Chapter 13

A person in war charges the army while lacking the ability to save himself and having no impact that benefits the Mujahideen... Ibn Abi Hatim narrated that when they besieged Damascus, a man rushed toward the enemy alone; the Muslims disapproved of this and raised his matter to Amr ibn al-Aas. He sent for him, brought him back, and said: 'God says: "And do not cast yourselves into destruction with your own hands."' (1) ¶

In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it is stated that strength is a condition for the one taking the risk for the risk to be legitimate, then it says: 'If he lacks strength, that is considered destruction.' (2) ¶

This is the ruling on taking risks when it does not result in a benefit for the Muslims or inflict harm upon the enemy. ¶

B - As for when taking a risk results in bringing a benefit to the Muslims, averting harm from them, or inflicting a blow upon the enemy, the opinions of scholars in such cases indicate approval and endorsement. ¶

In 'Ahkam al-Quran' by Ibn al-Arabi, regarding an individual charging at a group of the enemy: ¶

'The correct view, in my opinion, is that it is permissible, because it contains four aspects: First: Seeking martyrdom. Second: Inflicting harm (on the enemy). Third: Emboldening the Muslims against them. Fourth: Weakening their spirits—meaning the disbelievers—so they see that this is the act of one person, then what would you think of them all? It is a duty to meet one against two, and other than that is permissible.' (3) ¶

In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it states: ¶

'If he knows or strongly suspects that he will kill the one he attacks and survive, then it is good. Likewise, if he knows or strongly suspects that he will be killed, but he will inflict a blow, display valor, or leave an impact that benefits the Muslims, then it is also permissible. It has reached me that when the Muslim army met the Persians, the horses of the Muslims were spooked by the elephants. A man among them fashioned an elephant out of clay and accustomed his horse to it until it became familiar. When morning came, his horse did not spook.' ¶

Regarding the elephant. He charged at the elephant that was leading them. He was told: 'It will kill you.' He replied: 'There is no harm if I am killed, and the gates are opened for the Muslims.' Similarly, on the day of Yamama, when the Banu Hanifa took refuge in the garden, a Muslim said: 'Place me on the shield and throw me toward them.' They did so, and he fought them alone and opened the door. I say: Of this nature is the report that a man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'What if I am killed in the way of Allah, patient and seeking reward?' He said: 'For you is Paradise.' So he plunged into the enemy until he was killed! In Sahih Muslim, it is narrated from Anas bin Malik that on the day of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) remained with seven of the Ansar and two men from Quraysh. When the enemy pressed upon him, he said: 'Who will repel them from us, and for him is Paradise, or he will be my companion in Paradise?' A man from the Ansar stepped forward and fought until he was killed. Then they pressed upon him again, and he said: 'Who will repel them from us, and for him is Paradise?' or 'he will be my companion in Paradise?' Another man from the Ansar stepped forward and fought until he was killed, and so on until the seven were killed. This, and what we find most sound among these opinions regarding our issue is the second view, which advocates for nuance. That is: if taking the risk achieves some benefit, it is permissible; if it achieves no benefit, it is forbidden. Provided that we expand the concept of 'benefit' here to include any harm caused to the disbelievers, whether material or moral. That is, everything that tips the balance of power in favor of the Muslims and weakens the enemy is a benefit. If the risk carries both benefit and harm simultaneously, the ruling follows the dominant aspect. Hence, there must be an authority to assess this risk in terms of benefit and harm. If there is an Emir (leader) of the fighting group, he is the one to make the assessment, and his decision must be adhered to. If the situation makes it impossible to obtain the Emir’s approval, and the person taking the risk believes there is a certain benefit to be gained, there is no harm in taking the risk, as long as there was no prior prohibition against such an adventure. ¶

As for when there is no emir—meaning the fighter is battling alone and not within a fighting unit—then in this situation, he is his own emir. It is his responsibility to assess the situation he is in: whether to risk it or not, according to the criteria of benefit and harm. However, we must expand the concept of 'harm' here to include the absence of benefit to the Muslims resulting from that venture. ¶

Furthermore, we do not consider the mere martyrdom that the risk-taker attains for himself as being among the benefits intended here when it lacks any tangible benefit reaching the Muslims; because the benefit of martyrdom for the individual in this case conflicts with the harm caused to the Muslims by losing this fighter. The legal maxim states: 'Preventing harm takes precedence over securing benefits.' How much more so when the benefit is private—i.e., attained by the risk-taker alone, which is martyrdom here—and the harm is general—i.e., affecting the Muslim community by depriving them of the potential of this fighter—especially since true martyrdom is that which is for the benefit of the religion and the Muslims. ¶

Since the assessment of benefit and harm varies according to the circumstances of combat, and also varies depending on the person making the assessment according to their ijtihad and calculations, it is natural that the ruling on taking risks should also vary. It may sometimes be considered as 'destruction' (tahluka), and at other times as the praiseworthy 'immersion' (inghimas) into the enemy ranks. ¶

Thus, we reconcile the texts and traditions that discourage risk-taking with those that encourage it, as previously mentioned. However, in any case, the one authorized to judge whether to permit or prevent a risk—even if that person is the fighter himself—must always prioritize caution regarding the fighter's life, and should not sacrifice him for every fleeting glimmer of benefit! From this, we understand what came in Imam al-Shafi’i’s book, 'Al-Umm'. He said: On the authority of Anas ibn Malik, that Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) asked him: 'When you besiege a city, what do you do?' He said: 'We send a man toward the city, and we place for him a protection of hides.' He asked: 'What if...' ¶

By throwing a stone? He (the Prophet) said: 'In that case, he would be killed.' He said: 'Then do not do it. By Him in whose hand is my soul, it does not please me that you conquer a city containing four thousand combatants at the cost of losing one Muslim man.' Imam Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 'What Umar ibn al-Khattab said is based on caution and a wise consideration for the Muslims. I prefer for the Imam and all officials not to expose themselves to such situations, nor to others where the probability of destruction is high, even though this is not forbidden for the one who exposes himself to it.' Then he says: 'If someone asks, what is the evidence that there is no harm in advancing against a group (of enemies)? It is said: It has reached us that a man asked: O Messenger of Allah, for what does Allah laugh at His servant? He replied: For his plunging into the enemy without armor. So he threw off the armor he was wearing and charged until he was killed...!' ¶

This is what Imam Al-Shafi'i said, which must be understood in light of the criteria of benefit and harm we have mentioned, and the discretion of those who are qualified to apply this criterion. Perhaps this is the reason for the lack of a specific, definitive ruling by some jurists regarding the issue of a single individual charging against a large number of the enemy among the five Shariah rulings. This is due to what we have mentioned regarding the difference in estimation depending on varying circumstances, the scale of benefit and harm, and the difference in the estimators, which subsequently leads to a difference in the ruling. This prevents giving a definitive, absolute ruling and makes the ruling dependent on the varying circumstances. ¶

Thus, what Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said about preferring to preserve the life of a Muslim combatant over the conquest of an enemy city containing four thousand combatants who would fall into the hands of the Muslims, is an assessment by Umar ibn al-Khattab contingent upon specific circumstances that dictated that assessment according to his opinion and ijtihad (legal reasoning). This does not prevent someone other than Umar ibn al-Khattab—who possesses the authority of assessment—from holding an opinion contrary to Umar's in those same circumstances; just as it does not prevent Umar ibn al-Khattab himself from changing his assessment based on changing conditions, where he might deem the sacrifice of a large number of Muslims for a goal less than that of conquering a city with a large number of combatants as acceptable. Indeed, it has been reported from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that which indicates his support for risking one's life in combat situations. ¶

It is stated in Kanz al-Ummal: 'From Al-Mughira ibn Shu'bah, who said: We were on an expedition, and a man advanced and fought until he was killed. People said: He has cast himself into destruction. They wrote to Umar about it, and Umar wrote back: If he... ¶

He was as they said—he is among those of whom Allah says: 'And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah.' It is noteworthy here to pay attention to Umar’s statement: 'If he was as they said,' for this expression suggests that taking risks is not prohibited in every case, nor is it permitted in every case. Rather, it is subject to a balance of estimation that either opens the door for it or closes it. The expression indicates that the response of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was based on the description of the reality and the circumstances surrounding that risk as they were conveyed to him. Thus, as we see, the entire matter is one of judgment, which lies with those to whom the authority of judgment has been entrusted! With this, we conclude the first issue of this research, which is: Is it permissible for an individual fighter or a fighting group to confront a large force of enemies that far outnumbers them? And we move now to: The second issue, which is: Is it permissible to fight without the permission of the Imam, or the leader who holds authority in warfare? The answer to this question will be provided by addressing the following points: 1. Is the presence of the Imam a condition for engaging in warfare against enemies, whether the fighting is offensive or defensive? 2. What is the role of the presence of the Imam regarding the authorization of fighting? 3. What is the ruling on adhering to the obedience of those in authority in Islamic countries today, when they issue their order to fight the enemies or to refrain from doing so? Before answering these points, we set forth this broad principle which Allah the Almighty has clarified in His Book: that it is the duty of the Messenger (ﷺ) to clarify what he conveys from Allah the Almighty. Allah says in establishing this broad principle: 'And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them.' ¶

It should be noted that the clarification (bayan) from the Messenger may come in the form of his speech, his actions, or his tacit approval (taqrir). Hence, regarding prayer and Hajj, it has been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Pray as you have seen me praying,' and 'Take your rituals from me.' This principle applies to all legislations mentioned in the Holy Quran, including the legislation of combat (qital), in accordance with the broad fundamental rule mentioned earlier. Consequently, it is necessary to refer to the Sunnah (biography) of the Messenger (peace be upon him) regarding how to conduct the fight against enemies, whether through his statements, actions, or approvals. In light of this, the answers to the points we previously raised become clear. By examining his biography in the context of jihad, we observe several points: First: The Messenger (peace be upon him) personally led military campaigns against enemies who were reported to be preparing to invade Medina, such as the expedition of 'Dumat al-Jandal' in Rabi' al-Awwal of the fifth year of Hijrah, and the expedition of 'al-Muraysi'' in Sha'ban of the same year. Furthermore, the Messenger (peace be upon him) would occasionally send others to represent him in leading these campaigns, such as the detachments (saraya) he sent to intercept the wealth of his enemy, the Quraysh, like the detachment of 'Ubaydah ibn al-Harith' in Shawwal of the first year of Hijrah, or to disperse enemy gatherings intending to raid Medina, as seen in the expedition of 'Dhat al-Salasil' led by 'Amr ibn al-As'. ¶

that joined him, led by Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah towards the lands of 'Quda'ah' in the north (1) - in Jumada al-Akhirah, in the eighth year of the Hijra (2). ¶

Second: Among the matters that clarify for us some of the rulings of combat in the biography of the Prophet (ﷺ) is the incident when 'Uyaynah ibn Hisn al-Fazari' raided, along with the 'Banu Abdullah ibn Ghatafan', in the sixth year of the Hijra, three months before the Battle of Khaybar. He raided the milch camels of the Prophet (ﷺ) at al-Ghaba (3), drove them away, killed their shepherd, and took his wife captive. ¶

It is stated in Ibn Qudamah’s 'Al-Mughni': 'Salamah ibn al-Akwa' encountered them, followed them, and fought them without permission. The Prophet (ﷺ) praised him, saying: The best of our infantrymen is Salamah ibn al-Akwa'' (4). In the report of this expedition in Sahih Muslim, it states: 'Until there was nothing left of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) milch camels that I did not leave behind my back, and I snatched thirty garments from them' (5). Also mentioned in the report of this expedition: 'Salamah said: Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and the cavalry reached us in the evening. I said: O Messenger of Allah! The people are thirsty; if you send me with a hundred men, I will recover the livestock from their hands and seize the people by their necks! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) replied: MALAKTA FASJAH (6), meaning: be gentle and do good. Al-Sajahah means ease; meaning, do not use severity, but be gentle and forgive, for the enemy has already suffered sufficient losses.' ¶

Third: Among the accounts from the biography that clarify for us some of the rulings of combat is the story of Abu Basir, after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between the Prophet (ﷺ) and the Quraish, one of the clauses of which was that the Prophet (ﷺ) would return to Quraish anyone who came to him having accepted Islam. In this story, it is recorded by Al-Bayhaqi in 'Al-Sunan al-Kubra' that the Quraish sent two men, one a mawla (freed slave) of Quraish and the other from Banu Amir, to the Prophet (ﷺ) requesting the return of 'Abu Basir', Utbah ibn Usayd, who... ¶

He escaped from the Quraish to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, having embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ summoned Abu Basir and said to him: 'O Abu Basir! These people have made a peace treaty with us on the terms you know, and we do not commit treachery! So, return to your people.' He replied: 'O Messenger of Allah! Will you send me back to the polytheists, that they may test me in my religion and torment me?' The Prophet ﷺ said: 'Be patient, O Abu Basir, and seek your reward from Allah, for Allah will create a relief and a way out for you and for the weak believers who are with you.' It is said that Abu Basir left, and the man [the polytheist escort] left with him until they reached Dhu al-Hulayfah. They sat by the wall of a garden, and Abu Basir said to the Amiri man: 'Is this sword of yours sharp, O brother of Banu Amir?' He replied: 'Yes!' Abu Basir said: 'Let me look at it?' The man said: 'If you wish.' Abu Basir drew it, struck the man's neck with it, and killed him. The mawla (freed slave) fled, running until he appeared before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while he was sitting in the mosque. When the Prophet ﷺ saw him, he said: 'This man has seen something frightening.' When he reached him, the Prophet asked: 'Woe to you, what is the matter?' He said: 'Your companion has killed my companion.' Shortly after, Abu Basir arrived with the sword hanging at his side. He stood before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: 'O Messenger of Allah! You have fulfilled your covenant, Allah has discharged your obligation on your behalf, and I have defended myself against the polytheists.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Woe to his mother! He is a kindle-fire of war; if only he had others with him!' Abu Basir brought the spoils of the man to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: 'The khums (fifth), O Messenger of Allah!' The Prophet replied: 'If I take a fifth of it, I would not be fulfilling the covenant I made with them. But keep the spoils of your opponent, and go wherever you wish!' Abu Basir left, along with five other Muslims who had accompanied him from Mecca, until they were between 'al-Ais' and 'Dhu al-Marwah' in the land of Juhaynah, on the route of the Quraish caravans near the seashore. No Quraish caravan would pass by them without them seizing it and killing its people. Abu Jandal ibn Suhayl ibn Amr then escaped with seventy riders who had embraced Islam and migrated, joining Abu Basir, as they disliked presenting themselves to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ during the truce with the polytheists. ¶

The author of 'al-Mughni', commenting on the story of Abu Basir, states: 'It is permissible for those among the disbelievers who embrace Islam to separate themselves, kill those disbelievers they can overcome, and seize their wealth; they are not bound by the peace treaty. However, if the Imam includes them [the converts] with him with the consent of the disbelievers, then they enter into the peace treaty, and it becomes forbidden for them to kill the disbelievers or take their wealth.' ¶

(1) Takhmis of the ghanimah: Extracting its fifth for those whom Allah mentioned in the verse of al-Anfal, and the remainder belongs to the fighters who obtained the spoils. The verse of al-Anfal regarding those entitled to the fifth is: {And know that anything of booty that you capture, the fifth of it is for Allah, for the Messenger, for the near relatives, the orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer.} Surah al-Anfal, verse 41. (2) Sunan al-Bayhaqi: 9/227-228. (3) Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 10/525. ¶

In 'Zad al-Ma'ad', concerning the jurisprudence of the story of Abu Basir, it is stated: 'Among the points derived is that when the Mu'ahidin (those with whom a treaty exists) receive him and gain control over him, and he kills one of them, there is no blood money (diyah) or retaliation (qisas) due for him, nor is the Imam held responsible. Rather, his ruling in this regard is the same as the ruling for killing them in their own lands, where the Imam has no jurisdiction. For Abu Basir killed one of the two Mu'ahidin at Dhu al-Hulayfah, which is under the jurisdiction of Medina, but he had already been handed over to them and was separated from the Imam's authority and jurisdiction.' ¶

Moving forward, we continue to examine the events of combat in the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) to clarify the rulings of combat, stating: Fourth: It is mentioned in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' by Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani: 'A man from the Ashja' tribe came to the Prophet (PBUH) and complained of his poverty. He (PBUH) said, "Be patient." He then left and obtained spoils of war from the enemy... and brought them to the Prophet (PBUH), who declared them lawful for him. Thereupon, Allah Almighty revealed: {And whoever fears Allah, He will make for him a way out and provide for him from where he does not expect...}.' Imam al-Shaybani states: 'This is the basis for our scholars regarding what one or two individuals obtain from the Dar al-Harb (land of war) when they enter for raiding without the permission of the Imam...' Fifth: It is also stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary, providing insight into the jurisprudence of combat in Islam: 'It has been narrated to us that the Prophet (PBUH) forbade fighting on certain days at Khaybar, but a man fought and was killed... It was said to him, "So-and-so has been martyred." The Prophet (PBUH) said, "After he was forbidden from fighting?" They said, "Yes!" He said, "Paradise is not lawful for one who is disobedient." In the commentary, it says: 'Despite the status of martyrdom, he (PBUH) said what he said regarding him to clarify that disobedience in matters where the error of the leader (Amir) is not certain is in no way permissible.' I (the author) say: After these explorations into the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) regarding combat with the enemy, and the many rulings on combat in Islam contained therein, we proceed to answer the points raised at the beginning of the discussion on this issue. ¶

The issue at hand is: Is it permissible for an individual or a group to engage in combat without the permission of the Imam or the Emir who holds the authority to command combat? Let us address the points raised one by one: The first point is: Is the presence of an Imam a condition for engaging in combat against enemies, whether the combat is offensive or defensive? The answer is: The presence of an Imam is not a condition for performing the obligation of combat against enemies, because the Quranic verses regarding combat were revealed in absolute terms and were not restricted by such a condition. This is evidenced by the Almighty’s saying: 'Fighting is ordained for you' (1), and His saying: 'And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you' (2). Furthermore, it is recorded in the Prophetic biography—as we have previously extracted from its events—that Abu Basir killed the Ameri and took his spoils (salab). Abu Basir, in that state, had no Imam over him, as he was not under the authority of the Messenger ﷺ, after the Prophet ﷺ had handed him over to the envoys of Quraish. As Ibn al-Qayyim said—as we mentioned before—he had been 'separated from the hand and authority of the Imam.' The Muslims followed this path; it is not recorded that they suspended combat during the periods between the death of one Imam and the appointment of another. After the death of the last Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad at the hands of the Tatars, the Muslims remained for a long time without an Imam (3). There were only regional Emirs, and the combat against the enemy continued and did not stop. Furthermore, the continuation of combat in the absence of an Imam—whether the combat is offensive or defensive—is the same; for Abu Basir’s fighting and killing of the Ameri was defensive, intended to escape the grasp of his enemy, just as his fighting with his companions against the Quraish caravan and seizing its spoils also falls under this. ¶

It was offensive. In all of this, they were not under the authority of an Imam; Abu Basir was initially his own leader, then he became the leader of that small band of mujahideen that disturbed the sleep of Quraish! This concerns the first point. ¶

The second point is: What is the role of the presence of the Imam regarding the authorization of combat? The answer is: The fundamental principle, in the presence of an Imam, is that he is the reference for managing the affairs of combat. It is stated in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: “Section: The matter of Jihad is entrusted to the Imam, and his ijtihad (discretion), and it is binding upon the subjects to obey him.” (1). ¶

Ibn Abidin noted in his Hashiyah, in the definition of Imamate—that is, Caliphate—that it is “a general leadership in religion and worldly affairs, acting as a successor to the Prophet ﷺ” (2). There is no doubt that fighting the enemy is among the affairs of religion and the world. As stated in the Hashiyah: “Leadership, upon verification, is nothing but the entitlement to exercise authority; for the meaning of the people of binding and loosing (Ahl al-Hall wal-Aqd) appointing an Imam is nothing but to establish this entitlement” (2). ¶

Accordingly, the one entitled to exercise authority in matters of combat is the Imam. Based on this, obedience to the Imam is obligatory in the affairs of managing combat. ¶

In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it is stated: “Sahl ibn Abdullah al-Tustari said (3): ‘Obey the Sultan in seven things: the striking of dirhams and dinars, measurements and weights, legal judgments, Hajj, Jumu’ah, the two Eids, and Jihad.’” ¶

I say: This is the fundamental principle in fighting enemies—that the management thereof belongs to the Imam when he is present, and his obedience is mandatory in this, acting upon the words of the Almighty: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” (4). ¶

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) included this ruling under a more general and comprehensive principle, which is that the authority to oversee all the affairs of the Ummah—including the management of combat—belongs solely to the Imam (the leader). This is evidenced by his (ﷺ) saying: 'The supreme Imam who is over the people is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects.' ¶

Following this, we address the point raised: What is the role of the Imam regarding the authorization of combat? ¶

The answer is: If the Imam has not issued a prohibition against fighting, it is considered a general permission to combat the enemy. In this situation, it is permissible for an individual or a group—without explicit permission from the Imam—to go out and fight the people of war (Ahl al-Harb), raiding them in their own lands by night or day, killing the enemy, seizing their wealth, or defending themselves when the people of war aggress against the Muslims, their lives, their lands, or their property. ¶

The evidence for this is clear in the story of Abu Basir and his companions, in their attacking the Quraysh caravan and seizing their goods. ¶

It is also evidenced by the story of the Ashja'i man who obtained booty from the enemy without the Prophet’s (ﷺ) permission, and the Messenger (ﷺ) deemed it lawful for him, according to the narration of Imam al-Shaybani. ¶

Furthermore, there is the story of Salama bin al-Akwa', who fought those who attacked the Prophet's (ﷺ) camels—without the Prophet (ﷺ) having given him permission to fight—yet the Prophet (ﷺ) praised his action. ¶

This applies provided that the Imam has not prohibited fighting; in that case, it acts as a general authorization to fight the enemy. However, despite this, there are two scholarly opinions (ijtihadi views) on this matter: ¶

1. The first opinion: Combat without the Imam's permission is forbidden (haram), and the person who does so is denied their share of the enemy wealth acquired through this method. It is stated in the book *Al-Mughni*: 'They should not set out except with the permission of the commander...' ¶

Except if it is impossible to seek his permission due to a surprise attack by the enemy, in which case seeking his permission is not mandatory... because there is definitive corruption in refraining from them [the enemy]. ¶

It is stated in another place: 'If a group of people who lack defensive capabilities (mana'ah) enter the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) without the Imam’s permission and seize spoils, there are three narrations from Ahmad regarding this: (First) that their spoils are like the spoils of others, and the Imam shall extract one-fifth (khums) from it. (Second) that it belongs entirely to them without the extraction of one-fifth. (Third) that they have no right to it at all... because they are disobedient by their action, and thus have no right to it, and the first [opinion] is the most appropriate.' ¶

This is the first opinion regarding the ruling on seeking the Imam’s permission before going out for combat; it is the obligation to seek permission, and the prohibition of fighting without it, except in cases of necessity as previously explained. ¶

2 - The Second Opinion: Fighting without the Imam’s permission is makruh (disliked), not haram (prohibited). It states in Al-Muhadhdhab: 'Section: Engaging in a military expedition (ghazw) without the permission of the Imam or the commander appointed by him is disliked; because military expeditions depend on necessity, and the commander is more knowledgeable about that. It is not haram, because it involves nothing more than putting oneself in peril, and putting oneself in peril is permissible in jihad.' ¶

It is stated in Mukhtasar al-Muzani in this regard: 'If a group conducts an expedition without the Imam’s permission, I dislike it, because the Imam’s permission implies his awareness of their expedition and their identity, and he receives reports about them, enabling him to assist them where their destruction is feared so that they are not lost in vain. Al-Shafi'i said: I do not know it to be haram for them.' ¶

I say: Perhaps this reasoning for the dislike of fighting without the Imam’s explicit permission reminds us of the principle in the previous issue, which is the difference in assessing the risk involved depending on the circumstances and conditions of combat, and the difference in the estimation of the one who has the authority to assess a specific situation. Where the aspect of harm outweighs [the benefit] in a particular operation, the ruling is prohibition, because 'there shall be no harm and no reciprocation of harm.' ¶

Where the aspect of maslaha (public interest) prevails, the ruling is permissibility (jawaz). It is upon this that the evidence permitting risk-taking is interpreted, as previously mentioned. The same applies to our current issue. The ruling on fighting the enemy without the Imam's permission should vary according to circumstances and conditions, and according to who holds the authority of assessment in a given situation. Thus, where the aspect of harm (darar) prevails in a specific fight, the ruling is prohibition (tahrim), and where the aspect of interest prevails, the ruling is permissibility. ¶

It is true that the Imam is the primary and final authority regarding combat, and he is the one empowered to make assessments in this matter. However, the premise of our issue here is that the Imam has not issued a prohibition against fighting without his explicit permission. It is as if, in this situation, there exists a tacit, general permission to fight without referring back to him. ¶

If it were in the Imam's estimation that such operations carried out by fighters without his permission would lead to harm, he would be obligated to issue an order to stop them. As long as he has not done so, it implies that, in his estimation, such operations do not result in that forbidden harm. ¶

In this state, the assessment of a specific combat operation, or a raid on an enemy center in their land with the intention of striking terror, killing men, or acquiring wealth—or similar actions—rests with the individual or group carrying it out. Where the potential for harm outweighs the benefit, such harm is prohibited. Where the interest prevails, blame is removed. ¶

Yes! The Imam has the right here to predetermine the scope of these operations undertaken by adventurers, whether in terms of the number of participants, the type of weapons used, or the nature of the targets intended... and other matters, provided the Imam perceives that fighting within these limits—without explicit permission for each operation—does not result in local or international complications that lead to harm befalling the Muslims. ¶

Thus, in the manner mentioned above, we reconcile the differing opinions regarding the issue of fighting without the Imam's permission. The standard governing the matter is the balance of harm and interest, according to the assessment of those who have the authority to judge. ¶

This is alluded to in the sayings of the jurists. It is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: 'And if a detachment (sariyya) entered the enemy's land, and they were near...' ¶

[There was] a large army of the enemy of which they were unaware, and a man from among the Muslims wanted to attack them. I disliked that because his action would signal the presence of the Muslims [to the enemy], and the Muslims did not have the strength to retaliate against them, so they would have been killed. There is no concession (rukhsa) in signaling the presence of the Muslims so that they may be killed or captured." (1) ¶

Regarding his statement "I disliked that," it means: the dislike of prohibition (karahat tahrimi), as is the terminology of Hanafi fiqh. The evidence is his saying: "and there is no concession in signaling the presence of the Muslims"; for that which has no concession is prohibited (haram), not merely dislike for the sake of integrity (karahat tanzihi). ¶

- With this, we conclude the issue of the Imam's role in authorizing combat in cases where no prohibition against combat has been issued by him. ¶

- We now move to another point in this issue, which is: What is the ruling if an explicit prohibition against combat is issued by the Imam - without his permission - whether the combat is defensive or offensive? ¶

The answer is: The ruling differs depending on whether the combat is defensive or offensive. ¶

In defensive combat, there are two cases: - The first case: If the Imam's prohibition of defensive combat is issued while the enemy has attacked the Muslims, and that prohibition was for the sake of preparing a defense strategy so that the defense would be effective, and no harm would result from waiting for his permission to fight, then in this case, obedience to the Imam is mandatory. ¶

- The second case: If the Imam's prohibition of defensive combat is merely out of fear of the enemies - whether fear for his own person, or fear for his authority, or something similar, and he is trying to appease them by this prevention of combat. ¶

Or if the matter is not like that, and the Imam is sincere, but waiting for his permission to fight results in harm to the Muslims - then in both of these two cases - the state of fear and the state of harm resulting from waiting for permission - it is mandatory for the commanders of the armed units and for those among the volunteer Muslims who are capable of fighting [to engage in combat]. ¶

They must rise immediately to defend the Muslims and their lands, and fight the invading enemy fiercely; for in this situation, fighting becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon the Muslims whose lands the enemy has targeted. Awaiting the Imam’s permission in this state is equivalent to inflicting harm upon the Muslims, much like obeying him in a state of his treachery—in addition to the harm caused by such obedience—it falls into the category of obedience in an act of disobedience to the Creator; both are impermissible! For it is established that 'there shall be no harming nor reciprocating harm' and 'there is no obedience to a creature in the disobedience of the Creator.' ¶

It is stated in Mukhtasar al-Khiraqi and its commentary: 'It is mandatory for the people, when the enemy arrives, to mobilize, whether they are lightly or heavily equipped. They should not sally forth against the enemy except with the permission of the commander, unless they are surprised by an overwhelming enemy whose evil they fear, such that they cannot seek his permission. This is because once the enemy arrives, jihad becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon them; thus, it becomes incumbent upon everyone, and no one is permitted to lag behind. Once this is established, they do not go out except with the commander’s permission because the command of war is entrusted to him; he is most knowledgeable regarding the enemy’s numbers, their ambushes, and their stratagems. Therefore, one must defer to his judgment, as it is safer for the Muslims, unless seeking his permission is impossible due to the enemy's surprise attack. In that case, seeking permission is not required, as the interest lies in fighting them, and leaving them would lead to certain corruption. This is why, when the disbelievers raided the Prophet’s (ﷺ) camels, Salamah ibn al-Akwa' happened to be leaving Medina; he followed them and fought them without permission, and the Prophet (ﷺ) praised him, saying: 'The best of our men is Salamah ibn al-Akwa',' and granted him the share of both a horseman and a foot soldier.' ¶

This applies when the fighting is defensive, and the Imam has issued a prohibition against engaging in it without his authorization. ¶

As for offensive combat: This is the offensive combat against enemies with whom we are in a state of war, not a state of peace. That is to say: there is no treaty between us and them to cease hostilities. According to international norms, they have the right to wage war against us at any time, just as we have the right against them—according to both custom and Shariah—subject to certain conditions that will be discussed later. ¶

I say: This offensive combat is a fard kifaya (communal obligation) upon the Muslims; if some perform it, the obligation is lifted from the rest (1). Now, in the case where the Imam forbids the performance of this communal obligation, we must consider: ¶

If his prohibition is based on a benefit for the Muslims according to his assessment and ijtihad—for example, if he perceives weakness in the Muslims and is waiting for a time when they gain strength and can make the necessary preparations—then in this situation, he is not refraining from performing this duty; rather, he is following a path that enables its performance. It is well-known—as will be addressed in subsequent discussions—that offensive combat is only obligatory if the strength of the Muslims is not less than half the strength of the enemy. Therefore, the Imam's order to refrain from fighting under these circumstances is not an order to commit a sin, such that it would be permissible for the Muslims to rebel against him and go out to fight without his permission! ¶

Sometimes the Imam forbids offensive combat against enemies—meaning the combat that is a communal obligation which the Muslims are capable of performing—for some Shariah-based interest. This may be because it could lead to complications in the near or foreseeable future that would harm the Muslims, despite their ability to win the war against their enemy under the current circumstances. ¶

And sometimes the Imam forbids offensive combat against the enemies because he sees the possibility that these enemies might respond to the Islamic idea by embracing Islam, or by accepting the idea of annexing their lands to the lands of the Muslims and applying the Islamic system to them, even if they do not enter into Islam. ¶

I say: If the Imam has prohibited this offensive combat for the sake of some interest... ¶

Shariah [considerations], both those we have mentioned and those we have not — in such a state, obedience to him [the Imam] is obligatory, because the matter of Jihad — as previously stated — is entrusted to his opinion and ijtihad. ¶

It is stated in As-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: "If the Imam forbids the people from military expeditions and going out to fight, it is not appropriate for them to disobey him, unless it is a general mobilization (nafir 'amm); for obedience to the leader is obligatory in matters that do not involve committing a sin." ¶

It says in another place: "And if he forbids them from fighting, it is upon them not to disobey him, unless a necessity or a sin arises." ¶

And it is stated in Ash-Sharh al-Kabir on the text of Al-Muqni': "At the very least, Jihad should be performed once every year. If there is a need to delay it—such as the Muslims having weakness in numbers or equipment, or if they are awaiting reinforcements to assist them, or if there is an obstruction on the path, or a lack of fodder or water there, or if he knows the enemy has a favorable view toward Islam and hopes for their conversion if fighting is delayed, or similar circumstances where he sees a maslaha (benefit) in refraining from fighting—then it is permissible to leave it through a truce (hudna). For the Prophet ﷺ made peace with the Quraysh for ten years and delayed fighting them until they broke the treaty. And he delayed fighting tribes of the Arabs without a truce..." ¶

This is what is said in the case where the Imam forbids offensive combat against the disbelieving enemy if that prohibition is based on a legitimate Shariah interest... ¶

However, if the prohibition of this offensive combat is not based on any Shariah interest, but is merely an abstention from fulfilling an obligatory duty—either out of groundless fear, or with the motive of changing the lifestyle of the Muslims from a life of struggle and effort to carry the Islamic call to the world, to a life where the value of luxury and pleasure—even if permissible—is placed above the value of Jihad for the sake of Allah. ¶

I say: If the prohibition of combat (qital) is based on this or that motive, or similar grounds, then we are dealing with an act of disobedience (ma'siyah) in which the authority must be restrained from proceeding; because "there is no obedience to a created being in disobedience to the Creator." In such a situation, it is the duty of the armed forces to fulfill the obligation of this combat and to override the will of the Imam who prohibits it, while simultaneously addressing how the Imam might retract his decision through political struggle. This is done by offering him counsel and leveraging the pressure of the Islamic public opinion, which is mobilized by the leaders of thought and intellect in the Islamic society. This is what is indicated by the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah: "The Ummah is the guardian of the Shariah." ¶

Furthermore, the matter should be referred to the 'Diwan al-Mazalim' (Office of Grievances), to which one turns for adjudication in disputes arising between Muslims and their rulers—as previously indicated in earlier discussions. ¶

This is because there is no slogan in the Islamic society higher than the slogan of carrying the Islamic call (Da'wah), no voice louder than the voice of exalting the word of Allah the Almighty, and no value in the Muslim scale of values that precedes the value of spreading Islam and performing Jihad in the way of Allah! ¶

All of this is clear in the words of the Almighty: "Say, 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.'" ¶

This is the position of Islam regarding the decision to prohibit combat if it is issued by the Imam, whether the combat is defensive or offensive. ¶

With this, we conclude the second point of the issue at hand: Is it permissible for an individual or a group to engage in combat without the permission of the Imam or the Amir who holds the authority to wage war? ¶

We now come to the final point in our issue, which is: What is the ruling regarding the obligation to obey those in authority in Islamic countries today concerning the fighting of enemies when they issue an order to undertake it or to refrain from it? The answer is that this question raises two matters: First, the issuance of an order to fight. Second, the issuance of an order to refrain from fighting. I say: Before entering into the answer, it is necessary to state the reason that prompted this question, and whether this reason has a role in the matter of fighting enemies. The reason that leads some, or most, people to such a question is the debate surrounding the legitimacy of the authority held by those managing the affairs of the Muslims in these days. Consequently, if the result of this debate is not in the interest of those holding the reins of power, does this result have an effect on the matter of fighting enemies, whether by ordering it or forbidding it? The answer is that the fundamental question in this point we are addressing raises two issues: First, the issuance of an order to fight by these holders of authority. Second, the issuance of an order to refrain from fighting by them. As for the answer to the first issue, which is the order to fight—the Shariah texts have not distinguished in the obligation to respond to this order between whether the one ordering it is a legitimate authority or an illegitimate one. This is because the evidence that has come regarding the obligation of Jihad and fighting is of two types: One type of evidence came as absolute (mutlaq), where the obligation to fight was not restricted to the condition that the ruler who undertakes it possesses legitimate authority, as in His (the Almighty's) saying: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day...' (Surah At-Tawbah: 29) and His saying: 'O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers...' (Surah At-Tawbah: 123). ¶