Regarding those who say, “And you cannot make Jihad unless if you have a separate state”
10-10-2007
[The
following is an excellent excerpt from the book, Fundamental Concepts Regarding
al-Jihaad pgs. 117-122 by the Noble Shaykh, ‘Abdul Qaadir ibn ‘Abdil ‘Azeez [fakkAllahu
Asrah]. This refutation is a classic as it can be used against those Muslim and
Muslim groups that say, “You cannot wage Jihad until you have a Khilaafah,”
and/or, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam) had a state after the 13
years of struggle and hardship in Makkah; therefore, we cannot skip all the way
to the level of Jihad without having a state first… the methodology we must
follow is the Makkan Phase…” and arguments similar to these. His evidences, as
usual, are very solid and he also uses some harshness against these arguments
since this is what the Munaafiqeen would have argued. The context of his
discussion is regarding the obligation of rebelling against the Apostate
Rulers.]
And a group (Jamā’ah) from the Muslims rebelled against the apostate rulers
during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wassallam) as well as
after him, without the separation of the states or the withdrawal, as when Al-Aswad
Al-‘Ansī, the liar who claimed the Prophethood, emerged and took over Yemen and
conquered it. Then Fayrūz Ad-Daylamī deceived him – while he was from his
supporters as it appeared – until he killed him. And that was during the
lifetime of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wassallam). 260
And the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wassallam) did not object to that, nor did
anyone from the companions (Sahābah). And no one said, “How could Fayrūz kill
Al-Aswad, before departing to a separate land?” Also, Yazīd Ibn Al-Walīd and an
assembly (Tā’ifah) with him, rebelled against the Khalīfah, Al-Walīd Ibn Yazīd,
when he was accused of slackness in the religion, until they executed him,
without being divided into two states. 261
And we will suffice upon these
two examples for the sake of brevity.
And the people of this misconception use as evidence, that the Prophet (sallallāhu
‘alayhi wassallam) did not begin the fighting except after the Hijrah, when the
Muslims had a separate state in Al-Madīnah, in which they were separated from
their enemy. And this saying is not evidence as there is no restriction in it;
meaning that there is no Sharī’ah-oriented text narrated, which prevents the
fighting except in the likes of this situation, and this is clear. And also,
this period in time was one of legislation, but as for now, and since the death
of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wassallam), the Sharī’ah and its rulings have
been completed:
This day, I have completed your religion for you… 262
And the consensus (Ijmā’ ) has been formed that if the enemy comes into a
country, then it is specified upon its people to fight them – in other words,
the repelling of the disbelievers becomes Fardh ‘Ayn upon the Muslims of this
country. So here are the Muslims and their enemy in one state, while the Muslims
have lost the separation of their state in the battle. Yet despite that, it is
obligatory upon them specifically, to fight them, according to consensus (Ijmā’
). 263 The rebellion against the apostate ruler is a command, which is based
upon ability. And this is different from country to country. And the people of
expertise from the practical point of view, are the ones to speak about it. And
if Allāh, Glory be to Him, knows the good intention of a Mujāhid assembly (Tā’ifah),
then He will guide them and make easy for them, that which He is pleased with.
Allāh, the Most High, said:
Then He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakīnah (i.e.
tranquility) upon them… 264
And He, the Most High, said:
Verily, those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, their Lord will guide
them through their Faith. 265
As for those who remain behind from the specified Jihād, then the remaining
behind is not sufficient for them. Rather, they prevent others (from going out)
and they betray them with these misconceptions, which are a punishment for them
for their sitting and their remaining behind, as He, the Most High, said:
They are content to be with those (the women) who sit behind (at home). Their
hearts are sealed up (from all kinds of goodness and right guidance), so they
understand not. 266
So when they remained behind, Allāh sealed their hearts with incomprehension. So
they began searching for misconceptions so that they could justify their
remaining behind and keep others behind besides them, so that they would add
their burdens to their burdens. And likewise, one bad deed spawns another bad
deed. He, the Most High, said:
If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will
replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allāh is Able
to do all things. If you help him not (it does not matter), for Allāh did indeed
help him… 267
And this saying (i.e. opinion) of the condition of the two states being separate
for the Jihād to be obligatory is a false saying and it leads to the end of the
Jihād; particularly the Jihād Ad-Dafa’. I say: Also, this saying (i.e. opinion)
of the two states being separate means the surrendering to the present situation
and remaining silent about those Tawāghīt who rule the Muslim countries. And it
means the removal of the obligation of the specified Jihād away from the
individual Muslims of these countries. And this saying leads to the eradication
of Islām completely from these countries in a short period. We seek refuge in
Allāh from that – but it is not inconceivable – because, in how many countries
were great Islāmic kingdoms established, while today they have become states of
Kufr? Islām has become merely a trace after it had been an actual reality in
them, such as Al-Andulus and Turkistan and Bukhārā and Samarqand and the Balkans
and others? And how many countries did the groups of those traitors collapse,
due to their satanic deceptions, as in what happened in India, which used to be
an Islāmic kingdom, then it was occupied by the English. And the evil scholars
removed the Jihād with the argument that the English were the people of
authority (Ulū Al-Amr), who it is obligatory to obey, due to His, the Most
High’s, statement:
Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in
authority. 268
Those misconceptions were narrated by Muhammad Rashīd Ridhā, in his Tafsīr “Al-Manār”,
and to Allāh is the dominion from before and after. And this is an example of
what has been narrated from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb, may Allāh be pleased with him,
about what will destroy the religion: “…the arguing of a hypocrite who uses the
Qur’ān.” And whomsoever from the scholars prevents the Muslims from Jihād, using
these misconceptions, out of favoritism and out of support for the disbeliever
ruler; then there is no doubt concerning the Kufr of this scholar. He is an
apostate, out of the religion of Islām and his ruling is the (same) ruling as
his governing master. He, the Most High, said:
And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyā’, then surely he is one of them. 269
______________________________
260 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah ”, by Ibn Kathīr, Vol. 6/307 - 310
261 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah”, by Ibn Kathīr, Vol. 10/6 - 11
262 Trans. Note: Sūrat Al-Mā’idah, 3
263 As I narrated from Ibn Taymiyyah: “Al-Ikhtiyārāt Al-Fiq’hiyyah ”, page 309
264 Sūrat Al-Fat’h, 18
265 Sūrat Yūnus, 9
266 Sūrat At-Tawbah, 87
267 Sūrat At-Tawbah, 39 - 40
268 Trans. Note: Sūrat An-Nisā’, 59
269 Sūrat Al-Mā’idah, 51