Is Fighting Against Occupation Jihad?
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem
Answers to Questions
Do we consider the fighting against the armies occupying the Muslims' lands, as is the case today, and in the absence of the Amir, be deemed as Jihad?
Do we deem it part of the defensive Jihad, knowing that the Answer to a Question of 15 Rabi' al-Awwal 1429h mentioned neither the declared aims nor the undeclared aims of the fighting.
Must we ascertain first that the fighting is for the sake of upholding the word of Allah supreme before we can call it Jihad?
The Booklet expounded this point and determined the Shari'ah method according to which the real liberation of the lands occurs, as well as the aim sought from the liberation. As for the aforementioned Answer to the Question, it did not address this point.
4 Sha'aban 1435h
2 June 2014
Answer:First: What is mentioned in the Answers to Questions issued on 15 Rabi' al-Awwal 1429h/23 March 2008 does not contradict what is mentioned in the Booklet of Jihad issued on 17 Ramadan 1429h/17 September 2008; and what is mentioned in the both the Answers to Questions and the Booklet does not contradict the Party culture. It is in fact very much part of the adopted culture.
Second: Part of the well established rules in the Party culture is that Jihad in Islam has been ongoing; it is not to be nullified by the tyranny of the despot nor the fairness of the just ruler. Another part of the established rules in the Party culture is that the presence of the Khalifah in office is not a prerequisite for Jihad. If the post of Khalifah were vacant, under no circumstances whatsoever should Jihad be delayed, because its advantage would be wasted. It is mentioned in the book of the Islamic Personality Volume II, page 152: "Jihad is an unrestricted obligation (Fardh Mutlaq); it is not restricted by anything nor preconditioned by anything. The ayah is unrestricted: "Jihad has been decreed upon you."
Hence, the presence of the Khalifah has no impact on the obligation of Jihad. Jihad is an obligation (Fardh) irrespective of whether the Muslims had a Khalifah or not. When the Muslims have a Khalifah whose Khilafah has been contracted according to Shari'ah, and if he does not stray from it due to any of reason that may render his tenure invalid, the issue of Jihad will be in this case his competency and will be effectuated according to his Ijtihad for as long as he remains legitimately the Khalifah, even if he were profligate. As long as he is in the post of Khilafah, the subjects must obey him in respect of what he decides on this, even if he ordered anyone to fight under the command of a profligate Amir."
It is also mentioned on page 154: "This would be in the case when a Khalifah is in office. If the post of Khalifah is vacant. Jihad should not be delayed under any circumstances, because its advantage would be squandered. If the Khalifah were to dispatch an army and appoint an Amir to command it, and if the Amir were to be killed or die, the army could appoint an Amir from among them; just like what the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (saw) did during the battle of Mu'ta; an action that the Messenger of Allah (saw) approved."
However, Jihad is a collective duty and it requires an Amir, especially in the offensive Jihad. As for the defensive Jihad, one should fight behind the Muslim ruler irrespective of his deportment, be it fair or profligate, ruling by the rules of Islam or the rules of Kufr, sincere to the Ummah and acting according to his opinion and that of his Ummah or an agent of a Kufr state. This is deduced from what Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra who said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Jihad is Wajib upon you with every Amir, pious or impious." If the Muslim ruler were nonexistent, the Muslims should choose an Amir to fight and repel the Kuffar under his command. If they were surprised by the enemy and they were unable to choose an Amir, this requisite would be rescinded due to inability, but the Fardh of Jihad would remain in force; those capable from among the locals of the attacked country must all come out to fight the enemy. If the sufficiency to repel the enemy were effectuated with their numbers and if the enemy were effectively repelled, the sin would fall from the necks of the Muslims; otherwise the Fardh would expand to those nearest to them from among the Muslims and so on.
If the enemy were to subjugate the Muslims, occupy their land and force them to submit to its authority, Jihad would no longer be an obligation upon the subjugated Muslims, while the other Muslims must remain engrossed with this Fardh. Jihad is a practical Shari'ah rule and is part of the rules of the method. It is related to the spreading of Islam, protecting its shell and defending the Muslims and their lands.
Third: It is mentioned in the Answer to a Question:
6 - If the enemy invaded one country of the Muslims' lands, the fighting would not be in this case linked to the presence of the Imam. If the Imam were in office, the Muslims would fight behind him and shield themselves with him; and if the Imam were absent, then they should fight behind any Muslim Amir, pious or impious, because the Muslims are prohibited from letting the Kuffar shed their blood and kill them at the hands of a predacious enemy under the pretence of not having an Imam in office. Here the fighting must not be delayed because its advantage would be squandered otherwise. The Muslims should rather fight their enemy and repel him from their lands in any way possible.
If the enemy were to raid a folk from among the Muslims, Jihad must not be delayed because its delaying would squander its advantage, namely the protecting and safeguarding of the Muslims and their properties. In this case, Jihad would be obligatory upon the Muslims. The nearest to the enemy from among the Muslims should fight him; and in this case, the matter of Jihad would be the competency of the Imam if he were in office. If the post of Imam were vacant, the enemy would still have to be repelled in every way possible. The Muslims may agree on a commander who would act as the Amir of war, organise their ranks and fight the enemies with them until they repel them from the lands of the Muslims. In the battle of Mu'ta, the three Amirs of war appointed by the Messenger of Allah (saw) were killed; so the Muslims chose Khaled Ibnul Walid as their commander and the fighting continued until he withdrew the army.
7 - If the enemy were to assail any part of the Muslims' lands, the Shari'ah rule stipulates that fighting the enemy to repel him would be obligatory. This would be a duty upon every single Muslim in those lands. Should they fail to repel the enemy, the duty would shift to include those Muslims nearer to them and so on. However, when the enemy were to overwhelm the Muslims in those lands and to spread his dominion over them, thus becoming the more powerful force, fighting would be permitted for the locals and the obligation would shift to include the other Muslims nearest to them, and so on.
It mentioned in the booklet of Jihad in Islam: "Jihad is initially a duty of sufficiency; it becomes an individual duty upon the Muslims who are attacked by the enemy and a duty of sufficiency upon the others. The obligation does not fall until the enemy is repelled and the land of Islam is purified of his squalor." And it is also mentioned: "The question is: what should the Muslims do in case their lands are attacked by an aggressor, as is the case today in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya and other Muslims’ lands? Would the Muslims let their lands be violated and their blood be shed?
The answer to this is that the Shari’ah rule related to the Muslims who live in these lands stipulates that they are obliged to repel the enemy in case he attacks their lands and everyone must go forth to fight him and expel him from their lands. If the Kifaya (sufficiency) to repel the enemy is not achieved, the obligation to repel shifts to the Muslims living nearest to these lands and so on, until sufficiency is achieved. If sufficiency is achieved and the Muslims succeed in repelling the enemy from their lands, the rest of the Muslims would be absolved of blame. However, if the enemy succeeded in defeating the Muslims and in dominating and occupying their lands, the obligation of repelling the enemy shifts to the Muslims nearest to them because the attacked people would be under coercion and subjugated, unable to repel the enemy; thus, it is obligatory upon the Muslims to work towards recapturing these lands from the Kuffar irrespective of the sacrifices they may have to make."
It is clear from what is mentioned in the two sources, namely the Answers to Questions and the Booklet, that there is no contradiction between them, and that what is mentioned in the Booklet is the same as the Answers to Questions.
Besides, fighting to expel the enemy from the Muslims' lands is part of the established thoughts in the Party culture. It is even one of the important rules of Islam. The party has made the obligation to fight the Kuffar, even with the collaborating rulers as long as it is a fighting against the Kuffar, thus deeming it as part of the Jihad for the sake of Allah, as part of the thoughts related to the Shari'ah rules which entail the regulating of the Ummah's behaviour in relation to the progress of the state; it has even deemed it as one of the greatest concepts of discipline in existence. It is mentioned in the 6th concept of the "concepts of discipline" in the Party Dossier:
"Jihad is Fardh upon the Muslims under all circumstances until the Day of Judgement. Hence the Muslims must rise for Jihad, under the tutelage of the ruler, irrespective of his condition, pious he may be or impious, ruling by the rules of Islam or with the rules of Kufr, sincere to the Ummah and acting according to his opinion and that of his Ummah or an agent of a Kufr state; in all these cases, the Muslims must fight the Kuffar under the command of the ruler. Evidence for this is reflected in the Ayat and Ahadith."
This is as far as the fact that what is mentioned in the Answers to Questions and the Booklet do not contradict each other.
As for the answers to your questions, they are as follows:
First: Do we consider the fighting against the armies occupying the Muslims' lands, as is the case today, and in the absence of the Amir, be deemed as Jihad? Do we deem it part of the defensive Jihad, knowing that the Answer to a Question of 15 Rabi' al-Awwal 1429h mentioned neither the declared aims nor the undeclared aims of the fighting?
Answer: Yes, fighting the Kuffar occupying the Muslims' lands when these are assailed is deemed as part of the Jihad for the sake of Allah, and this type of Jihad is known in the terminology of the scholars as "defensive Jihad", irrespective of the declared or the undeclared aims of this fighting; as long as it is Muslims fighting Kuffar who have assailed their lands, Jihad becomes Fardh on the local Muslims of the assailed land, then the obligation would shift to the nearest Muslims and so on, in case the local Muslims were unable to expel the enemy from their land.
Second: Must we ascertain first that the fighting is for the sake of upholding the world of Allah supreme before we can call it Jihad?
Yes, one needs to perceive the aim of the fighting before engaging in it, and perceive that the aim of the fighting is approved by Shari'ah, knowing that Jihad is fighting the Kuffar so that the word of Allah reigns supreme, and the word of Allah is Islam; this issue is down to the intention (Niyah) of the fighter himself. It is a matter between him and Allah (swt). If he fought in order to uphold the word of Allah supreme, he would therefore be a Mujahid for the sake of Allah. Abu Musa reported: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the one who fights out of bravery and another fights to show off, which of them is for the sake of Allah? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The one who fights so that the Word of Allah will be the uppermost, it will then be for the sake of Allah."
Hence, the reality of Jihad is that it is a fight between the Muslims and the Kuffar, either offensive or defensive. The fact that it is for the sake of Allah is related to the intention of the fighters; so if they fought in order for the sake of Allah to reign supreme, they would be Mujahideen.
It is also worth mentioning that when it is said that Jihad is not obligatory in some cases, this does not necessarily mean it is not legitimate, i.e. permitted; and this does not change the fact that it is a Jihad for the sake of Allah
5 Sha'aban 1435h
3 June 2014