Chapter 65

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: 'It is apparent from the narration of Ikrimah — (meaning this final hadith recorded by Muslim) — that the motive for killing him was that he had become aware of the vulnerabilities of the Muslims and was hastening to inform his companions so they could take advantage of their negligence; thus, there was a maslaha (public interest) for the Muslims in his killing.' ¶

It is stated in Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim: 'In this is the ruling on killing the harbi (at war) kafir spy, and this is by the consensus of the Muslims.' ¶

I say: This spy, regarding whose killing al-Nawawi reported a consensus, pertains only to the harbi kafir spy who is neither a subject of a treaty-bound state (mu'ahad) nor one who has been granted safe conduct (musta'man), regardless of whether this spy was apprehended outside the Dar al-Islam or had infiltrated it illegally. Therefore, it is stated in Fath al-Bari: 'The mentioned spy pretended to have safe conduct; but once he had fulfilled his need for espionage, he fled hastily, and it became clear that he was a harbi who had entered without safe conduct.' ¶

Furthermore, it remains for us to know two matters here: ¶

First: Is the killing of a harbi kafir spy who is neither treaty-bound nor protected by safe conduct — if he is captured — a matter of obligation (wujub)? Or is it merely a matter of permissibility (jawaz)? Meaning, is the consensus established on the permissibility of killing him, yet it remains permissible to refrain from killing him if a maslaha is seen in sparing him? ¶

Second: If a harbi kafir spy enters the Islamic state under the rule of safe conduct or a treaty with his state — meaning he enters through a legitimate method — and then spies on the Muslims, what is the ruling concerning him? ¶

Regarding the first matter concerning the spy who is neither treaty-bound nor protected by safe conduct, we say: What was previously cited in the commentary on the hadith of the 'spy' indicates that the ruling for this spy is killing, without differentiation between whether the killing is obligatory or merely permissible. ¶

It is known that a harbi kafir who is neither protected by safe conduct nor treaty-bound — if he is of the status of a combatant, ¶

And if the Muslims capture him, it is permissible to kill him, and it is permissible to refrain from killing him. But as for this kafir (disbeliever) here, who committed espionage against the Muslims—does his act necessitate the choice of killing him? ¶

What is understood from what was stated in Fath al-Bari, in clarifying the nature of the Prophet’s ﷺ command to kill the spy of Hawazin, is that his killing was purely based on the maslahah (public interest) for the Muslims, as mentioned in the statement of Ibn Hajar: 'There was a maslahah for the Muslims in killing him.' This means that his killing is not mandatory; rather, if the person in authority sees a maslahah in sparing him, he has the option not to kill him. Perhaps what supports this view is that the Prophet’s ﷺ command to kill the Hawazin spy may have been because he had managed to obtain information beneficial to the mushrikeen (polytheists) regarding the military situation of the Muslims, and had fled to deliver that information to them. In such a case, the spy should not be allowed to deliver the information he obtained to the enemy, which necessitates pursuing him and killing him if he is apprehended before he permanently escapes—especially since he is, in principle, one whose blood is not protected (muhdar al-dam), as he is a kafir harbi (a disbeliever at war) with no guarantee of safety. Moreover, killing him is easier for the pursuers than attempting to capture him and take him prisoner, whereas if the goal of the pursuit were only to capture him without killing him, it might have been difficult for the pursuers, and the fleeing spy could have managed to escape. ¶

This is what is said in justification of the order to kill the Hawazin spy, who was neither a mu'ahid (one with a treaty) nor a musta'man (one granted safety). That is, the circumstances surrounding this act of espionage were what dictated the choice to kill that spy, not because this ruling is the only one that must be implemented if he is captured. ¶

On the other hand, it is also possible that the Prophet’s ﷺ command to kill the Hawazin spy was because the rule regarding a spy, in absolute terms, is that he must be killed when there is power over him, even if he did not succeed in obtaining or delivering any information, provided that his act of espionage is proven. Based on this, it is possible that the statement of the fuqaha (jurists) that the ruling for this spy is death, is based on this perspective, due to the deterrence it provides to others against such actions. ¶

It is stated in 'Ahkam al-Qur'an' by Ibn al-Arabi: 'Asbagh said: The belligerent (harbi) spy shall be killed'(1). ¶

And in 'Al-Kharaj' by Abu Yusuf, when Harun al-Rashid asked him about the ruling on spies, he said: 'You asked, O Commander of the Faithful, about spies... if they are from the people of war (ahl al-harb)... then strike their necks'(2). ¶

Based on the foregoing, we choose for this spy the ruling of mandatory execution, acting upon the apparent instruction of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to execute him, because carrying out the execution is more potent in deterring this activity against the Islamic State. However, this is unless his execution would lead to grave dangers that the Muslims cannot face—in such a case, the harm caused by executing this spy would be greater than the harm resulting from not killing him, and thus the execution should be suspended. This is because, even if his killing were obligatory, 'it is a well-known principle in Shariah that harm is repelled by abandoning an obligatory act if that becomes the only path to repel the harm'(3), as has been stated repeatedly. ¶

This is the ruling concerning the belligerent (harbi) non-Muslim spy if he is not among those granted amnesty (musta'min) or those under a treaty (mu'ahid). ¶

Second: Regarding the second matter: A belligerent (harbi) non-Muslim, if he enters the Islamic State by virtue of an individual amnesty granted to him, or by virtue of a treaty concluded with his state which allows its citizens to enter the territory of the Islamic State without the need for an individual amnesty—that is, without the need for an entry visa for each individual: If this belligerent non-Muslim enters the lands of Islam through this legitimate path and then spies on the Muslims, what is the ruling regarding him? ¶

- In Hanafi Fiqh: We mentioned earlier that the opinion of Abu Yusuf is the execution of the belligerent non-Muslim spy. ¶

The term 'Harbi Kafir' (enemy combatant) in its absolute sense applies to both the Musta'man (one granted safe conduct) and the Mu'ahid (one with whom there is a treaty), just as it applies to one who has neither safe conduct nor a treaty; both are considered 'Harbi Kafir,' and when restricted, the intended meaning is determined by the specific qualification mentioned. ¶

Thus, Abu Yusuf rules for the execution of this spy, as indicated by the general application in his previous statement: 'I asked, O Commander of the Faithful, regarding spies... if they are from the people of war (Ahl al-Harb)... then strike off their necks.' ¶

As for Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, he does not permit the killing of such a Musta'man or Mu'ahid spy; rather, he rules for a painful discretionary punishment (ta'zir), unless his entry into Islamic lands was solely for the purpose of espionage, and his request for safe conduct was a cover intended to facilitate that mission. In such a case, it is permissible to kill him, but not obligatory, although it is preferable to execute him so that he may serve as a deterrent to others. ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir wa Sharhuhu' by Imams Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Al-Sarakhsi, in summary: '...Likewise, if a Musta'man among us commits this (espionage), he does not thereby violate his safe conduct... except that he is to be given a painful punishment... because he committed that which is not lawful for him and intended by his action to inflict harm upon the Muslims. If, when he requested safe conduct, the Muslims said to him: We grant you security on the condition that you are not a spy against the Muslims... then when it becomes apparent that he is a Harbi spy who has no safe conduct, there is no harm in killing him... and if the Imam deems it appropriate to make him 'Fay' (captive/slave), there is no harm in that either, like other prisoners of war, except that it is preferable to kill him here so that others may take heed. If the person is a woman instead of a man, there is also no harm in killing her.' ¶

This is the position of the Hanafis. ¶

As for the Maliki school: ¶

There are jurisprudential texts among them that make the killing of such a Musta'man or Mu'ahid spy permissible; that is, it is not obligatory, meaning it is permissible to kill him, just as it is permissible not to kill him. Likewise, there are other jurisprudential texts among them that render the killing of this spy a definitive (mandatory) matter. ¶

It is stated in Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Dardir: 'It is permissible to kill an 'ayn, meaning a spy who uncovers the vulnerabilities of the Muslims and conveys their news to the enemy, if he was granted aman (security). That is, he entered our lands with security, for granting security does not imply that he acts as a spy, nor does it necessitate it, and it is not permissible to contract [to act as a spy]...' In Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, commenting on the above: 'His statement: 'It is permissible to kill an 'ayn,' meaning a disbeliever. Sahnun said: Unless the Imam deems it appropriate to enslave him; this is problematic, because enslaving him does not repel his harm, reflect upon this.' ¶

Furthermore, Imam al-Nawawi attributed to the two Imams, Malik and al-Awza'i, the opinion that it is permissible to kill this spy or enslave him. He said: 'As for the Mu'ahid (covenanted) and Dhimmi spy, Malik and al-Awza'i said: He becomes a violator of the covenant. If the Imam (of the Muslims) deems it appropriate to enslave him, he may do so, and killing him is also permissible. The majority of scholars said: His covenant is not violated by that act.' ¶

In contrast, there are texts in Maliki jurisprudence that deem the killing of this spy mandatory, unless he declares his Islam. It is stated in 'Manh al-Jalil': 'And an 'ayn shall be killed... meaning a spy against the Muslims... if he does not embrace faith. Even if the spy is a Dhimmi, in our school, or a Harbi who was granted security... his killing is fixed unless he converts to Islam. It was reported from Sahnun: If the Imam deems it appropriate to enslave him, it is his prerogative, but it was objected that this does not repel his evil.' ¶

In Shafi'i jurisprudence: It is stated in the book 'Al-Umm': 'I asked Al-Shafi'i: What about the one who writes about the vulnerabilities of the Muslims... from among the Musta'min (those granted security) and the Muwadi' (those with a truce)...? He said: They shall be punished (ta'zir) and imprisoned as a penalty, and this does not constitute a violation of the covenant that would make their capture (saby), their wealth, and their blood lawful.' And in Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim, regarding our issue: 'As for the spy...' ¶

Regarding the mu'ahid (treaty-holder) and the dhimmi... the majority of scholars said: Their covenant is not broken by that [act of espionage]. Our companions (the Shafi'is) said: Unless it was stipulated upon him that the covenant would be broken by such an act. ¶

In 'Al-Minhaj' and its commentary 'Mughni al-Muhtaj', it is stated: 'It is not permissible, nor is it valid, to grant security (aman) that harms the Muslims, such as to a spy or a scout, due to the Hadith: "There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm." It is appropriate, as the Imam said, that such a person does not deserve to be escorted to a place of safety; rather, he should be assassinated, because the entry of someone like him is an act of treachery.' ¶

This is the position of the Shafi'is. If we wish to reconcile these jurisprudential texts within the Shafi'i school, we say: ¶

A. What is mentioned in the book 'Al-Umm' specifically concerns the 'harbi' (alien) disbeliever who was granted a covenant and security without the condition of non-espionage being imposed upon him, and he did not intend to spy on the Muslims when the security was granted—as it seems—but rather, after obtaining security, he happened to commit acts of espionage. The ruling for him is imprisonment and ta'zir (discretionary punishment); it is not permissible to kill him under the pretext of violating the security, because such espionage, given these circumstances, is not considered a breach of the covenant. ¶

B. As for the jurisprudential text found in 'Sharh Sahih Muslim', it clarifies a new point in the Shafi'i school: if the harbi disbeliever is granted a covenant and security on the condition of not spying on Muslims, and then he violates this condition, then his espionage constitutes a breach of his security. This means he is treated like a harbi disbeliever who has no covenant or security. His case is like that of a dhimmi upon whom a condition of non-espionage was imposed during the 'contract of dhimmah' and who then violated it; his security and covenant are broken, and he is treated like a harbi disbeliever without security if apprehended. The ruling for him is: 'The Imam has the choice regarding him to kill him, enslave him, set him free without ransom (mann), or ransom him. If he converts to Islam before the choice is exercised, the killing, enslavement, and ransom are prevented.' That is to say: it is permissible, but not mandatory, to kill such a spy, provided he does not embrace Islam. ¶

C - Regarding the text mentioned in 'Mughni al-Muhtaj', it applies to the harbi (belligerent) kafir who has been granted aman (security) or a visa to enter the territory of the Islamic State, and it is subsequently established by the Islamic intelligence agency that he is an individual working within an espionage network, for instance, even if no act of espionage has yet been proven against him. Such a person's presence in the country is a source of potential danger to the State. Therefore, he should be subject to 'nabdh' (repudiation), meaning he is warned that his security is being withdrawn and that he is a persona non grata. He is to be expelled beyond the borders of the Islamic State, and he is not entitled to safe passage to his home country. ¶

Once outside the borders of the State, he is to be fought if he cannot escape and save himself. This is because, once expelled beyond the borders of the State, he has become a harbi with no security; thus, it is permissible to kill or assassinate him if possible, just like other harbi kuffar. In fact, this individual is even more worthy of being targeted for elimination due to the threat he poses to the State, represented by his role as a spy working in an organization for espionage against the Muslims. ¶

In summary, this is the position of the Shafi'is. ¶

As for the opinion of the Hanbalis on the issue at hand, they have mentioned that the treaty of the dhimmis is nullified by espionage, in addition to other violations they enumerated, 'regardless of whether the Imam stipulated to them that doing so would constitute a breach of their treaty, or did not stipulate it, according to the more correct of the two narrations' (1). ¶

Based on this, it follows a fortiori that the treaty of a harbi kafir—who is a musta'min (granted security) or a mu'ahid (covenanted)—is nullified by espionage, because the security of a musta'min or mu'ahid is weaker than the treaty of dhimma. ¶

They stated: 'Whoever we rule has breached his treaty, the Imam has a choice regarding him among four things: execution, enslavement, ransom, or pardoning, just like a harbi prisoner of war; because he is a kafir whom we have apprehended within our territory without a treaty, contract, or ambiguity, thus resembling a harbi thief...' (2). ¶

This is based on the more correct narration which rules that the treaty is nullified as a result of espionage and other specific violations they enumerated. ¶

As for the second narration, it states: 'The treaty is not nullified by it, but rather the prescribed hadd (punishment) is applied to him for the act that warrants it.' ¶

the prescribed punishment (hadd) shall be applied, or qisas (retaliation) shall be exacted from him in matters necessitating qisas, and in other matters, he shall be subjected to a ta'zir (discretionary punishment) that serves as a deterrent to others like him from committing such an act. It should be noted that espionage does not fall under the category of hudud or qisas; rather, it belongs to the category of ta'zirat. Consequently, a dhimmi, as well as those affiliated with them among the musta'minin (those granted security) or the mu'ahadin (those with whom a treaty exists), if they engage in espionage, shall be punished with deterrent ta'zir punishments. It is not permissible to sentence a spy from among them to death—in light of this second narration. This is the opinion that Imam al-Nawawi attributed to the majority of scholars—as previously mentioned—and he also attributed it to the Shafi'is, in the case where there was no prior condition imposed upon them to avoid any espionage activities. This is what we perceive to be the position of the Hanbalis regarding spies who are belligerent (harbi) infidels—whether musta'min or mu'ahid—by analogizing them to the spies among the dhimmis, as is apparent. - A narration states that the treaty is nullified in their case, which is the most correct (asah) view among them. - And a narration in which they agree with the opinion of the majority. Finally: What is our view on this matter? That is: if a belligerent (harbi) infidel enters the Islamic state through a legal route, such as obtaining an entry visa, or if there is a peace treaty between his state and the Islamic state allowing the movement of citizens from both sides between the two states without the need for an entry visa—if this musta'min or mu'ahid belligerent infidel spies against the Muslims, what is the ruling we hold regarding him? I say: We choose here what we chose in the ruling on the belligerent spy who has neither security (aman) nor a treaty, which is to sentence him to death and execute that sentence, unless the risks and harms resulting from it are greater than the harm of not executing the sentence—as previously explained. And the reason for our choice of this ruling is also the hadith of the 'spy of Hawazin', which is the hadith that... ¶

We have previously relied upon this [principle] to determine the ruling of execution for a harbi (combatant) kafir who possesses neither aman (guarantee of safety) nor a treaty. ¶

This is because, regarding the spy of Hawazin, it is possible that he had no aman or treaty, and that he merely deceived the Muslims into thinking so. Based on this, Imam al-Bukhari titled the chapter for this hadith: 'Chapter: The harbi who enters the Dar al-Islam without aman.' I say: Just as this is possible, it is also possible that he entered the Muslims' camp with aman, as suggested by his outward behavior in the texts: 'He sat with his companions, conversing...' i.e., with the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ), 'then he moved forward to eat with the people.' Based on this apparent situation, Abu Dawud titled the chapter for this hadith in his Sunan: 'Chapter regarding the spy who has been granted safety (musta'man).' He considered him a musta'man who entered the Muslim camp under safety. He then cited the hadith which states: 'Then he slipped away, and the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Pursue him and kill him.' This occurred after his true intent was exposed, and his actions indicated he had come to spy, using the aman he had received—as appears to be the case—as a means of concealment. ¶

I say: As long as the 'spy of Hawazin' could possibly have had no aman, as understood from al-Bukhari’s heading, and could also possibly have had prior aman, as is explicit in Abu Dawud’s heading for the same hadith, and as long as both possibilities exist, then the attribute that formed the basis (manat) for the death sentence against this spy should be the one encompassing both possibilities: that he is a harbi kafir spy, regardless of whether or not he had previously been granted aman. ¶

Therefore, the opinion we choose regarding this spy is that his killing is mandatory, acting upon the apparent instruction of the Messenger (ﷺ) to kill him. Furthermore, the administration of the death penalty here is more effective in deterring the destructive activities of spies against the Islamic state than mere imprisonment or ta'zir (discretionary punishment). ¶

With this, we conclude the discussion on the spies of the ahl al-harb (people of war), and move to another discussion with the help of Allah (Azza wa Jall). ¶

(96) After creating humanity, Allah the Almighty provided the necessary means of sustenance so that mankind might worship Him and conduct their lives according to His commands. In the religion of Islam, the pursuit of livelihood is given great importance, and earning sustenance through lawful (halal) means is considered an act of worship. Once, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) observed a man working with great diligence. Some companions remarked, "Would that this toil were in the path of Allah." The Prophet (peace be upon him) responded: "If he is working for his young children, it is in the path of Allah. If he is working for his elderly parents, it is in the path of Allah. And if he is working for himself so that he may not be dependent on anyone, it is still in the path of Allah." It is essential to keep the following principles regarding earning a livelihood in Islam in mind: 1. Lawfulness of Sustenance: Islam permits earning wealth only through halal sources. Income derived from haram sources—such as interest (riba), gambling, bribery, fraud, and theft—is strictly prohibited. 2. Diligence and Honesty: Hard work and integrity are essential in the pursuit of rizq (sustenance). No permissible occupation should be considered lowly. 3. Punctuality: Being punctual in one's work is necessary to maintain the proper order of society. 4. Regard for the Rights of Others: While earning a living, one must remain mindful of the rights of others, ensuring no one is deceived and no one's rights are violated. The objective of earning is not merely to accumulate wealth, but to fulfill one's own needs and those of one's family to attain the pleasure of Allah. ¶

Third Section: The Use of Lies and Deception in War against the Enemy. We remain in the chapter discussing the treatment of enemies by Muslims during war, which falls under the war policy dictated by Shariah rulings, as is the title of the section whose chapters and discussions we are addressing. In this mentioned framework—is it permissible for us, in our dealings with the enemy during war, to use methods of equivocation, deception, lying, and the like, which are commonly necessitated by need, for the purpose of misleading the enemy so that he may not, for instance, be able to uncover the war plans laid to strike him, nor be able to formulate a successful plan to target the Muslims? This is the subject of this research. Consequently, the focus of this research, as we see it, revolves around two points: 1. The first point: Is the use of 'deception' (kud'ah) in war necessary? And what is meant by it according to military specialists? With examples from the Prophetic biography (Sirah). 2. The second point: The Shariah texts that permit the use of methods of deception and misleading against the enemy, and the opinions of scholars in this regard. 1. The first point: Is the use of 'deception' (kud'ah) in war necessary? And what is meant by it according to military specialists? With examples from the Prophetic biography. - Brigadier General Dr. Muhammad Daher Watar states in his book 'Military Administration' under the heading 'Deception', the following: ¶

This (i.e., deception) is a part of military science and is essential in battles at the tactical and strategic levels. It is the art of camouflage, concealing the truth, and performing deceptive acts to divert the enemy from the actual directions, locations, and primary objectives. This military art was frequently utilized in the Ghazawat (expeditions led by the Prophet) and Saraya (expeditions sent by the Prophet) during the Prophetic era. A case in point is when the Prophet ﷺ set out for the invasion of 'Bani Lihyan'. He headed north from Medina towards the road to Sham, while the enemy was residing in the region situated between Amaj and Usfan, which is in the south near Mecca. After traveling deep into the north, he turned rapidly towards the south, intending to surprise them in their own territory, after they had become complacent due to reports reaching them that the Prophet ﷺ was occupied on the northern front of Medina. This is an example of camouflage in direction and camouflage in the intended location. (1) Tactics: This refers to what occurs during actual combat in the field. It includes various combat operations, measures, arrangements, and leadership. In short, it is the 'art of fighting'. The term 'tactics' is sometimes borrowed in certain writings to express that something is local, with limited impact, as opposed to strategic. (2) Strategy: 'Grand' or 'Comprehensive' strategy is the coordination and direction of all the state's capabilities—political, economic, social, military, etc.—towards achieving the political goal of the war. This implies that the armed forces are only one of the instruments of strategy for achieving the higher goals of the state. Strategy itself concerns only the military aspect of the conflict, with the aim of achieving the objectives defined by grand strategy. Therefore, it is the purview of the military command and deals with high-level military matters, such as the distribution of armed forces on fronts and the management of war supplies. In short, it is the 'art of leading a war'. Strategy aims only to achieve military victory, as matters concerning the post-war period are the domain of grand strategy. ¶

Among the ruses in operations is what occurred in the Battle of Mu'tah, in which the Muslims—numbering three thousand—faced their enemies from the Romans and Arabs, who numbered more than two hundred thousand. It is narrated about this battle: 'When Abdullah ibn Rawahah was killed, the Muslims dispersed and retreated until no two men were left together. Then, when they gathered under the command of Khalid, Allah defeated the polytheists. In another narration: When Khalid ibn al-Walid woke up in the morning, he moved his vanguard to the rear and his right wing to the left. The enemy noticed their changed state and said: "Reinforcements have arrived!" They became terrified, broke ranks, and fled, and the Muslims seized most of what they possessed'(1)... This is what is said regarding the first point. ¶

2- The second point: The Shariah texts that permit the use of methods of deception and guile against the enemy, and the statements of scholars in this regard. ¶

The foundation of Muslim conduct is based on transparency, clarity, and truthfulness. However, it is not permissible to adhere to these noble values during war with the enemy if doing so would cause harm to the Muslims or prevent them from achieving victory in battles and wars. ¶

Hence, Shariah texts have provided concessions to bypass these values during such times; in fact, they encourage the use of tactics that contradict them, as these are considered tools used against the enemy to inflict defeat upon them. ¶

Thus, the principle in legitimate warfare is that what is not permissible outside of it becomes permissible within it. If the blood of enemies is fundamentally sacred and unlawful to shed outside of legitimate warfare, it becomes permissible once legitimate warfare commences! ¶

Therefore, it is no surprise that methods forbidden in dealing with the enemy outside of war—such as lying, deception, and trickery—become permissible if war breaks out between the Muslims and that enemy. ¶

Furthermore, the objective of using the aforementioned methods in war is merely to defeat the enemy. ¶

It is a means to achieve victory and to hasten the end of hostilities, with the purpose of economizing in the shedding of blood on both sides—the Muslims and their enemies. This gives these tactics a positive value within the framework in which they are used. ¶

In any case, let us now review those Shariah texts that provided authorization or encouragement for the use of tactics to mislead the enemy during wars and the preparation for them. ¶

1. Regarding 'tawriya' (equivocation), it is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ka’b ibn Malik, the following text: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ rarely intended to set out for a military expedition without hinting at a destination other than the one he intended...” (1). It states in Fath al-Bari: “Wara (he equivocated): i.e., he concealed it. It is used when one reveals something while intending something else... It is also said: In war, it is taking the enemy by surprise” (2). It further states: “The meaning is that he would intend a matter but would not reveal it; for instance, he would intend to march towards the east, yet he would ask about affairs in the west and make preparations for travel, so that whoever saw or heard him would think he intended the west” (3). ¶

This is what has been mentioned regarding tawriya; by its nature, the enemy is deceived by it, leading to their being misled. Indeed, the Shariah text has explicitly permitted: ¶

B- The use of deception (khid’a) explicitly, or the encouragement of it, when dealing with the enemy in war: It is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: “The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘War is deception’” (4). ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: 'It contains an incitement to exercise caution in war, a recommendation to deceive the disbelievers, and a warning that whoever is not vigilant in this regard cannot be secure against the situation turning against them. Ibn al-Arabi said: Deception (khuda') in war occurs through insinuation (ta'rid), ambush, and other means. The Hadith contains an indication of employing strategy in war; indeed, the need for it is more urgent than the need for courage. For this reason, the discussion was limited to what this Hadith points to.' ¶

And it is stated in Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim: 'The scholars are in consensus on the permissibility of deceiving the disbelievers in war by any means possible, unless it involves breaking a treaty or a pledge of safety (aman), in which case it is not lawful.' ¶

Furthermore, among the instances of deception is what occurred in the story of Abu Basir shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: 'Abu Basir said to one of the two men: By Allah, I see that this sword of yours is excellent, O so-and-so. The other drew it out and said: Yes, by Allah, I have tested it! Abu Basir said: Show it to me so I may look at it. He gave it to him, and he struck him with it until he went cold [died].' ¶

Among other examples of deception is: 'What Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, did on the Day of the Trench (Khandaq) when 'Amr bin 'Abd Wudd challenged him. He said: Did you not guarantee that you would not seek assistance against me from anyone else? So who are these people you called? He [Ali] looked back as if surprised by this, then Ali struck his shins, cutting his legs.' ¶

This is what has been reported regarding deception in war. ¶

C - Regarding lying in war, it is also stated in Sahih Muslim: 'On the authority of Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ayt... that she heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying...' ¶

He is not a liar who reconciles between people, says good things, and promotes goodness. Ibn Shihab said: 'I have not heard that license is given for any of what people say as lies except in three cases: war, reconciliation between people, and the conversation between a man and his wife.' (Sahih Muslim). It is stated in Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim: 'Al-Tabari said: What is permitted of lying in war is only al-ma'areed (innuendos or ambiguous speech), not literal lying, for that is not permissible. This is his opinion. The apparent meaning, however, is the permissibility of literal lying itself, but restricting oneself to al-ta'reed (ambiguity) is better. And Allah knows best.' ¶

Furthermore, the license to lie during war was specifically granted in the story of the killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. ¶

(Summary of footnotes): The second part of the hadith in Sahih Muslim is not linked by Ibn Shihab, but it is authentic (sahih) nonetheless due to other narrations. 'Yunmi' means to convey with the intent of reconciliation and seeking goodness. Scholars explain that this is not considered lying, because lying is reporting something contrary to reality, whereas this involves conveying good and omitting evil. According to Al-Qadi (Iyad), there is no disagreement on the permissibility of lying in these specific scenarios, though scholars differed on the nature of this 'permissible lying.' Some considered it absolute, while others, such as Al-Tabari, argued it is restricted to 'tawriya' (equivocation/innuendo) rather than explicit falsehood. All agree that lying to deny rights or to deceive is strictly forbidden by the consensus of Muslims. ¶

In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, it is narrated from Jabir: 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: Who will deal with Ka'b bin al-Ashraf? For he has harmed Allah and His Messenger! Muhammad bin Maslama said: O Messenger of Allah! Do you want me to kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Give me permission to say (what I must)! He said: Say it!' ¶

This implies that, at times, there may be a need to speak untruths during conversation with Ka'b bin al-Ashraf so that he may trust Maslama and his companions—the team assigned to the mission of killing Ka'b—and once this trust is established, his assassination becomes feasible. Thus, the Prophet ﷺ granted Maslama permission to say whatever appeared necessary to facilitate the completion of that mission. ¶

Ibn Hajar, commenting on the Prophet's ﷺ permission to Maslama to say what he said, writes: 'This includes permission for lying, both explicitly and implicitly. Ibn al-Arabi said: Lying in war is an exception permitted by textual evidence (Nass) for the benefit of the Muslims due to their need for it; logic has no place here, for if the prohibition of lying were based on intellect alone, it would not have turned into a permissible act.' ¶

In conclusion, this discussion revolves around what the conflict with the enemy necessitates in terms of 'strategy, warfare, and stratagem.' The Islamic Shariah has not restricted those in charge of war matters from using methods that fall within this framework—even resorting to explicit lying, as is the preferred scholarly opinion—as indicated by the Shariah texts, provided it falls within legitimate interests (maslaha) and within the limits previously explained during the research. ¶

Here, we conclude our discussion on the legitimacy of using methods of deception, trickery, and lying against the enemy during war, and move on to another topic with the help of Allah, the Almighty. ¶

(38) These are the places where the Prophet (peace be upon him) stayed, some of which he designated as his residence. The Blessed Dwellings of the Prophet (PBUH): Historians have differed regarding the number of the Prophet's dwellings, but the most widely accepted view is that there were nine. Each house belonged to one of the Mothers of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with them). These houses were built on the eastern side of the Prophet's Mosque. The Construction of these Dwellings: These houses were constructed of sun-dried mud bricks, and their roofs were thatched with palm branches. These dwellings were very narrow and modest, providing only enough space for a person to stand or sleep. It is necessary to mention here that the noble life of the Prophet (PBUH) was free from worldly extravagance. He (PBUH) lived his life with utmost simplicity and contentment. The Prophet’s Dwellings and the Prophet’s Mosque: The doors of his houses opened toward the Prophet's Mosque; when he would come to the Mosque, he would pass through these doors. These houses were a practical manifestation of the simplicity and asceticism of the Prophetic era. They were devoid of any decoration or adornment. Rather, these dwellings bear witness to the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) had understood the reality of this world and had dedicated his entire life to the pleasure of Allah Almighty. ¶

Fourth Discussion: The Corpses of Enemies This is the final discussion in the chapter we dedicated to the treatment of enemies in war. Given that the discourse in the previous sections of this chapter revolved around what is lawful and unlawful in the treatment of these enemies while they are alive, this final discussion will focus on the lawful and unlawful treatment of those enemies left behind by bloody conflict as fatalities on the battlefield, lying as motionless corpses. According to the plan of this treatise, this discussion concerning the corpses of enemies is centered on the following points: 1. First Inquiry: Mutilation of the corpses of enemies (Tamthil). 2. Second Inquiry: Dissection of the corpses of enemies for medical research purposes. 3. Third Inquiry: Burial of the corpses of enemies. 4. Fourth Inquiry: Handing over the corpses of enemies to their kin. ¶

(27) ¶

Following this, it is stated that once all the aforementioned arguments are established, all doubts and suspicions are removed, and the truth becomes manifest, what will be the outcome for those who still do not believe? Thus, it is declared: ¶

'But if they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.' (Quran 28:50) ¶

This verse points to the fact that the primary reason for rejecting the truth is not a lack of intellectual understanding, but rather the pursuit of base desires (hawa). When an individual's desires overwhelm them, they refuse to accept the truth even after it has become clear to them. ¶

Similarly, other places in the Holy Quran elucidate that Allah grants the ability (tawfiq) to accept the truth only to those who are sincere in their pursuit of reality. For those who have become prisoners of their own ego and desires, all paths to guidance become obstructed. ¶

It is also worth noting here that Allah says, 'Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.' These 'wrongdoers' (zalimin) are those who have wronged themselves by failing to accept the truth despite recognizing it, and by failing to seek Allah’s guidance. ¶