Chapter 35

If the jurists (fuqaha) declare the obligation of fighting them while they are in their own lands and have not moved toward Muslim lands to occupy them, then is it possible for these jurists to say that the obligation to fight them is waived when they commit aggression against Muslim lands through occupation? ¶

Based on this, what is understood from the words of some Islamic thinkers—that if Muslim lands are labeled as 'Dar al-Kufr' (abode of disbelief) or 'Dar al-Harb' (abode of war), it follows that there is no obligation to defend them against aggression—is merely a concern stemming from a zealous Islamic sentiment for which its holder is to be commended. However, there is no justification for such a fear, in my view, within the framework of fiqh ijtihad regarding the categorization of lands as Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr, as has been detailed previously. ¶

This pertains to the defense of Muslim lands that are considered Dar al-Kufr in terms of their system, their security, or both. ¶

As for the defense of the Muslims in these lands, the defense of Muslim lands against aggression is, at the same time, a defense of their inhabitants, including the Muslims and the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim subjects) as well. The proofs for the obligation of defense against aggression extend to Muslim lands and to those within them, whether Muslims or Ahl al-Dhimma. ¶

Point Five: Regarding Dar al-Kufr, which is the land of the disbelievers: what is the ruling on defending the Muslims residing there? Here, in this point: - We have a 'Dar al-Kufr', which is the land of the disbelievers. - And we have Muslims who are a minority residing therein. ¶

Aggression against this Dar al-Kufr, such as its occupation by another kaffir state, does not constitute aggression against the Muslims in Dar al-Islam. ¶

Likewise, it does not constitute aggression against the Muslims residing in this Dar al-Kufr by virtue of them being Muslims. In any case, they live under the authority of a kaffir power, whether that authority is the natural authority of the local disbelievers or an occupying authority from outside the country. The allegiance of the Muslims there is not to a kaffir power under any circumstances. ¶

And these lands seized by the disbelievers are not Dar al-Islam, nor are they Islamic lands that have entered... ¶

is in the possession of the Muslims, so that an attack upon it constitutes an attack upon the Muslims within their own lands or territories, which necessitates rising up in its defense. This pertains to an attack on the lands of the disbelievers (Dar al-Kufr). As for an attack on Muslims residing in Dar al-Kufr, such an act may be committed by the state to which these Muslims belong, or by the inhabitants of the land where they reside, or by a foreign state. In all these instances, the aggression against these Muslims constitutes a violation against Muslims who must be supported. Those Muslims who provide this support fall into two categories: - The first category: Muslims who belong to the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and reside therein. - The second category: Muslims who do not belong to the Abode of Islam but reside in the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr). As for the first category, namely the Muslims who belong to Dar al-Islam and reside there, it is incumbent upon them to support the Muslims who are being attacked in Dar al-Kufr, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the oppressed Muslims request support from the people of Dar al-Islam. 2. That the matter for which they seek support is of a religious nature. 3. That there is no peace treaty between Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Kufr that committed the aggression which necessitates abstaining from combat. 4. That the interest in refraining from supporting the Muslims in Dar al-Kufr does not outweigh the interest of providing such support. The first three conditions are understood from the verse of support (Ayat al-Nasr) in Surah al-Anfal, which we cited at the beginning of this discussion: 'Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty.' ¶

And between them is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do (1). Similarly, the fourth condition is understood from the initiative of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which required abandoning the support of the oppressed in Makkah—which was then Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief). This is because he perceived that the interest of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah for the Islamic Dawah was weightier than the immediate interest of continuing to support the oppressed in Makkah by persisting in fighting against Quraysh and attempting to rescue the Muslims therein through that path, as will be clarified later. ¶

Thus, the verse regarding support (Nusrah) is an address to the Muhajir Muslims—that is, those belonging to Dar al-Islam, the Abode of the Emigrants in Madinah. It establishes the severance of political loyalty (Muwala) between Muslims in the Dar al-Hijrah (i.e., Dar al-Islam) and Muslims belonging to Dar al-Kufr, except for one aspect: the support of Muslims in Dar al-Islam for Muslims in Dar al-Kufr, subject to the aforementioned conditions: ¶

- The condition of requesting support: "And if they seek your help." - The condition that the matter for which support is sought must be a religious affair: "And if they seek your help in religion..." That is, if they seek your help because their governments have prevented them from opening mosques, for example, or have forced their women to remove the Shar'i Hijab, and other similar religious matters... then in this case, supporting them is obligatory. ¶

This is contrary to cases where the matter for which support is sought is something prohibited in the religion, such as if they seek support because their governments did not grant them licenses to open bars, for instance, or did not recognize their ethnic nationality among the nationalities of the country, or other such matters that the religion rejects... then there is no support in these matters. ¶

- The third condition for the obligation to fulfill the request for support is the condition that there is no peaceful treaty between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr: "except against a people between whom and yourselves there is a treaty." - And the fourth condition—as we have mentioned—is indicated by the Prophet's (peace be upon him) move to cease fighting the Dar al-Kufr in Makkah under the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though the disbelievers there were, before and after, persecuting some of the Muslims residing there. - As for the condition of support being requested by those who are being oppressed, it is a condition that is understood on the basis that... ¶

Because they are the ones experiencing the problem, and they are more capable of assessing the circumstances and the gravity of the oppression and aggression they are facing. This assessment necessitates seeking help (nusrah) and the intervention of the Islamic State with its military forces to pressure the aggressors, which would lead to lifting the oppression from them—or they may choose to exercise caution in submitting such a request. Hence, the matter was entrusted to them, and this condition was established. ¶

As for the condition that the matter for which help is sought must be a religious one, this is also a logical condition. For fighting the disbelievers is only a fight in the path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah. The path of Allah has no room for supporting a cause rejected by Allah, Who legislated this fighting, and the word of Allah can only be raised by supporting people who strive to implement what Allah has commanded. ¶

As for the condition that there be no peace treaty between the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr), it is because honoring treaties with the disbelievers is a sacred obligation in Islam, a subject that will be discussed in upcoming chapters. ¶

As for the condition that the interest of not helping the Muslims in the Abode of Disbelief should not outweigh the interest of providing that help, this is also a logical condition. This is because the 'interest of the Islamic Da'wah' is the axis upon which the relations of Dar al-Islam with Dar al-Kufr revolve, whether in peace or war. If, in the balance of interests, a peaceful relationship is more advantageous, then it must be adopted, for in that lies the victory of the Islamic Da'wah and the Muslims as well, in the long term, if not in the immediate term. Sometimes, foregoing an immediate interest for a greater, more beneficial, and more advantageous long-term interest is better than clinging to an immediate interest without considering the consequences. A proof of this is the 'Treaty of Hudaybiyyah,' which resulted in not helping the oppressed in Mecca from a superficial and immediate perspective. However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) aimed through that treaty to neutralize Mecca in the ongoing conflict between Dar al-Islam and the other polytheists, as well as the remaining Jews in the Arabian Peninsula. Once the conflict with that front was concluded—either by their conversion to Islam, surrender, or elimination—he would then turn toward Mecca, which, in such a situation, would inevitably feel that it had become alone in this struggle against Dar al-Islam. Perhaps that would invite it to enter into what the people had entered into. ¶

And if the other case is considered, then the conflict of the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), in this situation, would be with Makkah alone, without the support of its old allies whose influence had ended. This would be easier and more certain for achieving final victory over it, thereby realizing the support for the mustada'afin (oppressed) therein, and simultaneously, the support for the Islamic da'wah. Thus, the peace treaty concluded with the Quraysh did not signify an abandonment of supporting the oppressed; rather, in reality, it was a better map for the movement that, in the final analysis, leads to the victory of Islam, which includes the victory of the oppressed in Makkah. This is what was actually achieved, as is known from the story of the Conquest (Fath), as a support for the oppressed of Makkah, and in response to their supplication: '...and grant us from Yourself a protector, and grant us from Yourself a helper.' (1). ¶

It is worth noting here that the discussion in this research remains within the framework of fighting the disbelievers due to aggression against the Muslims. However, this does not negate the right of the Dar al-Islam to fight the Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) in order to bring it under Islamic rule—as will be detailed later—whenever conditions and capabilities permit, even if the Muslims residing there do not request their help against the aggression occurring against them, or even if no aggression has occurred against them in the Dar al-Kufr. This is because the fighting by Muslims against the Dar al-Kufr to bring it under Islamic rule is another cause for legitimate combat, separate from the cause of defense against aggression, as will be detailed later. This is regarding the support of the Muslims of Dar al-Islam for the Muslims of Dar al-Kufr. ¶

As for the second category of Muslims who provide support to their brothers, the Muslims of Dar al-Kufr—those are the Muslims who do not belong to the Dar al-Islam—they are also Muslims addressed by Shariah obligations, just like the Muslims in Dar al-Islam, including Jihad in the path of Allah and [the protection of] the oppressed men, women, and children. This is evidenced by what is mentioned in the Hadith of Buraydah regarding the deprivation of Muslims who do not belong to the Dar al-Islam from state-granted rights, including their exclusion from the spoils of war (ghanimah) and fai’. However, the Mujahideen are exempted from this, as they are entitled to their share of the spoils as a result of their participation in Jihad, even if they do not belong to the Dar al-Islam. This is stated in the Hadith of Buraydah. ¶

"And they have no share in the spoils of war (ghanimah) and fai, unless they fight alongside the Muslims." (1) ¶

However, because these Muslims do not belong to the Dar al-Islam, they are not bound by the peaceful treaties existing between the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Kufr. Therefore, they are not restricted by this constraint, as they have the right to fight to defend Muslims who are being oppressed within the Dar al-Kufr. This applies even if the oppressed belong to the same country as the Muslims who are defending them, and they may even fight against the state they belong to. The evidence for this is that Abu Basir and his companions, who were Muslims from Makkah, fought against the disbelievers of Makkah—which was Dar al-Kufr—during the period of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. They did not consider themselves bound by the peaceful treaty concluded between the Dar al-Islam (Madinah) and the Dar al-Kufr (Makkah), and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not rebuke them for that. (2) ¶

From this, we realize that aiding Muslims, wherever they may be and regardless of their nationalities, and defending them against any aggression they face, is one of the Shariah duties based on general evidences regarding repelling aggression against Muslims, within the framework of the conditions previously explained. ¶

Sixth Point: What is the ruling if the Muslims abandon or are unable to aid their brethren who are settled in the Dar al-Kufr? Answer: If the Muslims who belong to the Dar al-Kufr are abandoned by other Muslims, or if others are unable to aid them, and they are unable to perform the religious duties that Allah has obligated upon them, or are forced to commit forbidden acts (munkarat) that Allah has prohibited for them, then in this case, it is their duty to migrate from the Dar al-Kufr to the Dar al-Islam, or to any other land where they can perform their duties and avoid prohibitions, provided they are able to do so. If they are unable to migrate, then they are under duress and are excused. "The ruling on coercion regarding matters other than disbelief is the same as the ruling on coercion regarding disbelief." (3) ¶

And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ says, as narrated by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "Verily, Allah has forgiven for my Ummah mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they have been coerced into doing" (1). ¶

Furthermore, migration (Hijrah) from the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr) is the subject of the third and final issue in this research. ¶

Third Issue: ¶

What is the ruling on migrating from the Abode of Disbelief to the Abode of Islam, or elsewhere? ¶

There is no single ruling for migrating from the Abode of Disbelief to the Abode of Islam or elsewhere, where a person is able to establish their religion. Rather, it has many rulings depending on the varying circumstances and situations surrounding it. We shall collect the scattered points regarding these rulings, which have been mentioned by the jurists, as follows: ¶

1. Migration is obligatory (fard), and neglecting it is forbidden (haram) and sinful, in the following cases: ¶

a) Inability to fulfill the Shariah obligations (2). b) Or the fear of tribulation (fitnah) in one's religion, even if one is able to fulfill the Shariah obligations (3). c) Or if the Imam (leader) requests it to strengthen his authority (4). ¶

All of this, of course, applies provided that one has the capacity to migrate. ¶

The evidence for the obligation of migration and the prohibition of neglecting it is understood from the words of the Almighty: "Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while they are wronging themselves, [the angels] will say, 'In what [condition] were you?' They will say, 'We were oppressed in the land...'" ¶

the earth. They said, 'Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?' For such, their abode is Hell, and what an evil destination! (1) ¶

- The author of 'Al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah' stated: 'It is said that the intended meaning of this "earth" is Medina. However, the general implication (al-'umum) is preferable; for the legal ruling is based on the generality of the expression, not the specificity of the occasion, as is the correct position. Thus, "the earth" refers to every spot on earth where emigration is possible.' (2) ¶

- It is stated in 'Al-Mughni' by Ibn Qudamah: '"For such, their abode is Hell, and what an evil destination"—this is a severe warning that indicates obligation (wujub). Furthermore, fulfilling the obligatory duties of one’s religion is mandatory for those capable of it. Emigration is an essential component and completion of this obligation, and whatever is necessary to complete an obligation is itself an obligation.' (3) ¶

- It is stated in 'Tafsir al-Qurtubi': 'The statement of these people, "We were oppressed in the land," refers to Mecca. This was an invalid excuse, as they were capable of devising strategies and finding a way. Then the angels questioned them regarding their religion, saying, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious?" This question and answer establish that they died as Muslims, yet were oppressors of their own souls for abandoning the obligation of hijrah.' (4) ¶

- It is stated in 'Tafsir al-Alusi': 'They said, meaning the angels: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious for you to migrate therein?" ... meaning to depart to another region of the earth where you would be able to establish the affairs of your religion, just as those who migrated to Abyssinia and Medina did.' (5) ¶

Furthermore, there are rejected opinions which suggest that abandoning emigration while being capable of it constitutes apostasy (riddah) from Islam. ¶

It is stated in 'Ahkam al-Qur'an' by Al-Jassas: "Hasan ibn Salih said: ... If a combatant (harbi) embraces Islam and remains in their lands, while he is capable of migrating, he is not considered a Muslim." Then he added: "... Hasan ibn Salih's statement that a Muslim who joins the Dar al-Harb (abode of war) becomes an apostate is contrary to the Book [of Allah] and the consensus (ijma); for Allah the Almighty said: 'And those who believed and did not emigrate - you have no duty of friendship toward them until they emigrate.' Thus, He designated them as believers despite their residency in the Dar al-Harb after their conversion, and made it obligatory upon us to support them, saying: 'And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help.'" ¶

Furthermore, the hadith of Buraydah states: "... Then invite them to move from their territory to the territory of the Muhajirun (emigrants)... If they refuse to move, inform them that they will be like the nomadic Muslims [in their rights and duties]." This hadith indicates that abandoning hijrah (migration), despite the capability to perform it, does not constitute apostasy or kufr (disbelief). ¶

The truth is that if hijrah becomes obligatory in the mentioned circumstances and one fails to perform it, they commit a sin. However, if the abandonment of hijrah leads to fitnah (tribulation) and an abandonment of the religion, it becomes apostasy and kufr in that specific case. The hadith which forbid a Muslim from residing in the lands of disbelief are to be understood in the context of these specific conditions where migration is mandatory. Examples include the words of the Prophet (ﷺ), as narrated by Samurah ibn Jundub: "Whoever joins a polytheist and resides with him, he is like him." Another version states: "Do not reside with the polytheists and do not live with them; whoever resides with them or lives with them is like them." ¶

Also, his (ﷺ) statement, as narrated by Jarir ibn Abdullah: "I am free from every Muslim who resides among the polytheists." They asked: "O Messenger of Allah, why?" He replied: "So that their fires may not be visible to one another [i.e., they should not be neighbors]." ¶

Meaning: It should not be in such a position that the fire of each is facing the other in a way that, if they were capable of sight, they would see one another. Attributing sight to fire is figurative. (1) ¶

It is said: Its meaning is that it refers to the 'fire of war'. He says: Their two fires are different; one calls to Allah, and the other calls to Satan. How then can they be in agreement, and how can one dwell with them in their lands while this is the state of these people and that is the state of those? (2) ¶

2 - The second ruling regarding hijrah (migration) is that it is recommended (mandub) and preferred (mustahabb), not obligatory (wajib). This applies to one who is capable of migration but is also able to manifest his religion within the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr). ¶

In 'Al-Mughni' by Ibn Qudamah, in explaining the reason for the recommendation of hijrah here and its lack of obligation, he says: "So that one may be able to perform jihad against them, increase the number of Muslims, assist them, and avoid increasing the number of the disbelievers, intermingling with them, and witnessing evil among them. It is not obligatory upon him because it is possible to establish one's religion without migration." ¶

Then he says: "And we have narrated that when Nu'aym al-Nahham intended to migrate, his people, the Banu 'Adi, came to him and said: 'Stay with us, remain on your religion, and we will protect you from those who wish you harm; just continue to suffice us in the matters you used to handle for us'—and he used to support the orphans and widows of Banu 'Adi. So he refrained from migrating for a time, then migrated later. The Prophet (PBUH) said to him: 'Your people were better to you than mine were to me. My people drove me out and wanted to kill me, while your people protected you and defended you!' He said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Rather, your people drove you out toward the obedience of Allah and jihad against His enemy, while my people were holding me back from migration and the obedience of Allah!' or words to that effect." (3) ¶

3 - The third ruling regarding hijrah: The lapse of obligation and recommendation. This applies to 'the one who is incapable of it,' as the author of 'Al-Mughni' says: 'Whether due to illness, or being forced to stay, or the weakness of women, children, and their like. Such a person is not required to migrate.' Due to the saying of the Almighty: {Except for the oppressed among men, women, and children who cannot devise a plan...} ¶

have no strategy, and are not guided to a way. It is expected that Allah will pardon them, and Allah is ever Pardoning, Forgiving. (1) And it [emigration] cannot be described as recommended (mustahabb) because it is not within the capability of everyone. (2) ¶

4 - The Fourth Ruling of Hijrah (Emigration): It is recommended for a Muslim to reside in Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) if there is hope that Islam will prevail through his presence in that land. (3) Or, if remaining in Dar al-Kufr serves an interest of the Muslims. The author of *Mughni al-Muhtaj* states: "The Islam of al-Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, was before [the Battle of] Badr. He used to conceal it and write to the Prophet ﷺ regarding the news of the polytheists, and the Muslims trusted him. He wished to come to the Prophet ﷺ, so the Prophet ﷺ wrote to him: 'Your remaining in Makkah is better.' He then openly declared his Islam on the day of the Conquest of Makkah." (4) ¶

5 - The Fifth Ruling of Hijrah: It is forbidden to emigrate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, and remaining in Dar al-Kufr becomes mandatory. This applies "if one possesses the capability to transform the Dar al-Kufr in which he resides into a Dar al-Islam... whether he possesses this capability individually, or by organizing with the Muslims in his country, or by seeking assistance from Muslims outside his country, or by cooperating with the Islamic State, or by any other means. In such a case, he is obligated to work toward making the Dar al-Kufr a Dar al-Islam, and emigration from it becomes forbidden for him." (5) The evidence for this ruling is that as long as he is capable of fighting the disbelievers and subjugating the land he is in to the rule of Islam, the following verse applies to his situation: {O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers...} (6). - It is stated in *Mughni al-Muhtaj*: "If one is capable of defending himself and remaining isolated in Dar al-Harb, it is mandatory for him to remain there, because his location is a Dar al-Islam; if he were to emigrate, it would become a Dar al-Harb, and thus that [emigration] is forbidden." ¶

In the hope of aiding the Muslims by migrating to them, it is better to migrate, as stated by al-Mawardi. Then, while residing there, he shall fight them for the sake of Islam and invite them to it if he is able; otherwise, he is not obligated to do so. ¶

Furthermore, these are the rulings regarding migration from the Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) to the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) or elsewhere, depending on the variations in circumstances and conditions. ¶

Based on this, Muslims who belong to the Dar al-Kufr—whether they are secure in that abode or are subjected to pressures by the disbelievers while other Muslims fail to assist them—all or some of them fall under one of these rulings mentioned by the jurists regarding migration from the Dar al-Kufr to other lands. ¶

Thus, we conclude this third issue, and with its completion, we reach the end of the third section of this chapter, in which we have discussed 'aggression' (al-'udwan) as one of the causes of combat in Islam. We now move on to the fourth section. ¶

Fourth Discussion Aggression against the People of the Covenant (Ahl al-Dhimmah), those who share their legal status, and non-dhimmi allies of the Muslims — is an act of aggression against the Muslims themselves. ¶

Introduction: Regarding the issues encompassed by this research. First Issue: Aggression against the Ahl al-Dhimmah and those treated under the same ruling as the Ahl al-Dhimmah. Second Issue: Aggression against the Muslim allies from other states that fall under the protection of the Islamic State. ¶

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Introduction All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the Master of the Messengers, our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. ¶

To proceed: This is a brief summary regarding the issues of 'Imadah' (military command/leadership) and the related Shariah rulings, Fiqhi (jurisprudential) principles, and established regulations. I have compiled this for those who wish to grasp its reality and understand its contents in the light of the Book and the Sunnah, and in accordance with the way of the predecessors (Salaf) of this Ummah. I ask Allah the Almighty to make it beneficial and to make it purely for His noble sake; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. ¶

I have divided this into several chapters: Chapter One: Defining the scope of the dispute and the intended meaning of 'Imadah'. Chapter Two: The textual evidence for this issue from the Book and the Sunnah. Chapter Three: Analyzing the opinions of the scholars and their interpretations. Chapter Four: Conclusion and the preferred opinion. ¶

I ask Allah to grant us success in what He loves and is pleased with. And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions. ¶

Fourth Discussion: Aggression against the People of the Dhimma, those who hold their status, and allies of the Muslims who are not of the People of the Dhimma — is an aggression against the Muslims. ¶

Introduction: Regarding the issues covered by this discussion. In this section, we intend to establish that the concept of aggression against Muslims includes aggression against those upon whom the Muslims extend protection, even if they are not Muslims themselves. Therefore, assaulting these individuals is a violation of the Islamic neighborhood/sanctuary into which they have entered, trusting in the security provided under its shelter. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Muslims should confront anyone who attempts to assault this Islamic sanctuary, belittling it, violating its sanctity, and attacking the lives or properties of those who have sought refuge within it. It is not surprising that the Muslims should confront anyone who commits aggression against their neighborhood, or against those who have entered into their dhimma (covenant of protection) and aman (safe conduct), and that they should defend them just as they would defend themselves and their own wealth. ¶

Those to whom the Muslims extend protection fall into two categories: 1. The People of the Dhimma (Ahl al-Dhimma): That is, non-Muslims who are inhabitants of the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), and those who are treated with the same status as the People of the Dhimma as long as they reside in the Dar al-Islam, such as the musta’min (those granted safe conduct) and the muwadi’in (those with whom a truce has been concluded). 2. Allies: Those independent states and entities that enter into a defensive alliance with the Islamic state, which necessitates the protection of those states and entities against external aggression that threatens them. ¶

Based on the above, this discussion is divided into two issues: First Issue: Aggression against the People of the Dhimma, and those who are treated with the same status as the People of the Dhimma. ¶

Second Issue: Aggression against the allies of Muslims from other states that fall under the protection of the Islamic State. First Issue: Aggression against the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim subjects), and those who are treated with the same status as Ahl al-Dhimma. This issue is not intended as a detailed discourse on the Ahl al-Dhimma and those treated similarly, such as the Musta'min (those granted temporary security) and the Muwadi'in (those under a peace treaty). Rather, this issue specifically addresses the defense of all these groups against aggression committed against them by other states, based on the principle that such aggression is an act of aggression against Muslims that must be met with response and defense. Accordingly, this issue branches into three points: 1. Defending the Ahl al-Dhimma, absolutely, whether they are within the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) or outside it. 2. Defending the Musta'min within the Dar al-Islam. 3. Defending the Muwadi'in within the Dar al-Islam. ¶

1. First Point: Defending the Ahl al-Dhimma, absolutely, whether in the Dar al-Islam or outside the Dar al-Islam. The foundation upon which Muslim defense of the Ahl al-Dhimma rests is: the contract of Dhimma (protection) with them based on the payment of Jizya (tribute), and their status as part of the Dar al-Islam, which must be defended, along with everyone who belongs to it, naturally. - As for defending them due to the contract of Dhimma based on the payment of Jizya, it is evidenced by the statement of Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him: "They have only paid the Jizya so that their wealth may be like our wealth, and their blood may be like our blood" (1). That is: just as it is obligatory to defend the Muslims regarding their wealth and blood, it is likewise obligatory to defend the Ahl al-Dhimma regarding their wealth and blood. It is stated in the Tafsir of Al-Alusi regarding the issue of Jizya—what it is a substitute for—the following text: (1) Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 10/623 and Al-Durr al-Mukhtar bi-Sharh Tanwir al-Absar, Vol. 3/344. 696 ¶

It may be answered that it is a substitute for the assistance (nusra) [required] from us for the combatants; hence it varies in amount. Since every person belonging to the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) is obligated to provide assistance to the Abode with their person and wealth, and since a disbeliever is not fit for this due to their creedal inclination toward the people of war (Ahl al-Harb), the tribute (jizya) allocated to the combatants was established in its place. ¶

This is insofar as the jizya, upon which the covenant of protection (dhimma) is based, serves as the foundation for the defense of the protected people (Ahl al-Dhimma). ¶

As for defending them on the grounds that they are inhabitants of the Abode of Islam, the verse regarding jizya — 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day... until they pay the jizya with a willing hand and are subdued' — has stipulated that for the fighting against disbelievers to cease, they must pay the jizya with a willing hand while being subdued. This means that once they pay the jizya and submit to Islamic rule, their territory becomes a part of the Abode of Islam; it is not permissible to fight them, but rather it is obligatory to defend them, just as it is obligatory to defend any other part of the Abode of Islam. This also means that the people of jizya have become part of the subjects of the Abode of Islam, and they must be defended just as the Muslim inhabitants of the Abode of Islam must be defended. ¶

It is stated in al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: 'The Abode of Dhimma is part of the collective Abode of Islam.' It also states: 'The people of Dhimma are among the people of our Abode.' ¶

Furthermore, the traditions (athar) and the texts of the jurists have affirmed the obligation to defend the people of Dhimma just as one defends the Muslims. It is reported from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: 'I advise the Caliph after me to treat the protected people (dhimma) of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) well, to fulfill their covenant, to fight from behind them [for their protection], and not to burden them beyond their capacity.' ¶

And the meaning of 'fighting from behind them' is to support them and defend them against any aggression that occurs against them. - These are some of the statements of the jurists in this regard: - Imam al-Shafi'i stated in his book 'al-Umm': 'It is incumbent upon the Imam to demonstrate to them—meaning the People of the Dhimma (protected non-Muslims)—that if they are in the lands of Islam, or dwelling among the people of Islam, whether separate or gathered, it is his duty to prevent the enemy from taking them captive or killing them, just as he prevents such things from happening to the Muslims.'(1) - It is stated in 'al-Muhadhdhab': 'If the people of war (harbis) raid the People of the Dhimma and take their wealth, and then the Imam overcomes them and recovers what they took from the People of the Dhimma, it is mandatory for the Imam to return it to them.'(2) - It is stated in 'al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya' by al-Mawardi: 'By paying it—meaning the Jizya—two rights become binding upon them: First, abstaining from harming them. Second, protecting them, so that they may be secure from harm and guarded by that protection. Nafi' narrated from Ibn Umar that the last thing the Prophet (ﷺ) spoke of was: 'Guard me regarding my dhimma (covenant/protection).''(3) - It is stated in 'al-Mughni' by Ibn Qudama: 'When the dhimma contract is established, it becomes the duty of the Imam to protect them from the Muslims, the people of war, and other dhimma people, because he has committed himself to their protection through the covenant.'(4) - We quote these excerpts from 'al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary regarding the defense of the People of the Dhimma: 'It is mandatory to support the People of the Dhimma if they are oppressed, provided we have the power to assist them.'(5) 'The People of the Dhimma... are like the Muslims... therefore, the ruling regarding their wealth, should it be seized, is the same as the ruling regarding the wealth of the Muslims.'(6) ¶

"Ahl al-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state) have become one with us in terms of residence (Dar), and they have committed themselves to the rulings of Islam regarding civil transactions. Therefore, it is obligatory upon the Imam (the leader) to protect them, just as it is obligatory upon him to protect the Muslims." ¶

"Those who gain authority over the Ahl al-Dhimmah, if they were to pass by a group of Muslims with defensive capability in Dar al-Harb (territory of war), it would be incumbent upon them to rescue the Ahl al-Dhimmah from their hands. They have no other choice in the matter, as it is equivalent to a situation where such authority is gained over Muslims... Even if they (the Muslims) were under the protection of the people of Dar al-Harb, they must break that covenant and fight to defend the progeny of the Ahl al-Dhimmah, just as they would fight for the progeny of the Muslims." ¶

These were some of the texts of the jurists concerning the issue of defending the lives and properties of the Ahl al-Dhimmah. ¶

Furthermore, aggression against the Ahl al-Dhimmah by enemies may occur within Dar al-Islam, or while they are under safe conduct in other countries, or in regions not governed by any authority, such as in the high seas or the upper atmosphere. In all these circumstances, such aggression constitutes an act of hostility against the subjects of Dar al-Islam, requiring the Muslims to take measures to defend them, just as they would defend Muslims, equally and without distinction. ¶

As for abandoning their defense when one has the capability to defend them, it constitutes negligence in their protection and provides assistance to the enemy in oppressing them—both of which Islam has warned against. ¶

The Prophet ﷺ commanded their protection when he said: "Observe my rights regarding those under my protection (Dhimmah)." ¶

The Prophet ﷺ also warned against oppressing the Ahl al-Dhimmah by saying: "Whoever oppresses a Mu'ahid (covenanted person) or burdens them beyond their capacity, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection." ¶

It may be useful to quote here the passages from the Cypriot letter sent by Shaykh al-Islam... ¶

Ibn Taymiyyah’s letter to the Christian King of Cyprus regarding showing kindness to Christian prisoners from among the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim subjects) whom the Tatars had captured. After calling the King to Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'It is astonishing that the Christians would capture a people treacherously, or otherwise, even when they had not fought them, while the Messiah says: "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; and whoever takes your cloak, give him your tunic as well." How do you deem it lawful to seize those who were taken treacherously, and yet feel secure that the Muslims might not treat you with some of the same, leaving you the ones betrayed, while Allah is their helper and supporter? Furthermore, the Muslims possess men of sacrifice (fida'iyyah) who can assassinate kings in their very beds! And these Tatars, despite their vast numbers... when the Muslims were angered by them, they were surrounded by calamities beyond description...' He further added: 'All Christians know that when I spoke to the Tatars about releasing the captives and Ghazan released them... he allowed the release of the Muslims but said to me: "We have with us Christians whom we captured from Jerusalem; these will not be released." I said to him: "Rather, all the Jews and Christians you have are our people of Dhimmah, and we will ransom them; we will not leave a single prisoner behind, neither from our own community nor from the Ahl al-Dhimmah." And we released as many Christians as Allah willed. This is our conduct and our kindness, and the reward is with Allah.' This pertains to the assistance of the Ahl al-Dhimmah, defending them, rescuing them from the hands of injustice and aggression, and treating them in all these matters just as Muslims are treated. 2- The Second Point: Defending the Musta'minin (those granted asylum) in the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) against external aggression. As long as the Musta'min remains within the Abode of Islam, they are treated in the same manner as the Ahl al-Dhimmah regarding the obligation of their defense. ¶