An Analysis on the hadeeth “Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula” & its application to the Crusaders

05-09-2007

[The following is taken from a series written by ‘Abdullah bin Naasir ar-Rasheed. It includes an analysis of the hadeeth, “Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula” as well as refutations against those who say that it doesn’t apply to the Crusaders that are residing there today. This is an excellent reference to have on hand.]

Objective (2): #1.Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula

Praise be to Allah Lord of the Worlds, and may Peace and Blessings be upon the most noble of the Prophets, our Messenger Muhammad and upon his family and companions; to proceed:

We had talked previously on the first objective of Jihaad which was the repelling of the enemy, and we discussed a specific example of such when we talked about repelling the soldiers of the ruler if he transgresses, and now we will discuss one of the conditions that causes Jihaad to become obligatory and an objective from its objectives, and an illustration or example of the tyranny of the kufaar upon the Muslims, and which is: the entering of the kufaar into the Arabian Peninsula which Allah has prohibited for them, and their establishment of military bases, and their gathering of military personnel, navy and air force in all the regions of the Arabian Peninsula - its east, west, north and south.

And from the last of what the Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had advised was his saying before his death: “Expel the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula”*, and this is an issue that was commanded by him, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

The word Jazeerat al’Arab (Arabian Peninsula) consists of two words: Jazeerah (Peninsula) and ‘Arab (Arab). As for the word peninsula then it is a land that is surrounded by water from every direction, like the ‘Iraqi peninsula, and it lies between ad-Dijllah (Tigris) and al-Furaat (Euphrates), and the Arabian Peninsula that was mentioned in the hadeeth is: what is surrounded by the Indian sea and Shaami sea, and the Tigris and Euphrates (to its north), as is defined in al-Qaamoos. And the Shaami Sea is what is known today as the Red Sea, as for the Indian sea then it is the Indian Ocean and today the Persian sea (known today as the Arabian Gulf) has been joined to it. The linguists did not define the Peninsula in other than this manner, although they did differ in their length and detail of their speech concerning it. As for them naming it the Arabian Peninsula then this is either to encompass the water surrounding it in most directions, or it may be due to the custom of the Arabs in exaggeration in these types of things, or it may be due to them considering the Tigris and Euphrates as seas, as this (final) type of naming is found in His ta’aala’s saying: “It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water (sea): One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter,” [25:23] and it is known that what is “palatable and sweet” is the river.

It is not correct to name a piece of land a peninsula if water does not surround it, and is only found in one of its directions, (doing so) isn’t from the language of the Arabs. What is imagined is that a peninsula by the name of the ‘Arabian Peninsula’ becomes popular and then (later) when the word is mentioned, a specific part of it is intended due to a certain feature within it. If this is the case, then indeed it is a rare metaphor, that is not used unless there is a supportive evidence to strengthen it, and it may be on this basis that some defined the Arabian Peninsula as the Hijaaz, although that is wrong logically, textually, linguistically and shar’an (Islaamically) despite the greatness of those who defined it as such.

The Arabian Peninsula, the peninsula mentioned in the hadeeth, was addressed to a people who mostly or partly did not know a peninsula other than it. This peninsula is the land of the Arabs: their Qahtaan in the Yemen, Quraysh, Hawaazin and Ghatafaan and those surrounding them from the Arabs and laymen of Madr in the Hijaaz, Rabee’ah and Tameem in Najd and Hajr, Bahrain and parts of ‘Iraq, and there are none other than them in the (Arabian) peninsula.

There are no Arabs outside this peninsula except some of (the tribes of) Rabee’ah and Madr who had entered the lands of Faaris (Persia) despite the fact it was not their homeland; and there are some Arabs who entered the Shaam** (Levant) who were known as the Ghasaasinah (Ghassans) from the Azdi tribe and they were a minority under the authority of the Romans.

Therefore, it would be correct to say that this peninsula: is not inhabited by other than Arabs, and the Arabs don’t inhabit other than it; thus, by way of sight and sense, it is the Arabian Peninsula, and this name is correctly applied in language and is known to the Arabs as the ‘Arabian Peninsula’.

As for those who said that the Arabian Peninsula is the Hijaaz, then they had relied upon what ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab, u ‘anh, had done by leaving some of the mushrikeen in other than the Hijaaz like the Christians of Najran (Negus), and some of the Jews of Yemen. So they saw that this is divertive evidence, specifying that the word peninsula here actually means the Hijaaz only.

This usage of evidence (istidlaal) is incorrect, for if some of the mushrikeen had remained outside the Hijaaz in the time of Umar, u ‘anh, then some of the mushrikeen had also remained outside the Hijaaz during the khilaafah of Abu Bakr, u ‘anh, and the answer to this doubt will come bi-ithnillahi ta’aala, when discussing the hadeeth its apparent and general meaning.

The expulsion of the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula is a command from the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and was not restricted to a specific means, rather it is unrestricted and ultimately (what is meant) is to expel them from the peninsula, and it is known that the blood of a single kaafir who has no power (shawkah) or command is (permitted) to be shed (muhdar), and it is permissible to kill him for any reason, even if it is to come closer to Allah ta’aala with his blood without any material benefit as a result (of killing him). Therefore, if we are commanded to expel him from the Arabian Peninsula, then killing him is following in accordance with that command, and if he has power and command in the lands of the Muslims, and was a transgressor, then fighting him is an obligation and not only a mubaah (permitted) matter. This establishes that expelling the mushrikeen by fighting is a means that is either mubaah or obligatory and that it is one of the most beneficial of ways to strike dread and make them fear entering the Arabian Peninsula. This is what was seen after the Riyaad bombings, when some of the Crusaders began ordering others to leave and their commissioners requested those whose presence (in the land) was unnecessary to leave.

Expelling the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula via Jihaad may be from the offensive Jihaad or the defensive Jihaad. As for the offensive Jihaad, then if it (occurs) if there are mushrikeen who recognise the Sharee’ah or who were left as they were in the times of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islaamic ignorance). As for the defensive Jihaad then it (occurs) if the mushrikoon entered the peninsula after the command was made (to expel them), and their entering of the land was in conflict with the clear prohibition (of them doing so), i.e. he is not from those whom (the Sharee’ah) had kept silent about prior to the revelation of the text, like for example fighting them in their lands if their land was under their authority before Islaam, then this would be from the offensive Jihaad, but if it is land that they entered after it had been in the hands of the Muslims then doing Jihaad against them there is from the defensive Jihaad, and the rulings concerning residing and remaining differ from the rulings on initiating and beginning, and it can be established by way of following and continuation, that (it is from what) cannot be established by way of founding and independence (yithbitu tab’an wastimraaran, maa laa yuthibitu aslan wastiqlaanan).

If you understand clearly the difference between the condition of expelling the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula when it is defensive Jihaad, as it is today, and when it is offensive Jihaad, as was in the time of ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab, u ‘anh, it becomes clear to you why ‘Umar and Abu Bakr were delayed in their expulsion from the Arabian Peninsula, and that this is legislated and permitted for them to do, for the offensive Jihaad it is permitted to delay for a benefit or need, whilst abiding by it and have determination to do it, and it isn’t permissible to delay it for the one who sees that they (the mushrikoon) had entered upon him, as that is from the defensive Jihaad, and it is not permitted to delay the defensive Jihaad in any situation, and Allah knows best.

And today, there are many reasons which necessitate the expulsion of the Crusaders from the Arabian Peninsula; alongside the specific obligation to expel the mushrikeen from it. We find the general obligations of defensive Jihaad, (like) the entering of the mushrikeen there with power and command, and that alone is a reason to cause Jihaad to become obligatory in every land, and them (the kufaar) as individuals, if they enter a land of the lands without the permission of the Muslims, and without having power and command, then their blood is mubaah, as for the (Arabian) peninsula then fighting them in it is obligatory until they leave it, even if they entered it with the permission of the Muslim, rather than a kaafir puppet (like today), and allocating an area of the land of the Muslims for them to establish their rituals of kufr, is a further reason to fight and expel them, and their fighting of the Muslims from this land, and their establishment of military bases, is a further reason to do Jihaad against them, and all these reasons are further stressed if they are found in the Arabian Peninsula.

This is what could be composed here to clarify this ruling and matter, and we will, biithnillah, deal with some doubts that the opponents to us in this clear ruling - of expelling the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula by Jihaad in the path of Allah - have.

And Allah Knows Best.

And may Allah send His peace and blessings upon His Slave and Messenger Muhammad, and upon his family and companions and those who follow them in goodness until the day of judgement.

*: This hadeeth is found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (no.3053, 3168, 4431); Muslim (no.1367) and Sunan Abi Dawood (no.2615).

**: This is what is known today as modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan. Some scholars also considered Tabook (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) to be part of the Levant.

Objective (2): #2.Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula: Doubts And Refutations

Praise be to Allah Lord of the Worlds, and may Peace and Blessings be upon the most noble of the Prophets, our Messenger Muhammad and upon his family and companions. To proceed:

In the last issue we discussed the meaning of the hadeeth, “Expel the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula”, and in this issue we will reply to some doubts employed against using this hadeeth as evidence, and refute the ones who opposed its implication.

The first, oldest, and most popular of these doubts is of those who say that the Arabian Peninsula is the Hijaaz. In the last issue we discussed how the Arabian Peninsula is larger than that, and that those who said this said it due to the fact that some mushrikeen had remained outside the Hijaaz and were not expelled from it. And he (the one who makes this argument) may be delighted to use what has been narrated with a da’eef chain from Abi ‘Ubaydah ‘Aamir bin al-Jarraah that the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “Expel the Jews of the Hijaaz from the Arabian Peninsula,” but the hadeeth has a weak chain, and the authentic ahadeeth contradict it. Even if we were to presume its authenticity, then mentioning some of the exceptions of the general principle would not necessitate a restriction to that principle. It is possible that it was given exception due to the importance and honour of the area; in addition, the hadeeth is better used to oppose this argument than to support it, for he (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) distinguished between the Hijaaz and the Arabian Peninsula, and the hadeeth didn’t say “expel the Jews of Hijaaz from the Hijaaz (only)”, rather it said, “from the Arabian Peninsula”. Additionally in the very same hadeeth, with its chain of narration it says: “Expel the Jews of Hijaaz and Najraan from the Arabian Peninsula,” and it is known that the people of Najraan are outside the Hijaaz anyway.

As for those who remained in the peninsula but outside the Hijaaz, then the statement regard them is similar to those who remained in it:

If their presence was there before the command to expel them, and the shaari’ had affirmed their establishment and this offensive Jihaad.

However, if their presence came after the command to expel them, and they entered it in opposition to the command of Allah and the will of His Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then expelling them is defensive Jihaad.

It makes little difference in regards to this ruling that the companions expelled (the mushrikeen) without Jihaad, for the intent here is to clarify the difference between the ruling of initiation (ibtidaa’)and that of remaining (istidaamah). Moreover, the cause (‘illa) that obligates Jihaad was found in the time of the companions too, that is, the expulsion of an enemy whom it is obligatory to expel from the lands of the Muslims, and they did not fight so that the offensive and defensive Jihaad may drop and Allah may relieve the believers from fighting if the enemy withdraws from what he would be fought for. In other words, the defensive Jihaad would not become an obligation if the invader averts from his invading, and the obligation of the offensive Jihaad would drop if the kaafir enters Islaam or pays the Jizyah (tax), and this has its own details, this not being the place to discuss them.

It is established, then, that the companions’ leaving of the mushrikeen was part of the offensive Jihaad, and the offensive Jihaad does not have to be fulfilled immediately (as is the case with the defensive Jihaad). Rather, it is permissible to delay it due to a benefit or fear of a harm that is hoped to be removed soon. Likewise, it is permissible to delay due to the army of the Muslims being busy at triumphing over lands, the leader of the Muslims being busy with a situation that has befallen him or the rest of the Muslims, or for a benefit of the Muslims gained by having that enemy remaining there whether with a truce (hudnah) or without it, as long as there is a determination to fight him and that the truce is not permanent.

Abu Bakr as-Sideeq, u ‘anh, was for a period of his khilafah engaged in fighting the apostates and Romans, and not long after that had ceased did Allah take his soul. As for ‘Umar, then when it reached him that the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “Expel the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula”, he forced out the Jews of Khaybar, as is mentioned in the well-known narrative.

Thus, one cannot use as evidence the leaving of the Jews of Khaybar by as-Sideeq, nor by the leaving of them by al-Faarooq, or other than them in other than this, as it was all one case: they had settled in that land from the beginning, and were not ones who had come after the prohibition had been revealed, and their entering on the land of the peninsula was hostility against it.

If this difference is clear to you (that the principle is to distinguish between those who were there before the prohibition, and those after), then the doubt of those who use the fact that some of the mushrikeen remained in the peninsula after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as evidence becomes clear and far-removed.

As for those who used as evidence the entering of some people afterwards, like Abu Lu`lu`ah al-Maajoosi, whom the authentic narrations state was a mushrik; then the answer is that Abu Lu`lu`ah was a slave, and the slave is considered as part of the wealth of the Muslims, and they are not akin to the free person in rulings. For this reason, many of the people of knowledge permitted to penetrate a non-Kitaabiyyah slave, and prohibited their marriage; they permitted using a mushrik slave as assistance in war and they differed over using a free mushrik, and the blood-money of a mushrik or Muslim slave is equal (in amount), it isn’t more than the blood-money of the kaafir in value; and other than this from the rulings where the slave is treated as part of the wealth, and his religion is overlooked. And if we were to assume, that one of those slaves was freed after entering al-Madeenah, then he would be like the condition of the Jews of Khaybar (in treatment), who had entered due to a permissible (mubaah) reason, so their remaining there afterwards is a continuation and permanence of what was originally legislated, and not the beginning of their residence there, as is clear.

From the most detached doubts against this clear, apparent hadeeth was what was mentioned by the IslamToday website when it claimed that the hadeeth does not entail that we should fight them, rather it (only) commanded their expulsion; and they claimed afterwards that the hadeeth doesn’t indicate that, either linguistically or logically! Despite the fact that the command to expel them is unrestricted and can include either warning or fighting them, the one who had written this objection was mixing between the hadeeth in terms of its linguistic meaning, and (between) the text and the apparent; for it doesn’t indicate fighting by its text, but rather by its composition - to expel them, unrestrictedly. So everything that leads to their expulsion is included in the meaning of the hadeeth, whether it be by way of warning or fighting, even though the ones who differed with them on this hadeeth stated that warning them to leave is sufficient, and that fighting them is only for those who were not satisified with the warning (i.e. remained), and (all this) is if we assume that the reason (manaat) for fighting the mushrikeen in the peninsula today is just their entering of the Arabian Peninsula, overlooking all the other causes.

From the other feeble doubts cast at using this hadeeth as evidence, and was used as an objection against those who rose to follow in the command and to fulfill the will of the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is that what is meant by the hadeeth is to expel only the mushrikeen who are fighting the Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula.

As for the mushrikeen who are fighting (muhaariboon), then we are commanded to fight them everywhere, and in every land, and we are commanded to expel them from all the lands of the Muslims, so what makes the Arabian Peninsula specific in this ruling?! Although the scholars and other than them from those who accept and oppose in this matter, agree that this hadeeth indicates a specificity of the Arabian Peninsula and none other than it from the lands, and the authentic ahaadeeth are general and have nothing to specify them, and the claim that there is a specification to it in the remaining of some of the mushrikeen in it, then this has already been replied to earlier.

This is what there is to say about these and other then these doubts, and I had already replied to them in Intiqaad al-I’tiraad ‘ala Tafjeeraat ar-Riyaad (A Criticism of the Objections Raised Against the Riyaad Bombings)*, in an answer, that I hope was sufficient, and I ask Allah to benefit people by it, and I had only intended here to reply to some doubts that I didn’t talk much of in al-Intiqaad.

O Allah expel the mushrikeen from the Arabian Peninsula severed and torn by our hands and the hands of your believing slaves, and grant us guidance, firmness and rightness upon the truth, knowledge, action and Jihaad until we meet You as martyrs in your path, going forth not turning back, (all) in Your mercy, O Most Merciful of the merciful.

And Allah Knows Best.

And may Allah send His peace and blessings upon His Slave and Messenger Muhammad, and upon his family and companions and those who follow them in goodness until the day of judgement.

*Reading of this book is earnestly recommend for all those who have a sufficient command of the Arabic language, for in it are many benefits, hardly found in many of the books of this day and age, particularly in the matters of contracts and treaties, and what is known as masaalih (benefits) and mafaasid (harms) amongst many other things.

Written by ‘Abdullah bin Naasir ar-Rasheed, Thursday Morning, 25th of Ramadaan 1424.
 

Theunjustmedia.com