This blog contains commentary on current events from a Muslim perspective, original translations of Islamic texts, research into various topics related to Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh and other sciences, as well as issues dealing with Aqidah.
I look forward to sharing with everyone, and reading your comments.
{So what is the matter with you such that with regards to the Hypocrites there are two groups? [And this] while Allah has repaid them for what they earned. Or do you seek to guide those whom Allah has misguided? And you will never find a way for someone Allah misguides.}
‘Abū Ja`far [aṭ-Ṭabarī] said: in other words, ‘What is the matter with you, oh Believers, that regarding the people of Hypocrisy there are two differing groups [among you]? Allah reverted them back to the judgment of the people of polytheism in that their blood is permissible and their children can be enslaved.’
Al-Imām al-Mufassirīn Abū Ja’far aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred the view that this verse refers to people who accepted Islam but stayed in Makkah and they would help the Mushrikīn against the Muslims, so the Companions RA split into two groups regarding them.
Here are all of the different opinions regarding this verse compiled by aṭ-Ṭabarī:
1) Some of them said it was revealed about the difference of opinion among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS regarding those who stayed behind and did not accompany the Messenger of Allah SAWS on the day of ‘Uḥud. They stayed in Madīnah and said to the Messenger of Allah SAWS and his Companions: {If we had known of the fighting, we surely would have followed you}[‘Āli `Imrān:167].
2) Others said- rather it was revealed about the difference of opinion between the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS regarding people who came to Madīnah from Makkah. They declared that they were Muslims to the Muslims [in Madīnah] then when they returned to Makkah, they displayed polytheism.
3) Others said- rather [the Companions RA] differed regarding certain people among the people of polytheism- they would declare they were Muslim while in Makkah and still they helped the polytheists against Muslims.
4) Others said- rather their differing was regarding people in Madīnah who wished to leave out of Hypocrisy.
5) Others said- rather this verse was revealed about the differing of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS regarding the case of the people who accused `Ā’ishah RA.
‘Abū Ja`far said: the most correct of these opinions is the one which says that this verse was revealed regarding the differing of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS about certain people among the people of Makkah who apostatized from Islam after they became Muslim.
Here is the report supporting that view:
“…On authority of ‘Ibn Abbās- Certain people in Makkah used to express Islam and at the same time they would help the polytheists. So they left Makkah due to some necessity they had and they said, ‘If we come across Companions of Muhammad [SAWS] then let them not harm us!’ And when the Believers were informed that these people had left Makkah, a group of Believers said, ‘They reverted back to filthy creatures so fight them, for they are really helping your enemy against you!’ Another group of Believers said, ‘Glory be to Allah [or something similar], will you fight people who have professed the same that you do [i.e., Islam]?
Or just because they did not emigrate and leave their homes you will permit their blood and wealth!?’ So just like that there were two groups and the Messenger SAWS among them did not prohibit a single one from the two groups from anything. Then it was revealed: {So what is the matter with you such that with regards to the Hypocrites there are two groups? [And this] while Allah has repaid them for what they earned. Or do you seek to guide those whom Allah has misguided?}…the verse.”
See Tafsīr aṭ-Ṭabarī volume 8 pages 7-13.
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark…”
Integration of Muslims with non-Muslims in Dar al-Harb is contrary to the Shari’ah and only something recommended by some scholars in the context of men traveling alone for trade or to spy against non-Muslims for the Muslim army.
Most scholars obligate that Muslims who remain in Dar al-Harb be isolated from non-Muslims and have protection through a large tribe or family with economic and military strength.
Contrary to these obligations and the wisdom of the Shari’ah, Muslims in the West have had a policy of integration for the past 40+ years. It has only resulted in non-Muslims working to erode Muslim symbols like the Hijab, call to prayer, ability to pray in public, and dietary requirements.
Non-Muslims are able to target these symbols of Islam because efforts by Muslims to integrate result in non-Muslims learning more about Islam than some Muslims themselves!
Despite many Muslims not following the laws of Islam in the West, non-Muslims will never be satisfied until Muslims abandon Islam completely.
The false doctrine of integration has failed to achieve its aims to the extent that Muslim leaders have been calling for Muslims to enter politics in the West. The thinking is that these “Muslim politicians” will push some kind of agenda wherein Muslims will have their rights and symbols secured or even increased.
This alleged strategy is destined to fail just like the foundational doctrine of integration it is based on because it is contrary to the Shari’ah of Islam.
Non-Muslims have turned entire Muslim countries into battlefields, such that no matter where non-Muslims attack- a residence, mosque, hospital, or market- they say it was a “hideout” or “terrorism target”. Then they blame Muslim fighters for the deaths and destruction saying the women and children were being used a “human shields”.
A “human shield” in a hospital or residence?
Whenever Muslim fighters retaliate, even against military targets, the media always report it as “terrorism” and they call the dead “innocent”. For the West, their land is protected and secure while Muslim lands are war zones. Only those whom Allah AWJ Himself has blinded cannot see this is the reality.
It should be clear to Believers around the world that the non-Muslims have turned entire Muslim countries into war zones. At the same time, Ahl al-Harb rely on corrupt and hypocritical rulers of Muslim countries and Muslims living in the West to argue on their behalf, referring to a fantasy in which Dar al-Harb has a “covenant of security” or “peace treaty”.
These hypocrites want “peace” and “safety” for the war-mongers, invaders and destroyers of Muslim lands while claiming that Islam prohibits attacking Dar al-Harb and blaming Muslims for the invasions and destruction.
The Relied-Upon Legal Rulings of the Ḥanafī School Regarding the Nature of the Obligation of Jihād
Al-Bidā’i uṣ-Ṣanā’i fī Tartīb ish-Sharā’i
By: `Alā ad-Dīn ‘Abū Bakr bin Mas’ūd al-Kāsānī [d. 587 AH/1191 CE]
Translated by Abu Najm bin al-Iskandar
As for clarifying the nature of the obligation of Jihād, then the command [to perform] it does not cease being in effect in one of two ways: 1) if there is a general call to arms, and 2) if there is no general call to arms, then [Jihād] is a communal obligation. It means that [Jihād] is obligatory upon everyone who is from the people of Jihād [i.e., capable of it]; however, when some [from each community] perform [Jihād], it is dropped from the rest; due to His statement ﷻ:
{فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُلا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى}
[النساء: 95]
{Allah has favored those who fight with their wealth and lives a degree above those who sit back [from fighting]. Allah has promised good to each of them…}[An-Nisā’: 95]
Allah ﷻ promised good to Mujāhidīn and those who sit behind; and if Jihād was individually obligatory in all circumstances, He would not have promised good to those who sit behind because sitting behind would be prohibited; and [due to] His statement ﷻ:
{وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنْفِرُوا كَافَّةً فَلَوْلا نَفَرَ مِنْ كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِنْهُمْ طَائِفَةٌ لِيَتَفَقَّهُوا فِي الدِّينِ}
[التوبة: 122]
{And all the believers should not go out to fight. If only from each group, a party would march forth, in order that [those who stay behind] may gain knowledge in the Dīn…}[At-Tawbah: 122]
And because of what Jihad is obligated for- and it is Da’wah to Islam, to elevate the true Dīn, to repel the evil of Disbelievers and their subdual- [this] takes place through the performance of [Jihād] by some [from each community].
As such, the Prophet ﷺ used to dispatch war parties and if [Jihād] had been an individual obligation in all circumstances, it would have been unimaginable for him to sit back from any [war parties] nor would he have permitted anyone else to stay behind from any of them. And since [Jihād] is a communal obligation, it would not be allowed for the Imām to vacate a group of fighters- in whom is adequacy and sufficiency to fight the enemy- from a border town from among towns bordering [the land of non-Muslims].
Thus, when they perform [Jihād], [its obligation] drops from the rest. And if the people of the border town are too weak to keep the Disbelievers at bay and they are fearful of the enemy, then it is required for the nearest Muslims behind them, then the nearest [after them] to march to them and to aid them with weapons, horses, and wealth; due to what we mentioned in that [Jihād] is obligatory for everyone from among the people of Jihād [i.e. everyone who is capable]. However, the obligation drops from them by means of the occurrence of sufficiency with some [from their community]. As long as [sufficiency] does not take place, [the obligation] does not drop.
It is not permissible for the slave to depart [for Jihād] except with the permission of his owner, nor for the wife except with permission form her husband due to [the obligation of] serving the owner and fulfilling the rights of the marriage.
All of that [i.e. serving an owner and fulfilling the rights of marriage] is an individual obligation, thus it has precedence over a communal obligation; likewise, the child should not depart [for Jihād] except with permission from both parents, or one of them if the other is deceased because good towards the parents is an individual obligation, and thus it takes precedence over a communal obligation.
The base ruling is that every trip in which one is not safe from destruction [i.e. death] and in which there is great risk, it is not permissible for the child to depart for it without permission from his parents because they would fear for their child and they would be harmed by that. And every trip in which the risk is not great, it is permissible for [the child] to depart without [the parent’s] permission if he would not be neglecting them, due to the lack of harm [in doing so].
Among our Mashayikh are those who make an exception for trips to study without their permission because they would not be harmed by that, rather they would be benefited by it. Thus, the trait of disobedience [opposite of goodness] would not be connected to [the trip].
This is when there is no general call to march; as for when the call to march is general through the enemy laying siege to a town, then [Jihād] is an individual obligation required for every single one of the Muslims among those able to do so, due to His statement ﷻ:
{انْفِرُوا خِفَافًا وَثِقَالا}
[التوبة: 41]
{March forth, light and heavy…}[At-Tawbah: 41]
It is said that [this verse] was revealed regarding the call to march; and [due to] His statement ﷻ:
{مَا كَانَ لأَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُمْ مِنَ الأَعْرَابِ أَنْ يَتَخَلَّفُوا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلا يَرْغَبُوا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ}
[التوبة: 120]
{It is not for the people of Madinah and those around them of the Bedouins to stay behind the messenger of Allah and prefer their lives to his life.}[At-Tawbah: 120]
[Jihād is an individual obligation in the case of a general call to march] because the obligation for everyone before the generality of the call to march is established due to the dropping [of the obligation] from the rest [of the community] by means of the performance of some [of the community].
Thus, when the call to march forth is generalized, the fulfillment of [the objective of Jihād] is not realized except with everyone. So, [Jihād] remains an obligation for everyone individually in the same position as fasting and prayer; the slave may depart [for Jihād] without permission from his owner and the wife without permission from her husband- because the utilization of the slave and the wife with respect to the obligatory acts of worship is specifically legally exempted from the domain of the owner and husband [respectively], just as in fasting and prayer.
Likewise, it is permissible for the child to depart [for Jihād] without permission from the parents because the right of the parents does not take precedence over the individual obligations like fasting and prayer. And Allah ﷻ knows best. ~end quote
Al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr fī Fiqh Madh’hab il-‘Imām ash-Shāfi`ī
By ‘Abūl-Ḥasan `Alī bin Muḥammad al-Māwardī [d. 450 AH / 1058 CE]
Translated by Abu Najm bin al-Iskandar
Section: As for Hijrah in our time, then it applies specifically to whoever accepts Islam in Dār al-Ḥarb, in terms of Hijrah from it to Dār al-Islam; and [Hijrah] is not specific to the land of the Imām [i.e. Khalīfah].
The circumstances of Hijrah are divided into 5 categories:
1) To be able to abstain [‘Imtinā`] in Dār al-Ḥarb through isolation [I`tizāl, from non-Muslims] and to be able to call [to Islam] and fight [Qitāl]. [In this case] it is obligatory to remain in Dār al-Ḥarb because it will become Dār al-Islam through [the Muslim’s] Islam and isolation [from non-Muslims]. And it is obligatory [for the Muslim in this circumstance] to call the polytheists to Islam by any means his is able to whether assisting through argumentation or fighting [Qitāl].
2) To be able to abstain and isolate [oneself from non-Muslims] and to not be able to call [to Islam] and fight [Qitāl]. [In this case] it is obligatory to remain and not perform Hijrah because his land has become Dār al-Islam through his isolation and if he were to perform Hijrah from it, it would return to being Dār al-Ḥarb. Calling [to Islam] and fighting [Qitāl] is not obligatory for him due to his being incapable/too weak for it.
3) To be able to abstain and not to be able to isolate oneself nor call [to Islam] or fight [Qitāl]. [In this case] remaining is not obligatory since his land did not become Dār al-Islam. Nor is Hijrah obligatory for him since he is able to abstain [‘Imtinā`]. There are 3 circumstances for this person:
A) If there is hope for the emergence of Islam through his staying, then it is better for him to stay and not perform Hijrah.
B) If there is hope of assisting the Muslims with his Hijrah, then it is better for him to make Hijrah and not stay.
C) If his circumstances are equal in terms of staying or making Hijrah, then he may choose between remaining or Hijrah.
4) To not be able to abstain and to be able to make Hijrah, then it is obligatory for him to make Hijrah and he is disobedient if he remains.
And regarding this individual, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “I am free from every Muslim with a polytheist.” It was said: “Why, oh Messenger of Allah?” He ﷺ replied: “Their fires should not be visible to one another.”
What it means is that their views should not coincide and “the fires” are expressions for “views” because a person will seek guidance through views just as he will seek the light of a fire [for seeing].
An example of this is in what is transmitted on authority of the Prophet ﷺ: “Do not seek the light of the fire of polytheists,” in other words do not look to guidance from their views and way of thinking.
5) To not be able to abstain and to be too weak to make Hijrah. [In this case, the obligation of] Hijrah drops from the person due to his inability to do so. It is permissible to defend himself through manifesting Kufr [Iẓhār al-Kufr] and to be Muslim through belief in Islam and compliance with its legal rulings [Aḥkām].
It is not permissible for someone capable of making Hijrah to manifest Kufr because he is not compelled to do so while the one who is incapable of making Hijrah is someone compelled.
The obligation of Hijrah remains [in effect] as long as a land for polytheism remains and there is someone who believes [in Islam] in [that land].
Mu’āwiyah bin Abī Sufyān transmitted: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “Hijrah will not be cut-off until repentance is cut-off. And repentance will not be cut-off until the sun rises from the west.”
If it is said- Ibn `Abbās transmitted on authority of the Prophet ﷺ that he said on the day of the conquest of Makkah: “There is no Hijrah after today, however [there is still] Jihād and intention.”
It is said that there are two ways to explain it:
1) There is no Hijrah from Makkah after today because after the conquest it has become Dār al-Islam.
2) There is no merit in making Hijrah after today like the merit of doing so before today because before the conquest, it was more difficult [to do so] than afterwards. Thus, the merit [of Hijrah] was greater [before] than its merit afterwards.
With regards to calling it “Hijrah”, there are two views:
1) It is something in which a person forsakes what he is accustomed to of a town and people.
2) It is something in which a person forsakes the practice of work and earnings. ~end quote
Observe the Fatāwā coming from Fiqh councils and Muftiyīn of those loyal to Dār al-Ḥarb:
When it comes to purification, fasting, Ḥajj, and matters of this nature, they refer to the major works of Fiqh from the well-recognized scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah.
However, when it comes to governance, relations with non-Muslims, communities in Dar al-Ḥarb, treaties and covenants with Ahl al-Ḥarb, Jihād, alliance and disavowal, these same “scholars” engage in Ijtihād and do not reference the same texts as before, or only rarely when it suits their Ijtihād.
This is because the same well-recognized scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah and the major works of Fiqh contain legal rulings on these important matters affecting Muslims in Dār al-Ḥarb and those rulings contradict the Fatāwā from these so-called “scholars”.
If these major works of Fiqh are good enough for purification and fasting, they should be good enough for Jihād, treaties/covenants, the requirements of Muslims in Dār al-Ḥarb, etc. as well.
Muslims can build a million mosques in Dar al-Harb.
Muslims can produce 100 million Huffaz of the Quran.
Muslims can become the largest population on the planet.
But none of that matters if a single Muslim anywhere in the world is not free to practice and promote the Shari’ah of Allah wherever he finds himself.
Those millions of mosques contain spies of Disbelieving tyrants and some even have polytheists speaking from the pulpit calling to democracy.
Those millions of Huffaz of the Quran repeat the sounds but don’t know the meaning nor do they implement the legal rulings found therein.
Those billions of Muslims are incapable of protecting a single patch of Muslim land or fulfilling the most basic of obligations like accepting a Khalifah.
