Chapter 59

The intention of Umar (RA) to execute [Hatib] was present, had it not been for the impediment, and he clarified that the impediment was Hatib’s participation in Badr. This is absent in anyone other than Hatib. If Islam itself were an impediment to his execution, the ruling would not have been reasoned with something more specific than that [his status as a Badri]. ¶

Furthermore, regarding the argument that espionage is not among the three matters that permit the killing of a Muslim—Shar'i texts have indeed been reported regarding the killing of a Muslim in instances other than those mentioned in the [aforementioned] Hadith. Thus, the general prohibition against killing any Muslim other than those three is qualified (takhsis) by other Shar'i texts that permit killing in different circumstances. Among these texts are: ¶

The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Whoever pledges allegiance to an Imam, giving him the grasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, let him obey him if he is able; if another comes to dispute him, strike the neck of the latter." ¶

And his saying (PBUH): "Whoever wishes to divide the affairs of this Ummah while they are united, strike him with the sword, whoever he may be." ¶

And his saying (PBUH) in another narration: "Whoever comes to you while you are united under one man, wishing to break your unity or divide your community, kill him." ¶

And his saying (PBUH): "If allegiance is given to two caliphs, kill the latter of the two." ¶

Imam al-Nawawi, discussing the qualification (takhsis) applied to the Hadith, "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful except by one of three..." says: "Know that this is a general statement from which the aggressor (al-sa'il) and his like are excluded, making it permissible to kill them in self-defense." ¶

It is from this perspective that the view of a group of Imams regarding the execution of one who abandons prayer, and others who commit prohibited acts, has been mentioned in Fath al-Bari. ¶

With this, we conclude the second point and arrive at the third point regarding this issue. ¶

3 - The Third Point: The opinion we favor in this matter. ¶

In this matter, we hold the opinion of the majority, which is that it is not permissible to execute a Muslim spy. Instead, he may be subjected to a ta'zir (discretionary) punishment, according to the judgment of the authority in charge. The reason for the prohibition of his execution is the fact that he is a Muslim. The evidence for this is the hadith of Furat ibn Hayyan, which was previously mentioned in the first point. Furat was a dhimmi living among the Muslims in Medina, and he was spying for Abu Sufyan in Mecca. When his actions were discovered, the Prophet (peace be upon him) issued an order for his execution, but when Furat declared his Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) refrained from killing him. ¶

From the difference in the ruling regarding this man between these two states—the state of him being a non-Muslim and the state of him being a Muslim—it is deduced that the 'illa (legal cause) that prevented his execution for espionage is Islam itself. Thus, the ruling for a spy, in principle, is execution, unless there is a barrier. That barrier is simply Islam, as indicated by the story of Furat ibn Hayyan. ¶

Hence, the Prophet's (peace be upon him) justification for not approving the execution of Hatib based on the fact that he had participated in the Battle of Badr does not imply that Islam alone is insufficient to prevent his execution. Rather, it is to signal that the barrier preventing the execution of Hatib was more than just his being a Muslim. For, while his being a Muslim—by the implication of the hadith of Furat ibn Hayyan—was sufficient to prevent his execution, he also possessed a merit over other Muslims by being one of those who participated in the Battle of Badr. Theirs is a high status and rank in Islam. How, then, could one of these virtuous individuals be killed due to a mistake he committed, when he had previously performed acts of support for Islam that make any such mistake pale in comparison, provided that the mistake was devoid of any suspicion regarding his faith or sincerity to Islam? ¶

This is how we understand the reconciliation and synthesis between the cause for preventing the execution of Hatib (his participation in Badr) and the cause for preventing the execution of Furat ibn Hayyan (his declaration of Islam). ¶

Accordingly, the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the story of Hatib, which reads: 'The Messenger of Allah did not say: It is not permissible to kill him because he is a Muslim. Rather, he said: What do you know, perhaps Allah looked at the people of Badr and said: Do as you wish...' [must be understood within this context]. ¶

You desired. He replied that there is an impediment to his execution, which is his witnessing of Badr (as a companion). In this response, there is an indication that it is permissible to execute a spy who does not possess such an impediment (1). ¶

I say: This statement by Ibn al-Qayyim overlooks the hadith of (Furat bin Hayyan), which indicates that Islam alone is the sole impediment to the execution of a spy. It is well-established that harmonizing evidences is superior to acting upon some while neglecting others. ¶

It appears that the lack of reference to the hadith of (Furat bin Hayyan) regarding Islam being an impediment to killing a spy is due to the weakness of this hadith in some of its narrations. However, as the authenticity of this hadith has been established in other narrations (2), it is obligatory to act upon it, which is what we have done. Therefore, we have prioritized the opinion of the majority, which is not to execute a Muslim spy, leaving the authority to the ruler to subject him to a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) based on his opinion and ijtihad (3). ¶

Third Issue: The ruling on a spy from the Ahl al-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens). We address this issue through the discussion of the following two points: 1. First Point: What are the jurisprudential opinions regarding the ruling on a dhimmi spy? 2. Second Point: Which opinion do we favor in the ruling regarding a dhimmi spy? 1. First Point: Jurisprudential opinions regarding the ruling on a dhimmi spy. - In the Hanafi school: Imam Abu Yusuf holds the view of executing a dhimmi spy. In his letter to Harun al-Rashid regarding this matter, he states: 'O Commander of the Faithful! You asked about spies?... If...' ¶

Whether they were from the Ahl al-Harb (people of war), or from the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected people) who pay jizya, such as the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians—'strike off their heads' (1). ¶

In this regard, Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan holds the view that this dhimmi spy should not be killed. It is stated in al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: 'Similarly, if a dhimmi does this (i.e., spying against the Muslims), he shall be severely punished and imprisoned, and this does not constitute a violation of the covenant (naqd al-'ahd). For if a Muslim were to do this, he would not be violating his security (aman), so when a dhimmi does it, he is likewise not violating his security' (2). ¶

Yes, there is a case—within the Hanafi school—where the covenant of a dhimmi is violated, and in that instance, it becomes permissible to kill him. This is the case where he was not originally a dhimmi holding Islamic citizenship, but obtained it through acquisition, or as it is said in modern terminology: obtained Islamic citizenship by naturalization. This is done so that he may be enabled to carry out his espionage. In this case, his covenant is broken, and it is permissible—on that basis—to sentence him to death. ¶

It is stated in al-Durr al-Mukhtar regarding what invalidates a dhimmi's covenant: 'Or he makes himself an advance guard for the polytheists, being sent to report on the enemy's news; if they had not sent him for that purpose, his covenant would not be broken' (3). And it is stated in the Hashiyah of Ibn Abidin in describing this: 'Its image is: that a musta'min (person granted asylum) enters, resides for a year, jizya is imposed upon him, and his intent is to spy on the Muslims to inform the enemy' (4). ¶

I say: The manifestation of this case in our current era is that a non-Muslim foreigner, who works, for example, in an intelligence agency in another country, is tasked by that agency to apply to an Islamic state for Islamic citizenship and enter under the protection (dhimmah) of the Muslims. His intent in this, under these circumstances, is to cover his espionage activities and facilitate the mission for which he requested citizenship. Here, if he obtains this citizenship and his affair is then discovered, he is considered a violator of the covenant, and on that basis, it is permissible to kill him if the holder of authority sees a benefit (maslaha) in his execution. ¶

This is the position of the Hanafis. ¶

As for the Maliki school, it is stated in 'Manh al-Jalil' as follows: "A spy shall be killed... meaning a spy against the Muslims, who informs the belligerent disbelievers (Harbi) of the vulnerabilities of the Muslims and conveys their news to them... even if the spy is a Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim citizen) according to us. His killing is mandatory unless he embraces Islam. It is narrated from Sahnun: If the Imam sees fit to enslave him, he may do so, though this is contested on the grounds that it does not eliminate his mischief"(1). ¶

In Al-Dardir’s 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir', regarding the ruling on a Dhimmi spy, it is stated: "As for spying on the vulnerabilities of the Muslims, the Imam has the choice between killing him or imprisoning him"(2). ¶

According to Al-Qurtubi: "Asbagh(3) said: ... A Muslim or Dhimmi spy shall be punished unless they openly conspire against Islam, in which case they shall be killed"(4). ¶

This is the position of the Maliki school. ¶

As for the Shafi'i school, it is summarized in Al-Shirazi's 'Al-Muhadhdhab' that a Dhimmi spy falls into two categories: ¶

First: If the condition of refraining from espionage was not stipulated at the time of the Dhimma contract, his protected status is not revoked by the act of spying. I (the author) say: This means he may not be killed, but he may be punished for committing an act harmful to the Muslims. ¶

Second: If the condition of refraining from espionage was stipulated at the time of the Dhimma contract, and he subsequently engages in espionage, there are two opinions regarding his ruling: ¶

First opinion: His protected status is not revoked even if he spies and violates the condition imposed upon him. ¶

The second reason is that his covenant is breached by espionage, because he violated what was stipulated upon him. Based on this, there are two opinions regarding the ruling on this Dhimmi spy whose covenant has been breached due to espionage: ¶

- The first opinion: It is not permissible to kill him; rather, he should be expelled from the lands of Islam and returned to his place of safety, meaning he should be deported to the country where he is secure. The argument for this opinion is that he entered the Abode of Islam under a covenant of security (aman), therefore it is not permissible to kill him before returning him to his place of safety. ¶

- The second opinion: And this is the correct one, is that it is not obligatory to return him to his place of safety; because when he breached his covenant by spying, he became a mushrik (polytheist) who has no protection, like a captive combatant (asir harbi). Therefore, the Imam may choose what he deems appropriate in his case based on public interest (maslaha), whether it be execution, enslavement, releasing him without ransom (mann), or releasing him for a ransom (fida). ¶

This is the position in the Shafi'i school. ¶

As for the Hanbali fiqh: It is stated in 'Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya' by Al-Farra as follows: "It is incumbent upon the Dhimmi to abandon whatever causes harm to the Muslims, individually or collectively, in wealth or life, and these are eight things—Al-Farra listed these matters and mentioned among them—that he must not harbor a spy for the mushrikeen. I mean: a spy, nor assist against the Muslims through guidance. I mean: he should not correspond with the mushrikeen with the news of the Muslims... Then he said: These things they are obligated to abandon, whether the Imam stipulated this upon them or not. If they do that or any part of it, the covenant is breached according to one of the two narrations... And there is another narration: The covenant is not breached except by refusing to pay the Jizyah and refusing to submit to our rulings." ¶

Furthermore, regarding the narration that the covenant is breached by espionage—the author of 'Al-Mughni' says: "As for the one of them whose covenant we have judged to be breached, the Imam is given a choice regarding him between four things: execution, enslavement, ransom, or release without ransom, just like a Harbi captive." And regarding the narration that the covenant is not breached by espionage—it is stated in 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir'. ¶

Al-Maqdisi, regarding the spy and those like him, stated: 'He shall be punished with tazir... in a manner that deters others like him from committing the same act.'(1) This is what is mentioned in Hanbali fiqh regarding the issue of the dhimmi spy. The summary of what has preceded is as follows: The killing of a dhimmi spy is mandatory according to Abu Yusuf of the Hanafi school and the majority of the Maliki school. It is permissible to kill him according to the preferred (rajih) opinion of the Shafi'i school if it was stipulated upon him at the time of the dhimma contract that he must refrain from espionage. Similarly, it is permissible to kill him according to one of the two narrations in the Hanbali school, regardless of whether the stipulation to refrain from espionage was made or not. As for the view that it is not permissible to kill a dhimmi spy in situations other than those mentioned, or according to jurists other than those we have cited, he remains subject to a tazir (discretionary) punishment that serves to restrain him from repeating such espionage and deters others from embarking on this dangerous and sinful path. With this, we conclude the first point of this issue and move to the second: Second Point: The opinion we prefer regarding the judgment of a spy from the people of dhimma. The opinion we prefer in this matter is what is stated in the preferred view of the Shafi'i school, in general, with some details, as follows: When non-Muslims... approach the Islamic state with a request seeking the granting of Islamic citizenship or residency—what is called nationality—to become citizens of the Islamic state, we consider the following: If, among the conditions they signed to be granted the right of citizenship in the Islamic state, is that they will not engage in any espionage activity and that engaging in such activity exposes them to the penalty of death, then in this case, the spy who was granted the right of dhimma and citizenship deserves the death penalty, in accordance with the condition imposed upon him. In this scenario, it is permissible for the state to execute this dhimmi as soon as espionage is proven against him. It is also permissible for the state to offer to lift this death sentence if he declares his Islam, doing whatever serves the public interest (maslaha). ¶

However, in any case, if this spy who has been sentenced to death announces his acceptance of Islam, even if Islam was not presented to him, the state must refrain from killing him, in accordance with the hadith of (Furat ibn Hayyan). ¶

In any case, the death penalty here is a right of the state, conditional upon the established terms, and not an obligation upon it. This means that if the state deems it in the public interest (maslaha), it may renew the dhimmah contract that this dhimmi spy breached, allowing him to return as a peaceful citizen. ¶

This is the status of the dhimmi spy if there was a prior condition stipulating the death penalty should he engage in any espionage activity. ¶

- As for if such a condition did not exist when non-Muslims were granted the right of dhimmah and citizenship in the Islamic state... then in this case: ¶

- If there is a condition imposed upon the state not to kill the dhimmi except in specific cases, and espionage is not among them, then the state is not permitted to carry out the death penalty, in compliance with the aforementioned condition. ¶

- However, if the dhimmah contract was silent on this matter—meaning it did not include a condition of death for espionage, nor a condition against killing for it—then in this case: ¶

- It is permissible for the state to punish the dhimmi spy with any discretionary penalty (ta'zir)(1) short of death. ¶

- It is also permissible for the state to extend his punishment to the level of death. ¶

This death penalty for the dhimmi spy who is subject to ta'zir aligns with those scholars who permit discretionary punishments to reach the level of death(2). This punishment also does not conflict with those who prohibit it. ¶

(1) 'Ta'zir: is a disciplinary action less than a hadd (fixed) punishment; its root is 'azr, which means: to prevent/restrain.' (Al-Ta'rifat by Al-Jurjani, p. 85). Some jurists prefer using the term 'ta'zir' specifically for Muslims. As for non-Muslims, the term 'uqubah' (penalty) is used... and some use both terms for both groups. See: Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir: 5/2040; Al-Umm by Al-Shafi'i: 4/250; Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah: 10/609; Al-Sharh al-Kabir by Al-Maqdisi: 10/634; Al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf: pp. 205-206. (2) See: Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah by Ibn al-Qayyim, p. 117. Also in this reference, see: Whether the state's ta'zir of those committing prohibited acts is a matter of obligation or permissibility, p. 116. ¶

The extension of discretionary punishment (ta'zir) to the extent of capital punishment, and the restriction of capital punishment to only three matters: apostasy from Islam, adultery after consummation of marriage (ihsan), and the killing of an innocent soul. This is because the hadith that restricts killing to these cases explicitly states that this restriction applies only to a Muslim: 'The blood of a Muslim person is not lawful except by one of three...' The implication of this is that if a non-Muslim commits crimes other than those mentioned, there is no impediment to their punishment reaching the level of capital punishment, should public interest (maslaha) necessitate it. Furthermore, the subject of the aforementioned hadith indicates that it is exclusive to Muslims; because it mentions among the three cases—to which the death penalty is confined—the case of apostasy from Islam. It is evident that for non-Muslims, the commission of this crime of apostasy is not even conceptually possible, as they remain steadfast in their own religion. Therefore, the mentioned hadith does not stand in the way of sentencing the dhimmi spy under discussion to death, even according to the view of those who restrict the death penalty to the three stated cases. ¶

Moreover, we have previously mentioned that the original ruling regarding a spy is execution, except where there is an impediment, and that impediment is Islam. As long as the dhimmi spy does not seek refuge in this impediment to protect himself from execution—which is available to him, and he is even invited to it through the general call to Islam—he alone is responsible for his fate if the state decides to sentence him to death. ¶

Finally, this question may arise: Why have the Shariah texts—according to our understanding—differentiated between the punishment of a Muslim and the punishment of a dhimmi regarding the same crime committed by both, namely the crime of espionage? ¶

I answer: Perhaps those bonds that connect a Muslim to the Muslims and to the Islamic state—which are stronger for him than for a non-Muslim—are what lie behind this difference in the ruling on the spy between the Muslim and the dhimmi. This is because the factors of sincerity and loyalty that a Muslim possesses toward his Islamic state and his brothers in faith make the notion of him intending treachery and harm against his state and nation—even if he performs acts considered espionage—a much more remote possibility than if such espionage were carried out by someone who does not possess those same religious factors. Although it is not natural for this to drive him to betray the state to which he belongs and the nation that treats him well, nonetheless, religious bonds remain stronger than mere bonds of citizenship and the like, in terms of motivating sincerity and loyalty in the matter at hand. ¶

Regarding this... this is what we believe to be the secret behind the differentiation in the Sharia texts — according to our understanding of them — in the ruling between the Muslim spy and the Dhimmi spy. In any case, the reliance in issuing rulings upon Muslims and others — whether those rulings agree or differ — is upon the Sharia texts and what they indicate, according to the understanding of the scholar, within the accepted rules of sound comprehension, regardless of whether the mind perceives this agreement or difference in the rulings or fails to do so. With this, we conclude the second issue. Upon its completion, we reach the end of the research in which we addressed the issue of the ruling on the Muslim spy and the Dhimmi spy. And we now proceed toward the next research — with the help and success granted by Allah. ¶

Sixth Topic: The Ruling on Deserting the Army in War. Shaykh Muhammad al-Khidr Husayn says: 'Fleeing from the ranks of battle is of great corruption and dire consequence; this is because the one who flees may be like a brick that falls from the bottom of a wall, causing the entire wall to collapse because of its fall. For this reason, the Wise Legislator (Al-Shari') considered fleeing from the battlefield one of the greatest crimes...' (1). I say: The jurists have studied the issue of fleeing from combat and have clarified its ruling. We will limit our study of this issue to the following points: 1. First Point: The most prominent Shariah texts relied upon by scholars to rule on this issue, and some of their commentaries on them. 2. Second Point: Some of what has been mentioned in jurisprudential references regarding the issue of fleeing from the battlefield. 3. Third Point: Our view on this issue. 4. Fourth Point: What is the punishment for deserting the army in war? - First Point: The most prominent Shariah texts relied upon by scholars to rule on fleeing from the battlefield, and their commentaries on them. There are Shariah texts that have warned against fleeing and turning one's back when meeting the enemy, and when the two ranks—the believers and the disbelievers—advance toward each other... These are some of those texts: ¶

1. Allah the Almighty says: 'O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [in battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell - and wretched is the destination.' (Surah Al-Anfal: 15-16). Ibn al-Arabi stated regarding these verses: 'When you approach them and see each other, do not flee from them, and do not turn your backs to them. Allah forbade this to the believers when He made jihad obligatory upon them.' And Al-Alusi stated: 'The verse is evidence for the prohibition of fleeing from the battlefield except when swerving for tactical advantage or moving to join another group... This applies when the enemy is not more than double [your number], due to the saying of Allah: "Now Allah has lightened [the burden] for you." ... However, if they are more numerous, fleeing is permitted. Thus, the verse does not remain in its general sense, and this is the position held by most scholars.' ¶

2. And Allah the Almighty says: 'O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand. Now Allah has lightened [the burden] for you, and He knows that among you is weakness. So if there are from you one hundred [who are] steadfast...' ¶

“...they shall overcome two hundred (1), and if there are one thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand by the permission of Allah, and Allah is with those who are patient.” (2) ¶

Al-Jassas, in his exposition of these two verses, says: “The obligation at the beginning of Islam was for one person to fight ten of the disbelievers, due to the soundness of the believers’ insight at that time and the sincerity of their conviction. Then, when other groups converted to Islam—mixing with those who did not possess their level of insight and intent—the burden was lightened for all, and they were all placed under the same rule, making it mandatory for one person to resist two.” Al-Jassas continues: “When [the verse says], ‘Now Allah has lightened [the burden] for you, and He knows that there is weakness in you,’ it does not refer to weakness of strength or body; rather, it refers to the weakness of intent to fight the polytheists, so He made the obligation for all equal to that of their weakest members. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud said: ‘I did not think that anyone among the Muslims desired anything other than Allah through their fighting, until Allah the Exalted revealed: “Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter” (3). The earlier ones were of such intent, but when those who desired the world through their fighting mixed with them, everyone was made equal in the obligation.’” (4) ¶

3. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is narrated: “From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: ‘When [the verse] “If there are twenty of you who are patient, they will overcome two hundred” was revealed, it was difficult for the Muslims that one was mandated to stand against ten. Then the lightening came, and He said: “Now Allah has lightened [the burden] for you, and He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are one hundred of you who are patient, they will overcome two hundred.”’ He said: ‘When Allah lightened the [required] number for them, He decreased the [required level of] patience in proportion to the lightening he granted them.’” (5) ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari, commenting on the decrease in patience due to the lightening of the obligation: “Ibn Abbas stated this based on what appears to be a revelation (tawqifan), but it is also possible that he stated it based on induction (istiqra’).” (6) ¶

I (the author) say: As for the justification for the decrease in patience, if Ibn Abbas said that by way of induction, it does not... ¶

Regarding the requirements of the Shari'ah, it is the nature of human beings that their patience in facing hardships is proportionate to the burden assigned to them. You may find that someone tasked with climbing a mountain to its halfway point might feel their energy exhausted upon reaching that specific goal, finding it difficult to continue further. However, that same person, had they been tasked from the beginning with reaching the summit of that towering mountain, might have surpassed the halfway point without feeling significant fatigue, and might well have reached the summit itself. The point of this example is that patience in the face of obligations is dependent upon the magnitude of those obligations; patience increases if the burden increases, and decreases if it decreases! ¶

4 - In Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: "It is narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Avoid the seven destructive sins!' They asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, what are they?' He replied: 'Associating partners with Allah (shirk), practicing sorcery (sihr), killing a soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause, consuming usury (riba), consuming the property of an orphan, fleeing from the battlefield (on the day of march), and slandering chaste, believing, innocent women.'" ¶

[Summary of footnotes]: (1) 'The destructive ones' refers to sins that lead their perpetrator to ruin, meaning major sins (kaba'ir). Scholars explain that the variation in the number of major sins mentioned in different hadiths depends on the context of the questioner or the circumstances. Ibn Abbas stated that major sins are far more than seven. Ibn Hajar cites al-Qurtubi, who defined a major sin as any sin for which there is a textual evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, or consensus labeling it as a major sin, or one for which a severe punishment is threatened, or a legal penalty (hadd) is attached. Al-Halimi in 'Al-Minhaj' suggests that every sin has a minor and major aspect, and a minor sin can become major due to accompanying circumstances; this revolves around the intensity or lightness of the harm (mafsadah). ¶

Imam al-Nawawi states: 'As for the Prophet’s ﷺ counting of turning one’s back on the day of the battle (al-zahr) as one of the major sins, it is clear evidence for the position of all scholars that it is indeed a major sin. The only exception is what was narrated from al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him), who said—regarding the noble verse (i.e., “And whoever turns his back to them on such a day...”)—that it was revealed specifically for the people of Badr. The correct view is what the majority have stated: that the ruling is general and remains applicable. And Allah knows best.' (1) ¶

However, it appears there has been some laxity in expressing the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basri in this regard, as seen in the phrasing of *Al-Mughni* by Ibn Qudamah, which states: '...and it was narrated from al-Hasan and al-Dahhak that this—(i.e., the obligation of steadfastness in combat and not fleeing)—was specific to the day of Badr, and is not obligatory in other instances.' (2) ¶

I say: In reality, the report from al-Hasan does not imply that steadfastness is not obligatory outside of Badr, as the phrasing of *Al-Mughni* suggests. Rather, it signifies that fleeing in battles other than Badr is not among the major sins. This means it is merely prohibited (haram), and as long as that is the case, steadfastness is mandatory in battles other than Badr whenever it is necessary to avoid committing a prohibited act. The text of the report from al-Hasan, as recorded by Ibn Hazm with his chain of narration, is: 'From al-Hasan, he said: Fleeing from the battlefield is not among the major sins. That was only specifically on the day of Badr.' (3) ... And something similar was reported from al-Dahhak as well. (4) ¶

5. In *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*: 'From ‘Ata, from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: If a man flees from two, he has indeed fled; but if he flees from three, he has not fled.' (5) Al-Jassas said: 'By his saying “he has indeed fled,” he means the fleeing from the battlefield intended by the verse.' (6) ¶

6. In *Sunan Abi Dawud* and *Al-Tirmidhi*: 'From Abdullah ibn ‘Umar... that he was in a military expedition (sariyah) from...' ¶

The text recounts: The detachments (saraya) of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The narrator said: The people turned away from the battle, and I was among those who turned. When we arrived (near Medina), we said: What shall we do? We have fled from the battlefield and have incurred the wrath of Allah. So we said: Let us enter Medina, hide ourselves, and go nowhere so that no one sees us! He said: So we entered and said: Let us present ourselves to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. If there is repentance for us, we shall stay; if not, we shall depart. He said: We sat for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ before the dawn prayer. When he came out, we stood before him and said: We are the ones who fled (al-farrarun)! He turned to us and said: 'No, rather you are those who return to the attack (al-akkarun).' He said: We drew near and kissed his hand, and he said: 'I am the group (fi'ah) of the Muslims.' ¶

7 - In Sunan Abi Dawud and also in al-Tirmidhi, it is reported from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'The best of companions are four, the best of detachments (saraya) are four hundred, the best of armies are four thousand, and twelve thousand will never be defeated due to small numbers.' ¶

(Note: According to the footnotes provided in the text: 'Hasa' means to turn away from something or deviate. 'Al-Akkarun' are those who return to the fight to support their leader, not with the intention of fleeing the battlefield. Furthermore, scholars have critiqued the chain of narration for the first hadith, and Sheikh Al-Albani did not include it in his authentic collections. Regarding the figure of twelve thousand, it implies that being few in number is not the cause of defeat; however, defeat may occur due to other factors, such as arrogance due to large numbers—as happened at Hunayn—or the betrayal of commanders.) ¶

It is stated in Sharh al-Jami' al-Saghir: 'They relied upon this Hadith to establish that if the number of Muslims reaches twelve thousand, it is forbidden to retreat, even if the disbelievers exceed double their number. Al-Qurtubi said: This is the position of the majority of scholars, because they considered this to be a specification (takhsis) of the noble verse.' That is—as the context suggests—it specifies the meaning of the verse that permits withdrawal from combat if the disbelievers are more than twice the number of Muslims: 'If there are twenty of you who are patient, they will overcome two hundred...' (the verse). ¶

8. In Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq: 'Ibn Jurayj said: I asked Ata regarding fleeing from the battlefield (al-zahf). He said: The one who flees is he who is neither maneuvering for battle nor turning toward a group (fi'ah), as per the word of God. I asked: What if a man flees outside of battle (zahf)? He said: There is no harm in that.' This restriction applies specifically to the state of open battle (al-zahf). ¶

9. It also contains: From Qatadah, that 'Umar appointed Abu Ubayd al-Thaqafi over an army, and he and his army were killed in the land of Persia. 'Umar said: If they had retreated toward me, I would have been a group (fi'ah) for them.' ¶

10. In Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 'From Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, that two men fled on the day of Maskan from the Kufa expedition. They came to 'Umar, who reprimanded them and chastised them severely with his tongue, saying: You fled! He intended to send them to the Basra expedition. They said: O Commander of the Faithful, no, rather return us to the expedition from which we fled, so that our repentance may be accepted from that place.' ¶

11. In Majma' al-Zawa'id: 'The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered 'Amr ibn Murrah to station himself and his tribe (Juhaynah ibn Zayd) on the day of Hawazin. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to them: O people of Juhaynah, be behind (Banu Sulaym), and if they approach, strike them with weapons at their backs... And a tribe among them came that day, called: Banu...' ¶

‘Usayyah; because they disobeyed Allah and His Messenger, so the tribe of Juhaynah killed them. The Prophet ﷺ commanded Juhaynah, so they advanced toward Hawazin and diverted (Sulaym) from their position. (1) ¶

12 - It is mentioned in Sahih Muslim that Umm Sulaym, following the victory of the Muslims in the Battle of Hunayn—after the defeat they suffered in the first round—said to the Prophet ﷺ (she was among those who attended that battle): “O Messenger of Allah! Kill those among us (2) who are from the Tulaqa (3)! They fled from you (4).” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “O Umm Sulaym! Allah has sufficed and done well!” (5) ¶

This pertains to the Shariah texts and historical accounts that appear in the discussion regarding the ruling on the issue of fleeing from the battlefield. With this, we conclude the first point and proceed to the second. ¶

Second point: Some views mentioned in Fiqh references regarding the issue of fleeing from the battlefield: ¶

1 - The Hanafi school: ¶

It is stated in Bada’i al-Sana’i: “When the warriors are met by a multitude of polytheists whom they have no power to confront, and they fear they will be killed, there is no harm in them retreating to some Muslim city or to some of their armies. The ruling in this matter depends on the prevailing opinion and strong belief, not on numbers. If the warriors are convinced that they can resist them, they are obligated to stand firm, even if they are fewer in number. If their prevailing opinion is that they will be overcome, there is no harm in them retreating to the Muslims to seek their help, even if they are more numerous than the infidels. Similarly, a single warrior who has no weapon facing two of them who have weapons, or one of them who has a weapon, there is no harm in him turning his back while retreating to a group. The basis for this is the saying of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted: {And whoever turns his back on that day—unless he is maneuvering for war or joining another group}.” ¶

with the wrath of Allah – then he said: 'And from this, it is evident that the noble verse is not abrogated. Likewise, the saying of Allah the Glorious and Almighty: ﴿If there are twenty steadfast among you, they will overcome two hundred﴾ and His saying: ﴿If there are a hundred among you, they will overcome a thousand﴾ is not abrogated; for 'turning away' towards a group (fi'ah) for tactical retreat was specifically permitted, so the two verses were not abrogated, and Allah knows best. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to those who had fled to Medina while he was there: 'You are the ones who return to attack (al-karrarun). I am the group (fi'ah) of every Muslim.' He (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them that one who retreats towards a group (for tactical support) is a combatant returning to the fray, not one fleeing from the battlefield, and thus the threat of divine punishment does not apply to him.' ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary: 'If the number of Muslims is half the number of the polytheists, it is not permissible for them to flee from them. The initial ruling was that if they were one-tenth of the polytheists, it was not permissible for them to flee... then the matter was mitigated... This applies if they possess the power to fight, meaning they have weapons. As for one who has no weapon, there is no harm in fleeing from one who is armed, and likewise, there is no harm in fleeing from one who shoots if he does not possess the means to shoot... On this basis, there is no harm in one fleeing from three, unless the Muslims are twelve thousand in number and united in purpose; at that point, it is not permissible for them to flee from the enemy, no matter how numerous the enemy may be.' Then he cited the Hadith of the 'twelve thousand' and commented: 'And whoever is victorious has no right to flee.' Then he cited the statement of Umar after the martyrdom of Abu Ubayd al-Thaqafi and his army in the Battle of the Bridge: 'If only he had retreated towards me...' and commented: 'This indicates that there is no harm in retreating if the Muslims face such force from the enemy that they cannot withstand, and there is also no harm in remaining steadfast.' ¶

The summary of what is in 'Al-Bada'i' is that the core consideration in this matter is the ability of the Muslims to resist the enemy. If the capacity is available, it is not permissible for them to flee or retreat, regardless of how few the Muslims are or how numerous the disbelievers are. However, if they lack the capacity to resist, it is permissible. ¶

They are permitted to retreat toward another group of Muslims to seek their assistance in returning to battle. The summary of what is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary is as follows: First: If the Muslims number fewer than twelve thousand, there are two scenarios: (a) If the disbelievers do not exceed twice the number of the Muslims, it is not permissible for the Muslims to flee from the battlefield, provided they possess the strength to fight and resist. If their strength weakens beyond that, it is permissible for them to withdraw from the face of the enemy to join another group. (b) If the disbelievers exceed twice the number of the Muslims, it is permissible for them to flee. Second: If the Muslims reach twelve thousand in number, it is not permissible for them to flee from the face of the enemy, regardless of how great the number of the disbelievers may be. This is the position of the Hanafis. ¶

2. The Maliki School of Thought: It is stated in Al-Qawanin al-Shar'iyya: 'It is not permissible to depart from the battle line if it leads to the defeat of the Muslims; if it does not, it is permissible for the purpose of tactical maneuvering or to join a group... Joining the present group is permissible. There is disagreement regarding retreating to an absent group of Muslims or to a city. Defection (fleeing in defeat) is not permitted unless the disbelievers exceed twice the number of the Muslims (1). According to the famous view, 'number' is the criterion in this regard, while another view suggests 'strength' (2). If the number of Muslims reaches twelve thousand, fleeing in defeat is not lawful, even if the disbelievers exceed twice that number (3). If the Muslims are certain that they will be killed, then withdrawing is preferable...' ¶

(Footnote summary: Ibn al-Qasim and the majority hold that 'number' is the criterion, not strength or bravery, contrary to Ibn al-Majishun. In Hashiyat al-Dasuqi: If their unity is fractured, fleeing is permissible in all cases, even if they reach twelve thousand.) ¶