Chapter 68

We should adopt the position of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, which is contrary to what the Malikis stated regarding both of the mentioned cases. That is: fighting should be prohibited in the case where the human shield (turs) used by the enemy consists of Muslims; whereas fighting should be permitted in the case where the human shield used by the enemy consists of their own women and children, as is necessitated by the Shariah evidences previously explained in this subject. With this, we conclude the fourth point regarding this issue. With its completion, we reach the end of this research, and we proceed—with the success and support granted by Allah—toward the subsequent research. ¶

However, this principle does not apply in one minor situation: if someone says, 'Sell me this house for a thousand rupees' and the other replies, 'I have sold it to you,' the sale (bay') will be concluded. However, since the price was not explicitly stated, the house will be considered sold at its 'qimat al-mithl' (market value). This means the seller may demand the market price of the house. ¶

Similarly, if someone says, 'Sell this item to me' and the reply is 'I have sold it to you,' the sale is concluded, and the 'qimat al-mithl' becomes binding upon the buyer. ¶

In conclusion, for a sale to be valid, explicit formal offer and acceptance (ijab wa qabul) are not strictly necessary; rather, a sale can also be concluded through 'mu'atat' (conduct/mutual exchange), provided that consent from both sides is evident. ¶

Chapter: Statement on the Conditions of Sale (Bay') ¶

There are certain conditions necessary for the validity of a sale. If these conditions are not met, the sale becomes 'fasid' (irregular). Scholars have divided these conditions into three categories: ¶

1. Conditions of In'iqad (Formation): Conditions without which the sale does not come into existence at all. 2. Conditions of Nafadh (Execution): Conditions without which the sale exists, but its legal effects (transfer of ownership) are not realized. 3. Conditions of Luzum (Binding Effect): Conditions without which the sale is formed and executed, but the option to rescind remains. ¶

Below is a detailed explanation: ¶

First: Conditions of In'iqad (Formation) ¶

The conditions of formation relate to the contracting parties ('aqidayn) and the subject matter of the sale (mahall al-bay'). ¶

1. Discernment in the Contracting Parties: It is necessary for the parties to be sane and adult, or at least discerning enough to recognize profit and loss. Therefore, the sale by an insane person, a very young child, or an unconscious person is not valid. 2. The Subject Matter must be 'Mal Mutaqawwim': The object being sold must be deemed valuable according to Shariah. Therefore, items that are not considered wealth in Shariah (such as blood, carrion, or alcohol) cannot be the subject of a valid sale. 3. Presence of the Subject Matter (Mabi'): The object being sold must exist at the time of the sale. The sale of a non-existent item (that which has not yet come into being, such as fruit not yet grown on a tree) cannot be concluded. ¶

Second Topic: The use of weapons that inflict harm on non-combatants: "Weapons of Mass Destruction" ¶

Introduction: First Section: Weapons that kill humans, animals, and plants while also destroying buildings, such as nuclear bombs—what is the ruling on their use in war? Second Section: Weapons that kill humans, animals, and plants without destroying buildings, such as neutron bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the like—what is the ruling on their use in war? ¶

Introduction: The weapons and means of warfare used in combat against the enemy during the era of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the era of the Companions after him consisted of tools such as swords, spears, arrows, and catapults, as well as the cutting down of trees, setting them on fire (1), and burning buildings (2), and so forth. Likewise, the exchange of fire between Muslims and the disbelievers was among the war tactics that were utilized in battles during the time of the Companions (3), may Allah be pleased with them. ¶

Following this, at the dawn of the modern era, new weaponry emerged, such as rifles that fire bullets... and cannons that launch shells... The jurists (fuqaha) who witnessed their emergence or proliferation examined them and permitted their use by Muslims, by drawing an analogy to ancient weapons. ¶

- Ibn Abidin says regarding the definition of the mangonel (manjaniq): 'It is an instrument used to throw large stones. I say: It has been abandoned today, as the modern cannons have rendered it obsolete' (1). ¶

- Ibn Abidin also says, while discussing archery and the permissibility of using modern weapons that resemble it: '...such as lead pellets; in our time, it has replaced arrows' (2). ¶

- Imam al-San'ani says: 'It is permissible to kill the disbelievers if they are fortified—by using the mangonel. And other forms of cannons and similar weaponry may be measured against it' (3). ¶

- Imam al-Shawkani, while stating his legal (shar'i) opinion on the prohibition of using weapons that do not distinguish between those whose killing is permissible and those whose killing is not—among the enemy ranks in war, if there is no necessity for it—says regarding these indiscriminate weapons: '...such as throwing with a mangonel, cannons, and similar things' (4). ¶

Furthermore, in our current era, weapons of mass destruction have emerged—some of which include the destruction of buildings and facilities alongside the eradication of all traces of human, animal, and plant life, such as nuclear bombs... or those that are mostly limited to exterminating life (human, animal, and plant) while sparing buildings and facilities from destruction, such as neutron bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the like. ¶

These weapons — is it permissible to use them against the enemy in war before gaining power over them, for the purpose of expediting their elimination or forcing them to surrender? And what if, within the hostile locations that are targets for these weapons, there are those whose intentional killing is forbidden, such as Muslims, or the enemy's women, children, and those like them? This is the subject of our research. Therefore, the discussion here is divided, based on the type of weapons we are addressing, into two sections: Section One: Weapons of mass destruction that kill humans, animals, and plants while also destroying buildings, such as nuclear bombs... what is the ruling on their use in war? Section Two: Weapons that kill humans, animals, and plants without destroying buildings, such as neutron bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the like... what is the ruling on their use in war? ¶

Table of Contents ¶

1 - Introduction ... 3 2 - Khutbah Masnunah (Traditional Opening Sermon) ... 7 3 - The Virtues and Blessings of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 9 4 - The Pillars of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 11 5 - The Requirements of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 13 6 - The Meaning of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 17 7 - The Conditions of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 19 8 - The Benefits of the Kalimah Tayyibah ... 25 9 - Conclusion ... 27 ¶

Section One: Weapons of destruction for humans, animals, and plants, along with the demolition of buildings, such as nuclear bombs - what is the ruling on their use in war? ¶

We address this section through the discussion of two issues: - Issue One: Ancient weapons and methods of warfare that destroy manifestations of life and demolish structures, and the position of jurists regarding them. Can modern weapons of mass destruction be categorized alongside them? - Issue Two: What is the ruling on using weapons of mass destruction against hostile entities that include individuals whose intentional killing is forbidden, such as Muslims, and the enemy's subjects—including women, children, and others like them? ¶

Issue One: Ancient weapons and methods of warfare that destroy manifestations of life and demolish structures, and the position of jurists regarding them. Can modern weapons of mass destruction be categorized alongside them? ¶

We may not find a single ancient weapon or method of warfare that produces destruction and mass annihilation to the extent found in modern weapons. However, we do find several ancient weapons and methods mentioned in jurisprudential references—in the context of what is permissible and what is prohibited to use in war against the enemy—which, if used in combination, would yield similar results of annihilation and destruction, albeit within a narrow scope and limited scale incomparable to the effects of modern weapons in this domain. ¶

Among those ancient weapons and methods are: the catapult (manjaniq), burning, drowning, smoking out, cutting down trees, destroying crops, demolishing buildings, and cutting off or contaminating water supplies in enemy territory by introducing poisons, blood, or filth. ¶

With the intention of eliminating the enemy simply by their consumption. Likewise, releasing insects and living creatures upon the enemy that are of the nature to kill those they afflict, or sting or bite them, such as snakes, scorpions, and the like. ¶

These weapons and ancient methods of warfare have been mentioned in classical references. They contain details regarding what is permissible and what is not to be used in war against the enemy, and the circumstances that justify their use. However, there is no disagreement among the majority of scholars regarding the permissibility of using all of them against the enemy, even the most horrific of these war means—such as throwing fire at the enemy's combatants during a state of war and similar actions—if it is the enemy's practice to use such weapons against the Muslims, or if it is impossible to win battles against them without employing such weapons and means. ¶

Furthermore, some schools of jurisprudence have permitted the use of the aforementioned weapons and war methods against the enemy even if it is possible to overcome them with traditional, ancient weapons like swords, spears, and the like. Regarding this, the Shafi'i text 'al-Minhaj' and its commentary 'Mughni al-Muhtaj' state: Imam al-Nawawi says: 'It is permissible to besiege the disbelievers in their cities and fortresses, to flood them with water, to strike them with fire and catapults, and to raid them while they are unaware (tabyit).' The commentator adds, regarding the aforementioned war methods: 'And included in that meaning is the demolition of their homes, cutting off their water supply, and throwing snakes or scorpions at them, even if there are women and children among them, due to the Almighty’s saying: "Seize them and besiege them." In the two Sahihs, it is mentioned that the Prophet (peace be upon him) besieged Ta'if.' And al-Bayhaqi narrated... ¶

That he installed a catapult against them. And whatever falls under the same meaning, causing widespread destruction, is measured by it...! Then he says: The manifest meaning of their statements is that it is permissible to destroy them by what has been mentioned, even if we were capable of overcoming them without it! This is notwithstanding that some jurisprudential opinions have prohibited the use of fire specifically against the enemy, regardless of the reasons. ¶

Al-Shawkani says: 'Allah has commanded the killing of the polytheists, and He has not specified for us the manner in which it should be done, nor has He bound us to act only in one way to the exclusion of another. Thus, there is no prohibition against killing them by any means of killing, such as shooting, stabbing, drowning, demolishing, throwing from a high place, or the like. However, the prohibition has been reported regarding burning. It is established in Sahih al-Bukhari and others from the hadith of Abu Hurairah, who said: (The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent us on an expedition and said: If you find such-and-such person — referring to two men — burn them with fire. Then, when we were about to depart, he said: I had commanded you to burn such-and-such person and such-and-such person. But none punishes with fire except Allah, so if you find them, kill them.) This hadith has indicated the prohibition of burning in any case. The Prophet ﷺ said this after having ordered the burning of two polytheists who had caused great harm to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and deserved to be killed. Then he stated this reason, which implies that it is not permissible to burn any of the servants of Allah with fire, whether they are polytheists or otherwise, even if they reach the ultimate degree of disobedience and rebellion against Allah. Therefore, what occurred from the Companions is interpreted as the evidence having not reached them.' ¶

I say: The principle is the permissibility of fighting the enemy and killing them with any weapon, as long as it is during the state of war before they surrender or are captured. This is because the Shariah texts have not specified a particular machine or war tool to be used against the enemy in the context we are discussing... as in His saying: {And fight in the way of Allah...} ¶

And His saying: 'And kill them wherever you find them.' The implication of this absolute ruling is that it permits the use of all weapons and war strategies that lead to killing and combat, unless a specific piece of evidence exists to prohibit a particular means. Similarly, the implication of this absolute usage in Shariah texts is that it is permissible to use all types of weapons and military means in combat against the enemy without any restriction. That is to say: even if the enemy has not used such weapons in the war against them, and even if it were possible to overcome them with weapons or means less dangerous than those used against them. Therefore, we favor the view held in the Shafi'i school regarding the permissibility of using fire, sabotage, flooding, and the like in war against the enemy, even if it were possible to overcome them with lesser weapons or means, as previously explained. This is in accordance with the generality and absolute nature of Shariah evidence. Yes, if there is any legitimate interest (maslaha) served by avoiding weapons that are more dangerous in terms of destruction and ruin, and instead using lesser ones—provided this does not result in any harm to the Muslims—then that should be observed. This is because this matter falls under the authority of the leader (Sahib al-Sulta), who is obligated to follow the most beneficial course among multiple options, acting upon the legal maxim that states: 'The exercise of authority by the Imam over his subjects is not based on whim, but rather based on the public interest.' As for the doubt raised by Imam al-Shawkani and others regarding the use of fire against the enemy, and the text that suggests the prohibition of burning enemies with fire, we respond to that as follows: A) In Sahih al-Bukhari, there is evidence that explicitly states that the prohibition against burning the enemy applies specifically to cases after the enemy has been captured—that is, after taking them prisoner—and not while they are actively being fought. In this regard, there is a narration in al-Bukhari that says: 'I had commanded you to burn them...' ¶

“...so-and-so and so-and-so with fire, and indeed, no one punishes with fire except Allah. So if you capture them, kill them.” This, and the wording “if you capture them,” is explicit that the prohibition of burning the enemy applies only after capture—that is, after taking them prisoner—and does not cover the state of combat prior to that. ¶

On this basis, the narration “if you find them” means “if you capture them,” as a reconciliation between the two narrations. Confirming this is what is recorded in Sunan Sa'id ibn Mansur regarding the same incident: “That Habbar ibn al-Aswad harmed Zaynab, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), while she was in her litter, causing her to miscarry. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a detachment and said: ‘If you find him, place him between two piles of wood and then set fire to him.’ Then he said: ‘I feel shy before Allah; it is not fitting for anyone to punish with the punishment of Allah.’ The narration continues: The detachment did not find him. Later, he moved to Medina and accepted Islam. He came to the Prophet (ﷺ), and it was said to him: ‘This is Habbar!’ He continued to revile—he was a man who used to revile often. The Prophet (ﷺ) walked to him until he stood over him and said: ‘O Habbar! Revile the one who reviled you. O Habbar! Revile the one who reviled you!’” ¶

This narration explicitly demonstrates that the previous order regarding burning meant only after capturing the intended person, as is understood from the phrase “placing him between two piles of wood.” It was this specific act that was subsequently prohibited. Therefore, the burning of the enemy during the state of combat remains under the original principle of permissibility. ¶

Indeed, according to the majority of jurists, the prohibition of burning the enemy also applies to the state of war, provided that it is possible—without great hardship—to overcome the enemy without using fire. However, if overcoming them requires the use of fire, then it is permissible to use it in such a situation. ¶

Regarding this, it is stated in Fath al-Bari: “The scope [of the prohibition of using fire] is when burning is not the only path to overcoming the infidels during war.” Then he states: “The predecessors differed...” ¶

Regarding burning [the enemy]: This was the view of Umar, Ibn Abbas, and others, whether it was due to kufr (disbelief), in a state of combat, or as qisas (retribution). Ali and Khalid ibn al-Walid, among others, permitted it. Al-Muhallab stated that this prohibition is not for prohibition (tahrim) but out of humility. The actions of the Companions demonstrate the permissibility of burning... Most scholars of Medina permit burning fortresses and ships along with those inside them. This is the view of al-Thawri and al-Awza'i... Ibn Hajar then says: 'As for the hadith of the chapter, the outward meaning of the prohibition is for prohibition (tahrim), and it abrogates the previous command... It is understood to apply to one who intends this against a specific individual.' ¶

I say: What appears—as mentioned—is that the phrase 'if you capture them both' in the hadith, and the command regarding the one who had harmed the Prophet ﷺ, in his physical being, before he entered Islam—that he be placed between two bundles of wood and fire be ignited upon them—and this was before the Prophet ﷺ issued his prohibition against it—all of this indicates that the context of the prohibition against burning is after capturing and gaining power over the enemy. Especially since the Prophet ﷺ actually employed the use of fire as a method of warfare, as in his burning of 'al-Buwayra'... It is known that such fires inevitably destroy those contained within who are unable to escape. ¶

B- Furthermore, during the era of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the weapon of fire was used against the enemy from the people of war (ahl al-harb). In Sunan Sa'id ibn Mansur: 'Junadah ibn Abi Umayyah al-Azdi and Abdullah ibn Qays al-Fazari, and other naval commanders after them, used to throw fire at the enemy from the Romans and others, burning them, as they [the enemy] did to them.' And: 'Concerning Abdullah ibn Qays al-Fazari, he used to wage war on the sea during the era of Mu'awiyah; he would throw fire at the enemy, and they would throw it at him; he would burn them and they would burn him. He said: The practice of the Muslims has always been thus.' ¶

Based on all of the above, we lean towards the opinion that it is permissible to use any means and weaponry against the enemy that results in destruction and ruin—including incendiary weapons and methods of sabotage—especially if the enemy is in the habit of using such weapons and methods against Muslims, or if necessity dictates their use. As stated in Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir: 'Necessity in this context means that they have no other way to achieve victory over them, or that another path would involve extreme hardship and grave difficulty. In such cases, to avert this hardship, the use of fire is permitted.' (1) This pertains to the first part of the issue we are addressing: namely, the ancient weapons and means that cause the destruction of the manifestations of life, buildings, and infrastructure, and the position of the jurists regarding them. As for the second part of this issue: Are modern weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear bombs and the like, to be categorized alongside ancient war weapons and means that produce death and destruction? The answer is: Yes, they are categorized together, even if there is a significant difference between them in terms of the extent of danger and the scope of their impact. The reason for this categorization is that these modern weapons fall within the scope of the Shariah texts, which, in their absolute generality, indicate the permissibility of using every military weapon or war tool against the enemy in combat. Furthermore, because the release of energy contained within these weapons results in fires that consume everything—the green and the dry, life and the living—the Shariah texts have also indicated the permissibility of their use in a state of war before the enemy surrenders or is completely subdued, as previously explained. Consequently, it is permissible to use modern weapons such as the atomic bomb (2) and the like, even if they possess destructive energies that differ in nature and range from ancient war weapons and means, due to the generality and absolute nature of the Shariah texts, as stated above. Especially considering that states... ¶

Today, these modern weapons are pressed into military service whenever the need arises... no matter how much one may deny it, or how much one may be bound by treaties prohibiting their use... this happens when a party perceives that resorting to them is in its best interest to resolve the situation against the enemy in its favor. ¶

In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani states: "It is permissible for Muslims to use nuclear weapons in their war against the enemy, even if this is before the enemy uses them against them; because all states consider the use of nuclear weapons in war to be permissible, therefore their use is permissible (for Muslims as well). Although the use of nuclear weapons is essentially forbidden; because they destroy humanity, and jihad is intended to revive humanity through Islam, not to annihilate it"(1). ¶

Having said that, the details of the jurisprudential trends regarding the permissibility of using such weapons have been previously discussed—whether it is absolute or conditional...? And the following issue contains further discussion on the conditions mentioned by jurists for the permissibility of using these weapons. ¶

Second Issue: What is the ruling on using weapons of mass destruction against areas within enemy territory that contain those whose killing is forbidden to intend, such as Muslims and enemy subjects like women, children, and the like? It is obvious that the use of weapons of mass destruction produced by the modern era was not subject to jurisprudential treatment in our classical references. However, since these modern weapons are subject to the same principles as the ancient weapons and means of war that produce destruction, devastation, and ruin—such as the mangonel (catapult), burning, drowning, and so on—and since the use of those ancient weapons and means was subject to jurisprudential treatment in classical references, the rulings issued by those references regarding them apply, consequently, to weapons of mass destruction in the modern era. ¶

Furthermore, some jurisprudential trends in classical references have made the ruling on this issue the same as the ruling on the issue of 'Tatarrus' (using human shields), which was explained in the previous discussion... Likewise, some trends... ¶

The latter [case] makes the ruling differ to some extent from that issue. The summary of the rulings regarding this matter is as follows: ¶

A- It is permissible to use these weapons against hostile factions among the Ahl al-Harb (people of war) in which there are those whose killing is forbidden, such as Muslims, or disbelievers like women, children, and those of their status. This applies whether or not the necessity for combat exists; it is solely for the sake of establishing the duty of Jihad. This is, of course, while observing the condition for the permissibility of using these weapons, which is the existence of impossibility or difficulty in overcoming the enemy without them. This is the opinion of the Hanafis. ¶

B- It is permissible to use these weapons against hostile factions among the Ahl al-Harb, even if necessity for combat does not exist, and even if it is possible to overcome the enemy without using those weapons. However, it is stipulated here that the number of Muslims in the targeted areas must be small, although it is still better not to use these weapons in this case. But if the number of Muslims in those areas is large, it is not permissible to use those weapons to strike them, as a precaution against causing casualties among the Muslims, which is the likely outcome in this scenario—especially since there is no underlying necessity requiring combat. This is the opinion of the Shafi'is. ¶

C- It is forbidden to use the weapons we are discussing, such as fire and the like, except in cases of extreme necessity, as long as there are Muslims or the enemy's women and children in the areas being struck. However, if there are only enemy combatants present, then it is permissible to strike them. This is the view held by Imam Malik, who stipulated that the hostile areas which may be burned or flooded must be free of Muslims, citing as evidence the Almighty's saying: 'If they had been separated, We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with a painful punishment'. ¶

Furthermore, in 'Al-Mughni' by Ibn Qudamah, a work of the Hanbali school of thought, this verse is cited to prohibit attacking fortresses that contain Muslims within them. However, on the other hand, the Hanbalis have permitted the use of fire against enemy fortresses, even if the enemy's women and children are present therein, provided that they are free of Muslims. ¶

The summary of the reasoning using the aforementioned verse is as follows: When the disbelievers of Makkah prevented the Prophet (ﷺ) and the Muslims from performing Umrah during the year of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to fight these disbelievers and consulted the companions regarding it. However, Allah the Almighty diverted His Prophet (ﷺ) and the Muslims from this combat due to the presence of some believing men and women among the people of Makkah who were at risk of perishing in the midst of the Muslims' advance and invasion of Makkah. ¶

Indeed, had these believing men and women been distinct from the disbelievers and not intermingled with them, Allah would have permitted the Prophet (ﷺ) and the Muslims to conquer Makkah and storm it. Regarding this, the Almighty says: '...Had there not been believing men and believing women whom you did not know—lest you should trample them and thereby be struck by them with guilt without [your] knowledge—[you would have been permitted to fight], so that Allah might admit to His mercy whom He wills. If they [the believers and disbelievers] had been separated, We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with a painful punishment.' ¶

Thus, according to this interpretation, the verse indicates the prohibition of fighting against segments of the enemy... ¶

In which Muslims are intermingled with disbelievers, with the fear that some Muslims might perish in the midst of this fighting. This is what the verse points to, and it applies to the use of weapons of mass destruction against hostile entities where Muslims are present. Therefore, the use of these weapons in such a situation was prohibited. ¶

Imam al-Jassas (from the Hanafis) discussed this evidence, saying: “As for the argument of those who use the verse: ‘Had there not been believing men and believing women...’ to forbid attacking the disbelievers because of the Muslims among them, there is no evidence in the verse regarding the point of contention. This is because the most that can be derived from it is that Allah restrained the Muslims from them because there were believing people among them, and the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were not secure that if they entered Makkah with the sword, they would not harm them. This only indicates the permissibility of refraining from attacking them, but it does not indicate a prohibition against attacking them while knowing that there are Muslims among them; for it is possible that refraining from attacking them for the sake of the Muslims is permissible, and it is also possible that attacking them is permissible, as a matter of choice. Therefore, there is no evidence in it of a prohibition against attacking.” ¶

This is what Imam al-Jassas said, and a similar view is found in Al-Umm by Imam al-Shafi’i, who says: “If there are Muslim captives or protected merchants in the Dar [i.e., Dar al-Harb], I dislike actions that cause general destruction, such as burning, drowning, and the like, without declaring them clearly forbidden. This is because, once the Dar is permitted, it is not clear that the presence of a Muslim whose blood is sacred would make it forbidden. I only disliked it out of precaution. Furthermore, even if there were no Muslims there, it would be permissible for us to bypass it and not fight it. And if we do fight, we fight without using methods that cause general destruction.” ¶

I say: This is the position we favor in this matter. This is because the Pledge of Ridwan (Bay'at al-Ridwan) was made with the intention of fighting the disbelievers of Makkah at that time, during the year of Hudaybiyyah, before the peace treaty was finalized, without the intermingling of the Muslims with them—the people of Makkah—ceasing. This indicates the permissibility of fighting in such a state. Fighting includes everything that falls within its meaning, including striking the enemy’s lands even if Muslims are present therein, as is the case in our situation. ¶

Therefore, it is permissible to use weapons of destruction against hostile entities that are not devoid of... ¶

for the Muslims... However, despite this, and in accordance with the established Shariah principle which dictates that "the actions of the Imam (leader) are contingent upon public interest (maslahah)" (1), no such action of this nature—namely, resorting to weapons of mass destruction—is permissible unless it realizes a preponderant interest for the Muslims. With this, we conclude the first section of this research and transition to the second section. (1) See: Al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir by Al-Suyuti: p. 121; and Al-Qawa'id al-Fiqhiyyah by Ali Ahmad al-Nadwi: p. 123. ¶

Second Section: Weapons that kill humans, animals, and vegetation without destroying buildings and infrastructure, such as neutron bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the like. What is the ruling on their use in war? ¶

The discussion in this section does not differ from the previous one. The Shariah texts regarding the legitimacy of killing and fighting the enemy in war are absolute, without specifying the means or weapon used for such killing or combat, as previously explained. Accordingly, a weapon that destroys human, animal, and vegetative life while leaving civilian infrastructure—such as factories, buildings, and installations—intact falls within the framework of legitimacy, based on the absolute nature of those Shariah texts. Furthermore, as long as the use of weapons that destroy both life and infrastructure is permissible under their stipulated conditions (as previously stated), then it is even more appropriate that the use of weapons that eliminate only one of these aspects while preserving the other should be permissible. This is from one perspective. ¶

From another perspective, the texts of the jurists mention the permissibility of using poisonous insects, snakes, scorpions, and the like against the enemy. In modern terminology, these war methods are considered a type of biological weapon, which are capable of eliminating the signs of life. ¶

(1) A weapon that kills without causing destruction. It is a type of nuclear bomb that limits its effect to radiation energy, without releasing other energies such as blast or heat. See: 'The Neutron Bomb' by Samuel Cohen and Marc Geneste, translated by Major General Muhammad Samih al-Sayyid, p. 22. (2) 'Chemical weapon: By definition, it refers to toxic substances and means used in battle for the purpose of destroying the enemy and incapacitating it by targeting its living forces...' (Prohibited Chemical and Biological Weapons and Protection Against Their Dangers) by Dr. Salah Yahyaoui and Engineer Mutaz al-Ajlani, p. 49. (3) Under the heading of 'Biological Weapons,' Major General Mahmoud Sheet Khattab stated: 'Biological warfare is the use of...' ¶

Human and animal life, when a sufficient quantity of it is introduced into a country, just as there are insects that also annihilate plant life. ¶

In addition, jurists (fuqaha) have permitted the contamination of water in enemy lands by introducing poisons into it, and they have also permitted the destruction of their trees and crops, in accordance with the textual evidence (nusus shar'iyya) regarding the cutting down of enemy trees and setting fire to them. ¶

All of this signifies that the jurists enumerated the means used against the enemy in war, which result in the eradication of signs of life, without those means necessarily impacting civil structures and infrastructure. Naturally, these jurists did not intend to classify the weapons and means used against the enemy into two types, as is the focus in our modern era—a type that destroys everything, both signs of life and material structures, and a type that eliminates signs of life without having a significant impact on material structures. However, the weapons or means that the ancient jurists mentioned as permissible for use against the enemy in war lead to this conclusion, because the poisons and insects they permitted could be classified as chemical and biological weapons, according to modern terminology. ¶

Based on the above, weapons that threaten signs of life, such as the neutron bomb—whose destructive power is primarily focused on its radiation—and chemical and biological weapons, which aim to eliminate human life without destroying infrastructure, fall within the framework of legitimacy, as previously explained. ¶