A question posed to Shaykhul Islām Ibn Taymiyyah

Question: What do the scholars of the Deen have to say regarding those Mongols who invaded the Muslim lands of Shām in the year 699 Hijri, and who, as is well-known, killed many Muslims, took captive some of their children, and robbed the Muslims which they found. They violated what is inviolable and sacred in the Deen, by humiliating the Muslims and desecrating the masaajid, especially Masjid Al Aqsa, by taking from the personal wealth of the Muslims and from that of Baytul Maal enormous amounts, and by taking prisoner a great number of Muslims and removing them from their lands. Then, after all this, they claimed that they adhere to the Shahādatayn, and that it is harām for anyone to wage war on them, because they claimed to be adherents to the foundation of Islām and because they no longer persecuted the Muslims.

Is it lawful to wage war on them, or is it obligatory? If it is either, then what is the reason for it being so? Give us your opinion – may you be rewarded.” 

Answer: 
Alhamdulillāhi Rabbil  ‘Aalameen. 

Every group which leaves, changes, or refuses to implement any agreed upon, undisputed law of Islām, whether it is these people or others, must be fought until they adhere to all the laws of Islām. This is the rule even if they pronounce the Shahādatayn and adhere to some of the Islamic laws, as Abū Bakr as-Siddeeq and the Sahābah (radiAllahu ‘anhum) waged war on those who withheld the Zakāh. 

As well, the scholars who came after the Sahābah are in agreement about this principle. For, after the initial objection made by ‘Umar to Abū Bakr, the Sahābah (radiAllahu ‘anhum), agreed to wage war for the rights of Islām, and in this, they were adhering to the Qur’ān and Sunnah. 

Moreover, the Prophet’s Hadeeth about the Khawārij is established by ten chains of narration, and the Prophet, (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), said that they were the worst of the people, despite him saying, “You will look down on your prayers when you compare it with their prayers, and your fasting when you compare it with their fasting.” 

Thus, it became known that if some people simply cling to the label of Islām without adhering to its laws, then the obligation of fighting them is not cancelled.

Therefore, any group which leaves, changes, or refuses to implement some of the obligatory prayers, or fasting, or the Hajj, or violates the blood and wealth of the Muslims, or engages in consumption of intoxicants, or adultery, or fornication, or gambling, or marrying the mahaarem, or who do not wage war against the kuffār, or do not impose the jizyah on the jews and christians, or any other matter from the obligations and prohibitions of the Deen for which there is no excuse for not acting upon, then war must be waged against this group even if they accept that the obligation or prohibition is part of the Deen. And I do not know of any disagreement amongst the scholars in this regard. 

Where the scholars have disagreed is regarding the group which insists on leaving certain Sunan, such as the rakaatayn before Salātul Fajr, the calling of the adhān and iqāmah (among those who do not regard it as obligatory), and other such Islamic practices. The scholars have disagreed regarding the question: ‘Is the group which leaves these practices fought or not? 

However, with regard to the undisputed obligations and prohibitions, which we have mentioned before, there is no difference of opinion about waging war on them. 

And the group which withholds from Islām is considered by the investigating scholars to have a different status than al bughāt (those who rebel against the ruler, or dissent from his obedience). An example of the latter is the people of Shām who rebelled against Ameerul Mu’mineen ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib; people who refused to obey a particular leader, rebelled against him, and tried to remove him. But the first group has dissented from Islām, and has the same position as those who withheld [from paying] the Zakāh, and the same position as the khawārij whom ‘Alī ibnu Abī Tālib, radiy Allāhu ‘anhu, fought. 

And ‘Alī fought the people of Basra and Shām differently from the people of Nahrawan; his way with the people of Basra and Shām was like that of a brother with his brother, and his way with the khawārij was not like that. And the proven ahaadeeth of the Prophet, sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, established the basis for the Sahābah’s consensus on Abū Bakr as-Siddeeq’s war against the withholders’ of Zakāh and ‘Alī’s war against the khawārij. And that is unlike the fitnah with the people of Basra and Shām – the texts of Qur’ān and ahaadeeth confirm about it what they confirm, and the Sahābah disagreed about it (i.e. the fitnah behind the Battles of Jamal and Siffeen – for it was Believers fighting against Believers). 

Some scholars hold that the ahlul baghi (people of rebellion) whom it is obligatory to fight are those who have rebelled against the Imām after making a palatable misinterpretation of some text of the Qur’ān and ahaadeeth to substantiate their actions, and not those who have simply refused to obey him. Others regard both groups as bughāt. Nevertheless, there is a clear-cut distinction between the bughāt and the Mongols, and I know of no difference of opinion regarding the obligation of waging war on those who leave, withhold from, or refuse to implement any of the undisputed laws of Islām. 

Now that this principle has been established, it must be said that the army of the people about whom you have asked includes some kuffār from amongst the christians and mushrikeen, as well as others who affiliate themselves with Islām (and they form the majority). They will pronounce the Shahādatayn if it is demanded from them, and they will extol the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), but only a minority of them prays, and more of them fast during Ramadān than pray. The Muslim, in their estimation, is greater than others, and they hold the righteous Believers in esteem. They have some Islām, and differ in the extent to which they adhere to it. But most of them leave aside many or most of the obligatory aspects of the Deen, and this is why they are fought. 

Notably, they enjoin Islām, but they do not fight the ones who leave it; indeed, whoever fights for the Maghool state is honoured by them, and they will not challenge him even though he is the enemy of Allāh and His Messenger. Likewise, if someone rebels against the Maghool state or attacks it, they will regard it as lawful to fight him, even if he is of the best of Muslims. They do not establish Jihād against the disbelievers, nor do they make ahlul kitaab submissive and force them to pay the Jizyah (as commanded in the Qur’ān, Āyah 9:29). They do not forbid any of their troops from worshipping whatever they like, be it the sun, the moon, or something else. 

What is apparent from their conduct is that the Muslim has – by their reckoning – the same status which Muslims would give to the honest, righteous person, while the kāfir, in their eyes, has the same status which the Muslims would give to a fāsiq or some Muslim who leaves the voluntary deeds of goodness (nawaafil). Furthermore, the majority of them do not regard the blood and wealth of the Muslims to be inviolable, except when their sultān forbids them from it. They do not leave off taking the blood and wealth of the Muslims, and if their sultān forbids them from it or from anything else, they will obey because he is the sultān, and not because of the Deen. The majority of them do not perform the obligatory duties – not the prayer, nor the Zakāh, nor the Hajj, etc. Similarly, they do not judge amongst themselves by the Laws of Allāh, but rather, judge according to rules which agree with Islām on some points, and disagree on others. 

And fighting this type of people is obligatory, by agreement of the Muslims; none who know this Deen of Islām and know the truth about these people will doubt this – because this path which they are on and the true Deen of Islām can never be reconciled. And if it is obligatory to fight those Kurds, Bedouins, and other inhabitants of the desert who do not adhere to the Sharī’ah of Islām, even though their disease has not spread to the cities, then how about the Mongols? 

Yes, it is obligatory to fight them in the manner enjoined by the Sharī’ah, which includes inviting them to adhere to the laws of Islām if the Da’wah to the complete Deen has not reached them, just as the kāfir al harbi would have to first be invited to the Shahādatayn if the Da’wah has not reached him. 

If those who take up arms against this group completely conformed to Sharī’ah in their words, deeds, and niyyah (intention), then this is the best way to seek Allāh’s pleasure, establish His Deen, and obey His Messenger. And if those who are fighting against people like the Mongols show some immorality, or transgress against the enemy in some way not sanctioned by Sharī’ah, or have a corrupt intention due to their fighting for leadership, and the harm of not fighting the ‘abstaining’ group has worse consequences for Islām than fighting alongside the corrupt people has, then it is obligatory to fight them to prevent the greater of two harms; and this is one of the Usool (principles) of Islām which must be born in mind. 

It is one of the Usool of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah to join the military raids with every leader, whether righteous or immoral, because Allāh sometimes aids this Deen by the fājir, or worthless and despicable people, as mentioned by the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). It is also an Usool because to not be able to join the military raids [even] with immoral commanders or with soldiers among whom immorality is widespread could have the consequence of victory and conquest by others who are more harmful to Deen and Dunyā. So joining the military expedition with the unrighteous commanders and soldiers prevents the worst of the two choices, and leads to establishing (at least) most of the Laws of Islām, if not all of them. 

And this is what is obligatory in this situation, and every situation like it. Indeed, most of the military expeditions which took place after the time of the Khulafaa’ ar-Rashidūn did not take place except in this manner. 

The Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), said: 
“Tied to the forelocks of the horses is the good until Yawmul Qiyāmah (Day of Resurrection) – the reward and the booty.” 
This authentic Hadeeth supports the meaning of a Hadeeth narrated by Abū Dawood in his Sunan: 
“Military expeditions (al-Ghazw) will persist from the time of my being sent by Allāh until the last of my Ummah fights the dajjāl. They are not annulled by the tyranny of a tyrant, nor by the justice of a just leader.” 
Also, it is well-known that the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), said: 
“A group of my Ummah will remain victorious on the Truth. They will not be harmed by those who differ with them, until Yawmul Qiyāmah.” 

These ahaadeeth are just some of the many texts in the Qur’ān and Sunnah which Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah’ah, alone among all groups, have agreed to adhere to, by joining the leaders, whether righteous or immoral, in Jihād against whoever deserves it; and this is unlike the rāfidhah or the khawārij, who are outside the Sunnah and the Jamā’ah. 

However, the Prophet, sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, also said: 
“There will be unjust, disloyal, and immoral leaders. Whoever believes in them, in spite their lies, and helps them, then he is not of me and I am not of him, and he will not reach the Hawdh (Prophet’s Fountain). And whoever does not believe in them, because of their lies, and does not help them in their injustice, then he is of me and I am of him, and he will reach the Hawdh.” 

Thus, if a person knows what the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), ordered in terms of Jihād to be undertaken with the leaders until the Day of Judgement, and if he also knows that the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), forbade helping the unjust in their injustice, then he will know [that] the middle way – which is the pure Deen of Islām – is to take part in the Jihād against any people who deserve it, such as these people which I have been asked about, alongside any leader and group that is closer to Islām then they are. And that is [only] if it is not possible to establish Jihād against them in any other way. 

One must also avoid helping the group he is with in anything which involves disobeying Allāh. He should obey them in obeying Allāh, and not obey them in disobeying Allāh. For it is not allowed to obey any person in disobedience to the Creator. This is the way of the best of this Ummah, in old and modern times, and this way is obligatory on every mukallaf. This is the middle way, between the way of the harooriyyah (khawārij) and their likes – who, due to their deficient knowledge, follow the path of unsound piety – and the way of the murjiah and their likes, who follow the path of complete obedience to the rulers, even if they are unrighteous. 

We ask Allāh to guide our Muslim brothers to whatever He loves and is pleased with, whether it is from words or from deeds. And Allāh knows best, and may the Peace and Blessings of Allāh be on our Prophet Muhammad and on his family and Companions. 

[Majmū’ al Fatāwā, Volume 28, pages 501-508]