Chapter 42

The Third Issue: What is the fundamental basis for the relationship between the Islamic state and other states—is it a relationship of peace or a relationship of war? Dr. Abd al-Karim Zaydan says: 'The default state in the relationship between the Islamic states and others is war, not peace. The Islamic state has the right to bring a non-Islamic state under its political authority and Islamic law, even through combat, if it refuses to submit voluntarily...' He further says: 'Peace between Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) can only be established through a treaty, or by the conversion of Dar al-Harb to Islam, or its surrender... This is why all jurists referred to non-Islamic states as Dar al-Harb and considered the default relationship to be one of war, and that peace only exists through 'aman' (a pledge or protection), or 'iman' (faith, i.e., Islam)... Among the rulings they derived from this principle is their statement: The People of the Book and the Magians (i.e., non-Islamic states) shall be fought until they accept Islam or pay the Jizya...' (1). Then Dr. Zaydan says: '... Some contemporary jurists and writers have held the view that the default in the relationship between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb is peace, not war. This relationship is not changed except by legitimate causes for combat. According to them, the Islamic state initiating combat against Dar al-Harb for the purpose of bringing them under its political authority, its governance, and the implementation of Shariah therein—in the manner we have previously mentioned—is not among these legitimate causes...' (2). The author indicated in the footnote of his book who he meant by 'some contemporary jurists and writers,' mentioning Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida, the author's teacher Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, and the author's colleague Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhayli. However, the author did not convey to us any of what these Islamic writers said that would represent the opinion they adopted. I will transfer here, from their own writings, what they have stated in this regard. Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida says in his book 'Al-Wahy al-Muhammadi': ¶

"War is a necessity... and peace is the fundamental principle upon which people must exist." (1) ¶

- Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra says in his book "International Relations in Islam," in various places: "The fundamental principle in relations is peace... And since Islam establishes peace as one of the foundations of human relations between states, it does not allow believers to intervene in the affairs of states except to protect public freedoms, when the oppressed seek their help, or when their adherents are attacked... He then says: There is no doubt that war in Islam is not the foundation of relations, because the principles we have established in the rules of relations do not permit Muslims to initiate war without a motive arising from these same rules that compels it: either aggression against justice... or human dignity... He then says: The fundamental principle in relations between Muslims and others is peace, and this is the opinion of the vast majority of jurists (fuqaha)...!" (2) ¶

- Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli says in his book "The Effects of War": "The jurists of the Sunni and Shia schools in the era of jurisprudential ijtihad in the second century AH viewed that the fundamental principle in the relationship of Muslims with others is war... based on what they understood from the verses of the Quran in their literal and absolute sense, without attempting to reconcile or synthesize them... He then says: Perhaps their excuse for this ruling was their influence by the circumstances of the Muslims at that time, which necessitated steadfastness before enemies surrounding them from every side. So, when a Muslim heard that he was in a state of war with the enemy, he was always on high alert, without being overcome by lethargy or surrender..." (3) ¶

Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli provides evidence for his conclusion... through Sharia texts which make the cause of Muslims' combat against the disbelievers the combat of the disbelievers against the Muslims, such as His saying (the Almighty): "And fight the polytheists collectively as..." ¶

(1) Al-Wahy al-Muhammadi: Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida: p. 240. (2) International Relations in Islam: Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra: pp. 47-52. See also: [Islam as a Refuge for Societies] p. 230, Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti. (3) The Effects of War: Professor Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli: pp. 113-114. ¶

"They fight you all together" (9:36) means: if the disbelievers do not fight the Muslims, then there is no justification for the Muslims to initiate combat against the disbelievers. Evidence is also drawn from the texts that forbid fighting those disbelievers who have refrained from fighting the Muslims and have committed themselves to peace, such as the Almighty's saying: "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" (4:90). The verse is clear that it is forbidden for Muslims to initiate combat against peaceful disbelievers who have refrained from fighting. Evidence is also cited from the Shar'i text that commands Muslims to incline toward peace if the disbelievers incline toward it, in the words of the Almighty: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it..." (8:61). Based on all this, Dr. Al-Zuhayli states the following summary: "In conclusion: the fundamental basis for the Muslims' relations with others is peace, and war is an incidental state intended to repel evil and clear the path of Da'wah (the call to Islam) of those standing before it. The call to Islam is to be conducted through argument and proof, not by the sword and spear. When our jurists decided that the fundamental basis for relations was war, they had no legislative evidence for it, other than it being a portrayal of their reality, where Islam, like every new movement, was opposed by people..." This is the summary of the views of those whom Dr. Zaydan pointed to as modern jurists and writers who took a position contrary to that established by the ancient jurists, who held that the fundamental basis for the relationship between Muslims and others is war, not peace, unless there is a pledge of security (aman) or faith (iman), as mentioned by Dr. Zaydan. Conversely, the aforementioned modern jurists and writers decided otherwise, establishing that the fundamental basis for this relationship is peace... and that war is an incidental necessity. ¶

It is truly astonishing that Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra attributes to the vast majority of jurists the view that the default rule in relations between Muslims and others is peace, whereas Dr. Zaidan asserts that all jurists considered the default rule in relations between Muslims and others to be war, not peace. ¶

However, we find Dr. Al-Zuhayli to be extremely fair on this issue, as he determined that the jurists of the Sunni and Shia schools of thought decided that the relationship between Muslims and disbelievers is war, even though Dr. Al-Zuhayli himself does not subscribe to this view held by those Sunni and Shia jurists. He explained this by stating that the jurists established this principle while influenced by the reality of their time, marked by continuous wars between Muslims and disbelievers. Thus, they codified what was the reality, and their perception of the Shariah texts was influenced by this reality. When they saw some texts prohibiting the fighting of peaceful disbelievers and commanding the fighting of aggressive disbelievers, and then found other texts commanding the fighting of disbelievers in general, without the qualification of them being aggressors, they gave precedence to the latter absolute texts. They argued that the prohibition of fighting non-aggressive disbelievers was abrogated by these later texts. Conversely, Dr. Al-Zuhayli believes that applying the usuli (jurisprudential) rule of interpreting absolute texts by qualified ones mandates that the intended meaning of fighting disbelievers in the absolute texts is only the aggressive disbelievers, not disbelievers in general(1). ¶

Having previously addressed the issue of absolute and qualified texts in a prior study(2), that treatment led us to favor leaving the absolute texts in their absolute form; therefore, we will not repeat the discussion on this matter. We have also previously addressed the reconciliation between the texts calling for peace and those calling for combat, and we cited the jurists' texts which determine that inclining toward peace and abandoning the fighting of disbelievers is permissible only if the interest of peace outweighs the interest of war for the Muslims and the Islamic Dawah(3). ¶

As for what we hold regarding the fundamental issue in the relationship between the Islamic state and other states—is it peace or war?—we believe it is necessary to establish the following truth before answering the question at hand: - There are many issues governed by fundamental principles, from which other principles branch out that contradict the ruling of the initial ones due to the unique nature of the domain they govern. An example is necessary here to clarify this truth. - The jurists (fuqaha) established that the default rule for things is permissibility (ibahah), based on the Almighty's saying: 'It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth.' Then, among those things are some characterized as harmful, even though they fall under the umbrella of things whose default rule is permissibility. In this situation, the jurists established another principle: 'The default rule for harmful things is prohibition,' based on the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): 'There shall be no harm, and no reciprocating harm in Islam.' Thus, we have two principles regarding the ruling on things, where one is an exception to the other due to specific considerations: 'The default rule for things is permissibility.' ¶

Then: The fundamental rule regarding harmful things is prohibition. ¶

Based on this, we can establish several distinct principles, some derived from others, regarding any object or action. Each principle governs a specific domain, distinguished by characteristics that set it apart from other domains all covered under a single umbrella. For example, we say: ¶

- The default ruling regarding looking at things is permissibility, due to the Almighty's saying: 'Say, observe what is in the heavens and the earth.' - Then we say: The default ruling regarding looking at the 'awrah (private parts/intimate areas) is prohibition, due to the Almighty's saying: 'Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision.' - Then we say: The default ruling regarding looking at the 'awrah out of necessity is permissibility, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved looking at the 'awrah of the male captives of Banu Qurayza to determine who among them had reached puberty and who had not. ¶

Thus, we find that a single human action—looking—has a ruling that varies according to those principles, depending on the domain governed by each principle. Based on this, we establish the following principles regarding the issue at hand: ¶

1. The default relationship between the Islamic State and other states before the message of Islam is conveyed to them in a clear, evident manner is peace, not war. This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade fighting the disbelievers before conveying the message to them, as established by the numerous evidences we have cited in a previous discussion. ¶

2. The default relationship between the Islamic State and other states after the message has been conveyed to them and they have refused to submit to the authority of the Muslims is war, not peace, due to the Almighty's saying: ¶

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (1). 3 - The fundamental principle governing the relationship between the Islamic state and other treaty-bound states is peace, based on the Almighty’s saying: “But if they seek your help in the matter of religion, then it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty” (2). 4 - The fundamental principle governing the relationship between the Islamic state and other states that commit aggression—even if they are treaty-bound—is war, based on the Almighty’s saying: “Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress against him in the same way he has transgressed against you” (3). This is also because the Prophet (ﷺ) marched against the Quraysh after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, as they had violated the peace and committed acts of aggression, as is well-known in the books of Sirah (biography) (4). Thus, in this manner, we observe that there are several principles governing the relationship between the Islamic state and other states, not just one. However, the term 'original principle' (al-asl) here may refer to the primary state, not the derivative principles stemming from other specific considerations. If that is the case, we can say: The principle governing the relationship between the Islamic state and states that have not yet received the call (Da'wah) to Islam, or have not entered into the protection (dhimmah) of the Muslims, is peace. In reality, this state is the origin of all conditions in which other states may exist, because the state of non-notification precedes the state of notification. Therefore, if we state that the principle governing the relationship between the Islamic state and other states is peace, not war, this statement would be correct in our view, but with the condition mentioned earlier: that it applies before the delivery of the clear call. Nevertheless, this principle, with this restriction, will not satisfy those Islamic writers who... ¶

They assert that peace is the fundamental principle in the relationship between Muslims and disbelievers in an absolute sense. This is because they intend by this principle that the relationship between Muslims and disbelievers is based on peace, even if the disbelievers have received the call, refused Islam, and refused to enter into the dhimma (protection) of the Muslims, provided they have not committed aggression against the Muslims or imposed a ban on the invitation to Islam. This contradicts the second principle we have established, which is: The fundamental principle in the relationship between the Islamic state and other states, after the invitation has been conveyed and they have refused to enter into the dhimma of the Muslims, is war, unless a peaceful treaty is reached that mandates the prevention of war between the two parties. ¶

In any case, I believe that presenting the issue in this manner—asking what the fundamental principle of the relationship is without specifying the state for which the principle is being established (i.e., whether it is before the invitation is conveyed and rejected, or after)—leads to confusion. ¶

Hence, Dr. Zaidan's view that the fundamental principle in international relations between the Islamic state and other states is war, refers only to the state after the invitation has been conveyed, the three options have been presented, and the response has been a refusal to accept Islam or enter into the dhimma of the Muslims. This is because he adopts what all the jurists have established on this issue, as he claims. The jurists only established this principle within the context of the situation we have mentioned. As for the time before the invitation is conveyed, all of them have prohibited fighting the disbelievers, with the exception of a very few jurists who permitted fighting them even if the invitation had not reached them; Imam al-Nawawi described this latter opinion as invalid (1), as we mentioned in a previous discussion regarding the review of juristic opinions on the ruling of the invitation (da'wah) before combat. ¶

Thus, the prohibition of fighting disbelievers before the invitation is conveyed means that the fundamental principle in the relationship with them is peace, not war, unless they surprise us with combat or an act of aggression that leaves no room for da'wah, in which case the relationship shifts to one of war, as detailed in a previous discussion (2). ¶

(1) The second issue of the second section of this chapter. See: Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim: 7/309-310. (2) The second issue of the second section of this chapter. See: pp. 780, 783. ¶

Regarding the position held by some modern Islamic writers that the fundamental principle in the relationship between the Islamic state and other states is peace, not war, they mean by this the general circumstances, whether before or after the conveying of the message (tabligh) and the rejection thereof, provided there is no aggression against Muslims and no obstruction of the Islamic call from reaching all people in all lands. ¶

In this regard, Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra says: 'The principle in international relations in Islam is peace, until aggression occurs—either through actual aggression against the Islamic state or by seducing Muslims away from their religion. War, in such a case, becomes a necessity mandated by the law of self-defense, the defense of faith, and the defense of religious freedom' (1). ¶

Furthermore, it appears that Dr. Muhammad Ali Hassan, in his thesis 'International Relations in the Quran and Sunnah,' understood from the word 'principle' (asl) (2)—in our statement: 'The principle in the relationship between the Islamic state and other states'—the ultimate goal or objective that Islam intends when it legislates Jihad against the disbelievers. The goal is to break the military power of other states that protect their invalid systems, in order to implement Islamic rule over their subjects so that the oppression they were subjected to may be lifted. With the lifting of oppression, justice is established, and with the establishment of justice, peace and security are realized. This is what Dr. Muhammad Ali Hassan understood, or part of what he understood, from the word 'principle' in the relationship between Muslims and others. Based on this, he asserts that the principle in that relationship is peace, because Islam’s goal in Jihad is the establishment of peace in the world. ¶

Dr. Hassan writes under the heading: 'Is peace the principle in international relations in Islam?': 'Indeed, when Islam decreed that Jihad is for the exaltation of the word of Allah, to deliver humanity from the injustice of man-made systems, and to eliminate oppression—it means: to establish the foundations of justice, that is, to establish the foundations of peace and security. Jihad prevents injustice and tyranny and removes them from mankind. Therein lies honor...' ¶

for peace and safety, and to humiliate falsehood...»(1). Following this, Dr. 'Al-Hasan' cites the words of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, who says: «Some jurists during the Umayyad and Abbasid eras, while wars were raging, held the view that the fundamental principle in relationships is war. They derived their opinion from the reality of the time rather than from the texts, and they were not the majority. Among them were those who did not derive the ruling from reality, but rather from the Quranic texts, the Prophetic traditions, and the battles of the Prophet (PBUH), and they considered peace to be the original state of relations, unless the causes for war arose»(2). Dr. 'Al-Hasan' agrees with what he quoted from Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, stating in his support immediately thereafter: «After this presentation, I can say: Peace is the foundation in international relations between Muslims and others, and those who claim that war is the foundation have merely looked at the reality...!!»(3). ¶

I say: In any case, the reader can, by referring to the previous discussions and what we have pointed out here regarding this issue, verify: Was what the jurists established an inference from the Shariah texts, in light of the fundamentalist principles that reveal the preferred opinion over the weak one, or was it merely a depiction of the reality of the ongoing wars between Muslims and the disbelievers, whose fire never extinguished and whose heat never subsided... and then they twisted the necks of the texts to make them agree with what reality dictates, rather than what the texts themselves dictate through their explicit wording (mantuq) or implied meaning (mafhum)?! ¶

With this, we conclude this issue... and with its conclusion, we reach the end of the third chapter of this dissertation... and we advance toward the fourth chapter. ¶

The first volume is completed, followed by the second volume, which begins with the fourth chapter. ¶

Chapter One: Detailed Rulings on Jihad in Islamic Fiqh Books - Introduction: The status and merit of Jihad. - Section One: Jihad - Its fundamental ruling is that it is a Fard Kifayah (communal obligation). - Section Two: Jihad - When does it become a Fard 'Ayn (individual obligation)? - Section Three: Jihad - Is its origin considered Mandub (recommended)? And can it be Mandub? - Section Four: Jihad - Can it be Mubah (permissible)? - Section Five: Jihad - Can it be Makruh (disliked)? - Section Six: Jihad - Can it be Haram (prohibited)? Chapter Two: The Instrument of Jihad - The Islamic Army - Its organization - Its training - and its human and material foundations. - Section One: The various organizations required by the army. - Section Two: The various training exercises required by the army. ¶

Third Section: Human Foundations. First Requirement: Personnel of the primary army and their role therein. Second Requirement: The reserve army. First Subsection: Public arming and its limitations. Second Subsection: Volunteer men in the army and their role therein. Third Subsection: The ruling on the participation of women in the army and their role therein. Fourth Subsection: The ruling on the participation of children in the army and their role therein. Fifth Subsection: The ruling on the participation of non-Muslim subjects (dhimmi) in the army and their role therein. Sixth Subsection: Foreigners in the Islamic army and their role therein. ¶

Fourth Section: Material Foundations. First Requirement: Methods of acquiring weaponry. Second Requirement: What are the financial resources for the various expenses of the army? ¶

Chapter One: Detailed Rulings of Jihad in Islamic Fiqh Books ¶

- Introduction: The status and merit of Jihad. - First Section: Jihad - Its primary legal status is that it is a Fard Kifayah (collective obligation). - Second Section: Jihad - When does it become a Fard Ayn (individual obligation)? - Third Section: Jihad - Is its fundamental nature that of a Mandub (recommended act)? And can it be Mandub? - Fourth Section: Jihad - Can it be Mubah (permissible)? - Fifth Section: Jihad - Can it be Makruh (disliked)? - Sixth Section: Jihad - Can it be Haram (prohibited)? ¶

Benefit: Some scholars have stated that this noble verse possesses even greater excellence than Ayat al-Kursi, because the comprehensiveness with which it describes the Oneness of Allah (Tawhid) and His attributes is rare in other verses. ¶

Legal Issue: It is mandatory (wajib) to perform the prostration of recitation (sajdah tilawah) at the conclusion of this verse (i.e., at the word "'Alim"). ¶

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever recites 'Shahida Allahu annahu la ilaha illa huwa' up to the words 'innad-dina 'indallahi-l-islam', and then says: 'Wa ana ash-hadu bima shahida Allahu bihi, wa astaudi'u Allaha hadhihi-sh-shahadah, wa hiya li 'indallahi wadi'ah, ji'a bihi yawma-l-qiyamah' (And I testify to what Allah has testified, and I entrust this testimony to Allah, and it shall be a deposit for me with Allah), he will be brought forth (in the presence of Allah) on the Day of Resurrection." (Narrated by al-Tabarani) ¶

Benefit: From this narration, one can gauge the excellence of this verse; the one who recites it and utters these words alongside it will attain special acceptance in the presence of Allah on the Day of Resurrection. ¶

It is narrated from Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) that I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: "Whoever recites the verse 'Shahida Allahu annahu la ilaha illa huwa', and then says: 'Wa ana ash-hadu bima shahida Allahu bihi, wa astaudi'u Allaha hadhihi-sh-shahadah, wa hiya li 'indallahi wadi'ah', Allah will admit him into Paradise." (Narrated by al-Daylami) ¶

Benefit: This narration supports the previous one, and the reward for this practice is stated to be Paradise. ¶

Chapter One: Details of the Rulings of Jihad in Islamic Fiqh Books Introduction: The Status and Merit of Jihad in Islam. - In the Holy Book and the Prophetic Sunnah, there are abundant texts clarifying the lofty status of Jihad and the merit it possesses, distinguishing it from all other deeds and activities that Islam has encouraged and emphasized the necessity of performing. Many scholars have examined these texts and, in their light, concluded that Jihad fi Sabil Allah (Jihad in the way of Allah) stands at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of values that Islam has been keen to establish within the Islamic society, or in the expression of the Prophetic Sunnah: "Jihad is the peak of action"(1). In this introduction, which we have dedicated to elucidating the status and merit of Jihad, we will address the following points: 1. Presenting some Quranic texts that clarify the merit of Jihad and its status in Islam. 2. Presenting some Prophetic texts that also clarify this. 3. Citing some jurisprudential (fiqhi) texts in this regard. 4. Reconciling the Shariah texts that appear contradictory in making Jihad in the way of Allah superior to other deeds at one time, and inferior (less virtuous) at another. First Point: Quranic verses that clarify the merit of Jihad and its status. (1) Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi - by Al-Albani - No. 1355, Vol. 2/131, and he said: "It is a Hasan Sahih Hadith." In the original: (Sunan al-Tirmidhi) No: 1658, Vol. 4/185. ¶

1. The Holy Quran has clarified that family ties, social relations, material interests, and the legitimate pleasures of life are values that Muslims are not criticized for cherishing, provided they are not prioritized over the value of responding to the command of Allah and His Messenger, and answering the call of jihad in His path. This is because the value of obeying Allah and the Messenger and fulfilling the command of jihad in the Shariah of Allah is above all other values. Any tampering with this hierarchy of values established by Allah for things and actions is considered 'fisq' (transgression) and a deviation from the methodology prescribed by Allah for the lives of Muslims, which exposes them to His wrath and warning. Allah the Almighty says: 'Say, if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you delight are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allah brings about His decision; and Allah does not guide the disobedient people.' (Surah At-Tawbah, 24). ¶

2. In the context of comparing the value of certain righteous deeds in Islam with the value of jihad, Allah the Almighty says: 'Have you made the providing of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of Al-Masjid Al-Haram equal to those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah? They are not equal before Allah.' (Surah At-Tawbah, 19). ¶

3. Allah has clarified the status of the Mujahideen (those who strive in the cause of Allah) over those who stay behind, saying: 'And Allah has preferred the Mujahideen over the ones who remain behind with a great reward, degrees of rank from Him, and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.' (Surah An-Nisa, 95-96). ¶

4. The Holy Quran also clarifies that jihad in the cause of Allah is a profitable trade, the outcome of which for the Mujahideen is the folding up of the pages of their sins, the closing of the doors of punishment against them, the opening of the doors of Paradise for them, and guiding them on the path of victory over their enemies. Allah has commanded His Prophet to give good tidings to the believers regarding these blessed fruits of jihad. And who is more truthful than Allah in what He promises or gives tidings of? Allah the Almighty says: 'O you who have believed, shall I guide you to a transaction that will save you from a painful punishment? [It is that] you believe in Allah and His Messenger and strive in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is best for you, if you should know.' ¶

You learn. He will forgive your sins and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow and into pleasant dwellings in gardens of everlasting bliss. That is the great attainment. And [you will obtain] another [favor] that you love – victory from Allah and an imminent conquest; and give good tidings to the believers. (1) ¶

5 - Furthermore, the Holy Quran establishes that the period the Mujahideen spend in their lives going out for Jihad and being occupied with its affairs is the most blessed period of their lives. Every aspect of their affairs, every state they are in, and every deed they perform in this context is a righteous deed for which they will inevitably find the best reward from Him with whom no reward is lost. This is as stated in the words of the Almighty regarding the Mujahideen: "That is because they are not afflicted by thirst or fatigue or hunger in the way of Allah, nor do they tread on any ground that enrages the disbelievers, nor do they inflict upon an enemy any infliction but that it is registered for them as a righteous deed. Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of the doers of good. Nor do they spend an expenditure, small or large, or cross a valley but that it is registered for them – that Allah may reward them for the best of what they were doing." (2) This is some of what has been mentioned in the Holy Quran regarding the virtue of Jihad and the status of the Mujahideen. ¶

Second Point: Prophetic Hadiths explaining the status and virtue of Jihad. The Prophetic Sunnah contains a rich treasury of Hadiths that explain the virtue of Jihad, elevate the status of the Mujahideen, and note the honor and esteem with which Allah has surrounded them. We will select from that precious Prophetic wealth the following Hadiths: ¶

1 - The Prophet (peace be upon him) establishes the status of Jihad in the way of Allah relative to other deeds, placing it at the forefront of all those deeds after faith in Allah (the Almighty and Majestic). As narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim: On the authority of Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: I asked the Prophet (peace be upon him), "Which deed is the best?" He said, "Faith in Allah, and Jihad in His way..." (3). Ibn Hajar says: "In the Hadith, it is stated that Jihad is the best of deeds after faith." (4) ¶

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) also explains that those believers who remain behind from Jihad, regardless of how hard they strive in acts of righteousness and piety outside the battlefield, will never be able to catch up to the rank of the Mujahideen. This is based on the narration by Al-Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him): "It was said, 'O Messenger of Allah! What equals Jihad in the cause of Allah?' He replied, 'You cannot do it.' They repeated the question twice or thrice, and each time he said, 'You cannot do it.' Then he said, 'The example of the Mujahid in the cause of Allah is like that of the one who fasts, stands in prayer, remains devout to the verses of Allah, and does not pause from prayer or fasting until the Mujahid returns.'" ¶

This is the wording of Muslim. In Al-Bukhari's narration: "A man came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said, 'Guide me to an act equal to Jihad.' He said, 'I do not find one.' He then asked, 'Can you, when the Mujahid goes out, enter your mosque and stand in prayer without pausing, and fast without breaking your fast?' The man replied, 'Who can do that?' Abu Hurairah added, 'The horse of the Mujahid pulls at its tether, and for that, good deeds are written for him.'" ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: "Iyad said: This hadith encompasses the magnification of the status of Jihad, because Jihad has equated all other virtuous deeds such as fasting and others, to the extent that all the states of the Mujahid and his permissible actions are equal in reward to the one who is constant in prayer and other acts of worship. This is why he said, 'You cannot do that!' It also indicates that virtues are not attained through analogy (qiyas), but are a grace from Allah Almighty to whom He wills. It is used as evidence that Jihad is the most excellent of deeds in absolute terms." ¶

In Al-Nawawi’s commentary on Sahih Muslim: "'The example of the Mujahid in the cause of Allah is like that of the one who fasts, stands in prayer, and is devout to the verses of Allah,' to the end. The meaning of 'Qanit' here is 'the obedient.' In this hadith is the immense virtue of Jihad, because prayer, fasting, and standing in devotion to the verses of Allah are the best of deeds, and Allah has made the Mujahid an example of one who never ceases from these for a single moment. It is known that this is not possible for anyone, which is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, 'You cannot do it.' And Allah knows best." ¶

3 - The Prophetic Sunnah has also clarified that Jihad in the path of Allah is a means of security from the Fire and salvation from the torment on the Day of Resurrection. This is as narrated by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'The feet of a servant that become covered in dust in the path of Allah shall not be touched by the Fire' (1). ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: "The conventional interpretation when the phrase 'in the path of Allah' is used absolutely is Jihad... Ibn al-Munir said: ... The hadith indicates that whoever's feet become covered in dust in the path of Allah, Allah has made him forbidden to the Fire, whether he directly engaged in combat or not... And his saying 'fatamussahu al-nar' (the Fire shall touch him) is in the accusative case (nasb). The meaning is that the touching is negated by the presence of the mentioned dust. In this is an indication of the immense value of action in the path of Allah; for if the mere touching of dust to the feet makes the Fire forbidden to them, then what of one who strove, exerted his effort, and exhausted his capacity? There are supporting narrations for this hadith, among them what Al-Tabarani recorded in Al-Awsat from Abu al-Darda' in a marfu' (elevated) manner: 'Whoever's feet become covered in dust in the path of Allah, Allah will distance the Fire from him by the distance of a thousand years for a swift rider!' (2). ¶

4 - Among the blessings of Jihad in the path of Allah is that even a small act from it wipes away the sins that may have been contained in one’s records and the slips in conduct one might have committed during their life, and it opens the gates of Paradise before them, according to the testimony of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: ¶

Ibn 'A'idh reported: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out for the funeral of a man. When he was placed down, Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "O Messenger of Allah, do not pray over him, for he is a wicked man!" The Messenger of Allah ﷺ turned to the people and said: "Has anyone of you seen him perform an act of Islam?" A man said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah! He stood guard one night in the path of Allah!" So, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed over him, threw dust upon him, and said: "Your companions think you are of the people of the Fire, but I testify that you are of the people of Paradise." In another narration: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood up, then followed him until he reached his grave. He sat until he finished, then threw three handfuls of earth upon him, and said: 'People praise you with evil, while I praise you with good.' Umar asked: 'What is that, O Messenger of Allah?' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Leave us, O son of al-Khattab: whoever strives (jahada) in the path of Allah, Paradise becomes mandatory for him' (4)." ¶

This meaning is also present. It means that any deed from the acts of Jihad, no matter how small, qualifies its performer for salvation on the Day of Resurrection and prepares them for achieving Paradise and the highest ranks with Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Regarding this meaning, there are authentic hadiths from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), such as his saying: 'Whoever shoots an arrow in the way of Allah the Almighty, whether it reaches the enemy or not, it will be for him like freeing a slave. And whoever frees a believing slave, it will be his ransom from the Fire, member for member.' ¶

And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): 'Shoot! Whoever reaches the enemy with an arrow, Allah will raise him a degree because of it. Ibn al-Nahham asked: O Messenger of Allah! What is a degree? He said: Know that it is not like the threshold of your mother's house! Rather, between two degrees is a distance of a hundred years.' ¶

And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), as narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari: 'A morning journey or an evening journey in the way of Allah is better than the world and all that is in it. A space in Paradise for one of you, equal to the handle of a bow or the space occupied by a whip, is better than the world and all that is in it. And if a woman from the people of Paradise were to look down upon the people of the earth, she would illuminate what is between them and fill it with fragrance, and her head-covering (khimar) is better than the world and all that is in it.' ¶

It is also stated in Sahih al-Bukhari regarding the virtue of a small act of Jihad: 'A day of ribat (stationing/guarding) in the way of Allah is better than the world and all that is upon it.' ¶

In 'Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir', in the explanation of the meaning of ribat, it states: 'The murabata (guarding) mentioned in the hadith refers to residing at the frontier of the enemies for the sake of glorifying the religion and repelling the evil of the polytheists.' ¶