thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
be upon him!) have said!But seriously: the answer is absolutely no; for even a novice student of fiqh would be able to see that the first dabit above concerns already a non-Muslim opponent in the case of a state of war having been validly declared by a Muslim authority against a particular non-Muslim enemy, even when that civilian is a subject or in the care [dhimma] of the hostile non-Muslim state [Dar al-Harb]. If this is the extent of the limitation to be observed with regards to non-Muslim civilians associated with a declared enemy force, what higher standard will it be in cases if it is not a valid war or when the status of war becomes ambiguous? Keep in mind that there are more than 100 Verses in the Qur'an commanding us at all times to be patient in the face of humiliation and to turn away from violence [al-i'rad 'ani l-mushrikin wa l-sabr 'ala adha l-a'da'], while there is only one famous Verse in which war (which does not last forever) becomes an option (in our modern context: for a particular Muslim authority and not an individual), when a particular non-Muslim force has drawn first blood. Question IIIf it is said: "What about the verse of the Qur'an which says {kill the unbelievers wherever you find them} and the Sahih Hadith which says 'I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify'?"We say: It is well known among scholars that the following verse, {fa-qtulU l-mushrikIna Haythu wajad-tumUhum} {kill the idolaters wherever you find them}(al-Tawba, 9:5)is in reference to a historical episode: those among the Meccan Confederates who breached the Treaty of Hudaybiyya [Sulh al-Hudaybiyya] which led to the Victory of Mecca [Fath Makka], and that therefore, no legal rulings, or in other words, no practical or particular implications, can be derived from this Verse on its own. The Divine Irony and indeed Providence from the last part of the Verse, {wherever you find them} - which many of our mufassirs understood in reference to place (i.e., attack them whether inside the Sacred Precinct or not) - is that the victory against the Meccans happened without a single battle taking place, whether inside the Sacred Precinct or otherwise, rather, there was a general amnesty [wa-mannun 'alayhi bi-takhliyati sabilihi or naha 'an safki d-dima'] for the Jahili Arabs there. Had the Verse not been subject to a historical context, then you should know that it is of the general type ['amm] and that it will therefore be subject to specification [takhsis] by some other indication [dalil]. Its effect in lay terms, were it not related to the Jahili Arabs, is that it can only refer to a case during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.Among the well known exegeses of "al-mushrikin" from this Verse are: "al-nakithina khassatan" [specifically, those who have breached (the Treaty)] [al-Nawawi al-Jawi, Tafsir, 1:331]; "al-ladhina yuharibunakum" [those who have declared war against you] [Qadi Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 2:889]; and "khassan fi mushkriki l-'arabi duna ghayrihim" [specifically, the Jahili Arabs and not anyone
else] [al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 3:81].As for the meaning of "people" [al-nas] in the above well-related Hadith, it is confirmed by Ijma' that it refers to the same "mushrikin" as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba above, and therefore what is meant there is only the Jahili Arabs [muskhriku l-'arab] during the closing days of the Final Messenger and the early years of the Righteous Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.In sum, we are not in a perpetual state of war with non-Muslims. On the contrary, the original legal status [al-asl] is a state of peace, and making a decision to change this status belongs only to a Muslim authority who will in the Next World answer for their ijtihad and decision; and this decision is not divinely charged to any individuals - not even soldiers or scholars - and to believe otherwise would go against the well-known rule in our Law that a Muslim authority could seek help from a non-Muslim with certain conditions, including, for example, that the non-Muslim allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims: [la-yast'Inu bi-mushkrikin illA bi-shurUTin ka-an takUna niyyatuhu Hasanatan li-l-MuslimIna).Question IIIIf it is said: "I have heard a scholar say that 'Israeli women are not like women in our society because they are militarised'. By implication, this means that they fall into the category of women who fight and that this makes them legitimate targets but only in the case of Palestine."We say: No properly schooled jurists from any of the Four Schools would say this as a legal judgement if they faithfully followed the juridical processes of the orthodox Schools relating to this bab; for if it is true that the scholar made such a statement and meant it in the way you've implied, then not only does this violate the well-known principal rule above (Fasl I: "It is not permissible to kill their women and children if they are not in direct combat"), but the supposed remarks also show a lack of sophistication in the legal particulars. If this is the case, then it has to be said here that this is not among the masa'il khilafiyya, about which one can afford to agree to disagree, since it is outright wrong by the principles and the rules from our usul and furu'.Let us restate the dabit again, as our jurists have succinctly summarised its rule of engagement: a soldier can only attack a female or (if applicable) child soldier (or a male civilian) in self-defence and only when she herself (and not someone else from her army) is engaged in direct combat. (As for male soldiers, it goes without saying that they are considered combatants as soon as they arrive on the battlefield even if they are not in direct combat - provided of course that the remaining conventions of war have been observed throughout, and that all this is during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.)Not only is this strict rule of engagement already made clear in our secondary legal texts, but this is also obvious from the linguistic
analysis of the primary proof-texts used to derive this principal rule. Hence, the form of the verb used in the scriptures, yuqatilu, is of the musharaka-type, so that the verb denotes a direct or a personal or a reciprocal relationship between two agents: the minimum for which is one of them making an effort or attempt to act upon the other. The immediate legal implication here is that one of the two can only even be considered a legitimate target when there is a reciprocal or direct relationship.In reality [waqi'], this is not what happens on the ground (since the bombing missions are offensive in nature - they are not targeting, for example, a force that is attacking an immediate Muslim force; but rather the attack is directed at an overtly non-military target, so the person carrying it out can only be described as attacking it - and the target is someone unknown until only seconds before the mission reaches its termination).In short, even if these women are soldiers, they can only be attacked when they are in direct combat and not otherwise. In any case, there are other overriding particulars to be considered and various conditions to be observed throughout, namely, that it must be during a valid state of war when there is no ceasefire.Question IVIf it is said: "When a bomber blows himself up he is not directing the attack towards civilians. On the contrary, the attack is designed to target off-duty soldiers (which I was told did not mean reservists, since most Israelis are technically reservists). The innocent civilians are unfortunate collateral damage in the targeting of soldiers."We say: There are two details here.Tafsil A: Off-duty soldiers are treated as civilians.Our jurists agree that during a valid war when there is no ceasefire, and when an attack is not aimed at a valid military target, a hostile soldier (whether male or female, whether conscripted or not) who is not on operational duty or not wearing a military uniform and when there is nothing in the soldier's outward appearance to suggest that the soldier is in combat, then the soldier is considered a non-combatant [man la yuqatilu] (and in this case must therefore be treated as a normal civilian). A valid military target is limited to either a battlefield [mahall al-ma'raka or sahat al-qital] or a military base [mu'askar; medieval examples are citadel or forts; modern examples are barracks, military depots, etc.]; and certainly never can anything else such as a restaurant, a hotel, a public bus, the area around a traffic light, or any other public place be considered a valid military target, since firstly, these are not places and bases from which an attack would normally originate [mahall al-ra'y]; secondly, because there is certain knowledge [yaqin] that there is intermingling [ikhtilat] with non-combatants; and thirdly, the non-combatants have not been given the option to leave the place.As for when the soldiers are on the battlefield, the normal rules of engagement apply. As for when the soldiers are in a barracks or the like, there is further discussion
on whether the soldiers become a legitimate target, and the Qawl Asahh [the More Correct Position] according to our jurists is that they do, albeit to attack them there is makruh.Tafsil B: Non-combatants cannot at all be considered collateral damage except at a valid military target, for which they may be so deemed, depending on certain extenuating circumstances.There is no khilaf that non-combatants or civilians cannot at all be considered collateral damage at a non-military target in a war zone, and that their deaths are not excusable by our Law, and that the one who ends up killing one of them will be sinful as in the case of murder, even though the soldier who is found guilty of it would be excused from the ordinary capital punishment [hadd], unless the killing was found to be premeditated and deliberate:[aw ata bi-ma'siyyatin tujibu l-hadda].If not, the murderer's punishment in this case would instead be subject to the authority's discretion [ta'zir] and he would in any case be liable to pay the relevant compensation [diya].As for a valid military target in a war zone, the Shafi'i School have historically considered the possibility of collateral damage, unlike the position held by others that it is unqualifiedly outlawed. The following are the conditions stipulated for allowing this controversial exception (in addition to meeting the most important condition of them all: that this takes place during a valid war when there is no ceasefire:)(1) The target is a valid military target. (2) The attack is as a last resort [min darura] (such as when the civilians have been warned to leave the place and after a period of siege has elapsed). wujUb al-indhAri qabla l-bad'i bi-l-qatli li-annahu lA yajUzu an yaqtula illA man yuqAtilu (3) There are no Muslim civilians or prisoners. (4) The decision to attack the target is based on a considered judgement of the executive or military leader that by doing so, there is a good chance that the battle would be won.(Furthermore, this position is subject to khilaf among our jurists with regard to whether the military target can be a Jewish or Christian [Ahl l-Kitab] one, since the sole primary text that is invoked to allow this exception concerns an incident restricted to the same "mushrikin" as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba in Question II above.)To neglect intentionally any of these strict conditions is analogous to not fulfilling the conditions [shurut] for a prayer [salat] with the outcome that it becomes invalidated [batil] and useless [fasad]. This is why the means of an act ['amal] must be correct and validated according to the rule of Law in order for its outcome to be sound and accepted, as expressed succinctly in the following wisdom of Imam Ibn 'Ata'illah (may Allah sanctify his soul!):man ashraqat bidayatuhu ashraqat nihayatuhu [He who makes good his beginning will make good his ending.]In our Law, the ends can never justify the means except when the means are in themselves permissible, or mubah (and not haram), as is made clear in the following famous legal principle:wasIlatu T-TA'ati TA'atun
wa-wasIlatu l-ma'Siyati ma'Siyatun [the means to a reward is itself a reward and the means to a sin is itself a sin.]Hence, even a simple act such as opening a window, which on its own is only mubah or halal, religiously entailing no reward nor being a sin, when a son does it with the intention of his mother's comfort on a hot summer's day before she asks for it to be opened, the originally non-consequent act itself becomes mandub [recommended] and the son is rewarded in his 'amal-account for the Next World and acquires the pleasure of Allah. wAllahu a'lam wa-ahkam bi-s-sawab! [God knows and judges best what is right!]Question VIf it is said: "In a classic manual of Islamic Sacred Law I read that "it is offensive to conduct a military expedition [ghazw] against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (though if there is no caliph, no permission is required)." Doesn't this entail that though it is makruh for anyone else to call for or initiate such a jihad, it is permissible?"We say:lA ghazwata illA fi l-jihAdi[there can be no battle except during a war!] Secondary legal texts, just as with primary proof-texts (a single Verse of the Qur'an from among the relatively few Ayat al-Ahkam or a Hadith from among the limited number of Ahadith al-Ahkam), must be read and understood in context. The conclusion drawn that it is offensive or permissible for anyone other than those in authority to declare or initiate a war is evidently wrong, since it violates the principal rule of engagement discussed in Fasl II above.The context is that of endangering one's life [taghrir bi-nafs] when there is already a valid war with no ceasefire, as seen in the above example from the Ihya' passage, but certainly not in executive matters of the kind of proclaiming a war and the like. This is also obvious from the terminology used: a ghazw [a military act, assault, foray or raid; the minimum limit in a modern example: an attack by a squad or a platoon (katiba)] can take place only when there is a state of jihad [war], not otherwise.Fa'ida Imam Ibn Hajar ( may Allah be pleased with him!) lists the organizational structure of an army as follows: a ba'th [unit] and several such together, a katiba [platoon], which is a part of a sariyya [company; made up of 50-100 soldiers], which is in turn a part of a mansar [regiment; up to 800 soldiers], which is a part of a jaysh [division; up to 4000 soldiers], which is a part of a jahfal [army corps; exceeding 4000 soldiers], which makes up the jaysh 'azim [army]. [Ibn Hajar, Tuhfa, 12:4]In our School, it is offensive but not completely prohibited for a soldier to defy, or in other words to take the initiative against the wishes of, his direct authority, whether his unit is strong or otherwise. In the modern context, this may include cases when soldier(s) disagree with a particular decision or strategy adopted by their superior officers, whether during a battle or otherwise.The accompanying
commentary to the text you quoted will help clarify this for you:[Original Text:] It is offensive to conduct an assault [whether the unit is strong (man'a) or otherwise; and some have defined a strong force as 10 men] without the permission of the authority ([Commentary:] or his subordinate, because the assault depends on the needs [of the battle and the like] and the authority is more aware about them. It is not prohibited [to go without his permission] (if) there is no grave endangering of one's life even when that is permissible in war.) [Ibn Barakat, Fayd, 2:309]Question VIIf it is said: "What is the meaning of the rule in fiqh that I always hear, that jihad is a fard kifaya [communal obligation] and when the Dar al-Islam is invaded or occupied it is a fard 'ayn [personal obligation]? How do we apply this in the context of a modern Muslim state such as Egypt?"We say: It is fard kifaya for the eligible Muslim subjects of the state in the sense that recruitment to the military is only voluntary when the state declares war with a non-Muslim state (as for non-Muslim subjects, they evidently are not religiously obligated but can still serve). It becomes a fard 'ayn for any able-bodied Muslim when there is a conscription or a nationwide draft to the military if the state is invaded by a hostile non-Muslim force, but only until the hostile force is repelled or the Muslim authority calls for a ceasefire. As for those not in the military, they have the option to defend themselves if attacked even if they have to resort to throwing stones and using sticks [bi ayyi shay'in aTAqUhu wa-law bi-HijAratin aw 'aSA].Furu': When it is not possible to prepare for war [and rally the army for war (ijtima' li-harb), and a surprise attack by a hostile force completely defeats the army of the state and the entire state becomes occupied] and someone [at home, for example] is faced with the choice of whether to surrender or to fight [such as when the hostile force comes knocking at the door], then he may fight. Or he may surrender, provided that he knows [with certainty] that if he resisted [arrest] he would be killed and that [his] wife would be safe from being raped [fahisha] if she were taken. If not [that is to say, even if he surrenders he knows he will be killed and his wife raped when taken], then [as a last resort] fighting [jihad] becomes personally obligatory for him. [al-Bakri, I'anat, 4:197].Reflect upon this legal ruling of our Religion and the emphasis placed upon preserving human life and upon the wisdom of resorting to violence only when it is absolutely necessary and in its proper place; and witness the conjunction between the maqasid and the wasa'il and the meaning of the conditions when fighting actually becomes a fard 'ayn for an individual!Question VIIIf it is said today: "In the (Shafi`i) Madhhab, what are the different classifications of lands in the world? For example, Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Kufr
and so forth, and what have the classical ulema said their attributes are?"We say: As it is also from empirical fact [tajriba], Muslim scholars have classified the territories in this world into: Dar al-Islam [its synonyms: Bilad al-Islam or Dawla al-Islam; a Muslim state or territory or land or country, etc.] and Dar al-Kufr [a non-Muslim state, territory etc.]The definition of a Muslim state is: "any place at which a resident Muslim is capable of defending himself against hostile forces [harbiyyun] for a period of time is a Muslim state, where his judgements can be applied at that time and those times following it." [Ba'alawi, Bughya, 254]. A non-Muslim who resides in a Muslim state is, in our terminology: kafir dhimmi or al-kafir bi-dhimmati l-Muslim [a non-Muslim in the care of a Muslim state].By definition, an area is a Muslim state as long as Muslims continue to live there and the political and executive authority is Muslim. (Think about this, for the Muslim lands are many, varied, wide and extensive; and how poor and of limited insight are those who have tried to limit the definition of what a Muslim state must be, and whether realizing it or not thus try to shrink the Muslim world!)As for a non-Muslim state, it is the absence of a Muslim state. As for the Dar al-Harb [sometimes called, Ard al-'Adw], it is a non-Muslim state which is in a state of war with a Muslim state. Therefore, a hostile non-Muslim soldier from there is known in our books as: kafir harbi.Furu': Even if such a person enters or resides in a Muslim country that is in a state of war with his home country, provided of course he does so with the permission of the Muslim authority (such as entering with a valid visa and the like), the sanctity of a kafir harbi's life is protected by Law, just like the rest of the Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of the state. [al-Kurdi, Fatawa, 211-2]. In this case, his legal status becomes a kafir harbi bi-dhimmati l-imam [a hostile non-Muslim under the protection of the Muslim authority], and for all intents and purposes, he becomes exactly like the non-Muslim subjects of the state. In this way, the apparent difference between a dhimmi and a harbi non-Muslim becomes only an academic exercise and a distinction in name only. The implications of this rule for the pious, God-fearing and Law-abiding Muslims are not only that to attack non-Muslims becomes something illegal and an act of disobedience [ma'siya], but also that the steps taken by the Muslim authority and enforcers, such as in Malaysia or Indonesia today, to protect their places, including churches or temples, from the threat of killings and bombings, are included under the bab of amr bi-ma'ruf wa nahi 'ani l-munkar [the duty to intervene when another is acting wrongly; in the modern context: enforcing the Law], even if the Muslim enforcers [muhtasib] die in the course of protecting non-Muslims. Question VIIIIf it is said: "What land classification are we in the European Union, and what
is the hukm of those who are here? Should they theoretically leave?"We say: It is clear that the countries in the Union are non-Muslim states, except for Turkey or Bosnia, for example, if they are a part of the Union. The status of the Muslims who reside and are born in non-Muslim states is the reverse of the above non-Muslim status in a Muslim state: al-Muslim bi-dhimmati l-kafir [a Muslim in the care of a non-Muslim state] and from our own Muslim and religious perspective, whether we like it or not, there are similarities to the status of a guest which should not be forgotten. There is precedent for this status in our Law. The answer to your question is that they should as a practical matter remain in these countries, and if applicable, learn to cure the schizophrenic cultural condition in which they may find themselves - whether of torn identity in their souls or of dissociation from the general society. If they cannot do so, but find instead that their surroundings are incompatible with the life they feel they must lead, then it is recommended for them to leave and reside in a Muslim state. This status is made clear in the fatwa of the Muhaqqiq, Imam al-Kurdi ( may Allah be pleased with him!):"He ( may the mercy of Allah - Exalted is He! - be upon him!) was asked:"In a territory ruled by non-Muslims, they have left the Muslims [in peace] other than that they pay tax [mal] every year just like the jizya-tax in reverse, for when the Muslims pay them, their protection is ensured and the non-Muslims do not oppose them [i.e., do not interfere with them]. Thereupon, Islam becomes practiced openly and our Law is established [meaning that they have the freedom to practice their religious duty in the open and in effect become practicing Muslims in that non-Muslim society]. If the Muslims do not pay them, the non-Muslims could massacre them by killing or pillage. Is it permissible to pay them the tax [and thereby become residents there]? If you say it is permissible, what is the ruling about the non-Muslims mentioned above when they are at war [with a Muslim state]: would it or would it not be permissible to oppose them and if possible, take their money? Please give us your opinion!The answer:Insofar as it is possible for Muslims to practice their religion openly with what they can have power over, and they are not afraid of any threat [fitna] to their religion if they pay tax to the non-Muslims, it is permissible for them to reside there. It is also permissible to pay them the tax as a requirement of it [residence]; rather, it is obligatory [wajib] to pay them the tax for fear of their causing harm to the Muslims. The ruling about the non-Muslims at war as mentioned above, because they protect the Muslims [in their territory], is that it would not be permissible for the Muslims to murder them or to steal from them.[al-Kurdi, Fatawa, 208]The dabit for