'Ma'sum' (an individual whose life, property, or honor is protected) without right. The term 'Ma'sum' refers to life, honor, or property, regardless of whether these protected sanctities belong to a Muslim who has attained this immunity through his affiliation with Islam, or to a Dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen) or Musta'min (a person granted safety) who has attained this immunity through a treaty of Dhimma or security. Thus, fighting in defense of these private sanctities is a legitimate act, whether performed by the victim or by a third party who repels the aggressor from those sanctities or assists the victim in defending them. Jurists have stated that it is incumbent upon a Muslim to defend an oppressed Dhimmi, whether the aggressor is a Muslim or a Dhimmi. ¶

The Shar'i basis for the legitimacy of defensive combat for these mentioned sanctities is the saying of the Almighty: "...whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you..." (Surah Al-Baqarah: 194), and the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever is killed while defending his property is a martyr," and "Whoever is killed while defending his property is a martyr, and whoever is killed while defending..." ¶

Whoever is killed defending his blood is a martyr, whoever is killed defending his religion is a martyr, whoever is killed defending his family is a martyr, and whoever is killed defending his rights (oppression) is a martyr. The point of deduction in these Hadiths is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ declared the one killed in defense of his sanctities a martyr, which proves that he has the right to kill and wage war in defense. ¶

Regarding the defense of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim citizens), it is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari that among the last words of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) upon his death were: 'I enjoin the caliph after me regarding the covenant of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, that he should fulfill their covenant and fight on their behalf.' 'Fighting' here means defending them, which includes defense against both external and internal aggression. Ibn Umar reported that the last words of the Prophet ﷺ were: 'Observe my rights regarding my protected people (Ahl al-Dhimma).' Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah honor his face) said: 'We gave them what we gave them so that their blood would be like our blood.' ¶

Jurists state: Among the acts of 'Siyal' (unjust aggression)—which establishes the legitimacy of defensive combat—is entering another person's home without their permission and without the assumption of their consent. ¶

Al-Shafi'i says in 'Al-Umm': 'If a man enters the house of another during the night or day while armed, and he is ordered to leave but refuses, then the owner of the house has the right to strike him, even if it leads to his death'—meaning the death of the aggressor. ¶

'Likewise, if he enters his tent in the desert... and he perceives that he (the intruder) intends to harm him, his property, or commit indecency... Al-Shafi'i said: It makes no difference whether the intruder is known for theft or indecency or is not known for such.' However, the jurists mentioned that the person being attacked should defend his sanctities using the lightest measures first. ¶