| The Shaykh of Islam was
asked:
"What do the scholars
of the Deen have to say regarding those Mongols who invaded
the Muslim lands of Sham in the year 699 Hijri, and who,
as is well-known, killed many Muslims, took captive some
of their children, and robbed the Muslims which they found.
They violated what is inviolable and sacred in the Deen,
by humiliating the Muslims and desecrating the masaajid,
especially Masjid al-Aqsa, by taking from the personal
wealth of the Muslims and from that of Bayt ul-Maal enormous
amounts, and by taking prisoner a great number of Muslims
and removing them from their countries. Then, after all
this, they claimed that they adhere to the Shahaadatayn,
and that it is haraam for anyone to wage war on them,
because they claimed to be adherents to the foundation
of Islam and because they no longer persecuted the Muslims.
Is it lawful to wage war
on them, or is it obligatory? If it is either, then what
is the reason for it being so? Give us your opinion -
may you be rewarded."
He (rahimahullaah) answered:
Alhamdulillaahi Rabbi-l-'Aalameen.
Every group which leaves,
changes, or refuses to implement any agreed upon, undisputed
law of Islam, whether it is these people or others, must
be fought until they adhere to ALL the laws of Islam.
This is the rule even if they pronounce the Shahaadatayn
and adhere to some of the Islamic laws, as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq
and the Sahaabah(radiAllahu anhum) waged war on those
who withheld the Zakaah.
As well, the scholars who
came after the Sahaabah are in agreement about this principle.
For, after the initial objection made by 'Umar to Abu
Bakr, the Sahaabah (radiAllahu anhum), agreed to wage
war for the rights of Islam, and in this, they were adhering
to the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
Moreover, the Prophet's
hadeeth about the Khawaarij is established by ten chains
of narration, and the Prophet, (sallAllahu alayhee wa
sallam), said that they were the worst of the people,
despite him saying,
"You
will look down on your prayers when you compare it with
their
prayers, and your fasting when you compare it with
their fasting."
Thus, it became known that
if some people simply cling to the label of Islam without
adhering to its laws, then the obligation of fighting
them is not cancelled.
Therefore, any group which
leaves, changes, or refuses to implement some of the obligatory
prayers, or fasting, or the Hajj, or violates the blood
and wealth of the Muslims, or engages in consumption of
intoxicants, or adultery, or fornication, or gambling,
or marrying the mahaarem, or who do not wage war against
the Kuffaar, or do not impose the jizyah on the Jews and
Christians, or any other matter from the obligations and
prohibitions of the Deen for which there is no excuse
for not acting upon, then war MUST be waged against this
group EVEN if they accept that the obligation or prohibition
is part of the Deen. And I do not know of any disagreement
amongst the scholars in this regard.
|
| Where the scholars have
disagreed is regarding the group which insists on leaving
certain Sunan, such as the rakaatayn before Salaat ul-Fajr,
the calling of the adhaan and iqaamah (among those who do
not regard it as obligatory), and other such Islamic practices.
The scholars have disagreed regarding the question: 'Is
the group which leaves these practices fought or not?'...
However, with regard to
the undisputed obligations and prohibitions, which we
have mentioned before, there is no difference of opinion
about waging war on them.
And the group which withholds
from Islam is considered by the investigating scholars
to have a different status than al-Bughaat (those who
rebel against the ruler, or dissent from his obedience).
An example of the latter is the people of Sham who rebelled
against Ameer ul-Mu'mineen Ali ibn Abi Taalib; people
who refused to obey a particular leader, rebelled against
him, and tried to remove him. But the first group has
dissented from Islam, and has the same position as those
who withheld [from paying] the Zakaah, and the same position
as the Khawaarij whom Ali ibn Abi Taalib, radiAllahu anhu,
fought.
And Ali fought the people
of Basra and Sham differently from the people of Nahrawan;
his way with the people of Basra and Sham was like that
of a brother with his brother, and his way with the Khawaarij
was not like that. And the proven ahadeeth of the Prophet,
sallAllahu alayhee wa sallam, established the basis for
the Sahaabah's consensus on Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq's war
against the withholders' of Zakaah and Ali's war against
the Khawaarij. And that is unlike the Fitnah with the
people of Basra and Sham - the texts of Qur'aan and Ahadeeth
confirm about it what they confirm, and the Sahaabah disagreed
about it (i.e. the fitnah behind the Battles of Jamal
and Siffeen - for it was Believers fighting against Believers).
Some scholars hold that
the Ahl al-Baghi (people of rebellion) whom it is obligatory
to fight are those who have rebelled against the Imaam
after making a palatable misinterpretation of some text
of the Qur'aan and ahadeeth to substantiate their actions,
and not those who have simply refused to obey him. Others
regard both groups as Bughaat. Nevertheless, there is
a clear-cut distinction between the Bughaat and the Mongols,
and I know of no difference of opinion regarding the obligation
of waging war on those who leave, withhold from, or refuse
to implement any of the undisputed laws of Islam.
Now that this principle
has been established, it must be said that the army of
the people about whom you have asked includes some Kuffaar
from amongst the Christians and Mushrikeen, as well as
others who affiliate themselves with Islam (and they form
the majority). They will pronounce the Shahaadatayn if
it is demanded from them, and they will extol the Messenger
of Allah (sallAllahu alayhee wa sallam), but only a minority
of them prays, and more of them fast during Ramadhaan
than pray. The Muslim, in their estimation, is greater
than others, and they hold the righteous Believers in
esteem. They have some Islam, and differ in the extent
to which they adhere to it. But most of them leave aside
many or most of the obligatory aspects of the Deen, and
this is why they are fought.
Notably, they enjoin Islam,
but they do not fight the ones who leave it; indeed, whoever
fights for the Maghool state is honoured by them, and
they will not challenge him even though he is the enemy
of Allah and His Messenger. Likewise, if someone rebels
against the Maghool state or attacks it, they will regard
it as lawful to fight him, even if he is of the best of
Muslims. They do not establish Jihad against the disbelievers,
nor do they make Ahl al-Kitaab submissive and force them
to pay the Jizyah (as commanded in al-Qur'aan, Ayah 9:29).
They do not forbid any of their troops from worshipping
whatever they like, be it the sun, the moon, or something
else.
What is apparent from their
conduct is that the Muslim has - by their reckoning -
the same status which Muslims would give to the honest,
righteous person, while the Kaafir, in their eyes, has
the same status which the Muslims would give to a Faasiq
or some Muslim who leaves the voluntary deeds of goodness
(nawaafil). Furthermore, the majority of them do not regard
the blood and wealth of the Muslims to be inviolable,
except when their Sultaan forbids them from it. They do
not leave off taking the blood and wealth of the Muslims,
and if their Sultaan forbids them from it or from anything
else, they will obey because he is the Sultaan, and not
because of the Deen. The majority of them do not perform
the obligatory duties - not the prayer, nor the Zakaah,
nor the Hajj, etc. Similarly, they do not judge amongst
themselves by the Laws of Allah, but rather, judge according
to rules which agree with Islam on some points, and disagree
on others.
And fighting this type
of people is obligatory, by agreement of the Muslims;
none who know this Deen of Islam and know the truth about
these people will doubt this - because this path which
they are on and the true Deen of Islam can never be reconciled.
And if it is obligatory to fight those Kurds, Bedouins,
and other inhabitants of the desert who do not adhere
to the Sharee'ah of Islam, even though their disease has
not spread to the cities, then how about the Mongols?...
Yes, it is OBLIGATORY to
fight them in the manner enjoined by the Sharee'ah, which
includes inviting them to adhere to the laws of Islam
if the Da'wah to the complete Deen has not reached them,
just as al-Kafir al-Harbi would have to first be invited
to the Shahaadatayn if the Da'wah has not reached him.
If those who take up arms
against this group completely conformed to Sharee'ah in
their words, deeds, and niyyah (intention), then this
is THE BEST WAY to seek Allah's pleasure, establish His
Deen, and obey His Messenger. And if those who are fighting
against people like the Mongols show some immorality,
or transgress against the enemy in some way not sanctioned
by Sharee'ah, or have a corrupt intention due to their
fighting for leadership, and the harm of not fighting
the 'withholding' group has worse consequences for Islam
than fighting alongside the corrupt people has, then it
is OBLIGATORY to fight them to prevent the greater of
two harms; and this is one of the Usool (principles) of
Islam which must be born in mind.
It is one of the Usool
of Ahl us-Sunnah wa-l-Jama'ah to join the military raids
with every leader, whether righteous or immoral, because
Allah sometimes aids this Deen by the faajir, or worthless
and despicable people, as mentioned by the Prophet (sallAllahu
alayhee wa sallam). It is also an Usool because to not
be able to join the military raids [even] with immoral
commanders or with soldiers among whom immorality is widespread
could have the consequence of victory and conquest by
others who are more harmful to Deen and Dunya. So joining
the military expedition with the unrighteous commanders
and soldiers prevents the worst of the two choices, and
leads to establishing (at least) most of the Laws of Islam,
if not all of them.
And this is what is obligatory
in this situation, and every situation like it. Indeed,
most of the military expeditions which took place after
the time of the Khulafaa' ar-Rashidun (Rightly Guided
Caliphs) did not take place except in this manner.
The Prophet (sallAllahu
alayhee wa sallam), said:
"Tied to the forelocks
of the horses is the good until Yawm al-Qiyaamah
(Day of Resurrection) - the reward and the booty."
This authentic hadeeth
supports the meaning of a hadeeth narrated by Abu Dawood
in his Sunan:
"Military expeditions
(al-Ghazw) will persist from the time of my being sent
by Allah until the last of my Ummah fights the
Dajjaal. They are not annulled by the tyranny of
a tyrant, nor by the justice of a just leader."
Also, it is well-known
that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhee wa sallam), said:
"A group of my
Ummah will remain victorious on the Truth. They will not
be
harmed by those who differ with them, until Yawm al-Qiyaamah."
These ahadeeth are just
some of the many texts in the Qur'aan and Sunnah which
Ahl us-Sunnah wa-l-Jama'ah, alone among all groups, have
agreed to adhere to, by joining the leaders, whether righteous
or immoral, in Jihad against whoever deserves it; and
this is unlike the Raafidhah (Rejectors: i.e. Shi’ah)
or the Khawaarij, who are outside the Sunnah and the Jama'ah.
However, the Prophet, sallAllahu
alayhee wa sallam, also said:
"There will be
unjust, disloyal, and immoral leaders. Whoever believes
in them, in spite their lies, and helps them, then
he is not of me and I am not of him, and he will not
reach the Hawdh (Prophet’s Fountain). And whoever
does not believe in them, because of their lies,
and does not help them in their injustice, then he is
of me and I am of him, and he will reach the Hawdh."
Thus, if a person knows
what the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhee wa sallam), ordered
in terms of Jihad to be undertaken with the leaders until
the Day of Judgement, and if he also knows that the Prophet
(sallAllahu alayhee wa sallam), forbade helping the unjust
in their injustice, then he will know [that] the middle
way - which is the pure Deen of Islam - is to take part
in the Jihad against any people who deserve it, such as
these people which I have been asked about, alongside
any leader and group that is closer to Islam then they
are. And that is [only] if it is not possible to establish
Jihad against them in any other way.
One must also avoid helping
the group he is with in anything which involves disobeying
Allah. He should obey them in obeying Allah, and not obey
them in disobeying Allah. For it is not allowed to obey
any person in disobedience to the Creator. This is the
way of the best of this Ummah, in old and modern times,
and this way is obligatory on every mukallaf (i.e. person
who is sound of mind). This is the middle way, between
the way of the Harooriyyah (Khawaarij) and their likes
- who, due to their deficient knowledge, follow the path
of unsound piety - and the way of the Murji'ah and their
likes, who follow the path of complete obedience to the
rulers, even if they are unrighteous.
We ask Allah to guide our
Muslim brothers to whatever He loves and is pleased with,
whether it is from words or from deeds. And Allah knows
best, and may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be on our
Prophet Muhammad and on his family and Companions.
|
