Chapter 30

Introduction to Part Three ¶

Chapter One: Repelling Aggression ¶

Chapter Two: Standing in the way of the Islamic Call (Da'wah) ¶

581 ¶

After praising Allah and invoking blessings, the humble servant in need of Allah the Almighty, hoping for His pardon and pleasure, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ali bin Umar bin Abi Bakr bin Ali bin Abi Bakr bin Salim bin Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman al-Saqqaf, says: This is a subtle commentary (ta'liq) on 'Sharh al-Ajurrumiyyah' by the erudite scholar Sheikh Khalid al-Azhari, which I have titled 'al-Anwar al-Nadiyyah 'ala Sharh al-Ajurrumiyyah'. In it, I have gathered benefits and insights that facilitate a beginner’s understanding of the issues and clarify complex points, along with explanations for some matters that the commentator had omitted or left ambiguous. Seeking aid from Allah and deriving success from Him in attaining the truth, I begin. Now is the time to commence with the intended subject, so we say, and success is from Allah: [In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful]. The commentator, like others, began with the Basmala (the formula 'Bismillah...') in emulation of the Noble Book and in adherence to the Hadith: 'Every significant matter that is not begun with 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' is severed (lacking in blessing).' The particle 'ba' therein is for seeking aid or for accompaniment. An 'ism' (name) is that which denotes an essence. 'Allah' is the proper name for the Supreme Essence, and 'al-Rahman' (the Most Gracious) and 'al-Rahim' (the Most Merciful) are two of the names of Allah the Almighty that signify the abundance of mercy, the explanation of which has already preceded elsewhere. ¶

Introduction to the Third Chapter: ¶

Introduction ¶

First: Why did we address the issue of combat and its causes during the Prophetic era and the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs in the previous chapter, before addressing it at the level of Shariah texts in this chapter? Second: The methodology of Islamic writers in addressing the topic of 'The Causes of Combat in Islam'. Third: The causes of combat in Islam according to Islamic writers (we shall cite their views on this subject). Fourth: Conclusions and observations. ¶

First: Why did we address the issue of combat and its causes during the Prophetic era and the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs in the previous chapter, before addressing it at the level of Shariah texts in this chapter? In the second chapter of this treatise, we identified the stages through which the legitimacy of Jihad passed, starting from the permission to fight after it had been prohibited, until the time when the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) spread across the globe, carrying torches of light and lamps of guidance for human beings of every race and color. - This required us to review the practical activities of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the field of Jihad: when did he fight, and when did he cease fighting, with or without a treaty? - Then, we understood the relationship between the Prophet's (peace be upon him) call of heads of state to Islam and the subject of Jihad. - Finally, we reviewed the practical activities of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in the field of Jihad during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate: Why did they fight, and when did they resort to peace treaties with their neighbors? ¶

Through all of this, we have identified a number of rulings regarding jihad, especially those related to the causes of combat in Islam, which derive from the practical Sunnah and the consensus (ijma') of the Companions, both of which are foundational sources of Islamic legislation (tashri'). ¶

We have endeavored as much as possible to ensure that jihad in the field of application—whether during the Prophetic era or the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs—serves as the primary indicator for shariah rulings on the subject of jihad and the reasons for its declaration. This is because such practical application is, on one hand, a valid shariah proof as a source of legislation—as previously stated—and on the other hand, it is the best interpretation of the shariah texts from the Quran and Sunnah concerning jihad. This is because jihad on the stage of history represents the living translation of those texts and their actual, dynamic embodiment. This narrows the scope of disagreement in interpreting these texts if they are interpreted in light of that practical activity of the jihad movement. For this reason, we have presented the study of jihad in the field of action and reality before studying it in the domain of shariah texts, following the methodology we have adopted in this treatise. ¶

We have confined this third chapter to the study of the reasons for declaring jihad in Islam—reasons that are mentioned in many shariah texts in the Quran and Sunnah. Early jurists and modern Islamic writers have differed on the issues of 'abrogating and abrogated' (nasikh wal-mansukh), 'general and specific' (al-amm wal-khas), or 'absolute and restricted' (al-mutlaq wal-muqayyad)—that age-old yet contemporary subject in Islamic studies. ¶

Perhaps one of the factors for weighing the opinions presented on this issue is to take the practical practices of the Prophetic biography—especially in its final phase—and the biography of the Rightly Guided Caliphs as the light that reveals the weightier (rajih) from the weaker (marjuh) of those opinions. This—as previously mentioned—is what led us to prioritize the practical reality of jihad during the time of the Messenger (PBUH) and his Rightly Guided Caliphs over the study of shariah texts related to this matter. It is useful at the conclusion of this chapter to address several issues related to the declaration of jihad, some of which may have already been dealt with, either in this chapter or before it. However, their emergence as contentious issues surrounded by much debate and varied points of view—with each side favoring its own position—compels us to treat them under independent headings. ¶

which we have not previously addressed. As for what has been addressed, either in whole or in part, we shall limit our discussion to providing a concise overview and pointing out where these topics were studied in the preceding research. ¶

Secondly, before entering into the discussions of this chapter, which examine the reasons for declaring Jihad in Islam, it would be useful to look at the methods used by Islamic writers to present these reasons. Among the majority of these writers, the reasons revolve around two points: repelling aggression and conveying the Islamic call (Da'wah). Some, however, have restricted the reason to 'repelling aggression and eliminating injustice,' considering that fighting to convey the call to nations is essentially a matter of 'repelling aggression and injustice' from those very nations themselves. ¶

- Others have limited it to the reason of 'conveying the Islamic call,' considering that conveying this call to the peoples is the permanent, obligatory work of the Islamic Ummah, regardless of whether aggression has been committed against the Muslims or not. ¶

- Still others have detailed the manifestations of this or that reason, resulting in a multiplication of the causes for fighting in their view. ¶

- We also find that some writers have narrowed the concept of the reasons they adopted, while others have expanded the concept of those reasons. ¶

In any case, in this introduction, we will look at models of the methods used by Islamic writers in addressing the issue of the causes of fighting in Islam, which some may present under the headings of 'conditions for the legitimacy of Jihad' or 'the motive for fighting.' Some may mention these reasons while defining Jihad, stating its rulings, or illustrating its purposes. ¶

We have already mentioned before this introduction the reasons we adopt regarding this issue, and we will point to the basis upon which we built that determination—from the Shariah texts and the historical reality of the Prophetic era and the Rightly Guided Caliphate—when addressing these reasons in the sections devoted to them. ¶

It is appropriate to announce, as we are about to present the opinions of Islamic writers regarding the causes... ¶

Combat in Islam - It is worth noting that in presenting their statements, we will adhere only to the text they provided, limiting ourselves to the portions of their speech necessary to clarify their opinions, while generally omitting the evidence upon which they relied. This is done for the sake of brevity, to avoid repetition, and because those proofs will be presented and discussed in their appropriate place when we enter into the study of the topics of this chapter. ¶

Third: Causes of Combat in Islam according to Islamic writers (We quote their statements on this subject) ¶

1. Sheikh Abdul Wahab Khallaf says: “Islam established the relationships between Muslims and others upon peace and security, not upon war and combat, unless they are subjected to evil intended to tempt them away from their religion or to hinder them from their call (Dawah). In such a case, Jihad is obligated upon them to repel evil and protect the call... Had the non-Muslims desisted from their oppression and left them free in their call, the Muslims would not have drawn a sword nor initiated a war.” (1) ¶

2. Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut says in his treatise 'The Quran and Combat': “The cause of combat is restricted to repelling aggression, protecting the call, and religious freedom; it is within this sphere alone that Allah has legislated combat.” (2) ¶

Furthermore, although Sheikh Shaltut restricted the sphere of combat to the causes mentioned, he expands that sphere to include another cause he mentioned in his book 'Interpretation of the Holy Quran', which is: “Eliminating injustice in the world.” He states exactly: “The cause of combat in Islam is restricted to repelling aggression, protecting the call, religious freedom, and purifying the earth from tyranny and injustices.” (3) ¶

3. Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Draz says: “The legitimate war in Islam is defensive war. It is appropriate for us to point out that the word 'defense' encompasses two types...” ¶

(1) 'Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya aw Nizam al-Dawla al-Islamiyya' by Sheikh Abdul Wahab Khallaf, pp. 76-77. (2) 'Al-Quran wal-Qital' by Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut, p. 89. (3) 'Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim' (first ten parts) by Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut, p. 540. ¶

1 - Self-defense. 2 - Mandatory relief for a Muslim people, or an ally unable to defend itself. He then says: "War in the view of Islam is an evil that one is only forced to resort to. Therefore, for Muslims to reach a compromise through negotiation that involves prejudice to some of their rights, yet at the same time prevents bloodshed, is better than a brilliant victory in which lives are lost." (1) 4 - Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra says under the heading 'The Motive for War in Islam': "The Prophet ﷺ fought for two reasons: First: Repelling aggression. Second: Securing the Islamic call (Da'wah), because it is the call of Truth." (2) 5 - Ali Ali Mansour says under the heading 'Declaration of War in Islam': "Islam does not sanction offensive war for the purpose of conquest or expansion. The legitimate war in Islam is defensive war, to repel aggression initiated by the enemy, or to defend a right established by a covenant or treaty that the adversary has violated, or to secure the propagation of the call." (3) 6 - Major Muhammad Faraj says: "Islam permitted war in only two cases: - Repelling and stopping aggression. - Protecting the call so that it reaches all people." (4) - He then says - "The war permitted by Islamic Shariah... does not seek to impose influence or expand." ¶

boundaries... and it was merely a defensive war, for the defense of religion, the self, and the creed.”(1) ¶

7 - Muhammad Izzat Darwaza says: “Jihad is the defense of the self, the defense of Islam, and the defense of the Muslims and their lands.”(2) ¶

8 - Zaim al-Rukn (Staff Brigadier) Mahmoud Sheet Khattab says: “Fighting by Muslims against non-Muslims was legislated to repel aggression, protect the call (Da'wah), and ensure freedom of religion.”(3) ¶

9 - Dr. Hassan Ibrahim Hassan and his brother Dr. Ali state in their book 'Al-Nuzum al-Islamiyya' (Islamic Systems): “Muslims were permitted to fight for reasons including: 1 - Defense of the self. 2 - Securing the call (Da'wah) and defending it against those who stand in its path, so that anyone wishing to enter Islam would not fear persecution (fitna) regarding their faith.”(4) ¶

10 - Dr. Mustafa al-Sibai says: “Jihad... in Islam is legislated for two purposes: - To repel aggression against the freedom of the Ummah in its homeland and religion... - And to rescue the weak and oppressed from the authority of the oppressors...”(5) ¶

11 - Sayyid Sabiq says in his book 'Fiqh al-Sunnah' under the heading: “When is war legislated?”: ¶

(1) Al-Askariyya al-Islamiyya, Muhammad Faraj, pp. 85-86. (2) Al-Jihad fi Sabil Allah fi al-Qur'an wa al-Hadith, Muhammad Izzat Darwaza, p. 93. (3) Al-Rasul al-Qa'id, Mahmoud Sheet Khattab, p. 22. (4) Al-Nuzum al-Islamiyya, Dr. Hassan Ibrahim Hassan and Ali Ibrahim Hassan, p. 78. (5) Ishtirakiyat al-Islam, Dr. Mustafa al-Sibai, p. 245. ¶

"And if the rule is that peace is the default state and war is the exception, then in the view of Islam, there is no justification for this war, regardless of the circumstances, except in one of two cases: ¶

The first case: The state of self-defense—defending one’s life, honor, property, and homeland—in the event of aggression. The second case: The state of defending the call to God (Dawah) if anyone stands in its way, whether by torturing those who have believed in it, by blocking those who wish to enter it, or by preventing the caller from conveying it." (1) ¶

Furthermore, Sayyid Sabiq, in his book which he later authored under the title *Anasir al-Quwwa fi al-Islam* (Elements of Power in Islam), adds a new cause for combat in Islam, which is: "Eliminating injustice in the world." He states: "Peace in Islam only exists through power and authority; therefore, God did not make it absolute but qualified it with the condition that the enemy ceases aggression, that no injustice remains on earth, and that no one is persecuted for their religion. Thus, when any of these causes exist, God has permitted combat." (2) ¶

12 - Dr. Ahmad Shalabi says: "It is incumbent upon Muslims to engage in battles and strive (jihad) when one of the following causes occurs: ¶

First: When defending Muslims against any aggression committed against them. Second: When defending oppressed Muslims who live under the authority of an unjust, non-Muslim state... Third: In cases of religious persecution and the lack of freedom of religion... Accordingly, Muslims should be active in every time and place in calling to Islam. If they are prevented from doing so, or if those who wish to embrace Islam are prevented from doing so, it becomes necessary for force to repel this obstruction... and Jihad—in that case—is for the sake of removing the barriers and obstacles that prevent the delivery of the Dawah to people or prevent them from embracing it." (3) ¶

13. Dr. Hussein Al-Hajj Hassan says: 'Fighting was for the protection of the Islamic Da'wah, so that the word of Allah remains supreme, and to repel aggression against the servants of Allah, the believing Muslims.' ¶

14. Dr. Abdul Hamid Bakhit says: 'The Book (the Holy Quran) clarifies the reason for which fighting was permitted for the believers, and this returns to two matters: First: Self-defense in the event of transgression. Second: Defense of the Da'wah if anyone stands in its way by subjecting believers to trials (fitnah) through various forms of torture, by blocking those who wish to enter Islam, or by preventing the caller from delivering his message.' ¶

15. Professor Dr. Wahba Al-Zuhaili says in his book, 'International Relations in Islam': 'The most important cases of the legitimacy of Jihad are as follows: 1. Repelling aggression against Muslims, their lands, and their properties. 2. Guaranteeing freedom of creed, the spread of the Islamic call, and preventing religious persecution (fitnah)... Therefore, if a barrier is placed between the message and the masses of humanity, it becomes obligatory to achieve the objective through force, provided Islamic power is available, so that people may be free to embrace Islam. This situation requires the existence of aggression! 3. War to support the oppressed, whether an individual or a group... and it can be called a disciplinary war, which the interest of general peace demands.' ¶

Dr. Al-Zuhayli further states in his book 'Athar al-Harb' (The Effects of War): 'The motive for combat is not kufr (disbelief) or religious opposition, but rather aggression (al-udwan). And aggression... is a case of direct assault upon Muslims, dhimmis, their wealth, their lands, those calling to the faith (du'at), mentors, or upon any oppressed or treaty-bound group. Assessing this is left to those in authority (wulat al-umur).' (1) ¶

He then says: 'As for the principle of giving the enemy the choice between accepting Islam, a covenant (dhimma), or combat—which was prevalent in the wars of the Muslims—it is not one of the rules of public order. Rather, it is considered a form of final warning to the enemy before the outbreak of war, should they fail to respond to any of these demands after the causes of jihad mentioned earlier have arisen... The principle of choosing between these options is not directed at every non-Muslim state; rather, the determining factor is the emergence of the cause for combat.' (2) ¶

16 - 'Umar Ahmad al-Farjani, while limiting the causes of combat in Islam to three, says: 'First: Repelling injustice and aggression... Islam did not define a spatial boundary within which a Muslim is required to intervene to remove injustices, but left it without limits. (I say: It is clear that the author intends to say that combat in Islam is legitimate to remove injustice from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, even if it be in non-Islamic states.) Second: Self-defense. Third: Protecting the call (da'wah) and the freedom to propagate it.' (3) ¶

17 - Dr. Mustafa al-Rafi'i says: 'As for the motives for combat in Islam, they are: 1 - Defense of the creed (aqidah)...' ¶

(1) Athar al-Harb, Prof. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli: p. 747. (2) Athar al-Harb, Prof. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli: p. 749. (3) Usul al-'Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam, 'Umar Ahmad al-Farjani: pp. 87-88. ¶

2 - Defense of the self, wealth, and the homeland. 3 - Disciplining traitors and conspirators (1). 18 - Uthman Juma'a Dumayriyya says: "The reasons for which a Muslim engages in jihad: 1 - Defensive measures to repel any aggression that has occurred or may occur against Muslims . . . 2 - Protecting the Islamic homeland and rescuing oppressed Muslims in any state whatsoever . . . 3 - Securing the freedom to propagate the Islamic Dawah. 4 - Upholding treaties and covenants. 5 - Warding off fitnah (sedition/strife) and preventing tyranny both internally and externally" (2). 19 - Dr. Ihsan al-Hindi enumerates the causes of combat under the heading 'Cases of the Legitimacy of War in Islam', stating: "A - Responding to aggression and defending the homeland, land, self, honor, and wealth . . . B - Defending freedom of belief and the practice thereof . . . C - Warding off fitnah and preventing its occurrence. Fitnah here refers to: tempting Muslims away from their religion and seducing them into abandoning it... He then says: It is permissible to wage war against any nation that attempts to pressure Muslims into abandoning their religion, whether through inducement or intimidation. D - Disciplining apostates and those who break covenants. E - Coming to the aid of an incapacitated ally and the weak" (3). (1) 'Al-Islam Nizam Insani' by Dr. Mustafa al-Rafi'i: p. 189. (2) 'Manhaj al-Islam fi al-Harb wa al-Silm' by Uthman Juma'a Dumayriyya: pp. 128-130. (3) 'Al-Islam wa al-Qanun al-Dawli' by Dr. Ihsan al-Hindi: pp. 122-127. ¶

20. Sayyid Qutb explains the reasons for combat in Islam, and while discussing the reason for the obligation of jihad upon Muslims, he states under the heading 'Jihad in the Path of Allah': 'This religion... did not task Muslims with coercing others to embrace its faith... Rather, it tasked them: First: With protecting the believers so that they are not persecuted away from their faith. Second: With establishing supreme justice on earth and allowing humanity to enjoy this justice... This mandate requires Muslims to struggle against oppression and tyranny wherever it exists... Islam is in a state of permanent jihad... to establish the Word of Allah on earth. That is: to establish a righteous system... It is tasked not to appease any oppressive power on the face of the earth... except for the time it takes to gather strength to fight it... Wherever there is oppression, Islam is commissioned to lift and repel it, whether this oppression falls upon Muslims, or the Dhimmis... or upon others who have no covenant or agreement with the Muslims.'(1) ¶

21. Lieutenant General Afif al-Bizri states in his book 'Jihad in Islam'—in the second chapter which he titled 'The Doctrine of Jihad': 'Jihad is a response to corruption and tyranny.'(2)... 'Jihad is for the sake of man, for the sake of removing corruption from the earth, the harm of which affects most people.'(3)... 'Jihad against the enemies of humanity—until they desist from their aggression and their existence as a system is removed—is one of the obligations of Islam.'(4) ¶

22. Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidan states: 'The combat of Muslims against the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) is to subject them to the political authority of the Islamic State and to implement the rulings of Islamic Shariah therein; it is not intended... to force any individual to change their religion... and the jurists (Fuqaha) are unanimous on this.'(5) ¶

23 - Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani states: «Know that Jihad is of two types: First: Fard 'Ayn (individual obligation), which is repelling an enemy attacking some Muslim lands, such as the Jews now, who have occupied Palestine; all Muslims are sinful until they expel them. The other: Fard Kifayah (communal obligation), if some fulfill it, it is lifted from the rest. This is the Jihad to propagate the Islamic call to all lands so that Islam may govern them. Whoever among their people accepts Islam, then that is well and good, and whoever stands in its way is fought until the Word of Allah is the highest. This Jihad shall continue until the Day of Judgment, not to mention the first type. It is regrettable that some contemporary writers deny this, and not only that, but they consider it one of the merits of Islam!» (1). ¶

24 - Dr. Diya al-Din Zanki states: «Islam did not direct its power toward individuals, except to the extent that those individuals oppose the Shariah of Allah. As for the regimes and rulers, they were the target of Islamic Jihad; however, the members of the societies under these regimes are given the choice between Islam and the payment of Jizya.» (2). ¶

25 - Dr. Arif Khalil Abu Eid states: «Muslims have paid attention to the issue of warfare and explained its causes, which in our view do not exceed five causes: First: Spreading the call of Islam and protecting freedom of belief. Second: Repelling aggression against the lands and wealth of Muslims. Third: Protecting the public order of the state [The author refers by this cause to what the jurists call the 'Wars of Interest' (Hurub al-Masalih), which are: fighting the apostates, the rebels (al-bughat), and the highway robbers]. Fourth: Protecting Muslim minorities living outside the borders of Islam - (Furthermore, he mentions...) ¶

(1) Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah: Sharh wa Ta'liq / Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani, p. 49. (2) Tadhkirat al-Shahid, Dr. Diya al-Din Zanki, p. 33. ¶

The author adds another reason under this category, stating: It (Jihad) is also legislated as a defense of humanity in the event that a state oppresses its minority subjects. ¶

Fifth: Preserving treaties and covenants... If a treaty partner explicitly declares the breach of a covenant, or performs an act that necessitates such a breach, then fighting them becomes obligatory.(1) ¶

Furthermore, the author paves the way for the reasons of combat in Islam by stating: ¶

'Indeed, every state established for the sake of spreading a specific creed must be continuously expansive. Thus, the Islamic state, whose primary mission was to carry the call of Islam to other nations and implement the Shariah of Allah on earth, sought to solidify the foundations of Islam and spread a belief system that encompasses the belief of the entire world. For this reason, it refused to accept coexistence with non-Islamic entities, because by its nature as a global state, it could not tolerate the existence of any other state alongside it. Consequently, the Muslims adopted Jihad as a means to spread the banner of religion throughout the world.'(2) ¶

26 - And 'Abul A'la Maududi' says: ¶

'Jihad, if you want the truth: is both offensive and defensive. ¶

It is offensive because the Islamic party opposes and resists kingdoms established on principles contradictory to Islam, and it desires to eradicate them, feeling no hesitation in utilizing military force for that purpose. ¶

As for it being defensive, it is because it is compelled to construct the edifice of the kingdom [referring to the Islamic state] and consolidate its foundations, so that it may be able to work according to its program and drawn-up plan... And do not let it slip your mind that this campaign does not intend to force those who differ in thought to abandon their belief... Rather, the Islamic party desires to seize the reins of power from those who believe in false principles and systems, so that affairs may be settled for the bearers of the banner of truth, so that there is no more discord (fitna), and the religion is entirely for Allah.'(3) ¶

27 - As for the prevailing viewpoint in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) regarding the issue at hand, Imam al-Shawkani summarizes it as follows: "As for raiding the disbelievers, confronting the people of disbelief, and compelling them toward Islam, or the payment of Jizya, or killing—this is a matter known from religious necessity... The evidences from the Book and the Sunnah regarding this are too vast for this space to accommodate, let alone all of them. Whatever has been narrated regarding making peace with them, or leaving them alone if they refrain from fighting, has been abrogated by the consensus of the Muslims by what has been established regarding the obligation of fighting them in every state, provided there is the ability to do so, the power to wage war against them, and the intent to march toward their lands." (1) ¶

28 - Finally, we present excerpts from what Dr. Hamid Sultan has stated regarding this matter, due to the ideas in his discourse that were not mentioned by others whose views we have cited in the previous excerpts. Dr. Hamid Sultan says: "One who carefully examines the battles of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finds that they were for one of two reasons: First: A prior aggression that had actually occurred from the polytheists. Second: That kings and rulers stood as barriers preventing the Islamic call... He then says: War and conquest were the only 'media' apparatus that ensured the spread of the Islamic call on a global scale. This means of communication was what led to the widespread diffusion of Islam in the first century of the Hijra... And when other media means appeared in human society to spread the Islamic call throughout the corners of the globe, there was no longer a need for war or conquest to spread its global message, because these other media means have taken over this dissemination!" ¶

The author states: Fighting, war, or conquest is not permitted in Islam based on differences in religion; rather, it is permitted only to repel aggression. (1) Then he says: 'Islam permits conquest, but makes its justification conditional upon the state having committed aggression against Islam, or it being established to the Muslims that the state is preparing for aggression.' (2) - Then he says: - 'Conquest incorporates the conquered state into the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), provided that those subject to this state enjoy the same rights as the Muslims.' (3) - Then he says: - 'According to the general principles of Islamic Shariah, war cannot be accepted unless it is the sole means for conveying the Islamic call and spreading it among human societies.' (4). ¶

Fourth: Conclusions and Observations: After surveying the pages of Islamic books that addressed the issue of the causes of fighting in Islam, we present the following conclusions and observations regarding what has been discussed: 1. There is a consensus that aggression against Muslims is one of the causes of fighting. 2. Many writers have mentioned that aggression against Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim citizens) is like aggression against Muslims. Those who did not mention this likely considered that aggression against Muslims implicitly includes aggression against Ahl al-Dhimmah, as they are under the protection of the Muslims, and the Islamic state is obligated to defend its subjects from among the Ahl al-Dhimmah just as it defends the Muslims. (4) 3. Some writers have mentioned that aggression or injustice committed against non-Muslim allies who are not from the Ahl al-Dhimmah is considered a cause for fighting in Islam. 4. Some writers have mentioned that aggression or injustice occurring against non-Muslims who are not from the Ahl al-Dhimmah... ¶

dhimmah, and non-allies— is considered one of the causes of combat in Islam. ¶

5- Many authors have restricted the concept of combat for the sake of carrying the Islamic call (da'wah), or for the sake of spreading Islam, to situations where aggression occurs against the callers to the faith or those who respond to them, or in cases where the invitation of non-Muslims to Islam is obstructed. ¶

6- A few authors have mentioned that annexing non-Islamic states to the Islamic state and implementing the Islamic system upon them—when one has the capability—is a legitimate cause of combat in Islam, as is well-known from the dominant view in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). This is after inviting those states to Islam or to join the Islamic state, and their refusal to respond to it. In such a case, fighting against those states is legitimate for the aforementioned purpose, even if their people remain adherents to their own religions. I say: Combat is legitimate against those states even if no aggression has been committed by them against Muslims, and no obstruction to the Islamic da'wah has taken place, provided they let Islam spread among their subjects while providing security for the callers and those who respond to them. ¶

7- Some authors have stated that modern media—print, audio, and visual—have the potential to negate the legitimacy of combat for the sake of spreading the Islamic da'wah. It is understood from this statement that as long as there are newspapers, radio, or television that Muslims can use to spread the Islamic da'wah, and these media reach non-Islamic countries—without censorship or interference—and those countries have not committed any aggression against those who respond to the call sent through these means, then there is no room to fight these states under the pretext of carrying the da'wah to them or spreading Islam within them, even if they prevent Muslims from entering their lands for the purpose of da'wah, as long as media, even if it is only Islamic radio, reaches those countries. This is what follows from the statement of Dr. Hamid Sultan which we quoted earlier: 'War cannot be accepted unless it is the only means to convey the Islamic da'wah' (1). ¶

Some writers have not been precise in defining the conditions for the legitimacy of combat in Islam, even from the perspective of the author himself who delineated those conditions: ¶

For instance, Dr. Arif Khalil Abu Eid identified five reasons for legitimate combat in Islam, and among them is not the annexation of other states into the Islamic state or the imposition of the Islamic system upon them. Rather, he cited the 'propagation of Islam and the protection of freedom of creed' as legitimate causes. This cause is distinct from combat for the sake of annexing non-Islamic states into the Islamic state. The propagation of the Islamic call and the protection of freedom of creed—according to the author's expression—may occur in a land without annexing that land to the Islamic state. Yet, the author believes that this annexation of states and the imposition of the Islamic system upon them are among the legitimate causes of combat, as understood from the preface he provided before listing the causes, where he says: 'Every state established for the sake of spreading a particular creed must necessarily be in a state of constant expansion. Thus, the Islamic state... refused to accept coexistence with non-Islamic entities; because, by its nature as a universal state, it cannot tolerate the existence of another state alongside it, and so the Muslims turned to jihad as a means to spread the banner of the religion throughout the world.' ¶

Accordingly, the author should have added to the causes of combat he defined the reason understood from the aforementioned preface, especially since he intended to limit the causes when he numbered them, saying: 'They do not exceed five causes.' If he had not imposed this limitation, or had he included the reason he alluded to in the preface among the reasons he subsequently listed, the matter would have been less problematic! ¶

Another example of the lack of precision in defining the conditions for the legitimacy of combat in Islam among some Islamic writers—which we mention here outside of the excerpts we previously cited: ¶

In the book 'Jihad and General International Rights in Islam' by Professor Zafir al-Qasimi, it is stated: 'The opinion of Hafiz Abd Rabbo:' ¶

He is one of the professors at Al-Azhar, and he authored a book titled 'The Philosophy of Jihad in Islam'. In the chapter titled 'The Cause of Jihad and War', the following is stated (1): We declare explicitly that the legitimate war in Islam is defensive war, and nothing else! It is appropriate for us to point out that the word 'defense' encompasses two types, both of which have been indicated by the Quran: 1- Defense of the self. 2- The mandatory relief for a Muslim people, or an Arab state, or an ally unable to defend itself. From this, we see that war in the view of Islam is an evil to which only the compelled resorts. Therefore, for Muslims to settle through negotiations for a peace that compromises some of their rights, while simultaneously preventing the shedding of blood, is better than a resounding victory in which lives are lost and blood is spilled in its massacres. I say: This very text is what we quoted from Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Draz in his book 'Reflections on Islam' (Nazrat fi al-Islam) (2) in the previous excerpts! Yes, the author of 'The Philosophy of Jihad' added to the text he quoted from Dr. Draz—he added on his own the phrase 'We declare explicitly', and the phrase 'and nothing else!' followed by an exclamation mark, just as he added the phrase 'or an Arab state', and finally added the phrase 'and blood is spilled in its massacres'. Moreover, I did not see in the book 'The Philosophy of Jihad' any mark of citation, nor any indication of quotation, nor any mention of the aforementioned reference, neither in the footnotes nor at the end of the book. It appears that Professor Zafir al-Qasimi did not read Dr. Draz's book, or at the very least, it was not fresh in his mind if he had read it previously. Therefore, he missed recalling the true author of the words he transcribed from the book 'The Philosophy of Jihad'. ¶