Chapter 38

Chapter Two: Standing Against the Islamic Da'wah (Call) ¶

Introduction: We mentioned in the first chapter of this section the first reason for declaring Jihad in Islam, which is repelling aggression—either actual or anticipated—from enemies. This applies whether those enemies had no prior peace treaty with the Muslims, as was the case with Mecca before the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, or if they were bound by a peace treaty but violated it, as was the case with 'Mecca' and its ally 'Banu Bakr' after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It also applies if they had not yet violated the treaty, but all indicators pointed to them preparing for such a violation and waiting for an opportune moment... as detailed previously. Now, having concluded the discussion on repelling aggression as a cause for combat, we move toward the other cause for the legitimacy of combat in Islam, which is: 'Standing against the Islamic Da'wah.' ¶

But what is meant by this expression? - Does it mean preventing the carriers of the Da'wah from conveying Islam in other states, such that if they were permitted to propagate, there would be no 'standing against the Islamic Da'wah,' and consequently, the legitimacy of declaring Jihad in such a case would cease? - Or does the expression mean that the Islamic Da'wah seeks a specific goal in people's lives and their society, which is: that people embrace Islam and establish societal life upon its foundations? If this goal is not achieved, is there no alternative but to establish that life upon the foundation of Islam, even if people refuse to embrace it in terms of creed and insist on their old religion? In this case, if the people or their leaders do not respond to one of these goals, is that considered (a hindrance)? ¶

They stand in the way of the Islamic Da'wah (call), obstructing the attainment of its intended goal, even if they pose no direct threat to the carriers of the Da'wah in their mission to propagate Islam. Based on this understanding, the legitimacy of Jihad is established to remove the barrier that stands in the path of the Da'wah, in order to achieve its aforementioned goal. I say: Which of the two meanings is intended by our statement, 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah'? - Is it the prohibition of the activities of those who carry the Da'wah in propagating Islam? - Or is it the refusal to submit to the Islamic system, if the disbelievers do not wish to embrace Islam? Hence, it was necessary to define the meaning of this expression as a cause for declaring Jihad in Islam, in order to open the way for the Islamic Da'wah. - Furthermore, it is necessary to detail this cause in terms of the evidence for it and the opinions of the jurists (Fuqaha) regarding it. - Then, it is necessary to explain the different positions that people or leaders of nations may take regarding the Islamic Da'wah, and the consequences of each position regarding the declaration of Jihad or refraining from it. Thus, the research in this chapter is divided into the following sections: 1. First Section: What is meant by 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah' as a cause for the legitimacy of Jihad in Islam. 2. Second Section: To what are non-Muslims in other states called? 3. Third Section: The positions of other states and peoples regarding the call to Islam or to governance by Islam, the consequences thereof, and the legitimacy of declaring Jihad. 4. Miscellaneous issues related to the causes of declaring Jihad. Issue One: Is Jihad only a defensive war, or can it also be an offensive war? Issue Two: Is Jihad an interference in the affairs of others? Issue Three: What is the fundamental basis in the relationship between Muslims and others, peace or war? ¶

First Topic: What is meant by 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah' as a reason for the legitimacy of Jihad in Islam? ¶

In this topic, we will address the following issues: Issue One: An overview of what has been said regarding the meaning of 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah'. Issue Two: The evidences used by each group to support the meaning they have adopted for 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah'. Issue Three: A discussion of the evidences and the opinion we choose based on the preponderant proofs. ¶

Issue One: The meaning of standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah. - Some Islamic writers have argued that standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah is realized when the carriers of the Da'wah are prevented from conveying Islam. In this case, Jihad is legitimate in order to remove this prohibition imposed on conveying the Da'wah. However, if no prohibition is imposed on the carriers of the Da'wah in conveying it to the people, then there is no such thing as 'standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah' on the part of the disbelievers, and consequently: there is no justification for the legitimacy of Jihad in this state. - Others among Islamic writers have held that standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah is realized in the refusal to submit to the system that the Islamic Da'wah carries and seeks to impose on people in their lives and society, even if they prefer to retain their existing beliefs and religions, as 'there is no compulsion in religion' (1). ¶

(1) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 256. ¶

Thus, once this rejection occurs, the legitimacy of Jihad is established, even if there is no prohibition preventing the bearers of the Message (Da'wah) from conveying what they were tasked to convey to the people. We will now present some statements that point to both these meanings: ¶

- Some of what has been said regarding the first meaning: That is, interpreting the concept of standing in the way of the Da'wah as preventing its bearers from conveying it, or persecuting those who believe in it. ¶

In 'Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya' by Sheikh Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf, who expresses the view of those who hold this opinion—and is himself among them—it states: 'A non-Muslim nation that has not initiated aggression against Muslims, has not obstructed the callers to Islam, and has left them free to present their religion to whomever they wish and to present their proofs as they desire—neither resisting a caller nor persecuting one being called—it is not permissible to fight them, nor is it permissible to sever peaceful relations with them. The security between them and the Muslims is firmly established and cannot be changed [i.e., by Jizya or contract]. It is based on the principle that the original state is peace, and nothing has occurred to demolish this foundation, such as aggression against the Muslims or their Da'wah.' Sheikh Khallaf then continues to clarify this view, saying: 'Jihad is legislated to protect the Islamic Da'wah and to repel aggression against Muslims. Therefore, whoever does not accept the Da'wah, but does not resist it and does not initiate aggression against the Muslims, it is not permissible to fight them, nor to alter their state of security out of fear.' He also says in this regard: 'There is no war between Muslims and others except due to an emergency, such as aggression, resistance to the Da'wah, or harming the callers or those being called.' (1) ¶

- Among the Islamic writers who interpret the meaning of standing in the way of the Islamic Da'wah as preventing the bearers of the Da'wah from conveying it, or persecuting those who have believed in it, and the like, is Sayyid Sabiq, who says in his book 'Fiqh al-Sunnah': 'There is no justification for this war in the view of Islam... except in two cases: First case: The case of self-defense, defending honor, property, and the homeland when aggression occurs... Second case: The case of defending the call to Allah if someone stands in its way by persecuting those [who believe in it].' ¶

preventing one from believing in it, or preventing one who wishes to enter it, or preventing the caller (da'i) from conveying it. He then states: This legitimate war has a goal that it aims to reach, which is: preventing the persecution of believing men and women by ceasing their harassment and respecting their freedoms so that they may worship Allah and establish His religion, safe from all aggression (1). ¶

Among the statements that follow this path is what is mentioned in the book 'Jihad and International Rights in Islam' by Professor Zafir al-Qasimi, who quotes the opinion of Sheikh Abdullah bin Zaid Al Mahmoud, Head of Shariah Courts and Religious Affairs in the State of Qatar, on this issue, saying: 'Whenever the callers to Islam approach a country to invite its people to the religion of Allah... if the door is opened to them... and they are permitted to enter and spread the call, this is the ultimate goal they seek. For this, the believers should rejoice, for there is no killing or fighting, and all people are safe regarding their blood and wealth. Muslims have opened many countries in this manner, which is known as a treaty (sulh)... However, if cannons are aimed at them... and the callers are prevented from the freedom to spread their call and from contacting people to convey to them the religion of Allah—which contains their happiness and the happiness of all mankind—then they are considered, at that point, as aggressors against the religion and against all of creation.' Sheikh Abdullah bin Zaid then says: 'If we are prevented from calling to the religion of Allah, which Allah has commanded to be warned with and conveyed to all His creation... then when the callers are threatened, killed, or barred from the country to spread the call and convey guidance, they are considered by this act of prevention as aggressors against the religion. Therefore, we must fight them to protect the call and the callers, not to force conversion to the religion' (2). ¶

This is some of what has been said regarding the meaning of 'standing in the way of the call,' which is a cause for legitimate war in Islam. ¶

As for the other meaning of standing in the way of the call, it is: the failure to hand over authority to Muslims in the lands of the disbelievers, for the purpose of ruling the people and the lands according to Islam; in this case, war would be legitimate to enable the Muslims to do so. ¶

Among what has been said in this context is the statement of Sheikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani: 'Know that jihad is of two types: First: Fard 'Ayn (individual obligation), which is repelling the enemy that attacks some of the Muslim lands...' ¶

The second category: Fard Kifayah (communal obligation)... which is Jihad in the path of Allah to convey the Islamic Dawah to all other lands until Islam governs them. Whoever among their people submits, does so. And whoever stands in its path shall be fought, so that the word of Allah may be supreme...(1) ¶

Among the proponents of this trend is also Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, who states in his research on Jihad: 'Jihad does not mean forcing individuals to embrace Islam; rather, it means: subjecting nations to the rule of Islam. They are called to Islam; whoever among the individuals embraces Islam has secured his blood and wealth, and killing him becomes forbidden because he has responded to the call, even if it is just one individual. Whoever does not embrace Islam is forced to submit to the rulings of Islam; otherwise, he is fought, and the fighting continues until he is subjected to the rulings of Islam...'(2) ¶

Among the Islamic writers who followed this trend is also Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidan, who states: 'Non-Islamic states that are based on something other than Islam and reject its rulings are considered by the Islamic state as invalid entities that do not deserve to remain, because falsehood is a munkar (evil) and corruption. And the munkar must be removed. Its removal takes place by rebuilding them on the foundation of Islam, such that their rulers are Muslims and their law is the Islamic law, i.e., the Shariah. This is achieved through choice: by embracing Islam and applying its law, or by submitting to the political authority of the Islamic state and its Islamic law. The sign of this is their commitment to paying the Jizya. If they do not choose this or that, the Islamic state must fight them until it subjects them to its political authority and Islamic law, at which point they become part of Dar al-Islam. All of this means... that the Islamic state has the right to subject the non-Islamic state to its political authority and its Islamic law, even through fighting if it refuses this submission of its own free will.'(3) ¶

This was an exposition of the opinions of both parties regarding the cause of legitimate war for the sake of carrying the Islamic Dawah - a party - which holds that if non-Islamic states do not prevent the carriers of the Islamic Dawah... ¶

States that do not prevent the bearers of the call (da'wah) from entering their countries, and do not impose any pressure or aggression either upon the preachers or those who respond to them, are states against which the Islamic state is forbidden to wage war under the pretext of subjecting them to the Islamic system or annexing them to the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam); because they have not committed any aggression, nor have they even stood in the way of the Islamic call. ¶

As for the non-Islamic states that prevent the bearers of the Islamic call from entering their lands, or those that impose a ban on their Islamic activities if they allow them entry, or those that practice any pressure or aggression against them or those who respond to the call—these states that adopt such a stance toward the Islamic call, its bearers, and its followers, are states against which the Islamic state has the right to wage war and declare Jihad. This is the conclusion of what the proponents of the first school of thought say regarding the meaning of standing in the way of the Islamic call, or not doing so, and the consequences thereof. However, the proponents of this school of thought do not clarify for us—in the event that other states do stand in the way of the Islamic call in the aforementioned sense—whether this is to be taken as a justification for overthrowing the authority and system in those states, subjecting them to the Islamic system, and consequently annexing them to the Abode of Islam, thereby ensuring that the path for the Islamic call is opened to proceed without any obstacles? Or does the Islamic state, in the face of this situation, have several options in which it employs legitimate (mashru') Jihad to achieve what it deems appropriate? These options include: ¶

- Conducting punitive military campaigns, the results of which would be the granting of entry visas to the bearers of the Islamic call, and allowing them to engage in Islamic activity without pressure or aggression, neither against them nor against the subjects who respond to them. ¶

- Or changing the existing authority and imposing a new authority from among the people of the country, even if they are disbelievers, while obtaining a pledge from them not to harm the Islamic call, its bearers, or those who respond to it in any way. ¶

- Or any other measure the state deems appropriate regarding this state that has stood in the way of the Islamic call, which would make the path for the call open without fear or obstacles. ¶

In any case, this school of thought does not call for declaring Jihad in the name of imposing the Islamic system. ¶

Regarding non-Islamic states and their annexation to the Islamic state: as long as they permit the Islamic Dawah (call) to circulate within their lands, even if they remain forever governed by non-Islamic systems, and as long as Muslims, through their activities, have not been able to win over the majority or the most powerful segment of their subjects to Islam—such that governance there naturally transforms into Islamic governance. ¶

This is the view of the first group regarding the meaning of standing in the way of the Islamic Dawah, and the consequent legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jihad based on that. ¶

As for the other group, their position was clear and specific regarding what they demand from non-Islamic states concerning the Islamic Dawah. In short, as understood from their discourse, they demand from those states: either that the authority in those states embraces Islam, which implies the implementation of the Islamic system of governance and their annexation to Dar al-Islam, while leaving the choice to the people thereafter to either enter Islam or remain on their old religions. ¶

Or, that the authority in those states be handed over to the Muslims to implement the Islamic system upon them and annex them to Dar al-Islam, then leaving the choice to the people to enter Islam or not, in the manner previously described. ¶

If neither is the case, it is considered an act of standing in the way of the Islamic Dawah from reaching its goal. Consequently, the Islamic state has the right to declare Jihad with the objective of subjecting those states to Islamic rule and annexing them to Dar al-Islam to open the path for the Islamic Dawah, in light of the power the Islamic state possesses and what circumstances permit. ¶

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

Second Issue: The arguments of both groups regarding the meaning of standing in the way of the Islamic Dawah. ¶

First: The arguments of those who hold that war is not legitimate for the sake of the Islamic Dawah except in cases where it is forbidden to convey it, or where there is aggression against it... these arguments are summarized as follows: ¶

1 - Jihad was legislated in Islam for defense against aggression, in accordance with the words of the Almighty: "Whoever commits aggression against you..." ¶

upon you, then respond to them in the same manner as they have responded against you (1). And among the aggressions against the Da'wah (call to Islam) is preventing it from being conveyed to the people. Regarding this, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zaid Al-Mahmud says in his book 'Al-Jihad al-Mashru' fi al-Islam' (Legitimate Jihad in Islam): 'Islam maintains peace with those who maintain peace with it, and it does not fight except those who fight it, or those who prevent the propagation of its message and block the path to conveying it to the people. For by preventing its conveyance, they are considered aggressors against the religion and against all of humanity' (2). 2. The saying of the Almighty: 'And fight them until there is no fitnah (persecution/strife) and the religion is [for] Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the wrongdoers' (3). Sayyid Sabiq clarifies the meaning of this verse by saying: 'This legitimate war has a limit at which it ends: preventing the persecution of believing men and women by ceasing to harm them and leaving their freedoms intact so that they may worship Allah and establish His religion while being secure in themselves from all aggression' (4). I say: If we wish to interpret the verse in light of this meaning, in a way that further connects the verse to the concept of this approach, then we say: The meaning of the verse is: Fight the disbelievers who torture the believers with the aim of causing them to abandon their faith (fitnah), and continue this fight against them until the disbelievers desist from practicing that fitnah, and until the religion is for Allah. That is: until the religion exists, meaning: until the worship of Allah exists. In the sense: until its existence is permitted without fitnah falling upon the Muslims. If the disbelievers cease that fitnah and torture, and permit the existence of religion and worship without oppression or pressure, then there is no aggression except against the wrongdoers. That is: whoever commits aggression against those who have desisted from fitnah, and who have permitted the religion without oppressing its followers—whoever commits aggression against them (is the wrongdoer). ¶

Even if they desist from fitnah (persecution), he [the aggressor] remains the wrongdoer who deserves that Allah imposes aggression upon him. {There is no aggression except against the wrongdoers}. Or, the meaning of the verse could be: If some of them desist from the persecution and harming of the believers, while others persist in it, then fight only those wrongdoers who insist on persecuting the believers... or whatever revolves around this meaning. ¶

I say: Interpreting the verse in this manner suggests that it is not legitimate to fight those who allow the existence of the religion and the worship of Allah without fitnah or oppression. This refraining from fitnah necessitates allowing activity for the sake of calling to the religion, because this calling activity is part of the religion, which the verse prohibits fighting the disbelievers for, provided they allow it and end their fitnah against its adherents. ¶

3 - A third evidence brought forward by proponents of this trend is the Almighty’s saying: {But if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for aggression] against them}. ¶

Sheikh Sayyid Sabiq, commenting on this verse, says: «These people did not fight their own folk, nor did they fight the Muslims; they abstained from fighting either party, and their abstention was genuine, intended for peace. Thus, the believers have no cause [to fight] against them». ¶

I say: The mode of reasoning with this verse is that if the disbelievers make peace with the Muslims and do not commit aggression against them—which includes allowing the Islamic call and not obstructing it, as not allowing the call is part of aggression as previously mentioned—if they make peace with the Muslims in this manner, fighting them is forbidden. {Then Allah has not made for you a cause against them}. This indicates that it is not legitimate to fight them for the sake of subjecting them to the rule of Islam. ¶

4 - A fourth evidence brought forward by proponents of this trend is the noble verse: {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors}. ¶

They say: Fighting non-combatants is an aggression, and the verse prohibits it. ¶

Sheikh Ahmed Mustafa al-Maraghi says in his Tafsir: "'They fight you': meaning, fighting is expected from them. 'And do not transgress': meaning, do not initiate the fighting against them..." (1). The method of using this verse as an argument for our issue is clear; it indicates that initiating war against the disbelievers to subject them to Islamic rule is not permissible, because that is transgression, and Allah says: "And do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." ¶

5- A fifth argument presented by proponents of this view is the saying of the Almighty: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. But if they intend to deceive you - then sufficient for you is Allah..." (2). ¶

Mustafa Zayd says in his commentary on Surah al-Anfal: "The verse expresses the inclination of the disbelievers toward peace with 'in' (if), which is used for that whose occurrence is doubtful or unlikely, to suggest that they are not inherently inclined to choose peace for its own sake, and that one cannot be certain that their inclination toward it is not a ruse and deception. It connects the Prophet's command to accept peace with another command to rely upon Allah, to increase the weight of the possibility of their deception, and then emphasizes the command to accept peace even with the presence of this strong possibility that the disbelievers want to deceive the believers—surely Muslims are more deserving of peace than the disbelievers, so would they hesitate to accept it when the disbelievers offer it to them?" (3). ¶

The method of using this verse as an argument for the issue under consideration is: If non-Islamic states incline toward a peace treaty with the Islamic state, while those states maintain their independence and their systems of governance, then the Muslims are obligated to accept this inclination toward peace, as indicated by the verse of al-Anfal we are discussing. This indicates the lack of legitimacy in fighting those states with the goal of subjecting them to Islamic rule and annexing them to Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam). ¶

6. A sixth argument used by proponents of this school of thought is—as stated by Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida: 'All the wars of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) against the disbelievers were defensive, containing no element of aggression.' He then adds: 'The fighting against the polytheists of Arabia and the repudiation of their treaties after the conquest of Mecca were consistent with this principle.' He further states: 'The issue became confused for the heedless regarding some battles (ghazawat) and expeditions (saraya) because the Muslims initiated them, while they were oblivious to the state of war existing between them and the polytheists due to the polytheists' initial aggression and its continuation; therefore, it is not required for defense to be present in every single battle or movement.' (1). ¶

The point of this argument is that all the wars of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were confined to a state of defense. Based on this, legitimate war in Islam is restricted to a defensive state. This implies that fighting the disbelievers to subject them to Islamic rule is not legitimate, as long as they have not committed any aggression against the Muslims or their da'wah (call). ¶

These were the arguments of the first group, which posits that the legitimacy of jihad in Islam is restricted to defense against aggression. This aggression includes standing in the way of the Islamic call by imposing a ban on its propagation. If the disbelievers do not obstruct the call, but rather allow its spread in their lands and among their subjects, then fighting them in this case to subject them to Islamic rule is illegitimate. ¶

Second: We now come to the arguments of the opposing party, which asserts that standing in the way of the Islamic call is not represented solely by preventing the propagation of the Islamic call, whether or not aggression occurs against those who carry it or those who believe in it. Rather, it is also represented by the refusal of authorities in other states to accept Islam, or their refusal to hand over power to the Muslims to govern them by Islam and integrate them into the Islamic state. If the authority in other states uses its power to stand against the Islamic call to prevent the subjection of the country to the Islamic state and its system, then jihad in this case is legitimate in Islam to achieve this objective by force if it cannot be achieved through consent and peace. ¶

(1) Al-Wahy al-Muhammadi: Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida, pp. 236-237. ¶

Thus, the evidences for this trend are summarized as follows: ¶

1 - The absolute Shariah texts which mandate fighting the disbelievers without the condition that they must be the aggressors, among which are: A - The Almighty’s saying: "O Prophet! Wage jihad against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them..." (Surah At-Tawbah: 73). B - The Almighty’s saying: "O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers..." (Surah At-Tawbah: 123). C - The saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): "I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do that, they have secured their blood and property from me, except for the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with Allah" (Sahih al-Bukhari: 25). ¶

This matter was discussed in the first chapter of this section regarding the issue of absolute texts in combat, and the preference was given to leaving them in their absolute state without restricting them to aggression (adwan); therefore, we shall not repeat that discussion here. ¶

2 - Proponents of this trend also cite the Hadith of Sulayman ibn Buraydah, from his father, which is recorded in Sahih Muslim. It contains, regarding our subject, some of the rulings that the Prophet (ﷺ) would impose upon every commander he appointed over a military detachment (sariyyah) directed toward the enemy... Among these is his saying: "And when you meet your enemy among the polytheists, invite them to three qualities (or traits). Whichever they answer, accept from them and refrain from them. Then invite them to Islam; if they answer you, accept from them and refrain from them... If they refuse, ask them for the Jizya; if they answer you, accept from them and refrain from them. If they refuse, seek help from Allah and fight them..." (Sahih Muslim: 1731). ¶

3 - Proponents of this trend also cite the Verse of Jizya: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah..." ¶

And not in the Last Day... up to the saying of the Almighty: ﴿...until they pay the jizyah willingly while they are humbled﴾. ¶

The line of reasoning from all these texts is that the Legislator (Allah) has obligated Muslims to fight the disbelievers absolutely—meaning even if they have not committed aggression, as is necessitated by the unconditional nature of these texts. They are commanded to continue this fighting until one of two conditions is met: - Either their entry into Islam. - Or their submission to Islamic rule, which implies their status as dhimmis and the incorporation of their lands into the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). ¶

4- Proponents of this view also cite the practices of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulafa al-Rashidun): Dr. Abd al-Karim Zaydan states in this regard: “The actions of the Rightly Guided Caliphs support what we have stated and what the jurists have held. They conquered neighboring countries, nullified their systems, implemented the Islamic Law therein, and brought them under the authority of the Islamic State, making them a part of it. No one whatsoever objected to them; therefore, this methodology is agreed upon by all. It is the greatest consensus (ijma’) ever established on a Shariah matter.” ¶

Furthermore, the jurists of Islam have agreed upon the legitimacy of declaring Jihad against all disbelievers initially (as an offensive, rather than defensive measure). This applies even if no act of aggression has been committed by them against the Muslims or the call of Islam, in order to bring them under the rule of Islam. The exception to this is the narration from Imam Malik regarding the lack of legitimacy of initial Jihad against the Abyssinians and the Turks only, while affirming the legitimacy of initial Jihad against all other disbelievers. Ibn Rushd affirms this in his book Bidayat al-Mujtahid, stating: “As for those who are to be fought, there is consensus that they are all polytheists, due to the saying of the Almighty: ﴿And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief/shirk) and religion is entirely for Allah﴾.” ¶

Except for what was narrated from Malik, who said: It is not permissible to initiate war against the Abyssinians (Habasha) or the Turks, due to the narration that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Leave the Abyssinians as long as they leave you.' When Malik was asked about the authenticity of this report, he did not acknowledge it, but said: 'People have always avoided fighting them (1).' ¶

I say: The hadith regarding refraining from fighting the Abyssinians and the Turks was narrated by Abu Dawood and others, and the text according to Abu Dawood is: 'Leave the Abyssinians as long as they leave you, and leave the Turks as long as they leave you (2).' ¶

Furthermore, we will discuss this issue in upcoming research, but the hadith, in its authenticity, indicates the legitimacy of initiating combat against the disbelievers, even if no aggression has been committed by them, except for the exception made by this hadith regarding the Abyssinians and the Turks regarding the initiation of combat (3), while the legitimacy of fighting them in the case of defense against aggression remains. ¶

After presenting the evidence upon which each group relied, we come to the third issue in this study, which is: Third Issue: Discussing the evidence and the opinion we choose based on the preponderant (rajih) evidence. We will discuss the evidence of the first group, who argue that it is not legitimate to fight the disbelievers and their states in the context of conveying the Islamic call (Da'wah) to them, unless they stand in the way of the Da'wah, meaning they prevent the Muslims from [conveying it]. ¶

Conveying the message [of Islam] to their lands, even if they have not committed aggression against the Muslims through fighting or physical harm, is based on the consideration that the mere prevention of proselytization is an act of aggression. Therefore, fighting them in this situation is legislated as a defense against this type of aggression. We discuss the evidence of the proponents of this view and state: ¶

1. The first argument: It is based on the premise that the mere prevention of conveying the call (da'wah) is an act of aggression. Defense against aggression is the legitimate cause for jihad in Islam, as the evidence for this has already been presented. Hence, jihad was legislated to open the path for the call whenever obstacles and hindrances are placed in its way. ¶

In my estimation, the proponents of the idea that jihad is not legitimate except in cases of defense against aggression—when they realized that this idea eventually leads to preventing the spread of Islam and ceasing its propagation—found that it conflicts with the Shariah texts that command the carrying and conveying of Islam to all people, such as the Almighty’s saying: {And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good...}. Imam al-Tabari states in his Tafsir: 'The Exalted in praise means: Let there be from among you, O believers, a nation—a group—who call people to goodness, meaning Islam and the laws that Allah has legislated for His servants.' ¶

I say: When the proponents of the idea that jihad is not legitimate except in cases of defense saw that their idea leads to preventing the spread of Islam—because if the disbelievers refrain from fighting the Muslims, they might still not allow the spread of Islam in their countries—then to argue against fighting them on the grounds that no aggression was committed by them leads to the non-propagation of Islam in their lands in such a situation, which contradicts the command to invite [people] to Islam. When the proponents of limiting the legitimacy of jihad to defense saw this consequence, they resorted to broadening the meaning of 'aggression' to cover even the mere prevention of inviting people to Islam, even if the disbelievers preventing the call did not commit any aggression against the Muslims in the known sense, such as striking, harming, or the like. Accordingly, it would be considered an act of aggression against the call for non-Islamic states to refuse entry visas to those carrying the message so they may enter their territories to invite their citizens to Islam. ¶

Then, the proponents of this view restricted the meaning of 'aggression' (i'tida') to the limits we mentioned—the obstruction of da'wah (preaching) and verbal communication only. Based on their logic, preventing the Islamic da'wah from assuming power in non-Islamic states should also be considered an aggression against the da'wah. For them, the basis of aggression is the obstruction of what the Shariah has commanded regarding Islam. And the Shariah, just as it commanded the invitation of the disbelievers to Islam, has also commanded the subjugation of the disbelievers to Islam, 'until they pay the jizya with a willing hand and are subdued' (1). Thus, the obstruction by the disbelievers of the Muslims' da'wah in their lands is like their obstruction of the Muslims from assuming power and ruling by Islam in their lands, as long as the Shariah texts have provided for both. ¶

However, it seems that international custom has played a role in this distinction among those whose arguments we are discussing; for contemporary international custom does not deny the invitation to religion in other states within certain limits, but it does deny demanding that those states surrender power to outsiders, or declaring war for such a purpose. ¶

The truth in this matter—as I see it—is that there is no need to categorize the opposition to da'wah—in the sense of refusing to allow its dissemination—as 'aggression', and then subsequently control the limits of this aggression by deciding that standing in the way of delivering it to the people is 'aggression', while standing in the way of bringing it to authority and governance is not 'aggression'. There is no need for that. ¶

It is more accurate to state: - The Shariah has tasked the Muslims with conveying the da'wah to other states; whoever stands in the way of this conveying, fighting them is legitimate. - Likewise, the Shariah has tasked the Muslims with bringing the Islamic da'wah to authority in other lands, in the sense of assuming governance and power therein. Whoever stands in the way of that, fighting them is legitimate. ¶

The issue, therefore, is one of implementing what Allah has commanded regarding the relationship between Muslims and other nations and states in the context of the Islamic Dawah (call). ¶

- It may be that the Islamic state limits itself to fighting certain states only to allow the carriers of the Islamic Dawah to propagate, without assuming political authority, and ceases fighting them if they grant such permission. ¶

- Or it may proceed to fight other states in order to assume authority therein and subject them to Islamic rule. I say: As for this matter, it is a decision that rests with the one in authority, based on his assessment of the capabilities possessed by the Islamic state and his evaluation of the public interest (maslaha) in adopting one position or another regarding this or that state. ¶

2- We now discuss the second argument: Among the evidences of the trend that claims the illegitimacy of Jihad for the purpose of subjecting other states to Islamic rule, so long as they allow the spread of the Islamic Dawah on their lands, is the verse: 'And fight them until there is no fitnah (persecution/disbelief) and the religion is for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the wrongdoers.' This verse has already been interpreted according to the understanding of those who use it as evidence to align with the position they have adopted. Its summary is: 'O believers, fight the disbelievers who persecute the believers—that is, those who torture them. Fight them until no fitnah remains from them against the Muslims, and until worship is performed for Allah under their rule without fitnah or harm. If they desist from that fitnah after you have fought them, and that fighting has achieved its purpose, then stop fighting them, for there is no aggression—meaning, there is no legitimacy for combat—except against the wrongdoers who persist in persecuting the Muslims.' ¶

I say: The verse, according to this meaning, is the furthest interpretation we can possibly adopt to support the trend we are discussing. ¶

However, the majority of exegetes have interpreted 'fitnah' in this verse as 'shirk' (polytheism) and 'kufr' (disbelief). Only a few have interpreted it as persecution and torture, as this interpretation was narrated from 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr. ¶

They interpreted 'until religion is only for Allah' to mean that none should be worshipped except Allah, and there should be no obedience to anyone other than Allah in His commandments and prohibitions, and that Islam should prevail and rise above all other religions. ¶

They interpreted 'But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the wrongdoers' to mean: if they cease from shirk (polytheism) and fighting. Al-Qurtubi says in his Tafsir: 'If they cease' means: from disbelief, either by entering Islam... or by paying the Jizya in the case of the People of the Book... otherwise, they shall be fought, for they are the wrongdoers, and there is no aggression (udwan) except against them. What is done to the wrongdoers is called aggression because it is a recompense for aggression, as injustice involves aggression; thus, the recompense for aggression is termed aggression.' ¶

Based on this, the meaning of the verse according to the majority of exegetes is: O believers, fight the disbelievers until there is no more shirk, and the religion is entirely for Allah. That is, until the disbelievers enter Islam, and obedience is exclusively for Allah. This applies to polytheists with a detailed explanation to follow. Or, until there is no outward shirk towards Allah, meaning obedience is to Allah alone, implying that the authority belongs to Islam, to which non-Muslims submit by paying the Jizya and adhering to the specific Islamic rulings concerning them. ¶

In any case: as long as the verse is susceptible to interpretations that align with both perspectives—even though the majority support the view that fighting the disbelievers is legitimate until they enter Islam or pay the Jizya, as will be detailed later—I hold the view that this verse pertains to those disbelievers who initiated the fighting and persecution against the Muslims, as the context concerns them. In preceding verses, Allah says: 'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you...' then He said: 'And kill them wherever you overtake them...' then He said: 'But if they cease, then indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful,' then came the saying of Allah: 'And fight them until there is no...' ¶

Fitnah. (1) The pronouns in all these verses refer to the disbelievers who initiated combat against the Muslims. Based on this, proponents of the first school of thought can argue that the verse establishes the legitimacy of fighting aggressors until they cease their aggression. This may be achieved by their mere cessation of aggression and allowing the Islamic call (Da'wah) to spread without the occurrence of fitnah upon its followers. ¶

This may also be achieved by subjecting the disbelievers to Islamic governance, as it is a means of eliminating their fitnah, or it may be achieved by their entry into Islam. Here, the words of the Almighty apply to them: "But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (2), for forgiveness pertains specifically to Muslims. ¶

This interpretation does not conflict with the second school of thought; rather, the conflict appears in the evidence that discusses non-aggressive disbelievers. The first school of thought does not justify fighting them for the purpose of subjugating them to Islam. However, the second school of thought considers fighting them permissible and within the framework of legitimacy for the aforementioned purpose. ¶

3. We now move to discuss the third piece of evidence, which is the verse: "So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause against them" (3). ¶

This verse appears in the context of verses that discuss various categories of disbelievers and clarify the ruling regarding them in terms of the legitimacy of fighting them or the restriction of that legitimacy. The verse in question discusses two categories of disbelievers: Foreigners granted asylum (musta'manun) from a state with which we have a peace treaty, and a category of disbelievers who are in a state of war with their own people and have come to us desiring neutrality—not wanting to fight us with their people, nor wanting to fight their people with us. Therefore, it is not permissible to fight these two categories as long as they remain dissociated from the fighting against the Muslims. After Allah the Almighty said regarding the disbelievers: "...then seize them and kill them wherever you find them..." (4), He followed it with: "...except those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty." The meaning is clarified in Ahkam al-Qur'an by Al-Jassas. ¶