Chapter 82

They hold this view specifically regarding this subject, even though it can only be addressed through research into creed and the verification of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Otherwise, debating them away from establishing this prophethood is of little utility (1). Furthermore, in reality, there are several texts in the Holy Quran that call for jihad against the disbelievers in an absolute sense, without restricting that legitimacy to them being aggressors, as in the saying of the Almighty: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day... until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled' (2), and many other verses. By this, the claim of the Encyclopedia (Da'irat al-Ma'arif) that 'the verses of the Quran always speak of the disbelievers who must be subjugated as being aggressors and deniers' is invalidated. ¶

3 - Finally, the Encyclopedia mentioned that Islam obligates 'continuation of jihad until all people enter under the rule of Islam.' This is correct, whenever it is possible to achieve some of this purpose without incurring greater harms. The primary purpose of jihad is to bring all people under the rule of Islam, that is, to grant them the citizenship of the Islamic state and its protection, and to apply the Islamic system to them so that they may realize the reality of Islam in practical life and become inclined toward it. The purpose of jihad is not to force them into Islam. Thus, it becomes clear that spreading Islam by the sword—in the sense of compelling people to enter it—is not valid at all. ¶

Furthermore, the use of force in Islam is intended for people to live under the shadow of the Islamic system, to witness its greatness and virtues in fulfilling human needs and resolving all problems, and to make them citizens within the Islamic state, possessing the same rights as Muslims and the same obligations as Muslims—even if they do not believe in Islam, provided they live under its protection. ¶

(1) This does not prevent refuting them regarding their opinions on jihad and other matters, in order to show that their distortion of facts does not pass easily with Muslims, and to expose their misleading method of treating Islamic issues to those who read their work, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, so that they may not be deceived and may know that they are not trustworthy in what they write about Islam, and thus return to reliable sources in this field. (2) Surah At-Tawbah, verse 29. ¶

I say: The use of force in Islam for this purpose is, by every standard and in the view of all people, far more noble, honorable, and dignified than the use of armed force by the major colonial powers today to subjugate weak and oppressed peoples, forcing them to live under the system imposed upon them. Then, with brazen and shameless audacity, they declare that their goal is to establish a 'just security system' under which these peoples may live in peace! In reality, they merely seek to shackle those peoples with the system they have imposed, so that they cannot move to prevent these colonial powers from plundering their resources and seizing their wealth, and living according to the system their religion imposes upon them. ¶

Furthermore, part of the malice of these colonial powers in this regard is their claim that the majority of the world's nations support them in their objectives, even though it is the 'sword of intimidation' and the 'gold of inducement' that compel most of these states to offer such false support. Of this same nature is the support they obtain from the corrupt cliques that colonialism itself has enabled to seize the throats of their own peoples, in order to harness them for its own agendas and the satisfaction of its own greed. ¶

In conclusion, this is, in summary, some of what non-Muslims have mentioned in their discourse regarding Jihad, and the issues upon which we deemed it necessary to engage them in discussion. ¶

With this, we conclude the second section of this chapter, and proceed—with the help and guidance of Allah—to the second chapter. ¶

Chapter Two: Jihad in the Context of Modern Warfare ¶

The intention of this chapter is not to exhaustively cover what its title or the research topics and issues it contains might imply; for if we had intended that, it would have required a separate treatise. Meanwhile, in this chapter, we are taking our final steps toward the conclusion of this work. Hence, our treatment of the issues encountered will be limited to clarifying the Shariah rulings on the most important matters relevant to war and combat in this era in which we live. ¶

As previously stated, the discussion in this chapter is divided into the following four sections: ¶

Section One: Military alliances that mandate the participation of Muslims in combat alongside others against other regions. Section Two: Leasing military bases and airports, the sale of strategic weaponry, and other forms of assistance. Section Three: Wars between Islamic countries. Section Four: Combat organizations within the Islamic world. ¶

Now, with the help and guidance of Allah, we proceed toward addressing the first section. ¶

Hadrat Allamah Mufti Muhammad Faiz Ahmad Owaisi (may Allah have mercy on him), Authorized Successor (Khalifa) of the Noble Qadiriyya Razawiyya Order (Introduction and Services). Compiled by: Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Owaisi. Publisher: Idara Faiz-e-Owaisi, Bahawalpur. ¶

Section One: Military alliances involving the participation of Muslims in combat alongside others against other nations. ¶

We shall address this research through a discussion of the following issues: Issue One: What are military alliances? And what is the Shariah ruling regarding the involvement of Muslims with other states in these alliances? Issue Two: Is it permissible for Muslims to enter into a military alliance that justifies the declaration of war against Islamic states? Issue Three: Is it permissible for Muslims to enter into a military alliance that limits the legitimacy of declaring war to non-Islamic states? ¶

Issue One: What are military alliances? And what is the Shariah ruling regarding the involvement of Muslims with other states in these alliances? ¶

First: What are military alliances? It is stated in Mukhtar al-Sihah: "Al-Hilf (the alliance): ... is the covenant made between a group of people. One says 'halafahu': meaning he made a covenant with him; and 'tahalafu': meaning they made a covenant with one another." (1) It is stated in Al-Misbah al-Munir: "And al-halif (the ally): is the covenantee. It is said concerning them: 'tahalafa', when they make a covenant and contract with one another that their affairs shall be as one, in terms of mutual support and protection." (2). ¶

This is what has been stated in the lexicon regarding the general meaning of 'hilf' (alliance/oath). ¶

As for what military alliances are in our contemporary understanding, Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani says, in the context of defining them, the following: «Military alliances are agreements concluded between two or more states that make their armies fight together against a common enemy, or make military intelligence and war materiel exchanged between them. Or, if one of them falls into a war, they consult so that the other might enter it with them, or not, according to the interest they perceive. Then he says: These alliances, whether they are bilateral treaties or collective treaties, necessitate that the army fights with its ally to defend it and its entity, regardless of whether they have multiple commands or a single command.» This is the reality of military alliances, as is common in our era today. ¶

Second: What is the Shariah ruling on the engagement of Muslims with other states in military alliances? ¶

Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, after his aforementioned definition of military alliances, in the context of clarifying the Shariah ruling on the engagement of Muslims with other states in these alliances, says in this regard the following: «These alliances are void from their inception, they are not valid under Shariah, and the Ummah is not bound by them, even if the Caliph of the Muslims were to conclude them; because they violate the Shariah.» Then, he clarifies the aspect of the violation of Shariah in them, along with the evidence, saying: «The prohibition has been narrated in an authentic Hadith regarding fighting under the banner of the disbelievers and under their command. Ahmad and al-Nasa'i narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.' That is, do not make the fire of the polytheists a light for you. And 'fire' is a metaphor for war. It is said: 'He kindled the fire of war,' meaning: he brought about its evil and stirred it up. And 'nar al-tahwil' (the fire of terror) is the fire of...» ¶

In the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), the Arabs would light a fire when forming an alliance (1). The Hadith serves as a metaphor for war with the polytheists and adopting their counsel; thus, it is understood as a prohibition against waging war alongside the polytheists... (2). ¶

This is, in brief, what Sheikh al-Nabhani stated regarding military alliances and the ruling concerning them (3). My view on this matter is that the deduction of the Shariah ruling on Muslims entering such alliances with other states depends on the following: ¶

A - Is there an authentic Shariah text that clearly indicates the absolute prohibition of Muslims entering into a military alliance with non-Islamic states? B - What is the general Shariah principle under which the issue of military alliance falls? Let us address these two points: ¶

A - First point: Is there an authentic Shariah text that clearly indicates the absolute prohibition of Muslims entering into a military alliance with non-Islamic states? ¶

We have known from what we quoted earlier from Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani that he relied on the prohibition of entering into military alliances with non-Muslims based on the Hadith reported by Ahmad and al-Nasa'i, which he classified as authentic (Sahih). It states: 'On the authority of Anas, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.' The Sheikh commented on the Hadith, saying: 'That is, do not make the fire of the polytheists a light for you.' Fire is a metaphor for war... I say: It is appropriate here to quote what the commentators have mentioned regarding this Hadith, and then clarify its status in terms of authenticity or lack thereof... ¶

- Imam al-Sindi says: 'His statement: Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists; that is, do not draw near to them...' ¶

And it is said: The intent behind 'fire' here is 'opinion'. That is, do not consult them; thus, opinion was likened to light at a time of uncertainty/perplexity. ¶

- A similar explanation is found in Imam al-Suyuti’s commentary on Sunan al-Nasa'i, where he states: 'Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists. It is stated in al-Nihayah: The intent behind fire here is opinion. That is, do not consult them. Thus, opinion was likened to light during moments of perplexity.' ¶

- Likewise, it is stated in Jami' al-Usul by Ibn al-Athir—who is also the author of al-Nihayah: 'Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists: meaning, do not consult them and do not act upon their opinions. He likened the adoption of their opinions and acting upon them to seeking illumination from fire.' ¶

- Similarly, it is mentioned in Al-Majazat al-Nabawiyyah by al-Sharif al-Radi: 'The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): Do not seek light from the fire of the people of shirk. It is said: The intended meaning is not to consult them in your affairs, lest you act upon their opinions and return to their statements... He likened seeking guidance through opinion to seeking illumination from fire, when its effect is like the effect of fire in clarifying the obscure and illuminating the dark.' ¶

This is what has been said in the commentary of the Hadith. The summary of what has preceded is: that the prohibition against seeking light from the fire of the polytheists is either a prohibition against keeping their company—the intent here being the prohibition of residing in the lands of Kufr (infidelity)—which requires migrating from there to Dar al-Islam. Or, this prohibition is meant as a deterrent against consulting non-Muslims and a warning against acting upon what they suggest. ¶

As for the first meaning—the prohibition against residing in the lands of Kufr and the requirement to migrate from there to Dar al-Islam—a detailed discussion on this issue has already been provided. We have explained in that detail that there are cases where migration is obligatory, cases where it is permissible, and cases where it is forbidden, and that residing in the land of Kufr may become obligatory... and so on regarding other rulings according to varying circumstances. ¶

And the circumstances, and we have also presented there the various evidences that point to those rulings. As for the second meaning of the Hadith, which is the prohibition of consulting non-Muslims and acting upon their opinions, this is not absolute—as is evident—for wisdom is the lost property of the believer; wherever he finds it, he is most entitled to it, and it does not harm him from whichever vessel it emerges, once it is proven to him that it is sound wisdom, containing no harm and no deception. Furthermore, the generality of the Almighty’s saying: '...ask the people of the message if you do not know' (Surat An-Nahl: 43), indicates that those who possess knowledge of a thing, even if they are non-Muslims, are a source to be consulted in that matter for which they possess knowledge and expertise. Hence, there is no harm in consulting them in matters within their specialty. Thereafter, the believer—as is his nature—is shrewd and sagacious; he recognizes the counsel that benefits him and acts upon it, and [recognizes] that which is intended to deceive or entrap him, and thus avoids it. ¶

On this basis, the Hadith 'Do not seek illumination from the fire of the polytheists,' if it refers to the prohibition of residing in the Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief), then it has no bearing on the issue of military alliances which we are discussing. And if it is interpreted as a prohibition of consulting non-Muslims, then it falls within the scope of this issue, because one of the requirements of an alliance is the exchange of counsel between allies. However, as previously stated, it does not imply a warning against consulting them absolutely; the warning is restricted to that which leads to harm in this context. As for that in which benefit is realized, the Muslim is required to hold fast to it and be keen upon it, as indicated by the general command of the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Be eager for what benefits you, seek help from Allah, and do not be helpless.' ¶

Therefore, the Hadith under discussion—as the commentators have mentioned—does not address the issue of Muslims entering into military alliances with others, except in the aspect of it involving consultation, and we have already identified what is to be cautioned against in this regard as well. ¶

Yes, 'fire' (nar) in the Hadith may be a metonym for war, just as it may be a metonym for a military alliance. Al-Sharif al-Radi, while discussing the Hadith: 'Do not let their two fires be visible to one another'—that is, the Muslim and the disbeliever—and explaining that this Hadith has two possible intended meanings, states: 'The first is that a Muslim should not reside with a polytheist in his land. The second is that the term 'fire' here refers to the fire of war, as they use 'fire' as a metonym for war. It is in this sense that the revelation came in the Almighty’s saying: 'Whenever they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it.' This concerns the usage of 'fire' as a metonym for war. As for it being a metonym for an 'alliance' (hilf), the following appears in Al-Tha’alibi: 'The fire of alliance: this is the one the Arabs used to kindle upon forming an alliance. They would not conclude their alliance except in its presence, mentioning its benefits, and calling upon Allah against anyone who breaks the covenant to be deprived of its benefits. Sometimes they would stand so close to it that it would almost burn them, and they would treat the matter with great solemnity.' I (the author) say: If we interpret the Shariah text 'Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists' as referring to the 'fire of war,' the meaning is: Do not ask the army of the disbelievers to protect you from your enemies and adversaries through their defense. If we interpret this text as referring to a 'military alliance,' the meaning is: Do not enter into a military alliance with the disbelievers, that is, in order to seek protection from them against enemies and adversaries. Regardless, the outcome of both meanings is ultimately the same. The intent is: Do not rely upon the disbelievers. ¶

For your security arrangements and for the defense of your lands... rather, your reliance in this should be upon your own inherent strength. ¶

It is worth noting that the phrasing of the Hadith, 'Do not seek illumination (light)...' suggests that the prohibition in the text is directed at a situation where the Muslims are the weak side seeking light from others, whether it be the light of the fire of war by having them fight in their defense, or the light of the fire of alliance by forming a military pact with those who proclaim their guardianship over them! ¶

Consequently, this text does not address the case of the disbelievers seeking illumination from the fire of the Muslims when the Muslims are the stronger side—meaning, when disbelievers ask the Muslims to come under the protection of the Islamic army in war, or ask the Muslims to enter into a military alliance with them, hoping to seek refuge in this alliance from their own enemy. ¶

Furthermore, the seeking of illumination by disbelievers from the fire of the Muslims—in this sense—has been discussed previously (1), when discussing the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers when they commit aggression against other disbelievers who are under the protection of the Muslims, even if those who are being aggressed against have an entity independent from that of the Muslims. We mentioned there that the proof of this legitimacy is the Prophet (PBUH) declaring war against the Quraysh when their allies, the Banu Bakr, committed aggression against the allies of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) from the Khuza'a, as was detailed previously. ¶

In summary: The Hadith, 'Do not seek illumination from the fire of the polytheists,' indicates a prohibition for Muslims to seek military support against their rivals and enemies from the armies of the disbelievers, or to seek to enter into military alliances with the disbelievers in order to gain victory over rivals and enemies through such an alliance. In all these cases, the Muslims are the weak party over whom powerful disbelievers declare their protection. As for when the Muslims are the strong party, and others seek their support or desire to enter under their wing in a military alliance to take shelter with them—the Hadith we are discussing does not [address that]. ¶

This issue is addressed; however, legal evidence for the legitimacy of this matter exists. It is found in the entry of the 'Khuza'a' tribe into an alliance with the Prophet (PBUH), and his declaration of war against the Quraysh due to their allies' aggression against his own allies—as previously indicated. ¶

This pertains to the implication of the Hadith: 'Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.' ¶

As for the authenticity of the Hadith, it appears to be weak in terms of its chain of narration (sanad)! This is because the one who narrated it from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) is 'Azhar ibn Rashid' al-Basri. Ibn Hajar stated in 'al-Taqrib': 'Majhul' (unknown) (1). Consequently, this Hadith is not suitable to be used as a specific text (nass) for the issue we are addressing. ¶

Since the specific text regarding the issue of military alliances has not been proven authentic, it is necessary to search for a general Shariah rule under which the issue of alliances can be categorized, and from which the ruling can be derived. This is the subject of the second point in this issue. ¶

B - The Second Point: What is the general Shariah rule under which military alliance with non-Muslims falls? The answer to this question is: The rule under which the issue of military alliance with non-Muslims falls is the rule: 'No harm and no reciprocating harm' (La darara wa la dirar) (2). ¶

(1) See 'Taqrib al-Tahdhib' by Ibn Hajar: p. 97, where he mentions three narrators named 'Azhar ibn Rashid'. The first: 'al-Basri', from whom al-Nasa'i narrated in his Sunan, and he is 'Majhul' (unknown), as previously indicated. The second: 'al-Kahili', from whom al-Nasa'i narrated in 'Musnad Ali', and he is 'Da'if' (weak). The third: 'al-Hawzani', who is 'Saduq' (truthful), but he has no narration in the six books, which include 'Sunan al-Nasa'i'. Therefore, it is determined that 'Azhar ibn Rashid' here is the Basri, who is unknown. Furthermore, Shaykh al-Albani overlooked this Hadith and did not include it in his 'Sahih Sunan al-Nasa'i'; see the last reference: 3/1060. It is worth noting that the Hadith in Musnad Ahmad follows the same chain as it appears in Sunan al-Nasa'i. ¶

(2) This rule is the text of a Prophetic Hadith reported through several paths. Al-Nawawi said regarding it: 'A Hasan (good) Hadith'; see his 'al-Arba'in al-Nawawiyya', Hadith no. (32), p. 74. Shaykh al-Albani said: 'Sahih (authentic)'; see his 'Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah', no. (1896), vol. 2/39. In the explanation of the Hadith, it is stated: 'The meaning of his saying 'La darar': meaning, a man should not harm his brother by diminishing any of his rights. And 'al-Dirar': is 'fi'al' from 'al-darr', meaning: do not retaliate against his harm by inflicting harm upon him. 'Al-Darar' is the act of one, and 'al-Dirar' is the act of two. Or, 'al-Darar' is the initiation of the act, and 'al-Dirar' is the retaliation for it. It was also said: 'al-Darar' is to harm your companion while you benefit from it, and 'al-Dirar' is to harm him without you benefiting! It was also said that they mean the same thing, and the repetition is for emphasis.' [Al-Siraj al-Munir, Sharh al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Azizi: 3/433]. ¶

Sheikh Mustafa al-Zarqa, while discussing this legal maxim, states: 'This principle is one of the pillars of Shariah, supported by numerous texts in the Quran and Sunnah, and serves as a foundation for prohibiting harmful acts. Its text is: It negates harm absolutely, thus necessitating its prevention in all circumstances. It encompasses both specific and general harm, including preventing it before occurrence through possible preventive measures, and removing it after occurrence through measures that eliminate its effects and prevent its recurrence. It also points to the obligation of choosing the lesser of two evils to prevent the greater one, as this provides mitigation of harm when it cannot be entirely averted.' ¶

I say: Based on this, everything that leads to causing harm to the Muslims is prohibited under Shariah. There is no doubt that a military alliance with major powers—as evidenced by contemporary reality—inevitably leads to harm for the Muslims. This is because the nature of these states is colonialist, or they covet the wealth of Muslims, or harbor religious enmity against them. Given this reality, a military alliance with such states opens a gateway for the winds of harm that threaten the existence of Muslims and gives the disbelievers a way over them, as Allah the Almighty says: 'And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them].' Furthermore, this alliance opens a door of harm to Muslim lands, at the very least by controlling their resources in terms of production, export, and pricing, all under the pretext of serving the military alliance. In reality, these major powers that Muslims enter into military alliances with only intend to ensure they can operate according to their own policies. They aim to solidify their status as superpowers that control the destiny and capabilities of Muslims, while perpetuating the state of backwardness, internal discord, weakness, and fragmentation among Muslims. They strive to prevent Muslims from adopting the path that would one day make them a major power with influence on the international stage. Because if that were to happen, it would mean—in the view of today's major powers—that the world, which has suffered under their hegemony, would respond to the message of the Islamic Ummah, looking forward to liberation from that fierce hegemony through this humanitarian message. ¶

Muslims should be its standard-bearers, so that all may find shelter under its shade. This outcome is what the major powers fear today; therefore, they attempt to block the paths leading to it by various means, including binding Muslims to them through unequal treaties and alliances. Thus, establishing a military alliance with major powers, in light of what has been mentioned, is a danger to Islamic lands, a crime against Muslims and even against humanity, and is Haram (forbidden) according to the ruling of the Shariah. ¶

As for cases where the harm from such an alliance is mitigated—such as the case of the Khuza’ah tribe when they allied with the Prophet (PBUH)—they were, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, 'the chest of advice for the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).' There is no objection to forming military alliances between Muslims and other entities in such circumstances. The reality of these lawful alliances, in such a state—setting aside the protection Muslims might provide to others—is that it constitutes seeking assistance from non-Muslims in combat. Seeking assistance from disbelievers in combat, as previously explained, is permissible when no harm results from it, such as an Islamic army seeking the help of individuals or limited groups of fighters. This is on the condition that they fight under the banner of the Muslims and submit to the leadership of the Muslims. Similarly, it is permissible to seek the assistance of disbelievers in the scope of supplying Muslims with weapons, whether through purchase, leasing, or borrowing, provided no harm arises from it. Therefore, if a military alliance with non-Muslims remains within these safe limits, there is no harm in it; indeed, it may even be required if the public interest (maslaha) demands it. ¶

However, when seeking assistance from disbelievers is of a nature that it is feared to lead to harm befalling the Muslims... ¶

Sooner or later, this form of seeking assistance becomes illegitimate in such circumstances, such as when the assistance involves large military contingents that the Muslims cannot effectively manage, entering Muslim lands to fight the enemy alongside the Islamic army. Even if these contingents have placed themselves under Islamic command, given their size and power—as previously noted—they may pose a threat to the Muslims and their lands. Naturally, the danger is even greater if their leadership remains independent of the Muslim command. ¶

Therefore, a military alliance that includes such assistance is forbidden in Shariah, in accordance with the legal maxim: "No harm and no reciprocating harm" (la darara wa la dirar). ¶

Regarding seeking assistance from non-Muslims, whether permissible or impermissible, it is stated in *Al-Siyar al-Kabir* and its commentary as follows: ¶

"There is no harm in the Muslims seeking assistance from the polytheists against other polytheists, provided that the rule of Islam is dominant over them... This is akin to seeking assistance from dogs to fight against the polytheists. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ alluded to this in his saying: 'Indeed, Allah Almighty strengthens this religion with people who have no share in the Hereafter.' And regarding the narration that the Prophet ﷺ saw a well-equipped battalion on the day of Uhud and asked, 'Who are these?' and it was said, 'They are the Jews of such-and-such tribe, allies of Ibn Ubayy,' and he replied, 'We do not seek help from those who are not of our religion'—the interpretation is that they were 'ahl al-mana'ah' (possessors of military might) and they were not going to fight under the banner of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ! In our view, if they are of this nature, seeking their assistance is disliked." ¶

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan clarified why the Prophet ﷺ refused the assistance of the Jews who were allies of Ibn Ubayy, despite them being 'ahl al-mana'ah'—that is, a significant force capable, under normal circumstances, of preventing others from overcoming them. He stated: "He [the Prophet ﷺ] feared that they might turn against the Muslims if they sensed any slip in their footing! For this reason..." ¶

to turn them away. In our view, if the Imam deems it appropriate not to seek help from the polytheists out of fear of fitnah (strife), he has the authority to turn them away. Having said that, this is the most important point to be made regarding the first issue of this discussion. Now, we proceed to the second issue. ¶

The Second Issue: Is it permissible for Muslims to join a military alliance that justifies war against Islamic territories? ¶

The answer to this question, in summary, is that it is known by necessity in the religion that fighting against one’s fellow Muslims is one of the gravest major sins and most heinous crimes. ¶

In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and others, the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “Whoever bears arms against us is not one of us.” Regarding the sanctity of a Muslim’s blood, it is stated in Sahih Muslim from the Prophet (peace be upon him): “The blood, property, and honor of every Muslim are sacred to another Muslim.” Therefore, joining any military alliance that necessitates raising arms against Muslims and violating their sanctity acts as a means to what is prohibited in Shariah, and consequently, it is forbidden by nature. ¶

The Third Issue: In this discussion, it is whether it is permissible for Muslims to join a military alliance that limits the legitimacy of declaring war against non-Islamic territories. ¶

The answer to this question is that if such an alliance serves the interests of the Muslims and does not lead to any harm or prohibition, provided that the Muslims fight under their own banner and remain under their own leadership during the war, and it does not oblige them to fight when they do not wish to, nor prevents them from fighting when the interest (maslahah) calls for it, and provided that the Muslims' participation does not strengthen the disbelievers belonging to that alliance in a way that poses a threat to Muslims—in such a case, there is no harm in joining such an alliance. For the war resulting from such an alliance will either achieve a benefit for the Muslims, the ruling for which is clear, or it will... ¶

A common interest between them and their allies... Therefore, Muslims must intend by this war only the realization of the Muslims' interest, the exaltation of the word of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and the fulfillment of the obligation of jihad—without intending to strengthen the side of their infidel allies, to show them allegiance, or to exalt the word of kufr (disbelief)! ¶

In this regard, there is a question and answer in 'Al-Fatawa al-Kubra' by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami concerning the participation of Muslims alongside one group of infidels against another group of infidels. What is stated in this context is the following: ¶

'If Muslims assist one of the two parties of infidels in their wars and fight the others alongside them, without necessity or need, until they are killed or they kill in the wars—is this permissible or not? Is the Muslim rewarded for killing the infidel or for being killed by them? And is he treated as a martyr in that he is not washed and no funeral prayer is performed over him?' (1). ¶

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami answered these questions, clarifying first that there is no harm in: 'Inciting some infidels against others, because finding a way to kill a combatant (harbi) is permissible, and indeed beloved, by any means possible... Then he said: If one or more Muslims assist one of the two parties and one of the combatants kills him in the war, he is a martyr; he is not washed, no funeral prayer is performed over him, and he has the reward—that is, the reward—if he fought so that the word of Allah might be the highest...' (2). ¶

With this fatwa, we conclude the discussion on this issue. With it, we also reach the end of this research. And we move—with the help and guidance of Allah—to another topic. ¶

(1) Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami: Vol. 2/25. See also Vol. 4/222. (2) Previous source (Fatawa Ibn Hajar) Vol. 2/25. See: Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary: 4/1515 et seq. ¶

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Introduction Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, and upon all his family and companions. To proceed: This is a concise summary containing certain Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rulings and Shariah issues, which I have compiled to serve as a reminder for those seeking benefit and as an aid for students. I have organized it according to the traditional chapters of Fiqh, aiming for ease and clarity, while relying upon the most sound evidence and what has been received with acceptance by the Ummah. We ask Allah Almighty to make it beneficial and to accept it solely for His Noble Countenance. And may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our master Muhammad, and upon his family and companions. ¶

Second Topic Leasing of military bases, airports, and the sale of weapons, strategic materials, and other forms of assistance. The subject of this discussion is: Is it permissible for Muslims to enter into contracts with other states to lease them military bases and airports within Islamic lands, or to conclude deals with them for the sale of strategic materials or weapons that they possess, or to provide those states with any kind of other assistance related to military affairs, whether for compensation or without it, which would enable them to move along the path of power thanks to such deals and assistance? I ask: Is it permissible for Muslims to deal with other states in the manner described above? This is the subject of the research that we will address—briefly—through the following points: 1. The First Point: What is meant by military bases and strategic materials? 2. The Second Point: Are there specific Shariah texts that address the issues raised in this research? 3. The Third Point: What is the general Shariah principle under which this issue falls, and what are the opinions of the schools of jurisprudence (Madhahib) regarding it? And what is the opinion we favor in this regard? 1. The First Point: What is meant by military bases and strategic materials? First: What is meant by military bases. Regarding the definition of these bases, the purpose of their establishment, and the means used to entrap smaller states into them, it is stated in the 'Political Dictionary' (al-Qamus al-Siyasi) in this regard concerning these military bases that they are: ¶

Strategic sites (1), whether terrestrial or coastal, are those established by major powers within the territorial borders of other states through agreements with their governments in exchange for annual rent, grants, or financial aid. He further states: Foreign bases are usually established on the basis of bilateral agreements between a major power and the government of another state. Since the evolution of colonial methods, this action has been considered a colonial tool for control and for expanding political and military influence. For this reason, the United States—a state that did not engage in traditional colonialism—was among the first major powers to use military bases as a means to extend its influence. This is the policy that became known after World War II as 'Neo-imperialism' (2). Major powers, in concluding these bilateral agreements, do not rely solely on economic incentives, but also on psychological factors to instill fear and panic regarding potential threats facing these states and their governing regimes. Maintaining military bases is considered a part of mutual defense treaties (3). ¶

This is regarding military bases. ¶

Secondly: The meaning of 'strategic materials'. It is stated in the 'Political Dictionary', in defining the word 'strategic', that it is: 'A word of Greek origin, meaning in terminology: the art or science of general leadership in war. That is: all measures necessary to achieve victory.' He then added: 'The term "strategic materials" is applied to all...' ¶