Jihad is the most just, humane and noble form of warfare.
Even non-Muslims who have managed to maintain some degree of honesty and objectivity while studying the Laws of Jihad have been compelled to conclude that the 1400 year old, ancient, medieval, “backwards” Laws of Jihad are superior to modern, “enlightened”, international rules related to war.
A few such examples are cited below:
Roger C. Algase, in his thesis comparing the laws of Jihad with modern international law, states that the laws of Jihad:
“strikes a balance between military necessity and respect for human life in a manner which gives a higher priority to saving the lives of non-combatants than does modern international law…the Islamic law dealing with the conduct of war is in a better position than modern theory to develop an effective approach to the problems involved in the law of war crimes…”
“The growth of the legal literature in the early centuries of Islam which attempted to anticipate every possible situation which could arise in any area of human conduct leaves perhaps less room for uncertainty as to what the law is than the modern case method…The contrast between the ability of Islamic law and the ability of modern International law to develop an effective system for governing conduct in battle is nowhere more evident than in the case of air warfare [1400 years before air warfare was invented!!! – note added]…”
Troy S. Thomas concludes in his thesis on the Laws of Jihad with regards to prisoners of war that:
“Finally, it [i.e. the thesis] argues that the laws governing the treatment of POWs are at least as equally benevolent as the Geneva Convention and are in some specific cases broader in scope. Ultimately, they carry a more convincing sanction. A declaration of jihad carries with it a robust body of law that should guide policy and behavior lest all credibility for jihad be lost…”
Hans Kruse states in his seminal thesis on Islamic International Law that:
“the positive international law of Europe had more than eight centuries later not yet reached the high degree of humanitarianization with which the Islamic law of war was imbued.”
Unlike the the Geneva convention, the Hague convention, International Humanitarian Law, and other man-made laws which invariably fluctuate at the behest of the world’s powerful nations and which are often paid merely lip service to, the Laws of Jihad are immutable, unchangeable and can never be up for review or “improvement”. Moreover, such Divine Laws completely dictated, controlled and regulated the conduct of Muslim Warriors for over a thousand years. Regarding the rapid conquests of the medieval, “backwards” Muslims, the famous French political scientist, historian and thinker, Gustave Le Bon, states in his detailed study of the conquests of the early Arabs:
“history has never known a merciful and a just conqueror as the Arabs….The conduct of the Commander of the Believers, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, in Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) proves how kindly the Arab conquerors dealt with the conquered peoples, the opposite of what was done by the Crusaders in Jerusalem many centuries later…* [see Footnote 1 below]”
“The forbearance and toleration that characterized the Arab conquerors, of which historians were ignorant, seemed to explain to what extent they were able to expand their conquests… They used to show mercy to the weak, be kind towards the conquered and abide by the conditions they imposed upon themselves, to the end of those good traits… whichever region they invaded, if Syria or Spain, they treated the people with utmost gentlesness by leaving them their laws, their institutions and their religion…. Never before had the world known conquerors with such tolerance or with such gentle a religion.”
Similarly, the English historian, Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, mentions in his detailed study of the early conquests of the very first generations of Muslims:
“Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country…. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action [i.e. extermination or forced conversions], they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestanism penal in France or as the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years … the very survival of these churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Mohammedan governments towards them…” [The Spread of Islam in the World]
Those who study objectively the conquests of the early Muslims, sincerely and honestly seeking the truth, will come to the very same conclusion as the following one reached by the former British Diplomat, Charles Eaton, one of innumerable westerners to have eventually embraced Islam after having realised the superiority and beauty of its evidently Divine Laws:
“The rapidity with which Islam spread across the known world of the seventh centuries was strange enough, but stranger still is the fact that no rivers flowed with blood, no fields were enriched with the corpses of the vanquished. As warriors the Arabs might have been no better than other of their kind who had ravaged and slaughtered across the peopled lands but, unlike these others, they were on a leash. There were no massacres, no rapes, no cities burned. These men feared God to a degree scarcely imaginable in our time and were in awe of His all-seeking presence, aware of it in the wind and the trees, behind every rock and in every valley. Even in these strange lands there was no place in which they could hide from this presence, and while vast distances beckoned them ever onwards they trod softly on the earth, as they had been commanded to do. There had never been a conquest like this.”
Unfortunately, the likes of these Allah-fearing, selfless, honourable men of integrity, whose nature was imbued with genuinely Islamic mercy and concern for all of Allah’s Makhlooq (creation), and who conquered and ruled most of the known world for many centuries, are scarcely to be found anywhere in the world today. The Prophet of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) foretold that true Islam will eventually become Ghareeb (lone, forlorn, strange) as it clearly has today.
A true representation of the only religion to have brought justice and enlightenment to the entire world on an unprecedented and rapid scale, the only religion under whose benign rule oppressed populations the world over found genuine sanctuary, and the only religion to have provided and to continue to offer a solution to the chaos, anarchy, mass-exploitation, epidemics of murder, suicides, depression, drugs, rapes, bestiality etc. currently plaguing every society today – the natural consequence of Kufr (disbelief and rejection of the Final, Divinely Revealed Law) – is more easily found in the ancient books of Islam than in any muslim community today.
Furthermore, testifying to its Divine origin and its applicability for all times and places, Islam is the only religion whose immutable 1400 year old source-texts, laws, spirit, ethos and every other facet, have been preserved in the most minute detail with unparalleled accuracy, thus enabling any person today or in future to embrace a Way of Life that will forever remain the only panacea to all the problems afflicting this ephemeral (extremely short-lived) world, and will forever remain the only religion that secures eternal salvation for the impending life to come tomorrow.
An exposition of one aspect of Jihad, the laws of Aman (the means by which a sacred contract of safety and security is enacted between the Muslims and the enemy (harbi)) will be forthcoming here insha-Allah, which will further demonstrate that the 1400 year-old, ancient, medieval, “backwards” Laws of Jihad – all of which are unchangeable and immutable just like every other 1400 year-old ruling of Islam – are far far superior to all man-made constructs including the innumerable modernist and Salafi versions of “Islam” which have mushroomed in recent times, and which all are perversions of true Islam.
The blood-soaked pillage of the sacred city of Jerusalem by the Christian crusaders, whose brutality and barbarism were not much less than their modern, secular counterparts today, is accurately depicted by the English Historian, Thomas Hart Milman, as follows:
“No barbarian, no infidel, no Saracen, ever perpetrated such wanton and cold-blooded atrocities of cruelty as the wearers of the cross of Christ on the capture of that city. Murder was Mercy. Rape tenderness, simple plunder the mere assertion of the conqueror’s right. Children were seized by their legs, some of them were plucked from their mother’s breasts and dashed against the walls or whirled from the battlements. Others were obliged to leap from the walls; some tortured, roasted by slow fires. They ripped up prisoners to see if they had swallowed gold. Of 70,000 Saracens there were not left enough to bury the dead; poor Christians were hired to perform the office. Everyone surprised in the temple was slaughtered, till the reek from the dead bodies drove away the slayers. The Jews were buried alive in their synagogues.”
Christian historian Michaud writes:
“The Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers, and above all into their mosques, where they could not conceal themselves from the pursuit of the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Omar, where the Saracens defended themselves for some time, renewed there the deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d’Agiles, who was an eye- witness, says. ‘that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses’ bridles.”
Fulcher of Chartres, a Christian chronicler of that time, said:
“In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared”
Only a generation after the fall of Jerusalem into Christian hands, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi (rahmatullah alayh) (famously known in the west as “Saladin”) conquered this prized city. How did this Orthodox, medieval, Muslim ruler repay the butchery and massacre of 70,000 Muslims at the hands of the savage Crusaders almost a century ago? Describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Sultan Salahuddin, Steven Runcimman, a Christian, writes:
“Saladin had the city at his mercy. He could storm it when he wished.…On Friday 2nd October, Saladin entered Jerusalem. It was the 27th day of Rajab….The victors (i.e. the Muslims) were correct and humane.
Where the Franks, eighty-eight years before, had waded through the blood of their (Muslim) victims, not a building now was looted, not a person injured. By Saladin’s orders guards patrolled the streets and the gates, preventing any outrage on the Christians…
Then Saladin announced that he would liberate every aged man and woman. When the Frankish ladies who had ransomed themselves came in tears to ask him where they should go, for their husbands or fathers were slain or captive, he answered by promising to release every captive husband, and to the widows and orphans he gave gifts from his own treasury. His mercy and kindness were in strange contrast to the deeds of the Christian conquerors of the First Crusade.
The Orthodox Christians and the Jacobites remained in Jerusalem. Each had to pay a capitation tax in addition to his ransom, though many poorer classes were excused the payment. The rich amongst them bought up much of the property left vacant by the Franks’ departure. The rest was bought by Moslems and Jews whom Saladin encouraged to settle in the city. When the news of Saladin’s victory reached Constantinople the Emperor Isaac Angelus sent an embassy to Saladin to congratulate him and to ask that the Christian Holy Places should revert to the Orthodox Church. After a little delay his request was granted.”
Worth noting is the fact that Salahuddin was of the Shaafi’i Madh-hab in Fiqh, a staunch upholder and propagator of the Ash’ari Madh-hab in Aqeedah, and one who established numerous Sufi Khanqahs including one in his own house in Damascus, as documented by reliable Islamic historians such as al-Maqrizi.
Considering the fact that the numerous offspring (salafi sub-sects) today of Ibn Abdul Wahhab – the inspiration of ALL Salafi sects today, including ISIS – are doing Tabdee’ (declaring as deviant) or Takfeer of even their own siblings (other Salafi subsects who share the exact same Taymiyyun Aqeedah), it’s a no-brainer that the hard-core Sufi Ash’ari, Salahuddin Ayyubi, would have been declared a Kaaafir, or at least a deviant, if he were around today to establish Ash’arism and Sufism as he did in the 6th century.
Only political correctness and expediencies prevent the various Salafi sub-sects, who are second only to the Shiah sect in the chameleon-like art of Taqiyyah, from baring their true colours and being consistent with their Tabdee’ and Takfeer.
True Islam as upheld by the likes of Salahuddin, stands poles apart to all versions of Salafi and modernist “islam”.
TRUE JIHAD IS CHARACTERIZED BY JUSTICE, HONOUR AND INTEGRITY
A few young men of a Muslim Army, while in pursuit of a Kaafir soldier in the battlefield, called out in Persian, “Don’t be afraid!” The Kaafir soldier, understanding this call to be an assurance of safety, permitted the Muslims to catch up with him, only then to be killed by them.
When Umar (radhiyllahu anhu) heard of this seemingly minor misdemeanour in the battlefield against a Kaafir enemy combatant, he sounded the following severe warning to any Muslim who commits such treachery, which portrays the enormous emphasis placed by Islam on justice, honour and integrity, even during war:
“By He in whose hand my soul is, if I hear of anyone who does that, I shall strike off his neck [i.e. execution].”
This narration is related in numerous authentic books such as Imam Malik’s Muwatta. The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (Leading Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen), whilst differing on whether the specific punishment stated by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is mandatory or not, all agreed that the misdemeanour described above constituted treachery and as such deserved severe punishment.
Numerous other narrations from Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) convey a similar meaning, emphasizing the fact that even in a real battlefield, if a Kaafir combatant understands or misunderstands, from even the slightest indication, that he has been granted safety by a Muslim, then the Muslim is obliged to honour that impression of him, and is obliged not harm the Kaafir combatant at all. For example, the following authentic narration used by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen as evidence (istidlaal) for the prohibition of treachery even against a Kaafir combatant on the battlefield, quotes Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as saying:
‘A Muslim man that gestures to a man from the enemy: “If you come down I will kill you.” And he (the enemy) comes down believing that he has been granted safety, then he (the Muslim) has guaranteed him (the enemy) safety.’”
[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab-ul-Kharaj of Imam Abu Yusuf, al-Siyar of Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani, and other books of the Salaf]
In the scanario described above, a Muslim expresses his explicit intention to kill the enemy. However, the enemy misunderstood from the gesture that the Muslim does not intend to harm him. As a result a contract of Aman is established automatically and the Muslim is obliged not to harm him.
The obligation of abiding by this contract of Aman is of such a degree that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) threatened the execution of any true Muslim warrior who violates the contract by murdering in a treacherous manner a Kaafir combatant in a real battlefield – a Kaafir enemy who would most likely have already slaughtered or harmed numerous innocent Muslims.
Now not too much Aql (intellect) is required to understand what Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) Fatwa and attitude would have been towards the fraudulent ‘Jihadis’ of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Pakistani Fake Taliban, and other Salafi-influenced ‘Jihadi’ groups, and their Zindeeq “scholars” who, like all modernists today, excel in the art of making Halaal that which is Haraam. They are the Zindeeqs who legalize (make Halaal) such perverted abominations as gunning down or blowing oneself up in amongst protected (Mu’aahid) men, women and children in a completely non-battlefield scenario.
The Laws of Islam pertaining to every single aspect of life, including Jihaad, were derived, recorded, compiled, and set in stone over a thousand years ago, by a galaxy of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the Leading Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen) and Fuqaha who had instituted a incomparably monumental and unmatchable process of codification, compilation, and intense scrutiny which culminated eventually in the compendium of rulings that now constitutes the Four Madh-habs (schools of thought which comprise of all the original rulings of Islam).
These rulings of Islam which include the absolute prohibition of targeting civilians in Jihaad, and the absolute prohibition of treachery and fraud, are ALL immutable, unchangeable, and not up for review or “improvement”, regardless of how rigid, restrictive and “backwards” such Laws of Islam might appear to the fraudulent “Jihaadis”, Salafis, and modernists today, whose satanic pride (Kibr) and desperate craving to concoct a tailor-made religion (Deen) based around their filthy desires lead them to dwell under the self-deception that their kindergarten-level of knowledge enables them to re-enact an improved version of the monumental process instituted by those who were, according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the most superior of generations (Khairul Quroon), whose knowledge and piety will never be matched again, and who witnessed first-hand and carried forward to their direct students the spirit and ethos of the Deen as practised by the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
Any version of “Deen” which seeks to differ with or “improve” on the Four Madh-habs even slightly, such as the innumerable new versions of “Deen” of the multitudes of Salafi and modernist groups that have mushroomed recently, is a deviated imposter of a “Deen” that has nothing to do with Islam.
THE 1400 YEAR OLD PROHIBITION OF KILLING WOMEN, CHILDREN AND PROTECTED (MU’AAHID) MEN EVEN IN WAR
The following quotes from the Classical Fuqaha (jurists), provide just a glimpse into the 1400 year old, ancient, medieval, and “backward” Laws of Jihad:
Allamah Ibn Abd al-Barr said:
وَأَجْمَعَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ بِجُمْلَةِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَهُمْ قَتْلُ نِسَاءِ الْحَرْبِيِّينَ وَلَا أَطْفَالِهِمْ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ لَيْسُوا مِمَّنْ يُقَاتِلُ فِي الْأَغْلَبِ
“The Ulama (scholars) are unanimous (i.e. Ijma’) on advocating the generality of this hadith, and it is not permissible according to them to kill women and children from the Harbis (people whom the Muslims are at war with), because they are not generally from those who fight.” (Tamheed)
Imam Nawawi said:
أجمع العلماء على تحريم قتل النساء والصبيان إذا لم يقاتلوا
“The Ulama are unanimous (i.e. Ijma’) on the prohibition of killing women and children when they are not fighting.” (Sharh Saheeh Muslim)
Allamah Ibn Battaal states:
ولا يجوز عند جميع العلماء قصد قتل نساء الحربيين ولا أطفالهم ؛ لأنهم ليسوا ممن قاتل فى الغالب
“According to ALL the Ulama it is impermissible to intentionally kill the women of the Harbees (those with whom the Muslims are at war) and their children, because they are generally not from those who fight.” (Sharh Saheeh Bukhari)
Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states:
واتفق الجميع كما نقل ابن بطال وغيره على منع القصد إلى قتل النساء والولدان..
“ALL are in agreement (i.e. Ijma’), as Ibn Battaal and others have transmitted, upon the prohibition of intentionally killing women and children.” [Fath ul-Bari]
Allamah Ibn Rushd states:
ولا خلاف بين المسلمين أنه لا يجوز قتل نسائهم ولا صبيانهم، ما لم يقاتل الصبي والمرأة
“There is no difference amongst the Muslims (i.e. Ijma’) that it is impermissible to kill their women and children as long as the child and woman does not fight.” [Bidayat ul-Mujtahid]
Imam Ibn al-Humam states:
وما الظنّ إلا أن حرمة قتل النساء والصبيان إجماع
“I do not know except that the prohibition of killing women and children is [established by] Ijma (consensus of all the scholars)” [Fath ul-Qadeer]
Most of the scholars quoted above are from around a 1000 years ago.
Like all other 1400 year old, ancient, and medieval Laws of Islam, these Laws of Jihad are ALL immutable, unchangeable, and can never be open to re-interpretation. The doors of Ijtihaad (interpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah) had been welded firmly shut by the Fuqaha (jurists) over a thousand years ago. There is no scope in Islam for overriding any of the ancient Laws of Islam no matter how much the modernist and ‘progressive’ Zindeeqs (heretics) of today detest it.
Modernists who seek to re-interpret and overturn the ancient Laws of Islam, and Salafis who seek to open the door for each and every scholar to interpret directly the source texts of Islam, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, do so at the peril of their Imaan (faith). Their “ijtihad” – conclusions based on their own understanding of the Qur’an and the Sunnah – have absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
A Kharijite-inclined Aalim evidently distressed by an article exposing the evil and twisted actions and Fatwas of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Ibn Uthaymin, Hamoud ibn Uqla, Anwar Awlaki, and other Salafi and modernist Imams, which exhort the mass-murder of women, children and babies, made the following comment: “If you claim their fataawaa are wrong and contrary to ijmaaa’ (consensus), then really it shouldn’t be hard to bring the madhaahib’s books to disprove it.”
Despite being a Maulana/Mufti, perhaps even one of those salafized “Mujtahids”, you miserably failed to understand the purpose of producing those Fatwas from prominent Salafi and modernist Imams exhorting the mass-slaughter of women, children, and babies. Perhaps this is because the article was not directed at you and your ilk whose deep Nafsaani attachment to such Zindeeq (heretic) or accursed Bidatee (deviate) Imams – i.e. Gods besides Allah who flagrantly transgress Ijma’ – prevent you and your ilk from intuitively appreciating the fact that perhaps roasting babies alive just might be prohibited in the Shariah, even if the Kuffaar do the same to our babies.
The article was directed at those who already understand readily the prohibition of slaughtering women, children and babies, but who themselves employ the very same principles i.e. Ghair Muqallidism (freeing oneself from rigidly binding oneself to the ancient laws of Islam), which these Salafi and modernist Imams also employ to provide justification for their Fatwas legalizing mass-slaughter of women, children and babies.
The purpose of the article was to demonstrate the chaos and anarchy that stems from opening the door for each scholar to escape Taqleed (rigidly binding oneself) to the ruling of one of the Four Madh-habs (schools of thought which comprise of all the ancient, original rulings of Islam), and instead adopt a “minority” ruling, or come up with his or her own understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah e.g. legalizing imitation of the Kuffaar in their orgy of mass-murder and mass-rapes throughout the world.
An article will be forthcoming insha-Allah which will thoroughly expose the hypocrisy of these Salafis and closet Salafis who, despite being the quickest at labelling others as deviates, adopt an extraordinarily deafening silence regarding their own “Gods besides Allah” even when their beloved Gods transgress Ijma’ (consensus) multiple times.
For yours’ and others’ possible edification, a few explicit transmissions of Ijma’ (consensus) on the prohibition of mass-slaughter of women, children and babies have been cited in the article above.
However, despite the Ijma’ cited above, and in other quotes to come in the article, Salafism and modernism possess a unique ability to overturn Ijma’, as demonstrated in countless other issues.
Also, refer again to the following incident cited in the article above, which was used for Istidlaal (proof) in the authentic books of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen:
“A few young men of a Muslim Army, while in pursuit of an enemy soldier in the battlefield, called out in Persian, “Don’t be afraid!” The enemy soldier, understanding this call to be an assurance of safety, permitted the Muslims to catch up with him, only then to be killed by them. When Umar (radhiyllahu anhu) heard of this seemingly minor misdemeanour in the battlefield against a non-muslim enemy combatant, he sounded the following severe threat to any Muslim who commits such treachery, which portrays the enormous emphasis placed by Islam on justice, honour and integrity, even during war: “By He in whose hand my soul is, if I hear of anyone who does that, I shall execute him!”
When Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) sounded the threat of a death punishment for any Muslim who kills in a treacherous manner an accursed Kaaafir Harbee (a mass-murdering enemy combatant) on the battlefield, how many a brain cell(s) does one require to understand the prohibition of slaughtering women, children and babies, outside of an actual battlefield?
When committing istikhfaaf (treating lightly) of even the Sunnah status of the Miswaak expels one from the fold of Islam, then what is the accursed status of the one who commits Istikhfaaf (treats lightly) of a crime for which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) declared the death punishment, leave aside the mass-murder of women, children, and babies?
As will be demonstrated in another forthcoming article on the rules of Aman (a sacred contract enacted between the Muslims and an accursed Harbee even on the battlefield), there is Ijma’ on the severity of the crime for which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) declared the death punishment, although the Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen did differ on whether or not a Muslim should be executed for such a crime.
However, Halaalizing or doing Istikhfaaf of such a crime, or any other major crime (e.g. rape) for that matter, is Zanaadiqa (heresy) for which no Imam would differ that execution is the most appropriate punishment.
Despite the ingrained brutality and barbarism that is inherent in Kufr, which constrained the Kuffaar of every age, without exception, to pillage, ravage, plunder, ransack, defile and utterly destroy everything in their path, even slaughtering babies without compunction, Islam has always upheld the absolute prohibition of imitating the Kuffaar in this and in all other aspects.
Islam, which is represented only by the Four Madh-habs, stands apart from all other religions and ideologies.
Any “Deen” (religion) which opens the door to escape the ruling of the Four Madh-habs, even momentarily, such as the countless versions of Salafi and modernist “Deens” which have mushroomed in recent times, is a deviant imposter of Deen that has nothing to do with Islam.
DARUL HARB AND THE ANCIENT RULES OF AMAN
In regards to Muslims living in Darul Harb – Kuffaar nations which are murdering Muslims around the world – a sacred contract known as Aman is enacted between the Muslim residents and the non-Muslims, which prohibits the Muslims from harming not only priests, monks, farmers, hired workers, old people and other non-combatants – those branded by the ancient Shariah as “those who generally do not fight” – but also all Harbis (military combatants and all potential fighters).
A remarkable conformity exists between all Four Madh-habs (schools of thought which comprise of all the ancient and original laws of Islam) in regards to the severity of the issue of Aman, the consequences of breaking it, the means by which the contract is enacted, and the method of terminating the contract.
A future article will elaborate in detail on these ancient and immutable Laws of Jihad which some scholars today are attempting to override or “improve”, by loosening the reins of Rigid Taqleed (tightly binding oneself) to the ancient Fatwas of the Four Madh-habs.
This sacred contract of Aman (guaranteeing safety and security) is enacted automatically by both implicit or explicit means. An Aman contract enacted by mere gesture, even if misunderstood by a mass-murdering Kaafir war-mongerer, has the same weight as a written contract guaranteeing safety and security. This will become clear even from the few snippets below, and will become even more clear from the the upcoming article.
For now, the narrations produced below from the ancient Fuqaha (jurists) should be sufficient in providing a glimpse into the manner in which the sacred contract of Aman is enacted, and the severe consequences of breaking it.
The following narration from Masaa-il al-Imam Ahmad, in regards to a Harbi in an actual battlefield, demonstrates that even the slightest of indications – even if it is misunderstood by a mass-murdering enemy combatant (Harbi) – is sufficient for the contract of Aman to be enacted:
قُلْتُ لِأَحْمَدَ» الرَّجُلُ يَحْمِلُ عَلَى الْعِلْجِ، فَيَصَيحُ بِهِ بِالرُّومِيَّةِ: قِفْ، أَوْ أَلْقِ سِلَاحَكَ؟ قَالَ: هَذَا أَمَانٌ، قُلْتُ: فَإِنَّ الْعِلْجَ عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ مِنْهُ مَنْجَا؟ فَقَالَ: هَذَا أَمَانٌ، قُلْتُ: فَإِنْ قَالَ لَهُ: ذَهَبْتَ أَوْ نَحْوَ ذَلِكَ، يُرِيدُ يُرْعِبُهُ؟ قَالَ: كُلُّ شَيْءٍ يَرَى الْعِلْجُ أَنَّهُ أَمَانٌ فَهُوَ أَمَانٌ «
“I said to Ahmad [ibn Hanbal]: A man attacks a non-Muslim, shouting out to him in the Roman language: “Wait!” Or: “Put down your weapons!” (Ahmad) said: “This is Aman (i.e. a contract guaranteeing safety and security).” I said: The non-Muslim knows that he can’t escape him. (Ahmad) said: “(Even still), it is Aman.” I said: If he said to him: “You have gone” or something like that, intending to frighten him. (Ahmad) said: “Everything the non-Muslim believes to be Aman is Aman.”
Allamah Ibn Qudamah narrates the following narration from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in order to demonstrate that what the Harbis (actual and potential war-combatants) understand from the norm (aadah) of the society is sufficient to enact a contract of Aman:
وقد جرت العادة بدخولهم إلينا تجاراً بغير أمان، لم يعرض لهم، وقال أحمد: إذا ركب القوم في البحر، فاستقبلهم فيه تجار مشركون من أرض العدو يريدون بلاد الإسلام، لم يعرضوا لهم ولم يقاتلوهم، وكل من دخل بلاد المسلمين من أهل الحرب بتجارة، بويع ولم يسأل عن شيء ا–هـ.
“[When] it is the norm for them (i.e. the Harbis) to enter upon us as traders without Aman (i.e. an explicit one), they will not be disturbed. Ahmad said: When the people (Muslims) are at sea, and the Mushrikoon (idolators) from the land of the enemy face them intending the lands of Islam, they (the Muslims) will not intercept them or fight them. All who enter the lands of the Muslims from the Ahlul Harb (people with whom the Ummah is at war) for trade, will be traded with, and not asked about anything.”
Imam Shafi’i clarifies in several places in his ‘al-Umm’, that the sacred contract of Aman is enacted even if implicitly understood. For example, he states:
وإذا أسر العدو الرجل من المسلمين فخلوا سبيله وأمنوه وولوه ضياعهم أو لم يولوه فأمانهم إياه أمان لهم منه، وليس له أن يغتالهم ولا يخونهم.
“When the enemy takes a man from amongst the Muslims as a prisoner, and then they let him go and grant him security…then their Aman to him amounts to an Aman from him of them. He may not betray them or be treacherous towards them.”
Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, in his Siyar, states that if the Muslims attempt to enter into the Darul Harb through deception, by claiming to be messengers of the Caliph, or claiming to be traders, then the sacred contract of Aman is enacted. The mere impression of seeking safety given to the Harbis (actual and potential war-combatants) is sufficient for the enactment of this contract. Imam ash-Shaybani states:
ولو أن رهطاً من المسلمين أتوا أول مسالح أهل الحرب فقالوا: نحن رسل الخليفة، وأخرجوا كتاباً يشبه كتاب الخليفة، أو لم يُخرجوا، وكان ذلك خديعة منهم للمشركين، فقالوا لهم: ادخلوا، فدخلوا دار الحرب. فليس يحل لهم قتل أحد من أهل الحرب، ولا أخذ شيء من أموالهم ما داموا في دارهم .فكذلك إذا أظهروا ذلك من أنفسهم، فيجعل ما أظهروه بمنزلة الاستئمان منهم، ولو استأمنوا فأمنوهم وجب عليهم أن يفوا لهم، فكذلك إذا ظهر ما هو دليل…”
“Had a group of the Muslims come to the first military camp of the Harbis (those with whom the Ummah is at war with) and said: “We are messengers of the Caliph,” producing a letter that resembles a caliphal letter, or not producing it, and that was a deception on their part of the non-Muslims, upon which they said to them: “Come in” and they entered Darul Harb, it is not permissible for them to kill any of the Harbis, nor to take any of their wealth for as long as they are in their territory….What they show is treated as equivalent to seeking Aman from them; and when they seek Aman and receive Aman, it is necessary for them to honour it….And likewise were they to say: “We have come seeking trade.”
Allamah as-Sarakhsi, commenting on the above scenario states:
وهذا لما بينا أن أمر الأمان شديد والقليل منه يكفي
“This is because of what we explained that the issue of Aman is severe, and little of it is sufficient;” [Sharh Siyar]
Allamah as-Sarakhsi states similarly in his Usul:
لأن أمر الأمان مبني على التوسع وأدنى الشبه يكفي لإثباته
“The matter of Aman is built on broadness, and the slightest of doubts is sufficient to enact it”
The Fuqaha (jurists) relate the following Hadith, amongst many others, to emphasize the severe consequences of breaking the contract of Aman. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
لكل غادر لواء يركز عند باب أسته يوم القيامة يعرف به غدرته
‘[On the Day of Judgement] Every treacherous person will have a flag-standard rooted from the opening of his backside, by which his treachery will be recognised [by everyone].’
The humiliating treatment described above of a “Jihadi” Ghaadir – one who breaks a contract of Aman – will be only the beginning of his punishment. In other Hadiths, it is stated that the treacherous person will not even smell the fragrance of Jannah.
The severity of breaking the contract of Aman can be understood further from the following narration used for Istidlaal (proof) by the Salaf, in which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) declares the death punishment for any Muslim who kills a Harbi, in a treacherous manner:
عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ قَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ أَنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ أَشَارَ بِأُصْبُعِهِ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ إِلَى مُشْرِكٍ فَنَزَلَ إِلَيْهِ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَقَتَلَهُ لَقَتَلْتُهُ بِهِ
“By Allah, if one of you were to give a gesture with his fingure towards the sky, and a Mushrik (idolator) came down to you due to that, and you killed him, then I would execute you for it.”
Other narrations similar to the above used as Istidlaal (proof) and quoted in the books of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, such as al-Muwatta, confirm that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was referring to a Harbi (Kaafir war combatant) in an actual battlefield scenario. One wonders what Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) Fatwa would be regarding the growing number of Zindeeq (heretic) “Muslims” today, who exhort the mass-murder of women, children and babies in a completely non-battlefield scenario, by adopting their own understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah in preference to Rigid Taqleed to the ancient rulings of the Four Madh-habs.
The Fuqaha state, as an example, that doing istikhfaaf (treat lightly) of even a Sunnah act expels one from the fold of Islam. Those who have committed Istikhfaaf of a crime for which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) sounded the threat of death punishment, should immediately renew their Iman, in case they find themselves to be amongst the inmates of Hell-fire – or the poodles of those Zindeeq Dogs of Hell-fire whom they have foolishly adopted as their idols in this life.
Allamah as-Sarakhsi, commenting on another scenario in which the contract of Aman is automatically enacted between the Muslims and the Harbis, states:
فهو أمان جائز بمنزلة قوله: قد أمنتكم؛ لأن أمر الأمان مبني على التوسع، والتحرز عما يشبه الغدر واجب، فإذا كان معروفاً بينهم فالثابت بالعرف كالثابت بالنص
“It is a valid Aman, equivalent to saying: “I have granted you protection”, because the matter of Aman is based on broadness, and avoiding anything that resembles treachery is necessary, so once it is recognised amongst them, then what is established by the norm (Urf) is like what is established by explicit text.”
Imam ash-Shaybani uses the following narration from Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) for istidlaal (proof) to demonstrate that even an explicit declaration of intent to kill in an actual battlefield, if misconstrued and misunderstood by the enemy, is sufficient for the sacred contract of Aman to be enacted:
أيماً رجل من المسلمين أشار إلى رجل من العدو أن تعال، فإنك إن جئت قتلتك، فأتاه فهو آمن
“Any man amongst the Muslims gestures to a man from the enemy, ‘Come here – for if you come I will kill you,’ and then he (the enemy) comes, he is secure (i.e. under a contract of Aman).”
Treachery and betrayal has disastrous consequences not only for the criminals involved but also for the Ummah as a whole. Imam Malik, while commenting on the issue of Aman, relates the following narration from Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), which sums up the current humiliated state of the Ummah:
وإنه بلغني أن عبد الله بن عباس قال: ما ختَرَ قوم بالعهد إلا سلَّط الله عليهم العدو.
“It has reached me that Abdullah ibn Abbas said: No people betray a covenant but Allah will put the enemy in power over them.” [al-Muwatta]