Chapter 79

upon whom the razor has passed [i.e., those who have reached puberty], and do not insult any of the 'uluj [non-Arab disbelievers] among us. He only forbade that for the sake of the Muslims' interest, so that they [the enemy] would not intend them with evil. Do you not see that when they did not strictly adhere to his prohibition, he was afflicted with the same; Abu Lu'lu'a killed him, and he was a Majusi. ¶

In 'Mukhtasar Khalil' and its commentary 'Manh al-Jalil' from the Maliki school, regarding the issue of the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) surrendering to the Muslims, it states: "They shall be compelled... meaning the disbelievers who are fortified in a fortress or city, or those who have entered the land of Islam for trade or similar, if they descend under a guarantee of safety upon the judgment of a specific person, and he judges them, then they are compelled to execute the judgment of the one upon whose judgment they descended." ¶

In Al-Dardir’s 'Al-Sharh al-Kabir': "If the Imam descends them upon the judgment of someone else, and he judges with killing, enslavement, the imposition of Jizya, or otherwise, they are compelled to follow his judgment." ¶

In 'Hashiyat al-Dasuqi', it says: "If an army besieges a fortress... and the people of the fortress say: 'We will come out to you upon the judgment of so-and-so, or we are satisfied with the judgment of so-and-so regarding us,' who is part of the army... hoping that he will judge in their favor with a light judgment, such as ransom; then when they came out, he judged them with killing or enslavement because he saw it as being in the public interest (Maslaha), they are compelled to accept that judgment. There is no consideration for their statement after they have descended and his judgment has been passed: 'We are not satisfied with his judgment because we thought he would be merciful to us, but we found he is not so!'" ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Muhadhdhab', from the Shafi'i books: ¶

«If the Imam or the army commander besieges a fortress and its inhabitants agree to submit to the judgment of an arbitrator, it is permissible; because (Banu Qurayza) submitted to the judgment of (Sa'd ibn Mu'adh). He then added: The arbitrator shall only rule according to what serves the interests of the Muslims, such as killing, enslavement, granting grace (mann), or ransom. If he rules based on a dhimma contract and taking jizya, there are two views: first, it is not permissible without their consent, as it is a reciprocal contract; second, it is permissible because they submitted to his judgment. If he rules for their execution, and then he (the arbitrator) or the Imam deems it appropriate to grant them grace, it is permissible; because (Sa'd ibn Mu'adh) may Allah be pleased with him, ruled for the execution of the men of (Banu Qurayza), but (Thabit al-Ansari) asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to grant him (al-Zubayr ibn Bata) the Jew, and he did so!» ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Mughni', by Ibn Qudama, from the Hanbali books, regarding this matter: ¶

- «If the arbitrator rules that their combatants should be killed and their offspring enslaved, his ruling is binding; because Sa'd ibn Mu'adh ruled thus regarding Banu Qurayza. - If he rules to grant grace to the combatants while enslaving the offspring, (al-Qadi) said: His ruling is binding, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i; because the judgment rests with him in matters he deems beneficial. Thus, he may grant grace, just as the Imam may with a prisoner. Abu al-Khattab chose the view that his ruling is not binding; because he is obligated to rule according to what is advantageous, and there is no advantage for the Muslims in granting grace! - If he rules to grant grace to the offspring, it should not be permissible; because the Imam does not have the authority to grant grace to offspring once they are enslaved, and neither does the arbitrator. However, it is possible it is permissible, as enslavement was not definitively fixed for them, unlike those who have already been enslaved, who become slaves by the very act of enslavement. - If he rules for ransom, it is permissible; because the Imam has the choice regarding prisoners between execution, ransom, enslavement, and granting grace, so the arbitrator has the same choice.» ¶

And if they are adjudged to pay the Jizyah, his (the ruler's) judgment is not binding; because the Dhimmah contract is a commutative contract, and it is not established except through mutual consent. ¶

And if they embrace Islam before judgment is passed upon them, their lives and properties are protected; because they embraced Islam while they were free. Their properties belong to them, so it is not permissible to enslave them; unlike the captive, for authority has been established over the captive, just as it is established over the offspring (of the enemy), which is why it is permissible to enslave him. ¶

And if they embrace Islam after judgment is passed upon them... if the judgment was for execution, it is lifted; for whoever embraces Islam has protected their life. ¶

In conclusion, this is what has been mentioned in the books of the schools of Fiqh regarding the inhabitants of a fortress, or inhabitants of a city, or similar enemy armies, or the people of war in general, while they were in a position of strength—if they surrender to the Muslims without restriction or condition, so that they may be judged according to the rulings of the Shariah. ¶

The summary of what has preceded is that for those who surrender: - If they embrace Islam before judgment is passed upon them, they have protected themselves, their families, and their properties, and have entered into the fold of the Muslims. - If they do not declare their Islam: it is permissible for the one delegated with authority to judge them by granting 'Mann' (grace), i.e., by releasing them. ¶

Furthermore, if their lands have been conquered and have become Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), it is permissible to expel them from the Abode of Islam, as the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa and the Jews of Banu Nadir were expelled. It is also permissible to keep them there as Musta'min (protected persons), just as the Jews of Khaybar remained there as Musta'min, having entered into a contract to work the land that had become the property of the Muslims. The Muslims have the right to expel them from it whenever they wish, according to the rulings of 'Istiman' (granting protection). ¶

- It is also permissible to pass judgment on those who have surrendered by designating them as Dhimmis; that is, by conferring upon them Islamic citizenship—or what is termed as the 'Islamic nationality'—and considering them subjects of the state. - It is likewise permissible to pass judgment upon them regarding ransom, execution, or enslavement, in the manner previously detailed. - With this, we conclude the second section of the first chapter in this part. - We now proceed, with the help and guidance of Allah, to the second chapter. 1564 ¶

Second Topic The Defeat of Muslims Before the Enemy, and Their Surrender ¶

Introduction: A Brief Glance at the Causes of Victory and Defeat. First Requirement: What is incumbent upon Muslims if they are defeated before the enemy? Second Requirement: Is it permissible for Muslims—whether as individuals or groups—to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? Third Requirement: What is incumbent upon Muslims regarding their captives, whether Muslim or Dhimmis, if they fall into the hands of the enemy? ¶

Introduction: A Brief Glance at the Causes of Victory and Defeat. Indeed, any historical event, such as victory and defeat... is brought about by causes established by Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which lead to that event, as His Will has decreed. Thus, whoever takes the causes of victory attains it, and whoever takes the causes of defeat suffers it. This is the Sunnah (law) of Allah in His creation. {Such is the Sunnah of Allah which has passed on before, and you will not find any change in the Sunnah of Allah} (1). ¶

Among those causes that lead to victory or defeat, there may be matters that intervene in the course of events, which are not of the nature of those events, and over which humans have no control, such as winds, clouds, rain... and similar unexpected matters that occur during the ongoing war. These become factors that tip the scale in favor of one side over the other. In this case, if those factors have tipped the scale in favor of the Muslims, they are part of the soldiers of Allah, by which He supports His believing servants, and to Allah belongs [all things]. ¶

(1) Surah Al-Fath, verse 23. ¶

All praise and gratitude belong to Allah. If those factors tilt the scale in favor of the enemy, it falls under the category of divine decree (Qada) and trial (Ibtila), over which a human has no control and for which one is not held accountable. Hence, there is no blame on the Muslims if they are overcome by defeat, provided that such factors and their like were the cause, as long as they did not fall short in employing the available material means that typically lead to victory. ¶

Indeed, there is no accountability for the Muslims in this situation; accountability arises only when they are negligent in preparing the material means of victory that they are capable of providing—such as preparing the power that Allah (Azza wa Jall) has commanded to be readied to the utmost extent of one’s ability in facing the enemy, in all its various forms, as in His saying: 'And prepare against them whatever you are able of power.' Likewise, accountability occurs when Muslims fail to remain steadfast before the enemy or neglect to adhere to the commands of leadership within the legitimate Shari'ah boundaries. These are factors that influence the course of battles. Here, there is accountability because, although they represent the party of faith facing disbelief, they did not complete the means of victory that Allah ordered them to adopt—such as preparing power, maintaining necessary steadfastness before the enemy, and fulfilling the obligatory obedience to the leadership, along with other things brought by Islam, on the basis of which Allah has promised victory. ¶

Therefore, Allah has conditioned His support for the Muslims against their enemy on their support for Him, as in His saying: 'O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet.' ¶

Supporting Allah for the Muslims means adhering to His Shari'ah, complying with His rulings, and responding to His commands. Among Allah's Shari'ah, rulings, and commands regarding the war of Muslims against their enemy is that they must not be lax in preparing the power which Allah commanded them to prepare, nor should they be negligent in devising plans and tactics, nor fall short in utilizing everything that would achieve the superiority of the Muslims over their enemy. ¶

All of this is part of the Muslims' support for Allah (Azza wa Jall) in achieving what He has commanded to be achieved. If the Muslims fulfill this condition with Allah, He will fulfill His conditional promise to them and grant them victory over their enemy, confirming His saying: 'And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.' ¶

It is self-evident that employing causes in general to reach their intended effects—including utilizing natural means to win battles and achieve victory over the enemy—does not contradict the sincerity of Tawakkul (reliance) upon Allah, nor trust in Him to bring about the desired outcomes and remove the obstacles that prevent those employed means from producing their results. How could it? For employing means is, in essence, an adherence to the cosmic and Shariah-based laws of Allah in this regard. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi clarified this issue, emphasizing that relying on means in general, including the use of military resources, is a matter of Shariah and does not conflict with Tawakkul upon Allah. He stated in his book 'Sayd al-Khatir': ¶

'...The consideration of means in the Shariah remains valid, as seen in the words of the Almighty: "And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand with you and let them take their weapons." The Prophet (peace be upon him) wore two coats of mail, consulted two physicians, and when he went to Ta'if, he could not enter Makkah until he sent word to Mut'im ibn 'Adi, saying: "I enter under your protection," even though he could have relied upon Allah without using such means. Thus, when the Shariah makes matters contingent upon causes, to turn away from those causes is to reject wisdom... If I recognize the need to treat diarrhea, I realize that eating acorns is contrary to my knowledge. Drinking tamarind water is more appropriate, and this is medicine. If I do not drink what is beneficial for me and then say, "O Allah, grant me health!" wisdom says to me: "Have you not heard (Tie your camel and rely upon Allah)? Drink, and then say: Grant me health." Do not be like the one whose crops are separated from a river by a handful of dirt, who is too lazy to remove it with his hand, and then stands up to pray...' ¶

Seeking rain! And this state is but like the state of one who traveled without provision. And he only traveled without provision because he is testing his Lord, the Almighty and Majestic, as to whether He will provide for him or not? Yet, he had already been commanded: 'And take provision,' but he said: 'I will take no provision!' So this person is doomed before he is even destroyed... Therefore, beware, beware of the actions of those who have strayed and deviated from religious norms, thinking that the perfection of religion lies in abandoning natural dispositions and opposing established protocols. Were it not for the strength of knowledge and firm grounding in it, I would not have been able to explain this, nor would I have understood it! So, understand what I have alluded to. ¶

I say: After this introduction regarding the necessity of relying on the natural causes that lead to victory—which the Shariah has mandated to be secured—and avoiding the causes that lead to defeat—which the Shariah has warned against approaching—after this, victory may elude the Muslims in their encounter with the enemy, and defeat may befall them, whether through their own negligence or otherwise. In such a situation, what is incumbent upon the Muslims to do? And is it permissible for them to surrender to the enemy? This is the subject of the research through the following topics: ¶

1. The First Topic: What should the Muslims do if they are defeated by the enemy? 2. The Second Topic: Is it permissible for Muslims, individually or collectively, to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? 3. The Third Topic: What is the duty of the Muslims regarding the captives from the Islamic citizenry, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, held by the belligerents? ¶

Section One: What is required of Muslims if they are defeated by the enemy? ¶

When Muslims are defeated by the enemy for any reason whatsoever, it is incumbent upon them to turn to Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He) to grant them patience in the face of the calamity that has befallen them. They must beseech Him to enable them to transform their weakness into strength and their defeat into victory, and to guide their steps as they identify the vulnerabilities that led to this defeat, in order to address and rectify them. Furthermore, they must seek to re-engage the enemy as soon as they are able, to wash away any residual effect the defeat may have left upon the souls of the Muslims, whether they are combatants or non-combatants. ¶

This is evidenced by the actions of the Prophet (ﷺ) in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud. After the Muslims were defeated in this battle due to the majority of the archers disobeying the Prophet’s orders—he had appointed their position on the mountain overlooking the battlefield and said to them: 'Do not leave your positions; if you see us prevailing over them, do not leave, and if you see them prevailing over us, do not come to our aid'—and after the polytheists had departed, returning to their lands savoring their victory while the Muslims retreated to Medina licking the wounds of defeat—in this situation, on the day following the battle, the Prophet (ﷺ) decided to make the polytheists forget the taste of their victory before they even reached their lands! He sought to renew the Muslims’ confidence in Allah’s victory and restore their self-worth, reminding them that they are bearers of a mission and carriers of a Call (Da'wah), and that they utilize Jihad in the way of Allah as a means to exalt His Word and shatter every obstacle standing in its path. Likewise, he sought to restore their prestige and awe among the surrounding forces of disbelief. ¶

Yes, the Prophet ﷺ resolved to do just that on the day following the defeat at 'Uhud'. He issued his command to the Muslims—while they were still bandaging their wounds—to set out in pursuit of the enemy before the opportunity slipped away! ¶

It is recorded in Sirat Ibn Hisham: "The day of Uhud was Saturday, the 15th of Shawwal (1). When the next day, Sunday, the 16th of Shawwal arrived, the proclaimer of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called the people to pursue the enemy! He announced that no one should accompany us except those who were present at our battle yesterday. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out to strike terror into the enemy, to let them know that he had set out in their pursuit so that they might perceive him as having strength, and that the calamity which had befallen them had not weakened them against their enemy. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ marched until he reached 'Hamra' al-Asad,' which is eight miles from Medina (2). He stayed there on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, then returned to Medina (3)." ¶

Thus, the Prophet ﷺ achieved what he intended by this 'Ghazwa' (expedition) of 'Hamra' al-Asad.' The polytheists had intended to return to Medina to eradicate the Muslims, but the departure of the Muslims to pursue them caused them to change their minds. It is stated in Sirat Ibn Hisham: "When Abu Sufyan ibn Harb turned away on the day of 'Uhud,' he intended to return to Medina to finish off the remaining companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Safwan ibn Umayya ibn Khalaf said to them: 'Do not do it, for the people have been enraged/depleted (4), and we fear that they may fight with a resolve different from what they had before! So turn back,' and they turned back (5)." ¶

In any case, what the Muslims must do when a defeat befalls them is to bandage their wounds, endure their hardships, manifest resilience against the enemy as much as possible, return to their ranks to reorganize them, rebuild their strength, and avoid the causes of that defeat. They should prepare themselves to seek justice for the truth and restore the prestige of the Muslims at the earliest possible opportunity. ¶

They must resist any feeling that prompts them to surrender to the spirit of defeat, and they must trust that they are the superior ones by the permission of Allah, in verification of His saying, the Almighty: 'So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers' (1). We now proceed to the second requirement. (1) Surah Ali 'Imran, verse 139. ¶

(5) ¶

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the Master of the Messengers, and upon all his family and companions. ¶

To proceed: I have received a letter from some of my dear brothers and noble friends, asking me about an important issue and a complicated matter that is frequently questioned in these days, which is: "Is it permissible for a woman to go to the mosque to attend the congregational prayer?" ¶

I have composed this treatise as an answer to this question, seeking the aid of Allah the Almighty, and relying upon what the scholars have transmitted and established in their books of narrations and reports. Allah is the Granter of success, and to Him is the return and final destination. ¶

Allah the Almighty says: {And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance}. ¶

In the 'Sahihayn', it is narrated from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "If the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had seen what the women have introduced, he would have prevented them from the mosque, just as the women of the Children of Israel were prevented." ¶

In 'Sahih Muslim', it is narrated from Zaynab al-Thaqafiyyah that she said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to us: "If any of you attends the mosque, let her not touch perfume." ¶

Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in 'Sharh Muslim': "This contains evidence that they are not to be prevented from going to the mosques if they do not wear perfume, do not display their adornment, and there is no temptation (fitnah). However, if these things, or some of them, are present, they are to be prevented." ¶

Also from Aisha: "The Prophet ﷺ used to pray the Dawn prayer, and the women would depart wrapped in their garments, unrecognizable due to the darkness." ¶

From Ibn Umar, he said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Do not prevent your women from the mosques, although their houses are better for them." ¶

These hadiths indicate that the general rule is to permit them to go out if fitnah is avoided, yet their staying in their homes is better for them, as explicitly stated in the text. ¶

The majority view is that it is permissible for them to go out under specific conditions: 1. That it be with the permission of her husband or guardian. 2. That they are not wearing perfume or adornment. 3. That there is no fitnah in their going out. 4. That they do not intermingle with men. ¶

When these conditions are met, it is permissible for them to go out, yet despite this, the houses are better for them, as mentioned in the text. ¶

Second Topic: Is it permissible for Muslims — as individuals or groups — to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? ¶

First Issue: Is it permissible for individual Muslims to surrender to the enemy? Second Issue: Is it permissible for a group of Muslims in their own lands to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? ¶

First Issue: Is it permissible for individual Muslims to surrender to the enemy? The enemy may surround an individual Muslim or a group of Muslims during war, to the point where they have no maneuverability left against the enemy. In such a situation, the Muslim fighter finds himself caught between two options, both of which are bitter: - Either to drop his weapon, declare his surrender, and surrender himself as a prisoner to the enemy. - Or to refuse the available surrender and expose himself to certain death. Which of the two should the Muslim choose in such a situation? The answer to this question is that it is permissible for a Muslim in this condition to surrender; that is, to submit himself to captivity if he hopes through his surrender to escape being killed, with the intention of launching another attack on the enemy when the opportunity allows. It is also permissible for him to refuse surrender and resist, even if he faces certain death. This is what the story of the companions of "al-Raji" points to(1). ¶

(1) In Fath al-Bari: Vol 7/379-380, it is mentioned that "al-Raji" is the name of a place in the land of (Hudhayl) near where the battle took place. It then mentions that the expedition of al-Raji was the expedition of (Asim)... and it was with (Adal and al-Qarah): two clans of Banu al-Hun bin Khuzayma bin Mudrika bin Ilyas bin Mudar. It distinguished between this expedition and the expedition of (Bi'r Ma'una) in that Bi'r Ma'una was an expedition = ¶

Bukhari and Abu Dawud narrated from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent a reconnaissance party of ten men and appointed Asim bin Thabit as their leader. When they reached the vicinity of the Hudhayl tribe, they were confronted by nearly a hundred archers. When Asim sensed them, they took refuge on an elevated hill (fardad). The enemy said: 'Come down and surrender; we give you our covenant and oath that we will not kill any of you.' Asim replied: 'I will not descend under the protection of a disbeliever.' They pelted them with arrows, killing Asim and six others. Three men descended based on the covenant, among them Khubayb, Zayd bin al-Dathina, and another man. Once the enemy overpowered them, they used their bowstrings to bind them. The third man said: 'This is the first act of treachery. By Allah, I will not accompany you; I have an example in these (martyrs)!' They dragged him, but he refused to go with them, so they killed him. Khubayb remained a captive until they reached a consensus to execute him. (Footnote summary: These were the 'Qurra' (reciters) numbering seventy, along with the clans of Ri'l and Dhakwan, two branches of the Banu Sulaym. The expedition of al-Raji' took place at the end of the third year AH, while the expedition of Bi'r Ma'unah occurred at the beginning of the fourth year AH. Al-Waqidi mentions that reports of both reached the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the same night. Geographically, 'al-Raji'' is near Usfan, north of Makkah toward the Red Sea, whereas 'Bi'r Ma'unah' is between Makkah and Madinah, closer to Madinah and leaning toward Najd in the east.) ¶

In this incident of Al-Raji', we find that some of the Sahaba refused to surrender, preferring death instead... while other Sahaba surrendered to the disbelievers, trusting the promise they had given not to kill them... even though events ultimately led to the outcome where they all attained martyrdom. ¶

Indeed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not rebuke either of the two groups of Sahaba—neither those who surrendered, nor those who refused to surrender. This was an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of either approach when a Muslim is surrounded by the enemy. ¶

- Al-Khattabi stated regarding the fiqh of this Hadith: 'It contains the knowledge that a Muslim should fight the enemy if he is besieged [i.e., surrounded], and should not surrender to him as long as he is capable of resisting' (1). Al-Mundhiri said: 'It contains the permissibility for a Muslim to seek amnesty (aman). Some have said: There is no harm in refusing, just as Asim did' (2). ¶

- Ibn Hajar says: 'The Hadith indicates that a captive has the right to refuse accepting amnesty and not yield himself, even if he is killed, out of disdain for being subjected to the judgment of a disbeliever; this applies if he chooses the path of intensity (shiddah). If he wishes to take the concession (rukhsa), he may seek amnesty. Al-Hasan al-Basri said there is no harm in this, while Sufyan al-Thawri considered it disliked' (3). ¶

- In Al-Minhaj by Al-Nawawi, and its commentary Mughni al-Muhtaj, there is a detail on what a Muslim man or woman should do—or what they are permitted to do according to the circumstances—when targeted by the enemy: 'Whoever among the accountable individuals is targeted, even if a slave, a woman, or a sick person, and the like... should defend himself against the disbelievers by whatever means possible, if he knows that if he is captured, he will be killed... If the aforementioned accountable person deems it possible that he might be captured or killed, he has the choice to defend himself or to surrender... if he is a man; because fighting in such a state is hastening death, while captivity holds the possibility of release. This is if he knows that if he resists surrender, he will be killed.' ¶

Otherwise, surrender is prohibited for him. As for a woman: if she knows that her chastity is at risk of being violated, she must defend herself, even if she is killed; because lewdness is not permissible due to the fear of death. If, however, she is not currently at risk of such violation, but anticipates it after being taken captive, it is permissible for her to surrender, and then she should defend herself if such an act is attempted against her. (1) ¶

Regarding what is superior for a Muslim in this issue, Ibn Qudamah states: "If one fears captivity, it is better for him to fight until he is killed, and not surrender himself to captivity; for he gains the reward of a high station and remains safe from the domination of the disbelievers through torture, forced labor, and religious persecution. However, if he is taken captive, it is permissible." ¶

Ibn Qudamah then cited the story of Asim bin Thabit, Khubaib bin Adi, Zaid bin al-Dathina, and their companions, then said: "Asim followed the path of Azimah (strict resolve), while Khubaib and Zaid followed the path of Rukhsah (concession). All of them are commendable, not blameworthy or reproached." (2) ¶

In conclusion, this is what is said regarding the surrender of an individual Muslim, or a group of Muslims, to the enemy when surrounded... With this, we conclude this issue and move on to the second issue. ¶

Second Issue: Is it permissible for a group of Muslims in their own lands to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? ¶

When an enemy invades the lands of the Muslims... and for some reason, this enemy surrounds one of their provinces or cities, and forces them to surrender... under specific conditions that include relinquishing their sovereignty over this region or city... whether they (the enemy) allow them to remain in the land as subjects, or stipulate that they must depart... in this situation, if these besieged individuals do not possess the internal strength, or the strength provided by their brothers from outside the country, to repel the enemy from their lands, is it mandatory for them to fight as long as possible until they are all either killed or captured? Or is it permissible for them to surrender to the enemy on the basis of relinquishing their sovereignty over the land, and to obtain... ¶

What they can obtain from conditions that guarantee the salvation of what can be saved of their rights regarding their properties, and their social and religious lives... hoping behind that to be able to proceed on the path that enables them to possess the power with which they can engage the enemy, defeat them, liberate the land from them, and return it to the sovereignty of the Muslims? ¶

I say: Which of the two matters is binding upon the Muslims in this issue? To fight until death and fall into captivity from which there is no escape? Or to surrender to the enemy, in the manner previously described? The answer to this question is that this issue is subject to the same ruling as the previous issue concerning the surrender of individuals to the enemy. ¶

Just as it is permissible for an individual Muslim, if surrounded, to fight until he is killed or falls into captivity against his will, it is also permissible for him initially to surrender to the enemy and give himself up to captivity. ¶

Likewise, it is said here: If a group of Muslims in one of their regions or cities is surrounded by the enemy and there remains no strategy for them to repel them: - It is permissible for them, in their collective or individual capacity, to fight until whoever is to be killed is killed, and whoever is to be taken captive is taken captive against their will. - It is also permissible for them, initially, to surrender to the enemy in the manner previously described. ¶

This, and what we have cited from Al-Minhaj by Imam al-Nawawi and its commentary regarding the previous issue, concerning the legitimacy of fighting until death or surrendering to captivity, was in the context of clarifying the Shariah ruling on fighting the enemies when 'they enter a city of ours' (1), as per al-Nawawi’s expression... meaning, when the people of war (ahl al-harb) commit aggression against Islamic lands through invasion and usurpation. ¶

Accordingly, what is permissible for an individual Muslim in his city if surrounded by the enemy is also permissible for all Muslim individuals in their lands if surrounded by the usurping enemy. That is, it is permissible for them to fight until death, just as it is permissible for them to surrender. ¶

Furthermore, since it is permissible to surrender to captivity—as stated in Al-Minhaj and its commentary—despite the possibility that it may lead to death, or any other ruling of captivity, including the confiscation of wealth and property and expulsion from the land, then surrendering under conditions that preserve some of the Muslims' rights, with the hope of being able later to confront the enemy, defeat them, and expel them, is even more deserving of permissibility. It was on this basis that the Muslims in 'Granada,' their last kingdom in Andalusia, surrendered to the enemy that had surrounded them. ¶

In the book 'Al-Futuhāt al-Islāmiyya' by the Shafi'i Mufti, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, the author speaks of Granada more than a hundred years before it was surrendered to the enemy, mentioning that the Muslim Sultan there was weak, to the extent that the enemy—as he stated—'confronted Sultan Abu al-Walid ibn al-Ahmar in Granada and imposed a jizya upon him! He accepted it due to his inability to defend against him.' ¶

Finally... the Muslims became incapable of defense, surrendered to the enemy, and handed over Granada to them in the year 897 AH. The author of 'Al-Futuhāt al-Islāmiyya' says: ¶

'When the enemy besieged Granada, the Muslims were afflicted—during the enemy's siege—with severe hunger, and calamities multiplied upon them. They wrote to the enemy for peace, stipulated conditions, signed treaties, and enabled the enemy to take Granada. There were sixty-seven conditions, among them: granting security to both the young and the old.' ¶

Footnotes: (1) Reference is made here to what is mentioned in 'Mughni al-Muhtaj': 'The sanctity of a Muslim is greater than the sanctity of the land' [4/220]. Therefore, as long as it is permissible for a Muslim to surrender himself to the enemy during a siege in times of necessity, it is permissible in the case of the land—which has less sanctity than the Muslim—to surrender it during necessity to preserve what is of greater sanctity, which is the collective body of Muslims. If they prefer not to surrender the land except over their own corpses and to achieve martyrdom, that is the position of the resolute! In any case, the work to reclaim these lands remains an obligation upon the necks of the Muslims, whether those who were present at the time of surrender or those who came after them. This obligation is not lifted from them until they are actually reclaimed. The sin of failing to reclaim them is only removed from those who are actively engaged in efforts leading—directly or indirectly—to the restoration of those usurped lands to Muslim sovereignty. (2) I say: We do not see the use of the term 'jizya' for wealth that Muslims are forced to provide to the enemy to keep them at bay; because this term has, in its common usage, become an idiom for what non-Muslims pay to the Islamic state in exchange for receiving Islamic protection and submission to Islamic rule. Furthermore, while our jurisprudential references permitted the payment of wealth to disbelievers to protect Muslims in times of necessity, they did not apply the term 'jizya' to this wealth. And alas! Since the Christians of Banu Taghlib refused this term out of dignity, shall we use it for the Muslims? ¶

Among these (conditions) are the protection of life, family, and property. Included also is maintaining people in their homes, dwellings, residences, and estates. Another is the establishment of their Shariah, and no one among them shall be judged except by their own laws. Furthermore, mosques and endowments are to be preserved as they were; Christians shall not enter the house of a Muslim, nor shall they coerce anyone, nor shall any Christian or Jew hold judicial authority over Muslims, and any captive among them shall be released. Also, if one desires to travel to the Maghrib, they shall not be prevented, and those who killed any Christians during the war shall not be held accountable. And there were other remaining conditions. Subsequently, the Christians violated these conditions little by little, breaking them one by one, until the situation reached the point of compelling Muslims to convert to Christianity... Thus, a great multitude in both the countryside and the cities converted. Some refused to convert, distanced themselves from the Christians, and gathered in certain villages for fortification. The enemy gathered forces against them and exterminated them through killing and enslavement. A group of Muslims remained who ascended a mountain and took refuge there; the enemy fought them, and they killed many of the enemy, eventually being expelled under a safe-conduct (aman) to Fez with their families and light belongings... The Muslims who entrenched themselves in certain mountains stood against the Christians several times, but the Christians ultimately overcame them, and Allah did not destine any helper for them! This continued until the final time the Christians expelled them in the year 1010 AH. Thousands of Muslims left for Fez, thousands to Tlemcen and Oran, and the majority departed for Tunis... The Sultan from whom Granada was taken—the last of the Banu al-Ahmar Sultans—was Sultan Abu Abdullah Muhammad... al-Ansari al-Khazraji. The aforementioned Sultan arrived in the city of Fez with his family and children, apologetic for what he had committed! It is stated in 'Nafh al-Tib': 'I have witnessed his descendants in Fez, up to the present year 1037 AH, taking from the wealth of the poor and the needy, being counted among the beggars! And there is no power nor strength except in Allah, the Most High, the Almighty.' ¶

I say: Perhaps the aforementioned words of the Mufti of Makkah, the author of 'Al-Futuhāt', contain an indication of the reason why the Muslims who surrendered to the enemy in Andalusia—and did not depart from it—later failed to overcome that enemy and restore their sovereignty over it. This is evident in his statement: 'Then the Christians overcame them, and Allah did not appoint a helper for them.' The meaning of this is that if there had been, at that time, those among the Muslim leaders and army commanders in other parts of the Islamic world to support and assist the remaining Muslims in Andalusia—and had they not been preoccupied with internal conflicts—the enemy would not have overcome them, and they would have reclaimed their lost paradise. ¶

One wonders: have the Muslim leaders and army commanders of the modern era grasped this lesson of Andalusia, and have they worked to prevent the repetition of this tragedy in Palestine and other regions of the Islamic world usurped by the enemy? Or is it a case of 'the night resembling the yesteryear' (history repeating itself)? ¶

Having reached this point, we conclude the second issue of this chapter and proceed to the third. ¶