Chapter 32

Sheikh Khallaf further states: 'How can the restricted (muqayyad) verses be abrogated, when there is consensus on the obligation of combat to repel aggression, and no one has argued for the abrogation of this obligation?' The answer is: Yes, no one has argued for the abrogation of the obligation of combat to repel aggression. However, the abrogation mentioned by the majority (jumhur) is not directed at negating the obligation to repel aggression; rather, it is directed at restricting this obligation solely to the repulsion of aggression, which was the initial state. Thus, this restriction was abrogated, and another mandate for the obligation of combat was legislated alongside defense against aggression, which is: the refusal of the disbelievers to submit to Islamic governance. Moving on to the other side of Islamic authors who did not advocate applying the absolute (mutlaq) to the restricted (muqayyad) in this matter, among them is Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani. We shall quote — briefly — what he said in his pamphlet on Jihad, limiting ourselves to what is relevant to our topic. He said: 'The evidences for Jihad are general and absolute. Let us take the verses of Jihad mentioned in Surah at-Tawbah, because Surah at-Tawbah is among the last to be revealed, so that no room remains for claims of specification (takhsis) or restriction (taqyid). Allah Almighty says: ﴿Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day...﴾ [Verse 29]... ﴿O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites﴾ [Verse 73]... and Allah says: ﴿O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers...﴾ [Verse 123]. Thus, these verses... contain a general and absolute command for combat. In all of them, the generality and the absolute nature are apparent, making them evidence that Jihad is: fighting the disbelievers, whether it is an offensive initiation of combat against the enemy or a defense of the Muslims. As for the saying of the Almighty... ﴿And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you﴾ [Al-Baqarah: 190]... and similar verses (he means the verses where the legitimacy of fighting disbelievers was restricted to them being aggressors), they are all insufficient to specify the general verses of Surah at-Tawbah, nor to restrict their absolute nature, because they were all revealed before the verses of Surah at-Tawbah, and the earlier cannot specify or restrict the later, since... ¶

Specification (Takhsis) is equivalent to abrogation (Naskh) of a part of the general (Am), because it redirects the ruling from its generality by invalidating it in some instances and establishing another ruling in its place. Since specification is equivalent to abrogation, it is required that the abrogating text (Nasikh) arrives later than the abrogated text (Mansukh). As the verses of Surah al-Tawbah are among the last revealed regarding Jihad, specification is not possible. What is said regarding specification applies equally to qualification (Taqyid); therefore, the qualifying text must be later than the absolute text, or contemporaneous with it, to serve as a constraint. Consequently, the general remains general, and the absolute remains absolute (1). ¶

This is the opinion of those who argue against applying the absolute to the qualified in the texts of combat. ¶

Now, what is our opinion on this matter? ¶

I say: I shall quote from the books of 'Usul al-Fiqh' (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) only that which is useful for our purpose, as the topic of 'applying the absolute to the qualified' is extensive; we shall limit ourselves to what is necessary for the study of the issue we are addressing. ¶

It is stated in 'Usul al-Fiqh': ¶

'The Hanafis said: ... if it is known that the qualified (text) preceded and the absolute (text) followed, the absolute would be the abrogator of the qualified' (2). This is the legal principle applicable to the issue we are addressing: the texts of combatting the disbelievers, which are qualified by 'aggression' in some instances and absolute of this qualification in others. Thus, the texts absolute of the qualification of aggression, as they appear in Surah al-Tawbah—due to their later revelation compared to the texts qualified by aggression—are considered to be the abrogators of the preceding qualified texts. Thus, the ruling of the obligation to combat the disbelievers absolutely is established, regardless of whether they have committed an act of aggression against the Muslims or not. The restriction of the obligation to combat disbelievers to the condition of them being aggressors is considered abrogated. ¶

It is stated in 'Usul al-Fiqh' (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) as well: 'The Shafi'is said: Carrying the absolute (al-mutlaq) upon the qualified (al-muqayyad) is considered an explanation that the absolute was intended to mean the qualified from the outset, regardless of whether the history is known—such that one preceded the other—or whether they were concurrent, or whether the history is unknown.' ¶

I say: This text applies equally whether the absolute comes after the qualified or vice-versa... And regardless of which came first or last, the absolute is carried upon the qualified. Accordingly, it is necessary to carry the absolute texts—which in our case are those that decree the obligation of fighting the disbelievers absolutely, whether they were aggressors or not—upon the qualified texts, which in our case are those that decree the obligation of fighting the disbelievers if they were aggressors. However, one must not be hasty in this matter, for it has also been stated in the books of Usul al-Fiqh that there are conditions for carrying the absolute upon the qualified, among which is: 'That there is no evidence (dalil) that prevents the qualification; if such evidence exists, then there is no qualification.' ¶

I say: In the case we are addressing, there is evidence that prevents the restriction of the absolute by the qualified—that is, prevents limiting the obligation of fighting the disbelievers only to the case of their aggression. This is because the evidence that prevents carrying the absolute upon the qualified has involved acting upon the absolute texts in their absolute sense regarding fighting the disbelievers, even if they were not aggressors, in order to subject them to Islamic rule. The evidence referred to is the consensus (ijma') of the Companions, as we have seen in the final section of the second chapter. The Companions fought on fronts against disbelievers from whom no aggression had been committed against the Muslims, in order to bring Islam to them so that they might enter it by their own choice, or inevitably submit to its rule. ¶

Therefore, the absolute is not carried upon the qualified in our case here. Rather, the absolute remains in its absolute state. It is also mentioned in the books of Usul al-Fiqh that among the conditions for carrying the absolute upon the qualified is that it is not possible [to...] ¶

It is not possible to reconcile between them except through 'haml' (interpretation/derivation), and if reconciliation between them is possible without carrying the absolute (mutlaq) over the restricted (muqayyad), then that is better than nullifying the meaning indicated by either of them(1). The clarification of this condition by applying it to the issue we are addressing is as follows: - If we carry the absolute texts over the restricted texts, the result is: implementing the restricted texts, i.e., limiting the fighting of the disbelievers only to those who are aggressors, and nullifying the meaning of the absolute in the absolute texts, i.e., not fighting the non-aggressive disbelievers. This is because this 'haml' implies that the intended meaning of the absolute texts is to restrict them by the restricted texts, rather than leaving them in their absolute form. Consequently, the meaning of the absolute texts regarding fighting the disbelievers to convey Islam to them—in the absence of any aggression on their part against the Muslims—becomes nullified and not implemented. - However, if we do not carry the absolute texts over the restricted texts, the result is: implementing the restricted texts in what their explicit wording (mantuq) indicates, i.e., the legitimacy of fighting aggressive disbelievers. And also implementing the absolute texts in their absolute state, i.e., the legitimacy of fighting disbelievers in general, whether they are aggressive or not. Thus, what the restricted texts indicated—i.e., fighting aggressive disbelievers—becomes one of the states of fighting disbelievers in general, whether they are aggressive or not. Here, the question arises: Which is more appropriate from the perspective of 'Usul al-Fiqh' (Principles of Jurisprudence)? - Carrying the absolute over the restricted, which leads to nullifying the meaning of the absolute? - Or reconciling between the absolute and the restricted by acting upon both together without nullifying the meaning of the absolute texts, nor the meaning of the restricted texts in what their explicit wording indicates? The answer, based on the last condition we mentioned for carrying the absolute over the restricted, is to reconcile between the absolute and the restricted, and not to carry the first over the second. This is in accordance with the other legal principle which states: 'Applying two proofs is better than applying one and neglecting the other'(2). __________________ (1) Irshad al-Fuhul - Al-Shawkani, p. 156. (2) Usul al-Fiqh - Abu al-Nur Zuhair, 2/303-327. 624 ¶

It is precise to state that combining the absolute (mutlaq) and the restricted (muqayyad) texts and acting upon both simultaneously results in the suspension of the 'concept of opposition' (mafhum al-mukhalafa) indicated by the restricted text, according to those who uphold this concept. This is because the concept of opposition regarding the verse 'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you...' (2:190) is: 'Do not fight those who do not fight you.' ¶

- As for applying the absolute to the restricted, it results in the suspension of the explicit wording (mantuq) indicated by the absolute nature of the verse 'Strive against the disbelievers...' (9:73), especially in cases where they are not aggressors. Given this contradiction between what is indicated by the 'concept' (mafhum) of the restricted text and what is indicated by the 'explicit wording' (mantuq) of the absolute text, scholars of Usul al-Fiqh establish that the mantuq is stronger than the mafhum. Therefore, acting upon the mantuq, even if it leads to the suspension of the mafhum, is preferable to acting upon the mafhum when it leads to the suspension of the mantuq. ¶

Scholars of Usul al-Fiqh detail this by stating: The majority who uphold the concept of opposition acknowledge the conflict between the concept of opposition and the explicit wording. In this case, acting upon the mantuq is preferred over acting upon the mafhum al-mukhalafa; thus, one must act upon the mantuq and set aside the mafhum. In accordance with this majority view, regarding our issue, it must be said that fighting the disbelievers is absolutely obligatory, as this is the requirement of acting upon the mantuq—fighting the disbelievers in an absolute sense—even if it results in the suspension of the mafhum, which prohibits fighting non-aggressive disbelievers, as understood from the restricted text. ¶

- However, according to the Hanafis, who do not uphold the concept of opposition, there is no conflict between the absolute and restricted texts. This is because it is not understood from the restricted texts that fighting non-aggressive disbelievers is forbidden. Rather, the ruling regarding them—that is, the non-aggressive disbelievers—is left unstated (maskut 'anhu) in the restricted texts. ¶

Since the absolute texts indicate through their explicit wording that one should fight the disbelievers in an absolute sense... ¶

It includes both aggressors and non-aggressors. Therefore, acting upon the school of the Hanafi jurists (Usuliyyun), it must also be said: that fighting the disbelievers is absolutely obligatory, whether they are aggressors or non-aggressors (1). ¶

Thus, it becomes clear how we view this matter—carrying the absolute (mutlaq) over the restricted (muqayyad) in the texts concerning fighting, in the manner we have explained according to the application of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh). In this regard, the conclusion is: - The evidence of the consensus (ijma) of the Companions regarding fighting the disbelievers to subject them to the rule of Islam, even if they were not aggressors—this evidence prevents carrying the absolute over the restricted; that is, it prevents limiting the obligation of fighting only against the aggressors among the disbelievers. - Furthermore, reconciling between the absolute and restricted texts, so that they all may be acted upon, is better than acting upon some while nullifying others. We have reconciled those texts in the manner detailed previously. ¶

With this, we conclude the third issue in this research and proceed to the fourth issue. ¶

Fourth Issue: Justifications for fighting against aggression, between retribution (jaza') and defense. - Aggression may have occurred in the past. - It may be occurring in the present. - Or it may be expected in the future. These are three states of aggression that entitle the party upon whom it falls to rise in defense against that aggression. ¶

A - Retribution for aggression that has occurred: This defense against aggression that has occurred is, in reality, retribution for the transgression committed by the enemy. ¶

In the Prophetic biography (Sirah), there are examples of this; among them is the expedition of Zayd ibn Harithah to the tribe of 'Judham'. ¶

The summary is that when Dihyah al-Kalbi returned from Caesar after delivering the Prophet's (ﷺ) letter inviting him to Islam, he was waylaid by 'al-Hunayd ibn 'Aws' and his son 'Aws ibn al-Hunayd' of the Judham tribe, who seized the wealth he was carrying. However, some men from Judham who had embraced Islam managed to recover the seized property and return it to him. It is stated in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham: 'Dihyah returned to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), informed him of what happened, and sought retribution (blood) for the killing of al-Hunayd and his son! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then sent Zayd ibn Harithah to them... The army of Zayd ibn Harithah approached... and launched a raid at al-Maqas, from the direction of al-Harrah. They gathered whatever wealth or people they found and killed al-Hunayd and his son...' ¶

B - Defense Against Ongoing Aggression ¶

This defense against ongoing and persistent aggression represents defense in its clearest form. Its purpose is to cut off that aggression, or at the very least, to continue striking the enemy with the goal of ending their hostility. ¶

The Holy Quran encourages this type of defense, specifically in its urging of the Muslims during the Prophetic era in Medina to fight for the liberation of the oppressed Muslims of Mecca, upon whom the polytheists exercised various forms of persecution (fitnah) and prevented them from migrating to Medina. Allah the Almighty says: 'And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"' ¶

C - Defense against expected aggression. This fighting against expected aggression is what is termed 'preventive war,' which is a type of defense also referred to as 'offensive defense' or 'defensive attack.' Previous discussions have covered some of the battles (ghazawat) of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in which this type of defense was manifested, such as the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq. It is mentioned in Sirat Ibn Hisham: 'The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) received news that Banu al-Mustaliq were gathering against him... When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard about them, he went out to meet them, and he killed those of them who were killed.' It is important to note here that if an enemy shows signs of preparing for aggression against the Muslims while simultaneously being bound by a peace treaty with them, it is not permissible for the Muslims to surprise them with an attack under the pretext of 'defense against expected aggression' without first renouncing that treaty and announcing its termination. This is because the treaty remains in effect as long as no blatant aggression has been committed by them. After renouncing the treaty, the Muslims have the right to declare war on the enemy according to the requirements of the public interest (maslaha). The evidence for the necessity of renouncing the treaty before initiating combat due to expected aggression is the verse: {If you fear treachery from a people, throw back their treaty to them on equal terms; indeed, Allah does not like the treacherous} [Al-Anfal: 58]. Tafsir al-Qurtubi states: 'When the signs of treachery appear and their evidence is proven, it becomes obligatory to renounce the treaty so that continued reliance upon it does not lead to destruction; and it is permissible to act upon established necessity here. As for certainty (i.e., when treachery from the treaty-bound enemy is known with certainty), there is no need to notify them of the renunciation of the treaty. The Prophet (ﷺ) marched towards the people of Mecca in the year of the Conquest when their breach of the treaty became notorious, without notifying them of its termination. 'Al-Nabd' means to throw away or discard... The meaning is: If you fear treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, then cast the treaty back to them—meaning, tell them, 'I have renounced your treaty, and I am going to fight you,' so that they may know this and be on an equal footing with you in knowledge.' ¶

You fight them while there is a treaty between you and them, and they trust you; that would be treachery and betrayal. Then He clarified this by saying: (Indeed, Allah does not like the treacherous)(1). ¶

With this, we conclude the first discussion of the current chapter, and we now proceed to the second discussion. ¶

(1) Tafsir al-Qurtubi: (Jami' al-Bayan li-Ahkam al-Qur'an) Vol. 8/32. ¶

(3) ¶

(Translation of the Noble Verses) ¶

(1) "Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful." (Surah Al-Insan: 3) ¶

(2) "And have shown him the two ways (of good and evil)." (Surah Al-Balad: 10) ¶

(3) "Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." (Surah Bani Israil: 15) ¶

(4) "O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided." (Surah Al-Ma'idah: 105) ¶

(5) "He has succeeded who purifies it, and he has failed who instills it [with corruption]." (Surah Ash-Shams: 9-10) ¶

(6) "So whoever is guided is guided for [the benefit of] his soul; and whoever goes astray only goes astray to its detriment." (Surah Az-Zumar: 41) ¶

(7) "And have shown him the two ways." (Surah Al-Balad: 10) ¶

(8) "And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." (Surah Fatir: 18) ¶

(9) "And that there is not for man except that [good] for which he strives." (Surah An-Najm: 39) ¶

(10) "So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it." (Surah Az-Zalzalah: 7-8) ¶

Second Topic: Aggression against Muslims in terms of its forms, i.e., the aspect upon which the aggression falls. ¶

Aggression against Muslims has many forms in terms of the aspect that is targeted by the aggression: 1. Aggression against Muslim lands by occupying them. 2. Aggression against the persons of Muslims. 3. Aggression against their honor. 4. Aggression against their wealth. We have made each of these aspects, which enemies target with aggression, a specific issue within this research, mentioning them separately with the intention of distinguishing between the various forms of aggression that befall Muslims. ¶

First Issue: The occupation of a portion of Muslim lands for any purpose whatsoever. ¶

In this issue, there are several points that must be addressed so that the issue receives its due study. These points are: 1. The meaning of the occupation of a portion of Muslim lands. 2. What are the enemy's objectives in occupying any part of Muslim lands? 3. The Shariah ruling regarding the enemy's occupation of any part of Muslim lands. ¶

1 - The meaning of the occupation of a part of Muslim lands. The occupation of any part of the lands of Islam represents the most prominent manifestation of aggression against the Muslims. But what is occupation? In the 'Political Dictionary' (al-Qamus al-Siyasi), the definition of military occupation is stated as follows: "The establishment of military forces in a foreign land to facilitate its colonization, without the consent of its people..." (1). Accordingly, the occupation we are discussing is: The incursion of military forces belonging to the aggressor disbelievers (kuffar) into any region of Muslim lands, and seizing control over it, for any purpose whatsoever. ¶

2 - What are the enemy's objectives for occupying any country or region of Muslim lands? Regardless of the enemy's motive for occupying any spot of Muslim territory, this occupation represents an act of aggression against the Islamic lands. History has shown various motives behind the occupation of Muslim lands by the disbelievers. While we are not here to exhaustively study those motives, it is useful to briefly point to the forms of occupation that Muslim lands have been subjected to throughout their distant and recent history, which were realized for one or more of the objectives we shall indicate below: - Among those objectives: The retrieval by the disbelieving enemies of their colonies from which the Muslims had expelled them. It is stated in the book 'The Islamic Military School' by Saghir Muhammad Faraj, the following: "After peace was concluded between Amr ibn al-Aas and Theodore, the commander of the Roman forces, following the defeat of the Romans in Alexandria, the Roman Emperor prepared a massive fleet of three hundred warships to return with it..." ¶

towards Alexandria to expel the Muslims from it and restore it to his rule, and Manuel took command of the campaign... Then the forces moved towards Alexandria, and the Muslims were surprised by the Romans occupying Alexandria, after which they began moving south. The news reached the Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, who ordered Amr ibn al-Aas to confront the campaign and face it. At Nikiou (1), a violent encounter took place in which the Romans were defeated, and their expulsion from the country was completed (2). ¶

- One of the enemy's objectives in occupying Muslim lands is to eradicate Islam and Islamic civilization. ¶

It is stated in the book 'Documents of the Crusades and the Mongol Invasion of the Islamic World': 'The lands of Islam witnessed... the fiercest civilizational attack to which any nation has been subjected, spanning over two centuries. I mean the Crusader attack, which Europe launched under the banner of the Cross against the western Islamic lands for two centuries (the fifth and sixth centuries AH / eleventh and twelfth centuries AD). And the Mongol attack on the eastern Islamic lands, lasting for more than two other centuries (the sixth and seventh centuries AH / twelfth and thirteenth centuries AD). The goal of this dual attack was to eliminate Islam as a religion and as a civilization, to root out the Islamic religion from its foundations... and to destroy the flourishing Islamic civilization' (3). ¶

- Another objective of the enemy in occupying Muslim lands is to exploit the resources of the occupied, colonized countries. Prince Mustafa al-Shihabi, while discussing the means the enemy uses to occupy and colonize countries, the goal it intends behind that, and the examples in which that goal is embodied, says: 'The tool of colonialism is domination... and the means of domination is force, that is: ¶

(1) Nikiou (Nikiu): A city at the head of the Delta. Amr ibn al-Aas conquered it by force in 641 AD. Today, it is called 'Shishir' (Al-Munajjid, Biographical Section, p. 540). In 'Marasid al-Ittila' by Abd al-Mu'min al-Baghdadi (d. 739 AH): 'Nikiou: A village between Fustat and Alexandria' (3/1388). (2) The Islamic Military School, by Sagha Muhammad Faraj, p. 216. (3) Documents of the Crusades and the Mongol Invasion of the Islamic World, by Dr. Muhammad Maher Hamada, p. 8. ¶

Conquering a land refers to colonizing it, occupying it militarily, liquidating its combatant forces, dismantling its sovereignty, toppling its government, establishing a government comprised of the conquerors' men, and then, in the vast majority of cases, utilizing its facilities for the benefit of these conquerors. A land that has been subdued is called a 'colony'; it loses its internal and external sovereignty and becomes dependent on the conquerors in all its affairs. This type is considered the most severe and hideous form of domination, especially when the colonizers unleash migrants who displace the indigenous population and impose themselves by blocking the means of livelihood before them. The author then states: Colonialism, in its true essence, is nothing but the domination of a weak people and the stripping away of their independence for the purpose of seizing the wealth in their lands and exploiting their individuals in the military, agriculture, or industry for the colonizer's benefit. The author proceeded to provide examples of occupation and colonialism to achieve these ends, stating: Among the examples... is France's seizure of Algeria and Senegal, England's occupation of Egypt and Sudan, and Italy's seizure of Somalia, Tripoli, and Cyrenaica (1). ¶

General Afif al-Bizri speaks about this objective of colonial powers in their occupation of Islamic lands, stating: 'Islam will never remain silent regarding the establishment of America's two arms—Israel and the Rapid Deployment Force—around our Arab land and the oil region, our primary wealth, to stifle progress and life therein, and to suck its blood—its wealth and values. What America is amassing of forces around us must increase our determination to revolt against its global system that extends to our land, in order to gain freedom from this system through all forms of struggle' (2). ¶

Among the enemy's purposes in occupying Muslim lands, as Ahmad Atiya Allah says: 'Opening the doors of immigration to the citizens of the colonial state to settle therein, while creating conditions that assist in this.' ¶

Lowering the standard of living among the local population, which forces them to abandon the territory or leads, in the end, to their extermination.(1) ¶

This is the goal represented by the occupation of Palestine by colonial powers in the modern era, and the subsequent empowerment of Jewish citizens from those countries to migrate there, while providing them with the means of life and power. They pursued a policy that would ultimately lead to the expulsion of the indigenous people or their extermination. This indeed happened, until the Jews became the majority in Palestine. What made matters worse is the news we hear these days of the Soviet Union enabling its Jewish citizens to migrate to Palestine to settle there in large numbers, in batches that will eventually reach nearly one million Jews. ¶

Furthermore, it is not hidden that behind this immediate goal of occupying some Muslim lands lies another distant goal, for which the immediate goal serves as a means: that the Jewish occupation of Palestine, and their empowerment there by the major powers of disbelief, serves as a bridgehead for colonialism in the Islamic world. The aim is to keep it tied to a whirlpool of internal and external conflicts surrounding the Palestinian issue, and consequently subject to the influence of those colonial powers that work to further complicate that issue in the name of solving it, in order to entrench their influence and establish their foothold in this region of the world. This eliminates the hope for the liberation of the Islamic world from the hegemony of colonial powers, as long as the leaders of this Islamic world make the adversary a judge, the enemy a friend(2), and the wolf a shepherd! Even though the Arabs have said in their proverbs since ancient times—as mentioned in the previous section—: 'Whoever makes the wolf a shepherd has committed injustice.'(3) ¶

And this is despite Allah Almighty saying in His Holy Book: 'O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection.'(4) ¶

One of the enemy's objectives in occupying parts of Muslim lands is to impose upon those countries a government from among the local population that is loyal to it in its ideological and political orientation. To achieve this, the enemy remains in the occupied territories and conducts military operations to eliminate resistance elements and empower its loyalist forces. Once it is assured that its loyal agents, collaborators, and traitors have firmly seized control over the country, its people, resources, and armed forces, it begins to announce that it intends to withdraw its troops because it does not wish to colonize a country or occupy land, and that its only concern was to assist the local authority in establishing security and suppressing unrest. ¶

This is done with brazen impudence and shameless feigning of ignorance! This is what occurred in Muslim lands in the story of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and its subsequent withdrawal. These are some of the motives behind the disbelieving nations' occupation of Muslim lands. ¶

There are other objectives, but we are not here—as previously stated—to exhaustively list them or provide evidence for them; as the saying goes, 'Sufficient for the necklace is what encircles the neck.' ¶

We now come to the final point in this matter, which is: 3. What is the Shariah ruling when any part of Muslim lands is occupied? Muslim jurists, despite their varying schools of thought, are unanimous that fighting is mandatory to repel aggression against Muslim lands. This obligation is a fard ayn (individual duty) upon the people of the land that has been occupied, or is on the verge of being occupied. If they are not sufficient to repel the aggression, the duty to fight extends to their neighbors, then to those behind them, and so on, until the sufficient number is reached and the enemy is expelled from Muslim lands. ¶

We prefer, here, to provide the statements of the jurists in this regard, as they shed light on certain dimensions of the ruling on this issue. ¶

Al-Kasani states: 'When a general mobilization (nafir) occurs, such as when the enemy attacks a city, it becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon every single Muslim who is capable of it.' It is stated in 'Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar' and its 'Hashiyat Ibn Abidin': 'The Book of Jihad... is initially a communal obligation (fard kifaya), even if they do not initiate hostilities against us. But it becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) if the enemy attacks; thus, everyone must go forth, even without permission, and a husband or similar guardian incurs sin if they prevent it.' In the Hashiya, it is added: 'His statement (fard 'ayn) means: upon those near the enemy. If they are unable or lethargic, then upon those closest to them, and so on in this sequence, until it becomes incumbent upon all Muslims in the East and the West... One who intended to go forth does not incur sin if their remaining behind is due to others not going, their lethargy, or the ruler not going or preventing them.' It further states: 'His statement (everyone goes forth) means: everyone mentioned, including women, slaves, debtors, and others. Al-Sarakhsi said: Likewise, children who have not reached puberty, if they are capable of combat, there is no harm in them going forth and fighting during a general mobilization, even if their parents dislike it.' In 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya', it is written: 'It becomes specific (meaning Jihad becomes an individual obligation) for three reasons... Second: If the enemy suddenly attacks some of the lands of the Muslims, it becomes mandatory until the enemy is repelled.' In 'Al-Minhaj' and its commentary 'Mughni al-Muhtaj', it is stated: 'The second of the two states of the disbelievers... is that they enter one of our cities, or land on our islands, or mountains within the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), even if far from a city; then it is incumbent upon its inhabitants to repel them with whatever is possible. At that point, Jihad becomes an individual obligation, though some say it is communal... If the inhabitants are able to prepare—that is, readiness for combat—then it is obligatory for each of them to do what is possible, i.e., repelling the disbelievers according to their capacity, even upon the poor to the extent they are able, and upon children, debtors, and slaves, without permission from parents, creditors, or masters... because their entry into the Abode of Islam is a grave matter, and there is no alternative.' ¶

Neglecting it is not an option; therefore, exerting effort to repel it by any possible means is inevitable. The ruling regarding their entry into a city is the same as if they were looming over it. Women are like slaves; if they are capable of defense, they should defend; otherwise, they are to be captured! Al-Rafi'i stated: It is permissible for a woman not to require her husband's permission [for jihad]... ¶

If the people of a city are unable to prepare for battle, such as when the disbelievers attack them suddenly, then whoever is in that position shall repel the disbelievers from himself by any means possible, if he knows that it will lead to his killing. If he deems it possible that he might be taken captive or killed, he has the choice to defend himself or to surrender. This applies if he knows that refusing to surrender will lead to his death; otherwise, it is forbidden for him to surrender. ¶

In Ibn Qudamah’s 'Al-Mughni', it is stated: 'When the disbelievers descend upon a city, it becomes an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) upon its people to fight and repel them.' ¶

In Ibn Hazm’s 'Al-Muhalla', it is stated: 'Jihad is not permissible without the permission of the parents, unless the enemy attacks a group of Muslims. In that case, it becomes a duty upon everyone who can assist them to set out to their aid, regardless of whether the parents grant permission or not, unless the parents, or one of them, would be neglected/lost in his absence. It is not permissible for him to abandon those who would be left in distress.' ¶

Al-Shawkani stated: '...with the fear of the disbelievers exterminating a region of the Muslims... defending this region, which is feared to be exterminated, has become an obligation upon every Muslim, and binding upon everyone capable of jihad to fight them with his wealth and his life.' ¶

In 'Subul al-Salam', it is stated: 'If it is asked: Filial piety is also an individual obligation, and jihad when it becomes mandatory is also an individual obligation, so they are equal! What is the reason for prioritizing jihad? I say: Because its benefit is more general, as it is for the preservation of the religion and the defense of the Muslims; therefore, its general benefit takes precedence over others.' ¶

Having previously mentioned in the first section of this chapter the legal (Shari'ah) evidences that mandate fighting for the Muslims to repel aggression, we will not prolong the discussion by repeating them. Furthermore, when the disbelieving enemy occupies... ¶

If a territory of the Muslims is situated closest to the disbelievers, the following verse applies to it: 'O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you...' Furthermore, when the enemy occupies a land of the Muslims, this occupied land becomes the battlefield. Consequently, for a Muslim to withdraw from the battlefield in such a situation constitutes 'fleeing from the advance' (al-tawalli yawm al-zahf), which is among the mortal sins (al-kaba'ir al-mubiqat). It is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Avoid the seven destructive sins.' They asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, what are they?' He replied: 'Associating partners with Allah (shirk), sorcery, taking a life which Allah has forbidden except in the course of justice, consuming usury, consuming the wealth of an orphan, fleeing from the battlefield (al-tawalli yawm al-zahf), and slandering chaste, believing, innocent women.' ¶

With this, we conclude the first issue of this research and proceed to the second issue. ¶

Second Issue: Aggression against the persons of Muslims for any objective whatsoever. This issue also contains several points, which we shall summarize for the sake of clarity: 1. What do we mean by aggression against the persons of Muslims? 2. What are the enemy's objectives in attacking the persons of Muslims? 3. What is the Shariah ruling regarding aggression against the persons of Muslims? ¶

1. What do we mean by aggression against the persons of Muslims? By aggression against the persons of Muslims, we mean any act that constitutes an assault on their physical bodies, regardless of the nature of that physical assault. This includes all forms of oppression, torture, brutalization, and harm—such as beating, imprisonment, killing, burning, drowning, forced labor, and similar actions. ¶

2 - As for the objectives of the enemy in aggressing against the persons of the Muslims? ¶

The enemy’s objectives behind such aggression are numerous, all stemming from the enmity that exists between Muslims and the disbelievers. ¶

- The most prominent objective of the enemy, regarding this type of aggression in the early period of Islam in Makkah, was 'fitna' (sedition/persecution) against the religion. That is, exercising pressure upon the Muslims to coerce them into abandoning Islam, and dissuading those inclined towards this religion from considering its adoption. The evidence for this is the saying of Allah Almighty: 'And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able' (1). ¶

- Among the enemy’s objectives in aggressing against the persons of Muslims may also be to compel them to abandon their lands so that the enemy may gain control over them. ¶

- Likewise, their objective in aggressing against specific Muslim individuals may be because they are innovative, influential political leaders whose success in rallying Muslims around them, or whose success in influencing public opinion within the lands of the disbelievers, constitutes a threat to the enemy. Or, it may be because they are individuals possessing extraordinary intelligence in science and technology (2), for whom it is expected that new horizons of discovery will open. This would lead to the Muslims achieving massive inventions in the field of power and armament, so the enemy hastens to eliminate those individuals by any means possible to retain a monopoly on that power for themselves, and to keep the Muslims lagging behind them in these fields! ¶

I say: Whatever the enemy’s objective in their aggression against the persons of the Muslims, the Muslims must not remain silent regarding this aggression. The faster and more decisive the response to the aggression is—as much as possible—the more the Muslims will hold a position of awe, respect, and fear from the enemy, preventing them from harassing or attacking them. ¶