Chapter 8

Seventh Topic: Combat of Fitnah (Civil Strife/Discord) - The meaning of 'combat of Fitnah'. - What are the jurisprudential opinions regarding the ruling on 'combat of Fitnah'? And which of them do we consider most sound (rajih)? - Is the combat of Fitnah considered part of Jihad in the path of Allah? ¶

Chapter One: On the Reality of Dua (Supplication) and its Etiquettes. Know that supplication is the marrow of worship, as stated in the hadith: "Supplication is the marrow of worship." In the noble book 'Al-Kafi', it is narrated from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) that he said: "Supplication is worship itself." It is also narrated in the same book from him that he said: "You must supplicate, for it is a cure for every ailment." The reality of supplication is the turning of the heart towards the Truth (Al-Haqq, the Almighty), expressing one's poverty, need, humility, and lamentation at His threshold, and requesting that which is beneficial for the servant's worldly and eternal affairs. There are etiquettes for supplication whose observance leads to acceptance, among them: First: Purity (tahara); it is better to perform ablution and pray two rak'ahs before supplicating. Second: Presence of heart; for supplication without the presence of the heart is like a body without a soul. Third: Humility and lamentation; as Allah says: "Call upon your Lord in humility and secretly." Fourth: Washing the hands and raising them while supplicating. Fifth: Beginning the supplication with the name of Allah and sending blessings (salawat) upon the Prophet and his family. Sixth: Persistence in supplication and not despairing of acceptance; for Allah the Almighty loves that His servants persist at His door in seeking their needs. Seventh: Seeking forgiveness (istighfar) before supplication, as sin is an obstacle to the acceptance of prayer. Eighth: Praying for the good of others, which is a cause for the acceptance of the supplication for the supplicant himself. Ninth: Certainty of acceptance; the servant should be such that he feels as if he is witnessing the acceptance of his prayer. ¶

Seventh Topic: The Combat of Fitna (Tribulation/Civil Strife) ¶

The issues we will address regarding the subject of combat in Fitna are: - What is the meaning of the combat of Fitna? - What are the jurisprudential opinions (Fiqhi views) regarding the ruling on the combat of Fitna, and which of them do we consider most accurate (Rajih)? - Is the combat of Fitna considered part of Jihad in the way of Allah? ¶

* The meaning of the combat of Fitna: ¶

In the Arabic language, 'Fitna' comes with the meaning of testing and examination, it also comes with the meaning of burning, and with the meaning of deviation from the truth, along with related meanings, as stated in 'Mukhtar al-Sihah' and elsewhere. We will not prolong the discussion on the linguistic meaning, because what concerns us is the technical or Shariah-based meaning of the word 'Fitna' when coupled with 'combat' (Qital). Therefore, we will cite some Shariah texts that will help us clarify the intended meaning of the expression 'Combat of Fitna' or 'Combat in Fitna'. ¶

1- In the noble Hadith narrated by Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace be upon him), he said: "There will be Fitnas (tribulations) in which the one who is sitting is better than the one who is standing, the one who is standing is better than the one who is walking, the one who is walking is better than the one who is riding, and the one who is riding is better than the one who is galloping. Those who are killed in them will all be in the Fire." I asked, "O Messenger of Allah, when will that be?" He said, "That will be during the days of al-Harj (great killing/chaos)." I asked, "When are the days of al-Harj?" He said, "When a man does not feel secure with his companion." I asked, "What do you command me if I reach that time?" He said, "Restrain your hand and your tongue, and enter your house..." (The Hadith). ¶

Fitna (strife/trial) here refers to sinful fighting among people across their various factions, where 'all of its slain are in the Fire,' and the best among them is the one who sleeps through it, remaining uninvolved. Furthermore, anyone who connects themselves to it in any way bears a portion of sin, small or large, depending on their effort in gathering fuel for it and blowing upon its flames! This fitna occurs during days when fear threatens people with death swooping down upon them at any moment and from any place. Here, it is incumbent upon a person, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says, to restrain their hand and tongue, and to stay within their home. ¶

2. Among what is narrated in the description of 'fitna' from the Prophet (PBUH) is his saying: 'There will be harsh and severe fitnas, the best of people therein are the Bedouin Muslims who do not stain themselves with the blood of the people, nor with their wealth.' Thus, fitna here means shedding blood and looting property, and the best of people are those who stay far away from it. ¶

3. Among what is narrated in the description of fitna is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): 'After me, there will be four fitnas: the first, in which blood is made lawful; the second, in which blood is made lawful; and the third, in which blood, wealth, and chastity are made lawful.' Thus, fitna here means the shedding of blood, looting of wealth, and the violation of honor. ¶

4. Among what is narrated regarding the transformation and alienation that befalls people during fitna is the saying of the Prophet (PBUH): 'Indeed, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has not made anything lawful in a fitna that He had declared forbidden before it. What is the matter with one of you that he comes to his brother, greets him with peace, and then later comes and kills him!' Thus, fitna here refers to a shift in positions and a development in relationships where fighting replaces peace; the friend of yesterday becomes the enemy of today, their sanctity is violated, and their blood is made permissible! ¶

5. Ibn Umar described the state of people during 'fitna' (strife/trial) by saying: 'During fitna, you will not consider killing a significant matter.' Fitna here shapes people in such a way that they become accustomed to killing, undertaking it without hesitation, as if it were not something to be condemned. ¶

6. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) explained the causes of these tribulations: 'Before the Hour, there will be tribulations like pieces of a dark night; tribulations in which a man's heart will die just as his body dies; he will wake up a believer and go to sleep a disbeliever, and go to sleep a believer and wake up a disbeliever. People will sell their share (khalaq) in the hereafter for a trivial worldly gain.' Fitna here makes many people lose sight of their honorable past in the service of religion and paths of goodness; they do not hesitate to sacrifice it on the altar of worldly interests when intellects are misled and greed and desires toy with the mind. For the great masters (leaders), these worldly interests are power and influence! For the lesser followers, they are the price paid in return for what they offer to empower their masters—through terrorism, killing, and destruction. ¶

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) reveals the cause of the fighting among the masters, saying: 'After me, there will be people who seize power and kill one another for it.' Al-Hasan al-Basri portrays the cause of the fighting among the followers while explaining the saying of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), '...people will sell their share in the hereafter for a trivial worldly gain,' by saying: ¶

We have seen them as mere forms without intellect, bodies without wisdom; they are like moths drawn to fire and wolves of greed! They set out for two dirhams and return for two dirhams, one of them selling his religion for the price of a goat! (1). From these texts, the meaning of the 'combat of fitna' (sedition/civil strife) becomes clear to us, which is: 'The non-Shariah-compliant combat between two or more factions of Muslims.' This non-Shariah-compliant combat, termed the combat of fitna, applies to the cases of combat mentioned by the scholars. Al-Shawkani narrated from Imam al-Nawawi two such cases: 1. The case where it is not clear who is on the side of truth and who is on the side of falsehood in the fighting. In this instance, 'combat of fitna' applies to those who participate in this armed conflict out of ignorance, whim, sectarianism, or any other motive, without knowing who is right and who is wrong. As for the original conflicting parties, they are judged based on whether they are a just group or a rebellious one, depending on the motive that led them to take up arms. Sometimes the conflicting parties may even be ignorant of the causes that drove them to fight. Thus, their fighting in this situation is a combat of fitna, and they are obligated to refrain from it. It is stated in the hadith narrated by Muslim: 'The world will not end until a time comes upon the people when the killer does not know why he killed, and the killed does not know why he was killed. It was said: How will that be? He said: Al-Harj (chaos/slaughter). Both the killer and the killed are in the Fire' (3). 2. The case where both conflicting parties are unjust and neither has any valid interpretation (ta'wil) for their actions (4). 3. In 'Bada'i' al-Sana'i', there is a third case, which al-Kasani expresses by saying: 'And what was narrated from Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, is that when fitna occurs among Muslims, one should...' ¶

For a man to seclude himself from fitnah (civil strife) and remain in his house is applicable only to a specific time, which is when there is no Imam (leader) to summon him to combat. However, if such a leader exists and summons him, it becomes obligatory upon him to respond. (1) ¶

4 - Al-Shawkani mentioned from some scholars a fourth category, which is: combat for the sake of attaining kingship (2), meaning: the illegitimate struggle for power. ¶

These are the situations to which the term 'combat of fitnah' applies, which we summarized as: 'The illegitimate combat between two or more groups of Muslims.' ¶

* Juristic opinions on the ruling of the combat of fitnah, and the opinion we favor: ¶

Regarding this point, we will first mention the role of the people of reform (ahl al-islah) who possess influence and authority, and secondly, we will mention the ruling on combat during fitnah according to the varying conditions of people. ¶

First: The role of the people of reform. ¶

Allah the Almighty has urged the believers, if combat breaks out between two groups among them, to strive for reconciliation between them and to extinguish the fire that has ignited between the two parties, as per the Almighty’s saying: 'And if two factions among the believers fight, then make settlement between them' (3). Al-Tabarani narrated from Humayd ibn Hilal, who said: 'When the fitnah broke out, Imran ibn Husayn said to Hujayr ibn al-Rabi’ al-Adawi: Go to your people and forbid them from the fitnah. He replied: I am a weak man among them, and they will not obey me! He said: Then convey my message to them and forbid them from it...' (4) ¶

Then, if reconciliation is achieved, then it is good. Otherwise, if one of the two factions is in the right and the other is the transgressor (al-baghiyah), it becomes mandatory to support the righteous faction against the other and to fight in its ranks, as per the Almighty’s saying: 'But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah' (5). ¶

And if both factions are rebellious, and the State is capable of fighting both and suppressing them entirely, it is obligatory to do so in order to end this internal fighting. It is not permissible to assist one against the other, because both are in the wrong. ¶

The author of 'al-Muhadhdhab' stated: 'If he is unable to suppress both, and fears that they might unite to fight him, he should join the side closer to the truth. If they are equal in this regard, he should use his ijtihad (independent reasoning) to decide which one to join, not with the intention of assisting them against the other, but with the intention of seeking their aid against the other. If the other is defeated, he should not fight the one he joined until he has invited them to obedience, as he has attained security through seeking their aid' (1). ¶

This applies if there is an Islamic State, and the fighting is between two factions, with the State not being one of them. ¶

However, if the State is a party to the conflict and its leadership is legitimate (shar'iyyah), it is obligatory to support the ruler. ¶

It is stated in 'Ahkam al-Qur'an': 'From Malik: If someone rebels against a just Imam, such as Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, it is obligatory to defend him. But as for others, leave them; Allah takes revenge on a tyrant through another tyrant, and then takes revenge on both of them' (2). ¶

By 'other than Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz', Imam Malik refers to those who have usurped authority, according to his saying: 'As for these—meaning those who usurp authority—there is no bay'ah (oath of allegiance) for them if the bay'ah was obtained through fear' (3). The discussion regarding usurpers of authority will follow in its proper place. ¶

As for the case where there is no Islamic State—meaning there is no authority in the land that meets the Islamic criteria—then internal fighting in this situation is the third category of 'fitna combat' (strife) as previously explained. This is what the author of 'Bada'i al-Sana'i' mentioned: 'It is narrated from Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) that when fitna occurs among Muslims, a man should isolate himself from the fitna and stay in his house; this is applicable to the time of...' ¶

Special, and it is that there is no Imam to call them to combat; however, if there is one and he calls them, then answering him becomes obligatory (1). This is also the position held by Al-Awza'i, that if the fighting is between two parties that have no Imam, then fighting at that time is forbidden (2). The significance of the presence or absence of an Imam here is manifested in the fact that in fighting between two parties, it is the Imam who determines which of them is the rebellious party (al-baghiyah) that must be deterred, and which party is in the right and must be supported and fought alongside. If there is no Imam to decide this, a group of Muslims will become biased towards each of the two parties, and the fighting will continue between the two factions. For this reason, such fighting is considered 'fighting of fitna' (strife), as there is no judgment from an Imam, who possesses the authority, to determine which faction must be fought. In such fighting, it is not permissible for a person to participate except in self-defense, if they are intended with harm, as will be detailed later. ¶

Secondly: What is the ruling on fighting during fitna, in all its circumstances, given the different conditions of the people? This issue focuses on two points: The first point: The ruling on a Muslim participating in the fighting occurring between conflicting parties. The second point: The ruling on a Muslim defending what they are entitled to defend if they are intended with harm by the conflicting parties. We have focused the discussion on these two points so that the jurisprudential opinions on each point can be clearly distinguished. This is because our jurisprudential references often confuse the fighting of rebels (al-bughat), the fighting of those gone astray (al-dhal), and the fighting of fitna (3). They also sometimes confuse the state of participation in fighting with the state of defending what a Muslim is entitled to defend, such as life, property, or honor. Therefore, it was necessary to distinguish between these matters. ¶

As for the first point: which is the ruling on a Muslim participating in the fighting taking place between conflicting parties during fitna—what is extracted from the various jurisprudential opinions collected by the Imam... ¶

From Al-San'ani and Imam Al-Shawkani, and scattered across various sources, the consensus is that it is obligatory to abandon fighting during a period of fitna (civil strife), provided we exclude from this the topic of 'qital al-siyal'—that is, self-defense and the like—and the topic of fighting the 'bughat' (rebels). It is natural for opinions to agree on this point due to the sanctity of Muslim blood established by Shariah texts, such as the words of the Almighty: 'And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right' (Surah Al-Isra: 33), and the Prophet's (peace be upon him) statement: 'Every Muslim's blood, property, and honor are forbidden to another Muslim' (Sahih Muslim: 2564). The circumstances of fitna do not constitute a justification for removing the sanctity (protection) of a Muslim's blood. The Prophet (peace be upon him) says: 'Allah the Almighty did not make anything permissible during a fitna that He had forbidden before it.' In fact, there are specific Shariah texts regarding the context of fitna that emphasize, with various forms of reinforcement, that a Muslim must refrain from fighting therein. ¶

- Among these: The command to stay away from the battlefield and to disappear from sight as much as possible, such as a person staying in his home and remaining obscure, neither having his voice heard nor his opinion mentioned; for what fuels the fires of fitna and prolongs its life most is the desire of those with big names to have a heard voice in the ongoing fight. Therefore, it has come in some hadiths, regarding avoiding fitna: 'Enter your homes and remain obscure...' ¶

- Among the methods of emphasizing the abandonment of fighting during fitna is the command to turn to private occupations. It has been narrated in some accounts from the Prophet (peace be upon him): '...And when it (the fitna) descends, whoever has camels should join his camels, whoever has sheep should join his sheep, and whoever has land should join his land...' ¶

- Among these is what is mentioned in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal from a Companion from the Khath'am tribe, who said: 'I heard...' ¶

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'There will be five tribulations in this Ummah.' Then this Companion narrates to a man from the people of Ash-Sham, saying: 'Four have already passed, and one remains, which is the Saylam (1), and it is among you, O people of Ash-Sham. So, if you can be a stone, then be one; do not join either of the two parties. Beware! Take refuge in a tunnel in the earth!' It was said to him: 'Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)?' He said: 'Yes!' (2). ¶

- Among the methods of emphasizing the necessity of abstaining from fighting during a Fitnah (tribulation) is the Prophet's (ﷺ) notification that both the killer and the killed are in the Fire. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, as recorded by Al-Bazzar: 'When you fight for the sake of the world, then the killer and the killed are in the Fire' (3). The struggle for the world is a conflict between two transgressive and unjust factions, and it is one of the states of Fitnah-fighting, as mentioned previously. ¶

- Another method used by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to emphasize refraining from fighting during Fitnah is the command to destroy weapons, as an exaggeration in urging the avoidance of combat, so that the presence of the weapon does not become an incentive to use it in this sinful fighting! 'Muhammad bin Maslamah reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: If you see the people fighting over the world, take your sword to the largest rock in Al-Harrah, strike it against it until it breaks, then sit in your house until an unjust hand or an inevitable death comes to you...' (4). ¶

In some narrations regarding fighting in Fitnah, it is stated: 'Break your bows therein' (5). It is said: The intent is the literal breaking, so as to close the door of this fighting upon oneself. It is said: It is metaphorical, and the intent is to abandon fighting. An-Nawawi said: The first is more correct (6). I say: Imam An-Nawawi’s validation of breaking the bows and destroying the weapons based on the literal meaning rather than the metaphorical depends on the linguistic and Shariah principle: 'The fundamental principle in speech is the literal meaning' (7) when there is no (evidence to the contrary). ¶

The shift from the literal meaning to the metaphorical meaning. However, it seems to me that there are indicators that divert such an expression from its literal meaning to its metaphorical one. Among them is that destroying weapons is destroying wealth, and there is a prohibition against the squandering of wealth. ¶

Furthermore, it is necessary to preserve weapons to use them for Jihad in the cause of Allah, to defend Muslims and Muslim lands if the enemy invades, and to use them in legitimate internal combat, such as fighting those who wage war (muharibun), fighting rebels (baghi), and restraining the foolish. Al-Tabari says: 'If it were mandatory to flee from every disagreement that occurs between Muslims by staying at home and breaking swords, then no right would ever be established, no falsehood would ever be nullified, and the people of immorality would find a way to commit prohibited acts, such as seizing property, shedding blood, and enslaving women, because they would fight them while the Muslims held back their hands saying: This is a fitna (strife), and we have been forbidden from fighting in fitna. This contradicts the command to restrain the hands of the foolish.' ¶

Thus, the obligation to use weapons in cases of their legitimate use is the indicator that shifts the statement from its literal meaning to the metaphorical one. ¶

Regarding the quote we cited from al-Tabari, it should not be understood that al-Tabari permits fighting during a fitna; rather, it is understood that there are types of combat between Muslims that are necessary. Therefore, one must preserve weapons and not destroy them, in order to use them in this legitimate combat. This understanding of ours is supported by what is stated in Subul al-Salam: 'Al-Tabari said that changing the evil (munkar) is obligatory for those who are capable of it. Whoever aids the one who is in the right has acted correctly, and whoever aids the one who is in the wrong has erred. If the matter is ambiguous, that is the situation in which fighting has been forbidden.' We have previously noted that this state of ambiguity is one of the types of combat during a fitna. ¶

Further confirming that the intended meaning of the command to destroy weapons is metaphorical is that the Prophet (peace be upon him), in another metaphorical style, advised during times of fitna to replace standard metal swords with wooden ones. It has been reported in some narrations that the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded Hakam bin Amr to take a (wooden) sword. ¶

wood during the days of fitna (civil strife)(1). I say: Even if we accept that this Companion truly fashioned a sword of wood—as mentioned in the narration of al-Tabarani—it does not imply that he destroyed his weapons or wasted the combat equipment in his possession. Rather, his statement to Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), 'I have taken a sword of wood'(2), could be a metaphorical expression of the decision he took to abstain from fighting, just as it could bear the literal meaning of these words. In any case, there is no evidence in it for the destruction of combat weapons. ¶

Indeed, some narrations contain highly figurative and metaphorical styles regarding the avoidance of fighting during fitna. It is reported that some Companions asked on this occasion: '...What should we do, O Messenger of Allah? He said: Break your hand. I said: What if it heals? He said: Break the other. I said: What if it heals? He said: Break your leg! I said: What if it heals? He said: Break the other. I said: Until when? He said: Until a wrongful hand or a definitive death reaches you'(3). I believe there is no need here to argue that the intended meaning of these expressions is metaphorical, as it has not been reported—to my knowledge—that among the ways to avoid pitfalls is the disablement of one's limbs so as not to fall into sin!!! ¶

Thus, we find that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) emphasized refraining from fighting during fitna using various styles. With this, we conclude the first point: The ruling on a Muslim participating alongside conflicting parties in the fighting of fitna. ¶

As for the second point: The ruling on a Muslim defending what he has a right to defend, if he is targeted with evil by the conflicting parties in the fighting of fitna. ¶

There are generally two juristic opinions on this point: The first opinion: The prohibition of self-defense. The author of Nayl al-Awtar says: 'A group said: Do not fight in the fitna of the Muslims, even if they enter your homes.' ¶

His house was surrounded and they sought his killing, yet it was not permissible for him to defend himself because the assailant is a 'muta'awwil' (one acting upon an interpretation/erroneous justification), and this is the school of thought of the Companion Abu Bakrah and others (1). ¶

We pause here at the phrase 'because the assailant is a muta'awwil': Thus, this opinion, which denies the permissibility of self-defense, is specific to the case where the aggressor has an interpretation or a quasi-argument for the permissibility of fighting the one he attacks; in such a case, one must surrender and not resist the aggression. The implication of this reasoning is that if the aggressor in a fitna war has no such interpretation—for instance, if the fighting is for worldly gain, out of tribalism, or similar causes—then this first opinion itself does not argue for the obligation of surrender and the prohibition of self-defense. ¶

Although the author of 'Subul al-Salam' mentioned this first opinion without the justification that the assailant is a muta'awwil, he nevertheless described this opinion—which asserts the obligation of surrendering to aggression—as a 'shadh' (anomalous/irregular) opinion (2). ¶

This same opinion—the prohibition of self-defense in a fitna war—is what the Beirut-based magazine 'al-Wa'i' declared, calling upon warring Muslims to cease fighting—even if it is in self-defense—because their conflict is a fitna war (3). ¶

Second Opinion: The legitimacy of self-defense in a fitna war. It is stated in 'Nayl al-Awtar': 'Ibn Umar, Imran ibn Husayn, and others said: Do not enter into it—meaning the fitnas of Muslims—but if he intends to defend himself [it is permissible].' ¶

Al-Nawawi said: 'These two schools of thought—meaning the school of the illegitimacy of self-defense and the school of the legitimacy of self-defense—agree on refraining from entering into all fitnas of the Muslims' (4). ¶

Meaning: Imam al-Nawawi distinguishes between participating in the fighting of fitna (strife)—which is impermissible—and defending oneself during the fighting of fitna, noting that there are two schools of thought on this issue. Al-Shawkani cites these two schools or opinions from al-Qurtubi, stating: 'Some have said: One should abandon fighting, even if someone intends to kill him, he should not defend himself; while others have said: He should defend himself, his property, and his family, and he is excused, whether he kills or is killed!' (1). ¶

The evidence for the first opinion—the impermissibility of self-defense in the fighting of fitna—is the collection of Hadith prohibiting such fighting, many of which have already been mentioned. Among them is what was narrated by Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Regarding the fitna: break your bows, cut your bowstrings, and strike your swords against stones; then, if someone enters your home, be like the better of the two sons of Adam (Abel)' (2). ¶

Also among them is the narration from Khalid ibn Arfata, recorded by Ahmad, al-Hakim, al-Tabarani, and Ibn Qani', with the wording: 'There will be fitna and discord after me; if you are able to be the killed servant of Allah, and not the killer, then do so' (3). ¶

The evidence for the second opinion—the permissibility of self-defense in the fighting of fitna—is the collection of Hadith regarding the legitimacy of repelling an aggressor (daf' al-sa'il). Scholars have treated these as qualifiers (mukhassisa) to the Hadith that prohibit fighting in a fitna. These include: 'Fight for the sake of your property until you secure it, or be killed, in which case you will be among the martyrs of the Hereafter' (4), 'Whoever is killed defending his property is a martyr,' 'Whoever is killed defending his family is a martyr, and whoever is killed defending... is a martyr...' (5). ¶

“Whoever is killed defending his blood is a martyr” (1), “Whoever is killed defending his religion is a martyr” (2), “Whoever is killed defending his property against injustice is a martyr” (3). ¶

Al-Shawkani states: “Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Al-Shafi’i that he said: Whoever is targeted regarding his wealth, his person, or his honor, has the right to fight back, and he incurs no legal retribution (’aql), blood money (diyah), or expiation (kaffarah). Ibn al-Mundhir said: The consensus among the people of knowledge is that a man has the right to defend what has been mentioned if he is being wronged, without any distinction, except that every scholar of Hadith from whom we have records appears to agree on exempting the Sultan, based on the reports commanding patience regarding his tyranny and forbidding rising against him. End quote.” (4). ¶

Therefore, the hadiths regarding repelling an aggressor (daf’ al-sa’il) are specified (mukhassasa) only by the hadiths regarding patience during the tyranny of the Sultan, not by the hadiths forbidding fighting during times of civil strife (fitnah). The methodology of scholars in citing the hadiths of aggression (siyal) within the context of discussing fighting in times of fitnah indicates that they use the hadiths of aggression to specify the hadiths forbidding fighting in fitnah, not the other way around. Ibn al-Mundhir’s aforementioned statement, “The position held by the people of knowledge is that a man may defend what has been mentioned if he is wronged without distinction,” followed by the exception of the Sultan, is evidence for what we have mentioned. ¶

Our Preferred Opinion: The opinion that appears most correct to me is that the hadiths prohibiting fighting during fitnah contain an explicit instruction for the Muslim to adopt the stance of the better of the two sons of Adam, i.e., Abel (Habil), whom his brother Cain (Qabil) killed. As stated in the aforementioned hadith: “...If someone enters your house, be like the better of the two sons of Adam.” ¶

There is a difference of opinion regarding the nature of Abel’s stance: Was it a complete surrender to being killed? Or was it a refusal to initiate the killing, while he was prepared for defense but was killed by treachery? In the Tafsir al-Nasafi regarding the Almighty’s saying: “If you stretch your hand toward me to kill me, I shall not stretch my hand toward you to kill you...” (5), it is discussed... ¶

Text: 'It is said: He—meaning Abel, the slain—was stronger than the killer and more capable of overpowering him, but he refrained from killing his brother and surrendered to him out of fear of Allah, because self-defense was not permissible at that time. It is also said: Rather, it—meaning self-defense—was obligatory, for in it—meaning surrendering and not defending—is the destruction of one's own self and participation in the killer’s sin. Its meaning is merely: I will not stretch out my hand against you as an aggressor, as you intend to do against me. Abel was resolved to defend himself had he [the brother] intended to kill him, but his killing was a surprise attack while he was unaware'(1). ¶

Thus, we see the difference in understanding the position of Abel, whom the Hadith guides us to take as a role model in the fighting of 'fitna' (tribulation/civil strife). ¶

In the Tafsir of Al-Alusi, it states: 'It is narrated from Sayyid al-Murtada that the verse is not a subject of dispute because the 'lam' entering upon the verb of killing is the 'lam of purpose' (lam al-kay), which indicates intention and goal. There is no doubt in the ugliness of that [killing], both initially and ultimately; for it is only proper for the defender to ward off the oppressor to seek salvation, without intending to kill him. It is as if he said: If you oppress me, I will not oppress you'(2). ¶

In the Tafsir of Al-Qurtubi: 'If you stretch your hand toward me' (the verse)... Mujahid said: It was incumbent upon them at that time that no one should unsheathe a sword, and no one should resist the one who intends to kill him. Our scholars said: ... However, in our Shariah, it is permissible to repel him by consensus, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the obligation of doing so. The most correct view is that it is obligatory, because it entails forbidding the evil... There are some among the Hashwiyya who do not permit the one being attacked to defend himself, and they argue using the Hadith of Abu Dharr, which scholars have interpreted as referring to abstaining from fighting during fitna and withholding one’s hand in times of ambiguity'(3). The Hadith of Abu Dharr to which Al-Qurtubi refers was recorded by Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi with the wording: 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me: "O Abu Dharr!" I said: "I am at your service!" He said: "How will you be when you see the 'Ahjar al-Zayt' (stones of the oil market) drenched in blood(4)?" I said: "What Allah and His Messenger choose for me is better." He said: "Stick to those whom you belong to(5)." I said: "O Messenger of Allah! Shall I not take [my weapon]?"' ¶

my sword, should I place it on my shoulder? He (PBUH) said: 'Stay in your house.' I asked: 'What if he enters my house?' He said: 'If you fear that the glare of the sword might dazzle you, then cast your garment over your face, so that he (the attacker) may bear your sin and his own sin.' ¶

I say: Whatever may have been said regarding the reality of Abel's (Habil) stance, the hadiths that point toward submission (istislam) in the fighting of 'fitna' (civil strife/turmoil) are explicit in the legality of not defending oneself in such combat. Thus, they provide us with a view of the reality of Abel's position that is stronger than the previous deductions of the exegetes (mufassirin). ¶

Al-Shawkani says, after citing some hadiths on this subject: 'The hadiths mentioned in this chapter indicate the legality of refraining from fighting, and that defending one's self and property is not obligatory.' ¶

Al-Shawkani's statement that 'defending oneself is not obligatory' places defense within the spectrum of being recommended (mandub), permissible (mubah), disliked (makruh), or forbidden (tahrim); because these rulings all fall under the category of 'non-obligation.' The opinions of the scholars regarding the ruling on surrendering and refraining from self-defense during the fighting of fitna are as follows: ¶

1. Self-defense is makruh (disliked): Al-San'ani, in his commentary on the narration: 'If you can be the slain servant of Allah and not the killer, then do so,' says: 'His saying 'if you can' indicates that it (defense) is not forbidden, and that the prohibition is one of tanzih (dislike/avoidance) rather than tahrim (prohibition).' It is known that a prohibition of tanzih implies karaha (dislike). ¶

2. Self-defense is mubah (permissible): Meaning: According to this opinion, both actions—defending and not defending—are equal. ¶

3. Refraining from self-defense is mandub (recommended): Al-San'ani, in explaining the last two opinions—permissibility and recommendation—states the following: ¶

"Is abandoning self-defense permissible (mubah) or recommended (mandub)? There is a disagreement regarding this." ¶

4. Surrender and abandoning self-defense is obligatory: Al-San'ani states: "A group said: It is obligatory to leave the land of fitna (strife) altogether. Among them are those who said: One must abandon fighting. This is the view of the majority. And the one who made it obligatory [i.e., obligatory to abandon fighting] was so strict that even if someone wanted to kill him, he would not defend himself!" ¶

5. Self-defense is obligatory: This opinion is understood from what is mentioned in the book 'Al-Tadhkirah' by Al-Qurtubi, who states: "...We have already mentioned those who refrained from the fitna and stayed behind, among them: Imran bin Husayn and Ibn Umar. It has been narrated from them and others, including Ubaydah al-Salmani, that whoever isolates himself from both factions [i.e., the two factions fighting in the fitna] and enters his house, and then someone comes seeking his life—he is obligated to defend himself against him, and if he refuses to defend himself, he is not correct! Based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Whoever is targeted for his life or property and is killed, he is a martyr.' They said: It is obligatory for anyone targeted for his life or property to defend it by whatever means possible, whether the aggressor is acting on an interpretation (ta'wil) or is intentionally oppressive. I say: This is the more correct of the two opinions, God willing... Abu Bakr says: The majority of the people of knowledge hold this view—that a man may fight for his life and property if he is oppressed, due to the reports that have come from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), without specifying a time or a condition, except for the Sultan. For the body of scholars is almost in consensus that whoever cannot protect his life and property except by rebelling against the Sultan and fighting him—he should not fight him, nor rebel against him, due to the reports indicating the necessity of patience regarding the tyranny and oppression that may come from them." ¶

I (the author) say: His statements: "He is obligated to defend himself," "If he refuses to defend, he is not correct," and "It is obligatory for anyone targeted for his life or property... to defend it by whatever means possible"—all of this points to the fifth opinion. ¶

It is the obligation of self-defense.. during fitna (civil strife) combat; because this opinion is framed within the context of discussing fitna, and is attributed to those among the Sahaba who remained neutral during the fitna. ¶

The opinion we favor: After reviewing these various opinions, we favor the view that surrender and refraining from self-defense in fitna combat carries the ruling of permissibility (ibahah). The reason for favoring this ruling is that the Shariah texts—many of which were previously reviewed—all come with a command to cease fighting, using imperative forms: 'Break your bows,' 'Cut your bowstrings,' 'Strike your swords against stones,' 'Cast your garment over your face,' 'Be like the better of the two sons of Adam,'... etc. ¶

All of this signifies: a command to surrender and refrain from defense in the event of aggression... ¶

This command appears to conflict with Shariah texts that come in the form of definitive prohibitions against casting oneself into destruction, and against exposing oneself to being killed, such as: 'And do not cast your hands into destruction,' 'And do not kill yourselves,' 'And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right...' This latter prohibition applies equally to a person killing himself or enabling others to kill him, just as it applies to the prohibition of killing the souls of others. ¶

Among the principles of Usul al-Fiqh is that a command following a prohibition indicates permissibility (ibahah). However, this is not an absolute permissibility; rather, it is a permissibility restricted to the subject matter in which it was mentioned. Since this permissibility was mentioned in the context of fitna combat, it is specific to it. ¶

Furthermore, there are circumstantial evidences (qara'in) indicating that the command to surrender and refrain from defense in fitna combat is for the purpose of permissibility. ¶

Among these evidences is what is mentioned in the narration: '...If you are able to be the murdered servant of Allah, do not...' ¶