An interesting view from former jihadist leader — Muslims of different situation carry different obligation of jihad. Non-participation is not necessarily abhorrent.
Gaza: Waving the Bloody Shirt Part 2
Monday 08 June 2009
By Mohammed Abu Shamaa in Cairo
“In today’s episode, Dr. Fadl discusses his ‘fourth thought’ which focuses on what he described as dealing with the enemy according to ability and not to according to duty. He states, ‘with the beginning of the current Gaza tragedy, Hamas leaders (rulers of Gaza) asked the people of Gaza for patience and retaliation; they would not surrender even if that resulted in the annihilation of all of Gaza. These remarks have no connection to the basis of Islam, by which God will judge us. It is unsuitable to force people to handle what they are unable to then hold others accountable for the consequences of doing so and laying the blame that this person or the other has sold out.
“Currently, Hamas leaders are ordering the people of Gaza to undertake actions that the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, did not order his companions to, and they were the best of the Islamic nation. During the prophet’s life, peace and prayers be upon him, there were many different Muslim communities that existed in different places and under different circumstances. Each one functioned according to the Shariaa based on their circumstances, without condemnation from the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, those included:
“1. Mujahidin Muslims who are established and find strength in an Islamic state, and they are the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, and his companions after their Hijrah [migration] to Medina.
“2. Muslims who are established in their land and did not migrate to Medina. They are free to choose whether or not they want to participate in jihad. They are the Muslim Bedouins mentioned in Buraydah’s Hadith that was narrated by Muslim.
“3. Muslims who are weak and oppressed under the rule of a non-believing authority. They are unable to migrate or perform jihad. They are those who were left in Mecca after Hijrah and the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, did not order them to perform jihad, even though it was legitimized. God Almighty forgave them when He stated: ‘Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed — men, women, and children — who have no means in their power nor (a guide-post) to their way. For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again’ [Koranic verse; An-Nisa; 4:98-99].
“4. Muslims who are weak but not oppressed under the rule of non-believing authority. They migrated to Habashah. They also were not ordered to perform jihad, even though it was legitimized.
“5. As for the fifth community, which also existed during the time of the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, is the community of Muslims in Yemen at the time of the emergence of the liar Al-Aswad al-Ansi. He proclaimed himself as a prophet and captured Sanaa, therefore, splitting the companions into three groups. Some returned to Medina, some hid out in Yemen, and some remained in Sanaa to defraud Al-Aswad until he was killed. The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, did not blame any of them. They were discussed by Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari in Tarikh Al-Rusul wa Al-Muluk.
“6. When the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, left with his companions for Umrah in 6 Hijri, staying at Hudaybiya outside Mecca, the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, called for Omar Ibn al-Khattab to send him to Mecca to notify the nobles of the purpose of their visit. Omar stated: ‘O’ messenger of God, I fear Quraysh, for there is no one in Mecca from Bani Uday to protect me and Quraysh is aware of my animosity and hatred toward them. But I will lead you to a man that is more worthy of this than I, and he is Othman Bin Affan.’ The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, called for Othman Bin Affan and sent him to Abu Sufyan and nobles of Quraysh to inform them that he did not come to do battle, rather he comes as a visitor to this great house [Kaabah] to glorify its sacredness. This was narrated by Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihaya, Book 2, page 598, Dar Al-Ghad Al-Arabi. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was fearful of going to Mecca and the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, described him: ‘The most compassionate of my community toward my community is Abu Bakr; the most staunch in Allah’s religion is Omar; [the most truthful in his modesty is Othman, and the best in judgment is Ali]. This Hadith is veritable and narrated by Shmad and Al-Tarmidhi.
“All the above-mentioned were legitimized choices on how to deal with the enemy according to ability. Selecting [a manner of battling the enemy] that is surpassed ability will result in destruction. This is why the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, did order those weak [Muslims] who stayed behind in Mecca to perform jihad if jihad meant their destruction. This is also why Khalid Bin Al-Walid, may God be pleased with him, retreated from battle with the Romans in Mutah as to not destroy the Muslim army because of lack of parity. The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, paid tribute to him by calling him the ‘sword of Islam’ and referring to his work as ‘conquest.’
“Therefore, if the ability to fight the enemy is not present, one must reconcile. As stated by Imam Al-Sarkhasi, may God have mercy on him: ‘The fact is, the reality of jihad is for Muslims to first safeguard their forces then defeat the enemy and break their forces. If they are unable to break [enemy] forces, they must safeguard their forces by being peaceable until they have the power to break [enemy] forces’ (taken from Sharh Al-Sayr Al-Kabir 1/133), Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah.
“The basis of jurisprudence states that ‘dealing with subjects is dependent on working for their interest.’ Omar Ibn Al-Khattab stated: ‘It does not make me happy that you conquer a city of polytheists by losing a Muslim man.’
“The result of the above-mentioned information is that jihad is not one of the sacred matters that are unacceptable to abandon. However, it is a choice that is made according to the interest of Muslims in dealing with the enemy. It is evaluated by scholars from a religious aspect taking reality into consideration and not by political opportunism that uses the resistance as a way to legitimize its actions and gain popularity even if it means sacrificing the people.
“It is already known that what Hamas is doing in Gaza is abuse and has no connection to Islam. They have forced the people of Gaza into a battle that the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, did not force the Muslims who stayed behind in Mecca into; a battle from which Khalid Bin Al-Walid retreated. Hamas has forced a battle on the people of Gaza when it is unable to protect and safeguard them. It has no air defense methods and Gaza is not fortified, rather it is flat land that is exposed and has no mountains or forests. It is unacceptable to confuse Hamas’ abuse with Islam. What Hamas is doing is against the religion that orders one to be careful in dealing with subjects. Rather, Hamas has declared that it has no objections against the annihilation of Gaza. God Almighty will question the leaders of Hamas about every drop of blood that flowed through Gaza and about the destruction that took place. Also, the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, stated: ‘Everyone of you is a guardian and is responsible for his charges,’ this Hadith is agreed upon. The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, stated: ‘God will question each guardian for an account of how he treated his charges and whether he protected them or abused them.’ What is currently happening in Gaza is a sudden attack by the enemy against a town and against the people’s will. Rather, this is Hamas provoking the enemy so that it deliberately attacks the town to serve its political purposes even if it means sacrificing the people.
“It is unacceptable for Palestinians to obey Hamas in their abuse, because in doing so, they are allowing Hamas to disparage them and subject them to destruction for no apparent reason. Imam Muhammad Bin Al-Hassan Al-Shibani, who is the Imam of the people of Mughazi, stated in his book Al-Sayr Al-Kabir, in the chapter about ‘what is acceptable and unacceptable in obeying the guardian’: ‘If troops enter into a war with success granted by God Almighty and their emir orders them on a matter of war that may be beneficial to them, they must obey him. If he orders them with something that they fear may lead to their abuse and or destruction, and they, as a group, decide that it would lead to their abuse and destruction, they are not to obey him.’ The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, stated: ‘Do not obey a creature in transgression against the Creator.’ If they obey him, it will lead to their abuse and destruction. God Almighty condemned obeying a ruler in those circumstances when He stated: ‘Thus did he make fools of his people, and they obeyed him: truly were they a people rebellious (against Allah)’ [Koranic verse; Az-Zukhruf; 43:54] (taken from Al-Sayr Al-Kabir 1/116-118), Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah 1997.
“From a luxury hotel and the safe havens of Damascus, Hamas leader Khalid Shaalan announced the end and non-renewal of the de-escalation with Israel after 19 December 2008. Hamas leaders inside Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh and his friends, fled to Gaza’s tunnels and hideouts, leaving the people of Gaza to pay the price. The price was hundreds dead and thousands wounded; they used their people as human shields in order to protect themselves. They are not protectors of their people. The leaders of Hamas created the crisis and then used it to wave Gaza’s shirt — the shirt they soaked in blood with their own hands — to incite rabble, stir up complaints and agony, and to fool others and lay the blame on them. All of this is to cover up the issues and confuse the truth with what is not. The truth is that the leaders of Hamas are the only ones responsible for the massacre of Gaza with all its blood shed and severed limbs [corpses]; this is God’s law. They alone were the rulers of Gaza, and they decided to end the de-escalation, which means the start of a war with Israel. This is the topic of the following thought.
“If Hamas or Hezbollah wanted to wage jihad against Israel, it is a good thing and a duty if they are able to, but without imposing their choice on others. Scholars state: ‘If the preventer of vice learns that his prevention of vice is harming his people or others, he is forbidden from preventing vice. This is so because his prevention of vice is itself deemed a form of vice.’ This was stated by Ibn Qadamah, may God have mercy on him, in Mukhtasar Minhaj Al-Qasidayn. The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, stated: ‘Do not harm or be a cause of harm.’ If they wish to wage jihad against Israel, it is unacceptable for them to fire rockets from Lebanon or Gaza having their people to pay the price later. Rather, they should pick up their rockets and weapons and penetrate Israel and fight it. Instead, they use their people as human shields. To their people, they are not dependable. In 2006, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, hid out and used his people as human shields until there was massive destruction, over 1,000 were killed, thousands were wounded, and 1 million were displaced. In 2008, Hamas leaders did the same in Gaza. Such people should be have legitimacy courts to hold them accountable for their recklessness and unrestraint they have in dealing with their people.
“If a ship is subjected to sinking, chivalry and gallantry state that its captain would stay aboard and supervise the rescue of its passengers in the lifeboats so that the captain is the last to leave the ship. If he is not able to save some of the passengers, then he will drown along with them. As for them [leaders of Hamas/Hezbollah], they are the first to escape the ship and sacrifice its passengers.
“Fifth thought: Every person is responsible for the outcome of their actions. If a person makes a decision and then harm comes to him from that decision, he cannot complain. It is unacceptable for anyone else to bear his harm, especially if others advised him that his decisions may bring him harm.
“A man wounded another during the time of the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him. The wounded man chose a form of punishment and the prophet ordered him to wait until his wound was healed because damage might result from the wound and that would entitle him to further compensation. The wounded man refused to wait — this was his decision — and the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, gave him his right [to carry out the punishment]. Damages then occurred as a result of the wound, but he was not compensated by the prophet. This is recalled in what was related by Amru Ibn Shu’ayb, on the authority of his father and his grandfather: ‘A man was stabbed in his knee with a horn. He came to the messenger of Allah, peace and prayers be upon him, and said: ‘Guide me!’ He said: ‘Until you are healed,’ and then he said: ‘Guide me’ So he guided him, so he came to him and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I limped.’ So he said, peace and prayers be upon him: ‘I forbid you, and you disobeyed, So God help you and maybe your limp would be healed. Then the messenger, peace and prayers be upon him, forbid anyone to seek revenge until their wounds heal.’ This is a veritable Hadith narrated by Ahmad and Al-Buhayqi. This wounded man made the wrong decision, and he alone had to bear the consequences, and his complaints were not accepted!
“When the dispute over succession occurred between Abdullah Bin Az-Zubayr and Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Ibn Omar’s opinion was to not dispute over that. He was not partial to either of them nor had he helped either of them. When Ibn Az-Zubayr, may God be pleased with him, was killed, Ibn Omar stood over him and said: ‘ May there be peace upon you, Abu Khubayb (the Kunya of Hadrat ‘Abdullah b. Zubayr)! By Allah, I used to forbid you from this!),’ and he repeated it and this was narrated by Muslim (6532). No one blamed Ibn Omar for not supporting Ibn Az-Zubayr since his opinion was different [Ibn Omar’s].
“Every person is responsible for his decision and its outcome, and he has no right to hold others responsible for the outcome of his decisions. With this it is clear to see that what the leaders of Hamas are doing with the people of Gaza and others is not legitimate [against Shariaa]. They are the decision makers and they alone should bear the outcome of it. No one is to blame for not helping them, but it is wrong when the leaders of Hamas make the decision to go to war and then want others to fight instead of them, paying the price of Hamas ‘ decision. It is taking advantage of others and terrorizing them with ‘Gaza’s shirt.’ Hamas leaders are the decision makers and it is up to them to bear the consequences. They are responsible for every drop of blood shed in Gaza and the destruction [of it], just as Yasser Arafat is responsible for all of Palestine’s tragedies since 1978. This is because he refused Sadat’s gift to them and then laboriously went after it and got nothing.
“Sixth thought: Fulfilling a promise to an enemy is more important than helping a friend. If a man or a state made a promise to a truce with an enemy, it is a duty to fulfill that promise. People of knowledge agree with religion that fulfilling a promise is a duty whether it’s with a Muslim or a non-believer. God Almighty states: ‘Fulfil the Covenant of Allah when ye have entered into it’ [Koranic verse; An-Nahl; 16:91]. The Almighty states: ‘Ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations’ [Koranic verse; Al-Ma’idah; 5:1].
“If this enemy were to go to war with another people, it would be unacceptable to support them against those who promised the enemy a truce, even if those people [waging the war with the enemy] were of the same religion and the enemy is of a different religion than those people who [promised a truce]. God Almighty ruled this in His statement: ‘But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance’ [Koranic verse; Al-Anfal; 8:72]. The prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, ordered Huthayfa Bin Al-Yamman, may God be pleased with him, with this during the battle of Badr. As Huthayfa stated: ‘Nothing prevented me from being present at the Battle of Badr except this incident. I came out with my father Husayl (to participate in the Battle), but we were caught by the non-believers of Quraysh. They said: (Do) you intend to go to Muhammad? We said: We do not intend to go to him, but we wish to go (back) to Medina. So they took from us a covenant in the name of God that we would turn back to Medina and would not fight on the side of Muhammad (may peace be upon him). So we came to the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and related the incident to him. He said: Both of you proceed (to Medina); we will fulfil the covenant made with them and seek God’s help against them,’ narrated by Muslim (4657). Huthayfa, may God be pleased with him, and his father did not support the prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, in the battle of Badr because of the promise he made with the non-believers of Mecca about not fighting them. Fulfilling a promise to an enemy is more important than supporting a friend according the book [Koran] and Sunnah.
“This is why Al-Shaf’i, may God have mercy on him, stated: ‘According to a chapter from Musta’man Dar Al-Harb: If a group of Muslims enter a battlefield under the covenant of security then the enemy is also granted the covenant of security until such a time when they depart or until the covenant of security expires, and they will not be subjected to their oppression and betrayal. Even if the enemy should imprison Muslim children and women, I still would not condone betraying the enemy’ (Al-Um 165/4 and repeated in 189/4).
“Don’t believe he who says that Israel is violating Palestine and that it is intolerable to reconcile with Israel or call a truce. This is wrong because what is stated in the book and the Sunnah that clarifies these rules does not separate between the enemy outside the country and the enemy inside it. European Christians occupied the coats of the Levant and Jerusalem for about 200 years during the fifth and sixth century Hijri. The Muslims amirs, among them Salahuddin Al-Ayubi, would sometimes fight them and sometimes reconcile with them, depending on their interests, depending on whether they were weak or strong, until they expelled them from these lands. This took place in the presence of scholars and scholars of jurisprudence without any difficulty from anyone. But these days, those who have no knowledge of religion have emerged to terrorize the people with Palestine’s shirt, the greatest of all issues, to criminalize and reconcile with the Jews.
“If a people see that they would benefit from a truce with Israel, and others refuse it, it is unacceptable for those who refused to burden those who accepted the truce with the consequences of their actions.
“Today, Hamas has chosen to clash with Israel, and its people will hold it accountable for its decision. However, it is unacceptable to burden others with the consequences of Hamas’ decision. Whoever started the fire needs to put it out and he who destroys must repair.
“Also, it is unacceptable to burden the Egyptian people with the settlement of Hamas’ bill of its decision to terrorize with Gaza’s shirt. By soaking Gaza’s shirt in blood, they are responsible for washing it. It is enough that the Egyptian people have been paying Palestine with their blood and sweat for the past 60 years (1945-2008), while its children are drowning in the Mediterranean Seas in search of a living.