Chapter 40

2 - Second School of Thought: There is no obligation to invite the disbelievers (kuffar) to Islam at all. That is: regardless of whether the invitation (da'wah) has reached them or not. The evidence for this school is what is reported in the Sahihayn: Ibn 'Awn narrated: I wrote to Nafi' asking him about the call (da'wah) before fighting. He replied: That was only at the beginning of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) raided the Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware, and their livestock were being watered... And this hadith was narrated to me by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, who was in that army. (1) In 'Nasb al-Rayah' by Imam al-Zayla'i, it is stated: 'Al-Hazimi claimed in 'Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh' that the aforementioned hadith of Ibn 'Umar abrogates the hadiths that mention the invitation, and it is explicit in that, as he said therein: That was only at the beginning of Islam...' (2) 3 - Third School of Thought: It is obligatory to invite those to whom the invitation has not reached, and it is recommended (mustahabb) to repeat it for those to whom it has reached... This is the opinion of the majority (jumhur), as previously mentioned. Imam al-Kasani states: 'What is incumbent upon the combatants to begin with... If the invitation has not reached them [- i.e., the disbelievers -], then they must begin with the invitation to Islam, due to the saying of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted: {Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best} (3), and it is not permissible for them to fight before the invitation... because fighting was not ordained for its own sake, but for the invitation to Islam... If the invitation has already reached them, it is permissible for them to commence fighting without renewing the invitation... however, despite this, it is better not to commence fighting until after renewing the invitation in the hope of a response in general. It has been narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would not fight the disbelievers until he invited them to Islam, even if he had invited them more than once. This indicates that beginning with the renewal of the invitation is better.' (4) ¶

Imam al-Shafi'i states in his book *al-Umm*: "Inviting the polytheists to Islam or to pay the jizya is only mandatory for those whom the [Islamic] message has not reached (1). As for those whom the message has reached, it is permissible for the Muslims to fight them before inviting them, although if they do invite them, that is also permissible for them, because if they are permitted to refrain from fighting them for a long period, refraining from fighting them until they are invited is closer [to the preferred course]... I do not know of anyone today whom the message has not reached, except perhaps a nation of polytheists behind our enemies who are currently fighting us. It is possible that the message has not reached them, such as those situated behind the Romans, the Turks, or the Khazars—a nation we do not know. If any Muslim kills one of the polytheists to whom the message has not reached, he must pay the blood money (diya) for him..." (2) meaning: he is obligated to pay the blood money. ¶

It is stated in *al-Muhadhdhab* by al-Shirazi: "If the enemy consists of those to whom the message has not reached, it is not permissible to fight them until they are invited to Islam, because Islam is not binding upon them before knowledge [of it]. The evidence for this is the saying of Allah the Almighty: 'And We never punish until We send a messenger' (3). It is not permissible to fight them over what is not binding upon them. If the message has reached them, it is preferred to present Islam to them, based on what Sahl ibn Sa'd narrated, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to Ali (may Allah honor his face) on the day of Khaybar: 'When you arrive at their territory, invite them to Islam and inform them of their obligations. By Allah, that Allah guides one man through you is better for you than red camels [valuable wealth].' If one fights them without presenting Islam to them, it is permissible, due to what Nafi' narrated: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ launched a surprise attack on the Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware." (4) ¶

It is stated in *al-Mughni* by Ibn Qudamah: "If it is possible that there are people behind the Romans and the Turks with this characteristic [i.e., the message has not reached them], it is not permissible to fight them before the invitation... and I do not know of any today..." ¶

no one left to be invited, for the invitation has reached everyone. The Romans, for instance, have received the invitation and know what is expected of them, and the invitation [as a legal requirement] was primarily in the early days of Islam. If one invites them anyway, there is no harm.'(1) ¶

4- Furthermore, there is a fourth opinion on this issue, expressed by Ibn Juzayy of the Maliki school in his book 'Al-Qawanin al-Shar'iyya': 'As for those to whom the invitation has already reached, they are not to be invited again; rather, one may take advantage of their negligence (ghirra). One group said: It is obligatory to invite them regardless; another group said: It is recommended (mustahabb).'(2) The apparent meaning of this expression, in contrast to the obligation or recommendation of renewing the invitation, is either that renewing it is merely permissible, or that it is recommended not to renew it and instead to seek the advantage of their negligence; thus, it constitutes a fourth opinion on the matter as we have mentioned. ¶

Perhaps the basis for this opinion is the aforementioned fact that the Messenger (PBUH) raided the 'Banu al-Mustaliq' while they were unaware. ¶

In this regard, Professor Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli explains why the majority view limits the invitation to being merely recommended (mustahabb) for those who have already received it, rather than obligatory: 'In our estimation, the majority's reliance on the recommendation of the invitation upon its arrival to people is due to their assumption of a state of despair regarding their acceptance of Islam and their persistence in disbelief. And so that Islam would not take its opponents by surprise (ghirra), they recommended renewing and repeating the invitation in that situation.'(3) ¶

This is what has been said regarding the ruling on inviting to Islam before declaring war on other non-Islamic states and peoples. The view we favor in this matter is the following detail: ¶

1- In defensive war, when the enemy attacks Muslim lands, there is generally no room for calling to Islam here. This applies even to those who have not received the invitation, because engaging in such an invitation in this situation might expose the Muslims to danger... If the matter is such, there is no room for the invitation here. Regarding this, it is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary: 'If a group of people from the belligerents (ahl al-harb) to whom neither Islam nor the invitation had reached were to attack the Muslims in their own home, and the Muslims fought them(4) without invitation to defend themselves, and they killed some, took captives, and seized their wealth, this is permissible... because if a Muslim raises his sword against another Muslim, it becomes lawful for the one against whom it is raised [to defend himself]...' ¶

If someone attacks another with a sword, and the latter kills him in self-defense, then this (defensive combat) is even more applicable here. The meaning of this is: if Muslims were to engage in the call (da'wah) to Islam while the enemy is attacking, it might lead to the captivity and killing of the Muslims, and the loss of their sanctity, property, and lives; thus, the da'wah is not obligatory in such a scenario. This is different from a situation where they are being attacked in their own lands, for it is not appropriate for Muslims to fight them until they have invited them (to Islam); because they (the enemy) are not fighting defensively, but the Muslims are fighting for the sake of Islam, so the call to Islam must be made. ¶

2- Similarly, in situations other than an enemy attack on Muslims—if the need arises for the Islamic state to declare war against a certain entity, and engaging in inviting them (da'wah) before fighting would result in harm to the Muslims, there are two cases: ¶

- The first case: If the entity against whom war is necessary has already received the call to Islam and rejected it, there is no scope to engage in inviting them again, because the proof (hujjah) has already been established upon them by the previous notification. The recommendation (istihbab) of renewing the da'wah is contradicted by the harm that would befall the Muslims as a result of that da'wah. Inflicting harm on Muslims is forbidden: 'There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm.' Thus, the avoidance of the forbidden is prioritized over the performance of the recommended. Several Shariah maxims apply to this case, including: 'If the preventive factor and the necessitating factor conflict, the preventive factor is given precedence.' ¶

- Also the maxim: 'If the permissible and the forbidden gather, the forbidden prevails.' Here, the permissible is the recommendation of renewing the da'wah, and the forbidden is the harm resulting from it. - Also the maxim: 'Warding off corruption is prior to seeking benefit.' The corruption (mafsadah) here is the harm that would befall the Muslims as a result of renewing the da'wah, while the benefit (maslahah) is the mere possibility of the disbelievers benefiting from the renewal of their invitation to Islam. ¶

Regarding the ruling on this situation, it is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir': 'If the invitation (da'wah) has reached them, the Muslims may, if they wish, invite them again as a final excuse and warning. If they wish, they may fight them without invitation because they are already aware of what is demanded of them. Sometimes, offering the invitation may result in harm to the Muslims; in such a case, there is no harm in fighting them without an invitation (1).' ¶

In 'Al-Durr al-Mukhtar 'ala Tanwir al-Absar', it is stated: 'We invite, by way of recommendation (nadb), those to whom the invitation has already reached, unless this involves harm, even if by strong presumption, such as if they prepare and fortify themselves (2), then it should not be done (3).' In such a case, the aforementioned hadiths—which suggest omitting the invitation to Islam before combat and surprising the enemy while they are unaware—are applied. Among them is what was narrated from Sa'b ibn Jaththama: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) being asked about the households of the polytheists being raided at night, and their women and children being affected. He replied: "They are from them [i.e., they share their ruling],"' (Agreed upon (4)). And Salama ibn al-Akwa' said: 'The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed Abu Bakr as our leader, and we raided some people from the polytheists at night.' (Narrated by Abu Dawud (5)). ¶

This applies to the case where the invitation had already been conveyed to the party against whom the need to declare war has arisen. ¶

As for when the invitation has not reached the party against whom war is to be declared, and engaging in the obligatory invitation would result in harm befalling the Muslims: in this situation, we are faced with an obligation—which is to convey the invitation to those who have not received it before—and a harm that would befall the Muslims if one were to occupy oneself with performing this obligation without immediately launching a surprise attack on the enemy. ¶

Regarding this contradictory situation, the hierarchy of priorities (Sullam al-Awlawiyyat) in Islamic Shariah dictates that the removal of harm takes precedence over the fulfillment of an obligation, based on several legal maxims, including the aforementioned one: 'If a preventative factor (mani') and a requirement (muqtada) conflict, the preventative factor is given precedence.' ¶

Imam al-Qarafi, regarding the conflict between an obligation and the removal of harm, states: 'It is established in the Shariah that harm is to be removed by abandoning an obligation if that becomes the only way to avert the harm.' ¶

Furthermore, this position is supported by the fact that it falls under cases of necessity where a person is compelled to resort to paths otherwise deemed inappropriate. Thus, the legal maxim applies: 'Necessities permit the forbidden.' Imam al-Shafi'i states in his book 'al-Umm' regarding this meaning: 'In cases of necessity, things are permitted that are not permitted otherwise.' ¶

3. As for a specific group of disbelievers or non-Islamic states that have not been reached by the Da'wah, and where no harm would result to the Muslims from engaging in their invitation or delaying combat with them, our preferred position here is that of the majority, which mandates that such a group or state must be invited to Islam or to submit to the rule of the Muslims, and that combat is prohibited before this invitation. It is here that the aforementioned Hadith, which command Da'wah and forbid combat before it, apply. The views of the jurists on this have already been mentioned. Among them is what is stated in 'al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary: 'If Muslims encounter the polytheists, and they are a people to whom Islam has not reached, it is not appropriate to fight them until they have been invited, due to the Almighty's saying: 'And We never punish until We have sent a messenger.' Also, because they might think we are fighting them out of greed for their wealth or to capture their offspring. If they knew that we were fighting them for [the sake of] that, they might have responded to it without the need for combat. Presenting Islam to them is an invitation to the path of God with wisdom and fair preaching, so one must begin with that. If Islam has reached them, but they do not know that we would accept the Jizyah from them, then one should not fight them until they have been invited to pay the Jizyah.' ¶

4. If the Islamic call (Da'wah) has already reached a group of disbelievers or non-Islamic states, and there is no harm to the Muslims in renewing the call to them, then there are two opinions on this matter, as previously presented: - The opinion of the majority (Jumhur): It is recommended (mustahabb) to renew the call. - The opinion presented by Ibn Juzayy al-Maliki: It is not to renew the call, and to take advantage of the people’s heedlessness (ghirrah), which implies either that not renewing the call is permissible (mubah) or that it is recommended. This non-renewal opinion is also found in Bidayat al-Mujtahid, where it states: 'As for whether it is obligatory to repeat the call when war is repeated, they differed; some made it obligatory, some recommended it, and others neither made it obligatory nor recommended it...' (1). We consider that both opinions have their appropriate contexts: - If there is an expectation that the people will embrace Islam, submit to the Islamic state, or realize any benefit from renewing the call to them, then it is recommended to renew it in such a case. This is in accordance with the previously cited Hadith: 'There is no household of mud (settled dwellers) or hair (nomads) on earth but that you bring them to me as Muslims is dearer to me than that you bring their children and women to me and kill their men' (4). The expression 'dearer to me' (ahabbu ilayya) denotes a ruling of recommendation (istihbab), as is apparent. The Ahadith regarding the renewal of the call are to be understood in light of this. It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj: 'If guidance is possible by establishing the proof (dalil) without jihad, it is better (awla) than jihad' (5). ¶

As for the case where it is not expected that renewing the invitation (da'wah) will lead to the people embracing Islam, nor to their submission to the Islamic state, nor to the realization of any legitimate interest, then renewing the invitation in this hypothetical situation serves no purpose according to this estimation. It is even possible that engaging in the renewal of the invitation may alert the people, prompting them to take precautions, which would prolong the war waged by the Muslims to implement Islam upon them and pave the way for the Islamic da'wah. ¶

Furthermore, among the recommended matters in warfare is the swiftness of resolution to minimize various losses. For this reason, in this hypothetical scenario, it is recommended not to renew the invitation. It is upon this situation that the previous hadiths, which speak of seeking the heedlessness of the disbelievers and attacking them by night—as in the raid on Banu al-Mustaliq—are interpreted. ¶

Regarding the consequence of renewing the invitation, Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani states: 'From Abu Uthman al-Nahdi, who said: "We used to invite and we used to refrain." Meaning: We would sometimes invite and sometimes not, and we would raid them. This indicates that all of this is good; they should be invited time after time if there is hope for their faith. But if there is no such hope, then there is no harm in raiding them without an invitation,' meaning: without repeating the invitation to them, because the discussion here concerns those to whom the message has already reached. ¶

Based on this, the opinion of the majority (jumhur) is what we prefer in this matter, according to the aforementioned detail. It achieves reconciliation between the texts that appear to be contradictory. It is a settled principle in 'Usul al-Fiqh' that applying all texts by reconciling them is better than applying some and neglecting others. The opinion of the majority is what Imam al-Nawawi deemed correct. He stated: 'In this matter, there are three schools of thought... The first: Warning is absolutely mandatory... This is weak. The second: It is not mandatory at all, and this is weaker or void. The third: It is mandatory if the invitation has not reached them, and not mandatory if it has.' ¶

that the message has reached them, yet it is recommended (mustahabb), and this is the correct view (1). Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli holds the view that it is obligatory to renew the invitation (da'wah) before declaring war on those to whom the invitation had already reached. He states the following on this matter: 'The opinion that must be followed is to present the invitation to Islam before any battle, so that the Muslims are excused in their actions, and so that doubt is removed by certainty regarding the enemy's insistence on their position. This was the case in the various ghazawat (expeditions) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the practice of his Caliphs after him. Muslims never fought their enemy—despite the widespread renown of Islam in the East and the West, as the jurists put it—except after delivering their invitation, either through the tongue of a messenger or by a letter directed to the commanders of the enemy armies' (2). This statement by Professor Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli raises an issue that is worth addressing briefly: Does the widespread nature of Islam in the East and West constitute a proof (hujjah) against the peoples and states falling within the scope of that spread, such that they are considered among those to whom the da'wah has reached, and thus the rulings (ahkam) are applied to them accordingly, as might be understood from some books of fiqh (3)? Or is an official invitation from the Islamic authority to the peoples or their representatives necessary for it to be verified that the da'wah has reached them? My view is that an official invitation from the Islamic authority to the peoples or their representatives is necessary for it to be verified that the da'wah has reached them regarding international Islamic rulings. Consequently, the rulings applicable to those to whom the da'wah has reached are applied to them, as previously explained. This is due to the following considerations: 1- The aforementioned hadith of 'Buraydah al-Aslami' (4) indicates that the Messenger (peace be upon him) used to instruct the commander of every sariyyah (detachment) to invite the party to whom he was dispatched to Islam or the jizya; otherwise, war. And it is known that... ¶

The legislation of Jizyah occurred only after the revelation of Surah Bara'ah in the ninth year of Hijrah. At that time, the spread of Islam had already become widespread throughout the Arabian Peninsula, which indicates that such prominence is not sufficient to be considered a conveying (tabligh) of the Da'wah. Rather, a formal, official proclamation is necessary so that the proof (hujjah) may be established upon the people regarding worldly rulings following such a proclamation. As for the rulings of the Hereafter, whoever comes to know the truth, even without formal proclamation, the proof is established against them, because they fall under the warning mentioned in the Holy Quran: {And this Quran has been inspired to me that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches}. Al-Qurtubi says: 'Meaning, whoever the Quran has reached,' and the intent is whoever has been reached by the Islamic call. ¶

2 - Mere prominence does not indicate that the condition of the arrival of the Da'wah has been fulfilled. Its condition is the 'clear proclamation' (al-balagh al-mubin), as previously stated. This is evidenced by the fact that in many parts of the world today, people hear about Islam, but they receive a distorted idea about it and its followers, which repels people from Islam rather than attracting them. Thus, it cannot be said in such a situation that Islam has reached those peoples in the form of 'clear proclamation.' ¶

What fulfills the condition of 'clear proclamation' in the Da'wah is the official address from the Islamic authority, which is obligated to convey the Da'wah in a manner that fulfills the aforementioned condition. Even if there are questions and inquiries from those to whom the Da'wah is directed, the official authority should provide authoritative answers to those questions and inquiries. ¶

Imam Al-Mawardi states in Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya: 'The second category: those whom the call of Islam has not reached... it is forbidden for us to initiate combat against them... before presenting the call of Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophethood, and establishing the proof in a way that leads them to respond... Allah the Almighty says: {Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best}... meaning: the truth should be explained to them, and the argument made clear to them. If he initiates combat against them before calling them to Islam and warning them with the proof... he is liable for the blood money (diyat) for their lives, and it is...' ¶

According to the most accurate position in the Shafi'i school, their blood money (diyah) is like that of Muslims... while Abu Hanifa stated: There is no blood money for killing them, and their lives are wasted (hadar). ¶

Furthermore, how can the Islamic State verify that non-Islamic states have been presented with the miracles of Prophethood and that the proof (hujjah) has been established upon them in a way that leads them to respond—as Al-Mawardi posits—unless the Islamic State itself undertakes this task in an official and direct manner through envoys sent by it to explain these matters and to hold discussions and debates regarding them? ¶

3- Today, the idea is being promoted that legitimate war in Islam is only defensive war, to the point that this idea has become dominant in many circles. Therefore, it is necessary for the Islamic State to inform other states of the position it has adopted, which is: that Jihad in Islam is also legitimate for subjecting other states to the rule of Islam if they refuse to enter into it, even if no aggression has been issued from them. This is so that the Islamic State is not accused of aggression if it surprises some other states with war for this purpose, without there being prior aggression on their part against Muslims, in the event that their invitation to Islam or to pay the jizya—meaning entering into the obedience of the Islamic State—has not been renewed. Hence, official notification to those states was necessary, informing them that they are facing three options: Islam, the dhimma contract (joining the Islamic State), or war. However, we do not see this notification as mandatory for every battle; it is sufficient for the Islamic State to inform other states of its adopted position in this regard, and it shall be considered a standing warning... The Islamic State may then exercise its right to declare war based on that warning at any time, even after a long period has passed. ¶

Reliance on the widespread knowledge of Islam in the East and West does not achieve the aforementioned purpose. Therefore, an official notification of the call (da'wah) must be delivered by the Islamic authority to the other states it wishes to place before the three options. ¶

If instances are found in the Prophetic Biography or in Muslim history that deviate from this call in one of the wars, then it is either in a defensive war, or in a war that... ¶

In the event that Muslims face harm if they engage in da'wah (invitation to Islam) prior to the declaration of war, or if the da'wah has already been formally conveyed to those against whom war is to be declared at an earlier time, and they have refused to embrace Islam or submit to the rule of the Muslims—then in all these circumstances, the da'wah or its renewal may be omitted, as we have previously detailed. With this, we conclude the second section and proceed to the third section of this chapter. ¶

Third Topic: 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. ¶

There are several distinct positions that other states and peoples, to whom the Islamic State extends an invitation to embrace Islam, join the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), or accept the Islamic order, may adopt. ¶

Based on these differing positions, the resulting consequences regarding the legitimacy of Jihad also vary: - The legitimacy of Jihad may cease in light of one position. - Jihad may become legitimate in light of another position. This will be elaborated upon in the following discussion. ¶

There are four primary positions that other states and peoples may adopt in response to the invitation to enter Islam or to submit to the authority of the Islamic State. We shall address each position as a separate issue. Accordingly, the research we are conducting is divided into the following four issues: ¶

1. First Issue: Accepting the embrace of Islam. 2. Second Issue: Accepting to enter into the dhimma (protection/covenant) of the Muslims. 3. Third Issue: Establishing a peace treaty between the disbelievers and the Muslims. 4. Fourth Issue: Rejecting Islam, refusing to submit to Islamic rule, and the legitimacy of declaring Jihad. ¶

First Issue: Acceptance of Conversion to Islam. We address this issue in three points: First Point: The ruling authority's public conversion to Islam, and their ability to retain their power and protect their country from external aggression. Second Point: The conversion of the ruling authority (or some of them) to Islam, and their inability to maintain power on the basis of Islam. Third Point: The conversion of the authority or the people of certain regions to Islam, and their inability to protect their land from a neighboring enemy or from the state from which they seceded. ¶

First Point: The ruling authority's public conversion to Islam, and their ability to retain their power and protect their land from external aggression. Sometimes, the authorities in other lands respond to the call sent to them by the Islamic State, while possessing the ability to declare Islam, retain their power, control the country internally, and defend it from external enemies. In such a case, the noble Prophetic guidance was to keep the ruler who announced his Islam as an emir over his region that falls under his domain, as long as he is qualified for that emirate. This is not by way of independence, but by way of subordination to the central authority in the capital of the Islamic State, and severing ties with any other states if they existed, while replacing the governing system of the country with the Islamic system, naturally. Then, whoever among the people of the land accepts Islam has the same rights and obligations as the Muslims. Whoever remains in their religion is among the People of the Dhimma (protected subjects) and a citizen of the Dar al-Islam, committed to submitting to the new system, including the obligation of the Jizya (poll tax) prescribed for the People of the Dhimma, unless they choose to leave the country and renounce their allegiance to the Islamic State—what is known as citizenship in modern terminology. One of the lands where this situation was manifested was the land of Bahrain, during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. It is stated in 'Nasb al-Rayah': The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Al-Ala' ibn al-Hadrami to 'Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa al-Abdi' in Bahrain... upon his return from Tabuk, and he wrote him a letter saying: In the name of Allah... ¶

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa: Peace be upon those who follow the guidance. To proceed: I invite you to Islam. If you embrace Islam, you will be safe; embrace Islam, and Allah will establish you in authority over what is under your hands. And know that my religion will reach the farthest limits of the camel and the horse.' The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sealed the letter, and Al-'Ala' ibn al-Hadrami set out to Al-Mundhir, accompanied by a group that included Abu Hurairah. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said to him: 'Treat them well,' and told him: 'If he responds to what you invite him to, then stay until my command reaches you. And collect the Zakah (alms) from their wealthy and distribute it among their poor...' (1). ¶

- It is stated in 'Ar-Rawd al-Unuf fi Tafsir as-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah' by Ibn Hisham: 'Al-'Ala' ibn al-Hadrami arrived to Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa and said to him: O Mundhir! You possess great intellect in worldly matters, so do not belittle yourself regarding the Hereafter! This Zoroastrianism is the worst of religions; it lacks the nobility of the Arabs and the knowledge of the People of the Book. They marry whom it is shameful to marry (2), they eat what is considered abominable to eat (3), and they worship in this world a fire that will consume them on the Day of Resurrection. You are not lacking in intellect or judgment! Consider: is it proper for one who does not lie not to be believed, for one who does not betray not to be trusted, and for one who does not break promises not to be relied upon? If this is the case, then he is indeed the Unlettered Prophet. By Allah, no rational person can say: "I wish he had forbidden what he commanded, or commanded what he forbade," or "I wish he had been more forgiving or less punishing." Everything he brings aligns with the desires of the wise and the reflections of those with insight.' ¶

Al-Mundhir replied: 'I have looked into this matter that I hold, and I found it to be for the worldly life, not the Hereafter. I looked into your religion and found it to be for both the Hereafter and the worldly life. What, then, prevents me from accepting a religion that contains the success of life and the comfort of death? I used to wonder at those who accepted it yesterday, and today I wonder at those who reject it. Truly, one of the greatest honors due to the One who brought it is to honor His Messenger. I will consider it!' (5). After the ruler of Bahrain applied thought and reflection to Islam, his mind was opened, his heart was expanded, and he announced his conversion to Islam. ¶

It is stated in Nasb al-Rayah: "He said: 'I bear witness that what you have invited to is the truth, and that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the servant of Allah and His Messenger...' Then al-Mundhir wrote to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): 'To proceed, O Messenger of Allah! I have read your letter to the people of Bahrain. Some of them loved Islam, were pleased with it, and entered into it, while others disliked it. There are Majus (Zoroastrians) and Jews in my land, so command me in this matter.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wrote back to him: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to al-Mundhir ibn Sawa. Peace be upon you. I praise Allah before you, besides Whom there is no god, and I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. To proceed, I remind you of Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, for whoever acts with sincerity, does so for his own soul. Whoever obeys my messengers and follows their command has obeyed me, and whoever acts with sincerity toward them has acted with sincerity toward me. My messengers have praised you well, and I have accepted your intercession for your people, so leave for the Muslims what they held when they embraced Islam, and I have pardoned the sinners, so accept it from them. As long as you remain righteous, we will not remove you from your post. Whoever remains in Judaism or Zoroastrianism must pay the Jizya.'" ¶

This is what applies when the authorities in other lands respond by embracing Islam, while having the ability to maintain their authority, declare their Islam, and protect their lands from external enemies. ¶

2. The second point: The authorities, or some of them, embrace Islam but are unable to maintain their power based on Islam. ¶

In the Prophetic Biography (Seerah), there are two cases of this phenomenon: - The case of Farwah ibn Amr al-Judhami: The governor on behalf of the Romans over Ma'an and its surrounding regions in the Levant. - The case of al-Najashi (the Negus), King of Abyssinia. ¶

As for Farwah ibn Amr al-Judhami, his story in the books of Seerah states: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a delegation..." ¶

Farwa informed the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) of his conversion to Islam. Farwa was a governor for the Byzantines over the Arabs under their jurisdiction. When the Byzantines learned of his conversion, they seized him, imprisoned him, then beheaded him and crucified him. This occurred after the king said to him: 'Renounce the religion of Muhammad, and we will restore your kingdom to you!' He replied: 'I will not forsake the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ). You know that Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him, gave glad tidings of him, but you are stingy regarding your kingdom!' (1) ¶

As for the Negus (Najashi), it is narrated in his story that when the Abyssinians learned of his Islam, they rose up against him, saying: 'You have abandoned our religion.' When he prepared to go out to meet them, he wrote a document bearing witness to his Islam, stating that 'Isa bin Maryam is the servant of Allah, His Messenger, and His spirit. He placed this document under his clothes at his right shoulder. He then went out to them and asked: 'What is the matter with you?' They replied: 'You have abandoned our religion and claimed that Isa is a servant.' He asked: 'And what do you say about Isa?' They said: 'We say he is the Son of God.' The Negus placed his hand on his chest over the document and affirmed to them that he bore witness that Isa bin Maryam was nothing more than that. The Negus intended what he had written by placing his hand upon it, while they understood that he believed what they said and had renounced his Islam. They were satisfied with what he said and left (2). ¶

It appears this incident took place in the early days of Islam when the Muslims migrated to Abyssinia to escape the persecution of the Quraish. A dialogue took place between the Negus and Ja'far bin Abi Talib regarding Islam and Isa bin Maryam, when the Quraish sent Amr bin al-As to the Negus to demand the surrender of the Muslims who had sought refuge with him, so that he might return them to Makkah. As a result of that dialogue, the Negus expressed convictions indicating his acceptance and conversion to Islam. News of his conversion leaked to his opponents, who exploited this report to incite the country against him. However, the Negus thwarted their efforts through the use of 'tawriya' (equivocation), and the reality of his conversion remained hidden from the general public. ¶

When the Prophet (ﷺ) wrote letters to the kings inviting them to Islam, he also wrote to the Negus and sent the letter with Amr bin Umayya al-Damri. The Negus said to Amr bin Umayya: 'I swear by Allah that he is the Prophet for whom the People of the Book are waiting, and the glad tidings of Musa, peace be upon him, regarding the rider...' ¶

The khimar (veil/metaphor for Najashi) was like the glad tidings of 'Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him, regarding the rider of the camel; for witnessing is not more satisfying than hearing... But my supporters in Abyssinia are few, so grant me respite until my supporters increase and hearts soften. The Prophet (PBUH) mourned him on the day he died and prayed over him in Madinah—meaning: the funeral prayer in absentia. It is mentioned in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Anas that the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) wrote to Chosroes, Caesar, the Negus (Najashi), and every tyrant, calling them to Allah, and this was not the Negus for whom the Prophet (PBUH) performed the funeral prayer. The author of 'Al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah' reconciles the statement of Anas bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Negus to whom the Prophet (PBUH) wrote calling him to Islam was not the first Negus who honored the emigrants from Abyssinia, embraced Islam, and for whom the Prophet (PBUH) performed the funeral prayer in absentia. It is stated in Al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah: 'It is possible that the Prophet (PBUH) wrote to the Negus for whom he prayed, and to the Negus who succeeded him, via 'Amr bin Umayyah.' Ibn Hazm mentioned that this second Negus did not embrace Islam. I say: The case of the 'Governor of Ma'an' and its surroundings, Farwa bin 'Amr al-Judhami, who announced his Islam, and the case of the 'King of Abyssinia' demonstrate that the authority holder here responded to Islam, but was unable to maintain power on the basis of Islam. The governor of 'Ma'an' derived his authority from the Romans and did not rely on an inherent internal force to confront the supreme powers that held a tight grip on the lands and their governors... He preferred to declare his Islam, persevere in it, and attain martyrdom, as previously mentioned—may Allah have mercy on him. As for the King of Abyssinia, it appears that he saw that while his authority's support was indigenous from the people of the land... ¶

His (the Negus's) authority was not derived from the Roman Emperor, despite the nominal subservience to Rome by virtue of the unity of the Christian faith. However, this natural, personal mandate granted loyalty to the Negus as long as he did not reveal to the people of the country that he had abandoned their religion and embraced Islam... The Negus assessed that if his Muslim supporters in Abyssinia increased, and he allowed Islam to spread among the people and the leaders, then a natural mandate based on Islam would be prepared for him. He could then announce his Islam and join the Islamic State. In my estimation, the position of the Muslim Negus in Abyssinia was akin to a group of leaders or military officers in a contemporary state who wish to overthrow the existing regime and establish it upon an ideology they believe in, rather than the one upon which the current system is based. However, they fear that if they hasten to announce their ideology and execute their plans, they will be ousted, and their efforts will be thwarted without receiving the necessary support from the rest of the forces or the people to withstand adversaries and opponents. Therefore, they see it as wisdom to let the country continue on its current course while tightening their grip on the power centers they control, striving to acquire more, and working to promote the ideology upon which they wish to rebuild the state without revealing their identity or the truth of their ideas... until they see that the country has responded to the new idea, that a natural support base for that ideology has formed, and that this support is capable of defending the authority that seeks to overthrow the existing regime and implement the new one—against all internal opponents and external interference. Only then do those leaders reveal their identity, overthrow the existing regime, and rebuild the state upon the ideology they believe in. I say: In my estimation, the Muslim Negus in Abyssinia intended to follow such a plan as we have described in order to shift the country toward the new situation. This is evidenced by the Negus's statement to the Prophet’s (PBUH) envoy, 'Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri: 'But my supporters among the Abyssinians are few, so grant me respite until I increase the number of supporters and soften their hearts.' We believe that a person like the Negus, with his wisdom and capability, could manage to maintain his grip on the reins of power in the country so that it would not slip from his hands until he had arranged the conditions for the transition. ¶

between the sought-after change and not becoming entangled in governing by what he does not believe in, so as not to fall under the scope of the Almighty's saying: 'And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers' (Al-Ma'idah: 44) and similar verses. ¶

Perhaps the strategy of the Negus (Al-Najashi) that he intended to implement was the secret behind the Prophet's (PBUH) saying: 'Leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone,' which means not to rush into presenting Abyssinia with the three options (Islam, Jizyah, or war), but rather to grant the Negus the opportunity to proceed with the change as he saw fit to achieve the desired transformation without combat. ¶

The author of 'Sirah al-Halabiyyah,' when mentioning that the Negus sent word of his Islam to the Prophet (PBUH), explicitly stated: 'At that point, the Prophet (PBUH) said: Leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone,' which supports the understanding we have indicated. ¶

I say: However, death overtook the righteous Negus before he could achieve what he desired, and the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions performed the absentee funeral prayer (Salat al-Gha'ib) for him. It is reported in Sahih al-Bukhari from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (PBUH) said upon the death of the Negus: 'A righteous man has died today; rise and pray over your brother Ashama.' ¶

Based on this, when the Islamic State sends invitations to Islam to other states and their leaders respond, these leaders may declare their Islam, come what may. If they are obeyed, they have an example in the ruler of Ma'an, Farwa bin Amr al-Judhami, may Allah have mercy on him. ¶

It is also possible for them to correspond with the Islamic State regarding their Islam and request a deferment until they can organize the affairs of their country and the power structures within it for the sake of the sought-after change, while keeping their Islam hidden from the public. ¶