Chapter 36

on their behalf, because while they are in the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), they are under the authority (wilayah) of the Imam (1); therefore, he is obligated to defend everyone under his authority... Here are some jurisprudential (fiqhi) texts that clarify this ruling: ¶

- It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary in various places: 'The fundamental principle is that it is mandatory for the Imam of the Muslims to support those granted asylum (musta'minin) as long as they are in our territory... because they are under his authority as long as they are in the Dar al-Islam, so their status is like that of the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected people).' (2) ¶

'If a group from the people of war (ahl al-harb) who possess military strength (mana'ah) enter our territory under asylum and stipulate that we protect them from what we protect Muslims and Ahl al-Dhimma from, then it is incumbent upon us to fulfill this condition.' (3) ¶

'If the musta'minin in our territory are a group that possesses no military strength... then it is the duty of the Imam to repel injustice from them just as he repels it from the Ahl al-Dhimma...' (4) ¶

'And if those from the people of war who have overcome them... pass by a place of Muslim strength in the Dar al-Harb, it is their duty to provide them aid and rescue them from their hands, just as is the case for the Ahl al-Dhimma...' (4) ¶

This concludes what pertains to the defense of the musta'minin within the Dar al-Islam. ¶

Third point: 'Defense of the citizens of treaty-bound states (5) within the Dar al-Islam against external aggression.' ¶

These citizens are also treated in the same manner as the Ahl al-Dhimma regarding the obligation to defend them; because, in reality, they are musta'minin by virtue of the peace treaty concluded with their states. As long as they have entered the Dar... ¶

Islam, under the terms of that treaty which mandates this, places them under the authority (wilayah) of the Imam. Therefore, in this situation, it is incumbent upon him to defend them just as he defends everyone under his authority. ¶

In this regard, it is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: «We have clarified that the musta'minin (those granted security) among us, if they are not of the 'ahl-i-mana'ah' (capable of self-defense), then their status is like that of the dhimmis regarding the obligation of the leader of the Muslims (Amir al-Muslimin) to assist them and repel injustice from them, for they are under his authority. Do you not see that it was obligatory upon the Imam and the Muslims to follow them to rescue them from the hands of the polytheists who had overcome them, so long as they had not entered their fortresses and cities? This is just as it is obligatory upon them if such aggression occurs against Muslims or dhimmis...? Likewise, if these musta'minin were among those with whom there is a truce (ahl al-muwadi'ah) who entered our territory by virtue of that truce»(1). ¶

This is what is said regarding the subjects of states that have a peace treaty with the Islamic State if they enter the Dar al-Islam by virtue of that treaty. Regarding their assistance and defense against external aggression, they are treated the same as Muslims and dhimmis who are people of the Dar al-Islam. With this, we conclude the first issue of this research and proceed to the second issue. ¶

Second Issue: Aggression against the Muslim allies from other states, and their subjects who fall under the protection of the Islamic State. ¶

The discussion on the treaties and alliances that can be formed between the Islamic State and others, and which of them are permissible and which are not, will appear in its appropriate chapter in this treatise. ¶

What concerns us here is that if the Islamic State deems it in the interest of the Islamic Da'wah to enter into an alliance with certain other, non-Islamic, states—a treaty which mandates that Muslims defend those states against external aggression—and then aggression occurs against those allied states, are the Muslims obligated to rise to defend those states that have been attacked? ¶

The answer is: It has already been explained that aggression against those to whom the Muslims extend their protection is, in reality, aggression against the Muslims themselves, a violation of the sanctity of their neighborhood (jiwar), and a disregard for their covenants. ¶

(1) Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani (as narrated by al-Sarakhsi): 5/1891 and 1892. ¶

For this reason, defending those states and their citizens who have fallen victim to aggression is a defense of the sanctities (hurumat) of the Muslims; because treaties concluded between Muslims and others are among the sacred obligations that must not be neglected, nor is it permissible to abandon their preservation and protection. 'O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts' (Surah Al-Ma'idah: 1). ¶

Furthermore, the Prophetic biography (Sirah) contains some treaties that the Prophet (peace be upon him) concluded with non-Islamic entities, which stipulate that Muslims provide support to those entities in their defense if they are subjected to external aggression. ¶

Among these treaties is the treaty of the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the Banu Damra. The following is the text of the agreement or treaty as it appears in the books of Sirah: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to the Banu Damra, stating that they are secure regarding their wealth and their lives. And that they shall be supported against anyone who intends them harm—that is, anyone who targets them—unless they fight against the religion of Allah, for as long as the sea can wet a tuft of wool—meaning, as long as it remains. And that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) calls them for his support, they shall respond. Upon them for this is the protection (dhimma) of Allah and the dhimma of His Messenger—meaning, His security.' ¶

Sheikh Munir Muhammad al-Ghadban, commenting on this alliance between Medina and the Banu Damra, says: 'Even though the Banu Damra were upon their shirk (polytheism), the treaty stipulated the possibility of mutual support between the two parties, although it was a commitment to protection on the part of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when the Banu Damra were attacked, while it remained a possibility on the Prophetic side that he might request their assistance if Medina were invaded.' ¶

The covenant between the Muslims, the Prophet ﷺ, and the 'Khuza'ah' tribe was part of the 'Treaty of Hudaybiyyah' concluded between Makkah and Madinah. It was an open treaty, allowing any Arab tribe that wished to align itself with either Makkah or Madinah to do so. Consequently, the 'Banu Bakr' chose to enter an alliance with Makkah, while the 'Khuza'ah' chose to enter an alliance with Madinah. ¶

There were long-standing blood feuds between the 'Banu Bakr' and the 'Khuza'ah'. When this treaty was established, it mandated the cessation of acts of retaliation and aggression from either side against the other. Therefore, any aggression committed by Makkah or its ally, the 'Banu Bakr', against the 'Khuza'ah'—who were allies of Madinah—was considered an act of aggression against Madinah itself, obligating the Muslims in Madinah to rise to the defense of the 'Khuza'ah' against this aggression. ¶

Ibn al-Qayyim discussed the 'Treaty of Hudaybiyyah', its primary parties (the people of Makkah and the people of Madinah), and those who joined them. He also discussed the implications of this peace treaty, stating: 'It was the tradition and Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ that when he made peace and a treaty with a people, if their enemy joined them and entered into their pact, and other people joined the Prophet ﷺ and entered into his pact, the ruling for those fighting alongside the disbelievers who were in his pact became the same as the ruling for those fighting against him! It was for this reason that he waged war against the people of Makkah. For when he made a ten-year truce with them, the 'Banu Bakr bin Wa'il' rushed to enter into the covenant and pact of the Quraish, and the 'Khuza'ah' rushed to enter into the covenant and pact of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. ¶

Then the 'Banu Bakr' attacked the 'Khuza'ah' by surprise, killing some of them, and the Quraish secretly aided them with weapons. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ deemed the Quraish to have broken the covenant by doing so, and he declared it permissible to wage war against the 'Banu Bakr bin Wa'il' due to their transgression against his allies...' (1) ¶

He stated in another place: 'It is established that he ﷺ made peace with the people of Makkah to cease war between them for ten years. Their allies, the 'Banu Bakr', entered with them, and his allies, the 'Khuza'ah', entered with him. Then the allies of the Quraish attacked his allies and betrayed them, and the Quraish were pleased with this and did not denounce it. Thus, he considered them to have broken the covenant and declared it lawful to fight them without formally renouncing the treaty to them, because they had become combatants.' ¶

(1) Zad al-Ma'ad by Ibn al-Qayyim: 3/138. ¶

Against them, they were breakers of their covenant by their own consent, and they approved of their allies committing treachery against his (the Prophet's) allies. He equated their supporters in this matter with those who committed the acts directly. ¶

Furthermore, the Prophet's (peace be upon him) support for his allies from the 'Khuza'a' tribe—who were subjected to aggression by the 'Banu Bakr'—became evident after the Conquest of Mecca. This support manifested in his enabling of his oppressed allies to take vengeance against those who transgressed against them from the Banu Bakr, the allies of the Quraysh. ¶

It is recorded in the books of Sirah (biography) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked Khalid ibn al-Walid on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: 'Why did you fight, when I had forbidden fighting?' He replied, 'O Messenger of Allah, they initiated the fighting against us, shot arrows at us, and took up arms against us. I refrained as much as I could, and I called them to Islam but they refused, until I found no choice but to fight them. Then Allah gave us victory over them, and they fled in every direction...' The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'Allah has decreed a matter!' Then he said: 'Put down your arms, except for Khuza'a against Banu Bakr until the Asr prayer!' This was the specific hour that was made permissible for the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). This hour, referred to here, is mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Indeed, Allah has made Mecca a sanctuary, not the people. Therefore, it is not lawful for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to shed blood therein, nor to cut down its trees. If anyone seeks justification for fighting in it by citing the Prophet's (peace be upon him) fighting, then say: Allah permitted it to His Messenger, but He did not permit it to you. And He only permitted it to me for one hour of the day, then its sanctity returned today just as it was yesterday...' The author of the book 'Political Alliances in Islam' discusses the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) support for his allies from 'Khuza'a', based on the defensive alliance concluded between him and them during the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, stating: 'Waging war against the Quraysh was not a simple or easy matter. Nevertheless, the Messenger (peace be upon him) proceeded with it in fulfillment of his covenants... The Prophet (peace be upon him) considered the breach of covenant by the Quraysh in attacking his ally sufficient to invade the Quraysh and conquer Mecca... The concept derived from this stance, therefore, is that the Muslim state may wage war on a broader scale.' ¶

The scope of protecting an ally, even if that ally is a polytheist (non-Muslim), is valid if aggression against them is proven and the mutual assistance is based on a treaty of alliance. However, a stronger position is found in the process of seeking retribution for the oppressed, through the Prophet’s (PBUH) permission for the Khuza’ah tribe to take revenge on the Banu Bakr in the heart of Mecca. This indeed carries a deeper meaning in the scale of honoring contracts than the conquest of Mecca itself. While the conquest might be the realization of a direct interest for the Muslims, it does not necessarily soothe the hearts of those who suffered the aggression. As for the act of revenge, it took place as follows: '...Then he said: O Muslims, refrain from using weapons until the Asr prayer, except for Khuza’ah against Banu Bakr. They struck them for an hour, and this was the time that was made permissible for the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and not permissible for anyone before him.' ¶

Furthermore, a defensive alliance, in which the Islamic state commits to defending other states and their citizens, may be free of any financial compensation from the protected state to the Islamic state in return for such protection, as we saw in the alliance between Medina and Khuza’ah; or it may be in return for some compensation. ¶

It is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: 'If a group of people from the Dar al-Harb (territory of war) who possess military strength enter our territory with a guarantee of safety (aman) and stipulate that we protect them... then we must fulfill this condition. Likewise, if they make a treaty with us—meaning they make a covenant while remaining in their own lands and not entering the territory of Islam—for a known amount of wealth, with this condition (i.e., that we protect them from their enemy), then the Imam must fulfill the stipulated condition if he is able to do so. If he is unable to do so, he has no right to demand any of the stipulated wealth from them, because they committed to it in exchange for protection. If he is unable to protect them, he cannot take any money from them.' ¶

It also states therein: 'If a group from the people of war make a treaty with the Muslims for a known tribute (kharaj) every year on the condition that the Muslims do not enforce their laws upon them, and on the condition that they protect them from their enemy, and then someone else overcomes them...' ¶

If the residents of the Dar al-Harb pay the jizya and there is no Muslim among them, we are not obligated to defend them, unless the defense of them was stipulated as a condition there, in which case we are obligated to fulfill the condition. If we do not defend them where it was incumbent upon us to do so, then there is no jizya for the duration of the non-defense. If the Imam overcomes those who raided them and seized their wealth, he shall return to them whatever he finds of their wealth. ¶

Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, regarding the stance of the Islamic State in a conflict between two non-Islamic states, where one of the two states has a defensive alliance with the Muslims, says: '...In this situation, it is not possible for Muslims to remain neutral. The Prophet ﷺ declared war on the Quraysh when they violated the treaty and raided the 'Khuza'a' tribe, who had joined the covenant of the Prophet ﷺ. Consequently, the Prophet ﷺ advanced to fight the Quraysh and conquer Mecca, saying three times: 'By Allah, I will surely raid the Quraysh.' Therefore, the duty to fulfill the treaty required the Prophet ﷺ to come to their aid. Such is the position for those who came after him from his companions and those who followed them in righteousness. Silence in this situation is considered a violation of the treaty; therefore, neutrality is prohibited. Indeed, there is no place for it, because neutrality only exists when the position is equal in relation to the two disputing parties.' ¶

This is what is said regarding the defense of other states and their subjects by Muslims, when the Islamic state is bound to them by a defensive alliance necessitated by the interests of the Islamic Da'wah. With this, we reach the end of the discussion on this issue, and with its conclusion, we come to the end of the fourth section of this chapter. We now proceed toward the fifth section. ¶

Fifth Topic ¶

Is aggression or injustice inflicted upon groups of disbelievers who are neither Dhimmi (protected subjects), nor have a similar status, nor are allies—a cause for combat (qital) in Islam? ¶

Introduction: A precise summary of the groups whose victimization is considered a cause for combat in Islam... Then, what are the issues of this discussion? First Issue: The position of Islamic writers on the issue of defending disbelievers who are neither Dhimmi, nor have a similar status, nor are allies. Second Issue: The arguments of those who maintain that aggression against disbelievers who are neither Dhimmi, nor have a similar status, nor are allies—is a cause for combat in Islam. Third Issue: The opinion we favor in this matter. ¶

It is stated that Makkah al-Mukarramah was the first place to be created, and this is the well-known and authentic opinion. According to some scholars, the entire earth, with the exception of the Kaaba, emerged from water. (Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 9, p. 397) ¶

Question: Was the height of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) sixty cubits? Answer: Yes, it is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Allah created Adam in his image, his height was sixty cubits." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Istidhan) ¶

Question: Will the height in Paradise remain sixty cubits? Answer: Yes, it is stated in the Hadith that whoever enters Paradise will be in the form (stature) of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him), meaning sixty cubits tall. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Anbiya) ¶

Question: Was the height of all the Prophets (peace be upon them) sixty cubits? Answer: No, not all Prophets were sixty cubits tall; only Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was. The stature of the other Prophets was in accordance with the people of their respective times. ¶

Question: Is the lineage of all humanity derived from Prophet Adam (peace be upon him)? Answer: Yes, all humans are the progeny of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him), which is why he is referred to as 'Abu al-Bashar' (The Father of Mankind). ¶

Question: Was Hawa (Eve) also created from the rib of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him)? Answer: Yes, it is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim that woman was created from a rib. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab Ahadith al-Anbiya) ¶

Fifth Section: Is aggression or injustice committed against groups of disbelievers who are neither Dhimmi, nor under the same ruling, nor allies, a valid cause for combat (qital) in Islam? Introduction: Which groups are considered as those whose mistreatment constitutes a cause for combat in Islam, and what are the issues of this discussion? We have known so far certain groups of people for whom, if aggression is committed against them, it becomes a cause for combat in Islam. These groups, which were discussed in the previous sections, are: 1. Muslims belonging to Dar al-Islam, whether the aggression against them occurred inside or outside this territory. 2. Muslims who do not belong to Dar al-Islam, subject to certain conditions previously mentioned in the third section of this chapter. 3. Ahl al-Dhimmah belonging to Dar al-Islam, whether the aggression against them occurred inside or outside this territory. 4. Musta'minun (those granted safety) from among the disbelievers, as long as they are within Dar al-Islam. 5. Muwadi'un (those under a truce) from among the disbelievers, as long as they are within Dar al-Islam. That is, citizens of non-Islamic states that have peace treaties with the Islamic state, provided they enter Dar al-Islam under those treaties. 6. Non-Islamic states and their disbelieving citizens who are bound to the Islamic state by a defensive alliance that mandates the Islamic state to defend them against external aggression. ¶

After this, it remains for us to determine the ruling on two specific cases that do not belong to the previously mentioned categories. They are: (a) A case involving a group of people, whether a minority or a majority, over whom tyrannical rulers have gained control in their lands—whether these rulers are from within the country or foreigners. These rulers govern this group with a terror-based system founded on oppression, coercion, injustice, and aggression, either to vent deep-seated resentments or to implement an inhumane policy aimed at achieving specific interests for themselves and their associates. (b) A case of a weak or strong state being attacked by a stronger state that seeks to occupy it, plunder its resources, and eliminate those who resist its designs. These two cases are distinct from the six categories previously discussed. - What is the ruling regarding the aggression committed against these parties? - Does this aggression constitute a form of legitimate combat in Islam that necessitates the Islamic state to declare jihad in the name of removing injustice from the oppressed and defending them against these aggressors? The answer is that these two cases, which are the subject of this research, fall under a single category: aggression against non-Muslims who have no treaty of dhimma (or an equivalent status) with the Muslims, nor an alliance that mandates the Muslims to support them against injustice and aggression. Is the aggression referred to a cause for combat in Islam that compels Muslims to rise in defense of the groups, peoples, or states that fall victim to it? This is the subject of this research, which we will address through the following issues: 1. The first issue: The stance of Islamic writers on this matter. 2. The second issue: The evidence of those who argue that aggression against non-Muslims who are not of the people of dhimma (or those of similar status) and are not allies is a cause for combat in Islam. 3. The third issue: The opinion that we deem most accurate regarding this matter. ¶

The First Issue: The position of Islamic writers on this matter. That is: Is attacking disbelievers who are not Dhimmi, nor under the same ruling, nor allies—a legitimate cause for combat in Islam? ¶

- Islamic writers are divided into several groups on this issue: 1. Some have omitted this issue entirely, neither affirming nor denying it in the context of their discussion on the states of legitimacy of jihad in Islam. (1) 2. Some have made general statements that are not explicit regarding this specific issue, allowing those of any inclination to interpret the speech in a way that supports their own view. Such as the statement of Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut: "The cause of combat in Islam is limited to repelling aggression, protecting the call (da'wah), freedom of religion, and purging the earth of tyranny and injustice." (2) - Thus, one who supports intervention in the affairs of other states to lift oppression from their persecuted subjects, for example, could say: purging the earth of tyranny and injustice necessitates this intervention. - Likewise, one who does not support such intervention could say: the author's intention is to state that jihad, based on its legitimate causes, leads to purging the earth of tyranny and injustice, not that the Islamic state should act as an 'international policeman' that raises the banner of jihad against every state it deems oppressive toward a group of its subjects, in order to prevent persecution and aggression and to compel it to adhere to justice in its policy toward all its subjects. (3) 3. Some writers have mentioned in one place the necessity of defending the oppressed and the downtrodden in a general sense, while in another place, they have restricted the defense of these people to those who are allies. ¶

As an example of this category of writers, we cite Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Draz. He questioned with astonishment how Islam could prohibit the right of self-defense, the defense of an ally, and the defense of the oppressed and vulnerable (mustad'af). He writes in this regard: 'Is it intended [by Islam]... to erase the right of self-defense, the right of the ally, and the duty to defend the oppressed and vulnerable? Certainly not...' ¶

Here, the mention of defending the vulnerable and oppressed, following the mention of self-defense and the defense of an ally, implies that the vulnerable and oppressed referred to are those with whom there is no alliance, dhimma (protection), or treaty between them and the Muslims that mandates their defense. Rather, it is simply an initiative by Islam to repel injustice and defend the oppressed in an absolute sense. ¶

However, Dr. Draz subsequently restricts, through numbering, the legitimacy of combat in Islam to two causes: '1. Self-defense... 2. Relief for a Muslim nation or an ally incapable of defending itself.' ¶

With this limitation and specification, the vulnerable and oppressed who are incapable of defending themselves—provided they are not allies—are excluded from their situation being a valid cause for combat in Islam. ¶

4. Some writers express views closer to supporting intervention to aid oppressed states or their citizens with whom Muslims have no alliance mandating such assistance. This is seen in the conditions for the legitimacy of jihad according to Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, who stated in this regard: '1. Repelling aggression against Muslims... 2. Guaranteeing freedom of creed... 3. War to aid the oppressed, whether an individual or a group... This can be termed a 'punitive war' necessitated by the interest of public peace.' ¶

And we have stated: The expression here is closer to supporting intervention to aid the oppressed states or their citizens. ¶

to remove injustice and aggression from them; however, we did not find this expression to be explicit in this regard, because the evidence presented by Dr. Al-Zuhayli for this cause of fighting in Islam specifically pertains to Muslims, or to those who are in a defensive alliance with Muslims. ¶

Among the evidences, he mentioned the saying of the Almighty: 'And why should you not fight 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.' The discussion here pertains to the oppressed who were persecuted because of the trial (fitna) regarding their religion, and they pray to their Lord to save them from the town whose people are oppressors—which is Mecca, where the inhabitants oppressed them because of their entry into Islam, seeking to turn them away from their religion, as previously explained regarding this verse in the third section of this chapter. ¶

Furthermore, Dr. Al-Zuhayli mentioned, as evidence for this cause under consideration, the support given by the Messenger ﷺ to the Khuza'a tribe against the Quraysh during the Truce of Hudaybiyyah. As we discussed in the previous section, this support was based on the defensive alliance that existed between the Messenger ﷺ and the Khuza'a, and therefore, it falls outside the situation we are addressing. ¶

In any case, it is understood from Dr. Al-Zuhayli's words that he tends toward supporting those in the situation we are studying and intervening to remove aggression from them. This is because he stated, while supporting this cause for fighting in Islam and defending this trend: 'And if it is said that this situation constitutes interference in the affairs of others, and interference is aggression, we respond: Intervention today is legitimate for social safety, for the establishment of truth, and for the defeat of falsehood. It is also legitimate as a defense of humanity in the event that a state oppresses minorities among its subjects.' ¶

E - Moreover, there is another group of writers who have explicitly stated the legitimacy of the intervention of Muslims or the Islamic State in the internal and external affairs of other states, thus fighting in Islam is legitimate when... ¶

These people are against any state that oppresses a group of its subjects, even if that group is non-Muslim, in an effort to remove injustice from them. According to them, fighting is also legitimized in Islam to support a weak state that has been transgressed against by another state through tyranny and injustice. This is because Islam is mandated to eradicate injustice wherever it may be. Here are some of the explicit statements of the proponents of this trend: ¶

1. Abdul Rahman Azzam says: “The Islamic state is tasked with redressing grievances, and even fighting to support the oppressed... whether an individual or a group, Muslim or non-Muslim” (1). He further states: “It is permissible for the Muslim state to declare war, and it remains within the boundaries of Shariah as long as its intent is to establish justice and repel oppression from others.” He also says: “In my view, this is the only situation in which war is legitimate, even if it is not defensive regarding the Muslim community...” Then he adds: “The basis of legitimate war is defensive war, whether this war is in self-defense or in defense of a third party that deserves to be helped. It is permissible in cases where it is not strictly required, and obligatory if it is to support an oppressed ally” (2). This is some of what Abdul Rahman Azzam said in *Al-Risala al-Khalida* (The Eternal Message), under the heading “War to Support the Oppressed.” ¶

B - Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra also says regarding this trend: “Islam views the subjects who are ruled by oppression and whose freedoms are restricted with a compassionate and sympathetic eye. It supports them if they seek its support and removes the yoke of tyranny from them if they ask for its help... The Arab conquest of Egypt was of this nature, for the conqueror of Egypt saw it groaning under the tyranny of the Romans.” ¶

and their exploitation of their lands, and their pressure upon their freedoms, thus they welcomed the Islamic army to lift that yoke from the necks of the Egyptians.»(1) ¶

And regarding the fighting ongoing between two states, neither of which has a defensive alliance with the Muslims, one of them being an oppressor and aggressor, and the other being oppressed and a victim of aggression. He says in this regard: ¶

«...That both warring states have no treaty or covenant (dhimmah) with the Muslims that would necessitate loyalty... And in this case, one of two possibilities may be posited: ¶

The First Possibility: That one of the two warring states is defending justice, or is, in reality, the victim of aggression and is defending itself—so is it permissible for the Islamic state to step forward to support it, and depart from its neutrality? We say: On this assumption, it may be permissible to assist the oppressed, on the condition that the Islamic interest is considered... and the just, reformist ruler examines the matter in all its aspects. The most cautious approach is undoubtedly to maintain neutrality.» ¶

Sheikh Abu Zahra also speaks about the case where one of the two states is weak and the other intends to devour it, saying in this situation: ¶

«The Second Possibility: That one of the parties is weak and the other strong party wants to devour it, and the Islamic state has the ability to push away the brutal aggression from it. In this case, we see that Islamic principles mandate moving forward to support the weak; for Islam has called for rescuing the distressed, repelling aggression, and supporting the weak to the extent of one's ability. Eliminating injustice is undoubtedly one of the Islamic principles. This happens if the weak requests support, and it becomes mandatory to respond to their request, because the state of the Qur'an is the state of truth, so it must be a supporter of every right and an advocate for it.»(2) ¶

C - Among the writers who support intervening in the affairs of states to lift injustice and aggression is 'Omar Ahmed al-Farjani', who says: «Islam did not define the spatial scope in which it is incumbent upon a Muslim to intervene to lift grievances, rather it left it without limits...» Then he quotes Abd al-Rahman Azzam as saying: ¶

«And if it is said: that this allows for continuous intervention in the affairs of others, and intervention is aggression by the state...» ¶

(1) Al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam, Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, p. 83. (2) Al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam, Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, pp. 86-87. ¶

Islamic, and it has been said: The purpose of the state is its own self, and it has no right to establish itself as a global policeman. We respond: This is, in our view, the only valid situation, and it is justified. The world feels from the depths of its conscience the need for someone who brings justice to the oppressed. European nations, after more than thirteen centuries since the 'Hilf al-Fudul' (Alliance of Virtues) and the 'Hilf Khuza'a' (Alliance of Khuza'a), attempted to establish through the Covenant of the League of Nations a pact similar to what Islam intended for the support of the oppressed. (1) ¶

This is some of what has been said regarding the issue we are addressing: Aggression against non-dhimmi disbelievers, those under their ruling, and non-allies—is it one of the causes of combat (qital) in Islam? We now come to the second issue. ¶

Second Issue: The arguments of those who permit intervention in the affairs of others to lift the oppression of the oppressed, along with a discussion. ¶

These arguments are summarized as follows: 1. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) upholding the 'Hilf al-Fudul'. (2) 2. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) supporting the tribe of Khuza'a against the Quraish during the Truce of Hudaybiyyah after they sought his aid. (3) 3. The saying of the Almighty: "And why should you not fight 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...'" (4) 4. The legitimacy of intervention in modern international custom for the defense of truth and the eradication of [falsehood]... ¶

(1) Usul al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam, Omar Ahmed al-Farjani, pp. 87-88. Quoted from al-Risala al-Khalida, pp. 117-118. (2) Athar al-Harb, Prof. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, p. 77; and al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam (by the same author), p. 32. (3) Athar al-Harb, Prof. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, p. 77; and Usul al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya, Omar Ahmed al-Farjani, p. 88. (4) Surah An-Nisa, Verse 75. See also al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya by Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, p. 32; and Usul al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya by al-Farjani, p. 87. ¶

the elimination of falsehood, and the defense of humanity in cases where a state oppresses its minority subjects (1). 5 - The conquest of Egypt by the Companions; because it was groaning under the tyranny of the Romans (2). We now proceed to clarify these arguments and discuss them: 1 - The Prophet's ﷺ endorsement of the 'Hilf al-Fudul' (League of the Virtuous). This alliance—as mentioned in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham, its commentary 'Al-Rawd al-Unuf', and in 'Al-Mu'tasar min al-Mukhtasar'—is summarized as follows: 'Hilf al-Fudul' took place twenty years before the Prophet's ﷺ mission, and it was the most noble alliance ever heard of among the Arabs. The first to call for it was 'Zubayr ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib'. The reason for it was that a merchant from 'Zabid' (3) in Yemen came to Mecca with goods. 'Al-'As ibn Wa'il al-Sahmi', a man of status and honor in Mecca, bought the goods from him but withheld his payment. The oppressed Zubaydi merchant sought help from the 'Al-Ahlaf' (The Confederates), who were clans of the Quraysh: (Abd al-Dar, Makhzum, Jumah, Sahm, and 'Adi ibn Ka'b). Long before the birth of the Prophet ﷺ, they had allied against other Qurayshi clans: (Abd Manaf, Asad, Zuhrah, Taym, and Al-Harith ibn Fihr). When these latter clans formed their alliance, they dipped their hands in perfume and wiped them on the walls of the Ka'bah to confirm their pact, hence they were called the 'Mutayyabin' (The Perfumed Ones), while their opponents were called the 'Al-Ahlaf'. When the oppressed Zubaydi merchant appealed to the 'Al-Ahlaf' for justice against 'Al-'As ibn Wa'il al-Sahmi', they refused to assist him and rebuffed him, because 'Al-'As' belonged to 'Bani Sahm', who were part of the 'Al-Ahlaf'. Therefore, they refused to support him against one of their own allies. The oppressed Zubaydi merchant then climbed Mount 'Abi Qubays' (4), which overlooks the Haram, while the men of Mecca were around the Ka'bah, and he appealed to the honor of the nobles of Mecca through verses of poetry he recited, so that... ¶

They helped him against al-‘As ibn Wa’il al-Sahmi al-Ahlafi, who had wronged him regarding his rights. Al-Zubayr ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib rose and called for an alliance to support the oppressed. The members of the old ‘Hilf al-Mutayyibin’ responded: Banu Hashim (from Banu ‘Abd Manaf), Zuhrah, and Taym. They gathered in the month of Dhu al-Qa’dah, a sacred month, in the house of ‘Abdullah ibn Jud’an al-Taymi. They made a solemn covenant by Allah that they would be as one hand with the oppressed against the oppressor until the right was restored, as long as the sea moistened a piece of wool [a metaphor for eternity]. The Quraysh called this alliance 'Hilf al-Fudul' and said: 'These people have engaged in an act of great virtue.' They then went to al-‘As ibn Wa’il al-Sahmi and took the merchandise of the Zubaydi from him and returned it to him. ¶

Ibn Hisham says regarding this alliance: 'They pledged that they would not find anyone in Mecca—whether a local or someone who had entered from elsewhere—who had been oppressed, except that they would stand with him against the one who wronged him until his grievance was redressed.' (1) ¶

This alliance is mentioned in some prophetic hadiths, including his saying (PBUH): 'I witnessed in the house of ‘Abdullah ibn Jud’an an alliance; if I were called to it during Islam, I would have accepted. They pledged that rights (al-fudul) should be returned to their owners and that no oppressor should overcome an oppressed one.' In another narration: 'I witnessed an alliance in the house of ‘Abdullah ibn Jud’an; I would not trade it for the best of red camels [precious wealth], and if I were called to it during Islam, I would have accepted.' (3) ¶

In 'Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari', it is stated: 'Ahmad, Abu Ya’la, and [Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim, who graded it authentic] narrated from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) in a marfu’ capacity: 'I witnessed the Hilf al-Mutayyibin with my paternal uncles, and I would not like to break it.' (4) The intent behind 'Hilf al-Mutayyibin' here is the 'Hilf al-Fudul' which the Prophet (PBUH) witnessed. Those who entered into this alliance were from the old 'Hilf al-Mutayyibin', which took place long before the Prophet’s birth. Therefore, the Prophet (PBUH) referred to it as 'Hilf al-Mutayyibin'. ¶