Chapter 56

Matters and Authorities. When the Caliph issues a decision to dismiss a military commander, this dismissed person no longer possesses any authority over those who were under his command. Therefore, it is not permissible for any of them—that is, those who were under the authority of the dismissed commander—to continue obeying him, especially if Satan incites this commander to rebel against legitimate authority. ¶

Furthermore, when a situation arises where it is impossible for a military unit to have a commander or 'Amir' appointed by the Caliph or someone authorized by the Caliph to do so—as commonly happens on battlefronts due to the martyrdom of some commanders—in this case, the unit must select from among themselves a leader to command them and manage their affairs. It is their duty to obey this Amir or commander as if he were appointed by the superiors authorized to make such appointments, or rather, as if he were vested with this authority by the one at the pinnacle of the power hierarchy, the Caliph himself. This remains in effect until a decision is made to confirm him in this position or to replace him. This is evidenced by what occurred during the 'Battle of Mu'tah' after the martyrdom of the three commanders whom the Prophet (PBUH) had appointed to lead the army, one after the other. ¶

It is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari under the chapter 'One who takes command in war without an explicit appointment': narrated by Anas bin Malik, who said: 'The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) gave a sermon and said: Zayd took the banner and was martyred, then Ja'far took it and was martyred, then Abdullah bin Rawahah took it and was martyred. Then Khalid bin Walid took it without being appointed, and Allah granted him victory...' In another narration by al-Bukhari: 'Until a sword from among the swords of Allah took the banner, and Allah granted them victory.' In Fath al-Bari, it states: 'Ibn al-Munir said: It is derived from the Hadith of the chapter that whoever is selected for a position of authority, and it is impossible to consult the Imam, then the authority is established for that selected person by Shariah, and his obedience becomes mandatory by legal ruling. This is what he said, and it is clear that this applies when those present agree upon him.' ¶

And it is stated in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 'If the Imam sends an army and appoints an Amir over them, and he is killed, or...' ¶

If he dies, it is permissible for the army to appoint one of their own as a leader, just as the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) did in the Battle of Mu'tah when the commanders appointed by the Prophet (ﷺ) were martyred. They appointed Khalid ibn al-Walid as their leader. When this reached the Prophet (ﷺ), he approved their decision, affirmed their judgment, and on that day named Khalid 'Sayfullah' (the Sword of Allah). ¶

This is regarding whom it is obligatory to obey in the Islamic army. ¶

3. The third point: The Sharia and Fiqhi texts that define the boundaries of obligatory obedience and prohibited obedience. ¶

There are many Sharia texts that establish the framework within which Muslims must adhere regarding the systems and commands issued to them by those in authority (wulat al-amr). If those systems and commands depart from this established Sharia framework, obedience becomes prohibited, and opposition and disobedience become mandatory. ¶

Among these texts is what is found in Sahih Muslim under the title: 'Chapter on the Obligation of Obeying Commanders in Matters Other Than Disobedience (to God), and its Prohibition in Matters of Disobedience,' as is also found in Sahih Bukhari. From Abdullah ibn Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'The Muslim is bound to listen and obey in what he likes and what he dislikes, unless he is ordered to commit an act of disobedience.' ¶

Furthermore, the leader or commander appointed for leadership might be disliked by those under his authority. This could be due to a deviation in his personal conduct and his commission of prohibited acts. Or it could be because he is not considered of high standing among people due to a lack of noble lineage or social status, according to the social standards commonly held by people. ¶

Or it could be because he drives his subordinates to hardships, albeit within the limits of permissible duties. I say: A leader or commander might be disliked by those under his authority for some or all of these reasons. Despite this, it is not permissible for them to oppose this leader or commander in the systems, instructions, and commands he issues, as long as they do not conflict with the Shariah and fulfilling them is not considered an act of disobedience. ¶

Regarding this, it is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: "From Ibn Abbas, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever sees something in his ruler that he dislikes, let him be patient, for whoever separates from the Jama'ah (the collective body of Muslims) by even a span and dies in that state, dies the death of Jahiliyyah.'" (1) ¶

And it is narrated in Sahih Muslim from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "You must listen and obey in times of your hardship and your ease, in your eagerness and your aversion, and even when others are given preference over you." (2) In the commentary of Sahih Muslim, regarding the preceding hadiths, it is stated: ¶

"The scholars said: Its meaning (referring to the latter hadith) is that obedience to the rulers is obligatory in matters that are difficult and disliked by the soul, and in other matters, provided they do not involve disobedience (to Allah). If it is an act of disobedience, then there is no listening and no obedience, as explicitly stated in the other hadiths. Therefore, these absolute hadiths regarding the obligation to obey rulers are interpreted in accordance with those hadiths that specify that there is no listening or obedience in sin. Imam al-Nawawi continues in his commentary on the latter hadith, stating: 'Al-Atharah' (preference) means: monopoly and exclusivity regarding worldly affairs. That is: listen and obey, even if the rulers keep worldly matters for themselves and do not give you your due rights. These hadiths encourage listening and obeying in all circumstances. The reason for this is to keep the Muslims united; for disagreement is a cause of corruption in their religious and worldly affairs." (3) ¶

- It is also stated in Sahih Muslim: "From Yahya bin Husayn, from his grandmother Umm al-Husayn, she said: I performed Hajj with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) during the Farewell Pilgrimage; the Prophet (ﷺ) said much, then I heard him say: 'If a slave is appointed as your leader — I think she said: a black slave — who leads you by the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey.'" (4) ¶

And also in Sahih Muslim: "From Abu Dharr, he said: My beloved (ﷺ) advised me to listen and obey, even if he were a slave with mutilated limbs." (5) ¶

Imam al-Nawawi states: 'Mujadda' al-atraf' means one whose limbs are severed, and the intent here is the most lowly of slaves. That is, I shall listen and obey the amir (commander), even if he is of low lineage; even if he were a black slave with severed limbs, his obedience would still be obligatory. ¶

It is stated in Ibn Qudamah's 'Al-Mughni': 'If the commander is known for drinking khamr (intoxicants) and ghulul (misappropriation of spoils), one should still engage in jihad with him, for his sin rests upon himself. It is narrated from the Prophet (ﷺ): (Indeed, Allah supports this religion even through a sinful man). ¶

Furthermore, the Prophetic Sunnah contains incidents that demonstrate the rejection of obedience to commands issued by military leadership that contradict Islam, and the validation of subordinates disobeying such specific orders. This is, of course, while the leadership retains its right to the continued obedience of its subordinates regarding matters outside the scope of orders that contradict Islam, confining the disobedience only to those specific commands in which obedience is not permissible. ¶

Among the examples mentioned in this regard is what is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) sent a military detachment and appointed a man from the Ansar as their leader, commanding them to obey him. He became angry with them and asked, "Has the Prophet (ﷺ) not commanded you to obey me?" They replied, "Yes." He said, "I command you to gather wood and kindle a fire, then enter it." They gathered wood and kindled a fire, but when they were about to enter it, they began looking at one another. Some said, "We followed the Prophet (ﷺ) precisely to escape the Fire; shall we enter it?" While they were in this state, the fire died down and his anger subsided. When this was mentioned to the Prophet (ﷺ), he said: "Had they entered it, they would never have come out of it. Obedience is only in what is good (ma'ruf)."' In a narration by Muslim, it is added: 'And he spoke kindly to the others (meaning those who initially refused to consider obeying such a command) and said, "There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah; obedience is only in what is good (ma'ruf)."' ¶

Regarding the intent behind the commander ordering his group to jump into the fire in this incident, it is stated: 'He did not intend for them to actually enter the fire. Rather, he was indicating to them that obedience to the commander is obligatory, and whoever abandons an obligation enters the Fire. If they found entering this fire difficult, then what of the greater Fire! His intention was that if he saw them being serious about entering it, he would have stopped them.' ¶

Regarding the condemnation of those who intended to obey this order—which was contrary to Islam—it is stated in Fath al-Bari, in commentary on the Prophet's (PBUH) words: 'Had they entered it, they would never have emerged from it,' as follows: 'Meaning: entering it is an act of disobedience, and the disobedient person deserves the Fire. It is also possible that the meaning is: if they had entered it while considering it permissible (halal), they would never have emerged from it, because they committed the act of killing themselves, which they were forbidden from. It is also possible, and this is the most apparent, that the pronoun refers to the fire that was kindled for them (meaning: they would not have emerged from the fire they lit). That is, they thought that if they entered it due to obedience to their commander, it would not harm them. So the Prophet (PBUH) informed them that if they had entered it, they would have been burned, died, and would not have emerged. Contained therein is the fact that an absolute command does not encompass all circumstances; for the Prophet (PBUH) ordered them to obey the commander, so they applied this to all circumstances, even in states of anger or when commanded to commit a sin. Therefore, the Prophet (PBUH) clarified to them that the command to obey him is restricted to matters that do not involve disobedience.' ¶

I (the author) say: It becomes clear from this incident, the commentaries cast upon it, and the Prophet’s (PBUH) remarks, that: Islam supports those who oppose the commands of leadership when such commands are not sanctioned by Shariah rulings. This is indicated by the text: 'And he spoke a good word to the others.' ¶

- Islam condemns blind obedience to commands that contradict the Shariah and warns those who do so of a dire fate, as indicated by the text: 'Had they entered it, they would never have emerged from it.' - Islam has established a consistent rule for legitimate obedience, which is: 'There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah; obedience is only in what is virtuous (ma'ruf).' ¶

It is useful here to quote passages from 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its Sharh (commentary)', which clarify some of the situations faced by an army concerning matters of war, combat, and entering enemy territory. This applies when leadership issues instructions and orders, and differing viewpoints arise between the leadership and their subordinates. What is the Shariah-compliant conduct regarding these situations and orders? When is obedience mandatory, and when is dissent required? ¶

It is stated in the aforementioned book: 'When the army enters Dar al-Harb (the enemy territory) to fight, by the grace of Allah Azza wa Jall, and the commander issues orders regarding war, if there is benefit in what he has ordered, they must obey him. Sometimes, obeying the commander in abstaining from fighting is better than excessive fighting. At times, the visible situation relied upon by the soldiers suggests one thing, while the reality is different in the commander's view. It is not considered prudent for him to disclose the reality to the general soldiers. Therefore, they must obey him as long as he does not order them to do something from which they fear destruction. If that is the opinion of the majority of them, without doubt, then there is no obedience due to him in that. However, if people are divided on the matter—some saying it leads to destruction and others saying it leads to safety—then they should obey the commander in that. Unless he orders them to do something explicitly and undeniably destructive, or orders them to commit a sin; in that case, there is no obedience due, but they should remain patient and not rebel against their commander. If the commander calls for a specific unit to be on the right flank, another in the vanguard, another on the left flank, and another in the rear, no one should leave the position they were ordered to occupy, because this is part of sound tactical planning, the benefit of which only manifests through obedience. If the Imam (commander) orders them not to leave their posts and forbids them from helping one another, they must not disobey him, even if they feel secure in their position and fear for others; because obedience to the Imam is binding upon them by definitive proof, whereas their fears are speculative. As it is said: The thing feared most often does not happen. The basis for this is what was narrated regarding the Prophet ﷺ, who ordered the archers on the day of Uhud to remain in their position and not to leave it. When they saw the polytheists defeated, they went to seek spoils, and the defeat of the Muslims occurred on their side (1). As Allah the Almighty said: 'Until you showed weakness and disputed about the order and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love' (2).' ¶

The author states: There is no harm if a self-sufficient group goes out to forage for fodder without the ruler's explicit permission, gathers it, and returns, as the implication of permission exists; for the Imam led them to that location knowing they would require fodder, that it is difficult for them to transport fodder from the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), and that they cannot find anyone in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) to purchase it from. However, if the Amir’s announcer forbids going out for fodder, then neither a self-sufficient group nor others should go out, because the implication of permission is nullified by the explicit prohibition, and this prohibition may involve consideration (for the public interest), unless the Imam sends people for that purpose. If the ruler has forbidden the people from going out, and they then face a dire necessity for fodder and fear for themselves or their mounts, and find nothing to purchase, there is no harm in them going out to seek fodder, for a state of necessity is an exception to the requirement of an order, as evidenced by the words of the Almighty: 'Except that to which you have been compelled.' I do not approve, when they reach the villages (i.e., in search of fodder), for a single man to enter alone, lest there be people hiding there who might kill him. Rather, the group should enter fully prepared for combat. If there is anyone there, they should alert one another, in accordance with the Almighty’s words: 'Take your precautions, then go forth in detachments, or go forth all together.' And if the Amir forbids the Muslims from cutting trees or demolishing buildings, they should not disobey him in that; for this prohibition may contain an element of consideration for the Muslims' welfare, and this restriction pertains to matters of war. If he forbids them from fighting, they must not disobey him so long as it does not lead to harm or sin, and the same applies if he forbids them from these other matters. ¶

I (the author) say: These were glimpses of various situations that confronted an army in its military and wartime affairs as they occurred in ancient times. Furthermore, it is clear that in modern times—despite many changes regarding military affairs... ¶

The Army and Combat — Mujahideen (combatants) often encounter situations that resemble those ancient precedents, or are quite similar to them. ¶

From this perspective, the aforementioned text is useful in shedding light on determining when obedience is obligatory and when dissent (khuruj) against it becomes mandatory, regarding new situations that are analogous to the aforementioned classical precedents, without the need to delve into their details. With this, we conclude the first section of this chapter and proceed toward the second section, with the help and guidance of Allah. ¶

Second Section: The Commander's right to expel those whose presence he deems harmful to the army. We shall address this section through two points: 1. The first point: The value of the army in Islam, and the necessity of protecting it from any harm that may afflict it, or that it may itself be the cause of. 2. The second point: Purifying the army from corrupt elements, and the preventive measures to stop it from becoming a means of harm. 1. The first point: The value of the army in Islam, and the necessity of protecting it. The army is the shield that protects Muslims and their lands from external aggression, and it is the iron fist that eliminates elements of evil, corruption, and internal strife (fitnah). It is the military apparatus that raises the banner of Jihad to break the material barriers that prevent the Islamic Dawah from reaching its intended goal in other countries. It is the fence that protects the Islamic system of governance from attempts to deviate from it or overthrow it. It is the force that ensures the implementation of this governance, deters powers attempting to obstruct it, and is the heavy rod raised over the heads of those rebelling against the ruler or those coveting power through illegitimate means. It is the instrument relied upon to establish the state if it ceases to exist, to preserve it once established, and to restore its unity if it becomes fragmented; it is the guarantee for this unity against attempts at partition and secession. ¶

In short, the Islamic army is the life of the Ummah as an Islamic nation, in its political existence, whether at the local level within Islamic countries or at the global level in international relations. Hence, the importance of the army lies in it being the force that fulfills these aforementioned roles. Consequently, there is grave danger posed to the Ummah, the state, and the Da’wah when elements that are sources of evil and corruption exist within or infiltrate the army—working to weaken it, divert it from the tasks to which it should be devoted, or attempting to involve it in matters that cause harm to it, to the nation that relies on it for protection, to the state that relies on it for its strength, and to the Da’wah in which it believes and under whose banner it operates within the land. For this reason, it is among the most important duties of those who oversee the affairs of the Muslims—and indeed the duty of every Muslim as well—to protect this army from any factors that would cause it harm or make it an instrument of harm to the Muslims, the state to which they belong, and the Da’wah they carry. We have termed this responsibility—purifying the army from elements that are a source of harm—as a 'right' of the commander, as stated in the research title, rather than an 'obligation' (wajib), as it might appear. This is not to deny the obligatory nature of this responsibility, but to clarify that the commander or the authority is the one who balances the harm resulting from the presence of specific individuals in the army against the benefits resulting from their remaining in it. Based on this, he makes his decision to discharge them from the army or to retain them. This right to make the decision is referred back to him in light of the prevailing Shariah-based interest (Maslaha). Hence, it was more appropriate to use the word 'right' in this matter. However, if the harm is predominant, then in the context we are addressing, the ruling on removing the source of this harm becomes inevitably mandatory (wajib), in accordance with the noble Hadith: 'Do not cause harm nor reciprocate harm,' and following the legal maxim: 'Harm shall be removed.' It is not hidden that the army is composed of humans, not angels; therefore, they possess what is in... ¶

Human nature is characterized by weakness, from which small or large deviations arise. No army in the world can be free from such deviations, not even the army that existed during the blessed era of Prophethood and the subsequent era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate. The existence of these deviations was not considered a threat to its very foundation, provided the leadership did not perceive them as causing the severe harm that would necessitate decisive measures, and as long as they were pursued with appropriate remedial actions. To provide glimpses of these deviations, we mention the following events: ¶

- In Ibn Hisham’s Sirah regarding the conquest of Makkah, it is recorded that when the Islamic army entered Makkah, some of its members encountered a young girl who was rushing her blind father to their home before the horses could trample them. That girl was the sister of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, and the blind man was Abu Quhafa, Abu Bakr's father. ¶

Asma bint Abu Bakr says: 'The girl had a silver necklace around her neck, and a man met her and tore it from her neck.' She continues: 'When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered Makkah and entered the Mosque, Abu Bakr stood up, took his sister’s hand, and said: 'I appeal to Allah and Islam for my sister’s necklace,' but no one answered him. She said: 'So he said: 'O my sister! Seek the reward for your necklace from Allah, for trustworthiness among people today is little!'' ¶

- From the reports of the Battle of Hunayn, which occurred shortly after the conquest of Makkah, it is stated: 'Abd al-Rahman bin al-Azhar said: 'I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the year of the Conquest, and I was a young boy, asking for the location of Khalid bin al-Walid (i.e., asking for Khalid’s command post in this battle, Hunayn). A drunkard was brought to him, and they struck him with what they had in their hands; some struck him with whips, some with sandals, and some with sticks, and the Prophet ﷺ threw dust upon him.'' ¶

- Also, during the era of Prophethood: 'Abu Amir al-Ash'ari said: 'I went out in a military expedition (sariyah) and with us were...' ¶

We were at a place with Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas when a young man among us said, 'I wish to forage for fodder.' Ibn Amir said to him, 'Do not do so until you seek permission from our commander,' meaning Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, as they were in the same company. He sought his permission, and Abu Musa asked him, 'Do you perhaps intend to go to your family?' He replied, 'No.' He said, 'Reflect!' He said, 'No.' The young man departed, went to his family, stayed with them for four nights, and then returned. Abu Musa asked him, 'Did you go to your family?' He said, 'I did not!' Abu Musa said, 'You must tell me.' He said, 'I did not!' He said, 'You must tell me the truth.' He said, 'I did indeed!' Abu Musa then said to him, 'You traveled in the Fire, you arrived at your family in the Fire, and you returned in the Fire! So, restart your (jihad) deeds!' ¶

In the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, regarding the accounts of the conquest of Egypt, it is narrated: 'Junadah ibn Abi Umayyah was with 'Amr ibn al-'As in Alexandria. 'Amr ordered the people, 'Do not engage in combat.' However, some of the reckless people rushed and fought. 'Amr saw them and said, 'O Junadah! Reach the people, lest any of them be killed while in a state of disobedience!' When Junadah returned, 'Amr looked toward him and called out, 'Was anyone killed?' He said, 'No.' 'Amr said, 'Praise be to Allah!' ¶

These are some events that illustrate the transgressions of soldiers during the Prophetic era and the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, such as their committing forbidden acts, breaking discipline, and disobeying the orders of the leadership. Nevertheless, it appears that the public interest (maslaha) in keeping them in the army outweighed the benefit of dismissing them. Therefore, the leadership did not take measures to discharge them, despite the frequent transgressions committed by these deviant individuals. To the extent that the author of 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' mentioned, verbatim: 'The act of ghulul (treachery regarding spoils of war), in our view, was more prevalent during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ than in any other period, due to the large number of hypocrites and Bedouins who would go on expeditions with him, and they were people prone to ghulul.' I say: And perhaps the aforementioned public interest is the secret behind this. ¶

What was the reason behind the Prophet’s (ﷺ) decision to retain the hypocrites within his army, despite the obvious harm arising from their presence, led by their chief, Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, through their conspiracies, the discord they sowed, and their attempts to demoralize the army ranks and break its high spirits? In a similar vein, jurists have explained the Prophet’s (ﷺ) retention of the chief of the hypocrites in some expeditions, despite the evident harm of his presence. It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj: 'The Prophet (ﷺ) would take Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul with him on expeditions, despite the clear discouragement from him, because the Companions were strong in their faith and were not affected by such discouragement, or because the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed by revelation of his actions, and thus remained unharmed by his treachery.' It is mentioned in al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, regarding the interest (maslaha) behind overlooking the hypocrites in the context we are discussing: 'The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) overlooked the hypocrites, even though they were adversaries in religion, and applied the apparent rulings to them, until strength was fortified through them, their numbers increased, and power was consolidated...' ¶

Accordingly, when the Islamic leadership holds the reins of power firmly, is aware of the conspiracies hatched against it and the Muslims, and identifies the corrupt elements weaving those plots, while being capable of thwarting them and crushing the perpetrators—in such a case, it is the right of the leadership, based on the interest (maslaha), to expel those corrupt elements from the army ranks or to retain them if their presence serves a benefit... while, of course, pursuing them with appropriate measures. ¶

However, when the harm escalates, the evil worsens, and the omens of danger appear, it becomes necessary—in such a situation—to address the matter before it is too late, by taking decisive measures that remove the corrupt elements from influence, so that the rest of the army remains safe from corruption and harm. ¶

Furthermore, the harm caused by corrupt elements in the army either affects the army itself as a result of their deviant behavior and the spread of corruption through contagion among its ranks, or the harm—in addition to that—affects the Ummah, its existence, and its mission, should those elements seize control of the army or parts of it, and then... by virtue of this power... ¶

Their dominance may lead to the usurpation of authority to implement their deviant agendas, or they may bring the authority under their hegemony, making it a puppet in their hands, manipulated according to their will and whims, whether in domestic or foreign policy. Thus, it was necessary to take preventive measures to avoid these dangerous consequences, which is what we will discuss in the next point. ¶

2. The Second Point: Purging the army of its corrupt elements and preventing it from being used as a tool for harm. We pointed out in the first point the corrupt elements within the army that cause it harm. ¶

We also pointed out those elements that drag the army into intervening in politics—not with the intention of correcting the situation if it deviates, followed by an immediate return to the barracks, but with the intention of maintaining continuous control over governance, either directly or from behind the scenes, in order to achieve the special interests of certain factions or to implement schemes that harm the Ummah, its entity, and its call (Da'wah). ¶

This is what we indicated in the previous point. It is not our purpose here to enumerate all those corrupt elements that inflict damage on the army as a result of their corruption. ¶

Nor is it our purpose to elaborate on the dangerous consequences resulting from dragging the army into politics, away from its primary missions. ¶

Rather, the purpose here is to warn against the danger of neglecting the purging of the army from its corrupt elements that cause it—and the nation—harm, whenever public interest necessitates this purification. ¶

It is appropriate, now, to mention some of those corrupt elements that the jurists (Fuqaha) have mentioned, emphasizing their removal from the army. ¶

Ibn Qudamah says in Al-Mughni: "The commander should not accompany himself with a 'mukhadhdhil' (a demoralizer): this is one who discourages people from going on expeditions, makes them disinterested in going out to fight and perform Jihad. For example, saying: 'The heat or cold is intense,' or 'The hardship is severe,' or 'There is no guarantee that this army will not be defeated,' and similar remarks. ¶

"Nor a 'murjif' (an alarmist/fear-monger): this is one who says: 'The Muslim detachment has perished,' or 'They have no reinforcements,' or 'They have no power against the disbelievers,' or 'The disbelievers have power, reinforcements, and endurance, and no one can stand against them,' and the like. ¶

"Nor anyone who assists the disbelievers against the Muslims by spying for them and informing them of the vulnerabilities of the Muslims." ¶

And [it includes] their communicating [the Muslims'] news to them [the enemy], guiding them to their vulnerabilities, or providing shelter to their spies. Neither should there be anyone who sows discord among the Muslims and strives to spread corruption, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: 'But Allah disliked their being sent forth, so He kept them back, and it was said, "Sit among those who sit." If they had gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have been active among you, seeking to cause you fitnah (discord/sedition).' And because these individuals are harmful to the Muslims, it is incumbent upon the leader to restrain them. ¶

This pertains to certain corrupt elements whose presence in the army becomes a cause of harm that befalls it, which subsequently reflects upon the Muslims. ¶

As for the elements that use the army to inflict harm upon it, or upon the Islamic State, the Da'wah it carries, the system that governs it, or the one in authority, our Islamic history is laden with their affairs and tribulations. Discussing them would take us away from our subject. ¶

It is sufficient here to state that what the Muslim Ummah has endured throughout its long history... and what it suffers in its present due to what we have alluded to... one of its most important causes was the ability of certain elements within the army to reach critical command positions while harboring evil intentions against the Muslims. ¶

And thus... the single state was torn into small fragmented entities. Rulers became puppets in the hands of the military establishment, or the military leaders became the rulers themselves. ¶

The call to Islam via Jihad ceased... many manifestations of Islamic life were erased from the lands, and many manifestations of disbelief were imposed upon the people. The Islamic system was ousted from governance and replaced with systems introduced by the disbelievers and colonialism. ¶

Perhaps one of the most prominent examples of the danger of suspicious elements infiltrating the army and then using it to strike against Islam and the Muslims is the act of the Turkish military commander, Mustafa Kemal, during the final era of the 'Ottomans', who usurped power from the Caliph and then declared the abolition of the Islamic Caliphate. ¶

Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali states in this regard: 'The Sultans of the House of Osman were kings who possessed a great degree of ineptitude... yet their claim to the Caliphate was an admission that this prestigious position remained, carrying the meanings entrusted to it, and those seeking reform ought to have removed them from it in order to replace them with those better than them. However, issuing a death sentence upon it—meaning the office of the Caliphate—and upon them, is something for which there is no justification. But the Turkish commander, Mustafa Kemal, decided to expel the Caliph Sultan Abdulmejid, not because he had degraded the status of his office, but because Mustafa was in agreement with the nations of Europe to eliminate the Caliphate itself from Turkey.' ¶

It is stated in the book 'Dawlat al-Khilafa' (The State of the Caliphate): 'It became certain to everyone in the Islamic world that Mustafa Kemal was an adventurous leader who desired nothing but glory and power for himself, and that he would eventually destroy the glory of the Caliphate, turning it into a memory and a relic of history. Thus, those who supported him yesterday began to absolve themselves of his actions and exaggerate in their condemnation of him, and attacks against him began both inside and outside Turkey... It became clear to the naked eye that Mustafa Kemal was on his way to abolishing the Caliphate entirely, and even the religious manifestations in Turkey. Consequently, two large delegations of scholars from Egypt and India hurried to plead with Mustafa Kemal to appoint himself Caliph! However, he refused with insistence and stubbornness. On the 3rd of March 1924, he submitted a decree to the National Assembly stipulating the abolition of the Caliphate, the expulsion of the Caliph, and the separation of religion from the state.' Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali says: 'Some might ask: Why did this commander refuse to be the Caliph of the Muslims? Is it not...' ¶

Is this not a sign of his deep-seated aversion to that system and his feeling that he must abandon it? (1). I say: From what has been stated, it becomes clear that one of the calamities the Muslims have brought upon themselves is their negligence in cleansing their Islamic army of suspicious elements—whether soldiers or commanders—and allowing them to climb to high command positions, only to later manipulate and direct the army as they desire. This confirms to us that one of the most important duties of the officials in the Islamic state is to maintain constant, strict surveillance of the army and its leadership, and to purge it of all elements that give rise to suspicion, whether due to personal conduct that indicates weak loyalty to Islam and the Muslims, or due to carrying ideas and inclinations far removed from Islam and its rulings. Furthermore, from another perspective, the damage or danger posed by the army may not arise merely from the presence of corrupt elements in its ranks. Rather, there may exist excellent leadership figures who attract power around them, or whose strong influence and reach captivate large segments of the army—which internal and external human devils could use as a means to incite those in control to overthrow the legitimate authority, seize power, or impose specific political agendas. It may be that those holding the reins of such power are as far as possible from such thoughts; however, the ruler may still deem it a necessary precaution to block, from the very beginning, any such machinations that some might attempt to stir up in pursuit of their hidden agendas. Hence, there is no harm in the ruler resorting to appropriate preventive measures—either by transferring those commanders from the sectors that have become infatuated with them, or by stripping them of general command authority within the army, or other such measures—even if the matter requires removing them from the army entirely to protect the supreme interests of the Muslims. Perhaps this was one of the reasons that drove Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) to remove certain Companions from the armies sent for conquests outside the Arabian Peninsula and keep them in Medina. ¶

It is narrated in the History of al-Tabari: 'From al-Hasan al-Basri, he said: Umar ibn al-Khattab had restricted the prominent figures of the Quraysh among the Muhajirun from leaving the lands (outside Medina) except with permission... From Muhammad and Talha, they said: When Uthman became the Caliph, he did not hold them to the same restrictions as Umar had, so they dispersed throughout the lands. When they saw these lands, and saw the dunya (worldly life), and the people saw them, those who had no standing or merit in Islam flocked to them. They gathered around them in groups and built hopes upon them. They advanced in this, saying: They will rule, so we will have already known them and attained proximity and affiliation with them. This was the first weakness that entered Islam and the first fitna (strife) among the common people. From al-Sha'bi, he said: Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not pass away until the Quraysh had grown weary of him, as he had confined them to Medina. He used to say: The thing I fear most for this Ummah is your dispersal throughout the lands. If a man would seek his permission for jihad, and he was one of those whom he had kept in Medina—and he did not do this to others from the people of Mecca—he would say: Your jihad with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is sufficient for you! It is better for you today that you do not see the world, nor does it see you. Then, when Uthman became Caliph, he released them, so they wandered through the lands and the people flocked to them, and he (Uthman) became more beloved to them than Umar! ... From Muhammad and Talha, they said: A year had not passed in the reign of Uthman before men from the Quraysh acquired wealth in the various provinces, people flocked to them, and this persisted for seven years, with every group wanting their own associate to be in power!' ¶

Furthermore, the aforementioned concerns may also be among the reasons that compelled Umar ibn al-Khattab to remove Khalid ibn al-Walid from the general command of the army that confronted the Byzantines in the Levant, and to entrust this leadership to the noble Companion Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah (may Allah be pleased with him). ¶

In summary: The army is the fortress of the Ummah, and it is incumbent upon the Ummah to preserve it so that it may preserve the Ummah. Among the most important responsibilities of Muslim rulers is to safeguard the army from any harm that may befall it, and to restrain it from causing any harm for which it might be the cause. With this, we conclude the second section of this chapter and proceed to a new section, by the grace and assistance of Allah. ¶

Praising Allah and invoking blessings upon the Prophet. Respected Mawlawi Sahib, peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. I have received your esteemed letter in which you requested clarification on important matters of the religion. It is heartening to see that your academic interest is vibrant. The answers to your inquiries are provided below: First: The Reality of Iman (Faith); Faith is not merely a declaration by the tongue; rather, it is a combination of certainty in the heart and the actions of the limbs. As the Almighty has stated, 'Indeed, the believers are those who believed in Allah and His Messenger and then have not doubted.' Second: The Importance of the Prophetic Sunnah; The Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the foundation of the religion. The religion cannot be complete without the exegesis and explanation of the commandments of the Holy Quran. Therefore, deviation from the Sunnah is a form of misguidance. I hope these points bring satisfaction to your heart. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Best regards, The humble servant, Muhammad Abdullah. ¶