Chapter 12

Allah and His Messenger have forbidden it, and [fight] those among the People of the Scripture who do not adopt the religion of truth, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission while they are feeling themselves subdued (1). ¶

- Al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrated that he said to the army of Kisra (Chosroes) on the day of Nahavand: 'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah alone or pay the Jizyah.' [Reported by Al-Bukhari] (2). ¶

- It is narrated from Buraydah that: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed a commander over an army or a detachment, he would instruct him to be mindful of Allah regarding his own self and to be good to the Muslims with him. He would say: 'When you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, invite them to one of three things: invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it from them and refrain from fighting. If they refuse, invite them to pay the Jizyah; if they respond, accept it from them and refrain from fighting. But if they refuse, seek the help of Allah and fight them' (3). ¶

- It is stated in Al-Mughni: 'The actual act of handing over [the wealth] or the implementation of legal rulings is not the condition, because the payment of Jizyah occurs at the end of the year, whereas refraining from fighting occurs at the beginning, upon [their] offering it. The meaning of His saying "until they pay" is: until they commit to the payment and agree to provide it' (4). ¶

- It is stated in Hashiyat Ibn Abidin: 'The point at which fighting ceases is the commitment (iltizam) to pay the Jizyah, not its actual delivery. Since the commitment remains valid, the Imam shall collect it from him (i.e., the Dhimmi) by force' (5). ¶

- In the book Al-Umm, Imam Al-Shafi'i states regarding the meaning of "Subjugation" (Sighar): 'Al-Shafi'i said: I heard a number of scholars say: Sighar means that the rulings of Islam are applied to them' (6). ¶

- It is stated in Al-Muhadhdhab: 'Section: If the Dhimmi refuses to commit to the Jizyah, or refuses to fulfill the obligation...' ¶

Neglecting the laws of the Muslims violates the covenant, for the contract of dhimma is not valid except through these, and therefore it does not subsist without them. If [a dhimmi] fights the Muslims, his covenant is violated, whether it was stipulated in the contract to refrain from this or not, because the requirement of the contract of dhimma is security from both sides, and combat is contrary to security; thus, the covenant is violated by it. If he does other than that... meaning if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman, or harms her under the guise of marriage... (The author here lists some of the disputed nullifiers of the covenant that were previously mentioned in the research, then says:) If refraining from that was not stipulated in the contract, his covenant is not violated, as the requirements of the contract—namely the obligation to pay the jizya, the adherence to the laws of the Muslims, and refraining from fighting them—remain intact. If refraining from that was stipulated in the contract, there are two views: One: That the covenant is not violated by it, because it is not violated by it without a condition, so it is not violated with a condition; similar to the public display of wine, pork, and abandoning the distinctive dress (ghiyar). Two: That the covenant is violated by it. (1) - In the Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, regarding the people of the dhimma and their refusal to pay the jizya, it states: 'If they are a group that has taken control of a place, whether it is their own city or another, and they manifest disobedience and belligerence (muharaba), then it is not possible to collect it from them except through combat.' (2) Meaning: If the people of the dhimma fight in order to refuse the payment of jizya, they have broken the covenant. Hence, it is stated in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 'Abu Hanifah said: The covenant is not violated except by rebellion against the Imam in a manner that makes it impossible to collect the jizya from them.' (3) - In the book Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya, regarding the ruling on the uprising of the people of the dhimma—meaning their revolt against the Islamic authority—the text states: 'If they revolt without injustice or violence, they shall be enslaved. If they revolt against injustice and violence, they shall not be enslaved.' (4) ¶

We have previously mentioned that 'enslavement' (istiraqaq) here is a metonymy for the ruling of breaking the covenant (naqd al-'ahd) due to this rebellion. In 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir' and the 'Hashiyat al-Dasuqi' upon it, regarding the participation of a dhimmi with a rebel in fighting against the Imam—that is, against the legitimate authority—it is stated: 'And the dhimmi with him is a breaker of the covenant... All of this pertains to rebellion against a just Imam. As for others, or one who rebels against him out of obstinacy, like the one who interprets (the matter) in good faith (al-muta'awwil)... (the marginal note states): His statement 'like the muta'awwil' means: the dhimmi who rebels against the Imam along with him does not break his covenant.' These are some of the texts and citations that we consider to cover the situation of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected people) today; they can be applied to them, and a ruling on this issue can be issued based upon them. We conclude from these texts that what the jurists have agreed upon—despite their differing schools—as the nullifiers of the dhimma covenant is confined to one matter: the Ahl al-Dhimma taking up arms against the Islamic authority and the Muslims supporting it. This is because their refusal to pay the jizya or their refusal to submit to Islamic rule—which are the justifications for the Muslims to fight the Ahl al-Dhimma, as understood from the aforementioned verse of jizya—do not constitute a breach of the covenant if this refusal is not accompanied by the taking up of arms and rebellion against the authority. This is because the Islamic authority, through force, is capable of compelling them to fulfill what they committed to under the dhimma contract, just as it can compel, through force, those Muslims who refuse to perform the rights incumbent upon them. However, if the Ahl al-Dhimma take up arms to resist what they committed to, the matter becomes one of the Ahl al-Dhimma fighting the Muslims and the Islamic authority. Here, the jurists agree that the covenant is broken in this situation, where they have acquired power and defensive capability due to their taking up arms and fighting the authority. As for matters other than this fighting which are called nullifiers of the covenant, they are subjects of disagreement. That is, they are points of contention: does the covenant of the Ahl al-Dhimma break because of them or not? And every matter that is subject to disagreement, or... ¶

Wherever there is a dispute, Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He) has commanded that the judgment be referred back to the Shariah, as per His saying: {And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to] Allah}. ¶

Referring to Allah for judgment means referring to the Book and the Sunnah; that is, referring to the Shariah. Referring to the Book and the Sunnah, or the Shariah, is a reference to the one who possesses the authority to judge by them, namely the Imam, the Caliph, or the governors and judges whom the Imam or Caliph appoints as his deputies. This is because exercising authority over people falls under the category of wilayah (governance/authority), and there is no wilayah for one who has not acquired it through the bay'ah (oath of allegiance) to act according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger—as previously discussed. Al-Shawkani states: 'Whoever the Muslims have not pledged allegiance to has no wilayah, nor is he entitled to carry out what the Imam carries out, whether in whole or in part, because the cause of wilayah is the bay'ah.' ¶

He further says: 'The objective of installing Imams is the implementation of the rulings of Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He).' ¶

Therefore, there must be an Imam for the Muslims who decides on these disputed matters, or who appoints others among the governors and judges to decide upon them—and it has already been established that the decree of the Imam ends the dispute. ¶

Based on this, any entity that decides on such matters other than the Imam or his deputy is acting by way of usurpation of legitimate authority and deviating from the obedience to the Imams whose obedience Allah has made mandatory. Regarding this, Al-Shawkani says: 'Part of the mandatory obedience is that no one should assume authority without their (the Caliphs of the Muslims) permission; otherwise, it constitutes a dispute regarding the matter, and its prohibition has been established.' ¶

In his final remark, Al-Shawkani refers to the hadith of Ubadah ibn al-Samit: 'We pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to hear and obey, in times of difficulty and ease, in times of pleasure and dislike, even when others are preferred over us, and that we shall not contend...' ¶

“The authority to its rightful people.” (1) That is to say: the intent by “the authority” (al-amr) is governance or political mandate. Any act that falls within the jurisdiction of the authority, if performed by any party without authorization from the rightful holder of political authority, constitutes a challenge to those rightfully in charge—a matter whose prohibition is established, as Al-Shawkani stated. ¶

Based on this, as long as there is no Imam (leader) for the Muslims today, following the absence of the Islamic State from the international community, then the authority that decides on issues of breach of covenant (nawaqid al-‘ahd) that are subject to disagreement, which are committed by citizens from among the Ahl al-Dhimmah—I say: this authority which has the right to adjudicate in this matter does not exist. Consequently, it is not permissible to issue a judgment against the Ahl al-Dhimmah today—who are not combatants—that they have broken their covenant. Therefore, it is not permissible to judge their blood, wealth, or honor as permissible. This is because their inviolability (‘isma) is established by the dhimmah contract, and no shariah-based ruling has been issued by a legitimate authority to nullify that inviolability based on their commission of this or that act from among the disputed breaches of covenant. Note that their disobedience is no less than the disobedience of many Muslims to the rulings of their own religion and shariah. How then do we find the strength to issue fatwas against the Ahl al-Dhimmah and demand they adhere to the law of God, while we do not demand the same of Muslims? ¶

This is what is said regarding the issue of the Ahl al-Dhimmah today departing from the conditions imposed upon their predecessors, which we have termed as “disputed breaches of covenant.” ¶

As for the issue of combat—that is, the Ahl al-Dhimmah bearing arms against the Muslims—the texts we cited at the beginning of this point limit the breach of covenant due to fighting to cases where such fighting results from rebellion against Islamic rule. As long as there is no Islamic rule today—following the absence of the Islamic State from the international community—then the Ahl al-Dhimmah fighting against the authorities present in Muslim lands does not qualify as combat that annuls the covenant. Rather, its reality is akin to the fighting of rebels (bughat) or the fighting of fitna, which Muslims confront with weapons to repel the aggressors and defend themselves. ¶

Accordingly, we believe that the Ahl al-Dhimmah who fight Muslims in these days remain... ¶

They maintain their status as Ahl al-Dhimma (protected people). Consequently, they retain the sanctity of their blood, property, and honor, as well as their right to reside in the country and receive permanent security. Their blood is only rendered permissible (mubah) during active combat for the sole necessity of repelling their aggression and rebellion, just as the blood of rebellious Muslims (bughat) is rendered permissible during combat if necessary; however, it is not permissible to violate their property or honor. ¶

Add to this what we have cited from the Maliki school, which holds that if the rebellion of the Ahl al-Dhimma occurs due to oppression perpetrated against them, it strips that action of the character of 'breach of covenant,' as stated in the book 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya'. ¶

Furthermore, as long as the subjects in Muslim lands today—whether they are Muslims or Ahl al-Dhimma—are not living under the rule of what Allah has revealed, it applies to all of them that they are under systems that practice much injustice and suppression of rights upon them; this is because any rule other than what Allah has revealed is an unjust rule. Allah the Almighty says: 'And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the wrongdoers' (Al-Ma'idah: 45). ¶

From this perspective as well, there is no basis to judge the fighting of the Ahl al-Dhimma against the ruling authorities in Muslim lands as a form of combat that violates their covenant. ¶

Also, we rarely find that in Muslim lands where Ahl al-Dhimma take up arms against the ruling authorities and the Muslims who support those authorities, that these Ahl al-Dhimma act alone. Rather, we find them participating with factions of Muslims—whether few or many—in the revolt against those authorities. Therefore, they are in the position of those participating with the rebels (bughat). As previously mentioned in the texts cited at the beginning of this discussion, if stubborn rebels rise up against an unjust Imam, their rebellion is considered as a rebellion stemming from an interpretation (ta'wil). That is, its participants are not held liable for the blood or property destroyed during the combat, and what applies to the Muslims in terms of non-liability applies to the Ahl al-Dhimma who participate with them; their fighting alongside them is not considered a breach of their covenant. I say: This ruling applies to those who rise up... ¶

It is for the legitimate Imam, but it happened that he deviated due to tyranny or corruption (fisq) and thus became unjust. Based on this, it follows a fortiori that this ruling applies to those who rebel against someone even worse than the unjust Imam. ¶

From all the above, we conclude that the fighting of the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected citizens) today against the ruling authorities in Muslim lands does not constitute a violation of their covenant, although Muslims who are harmed by this fighting have the right to counter weapon with weapon to repel harm and to defend the rights and sanctities that they are obligated to protect. ¶

This is what can be said regarding this issue of our research: the issue of the Ahl al-Dhimmah today departing from the conditions imposed upon their predecessors, and the fighting that erupts between them and the Muslims. ¶

We now move to the final issue of our research, which is: ¶

- The Third Issue: - Is the fighting by Muslims against those among the Ahl al-Dhimmah who have broken the covenant a form of Jihad in the path of Allah? The answer is yes, it is Jihad in the path of Allah as long as the Ahl al-Dhimmah whom we are fighting have broken the covenant and have thus become harbis (belligerents), in light of the details provided in the previous issue. In this case, the definition of Jihad applies to it, which is the fighting of belligerents to raise the word of Allah, the Almighty. ¶

- However, when the fighting by Muslims against the Ahl al-Dhimmah occurs in states of fitnah (strife), or is the fighting of rebels (bughat) which does not in itself constitute a violation of their covenant, it has been established in previous discussions that such fighting, according to what we have favored, does not fall under Jihad in the path of Allah in the terminological sense. ¶

Furthermore, the jurists have explicitly stated that fighting the Dhimmis who have broken the covenant is a form of Jihad. Indeed, they considered it one of the most binding types of Jihad in the path of Allah, because in this state, it takes on the ruling of Fard Ayn (individual obligation) for every single Muslim citizen against whom their own fellow citizens from the Ahl al-Dhimmah have rebelled and raised weapons, as previously explained in the preceding issue. We have cited in that discussion what the author of Mughni al-Muhtaj mentioned in this regard, as he states: ¶

«It has passed that Jihad, when a group of the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) enters the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), becomes a Fard Ayn. There is no difference between them and those who had a dhimma (covenant) that was subsequently broken.» He then quoted al-Nawawi in his book 'al-Rawdah'. ¶

Regarding this specific case, he states: 'Therefore, it is necessary to repel them and strive for their eradication'(1). ¶

Final note: What we intended here in this research relates specifically to the fighting of the Dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects), as previously indicated. Whatever has been mentioned in the course of this research that does not pertain directly to combat was included because we deemed it necessary to present it, as it either leads to combat or results from it. Therefore, necessitated by this, we have limited ourselves to what we deemed essential for the research, and we did not aim for exhaustive detail, because other aspects concerning the Dhimma contract that are not related to combat have been allocated a separate chapter in this thesis. ¶

We now move on to another form of combat. ¶

(1) Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj: 4/259. ¶

Tenth Topic: Raiding Warfare for the Purpose of Seizing Enemy Wealth ¶

- An introduction to the subject of the research and the fundamental issues that require examination. - The First Issue: Is it permissible for an individual fighter or a combat group to confront large enemy forces that vastly outnumber them? - The ruling on risk-taking and endangering one's life in attacks against the enemy. - The First Opinion: - The Second Opinion: - The opinion we favor, along with the reasoning for that preference. - The Second Issue: Is it permissible to fight without the authorization of the Imam or the leader (Amir) who holds authority over military engagement? - A broad outline regarding the mission of the Prophet ﷺ in explaining what he conveys from Allah Almighty in a general sense, and the necessity of referring to the Sunnah and the Prophetic Biography to clarify the manner of conducting combat against enemies. ¶

First: The Messenger ﷺ would lead combat campaigns against the enemies himself at times, and appoint commanders for them at other times. Second: Salama bin al-Akwa’ (may Allah be pleased with him) fights the enemy who raided the pastures before obtaining permission from the Prophet ﷺ. Third: Abu Basir (may Allah be pleased with him) fights against the Quraish during the period of the truce, because he was not included in the peace treaty. ¶

Fourth: An individual from the Ashja'i tribe seizes the enemy's wealth in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) by stealth, without prior specific permission from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Fifth: A man fights the enemy at Khaybar and is martyred—even though the Prophet (peace be upon him) had forbidden fighting—so he (peace be upon him) says regarding him: 'Paradise is not permissible for a disobedient person.' Point One: Is the presence of an Imam (ruler) a condition for engaging in combat against enemies, whether the combat is offensive or defensive? Point Two: What is the role of the Imam regarding authorization for combat? - In the case where no prohibition against combat has been issued by him - - First Opinion: Combat without the Imam's permission is haram (prohibited). - Second Opinion: Combat without the Imam's permission is makruh (disliked). - The role of the Imam regarding authorization for combat - In the case where a prohibition against combat has been issued by him. - In defensive combat: - First Case: A prohibition that does not result in harm to the Muslims. - Second Case: A prohibition that results in harm to the Muslims. - In offensive combat: - Prohibition for a legitimate interest: - Prohibition for an illegitimate interest: Point Three: What is the ruling on adhering to the obedience of those in power in Muslim countries today, regarding the subject of fighting enemies, when they issue orders to engage in it or to refrain from it? - First Issue: The issuance of an order for combat by those in power. Does the claim of the illegitimacy of their authority have an effect on the ruling? - And what if these authorities order combat against the enemy, following a cunning plan that inflicts harm upon the Muslims? Second Issue: The issuance of an order prohibiting combat - by those in power. - First Part: Prohibition of combat for a (legitimate) interest. - Second Part: Prohibition of combat for no (legitimate) interest. ¶

Issue Three: Is it permissible for a Muslim to fight an enemy with the intention of seizing their wealth? - The intention to seize the enemy's wealth during combat, for the purpose of exerting pressure on them, is considered part of upholding the word of Allah Almighty. - What are the objectives that are forbidden to be intended in combat? And the issue of associating others (shirk) in worship, which includes Jihad in the way of Allah. - Permissibility of seizing enemy assets in war is a general convention and one of the means of exerting pressure on the enemy. - Issue Four: Is fighting for the sake of obtaining enemy wealth considered Jihad in the way of Allah? ¶

The basis of this is that it means Allah the Almighty has appointed him over it, and it means that He has placed him in charge of it, and it also means that He has designated him as responsible for it. ¶

Tenth Section: Raiding Combat for the Purpose of Acquiring Enemy Assets. Introduction regarding the definition of the research topic and the fundamental issues requiring treatment: This raiding combat is the fighting carried out by a Muslim individual or a small group of Muslims within the enemy’s territory, having infiltrated it from the outside without a guarantee of safety (aman), or being residents thereof. This applies regardless of whether this enemy territory was originally their land, or if it was originally Muslim territory that the enemy has occupied, imposing upon it their population, their system, and their authority, such that the Muslim inhabitants have become displaced or subjugated, and the land has become, for the Muslims, a domain of war (dar al-harb) and combat. I state: The aforementioned raiding combat is this fighting that we have described within enemy territory. It may also take place outside enemy territory, such as fighting in a no-man's land, or fighting on the high seas, for example. All of this is done with the intention of acquiring wealth exclusively, or in conjunction with the intention of exalting the religion and striking terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. This occurs when a Muslim adventurer or an adventurous group of Muslims targets specific centers of enemy property containing wealth in order to seize what is within them and then escape with their lives. The adventurer(s) are thus compelled to engage in combat with the enemy, causing bloodshed on both sides, after which escape may or may not be achieved. Is this accidental or forced combat considered 'Jihad in the path of Allah' in its technical sense, or not? This is the subject of the research, and in order to address it, it is necessary to point out the points that are in question in this subject, so that we may define the issues into which this research is divided and address them one by one. ¶

as a single unit, so that it may become clear to us in the end: does this combat merit the honor of Jihad or not? What, then, are the points of inquiry regarding this subject? The image we presented at the beginning of this research concerning this incidental or compelled combat raises several points of inquiry before us; we select from them those necessary for the study of what we are addressing. Among these points are: 1. That a single individual, or a few individuals possessing only very limited strength, embark on an adventure in which this individual or small group is exposed to confronting a large armed force, the result of which is, in most cases, unfortunate! 2. Among the points of inquiry is that such adventures are often undertaken by individuals—separately or collectively—without authorization or permission from the authorities to whom they belong. 3. Among the points of inquiry also is that the sole or most important purpose of such an adventure is the seizure of wealth, considering that such an adventure, whether it involves combat or not, is not among the Shariah-sanctioned causes of ownership, such as hunting or gathering firewood. These are the most significant controversial and questionable points in this subject. Consequently, the issues into which this research is divided, and which require treatment, are: 1. Is it permissible for a single combatant individual or a small group to expose themselves to a large enemy force that vastly outnumbers them? 2. Is it permissible to engage in combat without the permission of the Imam or the Emir who holds legitimate authority? 3. Is it permissible to fight with the intention of seizing the enemy's wealth? 4. Finally: Does this combat merit the honor of Jihad? First Issue: Is it permissible for a single combatant individual or a combatant group to expose themselves to a large enemy force that vastly outnumbers them? ¶

The answer to this is that the fundamental principle in such raids (ghara) is not to rely on a force equivalent to the enemy's strength; rather, the reliance is on surprise and catching the enemy off guard in order to seize their wealth, then escaping quickly before they recover from their shock. This is similar to what is today called 'guerrilla warfare'. Thus, if an engagement occurs despite the intentions of these adventurers, their fighting in most of these cases is a defensive struggle for survival and escape, not a battle of direct confrontation and endurance. This is because the primary intent of their raid was not combat, but wealth; however, the course of events may force them into combat, in which case they fight to protect their withdrawal and the spoils they have secured. ¶

This is the basis for conducting such raids; they do not rely on preparing a force capable of confronting the enemy and standing firm against them. It is for this reason that Imam al-Shafi'i disliked taking Muslim women along on these raids, due to the lack of sufficient force to protect them from the enemy, whereas he saw no harm in women participating in jihad with an army that usually possesses the necessary force for protection. Imam al-Shafi'i states in Kitab al-Umm: 'If they attack a powerful enemy with an army, there is no harm in taking women along. But if it is a raid where a few attack many, seizing spoils from their lands by catching them off guard and escaping by speed, I dislike taking women along in such a case.' ¶

Furthermore, most of the Sariyya (expeditions) that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent, and the Ghazawat (military campaigns) he led to intercept the Quraysh caravans while they were departing to or returning from Syria—at a time when Quraysh were at war with the Messenger (ﷺ)—as well as raids on the territories of tribes hostile to the Muslims—I say: in most of those expeditions and campaigns, the Messenger (ﷺ) limited himself to sending a small number of individuals to perform the task, while the enemy forces facing them were many times greater by comparison. ¶

For example, in the month of Ramadan, in the first year of the Hijra, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent the first Sariyya in the history of Islam to intercept a Quraysh caravan coming from Syria. This expedition consisted of thirty men from the Muhajirun, led by his uncle, Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib. ¶

Requirement: While the force guarding the Quraish caravan consisted of three hundred men under the leadership of Abu Jahl. ¶

Indeed, the imbalance of power between the attacking Islamic force and the enemy target may reach far greater proportions than this. This is because the attacking force does not intend, in such a situation, to stand and confront the enemy's strength; rather, it aims to surprise their dense assembly and strike like lightning in circumstances where they cannot regroup their strength or recover from the panic and confusion that has afflicted them. Thus, the attacking force delivers its strike, achieves its goal, secures its spoils, and then withdraws to its bases, leaving its enemy in a state of horrific panic, thinking only of escape and survival! One example of this is what Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned regarding the expeditions (saraya) of the seventh year of Hijrah, before the Umrat al-Qada, including the expedition of Abu Hadrad al-Aslami. Its total strength was only three men: Abu Hadrad and two men under his command. Shortly before departing on this expedition, Abu Hadrad had contracted his marriage to a woman from his tribe and had settled a dowry of two hundred dirhams for her. He then came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ seeking help to pay the dowry he had committed to. The Messenger ﷺ said to him: 'By Allah, I have nothing with which to assist you.' Then, a few days later, the Prophet ﷺ sent him on this expedition so that perhaps he might obtain in it what would help him fulfill the dowry he had pledged to his wife! Among the details of this expedition is that a man from 'Jusham bin Mu'awiyah,' one of the enemies of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, called Qays bin Rifa'ah or Rifa'ah bin Qays, arrived with a large number of men until they camped at al-Ghaba, intending to gather the Qays tribe to fight the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He was one of the leaders of the Jusham tribe. Thus, the Prophet ﷺ sent the expedition of Abu Hadrad to surprise him and eliminate his evil before he could achieve his goal. Abu Hadrad says: 'When we arrived near the settlement - meaning where the enemy was camped - at sunset, I lay in ambush on one side and ordered my two companions to lie in ambush on another side of the people's camp. I told them: "When you hear me shout 'Allahu Akbar' and charge on one side of the camp, you too shout 'Allahu Akbar' and charge with me." By Allah, we remained waiting for an opportunity or to see something, and the night had enveloped us until the deepest part of the darkness of Isha had arrived. They had a shepherd who had gone out to pasture in that land, and he was delayed in returning to them until they became concerned about him. So their leader, Rifa'ah bin Qays, stood up, took his sword, and placed it around his neck...' ¶

He said: 'By Allah, I will surely follow the tracks of this shepherd (enemy) of ours. By Allah, some evil has certainly befallen him.' He set out until he passed by me. When I had the opportunity, I struck him with an arrow that lodged in his heart, and by Allah, he could not speak. Then I rushed towards the army camp and shouted 'Allahu Akbar.' My companion also attacked and shouted 'Allahu Akbar.' By Allah, the only option for those present was to flee, grabbing their wives, children, and whatever wealth they could carry. We drove off a large number of camels and sheep and brought them to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He gave me thirteen camels from that herd for my dowry. I then rejoined my family; I had married a woman from my own tribe and had given her two hundred dirhams as dowry... ¶

Sometimes, a Sariyyah (military detachment) sent by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to the lands of war consists of a single man. He sets out toward a target among the enemy for a specific task, such as spying on the enemy, seizing their wealth, rescuing a captive, taking a hostage, assassinating one of their commanders, or similar missions. In all these missions, this individual might be exposed to combat, but his primary purpose was not fighting. What could the strength of one individual achieve against these enemies whose territory he has infiltrated to execute his mission amidst their crowds and masses? Yet, guile, seizing the opportune moment, and surprise are the only weapons—or the most important weapons—this individual prepares to ensure the success of his mission! Among those detachments consisting of a single individual is the Sariyyah of 'Abdullah bin Unays. ¶

In the month of Muharram, in the fourth year after the Hijrah, it reached the Prophet ﷺ that one of the enemy commanders living in the direction of 'Arafat, named Khalid bin Sufyan bin Nabih al-Hudhali, had gathered forces to fight the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ commissioned 'Abdullah bin Unays to go to him, use guile, and kill him to rid the Muslims of his evil. It is narrated in the account of this mission that 'Abdullah bin Unays said: 'O Messenger of Allah! I do not know him.' The Prophet ﷺ replied: 'When you see him, you will be awestruck by him,' even though I was not a man who feared others! So, I set out on the evening of Friday. The time for prayer arrived, and I feared that if I stopped to pray, I might be recognized, so I prayed by gesture while I was walking. Then I reached his shepherd and asked: 'Where is he?' She replied: 'He is coming to you now.' I had barely waited when he arrived, leaning on a staff. When I saw him, I felt myself trembling—meaning my limbs shook due to the awe of him—and then he approached. ¶

He greeted, then asked for my lineage, so I traced my lineage back to the Khuza'ah tribe. Then I said to him: 'I have come to support you, to increase your numbers, and to be with you!' ... He said to the slave girl: 'Milk,' so she milked, then handed it to me. I drank a little then passed it to him. He gulped it down as a camel gulps, until his nose disappeared into the foam, then he lowered it. I told the slave girl: 'If you speak, I will kill you!' ... In one narration: 'I struck his neck, took his head, then rushed out until I climbed the mountain and entered a cave, while the pursuers approached.' Abdullah bin Unays then says: 'I traveled by night and hid by day until I reached Medina. I found the Prophet (PBUH) in the mosque. When he saw me, he said: 'The face has succeeded!' I said: 'Your noble face, O Messenger of Allah.' I told him my news, so he gave me a staff and said: 'Lean on this in Paradise, O Ibn Unays, for those who lean on staffs in Paradise are few.' ¶

Having said this, our intention in this matter is not to recount the history of the expeditions (saraya) in the Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH). Rather, the intention is to emphasize that such expeditions and missions do not rely on force equivalent to the enemy's strength. As long as this is the case, and since the Prophet (PBUH) actually sent those expeditions in this state—while they were exposed to the possibility of engaging in combat with their enemy—we can therefore derive the Shariah ruling on the question posed at the beginning of this issue: Is it permissible for a single individual or a small group to fight a force much larger than them, to an incomparable degree? The answer is: Yes, it is permissible, based on the precedent of sending those expeditions and the potential combat they might face due to necessity. However, we wish to take another step in addressing the topic and ask: Is it not permissible for an individual initially—not out of necessity—to risk his life? By this, we mean what Imam al-Shafi'i clarified in his book 'Al-Umm': 'The risk-taker (al-mukhatir): one who advances toward a group of people in a fortress and is targeted, or advances against a group alone, even though, in all likelihood, he is no match for them!' ¶

Likewise, by risk-taking (mukhatarah), we mean what Al-Alusi conveyed in his Tafsir from Al-Balkhi, that the intended meaning of 'destruction' (tahlukah) in... ¶

The statement of the Almighty: 'And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction,' implies that destruction is: 'To plunge into war without caution, and to cast oneself into danger and ruin.' ¶

So, what is the ruling on a person who risks his own life by immersing himself in this type of combat against his enemies? There are multiple opinions among the Salaf and the jurists (Fuqaha) regarding this question, as follows: ¶

The First Opinion: It is permissible for a combatant to risk his own life even to the point of being killed. The proponents of this view did not stipulate that the combatant must have a strong belief that he will survive, or that he will inflict damage upon the enemy, or anything similar. They only stipulated that this risk be taken with a sincere intention. ¶

It is stated in Tafsir al-Tabari: '...Abu Ishaq said: I said to Al-Bara' bin Azib: O Abu Umara, a man meets a thousand of the enemy and charges at them while he is alone! Is he among those mentioned in: 'And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction'? He said: No, he should fight until he is killed! Allah said to His Prophet (ﷺ): 'So fight in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself.'' ¶

In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it is stated: 'Scholars have differed regarding a man plunging into battle and charging the enemy alone... Then he said: And it is said: If he seeks martyrdom and his intention is pure, he should charge, for his objective is one of them, and this is evident in the words of the Almighty: 'And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah.'' This is the first opinion regarding the ruling on risking one's life. ¶

The Second Opinion: This is based on the following detail: A - If the person risking his life in fighting the enemy is unable to escape, and in this act of risk-taking there is no benefit provided to the Muslims, nor any harm inflicted upon the disbelievers—then the opinions of many of the Salaf and scholars regarding [this] are... ¶

This type of situation indicates a prohibition against taking such risks that yield no benefit. Regarding the ruling on this matter, 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' states the following text: "...As for the case where he knows he will inflict no harm upon them, it is not permissible for him to charge at them; because his charge achieves nothing that contributes to the honor of the religion, rather he is killed to no avail! And Allah the Almighty has said: {And do not kill yourselves} (1)." ¶

The author of 'Subul al-Salam' cites the hadith of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari in the interpretation of the verse in Al-Baqarah: {And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction} (2). He then mentions what 'Ibn Hajar' recorded regarding the issue of a single person charging against a large number of the enemy... quoting his text: "From the hadith of Aslam ibn Yazid ibn Abi Imran, who said: 'We were in Constantinople and a great row of the Romans emerged. A man from the Muslims charged into the Roman ranks until he penetrated them, then he returned. The people shouted: SubhanAllah! He has thrown himself into destruction! Abu Ayyub said: O people! You are interpreting this verse with this interpretation, yet this verse was only revealed regarding us, the Ansar. When Allah honored His religion and its helpers increased, we said to each other secretly: Our wealth has been lost, so if we stayed to manage and restore it, it would be better. Then Allah the Almighty revealed this verse, and the 'destruction' (tahluka) was the staying behind that we intended!'" ¶

Then 'Al-San'ani' quotes Ibn Hajar on the issue of one charging against many, stating: "The majority have explicitly stated that if it is due to his extreme bravery and his belief that he will terrify the enemy or embolden the Muslims against them, or similar valid objectives, then it is commendable (hasan). But if it is merely reckless impulsivity (tahawwur), it is prohibited, especially if it leads to the weakening of the Muslims." (3). ¶

In Tafsir al-Shawkani, under the interpretation of the verse of 'Al-Tahluka' (destruction), it states: "The truth is that the consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not to the specificity of the cause. Therefore, everything that can be rightfully described as destruction in one's religion or worldly life falls under this... Among the things that fall under this verse is that one throws oneself..." ¶