![]() What's New Jihad News Jihad Stories Jihad Lands Photo Library Video Library Products Articles FAQs Links Search Site Map Azzam Publications |
7 MISCONCEPTIONS IN FIGHTING THE APOSTATE REGIME Part
translation from Qawl-ul-Qaati' by Al-Jama'ah Al-Islamiyyah (Islamic
Group) in Egypt
RESPONSE TO SOME MISCONCEPTIONS AND A REFUTATION OF SOME FALSE ARGUMENTS It is difficult for the people of falsehood to pass by such a law (Hukm) without distorting it, or try to thwart it. Hence the rising of a host of misconceptions surrounding this matter, most of these do not stem to any evidence or even something resembling evidence. But on the contrary they are all subversions which have no sway with those who have even a slight knowledge or a little insight and understanding of the religion of Allah. We would like to ignore and pay no attention sufficing us that which have quoted from the salaf and consensus of ulema, being more then adequate and overwhelming. But we have preferred to vanquish these misconceptions and respond to them with sayings from the scholars of Islam, Excusing ourselves before Allah. . . so that there may remain no argument after that .whether it be from a scholar or ignorant. So we shall convey seven misconceptions reprised around this matter of fighting the group which withholds a law from the laws of Islam and respond to them. ". . . for him who has a heart or gives ear while he is heedful." [Quran 50:37] THE FIRST MISCONCEPTION They say "How can you fight a Muslim people who say "There is no god but Allah" by the argument that they do not adhere to some of the laws of Islam, do you not know that the messenger of Allah (SAW) rebuked Usama bin Zaid (RA) for killing a disbeliever who said, "There is no god except Allah ?" and he said (SAW) to Usama (RA) "And what will you do with 'There is no god except Allah ?" when the day of judgement comes ?" THE SECOND MISCONCEPTION They say; you make it permissible, even obligate upon the Muslims to fight any armed group with power which withholds from a law from the clear laws of Islam even if this group is Muslim and acknowledges the obligation of that which it has withheld and does not dispute this obligation . . . from where did you get this when the messenger of Allah (SAW) said, "Whoever turns against us with weapons is not from us" and he said, "Do not turn into disbelievers after me by striking each others necks". And he said "If two Muslims face each other with the swords then both of them are from the people of the fire", and he said, "Insulting a Muslim is rebellion and killing him is disbelief". THE THIRD MISCONCEPTION They say; how have you made permissible, the blood of every group which withhold from the laws of Islam when the Prophet (SAW) has said, "The blood of a Muslim is not permissible except for one of three, a requisite for the adulterer, a soul for a soul, and the one who apostates and leaves the jama'ah". . . so where is this group from these aforementioned ? THE FOURTH MISCONCEPTION They say; if we agree with you about this obligation of fighting the group which withholds from a law from the laws of Islam then this must not extend to their assistants such as police and other such helpers. THE FIFTH MISCONCEPTION They say; if you have resolved upon fighting this group and its assistants why do you fight those soldiers which have been forced into serving them against there wills ? THE SIXTH MISCONCEPTION Somebody might say: "All that which you have stated is good but fighting them is not permissible except beneath the flag of an established Imam or Muslim leader. As for before the presence of such an imam it is not permissible to fight them. This is the duty of the imam only and not for anybody else, for their disobedience to him or their revolt against him. THE SEVEN MISCONCEPTION
They say; even if the leaders and the rulers
withhold from all the laws of Islam it is not permissible to revolt against
them as long as they pray, providing two hadith as evidence.
Firstly: "There will be upon you leaders who you will recognise and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them", they said, "should we not fight them". He (SAW) said, "No as long as they pray"1. Secondly: "The best of your leaders are those you love and they love you, you pray for them and they pray for you. The worst of your leaders are those who anger you and you anger them and you curse them and they curse you. He said we replied :"O Messenger of Allah (SAW) should we not remove them at that", "No as long as they establish the prayer amongst you"1
THE FIRST MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
They say "How can you fight a Muslim who
people who say "There is no god but Allah" by the argument that
they do not adhere to some of the laws of Islam, do you not know that the
messenger of Allah (SAW) rebuked Usama bin Zaid (RA) for killing a disbeliever
who said, "There is no god except Allah ?" and he said (SAW) to
Usama (RA) "And what will you do with 'There is no god except Allah ?"
when the Day of Judgement comes ?"
THE RESPONSE We say: Firstly, the situation of Usama is not the same as our situation, therefore it is not permissible to use this hadith as evidence in our case because to use an evidence out of context produces an argument which is not feasible. That is clear because the hadith orders to withhold from killing a disbeliever by his mere uncing of "There is no god except Allah". Our case concerns he who proclaims Islam and withholds from adhering to some laws for this is one matter and that is something else. And we quote from Ibn Rajab (RA), "And it is known from necessity that the Prophet (SAW) use to except from anybody who came to him wanting to enter Islam their testimony only. Safeguarding his blood by this and making him a Muslim. The Prophet Rebuked Usama bin Zaid for killing somebody who said "There is no god but Allah". He rebuke him hard for raising his sword on such a person, for the mere pronunciation of the testimony protects the one who proclaims it and he becomes a Muslim by that. So if he enters Islam then for him is what is for the Muslims and upon him is what is upon the Muslims. If he breaches something from the pillars, and if it is a group withholding then they are fought. So the mere pronunciation of the testimony protects the life and wealth except for the testimony's right on these. And from its right is not to withhold from prayer and zakat after entering into Islam as understood by the sahaba (RA). So all this indicates that the actions of those who enter Islam are to be considered whether they establish the prayer and pay the zakat. If they withhold then they are still fought. About this Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) fell into dispute . . . for Abu Bakr (RA) took to fighting them from the Prophets words "Except for its right". Indicating that it is possible to fight somebody who pronounces the testimony. And from the testimony's rights is to give its right of zakat. Umar (RA) thought that the mere pronunciation of the testimony protects the blood in this life, holding to the generality of the first part of the hadith . . . then Umar (RA) retracted his opinion and agreed with the Imam Abu Bakr (RA) . . and the law for those who leave one of the rest of the pillars of Islam is that they are fought for it as they are fought for leaving the prayer and Zakat"1. The disbeliever is fought for "There is no god except Allah", therefore it is necessary to hold from him if he unces it because he becomes a Muslim by uncing it . . . for him is what is for the Muslims and upon him is what is upon the Muslims. A Muslim is required to adhere to all the laws of Islam expected from him. If not he is punished according to the shari'ah. The one who leaves the prayer is killed if he persists in leaving it and does not repent, he who withholds from paying zakat is reprimanded and it is taken from him by force. And the Adulterer is stoned if he is married and lashed if he is unmarried. And the drinker of wine is lashed eighty lashes. And likewise the shari'ah contains punishment for anyone who leaves an obligation or perpetrates a forbidden deed . . . this is in respect to the individuals capacity over his obligation. As for him who withholds a law from the laws of Islam and does so with force then he is fought. Imam Malik (RhA) said, " Everyone who withholds an obligation from the obligations of Allah the most high and the Muslims cannot take it then it is incumbent upon the Muslims to fight them until it is taken from him"2. He is fought for the right of Islam as is mentioned in the hadith, ". . . except for the right of Islam" and in a narration ". . . except for its right" and this is what Al Khataaby has pointed out: ". . . and this was from Umar (RA) who considered the generality of the statement before considering its end and conditions. For Abu Bakr (RA) said to him, "Verily zakat is the right of wealth". Impressing that the protection of blood and wealth is attached to the fulfilment of conditions. The ruling is attached to two simultaneously required conditions"3 . The Muslim who bears witness "That there is no god but Allah" is required to establish the obligations of Islam and to adhere to the shari'ah; if he transgresses, withholding from it by force then he is fought. The disbeliever is fought for "There is no god but Allah", if he unces it then he becomes a Muslim if he adheres to the obligations of Islam if not then we do not hold from him. Fighting him then becomes for the rights of Islam and its obligations of which the Prophet (SAW) said about, ". . . except for its rights. . . " . Sheikh Mohammed Abdul Wahab (RhA) said, "As for the hadith concerning Usama he had killed a man who proclaimed Islam because he thought that he did not proclaim it except for in fear of his life and wealth If a man displays Islam then it is necessary to restrain from fighting him until it becomes evident from him that which contradicts his Islam. And Allah has revealed about this, "O you who believe when you go in the cause of Allah verify . . ." [Quran 4:94] That is ascertain. The verse indicates that one must restrain and verify, if that which contradicts Islam appears then he is killed for the word "Verify". If he was not to be killed if his claim was false then this would not be the meaning of the word "Verify" and similarly other hadith1 contain this meaning as we have mentioned whoever displays Islam and tawheed it is necessary to restrain from him except if that which nullifies this is evident. And the evidence for this is that the messenger of Allah (SAW) is the one who said, "Did you kill him after he said "There is no god but Allah"2 and "I have been ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah"3 and he is the one that said about the khawarij "Wherever you find them kill them, if I found them I would kill them as Aad were killed"4 , while they were the most of the people in worship so much so that the sahaba looked down upon their own prayers. The khawarij learnt their knowledge from the sahaba but "There is no god but Allah" did not benefit them, nor their abundant worship, nor their proclamation of Islam for they were at variance with the shari'ah5 . "There is no god except Allah" did not prevent from fighting them because they had opposed the shari'ah so they were fought for this opposition until they returned . . . they were not fought for "There is no god but Allah". Ibn Rajab Al Hanbali said in the explanation of the hadith, "I have been ordered to fight the people . . . "6 and his (SAW) saying ". . . and their reckoning is with Allah the Al Mighty and Majestic" that is the testimony and establishment of prayer and payment of zakat protects the blood and wealth of its companion in this life except if perpetrates that which makes permissible his blood. As for in the hereafter his reckoning is with Allah the Al Mighty and Majestic. If he is truthful, he is admitted into paradise, and if he is a lair then he is from the ranks of the hypocrites who are in the lowest part of the fire. And in some narrations in Sahih Muslim, "Then he (SAW) read, "So remind them, you are only one minds you are not a dictator over them. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves. Then Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment. Verily, to Us will be their return. Then verily, for Us will be their reckoning." [Quran 88:21-26]7
THE SECOND MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
They say; you make it permissible, even obligate
upon the Muslims to fight any armed group with power which withholds from
a law from the clear laws of Islam even if this group is Muslim and acknowledges
the obligation of that which it has withheld and does not dispute this obligation
. . . from where did you get this when the messenger of Allah (SAW) said,
"Whoever turns against us with weapons is not from us"1 and he (SAW)
said, "Do not turn into disbelievers after me by striking each others
necks"2 . And he said "If two Muslims face each other with the swords
then both of them are from the people of the fire"3 , and he said, "Insulting
a Muslim is rebellion and killing him is disbelief"4 .
THE RESPONSE We say; what do you say about Abu Bakr and those with him from the Sahaba who fought withheld the zakat and acknowledged its obligation and what do you say about Ali and those with him from the Sahaba when they fought the Khawarij . . . and the khawarij according to Ali (RA) and most of the people of knowledge are Muslims . . . did they disbelieve by this ? . . . Did they disobey ? . . . Are they from the people of the fire ? . . . By Allah No, they are the best generation . . . the most knowledgeable of people . . . the most god fearing of people . . . they are the ones who Allah the Most High chose to accompany his Prophet (SAW / may Allah be pleased with them) and make them pleased. Verily Abu Bakr and those with him fought in truth . . . and Ali and those with him fought in truth, the matter needs explanation . . . Ahl us Sunnah Wal Jama'ah carry these ahadith upon he who does this: No. 1: making it permissible, No. 2: without right, No. 3: using a misinterpretation of shari'ah wrongly substantiating this. These are three conditions, if one of them is transgressed then the threat applies . . . to clarify further we say; Whoever carries weapons against the Muslims without right or without a misinterpretation of shari'ah wrongly substantiating this and makes fighting Muslims permissible then he is a disbeliever, there is no difference of opinion about this. Whoever carries weapons against the Muslims with a misinterpretation of shari'ah that makes this permissible then he is a rebel about which the Most High has commanded, "Then fight you against the one that which rebels till it complies with the command of Allah..." [Quran 49:9]. Whoever carries weapons against those who deserve to be fought from amongst the Muslims with full right then he is not a disbeliever or a sinner or a disobedient. On the contrary he is an obedient who is rewarded by the permission of Allah the Most High, as did the Sahaba(RA), when they carried weapons against the those who withheld zakat and the khawarij. The fighting of the Muslims against the group which withholds from an evident law of the laws of Islam is a fight which has been ordained from the shari'ah. Whoever establishes it is an obedient and attains reward and commendation for his action as Abu Bakr was commended for fighting those who withheld zakat . . . and Ali for his fighting the khawarij. An Nawawi said in the explanation of the hadith , "Do not return to disbelievers after me . . ." it is said that there are seven sayings about its meaning, one of them is that, this disbelief is in connection with the one who makes this permissible without right"1 . An Nawawi also refers to a principal of Ahl us Sunnah Wal Jama'ah concerning this "that whoever carries weapons against the Muslims without right or explanation but does not permit this, is a rebel and is not a disbeliever by this, but if he makes this permissible then he is a disbeliever"2 . Ibn Hajr said in the explanation of the hadith 'Whoever turns against us with weapons is not from us', "The meaning of this hadith is : To turn against the Muslims with weapons in order to fight them without right"3 and he said in the explanation of the same hadith, "The mentioned threat does not apply to those who fight rebels from the people of truth. It applies to rebels and those who begin fighting in transgression"4 . So what is the state of affairs of the one who fights those who are more evil than rebels. He definitely does not enter beneath the threat. On the contrary the threat is upon the group which withholds an evident law from the laws of Islam and turns with weapons in the face of the Muslims if they request it and request the establishment of Allah's shari'ah and ruling by the book of Allah. And he said in the explanation of the hadith "If the two Muslims face each other with their swords . . . " , the majority of the sahaba and the tabi'een are of the opinion that the truth must be defended and the rebels fought"5 . AtTabari said about this same hadith : "If it was an obligation to flee from every disagreement that occurred between the Muslims, retreat and break the swords then punishment would never be established and falsehood would not be falsified and the astray people would find a way to perpetrate crime such as stealing wealth and spilling blood and captivating women. The Muslims would restrain from them because they are using violence, saying this is fitnah and we have been forbidden to fight there in. This contradicts ordaining the good by taking from the hands of the foolish. Al Bazaar verified extra text in the hadith, the murderer and the murdered are in the fire which clarifies the intended meaning : "If you fight for this worldly life then the murderer and the murdered are in the fire" and this meaning is assisted by what Muslim has extracted in the words "This world will not pass until there comes upon the people a time when the murderer will not know why he has killed and the murdered will not know why he was killed. It was then said how will that be ? He (SAW) said : Turmoil. The murderer and the murdered are in the fire." Al Qurtubi said, "This hadith clarifies that fighting if it is in ignorance seeking this worldly life or the following of desires then that is what is meant by his (SAW) words "The murderer and the murdered are in the fire"1 . Ibn Taymiyyah (RhA) said "And this is the state of those who fight upon falsehood with no misinterpretation of shari'ah to substantiate themselves : Such as those who fight for nationalism and calls of ignorance such as Qays and Yeman and such likes: They are transgressors as the Prophet (SAW) said, "If two Muslims meet with their swords then the murderer and the murdered are in the fire, it was said, O messenger of Allah this is the lot of the murderer but what about the murdered ? He said, "He intended to kill his companion". Verified in the two Sahihs"2. And AnNawawi said, "His (SAW) saying, 'If two Muslims face each other with their swords then the murderer and the murdered are in the fire', the meaning of ". . . face each other . . ." is each one deals his companion blows. As for the murderer and the murdered being from the people of the fire depends upon who has no misinterpretation of shari'ah to substantiate himself, and whether their fighting was for partisanship3. And AnNawawi also says (RhA), "The majority of the sahaba, tabi'een and prevailing ulema of Islam state, "It is necessary to assist the one upon the truth in time of trial and to side with him in fighting the rebels as the Most High has said, "Then fight you against the one that rebels . . . " (9 Hujurat), and this is what is correct, and these ahadith apply to those who are not upon the truth or two transgressing parties who do not have an explanation between them"4 . The threat then does not include he who fights alongside the one upon the truth, nor does it include he who fights the rebels. So how can it include he who fights those who are outside the shari'ah of Islam ! ! ? Can anyone with sense say that this fighting is forbidden ! ?
THE THIRD MISCONCEPTION - Back to top They say; how have you made permissible, the blood of every group which withholds from the laws of Islam when the Prophet (SAW) has said, "The blood of a Muslim is not permissible except for one of three, a requisite for the adulterer, a soul for a soul, and the one who apostates and leaves the jama'ah"1 . . . so where is this group from these aforementioned ? THE RESPONSE We say; the answer is from two sides. Firstly, Its confirmed in the shari'ah the obligation of executing some Muslims for certain crimes which they have perpetrated which are not mentioned in the aforementioned hadith. an example of this is the execution of the innovator who calls to his innovations for fear of his harming the beliefs of the people . . . execution of a Muslim spy as a punishment . . . execution of the one who leaves prayer as a punishment according to some madhabs . . . execution of the drinker of wine on his fourth offence according to some madhabs . . . execution of the one who marries his father's wife . . . and other such examples. This indicates that the matter is not restricted to the three aforementioned cases in the hadith. Subsequently you have no evidence for your argument with this hadith. Secondly, more importantly and clearly, there is a difference between execution and fighting, and about this Ibn Taymiyyah says, "Although the scholars differ in executing a captive from the khawarij or shi'ah they do not differ in the necessity of fighting them if they are withholding for fighting is more extensive than execution, as the aggressor is fought and the transgressing rebel, even though if one of them is captured he is not punished except with what Allah and his Prophet have ordered"2 . Sheikh Abdullah AshSharqaawy: "The zakat is taken by the one who withholds it by force and he is reprimanded for withholding it, he is not killed. And if he rises to fight then he is fought. In this way Abu Bakr (RA) fought those who withheld the zakat and it is not reported that he executed any of them"3 . Hence it is not permissible to execute a captive from the group which withholds a law or more from the laws of Islam . . if in during the circumstance when fighting him is allowed he is killed then their is no blame. But to slaughter him while he is captive is not permissible. On the contrary the captor is punished by the order of Allah and his messenger and this group is fought if it withholds. Ibn Hajr AlAsqalaani said in the explanation of the hadith: 'I have been ordered to fight against the people . . . ', "Sheikh Muheyuddeen AnNawawi said about this hadith : Whoever intentionally leaves the prayer is executed. Then he mentioned the difference of opinion in the madhabs about that. AlKarmaani was then asked about the ruling of the one who did not pay the zakat and he answered that their ruling was one for their jointness in aim. Intending that they should be fought but not executed. The difference being that zakat can be taken by force from its the one who withholds it but not the prayer. If he rises to fight in order to withhold his zakat then he is fought, and in such a manner did Abu Bakr fight against those who withheld zakat and it is not reported that he executed any one of them while they were passive and this hadith is used as evidence for executing the one who leaves the prayer in consideration of the difference in strength of the word "kill" and "fight" and Allah knows best. And Ibn Daqeeq AlAeed has refuted extensively in the explanation of AlUmdah the use of this hadith to this meaning. And he said: "It is not necessary that he who it is permissible to fight is also permissible to execute, because fighting necessitates violence from both sides but this is not so in execution. And AlBaheeqi reports from AshShafi'e that he said, "The purpose of fighting is not killing, it might be permissible to fight a man but not to kill him1 . It is necessary that it slip not past the intellect that the group which withholds and denies the obligation of that which it withholds is apostate and disbelieves . . . All of its members are apostates who have left their religion, dividers of the jama'ah. So if one of them is taken captive he is executed if he does not repent and there is no difference of opinion in this. And he enters beneath the words of the Prophet (SAW) '. . . and the one who leaves his religion and leaves the jama'ah'. The misconception arises around the group which withholds and acknowledges the obligation of that which it has withheld. We do not say that they are to be executed alongside all their members but we say as the people of knowledge say they are to be fought. And there is a big difference between fighting and execution, and may Allah have mercy on AshShafi'e who said "It might be permissible to fight a man but not to kill him". And we have said more then once that a captive from this group is punished with what Allah and his messenger have ordered . . . severing a limb or lashing or as such . . . and it is necessary that one does not forget that his punishment could sometimes be execution if his evil and corruption is not stifled except by such in punishment. Ibn Qudamah states in AlMughni about the saga of the khawarij : "The majority of the scholars of fiqh and many of the scholars of hadith and Malik are of their opinion that they are to be given the option of repentance, if they refuse then they are to be executed for their corruption not for their disbelief"1 . And Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Whoever from amongst them is a caller to deviation and his evil is not stifled except by execution then he is also executed unless he repents if not he is sentenced for his disbelief". Summary: The mentioned hadith concerns execution not fighting . . . for it is a quote used in the wrong context . . . the hadith cannot also be used as evidence from the point of execution or as a limitation or restriction as there are other crimes other than the three mentioned in the hadith which incur the punishment of execution, and Allah knows best.
THE FOURTH MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
They say; if we agree with you about this obligation
of fighting the group which withholds from a law from the laws of Islam then
this must not extend to their assistants such as police and other such helpers.
THE RESPONSE The ruling in this circumstance is for the shari'ah and religion not the intellect or conjecture . . . our pure shari'ah has ordained that he who assists the group which withholds draws upon himself their ruling, and he is from them for that which is for them and that which they are upon. Even if he merely increases their number by being with them but does not assist them in fighting he draws upon himself in the evident their punishment. Muslim narrates in his sahih from Umm Salmah (RA) that she said, "The messenger of Allah (SAW) said, 'A seeker of refuge will seek refuge in the sacred house and an army will be sent against him, when they are in the plain area the land will swallow them', she replied "O messenger of Allah how about those who are coerced?", he said, "They will be swallowed with them but they will be raised on the day of judgement according to their intentions". And in the wording of Bukhari, A'isha (RA) said, "An army will attack the Ka'ba when they are in the plain area of the land the first of them and the last of them will be swallowed", she said, "I said O messenger of Allah how will the first of them and the last of them be swallowed whilst there are amongst them those who have been coerced and those who are not amongst them ?, he said, "The first and the last of them will be swallowed then they will be raised according to their intentions". AnNawawi said in the explanation of aforementioned hadith of Umm Salamah, "It is understood from this hadith that distance must be kept from transgressors and it warns from sitting with them. And sitting with rebels and such likes from the people of falsehood so that one does not allure their punishment. It also contains that whoever increases the number of a people then he draws upon himself in the evident their punishment"1. AlBukhari reports in his sahih from Ikrimah who said, "Ibn Abbas informed me of a people from the Muslims who were with the idolaters, increasing their number against the messenger of Allah (SAW). There comes an arrow fired and strikes one of them and kills him or he is struck (with a sword) so Allah the most high revealed, "Verily, as for those whom the angels take while they are wronging themselves." [Quran 4:97] Ibn Hajr AlAsqalaani said in the explanation of this hadith, "that is to say they are killed by an arrow or sword, it contains the error of he sides amongst the disobedient by choice, having no true intention to rebuke them for example or hope to rescue a Muslim. And he who is able to move away from them is not excused as happened to those who had entered Islam, and their families which were Muslims hindered them from making hijra. They then came out with the idolaters, not intending to fight the Muslims but their presence was misconceiving in the eyes of the Muslims. And it happened that they were killed during this circumstance. It was the opinion of Ikrimah that he who went out with an army which intends to fight the Muslims is sinning even if he does not fight or intend that"2 . So how will it be for he who assists and fights ? ! ! Ibn Taymiyyah said about the punishment of highway robbers, "If the highway robbers, thieves are in a group, and one of them initiates the killing by himself and the remainder assist and protect him it might be said that the one who initiates the killing is executed only. The majority of the scholars hold the opinion that the entire group is executed, even if they are one hundred for the one who initiates the killing and his assistants and the protectors are the same. This was taken from the rightly guided caliphs. For Umar bin AlKhattaab (RA) executed Rabi'a the robber, and Rabi'a was a look out who sat at a high point and watched for them who came. This is because it is possible for the initiator to kill from the strength he gets from his helpers and protectors. And the group if it cooperates amongst itself becomes withholding and they share in their booty and punishment. The assistant and helper of the group which withholds is of them and shares what is for them and what is upon them. The withholding group which cooperates amongst itself is like one person"1 . Ibn Taymiyyah stated about the highway robbers if they withhold : "and all this is if they are captive or under control, but if the ruler or his assistant demand that they be punished (without unnecessary aggression)and they withhold against him then it is an obligation upon the Muslims to fight them according to the consensus of the ulema, until they all come under his control. When they are not guided except by fighting then they are all fought and those who protect and assist them are also fought . . . but they are fought not as the disbelievers are fought, if they are not disbelievers, If they align themselves to a group which is outside of the shari'ah of Islam and assists them against the Muslims then they are fought as those who they have aligned themselves with"2 . So highway robbers (as ruled Ibn Taymiyyah, and also the opinion of the majority of the scholars) are like one group if they cooperate amongst themselves, and if one of them commits murder then they are all executed because they are one group . . . that is if the Imam captures them to implement their punishment upon them . . . If they withhold then they are fought . . . and whoever assists them is also fought . . . and if they align themselves to a faction which is outside of the shari'ah of Islam and assists this group against the Muslims then they are fought as those who they have aligned themselves with. Ibn Taymiyyah states, "However, all the bandits are equivalent according to the majority of the scholars like Abu Hanifa and Ahmad. Amongst them are those which assist and those which initiate hostilities. The ruling for the one who assists is the same as the one he assists". It is not permissible to say that this applies to bandits only . . . no. . . for Ibn Taymiyyah generalised his statement as we quote from him, "For the assistants and helpers of the group which withholds are from them and share in that which is for them ". And other such statements where the words have been generalised. We have quoted before the words of Ibn Taymiyyah about those who assist the Tataar. "Whoever joins them from the military leaders and other leaders then their ruling is as that of the Tataars . . . and amongst them are those who have apostated from the shari'ah of Islam to the extent of the Tataars"3 . Ibn Taymiyyah has ruled about the obligation of fighting the Tataars and he is aware of their condition and that there are those who are not from them, for he said, describing the condition of some of the assistants from amongst the soldiers, "These bandits and their such likes say: We are an ignorant people and they (the Tataars) teach us and say to us: If you are killed you are mujahideen and whoever is killed from amongst you is shaheed"1 . And despite this knowledge about the condition of some the ignorant assistants Ibn Taymiyyah rules that the Tataars and their assistants must be collectively fought and whoever assists them his ruling is the same as their ruling.
THE FIFTH MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
They say; if you have resolved upon fighting
this group and its assistants why do you fight those soldiers which have been
forced into serving them against there wills ?
THE RESPONSE Before we clarify the ruling for the one who is coerced to fight we would like to review briefly the sayings of some of the ulema which make clear what is permissible to be coerced into and what is not concerning the rights of the coerced . . . that is what is permissible for the coerced to do and what it is forbidden for him to do even if he is forced. AlBukhari and Muslim report in the two Sahihs in the words of Muslim from Abu Bakr (RA) who said, the messenger of Allah (SAW) said, "There will soon be trials, behold there will be a trial in which the one who would be seated will be better than the one who would be standing and the one who would stand would be better than the one who would run. Behold when the trial comes or it appears the one who has camel should stick to his camel and he who has sheep should stick to his sheep and he who has land should stick to his land. A person said, "O messenger of Allah what about the one who has neither camel or sheep nor land", there upon he said, "He should take hold of his sword and beet its edge with the help of stone then try to find a way to escape, O Allah I have conveyed", a person forced, "O messenger of Allah what about if I am forced until I am taken to one of the two lines or one of the two groups and a man strikes me with a sword or there comes an arrow and kills me? There upon he said, "He will bear his sin and yours and be one of the companions of the fire". Imam AnNawawi (RhA) said in the explanation of this hadith, "This hadith absolves the coerced of the sin incurred by his presence in the front line. As for participating in the fighting it is not permissible and the coerced sins if he carries out what he has been ordered according to the consensus of the ulema. Al Qaady and others have quoted this from the consensus"2 . Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in connection with the aforementioned hadith of Abu Bakr, "What is intended is if the coerced is forced to fight in fitnah it is not permissible for him to fight but he should break his weapon and have patience until he is killed unjustly. So what is the circumstance if the coerced is forced to fight against the Muslims with a group which is out side the shari'ah of Islam such as those who withheld zakat and apostates and such likes. There is no doubt that in such a case it is upon the coerced if he is forced into their lines not to fight. And if the Muslims kill him then it is as if he was forced into the lines of the disbelievers to fight against the Muslims. It is as if a man forces another to kill an innocent Muslim. It is not permissible for the coerced to do this by the agreement of the Muslims even if he is threatened with death for he cannot protect himself by killing that innocent, him being more of a priority than himself. It is not permissible for him to oppress and kill somebody else so that he himself is not killed. Rather if he does that then the one that coerces and the coerced are responsible according to the majority of the ulema"1. AlQurtubi said, "The ulema have agreed that it is not permissible for the one who is forced to kill somebody to carry it out, or to violate his sanctity by lashing him or such. But he must be patient with the trial which has come upon him and it is not permissible for him to redeem himself for somebody else and should ask Allah for forgiveness in this world and the hereafter2. Abul Hasan said, "if he is threatened with death to kill somebody else, it is not permissible for him to carry it out. Rather he should have patience until he is killed but if he kills the other he is guilty of sin"3 . AshShaybaani said, "If they say (the enemy who have in their hold Muslim prisoners) fight with us against the Muslims if you don't we will kill you. It is not permissible for them to fight against the Muslims, because that itself is forbidden, it is not permissible to carry it out even if threatened with death, just as if they were to say, 'Kill this Muslim or you will be killed'. If they are threatened and ordered to stand with them in their line and not forced to fight the Muslims, I hope this is permissible for them, because they are now not doing anything against the Muslims and this does not fulfil the definition of an oppressor. The worst that they are doing is increasing the worry of the Muslims by increasing the number of the idolaters in the eyes of the Muslims . . . if they do not fear from the idolaters for their lives then they should not stand with them in their line even if they order them, because by this they terrorise the Muslims and throw fear and frustration into them. Without genuine necessity it is not permissible for a Muslim to cause any of these . . . and if the enemy says, help us against the Muslims by fighting or increasing our numbers and we will release you, it is not permissible for them to do this because it is not permissible to fight the Muslims or throw fear into their hearts as long as necessity does not call for it by fear for their own lives, and this is not present here"1. The one who is coerced according to the consensus of the ulema is not permitted to kill an innocent Muslim . . . or fight against the Muslims . . . if he is coerced into the enemy line but not to fight that is permissible for him, as AshShaybaani has stated. If he is ordered into the line without threat and he does not fear for his life then it is not permissible for him to follow it through. This is some of what is permissible for the one who is coerced during the battle . . . despite all this if he is forced into the enemy line against his will and he does not fight, it is permissible for the Muslims to kill him during the battle and there is nothing upon the killer. Ibn Taymiyyah said, "and whoever is forced into battle with them, then he will be raised upon his intention. It is upon us to fight the soldiers collectively if it is impossible to differentiate the coerced from the rest"2. And Ibn Taymiyyah said, may Allah have mercy upon him, "And we do not know who has been forced to fight and we are unable to differentiate. If we fight them with the order of Allah then we are rewarded and excused in that. They are upon their intentions and whoever cannot escape from them then he is raised on the day of judgement upon his intention. If he is killed in order to establish the religion then that is not greater than he who is killed from the Muslim soldiers"3 . And Ibn Taymiyyah said in the relation to the hadith "A seeker of refuge will seek refuge in the sacred house . . .", "Allah the Most High destroys and army which intends to desecrate his sanctity. Amongst them amongst them are those who have been forced to fight and others who have not and he destroys all of them despite his ability to differentiate between them, and he will raise them according to their intentions. So how is it necessary for the mujahideen to differentiate between those who have been coerced and the rest when they have no such knowledge. Even if somebody claims that he has been forced to join the enemy, his claim does not benefit him as it is na that Abbas bin Abdul Muttaleb said to the Prophet when he was taken captive by the Muslims on the day of Badr, "O messenger of Allah I was forced", He replied, "Your outward action was against us, as for your intention it is with Allah"4 . Even if there is amongst them pious people of the best of Mankind and it is not possible to fight the enemy except by fighting these people then they are fought too. For the scholars are in agreement that if the disbelievers use the Muslims as a human shield and their is fear for the rest of the Muslims if they are not fought then it is permissible to open fire aiming for the disbelievers even if we do not fear for the rest of the Muslims it is permissible to open fire according to one opinion of the ulema"1 . The one who is used as a human shield is killed for the general benefit of the Muslims . . . the one who is coerced must not fight . . . and he is killed also . . . so how about he who bears weapons against the Muslims and fights them*.
THE SIXTH MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
Somebody might say: "All that which you
have stated is good but fighting them is not permissible except beneath the
flag of an established imam or Muslim leader. As for before the presence of
such an imam it is not permissible to fight them. This is the duty of the
imam only and not for anybody else, for their disobedience to him or their
revolt against him.
THE RESPONSE As for your saying, they are fought for their disobedience to the Imam and their revolt against him is disputable for the sayings of the ulema state clearly that they are fought for withholding from a law from the laws of Islam with force . . . If they are fought because of their disobedience to the Imam or their revolt against him substantiated by feasible explanation they would be fought as rebels. And if they revolt against them without a feasible explanation they would be fought as a type of bandits. The are fought for their withholding from the shari'ah . . whether they are outside the obedience of the Imam or they are the leaders themselves or they are in a land not conquered by the Muslims, for fighting them is an obligation in al circumstances . . . and the aforementioned sayings of the ulema quoted in this investigation are sufficient for he who wants guidance. As for your statement, "Fighting them is the responsibility of the established Imam not anyone else", this statement is an innovation which has been spread in this time. It is a false statement for it tantamounts to the suspension of the obligation of jihad about which our Prophet (SAW) has taught us is continuos until the day of judgement. [Na by Abu Dawud, hadith from Abu Hurairah marfu'an: "And Jihad is continuous since Allah has raised me until the last of my Ummah fights the AntiChrist, it is not cancelled by the tyranny of a tyrant or the justice of a upholder of justice"]. Despite this we see the holder of this opinion persisting, they pass fatawa without knowledge. They are astray and they send astray for they claim that fighting is not permissible at all except beneath the flag of an established Imam. And the claim that all the verses of Qur'an and ahadith which ordain jihad and all the fatawa of the ulema concerning this obligation hang upon this innovated condition which they have fabricated. As for before this fighting according to them is forbidden. It is astonishing, for do not these ignoramuses know that our Prophet (SAW) said, "Verily, the cure for ignorance is to ask"1 . For he made ignorance a sickness and it's cure asking the ulema . . . and if they searched through the sayings of the ulema they would have found the answer. Ibn Qudamah said, "If the Imam is absent the jihad is not postponed because much is lost in it's postponement. And if any booty is come upon then it is divided amongst its claimants according to the requirements of the shari'ah"2. Ibn Taymiyyah states; "and they say about the words of the most high, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority amongst you." [Quran 4:59] A saying : the ulema and the leaders are categorised together. Thus Imam Ahmad and others stipulate these two authorities enter the description of this verse. It is an obligation to obey each authority in that which it establishes of obedience to Allah. The deputies of the messenger of Allah during his life time such as Ali, Mu'adh, Abi Musa, 'Utba bin Usayd and 'Uthman ibn Abu Al'Aas and their likes incorporated both qualities. And likewise his khulafa after him like Abu Bakr, 'Umar ,'Uthman, 'Ali and their deputies. Hence it was the sunnah that the one who lead the people in prayer was the one aquatinted with Qur'an. And the one who establishes jihad is the one who is experienced in combat. Until the affair is divided after that. If it divides then whom so ever establishes and fulfils the order of fighting from jihad of the disbelievers to punishment of the wicked, it is an obligation to obey him in that which he orders of obedience to Allah concerning that. Likewise whomsoever sets about collecting money and distributes it, it is an obligation to obey him in that which he orders of obedience to Allah concerning that. And likewise whomsoever rises with the Qur'an, delivering its news, its orders and explaining it, it is an obligation to attest and obey him in that which he informs of truth concerning that and in that which he orders of obedience to Allah"1 . AshShawkaani said : "and the Muslims are at difference about an expedition into the land of the disbelievers, is it a condition that the main Imam has to exist or not ? And the truth worthy acceptance is that is an obligation upon every single Muslim. The verses of the Qur'an and hadith of the Prophet are absolute and not restricted"2 . Abu Bakr AlJazaa'iri states about the pillars of jihad : "Jihad as in the shari'ah insures one of two victories : the attainment of authority or martyrdom, its pillars are; 1. A pure intention. 2. That it is performed behind a Muslim Imam and beneath his flag and with his permission. Just as it is not permissible for Muslims to live without an Imam even if their number is small, it is not permissible for them to fight without an Imam. The Most High says, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority amongst you." [Quran 4:59] Building upon this it is an obligation upon any group of Muslims who want to fight a military expedition in the path of Allah the Most High, or to free and rid from the grip of the disbelievers to firstly pledge allegiance to a man from amongst themselves who fulfils as much of the requirements of an Imam, of knowledge, fear of Allah and competence. Then he organises their lines and gathers their efforts, and they strive with their tongues, wealth and hands until Allah writes for them victory"1 . So Ibn Qudamah forbids the delay of Jihad if an established Imam is not present . . . and Ibn Taymiyyah obligates the obedience to whomsoever rises to establish the order of jihad even if he is not established . . . and Shawkaani holds that the existence of an established Imam is not a condition for jihad . . . and Abu Bakr AlJazaa'iri holds that the Muslims pledge allegiance to a man from amongst themselves who fulfils as much of the requirements of an Imam, then they fight behind him even if he is not established so if this matter has been cleared and this doubt has been removed from the hearts then we are driven to two orders which we have been obligated upon us by the legislator (Allah), neither of which can be fulfilled in this time except with a battle of elimination : and the Muslims have no established leader from the beginning in this battle so as to fight beneath his flags and according to his orders. Firstly : to remove the disbelieving leader. Secondly : to install a Muslim Khalif. The First : the disbelieving leader either assumed the rule as a disbeliever in which case his position of Imam was not valid from the beginning so removing him is an obligation, or he took the position of Imam as a Muslim then disbelief emerged by his changing of the shari'ah or other such actions which take him out of Islam. It is an obligation to revolt against both of these rulers and remove them from their positions. AnNawawi quotes from AlQaady Eyadh : "The consensus of the ulema are agreed that the position of Imam is not valid for a disbeliever, and if disbelief emerges from the Imam he is to be removed". He said, "Likewise if he leaves establishing the prayer and the call for it"2 . Ibn Aabideen states : "The contract of Imam is cancelled by that which contradicts its purpose like apostasy"3 . AnNawawi states : "It is not permissible to revolt against the khalif for his mere injustice or rebellion as long he does not change anything from the principles of Islam"4 . Ibn Kathir says about those who leave the laws of Allah and judge according to other laws; "whoever does this is a disbeliever and it is an obligation to fight him until he returns to the laws of Allah and his Prophet (SAW), it is irrelevant if that part of the shari'ah which he has left is large or small"5 . Sayings of the ulema about this subject are than can be quoted here. So is it credible to say that the revolt against these leaders and that which it necessitates of fighting their helpers and protectors needs to be beneath the flag of an established Muslim leader ! ! ! This preposterous, rather the ulema have stated other than this : AnNawawi quotes from AlQaady Eyadh : "If disbelief emerges from the leader or the changing of the shari'ah or innovation within rule then obedience to him is no longer binding and it is an obligation upon the Muslims to revolt against him and remove him they must replace him with a just Imam if they are able to do that. If that is not possible except for a small group, then it is an obligation upon them to remove the disbeliever"1 . The second : to install a Muslim Khalif : The ummah is in agreement about the obligation upon the Muslims of appointing a khalif for themselves2 , and they have restricted the method of appointment of the Khalif to four ways3 . The First : To succeed by stipulation : that is the khalif states who is to succeed him. The Second : To succeed by stipulation of several candidates : that is the khalif selects several candidates who nominate from amongst themselves the new khalif. The Third : The ministers of an Islamic government gather and nominate a khalif. The Fourth : Forceful take over : A Muslim man rises and seizes the position of Khalif by force. Upon examination we find that the first and second method are impossible in this time because a khalif of the Muslims does not exist for a stipulated successor to succeed him or stipulated candidates to nominate amongst themselves a new khalif. The third method is no better then its predecessors for if we insist that an Islamic government exist, there is no way under any circumstance that the present rulers would concede their rule to a pious man selected to rule the Muslims. Rather it is unimaginable that the rulers in our time will leave their thrones voluntarily, so this path is blocked. There finally remains no path available to the Muslims except the fourth method in order to appoint a khalif and that is a forceful take over . . . and this involves a defensive battle between the people of truth and the rulers of this present time until and Islamic State is established, and it is simple knowledge that the people of truth involved in the centre of this struggle do not fight beneath the flag of an established Imam.
THE SEVENTH MISCONCEPTION - Back to top
They say; even if the leaders and the rulers
withhold from all the laws of Islam it is not permissible to revolt against
them as long as they pray, providing two hadith as evidence.
Firstly: "There will be upon you leaders who you will recognise and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them", they said, "should we not fight them". He (SAW) said, "No as long as they pray"1. Secondly: "The best of your leaders are those you love and they love you, you pray for them and they pray for you. The worst of your leaders are those who anger you and you anger them and you curse them and they curse you. He said we replied :"O Messenger of Allah (SAW) should we not remove them at that", "No as long as they establish the prayer amongst you"2 . THE RESPONSE AnNawawi states in the explanation of the first hadith : "As for his words 'should we not fight them?', he (SAW) replied, 'No as long as they pray . . . ', this contains the aforementioned meaning that it is not permissible to revolt against the khalif for his mere injustice or rebellion as long as he does not change anything from the principles of Islam"3 . Doctor Ali Jareesha states, "And there is no doubt that the reference to the establishment of prayer is a reference to the establishment of the complete religion and he condensed his statement about this by considering the main pillar of religion"4 . For the establishment of the prayer is the establishment of the complete religion. This is the meaning of his (SAW) words : "No as long as they pray . . ." and his (SAW) saying, "No, as long as they establish amongst you the prayer". And Ibn Katheer has stated likewise in his explanation of the Most Highs words, "But if they repent establish the prayer and give the zakat then leave their way free." (5 Tauba), he states, "Thus Abu Bakr based his fighting against those who withheld the zakat upon this verse and those similar to it. Fighting them became forbidden when they fulfilled the condition of entering Islam and establishing its obligations"1 .
REFERENCES - Back to top
1 Narrated by Muslim from hadith Umm Salamah.
2 Narrated by Muslim from hadith Awn bin Malik Al-Ashja'iy.
1 Jaamia Al-Uloom wal Hukm : (1/180 - 185)
Dar Al-Kitaab Al-Jadeed.
2 Al-Rawdhat ul_nediyah : (1/184) Dar At-Toraath . . . see Al-Muwatta. 3 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi (1/203) Egyptian edition.
1 "I have been ordered to fight the people
. . . ", na in the two Sahihs.
2 Narrated by Muslim. 3 Narrated by Bukhari & Muslim. 4 Narrated by Muslim and Ahmad from hadith from Abi Sa'id Al-Khudry. 5 Majmu'at At-Tawheed (95, 96) Dar al-Kifr. 6 Mutafiqun Alayhe (Agreed upon). 7 Jaamia al-Uloom wal Hukm: (1/188 - 189) Dar al-Kitab Al-Jadeed.
1 Mutafiqun Alayhe (Agreed upon).
2 Mutafiqun Alayhe (Agreed upon). 3 Verified in the two Sahihs (Bukhari's text). 4 Mutafiqun Alayhe (Agreed upon).
1 Explanation of sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi:
(2/55) Egyptian edition.
2 Explanation of sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi: (2/108) Egyptian edition. 3 Fath Al-Baari Explanation of Sahih Bukhari: (13/20) Dar Al-Marifat, Beirut. 4 Fath Al-Baari: (13/37). 5 Fath Al-Baari: (13/27) Dar Al-Marifat, Beirut.
1 Fath Al-Baari: (13/27) Dar Al-Marifat, Beirut.
2 Majmu'at Al-Fataawa: (28/312) Maktaba Ibn Taymiyyah. 3 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi: (18/11) Egyptian edition. 4 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi : (18/10) Egyptian edition.
1 Mutafiqun Alayhe (Agreed upon) hadeeth from
Ibn Mas'ud.
2 See section two. 3 Fath Al-Mubdy Sharha Mukhtasir Az-Zabeedy : (1/60) Al-Halaby edition 1948.
1 Fath Al-Baari : (1/72) Dar Al-Kitaab Al-Jadeed.
1 Al-Mughni: (8/105).
1 Explanation of Muslim by An-Nawawi: (18/7). 2 Fath Al-Baari explanation of saheeh Al-Bukhari: (13/32) Dar Al-Marifat Beirut.
1 As-Siyasat Ash-Shar'iah: (39:40) Al-Maktaba
As-Salafiah.
2 As-Siyasat Ash-Shar'iah: (43) Al-Maktaba As-Salafiah. 3 See section three.
1 Mujmu'a Al-Fataawa (28/408): Maktaba Ibn
Taymiyyah.
2 Explanation of sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi: (18/12) Egyptian edition.
1 See section three.
2 Tafseer Al-Qurtubi (10/357): Dar Al-Kitaab Al-Arabi. 3 Al-Hidaaya Sharha Bidaaya Al-Mubtady.
1 Sharha As-Seer Al-Kabeer: (4/1516 - 1518).
2 See section three. 3 See section three. 4 Na by Ibn Ishaq from Ibn Abbas.
1 See section three.
* We recall here part of the fatawa of the ulema on this subject of the human shield which Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned; Al-Kaasani Al-Hanafi said: "And likewise if they use Muslim children as a human shield there is no harm to open fire upon them for the necessity of carrying out the obligation (of fighting the enemy), but they aim for the disbelievers not the children. If in their firing a Muslim is killed then there is no blood money to be paid or expiation". Bedaa'ia Asanaa'i {(43.6/9)}. It is stated in As-Seer Al-Kabeer by Ash-Shaybaani and explained by Sarkhasy: Shaybaani writes : chapter : [Cutting the water supply of the enemy, burning their fortresses and aiming catapults at them]Sarkhasy explains; "The presence of Muslims amongst them does not stop any of these actions whether they be prisoners or residents, young or old, women or men, and if we know that there is no way to avoid hitting them whilst following the order of fighting the mushrikeen, and there is no way to avoid the fight then it is forgiven". Shaybany said, "And if some of these aforementioned people are killed by such actions then their is no blame upon the Muslims". Sarkhasy said, "That is because their action is permissible, required even ordained as long as they cannot avoid it". [Explanation of As Seer Al Kabeer 1467/4]. And Shaybaani said, "If Muslim children are used as human shield there is no blame upon the Muslims to open fire, and if a child is hit there is no blame for that because the Muslims are not the intended target but the enemy are". [Explanation of As Seer Al Kabeer (1474/4)]. In Hashiyat Ibn Abideen : [We seek assistance from Allah and we fight them by placing our catapults, burning them, drowning them, cutting their trees, destroying their crops, and opening fire upon them even if they use some of us as human shield. We aim for the disbelievers, and whoever is hit from amongst the Muslim there is no blood money to be paid or expiation]. He is said in the explanation of his words ". . . and whoever is hit from amongst the Muslims . . ." that is if we aim for the kuffar with our shooting and we hit one of the Muslims who is part of the human shield, we are not liable for him. He said in the text: (because obligations are not linked to losses) [Hashiyat Ibn Abideen (1/50)]. Also see Al-Mughni : (8/450) Maktaba Ibn Taymiyyah : - Al-Kaafi : (4/268) Al-Maktaba Al-Islami, Beirut. Irshaad Al-Fahool : (243). Al-Mustafy : (1/294) Maktaba Al-Mantaby, Beirut. Qawaid Al-Ahkam : (1/95) Dar Al-Kutub Al-Almiya, Beirut. Usool Madhab Al Imam Ahmad : (418) Maktaba Ar-Riyadh.
1 Na by Abu Dawud.
2 Al-Mughni (8/353).
1 Explanation of the hadeeth, "O my salves
I have forbidden injustice . . . ".
2 Ar-Risa'il As-Salafiah (43) Maktaba Al Furqan.
1 Minhaj Al-Muslim : (304) Maktaba Ad-Da'wah
Al-Islami.
2 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi (12/229). 3 Hashiyat Ibn Abideen (3/320). 4 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by Imam An-Nawawi (12/242 - 243). 5 Tafseer Al-Qur'an Al-Atheem: (2/67).
1 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi
: (12/129) Egyptian edition.
2 Quotations from the consensus about the obligation of installing a khalif for the Muslims: * Al-Qurtubi - Fee Jaamia Ahkaam Al-Qur'an: (1/228) Dar Ash-Shab. * An-Nawawi - Muslim bish-Sharha An-Nawawi: (12/205) Egyptian edition. * Al-Kaasaani - Bedaa'i As-Sanaa'i. * Ibn Khuldoon - Muqadimah Ibn Khuldoon : (519). * Abdul Qadir Udah - At-Tashrea Al-Jinaa'i (2/674) Dar At-Toraath. * Ibn Hazm - Al-Fusal : (4/106) Al-Halabi. * Al-Ash'ari - Muqaalaat Al-Islamyeen : (2/133) Maktaba An-Nahdah Al-Misryah and others. 3 Quotations for the method of installing the khalif: * Al-Qurtubi - Jaamia Ahkaam Al-Qur'an : (1/228). * Ibn Qudamah - Al-Mughni (8/107) Maktaba Ibn Taymiyyah. * Ibn Kathir - Tafseer Al-Qur'an Al-Atheem : (1/72) Al-Halabi. * Abdul Qadir Udah - At-Tashrea Al-Jinaa'i : (2/674) Dar At-Toraath. * Abu Yalee Al-Mawsali - Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniah : (3) : Third edition - Al-Halabi. * Ibn Hazm - Al-Fasl : (4/10) Al-Halabi.
1 Na by Muslim from hadith Umm Salamah.
2 Na by Muslim from hadith Awn bin Malik Al-Ashja'iy. 3 Explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi (12/242 - 243). 4 Arkaan Ash-Shar'eah Al-Islamyah. (103).
1 Tafseer Ibn Kathi
|