Chapter 26

If a place proved too difficult for the Muslims to conquer, they would leave it... Then the Hawazin tribe came and announced their conversion to Islam, and later, the Thaqif tribe arrived to meet the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and their affair concluded with their acceptance of Islam. ¶

24- It appears that news of the victory of Islam and this spreading Islamic tide reached the Romans on the outskirts of the Arabian Peninsula. They sought to halt this advancing movement so that it would not pose any threat to them. It is stated in Zad al-Ma'ad: 'Ibn Sa'd mentioned: It reached the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that the Romans had gathered large forces in the Levant (al-Sham), and that Heraclius had provided his companions with provisions for a year, and that the tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Amilah, and Ghassan had rallied with him. They had sent their vanguard to al-Balqa'... Then he said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) reached Tabuk, the ruler of Ayla came to him, made peace with him, and paid the jizya (tribute). The people of Jarba and Adhruh also came to him and paid the jizya.' ¶

Since Dumat al-Jandal, which lies to the northeast of Tabuk, had previously declared war on the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and was a center where hostile forces gathered against the Islamic state (as noted in paragraph 14), the Prophet (ﷺ) sent Khalid bin al-Walid to Ukaydir of Dumat—who was Ukaydir bin Abd al-Malik, a man from the Kinda tribe, a Christian, and its king. Khalid brought Ukaydir to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ); the Prophet (ﷺ) spared his life, made peace with him on the condition of paying jizya, and then released him, after which he returned to his village. ¶

It should be noted that no clash occurred between the Roman forces and their allied Christian Arab tribes on one side, and the forces of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the other. The Arab rulers in those regions preferred to sever their allegiance to the Roman Empire and declare loyalty to the Islamic state in Medina, in the manner previously described. ¶

It seems that the Romans were determined not to allow the Islamic call (Da'wah) to spread into their provinces. ¶

The Levant (al-Sham) which was under their control, and they were angered by the defection of some of their provinces from their authority, so they used violence to confront this phenomenon and to stand in the way of the Islamic Da'wah. ¶

It is stated in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham: "Ibn Ishaq said: Farwah ibn Amr al-Nafirah al-Judhami... sent a messenger to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ announcing his conversion to Islam, and gifted him a white mule. Farwah was a governor for the Romans over the Arabs who were under their influence, and his residence was 'Ma'an' and the surrounding lands of the Levant. When the Romans learned of his conversion to Islam, they sought him until they captured him and imprisoned him... When the Romans decided to crucify him at a water source of theirs known as 'Afra' in Palestine..." ¶

He said: Inform the leaders of the Muslims that I am surrendered to my Lord, my limbs and my station. ¶

Then they struck his neck and crucified him at that water source. May Allah the Almighty have mercy on him." (1) ¶

Hence, it was necessary for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to pay attention to the Roman front in the north. Therefore, shortly before his death, he ordered Usama ibn Zayd to lead an army to step onto the land of Palestine, to fight the enemies of the Muslims among the Romans and the Arab Christians loyal to them. (2) ¶

25 - "Ibn Ishaq said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ arrived in Medina from Tabuk in Ramadan, and in that month, the delegation of Thaqif came to him." (3) ¶

"Part of their story was... that they consulted among themselves and realized they had no power to fight the Arabs around them, having already pledged allegiance and embraced Islam..." (4) ¶

"Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stayed for the remainder of Ramadan, Shawwal, and Dhu al-Qa'dah, then he sent Abu Bakr as the leader of the Hajj in the year nine..." (5) ¶

Then Surah Bara'ah was revealed, and the Prophet (ﷺ) sent 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to proclaim it to the people during the Hajj season: [Recitation of Surah At-Tawbah: 1-5]. The warning contained in these verses, which declares war against the polytheists, is specific only to those who violated their treaties with the Muslims. The evidence for this is that the verses excluded from this warning those who maintained their treaties, as stated in Allah's saying: 'Except for those among the polytheists with whom you made a treaty and who have not been deficient in anything nor supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]' and His saying: 'So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them'. Thus, the command to fulfill the covenants of those people indicates that the declaration of war in Surah Bara'ah is specific only to those who initiated the declaration of war against the Muslims by violating their treaties with them. It is stated in the Tafsir of Al-Naysaburi in the explanation of these verses: 'Allah had permitted entering into treaties with the polytheists, so the Muslims agreed with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and made treaties with them. When they broke the covenant, Allah ordained the renunciation of the treaties with them... It is narrated that they had treaties with the polytheists of Makkah and other Arabs who broke them, except for some, such as 'Damra' and 'Banu Kinanah', so... ¶

Ending the covenant with those who violated it... And Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) stood on the Day of Sacrifice at the Jamrat al-Aqaba and said: 'O people! I am the messenger of the Messenger of Allah to you.' They asked: 'With what?' He then recited to them thirty or forty verses—meaning from Surah Bara'ah—and according to Mujahid, it was thirteen. Then he said: 'I have been commanded with four things: No polytheist shall approach the House after this year, no one shall circumambulate the House naked, no soul shall enter Paradise except a believing soul, and the covenant of anyone who has a covenant shall be fulfilled.' Upon this, they said: 'O Ali! Inform your cousin that we have cast our covenant behind our backs, and there is no covenant between us and him except the thrust of spears and the strike of swords!' ¶

- Then al-Naysaburi said: 'The purpose of this delay is for them to reflect upon themselves, contemplate the matter, and realize that after this period, they have only one of three options: Islam, the acceptance of Jizya, or the sword. This will compel them to accept Islam outwardly.' (1) ¶

He then said: '...Then he explained the ruling on the expiration of the term for the violators, saying: {And when the sacred months have passed}—meaning those in which the violators were permitted to roam freely... {then kill the polytheists}—meaning those who broke the covenant—{wherever you find them}—whether in the Hill (outside the sanctuary) or the Haram (sanctuary), and at any time.' (2) ¶

In Tafsir al-Alusi, it states: 'The address in "covenanted" is to the Muslims, and they had covenanted with the Arab polytheists from the people of Makkah and others... but they violated it, except for Banu Damra and Banu Kinana. The Muslims were commanded to declare the end of the covenant with the violators, and they were granted a respite of four months to travel wherever they wished... so that they might reflect, contemplate, prepare as they pleased, and know that there is nothing left for them but Islam or the sword! Perhaps this would lead them to Islam; also, if the Muslims had fought them immediately upon their manifestation of betrayal, they might have been accused of treachery. Thus, they were given respite to close the doors of suspicion and to demonstrate the might of their authority and their indifference toward them and their preparations.' (3) ¶

In Sirat Ibn Hisham, it is recorded: 'Ibn Ishaq said: When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) conquered Makkah, finished with Tabuk, and Thaqif accepted Islam and pledged allegiance, delegations of the Arabs flocked to him from every direction...' ¶

---------------------------------------- (1) Tafsir al-Naysaburi: Vol. 10 / 36 - 37. (2) Tafsir al-Naysaburi: Vol. 10 / 40. (3) Tafsir al-Alusi: Vol. 10 / 42 - 43. ¶

The Arabs were essentially watching the Islamic movement in relation to the Quraysh and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), for the Quraysh were the leaders and guides of the people, the custodians of the Sacred House, the direct descendants of Ishmael son of Abraham (peace be upon them), and the leaders of the Arabs—a fact that could not be denied. ¶

It was the Quraysh who spearheaded the war and opposition against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Once Makkah was conquered, the Quraysh were subdued, and Islam entered the city, the Arabs realized they had no power to wage war against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) or sustain enmity toward him. Consequently, they began to enter the religion of Allah in throngs, coming from every direction, just as the Almighty had stated. Allah the Almighty said to His Prophet (ﷺ): {When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest, And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance}. ¶

This was the conclusion of the state of affairs for the Arabs within the Arabian Peninsula. ¶

As for the affairs of Persia and Rome surrounding the Peninsula: Persia declared war on the Islamic state when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a letter to 'Chosroes' (Kisra), the King of Persia, inviting him to Islam. As recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, 'when Chosroes read it, he tore it up.' History of al-Tabari records that Chosroes sent word to 'Badhan,' his governor in Yemen, to send someone to bring the Prophet (ﷺ) to him. One of Badhan’s envoys said to the Prophet (ﷺ)—after demanding that he accompany him to appear before Chosroes—'If you refuse, then he—meaning Chosroes—is someone you know; he will destroy you, destroy your people, and ruin your lands!' ¶

However, the Messenger (ﷺ) informed Badhan’s envoys that Chosroes’s son, Sheroeh, had risen against him and killed him. They returned to Badhan, and news reached Yemen confirming the truth of what the Prophet (ﷺ) had revealed through divine inspiration. Consequently, Badhan and those with him embraced Islam, and Yemen was annexed to the Islamic state. ¶

Such was the nature of Persia's declaration of war against the Islamic state, rooted in sheer audacity. ¶

The insolence toward the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in demanding that he appear before 'Chosroes' to be punished! And the determination to destroy him, to destroy the Muslims, and to ruin the Islamic state had he not done so, in the manner previously mentioned. ¶

As for the 'Romans', the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had ordered the preparation of the army of 'Usama' to march toward them in the Levant (al-Sham) — as previously explained — but the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away before the army could depart for the Levant, so Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) dispatched it there immediately upon assuming the Caliphate (1). ¶

Third Point: The views of some Islamic writers regarding the causes of the Prophet's (ﷺ) wars — were they defensive or offensive? The views of those Islamic writers are summarized into two opinions: First: An opinion stating that all the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) were defensive, in response to the aggression of the disbelievers, in the broad sense of aggression which includes aggression against the Islamic mission, its followers, the Muslims, and their wealth (2). It holds that the Messenger (ﷺ) never initiated combat against the disbelievers; rather, in every instance, he played a defensive role in a conflict initiated by the disbelievers themselves. Second: An opinion stating that the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) were a fulfillment of the duty of Jihad, regardless of whether or not aggression occurred from the polytheists. It holds that in many of his expeditions and raids, the Messenger (ﷺ) initiated combat against the disbelievers and did not wait for them to start it so he could respond to them. We will present below citations representing the first opinion, followed by citations representing the second opinion. ¶

Views of the Predecessors: First: The opinion of those who say the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) were defensive. Ibn Taymiyyah says: 'His (ﷺ) practice was that he would not fight any of the disbelievers with whom he had a treaty, and this...' ¶

The books of Seerah (biography of the Prophet), Hadith, Tafsir (exegesis), and Maghazi (chronicles of battles) speak to this, and it is narrated with tawatur (mass transmission) from his life, peace be upon him, that he never initiated combat against anyone. ¶

He (Ibn Taymiyyah) also states: 'As for the Christians, he did not fight any of them until he had sent his emissaries after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to all the kings, inviting them to Islam. He sent messages to Caesar, Chosroes, the Muqawqis, the Negus, and the Arab kings in Ash-Sham. Those whom Allah willed among the Christians and others accepted Islam. Thereupon, the Christians in Ash-Sham acted and killed some of those who had embraced Islam. Thus, it was the Christians who fought the Muslims first, killing those who had accepted Islam out of transgression and injustice. When the Christians initiated the killing of Muslims, he dispatched an expeditionary force (sariyyah) and appointed Zayd bin Harithah, then Ja'far, then Ibn Rawahah to lead it. This was the first combat the Muslims fought against the Christians at Mu'tah in the land of Ash-Sham. A vast multitude of Christians gathered against his companions, the appointed commanders—may Allah be pleased with them—were martyred, and Khalid bin al-Walid took up the banner.' ¶

This is what Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the ancient scholars of the Muslims, stated, which is used as a representation of the view that all the wars of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ were defensive. ¶

Secondly: The view of those who say that the wars of the Prophet ﷺ were conducted in fulfillment of the obligation of Jihad. These wars—in the Prophetic biography—may be defensive in the aforementioned sense, or they may be offensive, meaning: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ initiated combat against the disbelievers without it being a response to a previous or anticipated aggression—naturally, this occurred only after inviting them to Islam in a manner that fulfilled the 'clear proclamation' (al-balagh al-mubin), and their leaderships refused to respond to Islam or hand over authority to the Messenger so that he might rule them according to Islam, provided the Islamic state was capable of doing so. This was the case with 'Najran,' which retained its religion—Christianity—and handed over the political leadership to the State in Medina; thus, its people became ahl al-dhimmah (protected subjects) and became citizens of the Islamic state. ¶

This, and the reason for combat according to this view, is: the removal of an obstacle standing in the way of the Dawah (call to Islam). This is based on the consideration that the mere existence of a state or power in any land that governs by something other than Islam is itself an obstacle to the Dawah for the people of that land, even if no aggression against Muslims has been committed by that state or authority, or if no restrictions have been placed on Islamic activity within it. On this basis, it is legislated to continue Jihad against that state—insofar as it is possible—to weaken it until it is removed from the path of the Dawah, and the Muslims take the reins of governance and rule it by Islam—whenever they are able to do so—even if its inhabitants do not enter this new religion. ¶

This is the summary of the view which states that the wars of the Messenger ﷺ were merely the fulfillment of the obligation of Jihad, regardless of whether or not any aggression by the disbelievers against the Muslims had occurred. Dr. Akram Diya al-Umari mentions that Hafiz Ibn Kathir, who is among the historians and the ancient Imams of the Muslims, holds this view. In the context of his discussion on the Battle of Tabuk, Dr. al-Umari says: 'Although historians... attempted to find a direct cause for it, Ibn Sa'd mentioned that Heraclius gathered forces from the Romans and the Arab tribes loyal to them, and that the Muslims learned of their news and went out to Tabuk... however, the correct view is that it was a natural response to the obligation of Jihad, and Hafiz Ibn Kathir pointed this out by saying: ¶

"The Messenger of Allah ﷺ resolved to fight the Romans because they were the people closest to him and the most deserving of the invitation to the Truth due to their proximity to Islam and its people. And Allah the Almighty said: 'O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous' (1)."' ¶

From the above, it becomes clear to us that Ibn Taymiyyah is of the view that the Messenger ﷺ did not initiate combat; rather, the disbelievers were the ones who initiated war against the Muslims, and the Muslims took a defensive stance. ¶

And Ibn Kathir is of the view that some of the Prophet's ﷺ battles—at the very least—were in fulfillment of the duty of Jihad for the purpose of spreading the Islamic call, regardless of whether there was any aggression from the side of the disbelievers or not. ¶

Views of Modern Scholars: ¶

Modern Islamic writers have been divided into two camps regarding this issue, much like what we observed in the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir. ¶

These two currents in modern Islamic thought are illustrated by what is stated in the book 'Jihad al-Da'wah' by Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali. He said: ¶

'I am commenting on what I read in a recently published book by a scholar who mentions the story of Mu'tah and says: Historians attempt to mention the causes for the battles that took place, but there is no need to mention these causes! Why should we justify every war the Muslims fought? It is enough to know the nature of Islam in terms of expansion!! to know the secret behind the fighting!! The author—may Allah forgive him—forgot the message sent to the Roman agent and forgot the assassination of its bearer, and he forgot that the 'Romans'—whose original home was Europe—poured in, about a hundred thousand strong, into the heart of the Hijaz... in a military demonstration to strike the new religion and prevent the call from infiltrating the north of the Arabian Peninsula. All of this did not catch the author's attention, but rather what caught his attention was highlighting the expansionist nature of Islam!...' (1). ¶

Then Sheikh al-Ghazali expresses his dissatisfaction with the portrayal of the motivation for the wars of the Prophet ﷺ in the manner he quoted from the person he described as a scholar, saying: ¶

'When we write the biography of our Prophet in this style, then what is left for the missionaries and orientalists?' (2). ¶

We believe that Sheikh al-Ghazali intends by his previous comment on what he described as a book that appeared recently—referring to the book 'Al-Mujtama' al-Madani' by Dr. Akram Diya' al-Umari—and this is what 'al-Umari' mentioned regarding the discussion of the Battle of Mu'tah, where he stated verbatim: ¶

(1) Jihad al-Da'wah bayna 'Ajz al-Dakhil wa Kayd al-Kharij by Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, p. 20. (2) Jihad al-Da'wah by Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, p. 20. ¶

Searching for the direct causes of raids on Arab tribes on the borders of the Levant does not significantly affect the interpretation of events; for the legislation of jihad requires the continued subjugation of Arab tribes and the expansion of the Islamic state, regardless of the immediate causes. Thus, it was necessary to subjugate the Arab Christian statelets allied with the Romans, and consequently, to preempt the Romans in moving within the region to undertake action against the nascent Islamic state (1). ¶

This is what Dr. al-Umari mentioned, which we believe Sheikh al-Ghazali meant in his previous commentary on the Battle of Mu'tah. ¶

Sheikh al-Ghazali continues his objection to anyone who adopts this approach in portraying the wars of the Prophet (PBUH), saying: 'The leader of an Islamic party writes in a lengthy pamphlet (2) to his party members that Islam begins with fighting and draws up a plan for attacking its opponents. Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "The saying and action of the Messenger (PBUH) clearly indicate that jihad is initiating the infidels with combat to elevate the word of Allah and to spread Islam." He says: "The Messenger's departure to Badr to intercept the Quraish caravan was a departure for combat; it was an initiation of combat, for Quraish was a state, and it had not yet attacked the Messenger or Medina so that it could be defended against; rather, it was he who initiated combat against them!"' ¶

Sheikh al-Ghazali continues, saying: 'And the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami proceeds to say: "The Prophet’s act of sending an army to Mu'tah to fight the Romans, and his advancing to Tabuk, approaching the Roman borders to fight them, is, in its appearance, clearly an initiation of combat."' ¶

Sheikh al-Ghazali comments on this statement, saying: 'And this statement is one of the strangest things said!' (3) ¶

From what we have quoted from the book 'Jihad al-Da'wah' by Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, it becomes clear to us that... ¶

Contemporary Islamic authors are divided into two schools of thought regarding the underlying cause of the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ), as previously established: - One group views them as defensive and a response to aggression, according to the meaning previously explained. - The second group views them as the fulfillment of the obligation of jihad, regardless of whether it was a response to aggression or an initiation of combat by the disbelievers, for the purpose of establishing the rule of Islam, as this is one of Islam’s methods of propagation. - Below are some excerpts from proponents of the first view, representing their trajectory: 1. In the treatise 'Al-Qur'an wa al-Qital' (The Quran and Combat) by Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut: "It is clearly evident that the Messenger did not fight except against those who fought him, and only to repel oppression, respond to transgression and aggression, and to eradicate tribulation (fitnah) in religion"(1). 2. In the book 'Athar al-Harb' (The Effects of War) by Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli: "The defensive stance is the one followed by the Prophet (ﷺ) and the Muslims after him"(2). 3. In the book 'Usul al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam' (Principles of International Relations in Islam) by Omar Ahmed al-Farjani: "All of the Messenger's (ﷺ) ghazawat (expeditions) were of a purely defensive nature"(3). - Conversely, here are some excerpts from proponents of the second view, representing their trajectory: 1. In the book 'Al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Qur'an wa al-Sunnah' (International Relations in the Quran and Sunnah) by Dr. Muhammad Ali Hassan: "The wars of the Prophet (ﷺ), although they included defensive warfare, such as the battle of 'Uhud' and the battle of 'Al-Ahzab', most of them were initiations of combat to spread Islam. It may be defensive warfare, but for the most part, it was offensive warfare... - then he says - And the Muslims, in carrying the Islamic call, even if they..." (1) Al-Qur'an wa al-Qital by Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut: p. 126. (2) Athar al-Harb by Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli: p. 93. (3) Usul al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam by Omar Ahmed al-Farjani: p. 77. ¶

They invite people to embrace Islam, but they do not coerce individuals to accept it; rather, they coerce nations and peoples to implement it and submit to its rulings.(1) ¶

2. It is stated in the book 'Fiqh al-Sirah' by Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti: 'Al-Bazzar narrated with a hasan (good) chain of narration from the hadith of Jabir that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said on the day of al-Ahzab, when they had gathered a large host against him: "They shall never attack you after this, but you shall attack them." This was an announcement of the end of the defensive war phase. As for the phase that follows, it is inviting people generally to Islam while fighting everyone who stands in its way and prevents this invitation from reaching its limit...' (2). ¶

I (the author) say: This statement perhaps aligns with those who say that the wars of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were indeed for defense in the broad sense—that is, including defense against those who obstruct the call (Da'wah) and prevent its spread. Therefore, the author of 'Fiqh al-Sirah' clarified his idea later by saying: 'Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) began sending detachments (saraya) of his companions to various tribes spread across the Arabian Peninsula to perform the duty of inviting them to Islam. If they did not respond, out of hostility and obstinacy, they would fight them for that.' (3). ¶

Here, it is necessary to understand these two conditions mentioned in this text, namely 'hostility' (udwanan) and 'obstinacy' (inanatan), as explanatory qualifiers rather than restrictive ones. This means that the refusal to respond to the invitation after it has been conveyed and explained thoroughly, removing all doubts, cannot be interpreted except as a refusal motivated by hostility toward the call and obstinacy against submitting to the truth that has become manifest. Therefore, the response to such refusal is combat. ¶

I prefer that this expression be free of these two conditions to liberate the concept from any ambiguity, and to prevent them from being used as a pretext to refuse the call, under the claim that such a refusal stems not from aggression or stubbornness, but from a lack of conviction in the validity of the idea upon which the call is based. ¶

In any case, Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti holds the view that the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) passed through two stages: The first stage was defensive, lasting until the end of the Battle of the Trench. 'Then, when the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was concluded... the Prophet (ﷺ) dedicated himself to entering a new phase... which is the phase of fighting those to whom the call had reached, who grasped it and understood it, yet out of arrogance, hatred, and aggression, refused to believe in it or submit to it...' (1). ¶

I say: It would have been better if the expression were free of the last two conditions as previously mentioned! 3. Furthermore, among the authors who believe that the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) were for the purpose of spreading Islam... (1) Fiqh al-Sirah by Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, p. 300. I say: The discussion here is specific to Dr. al-Buti’s view regarding the 'wars of the Prophet (ﷺ)': were they merely defensive? Or were they also an initiation of combat against the disbelievers if they did not respond to the call? Regarding the Doctor’s view on Jihad in general—whether it is only prescribed to defend against aggression or also to bring other nations and states under Islam—his book [Al-Islam, Maladh al-Mujtama'at... p. 229] indicates that it is only for protecting Muslims and their lands. He states: 'Jihad, which God prescribed and which has become one of the most critical and important chapters of Islamic jurisprudence, is no more than what any peaceful, democratic state today prescribes to protect its peace and maintain its security!' He then cites 'Mughni al-Muhtaj' (4/210): 'Fard Kifayah (communal obligation) [in Jihad] is fulfilled when the Imam garrisons the borders with forces equivalent to the disbelievers, secures fortresses and trenches, and appoints commanders.' This is what Dr. al-Buti mentioned and cited. I say: When we discuss the reasons for declaring Jihad, it will be shown that Jihad, just as it is prescribed for defense against aggression, is also prescribed for the implementation of the Islamic system over peoples and states—when capable of doing so—even if they retain their previous religions. It is evident that what is stated in 'Mughni al-Muhtaj'—which is in Shafi'i fiqh—must be understood in light of the established principles of that school. It is the position of the majority that the communal obligation (Fard Kifayah) of Jihad is not fulfilled unless the disbelievers are invaded at least once a year—provided there is the capacity to do so. Therefore, the meaning of the statement in 'al-Mughni' is that if border protection is achieved and skirmishes with the enemy occur—as was the custom in Islamic history, at least once a year—the communal obligation is discharged. Further details will follow as previously indicated. ¶

It is not limited to defense against aggression, even in its broad sense. Colonel Yasin Suwaid states in his book, 'The Battles of Khalid ibn al-Walid': 'The primary objective of combat in Islam was Jihad in the path of Allah and the propagation of His religion. The Prophet (PBUH) used to instruct the commanders of the expeditions, saying: "Fight in the name of Allah, fight those who disbelieve in Allah..." He would also instruct them to invite the polytheists to Islam; if they accepted, that was the intention and the goal, but if they refused, combat against them became obligatory.' ¶

In short, these are some of the views expressed regarding the battles (ghazawat) and expeditions (saraya) of the Prophet (PBUH) by both classical and modern scholars who have written on this subject: - One view holds that they were merely a defense against aggression committed by enemies against Muslims, their lands, their wealth, and their call (da'wah), including countering those who stood in the way of spreading this call. - Another view argues that, in addition to being a defense of the aforementioned—which was manifest in the first stage of the Islamic state—after the Battle of the Trench (al-Khandaq), and especially after the revelation of Surah Bara'ah, it became an offensive initiated by the Muslims against the disbelievers (after having duly conveyed the call in a manner that leaves no excuse for rejection). This was done to apply the Islamic system upon them so that they could perceive its merits in a living reality, even if they were not coerced into entering Islam. Some label this combat for this purpose as 'offensive war' or 'expansionist war'. ¶

As for our opinion on this matter, that is the subject of the following point: Point Four: Our view on the causes of the wars of the Prophet (PBUH). I say: It is precise research methodology that when we present an opinion on a specific issue, we must limit the discussion to the data of that issue and not mix it with the data of another issue. Our subject here is: The wars. ¶

Those events recorded by the Prophetic biography (Sirah), the treaties concluded between the Messenger (ﷺ) and the polytheists, and all the rulings derived from them regarding the causes of those wars—whether they were defensive in nature (in the broad sense of defense against aggression) or offensive/expansionist in nature (according to the concept previously clarified)—this is the core issue. ¶

The matter at hand concerns the actual wars waged by the companions during the Prophetic era and the treaties recorded in that biography. The topic here is not 'Jihad in Islam' in a general sense: whether it is the initiation of combat against disbelievers—even if they did not commit any act of aggression—for the purpose of spreading Islam after it has been conveyed to them and rejected, or whether it is merely a defense against aggression. ¶

This is because the judgment regarding the nature of 'Jihad' in general is reached by collecting all the evidence provided by the entire sources of Islamic legislation: the Quran, the Sunnah (verbal, practical, and tacitly approved), the consensus of the Companions, and analogy (Qiyas). Only then can one judge whether 'Jihad' is purely defensive or both defensive and offensive simultaneously. This, however, is not the subject of our current research. ¶

Our research here is limited strictly to the evidence of the 'practical Sunnah' in this matter, represented by the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the cessation of those wars through treaties. This evidence yields specific findings regarding the point of contention: was the combat of the Prophet (ﷺ) purely defensive, or was it also offensive? ¶

As for other evidences, they might yield the same limited findings, or they might add further data to the initial findings. Either is possible, but we are not addressing this subject now; let us defer the discussion to its appropriate place when we research the causes for the declaration of Jihad in Islam. ¶

Let us confine ourselves here to the data provided by the practical Sirah of the Prophet (ﷺ) in this field. ¶

Based on this foundation, we summarize our view in the following points: ¶

1. It is permissible to describe the expeditions (Sariyya) and battles (Ghazwat) that targeted the caravans of Quraysh and the like—which have been previously mentioned—as being a defense against aggression. It is likewise permissible to describe them as the initiation of combat against the disbelievers, based on two considerations: ¶

(A) These (expeditions and battles) were for defense against aggression, considering that the Quraysh had initiated the declaration of war against the Muslims in Medina after the establishment of the Islamic state there, regardless of their aggression against the Muslims prior to the establishment of their state, as previously explained in the first point of this research. Consequently, the position of the Muslims, under these circumstances, became a defensive stance against the aggression declared against them by the Quraysh. ¶

(B) It is accurate to describe those expeditions and battles against the Quraysh as an initiation of combat by the Muslims against the disbelievers. This is because although the Quraysh were the ones who initiated the declaration of a state of war against the Muslims, they did not start using this state of war to direct military operations against the state of Medina. Rather, the Messenger ﷺ was the one who initiated those operations by targeting the caravans of the Quraysh. However, it is more precise to say that those expeditions and battles—based on the reality recorded in the books of Seerah—were an initiation of combat against the Quraysh by the Messenger ﷺ, while a state of war existed between the state in Mecca and the state in Medina. Since Mecca was the party that initiated and declared war on Medina, such a situation permits the party against whom war was declared to initiate actual combat against the other party, as this is considered a form of defense against aggression. ¶

2 - The Battle of Badr: The will of both parties converged to exploit the existing state of war between them and to engage in combat. This is evidenced by the fact that when the Quraysh set out to protect Abu Sufyan’s caravan from the Muslims, and the caravan subsequently escaped, the Quraysh learned of its safety. Al-Akhnas ibn Shariq returned with the Banu Zuhra, as did Talib ibn Abi Talib—the brother of Ali ibn Abi Talib—and they did not attend the battle. As for the rest, their stance was as recorded in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham: "Abu Jahl ibn Hisham said: 'By Allah, we will not return until we reach Badr.' Badr was one of the seasonal markets of the Arabs, where a market was held every year. We will stay there for three days, slaughter camels, provide food, serve wine, have singing girls perform for us, and the Arabs will hear about us and our movement and gathering; they will continue to fear us forever after that. So, proceed...'" ¶

This indicates that the Quraish initially intended only to protect the caravan, and once that caravan had escaped, they aimed to exploit the existing gathering for two purposes: First: To use it for amusement and recreation. Second: To use it for propaganda among the Arabs to maintain the prestige and standing of the Quraish, in the manner declared by Abu Jahl. The intention was not to attack Medina, and it was not in their contemplation that they would encounter the Muslims after their caravan had escaped. However, in any case, the continuation of the Quraish army’s advance towards Badr, despite the caravan having escaped, implies an intention to fight should matters develop in that direction. This was from the side of the Quraish. As for the side of the Muslims, when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) learned that the Quraish had set out to protect the caravan, he consulted his companions: Should he continue pursuing the caravan to capture it before it escaped entirely or before the Quraish could secure it, or should he prepare for the army that had emerged from Mecca with the intention of protecting it, in order to engage in war with them? Some of them said: 'If only you had mentioned fighting to us, we would have prepared for it; we only came out for the caravan.' In one narration: 'O Messenger of Allah! Focus on the caravan and leave the enemy.' Then, the opinion that favored confronting the enemy prevailed, as mentioned in the Prophetic Biography (al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah). Thus, we find that the idea of fighting at Badr was a notion that had newly emerged in the situation for the Muslims as a result of the progression of events and the opinion that prevailed in the consultation held regarding this matter. Thus, we see that in the Battle of Badr, the intentions of both parties to fight converged in the end, even if this idea was clearer among the Muslims—after the consultation—than it was among the polytheists. 3 - The Battle of Uhud and then the Battle of the Trench; it is clear in both that the position of the Muslims in these two... ¶

In both instances, the stance of defense was in its narrowest sense; that is, the defense of Medina and the Muslims therein against the intent of the disbelievers, which they had explicitly declared: to eradicate the Muslims from existence (1). ¶

4 - The Battle of Qurayza: The reason for this is clearly the Jews' breach of the treaty and their participation with the Confederates (al-Ahzab) in seeking to eradicate the Muslims from existence (2). ¶

5 - The Battle of Khaybar: The reason for this—as stated in the second point of this research—is that the leaders of the 'Banu Nadir' Jews had taken charge there, using it as a base to incite the Arab tribes against Medina. The Battle of the Confederates (al-Ahzab) was merely one of the fruits of their malicious scheming (3). Furthermore, news reached Medina that they were preparing for war against the Muslims, and that a group in 'Fadak' was preparing to provide reinforcements to Khaybar for the war it intended to wage against Medina (4), in addition to the previous treaty they had with the Quraysh to support one another in their war against the Messenger ﷺ (5). ¶

6 - As for the battles and expeditions directed at Arab tribes other than Quraysh, the reason for them was to abort an aggression those tribes were preparing to commit. That is, it falls under the category of defense, even if it took the outward form of an offensive, often called 'offensive defense' or 'preventive war' (6). This war is characterized by the Muslims initiating the combat against the disbelievers, but only after those tribes had first declared war on the Muslims. ¶

7 - The Conquest of Mecca: The reason for it was the Quraysh's breach of the peace treaty (7), as previously mentioned. ¶

8 - Regarding the 'Battle of Mu'tah', then 'Tabuk', and then the order to dispatch the 'Army of Usamah' to the Levant (al-Sham) and engage the Romans and the Christianized tribes in the north on the borders of the Levant: the reason for this is that these Romans and those tribes had declared war on Medina beforehand when they killed the Muslim emissary. ¶

the messenger of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) (1), and they killed some of those who had accepted Islam in those regions (2)—as mentioned previously. Thus, the Messenger (pbuh) initiated the march to fight them (3). ¶

This initiation of combat: - You may call it, if you wish, 'defense' against aggression on the Muslims, based on the reality we have described. - You may call it, if you wish, 'removing a material obstacle' that stood in the way of the Islamic Da'wah, as is clear from the ban imposed by Roman authorities and their client tribes on the spread of the message. - You may call it, if you wish, an 'offensive or expansionist war'; because it is an attack on the aggressor disbelievers in their own homes, with the goal of weakening their authority in those regions, in preparation for the final dismantling of that authority, the spreading of Islam therein, and incorporating them into the Islamic State which was expanding via this path! ¶

However, despite these different labels, we must remain mindful that it was those Romans and the allied tribes loyal to them who initiated and declared war on the Muslims, even if the Messenger (pbuh) was the one who preempted them by launching the attack and combat in response to their declaration of war. ¶

9 - As for what followed the revelation of Surah Bara'ah (At-Tawbah), and the general warning to the polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula who had broken their treaties with the Messenger (pbuh), they were given the choice between: - Submission to the Islamic order and remaining upon polytheism while paying the Jizya, according to one opinion (4). - Or Islam only, as the majority of scholars (Jumhur) hold that they would not be permitted to remain upon polytheism even with the payment of Jizya (5). - Or combat (Qital). - Or, naturally, leaving the land, staying away from the reach of the Muslims, as Safwan ibn Umayyah did... ¶

Umayyah (1) and 'Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl (2) at the Conquest of Makkah. And as 'Adi ibn Hatim al-Ta'i (3) did later on, even though these individuals later returned and entered Islam of their own free will! ¶

I say: As for the period after the revelation of 'Surah Bara'ah' and granting them a four-month grace period to choose for themselves from what has been previously mentioned, the reality of these polytheists who violated the treaties is that they declared war on the Messenger ﷺ by breaking those treaties. A state against which the signatories of a treaty have declared war has the right to fight them and strike them before they strike it, without warning, as was the case with 'Banu Qurayzah' previously. ¶

However, the Islamic state did not do this with those polytheists who violated their treaties with it; rather, it gave them a choice among several options and left them a four-month opportunity to decide their own fate themselves! ¶

It seems that the polytheists who violated the treaties with the Messenger ﷺ appreciated this immense generosity in the treatment by the victorious Islamic state, which inclined them toward Islam, and they began entering the religion of Allah in throngs (3). ¶

This is regarding the polytheists who violated their treaties, and the ruling of 'Surah Bara'ah' concerning them. ¶

10- As for the polytheists who maintained the fulfillment of their treaties with the Muslims, what is the stance toward them after the revelation of 'Surah Bara'ah'? ¶

Muhammad 'Izzah Darwazah holds that if they requested a renewal of the treaty upon its expiration, while remaining in polytheism, then—as he states, and I quote: 'The Muslims may not refuse this; because they have been commanded to fight those who fight them and commit aggression against them' (4). That is: These polytheists did not commit aggression against the Muslims because they maintained the fulfillment of their treaties, therefore, Allah’s command to the Muslims to fight them does not apply to them. ¶