Chapter 39

Regarding this group, with His saying: 'Except for those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, they have [the same security] as they have' (1). Then the Almighty said: 'Or they come to you with their chests restricted—meaning, tightened—from fighting you or fighting their own people. If Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. 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 [for fighting] against them' (2). Al-Jassas says: 'It is permissible for Muslims to abstain from fighting those of the disbelievers who do not fight them... but these verses contain a prohibition against fighting those of the disbelievers who have refrained from fighting us. We know of no jurist (faqih) who prohibits fighting those of the polytheists who have withdrawn from fighting us. The disagreement is merely over the permissibility of abstaining from fighting them, not over its prohibition. There is a consensus among all on the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting those whose description we have mentioned...' (3). ¶

Imam al-Jassas means to say: This verse prohibits fighting the disbelievers who have refrained from fighting us, and this ruling was the status of combat in the first stage of the legislation of jihad, in accordance with the Almighty’s saying: 'And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you...' (4), the implication of which is: Do not fight those who do not fight you. Then, the ruling to fight the disbelievers generally came—meaning, whether they fought us or refrained from fighting us—in several texts, such as the Almighty’s saying: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day... until they pay the jizya willingly while they are humbled' (5). Thus, the first ruling, which was the prohibition of fighting the peaceful, non-combatant disbelievers, was abrogated. The ruling for these peaceful individuals became: - Either the obligation to fight them to subject them to Islamic rule, according to some jurists. - Or the permissibility of fighting them to subject them to Islamic rule, according to other jurists, in light of Islamic interest (maslaha). In any case, all are in agreement on the legitimacy of fighting them to subject them to Islamic rule. This is the meaning of Imam al-Jassas's statement: 'We know of no jurist...' ¶

It is forbidden to fight those among the polytheists who have refrained from fighting us; the disagreement is only regarding the permissibility of leaving them alone, not regarding the prohibition of fighting them (1). ¶

4 - The fourth evidence for those who hold the view that it is not permissible to fight non-aggressive disbelievers for the purpose of subjugating them to Islamic rule is the verse of the Almighty: {And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like the transgressors} (2). The implication of this verse—as mentioned earlier—is that it is not permissible for Muslims to declare war on disbelievers who do not commit aggression against them and do not fight them, under the pretext of subjugating them to Islamic rule. The response to this argument is: It has already been established that the prohibition of fighting non-aggressive disbelievers was the initial ruling in the legislation of Jihad. Subsequently, another ruling followed, which is the permissibility of fighting disbelievers absolutely, whether they are aggressive or non-aggressive, as previously explained. Furthermore, the Almighty's saying, {Indeed, Allah does not like the transgressors}, in light of the final ruling on the legislation of Jihad, means—as Ibn Kathir stated in his Tafsir—the commission of forbidden acts, such as what Al-Hasan Al-Basri mentioned regarding mutilation (3), misappropriation of war booty (4), or the killing of women, children, and the elderly who possess no influence and do not participate in fighting, as well as monks, the inhabitants of hermitages, the burning of trees, and the killing of animals without necessity... It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, when he dispatched his armies, would say: "Set out in the name of Allah, fight in the way of Allah those who disbelieve in Allah, do not transgress, do not misappropriate spoils, do not mutilate, and do not kill children or the inhabitants of hermitages" (5). ¶

5 - The fifth evidence for the school of thought whose arguments we are discussing is the saying of the Almighty: {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it} (6). This signifies, as previously mentioned, the obligation to respond to the disbelievers' request for a peace treaty if they seek it. This implies that in such a situation, it is not permissible to fight them in order to subjugate them to the rule of Islam. ¶

The answer to this argument is that the command here to incline towards peace when the disbelievers seek it is not by way of obligation (wujub), but rather by way of permissibility (ibahah), depending on what the interests of the Islamic Da’wah dictate. This applies, for example, in cases where Muslims are weak, or there is hope for the disbelievers to embrace Islam, or the likelihood of their submission to Islamic rule without combat after some time, and so on. The command to accept peace here is merely for permissibility—that is, it is permitted, not mandatory—in order to reconcile this verse of Surat al-Anfal with other verses, including these two: ¶

- The verse in Surat Bara’ah: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day... until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” - The verse in Surat Muhammad: “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior.” ¶

The literal meaning of the verse in Surat Bara’ah, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...”, implies an obligation to fight the disbelievers and not accept peace treaties with them, especially since Surat Bara’ah was revealed after Surat al-Anfal. However, the most correct reconciliation between the two verses is that both options are legally permissible: ¶

- Either to fight the disbelievers to subject them to Islamic rule. - Or to conclude a peace treaty with them and cease fighting them. ¶

The authority in the Islamic State chooses what serves the best interest of the Islamic Da’wah according to the various circumstances that must be taken into account when making a specific decision—whether it is a decision for war or a decision for peace. ¶

Regarding this, Ibn Kathir, in his exegesis of the Almighty’s saying: “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it...”, states: “Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Zayd ibn Aslam, ‘Ata al-Khurasani, ‘Ikrimah, al-Hasan, and Qatadah said: This verse is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword in Bara’ah: ‘Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day...’. There is also room for reflection on this view, because the verse of Bara’ah contains the command to fight them if it is possible.” ¶

Conversely, if the enemy is numerous, it is permissible to enter into a truce with them, as indicated by the noble verse: 'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it,' and as the Prophet ﷺ did on the day of Hudaybiyyah. Therefore, there is no contradiction, no abrogation, and no specification; and Allah knows best. ¶

As for reconciling the verse from Surah al-Anfal: 'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it' and the verse from Surah Muhammad: 'So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior'—the latter being the verse that prohibits calling for a peaceful treaty with the disbelievers while Muslims are in a position of strength, supremacy, and dominance—the reconciliation between the two verses is as mentioned by al-Qurtubi in his commentary on the Almighty's saying: 'So do not weaken and call for peace.' He writes: 'Scholars differed regarding its ruling. It is said: It abrogates the saying of the Almighty: 'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it,' because Allah Almighty forbade leaning towards reconciliation when the Muslims are not in need of it. It is also said: It is definitive (muhkam), and the two verses were revealed in different circumstances.' ¶

Ibn al-Arabi says in 'Ahkam al-Qur'an': 'As for those who say: If they call you to peace, then answer them, the response depends on the context. Allah has said: 'So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior.' Thus, if the Muslims are in a state of honor, strength, and invulnerability, there is no reconciliation. But if there is an interest for the Muslims in peace, such as securing a benefit or averting harm, there is no harm if the Muslims initiate it when they are in need, or accept it when invited to it. The Prophet ﷺ made peace with the people of Khaybar, concluded a treaty with the Damri, and made a truce with Quraysh for ten years until they broke the covenant. The Caliphs and the Companions continued on this path that we have established and acted upon the principles we have explained.' ¶

The author of 'al-Kashshaf,' in the context of interpreting the verse 'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it,' states: 'The correct view is that the matter is left to the discretion of the Imam (leader) regarding what he sees as the interest of Islam and its people, whether it be war or peace. It is not mandatory that they always be fought [i.e., the non-aggressive disbelievers] or that their call for peace always be answered.' ¶

towards an eternal truce. . . (1) I say: Based on this, and by synthesizing all the evidences, the opinion that it is legitimate to fight the disbelievers—even if they are not aggressors and seek peace—is more preponderant, and this is for the sake of subjecting them to Islamic rule. ¶

6 - The sixth evidence of the proponents of the trend we are discussing is that all the wars of the Prophet (ﷺ) were purely defensive, containing no element of aggression. ¶

The response to this evidence can be summarized in two points: First: It is not permissible to label the Muslims' initiation of combat against non-aggressive disbelievers for the sake of bringing them under Islamic rule as 'aggression,' as long as the legitimacy of that combat is established by the Shariah. Aggression is defined as actions that transgress the limits of the Shariah, and the matter at hand is not of that nature. ¶

Second: The legitimacy of actions in Islam is not restricted to evidence from what the Prophet (ﷺ) did; rather, its sources also include texts from the Quran and the verbal Sunnah. A text appears in the Quran: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day... until they pay the jizya with a willing hand and are subdued" (2). Likewise, a text appears in the verbal Sunnah: "Fight those who disbelieve in Allah..." (3). ¶

Both texts are absolute (mutlaq) and are not restricted by the condition that the disbelievers must be aggressors, such that the legitimacy of fighting them would be confined to a state of defense against aggression. ¶

Establishing upon these absolute, received texts, the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers is proven even if they are not aggressors, in order to subject them to Islamic rule in accordance with the incoming Shariah texts regarding this matter. ¶

This is also the opinion of the majority of the jurists—as previously mentioned—including Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim. ¶

We have specifically mentioned these two Imams because the first group—those who argue that fighting the disbelievers is only legitimate in the case of aggression—cites the writings of these two Imams to support their view that the legitimacy of jihad is restricted to defense only. We shall now present the arguments cited by this group and clarify the meaning of these scholars' statements as we see it, while also demonstrating that these two eminent Imams have other statements that support the position held by the majority of jurists (fuqaha). ¶

Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra writes in his book on Ibn Taymiyyah: 'Ibn Taymiyyah argues that fighting is for the purpose of repelling aggression, citing the Quranic verse: "There is no compulsion in religion." This is a general text; if fighting were solely due to the state of disbelief, it would constitute compulsion to accept Islam. He (Ibn Taymiyyah) says: "We do not force anyone into Islam; if the disbeliever were fought until they converted, that would be the greatest compulsion in religion."... He also says: "The practice of the Prophet (ﷺ) was that whoever among the disbelievers entered into a truce (hadana) with him, he did not fight them. The books of Seerah, Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh, and Maghazi bear witness to this. This is mutawatir (widely transmitted) from his life, and he never initiated combat against anyone."' ¶

This is what was stated and relayed by Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra from Imam Ibn Taymiyyah regarding this issue. In my view, the verse 'There is no compulsion in religion' does not contradict fighting for the sake of subjecting disbelievers to Islamic rule while allowing them to retain their old religion if they wish. What is negated in the verse is compulsion to enter Islam, not compulsion to submit to the Islamic order, which is mentioned in the verse of Jizya: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, while feeling themselves subdued.' ¶

As for the claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not fight those who had a truce with him and that he never initiated combat, if 'those who had a truce' refers to those with whom he had established a treaty (hudna), then it is only natural that he would not fight them, in fulfillment of the treaty obligations. ¶

If the intended meaning of 'those who have made a truce' refers to the disbelievers who ceased fighting the Prophet (PBUH) and did not commit aggression against him, and based on that, the Prophet (PBUH) also left them and did not fight them—even without a formal peace treaty—then if this is what is intended by the statement, it has been established during the discussion of the evidence that fighting non-aggressive disbelievers to subject them to the rule of Islam, or refraining from fighting them, is a matter that rests with the Imam of the Muslims, who decides based on what the public interest (maslaha) requires. ¶

Thus, the Prophet’s (PBUH) abstention from fighting non-aggressive disbelievers does not indicate the illegitimacy of fighting them if the interest requires declaring war against them with the goal of compelling them to follow the rule of Islam, provided that the capacity to do so exists. ¶

As for the fact that he—peace and blessings be upon him—never initiated fighting, this also does not indicate the illegitimacy of initiating combat against disbelievers to bring them under the rule of Islam. As established before, the authority in the Islamic state has the right to initiate combat against the disbelievers, even if they are not the aggressors, if they refuse Islam or to abide by the laws of Islam voluntarily. This is in order to apply the Islamic system upon them. Likewise, he may choose not to fight them, with or without a treaty—he acts according to what Islamic interest dictates in that regard. ¶

Furthermore, the disbelievers around the Messenger (PBUH) had declared war upon him. He had barely finished fighting those aggressors and subduing them to then move on to those behind them—the disbelievers who had committed no aggression. Therefore, his refraining from fighting those who did not fight him was not due to the illegitimacy of fighting them to compel them to the rule of Islam, but rather the reason was that he was not afforded a rest from fighting the aggressive disbelievers to see what his stance would be regarding the non-aggressive ones. However, he (PBUH) clarified the Shariah stance regarding them in the Quran and his verbal Sunnah, in the manner already presented: the legitimacy of fighting them to subject them to Islamic rule... 'until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued' (9:29). Consequently, we do not see in the aforementioned words of Ibn Taymiyyah anything that contradicts the legitimacy of fighting non-aggressive disbelievers to subject them to the rule of Islam, nor that his opinion is to restrict the legitimacy of fighting them to self-defense only, contrary to what is understood from the statement of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra. ¶

Such is the view of Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue. In fact, there is statements from Ibn Taymiyyah that support initiating combat against the disbelievers, as found in the 'Cypriot Epistle' (Al-Risalah al-Qubrusiyyah) which he addressed to the Christian King of Cyprus regarding the Muslim prisoners in Cyprus. He says in the epistle, of which we limit ourselves to the relevant portion: ¶

«It is of the greatest astonishment that the Christians would capture people through treachery, or otherwise, while they have not fought them, and Christ says: Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him... If someone were to say: They fought us first. It is said: This is invalid regarding those whom you have betrayed and those against whom you initiated combat. As for those among them who initiated combat against you, they are excused; for Allah Almighty commanded them to do so, as did His Messenger! Those who act in obedience to Allah and His Messengers, call to His worship and religion, and fight so that the word of Allah may be supreme and that all religion may be for Allah, are not equal to those who fight out of personal desire and obedience to their devils, in opposition to Allah and His Messengers.»(1) ¶

Clearly, from this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, the legitimacy of Muslims initiating combat against disbelievers for the purposes he mentioned is evident. ¶

This concerns Ibn Taymiyyah. ¶

As for his student, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, it is mentioned in the book 'Athar al-Harb' (The Effects of War) by Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, who cites Ibn al-Qayyim's view on Jihad from his book 'Zad al-Ma'ad', stating: «His student—meaning the student of Ibn Taymiyyah—Ibn al-Qayyim said: 'Combat was made obligatory upon the Muslims against those who fight them, not against those who do not fight them. Allah the Almighty says: {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.}'»(2)(3). ¶

Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli comments on this statement of Ibn al-Qayyim, saying: «This is the defensive stance followed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims after him...»(4). ¶

I say: This statement of Ibn al-Qayyim relates specifically to the phase in which the legislation of Jihad was restricted. ¶

is not limited solely to a defensive state. This does not negate the fact that Shariah has established the legitimacy of Jihad against the disbelievers (kuffar) in general, even if they have not committed aggression. Regarding this, Ibn al-Qayyim states in his book 'Zad al-Ma'ad': 'Then, fighting was enjoined upon them against those who fought them, and not against those who did not fight them. Thus, He said: "And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you" (1). Then, fighting against all the polytheists (mushrikin) was enjoined upon them. Fighting the disbelievers was initially forbidden, then permitted, then commanded against those who initiated the fighting, and finally commanded against all polytheists! This is either an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) according to one opinion, or a collective obligation (fard kifayah) according to the well-known opinion' (2). This is what Ibn al-Qayyim said... Thus, we conclude this issue in which we discussed the evidence of those who argue against the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers for the purpose of implementing Islamic law upon them, provided they refrain from aggression against Muslims, which includes not placing obstacles and impediments in the path of the Islamic Da'wah within their lands and among their subjects. Through this discussion, the strength of the arguments of the other group became clear to us; the group that holds that it is legitimate to declare Jihad against the disbelievers even if they are not aggressors and are not hindering the progress of the Islamic Da'wah in their lands, in order to implement Islamic rule over them, annex their lands to the Dar al-Islam, and make their people part of the subjects of the Islamic State, even if they retain their religions. This is in accordance with what the interests of Islam and the Muslims dictate. We have also seen in this issue that the majority of scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, hold that it is legitimate for Muslims to initiate combat against the disbelievers in order to convey the Islamic Da'wah to them so that they may enter it or come under its authority and system. Legitimacy is not restricted solely to defense against aggression. Based on all of this, we choose the opinion of the majority in this matter due to the strength of its evidence. Thus, we conclude the first section of this chapter and proceed to the second. ¶

Answer: It is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of men without extreme necessity (i.e., unless there is no other alternative arrangement). Even if the custom of Hijab (veiling) is not practiced in a certain place, it remains obligatory upon the woman according to Shariah. Placing the phrase "Ma ba'd" (as for what follows) at the beginning of a letter is not contrary to etiquette; rather, it is a Sunnah style in Arabic and is established through the letters of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Only Allah knows best. Dictated by: Muhammad Rafi Usmani, 10 Safar 1404 AH. ¶

Second Topic: To what should non-Muslims in other states be invited? ¶

We will examine this topic through two issues: 1. The First Issue: What is the invitation (da'wah) directed at the disbelievers? 2. The Second Issue: What is the ruling on inviting disbelievers to Islam, or to submit to the rulings of Islam, before engaging in combat? ¶

The First Issue: What is the invitation directed at the disbelievers? The Prophet (ﷺ) clarified the invitation that Muslims are required to present to the disbelievers in the Hadith of Buraidah, as found in Sahih Muslim and other works, which states: "...And when you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, invite them to three qualities (or actions); whichever they respond to, accept it from them and withhold from them. Then invite them to Islam, and if they respond, accept it from them and withhold from them. Then invite them to migrate from their land to the land of the Muhajireen (emigrants), and inform them that if they do so, they shall have the same rights as the Muhajireen and the same obligations as the Muhajireen. But if they refuse to migrate from it, then inform them that they..." ¶

(1) The word "thumma" (then) appears in the copies of Sahih Muslim. Iyad said: The correct approach is to omit "thumma," as Abu Ubaid did in his book, and Abu Dawud in his Sunan, and others, because it serves as an explanation for the three qualities. Al-Maziri stated: "Thumma" was inserted to initiate the discourse. See: Nayl al-Awtar by Al-Shawkani, 7/244. Furthermore, the Hadith of Buraidah is found in Abu Dawud, no. (2612), vol. 3, pp. 51-52, and in Abu Ubaid’s 'Al-Amwal', p. 17. In both sources, the text appears without "thumma," although in the book 'Al-Amwal', it is written as "a'iddahum" (count them) instead of "ad'uhum" (invite them), which is a typographical error. ¶

They shall be like the Bedouins among the Muslims; the ruling of Allah that applies to the believers shall apply to them, and they shall have no share in the spoils of war (ghanimah) or the fay' unless they strive (jihad) alongside the Muslims. If they refuse, then demand the jizyah from them. If they respond affirmatively, accept it from them and refrain from them; but if they refuse, seek help from Allah and fight them...” (1). In the narration of Abu Dawud, it is stated: “...If they refuse, then call them to pay the jizyah...” (2). This, and the matters connected to this hadith regarding the call for those who convert to Islam to migrate (hijrah), and the legitimacy of combat resulting from the refusal to pay the jizyah, will be discussed in the next section. The basis of the inference from this hadith regarding the issue we are addressing is that the disbelievers are to be invited to one of two things: either embracing Islam or paying the jizyah. As for the call to embrace Islam, it is the primary call directed toward other states and their subjects. It is necessary to employ all possible methods and means, including diplomatic approaches and modern tools such as the press, radio, and television, to provide authorities and populations in other states with a general idea about Islam—regarding the creed upon which it is founded and a general knowledge of the various systems that emanate from it, which is known today as general culture. This general culture regarding Islam, directed toward other states, must carry a tone of seriousness, aiming to create conviction in the ideas it carries, removing any surrounding doubts, and exposing the invalidity and corruption of opposing creeds and systems. This should lead to creating what is called 'public awareness' of Islam among non-Muslims, thereby fulfilling the condition mentioned in the Holy Quran regarding the delivery of the call, which is: 'al-balagh al-mubin' (the clear notification). This condition is stated in the words of the Almighty: 'Know that upon Our Messenger is only the clear notification' (3) and His saying: 'Are the messengers charged with anything but the clear notification?' (4). The concern we have mentioned for creating conviction among those to whom the call is directed, using various means, is not something necessitated solely by the conditions of the modern era, nor was it absent from the Prophetic biography (Sirah). ¶

When it comes to presenting the call (Dawah) to the disbelievers... and the assumption that the Dawah was merely a traditional and hasty offer of three choices: either Islam, or Jizya, or war, without any negotiations or discussions regarding the Islamic invitation, whether short or long... no, it was not like that at all. ¶

Indeed, whoever reads the long dialogue that took place between the Prophet ﷺ and the Christian, Adi bin Hatim al-Ta’i—who was the leader of his tribe, the Tayy—a dialogue that occurred before Adi declared his Islam—will realize the extent of the Prophet’s ﷺ keenness to convince his interlocutor of the truth of Islam and to encourage him towards it. He ﷺ was knowledgeable about the inner nuances of Christianity and aware that his interlocutor had deviated from its teachings; this had the greatest impact on Adi bin Hatim in his conversion to Islam. ¶

This is a portion of what was mentioned in the referred dialogue. It is recorded in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham as follows: ¶

'O Adi bin Hatim! Were you not a Rakusi?' He said: I said, 'Yes!' He said: 'Did you not take the Mirba’ (a quarter of the spoils) from your people?' I said, 'Yes!' He said: 'That was not lawful for you in your religion.' He said: I said, 'By Allah, you are right!' And I realized that he was a sent Prophet who knows what is unknown! Then he said: 'Perhaps what prevents you from entering this religion is the poverty you see among them? By Allah, wealth will soon overflow among them until no one can be found to accept it. And perhaps what prevents you from entering it is the abundance of their enemies and the fewness of their own numbers? By Allah, you will soon hear of a woman traveling from Qadisiyyah on her camel until she visits this House (the Kaaba), fearing no one! And perhaps what prevents you from entering it is that you see kingship and power in the hands of others? By Allah, you will soon hear of the white palaces of the land of Babylon being opened to them.' He said: So, I accepted Islam. ¶

Adi used to say: 'Two have passed, and the third remains. By Allah, it will happen! I have seen the white palaces of Babylon opened! And I have seen the woman traveling from Qadisiyyah on her camel fearing no one until she performs Hajj to this House! And by Allah, the third will surely happen, that wealth will overflow until no one is found to accept it.' ¶

This is another part of the dialogue that took place between the Prophet’s (ﷺ) envoy, Amr ibn al-Aas, and the two brothers, the kings of Oman, Jayfar and Abd (sons of al-Julanda). The Prophet (ﷺ) had sent him to invite them to Islam, entrusting him with a letter to that effect. Before delivering the message, a long dialogue took place regarding the Islamic call between Amr and 'Abd', one of the kings of Oman. The author of 'Nasb al-Rayah' recorded this long dialogue, and among what is mentioned is what Amr ibn al-Aas tells us about what transpired between him and Abd, and then between him and his brother, Jayfar. Amr says: 'I informed him (meaning Abd) that the Negus had accepted Islam! He said: I do not think Heraclius is aware of his conversion! I said: Yes, he is! He asked: How do you know? I said: The Negus used to pay tribute (the tax imposed on the province of Abyssinia) to Heraclius, as it was a dependency of the Roman Empire. When he converted, he said: By Allah, if he were to ask me for a single dirham, I would not give it to him. When this reached Heraclius, he was told: Will you let your servant stop paying you tribute and follow a new religion? Heraclius replied: What can I do? A man has desired a religion and chosen it for himself! By Allah, were it not for the fear of losing my kingdom, I would have done exactly what he did! Abd ibn al-Julanda then said to Amr: Look at what you are saying, O Amr! There is no trait in a man more disgraceful than lying. I said: By Allah, I have not lied; indeed, it is forbidden in our religion! He asked: To what does he (the Prophet ﷺ) invite? I said: He invites to Allah alone, with no partner, and commands obedience to Allah, righteousness, and maintaining ties of kinship; and he forbids sin, injustice, aggression, adultery, drinking wine, and the worship of stones, idols, and the cross. He said: How excellent is this! If my brother would follow me, we would ride to him and believe in him, but my brother is more attached to his kingdom than to abandon it! I said: If he accepts Islam, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) will confirm his rule over his people. Then he informed his brother of what I had told him. He summoned me, I entered, and handed him the letter. He opened and read it, then passed it to his brother, who read it as well—though the brother was more soft-hearted than him. He asked me: What has the Quraysh done? I said: Everyone among them has accepted Islam! Either out of desire for it, or compelled by the sword' (meaning those who accepted Islam compelled by the sword preferred to declare their Islam outwardly rather than leave the Arabian Peninsula while insisting on disbelief. For Islam had warned the polytheists who broke their treaties with the Prophet (ﷺ) to travel outside the borders of the Arabian Peninsula within a maximum grace period of four months if they refused to enter Islam. Thus, whoever was found within the Arabian Peninsula after that specified period while insisting on disbelief...) ¶

Refusal to enter Islam results in one exposing himself to being killed in such a situation, by virtue of having challenged the prior warning. ¶

[- Amr said -]: 'People have entered Islam and have realized through their intellects, along with Allah's guidance to them, that they were in misguidance. I do not know of anyone remaining except you, and if you do not embrace Islam, the horses will trample you and eradicate you completely! So submit and be safe.' He said: 'Grant me this day (1) of mine.' (The narrator said): When he was alone with his brother, he said: 'What is our situation, given that the cause of this man has become manifest, and everyone he sent a message to has responded to him!?' The narrator said: When morning came, he sent for me, and he and his brother both responded by accepting Islam, and they cleared the way for me regarding the Sadaqah [- meaning: collecting Zakat from those who accepted Islam, and this is extended to the collection of Jizya from those who remained on their religion and refused to enter Islam -] and they became my supporters against those who opposed me.' This is regarding the call to Islam; it ought to be conducted in a manner that leads those to whom it is addressed to respond to Islam and desire it. This is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) explicitly advised, as stated in some Hadiths: ¶

'When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent an expedition, he would say: "Bring people together, be gentle with them, and do not raid them until you invite them. For there is no household on earth, whether of mud or of fur (3), that should come to me as Muslims, is dearer to me than that you bring me their children and women and kill their men." (4)' ¶

Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would instruct army commanders and callers to the faith to be patient and overlook the aggression that might be directed toward them as long as there is hope in winning people over to Islam, and there is a prevailing interest that benefits the Islamic mission. It is reported in some Hadiths: 'That the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Ali on an expedition and said to him: "Proceed and do not look back," meaning: do not deviate from anything you have been commanded to do. He asked: "O Messenger of Allah! How should I act with them?" He replied: "When you descend upon their territory, do not fight them until they fight you! And if they fight you, do not fight them until they kill one of you! And if they kill one of you, do not fight them until you have shown them..." ¶

Then you say to them: Are you willing to say: 'There is no god but Allah'? If they say: 'Yes!', then say to them: Are you willing to perform Salah (prayer)? If they say: 'Yes!', then say to them: Are you willing to pay from your wealth the Sadaqah, that is, Zakat? If they say: 'Yes!', then do not seek anything else from them. By Allah! For Allah to guide one man through you is better for you than everything the sun rises and sets upon. ¶

This is what has been narrated in the Prophetic Sunnah regarding the manner of presenting the call to Islam to people, whether they are those in authority, or among the notables of the people and the subjects. ¶

Sometimes, transgressions against the noble Prophetic guidance may occur in directing the call to Islam to other states, entities, or nations. In such a case, the one who committed those transgressions is judged to be in error, and he must retract his mistake and nullify the consequences resulting from that error. It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary: 'If a group from the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) heard about Islam but did not know what it was, and the Muslims attacked them and invited them to Islam, but the commander of the Muslims refused to accept their conversion until he fought them and prevailed over them, then he should still present Islam to them [after the victory]. If they accept Islam, he should let them go free and restore their wealth, offspring, and lands to them; because fighting was ordained for the sake of Islam... And since they asked about Islam, they were inclined towards it, so it was the duty of the Imam to describe Islam to them before fighting so that they might embrace it. If he fought them without describing Islam to them, he committed an error in fighting. Therefore, he must retract his error and present Islam to them after gaining victory. If they accept Islam, they become as if they had accepted it before the victory, remaining free as they were. If they refuse to accept Islam, they are granted the status of Dhimma...' ¶

This pertains to the call to Islam. ¶

As for the call to pay Jizya, this refers to several matters; because the word 'Jizya' may be applied to the 'Aqd al-Dhimma (covenant of protection) including all its implications, and it may also be applied to the wealth obligated by that contract. Among the implications of Jizya or Dhimma are the following: ¶

• Annexation of a non-Islamic state into the Islamic state; that is, it becomes a part of the Dar al-Islam. • Implementation of the Islamic system upon it and its subjects. • Designating the non-Muslim inhabitants as Ahl al-Dhimmah who pay the jizya. • The remission of jizya for those among them who embrace Islam, sooner or later. • Restricting the authority of the former ruler—should he refuse to enter Islam—to affairs specific to non-Muslims, such as matters of worship, marriage, divorce, and the like. • Appointing a Muslim governor over the land who is linked to the central authority in the capital of the Islamic state. These effects of the 'Ahd al-Dhimmah (covenant of protection) fall within the meaning of the Almighty’s statement: '...until they pay the jizya willingly while they are humbled' (Surah At-Tawbah: 29). It is stated in Imam al-Shafi'i's Kitab al-Umm: 'Al-Shafi'i said: I heard a number of scholars say: Al-Saghar (humility/subjection) means that the laws of Islam are enforced upon them.' Everything we have mentioned constitutes the Islamic ruling that applies to the lands and their inhabitants who pay the jizya and accept being under the protection of the Muslims. Furthermore, inviting states, entities, and nations to pay the jizya—which implies submission to Islamic governance—is like inviting them to Islam. There is no legitimacy for jihad against them until they have refused the invitation to submit to Islamic governance, after having already refused to enter Islam. This is what the jurists have established in this regard. It is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: '...If Islam has reached them, but they do not know that we accept jizya from them, then we should not fight them until we invite them to pay the jizya. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) commanded the commanders of the armies with this, and it is the final point at which fighting ends. Allah the Almighty says: Until they pay the jizya...' ¶

“...to pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (1). This includes adherence to certain rulings of the Muslims and submission to them in dealings, so it must be presented to them if they are not aware of it (2). It is stated in Al-Durr al-Mukhtar bi Sharh Tanwir al-Absar and its marginalia (Hashiya) by Ibn Abidin: “If we besiege them, we invite them to Islam; if they accept Islam, then it is well, otherwise to the jizya... If they accept that, then they have the same rights as we do, and the same obligations as we have... It is not permissible for us to fight those to whom the call (da'wah) to Islam has not reached, for even though it is well-known in our time in the East and West, there is no doubt that there are people in Allah's earth who have no awareness of it. Furthermore, if the call to Islam has reached them but not the call to jizya... it is not appropriate to fight them until they have been invited to pay the jizya.” It is stated in the marginalia: “His statement 'it is not appropriate, etc.' apparently means 'it is not permissible'...” (3). ¶

It is stated in Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Dardir: “They must be invited to Islam... then if they refuse, they are invited to pay the jizya in general terms, unless they ask for its details...” (4). ¶

It is stated in the book Al-Umm by Al-Shafi'i: “The invitation to Islam, or to the jizya, is only obligatory for those to whom the invitation has not reached” (5). ¶

This is what is said regarding the invitation directed to other states before declaring war upon them. - They are invited to Islam first, and if they refuse, they are invited to the jizya in the sense previously explained. ¶

Muslims followed this path in their conquests. It is stated in Sunan al-Tirmidhi... from Abu al-Bakhtari, from Salman, that he arrived at a fortress or city [i.e., in the lands of Persia] and said to his companions: “Leave me to invite them as I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) invite them.” He then said to them: “I was just a man like you, then Allah guided me to Islam. If you accept Islam, then you have the same rights as we do, and the same obligations as we have. If you refuse, then pay the jizya while you are in a state of submission; if you refuse that, then we will engage you in open conflict on equal terms, for Allah does not like the treacherous.” He then did exactly that. ¶

They stayed with them for three days, and when the fourth day came, he (the Prophet) commanded the people, so they proceeded toward it and conquered it(1). ¶

With this, we conclude the first issue of this chapter, and we open the discussion on the second issue, which is: ¶

Second Issue: What is the ruling on inviting the disbelievers to Islam, or to submit to the rule of Islam, before combat? ¶

The discussion on this issue will proceed as follows: Citing the opinions of the jurists (fuqaha) regarding the ruling of the issue, the evidence for each opinion, and then the determination of the stronger view (tarjih). ¶

The author of Nayl al-Awtar summarizes those opinions by saying: "There are three schools of thought on this issue: First: It is mandatory to present the call (da'wah) to Islam to the disbelievers, without distinguishing between those among them who have received the message and those who have not. This is the view of Malik... The second school of thought: It is not mandatory at all... The third school of thought: It is mandatory for those who have not received the message, and not mandatory if they have received it, although it is recommended (mustahabb). Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is the view of the majority of the scholars..."(2) End quote. And it is stated in Fath al-Bari: "Malik said: Whoever lives near, he is fought without a call because of the fame of Islam, and whoever lives far, the call is more effective in removing doubt"(3). ¶

This being said, we will present the evidence used by each school of thought, and then we will choose what we consider to be the most accurate view in this matter. ¶

1 - The obligation to present the call to disbelievers absolutely, whether they have received the message or not: Imam Malik held this view. It is stated in al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Dardir—and it is in fiqh: ¶

(1) See Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. (1548), vol. 4/119-120. He said: In this chapter, there are reports from Buraydah, al-Nu'man ibn Muqarrin, Ibn Umar, and Ibn Abbas, and the hadith of Salman is a hasan hadith... See also Jami' al-Usul: 594/2-595; Nasb al-Rayah: 378/3-379. (2) Nayl al-Awtar by al-Shawkani: 244/7. See also Bidayat al-Mujtahid (Al-Hidayah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Bidayah: 36/6), Subul al-Salam by al-San'ani: 45/4, and Al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah by Siddiq ibn Hasan al-Qanuji: 486/2. (3) Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6/108. ¶

Imam Malik states: 'They shall be invited to Islam for three days, whether or not the call has reached them previously, provided they do not hasten to fight us; otherwise, they shall be fought.' (1). ¶

The evidence for this position consists of several Hadiths, including: - Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) never fought a people until he had invited them (to Islam).' (2). - Farwa bin Musayk (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked: O Messenger of Allah! Should I fight those of my people who are retreating? He replied: Yes! As I turned to leave, he called me back and said: Do not fight them until you have invited them to Islam.' (3). - Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him when he sent him (to Yemen): 'Do not fight a people until you have invited them.' (4). - In Sahih al-Bukhari, Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Mu'adh bin Jabal when he sent him to Yemen: 'You are coming to a people who are People of the Book, so when you reach them, invite them to testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah...' (the rest of the Hadith). (5). ¶

The reasoning (istidlal) from these Hadiths is the explicit command to invite the disbelievers to Islam before commencing combat, absolutely and without distinguishing between those to whom the message had reached and those to whom it had not. Especially the Prophet's statement, 'Do not fight a people until you have invited them,' and Ibn Abbas's statement, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) never fought a people until he had invited them.' The word 'a people' (qawman) is an indefinite noun (nakirah) in the context of negation, and likewise prohibition, which implies generality (umum). (6). ¶