Chapter 99

• Adultery with women of the belligerent (ahl al-harb) is forbidden in Shariah, based on general scriptural evidences. • The mentioned suspicion has no basis in sound reasoning for the following reasons: A. The terms 'wat' (intercourse) and 'nayl' (attaining) must be understood according to the context in which they appear, which is war. B. Both words could technically apply to pederasty if they were not restricted to the subject of war and combat, and no one argues for the permissibility of such acts. C. The disagreement in this issue is not over whether the adultery intended here is haram or halal, but rather over the implementation of the hadd (prescribed punishment) for this adultery—whether it should be executed in the Dar al-Harb (territory of war) or not. D. 'And they who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.' [Al-Mu'minun: 5-7]—the verse limits the legitimacy of sexual relations with women to wives and slave women, and negates that legitimacy for anything beyond them. • The fundamental principle regarding sexual relations is prohibition. Second Point: What is meant by 'sab' (captives) from the people of war? And what is the stance of the jurists on enslaving captives? First: 'Sab' refers to the women and children who have been taken prisoner from among the people of war. Second: What is the stance of the jurists on enslaving captives? It is a matter agreed upon among all jurisprudential schools. It is an automatic consequence of capture according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis. According to the Hanafis, it is the result of a decision by the authority in charge, with the possibility that the decision may be to ransom them if necessary. According to the Malikis, this enslavement is not absolute; rather, the authority has the discretion to rule for enslavement, ransom, or manumission (according to one opinion). Third Point: What is the consequence of the ruling on enslaving captives? And is it permissible to enslave captives in our current era? ¶

Part One: What are the consequences of the ruling to enslave captives? 1421 - Annulment of marriage between female captives and their husbands - if they are married 1421 - The permissibility of intimate relations with them as wives by the men who possess them - with evidence 1421 - The Companions (Sahaba) engaging in intimacy with captives and practicing coitus interruptus ('azl) - to avoid pregnancy, and hoping for their ransom from their families 1422 - Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) upholding the chastity of a slave girl of his who had been a prostitute 1423 Part Two: Is it permissible according to Shariah to enslave captives in our modern era? 1423 A - Is Islam's sanctioning of enslaving captives based on reciprocity? 1424 - Many modern Islamic writers argue this 1424 - The error of the accusations leveled by Orientalists against Islam regarding matters they denounce, then defending Islam in a way that pleases those who made the accusations 1424 - The ruling on enslaving captives, even if the enemy abolishes it on their side, remains a legitimate weapon in Islam, a tool for pressure and intimidation that may be brandished against them according to public interest (maslaha) 1425 B - Do modern war conditions necessitate, according to Shariah or reality, the prohibition of enslaving captives? 1425 - Some modern Islamic writings claim that there is no justification for enslaving captives in modern warfare, unlike the situation in ancient wars 1426 - Discussion of this idea and proof that the female element has not disappeared from modern warfare 1429 - Enslavement is not only legitimate for those who go out with the army, but it is also permissible for those who remain in their homes, such as women and children... and the evidence for this 1429 C - Are there cases in which it is possible to enslave captives (women) and make having intimate relations with them permissible in a way that is sound according to Shariah in the modern era? 1430 - What was mentioned in Al-Suyuti’s 'Al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir' and 'Hashiyat Ibn Abidin' 1431 D - How can we reach a prohibition of enslaving captives according to Shariah in the modern era? 1432 - Through agreements with other countries regarding this issue 1432 ¶

Chapter Six: Reasons for Ceasing Combat in Islam, and their Impact on Spreading the Call (Da'wah), Establishing Peace, and Preserving Lives. ¶

Section One: The Conversion of Enemies to Islam, and the Consequent Termination of the State of War and the Preservation of Life. Issue One: Legal (Shar'i) evidences for the obligation to cease combat if the enemy announces their conversion to Islam. - '...you shall fight them, or they will submit...' [Al-Fath: 16] - 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah...' (Agreed upon) - '...Invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it from them and refrain from fighting them' (Sahih Muslim) - '...He struck one of my hands with a sword and severed it... he said: I have submitted to Allah! Shall I kill him...? The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: Do not kill him...' (Sahih Muslim) - The jurists' (Fuqaha) discussion on the ruling regarding people entering Islam and the requirement that their expression of it demonstrates the rejection of the false creeds they previously held. Issue Two: Encouraging the People of War (Ahl al-Harb) to enter Islam and refraining from combat. - The Prophet ﷺ employed several methods for this, including: - His guarantee to maintain the country's leaders in power if they embraced Islam (The Prophet's ﷺ letter to the kings of Oman and the leader of Yamama). - His guarantee ﷺ to maintain the status enjoyed by those with special capabilities and talents (The Prophet's ﷺ inquiry about Khalid ibn al-Walid - before he converted - saying: If he were to utilize his military prowess with the Muslims against the polytheists, it would have been better for him, and we would have prioritized him over others). - Generous giving of wealth when it serves as a means for some polytheists to announce their conversion (Anas: A man would embrace Islam desiring nothing but worldly gain! Yet, he would not remain a Muslim until Islam became more beloved to him than the world and everything in it!) (Sahih Muslim) ¶

(Safwan bin Umayyah, and Malik bin Awf, the leader of the polytheists in Hawazin, and the role of wealth in their conversion to Islam) . . . . . . . . . . . 1444 - The Prophet (peace be upon him) accepting lawful conditions from the people of certain lands for their declaration of Islam, such as independence from the Islamic state in some administrative matters.. (Conditions of Thaqif - the people of Ta'if - for declaring their Islam) . . . . . . . . . . 1444 Third Issue: The impact of the conversion of the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) on the preservation of their blood, and other implications in general . . . . . . . . . . 1447 - The blood of every Muslim is sacred to another Muslim.. (Sahih Muslim) - Say: La ilaha illa Allah - and you shall be protected.. (Abu Dawud) . . . . . . . . . . 1447 - {And do not say to anyone who offers you peace, "You are not a believer ¶

Hadith of Buraydah: 'If they refuse [i.e., to accept Islam], then ask them for jizya. If they agree, accept it from them and refrain from fighting them' (Sahih Muslim). - The views of the jurists on the obligation to cease fighting when jizya is offered. The second issue: Who are the people of war (ahl al-harb) from whom the payment of jizya may be accepted, implying the conclusion of a dhimma contract and the consequent termination of hostilities against them? 1. Hanafi School: The dhimma contract is legitimate for all disbelievers except for the Arab polytheists and apostates. 2. Maliki, Awza'i, and the jurists of the Levant: It is taken from all types of polytheists, except the apostate. 3. Shafi'i School: It is not accepted except from the People of the Book and the Magians, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs. 4. Hanbali School: Similar to the Shafi'is, and in one narration among them: it is accepted from all disbelievers except the idolaters among the Arabs. - Connecting jurisprudential opinions to the reality of non-Muslim sects in modern times, in light of their diverse origins and beliefs. First: The evidence for the aforementioned opinions, along with an evaluation/weighting (tarjih). First – The Evidence: - Arab disbelievers—other than Jews, Christians, and Magians—are not to pay jizya; they have no option but Islam or death. The evidence for this: 'You will be called to [fight] a people of great military might, you shall fight them, or they will submit...' [Al-Fath: 16]. - The apostate is not accepted unless they return to Islam; the evidence: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him' (Bukhari). - People of the Book and Magians: Concluding a dhimma contract is permissible for them; the evidence is the verse of Jizya. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted jizya from the Magians of Hajar (Bukhari). - All disbelievers, from all backgrounds: It is permissible to conclude a dhimma contract with them; the evidence: the Hadith of Buraydah ('And if you meet your enemy among the polytheists, invite them to three traits... then if they refuse, ask them for jizya') [Sahih Muslim]. ¶

Secondly: The opinion we prefer is that a dhimma contract is permissible with people of all races and creeds, even atheists. However, those of them residing in the Arabian Peninsula—within the borders adopted by the State—are to be ordered to leave, and are not to reside there except temporarily or as passersby. A dhimma contract may be concluded with them outside the specified borders. It is not permissible to enter into a dhimma contract with apostates. In this way, a reconciliation can be made between all the texts related to this issue. ¶

Third Issue: Conditions for the obligation of Jizya: These are sanity, puberty, being male, good health, and freedom from chronic illness, blindness, and old age. Likewise, the poor person who cannot work is exempt, as is the condition of being free (not a slave). ¶

Fourth Issue: The alternative to Jizya: Regarding the proposal of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra to extend the obligation of Zakat to non-Muslims in lieu of Jizya. Is it permissible for the State—for the sake of public interest—to conclude a dhimma contract with a specific nation based on imposing Zakat on them, treating them equally to Muslims instead of Jizya? Answer: The majority of jurists permitted this when the interest (maslaha) demands it, based on the peace treaty of Umar ibn al-Khattab with the Christians of Banu Taghlib. ¶

It is not among the legitimate objectives to harm the dhimmis, neither by word nor by deed. Backbiting a dhimmi is forbidden, just as it is for a Muslim. A Muslim is forbidden from saying to a dhimmi, 'O infidel!' or 'O enemy of God!' It is reported in the Hadith: 'Beware, whoever wrongs a mu'ahid (covenantee) or diminishes his rights... I shall be his adversary on the Day of Judgment.' (Abu Dawud) ¶

Chapter Three: Treaties and Security (Aman): First Issue: Definition of a treaty, its legitimacy, and the ruling on adhering to it, along with mentioning the reasons and purposes for concluding them. First: Definition of a treaty: It is a reconciliation with the people of war (ahl al-harb) to cease fighting for a specific period, with or without compensation. Second: The legitimacy of a treaty and the ruling on adhering to it. ¶

- Texts from the Holy Qur'an regarding the legitimacy of treaties, such as: {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it...} [Al-Anfal: 61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1473 - Evidence from the Sunnah for the legitimacy of treaties: The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah . . . . . . . . . 1476 - The ruling on fulfilling treaties is summarized as follows: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477 1 - The obligation to cease fighting and fulfill treaties as long as they are legitimate and effective according to the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477 2 - The obligation to adhere to the treaty ends in the following cases: . . . . . . . 1478 a - Upon the expiration of its term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1478 b - If the enemy breaks it, or violates a condition thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1479 c - If the treaty partner provides any military aid to the enemy with whom the Muslims are engaged in war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1479 d - When signs appear indicating the treaty partner's intention to break the treaty; in this case, it is necessary to formally renounce the treaty to the enemy before declaring war upon them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1479 Third: Reasons and objectives calling for concluding peace treaties with the enemy . . 1480 Weakness of the Muslims, hope for the conversion of the disbelievers to Islam, hope for their acceptance of Dhimmah (protection), hope for assistance against other disbelievers, and the exorbitant, unbearable costs of fighting the enemy.. In summary: The interest of Islam and the Muslims is what calls for concluding treaties, and the estimation of that interest is entrusted to the Caliph of the Muslims . . . . . . . . . . . . 1481 - The interests behind concluding treaties in the Prophetic biography (Sirah) . . . . . . 1481 - Legitimate interests that prompt Muslims to conclude treaties in the modern era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1482 Second Issue: Treaties with non-Islamic states on the condition of paying Jizyah to the Muslims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1483 First Point: Evidence for the legitimacy of such a treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1484 The truce (Muada'ah) with the King of Ayla - (Yuhanna bin Rubah) . . . . . . . . . . 1485 ¶

Al-Baladhuri: Every group of people under a treaty (Ahl al-'Ahd) behind whom the Muslims do not fight, and who are ruled by their own laws within their own territory, are not considered 'Ahl al-Dhimmah' (protected subjects), but rather 'Ahl al-Fidyah' (those who pay ransom); their treaty shall be honored as long as they honor it. (1485) ¶

Second Point: The opinions of jurists regarding the legality of treaties with non-Muslim peoples and states on the condition of paying jizyah to the Muslims. (1486) - From Hanafi texts: A treaty is permissible without payment, and therefore it is more permissible with payment—and obtaining it is a part of Jihad, not a wage for abandoning Jihad! (1486) - From Maliki texts: A treaty is permissible for a benefit, whether with compensation or without compensation. (1487) - From Shafi'i texts: It is permissible to contract a truce (hudnah) for wealth taken from them, because there is a benefit for the Muslims in that. (1487) - From Hanbali texts: This treaty is permissible on the condition of considering the interest of the Muslims... and distinguishing between wealth paid once to stop a specific war, and wealth paid annually for the duration of the contracted truce. (1488) ¶

Third Issue: The treaty of Muslims paying wealth to other states in exchange for stopping hostilities against the Muslims. (1488) ¶

First Point: Evidence from Shariah texts for the permissibility of a treaty where Muslims pay wealth in exchange for stopping hostilities. - The negotiation of the Prophet (PBUH) with some of the polytheist leaders during the Battle of the Trench regarding this. (1489) ¶

Second Point: The opinions of the jurists of the schools of thought regarding the legality of a treaty conditioned upon paying wealth to the disbelievers, in case of necessity (darurah). (1489) - Hanafis: There is no harm in requesting peace from the disbelievers and giving them wealth for that when there is a state of necessity. (1489) ¶

Summary of their evidence: A- The text regarding the permissibility of a treaty, 'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it' (8:61), is absolute; therefore, it is permissible with wealth or without wealth! (1491) B- The report of the negotiations for such a peace during the Battle of the Trench. (1491) ¶

C - If it becomes necessary to pay money to the disbelievers as a means to ward off destruction from the Muslims, then it becomes obligatory to pay it. ¶

It is mandatory to cease hostilities against those among the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) who have been granted safe conduct (aman) – and this is what all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib al-fiqhiyya) have determined – (texts from books of fiqh on this issue) . . . 1502. Likewise, if a group of Muslims enters the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) under a guarantee of safety, the enemy is safe from them until they depart from them . . . 1503. The authority (ruler) has the right to regulate the Muslims' exercise of the right to grant security to non-believers, such that there is no nullification of this right on one hand, nor the possibility of it being used as a means for harm on the other . . . 1503. Chapter Four: The Sacred Months (Al-Ashhur al-Hurum) . . . 1505. First Issue: What is intended by the Sacred Months? What are they? What is the meaning of the prohibition of the Sacred Months? What are the evidences for the prohibition of fighting during the Sacred Months? And what is the wisdom behind it? First: What are the Sacred Months? They are: (three consecutive months: Dhu al-Qi'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, and Muharram, and Rajab Mudar . .) Muttafaq 'alayh . . . 1505. Second: The meaning of the prohibition of the Sacred Months. They are called 'Hurum' (sacred) for two reasons: - The prohibition of fighting in them - And the glorification of acts of worship in them - Hadith (Abu Raja al-'Utaridi: We used to worship the stone... when the month of Rajab entered, we would say: Remove the spearheads) Bukhari . . . 1506. Third: The evidences for the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months . . . 1507. A - {They ask you about the sacred month – fighting therein? Say, 'Fighting therein is a great sin..'} [Al-Baqarah: 217] and the reason for its revelation . . . 1507. B - {The sacred month is for the sacred month, and all violations are [subject to] legal retribution} [Al-Baqarah: 194] and the reason for its revelation . . . 1510. C - {O you who have believed, do not violate the rites of Allah or [violate] the sacred month..} [Al-Ma'idah: 2] . . . 1510. D - {Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. So do not wrong yourselves during them..} [At-Tawbah: 36] . . . 1511. ¶

e - Jabir ibn Abdullah: The Prophet (PBUH) would not engage in battle during the Sacred Months, unless he was attacked or he himself initiated the battle. When the month arrived, he would wait until it passed [Musnad Ahmad, with a sound chain] .. 1512 Fourth: What is the wisdom behind the prohibition of combat during the Sacred Months? ............. 1512 - Since the time of Ibrahim and Ismail (peace be upon them): To provide safety for people during the months of Hajj and Umrah ................................... 1512 - In Islam: To allow time for acts of worship other than fighting the disbelievers, and to consolidate Islam in the conquered lands .............................. 1513 Second Issue: The position that the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months has been abrogated, along with the evidence ... 1514 - The Jumhur (majority scholars): Fighting during the Sacred Months was forbidden in Islam except in cases of responding to aggression. Then, this ruling was abrogated and replaced by the legitimacy of Jihad, allowing the initiation of combat against disbelievers at any time .................................... 1514 - Evidence of the Jumhur: First: From Quranic texts: ............................... 1515 a - {And fight against the polytheists collectively...} [At-Tawbah: 36] ................ 1515 b - {And kill the polytheists wherever you find them...} [At-Tawbah: 5] ........... 1515 c - {Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day...} [At-Tawbah: 29] .. 1516 Second: Evidence from the Prophetic Biography (Seerah): ............................ 1516 - The Prophet (PBUH) fought the (Hawazin) at Hunayn, and (Thaqif) at Ta'if, and sent Abu Amir to (Awtas) to fight the polytheists present there during some of the Sacred Months ....... 1516 - The Pledge of Ridwan to fight the Quraish took place in Dhul-Qa'dah ........... 1516 It is well-known that all of this occurred after the revelation of {They ask you about the Sacred Month, about fighting therein? Say: Fighting therein is a great [sin]...}, which refers to the expedition of Abdullah ibn Jahsh. Thus, this proves the abrogation of the previous prohibition ............................... Third Issue: The position that the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months remains in effect, and a discussion of the Jumhur’s evidence for the abrogation of that prohibition ........................ 1517 - Ata ibn Abi Rabah: Maintains the view that the prohibition remains ..................... 1517 - Discussion of the evidence for prohibition: .................................. 1518 1971 ¶

First: The aforementioned texts of the Noble Quran indicate the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers in general times, while the evidence for prohibition indicates the lack of legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers specifically during the sacred months (al-Ashhur al-Hurum). Therefore, the specific (al-khas) is given precedence over the general (al-'amm), and all evidence is acted upon within its own scope. Second: Evidence from the Prophetic Seerah: The Battle of Hawazin, Awtas, and the Siege of Taif—all of this was defense against the aggression of the polytheists or a continuation of an ongoing war. There is no dispute regarding its legitimacy, and it was not initiated by the Muslims. Similarly, the Pledge of Ridwan was in response to the aggression of the Quraysh against Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), based on what was rumored at that time. Fourth Issue: Preferential Weighting (Tarjih) in this matter: We prefer the continuity of the prohibition based on the legal principle (usuli rule): Applying all evidence, even if from only some aspects, is better than applying some and neglecting others. Chapter Five: Defeat, Surrender, and Captivity. Topic One: Enemy defeat and surrender. Section One: Defeat and cessation of fighting, taking prisoners and their various conditions, treatment of prisoners, ruling on prisoners. First: Defeat and cessation of fighting: Ceasing combat after inflicting defeat (ithkhan) upon the enemy. Second: Taking prisoners and their various conditions: 1. The status of those who announce their Islam before being captured or surrendering: - If they are in a state of resistance (tamattu'), they are free Muslims. - If they are not in a state of resistance, they are prisoners, but execution is lifted from them due to their Islam. 2. The status of those who announce their acceptance of Dhimma (protection/tribute) before being captured or surrendering: - If they are resisting with their own power, the Dhimma is accepted from them. - If they are not in a state of resistance, the authority (Sahib al-Sulta) has the choice regarding them. Third: Treatment of prisoners: The injunction to treat prisoners well. ¶

- If there is a need to treat prisoners harshly, it is a mistake to avoid doing so (with evidence). 1536 Fourth: The ruling regarding prisoners. 1538 - The authority has several options in ruling on prisoners based on the public interest (maslahah). - When the public interest is determined in one of the options, it becomes mandatory to rule by it, and it is forbidden to deviate from it to another. 1538 These options are: 1 - Granting grace/pardon (Mann) to prisoners - with evidence. 1539 The majority (Jumhur) hold this view - contrary to the Hanafis - with evidence and discussion. 2 - Ransom (Fida') - with evidence. 1541 The majority hold this view - contrary to the Hanafis - with evidence and discussion. 3 - Execution (Qatl) - with evidence. 1544 The majority - from the four schools of jurisprudence - hold this view - contrary to what was narrated from Al-Hasan - with evidence and discussion. 4 - Enslavement (Isti'raq) - with evidence. 1548 The majority - from the four schools of jurisprudence - hold this view. - Discussion of contemporary authors who argue that enslaving prisoners is not permitted in Islam. 1551 - It is possible to reach a prohibition on the ruling of enslaving prisoners through a legal (Shari'i) means, which is an agreement between the Islamic state and other states regarding this issue. 1552 5 - Covenant of Protection (Aqd al-Dhimma) - with the texts of the jurists on this. The summary of this: 1552 The Covenant of Protection for prisoners is either a right of the authority depending on the public interest - as it is according to the Hanafis, Malikis, and Hanbalis - or it is a right of the prisoners themselves - if they request it, it becomes forbidden to kill them, as according to the Shafi'is. 1553 Chapter Two: The ruling on the enemy's surrender. 1555 A - Is it permissible to kill the enemy if they surrender on the battlefield and turn themselves in as prisoners? 1973 ¶

Here are the conditions: First: It is permissible to kill him if he surrenders before the stage of crushing (ithkhan) the enemy - when the situation requires crushing them... (The killing of Umayyah bin Khalaf and Ibn Ali after their surrender). . . . 1555 Second: It is permissible to kill him if he surrenders even after the crushing stage - as long as he is not considered a prisoner - for the matter then rests with the authority (Sahib al-Sulta). . . . 1557 Third: If the status of a prisoner (asir) is established for one who has surrendered, the fighter does not have the right to kill him without the order of the authority. . . . 1558 B - The enemy army, or the people of war (ahl al-harb) in general, who are shielded by their fortresses or their power - what is the ruling on them if they surrender to the Muslims unconditionally and without restrictions? . . . 1559 - They are treated as prisoners in terms of applying one of the five previous options to them. - The incident of Banu Qurayzah. . . . - Statements from the books of jurisprudence (fiqh) schools regarding this issue. . . 1560 Second Section: The defeat of the Muslims before the enemy, and their surrender. . . 1565 - Introduction: A brief glimpse at the causes of victory and defeat. . . 1565 First Chapter: What is incumbent upon the Muslims if they are defeated by the enemy? . . 1569 - Turning to Allah, clinging to patience, addressing deficiencies, and preparing to erase the traces of defeat. . . 1569 - The Battle of Hamra al-Asad following the Battle of Uhud. . . 1570 Second Chapter: Is it permissible for Muslims - individuals or groups - to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? . . 1573 First Issue: Is it permissible for individual Muslims to surrender to the enemy? - It is permissible to surrender when there is a hope of escaping death, just as it is permissible to refuse to surrender, even if one is killed because of this refusal. (The story of the companions of al-Raji) and the details thereof. . . 1573 Second Issue: Is it permissible for a group of Muslims in their land to surrender and hand over their land to the enemy? . . 1576 - It is permissible for them to fight until they are killed or are taken captive against their will. 1574 ¶

Similarly, it is permissible for them to surrender from the outset—subject to its conditions—for the lands of the Muslims are not more sacred than the Muslims themselves. Thus, handing over some lands to the disbelievers in times of necessity—not with the intention of abandoning them forever, but in the hope of gaining the strength to reclaim them—is considered, in the view of those who make such a choice, a selection of the lesser of two evils. - The surrender of Granada... and the explanation for the inability to reclaim it thereafter. 1578 - Have the Muslim leaders understood the lesson of Andalusia, and have they worked to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy in Palestine... and other Muslim lands? 1580 Third Section: What is the duty of the Muslims towards their rulers—whether Muslim or Dhimmi—if they fall into the hands of the enemy? 1581 First: Shariah texts regarding the liberation of captives from Islamic lands if they fall into the hands of the enemy. 1581 1- 'Free the captive' (al-ani). (Al-Bukhari). 1581 2- The Prophet ﷺ requested from Salamah ibn al-Akwa the Fazari girl he had captured, then sent her to Mecca to ransom Muslim captives held there. (Sahih Muslim). 1582 - The Prophet ﷺ ransomed two of the Companions captured by the tribe of Thaqif in exchange for an 'Aqili prisoner. 1582 Second: The views of the schools of jurisprudence (Madhahib) on this issue. 1583 - What is mentioned in Ibn Taymiyyah's 'Risalah al-Qubrusiyyah' in this regard. 1584 - Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said to his envoy to the Byzantines regarding Muslim captives held by them: 'Give them whatever they ask for each Muslim! By Allah, a single Muslim is more beloved to me than all the polytheists I possess! Whatever you ransom a Muslim with, you have succeeded! For you are, in reality, purchasing Islam.' 1585 Third: The weightiest opinion... is that the captives from the people of Islamic lands—whether they are Muslims or Dhimmis—their ransom is an obligation upon the Muslims by every legitimate means. 1586 ¶

Section Three: Hostages (al-Raha'in). Are they different from prisoners of war (asra)? 1589 First: What is meant by hostages in this research? 1589 Point One: Hostages in modern terminology are: 1- Those abducted from the citizens of the countries to which the kidnappers belong. 2- Those abducted from among the foreigners residing in the country as protected persons (musta'min). 3- Those foreigners whom the state holds in custody on its territory. 4- Those abducted from among foreigners while outside the country to which the kidnappers belong (it has already been established who may and may not be taken as hostages in the chapter on kidnapping). Point Two: Hostages in Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh) 1590 - These are persons whom their state or people hand over to those with whom they conclude a treaty, which stipulates that both parties, or one of them, provide human hostages to the other party as a guarantee for the fulfillment of the treaty, on the condition that these hostages be returned to their people after the expiration of the treaty's term. These are the ones intended by the term (hostages) in this research. 1590 Second: What is the ruling regarding these hostages? 1591 1- Is it permissible for the Islamic state to give human hostages from among the Muslims to the enemy in a treaty? 1592 - Yes, in cases of necessity (with some elaboration on this). 2- Is it permissible for the Islamic state to stipulate in a treaty with the enemy that it receives human hostages from them? 1593 - Yes, this is permissible. And it is forbidden (haram) to kill them even if their people betray the Muslims. 3- What if the Muslims are forced and give human hostages to the enemy in a treaty, the treaty period ends, and the enemy refuses to return the hostages in order to prevent the Muslims from waging Jihad on their front? 1596 - Regarding this issue, the same applies as in the issue of 'Tatarus' (using Muslims as human shields), which has already been discussed. 1596 ¶

4 - What if Muslims are compelled, and they provide human hostages to the enemy under a treaty, then the enemy threatens to kill the hostages if the Muslims undertake certain legitimate actions that the enemy deems harmful to its interests? - The person in authority does what is more preponderant: - Either by considering the specific interest of the hostages, - Or by considering the public interest (maslahah ammah). 1596 ¶

Chapter Seven Jihad in the Modern Era ¶

Section One: Jihad in Theoretical Research 1599 Topic One: Jihad according to Muslim writers - with discussion 1601 Point One: Excerpts of what has been said about Jihad and its definition among contemporary Muslims 1601 a - What was stated by Muhammad Farid Wajdi 1601 b - What was stated in Al-Mawrid Arabic Encyclopedia, by Baalbaki 1602 c - What was stated in Al-Mawsu'ah al-Arabiyyah al-Muyassarah - supervised by: Muhammad Shafiq Ghorbal 1602 Point Two: A brief discussion of the previous excerpts 1603 - Muhammad Farid Wajdi limits the legitimacy of war or jihad to defense, removing idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula, and when social necessity calls for war... He then says: If the relations between nations evolve such that disputes are settled peacefully, and war is considered barbaric, it is mandatory for Muslims to enter into this evolution. - Discussion of the concept of 'social necessity' calling for war - and that it is unclear 1604 - Discussion regarding the barbarism of war 1604 - Al-Mawrid Encyclopedia defined jihad as war in the path of God to expand the territory of Dar al-Islam, or to defend it 1606 - Discussion: This definition can be accepted as another expression of the declaration of jihad. 1977 ¶

to bring non-Muslims under the protection (dhimma) of the Muslims if they refuse Islam, and to incorporate their lands into the Islamic state, just as it is also legislated for the defense of Islamic lands. However, the expression in the encyclopedia overlooked the defense of those Muslims who do not belong to the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam). ¶

- Al-Mawsu'ah al-Arabiyyah al-Muyassarah (The Simplified Arabic Encyclopedia): It stated that jihad is legislated for defense against aggression, which includes offensive defense. It then mentioned that Muslim wars were based on the call to Islam, or a treaty, or combat . . . . . . . . . . 1606 ¶

Discussion: If by 'treaty' it is meant the contract of Jizya, with its implication of the land coming under Islamic sovereignty, then this is correct. However, if it refers to an external peace treaty, this is not one of the three original options presented to other countries: Islam, Jizya, or War; rather, it is left to the authorities based on the public interest (maslaha). ¶

- An indication that the word 'jihad' in many contemporary writings is used to mean the 'efforts' exerted for the common good, such as education, preaching and guidance, political work, and building institutions that benefit the Ummah. ¶

- Example: What Abd al-Rahman al-Rafi'i mentioned in his biography of the Egyptian leader (Muhammad Farid) 1607. - Example: What Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti mentioned in his call to Muslim scholars to abandon their differences and turn their attention to raising awareness among the Islamic Ummah . . . . . . . . . . 1608. - Example: What Sheikh Abd al-Muta'al al-Sa'idi mentioned regarding the jihad of (Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) and (Muhammad Abduh) in working to awaken the Egyptians from their heedlessness, etc. 1609. ¶

Second Discussion: Jihad in the writings of non-Muslims and in encyclopedias, with discussion . . . . . . . . . . 1611 First point: Excerpts regarding jihad in the writings—and in encyclopedias—of non-Muslims . . . . . . . . . . 1611 A- What was stated by (Carl Brockelmann) B- What was stated by (Philip Fondassi) ¶

C - What is mentioned by Dominique Sourdel D - What is mentioned in the 'Encyclopaedia' by Butrus al-Bustani E - What is mentioned in the 'Encyclopaedia of Islam' by a group of Orientalists Second point: A brief discussion of the previous excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1614 A - Carl Brockelmann - Discussion: 1 - He erred in his claim that only the People of the Book are invited to Islam before combat, unlike the polytheists who are not invited. The reality is that there is no difference between them regarding this ruling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1614 2 - He erred in stating that the fate of enemy combatants if they are defeated and fall into Muslim hands is exclusively death. The reality is that there are five options regarding them based on the public interest, as previously stated regarding the ruling on captives. . . . . . . . . . 1614 B - Philip Fondassi - Discussion: He stated that Jihad is resorted to for one of two purposes: A - Fighting the disbelievers, B - Fighting foreign domination. The reality is that these two purposes are among the situations in which Jihad is legislated. It would have been better for the author to clarify that the goal upon which fighting ends is: the conversion of the disbelievers to Islam, or their acceptance of Islamic sovereignty and entering into the protection (dhimma) of the Muslims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615 C - Dominique Sourdel: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615 1 - He claimed that Jihad is not a personal duty but a collective one, meaning it is a 'fard kifayah' (communal obligation) and not a 'fard ayn' (individual obligation). The reality is that it can become a 'fard ayn' in several cases as previously discussed. 2 - The author explained the ruling on captives as follows: - If they are captured due to defeat, the judgment over them lies with the head of state. However, he did not clarify that the head of state is bound by one of the five aforementioned options, and he chooses based on the predominant public interest. - If they fall into Muslim hands by surrender, the author mentioned that for the People of the Book and (some Indian polytheists)—meaning the Zoroastrians—it is permissible to conclude a treaty of protection (dhimma). . . . 1979 ¶

And others are not entitled to that. Having said this, we have elaborated on this issue and have preferred the view that accepting the dhimmah (covenant of protection) from all disbelievers is legitimate. ¶

1616 D - Dairat al-Ma'arif by Butrus al-Bustani: What al-Bustani mentioned is what the Muslim jurists have stated regarding jihad; he did not offer a special or unique concept regarding it. ¶

1616 E - The Encyclopedia of Islam (by Orientalists): This encyclopedia raised several issues, the most important of which are: 1. The spread of Islam by the sword is a communal obligation (fard kifayah) - Discussion: - If this is meant to imply forcing people to embrace Islam, then this is incorrect (with detailed discussion on issues that raise confusion in this regard). - If, however, the spread of Islam by the sword implies that Muslims used force to remove the obstacles preventing people from entering Islam or coming under its rule, then this is correct, even if the phrasing used to describe this reality is intentionally vague with the intent of distortion. 2. The suggestion that the legitimacy of jihad in the Quran is restricted to defense, but that when the Prophet (PBUH) subdued his aggressive opponents, his ambition moved him to subdue all disbelievers, even if they were not aggressors - (and a detailed refutation of this idea). (And an explanation of the correct method for debating non-Muslims on peripheral/subsidiary issues.) 3. Islam mandates the continuation of jihad until all people come under the rule of Islam. - This is correct, whenever possible, so that all people may enjoy the citizenship of the Islamic state and its protection. ¶

1623 Chapter Two: Jihad in the Context of Warfare (in the Modern Era) First Topic: Military alliances that obligate Muslims to participate in combat with others against other countries. 1625 First Issue: What are military alliances? ¶