Monday, March 17, 2008

Fighting as a method to establish the Islamic state?

The following is a draft translation of part of Study No 11, Vol. 1 from the Ph.D. Thesis from the University of Damascus, Syria entitled ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya’, published in Beirut, Lebanon by Dar al-Bayariq in 3 Volumes by Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Khair Haykal. The scanned Arabic book can be downloaded from here.

Fighting to Establish the Islamic State

Abstract:

This study includes:

1- The opinions of Muslim writers around the thought of fighting to establish the Islamic State.

2- The evidence of those who allow or do not allow "fighting to establish the Islamic state" and its discussion showing the position we put forward.

3-Fighting to establish the Islamic state (by the ones who adopt this method), is it Jihad in the way of Allah by its shariah meaning?

Firstly: The opinions of the Muslim writers regarding the thought to establish the Islamic state

The division of the opinions of the Muslim writers regarding this first issue into two directions. They are:

A- A position that refuses the thought of fighting or a physical revolution or the use of weapons to establish the Islamic state.

It is noticeably seen that the upholders of this direction will not necessarily use the clause "Islamic state" when exhibiting the evidence for there ideas. In fact, many of them seem to hide this term (for some reason or other) using the phrases "changing the Islamic society" or "changing the present situation", and what ever closely resembles them....... Fair enough. These phrases (and what ever is similar) though when used by those who are active in the Islamic dawaa can be summarised with the term "Islamic state" i.e. The authority that stands on the basis of Islam in establishing its laws and spreading its message.

B- Then their is the other direction that calls for the use of fighting or a physical revolution in order to establish the Islamic state.

We will summarise in this first issue the opinions of a number of authors that hold either position , and we will quote form their books the parts that exposes there views that they propagate. We will leave the discussion of their opinions to the second part.


A- The first position: The refusal of physical struggle, or the use of weapons to establish the Islamic state.

This position is put forward by a number of authors including:

1- Professor Abu Ala Al Mawdudi.

This Muslim writer, who was the amir of Jamat Al Islamia in Pakistan, at the end of a lecture entitled (( The Duty of Muslim Youth today)) that was presented in Mecca Al Mukarramma in the days of Hajj, the year 1381 A.H. says:

“Brothers in Islam......I will like to put forward to you an advice (at the end of this lecture). It is that you do not establish secret organisations to achieve your goal and that you should avoid (at all costs) using a physical struggle or weapons to change the position (we are in). Because this method also is a means of hurrying (to quickly) that will result in no fruitful gain. The attempt to achieve your goal by the shortest route possible.......and the correct revolution.........is that you propagate your dawa publicly , correcting the hearts and minds of the people as much as you can......But if you hurry up with this issue and work to establish the authority ( by a coup de ta) by a physical means and in fact you succeed to a certain extent, then (the position) will analogous to the wind that enters the door to leave by the window. This is my advice that I have given to all those who are active in the Islamic Dawaa."

And (another) from the authors who uphold this opinion is:

2- Sheikh Muhammad Nasr Al-Deen Albani:

And this is with his commentary with regards to Aqueedat Al Tahawiya, clause 72: "And we (ahl ul sunnah wal Jammah) do not see that we should revolt against our rulers or governors even if they become tyrannical . Nor do we call against them or remove our hand away from their allegiance......" Sheikh Albani comments on this and says:

"I say: and with this (statement) their is an indication of the method to end the injustice of the rulers that are from our community and speak our language. That is, that the Muslims should seek forgiveness from their creator, correct their aqueedah, and bring up their families and themselves on the correct Islam confirming the words of Allah : (( .....Allah does not change the condition of the people until they change what is within themselves)) .

And with this one of the current propagators of Islam said: (( Establish the Islamic state in the heart and it will be established in reality)). Nor is the method (to remove this injustice) as some imagine a revolution with weapons against our rulers by means of a military coup de ta. It (in fact) is one of the bidaahs of this period of ours as it goes against the shariah text that orders us to change what is within ourselves. Because of this it is essential that we correct the basis before we build upon it...."

And from the Islamic writers that walk along this direction, propagating it include:

3- Dr Muhammad Said Rahmadan Al Buti:

And it is possible that we understand his position from a large number of signs that are noted in his booklet:

(( This is the way we propagate in Islam)). From this (booklet) his comments " The establishment of the society on the principles of Islam, its laws, and its organisation is only but a reward from Allah who creates it from a (a position) that is expected or not expected as a result of (the Muslims) establishing Islam on themselves and on their families and children first, then secondly on those that are closest to them, then. on the majority who remember Allah and draw closer to him. Thirdly (the Muslims) then should seek refuge from Allah (to change the situation)."

It is this collection, (of signs) to establish the Islamic society as a result of it being a reward from Allah who creates it for the Muslims, if and only if they increase there remembrance seeking refuge from Allah, that is an evidence in the refusal of fighting to correct the situation we are in and establishing the Islamic society.

Their is also (another) confirmation of this direction that refuses to fight to establish the Islamic society - the advice of the author to the Muslim that he ( the Muslim) should concentrate his efforts on the propagation (of Islam) not concerning himself with other issues. Because the reason of change is in the hands of Allah himself(alone). He( Buti) says regarding this " If the Muslim fulfils the obligation that is upon him with regards to the dawaaa, then he should leave the results to Allah, leaving the issue to him. Nor should he tire himself with things Allah has not given him authority for. And he should not work (with an objective in mind) regarding this issue like those who imagine that everything is in their hands. Rather he (Allah) is the one who knows the reasons, comes out with the results and changes the situation....."

This is the direction of the first point of view with regards to fighting in order to establish the Islamic state in this period of ours or as some put it " the establishment of the Islamic society and changing the situation (we are in)".

B- The second direction : The call to fight to establish the Islamic state

Probably the Jihadee group in Egypt is the clearest with regards to this position from all the Islamic movements in the last few years and the writings (of this movement) have spread (information) as a result clarifying their position. They also defend themselves with the evidences before them attacking the other position that forbids using violence to establish the Islamic state, accusing them of two things either ignorance in Islam or cowardice.......as will be shown

Dr Muhammad Amarah says " This situation is in fact a situation of the sword and the use of physical struggle and revolution in order to establish the Islamic state because this issue is from the issues of the Khilafa and the Jihadee movement has given importance to the reply of all the objections that have spread and are spreading in the use of fighting and struggle as a means to establish the Islamic state and returning of Islam to the Muslims"

Their is no objection in putting forward these objections with there replies in summary which will clarify more the position of these two camps in this issue.

The first objection: comes from those who call for Islamic work from an Islamic political party that propagates its views within the laws that are present in the society. Hence they refuse the thought of fighting to establish the authority putting Islam in the position of control.

The Jihadee group replies to this with the reasoning that any system will not allow any possible means to destroy itself , and if the goal is the destruction of the present corrupt system then it is not possible by the means of the allowed tools be it with a political party or a parliament. For those who say " That it is upon us to establish an Islamic party among the current parties" (the reply is) that it will not lead but to an increase in the number of parties!! Plus the party will not be able to establish the goal that they set out for and that is the destruction of the Kufr state. In fact the opposite will happen. It will share in the building of the Kufr state! For it results in the association with them in opinions and taking part in the legislative system that rules without the authority of Allah !!

I say (Dr Khair Haykel): That it occurred before that Mawdudi took this position that the Jihadee movement warned against . In fact he says " Our taking part in the parliament that is not correct nor believing in our principles results in us associating to get closer to our goal for the wrong reasons because practical experience confirms that an action like this will no have any fruitful results . In fact those that have authority in ruling are the ones who draw the domestic as well as the foreign policy establishing it when it suits their whims and desires. As for those that take part with the intention of an honourable goal in front of their eyes, they in fact need to discuss with (those in authority). This means that at the end of it they become a mouth piece for them, toys in their hand to do with as they wish using them as they want"

The second objection- This is put forward by a group that says according to the (jihadee) author that they are now in a state of weakness. They hence call for removing themselves from society making Hijra from it with the hope of getting strength to return to establish the Islamic state.

The Jihadee movement replies by saying that these people should save the effort on themselves by establishing the Islamic state and coming out as conquerors. Dr Amarah continues to say "and an example is like those who say that they should migrate to the hills, then they will return to meet Pharaoh as Moses did and Allah will destroy pharaoh and his army!! All these thoughts did not come about except by leaving the correct shariah means to establish the Islamic state. This way Allah has shown by the ayah (( And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail Allah's deen altogether and everywhere))

The Third Objection- This is put forward by a group that stops Islam at the limits of correction, fear of Allah, matters of ritual worship and isolation in religious devotion. They say that politics grows in the heart a hardness that prevents remembrance of Allah. The Jihadee movement replies that jihad, and they mean by this, the fighting of a ruler in the Muslim lands and taking authority from them to establish Islam, is a political action and is the highest of all matters of worship in Islam, " and whosoever wants to really work with the highest forms of worship then he should do Jihad in the path of Allah", without ignoring the other pillars of Islam. In fact the prophet describes Jihad as the sword of Islam.

And these people that say: that taking part in politics hardens the heart and keeps someone busy away form the remembrance of Allah seem just to forget the saying of the prophet " The best Jihad is the saying of truth in front of a tyrannical leader"

The fourth Objection put forward by those that do not put forward fighting to establish the Islamic state is the fear of failure.

The Jihadee movement replies to this group by saying that it falls into two mistakes.

Firstly: The deficiency in carrying out the act of Allah's law by establishing the state for the Muslim is asked to carry out the order without looking for results!!

Secondly: The inability to see the attractive nature of the justice of Islam that pulls towards the nation a lot of supporters even from those that did not have knowledge of Islam before!

Then the reply to those who say " we fear that the nation will be established then after a day or two there will be a rebuttal destroying what we have succeeded in establishing" The Jihadee movement replies:

"The establishment of the Islamic nation is the carrying out of Allah's command and we are not required to produce results. In fact the one who holds this opinion that is of no benefit does nothing but to further establish among the Muslims the will to do their duty from the Shariah by establishing the authority of Allah. (This person) forgets that with the fall of the Kafr Regime everything will be in the hands of the Muslims making it impossible for the Islamic state to fall. Plus the Islamic laws are not deficient nor weak in removing every corruption on the earth that is not within the bounds of the authority of Allah added to the fact that the Islamic laws are all so just that they will have only the response of willing acceptance from those who even do not know Islam."

These are the most important objections that the Jihadee group has put forward against the opinion that they put forward and that is "fighting to establish the Islamic state" with their reply to them.

We hope that by showing the different opinions of both sides in this issue we have successfully stopped at distancing the thoughts of each side.

And from here we go onto our second part of the study and it is:

Secondly: The evidences of those that legalise or forbid fighting to establish the Islamic state with their discussion and the clarification of the opinion that we have weighed up with its evidences


A- The Evidences of those who Forbid Fighting to Establish the Islamic State

The upholders deduce this direction by a number of evidences that include:

1- The First Evidence:....They point to the fact of harm that results with the use of weapons. Harm is forbidden by shariah with the saying of the prophet " Their is no harm or harming (in Islam)"

After warning against the use of weapons or any physical means to change the situation we are in ,Mawdudi comments " This method is the worst barrier and causes more harm then any one can picture"

Mawdudi indicates to the harm by following this pathway and from which one may understand from him a fear that the opposing force may stand in the face of change that is established by force. It seems as if he is indicating to the fitnah and bloodshed that could result from this. He also says that the success that will result in this change by military strength if established will only be temporary. If we want to clarify what Mawdudi is signalling, and he is silent in further clarification, then he is saying that the opposing force will not be silent!! They will hit out against this success resulting in the impediment of the Islamic dawaa, the killing of its men, the expulsion of its youth, and the unravelling of its effort pushing back the progress a number of years! The situation will not just stop at this but also insult and dishonour will be placed on those who have tried to change the situation by force resulting in cowardice and the removal from themselves (i.e. the Muslim youth) the ability to stand!!

2- The second evidence: This is established on the fact that ones in power today in the Muslim lands are like the rulers of the past who became corrupt and tyrannical. The ruling with regards to these rulers is patience as has been previously shown in another study . This evidence is upheld by sheikh Muhammad Nasr Al Deen Albani in his commentary in Aqueedat Al Tahawyia which states " And we will not go out against our ruler, nor our governors even if they become tyrants.."

Sheikh Albani in his commentary about this says " In fact with patience against them their is repentance against our sins. For Allah had not allowed them to have authority over us except for the corruption of our actions and the resultant from the types of actions. Hence it is upon us to exert effort in repenting to Allah, having the correct upbringing, and correcting our actions. Allah says: (( Thus we make the wrongdoers turn to each other because of what they earn)) For if the flock wants to get rid of the corruption of the rulers today then they should leave their corruption". The words of the sheikh in this commentary refers to the rulers today owing to the fact that he is referring this issue to the Military coups against the Muslim rulers in this period of ours. From this he has forbidden it with the excuse of patience.

3- The third evidence: That is the military coups today are from the bidaahs of this period. (It is forbidden) as the shariah has forbidden Biddaahs and innovations by his saying " Beware of every innovation for every innovation is a bidaah and every bidaah is a misguidance"

4- The Fourth evidence- It is that the shariah has limited the way to change our situation and that is by changing what is within ourselves i.e.(( Allah does not change the situation of the people until they change what is within themselves)) . Changing the situation by other then this means goes against the Shariah text . These are the most important evidences of those that refuse fighting to establish the Islamic state.

B- The evidences of those who allow fighting to establish the Islamic State

The ones who uphold this opinion have a number of evidences which include

1- The First Evidence- The evidence of apostasy.

This is because "After the removal of the Caliphate in 1924 and the removal of all the Islamic laws replacing them with laws put in by the Kafirs" Apostasy happened with both the nation and the ruler. " The nations apostatised today from the Shariah when it replaced the laws with the Western codes of the Kafr and as a result the rulers today have apostatised from Islam because they rule by other than what Allah has revealed. They also where brought up as the plan of colonialisation be it the crusades or the socialists. In fact they do not carry anything from Islam except their names, even if they prayed or fasted or and called themselves Muslims". Hence as a result the Dar(land) has become legislated by the canons of Kufr even though the majority are Muslim, for peace is to the Muslims and war and Jihad-by the meaning of fighting- on the Kafir nation and the apostatised rulers! And it is essential that the Muslims wake up to fighting(this Kafr regime) so that they can change this despicable Kafr situation!."

i.e. : It is as if the authors of this evidence want to say that it can be said that the Islamic nations today and its rulers can fall under the ruling of the nations that rebelled from Islam and stopped implementing it at the time of Abu Bakr. At that time many people rebelled from Islam under his authority but even if the majority of the people today are Muslim that have not apostatised the ruling will be the same. The Muslims will not be fought but rather the Apostatised nation and the rulers(will be fought) so as to return the land to Dar Al Islam and hence as an Islamic state.

2-Second Evidence: The Islamic principle "What leads to a wajib(duty) is wajib in itself".

This is because Allah has made it a duty upon us to have the legislative authority of Islam which cannot be achieved except by the means of an Islamic state. Therefore the law regarding the Islamic state becomes wajib following from the principle "what leads to a wajib is a wajib in itself". Also the establishment of the Islamic state cannot come about except by the means of fighting. Hence it becomes wajib by using the same principle "What leads to a wajib is a wajib in itself"

3-The Third Evidence : The evidence of the Fard(duty) of Jihad on every Muslim in every Muslim nation that is occupied by the enemy.

" For the enemy with regards to the Muslim land mass is actually settled in their lands. In fact this enemy has authority over every issue. This enemy, who is the leadership, has forced the reigns of authority away from the Muslims. From here the Jihad against them becomes an individual obligation (upon every Muslim)", like salah, and sawm(fasting). As Allah says in the Quran (( Fasting has been prescribed for you)), he has also said with regards to the issue of fighting that (( Fighting has been prescribed for you)) i.e. it is a duty to fight the enemy that is occupying our land so that we can remove the authority from him and establish the Islamic state.

4- The Fourth Evidence: It is the evidence of clear cut Kufr(disbelief) which if it appears then the ruler has no right to be heard and obeyed by his flock taking into account the hadeeth " Their is no rebellion from the authority of the ruler except if you see clear cut disbelief that is confirmed by a clear cut proof from Allah"

Dr. Muhammad Amarah says " And the Jihadee group sees that Kufr(disbelief) refers to the sins, and from its opinion it has found that the rulers today should no longer be heard or obeyed by the flock and they (the jihadee group) take this ruling from the saying of Qadi Iyad (476-544 a.h/1083-1149 a.c) " If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible" . Thus the removal of the rulers today that hold the military strength and are adamant in their rule is not possible except by a revolutionary struggle. For their is no way except to remove these rulers and to establish the Islamic state"

These are the evidences put forward by those who hold the legality of fighting to establish the Islamic state. From here we finish from presenting the evidences of the two sides around this issue and move onto their discussion

C- Discussion of the evidences that endorse the peaceful procedures to establish the Islamic state.

1- The Discussion of the evidence of harm.:

It is a wonder that the ones who hold this opinion are a lot that have drowned in the sea of pessimism and despair, Then one seems to just feel the extent they have drowned themselves, not even having a heart beat of desire or will to stand to change the misdirected position they are in or even hoping for change; when it comes from these men that have believed in their creator, who have sold themselves to him, ready for the victory of their lord so that Allah may write with the work of their hands the honour of Islam(in history) establishing the state, the prevention of any action(to change the situation) with the excuse of harm. And with this excuse they wish to prevent others to do any form of work(as well)!!!!!

Their is no objection to the Islamic principle " The prevention of harm is of more priority then receiving benefit". Nor to the hadeeth, "Their is no harm or harming in Islam" Allah forbid. May Allah cause disappointment, destruction and dishonour on those who reject something from Islam. But the objection here is based upon placing the Islamic ruling in the wrong place and situation, and objection is also placed on those who exaggerate the paranoia, fear and worry in the people so that the harm can be possibly imagined as a fearsome beast that is absent from (peoples) sight but is ever present like a ghost ready to strike on those who wish to undertake activities, that the ones who object, fear!!

This fear of harm is the reason that a passive position is taken with regards to the issue of fighting to establish the Islamic state. Let this position be( the actual reality)!! Then if it becomes probable that benefit or interests come from taking a positive stance in this issue then this positive stance must be allowed legally.

Then: one should return the issue to outweighing the position in this area . When it becomes probable that it will cause harm then the position becomes forbidden and when it becomes probable that it will cause benefit and interest then it should become legal.

I say (Dr Haykel): If those who have upheld this evidence of harm in forbidding the use of weapons in this issue guided the evidence along this line then it would have been closer to the logic of the evidence itself that is being deduced. But to continuously (say) that the use of weapons in this issue is labelled to have the smell of harm forever goes against reality itself!!!

Yes! If a shariah text that we accept came in this issue to prevent the use of weapons then we would have said " on my head or eyes" and benefit and all forms of benefit comes from Shariah and harm and all forms of harm is in what the Shariah has forbidden-even if our limited rational understanding thought otherwise! This is because our view in this issue is a limited view, whereas the view of the shariah is not limited. Upon this we will reiterate the saying of the companion Rafih Ibn Khadij in another issue" The prophet forbade an issue that was beneficial to us but obeying Allah and his messenger is more beneficial to us and more beneficial generally!!"

This, not taking into account the simple use of the evidence of harm by itself without (looking at) any other shariah evidence, will result as previously mentioned and that is the prevention of the use of weapons when it probably will cause harm by its use, and its legality, in fact its obligation! When the use of weapons probably will cause benefit or even if not using it will cause harm! Their is no objection to this. But their is objection to this evidence when it is always used to prevent the use of harm. This specific point is what we need to emphasis here.

Nor do we want it to be understood here that we see the legality of the use of weapons in this issue if it probably will cause benefit rather then harm because we have our own opinion in this issue that we will lead to at the end of the discussion of the evidences Allah willing.

2- The discussion of the evidence that the rulers today are like those before who became corrupt or tyrannical.....and that the Islamic ruling for these people is the duty of patience as came in Sharh Saheeh Muslim by Imam Nawawi regarding the hadeeth "There will come after me rulers and governors that you will hate. They said " Oh prophet of Allah what shall we do?" " Give the justice that is due and ask Allah that for the justice that is your right" Imam Nawawi said in his Sharh " In it is advice that we should hear and obey our rulers even if they are corrupt or tyrannical. Hence Justice that is their due should be given to them with regards to obedience and not revolting against them. Nor is he(the ruler) to be removed but one should rather ask Allah to expose his harm, prevent his evil, and correct him"

I say (Dr Haykel): the duty of patience with regards to the legally appointed rulers that have become corrupt or tyrannical and the prevention of revolting against them is established on a legal evidence, and we have solved this issue in a previous discussion but should we consider the rulers in the Muslim nations today who do not rule by what Allah has revealed like those rulers who are legally appointed where it is a duty to be patience and not lift up arms against them?

I see that the issue is different between those rulers and the rulers today and because of this it becomes essential that the ruling is different.

I mean that the evidence that encumbaces upon us the duty of patience and the prevention of military revolt in the position of corruption or tyranny came with regards to those rulers that took the authority of Imama ( leadership) legally then from this position resulted the corruption indicated to. The taking of authority legally came about as a result of a pledge of allegiance that resulted from a choice and willing approval on the basis of the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet, as was indicated to in a previous discussion. When these two things, they being acceptance and choice in taking authority with the establishment of the laws on the authority of the book of Allah and the Sunnah of the prophet, are not fulfilled, then the leadership does not become legal. As a result its owner ( the ruler who does not satisfy the two conditions) does not deserve to be heard and obeyed. Nor is the duty of patience and the prevention of lifting up arms applied to this ruler as compared to the one who is legally appointed. This is because the shariah text gave this right to the leaders that are called "A'ima" as in the hadeeth " There will be after me "Ai'ma" that will not be guided by those who advice (the truth)......."

Maybe the reason for the duty of patience with the owners of the hadeeth comes from another hadeeth that says "...........I advice you to fear Allah, to hear and to obey(the ruler), even if an Abyssinian slave is established in having authority over you( Ta'mur Alekum)......". This hadeeth avoids, as can be understood from its apparent meaning, the issue of choice and willing acceptance as well as relating the issue of hearing and obeying to ruling by what Allah has revealed.

The reply to this first point is in more detail in the study "fighting Against those who take Authority by Force". We said that the word "Ta'mur" here means he became a ruler by being given authority from a previous ruler or by choice and willing acceptance. But it does not mean "to force oneself into authority by force and strength .

The reply to the second point is also mentioned in detail in the study "Fighting against the corruption of the ruler" that prevents me from repeating it here. Plus the Usuli principle in placing the unrestricted text over the restricted text obliges the restriction of hearing and obeying to the leader who rules by what Allah has revealed. This is because to understand the unrestricted nature of the text in the hadeeth ".... and even if an Abyssinian slave is established in having authority over you..." one must place this unrestricted sense in correlation with the hadeeth that is narrated restricting it, like the saying of the prophet "....even if an Abyssinian slave with a raisin head is established over you. So hear and obey him, as long as he legislates among you with the book of Allah" i.e. if he does not establish among us the book of Allah then we will not hear or obey him ! I say(Dr Haykel) : We calculated in this discussion of the duty of obeying the ruler and the governors and the forbidiance of going out against them, we calculated that we would guide this evidence in the direction of those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed without giving the legality of going out against them or the use of weapons to remove them so as to establish the Islamic state because this issue, as we have previously mentioned, has an opinion that will be revealed at the end of this discussion.

3- The Evidence that says that the use of Military coups to change the situation (we are in) is one of the Bidaaahs(innovations) of this period. I.e. "and the most evil of things is innovation and every Bidaah is a misguidance"

I say (Dr Haykel): We will not be dragged into making this issue (fall into the discussion) of "whether it falls under the label of Bidaah or not!!"

And what is the shariah definition of Bidaah? And does it apply to the use of military strength to establish the Islamic state or not?

Yes! We will not be dragged into it, because the issue does not fall into this context.

The reality of a military coup is the use of weapons to reach authority so we can accomplish a specific goal when we receive it. In this issue of ours : The goal in receiving authority is ruling by what Allah has revealed and the establishment of the Islamic state. This is the reality of the situation. So we will not fly off . when their is no airport, and get involved unnecessarily in this issue of ours with the issue of Bidaah!!??

The issue is then: The use of weapons to establish the rules of Islam that will not be reached except by this method, is their a shariah evidence that will give us the green light so that we can move along this path legally? Or will their be a red light that will prevent us from moving along this pathway? This is the issue and as long as the owner of the evidence of Bidaah has not addressed it in its proper place then their is nothing around which we can discuss. Hence we will now go onto another evidence

4- The discussion of the evidence that the Shariah has specified the way to change the situation (we are in) in a specific manner. This is by (the people) changing what is within themselves as proclaimed (in the ayah) (( Allah does not change the situation of a people until they change what is within themselves))

Upon this, touching upon changing the situation by other than this method goes against the Shariah text. I say (Dr Haykel): Preventing the scope of some of the shariah texts from taking there full broad legal meaning will result in the mistaken legal verdicts; by which these texts guide to, in solving what needs to be solved in this situation.

Another thing: Touching upon the Shariah rulings regarding the actions of man must come by the way of specific texts, that are connected with the specific actions, to extract the Islamic ruling. If one does not find a specific text that is related to this action, nor a specific cause, nor an Ijma(consensus) that encompasses this specific action- Then(and only then) do we go to the general texts like this ayah.

Even this ayah that is considered the greatest and most truthful basis for all foundations of change in the world of psychology and sociology; how can it be understood from it the illegality of removing the material barrier, that is standing in the way of change, by a sufficient strength that will remove it a sufficient distance away from its path? How?

In fact the presence of this wrong understanding in our society which is " The illegality of the destruction of a strength by another force to correct a situation that most people require". The presence of this incorrect understanding is what prevents the change that is pointed to. So if the people of this society do change this incorrect understanding that is "in themselves" to the correct understanding which is "The essentially of breaking this opposing material force by a capable material force, that is in the way of change" and allow this correct understanding to guide their conduct. Then from this they will (begin) to ask for a material force that will be able to overcome this material barrier that forces upon them this situation that they are in, and support them in correcting the situation. I say( Dr. Haykel): If this change in understanding does occur in the psychological world, then a change in the external situation will occur confirming the truth of the ayah ((Allah does not change the situation of a people until they change it within themselves))

On this, the ayah then takes its proper natural broad understanding- according to the laws of grammar-and the way of Allah will call to another direction in this issue of ours and it is "The use of weapons to establish the Islamic state". This is because the preposition "Ma"( "what is") in the ayah ((Allah does not change the situation of the people until they change what is within themselves)) indicates generality but within the natural limits of the psychological self and the external reality from the situations(in the external reality) that have a characteristic of resulting from the psychological self.

This, and the external situation are of not just one type (i.e. Aqueedah) but in fact different types that are judged by different laws. For it(the external situation) being characterised as a resultant of the psychological self, that causes it to be realised or a change so that it can be realised, must then essentially result in these matters of psychology being different as well.

So whoever wants to change the prevailing ignorance to knowledge among the people, and these are two external situations, then it is upon him to change what is in the people in terms of the acceptance of the reality (they are in to a situation in) which they have disgust for this ignorant reality so that they wish to gain knowledge. If this change does happen in the people then there will be a push to gain knowledge in the centres of learning, and as a result their is a change in the external reality from ignorance to knowledge!

-And whosoever wants to change the sickness that is spread between the people to health, and again they are two external realities, then it is upon him to change what is in the people in terms of acceptance of this reality to a situation of disgust of the sickness in it, making it essential that the acquired health is achieved. If this change does happen in the people, then their is a push towards health in the appropriate centres.

By this way the result is a change in the external reality from sickness to health!

In summary: Anything can be reached by the natural reasons that aid in achieving that state. This is what the ayah points towards by tying the relation between the world of psychology and the external reality. The external reality in terms of political understanding has two aspects that cause the misguided situation:

The first thing: The acceptance of this misguided reality or being apathetic regarding change.

The second thing: A force that protects this reality

Changing this external reality comes about by changing the natural reasons that result in change i.e. by two means in the world of psychology, that have a natural connection to what is present in this external reality.

Firstly: There will be a change by instigating the disgust of the misguided position(we are in) giving importance to this change, and increasing public awareness of an alternative to hold onto.

Secondly: It is necessary to have belief in the necessity of a provision of force that will aid this change which will be of sufficient strength to remove the insurgent force that is protecting the reality we want to change. It is essential then that effort should be given to provide this force that could be used in procedure of change or made ready to be used if the situation requires it.

-If we just isolate the change to the first stage (mentioned above) and it is the change from the acceptance of the reality to a disgust of this situation with the hope for an alternative, then the resultant will only be a change in the corresponding reality i.e. a change in opinions and wants with individuals remaining as individuals in this situation.

-If though their is a change corresponding to the second stage in the psychological self and that is the belief in the necessity of a provision of force that will aid in change that will be of sufficient strength to remove the opposing force from its path, and this in reality happens- then there is the second change and it is:

-Either the opposing force avoiding conflict, fearing this new force like in Medina when the force of shirk was faced with this new threat from the Ansar. Here this force changed to a group that tried to avoid conflict fearing from it a decisive blow if it got in its way!!

-But if conflict does occur then Allah will judge between them by his wisdom . So if the result was a victory for the people of change then by the will and help of Allah following on from his order he will writ for them this victory!!

-And if victory was for the other side for a reason that Allah desires then there is a delay in change . So whoever from the people of change has met his Shada(martyrdom), then with martyrdom he is happier!! And it is upon the rest to walk along the road that has been legalised until Allah allows victory. For everyone their is written reward!!

This is what has to be said in the discussion of those who forbid fighting to establish the Islamic state. We will now move onto a new section.

D- The discussion of the evidences who hold the positive position regarding fighting to establish the Islamic state.

1-The evidence of Apostasy

i.e. To put forward that the nations in the Muslim world today, as well as the current rulers, are in a situation of apostasy, not including the ruled Muslim masses. So the people of apostasy will be fought to establish the Islamic state by the method that was detailed previously.

The discussion of the evidence has two points:

-Will the rulers of the Muslims become apostates if they rule by other then what Allah has revealed?

-Is it allowed for a group from the Muslims to kill or be killed in fighting the party of apostates even though they do not have the legal power?

The reply to the first point:

The basis of those who say this is the ayah ((.........and whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelieves))

The truth is that those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed have been described by three characteristics in the following ayahs ((..............they are the disbelieves)), ((..............they are the oppressors)),((..........they are the corrupt))

It has been narrated from the companions and the scholars the specific details on the spread of these characteristics on those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed. In summary: Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed rejecting what Allah has sent down, or doubts the correctness of the law, or even thinks that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is better, then this ruler becomes a disbeliever. He is then an apostate even though he has the characteristics of Islam.

-if the ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed believes in his authority, but he does not rule owing to his corruption or fear of those who will oppose him, then he becomes a corrupt oppressor and not a disbeliever. As a result these rulers will not be considered apostates in Islam if they establish the authority on this basis. Anyway it is essential that one must have a definite evidence that gives solid conviction(Yaqin) that the ruler is not from the Muslims ruling by other then what Allah has revealed doubting the benefit of Islam in legislation, or believing that their is a better system then Islam. It is this and anything similar that will bring him out of the fold of Islam. This is when we can say that the ruler is an apostate. Without this, it is not allowed to apostasies the people nor the rulers built on a doubt or a probability because of the hadeeth ".......only if you see clear cut disbelief in which you have evidence from Allah" Evidence here means the definite proof that is established by definite belief

As for the reply to the second point i.e. is a group from the Muslims allowed to be killed or to kill a party of apostates when they do not have the authority?- which is the establishment of Hudud(the capital punishment) and from this the punishment of apostasy, which is death because of the hadeeth " whoever changes his religion then kill him" unless they repent. I say(Dr Haykel): All these duties are for but the Imam. It is not allowed for anyone nor a group from the people without the permission of the Imam to carry out these punishments

This is because taking care of the affairs of the ummah according to the Hukm Shari from which the Hudud is carried out, and the other issues of fighting, came with a text that specifies it to the Imam by the evidence of the prophet "The Imam is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock" , unless there is an evidence that allows the individuals to adopt some of the these responsibilities without the presence or a need for referral to the Imam. An example is the application of the punishment of zina by the master on his slave without the need to go to the authority in power.

There has been no proof (as an exception) with regards to apostasy, and their killing by individuals. Hence the responsibility is left to those in power.

As a result a Muslim group that acts by carrying of weapons against those in power because they are apostates even if their is definite evidence to say that they are disbelieves, I say they acting upon this without the authority legally or without getting power is taking the responsibility of the Imam, because the Imam or whom ever he appoints alone is allowed this authority.

We will now leave this discussion on apostasy with two realities

-The speed in giving the ruling of apostasy on those who rule by other then what Allah has revealed without a definite evidence is an action that is not allowed.

-The killing of apostates is a ruling that is the responsibility of the Imam who is legally appointed and it is not a method to establish the Islamic state.

2-The evidence of the Islamic principle "What leads to a duty is a duty in itself" and its discussion

i.e. Ruling by what Allah has revealed is a duty and this cannot be achieved but by establishment of the Islamic state hence its establishment is a duty based on the principle "What leads to a duty is a duty in itself"

I say: The use of the Islamic principle to reach the ruling for a specific issue without looking at the specific texts that the authority for this nor looking at the other principles of Islam when their is no text that is specific, I say that this behaviour in the extraction of Islamic laws will lead to chaos. In fact it will lead to rulings that are contradictory even in the same issue.

For example in this issue i.e. the use of weapons to establish the Islamic state, it is possible for some to say that using weapons against the Muslims is forbidden because of the evidence of the prophet "Whosoever lifts a weapon against us(the Muslims) is not one of us". But the establishment of the Islamic state is a duty and it cannot be established except by the use of weapons which are forbidden. Here the legal and illegal have come together in the same issue and the Islamic principle states "whenever the legal and illegal come together in one issue then the illegality will override the legality" i.e. One must then act on the illegality of the ruling and that is the illegality of the use of weapons.

Also some people may say: The establishment of the duty which is the application of the rules of Allah is a benefit and doing what is forbidden which is the spilling of the blood of the Muslims is a corruption. The Sharia( the legal system of Islam) states that " Blocking the means of corruption is more important then achieving our benefit". As a result panic and chaos will spread in the extraction of the Islamic rules and the reason for this is:

-The presence of the ruling in the minds of people before and from this one searches for evidences that suit this ruling

-The lack of skill in the extraction of the Islamic rulings from its related evidence among some others.

-As the reason might be to others the difference among the schools of thought in the principles of Usul and the means of extraction. This will lead to the difference in ruling in one issue.

We do not mean here to show the reasons of differences among the scholars, but what we intend to show is that the use of the principle "What leads to a duty is a duty in itself" will only be considered if their is no difference of opinion in the issue that is required to be established and it cannot not be achieved except by a means that in itself is legal. It then can be said "What leads to a duty is a duty itself" i.e. The legal action that has been specified as a means to the duty becomes a duty in itself.

But if this duty will not be reached except by something which in itself is forbidden like the use of weapons in this issue that we are discussing - Will we then allow it to establish that duty with the excuse of this Islamic principle? By Allah No!. Of course as long as this duty is not overshadowed by another principle "necessity makes the forbidden legal"!

Yes! If their is a shariah text that regards specifically this situation i.e. Fighting in order to establish the Islamic state- and prevents it from falling under the general illegality of the use of weapons- then the evidence is the exceptional text and not the Islamic principle "what leads to a duty is a duty in itself"

Though here we are not going to go into the details of this issue- fighting to establish the Islamic state- But rather we are here to discuss the correct usage of evidence.

In summary: Depending on the principle "What leads to a duty is a duty in itself" as an evidence by itself in the legality of fighting to establish the Islamic state- without looking at other specific evidence in this issue is something that we cannot not accept from its advocate.!!

3- The discussion of the evidence on the duty of Jihad upon every Muslim when the enemy occupies their land, and the consideration that the rulers today are the enemies of this nation that are occupying our lands, taking the authority in it. Hence it being incumbent to call for Jihad (against them).

I say: These words are built upon the basis that the Muslim rulers today are apostates because they are ruling by other then what Allah has revealed as was clarified when we showed the views of those who saw this. Let us even follow this through- Does the situation in the Muslim lands become like the position of the enemy occupying our lands? And as result the call to rally the people to purify the lands from occupation?

I.e. Does this or that nation from the Muslim Ummah become like Palestine which is currently being occupied by the Jews? Fighting to purify the lands from the Jews that are occupying Palestine is something that no differs from?

The answer according to those who hold this opinion is yes, as clarified by what they have already mentioned.

And the answer with me is that the Shariah laws are more specific then this to allow these two situations to be the one and the same, hence resulting in the same ruling and that is the legal allowance to fight to establish the Islamic state

What will happen in the Muslim nations if the ruler apostates after he was Muslim, that is if we agree he has apostatised, is his removal as noted by the legal text related to this issue that connects his removal with clear cut disbelief. As Qadi Iyad has said as noted before

" And if the situation continues with the ruler showing disbelief............it is a duty for the Muslims to revolt against him and remove him, if possible"

But nobody has said that the ruling regarding these leaders is the same as that of the disbelievers occupying Muslim land, and that the means to liberate the lands from this occupation is the proclamation of Jihad in it being a characteristic of being an individual obligation on every Muslim, in these nations that have the authority of a ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed. In fact the reality here differs from the reality of the lands that have fallen under the occupation of the colonising imperialistic foe. For the nations here in the instance their ruler apostasies still remain lands that are in the hands of Muslims, who will protect it against any foreign invasion. If it has happened that some non-Muslims have taken some authority then these illegalities have their ruling in the legal system. But we will not turn a nation from it being a Muslim nation that is independent to a Muslim nation that is occupied or in reality under the authority of colonialisation! As for the nations that are under the occupation of our foes, they have no longer become lands owned by the Muslims- that is according to the reality-, and no longer are the Muslims defending it against foreign invasion. In fact what has happened is that ownership- that is according to the reality - is with those occupying foes. They are the ones who take responsibility to defend their colonialisation against others be they Muslim or not! Here fighting against these foes becomes fighting against the colonialists and it is a type of Jihad in the way of Allah.

In summary: To say that the Muslim nations today are occupied by enemies because the ones in authority are not ruling by what Allah has revealed and say that Jihad has become incumbent on every individual who is a Muslim whose land is been occupied- I say: To consider the situation in the Muslim lands on this understanding is a description that is not an accurate representation of reality!!

We will now move onto the last evidence of those who take a positive stance regarding fighting to remove the authorities that rule by other then what Allah has revealed, and establishing an Islamic state.

4- The discussion of the evidence of clear cut disbelief

This evidence is probably the strongest evidence used by those who support the idea of fighting to establish the Islamic state. This is because of the clarity of the legal aspect in revolting against the authority with the appearance of clear cut disbelief like with the evidence " And do not go out against the order of the ruler except if you see clear disbelief where you have from Allah clear cut evidence" and other proofs noted in the study "fighting against the corruption of the ruler" so their is no need to repeat it here. It also occurred to us in the previous study where we discussed this evidence, and we saw that this text ".......except if you see clear cut disbelief" does not apply to the Muslim nations today that show clear cut disbelief. This is because the context of the hadeeth that indicates the legality of fighting is with the changing of authority that rules along the lines of the Islamic legal system to a situation where clear cut disbelief appear. This specific situation is the context in which the legality of fighting is approved.

But if the authority of clear cut disbelief remains and this continue and the situation does not return, then the texts of clear cut disbelief cannot be applied to a situation like this that is continuing in a means that has been detailed in a specific study on this issue so we will not repeat it

From here we finish the discussion of the evidences of the two sides: the passive and the positive approach to fighting to establish the Islamic state.

It can be generally noted that all these evidences extend there hands to encompass this issue, but they fail to grab hold of it as it is to far away. From here it cannot solve it in a way like the one who in fact holds something in his hand so that he can look at it moving it between his palms, extracting the appropriate rule for it!! Even though this is one of the most dangerous issues that Islam addresses in the society and in ruling and that is: the issue of the Islamic state and the method to establish it in this life so that we can rule by what Allah has revealed.

From here we go into putting forward the opinion that we have outweighed in this issue showing the evidence that specifically relates to this issue. The suunah of the prophet has described in a way that it can become a robe for this issue that will not be suited except for it nor will it be suited except with this robe.

D-The opinion that we hold and its evidence

The prophet says: "Pray as you have seen me pray"

And he also says: " take from me the step by step procedures......."

And Allah says in a text that includes Salah and Hajj as well as other issues related to all the rulings of Islam (( We have indeed in the apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the final day)) .

Building upon what was previously said: As we are supposed to pray like the prophet did and establish Hajj like the prophet did, it is also our duty to establish the Islamic state like the prophet did. This is because the Shariah text has specified for us the direction in every issue of our lives including the establishment of the Islamic state.

How did the prophet of Allah establish it? And did he allow any use of force in order to establish it or not?

This is the issue at hand and this is the only way we can go about it. From here we will touch upon the evidence.

We do not need to study in detail or stop to discuss the issue of the legality of the Islamic state before discussing the method, because its legality is an issue where there is no argument to give that may make sense intellectually nor any evidence to given that is acceptable (which would doubt this).

Professor Fathe Al Duraini has replied to those modern writers who tried to put doubts in this issue. He said " Politics in Islamic Law is not an issue that is contradictory that in the situation was resorted to as a means to solve the issues of the Muslims in their new society in Medina after the Hijra. In fact it was a continuos process that started in Mecca before the Hijra with the public stage of the call to Islam. What confirms this is the first and second pledge of allegiance. Both where in fact historical contracts that were in reality between the prophet and the party from Medina from which the Islamic state was established. The migration of the prophet was in fact part of was resultant from it by the order of Allah (i.e. it was based on wahi or revelation from Allah).......As for after the hijra(migration) we saw, from the appearance of the structure of the state from a practical point of view, the confirmation of the establishment of the Islamic state in actuality. Nothing is more clear and evident from it aspects : from the society, and the legal system, the nationality, and the ruling authority. In fact is has not been established that their was anyone other than the prophet who had authority in this new society or anyone who organised the authority of power....."

Hence, the legality of the Islamic state is a matter in which their is no disagreement, and we are note here to research it in detail! We are in fact here researching the matter of the way in which we should establish the Islamic state, and are we allowed to use force or be ready to use force so that we can fight( if necessary) to establish it? Or are we not (allowed to do this)?

The words of Dr Fathi Al Duraini indicate that the Islamic state came about as a result of the allegiance in it being described as a contract between the Prophet and the party from Medina in Aqaba.

He also says in another book of his discussing the text of the Major pledge of Aqaba:

"..............And it can be extracted from the context of the text that the prophet established, hence it became a legal basis established by the consent of the prophet- a beginning of utmost importance and danger that we will show as follows:.....(then he says): sixthly: The major pledge of Aqaba as was established became a key for victory.......and the formation of the Islamic state after a small period. This contract and vow has become a reality on the necks of every Muslim across the centuries and for every generation to the day of judgement.....".

Hence if the Major pledge of Aqaba- as Professor Dr. Fathi Duraini said- was a key to victory and a key to the establishment of the Islamic state-then the meaning of this is that the means to establish this state could be possibly found in the (text) of the pledge. From here it is upon us to look in what it has brought to us: Does it(the text) indicate the use of war and fighting to establish the state?

Then, we must return to the interactions that occurred in the pledge of Aqaba, and the points that the pledge was based upon so that we may search for the legal ruling in this issue of ours

1-It has come in Zad Al Ma'd, by the Ibn Qayyim, :

" On the authority of Jabir: that the prophet spent ten years in Mecca following up the people in their homes in Muasim, Majna, and Aqath saying "Who will help me who will give me support so that I can proclaim the message of my Lord, and for him is Paradise? But he would not find anyone to help him, nor to strengthen him, until a man who would travel from Mudair or Yemen to Dhi Rahma would be approached by his people saying "Be wary of this man of Quraish so that he may not give you any tribulations", and he(the prophet) would walk between these men calling them to Allah, and they would point with fingers to him. This continued until Allah sent us from Yathrib a man who would come to him and believe in him. So the prophet would read and teach him the Quran. Then this man would go to his family who would become Muslim as a result of him. This went on until there was no Dar(tribe) from the Dur(plural) of the Ansar except that it had a group of Muslims showing their Islam. Allah sent us to him and we got together and said : "Until when will the Prophet of Allah be pushed to the mountains of Mecca fearing for himself". Then we travelled to him in Mausim and we promised the pledge of Aqaba. Then his Uncle Abbas said " Oh son of my brother I do not know who these people who approached you are ? I am one who knows the people of Yathrib?. So one or two of us got together with him, and when Abbas saw our faces he said "These are a group we do not know. There are youth!! So we said "Oh prophet of Allah on what shall we give allegiance to you? He said "That you give the pledge that you will hear and obey, in periods of activity and rest, and in aiding me be it in times of ease or difficulty, That you will support me if I come to you, and you will prevent for me what you prevent for yourselves, your wives, and children. Then for you is paradise. So we all got up to give him the pledge when Azaad Bin Zurarah took hold of his(the prophets) hand and he was the youngest of the seventy and said "Patience oh people of Yathrib! We will not give him the pledge of obedience until we all know that he is the Prophet of Allah and that his departure today will result in the split from the Arabs completely and the killing of the best of us. The swords will bite into you but you should have patience. So take onto him and your reward is from Allah, but if you fear for yourselves then leave him as this is a better excuse for you with Allah. They said "Oh Azaad move your hand away, for by Allah we will not leave this pledge, nor resign from it. So we got up one man after another and he took from us the pledge with the condition that he will give to us paradise."

It came in conformation of this text: It has been narrated by Ahmad Baihaqui, and Hakim. Hakim has verified the text and Dhahabi agreed with him. Ibn Kathir also says in the Seerah that the chain is good on the conditions of Muslim. Ibn Habban has also verified it.

2- It has also come in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham

" Ibn Ishaq has narrated :In the pledge of war- when Allah allowed his prophet to fight- their where conditions that he put them other then the conditions of the first pledge of Aqaaba......and this was because Allah(at that period of time) did not allow his prophet the legality of war. But when he allowed this for him, and the prophet gave them the pledge in the last pledge on the fighting of the red and black, he took it upon himself and put the condition to the community before his Lord and he gave them on acceptance of this the promise of Heaven."

Then he narrates from Ibaada Bin Saamit who was one of the leaders in the second pledge of Aqaba: "The prophet of Allah gave us the pledge of war.......on hearing and obeying, in times of difficulty and ease, in times of activity that we liked or hated whatever the effect on us might be, that we do not object to the ruler appointed over us, that we say the truth were ever we may be, not fearing in Allah the pessimism of the negative person(among us)!"

3-It has also in some of the narration's what Azaad Bin Zurarah said in this pledge speaking to the prophet ".......... You have called upon us, and we are a group that has honour and the ability to withstand(anyone), so that no one in his selfish desire wishes to put man in power over us, that his people have chosen, or his uncles have given power to, and this is a position that is extremely difficult but we have replied and accepted this from you."

These are some of the texts that have come regarding the pledge of Aqaaba with the points that are connected in this issue of ours which is " The establishment of the Islamic state and the ruling regarding using force to achieve this?"

We will extract from what has proceeded a number of things which include:

1-That the prophet in the pledge in Mecca was asking for support from the Arab tribes and its men that were coming to hajj. So that he could give his call to the people, that would be able to hold onto it not fearing tribulation or persecution

2- The seeking of support to further the Islamic call was replied to by some of the people who had the sufficient strength and ability from the people of Yathrib, as a result they supported the Islamic call in their land while the prophet stayed in Mecca , This message of Islam spread so quickly in Medina with the environment suiting the Islamic call "Until their was no Dar from the Dur of the Ansar except that it had a group of Muslims showing their Islam" As was mentioned in the first narration. This expression does not mean that the people of Medina all became Muslim nor does it lead to the conclusion that the majority were Muslim. In fact this only shows that the environment in Medina that totally confirmed to the Islamic call.

3-The feeling of the Muslim representatives in Medina, from the people of strength and ability, that they could bring the prophet to their lands with the ability to protect him giving support to the call and establishing the Islamic state in their lands even though they are not from the famous leaders. In fact the uncle of the prophet Abbas characterised them- and he was experienced regarding the people of Yathrib and its people of influence- "These are a group we do not know. They are youth!". Despite this he felt the accent of truth in their language and the wilful determination in themselves, ready to accept what they were to come for even if the biggest and most honourable of their leaders were killed!

4- The accomplishment of the contract of support with the prophet being characterised as the leader of Medina i.e. by being characterised as the leader of the Islamic state that will legislate according to the Islamic legal system starting from the time of arrival of the prophet in Medina "...and that you support me if I come to you" i.e. from the time of the establishment of the Islamic state in Medina.

5- This pledge was called the pledge of war because of what was included within the text on the duty of war and fighting against all those who would oppose the new situation that was to be established in Medina even if the opposing force to this new situation would include the red and black among the people. It has come in the Seerah Halabia: "i.e.: In fighting those who fought him from the Non-Arabs or Arabs"

6- The taking of the contract from the people of strength and ability that were ready to carry weapons in order to protect the new situation. I say: The taking of the contract upon themselves to hear and obey the new authority not objecting to the people put in authority over them who would be chosen by the prophet, or chosen by the Muslims to rule taking the position of leadership even if they were not from the Ansar- i.e.: That they do not object to the people of authority with the excuse that they have priority in being chosen for leadership because of their support in the establishment of the Islamic state and their willingness to die to give victory to the Islamic call. "The prophet of Allah gave us the pledge in the pledge of war........in hearing and obeying, in times of difficulty and ease, in times of activity that we liked or hated whatever the effect on us might be and that we do not object to the ruler appointed over us..."

These are the issues that the Islamic state has been established upon in the time of the prophet. From what was mentioned before, it clearly states the legality of fighting and the use of weapons against all those who stand in the way of its establishment after reaching and taking the pledge in taking the leadership in the country that was chosen to have the Islamic state established in it

It is correct that not a drop of blood was spilt when the Islamic state was established but this is no reason to prevent the issue of fighting to establish the Islamic state. For the legal texts connected with the pledge of Aqaaba has confirmed the legality in fighting with regards to this goal giving no possible means to doubt this legality

What in reality happened was when the opposing force saw that the carpet was pulled from underneath them without them realising it and that the new authority in the nation were determined in the destruction of any movement or any opposing force and in fact determined to stand against all the Arabs! To fight the red and black from the people if they opposed the Islamic call and the new nation!

I say: When the opposing contingency sensed this firm stance from the new authority of the state- they suppressed their will, and isolated themselves hiding their beliefs in the deepest parts of their sick black hearts. They then started officially to support the new call and the new authority. This new power knew of them, and what was within their hearts- but they honourably pardoned them with every generosity as long as they did not show what they hid in their hearts nor move in any activity that would endanger the new Islamic call!!

Built upon this- the method to establish the Islamic state today after it has been removed from sight for a long period of time, is the method that the prophet followed in order to establish it. This is done by a number of procedures

1-The presence of an environment in a land from among the Muslim nations that would reply to the Islamic call so that it would have a general opinion that would believe in this call, asking for what would be required from thoughts and authority, with the readiness to support it with martyrdom if necessary.

2- If this happens or if the reply to the Islamic call was present in any nation that had the resources to form a nation as was the position in Medina during the time of the prophet with regards to conditions of that period- Then and only then their would be a search for the people of support that are able to give the authority to the one who receives the pledge of allegiance in him being characterised as the leader of the Islamic nation. By this way the force that the people of support have would be able to destroy any attempt at the new situation from the inside and block off any force externally that would possibly try to hit this new situation.

3- If the people of support are collected then the pledge is taken from them by the one who is chosen as leader. Then the Islamic state is officially announced with the change of the current authority making it an Islamic system with the force of the people of support ready to hit decisively anyone who puts it on himself to fight the authority that rules by what Allah has revealed which the general consensus wants.

And here:

-If the other forces are silent regarding this new situation giving its allegiance to it- then the coup becomes safe as was the situation with regards to the coup that occurred in the time of the prophet. Then everyone remains in his place with regards to the people of position with the light of the Islamic legal system and the benefit of the Islamic state.

Here a question may arise in one's mind and that is:

Military divisions may stand in the face of the Islamic state being ordered By its generals to fight. In these divisions there may be Muslims. So what is the ruling regarding fighting in its ranks or fighting against it?

The answer: Fighting in its ranks is forbidden because it is a rebellious force that has gone out against the Sultan of the state and because of this it is upon every Muslim in these divisions to withdraw from it. If they are adamant on staying then he should not play any role that would lead to the spilling of Muslim blood from the people of justice that are standing in the ranks of the Islamic nation. This is owing to the illegality of spilling Muslim blood without any legal excuse that allows it. "For every Muslim the blood, progeny, and money of another Muslim is forbidden"

-As for fighting against these divisions the ruling regarding it is that it is duty because it is the fighting of the rebellious that have gone out against the obedience of the Imam, as was discussed in the study "Fighting the people of rebellion".

If their is no danger in discussing with them so as to pull them towards obedience then the messengers of peace have travelled between them and the nation. If their is danger in delaying the solving of this issue then it must be solved by fighting them. Then whoever dies among them from the Muslims dies as Muslim nut sinful if he knew the truth but fought against it. And whoever dies from the people who supported the Islamic nation that has been established then he is from the martyrs of the day of judgement as was specifically discussed in the study "The fighting of the people of rebellion"

With this we finish the second part of this discussion "fighting to establish the Islamic state". From here we go onto the last issue and it is:

3- Is Fighting to Establish the Islamic State Jihad in the way of Allah by its Legal Definition?
The answer to this differs depending on the differing directions that will move to strike the Islamic state when it announces itself.

-If these directions are local and hold onto the religion of Islam then fighting against it is a type of "fighting against the rebellious". We have shown before the difference of opinion in describing this type of fighting outweighing the opinion that it is not Jihad in the way of Allah by its legal Definition

-If the directions that moved to strike the Islamic state are local but non-Islamic who are in fact citizens of the Islamic state from the Ahl ul Dhimma (the protected people) that have removed their obedience from their necks to fight this new state so as to return the situation to its old position of not ruling by what Allah has revealed then this has been covered in the study of fighting the Ahl ul Dhimmah.

But if this fighting of the Islamic state comes from international directions then:

-If the directions are from the other Muslim nations i.e. from the lands of the Muslims, then the ruling regarding it is like the ruling regarding those who had revolted locally i.e. the ruling is the same like the Muslims who have revolted locally and the ruling is also the same like the one in which the non-Muslims have revolted locally (depending on who attacks). This is because the Islamic state considers all the Muslim lands as one nation as it also regards taking care of the affairs of the other nation the same as taking care of the affairs of the local population. So it will then work to bring these nations together under the circle of influence of this new born Islamic state. This is because Islam obliges on every Muslim from every different nation to have the pledge of allegiance on its neck as verified by the saying of the prophet "Whoever dies without the pledge of allegiance (to a Caliph) dies the death of Jahiliyaah ( the death of ignorance of the pre-Islamic period)". Hence it is upon the Muslims to send their allegiance or to proclaim their authority to the new Caliph. This means: the joining to this Islamic state. As for the nations that refuse to join then they will be treated as the people of rebellion i.e. the messengers of peace try to correct the situation between them and the new Islamic state before commencing to the military option with it.

-If the external direction that has started to fight this Islamic nation is in fact a state from the states that are non-Islamic i.e. From the nations of the Disbelieves that are colonisers then fighting against hem becomes Jihad in the way of Allah by its legal definition because it fits with the legal definition of Jihad which is:

"Fighting those who do not have the contract of citizenship from the Disbelievers to heighten the word of Allah."

Arabic Source

13 comments:

Abdullah said...

Asa,

I have a question on defensive jihad. One brother told me that it is fardh ayn on all Muslims to go and fight in occupied Muslim lands. But I read somewhere, that all hukm imply isti'adah (capability), meaning that it is Fardh Ayn only on those that are capable such as the Armies and those alike. But I was also told elsewhere that if you live in a certain land that is attacked (eg Iraq), then it is fardh ayn to go and fight and that shabab of the hizb even did fight (even though they were not militarily trained from the impression that I had). So, can you shed more light on what the Shara defines as being capable to fulfill that Fardh Ayn.
One brotherfrom the Ummah goes to me that he wants to go and fight for 2 years in a certain place like Somalia and then come back living in the West, but I feel that going fighting for 2 years doesn't fulfill the obligation of removing the occupier, any thought on that? Also, does working for the K take precedence over defensive jihad? Finally, in terms of defensive jihad, does the occupation of Al Andalus, Cyprus and India rank in the same level/importance as the occupation of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan?

ms

Islamic Revival said...

Regarding the issue of Jihad being Fard Ain.

From the HT adopted Book Shakhsiyah Islamiyah Volume 2 page 156 fourth edition printed 1995 ce and 1416: “Jihad is fard Kifayah to inititiate (the fighting) and Fard Ayni when the enemy attacks, upon the ones who are being attacked (ala man haajimuhum) and fard kifayah upon the rest (of the Ummah). This fard is not silenced until the enemy has been repelled and the Islamic land has been purified from its rijs impurity”.

The following is HT’s position as we understand it from its official literature:

If an Islamic country was exposed to attack from the enemy, then the fight against the enemy becomes fard ‘ain (personal obligation) upon the people of that land (country). If the repelling of the enemy could not happen with the inhabitants of this land, than it becomes fard ‘ain upon the Muslims who are the nearest (geographically) to this land, then those who follow them (geographically) and so on until the repelling of the enemy is achieved, even if this obligation included all of the Muslims.

If the enemy occupied the country and dominated over the Muslims within it and imposed its authority upon them and they became unable to fight against it, to remove the authority from them, then they are treated as if the are captives (prisoners of war). The fard ‘ain, in this case, would be upon the Muslims who came next to them (geographically) and so on, until the occupation is removed and the country returns to Bilad al Islam (the land of Islam).

To say that Jihad becomes fard ‘ain on Muslims means that it is upon those who are capable amongst them, i.e. the armies and those who are like them (i.e. have military power). This is because the ‘capability’ (Istita’ah) is (indirectly) understood in every hukm shar’i. Therefore it is incorrect to change the definition and thus say that Jihad is fard ‘ain upon the armies instead of upon the Muslims, this is because the mentioning of ‘Muslims’ is more general, and it is clear in it that it is a duty (fard) upon those who are qualified and have the capability and ability to fighting in the manner which the shara’ has explained.

Islamic Revival said...

This can be seen in history when Palestine was occupied by the Crusaders for 100 years, the scholars said Jihad against them was Fard Ain, however did they all practically oblige everyone to move there and go to fight? In fact if this was the case all the scholars themselves would have moved there and fought against the crusaders which clearly didn’t happen. Therefore it is clear that they understood the hukm in the same way and this is the classical position.

The unity of the Muslim countries is a fard, and the fight against the enemy who attacks is also a fard. The fact that the Muslims countries are not united and their armies are divided does not mean that it is a duty to first unify their armies then thereafter fight against their enemy, based upon the consideration that one army is not sufficient to remove the occupation. Rather Muslims are obliged to work to achieve all the duties, so they establish a state that unites their countries and unites their armies, and also they fight their enemy if they are attacked and do not hesitate from doing so under the pretext of waiting until they unify their armies.

Any ruler from amongst the Muslim countries, who declare the fight against the kafir enemy and orders his army to move for battle, then the duty upon the army, is to move to fight the kafir enemy as long as the fight is against the kuffar. The Ummah is obliged to support that unless the ruler moves the army to fight against the Muslims or drives the army to fall (a planned defeat) in a planned trap to enable the enemy to kill a large number of Muslims. In these two cases, that is to fight against the Muslims and the conspiracy with the enemy to kill the Muslims, it is not allowed to fight (together) with the rulers, and in this case the Ummah and the army have to prevent the rulers and make the fight against the kuffar and not against the Muslims.

The discussion with the Ummah should be to explain the hukm shari’ in fighting the enemy if they occupied any of the Muslim countries or in case they declared war against them, and to show that the rulers have cancelled Jihad. Also that it is a duty upon the armies to move so as to fight against the enemy and so on so as to move the rulers who suspend the Jihad, and to move also to establish the Khilafah State and appoint a Khaleefah who rules with that which Allah (swt) has revealed and makes Jihad fe Sabeelillah. Calling the Ummah and her armies to execute this fard is one of the actions of the Hizb, which they perform, which should be according to the method explained in the stages of the progression of the Hizb.

ws

Anonymous said...

salams

i understand what you have said and i understand HT's position on jihad etc- but the question is in muslims lands which are occupied ie palestine, iraq, chechnya etc etc is it an obligation on the individual members of HT to fight, as i have heard from a number of HT people, that shaykh taqi expelled a number of shabab in lebanon as they didnt fight the israelis in the 1970s etc etc- if yuo can shed light on this it would be appreciated as it will clear up alot of things

Islamic Revival said...

AA

There is a difference between when a land is attacked by an enemy and when an enemy occupies a land:

1) If the enemy attack a land like the Israeli's did in Southern Lebanon or the Americans in Iraq - at that point it is Fard Ain on every Muslim male to fight the enemy invaders to stop them from occupying. This is a well known Islamic rule that the members of HT also adhere to.

2) However, if the enemy occupies the land as in the case of Palestine or Iraq today. Then although jihad it is technically fard on the ummah, in reality it is a direct obligation upon the people of capability who can actually remove them from authority and not on every normal individual. As was explained earlier:

To say that Jihad becomes fard ‘ain on Muslims means that it is upon those who are capable amongst them, i.e. the armies and those who are like them (i.e. have military power). This is because the ‘capability’ (Istita’ah) is (indirectly) understood in every hukm shar’i. Therefore it is incorrect to change the definition and thus say that Jihad is fard ‘ain upon the armies instead of upon the Muslims, this is because the mentioning of ‘Muslims’ is more general, and it is clear in it that it is a duty (fard) upon those who are qualified and have the capability and ability to fighting in the manner which the shara’ has explained.

This can be seen in history when Palestine was occupied by the Crusaders for 100 years, the scholars said Jihad against them was Fard Ain, however did they all practically oblige everyone to move there and go to fight? In fact if this was the case all the scholars themselves would have moved there and fought against the crusaders which clearly didn’t happen. Therefore it is clear that they understood the hukm in the same way and this is the classical position."

The obligation on the normal man in this situation is to work to motivate the people of power to filfill their responsibility of liberating the lands.

Abdullah said...

ws

I have 2 further questions

1) Why isn't it istitah'ah (capability) also when the ennemy attacks the land if capability is indirectly understood in every hukm?

2) From a Shar'a perspective, is there any difference between the occupation of Palestine and the occupation of Andalus (and also Malta, Greece, etc.)?

ms

Islamic Revival said...

AA

1) Capitality also applies in the case when an enemy attacks, however the important distinction is that the hukm is different in this case than when the enemy occupies. When the enemy attacks - the hukm is to stop the enemy from occupying the land by any means. For this hukm the istita'ah (capability) is related to the physical capability to fight. So a paralysed bed-ridden man would not be liable to fight by the shar'a because he does not have the physical capability to do so. However once the enemy occupies the land, the hukm is different - it is no longer to stop the occupation, as they have already occupies - the hulm then is to remove the occupation. Therefore the issue of capability then applies to those who actually have the ability to filfil the hukm.

2) There is a difference between those lands which were captured centuries ago like Spain - as Muslims were wiped out from that land and the war ended generations ago. Whereas in lands like Palestine the present generation of Jews are occupiers there and are in actual war with the Muslims currently. All the adults Israeli's are considered kafir harbi fi'lan (in actual war) whereas the normal kuffar in spain are considered kafir harbi hukman (potentially at war).

ws

1924 said...

Sallam Walaikum

Alhamdulillah very good answers brother but i was wondering if you could put in the Daleel for the 2 different Hukms for:

1. When the enemy attacks
2. When the enemy occupies

And now that Iraq/palestine is occupied and no longer in the category of being attacked is it still fardh ain upon the Muslims in that land to fight?.

Hassan said...

Has the translation of the whole document been done ? Please let me know. JazakAllah khair!

Islamic Revival said...

Unfortunately the whole book has not been translated and we don't expect that any time soon as it is a 3 volume book!

Anonymous said...

salaam

brother I've read the text and it is clear alhamdoulilah.

but I'have one question/reflection

Let us say muslims in a country liberate themselve from a foreign invader by jihad. Can they than directly proclaim the caliphate. Or ar they still restricted to the method of the prophet to establish the state?

isn't this what happened in afghanistan in 1996?

looking forward for your answer,
barak allahoe fiek akhie,

Islamic Revival said...

Salam, in the theoretical situation you mentioned if the Muslims took over a land which was capable to secure and sustain itself then they would be obliged to appoint a Khalifah. They would be fulfilling the methodology for establishing the Khilafah as they would then in effect be the people of power and nussrah.

Sultan said...

Mashallah great read Nd excellent answers