Go to Almighty

Jihad dar Islam
(Holy War in Islam)
Go to contents

Written by:
Ayatollah Salehi Najafabadi

Published by:
Nashre Ney, phone: 8004658-9

Translated into English by:
The Indebted Volume One:
1-Which one is primary, war or peace? 2-Jihad with the rebels (boqat) Translation of Chapter 3, Captives of the war, and Chapter 4, Booties of the war God willing, will be presented as Volume Two.

Contents:
From the text of the book About the book Foreword by the author

Chapter 1
Which one is primary, war or peace?
Peace, the primary nature of communities Kindness to unbelievers One Question. The verses on war and Jihad First group: the conditioned verses A note In Arabic the lexical meaning of “ ‫”فتنه‬ (translated to persecution) Reading the absolute by the restricting Second group: the absolute verses The wars fought by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were defensive The view of Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh Up keeping peace: the behavior of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) Peace seeking: the harmony of nature Criticizing the views of jurisprudents, based on the Quran and the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) Passages from Imam Shafii Passages from Ibn Homam Hanafi

h) Were the people of Taiif massacred? None of the unbelievers were killed with ballista Incumbency of initiating war: once a year .u.Passages from Sheikh Toosi Passages from Ibn Idriss Passages from Allameh Helli Passages from Shahide Thani Passages from Sahib “Jawahir” Calling to belief by the force of weaponry!! Rational calling in the battlefield Ali’s journey to Yemen was for admonishing The reasoning of Allameh Tabatabaee How can the jurisprudents respond? Jihad conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam The origin of such a thought Mistake in corresponding the ‘just’ imam with the ‘Infallible’ Imam Responding to the Voice of America Initiating attack unawares on unbelievers The fatwa (verdict) of Ibn Homam Hanafi The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli The fatwa (verdict) of Shahid Thani The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “Jawahir” What is causing astonishment The image portrayed by Allameh Helli from the Prophet (p.b.

one for two The method adopted by the interpreters Abolishment of verse 65 of Anfal not acceptable What is meant by declarative sentence? Unacceptable justification Terrible consequences of this view Reliance of Shafii on the view quoted from Ibn Abbass Rule for exterminating the nation of Muslim It is unfeasible to specify the quantity of the enemy Chapter 2 Jihad with the rebels (boqat) Points on the verse about rebels Jurisprudents’ definition of rebels 1.Maalekis’ definition of rebels .The fatwa (verdict) of Imam Shafii The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Helli The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli The fatwa (verdict) of Shahidein The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Thani The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “ Jawahir” The necessity for the jurisprudents to withdraw this fatwa (verdict) One for ten.Hanafis’ definition of rebels 3.Hanbalis’ definition of rebels 2.

4.h) against the views of the Jurisprudents Are the rebels liable for the perished wealth and lives? Necessity of dialogue with the rebels before war .u.Shafiis’ definition of rebels 5.b.Shiates’ definition of rebels Two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents Jurisprudents’ argument on the assumption of the impossible Justification of the actions of Perjurers and Aggressors Disagreement on the condition for occurrence of rebellion Is rebellion against an unjust imam permitted? Narrative from the Prophet (p.

this significant misreading by the jurisprudents has paved the way for the westerners to denounce Islam and declare that according to the Islamic texts. westerners have got some very effective propaganda vehicle. by the author “Based on this verdict in the books of jurisprudence. Thus. From: foreword. The westerners say: “Initial war in Islam against peace-seeking people have been prescribed as well as practiced.u.h). and is being crushed pitilessly between the hammer of the brutal wars of the cruel . and its program is to impose itself on the other peoples by military force and war.b. it is Islam that is being oppressed and aggressed.From the text of the book “Unfortunately. some very important responsibility falls on the jurisprudents to rethink about jihad and revise what is written in the jurisprudence books. and the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs that are regarded as Islamic. and. in this arena. and mark the impurities found in the texts to delete them from the texts. endeavor to introduce the real and humanitarian face of Islamic jihad to the whole world”. Islam thirsts for blood and sword.” And. and use it to crush Muslims whenever the occasions prove appropriate. ultimately. It is obligatory for the jurisprudents to verify what is written in these books with what is in the Quran and with the conduct of the Prophet (p.

there is established a government like the Islamic Republic of Iran. and assign him as the Imam of the nation.Caliphs and the anvil of the jurisprudents. but say: “The tone of this verse (Hojorat. but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other. the meaning is that. ‘to make peace between them. fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. a group with weapons revolt against him. And. where the people elect its leader freely. (according to this verse) the Muslims are obligated. in the period of occultation too. wherever in the world. And. and it leads to fight. and being imposed on them by sword!! My God! You are Untainted!!” The last paragraph of: ‘How can the jurisprudents respond?’ If Allameh Helli and his equals cannot accept that the rule of this verse has become obsolete after some five years.’ From: two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents Go to contents . and is crying loud for help to save it from such strikes. 19) is indicative of a permanent rule that is needed by man till the end of the world”. they should obligate themselves to its meaning. it is the same Islam that the strength of its logic and reasoning has been conquering the minds. but is accused of having the thirst for human blood. in such instances too. then. then. then.

the author.About the book ‫بسم ا الرحمن الرحیم‬ Jihad dar Islam (Holy War in Islam) is the title of the book written by Ayatollah Salehi Najafabadi in Farsi and recently published by Nashre Ney in 325 pages. His main purpose of arranging such a lengthy lectures on Jihad : to show the reality of Jihad as ordained in the Quran and practiced by the prophet in his lifetime. decides on analytically teaching the subject of Jihad in Islam in the seminary of Qom to the senior clergies. Considering the backdrop in the writing of the book. after returning from the front. the back cover of the book duly verbalizes: “ Islamic jurisprudents are of different views regarding jihad as expressed in the books of Islamic jurisprudence. Some have conditioned jihad by the permission from the Infallible Imam. the author has been in the war front fought between Iran and Iraq subsequent to the Islamic revolution. As expressed in the foreword. From this . witnessing the calamities of war. himself one of the high-ranking Ayatollahs. Saddened by the heartbreaking scenes of the casualties.

Some of the jurisprudents are of the idea that military attack on non-Muslims is permitted so as to impose the religion on them. But whenever enemy attacks. The author is also of the idea that jihad is not conditioned by the permission or instructions from the Infallible Imam. . then fighting them is obligatory but not so. On the contrary. and the obligation is not conditioned by the number of the enemy force. As for those captured before the end of the war. the author is trying (on the basis of the Holy Koran and the practice of the holy Prophet) to prove that initiating military attack on non-Muslims is not permitted in Islam. jihad is suspended in the absence of the Infallible Imam. Jihad has been indoctrinated only for defending against the attacks of striking enemies not for imposing the religion on non-Muslims. if their number is more than twice. In this book. Some others view initial jihad obligatory at least once a year. good behavior and friendly encounter is recommended and encouraged by this religion.groups’ point of view. Jihad is not suspended in the absence of the Infallible Imam. some jurisprudents are of the idea that they must be killed. and there is no periodical obligation on Muslims for jihad. jihad is obligatory. Some say that if the number of enemy force is two times of that of the Muslims force.

22/4/2004 Go to contents .And mass killing of those captured prior to the end of the war is not authorized. The Indebted.” We pray God for the success in translating this precious and profound book.

.

It was there that my mind was sparked with the inevitability of having a deep research on the subject of jihad.) The decision was announced and lecturing began in the Imam Mosque. When I returned to Qom. Altogether. (The main purpose of arranging such a lengthy lectures on Jihad : to prove the reality of Jihad as ordained in the Quran and practiced by the prophet in his lifetime. is 180 degrees on the opposite direction . as referred to in the Quran and practiced by the Prophet (p. I concluded that jihad.b. basing the research on the Quran. and the books of Islamic jurisprudence so as to discern the reality of jihad.b. seventy-three lectures were given analytically (in the manner of Darse Kharij) on the subject of jihad. Hadith (narrations from the Prophet (p.h).h) and his companions). Witnessing the horrible scenes of removing the martyrs and wounded to the back front.‫بسم ا الرحمن الرحیم‬ Foreword by the author While the imposed war of Iraq against Iran was going on.u. I decided on analytically teaching the subject of Jihad in Islam in the seminary of Qom to the senior clergies. and was much appreciated by the audience. the bitterness and heartbreaking pain of the war. While conducting these lectures. I went to the battlefront. I tasted with all my heart and soul.u.

from what the jurisprudents have written in the books, and entirely different. What the jurisprudents say is that main jihad in Islam is to impose the religion by initiating war and with the force of weaponry on the people who do not believe in Islam even though such people are innocent and harmless. These jurisprudents say that jihad is a divine duty like prayers and fasting that should be practiced But what is in the Quran and was practiced by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is this: on the one hand, friendly behavior and doing good towards the unbelievers is suggested in the Quran, (Momtaheneh, 60 7 1[1]). And on the other hand, according to the verse: ” ‫ف--ان اع--تزلوکم فل--م‬ ‫…یقاتلوکم والقوا الیکم السلم فما جعل ا لکم علیه--م س--بیل‬Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.”(Nissa, 90), initiating war against the innocent and harmless unbelievers is forbidden and not permitted. Thus, we see that there is major difference between what is mentioned in the Quran and was practiced by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with what is said by the jurisprudents in the books. Unfortunately, this significant misreading by the jurisprudents has paved the way for the westerners to denounce Islam and declare that according to the Islamic texts, Islam thirsts for blood and sword, and its program is to impose itself on the other peoples by
1[1] Footnote added by the translator. Ch.60, verse 7 reads: “ It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

military force and war. Thus, some very important responsibility falls on the jurisprudents to rethink about jihad and revise what is written in the jurisprudence books. It is obligatory for the jurisprudents to verify what is written in these books with what is in the Quran and with the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and mark the impurities found in the texts to delete them from the texts, and, ultimately, endeavor to introduce the real and humanitarian face of Islamic jihad to the whole world. Now, we refer to some cases on the subject where the jurisprudents have given verdicts that have no proper foundation: Case one: Imam Shafii states that the verses, conditioning war with the unbelievers by their initiating of it, were abolished, and their abolisher is the verse, “ ‫وقاتلوهم حتی ل‬ ‫ه‬ZZZ‫دین للل‬ZZZ‫ون ال‬ZZZ‫ه ویک‬ZZZ‫ون فتنت‬ZZZ‫ “ ”تک‬fight them till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.”(Baqareh,193). He, therefore, states that initiating war against the unbelievers, even if they are harmless, is obligatory so as to have the religion govern them. This view of Shafii’s dominated the atmosphere of jurisprudence, and the other jurisprudents of both Sunnis and Shia accepted it with no exception, including Ibn Homam Hanafi, Sheikh Toosi, Ibn Idris, Allameh Helli, Shahid Thani, Sahib Jawahir, and Ayatollah Khoee. However, despite such a consensus on this view of Shafii’s, in my idea it is neither correct nor acceptable. Detailed argument and explanations are given in the relative chapter of this book.

Case two: Shia jurisprudents have written that jihad must be done by the permission from the Infallible Imam; logically meaning that in the absence of the Infallible Imam, jihad is suspended. Reading the relative narrations, these jurisprudents have interpreted to ‘the Infallible Imam’ the words ‘ just imam’ mentioned therein. Bu,t as explained in this book, this interpretation is not correct, and the obligatory jihad, as stated in the Quran and practiced by the Prophet (p.b.u.h), is obligatory in the period of the absence of the Infallible Imam as well. Case three: It is attributed to the Prophet (p.b.u.h) that he initiated military attack against Bani al Mostalaq unawares, and eradicated them. As will be explained in this book, this accusation is not valid, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not initiate the war against them. Case four: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) is accused that he attacked the people of Taiif with ballista and destroyed their dwelling onto their head, including the children and the women. This accusation is not valid, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not do such a thing, as will be proved in the text. Case five: It is said that it was the manner of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to invite the unbelievers to Islam, and if they did not accept it, he would initiate fighting. This is not correct,

and as will be proved. but later this was abolished and resisting one against two became obligatory. As will be explained more. less. and war of defense against them is obligatory without being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. and it is obligatory to defend against the aggression of the enemy whether their number is twice. there will be no rebels conceivable in the time of occultation. Case eight: Shia jurisprudents have written that “‫“ ”بغات‬rebels” are those who revolt against the Infallible Imam. whenever the unbelievers initiate the war. But. then. no defense is obligatory. Case seven: It is written that at first it was obligatory for one Muslim to resist ten unbelievers. this is not valid. it was not the manner of the Prophet (p.u.h). Case six: It is said that initiating war against the unbelievers is obligatory once a year. There are rebels in the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam. Accordingly. and fighting them is conditioned by the Imam’s instructions. and never has any periodical war been obligatory. Case nine: .b. This is not correct. meaning that if the number of a large enemy force is even by one person more than twice the Muslims force. This is not true. or more than that of the Muslims. defending becomes obligatory.

As will be explained in the text. if ultimately they could not accept it. they are requested to inform the author of their view and critique. It is expected that the scholars who are reading this book will not immediately start to reject any issue written in this book if it is against what they have believed. 11 Shahrivar 1382 (September 2. 2003) Go to contents Nematollah Salehi Najafabadi. and judgment over them differs from the judgment over those captured after the end of the war. phone: 4412752 .Shia jurisprudents have written that those captured before the end of the war must be massacred. After that. and both groups are treated alike. and injunction over those captured before the end of the war is not mass-murder. The readers are hoped to study the issue again more deeply. which will be another step towards the enhancement and perfection of knowledge Tehran. this is not valid.

Thus. which should be referred to as “idiomatic jihad” Before discussing jihad itself. means efforts in special meaning. the words “ ‫رک‬ZZ‫ی ان تش‬ZZ‫ ”عل‬make the context for jihad being used in negative and indecent way. and means efforts for evil ends. and as commonly used in the Quran. it seems essential to outline two points in this regard: First it should be cleared whether or not from the point of view of Islam war is permitted for imposing the ideology. In this vaster usage. and in fact. In this book we will discuss this meaning of “jihad”. In the verse “ ‫اده‬Z‫ق جه‬ZZ‫ی ا ح‬Z‫د وا ف‬ZZ‫( ”جاه‬hajj. “jihad” means effort in general. the meaning of “jihad” is vaster than “qital” meaning war. war for the cause of God is a lexical meaning of “jihad”.Chapter 1 Which one is primary. But in the verse “‫داک‬ZZ‫وان جاه‬ ‫( ”علی ان تشرک بی ما لیس لک به علم‬Loqman.78). and means efforts towards good ends. the word “‫ی ا‬ZZ‫ ”ف‬makes the context for jihad being used for efforts in positive and decent ways and causes. in any way and for any purpose and cause. war or peace? It should be realized that in the Arabic language. 15). . the context showing it being for evil or decent purpose.

256). whether peace is primary and we should try to create peace by repelling the enemy and putting an end to the war. and there is no need for compulsion. Force and compulsion neither could change one’s existing belief. And that is why exerting force in this regard is ineffective and useless.Second. whether in the form of threat or war should not be used for imposing the religion and ideology. when facing an aggressing enemy. compulsion in any form. This means . nor could create some anew. it should be stated that in Islam. we should say that against an attacking enemy. This declarative statement: “there is no compulsion in religion. Thus. fundamentally. war is not permitted for imposing the ideology because the verse in the Quran. On the second point On this point. and that is why the Quran says no force and compulsion should be used for inviting to the religion. because naturally and through conscience the right way is distinct from the wrong one.” here has an imperative intent. or war is primary and we should try for the more rekindling of it. peace is primary. idea or belief is a subject of heart and mind. not war. and cannot be entered into a person’s mind by force because one would believe in what his nature testifies being acceptable. truly the right way has been clearly distinct from error” (Baqareh. ‫ :"ل اکراه فی الدین قد تبین الرشد من الغی‬says” “there is no compulsion in religion. meaning that no force and compulsion should be used for inviting to the religion. On the first point In this regard. In other words.

before this verse. and peace would prevail. says: “‫ا‬Z‫ح له‬ZZ‫وان جنحوا للسلم فاجن‬ ‫“ " وتوکل علی ا‬if they incline to peace. that is why. and ending of the persecution: “‫ه‬ZZZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZZZ‫تی لتک‬ZZZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZZZ‫“ ”وق‬fight them (the attacking enemy) till there is no persecution ” (Baqareh. in which verse slaying the enemy and fighting them is conditioned with their attack. The Holy Koran in the Anfal Chapter. On the other hand. then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal.193). to . in the Holy Koran.that war is a state of urgency. and must dry the roots of persecution so that there should be no war. In this same chapter. what this verse wants to convey is this: you must fight against the war-mongering enemy who started the war.61). In fact. fighting is no more permitted. it is obvious that mentioning end and aim for the war means that when the persecution and the aggression by the enemy is over. And. the duration of the defensive war is limited to repelling of the enemy. The answer to this objection is that there is a context made by the previous verse: “ ‫فان قاتلوکم‬ ‫اقتلوهم‬ZZ‫ “ " ف‬if they fight you slay them”. and consequently “no persecution” in such context means “non of the persecution exerted by the attacking enemy”. It may be objected that the Quran orders fighting till there is no persecution in the whole world. and becomes necessary after being attacked by the enemy. since such negative syntax in Arabic means in general. not just the persecution committed by the attacking enemy in this particular instance. comes a verse reading: “‫وه‬ZZ‫واعدولهم ماستطعتم من ق‬ ‫دوکم‬ZZ‫دوا وع‬ZZ‫ه ع‬ZZ‫“ " ومن رباط الخیل ترهبون ب‬make ready against them whatever force and string of horses you can. and as soon as the enemy is defeated there is no necessity for war. major part of which is about Badr War.

u. and trust in Allah”. then incline to it. it is clear that in Islam. and illness is a secondary state. the verse. Now. one point should be well understood. violation of which is not permitted.terrify the enemy of God and your enemy”(Anfal. and means that peace and friendly association is the primary situation in the . the primary nature of communities As health is the primary nature of a person. peace and calm also is the primary nature of the human societies. there is this verse: “‫رض‬Z‫بی ح‬Z‫یا ایها الن‬ ‫ال‬ZZ‫ی القت‬ZZ‫ومنین عل‬ZZ‫“ " الم‬O Prophet urge on the believers to fight” (Anfal. peace is recognized as the infrastructure in the relations between the societies. the attacking enemy inclined to peace. and efforts must be made for creating peace and keeping it up. God orders: “if they incline to peace. Go to contents Peace. Thus. then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal. and the Prophet (p. and war is an incidental and secondary situation. positioned between the verses on war. 61) is conveying this important point.65).: “‫وان‬ ‫“ " جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها و توکل علی ا‬if they incline to peace. there never happens any war between them because what is stipulated in verse 61 is an order and obligating instructions on peace and friendly coexistence.b. Thus. Considering such an infrastructure. even in the middle of war. meaning that if.60). and never initiate military clash with nonMuslims. and peace must be sought after. Three verses after it. in verse 61.h) and his followers are obligated to seek peace at all times. if non-Muslims are always peace seeking and looking for friendly association with Muslims. Here. you also incline to it and accept the peace.

the conscience of humanity hates initiating attack on others. if the attacking enemy showed inclination to peace. And. Basically.8). These are the exact words of the relative verse: “‫ارکم ان‬ZZ‫ن دی‬ZZ‫وکم م‬ZZ‫م یخرج‬ZZ‫دین ول‬ZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫اتلوکم ف‬Z‫م یق‬Z‫ن ل‬ZZ‫لینهاکم ا عن الذ ی‬ ‫طین‬ZZ‫ب المقس‬ZZ‫م ان ا یح‬ZZ‫طوا الیه‬ZZ‫بروهم و تقس‬ZZ‫“ " ت‬God forbids you not.societies. for any purpose it may be. from being kind and doing good to the unbelievers who are not bothering you. . And. as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations. that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them. this clearly shows that initiating military attack on others. does oppose the nature of man.” (Momtaheneh. regionally and internationally. The possibility of having such a belief among Muslims also existed and still exists. that is why wherever there is a military conflict. surely God loves the just. the Muslims. such inclination must be welcomed and positively answered so as to save the societies from a social illness and restore health to it. It is obvious that the other party who have initiated the attack and disturbed the primary situation of the societies is condemned. Therefore. never is goodness and justly behavior towards them forbidden. even if it may be named a religious war Kindness to unbelievers There are some religious persons who are of the belief that doing kindness to those who are not their coreligionist is undesirable. always they try to distinguish the initiating party so as to condemn them locally. But the Holy Koran forbids such a thought and warns that God does not forbid you. and considers it injustice and not justifiable. And.

This verse. for the cause of which all Muslims should make move. we must explore the verses revealed in the Quran in regard to fighting the unbelievers so that it may become quite clear under what circumstances jihad is permitted. And. for the creation and upholding of which efforts must be made. It shows that Islam wants the hearts of all men and women to foster kindness for each other. and that peace is an infrastructural principle. Considering what so far is said that imposing idea by the force of weaponry is not permitted in Islam. This case is mentioned in verse 9. Only. justly treatment and being benefactor towards the non-bothering unbelievers. . good willing. peace is a fundamental and infrastructural principle. friendship with the unbelievers is forbidden because friendship in such situation paves the way for the unbelievers to penetrate in the Islamic society and inflict heavy strikes on the Muslims. and respect for human. Go to contents One Question. does clearly show that Islam wants to fuel the Muslims with the spirit of sincerity. then. immediately after the verse in question. inviting to good behavior. and under what circumstances fighting the unbelievers is permitted? For answering this question. this verse is a good evidence for the fact that from the point of view of Islam. what is jihad in Islam. This verse means that Islam wants to set the backdrop for social peace. in case the unbelievers attack militarily on the Muslims and expel the Muslims from their habitations causing them vagrancy.

In . Therefore. conditioning war by the attack from the enemy. and satisfaction of natural ambitions. through which people can attain the happiness of this world and the world hereafter. And the way of God is the way to the humanity’s goodness and interests in which lie God’s blessings. In this verse. not for the opening out new territories. such as opening the atmosphere for freedom. First we will talk about a few of the verses from the first group. revenge. thus. who are the originators of persecution and corruption and are the cause of injustice and tyranny. if no militarily attack is made by the enemy. “ ‫وق--اتلوا ف--ی س--بیل ا ال--ذ ی--ن یق--اتلونکم ولتعت--دوا ان ا لیح--ب‬ ‫ " المعتدین‬And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you. can be eradicated.190).. there are some points that needs consideration: Point one: War must be in the way of God and in His cause. (What is the way God?). through which the oppressors. God loves not the aggressors (Baqareh. through which the oppressed can defend themselves. and the other is the ones mentioning war absolutely and with no conditions.The verses on war and Jihad The verses revealed on fighting the unbelievers are of two groups. One group is the verses in which war is restricted and conditioned.”. First group: the conditioned verses 1. but aggress not. hegemony. and similar aims. Point two: This verse says: “Fight with those who fight with you. then the subject matter of fight is negated.

that is why the Quran warns the commissioners of war. and the nature of human and their conscience would discern its occurrences. that is why the Quran only mentions: “ but aggress not” without giving details about it. and aggression in a general sense. according to this interpretation of “but aggress not”. and so on. cutting down trees (with no necessity). Based on this view. and do not become the initiator of attack. Of course. Point three: This verse is forbidding any type of assault. the meaning of aggression is very obvious. initiating of war by them is not permitted. proceeding to do adverse actions. there is some view on the interpretation of this verse. burning houses and farms. may exceed the limit of justice and fairness. According to this view “but aggress not” means “do not attack those who have not made militarily attack on you. implicitly. so that everyone could recognize it by appealing to his own conscience. means that if you were not militarily attacked. mass murdering of the captives. if there is no attack on Muslims. And. and therefore.other words. either the commanders or the warriors. such as killing children and women. (Majma al Bayan. it explicitly . since it will be aggression and assault”. And. But. Incidentally. the sentence “aggress not” is emphasizing what is understood from the stipulation “with those who fight with you”. individuals sometimes are caught in excitement and thrill. It must be realized that the environment of war is an environment of anger and fury. you are not to initiate the attack. This latter stipulation. interpretation under verse 190 of Baqareh). in which. not to commit any aggression under such circumstances.

The pronoun ‘them’ in “slay them” refers to “those who fight with you” which is in the previous verse. after forbidding the warriors for Islam from aggression and assault.” (Baqareh. This admonition means that now that you are fighting in the way of God and for His cause. This is the second of the verses wherein the conditions and stipulations for war is mentioned. and expel them from where they expelled you. And. it is saying “ . very well. and consequently the aggressor will be hated by God.191).emphasizes. you should know that if under the circumstances of war. So.قاتلوکم فاقتلوهم کذالک جزاء الکافرین‬And slay them whenever you come upon them. it is obvious that Islam will not accept committing actions against those aims while trying to achieve them. Point four: This verse. and commit improper acts. admonishes them that God does not love the aggressors. indicates how the rules of jihad in Islam enjoy being in the peak of sanctity 2. God will not consent and will not love you because God hates aggression. then if they fight you slay them – such is the recompense of the unbelievers.“‫و اقتلو هم حیث ثقفتموهم و اخرجوهم من حیث اخرجوکم والفتنت--ه‬ ‫اشد من القتل ول تقاتلوهم عندالمسجد الحرام حتی یقاتلوکم فیه فان‬ ‫“ " . and for the revival of justice and fairness. As jihad in Islam is ordained for the aims of elimination of injustice and aggression. you exceed the limits of justice and fairness. this. and fixes the condition meant and understood from “with those who fight with you ”. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there. persecution is more grievous than slaying.

it tells the Muslims: “You. all such actions are more grievous than the unbelievers being slain by Muslims. agony. so. if they fight you. there are some points that needs consideration: Point one: This verse is telling Muslims that as the unbelievers are the initiators of war. and they want to eradicate you. Point two: This verse forbids Muslims from initiating war. expel the unbeliever from where they expelled you” namely. and prescribes it as self-defense only when the unbelievers start militarily aggression Point three: Since this verse is addressing the Muslims whom the unbelievers had expelled from Mecca. Then. and suffering. Point five: To prescribe slaying of the aggressing unbelievers is for punishing them because of their actions .” In this verse too. in the battlefield. from Mecca. in turn. it goes on: “But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there. confiscation of their belongings. It means that the unbelievers are the source of persecution. Point four: This verse is telling that the persecution inflicted by the unbelievers through torturing Muslims in Mecca. which action is some type of defense. slay them – such is the recompense of the unbelievers. slay them in defense of yourselves because repelling their wickedness is possible only by slaying. then. and the war they have imposed on Muslims is more ruthless. and. its destructive consequences are more grievous than the unbelievers being killed by Muslims. and imposing war on them in Medina by mobilizing army against them.repelling the wickedness of the aggressing unbelievers who initiated the war is possible by slaying them”. wherever you come upon them.

and in:" ‫ه‬ZZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZZ‫تی لتک‬ZZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZZ‫“ " وق‬fight them (the attacking enemy) till there is no persecution ” (Baqareh. volume 2.” (Baqareh. persecuting those in Mecca. and the next verses is such that the unbelievers were putting pressure on the Muslims.190). The circumstances for this verse.” Abdullah Ibn Umar is quoted to have said : “In the life time of 2[2] Tafsir Almenar. " Regarding “ ‫فتنته‬ " in the verse. So. no more can they persecute the Muslims.210 . even killing them. and impose war on them. “‫ه‬Z‫ون فتن‬ZZ‫تی لتک‬Z‫ “ ”وقاتلوهم ح‬fight them (aggressors) till there is no persecution. Is it not a just punishment? A note Some say that the word “‫ه‬ZZZ‫( " فتن‬translated into persecution) which is used in this verse. and were imposing war on those who were in Medina. verse 193 in Baqareh says: “ fight them (aggressors) till there is no persecution.in starting the aggression and shedding the blood of Muslims. These were the calamities and agonies that the unbelievers had inflicted on Muslims. sometimes. But Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh says: “This is contrary to the context of the verses to have it for the meaning of polytheism”2[2] What Abdoh says seems correct because the verse says: “And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you (impose it on you).” meaning that when the unbelievers are defeated. p. and.193) has the meaning of polytheism.

The Holy Koran also talks about the people in Hell. volume 9. In addition to this. fighting the polytheists will never eliminate polytheism.b. when the unbelievers persecuted.”3[3] This narration also confirms that the meaning of “ ‫ه‬ZZ‫ " فتنت‬in this verse is persecution and calamities exerted by unbelievers on Muslims. using 3[3] Tafsir Almanar. Therefore.u. dialogue and argument is required.h).p 666 4[4] Mofradat Raqeb . To change one’s belief.the Prophet (p. his belief would not change. and. so that the party may get convinced. we fought the unbelievers till Islam became strong and “ ‫ه‬ZZZZZ‫( " فتنت‬persecution) was over. and change his belief. which is an inner belief. his inner belief would stay. 10) is about the people who burned the believers in fire. jailed and killed the Muslims for their religion. the infinitive “‫ ”فتن‬means placing gold into fire to see if it is pure or impure.e. i. unless he is not truly convinced. men and women” ( Borooj. tortured. Go to contents In Arabic the lexical meaning of “‫( ”فتنه‬translated to persecution) The root of the word. there would be no sense telling Muslims to fight the polytheist. because even if a polytheist were defeated in the war. 4[4] And the verse: “ ‫ات‬ZZZ‫ومنین والمومن‬ZZZ‫وا الم‬ZZZ‫ن فتن‬ZZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZZ‫“ ”ان ال‬those who persecute the believers.

25) ‘‫ه‬ZZ‫ ’فتن‬means calamity and affliction. that is why they say: “‫ه‬ZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZ‫تی ل تک‬ZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZ‫”وق‬ means: “Initiate war against the polytheists so that polytheism is eradicated”.’فتن‬Even. 13. And. they shall be tried at the fire * taste your trial”(Zaaryat. Thus. Thus. the word ‘‫ه‬ZZ‫ ’فتن‬should not be interpreted to mean polytheism. But. and its meaning should be asked from the native users of the language. cannot be a meaning for ‘‫. there is the implication of hardship in all the instances of the usage of the infinitive: ‘‫ . this group have their own interpretation and inference in the meaning of a word. in the meaning of which no hardship is implied. Therefore. . based on the concept that they had from jihad. in the instances where it is used for trial.some derivative of it: “‫م‬ZZ‫“ ”یوم هم علی النار یفتنون * ذوقوا فتنتک‬ upon the day.’فتنه‬ By the top guess. Zmakhshari also says: “ ‘‫ ’فتنه‬is used to mean war ‘‫( ”’ بینهم فتنه ای حرب‬and in Arabic ‘‫ ’حرب‬means war). this means that as long as there is polytheism. the reality is that there is no room for interpretation and inference in the meaning of a word. initiating war against them is obligatory. And in the verse: “‫واتقوا فتنه ل تصیبن‬ ‫ه‬Z‫م خاص‬Z‫“ ”الذ ین ظلموا منک‬And fear a trial which shall surely not smite in particular the evildoers among you” (Anfal. This group does not accept that ‘idiomatic jihad’ is for defense. ‘polytheism’.14). and for repelling the calamities inflicted by the aggressing enemy who has initiated the war. In general. interpretation of ‘‫ه‬ZZZZZ‫ ’فتن‬to polytheism is put forth by the individuals who believed that jihad in Islam is for imposing the belief by the force of weaponry. there is also the implication of hardship. And.

because while the enemy has the power for aggression and attack. And thereafter. their domination and command is ruling. Next. and their dominance and governance is wiped out. It should be realized that in verse 190. It means that your war with them is a counter attack and a reaction to the aggression. you. the ending point of it. there shall be no enmity save for evildoers” (Baqareh. also. if they give over. and verse 190 says: “fight them till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s”. refrain from killing them and stop the war. then there is no room for it. Context wise. then in their place. Verse 190 says: “fight with the aggressing unbelievers” as they are the originator and cause of the war. and in this verse. this holy verse refers to the circumstances when the attacking enemy has refrained from aggression.3. ‘Religion’ is the translation of “‫ ”دین‬and one of the meanings of “‫ن‬ZZ‫ ”دی‬is to dominate and govern. slaying them is not allowed because killing the unjust aggressor is necessary as long as the injustice and . and the pronoun ‘them’ refers to ‘those-who-fight-you’ in that verse. and their being defeated is the just punishment for them.193) The word ‘fight’ in this verse is connected with the word ‘fight’ in verse 190 of this chapter. and the subject matter for counter attack becomes nonexistent. then. “‫وقاتلوهم حتی ل تکون فتنته ویکون ال--د ی-ن ل ف--ان انته-وا فلع--د‬ ‫“ ”وان ال علی الظالمین‬And fight them till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s. the governance and religion of God will prevail. this meaning applies here. the starting point of war is stated. and says if they themselves ceased the assault and stopped aggression. and when they stop it. but after they are defeated and crushed by the defending force of Muslims.

s. In this verse. has defensive spirit. two reasons for ending the war is mentioned: one. 116). It should be repeated that what is obvious here is that the instructions to fight the aggressing unbelievers in this verse.) says to God:“ Thou knowing what is within my soul. What Muslims do is just a defense. Go to contents 4.’ع‬which usage is just for having similarity in the form but not in meaning. the enemy’s being completely defeated. “(39) ‫اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون بانهم ظلموا وان ا علی نصرهم لقد یر‬ ‫ال--ذین اخرج--وا م--ن دی--ارهم بغی--ر ح--ق ال ان یقول--وا ربن--ا ا و ل--ول‬ ‫دف--ع ا الن--اس بعض--هم ببع--ض له--د م--ت ص--وامع وبی--ع و ص--لوات‬ ‫ومساجد یذکر فیه--ا اس--م ا ک--ثیرا ولینص--رن ا م--ن ینص--ره ان ا‬ 40 – 39 ‫“ ”) لق--وی عزی--ز )ح--ج‬Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because . homographicly it is used for God too. It is obvious that God has no soul ‘‫س‬ZZ‫ . not in the meaning. because repelling and slaying the aggressing enemy is the same of that done by the aggressor only in the form of the word. like the instructions in the two previous verses. with the explanation that as the aggression by the unbelievers is discussed.aggression exists. a literary point should be noticed here. This usage is like the usage in the verse: “‫تعلم ما فی نفسی و ل‬ ‫ک‬ZZ‫ی نفس‬ZZ‫ا ف‬ZZ‫م م‬ZZ‫ . then no aggressor is in the field to be punished. their refraining from the war. The word. counter attacking and punishing them is also referred to as ‘‫دوان‬ZZ‫ .”اعل‬Jesus Christ (a. ‘‫دوان‬ZZZZZZZ‫ ’ع‬translated into ‘aggression’ is metaphorically used in its application for Muslims. and I know not what is within thy soul” (Maaedeh.’نف‬but as this word is used for Jesus. Incidentally. and only has a type of homographic usage. but when it was stopped by them. and the other.

they are oppressed. religion cannot be. who had to migrate from their . and a group of people are being aggressed and persecuted. most surely Allah is Alstrong. In this verse. in no way. and most surely Allah is well able to assist them(39). and should not be imposed on any individual. 40). Under such circumstances. (let alone on a group). but also it is obligatory for them to fight to defend themselves against the aggressor. is allowed. reference is made to the migrant Muslims. there would have been pulled down cloisters. it is not permitted to start fighting the people who are seeking peace and friendly association. because. And. In these verses. Almighty”(Hajj. in the next verse. even by the way of imposing the religion. starting war and destroying an existing atmosphere of peace and quiet. And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others. and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause. and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned. unjustly. In other words. The Quran says: “‫ل‬ ‫دین‬ZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫راه ف‬ZZ‫“ ”اک‬There is no compulsion in the religion” (Baqareh. Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. and synagogues. It is obviously understood from it that when there is no attack initiated by the enemy. have been expelled from their homes. and churches. and only for believing in God. 256). not only are such people not forbidden from war. it is pointed out that the rights for proceeding to the defensive war is given to those who. the Quran says that war is allowed and permitted when militarily attack is initiated by the enemy.

In this verse.”. and God will help them to defeat the aggressing enemy. and explains if the aggressed people were not given the rights to proceed for fighting against the militarily attack of the enemy. and if the attacked do not have to migrate. and how they were expelled from their homes. then they have no rights to proceed to the defensive war.had there not been Allah’s repelling.. the holy verse describes some benefits of such a defensive war. defense in this verse is not an “intrinsic. It does not want to say that permission to proceed to a defensive war is conditioned by the exodus and wandering of the people who have been attacked. synagogues. meaning that. the Quran says: “‫رو ا‬ZZ‫ان تنص‬ .homes because of tortures and persecutions by the Meccan unbelievers. and this ordained meaning would suit and fit the meaning of the last part of the verse: “ ‫ره‬ZZ‫ن ینص‬ZZ‫رن ا م‬ZZ‫“ ”ولینص‬surely Allah will help him who helps His cause ”. far more severe evil would spread. and mosques. but defense by ordaining the war. God involves them in the war so that He eliminate the evil of the aggressors from the Muslims. this verse explains the events that had happened. and natural” defense. This verse does not convey such a meaning. Helping God means obeying his instructions. including pulling down of the holy places such as cloisters. Of course. In another chapter. Therefore. by permitting the aggressed to have such a disciplined fight with the aggressor. then. Then. meaning that those who carry out God’s instructions on such defensive war are obeying God’s order. and intends to show the harshness in the situation of the migrant Muslims. churches. divinely authorization for war is referred to as God’s defense: “.

Some interpreters of the Holy Koran reflect on an “intrinsic” meaning for defense in the verse. For example.”عن‬taking the object directly as in the verse “‫اد‬ ‫یئه‬ZZZZZZ‫ن الس‬ZZZZZZ‫ی احس‬ZZZZZZ‫االتی ه‬ZZZZZZ‫ع ب‬ZZZZZZ‫“ ”ف‬repel evil by what is best”(Momenoon. This interpretation does not seem correct and does not fit the context of the verse. the interpretation by some who say: “ the verse means that with the blessings of the . on the interpretation of verse 251 of Baqareh Chapter. The verse is about war and God’s permitting the aggressed to fight the aggressor so that they could repel the evil of the aggression by fighting the aggressor. God will help you “ (Mohammad. However. as stated in Majma al Bayan. and Hajj performing. God will keep away evil from those who do not pray. and do not go for Hajj. and implicitly would encourage and invite to neglect praying. as explained. then it should have read: “‫ ”ولول دفع ا ببعض الناس عن بعض‬because the root word “‫ ”د فع‬if used in Arabic to mean ‘defend and protect’ it must become a transitive verb used with “‫ ”عن‬so that the meaning of protection could be understood from it. note the usage: “‫وا‬ZZ‫ن آمن‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ن ال‬ZZ‫دافع ع‬ZZ‫ “ ”ان ا ی‬God defends those who believe” (Hajj. God protects and defends the bad. God will protect and defend the bad from evil”. 38). alms giving. Therefore. Besides.‫رکم‬ZZZZZ‫ “ ”ینص‬If you help God. as we see. and has taken the object ‘evil’ directly. 96) then. If the verse wanted to say that with the blessings of the good. do not give alms. such interpretations do have some misguiding consequences and effects. But if it used without “‫ . and say: “ the verse means that with the blessings of the good. 7). it will mean repelling. it does not fit the context to say that with the blessings of those who pray and give alms and go for Hajj.

must be rejected.b. what kind of rational meaning it would have? What logical connection could exist between not defending the bad. if God perish the bad by calamity. inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you. and mosques. God will protect and defend the bad from evil”. there will be no logical correlation between the condition in the verse: “And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others”. and the sacred places being destroyed? On the contrary. and synagogues. “‫الش---هر الح--رام بالش---هرالحرام والحرم--ات قص--اص فم---ن اعت---دی‬ ‫علیکم فا عتد واعلیه بمثل ما اعتدی علیکم واتق--وا ا واعلم--وا ان‬ ‫“ ”ا م--ع المتقی--ن‬the Sacred month for the Sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation.” In that case. and its consequence. Another point is that according to this interpretation. year six after Muslims’ migration from Mecca. in the month of Zilqaadeh. and churches. then acts aggressively against you.h) and the Muslims to take pilgrimage to Kabah for performing Omreh rituals. and heed God. 194). there would have been pulled down cloisters. the sacred places would be immune from the wickedness of the bad people Go to contents 5. whoever. . Suppose it is said: “And had there not been Allah’s defending the bad from evil by the blessings from the good. is not correct and does not fit the context.u. and know that God stands by the heedful”(Baqareh. the unbelievers of Mecca did not allow the Prophet (p. It is said: “This verse relates to the issue of Hudaybiyyah.good. In that month. and therefore.

The real occurrence of which. It is also said: “The unbelievers in Mecca had the intention to catch the Muslims unawares. Finally. and return to Mecca the next year to perform the rituals for three days in the month of Zilqaadeh. on this verse). by using ‘Sacred month for Sacred month’. and to observe the sanctity of the month.”. the main focus of it is on jihad and the defensive war.h) accompanied by Muslims set out to Mecca to perform the rituals in the month of Zilqaadeh. interpreting this verse). inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you. And it should be noticed that in this verse too. a peace accord was reached. Based on this accord. and have militarily attack on them. the next year. This verse is in the context of jihad. So. you are given the rights to proceed onto the defensive war. meaning that if the unbelievers dishonored the sanctity of such months and initiated war.They even attacked the Muslims with arrows and stones. and this verse was revealed under such circumstances to point out that Sacred month is for Sacred month. then acts aggressively against you. which is one of the sacred months. one general rule is mentioned in the verse: “whoever. and it was agreed that the Prophet and the Muslims return to Medina in that year. meaning that war in the Sacred month is against war in the Sacred month” (Majma al Bayan. Then.u. they disliked fighting” (Aloosi.b. . the Prophet (p. and all sacred things are under the law of retaliation. naturally is a defensive war. not being obligated to observe the sanctity of the month. therefore. you too can proceed for defensive war in the same month. the verse tells Muslims if the unbelievers initiated war in the sacred month.

the verse “‫فم--ن اعت--دی علیک--م ف--ا عت--د واعلی--ه بمث--ل م--ا اعت--دی‬ ‫“ ”علیک---م‬whoever. It should be noted that this condition being clearly understood from the verse needs no argument. Of course.g.. then acts aggressively against you. This universal rule applies everywhere. 36) and thus initial war with unbelievers has become obligatory”(Tabari. in which act of aggression is restricted and conditioned. the consequence: ‘your attack” will follow.. it requires that the unconditioned verses about the war should be read and restricted by the conditioned ones. Thus. on the verse) And by the abolishment of the verse. the Muslims are not permitted to initiate militarily attack on others. no initial war is permitted in Islam. will rule over the . this group also have taken for granted that considering the implication of this condition.proceeding onto war is conditioned with the initiation of aggression by the enemy. “whoever then acts aggressively against you. ‘give me the book’.”. they intend abolishment of what is meant not what is uttered. This is clearly understood from the condition. It naturally follows that if no attack is initiated by the enemy. is read by ‘give me the math book’). abolishment of the verse (194) by this verse “‫افه‬ZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZ‫ ”وقاتلواالمش‬is not acceptable. In our case. Therefore. inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you” (Baqareh. 194). and that is why the group of jurisprudents who consider jihad an initial war in Islam say: “This verse is abolished by the verse: ‘ ‫افه‬ZZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZZ‫‘ ’وقاتلواالمش‬and fight the unbelievers all together’ (Toubeh. (e. There is the universal rule for the absolute to be read by the restricting.

It is appropriate to give here the summary of the remarks of Sheikh Abdoh. This verse and the verses before it in this chapter of the Quran are in the same context and correlated. such a person is driving the verses out their context. Therefore. “The verses on war in the AleImran Chapter are about the war of Uhud.”عت-----د واعلی-----ه بمث-----ل م-----ا اعت-----دی علیک-----م‬which conditions fighting the unbelievers by their initiating the war. and perceives that war is obligatory even in the case of the absence of the condition. if a person considers the instructions for war in these verses as absolute. “‫افته‬ZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZ‫“ ”وقاتلواالمش‬and fight the unbelievers all together” which mentions fight unconditionally.verse. and has never been abolished. in the event of no attack being initiated by the enemy. There is no requirement to take the verse. and is imposing onto the verses such a meaning that non of these verses would reflect. And it is quoted from Ibn Abbass that no abolishment was done on these verses. And ‫ و‬this is an evidence that initiating fight against the unbelievers is not permitted until they initiate it against the Muslims. quoted meaning-wise on this subject: “ The rule in the verse: “‫فمن اعت--دی علیک--م ف-ا‬ ‫ . The . namely. in which the unbelievers had aggressed. is a permanent rule. “‫افه‬ZZZZZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZZZZZ‫ ”وقاتلواالمش‬from a different chapter (Baraat) and interpose it among the verses in this chapter.

go straight with them” (Bara’at. Another verse also says: “‫انهم‬ZZ‫وا ایم‬ZZ‫ا نکث‬ZZ‫اتلون قوم‬ZZ‫ال تق‬ ‫ره‬ZZ‫داوکم اول م‬ZZ‫م ب‬ZZ‫“ ”. and that is why the verse on them says: “‫م‬ZZ‫تقیموا له‬ZZ‫م فاس‬ZZ‫تقاموا لک‬ZZ‫ا اس‬ZZ‫َ“ ”فم‬As long as they go straight with you. God has not made it obligatory for us to fight the others and shed their blood and slay them. 7).وه‬Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths …. But the wars that took place in the later periods. which also was an aggression by the unbelievers. 13). the Muslims.. [he means the .u.h) were for defending the rights and the people of rights. and they had initiated the war.b...u.h) were for the purpose of supporting the call to the rights. then.. and for supporting the call for the rights. and to ruin our refuge and security. Thus.and they attacked you first” (Bara’at. “And the wars fought by the companions of the Prophet (p. They were not for aggressing others. all the wars fought by the Prophet (p. “It was the unbelievers who always initiated the war against Muslims so as to make them abandon the religion. and stopping the aggressors from defeating the Muslims.b. And the verses regarding war in the Bara’at Chapter are about the unbelievers who breached the bond and initiated aggression. and to shed our blood. If there is no one to aggress us.verses in the Anfal Chapter are about the Badr war.

the jihad that is obligatory in Islam is a defensive war.wars fought by the Caliphates of Bani Umayyeh and Bani Abbass] were requisite of the nature of power and dominance. in fact. Vol. According to these verses. meaning that they contain some condition. and invade them. And. the restricting verses. it is the nature of the world that the possessors of power attack the weak in their neighborhood. The verses containing the condition are referred to as the restricting verses. everywhere and in every terminology. On the other side. is read by ‘give me the math book’).2 page 215 ) Go to contents Reading the absolute by the restricting So far. As indicated before. 3rd edition. we talked about five verses mentioning the condition by which war is permitted in Islam. in which case the war becomes necessary for repelling the enemy and defending the aggressed. The condition is the aggression by the enemy. It was not such that all those wars were corresponding with the rules of the religion. This is a general rule that applies universally.g. . it is obvious that according to the universal rule of reading the absolute by the restricting (e. there are verses that call the Muslims to war absolutely and with no conditions. and consequently are ruling over them. the necessity of which is certainly confirmed by the nature of every human being.” (Tafsire Alminar. are interpreting the absolute verses. ‘give me the book’.

with no restrictions: 1. and Allah knows while you do not know” (Baqareh. “‫کتب علیکم القتال و هو کره لکم وعسی ان تکره--وا ش-یئا و ه--و‬ ‫خی--ر لک--م وعس--ی ان تحبواش--یئا و ه--و ش--ر لک--م وا یعل--م و انت--م‬ ‫“ ”لتعلم--ون‬Fighting is enjoined on you. “‫فلیقاتل ف-ی س-بیل ا ال-ذ ی-ن یش-ترون الحی-واه ال-د نی-ا ب-الخره و‬ ‫”من یقاتل فی سبیل ا فیقتل او یغلب فسوف نوتیه اج-را عظیم--ا‬ “ Those who sell the world’s life for the Hereafter must fight in the way Allah. “‫قاتلوا ال--ذ ی--ن ل یومن--ون ب--اا ول ب--الیوم الخ--ر ول یحرم--ون م--ا‬ ‫حرم ا و رسوله ول ید ینون د ین الحق م--ن ال--ذ ی--ن اوتوالکت--اب‬ . and you dislike it. “‫الذین آمنوا یقا تل-ون ف-ی س-بیل ا وال--ذ ی-ن کف--روا یق--ا تل-ون ف-ی‬ ‫س--بیل الط---اغوت فق---اتلوا اولی---اء الش---یطان ان کی---د الش---یطان ک---ان‬ ‫“ ”ض--عیفا‬Those who believe fight in God’s way.” (Nissa. 216). 74) 3. therefore. wherein Muslims are called to fight the unbelievers unconditionally. We shall grant him a mighty reward” (Nissa. and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you. then be he slain or be he victorious. we are talking about some of the absolute verses.Second group: the absolute verses Now. fight Satan’s patrons. Satan’s plot is weak. 2. those who disbelieve fight in the way of the arrogant. 4. and it may be that you love a thing while it is bad for you. and whoever fight in the way of Allah. 76).

4). 5. 123). we discussed five verses that are restricting fighting of Muslims with the unbelievers. 29). “‫یا ایهاالذ ین آمنوا قاتلوا الذ ین یلونکم من الکفار ولیجد و فیکم‬ ‫“ ” غلظه واعلم--وا ان ل م--ع المتقی--ن‬O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you..” (Mohammad. ‘give me the book’. is read . nor in the Latter Day. then smite the necks until when you have overcome them. Previously.فشدواالوثاق فاما منا بعد اما فداء‬So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve.‫“ ” ح--تی یعط---والجزیته ع--ن ی---د وه---م ص--اغرون‬Fight those who do not believe in Allah. These six verses are of the absolute ones. out of those who have been given the Book.g. and know that God is with the godfearing. then tie them up as prisoners and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves). which without any condition call Muslims to fight the unbelievers. it is obvious that according to the universally observed rule of reading the absolute by the restricting (e. 6.”(Bara”at. In those verses. nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited. Muslims are permitted to fight the unbelievers on the condition that the unbelievers are the initiator of the war. “‫ف--اذا لقیت--م ال---ذ ی--ن کف--روا فض--رب الرق--اب ح--تی اذا اثخنتم--وهم‬ ‫“ ”. nor follow the religion of truth. And ‫ و‬as said before. until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Bara’at. and let them find in you hardness..

in which case it becomes obligatory for Muslims to proceed for defending. publ. He says: “. the expressions of the Pioneer Allameh.. Go to contents The wars fought by the Prophet (p.b.b.h) were defensive As it was made clear that the verses in the Quran prescribes only defensive war.h) were for defending and protecting monotheism. And. Nevertheless. Muslims. وم‬ZZZ‫لح والمس‬ZZZ‫الص‬ ‫ی‬ZZ‫دعو ال‬ZZ‫وعظه وی‬ZZ‫د م الم‬ZZ‫یسلکهاالمدافعون واقربها الی السلم والصلح. it means that in Islam. everywhere and in every terminology. and for crashing the aggression of the enemy.u.h) are absolutely valid. Thus. it logically follows that the wars fought by this holy person himself were all defensive.b. and consequently are ruling over them. p212. Sheikh Mohammad Jawad Balaqi concerning the wars of the Prophet (p. This is a general rule that applies universally.h) himself. and as we know that the first individual who put these verses into action was the Prophet (p. the restricting verses. but not the initial war.u.b. یق‬ ‫لح‬ZZ‫د الص‬ZZ‫ل عه‬ZZ‫ه ویقب‬ZZ‫د ن‬ZZ‫ی اله‬ZZ‫ب ال‬ZZ‫الصلح و السلم و یخبح الی السلم و یجی‬ 5]5 ” .. Aalami Karbala .by ‘give me the math book’).u.‫“ ]مع عرفانه انه المظفر المنصور‬All the wars of the Prophet (p. and the religion of reformation against the aggression of the aggressive unbelievers. fighting the unbelievers is permitted only when the unbelievers are the initiator of war. in fact. are interpreting the absolute verses.u. he 5[5] Al Rehlat al Madrasiyah.‫فکانت‬ ‫ریعه‬ZZ‫د وش‬ZZ‫ن التوحی‬ZZ‫المین ع‬ZZ‫رکین الظ‬ZZ‫دوان المش‬ZZ‫ا لع‬ZZ‫ا دفاع‬ZZ‫ه باجمعه‬ZZ‫حروب‬ ‫ه‬ZZZ‫ن طریق‬ZZZ‫اعه احس‬ZZZ‫ی دف‬ZZZ‫لک ف‬ZZZ‫و یس‬ZZZ‫ک فه‬ZZZ‫ع ذال‬ZZZ‫لمین .

that is why calling (to Islam) before proceeding to the war is a precondition for the war to be authorized.h) were for defending the rights and the people of rights. While he knew that he would be the conqueror.b. he engaged himself in admonishing and calling for conciliation and pacification. Even before proceeding to such a war.. but only by reasoning and dialogue. and says: “‫فقتال‬ ‫ذالک‬Z‫ق و ل‬Z‫دعوه الح‬ZZ‫ایه ل‬Z‫ه وحم‬Z‫ق واهل‬Z‫ن الح‬Z‫دافعه ع‬ZZ‫ان م‬Z‫النبی )ص( کله ک‬ ‫ان‬Z‫الحجه والبره‬Z‫دعوه ب‬ZZ‫ون ال‬ZZ‫ا تک‬Z‫ال وانم‬Z‫کان تقد یم الدعوه شرطا لجواز القت‬ 6 ]6 ” ‫“ ]ل بالسیف والسنان‬Therefore.” Up keeping peace: the behavior of the Prophet (p.h) to attempt for maintaining 6[6] Tafsir Almanar.u.used to follow the best way that the defenders took.b.b. And. all the wars of the Prophet (p.vol.” Go to contents The view of Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh also is of the same view as that of Sheikh Mohammad Jawad Balaqi on the Prophet’s wars being of defensive nature. he used to accept ceasefire and agreed to peace treaty.h) So far it became clear that imposing belief is not authorized in Islam. and that in Islam peace is an infrastructural and fundamental principle. and that God has asked the Prophet (p. p 210 . and for supporting the call to the truth. calling takes place not by sword and spear. and showed inclination for peace.u. And.u.

the peace. It also was made clear that the verses in the Holy Koran do not authorize initial war. Now, it seems appropriate to narrate as an example the way that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) practically behaved in the Badr war to show how he practiced, word for word, the instructions of the Quran for avoiding war and up keeping the peace. After the trade caravan of Qureish reached Mecca safe and sound, the warmongers of Mecca accumulated an army of approximately one thousand heads to pound the Muslims. To accomplish it, they encamped in the district of Badr. Among the group, a man by the name of Otbeh ibn Rabieh, one of the esteemed persons of Mecca, was riding a red-haired camel. While moving about inside the group, he was shouting: ‫یا قوم! لتقاتلوا هذاالرجل واصحابه واعصبوا هذالمر براسی‬ ‫واجعلوا جبنهالی فان منهم رجال قرابتهم قریبه و ل یزال الرجل‬ ‫منکم ینظر الی قاتل ابیه و اخیه فیورت ذالک بینکم شحناء و‬ ‫اضغانا ولن تخلصوا الی قتلهم حتی یصیبوا منکم عددهم مع انی‬ ‫... ل آمن ان تکون الدا ئره علیکم‬ ‫یا قوم! ان یک محمد کاذ با یکفیکموه ذ ئبان العرب وان یک ملکا‬ ‫اکلتم فی ملک ابن اخیکم وان یک نبیا کنتم اسعدالناس به‬ ” ‫]یاقوم! ل تردوا نصیحتی ول تفسهوا رایی‬ “O my kinfolk! Accept my words, and do not fight this man and his companions. Leave it to me, and attribute the shame of the cowardice to me. You have relatives and kin among them. If fight take place, a number will be killed. Then, you will, for the whole life, have to face the murderer of your
7[7] Moqazi waqedi, vol. 1, p63 publ. Nashre Daneshe Islami
7]7

father and brother. This will cause hatred, enmity and hostility to breed among you. And you should realize that you will have no access for killing them unless they kill from you as many as you kill from them. Besides, you may be defeated… “O my kinfolk! If Mohammad is a liar, the wolves of Arab will repel his evilness. If he is a king, you will be enjoying life under the governance of the son of your brother, and if he is a prophet, you will be the luckiest people. “O my kinfolk! Do not reject my well-wishing for you, and do not regard my view as stupid.” Regarding Otbeh ibn Rabieh, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: “‫ر ان‬ZZ‫ل الحم‬ZZ‫احب الجم‬ZZ‫ی ص‬ZZ‫ر فف‬ZZ‫وم خی‬ZZ‫ن الق‬ZZ‫د م‬ZZ‫ی اح‬ZZ‫ک ف‬ZZ‫ان ی‬ ”‫]یطیعوه یرشد وا‬ “If there is goodwill to be found in any of the people, it can be found in the owner of the red camel. If the people obey him, they will be in the right path.” The outstanding step taken by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in that very sensitive point was that he sent a message to the people by Umar in which he wrote: “‫ی‬ZZ‫انه یل‬ZZ‫وا ف‬ZZ‫ارجع‬ ‫ی‬Z‫ب ال‬Z‫م اح‬Z‫ن غیرک‬Z‫ه م‬ZZ‫ی والی‬Z‫وه من‬Z‫هذاالمر منی غیرکم احب الی من ان تل‬
8 ]8

8[8] Same, p 60

9[9] Same, p 61

would be better with me than your taking such a position. And if I had taken such a position against people other than you, it would be better with me than my taking it against you” This endeavor of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to advise the people of Mecca to go back and avoid war, and his attempt to avert militarily clash by any means possible, and to prevent bloodshed, all of these are because the Holy Koran, in accordance with the human nature, has proclaimed peace an infrastructural principle and instructed the Prophet (p.b.u.h): “‫ا و‬Z‫ح له‬Z‫لم فاجن‬Z‫وا للس‬Z‫و ان جنح‬ ‫“ " توکل علی ا‬if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal,61). Thus, the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was in accordance with the Quranic verses on preserving the peace and avoiding initial war, and he did strictly practice as was instructed in the Quran. If initiating war for imposing the religion were authorized in Islam, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) would be more apt than the others to do it, and would have done it in the event of Badr, and should have taken the lead to attack those who had gathered there. And, his not doing so was because he was acting in response to the cry of human nature, and was obeying the command of God. He avoided war and was seeking peace. Unfortunately, some westerners, who have been lead to misread the truth as they have been misinformed, say: “ Islam authorizes war and bloodshed for imposing the religion.” Should this group of westerners take a good note of how the Prophet (p.b.u.h) acted in Badr, they may feel ashamed for this accusation. Go to contents

Peace seeking: the harmony of nature
The goodness of peace and harmony is a matter of nature and conscience. And, it is for positively responding to this natural phenomenon that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is forbidding and avoiding initial war. The desirability of peace is so clearly mixed with the human’s nature, and to such extent that, every human being, no matter what his belief may be, instantly would admire anyone who is avoiding initial war and is calling to peace. A good proof: when the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was asking the Meccan unbelievers to avoid war, and was calling to peace, Hakim ibn Hezam, the nephew of Khadijeh bint Khoweiled, and Kabah born10[10], was in the unbelievers camp then. He later became a Muslim. Upon hearing the Prophet’s words, Hakim ibn Hezam said: ‫د‬ZZ‫ق‬
11]11

” ‫ف‬ZZ‫ن النص‬ZZ‫رض م‬ZZ‫ا ع‬ZZ‫د م‬ZZ‫ه بع‬ZZ‫]عرض نصفا فاقبلوه وا لتنصرن علی‬ “Mohammad has a fair suggestion, and it should be accepted. By God, after this fair suggestion that he made, if you fight ‫ و‬you will not defeat him” There was the cry coming from the nature and conscience of this unbeliever, accentuated by swearing to God, telling his kinfolk: “..By God, after this fair suggestion that Mohammad made, if you fight, you will
10[10] Sireh Ibn Hosham, vol. 1, 2nd edition, 1375 Qamari, footnote p. 203. and Asado alqabeh, vol.2. p20

11[11] Moqazi waqedi, vol. 1, p. 61

.” This cry is a good testimony to the fact that.b.h) . Imam Shafii says: “‫ا‬ZZ‫الی فیه‬ZZ‫ولما مضت لرسول ا )ص( مده من هجرته انعم ا تع‬ ‫م‬Z‫د د ل‬Z‫وه بالع‬Z‫ون ا ق‬Z‫ع ع‬Z‫ا م‬Z‫م به‬Z‫ت له‬Z‫د ث‬Z‫اعه وح‬Z‫اعه باتب‬Z‫علی جم‬ ‫تکن قبلها ففرض ا علیهم الجهاد بعد اذ کان اباحه ل فرضا فقال‬ ‫ال‬ZZ‫م" .u. And. Criticizing the views of jurisprudents. they introduce it as initial war for inviting to Islam. it was explained that according to the Quranic verses.not defeat him. it was what happened: the warmongers of Mecca were severely defeated. it is noticed that wherever the jurisprudents discuss the Islamic jihad.وق‬ZZZ‫ی س‬ZZZ‫اتلوا ف‬ZZZ‫الی: "وق‬ZZZ‫ارک وتع‬ZZZ‫تب‬ ‫روا‬ZZ‫ذین کف‬ZZZ‫م ال‬ZZZ‫اذا لقیت‬ZZZ‫ال: "ف‬ZZZ‫اده" وق‬ZZZ‫ق جه‬ZZZ‫ی ا ح‬ZZZ‫دوا ف‬ZZZ‫"وجاه‬ .b.u. leading to the defeat. seeking peace.b.. Now.. based on the Quran and the conduct of the Prophet (p. ultimately.. “Omm”. and as the conduct of the Prophet (p. Passages from Imam Shafii In his book. In spite of it. we are paraphrasing some of the writings of such jurisprudents on this subject for the analytically minded to think on them. or in a more precise term. is a desirable and pleasing issue. is aggression and injustice that will have terrible consequences. by the head of Muslims. with great wonder.h) shows. and opposing it.h) So far.u. This is in direct opposition with the verses and with the conduct of the Prophet (p. for imposing Islam on the unbelievers.. it is well obvious that initiating war for imposing the religion is not authorized in Islam.. وق‬ZZ‫ره لک‬ZZ‫و ک‬ZZ‫ال و ه‬ZZ‫م القت‬ZZ‫ب علیک‬ZZ‫الی : "کت‬ZZ‫ارک وتع‬ZZ‫تب‬ :‫ل‬ZZZ‫ز وج‬ZZZ‫ال ع‬ZZZ‫بیل ا ".

God also said: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve. in the Quran God said: “Fighting is enjoined on you.:‫ل‬ZZ‫ز وج‬ZZ‫ال ع‬ZZ‫فضرب الرقاب حتی اذا اثنختموهم فشدواالوثاق" وق‬ 1]12 2] ”". It is not because he ignored those verses. the way He should be striven for”. regarding jihad being obligatory. and by God’s help. and yearly fasting became obligatory for Muslims. Beirut . What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah’s way. and said: “Strive for God’s sake.. and you dislike it” God also said: “Fight in the way of Allah”.. Then. p. Daro almarefah.. but 12[12] Omm Shafii. number wise.‫"ما لکم اذا قیل لکم انفروا فی سبیل ا اثاقلتم الی الرض‬ “After some time passed from the Prophet’s migration. and left out the conditioned ones wherein fighting is conditioned by the aggression from the enemy. God blessed some groups to follow him.. In his argument. 4. vol.161. Imam Shafii wants to say that as daily prayers. God made jihad obligatory for them while it was not obligatory before that phase. Allah also said: “. they gained such a power that they did not have before. So. then tie them up as prisoners”. then smite the necks until when you have overcome them. so did initial fighting with the unbelievers because of the verses he is referring to. Imam Shafii has referred to the absolute group of verses. you should incline heavily to earth”.

. This view that the conditioned verses on jihad are abolished existed among the jurisprudents. and Rabi ibn Anas had the same idea. 161.because he considers them abolished. Imam Shafii says: “‫نسخ‬ ‫تی‬Z‫اتلوهم ح‬Z‫هذا کله والنهی عن القتال حتی یقاتلوا. then if they fight you slay them. and prohibition of war ‘till they fight. .’…are abolished by these words of Allah(SWT) : “And fight them till there is no persecution”. p. God loves not the aggressors” ‫ل تقاتلوهم عندالمسجد الحرام حتی یقاتلوکم‬ ‫اقتلوهمو‬ZZ‫اتلوکم ف‬ZZ‫ان ق‬ZZ‫ه ف‬ZZ‫“ " فی‬But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there. and most surely Allah is well able to assist them” ‫الذین اخرجوا‬ ‫ق‬ZZ‫ر ح‬ZZ‫ارهم بغی‬ZZ‫ن دی‬ZZ‫ م‬Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause “ ‫ن‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫بیل ا ال‬ZZ‫ی س‬ZZ‫اتلوا ف‬ZZ‫وق‬ ‫“ یقاتلونکم ول تعتدو ان ا لیحب المعتد ین‬And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you. not mentioning their names. such as: “‫وا وان‬ZZ‫انهم ظلم‬ZZ‫اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون ب‬ ‫ر‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫رهم لق‬ZZ‫“ ا علی نص‬Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed.بقول ا) عز وجل(: وق‬ 13]13 ”. Imam Shafii refers to some of the conditioned verses.’14[14] Shafii too has quoted it from others.‫]ل تکون فتنه " ونزل هذه الیه بعد فرض الجهاد‬ “All these.” After quoting these verses. 4. Before discussing the absolute verses. Go to contents 13[13] Omm Shafii.. but aggress not. and interpreters of the Quran before Shafii. ‘Abdu al Rahman ibn zeid ibn Aslam. vol..

why was it ignored regarding the verses on jihad? This ignorance has resulted in portraying an ugly face for Islam before the world community. anywhere. As 14[14] Majma al Bayan. and has caused the naturally desired defensive phenomenon. universally accepted ‘rule-ofreading-the-absolute-by-the-restricting’ to be ignored? Such an important rule. under verse 190 of Baqareh . where the oppressor Caliphs started initial wars and bloodshed in the name of Islamic jihad for the purpose of territorial expansion? It is obvious that under such atmosphere. the validity of which was and is accepted by all the experts regarding the terminology of legislators and interpreters of law. and Abd al Rahman ibn Zeid ibn Aslam under the influence of the governing atmosphere. and no one would have the courage to issue a verdict or interpret verses of the Quran in such a way that may have the consequences of condemning such unjust and cruel militarily attacks as were done by the pitiless Caliphs. as ordained in the Quran. in all tenets and through out history.One very important and amazing question One very important and amazing question that must be answered here is this: What factors were in use that caused the evident. dictatorship and strict tyranny would govern. to be distorted and introduced to the world as initial war for imposing a belief. (‘And what an unfairness about a religion all the moralities of which are nature oriented’ translator) Did politics of the day affect the subject? Were individuals such as Rabi ibn Anas.

he fought Batham. he set out for Taliqan. the wars fought by the cruel Caliphs were according to the nature of their hegemony and domain of aggression against their neighbors. Then. 216. and this action of theirs was not in accordance with the Islamic rules. Then. for dialogue with. Quteibeh seized Batham’s son. Salim Nassih assured Nizak that whatever he may demand will 15[15] Tafsir Almanar. and hanged him together with a group. p. While Quteibeh conquered Bukhara and Taliqan. Nizak Tarkhoon. Batham’s son was in the company of Quteibeh. defeated him and murdered him together with all his children and wife. where Batham was in dominance. for a few days.Sheikh Abdoh says. 3rd esition . one his friends. vol. and in fact for deceiving Nizak. Abdullah. In a military expedition. He sent Salim Nassih. On behalf of Quteibeh.15[15] An example of the cruel fight by the rulers in the period of the Caliphs In the period of the caliphate of Bani Umayyeh. When he got there. Hajjaj ibn Yousef Thaqafi assigned Quteibeh ibn Muslim Baheli to the governorship of the then Khorassan province. Quteibeh attacked Bukhara and conquered it. who by then had become a Muslim. he began corresponding with the non-Arabs. and had adopted the name. 2. asked for permission from Quteibeh to go his homeland. Takharestan. Quteibeh started an expedition to Takharestan. and finally. and gathered some force.

Quteibeh beheaded him together with his nephew. 3. those groups of verdict-issuers jurisprudents. and continued up to the period 16[16] Tarikhe Yaqubi. In this privacy. this view prevailed among a group of jurisprudents and the interpreters of the Quran. all were abolished” would be in conformity with the actions of such cruel Caliphs. and offenses were committed under the umbrella of the Bani Umayyeh Caliph by the name of Islamic jihad. and interpreters of the Quran who are really pious. Within such a dictatorial and tyrannical environment. are caught in dilemma (‫ه‬ZZZZZ‫ )تقی‬and out of helplessness. Such a statement that “the restricting and conditioned verses on jihad whereby initial war is prohibited.31. she said: “What a foolish person you are! Do you think that by killing my husband and depriving me of my domain. ps.h). vol. 16 [16] ” All such crimes. Finally. and sent him to Quteibeh. and sent their heads for Hajjaj ibn Yousef. not in accordance with the conduct of the Prophet (p.be accepted. However.u.32.b. I may submit myself to you?” Quteibeh had to take hands off her. cautiously give such a view not be considered outright opposition with the ruling regime. Quteibeh then seized Nizak’ wife for raping. when Nizak reached Quteibeh. and said : “ Go wherever you want. But those groups who are less pious possibly issue their verdict and give interpretations to the liking of such governing regime. In spite of the formal respite. Najaf print . they gave him formal respite.

and that is why all of them coordinately have said that jihad in Islam means initiating war for inviting to Islam. Go to contents Passages from Ibn Homam Hanafi In his book. and it was reflected in the books and verdicts of the jurisprudents thereafter.s period this view was stable and unquestionable.h) as mentioned in Sahihe Bukhari. or he expressed it being compelled under the dictatorial and tyrannical atmosphere. and Shafii was impressed by it..u.b. for imposing Islam on others by the force of weaponry. As said earlier.وصریح قوله فی الصحیحین وغیرهما : ام‬ ‫ادنی‬ZZ‫م ب‬ZZ‫د ئه‬ZZ‫وجب ان نب‬ZZ‫ه ال ا ی‬ZZ‫وا ل ال‬ZZ‫تی یقول‬ZZ‫اس ح‬ZZ‫ل الن‬ZZ‫ان اقات‬ ‫“ تامل‬Fighting the unbelievers is obligatory even if they are not the initiators of the war because the evidences raised for confirming that jihad is obligatory are not conditioning it by the unbelievers initiating the war. the narration from the Prophet (p. who also accepted it. ‘‫ر‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫ح الق‬ZZ‫ ’فت‬Ibn Homam Hanafi says: ‫د‬ZZ‫م یقی‬ZZ‫ه ل‬Z‫وجبه ل‬ZZ‫ه الم‬ZZ‫ا لن الدل‬ZZ‫د ئون‬ZZ‫م یب‬Z‫ب وان ل‬ZZ‫ار واج‬Z‫ال الکف‬ZZ‫قت‬ ‫رت‬ZZ‫الوجوب ببدائتهم . the jurisprudence after Shafii was affected by this view. It is not clear whether it was Shafii’s actual view. And naturally. and issued his verdict on that basis. Besides. other examples from other jurisprudents are given below. But the point is clear that in the jurisprudence of Shafii. or better expressed. This view of Imam Shaffi is an example of how the jurisprudents have treated this subject. and Sahihe Muslim and other .of Shafii.. That is why we notice this view in the verdicts and books of the jurisprudents of both the Sunni and Shiah after Imam Shafii.

Earlier.books is explicitly saying: ‘I am instructed to fight people till they utter there is no God but One’. Suppose. You. In the restricting verses. according to a general rule. jihad being obligatory is conditioned by the unbelievers initiating it. and some are conditioned or restricting. we say: “ The main evidences for jihad being obligatory are the verses from the Quran. And. what Ibn Homam says: “the evidences that show jihad is obligatory do not condition it by the unbelievers’ initiating it” would mean that he does not heed the restricting verses. p 194 . Now. as the addressee entertained the Persian scholars and now are questioned by your commander. Can you excuse yourself by saying that I acted on the basis of the absolute command: “Entertain the scholar”? Now. this absolute command is followed by a restricting and conditioned one: “Don’t entertain the Persian scholars”. it overruled the absolute one. 17[17] Fath al Qadir. you are told: “ Entertain the scholars” and then. vol 5. the absolute verses are read and restricted by the restricting ones. but only the absolute ones. why can you not excuse yourself for doing so? It is clear. 17[17]” To disprove Ibn Homam’s argument. therefore. This narration needs little thought for proving that jihad is obligatory. it was explained that some of the verses are absolute.” Ibn Homam says: “the evidences that show jihad is obligatory do not condition it by the unbelievers’ initiating it. you cannot use the absolute one to reason for fulfillment of the duty. When the restricting command was issued.

and there is no evidence for it” This saying of Tabari is absolutely correct. the man of concept on interpretation of the Quran. Now.h) mentioned in Sahihe Bukhari. Ibn . his saying is.Then. To argue that the restricting verses on jihad were abolished is so illogical that Tabari. Ibn Homam has not been able to think freely and to release himself from the captivity of the verdict that was common and prevailing in those days.u. 190). Tabari’s words translated reads: “And that somebody say ‘this verse is abolished’ is. but aggress not”. “And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you. 2.b. out of hegemony and self-supremacy from which a free thinker jurisprudent should avoid. and have no worth as evidence” As we explained earlier. a kind of hegemony and selfsupremacy. in fact. In the atmosphere that governed the jurisprudence of his time. whoever says: “The restricting verses on jihad are abolished”. He did know nothing about reading the absolute by the restricting. This is beyond the status of a well educated jurisprudent. such a claim is baseless and is not acceptable. there is the possibility of one of two issues: 1. saying: ‘I am instructed to fight people till they utter there is no God but One’. has claimed: “The restricting verses on jihad are abolished. and like Imam Shafii. And. in fact. let us talk about the narration from the Prophet (p. how can he excuse himself? In his case. calls such a claim hegemony and self-supremacy while he is discussing the verse : “‫اتلونکم ول‬ZZ‫ن یق‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫بیل ا ال‬ZZ‫ی س‬ZZ‫اتلوا ف‬ZZ‫وق‬ ‫( ”تعتدوا‬Baqareh. and Sahihe Muslim and other books.

with no attention to the restricting verses. the verses of the Quran together with the valid narrations is considered a correlated complex.Homam uses it also as evidence for his view. is a nonscholarly and unacceptable manner. Thus. as explained above. interpretation of the Quran. In the environment of Baqdad. The code is considered a correlative complex. his . And this. of course. with the assumption of its validity. naturally it will be read by the restricting verses and will be explained as: “I am instructed to fight the aggressing people who initiated the war as long as they are unbelievers and continue their aggression till the time they utter ‘there is no God but One’. and it was a common manner to have cross-reference of views among the scholars of the two sects. not paying attention to the restricting verses. the absolutes in which must be read by the restricting ones. and other Islamic subjects. it should be realized that this narration is an absolute evidence that. In any code of law the articles are never practiced separately with no attention to other relative articles in the same code. at which point they naturally will stop fighting and the war will be over. But. and the absolute articles are read by the restricting ones. as has done so using the absolute verses. Go to contents Passages from Sheikh Toosi We know that there existed cultural exchange between the scholars of Sunni and Shiah. Likewise. must be treated like the absolute verses on the subject. The absolutes alone cannot be used as evidence. where Sheikh Toosi was making his scholarly efforts in his studies on the questions of jurisprudence. Ibn Homam has applied the narration in its absoluteness.

affected by the views and assumptions prevailing in that environment. In such an environment where the Sunni jurisprudence was ruling over the seminaries. Tafsire Ramani. And that is why we notice that on the subject in question about jihad. It is even possible that he may have plainly accepted a verdict that had been compulsory for the public and may have included it in his books on jurisprudence. neither Sheikh Toosi. Therefore. would show how he had been reliant on Tafsire Tabari. On the subjects of jurisprudence too. part of his work-plan was to refer to the books written by the Sunni scholars. nor any other jurisprudent could have been expected otherwise. Sheikh Toosi says: "‫م‬ZZ‫د ته‬ZZ‫ب مجاه‬ZZ‫ار یج‬ZZ‫کل من خالف ال سلم من سائر اصناف الکف‬ ‫لم‬ZZ‫م ال الس‬ZZ‫ل منه‬ZZ‫م ل یقب‬ZZ‫مین: قس‬ZZ‫مون قس‬ZZ‫م ینقس‬ZZ‫ر انه‬ZZ‫و قتالهم غی‬ ‫ع‬ZZ‫والدخول فیه او یقتلون وتسبی ذراریهم و توخذ اموالهم وهم جمی‬ ‫م‬ZZ‫ر ه‬Z‫م الخ‬Z‫وس. ‘Mabsoot’. ‘Nehayah’. A look at Tafsire Tebyan. it is natural for him to have been. and accepted it without any scrutiny and criticism. and other interpretations of the Sunni scholars. Sheikh Toosi has included in his books the same view that Imam Shafii has expressed in ‘Omm’. والقس‬Z‫اری والمج‬Z‫ود والنص‬ZZ‫ار الالیه‬Z‫اصناف الکف‬ ‫اهم‬ZZ‫ن ذکرن‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ه ال‬ZZ‫اس الثل ث‬ZZ‫م الجن‬ZZ‫ه و ه‬ZZ‫م الجزی‬ZZ‫ذ منه‬ZZ‫ذین توخ‬ZZ‫ال‬ ‫الهم‬Z‫ز قت‬Z‫م یج‬Z‫رائطها ل‬Z‫اموا بش‬Z‫ا وق‬Z‫فانهم متی انقادوا للجزیه و قبلوه‬ ‫ان‬ZZ‫رائطها ک‬ZZ‫وا بش‬ZZ‫والجزیه اواخل‬ZZ‫تی اب‬ZZ‫م وم‬ZZ‫بی ذراریه‬ZZ‫غ س‬ZZ‫م یس‬ZZ‫ول‬ . written by Sheikh Toosi on the interpretation of the Quran. In his book. His most comprehensive book on jurisprudence. which include his verdicts.normal method was to refer to the Sunni sources to make extraction from them. occasionally. is written according to the style of the Sunni scholars.

and only when the enemy initiate aggression. their children are captured. and their wealth is confiscated. or do not comply with its terms. capture their children. if they accept to pay the tax and act according to its terms. and confiscate their wealth” We can see how the jurisprudential view governing the seminaries of that period has affected Sheikh Toosi. he has issued the same verdict that was included by Imam Shafii in his book. and it will become obligatory to fight them. Consequently. From one of them nothing but Islam is accepted. Christians. And the unbelievers are divided into two groups. which by its 18[18] Nehayeh Sheikh Toosi. ‘Omm’ We certainly believe that if Sheikh Toosi had made efforts for analyzing the jihad verses in an environment beyond the governance of the Sunni jurisprudence. These three groups. and he has not managed to release himself from its influence. And if they do not accept Islam. it is not permitted to fight them.]الذراری واخذالموال‬ “Fighting as jihad with all groups of unbelievers is obligatory.. ‫". This includes all groups of unbelievers except the Jews.‫بی‬ZZ‫ل وس‬ZZ‫م القت‬ZZ‫ب علیه‬ZZ‫ه یج‬ZZ‫ی ان‬ZZ‫ار ف‬ZZ‫ن الکف‬ZZ‫م م‬ZZ‫م غیره‬ZZ‫م حک‬ZZ‫حکمه‬ . it is then that fighting. p. and the Magus. he should have concluded that the restricting verses are ruling over the absolute ones. and this would mean that initial war with others is not permitted. and to capture their children. they are killed.. And if refuse to pay the tax. they will be treated like the other groups of unbelievers. 291 18]18 .

and becomes obligatory wisdom-wise. religion-wise. if there was no response from the unbelievers. Go to contents Passages from Ibn Idriss Ibn Idriss Helli. and He is Just. under the circumstances that the Sunni jurisprudence was governing the atmosphere of inferring the Islamic legal rules from its sources. lithographic print . and that God is unique.” What Ibn Idriss says has this meaning: “Invitation to Islam is to be done by the force of weaponry. ‘Nehayeh. becomes a necessity for defense. and that they will observe all the terms set by Islam. After such invitation. not only do not accept his inference on this subject. 165. Sheihk Toosi has taken Imam Shafii’s verdict that was common in those days. Therefore. and that Mohammad is God’s Messenger. and therefore. and included it as his own verdict in his book. And this is all what Islamic jihad is about. But Sheikh Toosi has not managed to escape the influence of the environment. therefore. in his book. and social-wise. and to utter witness that there is nothing to be worshipped but God. 19[19] Sara’er Ibn Idriss. ‘Sara’er’.nature is abhorred. but also would criticize it in the same way that we did on Imam Shafii’s verdict earlier. says: "‫هاد‬ZZ‫ار الش‬ZZ‫لم واظه‬ZZ‫ی الس‬ZZ‫ائهم ال‬ZZ‫د دع‬ZZ‫ار ال بع‬ZZ‫ن الکف‬ZZ‫ول یجوز قتال احد م‬ ‫ی‬ZZ‫وا ال‬ZZ‫تی دع‬ZZ‫لم فم‬ZZ‫رائط الس‬ZZ‫ع ش‬ZZ‫تین والقراربالتوحید والعد ل والتزام جمی‬ 19]19 " ‫الهم‬Z‫ل قت‬Z‫وا ح‬Z‫م یجیب‬Z‫ک ول‬Z‫“ ]ذال‬Fighting the unbelievers is not authorized unless they are invited to Islam. Of course. then fighting them is authorized. we cannot be follower of Sheikh Toosi.

”(Nissa. defensive war against the warmonger unbelievers. according to this verse and the other restricting ones that already were discussed. and there is no need to repeat it here. has become obligatory. But in the next verse. if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace. Anyhow. then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. initiating war against unbelievers is. In fact. then Allah has not given you a way against them. Nehayeh. initial fight against them must be started so that they either accept Islam. and against . who himself had followed Imam Shafii. and included it in his book. and consequently has considered initial war against unbelievers to be obligatory if they did not accept Islam. if they do not withdraw from you and (do not) offer you peace. The verse says: “ ‫وا‬ZZ‫اتلوکم والق‬ZZ‫م یق‬ZZ‫تزلوکم فل‬ZZ‫ان اع‬ZZ‫ف‬ ‫بیل‬ZZZ‫م س‬ZZZ‫م علیه‬ZZZ‫ل ا لک‬ZZZ‫ا جع‬ZZZ‫لم فم‬ZZZ‫م الس‬ZZZ‫ “ الیک‬Therefore. permitted.if the unbelievers did not accept the invitation. then. We already have criticized and disapproved Shafii’s view. However.90) This verse is also one of the restricting verses that we did not mention under that group. we should add here that verse 90 of the Nissa Chapter is explicitly prohibiting initial war with the unbelievers. and hold back their hands. It says: “ " ‫فان لم‬ ‫ث‬ZZ‫وهم حی‬ZZ‫ذوهم واقتل‬ZZ‫م فخ‬ZZ‫دیهم عنک‬ZZ‫وا ای‬ZZ‫لم ویکف‬ZZ‫م الس‬ZZ‫وا لیک‬ZZ‫تزلوکم ویلق‬ZZ‫یع‬ 91) "‫ا‬ZZZZZ‫لطانا مبین‬ZZZZZ‫م س‬ZZZZZ‫م علیه‬ZZZZZ‫ا لک‬ZZZZZ‫م جعلن‬ZZZZZ‫وهم واولئک‬ZZZZZ‫ثقفتم‬Nissa. ) “Therefore. in no way. or are killed.” It is obvious that Ibn Idriss also has not paid attention to the restricting verses on jihad. Ibn Idriss has accepted the verdict of Sheikh Toosi. This verse clearly prohibits initiating war against the peace-seeking unbelievers. who initiate fighting.

However.So there is the obligation for Muslims to migrate to all those who fighting with them is obligatory. first should be called to Islam and being bound by its terms. and Ibn Idriss.these. he should not have issued such a verdict to make it obligatory to initiate war against the unbelievers in case they did not accept Islam. then they are free. vol.409 lithographic print 20]20 . either for repelling them or converting them to Islam. Sheikh Toosi.” contents Go to Passages from Allameh Helli Allameh Helli. If they accepted it and became bound by its terms. if they started war. If he had duly considered these verses. ‘‫ ’تذ کره‬has written: "‫کل‬ ‫م او‬ZZ‫ا لکفه‬Z‫م ام‬Z‫ور الیه‬Z‫لمین النف‬ZZ‫من یجب جهاده فاالواجب علی المس‬ ‫ب‬Z‫ا یج‬Z‫ادهم وانم‬Z‫ب جه‬Z‫لنقلهم الی السلم فان بد ئوهم بالقتال وج‬ ‫تزامهم‬ZZ‫لم وال‬ZZ‫ن الس‬ZZ‫ی محاس‬ZZ‫ائهم ال‬ZZ‫جهاد من یطلب اسلمه بعد دع‬ ".. war must be initiated against them. it would be obligatory to fight them. It means that Allameh Helli also has not paid attention to the restricting verses on jihad. then. p. We have given you clear authority. And those who are asked to convert to Islam.. wherein fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their initiating the war. Allameh’s view is criticized and rejected by the same argument that was given on the views of Shafii.‫]شرائطه فان فعلو ذالک وال قوتلوا‬ “. 1.. and Ibn Idriss. otherwise. in his book.” What Allameh Helli has said about initial war with the unbelievers is the same as what was said by Sheikh Toosi. 20[20] Tathkireh Allameh Helli.

therefore. Shahid Thani says: ‫ی‬Z‫دعائهم ال‬Z‫دائا ل‬ZZ‫رکین ابت‬Z‫ام: جهادالمش‬Z‫ی اقس‬Z‫و عل‬Z‫اد وه‬Z‫اب الجه‬Z‫کت‬ ". and it 21]21 21[21] Sharhe Lum’eh.” Shahid Thani has also neglected the restricting verses on Jihad. whereby fighting has been conditioned by the unbelievers’ having attacked the Muslims.Passages from Shahide Thani In his book. rejected. one is initiating war against the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. the main jihad is what is fought initially against the unbelievers to make them accept Islam. he should not have issued such a verdict... and is. like the ones expressed by the jurisprudents named before. another is fighting the unbelievers who have attacked the Muslims. so. and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you.لکم‬No doubt. and it is this type of jihad that this verse was revealed about: ‘Fighting is enjoined on you. Abdu al Rahim edition . Go to contents Passages from Sahib “Jawahir” Sahib ‘Jawahir’ says:"‫ار‬Z‫ال الکف‬ZZ‫ه قت‬ZZ‫لی من‬Z‫ب ان ال ص‬ZZ‫لری‬ ‫م‬ZZ‫ره لک‬ZZ‫و ک‬ZZ‫ال وه‬ZZ‫م القت‬ZZ‫ب علیک‬ZZ‫ه "کت‬ZZ‫زل فی‬ZZ‫ذ ی ن‬ZZ‫لم وهوال‬ZZ‫ی الس‬ZZ‫دائا عل‬ZZ‫ابت‬ ‫ر‬ZZZ‫و ش‬ZZZ‫یئا وه‬ZZZ‫ی ان تحبواش‬ZZZ‫م وعس‬ZZZ‫ر لک‬ZZZ‫و خی‬ZZZ‫یئا وه‬ZZZ‫وا ش‬ZZZ‫ی ان تکره‬ZZZ‫وعس‬ ‫“". is not based on a valid evidence. if he had taken into account the meaning of the restricting verses. Of course. 1 p. ‫ار‬ZZZ‫ن الکف‬ZZZ‫لمین م‬ZZZ‫ی المس‬ZZZ‫دهم عل‬ZZZ‫ن ی‬ZZZ‫اد م‬ZZZ‫لم وجه‬ZZZ‫]الس‬ “Jihad is several kinds. vol. he has expressed such a view that. 255. and you dislike it. Sharhe Lum’eh.

may be that you love a thing while it is bad for you.’ ( 216Baqare) 22[22] ” Here, Sahib ’Jawhir’ claims two points. First, he claims that the main jihad is what is fought initially for making the unbelievers accept Islam. Second, he states that the verse: “"‫م‬ZZ‫ره لک‬ZZ‫و ک‬ZZ‫( کتب علیکم القتال وه‬Baqareh, 216) “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it” was revealed for initially fighting the unbelievers to invite them to Islam. As for his first claim, it was absolutely cleared in the previous sections that the restricting verses on jihad are overruling the absolute ones. And, the restricting verses say that fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their aggression. Therefore, as proved earlier, this type of war is the main jihad in Islam, not initiating war against the unbelievers to make them accept Islam. Regarding, his second claim, we should have a look at the verse immediately after verse 216, which reads: ( Baqareh, 217 ) "..‫ولیزالون یقاتلونکم حتی یردوکم‬ ‫“"..عن دینکم ان استطاعوا‬And they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion if they can.” A plain look at this verse, very clearly shows us what the backdrop was for the revelation of verse 216. Is it other than Muslims having been constantly attacked by the unbelievers? Therefore, contrary to what is claimed by Sahib “Jawahir”, verse 216 was not revealed to make initial war with unbelievers obligatory. It was revealed
22[22] Jawahir, new edition, vol. 21, p. 4

under the circumstances that Muslims were, gravely and constantly, attacked by the unbelievers to turn them back from their religion. Thus, considering the circumstances, verse 216 is saying: “ Defensive fighting against the aggression of the enemy is enjoined on you; and, you may dislike it because you may be in trouble and have losses; and, it may be that you dislike a thing like defensive war, while it is good for you since it repels the evil of the enemy; and, it may be that you love a thing like comfort and evading to fight the aggressing enemy, while, it is bad for you since in that case you will be beaten by the enemy, and your comfortseeking, ultimately, will be the cause of discomfort and misery for you. Go to contents

Calling to belief by the force of weaponry!!
Ibn Idriss, Allameh Helli, Shahid Thani, and Sahib “Jawhir” state that it is obligatory to initiate war against the unbelievers to invite them to Islam. In other words, they say that Jihad in Islam is initial war with unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. This, in fact, means that, according to these jurisprudents, imposing Islam by the force of weaponry is ordained in Islam. It should be realized that what these jurisprudents are saying is in direct contrast with what is expressed in the verses of the Quran. Talking about invitation to Islam, the Quran instructs the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and other Muslims to do it in this manner: “"‫نه‬ZZ‫وعظه الحس‬ZZ‫الحکمه والم‬ZZ‫ک ب‬ZZ‫بیل رب‬ZZ‫ی س‬ZZ‫ادع ال‬ ‫(: وجادلهم بالتی هی احسن‬Nahl, 125 ) “Call to the way of your lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputation with them in the best manner.”

The Quran also says: "‫ن‬ZZZZZ‫د ی‬ZZZZZ‫ی ال‬ZZZZZ‫راه ف‬ZZZZZ‫" ل اک‬ (Baqareh,256). “There is no compulsion in religion.” And says: ‫ورا‬Z‫ا کف‬Z‫اکرا وام‬Z‫ا ش‬Z‫بیل ام‬Z‫اه الس‬ZZ‫د ین‬Z‫( " انا ه‬Dahr,3) “Surely, We have shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful” In another verse, it says: "‫اء‬ZZ‫ن ش‬ZZ‫م فم‬ZZ‫ن ربک‬ZZ‫ق م‬ZZ‫ل الح‬ZZ‫ق‬ ‫الیکفر‬ZZ‫اء ف‬ZZ‫ن ش‬ZZ‫الیومن وم‬ZZ‫( "ف‬Kahf, 29) “And say: Truth comes from your Lord. Let anyone who wishes to, believe, and let anyone who wishes to, disbelieve.” Basically, calling to the right way, by its nature is together with logic, dialogue, argument, admonishing, and benevolence. It is never compatible with threat, and compelling. Wherever the force of weaponry is used for imposing, invitation with the correct sense cannot exist. In such cases, only the glow of weaponry, and spear do govern. It is a kind of unpleasant joke, or irony to call it invitation. Anyhow, the view that jihad is ordained in Islam for imposing the religion on the people by armed and weaponry invitation, as stated by these jurisprudents, is neither in accordance with the text of the Quran, nor compatible with human nature and intellect, and nor is it acceptable by humanity. Such observation should be condemned as an irrational and unacceptable view. The sphere of the Holy Koran also must be kept clean and away from such vision. And, never should it be claimed that the verse, “"‫کتب علیکم‬ ‫م‬ZZ‫ره لک‬ZZ‫و ک‬ZZ‫ال وه‬ZZ‫( القت‬Baqareh, 216) “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it”(discussed earlier), was revealed for having initial fight with unbelievers. Go to contents

he advised him: "‫ل تقاتلن احدا حتی تدعوه الی السلم وایم‬ ‫ل لئن یهدی ا عزوجل علی ید یک رجل خیر لک مما طلعت علیه الشمس‬ 23]23 . in which he says that when the Prophet (p. such as the one narrated from Ali (a. p. Ibn Athir.s. the initial war against the 23[23] Wasael al Shia.” Now considering that in the Holy Koran.. invite them to one of the three. 11. First. it is better for you than whatever is covered by the setting and rising of the sun. invite them to Islam. if you become the instrument of God for one person to be guided.h) that whenever he assigned a commander for an army. vol..‫“ ]وغربت‬O Ali. it is also quoted from the Prophet (p.Rational calling in the battlefield In some narrations (aha’dith) there is the mention of calling the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them. p.. If they accepted it.b..3. do not fight anyone unless you invite him to Islam before fighting. he advised him: "‫اذا لقیت عد وک من‬ ‫المشرکین فادعهم الی ثلث خصال فایتهن ما اجابوک فاقبل منهم وکف عنهم‬ 24]24 .]ادعه‬ “When you encounter the unbeliever enemy.u.).201 .b. vol.” In the narration of Bureideh. 30. be satisfied and avoid fighting them.u. as fully was explained earlier. be satisfied and avoid attacking them…. Which one of the three they accepted. By God. hadith no 1 24[24] Jame al Usool..h) was sending him to Yemen.‫م‬ZZZ‫ف عنه‬ZZZ‫م وک‬ZZZ‫ل منه‬ZZZ‫ابوک فاقب‬ZZZ‫ان اج‬ZZZ‫لم ف‬ZZZ‫ی الس‬ZZZ‫م ال‬ZZZ‫" .

s. automatically their aggression will be over. thereafter. The narrations mean that repelling the evil of the aggressing enemy is not necessarily to be done by the way of fighting. Ali (a. we can mention the invitation made by Ali (a. There is another or other ways to do it. Such invitation. Invitation of this type.b.unbelievers is prohibited.u. and sustaining the peace. 471 . And. if he had accepted Islam.s. peace will prevail. it naturally follows that these two narrations are talking about the aggressing enemies. is an effort for guidance and showing the right way. and the other messengers of God. there would have been a great ideological and cultural revolution in the enemy camp. vol.h). done before fighting the aggressing unbelievers.) to the aggressing unbeliever. in the Battle of Khandaq. the aggressors will become brothers in Islam. For example. Amr ibn Abdwad. such an effort is the most major and chief function of the Prophet (p. One of them. It is obvious that if the aggressing enemy accepted the invitation to Islam. is something rational and favorable.) said to him: “ I propose you three issues. is inviting to Islam. it would have been a major factor for ceasing the aggression. and. which way or ways that have priority over fighting. 25[25]” Considering the social standing of Amr. which enjoys the first priority. It is a great means for preserving peace and eliminating the settings for the fight. of course. 1. p. 25[25] Moqazi waqedi. and. The first of them is acceptance of Islam.

b.This type of invitation is. Then. at your choice. As explained earlier. and. except Bura ibn Aazib. and is done by the commander of the Muslims power while he is ready to defend themselves against the aggressors.u. completely different from what is said that the main jihad is initial war with the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. together with all the men accompanying him.” But what the jurisprudents say. The commander says to the aggressors: “If you are satisfied with the invitation. Khalid ibn Walid was sent for admonishing the people of Yemen. Bura ibn Aazib is quoted to have said: . you will be in the right path. So. was a guidance journey. the Prophet (p. thus. had to return. it will lead to the prevention of bloodshed as well. in its nature. this type of invitation is an effort for guiding the aggressing unbelievers to the right way. But during his six-month stay there. Khalid. accept Islam. to impose Islam on them by the force of weaponry) is a different style of invitation that is short of the guidance and admonishing mentioned in those two narrations. freely and with no compulsion. Ali’s journey to Yemen was for admonishing It should be realized that Ali’s trip to Yemen.h) sent Ali to replace Khalid. not a military expedition. at the same time. no one had shown any inclination to Islam. mentioned in the first narration. with the effect that it is obligatory to initiate war with the peace-seeking unbelievers to invite them to Islam. (in fact. It was planned because before Ali. and is not compatible with the spirit of Islam.

p. As a result of this.u. as he was not the initiator of war in the battles of Jamal. who became very pleased and performed prostration in gratitude to God 26[26]. when we reached the fringe of Yemen. do not fight anyone unless you invite him to Islam before fighting. Go to contents 26[26] Tarikhe Tabari. facing us and the people of Yemen. it is realized that Ali’s mission to Yemen was for guidance and admonishment. they became ready for war. 2.398. it would not have been Ali who initiated the war. Seffein.b. but the aggressing forces imposed war on Ali. and the people got the news of it.b.b.h) advised Ali : “O Ali. at the same time. Ali said the dawn prayer with us. and Irshade Mufid. It is obvious that in case of the happening of such attack.u. Therefore. in case the people wanted to attack you. Isfahan print . and.h) for the people of Yemen. Then. he read the letter from the Prophet (p.” his advice has the meaning that if in this admonishment journey. the whole tribe of Hamdan accepted Islam in one day. Ali informed this to the Prophet (p. and stood up.. invite them to Islam. he had deterrent power with him. vol.h).29.” From the contents of this event. before having militarily conflict. and Nahrewan.u. p. when the Prophet (p. he arranged us in files.“Accompanying Ali. After expressing praise and gratitude to God.

and views it as a natural and innate phenomenon. there would have been pulled down cloisters. the nature made by Allah in which He has made men.The reasoning of Allameh Tabatabaee In the previous paragraphs. Consequently. this view became contained in the books of jurisprudence in the time of Imam Shafii (died in year 204 after Hijreh). by the passage of time. Earlier in this book. it was explained that the earliest jurisprudents viewed the main jihad in Islam as initial fighting for imposing the religion by the force of weaponry. we mentioned seven examples of the verdicts of the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents.الناس علیها‬Rum. and churches. and rejected them. is the most important rights of humanity. the author of Almizan also has accepted initial war with the unbelievers. upholding Islam and the religion of theism. he argues as follows: “ The Quran states that Islam and the religion of theism is based on the nature of human. Defending this most vital rights is also another natural rights. In the later periods too. regarding which the Quran says: “ ‫هم‬ZZ‫اس بعض‬ZZ‫ع ا الن‬ZZ‫ول دف‬ZZ‫و ل‬ ‫م ا‬ZZ‫ببعض لهد مت صوامع وبیع و صلوات ومساجد یذکر فیها اس‬ 40 ‫ج‬ZZ‫ثیرا")ح‬ZZ‫“ )ک‬And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others. and maintaining it. the jurisprudents accepted it with no hesitation. and .” “Therefore. As far as we know. For his view on this subject. this view became the dominant verdict among the jurisprudents. and it undertakes advancement of humanity. 30) “Then set your face upright for religion in the right state. God says in the Quran: "‫ر‬ZZ‫تی فط‬ZZ‫ره ا ال‬ZZ‫ا فط‬ZZ‫ن حنیف‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫ک لل‬ZZ‫اقم وجه‬ZZ‫ف‬ ‫( ". Of the contemporary scholars.

War and jihad would breathe life into humanity after it is perished (by disbelief). is defending the human rights that should prevail. and imposing religion on them. “What is said that war would cause compelling people to accept religion. and if somebody violated it. Then. Be it for defending the Muslims. and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned. Because revival of humanity depends on imposing the truth on some people after rational argument is completed. or for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book and making them obligated to pay tax. . if they did not accept it. or for protecting the core of Islam.. And.synagogues. first he or she is invited to obey the code. this is common among the nations and governments. “The wars mentioned in the Quran are either for eliminating disbelief in God. They invite people to follow the civil code. respond to God and the Messenger whenever he invites you to something that will make you live” “And jihad is the thing that will make humanity live. does no matter. Disbelief in God would cause bereavement for human. and death of the nature made by God for man. in fact. in all of these cases. the law is imposed on them. even if it may lead to fight. or be it the initial fight with the unbelievers. war.” “ The Quran also says: "‫وا‬ZZZ‫ن آمن‬ZZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZZ‫ا ال‬ZZZ‫یاایه‬ 24 ‫ال‬ZZ‫م )انف‬ZZ‫ا یحییک‬ZZ‫اکم لم‬ZZ‫ول اذا دع‬ZZ‫تجیبوا ل و للرس‬ZZ‫“ )اس‬You who believe.

and let anyone who wishes to.” In connection with Allameh’s words. namely the rights of natural theism. only to preserve some other human rights. will be educated by the true religious practice. disbelieve” 2. Second point: As accepting theism is the rights of humanity and people. Third point: The claim of Allameh. there is not such a jihad in Islam with the meaning of imposing the religion by the force of weaponry. and will accept the religion of human nature at their own choice and free will. one is not required to have to justify it. with the same token. " ‫لاکراه فی‬ 256 ‫ره‬ZZ‫ن " )بق‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫)ال‬ “Let anyone who wishes to. It is neither logical nor fair to deprive humanity from some rights. Islam have never deprived man from this rights because these verses. he may be thankful or unthankful” 3. the freedom in accepting or rejecting theism is also the rights of humanity and people. )اما شاکرا واما کفورا " )دهر‬ have never been abolished. " ‫انا هدیناه السبیل‬ 3 ‫. imposing and compelling will only apply to the first generation. and consequently. to the effect that a kind of jihad is for eliminating polytheism and . believe.“Besides. and to the end of the world are calling that human being is free in the choice of religion. In other words. we should talk on some points: First point: As said before. we don’t have to accept the view of imposing. namely the rights of being free in the choice of belief and religion. "‫فمن شاء فلیومن‬ 29 ‫ “ )ومن شاء فلیکفر )کهف‬Surely We have shown him the way. and then have to look for justification. which is contrary to the Quran and logic. “There is no compulsion in religion” 1. and generations thereafter.

. disbelief being a function of mind and heart cannot be eliminated by war and with the force of weaponry because weapons operate on one’s body not on his mind. nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited. to undertake defending them against the aggression of their enemies. the Prophet (p. Instead.h) should not have let the unbelievers go free to maintain their disbelief.u. nor in the Latter Day.b.b. If initial war were obligatory. nor follow the religion of truth. cannot be a valid claim.u. He also should never have entered into a bilateral defensive accord with the unbelievers of Khuza’eh.”. and participate in the Hajj ceremony of the next year. Islamic jihad is a natural reaction against the aggression and injustice of the enemy. of Baraat.b. the Prophet (p. and disbelief has its place in one’s mind.‫اذ ن لل-----ذ ی-----ن یق-----اتلون ب-----انهم ظلم-----وا‬ “Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed. the Prophet (p.disbelief in God. Allameh has reference to verse 29. “‫قاتلوا‬ ‫وله ول‬ZZ‫رم ا و رس‬ZZ‫ا ح‬ZZ‫الذین لیومنون باا ول بالیوم الخر ول یحرمون م‬ ‫م‬ZZ‫د وه‬ZZ‫ن ی‬ZZ‫والجزیته ع‬ZZ‫تی یعط‬ZZ‫اب ح‬ZZ‫ن اوتوالکت‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ن ال‬ZZ‫ق م‬ZZ‫ن الح‬ZZ‫دینون د ی‬ZZ‫ی‬ ‫“ ” صاغرون‬Fight those who do not believe in Allah. but should have fought them till Islam was imposed on them. after conquering Mecca.h) should not have arranged peace treaty with the unbelievers at Hodeybiya. “.” If initial war for eliminating disbelief were obligatory.h) should have defeated them by initial war to impose Islam on them.u. . because.or for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book and making them obligated to pay tax. practicing their own ritual. Fourth point: In his words on one kind of jihad. In addition to all of these.

” Thus.” As mentioned before. Executing civil code is imposed on the people who have accepted the regime having such a civil code. until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. and obligated themselves for such imposition. it will be read by the conditioned verses and will mean: “ Fight with those groups of the people of Book who initiated attack. the people themselves at their own choice have accepted. this verse is one of the absolute verses. if they violate it they must be punished. Fifth point: Allameh compares imposing religion by the force of weaponry on unbelievers with imposing civil code on the violators by their own government. and is done because they violate a code that they themselves have become obligated to it at their choice under the regime of their own selection. executing the civil code by the force of weaponry is not imposing a belief. and according to the universally practiced rule of reading the absolute by the restricting. and we cannot say war should be imposed on them as obligated by themselves. Besides. The unbelievers themselves have not accepted such imposition. So. It is just some executive work. In fact. This is a comparison with no similarity. But the case is different with the unbelievers. and so that they become obligated to pay tax. the verse does not want to say that (as Allameh says) you should initiate and start war against the People of Book for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book. until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. .out of those who have been given the Book.

as main jihad. bereavement. (the view that Allameh and others hold). the question is whose bereavement. cannot be valid. then.b. Disbelief will perish the individual himself because he was free in choosing the right from the wrong.u. the Prophet (p. we cannot say that the disbelief of some unbelievers in Mecca.h) did not ask any one to choose either Islam or death by sword.h) himself should have done it. was when Mecca was conquered. had perished humanity in the whole world. Allameh’s words in its generality. with the meaning that disbelief would cause the death of Godmade nature in humanity. on the conquest of Mecca. War and jihad would breathe life into humanity after it is perished (by disbelief). For instance. and death of the nature made by God for man. before anyone else.u. and the perishment of whose God-made nature is meant. and death of God-made nature in his own personality. he announced that whoever closed the door . the Prophet (p. Is it meant that humanity will die and perish in the individual who has disbelief? Or does it mean that humanity and the Godmade nature in general will perish and be in bereavement? It is obvious that the disbelief of an individual does not perish humanity and kill the God-made nature in general and in everybody. for imposing Islam on the unbelievers were obligatory. The disbelief of any individual has personal effect.b.” Now. Seventh point: If initating war. so it should have been revived by initiating war against them. and would cause perishment of humanity. But.Sixth point: Allameh says: “Disbelief in God would cause bereavement for human. the best time that he would do it. and he has chosen the wrong freely and at his own choice. And. and Muslims became dominant there. Therefore. On the contrary.

he said: “ ‫“ ”اذهبوف--انتم الطلق--اء‬Go. imagine a scene as follows: Suppose for complying with the verdicts of these jurisprudents.u. precautionarily they have gathered some force to defend themselves. Go to contents How can the jurisprudents respond? Earlier it became understood that from Imam Shafii’s time onward. whoever entered the Mosque was given asylum. .b. the military force of Islam are ready to initiate attack on a country in which the people are innocent and harmless unbelievers.h) treated those unbelievers?) To those unbelievers. (And can you guess how the Prophet (p. Now. he was given asylum. and to show the negative effects of it clearly. you are free!” As we see. They wish to have friendly relations with Muslims. and are earnestly seeking peace. They have viewed the main jihad as an initial attack on the unbelievers for imposing Islam on them. facing each other. and whoever went into Abusofian’s home was in asylum.u. which condition fighting the unbelievers by the aggression from their side. granting such a refuge was for protecting the unbelievers only. ready for attack.of his house. the Prophet (p. to illustrate the actuality of such a thought.h) left the unbelievers hold onto their belief. Those who were Muslims did not need such a protection. and now the two force are on alert.b. the jurisprudents have neglected the restricting verses on jihad. However. Of course. and did not impose Islam on them by the force of weapons under the name of Jihad.

and have disputation with them in the best manner. we will start fighting you. verse 125 says: “"‫ادع الی سبیل ربک بالحکمه والموعظه الحسنه وجادلهم بالتی‬ 125 ‫)هی احسن" )نحل‬ “Invite to the way of your lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation. What kind of invitation is that you are doing it by the force of weaponry? Militarily threat does not pacify and soften the heart and mind of the rival. they say to you: “We seek peaceful an friendly life and coexistence with you. Do not name this action of yours an invitation. Unbelievers’ commander: But in your Koran in Nahl Chapter. instead of inviting with wisdom and goodly exhortation. and having disputation with them in the best manner.” Now. We hate war and bloodshed. It is an ultimatum of war.” But. otherwise. it has negative consequences. you say: .Before doing anything the commander of the Islamic forces is addressing the unbelievers and the dialogue is going on as follows: Muslims’ commander: We invite you to accept Islam. So. and inflexible. and makes the rival become stubborn. and that is given to a group of innocent and harmless people who wish to have friendly and sociable life with you. It does not make them ready for recognition. you are using military force and are threatening them. in their response. On the contrary.

and want to initiate war with the peace seeking people like us?!” In reply to them. and according to the verdicts of our jurisprudents. but you are shouting for war!! We want to associate with you friendly. Your own Koran in the Momtaheneh Chapter says: ‫م‬ZZ‫ن ل‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ن ال‬ZZ‫اکم ا ع‬ZZ‫ل ینه‬ ‫طوا‬ZZ‫بروهم و تقس‬ZZ‫ارکم ان ت‬ZZ‫ن دی‬ZZ‫وکم م‬ZZ‫م یخرج‬ZZ‫یقاتلوکم فی الدین ول‬ ‫طین‬ZZ‫ب المقس‬ZZ‫م ان ا یح‬ZZ‫“ " الیه‬God forbids you not. Why do you want to act against what your Koran tells you to do. that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them. you say: “Our heart is filled with animosity towards you. your Koran is inviting to peace. And true believer is the one who encounters the unbelievers sternly and hardheartedly.61). as it is the main jihad in Islam!” Replying you. And our Koran says: ""‫ار‬ZZ‫ی الکف‬ZZ‫محمد رسول ا والذین معه اشداء عل‬ 29 ‫ح‬ZZ‫ “ ))فت‬Muhammad is the Messenger of God.“We are warmongers.” . we have to initiate militarily attack and fight the unbelievers. then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal. they say: “But your Koran. as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations. So. surely God loves the just. and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers” Replying you. not the innocent and harmless ones. in the Anfal Chapter tells you: “ ‫ی ا‬ZZ‫ل عل‬ZZ‫ا وتوک‬ZZ‫“ ”وان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح له‬If they incline to peace. they say: “But you are to be hard and strict against the aggressing unbelievers.

We are obligated to act in accordance with the verdicts of the jurisprudents who understand the Quran. it is greatly rewarded by God. says: “‫ی‬ZZZ‫ن الغ‬ZZZ‫د م‬ZZZ‫بین الرش‬ZZZ‫د ت‬ZZZ‫دین ق‬ZZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫راه ف‬ZZ‫ “ ل اک‬there is no compulsion in religion.(Momtaheneh. we have to initiate fight against the unbelievers to compel them to unwillingly accept Islam because this is what our jurisprudents have instructed us to do. and killing the fathers and leaving the children and wives in misery.” Their commander argues: “Your Koran. as you see. and act justly towards us who are harmless. So.” Their commander argues: .8). So. the main jihad in Islam is the initial war with the unbelievers for imposing the religion on them. We do not understand the Quran. how do you dare to initiate fighting with us to impose the religion on us with the force of weaponry. Despite such a clear instructions. while we are reluctant to accept it?!” Your Commander replies: “We are soldiers. So. the kindness and justice that your Koran recommends for the unbelievers like us?” Your Commander replies: “According to the verdicts of our jurisprudents. God is encouraging you to be kind. truly the right way has been clearly distinct from error”. Now that we are of no animosity towards you. is your initiating the fight against us and shedding our blood. we must impose the religion on you by initial fight. verse 256. Do not talk with us on the Quran. in Baqareh Chapter. And.

and cannot tolerate attributing a mistake to them. the commander of the Muslim forces. orders start of fighting by the name of jihad so as to impose Islam on the unbelievers by the force of weaponry. kindness and justly act towards the harmless unbelievers.) But the jurisprudents who view main jihad as initiating war against the unbelievers. to avoid portraying an ugly face for Islam. never repeat that the main jihad in Islam is to initiate war with the unbelievers to impose the religion on them? This verdict of the jurisprudents would damage the . and. and friendly relations. hereafter.“You rely only on the verdicts of your jurisprudents. and of no compulsion in religion. and having disputation in the best manner. and get the reward of jihad from God! (Muslim commander as a soldier is not to blame. But the verdicts of your jurisprudents are in the opposite direction of all these!! Is it because your jurisprudents possibly have made a mistake in inferring their verdict from the Quran?” Your Commander replies: “We are obedient to the verdicts of our jurisprudents. And we have no choice but initiate fighting with you” Finishing his last sentence. Is what the jurisprudents say exactly and hundred per cent what the Quran mean it? The verses I read to you from your own Koran are talking of inviting with wisdom and goodly exhortation. how can they respond such strong argument as validated in the illustration by the commander of the imaginary enemy force? Can they do anything but withdraw this verdict of their own.

universal prestige of Islam. were discussed in the previous sections. The westerners say: “Initial war in Islam against peace-seeking people have been prescribed as well as practiced. there is an issue on jihad that is specially raised in Shia jurisprudence. and the anvil of the jurisprudents. and use it to crush Muslims whenever the occasions prove appropriate. it is Islam that is being oppressed and aggressed. unfortunately. and the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs that are regarded as Islamic. westerners have got some very effective propaganda vehicle. Sahib “Jawahir” claims that the verdicts of jurisprudents on the subject clearly mean that the religiousness of jihad is conditioned by the instructions . Based on this verdict in the books of jurisprudence. it is the same Islam that the strength of its logic and reasoning have been conquering the minds. and is being crushed pitilessly between the hammer of the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs. common with both Shia and Sunni groups of jurisprudents.” And. basically. as it has. and being imposed on them by sword!! My God! You are Untainted!! Jihad conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam The views on jihad. Shia jurisprudents condition jihad by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam. done it so far. meaning that. in this arena. and is crying loud for help to save it from such strikes. but is accused of having the thirst for human blood. But. And. no jihad is religious if it is not by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.

or will ask others to do it. and Imam Reza (a.s. 35. As far as we know. hadith 9 & 10 . p. The origin of such a thought In some narrations from Imam Saadiq. vol. ruling the state and managing its affairs. And conditioning jihad by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam means that the command of the war should be with the Infallible Imam. who either directly himself will act as commander.27[27] meaning that the Infallible Imam must be at the head of the state and be in action.s. 11. which is done against the aggressing enemy. new edition 28 28[28] Wasa’el al Shia. like the time of Ali (a.14.) it is mentioned: “28] ‫ادل‬Z‫ام ع‬Z‫ع ام‬Z‫” ]الجهاد واجب م‬ 27[27] Jawahir. and condition it by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam. the Shia jurisprudents have no disaccord on the issue that jihad will be religious if it is instructed by the governing Infallible Imam.from the Infallible Imam who is in the reign.). earlier it was explained that the Shia Jurisprudents view the main jihad as initial fighting with the unbelievers. 21 ps. 13. they do not condition it by the instructions from the Infallible Imam because defense is a vital and unavoidable issue that necessarily must be done to repel the evil of the enemy. As for defensive war. And. vol.

]او ف‬Jihad is obligatory for you under any ruler. which is prone to the bloodshed of human. no doubt. hadith 2533 .” Under such circumstances that the cruel Caliphs started war against the peace-seeking people. The narrator of the narration is Abu Horeireh.” There are other narrations also to this effect. ‫اجرا‬ZZ‫“ ". 3. who is proverbial in lying. justice will not prevail. vol. the ruling machinery of those days. and invited national forces to participate in such fights. to awaken the nation. the Imams did warn: “ ‫ادل‬ZZ‫ام ع‬ZZ‫ع ام‬ZZ‫ب م‬ZZ‫اد واج‬ZZ‫”الجه‬ “jihad must be done by the instructions from the just imam. if the function is delegated to a whimsical ruler who is self-indulgent. It is obvious that a cruel ruler acts on the basis of his personal ambitions and desires.“jihad must be done by the instructions from the just imam. and unduly shed human blood by the name of jihad. p. 18. in the case of jihad..h) emphasized that jihad is obligatory by the instructions from any cruel ruler. It should be realized that such narrations are from the Imams who lived in a period when jihad was recognized obligatory under the reign of any cruel and unjust ruler. This is the text of Abu Horeireh’s narration:"‫الجهاد واجب علیکم مع کل امیر برا کان‬ 29]29 . and the limits will not be observed. However. And.b. the actions of the cruel rulers were confirmed by the ruling body and propagated. human blood will be shed unduly.” They made the warning so that the people should 29[29] Sunan Abi Dawood. In those periods.u.. be he just or unjust. based on a so-called narrations from the Prophet (p. selfish and following his personal desires.

while the Shia jurisprudents discuss the issue of jihad. in such narrations. in the sphere of narrations. But Shia jurisprudents view ‘just’ imam in the narration corresponding with ‘Infallible’ Imam. Ali is not talking about ‘Infallible Imam’ against ‘fallible imam’. Having such a mentality. and the worst obedient to God is the ‘unjust imam’ who is in the wrong direction and direct others the wrong direction too. Shiites believe that Imam must be infallible. Ali (a. and Shia scholars have outstanding arguments on this subject. While admonishing Uthman. meaning that not to make a mistake.) says: “The best obedient to God is the ‘just imam’ who himself is in the right direction and direct others to the right direction as well. just imam is vis-a-vis unjust and corrupt Imam that matched the cruel Caliphs of those periods.realize the actual rule in the religion and not to participate in such brutal fights. the phrase ‘just imam’ is used to make comparison with ‘cruel and unjust imam’. they correspond the ‘just’ imam mentioned in the narration 30[30] Nahj al Balaqeh. the third Caliph. Khotbeh 163 . no more should we conceive that ‘just’ imam in those narrations mean ‘Infallible’ Imam.s. not for comparing with ‘fallible imam’.) ‘just imam’ is spoken of against ‘unjust imam’.”30[30] It is clear that in the words of Ali (a. Thus. The reason for such a view is that on the issue of Imam. This point is discussed extensively in the books on theology. And now that we realize the circumstances under which such narrations were uttered. In principle.s.

the true jihad is suspended. why should we waste time discussing it. in the whole phases of war. This point is taken for granted to such an extent that the late Feiz Kashani. Feiz is saying that since in the time of occultation. this type of 31[31] Shafi. therefore. they have issued the verdict that jihad must be by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. Go to contents Mistake in corresponding the ‘just’ imam with the ‘Infallible’ Imam But corresponding ‘just’ imam with ‘Infallible’ Imam is not valid because what is required for running jihad is the justice in the leadership of the war so that jihad should be performed considering justice and fairness. the jihad for defending against the aggressing enemy is of social vitality. and never can it be suspended. and not to act like the cruel rulers without considering any justice and fairness. by Feiz Kashani. there is no Infallible Imam present to practically hold the reign. vol. p.with the ‘Infallible’ Imam discussed in the theological books. 73 . therefore. in his book Shafi says: “"‫ولما کان‬ 31]31 "‫رائطه‬ZZ‫ه وش‬ZZ‫ر آداب‬ZZ‫ا ذک‬ZZ‫ه طوین‬ZZZ‫ان الغیب‬ZZ‫ی زم‬ZZ‫اقطا ف‬ZZ‫ق س‬ZZ‫اد الح‬ZZ‫]الجه‬ “Since in the period of occultation. and since jihad must be done by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. 2. And by jihad. And. otherwise. Consequently. he means the initial war that according to the jurisprudents is obligatory for imposing the religion on unbelievers. towards both the parties involved in fighting. we refrain from mentioning its conditions and methods”.

except Imam Khomeini(R. As for the claim that there is consensus and accord on jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. 21. this is not valid. because these narrations were intended to prevent the cruel rulers of those periods from the unjust and cruel conducts in the battles. and then the main jihad will be obligatory and the people must participate in it’? Does it fit the status of the argumentative jurisprudence to argue about something that has no practical use but waste of time?! And it is strange that non of the Shia jurisprudents have any hesitation on main jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. The lengthy arguments that the jurisprudents have had on the main jihad. after the periods of Imams. But.32[32] we should say that such consensus and accord is not an independent evidence because it is based on the same narrations that say jihad must be by the instructions from a ‘just’ imam. vol. 13 . is it not based on the assumption of the impossible? Is such argument not going like this: ‘let us assume that in the time of occultation there is the Infallible Imam who is holding the reign. to the effect that jihad is conditioned by the instructions from the ruling Infallible Imam. and the jurisprudents have taken it for ‘Infallible’ Imam. In the meantime. who says: “This needs argument and 32[32] Jawahir.A). as we said. and a ‘just’ imam should not be matched with the ‘Infallible’ Imam. a point is raised here.justice is what the narrations talk about. p. not the infallibility in the leadership of the war.

1361(Iranian date) on the program tilted “You and Us”. While answering letters from the listeners. has Imam Khomeini issued instructions for jihad and has said: ‘We must fight Israel’? Is attacking Israel Jihad or defense? If it is Jihad.” From the point of view of Imam Khomeini(R. then it is not permitted without the presence of the Infallible Imam.A). for main jihad is not exclusively rested with the Infallible Imam. By saying that it needs argument and deep thinking he means that there is the probability that the instructions for initiating war against the unbelievers.” He has raised the subject in the book of “‫ع‬ZZ‫ ”بی‬in the section discussing the guardianship of the Faghih(jurisprudent). the last of which read: “By the consensus from the Shia scholars. jihad must be under the reign of the Infallible Imam. he means that there is the probability that the instructions for initiating war against the 33[33] 496 ‫کتاب بیع از امام خمینی ج 2 ص‬ . may have the rights or the duty to issue such instructions. i. Therefore. who is in the reign. Responding to the Voice of America It is appropriate to talk about a point broadcast by the Voice of America in the morning of Thursday. the reply to the question is that according to what he has written in his book "‫ "بیع‬that it(jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam) needs argument and deep thinking.e.deep thinking33[33]. they presented the contents of a letter that had 18 questions. Shahrivar 18. how in spite of such consensus. and the Guardian Jurisprudent.

The subjectmatter itself is negated. Sunni and Shia jurisprudents have raised two points with reference to the conduct of the Prophet (p.unbelievers. and the Guardian Jurisprudent.h) did it in the war against Bani al Mostalaq.u. and. and. there will be no subject-matter for the question whether the rights for initial war with unbelievers rests exclusively with the Infallible Imam. basically. and is not conditioned by the instructions from the ruling Infallible Imam. what is ordained is the defensive war against the aggressing enemy. may have the rights or the duty to issue such instructions. or does not consider it valid. And the other is that if the invitation to Islam was already heard by the unbelievers.e. who is in the reign.h). there would be no need to invite them to Islam before attacking them. then.A. because the Prophet (p.u.b. But the response to the VOA’s question from our point of view is that. the leadership for the defensive war must rest with a just and virtuous ruler so that all the issues are handled on the basis of justice and fairness. This means that Imam Khomeini (R. that is the natural rights that is confirmed by the whole world. . One is that attacking unawares initially on unbelievers is permitted. Go to contents Initiating attack unawares on unbelievers Based on the concept that the main jihad is initiating war against the unbelievers. or the Guardian Jurisprudent also may have it. no initial war with the unbelievers is ordained in Islam. But. i. Based on this view.b.) does not accept the claimed consensus. for main jihad is not exclusively rested with the Infallible Imam.

205 . the daughter of Harith (leader of Bani al Mostalaq). because of the 34[34] Jame al Usool. no more is it required. which they have issued evidencing them with the said narration: The fatwa (verdict) of Ibn Homam Hanafi Ibn Homam Hanafi. but later it was abolished.881 Hijri) talking about the unbelievers who have already heard the message for invitation to Islam. in his book. The jurisprudents have issued verdicts on these two points.because the Prophet (p. 3. Fath al Qadir says: “If the invitation to Islam were heard by unbelievers before the initial war. And he wrote to me: ‘Early in Islam it was necessary. vol. killed their fighters.h) did not invite the unbelievers to Islam before attacking Bani al Mostalaq.u.b.” Naafe adds: ‘This story was told to me by Abdullah Umar. who was present in that war.34[34]” Here. which reads as follows: “Abdullah Aoun says: In a letter I asked Naafe Moula ibn Umar if it is obligatory to invite unbelievers to Islam before initiating war against them. p.h) got hold of Juwairiyya.h) attacked Bani al Mostalaq unawares while they were giving water to their animals.b.u. we are going to mention the verdicts of some of the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents. and the Prophet (p. (d.b. Ibn Athir. captured their families. In this attack the Prophet (p. evidencing their verdicts with the narration by Abdullah Umar. then.u.

Ibn Homam is saying that since the Prophet (p. ibn Homam Hanafi. p. and the commander of Muslims can kill and capture them 35[35] Fath al Qadir.h) had military attack on Bani al Mostalaq without inviting them to Islam. because so much that the enemy have heard about Islam is sufficient. Sheikh Toosi says: “The commander of Muslims has the rights to have militarily attack unawares on the unbelievers and kill them because the Prophet (p. his action is the evidence that we can initiate attacking unbelievers who already have heard invitation to Islam. Sheikh Toosi says: “The commander of Muslims enjoys the rights to send his force to fight the unbelievers without priorly inviting them to Islam. without any need for invitation.h) did it on Bani al Mostalaq.36[36]” And to prove that there is no need for inviting to Islam if the unbelievers have already heard about it.u.b. The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi To prove that the leader of Muslims in the initial war with the unbelievers is authorized to attack the enemy unawares and assault them.5. 35 [35] ” Ibn Homam then quotes the text of the narration mentioned in the previous paragraph. 11 .u. 2. vol. p.narration quoted in Sahih Muslim from Abdullah Aoun. 196 36[36] Mabsoot. Sheikh Toosi. vol.b.

and were giving water to their camels.b.37[37]” The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli On the subject of having no need to prior invitation for attacking unawares on the unbelievers who are aware of Islam’s invitation. 37[37] The same.b. and initial war with them is authorized. Shahid Thani says: “The obligation for inviting unbelievers to Islam before the war.h) attacked Bani al Mostalaq unawares and killed them. Such groups of unbelievers are considered aggressing unbelievers. did not know about it. because the Prophet (p.b. and know about the mission of the Prophet (p. 13 38[38] Tathkireh Allameh Helli. but do not confess Islam. is permitted. because the mission of the Prophet (p. initial war with them.b.h). and protects those who become believers. as the Prophet (p. 1.u. and they know that he is inviting to confession.u.h) is known for them. Allameh Helli says: “As for those who are aware of the invitation to Islam. p. without prior invitation to Islam. vol.u.u. and fights those who do not confess. page 409 lithography print .38[38]” Go to contents The fatwa (verdict) of Shahid Thani On this subject.unawares.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace.

p. possibly there is no disagreement on this issue. there is the recommendation for inviting to Islam as well.h) fought Bani al Mostalaq without prior notice. p.u. 21. Mohaqqeq Helli. Allameh Helli. Another reason is that some have narrated that the Prophet (p.u. 1.40[40]” 39[39] Sharh Lum’eh. in such instances too.b. Sahib Jawahir says: “Sheikh Toosi. and were giving water to their camels. Abd al Rahim print 40[40] Jawahir. And. 257. as was done by Ali (a.is discharged about the unbelievers who are familiar with the invitation to Islam from the previous war or from any other way. though not obligatorily.) while fighting Amir Abduwud and others. Shahid Thani. and others have expressed that the obligation for inviting unbelievers to Islam before the war is discharged about the unbelievers who are familiar with the invitation to Islam from the previous war or from any other way. vol.39[39]” The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “Jawahir” Discussing this subject.b. vol.s. did not know about it. and eradicated them. even though they knew about Islam before. that is why the Prophet (p. Reason one for it is that the original rule on every issue is no-obligation. 53 . However. And.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace.

they gathered some force to fight the Prophet (p.u.’ . Here. it is crucial to find out if what is contained in Aabdullah’s narration is true or not. anonymously. Eventually. He says: “Harith ibn Abi Zerar.b. the head of Bani al Mostalaq. the expert on the Prophet’s wars.h). Harith ibn Abi Zerareh told him: ‘Make haste on it. and managed to have their accord.h). went into the force that were ready to fight.u.u. I heard that you are ready to fight this man. The more detailed history text on this event is what Waqedi. They asked him: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘I am on your side. He sent Bureideh Aslami to that region to investigate this issue. The best way to find out the truth is to refer to the history text.b. and the other is that he did not invite them to Islam before fighting as is understood from the narration.b. “Very gladly. Bureideh. One is that he had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq. This news that was publicized by the caravans reached the Prophet (p. I came to tell you that I would call my clan for cooperation and gather some force to become integrated with your force so that we can eradicate him. ‘Moqazi’. went around in his tribe and other tribes of Arab and invited them to fight the Prophet (p.u. has contained in his book.h).h) as his conduct.The truth in the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar The jurisprudents clearly attribute two issues to the Prophet (p.b. They bought horses and weaponry and got ready to move forth to the fight.

h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al 41[41] Moqazi Waqedi.h) ordered his force to attack promptly and altogether. vol. Waqedi quotes the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar that reads: “the Prophet (p.h). The enemy force got ready to fight. Nashre Danish . A force including some cavalry was mobilized and moved towards Bani al Mostalaq and camped near the Mureisi Water in the Bani al Mostalaq region. He invited Muslims to mobilize some force.41[41]” After narrating this event. ps. Umar made the call and said: ‘If you say there is no true god but theGod. mistakenly by the Muslims. The Prophet (p.404-407.’ But they did not accept the invitation.u. Ten persons were killed from the enemy force. “The Prophet (p. the Prophet (p.u.b.b.b. Doing so. Then shooting started from both sides. and one was killed from Muslims.u. “When the two forces were facing each other. they disbanded the enemy force and seized their command post. and shot the first arrow at the Muslims and started the fight.b.b.“Bureideh came back and informed the situation to the Prophet (p.u.u.h) arranged his force in files and gave them militarily array. 1. while the enemy force too had already camped there. then you and your property is secured.h) asked Umar to make a call to the enemy force and invite them to Islam.

and has not had initial militarily attack unawares on them. p. onward. And.b. vol. vol.u. p. Sireh Halabiyah.Mostalaq…” Then Waqedi says: “This narration of Abdullah is not acceptable by us. vol. vol.u. Go to contents What is causing astonishment What is the cause of wonder and amazement is that how all these jurisprudents have relied on such an invalid narration from Abdullah ibn Umar. and neither is the view of the jurisprudents based on this narration to the effect that ‘the Prophet (p. in Sireh ibn Hosham. the Prophet (p. the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar is not acceptable. In other words.h). 2. 63. vol. Consequently. Therefore. p. in Tarikh Tabari.2.2. in Omm Shafii. 260 onward.42[42]” What Waqedi says to the effect that Bani al Mostalaq had become ready to fight the Prophet (p. vol. the same is said in Tabaqat Mohammad ibn Saad.u. p 293. not offensive. 290 onward.h) has repelled the militarily attack of Bani al Mostalaq.b. p.h) did not invite Bani al Mostalaq to Islam before fighting them. and in Sireh Zeini and Hallan.u.b. he has been defensive. 168. they have done it while Moqazi of Waqedi as a compiled and reliable history was available for them. on the margin of Sireh Halabiyah. and made an evidence of it for issuing such an important verdict.h) asked Umar to invite them but they did not accept it. p. 4.’ Because Waqedi says that the Prophet (p. 2. 42[42] The same . 107. and they were aware of it. 2. as Waqedi says.b.

so it was taken as an absolute evidence for a jurisprudential verdict! Or. and Tarikh Tabari. they should never have attributed such unfitting acts to the Prophet (p. all of which confirm Waqedi’s narration. and were giving water to their camels. and the verdicts issued by Sunni jurisprudents. Tabaqat Mohammad ibn Saad. who were in majority.They also were familiar with Omm Shafii. and made it the evidence to issue their verdict.b. while Moqazi of Waqedi and other reliable history sources was available for him.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq to shed their blood while they were resting in peace. one deeply wonders why the jurisprudents have ignored them. the jurisprudent of . did not know about it. With such reliable sources available for these jurisprudents.h) and said that the Prophet (p. and made an evidence of it for this verdict of his on such a sensitive issue that entails human bloodshed?! Has it happened because the Sunni jurisprudence.b. possibly this position of Abdullah’s had the effect on his narration to be accepted!! But. If they had referred to these reliable sources.u. and naturally was promulgated by the governing machinery. had been so dominant in the seminary environment that even Sheikh Toosi. why has Sheikh Toosi acted on such an unreliable narration of Abdullah ibn Umar. The words of Ibn Homam Hanafi in his book shows that the Sunni jurisprudents relied on Abdullah ibn Umar’s narration on Bani al Mostalaq issue with no hesitation at all. Sireh ibn Hosham. It may be that since Abdullah’s narration confirmed the initial and brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs. since Abdullah was the son of Umar.u.

b. p53 .b.h) Earlier we quoted Allameh Helli’s words that read: “As for those who are aware of the invitation to Islam. Then. being greatly optimistic of Sheikh Toosi.u. have followed. initial war with them.” The image portrayed by Allameh Helli from the Prophet (p.b. Thus. it also appears rather natural for a pressured minority to willingly or unwillingly follow the majority.h). is permitted. and to initiate fighting them if they did not accept 43[43] Jawahir.u.u. because the mission of the Prophet (p. has claimed that “And possibly there is no disagreement on this issue43[43].the Shia minority. and know about the mission of the Prophet (p. imitated him till the time of Sahib Jawahir.h) is known for them. in his turn. and left it as memory.u. and they know that he is inviting to confession and fights those who do not confess…” It seems necessary to pause here a moment and elaborate on what Allameh Helli says. has not been able to escape its dominance to think freely for inferring his own verdict? This point not only does not seem improbable. and in fact. has contained in his book of jurisprudence what was taken for granted by the Sunni jurisprudents. the other Shia jurisprudents after him. who. 21. vol.b. but do not confess Islam.h) to tell people to confess Islam. Was it really the character of the Prophet (p. without prior invitation to Islam. Sheikh Toosi being impressed by the dominant verdict. and the jurisprudence of a minority is of no exception.

disbelieve. he would initiate fighting them and shedding their blood onto the earth?! My God! You are Untainted!! Definitely.h). but let the unbelievers free to stay on with their own belief if they so wished.b. what has happened for him to say things different from the truth. did not tell any one to choose either sword or Islam.u. The Prophet whose Koran encourages people to do good to and act friendly and fairly towards the harmless unbelievers.h) with such a character? On the basis of which historical sources. does such a Prophet violate acting in accordance with his Koran?! The Prophet. Allameh Helli has not said such things based on evidence from history because there is not such a thing in history.b.h) with such a character? Which history text introduces the Prophet (p. Then. did such a Prophet used to tell people to accept Islam. otherwise.it? Does Allameh Helli know the Prophet (p.”. has Allameh talked about such thing? Such an issue is not mentioned in any historical sources. and says a: “‫دین‬ZZZ‫ی ال‬ZZZ‫راه ف‬ZZZ‫“ ”لاک‬There is no compulsion in religion”. He has noticed that according to the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar. initial militarily attack . He has just made a historical issue himself based on the verdict of the jurisprudents. and portray him as a brutal and ruthless character that would impose the religion on the people by the force of weaponry and bloodshed?! It seems that Allameh Helli has had no intention to talk about a historical issue based on history. and also says:‫ن‬ZZ‫الیومن وم‬ZZ‫اء ف‬ZZ‫ن ش‬ZZ‫فم‬ ‫الیکفر‬ZZ‫اء ف‬ZZ‫“ ”ش‬Let anyone who wishes to. believe. and let anyone who wishes to.u. who at the conquest of Mecca with that unrivalled power of his. and consequently disguise the kind and humanitarian personality of the Prophet (p.u.b.

b. Thus.h) besieged Taiif. as the Prophet (p.Go to contents Were the people of Taiif massacred? In addition to the militarily attack by the Prophet (p.u. Sheikh Toosi has talked about a similar issue regarding the time when the fortress of Taiif was besieged by the Prophet (p.h) did to the people of Taiif..b. as the Prophet (p. naturally as characterized by the verdict. Making history based on a jurisprudential verdict is not uncommon.And.u. even if there are women and children among them. ….unawares on the unbelievers who are already aware of the invitation has been permitted.h) on Bani al Mostalaq as explained before.h). and to demolish the walls and dwellings onto the heads of their dwellers. Allameh Helli has made a history of this jurisprudential verdict about the Prophet (p. Imam has the rights to erect ballista and catapult.u.u. and to forbid entry to and exit from it. he has the rights to besiege it.u.b.h) did it to the people of Taiif. and to massacre them.h). And.b. Imam has the rights to drown them in water. the verdict itself is invalid too. and so is the history based on it. as the evidence for this verdict is some invalid narration.u. as the Prophet (p. or using the catapult. But. if there is no Muslim among the dwellers. while there were women and children among them. therefore.b.b. Imam has the rights to pound it with ballista. Sheikh Toosi says: “When Imam descends a city. .

to drop on them fire. These words of Sheikh Toosi are a type of extraction from what Shafii says in his Omm: “When the enemy take refuge in a mountain. vol. p11 45[45] Omm.44[44]” The readers of this passage from Sheikh Toosi cannot but think that the Prophet (p. and issue the 44[44] Mabsoot. we have realized that he was impressed by the Sunni jurisprudence. a valley. he used to discuss the jurisprudence issues harmoniously with the Sunni jurisprudents. and any destructive object. even if there are women and children among them. 2 p. and in many cases. The evidence is that the Prophet (p. and to drown them in water. snakes and any thing that may destroy them. vol.u. scorpions. it is permitted to attack them by ballista. and to drop on them fire.45[45]” From the habit of Sheikh Toosi. snakes.b.u. or any other place. and catapult.243 .h) destroyed the dwellings of the people of Taiif onto their heads by ballista. 2. a fortress.h) erected ballista for the people of Taiif while there were women and children among them.b. and massacred them together with the women and children.

But. Sheikh Toosi have said on this subject.u. but it ended up with Hunein battle and the defeat of the enemy.b.u. did not know about it. the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif gathered a large army under the commandership of Malik ibn Ouf Nasri to attack the Muslims in Mecca. he did some tactical acts so that he could conquer the center of the evil with the least possible losses. have said: “the Prophet (p.b.h) besieged the Taiif Fortress where the defeated warmongers had taken refuge. But the people at the top of .u. And this case is one of the instances on which he has done it. During the siege. he killed them and captured their families. the Prophet (p. 2.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace. To avoid the enemy attack. After the conquest of Mecca. and following his steps. and on the siege of Taiif.” And Sheikh Toosi has followed them. Referring to history sources on the Battle of Hunein. and followed Imam Shafii. and contrary to the fact.h) in the Battle of Hunein was defensive. already it was explained that the Sunni jurisprudents have relied on the invalid narration of Abdullah ibn Umar. is correct or not.u.b. Thus. They drove a fortified carriage towards the wall of the fortress so that the men inside the carriage could make a hole in the wall and get into the fortress.verdicts accordingly. and not an example of initial jihad.h) moved to Hunein.b. The Prophet (p. It is imperative here to clearly understand whether what Imam Shafii. and were giving water to their camels. These acts were as follows: A. we have concluded: 1. the movement of the Prophet (p.

924 . possibly. p. had to get out. to weaken their morale. vol. and had caused shedding the 46[46] Moqazi.” C.u.b. was to diminish the arrogance of the aggressive commander and his subjects. Some were martyred. 2. The Muslims burned down the palace of Malik ibn Ouf.h) ordered to cut down the vines the grapes of which were picked. But they shouted: “Do not cut down the trees.u. B.the fortress dropped heated pieces of iron on the carriage and burned its leather. and to prevent using the palace as a battlefield fortress. the Prophet (p.h) said: “We avoid cutting them down for the sake of God and kinship. To make the aggressors surrender. some wounded. or for the sake of God and kinship keep them!” The Prophet (p. ps 927-8 47[47] Same. An arrogant commander. the commander of the aggressing enemy after it was made sure that no one was therein47[47]. The purpose of inflicting this economical strike. The men inside the carriage. Either you will conquer and the trees will be yours. The people inside the fortress shot arrows at them.b. who unnecessarily had mobilized such a large army to wipe out Islam. and this plan had no result46[46].

The Prophet (p. If he had come out.h) for returning to the slavery of their masters. and at the same time prevent it from being used as an enemy fort.blood of Muslims. they set fire on the gate to know what was therein.b. p.u. and joined the Muslims. but it was not accepted49[49]. It belonged to a man from the Thaqif tribe. D. and the Muslims could have acquired valuable information from him. when the Thaqif tribe became Muslims. the herald called out loudly: “Any slave who comes out of the fortress and join the Muslims will be freed (from slavery)”.b.h) entrusted each of the slaves to a Muslim for supporting and teaching them the Quran and the rituals of Islam. Later.b.u. 925 . Since he did not come out. he should have been captured as a member of the aggressing force. well deserved such punishment. 48[48] Same. they asked the Prophet (p.h).u.u. The Prophet (p. there was an orchard with walls around it. the orchard (probably its gate) was set on fire48[48]. Outside the fortress. or we will set fire on it.h) sent him the message: “Either come out of the orchard.” And since he did not come out. More than ten slaves ran out of the fortress.b. By the instructions from the Prophet (p. E.

they agreed on discontinuing the siege. the Muslims had done against the aggressing enemy while having theTaiif Fortress under siege. or to disregard it. the Muslims had two views about it: to continue the siege. escaping of the slaves from the fortress.b.h) ordered the Muslims to return.In that system of slave-ownership. and the Prophet (p.b. 2.h).b. while the Muslims could get valuable information from them as well. vol. Finally. was another economical and psychological blow on the aggressing enemy.u.50[50]” none of the historians have written that anyone was killed with ballista. For 49[49] Same. and the siege of the Taiif Fortress.u. p.” or have written: “By the instructions from the Prophet (p. And. the Muslims struck the Taiif Fortress.483 . These were the tactical acts that.h) ordered erecting of ballista. at the instructions from the Prophet (p.u.b. the Prophet (p. None of the unbelievers were killed with ballista Even though the historians have written: “While besieging the Taiif Fortress. The historians have written some details on the Hunein Battle. after having the Fortress under siege for some days. 931 50[50] Sireh ibn Hosham.h). p.u.

Reading the history text that says: “The Prophet (p. was captured by the brother of the Muslim. while besieging the Taiif Fortress. this is very strange that Imam Shafii has prescribed burning of human being.” possibly. ordered erecting of ballista.b.u. he never gave consent for the murder of any human being. and a lot of the events of the siege days was told by the people of Taiif who became Muslim later. Only one of them. and have written down 12 as the number of the Muslim martyrs in the siege of the Taiif Fortress.h). And. while it may prevent slaying of human being.b. thereby they have demolished the dwellings of them onto their heads and massacred them together with the women and children. Then. who had murdered a Muslim with arrow. and for burning alive of the enemy and contained it in his writing.instance. What we know about the conduct of the Prophet (p. .b. Imam Shafii has jumped to the conclusion that inevitably. can be practiced as a militarily warning for threatening the fugitive enemy and making them surrender. and punished in revenge by the instructions from the Prophet (p. Yet.h).u. no historian has written that even a single person was killed with ballista at the instructions of the Prophet (p. Imam Shafii has made some analogy for drowning in water.h) is that unless there was some coercion.b. and those killed from the enemy force between 70 and 100 persons.h). even the women and children! And far more stranger is that Sheihk Toosi has followed Shafii’s steps!! Erecting ballista. they have recorded the number of the martyrs of Hunein four persons.u. particularly the slaying of women and children. and even hurling stones thereby in a way that would not cause losses.u.

p. By the way. As we see. Possibly.8).particularly the innocent ones. and must be seriously criticized. and he had the same conduct besieging the Taiif Fortress. and showered stones on the Fortress and the towers inside it for almost twenty days. and Sheikh Toosi indicate cannot be valid. and no single one of the aggressing enemy was killed then.51[51]” 51[51] Forouq Abadiyat. that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them. They indicate that while besieging Taiif. the Muslims demolished the dwellings of its dwellers by ballista onto their heads and massacred them together with their children and the women. surely God loves the just. This mentality and obsession should be corrected by deeply thinking and practicing in accordance with verse eight from Momtaheneh Chapter. which reads: “ ‫ل‬ ‫ارکم ان‬ZZ‫ن دی‬ZZ‫وکم م‬ZZ‫م یخرج‬ZZ‫دین ول‬ZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫اتلوکم ف‬ZZ‫م یق‬ZZ‫ن ل‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ن ال‬ZZ‫اکم ا ع‬ZZ‫ینه‬ ‫طین‬ZZ‫ب المقس‬ZZ‫م ان ا یح‬ZZ‫طوا الیه‬ZZ‫بروهم و تقس‬ZZ‫“ " ت‬God forbids you not. has been helpful for issuing the verdicts on mass-killing of children and women. as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations.” (Momtaheneh. what the passages from Imam Shafii. Therefore. What they say has no historical evidence. the mentality of the jurisprudents. Forouq Abadiyat contains the passage: “Officers of Islam erected the ballista with the guidance of Salman. the Quran introduces the harmless unbelievers as respectable persons who deserve kindness and justly acts. being obsessed that there should be no rights of life for the unbelievers and their wives and children. 749 .

Unfortunately. Therefore. every year or once in one’s life? If they had conceptualized the truth on jihad. were killed under the stone-shower. including women and children. not only initial war against the harmless unbelievers has not been made . which is obligatory daily. But. being obligatory whenever there is an attack from the enemy. or fasting. in a manner that such a war by its nature is God’s favorite. fasting one month each year. or Hajj. nor once a year. and pilgrimage to Kabah are His favorite. and pilgrimage to Kabah once in the whole life of a person. if it is meant that the stone-shower was for threatening the enemy. They say that it is religiously obligatory to initiate war against the peace-seeking unbelievers. fasting. they have had to fix a time for it such as that fixed for the other religious duties. because basically. it is not true because no single person was reported to be killed by ballista. they have conceptualized and thought that. it is acceptable. what about jihad? Is it obligatory every month. logically it should have followed that it is obligatory neither once a month.If it is meant that the people of Taiif. the jurisprudents do not think so. now that. prayers is obligatory five times a day. like prayers. there is no evidence either from the Quran or from the tradition to make it clear. and nor once in one’s whole life. once in the whole life. Go to contents Incumbency of initiating war: once a year It was said earlier that the jurisprudents view initial fighting with the harmless unbelievers obligatory. Consequently. for instance. yearly. with the same token that prayers. but only whenever there is an attack by the enemy. But.

so that jihad should not become suspended year long with no excuse. the jurisprudents say: “Initial war against the peace-seeking unbelievers is obligatory like praying and fasting.u.u. Imam Shafii.h). or he sent some groups to fight in his absence.h). And.u. too. occasionally. but it also has been prohibited. wants to infer the rule for the initial jihad from the conduct of the Prophet (p.obligatory either in the Quran or in the valid narrations. they have had to clearly fix the times and period for that. The first jurisprudent who has tried to clear it in a book of jurisprudence was Imam Shafii. And. Omm. I would like him to proceed to fight in the unbelievers countries as many times as he can without endangering the Muslims. either himself or through his agent he fought one or two fights.b. And the minimum that is obligatory for the Caliph is that no year should pass unless he has had one battle.b. I am telling this because since the time jihad became obligatory for the Prophet (p. some period passed .h). taking very great pains. if it is possible for him. each year. And. He says: “If the Muslims are strong. then there should not pass a year in which the Caliph of Muslims has not had militarily attack once on the unbelievers’ territories neighboring the Muslims on all sides.b. contrary to what is said in the Quran and was practiced by the Prophet (p.” Therefore. But. The fatwa (verdict) of Imam Shafii In his book.

Initial war is never desirable.h) in the manner that he explained in the passage. and never did he initiate fighting the harmless unbelievers. or just by sending groups to do it in his absence.u. sometimes the aggression of the enemy happened once a year.u. as an evidence.” It is obvious that this conduct was for the sole reason that whenever there was an aggression by the enemy. vol. 4. and nor did he send groups to fight in his absence. And.” By its nature. the acts of the Prophet (p. some period passed during which neither he had a fight and nor did he send groups to fight in his absence.b.h) were functions of the enemy aggressions. Talking about Shafii’s own passage. I go to see the physician. sometimes twice a year and sometimes no aggression happened in a year. 52[52] Omm Shafii.b.during which neither he had a fight.h) started defending the Muslims either with his presence at the fight.b. the Prophet (p.52[52]” To prove that initial war with the harmless unbelievers is obligatory once a year.u. If you ask someone: “How many times a year do you go to see the physician?” He normally answers: “Whenever I do not feel good. either himself or through his agent he fought one or two fights.h) were all like it. The battles of the Prophet (p. p 168 . one may ask how does it show that at least one initial war is obligatory each year? Shafii himself says: “each year.b. Shafii uses the conduct of the Prophet (p. And occasionally. going to see a physician is not desirable.u. or he sent some groups to fight in his absence. Thus.

h) proceed to fight It is clear that from this conduct of the Prophet (p. as stated by Mohammad Jawad Balaqi. he is of the idea that initial fight with the unbelievers is obligatory.u. Consequently. in accordance with the absolute verses. as explained. Only whenever. as mentioned by Imam Shafii himself. it was felt necessary to defend. whereby fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their aggression.b. he has had to try to fix the time and the period for its performance. the Prophet (p. Shafii. and not had considered the restricting verses abolished. In this case.u. in this case. since there is no evidence either in the Quran or in the narration regarding such a fixation.b. it becomes obligatory to proceed for defense. has had to use this conduct of the Prophet (p.h). he should not have laid a fake foundation for the next generations to build on. he should have had the view that according to these verses. only when the enemy has aggressed or is ready to aggress. and Sheikh Abduh. there could have been no necessity for Shafii to pains-takingly fix the time and period for it. initial war with the harmless unbelievers is not permitted. What has caused Shafii to try pains takingly is that.u.b. . did the Prophet (p. while.u. never can one infer that initial fighting with the peace-seeking unbelievers is obligatory once a year.b. as mentioned earlier.h) as an evidence.h) as an evidence. all the restricting verses on jihad.u.b. and the true historical events are proof of it. due to the aggression of the enemy or their readiness to aggress.h) too never proceeded to initial fight. with great pains-taking.And. it has not such a meaning! Had Shafii taken the right steps from the beginning. are abolished. unacceptably using the conduct of the Prophet (p. in his view. So. And.

223 . Another point is that it is mentioned about the conduct of the Second Caliph: 53[53]“‫ی‬Z‫کان عمر یعقب الجیوش ف‬ ‫“ ”کل عام‬Umar used to send his army for war every year. 3. But. this verdict of Imam Shafii. Is it possible that in the time of the Abbasid Caliphs who started initial wars. unfortunately. is acceptable in no ways. Shafii could not help but issue the verdict harmoniously with the acts of the Caliphs? This possibility cannot be definitely rejected. And if so. Shafii is talking about the Caliph and explains his duty regarding the war.” It is possible that this conduct narrated about Umar has some effect on Shafii’s verdict. has been. p. recorded in the compiled jurisprudence of those days. ibn Athir. This unacceptable verdict has become so dominant that even Sheihk Toosi discussing this subject has not managed to escape its dominance and think independently. this unacceptable verdict. Go to contents The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi Sheikh Toosi says: 53[53] Jami al Usool.By the way. obligating initial war with the peace-seeking unbelievers once a year. and has been taken for granted in the seminaries by the passage of time. Consequently. vol. However. then politics has had its effect on this subject. Sheikh Toosi has contained this verdict of Shafii in his jurisprudential books without scrutinizing it. on this subject.

54[54] Mabsoot Sheikh Toosi. The Sheikh of Jurisprudents (Toosi) has only changed the word ‘Caliph’ to ‘Imam’ by which he means the Infallible Imam because the Shia jurisprudents condition initial fight by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.54[54]” Suspensions is true about those obligatory duties that are by their nature desirable. either himself or by sending the troops. or their readiness to aggress. 10 . therefore. Sheikh Toosi also says: “The minimum that is obligatory for the Imam is that he should proceed to fight once each year.“It is obligatory for Imam. 2 55[55] The same. and the more he is involved in fighting. like burying a dead body. the more virtue he will gain. so that jihad should not be suspended. the more it is done. but not about issues like defensive war that is a function of the enemy’s aggression. p.55[55]” As we see.. to fight once a year. the more virtue it will create. Such statements from the jurisprudents is the evidence that initial war with the harmless unbelievers is considered worshipping like prayers and fasting that are by their nature desirable. p. From translator). such as prayers and fasting. the verdict of Shafii is contained in the jurisprudence book of Sheik Toosi without any scrutiny. Because jihad is enjoined as a group duty (everybody else are discharged if the duty is done by any one in the group. 2. vol.

and the minimum is once a year. who were impressed by the character of the Sheikh. it is incumbent upon Muslims to move towards them either for repelling them or converting them to Islam. The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Helli In his book. the other jurisprudents. the other is that by saying: “and if they avoided attacking. have followed him. and included the same verdict in their jurisprudence books. if it is for the interest of Muslims. Abd al Rahim print . meaning to impose Islam by the force of weaponry. And. with no scrutiny. it is obligatory to fight them. and the minimum is once a year”. there are two points in Mohaqqeq’s statement. having peace with them is permitted. Sharaaye. Mohaqqeq Helli says: “As for the people with whom fighting is obligatory. if they started fighting. 56[56] Shraaye. Incidentally. 88.p. Mohaqqeq Helli also. he expresses his view that initial fighting with the unbelievers is obligatory for converting them to Islam.After Sheikh Toosi. fighting them is obligatory to the extent that is possible. 56[56] ” Following the suit of Sheikh Toosi. Thus. One is that he is talking about converting the unbelievers to Islam. then. then fighting them is obligatory to the extent that is possible. has mentioned as his verdict what Sheikh Toosi had done following Imam Shafii. and if they avoided attacking.

57[57]” The argument against Allameh Helli is that he and other jurisprudents talk about initial war against the unbelievers.406. p.h) could not help but proceed for defense. Ohod in the third. and it is obligatory at least once a year. Kheibar in the seventh.u. 1.b. lithography print .b. Now.h) fought the unbelievers once a year because the Battle of Badr was in the second year. Thaat al Reqa in the fourth. Conquest of Mecca in the eighth. the question is this: how can one make evidence of the conduct of the Prophet (p. and the Prophet (p. he also has tried to make it evidenced. and have no intention to fight the Muslims.b.h) in the defensive war for issuing verdict on initial war? In the Battle of Badr.After Mohaqqeq Helli.b. Bani al Mostalaq in the sixth.u. and view it as the main jihad while all the fights of the Prophet (p. And the Prophet (p.u. and Tabook in the ninth year of Hijrat. vol. the other jurisprudents too have accepted the same verdict of Shafii that Sheikh Toosi had accepted and mentioned it as a verdict in their books. The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli Allameh Helli says: “If the unbelievers are in their own territory. and the more it is done. Khandaq in the fifth.u. Among them.h) tried very hard to prevent the war but the enemy did not accept it and started attack on the Muslims. Allameh Helli not only has accepted this verdict. not as a personal one. the more virtue it will create. the Prophet (p. In the 57[57] Tathkireh Allameh Helli.h) were defensive. fighting them is enjoined as a group duty.u.b.

b. And. as explained.u. and it is obligatory once a year in the 58[58] Moqazi Waqedi. But according to Waqedi. By the way. Go to contents The fatwa (verdict) of Shahidein In the Lum’eh and its Commentary. Shahidein say: “Jihad is obligatory in the way of group duty as required. it is not an acceptable reasoning. and Bani al Mostalaq took place before the Khandaq Battle 58[58]. and then has tried to evidence it with the conduct of the Prophet (p. ps 404 & 440 . 1. vol.Battle of Ohod also the enemy started the attack and the Prophet (p.h) had to defend. one cannot make evidence of the conduct of the Prophet (p. saying that he had one war each year. Allameh Helli also has mentioned the same verdict of Shafii as his verdict. It was not that he had so arranged that he should have had one initial fight each year. Allameh says that the Battle of Khandaq was in the fifth year.b. Therefore.b. The reality of the issue is that. both these wars happened in the fifth year. there were two defensive wars in one year because there were two aggressively attacks from the enemy in that year. it was the same in all the Prophet’s fights. And. that is why he did not have any war in the first year of Hijrat because there was no enemy attack in that year. But.h) in the defensive war for issuing verdict on initial war.u.u. Thus. being impressed by the character of Sheikh toosi.h). who had accepted Shafii’s verdict. and Bani al Mostalaq in the the sixth year of Hijrat. All his fights were functions of the aggressions of the enemies.

”59[59] The passage from Sharhe Lum’eh shows that there is no doubt about jihad itself being obligatory once a year.”انسلخ الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حیث وجد تموهم‬first has been done by Allameh Helli in his Tathkireh. 5) ‘After the forbidden months elapsed. because an absolute order to do a duty does not mean repetition of the duty. But the scrutiny that we can have on the argument is that the said verse is about the unbelievers who violated the treaty. We should know that reasoning by the verse: “ ‫فاذا‬ ‫ . every year after the lapse of the sacred months. And the same reasoning of Allameh is mentioned in Sharhe Lum’eh and then it is indicated that the argument may be scrutinized. without explaining the nature of the scrutiny therein. jihad also becomes obligatory. it cannot be that the four commonly recognized sacred months ( ‫ذی القعده‬ 59[59] Sharh Lum’eh. p 255 Abd al Rahim print . slay the unbelievers whenever you come upon them’ is conditioning jihad by the lapse of the sacred months that are four in a year. and it is not obligatory in the rest of the year.”)الرض اربعه اشهر )توبه‬The text of the verse shows that four consecutive months is meant. therefore. And there is some discussion and views on this argument.minimum. The reason is that the verse: ‘ ‫لخ‬Z‫فاذا انس‬ ‫وهم‬ZZ‫د تم‬ZZ‫ث وج‬Z‫( ’الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حی‬Bara’at. And lapse of these months happen once a year. vol 1. according to which they were given a grace period of “four months to go about on the earth” “‫فسیحوا فی‬ 2 ‫ . Thus. but indicates that the argument for it may be scrutinized.

h) had one initial war each year. While starting to discuss this subject.h) and says that the Prophet (p. what the Quran means here is not the four months that is commonly recognized as sacred each year so that one can say: “every year after the lapse of the sacred months. Sometimes.b. jihad becomes obligatory in the minimum once a year. then they should be beaten by the force of weaponry whenever they were found. It is obvious that Shahidein have accepted the initial war being obligatory once a year because of their following the steps of Sheikh Toosi.‫ ) و ذی الحجه ومحرم ورجب‬are meant. he wants to evidence it by the conduct of the Prophet (p. because the month of " ‫ "رجب‬comes separate and not successively with the other three. if the Quran says: ‘After the forbidden months elapsed’.u.b. Thus. because an absolute order to do a duty does not mean repetition of the duty” The fact is that since Allameh Helli has accepted initial war being obligatory once a year. and it is not obligatory in the rest of the year. he has had to look for evidence on it. we made it clear that Shafii’s verdict is not evidenced by . he uses the verse: “ ‫رکین‬ZZ‫ ”فاذا انسلخ الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المش‬which we also explained that it is not a valid evidence. the exact way for Allameh should have been not to accept the initial war being obligatory once a year. and do not prove his claim. Therefore. And sometimes. we proved that it is not correct. and the treaty-violating unbelievers still insisted on their violation. who himself has accepted Imam Shafii’s verdict. Earlier. In the relative paragraph.u. so that he should not have had to use such types of reasoning that are not acceptable. it means that after the grace period of the four months fixed for forbidding war with the unbelievers elapsed.

Sahib “Jawahir” says: 60[60] Jame al Maqassid.” By text. Mohaqqeq says: “Jihad is obligatory once a year.the correct reasoning used for inferring verdicts in jurisprudence. has accepted the common verdict. not having noticed any disaccord among the jurisprudents. Go to contents The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “ Jawahir” On this subject. The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Thani In his book. in which case sometimes it is not obligatory at all. Jame al Maqassid. (he had better not have accepted it).60[60]” The blessed Mohaqqeq Thani also. The evidence for this verdict is the text and the consensus. We made it clear that the verse does not have such a meaning. And by consensus. he means the verse: “ ‫رکین‬ZZ‫اقتلوا المش‬Z‫رم ف‬Z‫هر الح‬Z‫ ”فاذا انسلخ الش‬which was used by Allameh Helli as evidence. p. vol. and sometimes it becomes obligatory more than once a year. and then has said: “The evidence for this verdict is the text and the consensus. he means that all the jurisprudents after Sheikh Toosi have issued such verdict. 186 . 1. unless some urgency rises. a commentary on Qawaede Allameh. Earlier it was realized that the verdicts of the jurisprudents from Sheikh Toosi onward all were based on Omm Shafii. and consequently there was not such a consensus acceptable for reasoning.

because. Therefore. namely.61[61]” Sahib “Jawahir” has no dispute about the subject itself that the initial war is obligatory once a year. Mohaqqeq Karaki is quoted to have claimed consensus on this subject. because all the verdicts from Sheikh Toosi onward ends up in the individual verdict of Shafii’s. He continues to say: “And the main evidence here is the consensus if it is full. 11 . I wonder whether we can relate it to Sahib “Jawahir” or not? 61[61] Jawahir. and if has such a doubt about it. if it is full. which verdict is not evidenced with any acceptable reasoning. vol. And the main evidence here is the consensus. Fazil. will be negated from his point of view for having no evidence. but he has question and scrutiny on this verse indicating it as Allameh Helli has pointed out. and Mohaqqeq Karaki that the minimum jihad that should be performed is once a year.” And. then from his point of view there is no evidence for this verdict. we realized there is no full consensus on this subject. not what they say that the verse: “‫ ”فاذا انسلخ الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین‬is an evidence here. ps 10.“It is quoted from Sheikh Toosi. Now that Sahib “Jawahir” says: “And the main evidence here is the consensus if it is full” it may cause one to think that Sahib Jawahir is hesitant about the existence of the consensus. because he rejects this verse serving as an evidence. 21. initial jihad being obligatory once a year. besides. the verdict itself. Shahidein. such an argument is subject to scrutiny and deliberation from some aspects. as you may notice.

and why did he not do it?” The fact that Ali (a. and certainly do destroy its value. do inflict irreparable damages on Islam. One for ten. the question arises: “ Is it really a divine instruction. the jurisprudents say: “ It is obligatory to initiate war against the peace seeking unbelievers once a year” and consensus too was claimed on this subject.) did not do it. is it not a valid evidence that initiating such a war is not a divine instruction? If the jurisprudents have no answer to this question.s.The necessity for the jurisprudents to withdraw this fatwa (verdict) As mentioned before. But this rule changed. this is an error carried out unintentionally against this precious divine religion by the guardians of Islam themselves. and it became obligatory for Muslim forces to resist the enemy force that is twice as much as theirs. then it is due on them to withdraw their fatwa (verdict) and never again attribute such stuff to Islam so that it would not be accused by its own guardians that it has ordained as divine duty to initiate wars against peace seeking unbelievers. Such accusations. and if so. one for two Interpreters have said: “Originally it was obligatory in jihad for the Muslim forces to resist one person against ten persons of the enemy force. disgracing it through out the world community.) should have made a priority of it to initiate war against the unbelievers once a year during his reign of some years.s. then Ali (a. no doubt. Now.” . And.

In the beginning. they shall overcome two thousand by Allah’s permission. they shall overcome two hundred. with religious belief. Patience and perseverance is a very important factor for defeating the enemy. They say: “In these verses. they will become martyrs. according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter. so if there are a hundred patient ones of you. it has been assumed that twenty patient and tolerant persons. Allah has made light your burden. Since they have religious belief and expect heavenly rewards.h) is instructed to encourage Muslims for having patience and perseverance while facing the aggressing enemy. and He knows that there is weakness in you.b. If some are killed. and 66 of Anfal Chapter as evidence. twenty of them may defeat two hundred. and the Prophet (p.” therefore. meaning one for ten. meaning one for two.u. they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve because they are a people who do not understand (65). resisting of one against two is practically and easily attainable.” The tone of these two verses is the tone of encouragement and persuasion for patience and perseverance against the attack of the enemy so that the Muslims repel the evil of the aggressing enemy. the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. they shall overcome two hundred. and promoting the morale in the Muslims who are fighting for defense. and Allah is with the patient (66).. resisting of one believer who is expecting heavenly rewards against two unbeliever is easily practical. it has been assumed that if there are one hundred patient and tolerant persons. they shall overcome two hundred”.To prove it. normally such people will resist two hundred. and an emphasis to the point that even if resisting of one against ten is not so common. they do not show weakness. . and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two. if the Muslims show patience and tolerance to a high degree. if there are twenty patient ones of you. But the interpreters have considered them as rule-setting verses. Their evidence for this is that the verse 66 says that Allah has made light your burden. this is the variety in addressing for encouragement. The method adopted by the interpreters As explained in the previous paragraphs. For the present. And. they normally defeat the enemy. the two verses are for encouragement. In other words. but later this obligation was abolished by the next verse. in which case overcoming the enemy will look more natural and expected. The verses say: "‫یاایها النبی حرض المومنین علی القتال ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین وان یکن ماه یغلبوا‬ ‫اتین‬ZZ‫وا م‬ZZ‫اه یغلب‬Z‫م م‬ZZ‫ن منک‬Z‫ان یک‬ZZ‫عفا ف‬Z‫م ض‬Z‫م ان فیک‬Z‫الفا من الذین کفروا ذالک بانهم قوم لیفقهون )56( الن خفف ا عنکم وعل‬ 66) ‫ابرین‬Z‫)وان یکن منکم الف یغلبوا الفین باذن ا وا مع الص‬ “O Prophet urge the believers to war. and He knows that there is weakness in you. But this is a two-phased encouragement. it was obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad. and if there are a hundred of you. “if there are a hundred patient ones of you. That is why in the second verse it says: “For the present Allah has made light your burden. which ordain the duty. resist two hundred persons who do not have any belief and do not expect any heavenly rewards. and if there are a thousand. Expecting such rewards. In the second phase. In the first phase. the main purpose of these two verses is to strengthen the morale for patience and resistance in the Muslims by reviving the hope for conquest. the interpreters have used verses 65. and as such. and be fortunate according to their religious understanding. And the two-phase encouragement is to establish the point that even if for some weakness resisting of one against ten is not highly expected.

p. 5. and all the interpreters. as God recognized that this is a heavy duty on people. and one hundred against two hundred. the declarative statements in the verses has the meaning of imperative and is ordaining a duty. according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter. Jobaee. Tafsire Tabari. Tafsire Tabari. vol.” Thus. Suday. 154. in the first verse. vol. in the next verse has abolished it and replaced it with another rule?’” Was the first rule ordained thoughtlessly. Qatadeh. Ata. Abolishment of verse 65 of Anfal not acceptable The interpreters say: “In these verses. and then. we make light the burden in the encouragement for patience and tolerance. Balkhi. p. and now say that if you are patient. In his book. 5. In the beginning. vol. let alone to the Omniscient.62[62]” But we already explained that it is also correct to make light the burden in encouragement for patience and tolerance and to say: “If your people are very highly patient and tolerant. the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. Sheikh Toosi says: “Verse 66 has abolished the rule in the verse before it because in the previous verse the resistance and tolerance of one against ten is obligatory.” Then to say: “But as weakness in morale is noticed in you. thus. 10.64[64]” 62[62] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi. 64[64] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi. Tibyan. and the practicality was changed. p. vol. 10. vol 10. it was obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad. Great God. and Rooh al Maani Aloosi. 63[63] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi. but later this obligation was abolished by the next verse. 154 . and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two. He obligated the believers to resist one against two. but immediately. Hassan Basri. therefore. making it light on them. one of you will overcome ten people. ‘Making light in burden’ can be conceived in encouragement as well. then. God immediately discovered that it was not for the interest of the people and should be abolished? God save one from attributing such thoughtlessness to Him by saying: “In these two verses that were revealed together.and ‘making light one’s burden’ can be conceived only if there were already some obligation and duty ordained for the one.87 2 nd edition. p41. Mojahed. under the verses. p41. there is no need to say that since making light of burden is mentioned in the verse 66. Romani. p. one of you will overcome two of the enemy. Akrameh. 153. God has ordained a rule. and Tafsir al Manar. This is the view of Ibn Abbas. 63[63]” We say: “But is it wise of one to say: ‘God has revealed a rule in one verse for the people to practice it. 5. and then immediately in the second verse has abolished it!” Such a matter cannot be attributed to the ordinary legislators. vol.

and the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. the Muslims are encouraged to be patient and tolerant against the enemy. only the happening of the consequence as a result of the condition is understood: happening of conquest resulting from patience. It has no meaning to say: “If there are twenty patient ones of you. the interpreters. the meaning of these two verses is what the Persian poem says: "‫ “ " صبر وظفرهردو دوستان قدیم اند در اثر صبر نوبت ظفر آید‬Patience and Conquest are two old friends. that is done by all the interpreters of the Quran by saying that God ordained a rule and then immediately realized it was hard for people. Good God! You are Untainted!! Go to contents What is meant by declarative sentence? Those who think that verse 65 was abolished say: “In these two verses. do take it as a command for patience and say: “In these verses. In addition. The fighters sometimes are defeating. containing the main and subordinate clauses?.” In fact. and sometimes defeated. namely in this sentence: “ ‫م‬ZZ‫ن منک‬Z‫ان یک‬ ‫اتین‬ZZ‫و م‬ZZ‫ابرون یغلب‬ZZ‫رون ص‬ZZ‫ . giving the good news of and assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy.” In this way. there is no command in it. and it does not indicate ordaining any rule. and abolished it. Wherever Patience goes. there is a command for patience and tolerance. It is clear that no imperative meaning can be understood from it. they will overcome two hundred. these verses have the consequential meaning that patience and tolerance against the enemy is desirable. neither part of the sentences does show commanding for patience. Zamakhshari says: “This verse is the promise and the good news . the important point here is that.” But it is clear that the meaning of the two verses.” Of course. they will overcome two hundred. the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. one may realize an imperative meaning. If they say it is a command for conquest.” We ask them: “What do they mean by declarative statement? Do they mean the whole sentence.“ عش‬if there are twenty patient ones of you. therefore. and.from translator) it has no sense. they shall overcome two hundred” and in the two similar sentences after it. and if there are one hundred. or for conquest?” If it is a command for patience (in which case it cannot be used as evidence by them. they shall overcome two hundred. does fall in the category of declarative. because as mentioned already. there is the good news of and assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy. in these two verses. we should ask them: “What is the command for? Is the command for patience. Verse 65 says: “ ‫ “ ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین‬if there are twenty patient ones of you. From neither part of these sentences. they shall overcome two hundred”.One can easily realize how such unfitting stuff is attributed to the Omniscient God. meaning that if there are twenty patients. with the consequence being subject to and a function of the condition. it is not rational to command for it. as for the meaning of imperative (command) claimed by them. conquest is at no one’s choice. and verse 66 says: “ ‫“فان یکن منکم ماه یغلبوا ماتین‬If there are one hundred patient ones of you. There is only a condition and a consequence in each sentence. having understood the desirability of patience from the consequential meaning. it will have no rational meaning. namely. And. not imperative sentence. they should overcome two hundred. Conquest follows him. Thus.

As the author of Almizan says. to rectify this mistake. Go to contents 65[65] Kashshaf Zamakhshari. Ketabforoushi Islamiyah 67[67] Almizan. nor would there be any need for the un-evidenced justification made up by the author of Almizan. of the four-vol edition 66[66] Majma al Bayan. these two verses do not ordain some obligatory duty. As explained earlier. one ordains a rule. 2. But the governance of the second verse relates to a period that has some interval with the governance of the period of the first verse. 235. these two phases are stated together with no interval. he should not have had to helplessly look for justification. the second verse has been revealed some time after the first one.66[66]” Such a claim having no evidence. but as a change from the main manner of addressing the Muslims. reasonably apply about an obligatory duty that has been performed for some period. they have said: “In this context. but the governance of them relate to two periods with intervals. as the interpreters do. And. 9. and being unacceptable. they state two phases of persuasion and encouragement for Muslims so as to have patience and tolerance while fighting the enemy.67[67]” We should emphasize here that the view that these two verses were revealed in two different periods. Thus. they will overcome the enemy force ten times as theirs.” He says it because first he has accepted that these verses ordain some obligatory rule. but were put together in the Quran. and then has had to look for justification for the abolishment. and one cannot make it the evidence. And. is something inappropriate to say. there is no interval between the revelation of the two verses.from God to the effect that if a group of Muslims are patient and tolerant against the enemy. the author of Almizan has rejects it. and says: “The context shows that these two verses were revealed together. Akhoondi . vol. Therefore. the context shows that these two verses were revealed together. some interpreters have to say it out of helplessness. p.65[65]” It is obvious that the promise and good news about victory conditioned by patience and tolerance does not have the meaning of command and order for patience. Has he had not accepted the un-evidenced issue first. On the other hand. with the help of God. that is why we reject the concept of abolishment in the verse under discussion because abolishment has no reasonable meaning about good news and promise. p 127. vol. Thus. 557. Unacceptable justification Some of the interpreters have noticed that it is a mistake to say that of the two verses that were revealed together. Abolishment may. for issuing an obligatory duty. vol 2. there would be no need for the unacceptable justification mentioned in “Majma al Bayan”. and the next one immediately abolishes the same rule. p. the author of Almizan says: “The governance of the second verse relates to a period that has some interval with the governance of the period of the first verse. and with some interval.

say that verse 66 in Anfal has abolished the governance of verse 65. but if the number of enemy force is more than two times of that of the Believers’ force. Reliance of Shafii on the view quoted from Ibn Abbass In his book Omm. then they are religiously forbidden from running away. nor it was obligatory in the Battle of Khandaq because Muslims were three thousand. but the enemy ten thousand. and nor it was obligatory while defending Khorramshahr when it was besieged by the Ba’athi Forces from Iraq because at that time their number was tens of times of the home forces available in Khorramshahr. 68[68] Omm Shafii. where Jafar Tayyar was martyred because Muslims were three thousand. And. God revealed this verse: “‫اتین‬ZZ‫وا م‬ZZ‫اه یغلب‬Z‫م م‬ZZ‫ن منک‬Z‫“ ”الن خفف ا عنکم وعلم ان فیکم ضعفا فان یک‬For the present. but the enemy thirty thousand. Shafii says: “Ibn Oteibeh has quoted from Amr ibn Dinar.u. The consequence of such a view is that it was not obligatory for Muslims to defend themselves in the Battle of Ohod because the number of Muslims’ force was seven hundred. with no attention to what is said by the interpreters. Khandaq.Terrible consequences of this view Those who entertain the view that these two verses ordain an obligatory duty. and He knows that there is weakness in you. In practice also. nor it was obligatory in the Battle of Mouteh. so if there are a hundred patient ones of you. These are unfavorable consequences that no one can obligate himself to them. who has said: ‘when the verse “ ‫اتین‬ZZ‫و م‬ZZ‫ابرون یغلب‬Z‫رون ص‬Z‫“ ”ان یکن منکم عش‬If there are twenty patient ones of you. and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that neglecting it be reckoned as sin. the Prophet (p. then escaping the battlefield is permitted. when the believers face an enemy force whose number is two times as much as the Believers’ force. it became obligatory for the Believers to resist twenty of them two hundred of the enemy. Therefore. Shafii has inferred obligatory duty from the two verses and has issued the verdict saying that the ultimate injunction by God is that if the number of enemy force is twice.b. then defending will not become obligatory for the Muslims.h) and the Muslims acted against this view because in all the battles of Ohod.4. And the rule that is ordained in its place is that thereafter. even by a single person. they shall overcome two hundred. but that of the enemy three thousand. meaning that if the number of enemy force were more than twice of the Muslims’ force even by one single person. one Muslim must resist two unbelievers. this is a valid evidence to prove that the interpreters have not interpreted these verses correctly. but if their number is more than twice.” was revealed. in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an obligatory duty is neglected. then resistance against them is obligatory. they shall overcome two hundred” and made light their burden and made obligatory for the Believers to resist one hundred against two hundred of the enemy force. Mouteh. Then. p169 . vol.68[68]” It is more than clear that based on his quotation from Ibn Abbas. and Khorramshahr they performed the defense as an obligatory religious duty. who quoted from Ibn Abbass. Allah has made light your burden.

10.’ They think that if the number of Muslims did not amount to this level. 39 . there is some contradictory evidence here.69[69]” We see that this quotation from Ibn Abbass is contradictory with what Imam Shafii has quoted from him.Tabari quotes Ibn Abbass having said: “God put ten persons of enemy against one person of Muslims to encourage them to get ready for fighting the enemy. But this was abolished. one should not be deceived with what some scholars say. unreasonable view. and nor ordaining a religious rule. Now. vol. and Mouteh. I have heard some say: ‘It is not appropriate for Muslims to fight the unbelievers unless their number is twice that of Muslims’ number. suggests that if the number of the enemy force is more than twice. It was just a blessing of encouragement made by God to His Messenger. and if it is less than that level they can refrain from fighting. and not heeded this quotation from Ibn Abbas. has some terrible consequence. Khandaq. This means that the second rule has become the permanent rule in Islam on this subject to the end of the world. a question must be answered here. In this quotation. Based on his own documentation. even in such cases. then.It is amazing that Shafii has not done any jurisprudential analysis himself and is flatly submitted to the view that he himself quoted from Ibn Abbass. the Muslims have proceeded to defend themselves against the enemy in the battles of Ohod. It is a different quotation from Ibn Abbas indicating the opposite of what Shafii has quoted. God made light their burden and put two persons of enemy against one person of Muslims so that the Believers should realize that God has special blessings for them. This. why has Shafii and his followers used the other quotation (indicating obligatory duty). it is explicitly stated that no religiously obligatory duty is understood from these verses. this was not an obligatory duty. and be hopeful that God will help them defeat the enemy. Then. If there were not any contradictory found. fighting the enemy would be a sin. the Muslims would refrain from fighting the enemy if their number were more than twice.’ From the last statement he means ‘but we know that. It is also stated that ‘if fighting the enemy had been obligatory only when their number were exactly twice that of Muslims’. then the Muslims would have refrained from fighting them if their number were more than twice. as explained before. Therefore. But reasoning on a quoted evidence should be done after making the research to see if there is any other quotation opposing it. p. necessarily. and it became obligatory for Muslims to resist against twice their number of the enemy force. although this is in tune with the tone of the verses and says: ‘the verses are not ordaining an obligatory religious rule?’” The answer to this question must be supplied by those who entertain this unacceptable. regarding verses 65 and 66. Go to contents Rule for exterminating the nation of Muslim Interpreting the two verses. then it can be used as evidence. or better to say. The question is: “For their verdict. And. the interpreters have said that originally it was obligatory in jihad for Muslims to resist one against ten of the unbelievers. But. The verdict issued by the evidence of the other quotation from Ibn Abbass. and is not acceptable. If fighting the enemy had been obligatory only when their number were exactly twice that of Muslims’. 69[69] Tafsir Tabari. relying on it as evidence for his verdict.

convey two different obligatory rules.45).15).then no defense is obligatory for Muslims.128. the enemy. without thinking of its destructive consequences?!” Imam Shafii explicitly says: “but if the number of enemy force is more than two times of that of the Believers’ force. will wage an all-out attack and wipe out the Muslims! And.’ 70[70] Almizan. it must be.” there will be left no other way for him to prove that ‘these two verses. Akhoondi . century after century. one of them has said: “the sentence ‘ ‫‘ ’الن خفف ا عنکم‬For the present. p.” And the other interpreters immediately have accepted him and contained it in their books. It is natural that under such circumstances. who know that Muslims have no religious duty to fight. and thus neither the people nor the government would engage in the vital defense. and in any case.70[70]” Our understanding is that. Muslims have done it in this way.” Now that the author of Almizan thinks this reasoning is arguable and says: “Restricting abatement to obligatory duty is arguable. we know that defending the root of Islam is both the Divine duty and the natural rights of the Islamic nation.” (Anfal. Otherwise. the Muslims would not consider fighting a religious duty. These interpreters should be asked: “Why do they attribute to the Quran a rule that if practiced would entail the extermination of the Islamic nation? Why do they view verses 65 and 66 of the Anfal Chapter to have contained this rule. never turn your back to them. The Quran also is asserting:"‫ار‬ZZ‫وهم الدب‬ZZ‫ا فلتول‬ZZ‫روا زحف‬ZZ‫ذین کف‬ZZ‫م ال‬ZZ‫(“ " اذا لقیت‬O you who believe!) When you meet the unbelievers marching for war.’ in the second verse indicate that the contents of these verses is an obligatory duty. it has been repeated so much that it has occupied the minds of all. the interpreters use the text of the verse ‘ ‫‘ ’الن خفف ا عنکم‬now God gives abatement’ and say. The reason is that for proving their claim that these two verses carry an obligatory rule. Such a rule. that is why the author of “Almizan” in spite of saying: “Restricting abatement to obligatory duty is arguable. And. saving the entity of the Islamic nation by their defense. in their explicitness.” meaning that one cannot commit himself that the abatement in the verse ‘‫م‬ZZ‫ف ا عنک‬Z‫ ’الن خف‬does apply only where there is an obligatory duty.” (Anfal. it must be done by both the government and the people. not only suspecting the explicitness in these verses should be excused. vol. The fact is that the interpreters have spent little time for having comprehensive study on the meaning of these two verses. would result in the extermination of the Islamic nation because the Muslims would take it as the Divine Rule.” Shafeii says this while the Quran is asserting: “ ‫یا ایها الذین آمنوا اذا‬ ‫“ " لقیتم فئه فاثبتوا‬O you who believe! When you meet a force be firm. yet. 9. necessarily. and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that neglecting it be reckoned as sin. and whenever the enemy force is more than twice of that of the Muslim force even by a single person. in practice. no doubt. Allah has made light your burden. First. in their explicitness. History is also a good testimony that. These two verses do absolutely and explicitly mean that the Believers must resist against the aggressing enemy for defending. Then. “abatement is conceivable only if there is an obligatory rule practiced already. to exterminate the Muslims. convey two different obligatory rules. in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an obligatory duty is neglected. and never turn their back whatever the enemy number may be. he says: “There is no excuse for one to suspect that these two verses. rejected too. these words in Almizan do originate from the same mentality that is created for all the interpreters through the repetition of this point in centuries.

being obligated by these two so-called obligatory rules. as a prerequisite. And. it would be obligatory first to find out at what level the quantity of the enemy force stands. Therefore. as long as this point is not made clear. In addition. naturally they are waiting for the result and are not fighting for defense.71[71]” Bu it is obvious that patience in fighting being obligatory in any case is not consistent with the meaning of the second verse because according to the second rule on patience. And. by the time the result of investigation about the enemy quantity is ready. or navy. one being lighter than the other. And.” By the lighter duty. the author says: “The verse convey the meaning that in any case patience is obligatory in fighting. patience is not obligatory. as said by the author and other interpreters. as they say. On the one hand. will result in the extermination of the Muslims. Therefore. the explicitness in these two verses to convey two different obligatory rules. is a military secret and always is kept undisclosed. the author means the second one. those who say: “The contents of these two verses carry two different obligatory rules”. air force. patience is obligatory. in a normal way it is impossible to fix the actual number of the enemy force. and with the peace of mind. Therefore. and Mouteh. Khandaq. it would prove impossible to discern the actual number hundred percent correctly. one being lighter than the other. then. Thus. the Muslims will have received fatal strikes. this is the consequence of the view held by those who say: “The condition for 71[71] The same . under point “Fifth”. the Muslims will not be able to realize whether they are obligated to fight or not. But. after which the result of the investigation will be useless. so that the Muslims should realize their religious duty. It is unfeasible to specify the quantity of the enemy The interpreters claim that if the number of enemy force is twice that of the Muslims’ then jihad is obligatory. whether ground force. fixing the quantity of the enemy force is the prerequisite for making it clear whether jihad has become religiously obligatory or not. as explained earlier. if the number of enemy force is twice of that of the Muslims’. then it is not obligatory. there is another inconsistency in the words of Almizan.Moreover. It also would mean that jihad was not obligatory in the battles of Ohod. Besides. while the Muslims are busy investigating the number of enemy force. the enemy will take advantage of this opportunity. Even if they send secret agents to find out the real number of the enemy force. it says: “Two obligatory duties are understood from these verses. besides the other ill-consequences already mentioned. will launch their overthrowing attack. according to which. but if it is more than twice. yet. patience and resistance is not obligatory in case the number of enemy is greater than twice of that of the Muslims’. On the other hand. they condition realizing a religious obligation by something attaining of which normally is impossible for Muslims. claimed by the interpreters. Therefore. this is another ill-consequence of having such a view. And. we know that the quantity of the military force. These are some of the ill-consequences that it is not possible for one to commit himself to any of them. as claimed in Almizan is not acceptable. Thus. but if their number is more than twice.

The first verse says: “If there are twenty patient ones of you. they shall overcome two hundred. there will be no need for specifying the quantity of the enemy force. and do not provide the enemy with the chance to attack the Muslims with peace of mind. Go to contents . And. Fundamentally. Thus. such-educated Muslims will encounter the aggressing enemy severely and firmly so as to make them get back confined to their limit. They are always watchful and ready to respond the attacking enemy properly.” Since the message is based on assumption. which says that these verses do not convey obligatory duty.jihad being obligatory is that the number of enemy should be twice that of the Muslims. whenever the enemy makes a militarily attack.” But according to the valid view. and strike them fatally. and not more. the message in these verses is based on some assumption. It is obvious that the Muslims who are educated in a culture stemming from the valid view. these Muslims never put off the defense for specifying the quantity of the enemy force. those who are educated in such culture believe that jihad in Islam is not initial militarily attack on the peace-seeking people. but it has the defensive nature. whatever their quantity may be. or gets ready to do it. will recognize it obligatory in any case to fight for defense against the attacking enemy. and regret the aggression. and will not condition the defense by the number of the enemy.

Its bad smell caused us discomfort. till it ended in striking each other. but. the Prophet (p. Moses struck him with a fist (with no intention of killing – translator) but he died. for. if it complies. and said: ‘Let your donkey go. make peace between them with justice and be fair.’ Abdullah ibn Rawaheh answered him: ‘By God.u. Then. interpreting verse 9.’ The Prophet (p.b. this verse was revealed.h) went on his way. Abdullah ibn Obei held his nostrils.h). then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. make ye peace between them. because the opponent and proponent of Moses had not proceeded to kill each other. His proponent called for help.b. The Prophet (p. 15).u. then. and that is why the author has raised point two. including striking each other.Chapter 2 Jihad with the rebels (boqat) One of the subjects discussed under the category of jihad is fighting the rebels (boqat).h) is better than your musk. Kashshaf."اقتتال‬or at least it can 72[72] Tafsir Kashshaf Zamakhshari. Hojorat Chr . but preparations are going on to start it.b.from translator) here has a vaster meaning than killing each other. from the tribes of Ous and Khazraj. the relations of these two persons.19) “If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight. Another example of such usage in the Quran can be noticed in the verse. and the base for this subject is verse 19 of the Hojorat Chapter of the Quran which says: “ ‫وان‬ ‫ائت‬Z‫ان ف‬Z‫ی امرا ف‬Z‫ئ ال‬Z‫تی تفی‬Z‫ی ح‬ZZ‫تی تبغ‬Z‫اتلوا ال‬Z‫طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاصلحوا بینهما فان بغت احداهما علی الخری فق‬ ‫( ”فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا ان ا یحب المقسطین‬Hojorat. The donkey urinated there.b. Then. in his book.72[72]” Point two: If this occasion for the revelation of this verse is accepted. this can also be another one of the vaster meaning of "‫ . Then.h) came back and made peace between them. the smell of the donkey of the Prophet (p. Point three: If at present there is no fight actually taking place. "‫ا رجلن یقتتلن‬Z‫“ "فوجد فیه‬He found there two men fighting” (Qisas.u. shoes and palm wood. but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other. but the discussion between the two Abdullahs lasted for long. came out and all started striking each other with canes. Allah loves those who are fair (and just). stopped near where some of the Ansars (Believers of Medina) were sitting. Zamakhshari says: “While riding a donkey. fists. then we should admit that the word "‫( "اقتتال‬The first meaning understood from it in Arabic is killing each other.u. Points on the verse about rebels Point one: Talking about the occasion for the revelation of this verse.

there is the order for peace making after the transgressor stops the transgression. either as the rebel. the word. First. and the ordinary people all over the world. like the time when the preparations for the battles of Jamal. there is the order for making peace between the parties. 57. and if I am oppressor to rebuke me and make me go back to my bounds. it is obligatory for the Believers to make peace between such groups as well. This address includes the governments. or as the oppressed. and can act to stop the war. verily. While moving from Medina to Basra to encounter the Jamal aggression. the ordinary people also are obligated to get involved and act according to the instructions in the verse. it is understood that when the preparations for the Jamal Battle were going on. is mentioned. who are aware of the conflict. The first order is to try to stop the fight. it should be realized that the ‘peace making process’ in the first phase is different from that in the third phase. or fight the aggressing party and ultimately make it compensate the losses. so as to avoid the war. and discern the oppressed and the oppressor. the ordinary people also were obligated and had the duty to perform the instructions in this verse. or as the rebelled. By the way. Ali (a. sometime.” From this letter. This is to be done by dialogue and any other action that may lead to peace.” Thus. make peace between them with justice and be fair. “‫لحوا‬Z‫ “ ”فاص‬make ye peace” in this third phase. and everybody is obligated to act at the top of his capability.have the criterion for the obligation of making peace as enjoined by the verse which says “ ‫“ ”فاصلحوا بینهما‬make ye peace between them. and define the party of justice and injustice.s. That is why Ali (a. the losses inflicted on the enemy must be compensated fairly. and Nahrawan was going on.) wrote: “"‫ا او‬ZZ‫ا باغی‬ZZ‫ا ام‬ZZ‫ا او مظلوم‬ZZ‫ا ظالم‬ZZ‫ذا ام‬ZZ‫ی ه‬ZZ‫ن حی‬ZZ‫ت م‬ZZ‫انی خرج‬ZZ‫د ف‬ZZ‫ا بع‬ZZ‫ام‬ 73]73 ‫تعتبنی‬ZZ‫یئا اس‬ZZ‫ت مس‬ZZ‫اننی و ان کن‬ZZ‫نا اع‬ZZ‫ت محس‬ZZ‫ان کن‬ZZ‫ی ف‬Z‫“ "]مبغیاعلیه وانی اذکرا من بلغه کتابی هذا لما نفر ال‬I have left my domicile.s. and rush to help the party of justice. "‫“ "باالعدل‬with justice”. Letter No. and ask them to move to me. letter no 57 . but this one means that after the aggressor complies with the command of Allah. Second. it is also understood that before the start of the war. Point four: In this verse there are three phases in the orders and instructions for making peace. and then perform their duty accordingly. there is the order to “fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah”. as the verse says ‘but if it complies then. in the letter to the people of Kufeh. from this letter. the transgressor will be defined and known.’ Here. it is obligatory for the people to investigate the standings of the parties. either as the oppressor. in Nahj al Blaqeh. if I am oppressed to help me. 73[73] Nahj al Balaqeh. that is why after the word. but fighting had not then started. And. but not in the first phase. The instructions are addressed to all the Muslims in the whole world. may occur among the Muslim nations in the Islamic countries. then to stabilize the peace.) invites them to get involved. It is natural that by acting according to the first order. Point five: This verse points to the intra-national conflicts that. Seffein. I remind of God those who hear of this letter. shows that under such circumstances. Third.

it does not make any difference whether the two parties are both ordinary Muslims. may feel it their religious duty to fight the other. like the events of Jamal. Both groups. but the other one do not. if the other party do not accept the suggestion. it is understood that from the two parties of Muslims fighting each other. rebel is the one that aggress the other.) in the events of Jamal. or both are Muslim governments. and its aggression becomes clear in the process of negotiating the parties to find out their incentive for fighting.s. and then naturally the war will cease. and will welcome the suggestion for preventing. then naturally. it is obligatory for all the Muslims all over the world. or one party is ordinary and the other of the Muslim government.. then both are rebels and aggressors. meaning that one Islamic state is fighting another. or stopping the war. using wise dialogue and deliberated arguments. One party may start war out of ignorance and false assumptions. war will cease. be overthrown. like the imposed war of Iraq against Iran. “‫فان‬ ‫“ ”بغت احداهما علی الخری‬but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other”. the aggressor is called rebel. meaning that it is obligatory to fight both of them till they repent or are overthrown. after “ ‫ا‬ZZ‫لحوا بینهم‬ZZ‫“ ”فاص‬make ye peace between them”. but the other party may fight out of ignorance and false assumptions. 4. Naturally. or else. and to ask both parties to stop it. like the event of Nahrawan. and it is ‘obligatory for Muslims to fight (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah’ and repent. is pointing to the outcome of the negations process. Now. which began since 1359. It is obvious that the party to the truth. then the other party will be considered rebel and aggressor. to prevent start of war by negotiation and peacemaking efforts. while such dialogue is going on. and intentional aggression.) 3. And. it will be stopped. like Ali (a. or if it is already started. 2. no one may doubt that the fighting forces of both countries were Muslims and are included in the verse. And the letter "‫( "ف‬indicating outcome in Arabic) in the verse. will have no desire to fight the Muslims. and Nahrawan. In the first three cases that both parties are untrue. in all those three cases. Point seven: From this verse. if neither party agree with stopping the war. if the other party also welcome such a suggestion. Siffein. and Siffein 5. it will become clear which party is right and which one is wrong. with awareness and intentionally. but the other party fight for aggression. If they repent.Point six: Logically. . out of ignorance and because of false assumptions. “" ‫ن‬Z‫وان طائفتان م‬ ‫“ المومنین اقتتلوا‬If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight. But. but the other party do it with awareness. as Khawarij did it in the time of Ali (a. and it will be the time to assess fairly and justly the losses inflicted on the parties and make them compensate each other. One party may be the people of truth and rights. it will mean that they are the rebels and aggressors. and will be fought till they repent or are overthrown.. In all these five cases. Both parties may start fighting as aggressors. war will not start. both will be fought by the Muslims till they are overthrown. many cases may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in this verse: 1. One party may be the people of truth and rights.” According to what is understood from this verse. including the governments. if already started.s. If one party repent and agree with ceasing the war. If one may doubt the belief of the Ba’thist ruling group of Iraq. If they do not repent. and do not agree with justly ending the conflict.

Possibly. which led to the battles of Jamal Siffein. in the Jihad Chapter of their jurisprudence books. the reason was that. the Head of the Parliament rejects the suggestion of the Algerian dignitaries. then the Quran has a definite rule for it. they have limited their talk on the subject exclusively to one of the meanings of rebel in this verse. between the two countries to stop the war and establish the peace. having very good relations with Iran. the transgressor should be fought. and the jurisprudents felt it necessary to discuss about it. God instructs Muslims: “ ‫لحوا‬Z‫وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاص‬ ‫“ ”بینهما‬If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight. if one party is transgressing. But.74[74] With such argument.). They had told the Head of the Parliament that in the Holy Koran. make ye peace between them. it is essential that we should give some remarks as critique on the argument of the Head of the Parliament: Go to contents Remark One He has said: “If there is a war in which one party is not transgressing. three such revolts happened in the time of Ali (a. I said if there is a war in which one party is not transgressing. A parenthetical passage: Now that there was the mention of the Iran-Iraq war. But. and most governments had had to tackle such revolts. the distinguished people in the government of Algeria. in the same verse.” We reply him: The conception is that the Algerian dignitaries. Here. because that event relate to the concept in this verse: Not long after the war had started. as Muslims. on the journey of the Head of the Consultative Assembly (Parliament) of Iran to Algeria.” Consequently. Rebellions of the people against the existing governments also happened in other periods. the Muslim should interfere and reconcile. they had felt it a duty to mediate. and Nahrawan. Their standing. the rule is as you state. defining rebel say: “A group of people who rise against the ruling government are called rebels. The Head of the Parliament says: “Replying them. then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. if one party is transgressing. what actually happened often were conflicts caused by the revolts of people against the existing governments. and allocate a section for “Jihad with Rebels”. then the Quran has a definite rule for it and.s. as a third impartial party. pertaining the imposed war of Iraq against Iran. wanted to enter into negotiations with the fighting parties so as to identify the transgressor and manage to have their efforts productive. 74[74] Mashroohe Mozakerate Majlese Shooraye Islami. But the jurisprudents of both Sunni and Shia schools. says: “‫“ ”فان بغت احداهما علی الخری فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرا‬but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other. before starting the peace making negotiations. the rule is as you state.This verse applies to any of the three groups of rebels in general. They get disappointed and the war continues.” Thus. had suggested him that they wanted to act as mediator and negotiate for stopping the war and establishing the peace. it seems appropriate here to talk about an event in 1359. 6 Bahman 1359 . and mediating has no sense. as instructed by God. As an example.

is it possible for any war to start while there is no aggression and both parties have started fighting justly? Never is such a thing possible. However. because each side accused the other side of transgressing. but their false belief does not change the reality that aggression was taking place because Ali (a. there is aggression as well. the verse would mean: “If two parties among the Believers. who wanted to proceed for peace making between Iran and Iraq. it is obvious that no part of the verse indicates that it is talking about a war in which there is no aggressor. and if neither group start fighting. No war can be conceived. the transgressor should be fought. and was in accordance with the Quran. but it is not conceivable to assume neither of them aggressor. Even in the cases where (case 5. .was the standing of an impartial force that presumably did not know who the aggressor was. five cases may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in this verse. It is more than obvious that no one can claim such a meaning for this verse because it would be imposing the improper on the verse of the Quran. translator) the party who fight out of ignorance and false assumptions. We know that aggressor is the group who start the war. then the Quran has a definite rule for it. Therefore. the statement of the Head of the Parliament. like the event of Nahrawan. fall into a fight. and Ali (a. And it is through the peace negotiations process that we may identify the aggressor and fight them if so required. It is true that they thought they were fighting justly. make ye peace between them.).” They reply that before entering into negotiation with both parties. and mediating has no sense. was a very appropriate and philanthropic act.. That the Khawarij started the war is the evidence of their aggression. it was highly probable that justly peace could be established. the Muslim should interfere and reconcile”. and unacceptable.” We say: It is not valid. This verse covers all the five cases. and were not aggressors. there is also an aggression. there will be no aggressor. where the Khawarij believed it was their religious duty to fight Ali (a. because earlier. Thus. It is possible that both parries may be aggressors.s. then no action for peace making is required. neither of whom is transgressor. then. Remark three Basically. is not valid.s. Considering the good relations of Algeria with both parties to the war. if so. which was not started by an aggressor. blocking the road to a justly peace making process. it was not proper to say to them: “As one party is the transgressor. Remark two He has said: “I said if there is a war in which one party is not transgressing. one group is fighting justly. wherever there is a war.) tried very seriously to avoid the war. or both sides are aggressors. but the Khawarij started it. and the other unjustly. but it was a chance that was missed. the suggestions of the political figures of Algeria. (under point six. On the other hand. and naturally no war will take place. the rule is as you state.) could not help but defend. And the response of the Head of the Parliament to the dignitaries of Algeria was unreasonable.) we explained that logically.s. Since the dignitaries wanted to identify the aggressor while negotiating with both parties. “If there is a war in which one party is not transgressing.” This would indicate that if either side. in three of the cases both parties fight unduly and aggressively. in the other two cases. we cannot ascertain who the aggressor is so as to fight them.

they believe that any sin.u. apparently. evade the governance of Imam.h) ) are just. in their books. and for repelling them. while defining “‫“ ”بغاه‬rebels”. in his book. there should be some justification for the rebellious movement of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Siffein.76[76]” 75[75] Moqni. Jurisprudents’ definition of rebels 1. bloodshed. and want to remove him from power. by such definition. the jurisprudents have limited discussions on the “‫اه‬ZZ‫“ ”بغ‬rebels’ exclusively to the case that some ordinary people revolt against the existing government. vol. p. and expulsion of their soldiers from Vietnam. is blasphemy. naturally. what justification can serve this end better than being people of Truth. they revolt against the Imam of the people of justice. a commentary on Kharaqi’s digest. says: “A group of the people of Truth. and they are a group that have centralized power. it became clear that the USA was the aggressor. and ultimately. we said that. Go to contents Now. and in this chapter we will talk about the religious rule with regards to them. they have centralized power. and more specific than the broad meaning understood from the verse.Hanbalis’ definition of rebels Abdullah ibn Qudameh. vol. this is only one of the meanings of ‘rebel’ in this verse.b. and with the justification that any sin is blasphemy. who out of expounding and authorized interpretation. These are called ‘rebels’. the peace negotiating process that. This could be a victory for Iran. could have great help in pointing figures to the aggressor. in the same way that through the negotiations that was going on between Vietnam and the USA in Paris.” Thus. Moqni. they believe that war. 140 . and. it led to the defeat of the USA. and acting out expounding and authorized interpretation? 2. would have been broadcast world over. Ibn Qudameh wants to justify the destructive movement of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Siffein because Ibn Qudameh and his equals say: “All the companions (of the Prophet (p. 7. p. 52 76[76] Badi al Sanaye fi Tartib al Shraye. Already. by its nature. 587 Hijri). says: “ ‘Rebels’ are the revolters. and confiscating the properties are religiously authorized.Hanafis’ definition of rebels Ala’eddin Hanafi (died. we are going back to the main subject. 10. But.Even if the dignitaries of Algeria could not have succeeded in stopping the war and ascertaining the peace. either small or big. under the definition of “‫“ ”بغاه‬rebels”.75[75]” There is some point for the reason why Ibn Qudameh defines the rebels as the people of the Truth. The point is that. mobilization of warriors is required. which originators were among the companions. Ibn Qudameh. (died. with expounding and authorized interpretation. 630 Hijri).

escapes following the Imam of the rights.The reason why Ala’eddin Hanafi defines rebels as the revolters is that by the revolters he means those who revolted against Ali (a. in Shaffi’s jurisprudence also has reference to a group who refused paying Zakat (tax) to the first Caliph. 77[77] Al Tashri al Jina’e al Islammi. or his deputy. and Aoudeh has presented what is common among Hanafis.77[77]” This definition of Aoudeh is different from what Ala’eddin has presented in Hanafis’ jurisprudence. either by revolting against him. defining rebels. says: “‫البغاه المسلمون مخالفوا‬ 79]79 ‫م‬ZZ‫اع فیه‬ZZ‫ل و مط‬ZZ‫م وتاوی‬ZZ‫وکه له‬ZZ‫رط ش‬ZZ‫ق بش‬ZZ‫ع ح‬ZZ‫ه او من‬ZZ‫روج علی‬ZZ‫ام بخ‬ZZ‫“ ”]الم‬Rebels are the Muslims who disagree with the Imam. or not paying what is due to him. defining rebels. and among them there is a leader whom they obey. 2.” Application of ‘not paying what is due to Imam’. p. Abdulqaadir Aoudeh.s. Possibly. or remove him from power. 3. defining rebels. on the condition that they have centralized power. Why do they not interpret it in such a way to introduce the rebels of their own time. It is not clear for us why these jurisprudents think retrospectively. and adding ‘remove him from power’ was to make it harmonious with the revolters who wanted to remove the Third Caliph. so that the people in any period can identify them and know their duty with regards to them? In Hanafis’ jurisprudence. in the definition of ‘rebels’. says: “‫ن‬ZZ‫ه م‬ZZ‫اه فرق‬ZZ‫البغ‬ ‫ه‬ZZ‫ا او لخلع‬ZZ‫ب علیه‬ZZ‫ق وج‬ZZ‫ع ح‬ZZ‫ائبه لمن‬ZZ‫م او ن‬ZZ‫ام العظ‬ZZ‫الفت الم‬ZZ‫لمین خ‬ZZ‫“ ”المس‬Rebels are a group of Muslims who disagree with the Great Imam. with no rights.) in Nahrawan. vol. 4. and the times thereafter till the end of the world. Abdulqaadir Aoudeh.Shafiis’ definition of rebels In Shafii’s jurisprudence. so as not to give him what is due from them. says: “‫آلباغی هوالخارج عن‬ ‫ق‬ZZ‫ر ح‬ZZ‫ق بغی‬ZZ‫ام الح‬ZZ‫اعه ام‬ZZ‫“ ”ط‬Rebel is one who.78[78]” It seems that containing ‘not to give what is due’ in the definition of rebels was for being harmonious with those who refused to pay Zakat (a type of tax) to the First Caliph. and he says it for the acquittal of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Sefein. Abdulqaadir Aoudeh. Ala’eddin has expressed his personal view about the definition of rebels. 673 78[78] The same 79[79] The same .Maalekis’ definition of rebels In Maalekis’ jurisprudence. and interpret this verse in a way as if it were revealed specifically for those groups whose biography is recorded in history. and rely on some interpretation and expounding.

with no modifier. with healthy ear. Among our companions. 11. so as to know the rules. And this fact. in his book. He should be: 1. eye.and he fought them. volume 2 p331 case 14. in brief. And a group of scholars agree with us on rebel being a vilifying noun.) 10. ps. and that by revolting against him one becomes a rebel. there are some who say that a rebel is a pagan. and tongue. and fights him.” And then he continues: “It has been the ongoing manner for the jurisprudents to mention the subject of Imam here so that one could know the Imam whose obedience is obligatory. 3. and Shafii also think so. Male. Muslim. vol. Sheikh Toosi says: “Rebel is one who revolts against the just imam. and volume 3 page 97 case28. Learned. Mature. 9. says: “There is no disaccord among Muslims about jihad with rebels being obligatory. 4. ‘rebel’ is not a vilifying noun. (that in his book. who call rebels crooked. Among them. together with the First Caliph’s war with the evaders of Zakat. legs and other parts of the body …. 3. 4. ‘Rebel’ is a vilifying noun. volume 2 page 223 case 6. Just.81[81]” It should be realized that by just imam. but has made a mistake in his inference.u. and evades paying what is due to him. we would talk about the subject matter..Shiates’ definition of rebels Defining rebels. Herein. Sheikh Toosi means the Infallible Imam. But Juweini has disagreed with it. or use Imam absolutely. 8. other Shia jurisprudents also mean the Infallible Imam. (There is no disaccord regarding these nine qualifications mentioned. and has applied the same rule on both. volume 1 page 281 case 31. Omm. Among them are all the Mu’tazilites. Efficient and a man of concept. and the more outstanding of the two views of Shafiis is this one. Allameh Helli.. 5. and in his book Mabsoot volume 2 page56. and say that some qualifications are the condition for becoming Imam.And this is the first one of the two qualifications mused by Shafiis. Tathkireh. 7. Free (not slave).b. And a group of the companions of Abu Hanifeh. it pertains theology. Shafii has discussed war with rebels.And Shafiis have said: ‘If no one was found in Qureish with all 80[80] Omm Shafii. And Abu Hanifeh has said: ‘Rebels are corrupt within the religion. but it is the name of a person who has tried to infer the rule. vol. Brave. under jihad with rebels. in the same way that jurisprudents do and disagree with each other. and in several instances he has explicitly stated it. 2. because the Prophet (p.h) said: “Imams are from Qureish”. with no defect in such limbs as hands. 6. this is not a subject matter in jurisprudence. p 164 .80[80] Go to contents 5. such as the ones in his book Khelaf volume 3 page 310 case 2.) can be a testimony to this issue.214-216 81[81] Khelaf Sheikh Toosi. from Qureish (tribe).’ And the companions of Shafii have said: ‘In Shafii’s view. But. Wherever in jurisprudence books they talk about the Ruling Imam.

no revolt against them took place. uncovering his body.. 13. it is essential that imam must be infallible because appointment of imam is obligatory due to the fact that there is the possibility of mistake by the ordinary people. and the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion. and is limited to the ruling of the two Infallible Imams. appointment of imam should not be at his choice or at the choice of the general public because it will have the same risk (of mistake. then a man form the family of Ishmael must be assigned. Infallible. when the revolt against them was rebellion. lithographic edition . this is invalid in our view because according to our belief. not to make mistakes. it is obvious that there is the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion. and should be infallible.s. then a person from Bani Kananeh (tribe) must be appointed. with merits exceptional among the human being. according to Shia. naturally. pertaining to the time of the ruling of the Infallible Imam? In the latter case. he will need another imam. Thus. vol. ps 452 & 453. As for the other Imams. because infallibility is of inner characteristics. 1.’ And. if there is not such a wording about the appointment of imam. 14. it is required that there must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler. and mistakes lead to confusion and disorder in the system. 15. then. Therefore. and no one (but God) can be aware of it. otherwise. Thus. Question One Do Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents think that jihad with rebels is a permanent rule. since they were not in power. on the other hand. 12. and consequently.) and Hassan for the period of some five years.) So.82[82]” Go to contents Two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents Here. he views infallibility as the condition required in Imam. Ali (a.” On the other hand. Do Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents accept that the rule in the verse was limited to the short period while the two infallible Imams were ruling. we have two scholarly questions from Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents. there was no rebellion too.) and Imam Hassan for the period of some five years. with good etiquette.. imam should be appointed by God. and that by revolting against him one becomes a rebel. and after that the rule 82[82] Tathkireh Allameh Helli. And.these qualifications required in Imam.(occasioned by infallibility) to avoid mean conducts such as eating in the thoroughfares. Allameh. lasting with the lasting of Islam? Or. The Sunni scholars disagree with all these from number 9 onward. if not found.s. the obligation for knowing the Imam will be compelling people to the impossible. on the one hand says: “We mention the subject of Imam here so that one could know the Imam whose obedience is obligatory. it would be limited to the ruling of Imam Ali (a. or from the one whose being explicitly appointed as imam is proved. from the Prophet.. and this will end in the vicious circle going on indefinitely. necessarily means that jihad with rebels is periodically and seasonally obligatory. do they think that it is some seasonal rule. to become the imam. it is obligatory that imam must be infallible. naturally. more knowledgeable than the people of his time. This. there are exclusively twelve Imams. explicitly appointed by wording from God.

with merits exceptional among the human being.s.b. What do these jurisprudents say regarding the period of occultation. which convey the harshest reprimand from Imam to those treacherous agents.of the verse. and a fallible person 83[83] Amali Sadooq. exceptionally. (according to this verse) the Muslims are obligated. must be infallible. In Nahj al Balaqeh. Another question may be asked here.u.). as we see. with valid narration. he fixes them? If they mean that the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes. but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other.b.u. Imam fixes them. it is not valid because neither Imam. he killed nearly thirty innocent Muslims by mistake.h). its validity date being expired. or that. they should obligate themselves to its meaning.h) was extremely upset from this horrible crime. then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. The story of Khaalid ibn Walid is very well known in history. is futile and vain. nor the Imam could prevent happening of crime. and can serve no purpose. addressed to his agents.b. nor the Prophet can prevent happening of mistakes or crime in the community. then. on the other hand. and mistakes lead to confusion and disorder in the system. there is no need for the ruling Infallible Imam. the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes in the community. a group with weapon revolt against him.h). we can mention letters 41 and 71. He was appointed as missionary by the Prophet (p.’ Question Two Allameh Helli together with his equals say: “It is essential that imam must be infallible because appointment of imam is obligatory due to the fact that there is the possibility of mistake by the ordinary people.” Do they mean that. p 875 . and assign him as the Imam of the nation. necessarily. in the period of occultation too. Among such letters. ‘to make peace between them. in the period of occultation. their agents committed crime and treason. wherever in the world. it is something that fallible imams can do it as well. when there is not a ruling Infallible Imam? Do they say that. Therefore.).”. there must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler. in the lifetime of the Prophet (p. the Prophet (p. And. contain some of their treasons. 19) is indicative of a permanent rule that is needed by man till the end of the world.b. According to the history texts. the reasoning of Allameh Helli. vol 2. and in the government of Ali (a. and doing this duty. and his equals of jurisprudents to prove that the leader and imam of the people. is considered lifeless? Does it fit the scholarly position of these jurisprudents to commit themselves to such an issue? If Allameh Helli and his equals cannot accept that the rule of this verse has become obsolete after some five years. to become the imam. and they could not manage to prevent it. hadith 7. Majlis 32. it is obvious that there is the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion…. the meaning is that. and had to pay blood-money for the murdered. in such instances too. neither the Prophet (p. then. there is established a government like the Islamic Republic of Iran.s. where the people elect its leader freely.u. and it leads to fight.83[83] And. if mistakes happened. And. but say: “The tone of this verse (Hojorat. And Moqazi Waqedi.u. the letters of reprimand from Ali (a. Thus. if they mean that after the happening of mistakes or crime.h) after the conquest of Mecca.

b. are all out of date. Ali (a.”? Of course. they discuss such matters that. and they should try to find a way to exit from it by themselves. the verses on Zakat (tax). and his equals.) and Hassan were ruling. Matters such as initial jihad with the unbelievers. in the view of Helli. according to these groups of jurisprudents who say: “Only the governments of the Prophet (p. and other criminals.u.”? Do these jurisprudents want to say: “All the verses in the Quran. despite their living in the period of occultation. there is no way to exit. execution of which pertains only to the impossibly assumed Imam. accusers of adultery. adulterers. so. While the jurisprudent is of the idea that the . usurers. should be in the manner that we are discussing in the books. and taught on some assumption. adulterers. And.u. they have to forsake this reasoning. when there is no ruling Infallible Imam. by Shia jurisprudents about the government of Truth. say that only the governments of the Prophet (p. This way of thinking. payment of salary to the government employees. Under such assumption. economical. in their own view. and other such issues. on the one hand. are all of them written in the jurisprudence books. penal. administering the legal punishments and retribution on the murderers. this is a dead-end that these jurisprudents have created for themselves with such a reasoning of theirs. and contain important political. and the fallible have no rights to deal with them. and it was limited to the short period while the two infallible Imams. and have no usage in the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam. particularly pertain the rank of the Infallible Imam. the verses on punishing thieves.h). only for making the rules on these subjects clear for the ruling Infallible Imam. were revealed only for the time of the ruling Infallible Imam. only to take up a great portion of the time of the jurisprudential seminaries at huge cost?” Do these jurisprudents want to say: “Let us assume the impossible assumption that in the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam. is the government of Truth. the rules on these various subjects. not ruling during occultation.s. containing the rules on these subjects. do all specially pertain the ruling of Infallible Imam. having treaty with the unbelievers. Go to contents Jurisprudents’ argument on the assumption of the impossible Allameh Helli. and the Infallible Imam. might be one of the reasons why jurisprudence has stayed static. and his equals.”? Do these jurisprudents want to say: “The verses on jihad with the unbelievers and the rebels.h).b.” the answer to such questions is positive. were considered lifeless. and jihad with the rebels. such saying does not fit their reasoning which is absolute and for all the periods. as jurisprudents. and these verses are only to recite for heavenly rewards and being blessed. and the Infallible Imam. we are spending time and budget.also can become a leader and imam? Of course. and so on. However. executive. their validity date being expired. and such other matters that are relevant to the managing of the community. particularly on the issues of governance relating to the running of the community. there is a ruling Infallible Imam. thieves. in their jurisprudence. and his function. warmongers. getting tax from the peoples of book. militarily. collecting Zakat (tax) from Muslims and using it for the purpose specified in the Quran. these jurisprudents are asked: “These subjects make up a major section of discussions in the jurisprudence. and return back to find another way with no dead-end. In fact. and after that the rule of these verses. Now. is the government of Truth. On the other hand.

government of Truth is exclusively the government of the Infallible. it did not happen. Sheikh Toosi also has contained this term in his definition of rebels. Justification of the actions of Perjurers and Aggressors The word ‘‫ل‬ZZ‫‘ ’تاوی‬interpretation’ is contained in the definition made of ‘rebels’ in the jurisprudence of Hanbali and Shafii. the Infallible Imam should be in charge of such issues. military.s. he is not ruling at present. even though their inference is a mistake. and other issues of the community. But it is not true about the companions who fought the battles of Jamal and Siffein because they knew that they were fighting Ali (a.) was an unbeliever. Thus. because with its present status. economical. unfortunately. they noticed that if the revolt of the companions in the battles of Jamal and Siffein is considered as sin and crime. this do not damage the justness. to become dynamic. And thus. and says: “The third condition for ‘rebels’ is that they break up from the imam on the basis of their own authorized interpretation. the jurisprudent will be incited to think about the entire issues concerning the community. By this new way of thinking. Sunni scholars have obligated themselves to think on the basis of the baseless principle that reads: “‫”الصحابه کلهم عدول‬ “The companions (of the Prophet) all are just. will be analyzed and scrutinized by the jurisprudent with the greatest care to find the solution for all the ongoing questions. and. they have added this term. the actions of the rebels is not sin and transgress. there should have been immensely great progressive changes in the jurisprudence. and running the community so as to try to infer new verdicts suitable for the ongoing issue in administering the community. (interpretation) in the definition of rebels to justify the actions of the companions against Ali. And. the jurisprudence will leave the static mode behind. it cannot solve the ongoing needs of the society. will naturally believe that all the affairs of the community should be administered by this imam. harmoniously with the advancement in the ways of life. and they thought it their religious duty to fight Ali. But contrary to the expectation. Looking at the issues of the government and community from this point of view.) unduly and unjustly. Had such evolutionary movements started from the time of Sheikh Toosi. and oppose him. Sunni scholars have made this statement to safeguard the validity of this baseless principle. such companions would not fit in this baseless principle. all the political. then. and have revolted by the rule so inferred. and the jurisprudence has stayed static as it was then. and. and will try to find new answers appropriate for the new questions in any period. In his view. then. and considered fighting him the religious obligatory duty. it is natural that such a jurisprudent will have no motive to think about the issues concerning government. in the time of occultation too. and say that their actions were based on interpretation. But. Since inference from interpretations is a religiously accepted proof. moving forward to keep itself abreast with any progress in the community. which is impossible in the time of occultation. and their revolt is rebellion. And the meaning of interpretation is that the rebellious group have made interpretations and inferences. the jurisprudent will take steps forward to issue advanced verdicts for solving any new questions.” And. such a jurisprudent. if they break up without such .s. badly needing a very serious revision. a capable person is elected by the free vote from the people to become a leader and Imam. during this time of almost ten centuries. Therefore. But if the jurisprudent believes that if. This justification is valid about the Khawarij because they believed Ali (a. his government also is the government of Truth.

They should be centrally organized group. even do not condition it with the justice in the imam. and Nahrawan. 3. Moqni. the most outstanding examples of it.They should have broken out from the dominance of the government. it is stated that after the transgressor is discerned. Since Sunni jurisprudence was dominant in the seminaries. This is more specific because Sunnis do not condition infallibility in the imam for occurrence of rebellion. and discuss the subject. they will be considered bandits.” Of course none of these conditions is mentioned in the verse on rebels. Then. This is a more specific meaning than what is meant in the Quran. in many cases.. prevention of which would be impossible unless military force is used. says: 84[84] Mabsoot Sheikh Toosi.interpretation.They should be people of interpretation. the Shia jurisprudents make it even more specific than what is meant by Sunnis. conditioning ‘rebels’ by interpretation. Using their terminology. How can it be justified? We know of no justification for it.. Only the transgression of a group is expressed. those jurisprudents. battles of Jamal. which refers to the fight between groups of Muslims. immediately strike one’s mind. the jurisprudents have made up their own terminology. p 265 . the rule in the verse is general.b. vol. “The jurisprudence of Shia is the annotations to Sunni jurisprudence.h) ) are just. 2. some of the Sunnis. Therefore. then.b. had to find a way for justification. with no reference to any particular event. However. But. they say that rebel is a group who revolt against the Infallible Imam. where Sheikh toosi has chased the Sunnis in writing his jurisprudence. it should be mentioned that (in those days) there had been cultural exchanges between Sunni and Shia jurisprudents.u. who think that all the companions (of the Prophet (p.. Shia jurisprudence was written in coordination with Sunni jurisprudence. in his book. at the same time. However.h) ) were just people. not to damage the justice of the companions who took part in those three battles. they have mentioned the three conditions for ‘rebels’. and the rule for warmongers will apply to them. on this subject he has become equal of the Sunni jurisprudents. Go to contents Disagreement on the condition for occurrence of rebellion Sunni and Shia jurisprudents call ‘rebel’ a group that revolt against the government. They needed the way so as to make the meaning of the verse correspond these three events. But.u.”84[84] We know that Sheikh Toosi does not entertain the view that all the companions (of the Prophet (p. there was some reason for making up this terminology. and there is no need for him to purify from sin and crime the companions waging the battles of Jamal and Siffein. There is a very commonly known statement by the late Ayatollah Boroojerdi. 7. And. Ibn Qudameh Hanbali. and then. Siffein. they should be fought until they comply with the command of Allah. Perhaps. this is an example of such instances. He said. and. Shia jurisprudence was affected by Sunni jurisprudence.” Sunni jurisprudents have defined rebels by jurisprudential terminology and have said: “There should be three conditions for being ‘rebels’: 1. Talking about the verse.

he is a martyr. Now. then rebellion will occur. promised allegiance to him. the truth was for him. p. and says: “The Imam who suppresses a rebel must be a just person.86[86]” What a big difference between the views of Shia. in the narratives.u. ruled over the territories.’ 85[85]” Qaazi Abubakr ibn Arabi also entertains a view similar to that of Ibn Qudameh. think it is rebellion to revolt against Abdulmalik ibn Marwan. the moderate way is that armed revolt against a just imam is rebellion. regarding which the rule of the verse will govern: ‘. and it is not correct. smite his neck whoever he may be. and says: “The revolt of Imam Hussein against Yazid was rebellion. there must be the Infallible Imam. killed him. whoever. 10. As Ibn Khaldun also says. and Hussein acted on interpretation.’ 85[85] Moqni Ibn Qudameh. what is required for running jihad is the justice in the leadership of the war so that jihad should be performed considering justice and fairness. Shia jurisprudents say that for the rebellion to become true.“If a person revolts against an imam. deserving heavenly rewards. and subdued their people until the people.) And those who say that it is rebellion to revolt against Abdulmalik ibn Marwan. and defeats him. For example. not against a corrupt one. and Yazid.h) said: ‘If a person revolts against my nation while it is united. and destruction in their property. suppresses people to accept obedience to him. (As was explained. they should not have fought with Imam Hussein by his instructions. and Yazid! This is a vivid example of going to the extremes. Thus. And. and with the force of sword. with ‘Infallible’ Imam. revolt against a just imam is rebellion. and not to act like the cruel rulers without considering any justice and fairness. are thinking excessively on the justice side. And. its leader must be just. towards both the parties involved in fighting. revolt against him was prohibited because revolting against him would lead to rift among Muslims.. we said that the Shia jurisprudents tend to match ‘just’ imam. in the whole phases of war. are thinking excessively on the injustice side. willingly or unwillingly. Those who say that for the rebellion to become true. and according to Islam. and Qaazi ibn Arabi. Revolting against him. on the other side. and fighting with him will be prohibited. he became the Imam. such a person becomes the Imam. there must be the Infallible Imam. would revolt against him. and there is no evidence for such a view. vol. would cause shedding their blood. if there is an armed revolt against such a leader. 53 86[86] Moqaddemeh ibn Khaldun. So. and it is not acceptable from either side. the rebel must be suppressed. Earlier. Hussein was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion. therefore. so.b. he would be one of those about whom the Prophet (p. Ibn Qudameh. While.” But Ibn Khaldun has rejected Qazi’s view. and the two Sunni scholars! On one side. so. and Yazid was a corrupt one. The reason for this is that Abdulmalik ibn Marwan revolted against Abdullah ibn Zubeir.then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. p 217 . according to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

677 . the verdict of the jurisprudents is that. Then. is it rational to bear some definite loss with the hope of some probable result? Some points must be noticed here. Under such circumstances. the nation will bear losses that will be equal to. corrupt imam. normally. so as to act in a manner that will entail the least loss and the highest gain. Thus.87[87]” On this subject. destroy moral values. victory. there will be no hope of victory for the people. enjoys the higher value. if his removal would cause turmoil. the ‘forbidding’ should not cause persecutions to happen. continuously during his reign. vol. there is a cruel. or non-revolting against the corrupt ruler. ‘the more important’ always. enjoys priority over ‘the important’. and ‘enjoining the right’ because revolting against the government. in case there is the hope of victory.” According to this principle. higher than the losses that would occur if a revolt had taken place. and the community will continue to tremble in the grip of the cruel ruler. Although. at the same time. and physical losses. He will kill the innocent people. not to remove him. the preferred view among the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. what will be gained would be far more precious than what was lost. he will continue his cruelty. plunder the public coffer. prohibit revolting against the cruel ruler. the cause for hesitation is that what will be lost is definite. p. security to vanish. who. consequently inviting people to tolerate the cruelty of the wicked ruler! Is this the correct way? And does Islam approve it? 87[87] Al Tashri al Jina’e al Islammi. it is the common rule that the nation enjoys the rights to revolt against the corrupt imam because of his corruption. is only likely. is that the ‘forbidding’ should not be the cause for the happening of the wickedness that is greater than the one to-be-forbidden. bloods to be shed.. and corrupt ruler governing. fearing the occurrence of wickedness. confiscate their wealth. The revolt is not permitted even for ‘forbidding the wrong’. If victory were attained. Now. Thus. Is it rational for the community to bear definite material and spiritual losses continuously. For example. and in the jurisprudence of Zeidiyeh Shia. we should make an analysis to see if revolting.Is rebellion against an unjust imam permitted? Abdulqaadir Aoudeh says: “Even though. regions to go to commotion. Point one: Now. for fear that some losses occur due to the revolt against the injustice? Of course not. economical. it has more value. the system to be in disorder. 2. causes happening of wickedness that is far worse than what is committed by the ruler. will continuously suffer moral. i. But. The comparison should be made between what will be gained and what will be lost. people to be misguided. what will be gained.e. in comparison. etc. if no revolt takes place against the ruler. and. If no revolt takes place against him. justice is requisite for becoming an imam. or more probably. ‘forbidding the wrong’ is not permitted in this case. corruptions to spread. while. one of the conditions for ‘forbidding the wrong’ to become obligatory. is that no revolt is permitted against the unjust. the jurisprudents of the four Sunni schools should pay attention to the rational principle of “Priority of ‘the more Important’ over ‘the Important’. Sunni jurisprudents.

The revolt is not permitted even for ‘forbidding the wrong’. they will be mentioned with honor and good name. Here. And. and deprive them of all the human rights.Point two: The groups. there is no doubt that the importance and sanctity of this concept does not match the importance and sanctity of revolt that has those four advantages. because the main objective in such revolt is to free Islam from the captivity of the corrupt. who revolt against the corrupt ruler. the fighting Believer is carrying on. And. However. By the way. But if they fail. waiting for either of the two virtues to happen: victory in this world. dominate the fate of people. had been impressed by the tyrannical atmosphere of the time. So. Point three: A believer human being entertains the belief that whatever he loses in his devoted revolt against the unjust ruler. and of the school of Zeidieyah Shia. Therefore. This movement of theirs. and ‘enjoining the right’. and continue it. they did perform their moral and social duty for defending the oppressed. Point four: The revolting groups.no revolt is permitted against the unjust.. unduly. in this world too. Go to contents 88[88] 84 ‫شعرا‬ . or grace of martyrdom in the other one. in itself. the Believer group of the rebels will be inflicted with no irreparable losses. one may ask if it is possible that the jurisprudents of the four Sunni schools. it is praiseworthy and religious as well. the jurisprudents forbid revolt. opening good space for themselves in the hearts of the people. And it is here that the rational principle of “Priority of ‘the more Important’ over ‘the Important’ will govern. and were driven to say: “. making the people his captives. This is a very precious moral value that the Quran refers to it as “goodly mention”. and its objective is higher than the value of non-revolt and its objective. and the will of the cruel rulers. start their rebellion against the unjust ruler. in no case are they losers. not aggressors. the groups. They want to regain what was unduly taken from them.” Such possibility cannot be negated. and creating tyranny and denying freedom. which Abraham. they will feel exalted in their conscience and in the conscience of the community. and. What they lose. and the Sunni jurisprudents should observe this golden principle so as not think vice versa. and. Let us suppose that this concept is also correct and it is important and enjoys sanctity. Thus. who revolt against a corrupt ruler. and have performed their religious duty as well. they have achieved their goal for eradicating injustice and corruption. we can say: “The objective of revolt is more important than the objective of no-revolt. with favorable conditions. Thus. hoping victory. it is the cruel ruler who transgress the rights of the nation by his all out attack on the material and spiritual values of the community. Now. this is the natural rights of any human being. the value of revolt. want to defend the rights of the community. fearing the occurrence of wickedness more than what is committed by the corrupt ruler.” It is specifically so.” These four positive aspects will be enjoyed in case of revolt against the cruel ruler. the Patriarch has asked God for it: “ 88[88]‫“ ” واجعل لی لسان صدق فی الخرین‬And ordain for me a goodly mention among posterity. Thus. He sheds the blood of the innocent people. not otherwise. they will get the heavenly reward for it from God. corrupt imam. Now. as well as theirs. enjoys sanctity because it is started with the objective of eradicating injustice and corruption. in fact. are defenders. if they are victors. God will give him the reward for it.

contradicts the so-called ‘preferred view’ of these jurisprudents.” 89[89] Tarikh Tabari. embezzled the public funds. for preventing and repelling the aggression and cruelty of such ruler.u.). and injustice. Imam Hussein has explained the reason for his revolt: as it was obligatory to act according to what the Prophet (p. have authorized the-God-forbidden. unjustly.u. otherwise. and his blood was.u. what means do they suggest using to eradicate his system of cruelty and injustice? If the people revolt against him and ask an eligible person like Imam Hussein (a. to lead the revolt. he had moved to change the unjustly state.h) saying: ‘If any person notices that a cruel ruler is aggressing the boundaries of God. verily I heard the Prophet (p.’ “O people be aware that these agents of the government have made plans to follow Satan. narrated by Imam Hussein (a.h). the jurisprudents of the four Sunni school and Zeidiyeh Shia. had saved Islam and Muslims from the aggression and evil of Yazid. and say: “He was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion. This narrative. since he was not victorious militarily. freedom and justice to the people. God is obligated to assign him to the same place with the cruel ruler. overtly. and I am the most suitable person to change the unjustly state…89[89]” Here. instead of the tyranny.h). and according to Islam. suspended the rules of God.(Imam Hussein) a rebel whose suppression is obligatory and according to Islam? If Imam Hussein were a victor.” Then. the person must proceed through words and action to make such a ruler change his manner.h) against the views of the Jurisprudents There is a narrative from the Prophet (p. directly. say: “Imam Hussein was a rebel and deserved suppression”? But. Imam Hussein says: “O people. say: “the ‘preferred view’ is that do not revolt against the cruel ruler. such people want to make up some justification for the cruel act of the government. and behaving towards the God-obedient unjustly and criminally. shed with the sword of injustice.b.u. in such case too. p.h) said. is he a rebel that must be suppressed according to the Islamic rule? And. Hussein was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.u. is the nature of such revolt rebellion and aggression that must be suppressed by the force of weaponry? As we know. acting against the conduct of the Prophet (p. what does Qaazi Abubakr ibn Arabi think when he says: “The revolt of Imam Hussein against Yazid was rebellion. Now.b. have become corrupt.s. then. could people. events of year 60 .). the rebel must be suppressed. and its leader. and he so does. 4. they have neglected obedience to God. vol. therefore. In such a case.” Suppose it is impossible to have the unjust. corrupt ruler back in the right track by admonishing and guidance. one can consider such movement rebellion and aggression. 304. Addressing Horr ibn Yazid and his soldiers.b. and makes it obligatory to revolt against the cruel ruler. Is such a move for rectification called aggression and rebellion? And the person who does it.s. since rebels are aggressors. himself also oppressed. such as Qaazi ibn Arabi. God has instructed to fight them until they comply with the command of Allah and repent. had established an Islamic government to provide democracy.b.Narrative from the Prophet (p. violating obligations to God.b. have forbidden the-God-authorized. on the basis of which criteria.

considering the absolute meaning of the verse: “‫“ ”ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا فلیسرف فی القتل‬And whoever is slain unjustly. Are the rebels liable.s. and nothing else. Therefore. We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation. give some scores to the aggressor? On this subject. and the heir to the murdered can make the claim. and neither proves it. the lives and wealth of the rebelled destroyed by the rebels. I said that the rebels are not liable for the lives. before and after the war. Reason two is that Ali (a. or forgive) but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life. therefore. nor disproves it.) deprived the heirs to the martyrs of Jamal and Siffein of the rights for making claim for the blood.” Imam Shafii then continues: “Somebody asked me: ‘As for the lives and wealth perished from the other side. is aggression. Besides. This means that if a person from the rebels group kills a person from the rebelled. it does not mean that there is no liability. The main theme in this verse is ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah’. Reason one is that there are no words of liability in the verse on rebels. We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation. or perished some wealth by interpretation. the killer will be liable for his blood. On the other hand.) fought the rebels who were people of interpretation. for two reasons. for which Ali authorized Ibn Muljam be killed in retaliation. To prove or disprove liability. but has not mentioned retaliation between the two sides. he is helped (by the law)”. Therefore. there is no evidence that Ali (a. Based on this verse.” It should be understood that if liability is not mentioned in this verse. And. or forgive) but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life. Thus. He says: “The verse has not mentioned retaliation between the two sides. p. this verse intends talking about only the ‘aggression’ of the rebels. should be put on the rebels. or not. in its nature. It is severe injustice to prevent the oppressed from making claim while they have lost the lives and wealth. I put the liability on the murderer. it is required that liability for the blood. shed by the rebels from the rebelled (oppressed) side. then you put the liability on him?’ I told him: ‘I see that God says: “‫“ ”ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا فلیسرف فی القتل‬And whoever is slain unjustly. and did not hold them liable for the lives and wealth.90[90]” But this reasoning of Shafii is not valid. Ibn Muljam’s murdering Ali is an example. Sheikh Toosi says: 90[90] Omm Shafii. I said that the rebels are not liable for the lives. for. is it wise to say that the aggression does not create liability. vol. create liability. but if some one killed some one. In other words. some other evidence should be used.s. it is silent about rebels being liable or unliable. he is helped (by the law)”. And. undoubtedly.216 . for. 4. for the lives and wealth perished by them from the other side? Imam Shafii says: “The rebels are not liable. therefore. and thus. the fight of the rebels against the rebelled (oppressed). God has mentioned fighting the rebels in the verse about rebels. why do you not put the liability on the rebels. the retaliation that is mentioned in the Quran applies if the murder is not done by an organized group of the people of interpretation. And.Are the rebels liable for the perished wealth and lives? There is one legal question that must be answered here.

But. liability for them is obligatory. As they are instructed to fight. people of justice. there is consensus on it. there are two groups of Muslims. and says: “The wealth and lives of ours destroyed by the rebels during the war should be compensated. 3. killed our people. by the consensus. he told them: ‘You must pay the blood money for our dead. before or after the war. unduly. Ahmad ibn Hanbal. with no rights. they do not become liable for any thing that happens due to the war.” ‘Making peace with justice’ naturally should have some process. therefore. destroyed by the rebels from the rebelled while the fight is going on. It should be said that the liability for the lives and wealth. if the people of injustice destroy the wealth or lives of the people of justice while fight is going on. and people of injustice. Allame Helli also says: “While fighting. they are liable for it because they have destroyed it unduly. As for the wealth of the people of injustice. It means that if some body were killed. but we do not pay it for your dead’. if the rebelled destroy any wealth or lives from the rebels group. the perished are legitimate wealth and lives that were unduly. vol. and with no necessity. p 164 92[92] Tathkireh Allameh Helli. with no disaccord (among jurisprudents). destroyed by the people of justice. Besides. if the people of injustice destroy the wealth of the people of justice.. his murderer should be killed. But. but. As the aggressive rebels. waged the war on us. 40). destroyed by the oppressor. they are not liable.“ ”فان فائت فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا‬but if it complies then. and Shafii have said: ‘The people of injustice are not liable for the lives and wealth destroyed from the people of justice while the fight is going on. if the people of justice destroy any wealth from the rebel. justice must prevail in this case. they are liable. after the repentance of people with whom Abu Bakr fought. Our evidence is the verse which says: “ ‫“ ”وجزاء سیئه سیئه مثلها‬The recompense to any injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) (Shoora. Because. they are not liable. Abu Hanifeh. the owner must be compensated. There is some indication to this effect in the verse itself as well. and destroyed our wealth. 1. they are liable.91[91]” In this regard. The verse says: “‫. And. make peace between them with justice and be fair.) that he did not hold liable any of the companions in the battles of Jamal and Siffein for what was destroyed by them.” It is obvious that prevailing of justice requires to compensate the oppressed for what is. or pay the blood money. Besides. destroyed. the oppressed puts forth the claim.92[92]” What Sheikh Toosi. After the war is over. in our view. like the lives and wealth destroyed without war. Thus. p 455. is rested with the rebels. 91[91] Khelaf Sheikh Toosi. they are liable. It is not right that they be treated equally on having no liability. before or after the war.’ because it is attributed to Ali (a. and Allameh Helli have said is valid. vol. lithographic edition .“While fighting. if some wealth were destroyed.s. if the rebels group destroy any wealth or lives from the rebelled.

” If Imam Shafii had shown any specific case. For two reasons: First: ‘Not having heard’ does not prove ‘nonexistence.’ Liability might have been put on the rebels group. then continues: “In our view. Despite the fact he has issued verdict for the unliability of the rebels group.” then it could be some jurisprudential evidence that the liability is null. we have not heard of any person to kill another person for retaliation. In that wickedness. make the judgment between them justly. or take compensation for wealth from any one.h). Shafii quotes Zohari having said: “The first wickedness caught the companions of the Prophet (p. bloods were shed.b.u. and I want to make claim.” Perhaps this saying was settled in Shafii’s mind.). and said: “This person wanted to retaliate for his father killed by such a person from the rebels group in the battle. that the murdered was killed unjustly. And.s. or take compensation for wealth from any one. it should be paid to him. though he does not reject this meaning. he has said something with this meaning: “It is probable that there is some point in God’s words: ‘‫’فان فائت فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا‬ ‘but if it complies then. What was preferable in ‘unliability’ that caused Shafii to issue such verdict? It has been said: “In the battles between the companions of the Prophet (p. vol. immediately. It is not clear for us why Shafii has issued verdict otherwise. and pay what is due to them. We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation. But. it is only lack of information about putting liability on the rebel. and the rule was applied on them. and lots of wealth destroyed. injuries inflicted. judgment by justice means that what is due from some one to the other.” covers this case. And. or another companion stopped him.s. But Ali. p. and said that liability for the perished lives and wealth is null. but it may not have been narrated for us. 4. and lots of wealth were destroyed. Merely saying that: “We have not heard of any person to kill another person for retaliation. bloods were shed for some of which the murderer and the murdered were identified.h). my father was killed in the hands of such a person from the rebels group. the liability for the lives. the rebels group should be held liable for the lives and wealth perished from the rebelled in the war. that the verse “‫“ ” ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا‬And whoever is slain unjustly. We tell Imam Shafii suppose one of the heirs to the martyrs of the battle of Siffein or Jamal had come to Ali (a.” is not sufficient to prove his claim. and said: “In the battle.u. when fighting was over. in such case. But. and wealth was not put on those who revolted on the basis of interpretation.Imam Shafii also has noticed this point. Second: Unliability is a jurisprudential verdict. the issue is like what Zohari has said. What Shafii has mentioned is not a jurisprudential evidence.” Shafii. and he issued his verdict on that basis.” Should Ali (a. In that same page of Omm. There is some proof for this possibility. no liability was put on any of the rebels.214 . make peace between them with justice and be fair. lack of information does not prove lack of liability. And.) have deprived him of making claim to get his due? There is no doubt that the murderer was an unjust rebel. jurisprudential evidence is required. There. injuries. or forgive.’ The point is that if they have done something that requires judgment.93[93]” What Shafii refers to it as ‘probable’ is the explicit meaning of the verse. For issuing jurisprudential verdict.b. 93[93] Omm Shafii.

94[94]” In connection with Sheikh Toosi’s words.. if what they respond is true. vol. your avoiding to start the war is another proof against them. the agent should comply with it.بینهم‬If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight. there will be no remedy but fighting. does Shafii think that Ali (a. first.s. then. he wants to say that negotiating for peace before starting the war is recommended. Ali (a. if they do not return. But. Since the initiators are recognized as the aggressor and warmonger. the goal is achieved. God has ordered for peace.) could have prevented the heir to the murdered from claiming his due? Never can one obligate himself to such a subject. If there has been misunderstanding. After the realities were explained for them. In Islam. in the verse on rebels. fighting them is not permitted unless the Imam send his agent for dialogue with them. p 265 95[95] Nahj al Balaqeh. it can be done by the parties to the war also. So. In the battle of Siffein. Point one: Having dialogue with the rebels before proceeding to fight them is on the basis of the general policy of Islam on the subject of war and peace. peace is considered a fundamental principle. Then. Thanks God you have the convincing proof. And.’فقاتلوا التی تبغی‬include the parties to the war as well? Or. Go to contents Necessity of dialogue with the rebels before war Sheikh Toosi says: “In any event that a revolting group is judged as rebels.) told his companions: “‫لتقاتلوهم‬ 95]95 ‫“ ”]حتی یبداوکم فانکم بحمدا علی حجه وترککم ایاهم حتی یبداوکم حجه اخری لکم علیهم‬Do not.. that is the reason why we say fighting the rebels is not permitted unless the Imam send his agent for dialogue with them. The reason why we say that it is obligatory to have the dialogue before fighting is that. if the dialogue and discussions proved useless for solving the problem. and then has ordered for fight: “‫وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاصلحوا‬ ‫ا‬ZZ‫ ”. some political solutions must be sought so that fighting is avoided as far as possible. In this dialogue. God has ordered for peace. it is obligatory that. before the start of the war. make ye peace between them. but war only a state of emergency. before starting any militarily action. the criterion (trying 94[94] [94] Mabsoot Sheikh Toosi. they must do it. we should mention some points.” Now.s. and then has ordered for fight. it should be clarified.’بینهما‬and ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses’ ‘‫ . And. it is required that the people of the right do not initiate the war until the people of the wrong start it. you. the people of the right should not do something to be condemned for it by the general public. letter 12 . the question is: on what aspect does Sheikh Toosi reason this view? Does Sheikh Toosi mean that the two orders ‘Make ye peace between them’ ‘‫لحوا‬ZZ‫فاص‬ ‫ . 7.. in this phase too. In fact. . start the war until they start it. if they return. first.Despite all these. And.” Point two: Sheikh Toosi says: “In the verse on rebels. the agent of the Imam tells them: “What has been the cause for your discontent?” Then. Therefore. then fight them. and everybody condemns them.

it means that fighting the rebels is obligatory because there exists the state of transgression. if one side does not submit to the justly peace. to make peace. does not change the reality. then. Thus. the group wants to suppress and eradicate the nation by its aggression and injustice. then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. and repel the evil of the unjust by defending against them. and transgression. they thought it the heavenly duty to fight. “‫“ ”کلما حکم به العقل حکم به الشرع‬Whatever is the rule of the wisdom. And. And. Now.to prevent war) for ordering to make peace exists with the parties involved as well. The verse says: “‫فان بغت احداهما علی الخری‬ ‫“ ”فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرا‬but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other. the wisdom has necessitated negotiation for peace by the parties as well. In our case. Therefore.).’فاصلحوا بینهما‬and ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses’ ‘‫. Suppose. the main source of the evil is the transgression of the rebels. like Khawrij. are suppressed and wiped out. it is the rule of the religion” is governing here. who think it their duty to fight the Imam of the nation.” The duty of fighting the rebels is attached to and connected with the state of transgression. a nation that has elected its leader. Thus. the two instructions in the verse. and would like to live under his leadership. chaos will be over. Then. based on the existence of the criterion. to say that the group fight. to fight the aggressing group. Thus. why should they deserve suppression and eradication? To answer this question. Point three: What rational or legal principle confirms the legitimacy of fighting the rebels and eradicating them? Sometimes. attaching a rule to any state or condition does indicate that the state or condition is the cause for ordaining the rule. this principle. then. But in their own idea. Therefore. the addressees must fight the rebels group. they made a mistake in their interpretation. the injustice and transgression of groups like Khawarij. is not injustice towards the Imam only. the rebels are people of interpretation and inference. ‘Make ye peace between them’ ‘‫ . but towards the whole Islamic nation. against a nation. It is assumed that if the rebels refrain from transgression and injustice. Thus. The addressees in the verse on rebels are those groups of Believers who are witnessing the conflict between two groups of Muslims. and peace and order will take place.s. Go to contents . the natural wisdom of any human being also would rule that any individual or group that is aggressed has the rights and the duty to resist aggression and injustice. some ignorant group. One may ask: “Is it fair to leave free such a group that is the root of evil and chaos to drive the community to disorder. if in this defensive war. what is done by them is injustice and transgression. the rebels group is encountering a unified nation that has chosen its way by electing its leader. and wants to rebel and aggress against the other side. Thus. It seems that the second aspect is meant by Sheikh Toosi. the instruction to fight the rebels is firmly rooted in a rational and legal principle. the addresses in this verse do not include the two fighting groups.’فقاتلوا التی تبغی‬ are intended for those who are beyond the battlefield. and trample the rights of a nation? The natural wisdom of any human being would rule that aggression must be repelled. The addressees should first act to make peace between them. and are themselves liable for their own action. they will be the victims of their own double ignorance. the other. and have two obligatory duties regarding the two fighting groups: one. that. we should notice that the verse itself is pointing to a rational and legal principle that requires suppression of the rebels. Now. based on their interpretation and belief. and. who considered it their religious duty to fight Ali (a.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful