Defence of the Muslim Lands: Important Questions
Can we fulfil this Fatwa in our time?
Someone might say after all this: "We already know that jihad with your person today is Fard Ayn and that jihad is now obligatory like prayer and fasting, moreover, that jihad by your person takes precedence over prayer and fasting, by the saying of Ibn Taymia: "The first obligation after Iman is the repulsion of the enemy aggressor who assaults the religion and the worldly affairs". The prayer may be delayed, joined together, it's Rakat's reduced or it's positions altered when in jihad. In the two sahih's: "Allah filled their homes and their graves with fire as they kept us busy from our middle prayer until the sun disappeared".
And, the mujahid can break his fast in Ramadan, as reported by Muslim, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) broke his fast on his way to open Mecca and said: "You are going to meet your enemy in the morning. Breaking your fast makes you stronger, therefore, break your fast".
It has been made clear to us that no permission is required from anyone when jihad is Fard Ayn, as no permission is required from the father, the sheikh or the master for the obligatory morning prayer before the rising of the sun.
Similarly, no permission is required in obligatory jihad. Let us say, if the father and the son slept in one place, and the son wanted to pray Fajr but his father sleeps. Does anyone suggest that the son must take permission from his father to pray the obligatory prayer? Suppose that the father forbids his son from performing the prayer for some reason or other, perhaps not to disturb the other people who are sleeping (who don't pray Fajr) or because his father does not want to pray. Does the son obey his father?
The answer is clear: "Obedience is in what is right".- Agreed upon, sahih al lamia 2323. "There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to the Creator". Hadith sahih reported by Ahmad and al Hakim. "There is no obedience to one who obeys not Allah".- Hadith sahih reported by Ahmad. Neglecting jihad is a sin, and there is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to the Creator.
The matter of permission: To clarify this question we say, with the assistance of Allah, the companions (ra) never sought permission from the Messenger of Allah (saw) once the flag was raised and the Ummah was called forth. But the seeking of permission and consultation from the Messenger of Allah (saw), was sought if they had personally decided to go out or after they had registered their names for an expedition. In the sahih hadith reported by Ahmad and Nasa'i from Muawiya Ibn Jahima as Salmi: "Jahima came to the Prophet (saw) and said, "Oh! Messenger of Allah (saw) I want to join an expedition and I came to consult you". He asked, "do you have a mother?" He said "yes". The Prophet (saw) said, "stay with her for Paradise is at her feet" .-In another narration: "I have been registered for such and such an expedition". i.e. "I signed up". This was at a time when jihad was Fard Kifaya. If jihad becomes Fard Ayn after the call, to ask permission of the Prophet (saw) would be a clear sign of hypocrisy. For the decisive verses have been revealed:
"Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allah is the all Knower of AI Muttaqun. It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from jihad). So in their doubts they waver." [Surah at Tauba:Verse 44- 45]
With rererence to the Rightly Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (ra), we don't know of the companions or predecessors asking their permission. It was not the case that every single one who wanted to join an expedition or to fight jihad, came to Abu Bakr for his permission. The important thing is that the flag must be raised, and the troops sent out.
Further, with reference to Amirul Mu'mineen after the Caliphs, we don't know of anyone who wanted to make Ribatt or fight in jihad who was taking authorisation from them. Neither do we know of any Muslim in Islamic history being punished by an Amir for participating in jihad or an expedition without authorization. Actually, authorisation was sought from the commander in the battle field during the expedition or attack in order to maintain organisation and not to spoil the plan of the Muslims.
Some Muslim scholars like Auza'i specified that authorisation from the Imam is only for soldiers salaried by the state.
Ar Ramli said in Nihayat al Mahtaj 8/60: "To join an expedition without authorisation from the Imam or his second in command is a hated thing, except under the following three conditions:
- If seeking permission jeopardises the objective.
- If the Imam incorrectly calls off the expedition.
- If one thinks he will be unjustly or incorrectly authorisation. Confirmed by al Balqini.
We point out that all this is when jihad is Fard Kifaya. But, if jihad becomes Fard Ayn there is no permission. Ibn Rushd said: "The Imam must be obeyed even if he is unjust. As long as he does not order a sin. Forbidding from the jihad which is Fard Ayn is a sin."
We continue declaring this case: permission is required in Fard Kifaya, only after sufficient numbers of mujahideen have been assembled to be able to fulfil the Fard. Before this sufficiency is attained, the call is directed to all and is obligatory upon all, but is absolved by the performance of some. There is no difference between Fard Kifaya and Fard Ayn before the sufficiency (Kifaya) is met.
Before the sufficiency, there is no seeking of permission. Permission is sought for only after it is known from the Muslims in the battle field that the required numbers have been assembled to enable the fulfilment of the Fard.
After all this someone might say:
We know that jihad is Fard Ayn and there is no permission whatsoever from any for jihad, yet there are still some important questions:
First Question: How can we apply the General March practically in our time?
Some people feel that the General March as it is required in Islam, that the woman leaves without her husband's permission, and the son without his father's permission, is very demanding for the following reasons:
1) Any Islamic territory is not large enough for one thousandth of all the thousands of Muslims.
2) This leads to the disruption of the Islamic education process which is considered to be the hope, with Allah's permission, for saving the Ummah.
3) This leads to a process of evacuation of Islamic areas, that if everyone left for jihad in Palestine or Afghanistan, they would leave an opening for Communists, Baptists, Nationalists and Secularists.
If only the Muslims would apply their Allah's command and implement the laws of their Shariah concerning the General March for just one week in Palestine, Palestine would be completely purified of Jews. Similarly, the situation in Afghanistan would not last long if only the Ummah would march forward. Moreover, there would not be an absence of Da'i, nor would their homes be destroyed by the going out of their women. Instead, in every instance, we wait and we weep. We watch the Islamic region as it falls under the domination of the Kuffar, until it is swallowed whole, then we finally eulogise with much sighing and streaming tears.
Unfortunately, when we think about Islam we think nationally. We fail to let our vision pass beyond geographic borders that have been drawn up for us by the Kuffar.
The son of the town of Ar Ramsa in Jordan on the Syrian border senses a belonging and thinks Islamically about the son of Aqaba in Jordan, six hundred kilomefres away, more than he does about the son of Dara, a Syrian town, ten kilometres from Ar Ram sa. In spite of the fact that the son of Dara and the son of Aqaba are both Muslim worshippers, though the son of Dara is more religious than the son of Jordanian Aqaba.
Second Question: Can we fight jihad while we haven't an Amir?
Yes we fight, and we haven't an Amir. None has said that the absence of a community of Muslims under an Amir cancels the Fard of jihad. In fact we have seen Muslims at the time of the Crusades and during the Tar-tar invasions fighting with different Amir's. In Halab (in Syria) there was an Amir, in Damascus there was an Amir, and in Egypt there was more than one Amir. Some of these even asked help from Christians against their brother Amir, as what happened when Shawar asked help from Christians against another Amir, Dar Gham, in Egypt.
Not one of the scholars has said that such a situation and such corruption cancels the obligation of jihad for the defence of the Muslim lands. On the contrary it multiplies their duty. The same thing happened in Andalusia, as the poets said:
"They were divided into sects, each in their places, Each place an Amir and its pulpit"
And another wrote:
"That which made me despair of Andalusia, were the King's titles,
Great titles of which they were not worthy,
Like the cat who mimics the lion by puffing himself up"
Not one of the scholars has said that there is no jihad under these conditions, in fact, the scholars were themselves in the front lines of Andalusia.
The battle may be void of a legitimate commander appointed by the Amir. As it was on the Day of Mu'tah. Khalid Bin Walid stood up and raised the flag, that by him, Allah saved the Muslim army. And, for this he was commended by the Prophet (saw).
Maybe the Imam or the Amir al Mu'mineen is not present, this does not annul the obligation of fighting and the defence of the Muslim lands. We do not wait for the Caliphate to be restored. Because, the Caliphate does not return through abstract theories, amassed knowledge and studying. Rather, jihad is the right way to reform the divided authorities to the ultimate authority of the Caliphate.
The mujahideen choose their Amir for jihad from amongst themselves. He organises them and unifies their efforts and makes the strong support the weak. In a sahih hadith from Uqbah Bin Amar, who was amongst the to-be-mentioned party, said: "The Prophet (saw) sent out a party and he chose from amongst us a swordsman (leader). When we returned I said: I have not seen the like of when the Prophet (saw) blamed us. The Prophet (saw) said: Are you unable that if I appoint a man and he fails to apply my order to replace him with one who applies my order?"
The Messenger of Allah (saw) encouraged them to change the Amir of the party even if he was given the flag by the noble hand of the Prophet himself. So how is it if there is no Amir from the beginning? Of the most critical situations requiring an Amir is that of wartime.
Ibn Qadama said in AI Mughni 8/253: "The absence of an Imam does not postpone the jihad because much is lost in its postponement".
If the people choose an Amir, he must be obeyed. As mentioned in Fath al Ali al Malik 1/253.
The Sheikh Miyara stated that if there is an absence of an Amir, and the people are agreed to appoint a great one in this time, to pave their ways, to make the strong support the weak, and he exerts his effort to achieve this to the best of his ability , it is evident that to stand against him is not permitted. Who opposes him seeking to create sedition, disobeys Islam and disrupts the Jamat. In sahih Muslim: "Different evils will make their appearance in the near future. Anyone who tries to disrupt the affairs of this Ummah while they are united you should strike him with the sword, whoever he be".
Third Question: Can we fight in Afghanistan while the leaders are separated and at difference?
It is obligatory to fight in Afghanistan with leaders that are separated and who are at difference with each other. Because, fighting is for the defence of the Muslims against the aggression of Atheists.
There is nothing which forbids fighting against unbelievers and atheists when there is more than one Islamic group present. That we consider the leader of each group as the Amir of combat for that group.
Fourth Question: Does one fight alone if the rest stay behind?
Yes he fights alone because Allah the Almighty the Majestic revealed these words to His Prophet (saw):
"Then fight (OMohammed s.a. w.) in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you) it may be that Allah restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in might and Stronger in punishing." [Surah an Nisa:Verse 84]
This verse orders the Messenger (saw) in two obligations:
1) Fight, even if alone.
2) Incite the believers.
The Lord of Honour relates the wisdom of fighting. It is for restraining the evil might of the unbelievers because unbelievers fear not our presence unless we fight:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i. e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone..." [Surah al Anfal:Verse 39]
By neglecting fighting, Shirk, which is the Fitnah spreads, and Kufr becomes victorious. The companions (ra) of the Prophet (saw) understood this verse according to its apparent meaning. Abi Ishaq said: "When a man throws himself at the Mushrikun does he throw himself into destruction by his own hands?" He said, "No, because Allah sent His Messenger (saw) and He said,
"Then fight (0 Mohammed s.a. w.) in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself…" [Surah an Nisa:Verse 84]
Ibn Arabi said in Ahkam al Qur'an 2!954: "There may arise such a situation in which it is obligatory upon each and every one to march forward, when jihad is Fard Ayn if the enemy invades one of our countries or he surrounds one of our territories. Then, it is obligatory upon the whole of creation to march out for jihad. If they fail to respond, they are in sin. If the march is general, due to the enemy's occupation of a territory or capture of prisoners, the march is obligatory upon everyone. The light, the heavy, the riding, the walking, the slave, and the free man shall all go out. Whoever has a father, without his permission and whoever has not a father, until Allah's religion prevails, defends the territory and the property, humiliates the enemy and rescues the prisoners. On this there is no disagreement. What does he do if the rest stay behind? He fids a prisoner and pays his ransom. He attacks by himselfifhe is able, and if not he prepares a warrior."
Fighting alone pleases Allah. As in a Hasan hadith reported by Ahmad and Abu Daud, Mohammed (saw) said: "Our Lord marvels at a man who attacks in the cause of Allah while his companions are beaten back and he knows what is upon him and he returns towards the fight until his blood is spilt and Allah the Almighty the Majestic says to His Angels: look at My slave he returned desiring that which is with Me and fearing that which is from Me until his blood was spilt."
Fifth Question: Do we fight alongside Muslims that are below acceptable levels of Islamic education?
This question comes from certain people and some of them are sincere. They ask how can we fight with people like Afghanis, amongst them truthful, amongst them the dishonest, where smoking and Niswar (type of Tobacco) is widespread, for which he would even sell his gun? They are a people who adamantly follow the Hanafi Mathhab and some of them wear talismans.
Before I clarify the ruling of the Shariah, I say: show me a Muslim people on the earth who do not have similar problems. Shall we leave the Kuffar in every Muslim land because these problems are present?
We must fight because fighting is based on confronting the greater harm. This principle is mentioned in AI Ahkam al Adial al Mad:
Article 26: "The private harm should be bared to protect the public from it".
Article 27: "The greater harm may be resolved by the lesser harm".
Article 28: "If one cannot act except by committing one of two evils, he performs the lesser to repel the greater".
Article 29: "The lesser of two evils is selected first".
We must choose from two evils: which is the greater evil: that Russia takes Afghanistan, turns it into a Kaffir country and forbids Qur'an and Islam for it. Or, jihad with a nation with sins and errors?
Ibn Taymia said in Majmua al Fatawa 28/506: "It is from the principles of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jammah to participate in an expedition with every good and bad Muslim. As the Prophet (saw) informed us, Allah may support this religion even with a bad man or an immoral people. If an expedition is not possible except with bad Amirs or with sinful soldiers, he must select one of the following two: to turn away from them, leaving the expedition in their hands, in which case the enemy could over run the remaining people, which is a greater harm for them in their religion and their lives. Or, participate in an expedition with a bad Amir , and this way the more harmful of the two options may be resolved. Even if the Muslims cannot manage to preserve all of their practices, at least they manage to preserve most of them. It is obligatory in this situation and in any similar situation. Many expeditions with the Rightly Guided Caliphs happened in this manner. The Prophet (saw) affirmed: "There is good in the forelocks of horses until the day of resurrection as reward and booty". As long as they are Muslims it is obligatory to fight alongside with them. The banner in Afghanistan is Islamic and the goal is the establishment of the religion of Allah in the earth.
If only the Muslims had fought in Palestine, in spite of the corruption that was present in the early stages, and before the situation had become aggravated with the arrival of George Habash, Naif Hawatma, Father Capici and their likes, Palestine would not have been lost.
While all the leaders of the Afghani jihad fast and pray, along with other practices, and are calling for Islam.
It is obligatory to fight with any Muslim people as long as they are Muslims. It does not matter how bad or corrupted they are as long as they are fighting the Kuffar, People of the Book or Atheists.
Shawkani said in Nayl al Awtar 8/44: "The scholars agree that it is allowed to seek help from bad or corrupted Muslims against the Kuffar."
Sixth Question: Can we seek help from the Mushrikun if we are in a weak condition?
Some people believe in seeking help from America and western states for jihad in Afghanistan, and seeking help from Russia against Jews in Palestine. This type of assistance is Haraam by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh and it forfeits the ultimate aim of jihad. There are several contradictory hadith on this subject. The following are hadith that forbid seeking help from Kuffar.
Hadith in sahih Muslim: He (saw) said to a Mushrik on the Day of Badr, "Get back, I will not accept the help of a Mushrik." Another hadith: "We do not seek help from Mushrikun against Mushrikun." Reported by Ahmad and at Tabarani. Haythami said in Majmuat az Zawayd: "The men Ahmad and at Tabarani are trustworthy." And there is a sahih narration that Safwaan Bin Umaya fought alongside the Prophet (saw) and he was a Kaffir.
An Nawawi said, in Tahtheeb al Asma wal Loughat 263: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) borrowed on the Day of Hunayn the shields from Safwan Bin Umaya." He (saw) said to him, "this loan will be returned to you". Sahih hadith reported by AI Hakim. See sahih al lamia 3862. It is well narrated by the Biographers that Qasman marched out with the Prophet (saw) on the day of Uhud and killed three flag bearers of the Mushrikun. The Prophet (saw) said of him: "Allah may support this religion by an evil man."
Consequently, because of the contradictory hadiths the scholars differ as to how to reconcile them. The seeking of help from the Mushrikun was forbidden but later abrogated. AI Hafiz in AI Talkhees said this is the best reconciliation, and ash Shaffie agrees.
The four major scholars of Fiqh are in agreement that seeking assistance from the Kuffar is restricted to conditions:
1) The rule of Islam must have the upper hand, that is to say, the Muslims must be stronger than the combined group of the Mushrikun from whom they are seeking help as well as the Mushrikun they are fighting. In case of the collaboration of the Kuffar against the Muslims.
2) The Kuffar must have a good opinion of the Muslims, and the Muslims must feel safe from their treachery and this is estimated from their behaviour.
3) The Muslims must be in need of the Kaffir or the Kuffar they ask help from.
Opinions of the Mathhabs
Mohammed Bin al Hasan said: "It is acceptable for Muslims to ask help from the Mushrikun against the Mushrikun if the rule of Islam has the upper hand." AI Jassas said: "Our peers said, "it is acceptable to seek help in fighting from Mushrikun against Mushrikun that when the coalition becomes dominant, the rule of Islam is uppermost.
Ibn al Qasim said: "It is not my opinion that they may seek their assistance in fighting alongside with them unless they occupy servant roles, then I see no problem with this." Malik said: "It is not my opinion that they may seek help from Mushrikun against Mushrikun unless they occupy servant roles".
Ar Ramli said: "The Imam or second in command may ask help from the Kuffar even if they are Ahlul Harb ifhe knows they have a good opinion of us under the condition that we need them to serve or fight because we are few."
Ibn Qadamah said: "From Ahmad it is permissible to ask help from the Mushrikun, in fact it is Ahmad's opinion that the Kaffir has a share in the booty ifhe participated in the expedition under the Imam." He went outside of the opinion of the majority which does not allow him a share.
The Revelation of the Order to Fight
Many writers commit errors on the subject of the permissibility of making peace. They quote Qur'anic text without knowing the chronological order of the revelation. While they must have knowledge of the succession of verses on jihad in the Qu'ran that lead up to the revelation of the Verse of the Sword in Surah At Tauba:
"...And fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, etc.) collectively, as they fight against you collectively, but know that Allah is with those who are AI Muttaqun." [Surah at Tauba:Verse 36]
"...Then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them and prepare for them each and every ambush..." [Surah al Bakarah:Verse 191]
Ibn al Qayim explained in Zad al Mi'ad that jihad was permitted during the Hijr, then it was ordered to combat those who fought them, finally it was ordered to fight the Mushrikun in general.
Ibn Abidin said-: "Know that the order to fight was revealed in stages. The Prophet (saw) was initially ordered with Tabligh and turning away. The Exalted said:
"Therefore proclaim openly (Allah's message-Islamic monotheism) that which you are commanded and turn away from the Mushrikun." [Surah al Hijr:Verse 94]
Then to Invite with wisdom:
"Invite (mankind, O Mohammed s.a. w.) to the way of your Lord (i. e. Islam) with wisdom (i. e. with the divine inspiration and the Qu'ran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in away that is better..." [Surah al Nahl:Verse 125]
Then, permission to fight was granted:
"Permission to fight is given to those (i. e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allah is able to give them (believers) victory." [Surah al Hajj:Verse 39]
Then they were ordered to fight if they were attacked:
"...but if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." [Surah al Bakarah:Verse 191]
Then, they were ordered to fight with conditions, when the sacred months had passed:
"Then when the sacred months (the I st, 7th, 11 th, and 12th months of theIslamic calendar) have past, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them... " [Surah at Tauba:Verse 5]
Finally, he was ordered to fight all out in general:
"And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly Allah likes not the transgressors." [Surah al Bakarah:Verse 190]
This is why it is so essential to have knowledge of the sequence of the revelation. It is also necessary to clarify that initially it is not permitted to enter into political negotiations in the stage which is for Da'wah, before the Da'wah is properly established with an authority which can preserve its aims. If the Islamic Da'wah enters negotiations in the initial stage, then its agenda becomes compromised and muddled and it will become inconsistent in the people's understanding. It will have no solid foundation and the Da'wah is lost in political games and national ties.
The example for this period is the noble Surah:
"Say: O AI Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His angels, in His books, in His messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, in AI Qadr, etc.)! I worship not that which you worship, nor you worship that which I worship..." [Surah al Kafirun:Verse 1-3]
And the example of the position of the believers in this period:
"... Say (O Mohammed s.a. w.}: call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me and give me no respite! Verily, my Wali (Protector, Supporter, and Helper, etc.} is Allah who has revealed the Book (the Qu'ran), and He protects (supports and helps) the righteous." [Surah al A'araf:Verse 195-196]
We must proclaim our beliefs, make them heard. The callers must raise their voices until they are sacrificed on a pyre of Fitnah in which their souls will be tried to the limit of their patience. As it was with the Prophet (saw) and his companions during the Makkan period. But once the Islamic state was established nothing prevented them from making pacts.
Conditions for Making Peace Treaties With the Kuffar
The scholars of Fiqh are divided as to whether or not it is permitted to make peace treaties with the Kuffar. Among them are some who permit it based on the pact of Hudaybia. Others permit it if the Muslims are extremely weak. Others still, say that we are no longer permitted to make peace treaties with the Kuffar because they say that all pacts with the Kuffar are cancelled by the Verse of the Sword. We say, it is permitted to make peace treaties, if in the treaty there is good for the Muslims, but under the condition that there is no clause within the treaty that nullifies or corrupts it.
1) It is not permitted to include a condition in the treaty that relinquishes even a hand span of Muslim land to the Kuffar. Because, the land of Islam belongs to no one, therefore none can make negotiations over it. Such a condition nullifies the treaty because the land belongs to Allah and to Islam. It is not permitted for anyone to misuse anything in a domain not his own. Or to barter the Son of Adam that does not belong to him. With reference to the Russians, it is not permitted to negotiate with them until they retreat from every hand span of Afghani territory. With the Jews in Palestine, likewise.
2) If the Jihad becomes Fard Ayn it nullifies the peace treaty such as when the enemy enters the Muslim lands or intends harm upon them. Fath Aliy of Malik 1/289 on the subject of peace treaties in Mayir in the chapter Jihad: "The Caliph signs a peace treaty with Christians but the Muslims feel the only solution is Jihad, then his peace treaty is annulled and his deed rejected."
Wherever the jihad is Fard Ayn it is not permitted to have peace, such as when the enemy conquers Muslims. All that we have cited on that which makes jihad Fard Ayn annuls the peace treaty, because it discontinues the Fard Ayn, which is jihad to remedy the situation. Qadi Ibn Rushd reported that the scholars are agreed that when jihad becomes Fard Ayn it has more of apriority than fulfilling the Fard Hajj. The reason for this being, that if jihad is Fard Ayn it must be carried out immediately, whereas Hajj may be postponed. The mentioned treaty must be abandoned because it does not conform to the Shariah, it is not valid nor are its rules binding, according to everyone who has a true understanding of the principles of Shariah. Also, the mentioned treaty includes the abandonment of the Fard jihad. The abandonment of the Fard jihad is an illegality and every illegality is not binding.
3) Every condition which entails the abandonment of the Shariah of Allah or neglect of Islamic practices nullifies the treaty. It is not permitted for Russia to interfere with the government because this corrupts jihad and its aim.
4) It is not permitted to contract a treaty including a condition that humiliates the Muslims or creates such a sentiment. As reported in a hadith from Az Zuhri, who said: "When tribulations upon the people became great, the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent someone to Uyaina Bin Husn Bin Hanifa Ibn Badr and to Harith Bin Abi Auf al Muzni - they were the chiefs of Ghatafan. He offered them one third of the fruits of Medina under the condition that they and their forces withdraw from him and his companions. They held negotiations but did not fmalise the agreement. When he wished to finalise the agreement he sent for Saad Bin Muath and Saad Bin Ubadah in order to consult with them. He explained to them the situation and said," as you know the Arabs are shooting us through one bow (gathered in their attack against us), what do you think of offering them some of the fruits of Medina?"
They said, "O Messenger of Allah (saw) if you say this is your opinion, then your opinion we follow. But, we never offered them dates except to sell it to them or if they were our guests, and that was when we were Kuffar. Now Allah has honoured us with Islam". The Prophet (saw) was pleased with what they said. Strong with interrupted chain of narration. The Ansaar felt that they would be humiliated. And in some narration's: "we don't give you but the sword."
5) Not to contract a condition which opposes the Shariah of Islam. For Example:
(i) An agreement allowing Mushriks to reside in the land of Harramain (the land of the two Holy mosques, i.e. the entire Arabian peninsula) because in a hadith: "Expel all Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula".
(ii) To return Muslim women to the Kuffar:
"... Then if you know them for true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them..." [Surah al Mumtahinah:Verse 10]
About sending a Muslim man back to the Kuffar there is disagreement among the scholars of Fiqh. Some allow for them to be returned in relation to a similar condition in the Hudaybia pact. But the rest of the scholars maintain that permission for this condition in the Hudaybia treaty was specifically for the Messenger of Allah (saw). Because he knew that Allah would fmd a way out for them. This is the majority opinion.
Bara Bin Azib said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) laid down three conditions on the day of Hudaybia with the Mushrikun. Whoever went to them from the Prophet (saw) would not be sent back. Who came to us from them, they would be returned. The Prophet (saw) said: "who from us went to them, Allah distanced him". Agreed upon and Muslim adds: "and who left them, Allah will make for them an opening and a way out".
6) Similarly, it is not permitted to contract a condition which permits the exposure of the practices of the Kuffar in Muslim land. For example, allowing the construction of churches, monasteries or the circulation of missionaries, all which create Fitnah for the Muslims and corrupt their beliefs. Most importantly in the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, agreements and the political solution in Palestine are void. Void from their very origin. Any amendments are not permissible.
In Afghanistan it is permitted under conditions:
(i) Withdrawal of Russians from all Muslim territory.
(ii) If an Islamic state is established in Afghanistan after withdrawal and there is no interference in the forth-coming government such as attempting to return the King or imposing practices that aim to undermine the beliefs of the Afghani people.
(iii) The withdrawal must be without conditions or restraints.
(iv) The Russians must fully acknowledge the mujahideen and ask peace from them:
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah..." [Surah al Anfal:Verse 61]
Sudi and Ibn Zaid said: "if they call for a treaty respond to them."- Ibn Hajr al Haythami said: "A corrupt condition corrupts the contract. For example, a condition that prevents the release of prisoners, the withdrawal from captured territory, the return of any Muslim prisoners that escape from them, their settling in Hijaz, the appearance of alcohol in our land, or sending back who came to us from them".
(v) If mujahideen are satisfied that the Russians are sincere in asking for peace and will not deceive them. But, those who want to have peace or be its intermediaries fail to uphold the aim of the Jihad which is the establishment of an Islamic state, because the western countries will not accept it and will resist it. These people fail to comprehend the aim of jihad and they haven't a clear Islamic vision. Furthermore it is not permitted for these people to be fighters in jihad, a favour from Allah, nor can they be its leaders.
For Allah the Almighty the Majestic said:
"If Allah brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say: never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me... " [Surah at Tauba:Verse 83]
Qurtubi said 8/2 18: "This indicates that the accompaniment of the foolish in an expedition is not permitted". The major scholars of Fiqh have stated in AI Jihad that it is not permitted for the arrogant, the pessimist, the hesitant, the coward or the hinderer to accompany the army.
O Allah give victory to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in the Philippines, in Lebanon and everywhere. And raise the flag of Islam, the rule of the Qur'anic state, and grant us martyrdom in Your cause.
Glory be to your Lord, Lord of Honour and Power. He is free from that which they attribute to Him and peace be upon the messengers, and all the praise and gratitude be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Salutations upon our Prophet Mohammed (saw) upon his family, his companions and the predecessors and whoever follows them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.