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
 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.u.h)
Were the people of Taiif massacred?
None of the unbelievers were killed with
ballista
Incumbency of initiating war: once a year
 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, 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.Hanbalis’ definition of rebels
2.Hanafis’ definition of rebels
3.Maalekis’ definition of rebels
 4.Shafiis’ definition of rebels
5.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.b.u.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
 From the text of the book

“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 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”.
From: foreword, by the author

“Based on this verdict in the books of

jurisprudence, and the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs that
are regarded as Islamic, westerners have got some very
effective propaganda vehicle, and use it to crush Muslims
whenever the occasions prove appropriate. The westerners
say: “Initial war in Islam against peace-seeking people
have been prescribed as well as practiced.”
And, in this arena, it is Islam that is being
oppressed and aggressed; and is being crushed pitilessly
between the hammer of the brutal wars of the cruel
Caliphs and the anvil of the jurisprudents; and is crying
loud for help to save it from such strikes.
And, 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, 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, but say: “The tone of this verse (Hojorat, 19) is
indicative of a permanent rule that is needed by man till
the end of the world”, then, they should obligate
themselves to its meaning. And, the meaning is that, in the
period of occultation too, wherever in the world, there is
established a government like the Islamic Republic of
Iran, where the people elect its leader freely, and assign
him as the Imam of the nation, then, a group with weapons
revolt against him, and it leads to fight, in such instances
too, (according to this verse) the Muslims are obligated,
‘to make peace between them; but if one of them
transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then, fight
against the one that transgresses until it complies with the
command of Allah.’
From: two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents

Go to contents
 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. As
expressed in the foreword, the author has been in the war
front fought between Iran and Iraq subsequent to the
Islamic revolution, witnessing the calamities of war.
Saddened by the heartbreaking scenes of the
casualties, the author, himself one of the high-ranking
Ayatollahs, after returning from the front, decides on
analytically teaching the subject of Jihad in Islam in the
seminary of Qom to the senior clergies. 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.
Considering the backdrop in the writing of the
book, 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. From this
groups’ point of view, jihad is suspended in the
absence of the Infallible Imam.
Some of the jurisprudents are of the idea
that military attack on non-Muslims is permitted so
as to impose the religion on them.
Some others view initial jihad obligatory at
least once a year.
Some say that if the number of enemy force
is two times of that of the Muslims force, then
fighting them is obligatory but not so, if their
number is more than twice.

As for those captured before the end of the war,

some jurisprudents are of the idea that they
must be killed.

In this book, 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.
On the contrary, good behavior and friendly
encounter is recommended and encouraged by this
religion. Jihad has been indoctrinated only for
defending against the attacks of striking enemies
not for imposing the religion on non-Muslims.
The author is also of the idea that jihad is
not conditioned by the permission or instructions
from the Infallible Imam, and there is no periodical
obligation on Muslims for jihad.
But whenever enemy attacks, jihad is
obligatory, and the obligation is not conditioned by
the number of the enemy force. Jihad is not
suspended in the absence of the Infallible Imam.
And mass killing of those captured prior to the end
of the war is not authorized.”

We pray God for the success in translating

this precious and profound book.
The Indebted, 22/4/2004

Go to contents
 ‫بسم ا الرحمن الرحیم‬

Foreword by the author

While the imposed war of Iraq against Iran was

going on, I went to the battlefront. Witnessing the horrible
scenes of removing the martyrs and wounded to the back
front, I tasted with all my heart and soul, the bitterness and
heartbreaking pain of the war. It was there that my mind
was sparked with the inevitability of having a deep
research on the subject of jihad, basing the research on the
Quran, Hadith (narrations from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and
his companions), and the books of Islamic jurisprudence
so as to discern the reality of jihad.
When I returned to Qom, I decided on analytically
teaching the subject of Jihad in Islam in the seminary of
Qom to the senior clergies. (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.) The decision
was announced and lecturing began in the Imam Mosque,
and was much appreciated by the audience. Altogether,
seventy-three lectures were given analytically (in the
manner of Darse Kharij) on the subject of jihad.
While conducting these lectures, I concluded that
jihad, as referred to in the Quran and practiced by the
Prophet (p.b.u.h), is 180 degrees on the opposite direction
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: ” ‫م‬--‫تزلوکم فل‬--‫ان اع‬--‫ف‬
‫بیل‬--‫م س‬--‫…یقاتلوکم والقوا الیکم السلم فما جعل ا لکم علیه‬Therefore
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, it was not the manner of the
Prophet (p.b.u.h).

Case six:
It is said that initiating war against the unbelievers
is obligatory once a year. This is not true, and never has
any periodical war been obligatory. But, whenever the
unbelievers initiate the war, defending becomes
obligatory.

Case seven:
It is written that at first it was obligatory for one
Muslim to resist ten unbelievers, but later this was
abolished and resisting one against two became obligatory,
meaning that if the number of a large enemy force is even
by one person more than twice the Muslims force, then, no
defense is obligatory. As will be explained more, this is
not valid, and it is obligatory to defend against the
aggression of the enemy whether their number is twice,
less, or more than that of the Muslims.

Case eight:
Shia jurisprudents have written that “‫“ ”بغات‬rebels”
are those who revolt against the Infallible Imam, and
fighting them is conditioned by the Imam’s instructions.
Accordingly, there will be no rebels conceivable in the
time of occultation. This is not correct. There are rebels in
the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam, and war of
defense against them is obligatory without being
conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.

Case nine:
 Shia jurisprudents have written that those captured
before the end of the war must be massacred, and
judgment over them differs from the judgment over those
captured after the end of the war. As will be explained in
the text, this is not valid, and injunction over those
captured before the end of the war is not mass-murder, and
both groups are treated alike.

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. The
readers are hoped to study the issue again more deeply.
After that, if ultimately they could not accept it, they are
requested to inform the author of their view and critique,
which will be another step towards the enhancement and
perfection of knowledge

Tehran, 11 Shahrivar 1382 (September 2, 2003)

Go to contents

Nematollah Salehi Najafabadi, phone: 4412752

 Chapter 1

Which one is primary, war or peace?

It should be realized that in the Arabic language,

and as commonly used in the Quran, the meaning of
“jihad” is vaster than “qital” meaning war. In this vaster
usage, “jihad” means effort in general, in any way and for
any purpose and cause, the context showing it being for
evil or decent purpose.
In the verse “ ‫اده‬Z‫ق جه‬ZZ‫ی ا ح‬Z‫د وا ف‬ZZ‫( ”جاه‬hajj,78), the
word “‫ی ا‬ZZ‫ ”ف‬makes the context for jihad being used for
efforts in positive and decent ways and causes, and means
efforts towards good ends. But in the verse “‫داک‬ZZ‫وان جاه‬
‫( ”علی ان تشرک بی ما لیس لک به علم‬Loqman, 15), the words “
‫رک‬ZZ‫ی ان تش‬ZZ‫ ”عل‬make the context for jihad being used in
negative and indecent way, and means efforts for evil
ends. Thus, war for the cause of God is a lexical meaning
of “jihad”, and in fact, means efforts in special meaning.
In this book we will discuss this meaning of “jihad”,
which should be referred to as “idiomatic jihad”

Before discussing jihad itself, 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.
 Second, when facing an aggressing enemy,
whether peace is primary and we should try to create
peace by repelling the enemy and putting an end to the
war, or war is primary and we should try for the more
rekindling of it.

On the first point

In this regard, it should be stated that in Islam, war
is not permitted for imposing the ideology because the
verse in the Quran, ‫"ل اکراه فی الدین قد تبین الرشد من الغی‬: says”
“there is no compulsion in religion, truly the right way has
been clearly distinct from error” (Baqareh,256). This
declarative statement: “there is no compulsion in
religion,” here has an imperative intent, meaning that 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, and there is no
need for compulsion. Thus, compulsion in any form,
whether in the form of threat or war should not be used for
imposing the religion and ideology.
In other words, fundamentally, idea or belief is a
subject of heart and mind, and cannot be entered into a
person’s mind by force because one would believe in what
his nature testifies being acceptable. Force and
compulsion neither could change one’s existing belief, nor
could create some anew. And that is why exerting force in
this regard is ineffective and useless; and that is why the
Quran says no force and compulsion should be used for
inviting to the religion.

On the second point

On this point, we should say that against an
attacking enemy, peace is primary, not war. This means
that war is a state of urgency, and becomes necessary after
being attacked by the enemy; and as soon as the enemy is
defeated there is no necessity for war. And, that is why, in
the Holy Koran, the duration of the defensive war is
limited to repelling of the enemy, and ending of the
persecution: “‫ه‬ZZZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZZZ‫تی لتک‬ZZZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZZZ‫“ ”وق‬fight them (the
attacking enemy) till there is no persecution ”
(Baqareh,193).
It may be objected that the Quran orders fighting
till there is no persecution in the whole world, since such
negative syntax in Arabic means in general, not just the
persecution committed by the attacking enemy in this
particular instance. 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”, in which verse
slaying the enemy and fighting them is conditioned with
their attack, and consequently “no persecution” in such
context means “non of the persecution exerted by the
attacking enemy”.
On the other hand, it is obvious that mentioning
end and aim for the war means that when the persecution
and the aggression by the enemy is over, fighting is no
more permitted. In fact, what this verse wants to convey is
this: you must fight against the war-mongering enemy
who started the war, and must dry the roots of persecution
so that there should be no war, and peace would prevail.
The Holy Koran in the Anfal Chapter, major part
of which is about Badr War, says: “‫ا‬Z‫ح له‬ZZ‫وان جنحوا للسلم فاجن‬
‫“ " وتوکل علی ا‬if they incline to peace, then incline to it
and trust in Allah” (Anfal,61). In this same chapter, before
this verse, 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, to
terrify the enemy of God and your enemy”(Anfal,60).
Three verses after it, there is this verse: “‫رض‬Z‫بی ح‬Z‫یا ایها الن‬
‫ال‬ZZ‫ی القت‬ZZ‫ومنین عل‬ZZ‫“ " الم‬O Prophet urge on the believers to
fight” (Anfal,65). Now, in verse 61, positioned between
the verses on war, God orders: “if they incline to peace,
then incline to it, and trust in Allah”, meaning that if, even
in the middle of war, the attacking enemy inclined to
peace, you also incline to it and accept the peace. Thus, it
is clear that in Islam, peace is recognized as the
infrastructure in the relations between the societies;
and peace must be sought after; and efforts must be
made for creating peace and keeping it up.
Here, one point should be well understood.
Considering such an infrastructure, if non-Muslims are
always peace seeking and looking for friendly association
with Muslims, 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,
violation of which is not permitted; and the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) and his followers are obligated to seek peace at
all times, and never initiate military clash with non-
Muslims. Go to contents

Peace, the primary nature of

communities
As health is the primary nature of a person, and
illness is a secondary state, peace and calm also is the
primary nature of the human societies, and war is an
incidental and secondary situation. Thus, the verse,: “‫وان‬
‫“ " جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها و توکل علی ا‬if they incline to peace,
then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal, 61) is
conveying this important point, and means that peace and
friendly association is the primary situation in the
societies. Therefore, if the attacking enemy showed
inclination to peace, 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. Basically, the conscience of
humanity hates initiating attack on others, and considers it
injustice and not justifiable. And, that is why wherever
there is a military conflict, always they try to distinguish
the initiating party so as to condemn them locally,
regionally and internationally. And, this clearly shows that
initiating military attack on others, for any purpose it may
be, does oppose the nature of man, 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. The possibility of having such
a belief among Muslims also existed and still exists. But
the Holy Koran forbids such a thought and warns that God
does not forbid you, the Muslims, from being kind and
doing good to the unbelievers who are not bothering you.
And, never is goodness and justly behavior towards them
forbidden. 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, 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,
surely God loves the just.” (Momtaheneh,8).
 This verse, inviting to good behavior, justly
treatment and being benefactor towards the non-bothering
unbelievers, does clearly show that Islam wants to fuel the
Muslims with the spirit of sincerity, good willing, and
respect for human. It shows that Islam wants the hearts of
all men and women to foster kindness for each other. This
verse means that Islam wants to set the backdrop for social
peace. And, this verse is a good evidence for the fact that
from the point of view of Islam, peace is a fundamental
and infrastructural principle, for the cause of which all
Muslims should make move.
Only, in case the unbelievers attack militarily on
the Muslims and expel the Muslims from their habitations
causing them vagrancy, 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. This case is
mentioned in verse 9, immediately after the verse in
question. Go to contents

One Question.
Considering what so far is said that imposing
idea by the force of weaponry is not permitted in Islam,
and that peace is an infrastructural principle, for the
creation and upholding of which efforts must be made,
then, what is jihad in Islam, and under what
circumstances fighting the unbelievers is permitted?
For answering this question, 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.
 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, and the other is the ones
mentioning war absolutely and with no conditions. First
we will talk about a few of the verses from the first group.

First group: the conditioned verses

1. “ ‫ب‬--‫دوا ان ا لیح‬--‫اتلونکم ولتعت‬--‫ن یق‬--‫ذ ی‬--‫بیل ا ال‬--‫ی س‬--‫اتلوا ف‬--‫وق‬
‫ " المعتدین‬And fight in the way of God with those
who fight with you, but aggress not. God loves
not the aggressors (Baqareh,190). In this verse,
there are some points that needs consideration:

Point one: War must be in the way of God and in

His cause, not for the opening out new territories, revenge,
and satisfaction of natural ambitions, hegemony, and
similar aims. (What is the way God?). And the way of
God is the way to the humanity’s goodness and interests in
which lie God’s blessings, such as opening the atmosphere
for freedom, through which people can attain the
happiness of this world and the world hereafter; through
which the oppressed can defend themselves; through
which the oppressors, who are the originators of
persecution and corruption and are the cause of injustice
and tyranny, can be eradicated.
Point two: This verse says: “Fight with those who
fight with you..”. Therefore, if no militarily attack is made
by the enemy, then the subject matter of fight is negated;
thus, conditioning war by the attack from the enemy. In
other words, if there is no attack on Muslims, initiating of
war by them is not permitted.
Point three: This verse is forbidding any type of
assault, and aggression in a general sense, such as killing
children and women, burning houses and farms, cutting
down trees (with no necessity), mass murdering of the
captives, and so on. Of course, the meaning of aggression
is very obvious, and the nature of human and their
conscience would discern its occurrences. And, that is why
the Quran only mentions: “ but aggress not” without
giving details about it, so that everyone could recognize it
by appealing to his own conscience.
It must be realized that the environment of war is
an environment of anger and fury, in which, individuals
sometimes are caught in excitement and thrill, and
therefore, may exceed the limit of justice and fairness,
proceeding to do adverse actions. And, that is why the
Quran warns the commissioners of war, either the
commanders or the warriors, not to commit any
aggression under such circumstances.
Incidentally, there is some view on the
interpretation of this verse. According to this view “but
aggress not” means “do not attack those who have not
made militarily attack on you, and do not become the
initiator of attack, since it will be aggression and assault”.
(Majma al Bayan, interpretation under verse 190 of
Baqareh). Based on this view, the sentence “aggress not”
is emphasizing what is understood from the stipulation
“with those who fight with you”. This latter stipulation,
implicitly, means that if you were not militarily attacked,
you are not to initiate the attack. But, according to this
interpretation of “but aggress not”, it explicitly
emphasizes, and fixes the condition meant and understood
from “with those who fight with you ”.
Point four: This verse, after forbidding the
warriors for Islam from aggression and assault,
admonishes them that God does not love the aggressors.
This admonition means that now that you are fighting in
the way of God and for His cause, you should know that if
under the circumstances of war, you exceed the limits of
justice and fairness, and commit improper acts, God will
not consent and will not love you because God hates
aggression, and consequently the aggressor will be hated
by God.
As jihad in Islam is ordained for the aims of
elimination of injustice and aggression, and for the revival
of justice and fairness, it is obvious that Islam will not
accept committing actions against those aims while trying
to achieve them. And, this, very well, indicates how the
rules of jihad in Islam enjoy being in the peak of sanctity

2.“‫ه‬--‫و اقتلو هم حیث ثقفتموهم و اخرجوهم من حیث اخرجوکم والفتنت‬

‫اشد من القتل ول تقاتلوهم عندالمسجد الحرام حتی یقاتلوکم فیه فان‬
‫قاتلوکم فاقتلوهم کذالک جزاء الکافرین‬. " “And slay them
whenever you come upon them, and expel them
from where they expelled you; persecution is
more grievous than slaying. But fight them not
by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you
there; then if they fight you slay them – such is
the recompense of the unbelievers.”
(Baqareh,191).
This is the second of the verses wherein the
conditions and stipulations for war is mentioned. The
pronoun ‘them’ in “slay them” refers to “those who fight
with you” which is in the previous verse. So, it is saying “
repelling the wickedness of the aggressing unbelievers
who initiated the war is possible by slaying them”. Then,
it goes on: “But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until
they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay
them – such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”
In this verse too, 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, so, in the battlefield, wherever you come
upon them, slay them in defense of yourselves because
repelling their wickedness is possible only by slaying.
Point two: This verse forbids Muslims from
initiating war, 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,
in turn, it tells the Muslims: “You, expel the unbeliever
from where they expelled you” namely, from Mecca,
which action is some type of defense.
Point four: This verse is telling that the
persecution inflicted by the unbelievers through torturing
Muslims in Mecca; confiscation of their belongings, and
imposing war on them in Medina by mobilizing army
against them, all such actions are more grievous than the
unbelievers being slain by Muslims. It means that the
unbelievers are the source of persecution, agony, and
suffering; 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.
Point five: To prescribe slaying of the aggressing
unbelievers is for punishing them because of their actions
in starting the aggression and shedding the blood of
Muslims. Is it not a just punishment?

A note
Some say that the word “‫ه‬ZZZ‫( " فتن‬translated into
persecution) which is used in this verse, and in:"
‫ه‬ZZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZZ‫تی لتک‬ZZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZZ‫“ " وق‬fight them (the attacking
enemy) till there is no persecution ” (Baqareh,193)
has the meaning of polytheism. 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),”
(Baqareh,190). The circumstances for this verse, and
the next verses is such that the unbelievers were
putting pressure on the Muslims; persecuting those in
Mecca, and, sometimes, even killing them; and were
imposing war on those who were in Medina.
These were the calamities and agonies that the
unbelievers had inflicted on Muslims. So, verse 193
in Baqareh says: “ fight them (aggressors) till there is
no persecution,” meaning that when the unbelievers
are defeated, no more can they persecute the
Muslims, and impose war on them. " Regarding “ ‫فتنته‬
" in the verse, “‫ه‬Z‫ون فتن‬ZZ‫تی لتک‬Z‫ “ ”وقاتلوهم ح‬fight them
(aggressors) till there is no persecution,” Abdullah
Ibn Umar is quoted to have said : “In the life time of

2[2] Tafsir Almenar, volume 2, p.210

 the Prophet (p.b.u.h), when the unbelievers
persecuted, tortured, jailed and killed the Muslims for
their religion, we fought the unbelievers till Islam
became strong and “ ‫ه‬ZZZZZ‫( " فتنت‬persecution) was
over.”3[3] This narration also confirms that the
meaning of “ ‫ه‬ZZ‫ " فتنت‬in this verse is persecution and
calamities exerted by unbelievers on Muslims.
In addition to this, fighting the polytheists will
never eliminate polytheism, which is an inner belief,
because even if a polytheist were defeated in the war,
his belief would not change. To change one’s belief,
dialogue and argument is required, so that the party
may get convinced, and change his belief, and, unless
he is not truly convinced, his inner belief would stay.
Therefore, there would be no sense telling Muslims
to fight the polytheist. Go to contents

In Arabic the lexical meaning of “‫( ”فتنه‬translated to

persecution)
The root of the word, i.e. the infinitive “‫ ”فتن‬means
placing gold into fire to see if it is pure or impure. 4[4] And
the verse: “ ‫ات‬ZZZ‫ومنین والمومن‬ZZZ‫وا الم‬ZZZ‫ن فتن‬ZZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZZ‫“ ”ان ال‬those who
persecute the believers, men and women” ( Borooj, 10) is
about the people who burned the believers in fire. The
Holy Koran also talks about the people in Hell, using
3[3] Tafsir Almanar, volume 9,p 666

4[4] Mofradat Raqeb

some derivative of it: “‫م‬ZZ‫“ ”یوم هم علی النار یفتنون * ذوقوا فتنتک‬
upon the day, they shall be tried at the fire * taste your
trial”(Zaaryat, 13,14). 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,
25) ‘‫ه‬ZZ‫ ’فتن‬means calamity and affliction. Zmakhshari also
says: “ ‘‫ ’فتنه‬is used to mean war ‘‫( ”’ بینهم فتنه ای حرب‬and in
Arabic ‘‫ ’حرب‬means war).
In general, there is the implication of hardship in
all the instances of the usage of the infinitive: ‘‫’فتن‬. Even,
in the instances where it is used for trial, there is also the
implication of hardship. Thus, ‘polytheism’, in the
meaning of which no hardship is implied, cannot be a
meaning for ‘‫’فتنه‬.
By the top guess, 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. This group does not accept that ‘idiomatic
jihad’ is for defense, and for repelling the calamities
inflicted by the aggressing enemy who has initiated the
war. And, that is why they say: “‫ه‬ZZ‫ون فتن‬ZZ‫تی ل تک‬ZZ‫اتلوهم ح‬ZZ‫”وق‬
means: “Initiate war against the polytheists so that
polytheism is eradicated”. And, this means that as long as
there is polytheism, initiating war against them is
obligatory. Therefore, this group have their own
interpretation and inference in the meaning of a word,
based on the concept that they had from jihad. But, the
reality is that there is no room for interpretation and
inference in the meaning of a word, and its meaning
should be asked from the native users of the language.
Thus, the word ‘‫ه‬ZZ‫ ’فتن‬should not be interpreted to mean
polytheism.
 3. “‫د‬--‫وا فلع‬-‫ان انته‬--‫ن ل ف‬-‫د ی‬--‫وقاتلوهم حتی ل تکون فتنته ویکون ال‬
‫“ ”وان ال علی الظالمین‬And fight them till there is no
persecution and the religion is God’s; then, if
they give over, there shall be no enmity save for
evildoers” (Baqareh,193)
The word ‘fight’ in this verse is connected with the
word ‘fight’ in verse 190 of this chapter, and the pronoun
‘them’ refers to ‘those-who-fight-you’ in that verse. It
should be realized that in verse 190, the starting point of
war is stated, and in this verse, the ending point of it.
Verse 190 says: “fight with the aggressing unbelievers” as
they are the originator and cause of the war, and their
being defeated is the just punishment for them; and verse
190 says: “fight them till there is no persecution and the
religion is God’s”. ‘Religion’ is the translation of “‫ ”دین‬and
one of the meanings of “‫ن‬ZZ‫ ”دی‬is to dominate and govern.
Context wise, this meaning applies here, because while the
enemy has the power for aggression and attack, their
domination and command is ruling, but after they are
defeated and crushed by the defending force of Muslims,
and their dominance and governance is wiped out, then in
their place, the governance and religion of God will
prevail.
Next, this holy verse refers to the circumstances
when the attacking enemy has refrained from aggression,
and says if they themselves ceased the assault and stopped
aggression, you, also, refrain from killing them and stop
the war. It means that your war with them is a counter
attack and a reaction to the aggression, and when they stop
it, then there is no room for it, and the subject matter for
counter attack becomes nonexistent. And thereafter,
slaying them is not allowed because killing the unjust
aggressor is necessary as long as the injustice and
aggression exists, but when it was stopped by them, then
no aggressor is in the field to be punished. In this verse,
two reasons for ending the war is mentioned: one, the
enemy’s being completely defeated, and the other, their
refraining from the war.
Incidentally, a literary point should be noticed here.
The word, ‘‫دوان‬ZZZZZZZ‫ ’ع‬translated into ‘aggression’ is
metaphorically used in its application for Muslims, and
only has a type of homographic usage, with the
explanation that as the aggression by the unbelievers is
discussed, counter attacking and punishing them is also
referred to as ‘‫دوان‬ZZ‫’ع‬, which usage is just for having
similarity in the form but not in meaning, because
repelling and slaying the aggressing enemy is the same of
that done by the aggressor only in the form of the word,
not in the meaning. What Muslims do is just a defense.
This usage is like the usage in the verse: “‫تعلم ما فی نفسی و ل‬
‫ک‬ZZ‫ی نفس‬ZZ‫ا ف‬ZZ‫م م‬ZZ‫”اعل‬. Jesus Christ (a.s.) says to God:“ Thou
knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is
within thy soul” (Maaedeh, 116). It is obvious that God
has no soul ‘‫س‬ZZ‫’نف‬, but as this word is used for Jesus,
homographicly it is used for God too.
It should be repeated that what is obvious here is
that the instructions to fight the aggressing unbelievers in
this verse, like the instructions in the two previous verses,
has defensive spirit. Go to contents

4. “(39) ‫اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون بانهم ظلموا وان ا علی نصرهم لقد یر‬
‫ول‬--‫ا ا و ل‬--‫وا ربن‬--‫ق ال ان یقول‬--‫ر ح‬--‫ارهم بغی‬--‫ن دی‬--‫وا م‬--‫ذین اخرج‬--‫ال‬
‫لوات‬--‫ع و ص‬--‫وامع وبی‬--‫ت ص‬--‫د م‬--‫ض له‬--‫هم ببع‬--‫اس بعض‬--‫ع ا الن‬--‫دف‬
‫ره ان ا‬--‫ن ینص‬--‫رن ا م‬--‫ثیرا ولینص‬--‫م ا ک‬--‫ا اس‬--‫ومساجد یذکر فیه‬
40 – 39 ‫ج‬--‫ز )ح‬--‫وی عزی‬--‫“ ”) لق‬Permission to fight is
given to those upon whom war is made because
 they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well
able to assist them(39). Those who have been
expelled from their homes without a just cause
except that they say: our Lord is Allah. And had
there not been Allah’s repelling some people by
others, there would have been pulled down
cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and
mosques in which Allah’s name is much
mentioned; and surely Allah will help him who
helps His cause; most surely Allah is Alstrong,
Almighty”(Hajj, 40).
In these verses, the Quran says that war is allowed
and permitted when militarily attack is initiated by the
enemy, and a group of people are being aggressed and
persecuted. Under such circumstances, not only are such
people not forbidden from war, but also it is obligatory for
them to fight to defend themselves against the aggressor. It
is obviously understood from it that when there is no
attack initiated by the enemy, it is not permitted to start
fighting the people who are seeking peace and friendly
association. In other words, starting war and destroying an
existing atmosphere of peace and quiet, in no way, is
allowed, even by the way of imposing the religion,
because, religion cannot be, and should not be imposed on
any individual, (let alone on a group). The Quran says: “‫ل‬
‫دین‬ZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫راه ف‬ZZ‫“ ”اک‬There is no compulsion in the religion”
(Baqareh, 256).
And, in the next verse, it is pointed out that the
rights for proceeding to the defensive war is given to those
who, unjustly, and only for believing in God, have been
expelled from their homes. In this verse, reference is made
to the migrant Muslims, who had to migrate from their
homes because of tortures and persecutions by the Meccan
unbelievers.
Of course, this verse explains the events that had
happened, and intends to show the harshness in the
situation of the migrant Muslims, and how they were
expelled from their homes. 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; and if the attacked do not have to migrate, then
they have no rights to proceed to the defensive war. This
verse does not convey such a meaning.
Then, the holy verse describes some benefits of such
a defensive war, and explains if the aggressed people were
not given the rights to proceed for fighting against the
militarily attack of the enemy, then, far more severe evil
would spread, including pulling down of the holy places
such as cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques.
In this verse, divinely authorization for war is
referred to as God’s defense: “.had there not been Allah’s
repelling..”, meaning that, by permitting the aggressed to
have such a disciplined fight with the aggressor, God
involves them in the war so that He eliminate the evil of
the aggressors from the Muslims. Therefore, defense in
this verse is not an “intrinsic, and natural” defense, but
defense by ordaining the war, 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 ”. Helping God means obeying his
instructions, meaning that those who carry out God’s
instructions on such defensive war are obeying God’s
order, and God will help them to defeat the aggressing
enemy. In another chapter, the Quran says: “‫رو ا‬ZZ‫ان تنص‬
‫رکم‬ZZZZZ‫ “ ”ینص‬If you help God, God will help you “
(Mohammad, 7).
Some interpreters of the Holy Koran reflect on an
“intrinsic” meaning for defense in the verse, and say: “ the
verse means that with the blessings of the good, God will
protect and defend the bad from evil”. This interpretation
does not seem correct and does not fit the context of the
verse. 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.
Therefore, it does not fit the context to say that with the
blessings of those who pray and give alms and go for Hajj,
God will keep away evil from those who do not pray, do
not give alms, and do not go for Hajj, as stated in Majma
al Bayan, on the interpretation of verse 251 of Baqareh
Chapter. Besides, such interpretations do have some
misguiding consequences and effects, and implicitly
would encourage and invite to neglect praying, alms
giving, and Hajj performing.
If the verse wanted to say that with the blessings of
the good, God protects and defends the bad, 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. For
example, note the usage: “‫وا‬ZZ‫ن آمن‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫ن ال‬ZZ‫دافع ع‬ZZ‫ “ ”ان ا ی‬God
defends those who believe” (Hajj, 38). But if it used
without “‫”عن‬, taking the object directly as in the verse “‫اد‬
‫یئه‬ZZZZZZ‫ن الس‬ZZZZZZ‫ی احس‬ZZZZZZ‫االتی ه‬ZZZZZZ‫ع ب‬ZZZZZZ‫“ ”ف‬repel evil by what is
best”(Momenoon, 96) then, as we see, it will mean
repelling, and has taken the object ‘evil’ directly.
However, as explained, the interpretation by some
who say: “ the verse means that with the blessings of the
good, God will protect and defend the bad from evil”, is
not correct and does not fit the context, and therefore,
must be rejected.
Another point is that according to this interpretation,
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 its consequence. Suppose it is
said: “And had there not been Allah’s defending the bad
from evil by the blessings from the good, there would
have been pulled down cloisters, and churches, and
synagogues, and mosques.” In that case, what kind of
rational meaning it would have? What logical connection
could exist between not defending the bad, and the sacred
places being destroyed? On the contrary, if God perish the
bad by calamity, the sacred places would be immune from
the wickedness of the bad people
Go to contents
5. “‫دی‬---‫ن اعت‬---‫اص فم‬--‫ات قص‬--‫هرالحرام والحرم‬---‫رام بالش‬--‫هر الح‬---‫الش‬
‫وا ان‬--‫وا ا واعلم‬--‫علیکم فا عتد واعلیه بمثل ما اعتدی علیکم واتق‬
‫ن‬--‫ع المتقی‬--‫“ ”ا م‬the Sacred month for the Sacred
month and all sacred things are (under the law
of) retaliation; whoever, then acts aggressively
against you, inflict injury on him according to the
injury he has inflicted on you, and heed God, and
know that God stands by the heedful”(Baqareh,
194).

It is said: “This verse relates to the issue of

Hudaybiyyah, in the month of Zilqaadeh, year six
after Muslims’ migration from Mecca. In that
month, the unbelievers of Mecca did not allow the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) and the Muslims to take
pilgrimage to Kabah for performing Omreh rituals.
 They even attacked the Muslims with arrows and
stones. Finally, a peace accord was reached, and it
was agreed that the Prophet and the Muslims return
to Medina in that year, and return to Mecca the next
year to perform the rituals for three days in the
month of Zilqaadeh. Based on this accord, the next
year, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) accompanied by Muslims
set out to Mecca to perform the rituals in the month
of Zilqaadeh, which is one of the sacred months, and
to observe the sanctity of the month, they disliked
fighting” (Aloosi, interpreting this verse).
It is also said: “The unbelievers in Mecca had
the intention to catch the Muslims unawares, and
have militarily attack on them, and this verse was
revealed under such circumstances to point out that
Sacred month is for Sacred month, meaning that war
in the Sacred month is against war in the Sacred
month” (Majma al Bayan, on this verse).
So, by using ‘Sacred month for Sacred month’, the
verse tells Muslims if the unbelievers initiated war in the
sacred month, you too can proceed for defensive war in
the same month, and all sacred things are under the law of
retaliation, meaning that if the unbelievers dishonored the
sanctity of such months and initiated war, you are given
the rights to proceed onto the defensive war, not being
obligated to observe the sanctity of the month.
Then, one general rule is mentioned in the verse:
“whoever, then acts aggressively against you, inflict
injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted
on you,”. The real occurrence of which, naturally is a
defensive war. This verse is in the context of jihad;
therefore, the main focus of it is on jihad and the defensive
war. And it should be noticed that in this verse too,
proceeding onto war is conditioned with the initiation of
aggression by the enemy. It naturally follows that if no
attack is initiated by the enemy, the Muslims are not
permitted to initiate militarily attack on others. This is
clearly understood from the condition, “whoever then acts
aggressively against you..”, the consequence: ‘your
attack” will follow.
It should be noted that this condition being clearly
understood from the verse needs no argument, 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, 36) and thus initial war with
unbelievers has become obligatory”(Tabari., on the
verse)
And by the abolishment of the verse, they intend
abolishment of what is meant not what is uttered.
Therefore, this group also have taken for granted that
considering the implication of this condition, no initial
war is permitted in Islam.
Of course, abolishment of the verse (194) by this
verse “‫افه‬ZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZ‫ ”وقاتلواالمش‬is not acceptable. There is the
universal rule for the absolute to be read by the restricting.
(e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read by ‘give me the math
book’). This universal rule applies everywhere. In our
case, it requires that the unconditioned verses about the
war should be read and restricted by the conditioned ones.
Thus, the verse “‫دی‬--‫ا اعت‬--‫ل م‬--‫ه بمث‬--‫د واعلی‬--‫ا عت‬--‫م ف‬--‫دی علیک‬--‫ن اعت‬--‫فم‬
‫م‬---‫“ ”علیک‬whoever, then acts aggressively against you,
inflict injury on him according to the injury he has
inflicted on you” (Baqareh, 194), in which act of
aggression is restricted and conditioned, will rule over the
verse, “‫افته‬ZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZ‫“ ”وقاتلواالمش‬and fight the unbelievers all
together” which mentions fight unconditionally. And ‫ و‬this
is an evidence that initiating fight against the unbelievers
is not permitted until they initiate it against the Muslims.
It is appropriate to give here the summary of the
remarks of Sheikh Abdoh, quoted meaning-wise on this
subject:
“ The rule in the verse: “‫ا‬-‫م ف‬--‫دی علیک‬--‫فمن اعت‬
‫م‬-----‫دی علیک‬-----‫ا اعت‬-----‫ل م‬-----‫ه بمث‬-----‫د واعلی‬-----‫”عت‬, which
conditions fighting the unbelievers by their
initiating the war, is a permanent rule, and
has never been abolished. This verse and
the verses before it in this chapter of the
Quran are in the same context and
correlated. There is no requirement to take
the verse, “‫افه‬ZZZZZZ‫رکین ک‬ZZZZZZ‫ ”وقاتلواالمش‬from a
different chapter (Baraat) and interpose it
among the verses in this chapter. And it is
quoted from Ibn Abbass that no
abolishment was done on these verses.
Therefore, if a person considers the
instructions for war in these verses as
absolute, and perceives that war is
obligatory even in the case of the absence
of the condition, namely, in the event of no
attack being initiated by the enemy, such a
person is driving the verses out their
context, and is imposing onto the verses
such a meaning that non of these verses
would reflect.
“The verses on war in the AleImran
Chapter are about the war of Uhud, in
which the unbelievers had aggressed. The
verses in the Anfal Chapter are about the
Badr war, which also was an aggression by
the unbelievers, and they had initiated the
war. And the verses regarding war in the
Bara’at Chapter are about the unbelievers
who breached the bond and initiated
aggression, and that is why the verse on
them says: “‫م‬ZZ‫تقیموا له‬ZZ‫م فاس‬ZZ‫تقاموا لک‬ZZ‫ا اس‬ZZ‫َ“ ”فم‬As
long as they go straight with you, go
straight with them” (Bara’at, 7). Another
verse also says: “‫انهم‬ZZ‫وا ایم‬ZZ‫ا نکث‬ZZ‫اتلون قوم‬ZZ‫ال تق‬
‫ره‬ZZ‫داوکم اول م‬ZZ‫م ب‬ZZ‫وه‬....” “Will you not fight a
people who broke their oaths …..and they
attacked you first” (Bara’at, 13).
“It was the unbelievers who always
initiated the war against Muslims so as to
make them abandon the religion. Thus, all
the wars fought by the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
were for defending the rights and the
people of rights, and for supporting the call
for the rights. If there is no one to aggress
us, the Muslims, and to ruin our refuge and
security, and to shed our blood, then, God
has not made it obligatory for us to fight
the others and shed their blood and slay
them.
“And the wars fought by the
companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were
for the purpose of supporting the call to the
rights, and stopping the aggressors from
defeating the Muslims. They were not for
aggressing others. But the wars that took
place in the later periods, [he means the
 wars fought by the Caliphates of Bani
Umayyeh and Bani Abbass] were requisite
of the nature of power and dominance. It
was not such that all those wars were
corresponding with the rules of the
religion. And, it is the nature of the world
that the possessors of power attack the
weak in their neighborhood, and invade
them.” (Tafsire Alminar, 3rd edition, Vol.2
page 215 ) Go to contents

Reading the absolute by the restricting

So far, we talked about five verses mentioning the
condition by which war is permitted in Islam. The
condition is the aggression by the enemy, in which case
the war becomes necessary for repelling the enemy and
defending the aggressed. According to these verses, the
jihad that is obligatory in Islam is a defensive war, the
necessity of which is certainly confirmed by the nature of
every human being. The verses containing the condition
are referred to as the restricting verses, meaning that they
contain some condition. On the other side, there are verses
that call the Muslims to war absolutely and with no
conditions.
As indicated before, it is obvious that according
to the universal rule of reading the absolute by the
restricting (e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read by ‘give me
the math book’), the restricting verses, in fact, are
interpreting the absolute verses, and consequently are
ruling over them. This is a general rule that applies
universally, everywhere and in every terminology.
Second group: the absolute verses
Now, we are talking about some of the absolute
verses, wherein Muslims are called to fight the
unbelievers unconditionally, with no restrictions:

1. “‫و‬--‫یئا و ه‬-‫وا ش‬--‫کتب علیکم القتال و هو کره لکم وعسی ان تکره‬

‫م‬--‫م و انت‬--‫م وا یعل‬--‫ر لک‬--‫و ش‬--‫یئا و ه‬--‫ی ان تحبواش‬--‫م وعس‬--‫ر لک‬--‫خی‬
‫ون‬--‫“ ”لتعلم‬Fighting is enjoined on you; and you
dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing
while it is good for you, and it may be that you
love a thing while it is bad for you, and Allah
knows while you do not know” (Baqareh, 216).

2. “‫الخره و‬-‫ا ب‬-‫د نی‬-‫واه ال‬-‫ترون الحی‬-‫ن یش‬-‫ذ ی‬-‫بیل ا ال‬-‫ی س‬-‫فلیقاتل ف‬
‫ا‬--‫را عظیم‬-‫”من یقاتل فی سبیل ا فیقتل او یغلب فسوف نوتیه اج‬
“ Those who sell the world’s life for the
Hereafter must fight in the way Allah, and
whoever fight in the way of Allah, then be he
slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a
mighty reward” (Nissa, 74)

3. “‫ی‬-‫ون ف‬-‫ا تل‬--‫روا یق‬--‫ن کف‬-‫ذ ی‬--‫بیل ا وال‬-‫ی س‬-‫ون ف‬-‫الذین آمنوا یقا تل‬
‫ان‬---‫یطان ک‬---‫د الش‬---‫یطان ان کی‬---‫اء الش‬---‫اتلوا اولی‬---‫اغوت فق‬---‫بیل الط‬--‫س‬
‫عیفا‬--‫“ ”ض‬Those who believe fight in God’s way,
those who disbelieve fight in the way of the
arrogant; therefore, fight Satan’s patrons.
Satan’s plot is weak.” (Nissa, 76).

4. “‫ا‬--‫ون م‬--‫ر ول یحرم‬--‫الیوم الخ‬--‫اا ول ب‬--‫ون ب‬--‫ن ل یومن‬--‫ذ ی‬--‫قاتلوا ال‬

‫اب‬--‫ن اوتوالکت‬--‫ذ ی‬--‫ن ال‬--‫حرم ا و رسوله ول ید ینون د ین الحق م‬
 ‫اغرون‬--‫م ص‬---‫د وه‬---‫ن ی‬--‫والجزیته ع‬---‫تی یعط‬--‫“ ” ح‬Fight those
who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Latter
Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His
Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the
Book, until they pay the tax in
acknowledgement of superiority and they are in
a state of subjection” (Bara’at, 29).

5. “‫یا ایهاالذ ین آمنوا قاتلوا الذ ین یلونکم من الکفار ولیجد و فیکم‬

‫ن‬--‫ع المتقی‬--‫وا ان ل م‬--‫“ ” غلظه واعلم‬O you who believe!
Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to
you, and let them find in you hardness; and
know that God is with the god-
fearing.”(Bara”at, 123).

6. “‫وهم‬--‫تی اذا اثخنتم‬--‫اب ح‬--‫رب الرق‬--‫روا فض‬--‫ن کف‬--‫ذ ی‬---‫م ال‬--‫اذا لقیت‬--‫ف‬
‫فشدواالوثاق فاما منا بعد اما فداء‬...” “So when you meet
in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the
necks until when you have overcome them, then
tie them up as prisoners and afterwards either
set them free as a favor or let them ransom
(themselves).” (Mohammad, 4).

These six verses are of the absolute ones, which

without any condition call Muslims to fight the
unbelievers. Previously, we discussed five verses that are
restricting fighting of Muslims with the unbelievers. In
those verses, Muslims are permitted to fight the
unbelievers on the condition that the unbelievers are the
initiator of the war. And ‫ و‬as said before, it is obvious that
according to the universally observed rule of reading the
absolute by the restricting (e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read
by ‘give me the math book’), the restricting verses, in fact,
are interpreting the absolute verses, and consequently are
ruling over them. This is a general rule that applies
universally, everywhere and in every terminology. And, it
means that in Islam, fighting the unbelievers is permitted
only when the unbelievers are the initiator of war, in
which case it becomes obligatory for Muslims to proceed
for defending. Go to contents

The wars fought by the Prophet

(p.b.u.h) were defensive
As it was made clear that the verses in the Quran
prescribes only defensive war, but not the initial war, and
as we know that the first individual who put these verses
into action was the Prophet (p.b.u.h) himself, it logically
follows that the wars fought by this holy person himself
were all defensive, and for crashing the aggression of the
enemy. Thus, the expressions of the Pioneer Allameh,
Sheikh Mohammad Jawad Balaqi concerning the wars of
the Prophet (p.b.u.h) are absolutely valid. He says: “..‫فکانت‬
‫ریعه‬ZZ‫د وش‬ZZ‫ن التوحی‬ZZ‫المین ع‬ZZ‫رکین الظ‬ZZ‫دوان المش‬ZZ‫ا لع‬ZZ‫ا دفاع‬ZZ‫ه باجمعه‬ZZ‫حروب‬
‫ه‬ZZZ‫ن طریق‬ZZZ‫اعه احس‬ZZZ‫ی دف‬ZZZ‫لک ف‬ZZZ‫و یس‬ZZZ‫ک فه‬ZZZ‫ع ذال‬ZZZ‫ وم‬. ‫لمین‬ZZZ‫لح والمس‬ZZZ‫الص‬
‫ی‬ZZ‫دعو ال‬ZZ‫وعظه وی‬ZZ‫د م الم‬ZZ‫ یق‬.‫یسلکهاالمدافعون واقربها الی السلم والصلح‬
‫لح‬ZZ‫د الص‬ZZ‫ل عه‬ZZ‫ه ویقب‬ZZ‫د ن‬ZZ‫ی اله‬ZZ‫ب ال‬ZZ‫الصلح و السلم و یخبح الی السلم و یجی‬
5]5
” ..‫“ ]مع عرفانه انه المظفر المنصور‬All the wars of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) were for defending and protecting monotheism,
Muslims, and the religion of reformation against the
aggression of the aggressive unbelievers. Nevertheless, he

5[5] Al Rehlat al Madrasiyah, p212, publ. Aalami Karbala

used to follow the best way that the defenders took. Even
before proceeding to such a war, he engaged himself in
admonishing and calling for conciliation and pacification,
and showed inclination for peace. While he knew that he
would be the conqueror, he used to accept ceasefire and
agreed to peace treaty.” 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, 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, all the wars of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) were for defending the rights and the people of
rights, and for supporting the call to the truth. And, that is
why calling (to Islam) before proceeding to the war is a
precondition for the war to be authorized. And, calling
takes place not by sword and spear, but only by reasoning
and dialogue.”

Up keeping peace: the behavior of the

Prophet (p.b.u.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.b.u.h) to attempt for maintaining

6[6] Tafsir Almanar,vol., p 210

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
7]7
” ‫]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

 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
8 ]8
”‫]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] 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

not defeat him.” This cry is a good testimony to the fact
that, seeking peace, by the head of Muslims, is a desirable
and pleasing issue, and opposing it, is aggression and
injustice that will have terrible consequences, leading to
the defeat. And, ultimately, it was what happened: the
warmongers of Mecca were severely defeated.

Criticizing the views of jurisprudents,

based on the Quran and the conduct of
the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
So far, it was explained that according to the
Quranic verses, and as the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
shows, it is well obvious that initiating war for imposing
the religion is not authorized in Islam. In spite of it, with
great wonder, it is noticed that wherever the jurisprudents
discuss the Islamic jihad, they introduce it as initial war
for inviting to Islam, or in a more precise term, for
imposing Islam on the unbelievers. This is in direct
opposition with the verses and with the conduct of the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) .
Now, we are paraphrasing some of the writings of
such jurisprudents on this subject for the analytically
minded to think on them.

Passages from Imam Shafii

In his book, “Omm”, 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
‫ال‬ZZ‫ وق‬.... "‫م‬ZZ‫ره لک‬ZZ‫و ک‬ZZ‫ال و ه‬ZZ‫م القت‬ZZ‫ب علیک‬ZZ‫ "کت‬: ‫الی‬ZZ‫ارک وتع‬ZZ‫تب‬
:‫ل‬ZZZ‫ز وج‬ZZZ‫ال ع‬ZZZ‫وق‬...." ‫بیل ا‬ZZZ‫ی س‬ZZZ‫اتلوا ف‬ZZZ‫ "وق‬:‫الی‬ZZZ‫ارک وتع‬ZZZ‫تب‬
‫روا‬ZZ‫ذین کف‬ZZZ‫م ال‬ZZZ‫اذا لقیت‬ZZZ‫ "ف‬:‫ال‬ZZZ‫اده" وق‬ZZZ‫ق جه‬ZZZ‫ی ا ح‬ZZZ‫دوا ف‬ZZZ‫"وجاه‬
 :‫ل‬ZZ‫ز وج‬ZZ‫ال ع‬ZZ‫فضرب الرقاب حتی اذا اثنختموهم فشدواالوثاق" وق‬
1]12
”"....‫"ما لکم اذا قیل لکم انفروا فی سبیل ا اثاقلتم الی الرض‬
2]

“After some time passed from the Prophet’s

migration, God blessed some groups to follow
him, and by God’s help, number wise, they gained
such a power that they did not have before. Then,
God made jihad obligatory for them while it was
not obligatory before that phase. So, regarding
jihad being obligatory, in the Quran God said:
“Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it”
God also said: “Fight in the way of Allah”, and
said: “Strive for God’s sake, the way He should be
striven for”. God also said: “So when you meet in
battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks
until when you have overcome them, then tie them
up as prisoners”. Allah also said: “.. What (excuse)
have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in
Allah’s way, you should incline heavily to earth”.

Imam Shafii wants to say that as daily prayers, and

yearly fasting became obligatory for Muslims, so did
initial fighting with the unbelievers because of the verses
he is referring to.
In his argument, Imam Shafii has referred to the
absolute group of verses, and left out the conditioned ones
wherein fighting is conditioned by the aggression from the
enemy. It is not because he ignored those verses, but

12[12] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p.161, Daro almarefah, Beirut

because he considers them abolished. Before discussing
the absolute verses, Imam Shafii refers to some of the
conditioned verses, 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, 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, but aggress not. 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; then if they fight
you slay them.”
After quoting these verses, Imam Shafii says: “‫نسخ‬
‫تی‬Z‫اتلوهم ح‬Z‫ وق‬:(‫بقول ا) عز وجل‬...‫هذا کله والنهی عن القتال حتی یقاتلوا‬
13]13
”.‫]ل تکون فتنه " ونزل هذه الیه بعد فرض الجهاد‬
“All these, and prohibition of war ‘till they
fight..’…are abolished by these words of
Allah(SWT) : “And fight them till there is no
persecution”.

This view that the conditioned verses on jihad are

abolished existed among the jurisprudents, and
interpreters of the Quran before Shafii. ‘Abdu al Rahman
ibn zeid ibn Aslam, and Rabi ibn Anas had the same
idea.’14[14] Shafii too has quoted it from others, not
mentioning their names. Go to contents

13[13] Omm Shafii, vol, 4, p. 161,

 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, universally accepted ‘rule-of-
reading-the-absolute-by-the-restricting’ to be ignored?
Such an important rule, the validity of which was and is
accepted by all the experts regarding the terminology of
legislators and interpreters of law, anywhere, in all tenets
and through out history, why was it ignored regarding the
verses on jihad? This ignorance has resulted in portraying
an ugly face for Islam before the world community, and
has caused the naturally desired defensive phenomenon, as
ordained in the Quran, 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, and Abd
al Rahman ibn Zeid ibn Aslam under the influence
of the governing atmosphere, 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,
dictatorship and strict tyranny would govern, 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

14[14] Majma al Bayan, under verse 190 of Baqareh

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

15[15] Tafsir Almanar, vol. 2, p. 216, 3rd esition

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

16[16] Tarikhe Yaqubi, vol. 3, ps.31,32, Najaf print

of Shafii, who also accepted it, and issued his verdict on
that basis. It is not clear whether it was Shafii’s actual
view, or he expressed it being compelled under the
dictatorial and tyrannical atmosphere. But the point is
clear that in the jurisprudence of Shafii.s period this view
was stable and unquestionable, and Shafii was impressed
by it.
And naturally, the jurisprudence after Shafii was
affected by this view, and it was reflected in the books and
verdicts of the jurisprudents thereafter. That is why we
notice this view in the verdicts and books of the
jurisprudents of both the Sunni and Shiah after Imam
Shafii, and that is why all of them coordinately have said
that jihad in Islam means initiating war for inviting to
Islam, or better expressed, for imposing Islam on others
by the force of weaponry.
This view of Imam Shaffi is an example of how
the jurisprudents have treated this subject. As said earlier,
other examples from other jurisprudents are given below.
Go to contents

Passages from Ibn Homam Hanafi

In his book, ‘‫ر‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫ح الق‬ZZ‫ ’فت‬Ibn Homam Hanafi says:
‫د‬ZZ‫م یقی‬ZZ‫ه ل‬Z‫وجبه ل‬ZZ‫ه الم‬ZZ‫ا لن الدل‬ZZ‫د ئون‬ZZ‫م یب‬Z‫ب وان ل‬ZZ‫ار واج‬Z‫ال الکف‬ZZ‫قت‬
‫رت‬ZZ‫ ام‬: ‫وصریح قوله فی الصحیحین وغیرهما‬... ‫الوجوب ببدائتهم‬
‫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. Besides, the
narration from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as mentioned
in Sahihe Bukhari, and Sahihe Muslim and other
 books is explicitly saying: ‘I am instructed to fight
people till they utter there is no God but One’. This
narration needs little thought for proving that jihad
is obligatory.” Ibn Homam says: “the evidences
that show jihad is obligatory do not condition it by
the unbelievers’ initiating it. 17[17]”
To disprove Ibn Homam’s argument, we say: “ The
main evidences for jihad being obligatory are the verses
from the Quran. Earlier, it was explained that some of the
verses are absolute, and some are conditioned or
restricting. In the restricting verses, jihad being obligatory
is conditioned by the unbelievers initiating it. And,
according to a general rule, the absolute verses are read
and restricted by the restricting ones.
Suppose, you are told: “ Entertain the scholars”
and then, this absolute command is followed by a
restricting and conditioned one: “Don’t entertain the
Persian scholars”. You, 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, why can you not excuse yourself for doing
so? It is clear. When the restricting command was issued,
it overruled the absolute one; therefore, you cannot use the
absolute one to reason for fulfillment of the duty.
Now, 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, but only the absolute ones.

17[17] Fath al Qadir, vol 5, p 194

Then, how can he excuse himself? In his case, there is the
possibility of one of two issues:
1. He did know nothing about reading the
absolute by the restricting. This is beyond the
status of a well educated jurisprudent.
2. In the atmosphere that governed the
jurisprudence of his time, 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, and like
Imam Shafii, has claimed: “The restricting
verses on jihad are abolished, and have no
worth as evidence”
As we explained earlier, such a claim is baseless
and is not acceptable. To argue that the restricting verses
on jihad were abolished is so illogical that Tabari, the man
of concept on interpretation of the Quran, calls such a
claim hegemony and self-supremacy while he is
discussing the verse : “‫اتلونکم ول‬ZZ‫ن یق‬ZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZ‫بیل ا ال‬ZZ‫ی س‬ZZ‫اتلوا ف‬ZZ‫وق‬
‫( ”تعتدوا‬Baqareh, 190), “And fight in the way of God with
those who fight with you, but aggress not”. Tabari’s words
translated reads: “And that somebody say ‘this verse is
abolished’ is, in fact, a kind of hegemony and self-
supremacy, and there is no evidence for it”
This saying of Tabari is absolutely correct. And,
whoever says: “The restricting verses on jihad are
abolished”, his saying is, in fact, out of hegemony and
self-supremacy from which a free thinker jurisprudent
should avoid.
Now, let us talk about the narration from the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) mentioned in Sahihe Bukhari, and
Sahihe Muslim and other books, saying: ‘I am instructed
to fight people till they utter there is no God but One’. Ibn
Homam uses it also as evidence for his view. But, it
should be realized that this narration is an absolute
evidence that, with the assumption of its validity, must be
treated like the absolute verses on the subject. Thus,
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’, at which point they
naturally will stop fighting and the war will be over.
In any code of law the articles are never practiced
separately with no attention to other relative articles in the
same code. The code is considered a correlative complex,
and the absolute articles are read by the restricting ones.
Likewise, the verses of the Quran together with the valid
narrations is considered a correlated complex, the
absolutes in which must be read by the restricting ones, as
explained above. The absolutes alone cannot be used as
evidence.
Ibn Homam has applied the narration in its
absoluteness, with no attention to the restricting verses, as
has done so using the absolute verses, not paying attention
to the restricting verses. And this, of course, is a non-
scholarly and unacceptable manner. Go to contents

Passages from Sheikh Toosi

We know that there existed cultural exchange
between the scholars of Sunni and Shiah, and it was a
common manner to have cross-reference of views among
the scholars of the two sects. In the environment of
Baqdad, where Sheikh Toosi was making his scholarly
efforts in his studies on the questions of jurisprudence,
interpretation of the Quran, and other Islamic subjects, his
normal method was to refer to the Sunni sources to make
extraction from them. A look at Tafsire Tebyan, written by
Sheikh Toosi on the interpretation of the Quran, would
show how he had been reliant on Tafsire Tabari, Tafsire
Ramani, and other interpretations of the Sunni scholars.
On the subjects of jurisprudence too, part of his
work-plan was to refer to the books written by the Sunni
scholars. His most comprehensive book on jurisprudence,
‘Mabsoot’, is written according to the style of the Sunni
scholars. Therefore, it is natural for him to have been,
occasionally, affected by the views and assumptions
prevailing in that environment. 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.
In such an environment where the Sunni
jurisprudence was ruling over the seminaries, neither
Sheikh Toosi, nor any other jurisprudent could have been
expected otherwise. And that is why we notice that on the
subject in question about jihad, Sheikh Toosi has included
in his books the same view that Imam Shafii has expressed
in ‘Omm’, and accepted it without any scrutiny and
criticism. In his book, ‘Nehayah’, which include his
verdicts, Sheikh Toosi says:

"‫م‬ZZ‫د ته‬ZZ‫ب مجاه‬ZZ‫ار یج‬ZZ‫کل من خالف ال سلم من سائر اصناف الکف‬

‫لم‬ZZ‫م ال الس‬ZZ‫ل منه‬ZZ‫م ل یقب‬ZZ‫ قس‬:‫مین‬ZZ‫مون قس‬ZZ‫م ینقس‬ZZ‫ر انه‬ZZ‫و قتالهم غی‬
‫ع‬ZZ‫والدخول فیه او یقتلون وتسبی ذراریهم و توخذ اموالهم وهم جمی‬
‫م‬ZZ‫ر ه‬Z‫م الخ‬Z‫ والقس‬.‫وس‬Z‫اری 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
 ‫بی‬ZZ‫ل وس‬ZZ‫م القت‬ZZ‫ب علیه‬ZZ‫ه یج‬ZZ‫ی ان‬ZZ‫ار ف‬ZZ‫ن الکف‬ZZ‫م م‬ZZ‫م غیره‬ZZ‫م حک‬ZZ‫حکمه‬
18]18
... ‫]الذراری واخذالموال‬."
“Fighting as jihad with all groups of unbelievers is
obligatory. And the unbelievers are divided into
two groups. From one of them nothing but Islam is
accepted. And if they do not accept Islam, they are
killed, their children are captured, and their wealth
is confiscated. This includes all groups of
unbelievers except the Jews, Christians, and the
Magus. These three groups, if they accept to pay
the tax and act according to its terms, it is not
permitted to fight them, and to capture their
children. And if refuse to pay the tax, or do not
comply with its terms, they will be treated like the
other groups of unbelievers, and it will become
obligatory to fight them, capture their children, and
confiscate their wealth”
We can see how the jurisprudential view governing
the seminaries of that period has affected Sheikh Toosi,
and he has not managed to release himself from its
influence. Consequently, he has issued the same verdict
that was included by Imam Shafii in his book, ‘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, 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 only when the enemy
initiate aggression, it is then that fighting, which by its

18[18] Nehayeh Sheikh Toosi, p. 291

nature is abhorred, becomes a necessity for defense, and
becomes obligatory wisdom-wise, religion-wise, and
social-wise. And this is all what Islamic jihad is about.
But Sheikh Toosi has not managed to escape the
influence of the environment. Therefore, under the
circumstances that the Sunni jurisprudence was governing
the atmosphere of inferring the Islamic legal rules from its
sources, Sheihk Toosi has taken Imam Shafii’s verdict that
was common in those days, and included it as his own
verdict in his book, ‘Nehayeh.
Of course, we cannot be follower of Sheikh Toosi,
and therefore, not only do not accept his inference on this
subject, but also would criticize it in the same way that we
did on Imam Shafii’s verdict earlier. Go to contents

Passages from Ibn Idriss

Ibn Idriss Helli, in his book, ‘Sara’er’, 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, and to utter
witness that there is nothing to be worshipped but God,
and that Mohammad is God’s Messenger, and that God is
unique, and He is Just, and that they will observe all the
terms set by Islam. After such invitation, if there was no
response from the unbelievers, then fighting them is
authorized.”
What Ibn Idriss says has this meaning: “Invitation
to Islam is to be done by the force of weaponry; therefore,
19[19] Sara’er Ibn Idriss, 165, lithographic print
if the unbelievers did not accept the invitation, then, initial
fight against them must be started so that they either
accept Islam, or are killed.”
It is obvious that Ibn Idriss also has not paid
attention to the restricting verses on jihad, and
consequently has considered initial war against
unbelievers to be obligatory if they did not accept Islam.
In fact, Ibn Idriss has accepted the verdict of Sheikh Toosi,
who himself had followed Imam Shafii, and included it in
his book, Nehayeh.
We already have criticized and disapproved
Shafii’s view, and there is no need to repeat it here.
However, we should add here that verse 90 of the
Nissa Chapter is explicitly prohibiting initial war with the
unbelievers. The verse says: “ ‫وا‬ZZ‫اتلوکم والق‬ZZ‫م یق‬ZZ‫تزلوکم فل‬ZZ‫ان اع‬ZZ‫ف‬
‫بیل‬ZZZ‫م س‬ZZZ‫م علیه‬ZZZ‫ل ا لک‬ZZZ‫ا جع‬ZZZ‫لم فم‬ZZZ‫م الس‬ZZZ‫ “ الیک‬Therefore, 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)
This verse is also one of the restricting verses that
we did not mention under that group. Anyhow, according
to this verse and the other restricting ones that already
were discussed, initiating war against unbelievers is, in no
way, permitted.
This verse clearly prohibits initiating war against
the peace-seeking unbelievers. But in the next verse,
defensive war against the warmonger unbelievers, who
initiate fighting, has become obligatory. It says: “ " ‫فان لم‬
‫ث‬ZZ‫وهم حی‬ZZ‫ذوهم واقتل‬ZZ‫م فخ‬ZZ‫دیهم عنک‬ZZ‫وا ای‬ZZ‫لم ویکف‬ZZ‫م الس‬ZZ‫وا لیک‬ZZ‫تزلوکم ویلق‬ZZ‫یع‬
91) "‫ا‬ZZZZZ‫لطانا مبین‬ZZZZZ‫م س‬ZZZZZ‫م علیه‬ZZZZZ‫ا لک‬ZZZZZ‫م جعلن‬ZZZZZ‫وهم واولئک‬ZZZZZ‫ثقفتم‬Nissa, )
“Therefore, if they do not withdraw from you and (do not)
offer you peace, and hold back their hands, then seize
them and kill them wherever you find them; and against
these, We have given you clear authority.” Go to
contents

Passages from Allameh Helli

Allameh Helli, in his book, ‘‫ ’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
20]20
"..‫]شرائطه فان فعلو ذالک وال قوتلوا‬ “..So there is
the obligation for Muslims to migrate to all those
who fighting with them is obligatory, either for
repelling them or converting them to Islam; then, if
they started war, it would be obligatory to fight
them. And those who are asked to convert to Islam,
first should be called to Islam and being bound by
its terms. If they accepted it and became bound by
its terms, then they are free; otherwise, war must
be initiated against them.”
What Allameh Helli has said about initial war with
the unbelievers is the same as what was said by Sheikh
Toosi, and Ibn Idriss. It means that Allameh Helli also has
not paid attention to the restricting verses on jihad,
wherein fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their
initiating the war. If he had duly considered these verses,
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. However, Allameh’s view is
criticized and rejected by the same argument that was
given on the views of Shafii, Sheikh Toosi, and Ibn Idriss.
20[20] Tathkireh Allameh Helli,, vol. 1, p.409 lithographic print
Passages from Shahide Thani
In his book, Sharhe Lum’eh, Shahid Thani says:
‫ی‬Z‫دعائهم ال‬Z‫دائا ل‬ZZ‫رکین ابت‬Z‫ جهادالمش‬:‫ام‬Z‫ی اقس‬Z‫و عل‬Z‫اد وه‬Z‫اب الجه‬Z‫کت‬
21]21
"... ‫ار‬ZZZ‫ن الکف‬ZZZ‫لمین م‬ZZZ‫ی المس‬ZZZ‫دهم عل‬ZZZ‫ن ی‬ZZZ‫اد م‬ZZZ‫لم وجه‬ZZZ‫]الس‬
“Jihad is several kinds; one is initiating war against
the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam, another
is fighting the unbelievers who have attacked the
Muslims.”
Shahid Thani has also neglected the restricting
verses on Jihad; so, he has expressed such a view that, like
the ones expressed by the jurisprudents named before, is
not based on a valid evidence, and is, therefore, rejected.
Of course, if he had taken into account the meaning of the
restricting verses, whereby fighting has been conditioned
by the unbelievers’ having attacked the Muslims, he
should not have issued such a verdict. 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
‫لکم‬."“No doubt, the main jihad is what is fought initially
against the unbelievers to make them accept Islam, and it
is this type of jihad that this verse was revealed about:
‘Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it, and it may
be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it

21[21] Sharhe Lum’eh, vol. 1 p. 255, Abdu al Rahim edition

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

24[24] Jame al Usool, Ibn Athir, vol.3, p.201

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

25[25] Moqazi waqedi, vol. 1, p. 471

 This type of invitation is, in its nature, completely
different from what is said that the main jihad is initial war
with the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. As
explained earlier, this type of invitation is an effort for
guiding the aggressing unbelievers to the right way, and is
done by the commander of the Muslims power while he is
ready to defend themselves against the aggressors. The
commander says to the aggressors: “If you are satisfied
with the invitation, freely and with no compulsion, at your
choice, accept Islam; thus, you will be in the right path,
and, at the same time, it will lead to the prevention of
bloodshed as well.”
But what the jurisprudents say, with the effect that
it is obligatory to initiate war with the peace-seeking
unbelievers to invite them to Islam, (in fact, 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, and is not
compatible with the spirit of Islam.

Ali’s journey to Yemen was for

admonishing
It should be realized that Ali’s trip to Yemen,
mentioned in the first narration, was a guidance journey,
not a military expedition. It was planned because before
Ali, Khalid ibn Walid was sent for admonishing the people
of Yemen. But during his six-month stay there, no one had
shown any inclination to Islam. Then, the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) sent Ali to replace Khalid.
So, Khalid, together with all the men
accompanying him, except Bura ibn Aazib, had to return.
Bura ibn Aazib is quoted to have said:
 “Accompanying Ali, when we reached the fringe
of Yemen, and the people got the news of it, they
became ready for war. Ali said the dawn prayer
with us. Then, he arranged us in files, and stood
up, facing us and the people of Yemen. After
expressing praise and gratitude to God, he read the
letter from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) for the people of
Yemen. As a result of this, the whole tribe of
Hamdan accepted Islam in one day. Ali informed
this to the Prophet (p.b.u.h), who became very
pleased and performed prostration in gratitude to
God 26[26].”
From the contents of this event, it is realized that
Ali’s mission to Yemen was for guidance and
admonishment, and, at the same time, he had deterrent
power with him. Therefore, when the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
advised Ali : “O Ali, do not fight anyone unless you invite
him to Islam before fighting..” his advice has the meaning
that if in this admonishment journey, in case the people
wanted to attack you, before having militarily conflict,
invite them to Islam. It is obvious that in case of the
happening of such attack, it would not have been Ali who
initiated the war; as he was not the initiator of war in the
battles of Jamal, Seffein, and Nahrewan, but the
aggressing forces imposed war on Ali. Go to
contents

26[26] Tarikhe Tabari, vol. 2, p.398, and Irshade Mufid, p.29,

Isfahan print
 The reasoning of Allameh Tabatabaee
In the previous paragraphs, 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. As far as we know, this view became contained
in the books of jurisprudence in the time of Imam Shafii
(died in year 204 after Hijreh). In the later periods too, the
jurisprudents accepted it with no hesitation. Consequently,
by the passage of time, this view became the dominant
verdict among the jurisprudents. Earlier in this book, we
mentioned seven examples of the verdicts of the Sunni
and Shia jurisprudents, and rejected them.
Of the contemporary scholars, the author of
Almizan also has accepted initial war with the
unbelievers, and views it as a natural and innate
phenomenon. For his view on this subject, he argues as
follows:
“ The Quran states that Islam and the religion of
theism is based on the nature of human, and it
undertakes advancement of humanity. God says in
the Quran: "‫ر‬ZZ‫تی فط‬ZZ‫ره ا ال‬ZZ‫ا فط‬ZZ‫ن حنیف‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫ک لل‬ZZ‫اقم وجه‬ZZ‫ف‬
‫الناس علیها‬." (Rum, 30) “Then set your face upright
for religion in the right state, the nature made by
Allah in which He has made men.”
“Therefore, upholding Islam and the
religion of theism, and maintaining it, is the most
important rights of humanity. Defending this most
vital rights is also another natural rights, 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, there would have
been pulled down cloisters, and churches, and
synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name
is much mentioned;.”
“ The Quran also says: "‫وا‬ZZZ‫ن آمن‬ZZZ‫ذ ی‬ZZZ‫ا ال‬ZZZ‫یاایه‬
24 ‫ال‬ZZ‫م )انف‬ZZ‫ا یحییک‬ZZ‫اکم لم‬ZZ‫ول اذا دع‬ZZ‫تجیبوا ل و للرس‬ZZ‫“ )اس‬You
who believe, 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. Be it for defending the Muslims, or
for protecting the core of Islam, or be it the initial
fight with the unbelievers, in all of these cases,
war, in fact, is defending the human rights that
should prevail. Disbelief in God would cause
bereavement for human, and death of the nature
made by God for man. War and jihad would
breathe life into humanity after it is perished (by
disbelief).
“The wars mentioned in the Quran are
either for eliminating disbelief in God, or for
having the True Word of God rule over the word
of the people of Book and making them obligated
to pay tax.
“What is said that war would cause
compelling people to accept religion, and
imposing religion on them, does no matter.
Because revival of humanity depends on imposing
the truth on some people after rational argument is
completed. And, this is common among the
nations and governments. They invite people to
follow the civil code, and if somebody violated it,
first he or she is invited to obey the code. Then, if
they did not accept it, the law is imposed on them,
even if it may lead to fight.
 “Besides, imposing and compelling will
only apply to the first generation, and generations
thereafter, will be educated by the true religious
practice, and will accept the religion of human
nature at their own choice and free will.”
In connection with Allameh’s words, we
should talk on some points:
First point: As said before, there is not such a
jihad in Islam with the meaning of imposing the religion
by the force of weaponry, and consequently, one is not
required to have to justify it. In other words, we don’t
have to accept the view of imposing, which is contrary to
the Quran and logic, and then have to look for
justification.
Second point: As accepting theism is the rights of
humanity and people, with the same token, the freedom in
accepting or rejecting theism is also the rights of humanity
and people. Islam have never deprived man from this
rights because these verses,
“There is no compulsion in religion” 1. " ‫لاکراه فی‬
256 ‫ره‬ZZ‫ن " )بق‬ZZ‫د ی‬ZZ‫)ال‬ “Let anyone who wishes to, believe,
and let anyone who wishes to, disbelieve” 2. "‫فمن شاء فلیومن‬
29 ‫ “ )ومن شاء فلیکفر )کهف‬Surely We have shown him the
way; he may be thankful or unthankful” 3. " ‫انا هدیناه السبیل‬
3 ‫ )اما شاکرا واما کفورا " )دهر‬,
have never been abolished, and to the end of the
world are calling that human being is free in the choice of
religion. It is neither logical nor fair to deprive humanity
from some rights, namely the rights of being free in the
choice of belief and religion, only to preserve some other
human rights, namely the rights of natural theism.
Third point: The claim of Allameh, to the effect
that a kind of jihad is for eliminating polytheism and
disbelief in God, cannot be a valid claim, because, Islamic
jihad is a natural reaction against the aggression and
injustice of the enemy.‫وا‬-----‫انهم ظلم‬-----‫اتلون ب‬-----‫ن یق‬-----‫ذ ی‬-----‫اذ ن لل‬
“Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is
made because they are oppressed.”
If initial war for eliminating disbelief were
obligatory, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should not have arranged
peace treaty with the unbelievers at Hodeybiya, but should
have fought them till Islam was imposed on them.
If initial war were obligatory, after conquering
Mecca, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should not have let the
unbelievers go free to maintain their disbelief, and
participate in the Hajj ceremony of the next year,
practicing their own ritual.
He also should never have entered into a bilateral
defensive accord with the unbelievers of Khuza’eh, to
undertake defending them against the aggression of their
enemies. Instead, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should have
defeated them by initial war to impose Islam on them.
In addition to all of these, 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, and disbelief has its place
in one’s mind.
Fourth point: In his words on one kind of jihad,
“..or for having the True Word of God rule over the word
of the people of Book and making them obligated to pay
tax.”, Allameh has reference to verse 29, of Baraat, “‫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, nor in
the Latter Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His
Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth,
out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay
the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in
a state of subjection.”
As mentioned before, this verse is one of the
absolute verses, and according to the universally practiced
rule of reading the absolute by the restricting, it will be
read by the conditioned verses and will mean: “ Fight with
those groups of the people of Book who initiated attack,
until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority
and they are in a state of subjection.” Thus, 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, and so that they become obligated to pay tax.
Fifth point: Allameh compares imposing religion
by the force of weaponry on unbelievers with imposing
civil code on the violators by their own government. This
is a comparison with no similarity. Executing civil code is
imposed on the people who have accepted the regime
having such a civil code. So, if they violate it they must be
punished. In fact, the people themselves at their own
choice have accepted, and obligated themselves for such
imposition.
But the case is different with the unbelievers. The
unbelievers themselves have not accepted such
imposition, and we cannot say war should be imposed on
them as obligated by themselves.
Besides, executing the civil code by the force of
weaponry is not imposing a belief. It is just some
executive work, 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.
 Sixth point: Allameh says: “Disbelief in God
would cause bereavement for human, and death of the
nature made by God for man. War and jihad would breathe
life into humanity after it is perished (by disbelief).” Now,
the question is whose bereavement, and the perishment of
whose God-made nature is meant. Is it meant that
humanity will die and perish in the individual who has
disbelief? Or does it mean that humanity and the God-
made 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. The disbelief of any individual
has personal effect, and would cause perishment of
humanity, bereavement, and death of God-made nature in
his own personality. For instance, we cannot say that the
disbelief of some unbelievers in Mecca, had perished
humanity in the whole world, so it should have been
revived by initiating war against them.
Therefore, Allameh’s words in its generality, with
the meaning that disbelief would cause the death of God-
made nature in humanity, cannot be valid. Disbelief will
perish the individual himself because he was free in
choosing the right from the wrong, and he has chosen the
wrong freely and at his own choice.
Seventh point: If initating war, as main jihad, for
imposing Islam on the unbelievers were obligatory, (the
view that Allameh and others hold), then, before anyone
else, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) himself should have done it.
And, the best time that he would do it, was when Mecca
was conquered, and Muslims became dominant there. But,
on the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not
ask any one to choose either Islam or death by sword. On
the contrary, he announced that whoever closed the door
of his house, he was given asylum; whoever entered the
Mosque was given asylum; and whoever went into
Abusofian’s home was in asylum.
Of course, granting such a refuge was for
protecting the unbelievers only. Those who were Muslims
did not need such a protection. (And can you guess how
the Prophet (p.b.u.h) treated those unbelievers?) To
those unbelievers, he said: “ ‫اء‬--‫انتم الطلق‬--‫“ ”اذهبوف‬Go, you
are free!” As we see, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) left the
unbelievers hold onto their belief, and did not impose
Islam on them by the force of weapons under the name of
Jihad. Go to contents

How can the jurisprudents respond?

Earlier it became understood that from Imam
Shafii’s time onward, the jurisprudents have neglected the
restricting verses on jihad, which condition fighting the
unbelievers by the aggression from their side. They have
viewed the main jihad as an initial attack on the
unbelievers for imposing Islam on them.
Now, to illustrate the actuality of such a thought,
and to show the negative effects of it clearly, imagine a
scene as follows:
Suppose for complying with the verdicts of these
jurisprudents, the military force of Islam are ready
to initiate attack on a country in which the people
are innocent and harmless unbelievers, and are
earnestly seeking peace. They wish to have
friendly relations with Muslims. However,
precautionarily they have gathered some force to
defend themselves, and now the two force are on
alert, facing each other, ready for attack.
 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; otherwise, we will start fighting you.
Unbelievers’ commander: But in your Koran in
Nahl Chapter, 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, and have disputation with
them in the best manner.”
Now, instead of inviting with wisdom and
goodly exhortation, and having disputation with
them in the best manner, you are using military
force and are threatening them. 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. It does not make them ready
for recognition. On the contrary, it has negative
consequences, and makes the rival become stubborn, and
inflexible. Do not name this action of yours an invitation.
It is an ultimatum of war, and that is given to a group of
innocent and harmless people who wish to have friendly
and sociable life with you.

So, they say to you:

“We seek peaceful an friendly life and coexistence
with you. We hate war and bloodshed.”
But, in their response, you say:
“We are warmongers, and according to the verdicts
of our jurisprudents, we have to initiate militarily
attack and fight the unbelievers, as it is the main
jihad in Islam!”
Replying you, they say:
“But your Koran, in the Anfal Chapter tells you: “
‫ی ا‬ZZ‫ل عل‬ZZ‫ا وتوک‬ZZ‫“ ”وان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح له‬If they incline
to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah”
(Anfal,61). So, your Koran is inviting to peace, but
you are shouting for war!! We want to associate
with you friendly. Why do you want to act against
what your Koran tells you to do, and want to
initiate war with the peace seeking people like
us?!”
In reply to them, you say:
“Our heart is filled with animosity towards you.
And true believer is the one who encounters the
unbelievers sternly and hardheartedly. And our
Koran says: ""‫ار‬ZZ‫ی الکف‬ZZ‫محمد رسول ا والذین معه اشداء عل‬
29 ‫ح‬ZZ‫ “ ))فت‬Muhammad is the Messenger of God,
and those who are with him are hard against the
unbelievers”
Replying you, they say:
“But you are to be hard and strict against the
aggressing unbelievers, not the innocent and
harmless ones. 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, 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, surely God loves the just.”
(Momtaheneh,8). So, as you see, God is
encouraging you to be kind, and act justly towards
us who are harmless. Now that we are of no
animosity towards you, is your initiating the fight
against us and shedding our blood, and killing the
fathers and leaving the children and wives in
misery, the kindness and justice that your Koran
recommends for the unbelievers like us?”
Your Commander replies:
“According to the verdicts of our jurisprudents, the
main jihad in Islam is the initial war with the
unbelievers for imposing the religion on them.
And, it is greatly rewarded by God. So, we must
impose the religion on you by initial fight.”
Their commander argues:
“Your Koran, in Baqareh Chapter, verse 256, says:
“‫ی‬ZZZ‫ن الغ‬ZZZ‫د م‬ZZZ‫بین الرش‬ZZZ‫د ت‬ZZZ‫دین ق‬ZZZ‫ی ال‬ZZ‫راه ف‬ZZ‫ “ ل اک‬there is no
compulsion in religion, truly the right way has
been clearly distinct from error”. Despite such a
clear instructions, how do you dare to initiate
fighting with us to impose the religion on us with
the force of weaponry, while we are reluctant to
accept it?!”
Your Commander replies: “We are soldiers. Do not
talk with us on the Quran. We do not understand
the Quran. We are obligated to act in accordance
with the verdicts of the jurisprudents who
understand the Quran. So, 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.”
Their commander argues:
 “You rely only on the verdicts of your
jurisprudents. 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, and having disputation in the best
manner, and friendly relations, kindness and justly
act towards the harmless unbelievers, and of no
compulsion in religion. 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 cannot tolerate
attributing a mistake to them. And we have no
choice but initiate fighting with you”

Finishing his last sentence, 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, and get the reward of jihad from God!
(Muslim commander as a soldier is not to blame.)
But the jurisprudents who view main jihad as
initiating war against the unbelievers, 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; and, to avoid portraying an ugly face for Islam,
hereafter, 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
universal prestige of Islam, as it has, unfortunately, done it
so far.
Based on this verdict in the books of
jurisprudence, and the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs that
are regarded as Islamic, westerners have got some very
effective propaganda vehicle, and use it to crush Muslims
whenever the occasions prove appropriate. The westerners
say: “Initial war in Islam against peace-seeking people
have been prescribed as well as practiced.” And, in this
arena, it is Islam that is being oppressed and aggressed;
and is being crushed pitilessly between the hammer of the
brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs, and the anvil of the
jurisprudents; and is crying loud for help to save it from
such strikes. And, it is the same Islam that the strength of
its logic and reasoning have been conquering the minds,
but is accused of having the thirst for human blood, 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, common with both Shia and
Sunni groups of jurisprudents, were discussed in the
previous sections. But, there is an issue on jihad that is
specially raised in Shia jurisprudence. Shia jurisprudents
condition jihad by the instructions from the governing
Infallible Imam, meaning that, basically, no jihad is
religious if it is not by the instructions from the Infallible
Imam. Sahib “Jawahir” claims that the verdicts of
jurisprudents on the subject clearly mean that the
religiousness of jihad is conditioned by the instructions
from the Infallible Imam who is in the reign;27[27] meaning
that the Infallible Imam must be at the head of the state
and be in action, ruling the state and managing its affairs,
like the time of Ali (a.s.).
As far as we know, the Shia jurisprudents have no
disaccord on the issue that jihad will be religious if it is
instructed by the governing Infallible Imam. And, earlier it
was explained that the Shia Jurisprudents view the main
jihad as initial fighting with the unbelievers, and condition
it by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam.
As for defensive war, which is done against the aggressing
enemy, 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.
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, or will ask others
to do it.

The origin of such a thought

In some narrations from Imam Saadiq, and Imam
28
Reza (a.s.) it is mentioned: “28] ‫ادل‬Z‫ام ع‬Z‫ع ام‬Z‫” ]الجهاد واجب م‬

27[27] Jawahir, vol. 21 ps. 13,14, new edition

28[28] Wasa’el al Shia, vol. 11, p. 35, hadith 9 & 10

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

29[29] Sunan Abi Dawood, vol. 3, p. 18, hadith 2533

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

30[30] Nahj al Balaqeh, Khotbeh 163

with the ‘Infallible’ Imam discussed in the theological
books. Consequently, they have issued the verdict that
jihad must be by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.
This point is taken for granted to such an extent
that the late Feiz Kashani, 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, the true jihad is
suspended, therefore, we refrain from mentioning its
conditions and methods”. Feiz is saying that since in the
time of occultation, there is no Infallible Imam present to
practically hold the reign, and since jihad must be done by
the instructions from the Infallible Imam, therefore, why
should we waste time discussing it. And by jihad, he
means the initial war that according to the jurisprudents is
obligatory for imposing the religion on unbelievers;
otherwise, the jihad for defending against the aggressing
enemy is of social vitality, and never can it be suspended.
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, in
the whole phases of war, towards both the parties involved
in fighting, and not to act like the cruel rulers without
considering any justice and fairness. And, this type of

31[31] Shafi, by Feiz Kashani, vol. 2, p. 73

justice is what the narrations talk about, not the
infallibility in the leadership of the war, because these
narrations were intended to prevent the cruel rulers of
those periods from the unjust and cruel conducts in the
battles. As for the claim that there is consensus and accord
on jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the
Infallible Imam,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, and the jurisprudents have
taken it for ‘Infallible’ Imam. But, as we said, this is not
valid, and a ‘just’ imam should not be matched with the
‘Infallible’ Imam.
In the meantime, a point is raised here. The lengthy
arguments that the jurisprudents have had on the main
jihad, after the periods of Imams, to the effect that jihad is
conditioned by the instructions from the ruling Infallible
Imam, 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, 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, except Imam
Khomeini(R.A), who says: “This needs argument and

32[32] Jawahir, vol. 21, p. 13

deep thinking33[33].” He has raised the subject in the book
of “‫ع‬ZZ‫ ”بی‬in the section discussing the guardianship of the
Faghih(jurisprudent). 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, i.e. for main jihad is not exclusively rested
with the Infallible Imam, and the Guardian Jurisprudent,
who is in the reign, may have the rights or the duty to
issue such instructions.

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,
Shahrivar 18, 1361(Iranian date) on the program tilted
“You and Us”. While answering letters from the listeners,
they presented the contents of a letter that had 18
questions, the last of which read: “By the consensus from
the Shia scholars, jihad must be under the reign of the
Infallible Imam. Therefore, how in spite of such
consensus, has Imam Khomeini issued instructions for
jihad and has said: ‘We must fight Israel’? Is attacking
Israel Jihad or defense? If it is Jihad, then it is not
permitted without the presence of the Infallible Imam.”
From the point of view of Imam Khomeini(R.A),
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, he means that there is the probability
that the instructions for initiating war against the

33[33] 496 ‫ ص‬2 ‫کتاب بیع از امام خمینی ج‬

unbelievers, i.e. for main jihad is not exclusively rested
with the Infallible Imam, and the Guardian Jurisprudent,
who is in the reign, may have the rights or the duty to
issue such instructions. This means that Imam Khomeini
(R.A.) does not accept the claimed consensus, or does not
consider it valid.
But the response to the VOA’s question from our
point of view is that, basically, no initial war with the
unbelievers is ordained in Islam, and, what is ordained is
the defensive war against the aggressing enemy, and, that
is the natural rights that is confirmed by the whole world,
and is not conditioned by the instructions from the ruling
Infallible Imam. But, 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.
Based on this view, there will be no subject-matter
for the question whether the rights for initial war with
unbelievers rests exclusively with the Infallible Imam, or
the Guardian Jurisprudent also may have it. The subject-
matter itself is negated. Go to contents

Initiating attack unawares on

unbelievers
Based on the concept that the main jihad is
initiating war against the unbelievers, Sunni and Shia
jurisprudents have raised two points with reference to the
conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). One is that attacking
unawares initially on unbelievers is permitted, because the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) did it in the war against Bani al
Mostalaq. And the other is that if the invitation to Islam
was already heard by the unbelievers, then, there would be
no need to invite them to Islam before attacking them,
because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not invite the
unbelievers to Islam before attacking Bani al Mostalaq.
The jurisprudents have issued verdicts on these
two points, evidencing their verdicts with the narration by
Abdullah Umar, 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. And he wrote to me: ‘Early in Islam it was
necessary, but later it was abolished, and the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) attacked Bani al Mostalaq
unawares while they were giving water to their
animals, killed their fighters, captured their
families. In this attack the Prophet (p.b.u.h) got
hold of Juwairiyya, the daughter of Harith (leader
of Bani al Mostalaq).” Naafe adds: ‘This story was
told to me by Abdullah Umar, who was present in
that war.34[34]”

Here, we are going to mention the verdicts of some

of the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents, which they have
issued evidencing them with the said narration:

The fatwa (verdict) of Ibn Homam Hanafi

Ibn Homam Hanafi, (d.881 Hijri) talking about the
unbelievers who have already heard the message for
invitation to Islam, in his book, Fath al Qadir says: “If the
invitation to Islam were heard by unbelievers before the
initial war, then, no more is it required, because of the

34[34] Jame al Usool, Ibn Athir, vol. 3, p. 205

narration quoted in Sahih Muslim from Abdullah Aoun. 35
[35]
” Ibn Homam then quotes the text of the narration
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Ibn Homam is saying that since the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) had military attack on Bani al Mostalaq without
inviting them to Islam, his action is the evidence that we
can initiate attacking unbelievers who already have heard
invitation to Islam, without any need for invitation.

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, 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.b.u.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,
Sheikh Toosi says: “The commander of Muslims enjoys
the rights to send his force to fight the unbelievers without
priorly inviting them to Islam, because so much that the
enemy have heard about Islam is sufficient, and the
commander of Muslims can kill and capture them

35[35] Fath al Qadir, ibn Homam Hanafi, vol.5, p. 196

36[36] Mabsoot, Sheikh Toosi, vol. 2, p. 11

unawares, as the Prophet (p.b.u.h) attacked Bani al
Mostalaq unawares and killed them.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, Allameh Helli says: “As for those
who are aware of the invitation to Islam, and know about
the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), but do not confess
Islam, initial war with them, without prior invitation to
Islam, is permitted, because the mission of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) is known for them, and they know that he is
inviting to confession, and fights those who do not
confess, and protects those who become believers. Such
groups of unbelievers are considered aggressing
unbelievers, and initial war with them is authorized,
because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack
unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in
peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to
their camels.38[38]” Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Shahid Thani

On this subject, Shahid Thani says: “The
obligation for inviting unbelievers to Islam before the war,
37[37] The same, p. 13

38[38] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, page 409 lithography

print
is discharged about the unbelievers who are familiar with
the invitation to Islam from the previous war or from any
other way. And, that is why the Prophet (p.b.u.h) fought
Bani al Mostalaq without prior notice, and eradicated
them. However, in such instances too, though not
obligatorily, there is the recommendation for inviting to
Islam as well, as was done by Ali (a.s.) while fighting
Amir Abduwud and others, even though they knew about
Islam before.39[39]”

The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “Jawahir”

Discussing this subject, Sahib Jawahir says:
“Sheikh Toosi, Mohaqqeq Helli, Allameh Helli, 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.
Reason one for it is that the original rule on every issue is
no-obligation. Another reason is that some have narrated
that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack
unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in
peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to
their camels. And, possibly there is no disagreement on
this issue.40[40]”

39[39] Sharh Lum’eh, vol. 1, p. 257, Abd al Rahim print

40[40] Jawahir, vol. 21, p. 53

 The truth in the narration from Abdullah ibn
Umar
The jurisprudents clearly attribute two issues to the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) as his conduct. One is that he had initial
militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq, and the
other is that he did not invite them to Islam before fighting
as is understood from the narration.
Here, it is crucial to find out if what is contained in
Aabdullah’s narration is true or not. The best way to find
out the truth is to refer to the history text. The more
detailed history text on this event is what Waqedi, the
expert on the Prophet’s wars, has contained in his book,
‘Moqazi’. He says:
“Harith ibn Abi Zerar, the head of Bani al
Mostalaq, went around in his tribe and other tribes
of Arab and invited them to fight the Prophet
(p.b.u.h), and managed to have their accord.
Eventually, they gathered some force to fight the
Prophet (p.b.u.h). They bought horses and
weaponry and got ready to move forth to the fight.
This news that was publicized by the caravans
reached the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He sent Bureideh
Aslami to that region to investigate this issue.
Bureideh, anonymously, went into the force that
were ready to fight. They asked him: ‘Who are
you?’ He said: ‘I am on your side. I heard that you
are ready to fight this man; 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.
“Very gladly, Harith ibn Abi Zerareh told
him: ‘Make haste on it.’
 “Bureideh came back and informed the
situation to the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He invited
Muslims to mobilize some force. 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, while the
enemy force too had already camped there. The
enemy force got ready to fight. The Prophet
(p.b.u.h) arranged his force in files and gave them
militarily array.
“When the two forces were facing each
other, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked Umar to make a
call to the enemy force and invite them to Islam.
Umar made the call and said: ‘If you say there is
no true god but theGod, then you and your
property is secured.’ But they did not accept the
invitation, and shot the first arrow at the Muslims
and started the fight. Then shooting started from
both sides.
“The Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered his force to
attack promptly and altogether. Doing so, they
disbanded the enemy force and seized their
command post. Ten persons were killed from the
enemy force, and one was killed from Muslims,
mistakenly by the Muslims.41[41]”

After narrating this event, Waqedi quotes the

narration from Abdullah ibn Umar that reads: “the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al

41[41] Moqazi Waqedi, vol. 1, ps.404-407, Nashre Danish

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

42[42] The same

They also were familiar with Omm Shafii, Sireh ibn
Hosham, Tabaqat Mohammad ibn Saad, and Tarikh Tabari,
all of which confirm Waqedi’s narration.
With such reliable sources available for these
jurisprudents, one deeply wonders why the jurisprudents
have ignored them. If they had referred to these reliable
sources, they should never have attributed such unfitting
acts to the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and said that the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al
Mostalaq to shed their blood while they were resting in
peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to
their camels.
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, and made it the evidence to issue their
verdict. It may be that since Abdullah’s narration
confirmed the initial and brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs,
and naturally was promulgated by the governing
machinery, so it was taken as an absolute evidence for a
jurisprudential verdict! Or, since Abdullah was the son of
Umar, possibly this position of Abdullah’s had the effect
on his narration to be accepted!!
But, while Moqazi of Waqedi and other reliable
history sources was available for him, why has Sheikh
Toosi acted on such an unreliable narration of Abdullah
ibn Umar, 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,
and the verdicts issued by Sunni jurisprudents, who were
in majority, had been so dominant in the seminary
environment that even Sheikh Toosi, the jurisprudent of
the Shia minority, has not been able to escape its
dominance to think freely for inferring his own verdict?
This point not only does not seem improbable, it also
appears rather natural for a pressured minority to willingly
or unwillingly follow the majority; and the jurisprudence
of a minority is of no exception. Thus, Sheikh Toosi being
impressed by the dominant verdict, has contained in his
book of jurisprudence what was taken for granted by the
Sunni jurisprudents, and left it as memory. Then, the other
Shia jurisprudents after him, being greatly optimistic of
Sheikh Toosi, have followed, and in fact, imitated him till
the time of Sahib Jawahir, who, in his turn, has claimed
that “And possibly there is no disagreement on this
issue43[43].”

The image portrayed by Allameh Helli

from the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
Earlier we quoted Allameh Helli’s words that read:
“As for those who are aware of the invitation to Islam, and
know about the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), but do
not confess Islam, initial war with them, without prior
invitation to Islam, is permitted, because the mission of
the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is known for them, 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. Was it really the
character of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to tell people to confess
Islam, and to initiate fighting them if they did not accept
43[43] Jawahir, vol. 21, p53
it? Does Allameh Helli know the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with
such a character? Which history text introduces the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) with such a character? On the basis of
which historical sources, has Allameh talked about such
thing? Such an issue is not mentioned in any historical
sources.
The Prophet whose Koran encourages people to do
good to and act friendly and fairly towards the harmless
unbelievers, and says a: “‫دین‬ZZZ‫ی ال‬ZZZ‫راه ف‬ZZZ‫“ ”لاک‬There is no
compulsion in religion”, and also says:‫ن‬ZZ‫الیومن وم‬ZZ‫اء ف‬ZZ‫ن ش‬ZZ‫فم‬
‫الیکفر‬ZZ‫اء ف‬ZZ‫“ ”ش‬Let anyone who wishes to, believe, and let
anyone who wishes to, disbelieve.”, does such a Prophet
violate acting in accordance with his Koran?! The Prophet,
who at the conquest of Mecca with that unrivalled power
of his, did not tell any one to choose either sword or Islam,
but let the unbelievers free to stay on with their own belief
if they so wished, did such a Prophet used to tell people to
accept Islam, otherwise, he would initiate fighting them
and shedding their blood onto the earth?! My God! You
are Untainted!!
Definitely, Allameh Helli has not said such things
based on evidence from history because there is not such a
thing in history. Then, what has happened for him to say
things different from the truth, and consequently disguise
the kind and humanitarian personality of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h), 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. He has just
made a historical issue himself based on the verdict of the
jurisprudents. He has noticed that according to the
narration from Abdullah ibn Umar, initial militarily attack
unawares on the unbelievers who are already aware of the
invitation has been permitted. Thus, Allameh Helli has
made a history of this jurisprudential verdict about the
Prophet (p.b.u.h), naturally as characterized by the verdict.
Making history based on a jurisprudential verdict
is not uncommon. But, as the evidence for this verdict is
some invalid narration, therefore, the verdict itself is
invalid too, and so is the history based on it.Go to contents

Were the people of Taiif massacred?

In addition to the militarily attack by the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) on Bani al Mostalaq as explained before, Sheikh
Toosi has talked about a similar issue regarding the time
when the fortress of Taiif was besieged by the Prophet
(p.b.u.h). Sheikh Toosi says:
“When Imam descends a city, he has the
rights to besiege it, and to forbid entry to
and exit from it; as the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
besieged Taiif. Imam has the rights to erect
ballista and catapult, and to demolish the
walls and dwellings onto the heads of their
dwellers, and to massacre them, as the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) did to the people of Taiif.
And, if there is no Muslim among the
dwellers, Imam has the rights to pound it
with ballista, even if there are women and
children among them, as the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) did it to the people of Taiif, while
there were women and children among
them. …..And, Imam has the rights to
drown them in water, or using the catapult,
 to drop on them fire, snakes, scorpions, and
any destructive object.44[44]”

The readers of this passage from Sheikh Toosi

cannot but think that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) destroyed the
dwellings of the people of Taiif onto their heads by
ballista, and massacred them together with the women and
children.
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, a valley, a fortress, or any other
place, it is permitted to attack them by
ballista, and catapult, and to drop on them
fire, snakes and any thing that may destroy
them, and to drown them in water, even if
there are women and children among them.
The evidence is that the Prophet (p.b.u.h)
erected ballista for the people of Taiif while
there were women and children among
them.45[45]”
From the habit of Sheikh Toosi, we have realized
that he was impressed by the Sunni jurisprudence, and in
many cases, he used to discuss the jurisprudence issues
harmoniously with the Sunni jurisprudents, and issue the

44[44] Mabsoot, vol. 2, p11

45[45] Omm, vol. 2 p.243

verdicts accordingly. And this case is one of the instances
on which he has done it, and followed Imam Shafii. But,
already it was explained that the Sunni jurisprudents have
relied on the invalid narration of Abdullah ibn Umar, and
contrary to the fact, have said: “the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had
initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq
while they were resting in peace, did not know about it,
and were giving water to their camels; he killed them and
captured their families.”
And Sheikh Toosi has followed them.
It is imperative here to clearly understand whether
what Imam Shafii, and following his steps, Sheikh Toosi
have said on this subject, is correct or not.
Referring to history sources on the Battle of
Hunein, and on the siege of Taiif, we have concluded:
1. After the conquest of Mecca, the tribes of Hawazin and
Thaqif gathered a large army under the
commandership of Malik ibn Ouf Nasri to attack the
Muslims in Mecca. To avoid the enemy attack, the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) moved to Hunein, but it ended up
with Hunein battle and the defeat of the enemy. Thus,
the movement of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the Battle of
Hunein was defensive, and not an example of initial
jihad.
2. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) besieged the Taiif Fortress where
the defeated warmongers had taken refuge. During
the siege, he did some tactical acts so that he could
conquer the center of the evil with the least possible
losses. These acts were as follows:
A. 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. But the people at the top of
 the fortress dropped heated pieces of iron on
the carriage and burned its leather. The men
inside the carriage, some wounded, had to get
out. The people inside the fortress shot arrows
at them. Some were martyred; and this plan
had no result46[46].
B. To make the aggressors surrender, the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) ordered to cut down the vines the
grapes of which were picked. But they shouted:
“Do not cut down the trees. Either you will
conquer and the trees will be yours, or for the
sake of God and kinship keep them!” The
Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: “We avoid cutting them
down for the sake of God and kinship.”
C. The Muslims burned down the palace of Malik
ibn Ouf, the commander of the aggressing
enemy after it was made sure that no one was
therein47[47]. The purpose of inflicting this
economical strike, possibly, was to diminish
the arrogance of the aggressive commander
and his subjects, to weaken their morale, and to
prevent using the palace as a battlefield
fortress. An arrogant commander, who
unnecessarily had mobilized such a large army
to wipe out Islam, and had caused shedding the

46[46] Moqazi, vol. 2, ps 927-8

47[47] Same, p. 924

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

48[48] Same, p. 925

 In that system of slave-ownership, escaping
of the slaves from the fortress, was another
economical and psychological blow on the
aggressing enemy, while the Muslims could get
valuable information from them as well.
These were the tactical acts that, at the instructions
from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the Muslims had done against
the aggressing enemy while having theTaiif Fortress under
siege. And, after having the Fortress under siege for some
days, the Muslims had two views about it: to continue the
siege, or to disregard it. Finally, they agreed on
discontinuing the siege, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered
the Muslims to return.

None of the unbelievers were killed

with ballista
Even though the historians have written: “While
besieging the Taiif Fortress, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered
erecting of ballista,” or have written: “By the instructions
from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the Muslims struck the Taiif
Fortress,50[50]” none of the historians have written that
anyone was killed with ballista.
The historians have written some details on the
Hunein Battle, and the siege of the Taiif Fortress. For

49[49] Same, p. 931

50[50] Sireh ibn Hosham, vol. 2, p.483

instance, they have recorded the number of the martyrs of
Hunein four persons, and those killed from the enemy
force between 70 and 100 persons; and have written down
12 as the number of the Muslim martyrs in the siege of the
Taiif Fortress; and a lot of the events of the siege days was
told by the people of Taiif who became Muslim later. Yet,
no historian has written that even a single person was
killed with ballista at the instructions of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h). Only one of them, who had murdered a Muslim
with arrow, was captured by the brother of the Muslim,
and punished in revenge by the instructions from the
Prophet (p.b.u.h).
Reading the history text that says: “The Prophet
(p.b.u.h), while besieging the Taiif Fortress, ordered
erecting of ballista,” possibly, Imam Shafii has jumped to
the conclusion that inevitably, thereby they have
demolished the dwellings of them onto their heads and
massacred them together with the women and children.
Then, Imam Shafii has made some analogy for drowning
in water, and for burning alive of the enemy and contained
it in his writing. And, this is very strange that Imam Shafii
has prescribed burning of human being, even the women
and children! And far more stranger is that Sheihk Toosi
has followed Shafii’s steps!!
Erecting ballista, and even hurling stones thereby
in a way that would not cause losses, can be practiced as a
militarily warning for threatening the fugitive enemy and
making them surrender, while it may prevent slaying of
human being, particularly the slaying of women and
children.
What we know about the conduct of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) is that unless there was some coercion, he never
gave consent for the murder of any human being,
particularly the innocent ones, and he had the same
conduct besieging the Taiif Fortress, and no single one of
the aggressing enemy was killed then.
Therefore, what the passages from Imam Shafii,
and Sheikh Toosi indicate cannot be valid. 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. What they say has no historical evidence, and
must be seriously criticized.
Possibly, the mentality of the jurisprudents, being
obsessed that there should be no rights of life for the
unbelievers and their wives and children, has been helpful
for issuing the verdicts on mass-killing of children and
women. 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, 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,
surely God loves the just.” (Momtaheneh,8). As we see,
the Quran introduces the harmless unbelievers as
respectable persons who deserve kindness and justly acts.
By the way, Forouq Abadiyat contains the passage:
“Officers of Islam erected the ballista with the guidance of
Salman, and showered stones on the Fortress and the
towers inside it for almost twenty days.51[51]”

51[51] Forouq Abadiyat, p. 749

 If it is meant that the people of Taiif, including
women and children, were killed under the stone-shower,
it is not true because no single person was reported to be
killed by ballista. But, if it is meant that the stone-shower
was for threatening the enemy, it is acceptable.
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, in a
manner that such a war by its nature is God’s favorite,
with the same token that prayers, fasting, and pilgrimage
to Kabah are His favorite. Consequently, they have
conceptualized and thought that, now that, for instance,
prayers is obligatory five times a day, fasting one month
each year, and pilgrimage to Kabah once in the whole life
of a person, what about jihad? Is it obligatory every
month, every year or once in one’s life?
If they had conceptualized the truth on jihad, being
obligatory whenever there is an attack from the enemy,
logically it should have followed that it is obligatory
neither once a month, nor once a year, and nor once in
one’s whole life, but only whenever there is an attack by
the enemy. Unfortunately, the jurisprudents do not think
so. They say that it is religiously obligatory to initiate war
against the peace-seeking unbelievers. Therefore, they
have had to fix a time for it such as that fixed for the other
religious duties, like prayers, which is obligatory daily; or
fasting, yearly; or Hajj, once in the whole life. But, there
is no evidence either from the Quran or from the tradition
to make it clear, because basically, not only initial war
against the harmless unbelievers has not been made
obligatory either in the Quran or in the valid narrations,
but it also has been prohibited. But, contrary to what is
said in the Quran and was practiced by the Prophet
(p.b.u.h), the jurisprudents say: “Initial war against the
peace-seeking unbelievers is obligatory like praying and
fasting.” Therefore, they have had to clearly fix the times
and period for that, too.
The first jurisprudent who has tried to clear it in a
book of jurisprudence was Imam Shafii.

The fatwa (verdict) of Imam Shafii

In his book, Omm, Imam Shafii, taking very great
pains, wants to infer the rule for the initial jihad from the
conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). 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.
And, if it is possible for him, I would like him to
proceed to fight in the unbelievers countries as
many times as he can without endangering the
Muslims. And the minimum that is obligatory for
the Caliph is that no year should pass unless he has
had one battle, so that jihad should not become
suspended year long with no excuse. And, I am
telling this because since the time jihad became
obligatory for the Prophet (p.b.u.h), each year,
either himself or through his agent he fought one
or two fights, or he sent some groups to fight in his
absence. And, occasionally, some period passed
 during which neither he had a fight, and nor did he
send groups to fight in his absence.52[52]”

To prove that initial war with the harmless

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

52[52] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p 168

And, as stated by Mohammad Jawad Balaqi, and Sheikh
Abduh, and the true historical events are proof of it, the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) too never proceeded to initial fight. Only
whenever, due to the aggression of the enemy or their
readiness to aggress, it was felt necessary to defend, did
the Prophet (p.b.u.h) proceed to fight
It is clear that from this conduct of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h), as mentioned by Imam Shafii himself, never can
one infer that initial fighting with the peace-seeking
unbelievers is obligatory once a year.
What has caused Shafii to try pains takingly is that,
as mentioned earlier, in his view, all the restricting verses
on jihad, whereby fighting the unbelievers is conditioned
by their aggression, are abolished. Consequently, in
accordance with the absolute verses, he is of the idea that
initial fight with the unbelievers is obligatory. So, he has
had to try to fix the time and the period for its
performance. And, since there is no evidence either in the
Quran or in the narration regarding such a fixation, Shafii,
with great pains-taking, has had to use this conduct of the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) as an evidence, while, as explained, it
has not such a meaning!
Had Shafii taken the right steps from the
beginning, and not had considered the restricting verses
abolished, he should have had the view that according to
these verses, initial war with the harmless unbelievers is
not permitted; only when the enemy has aggressed or is
ready to aggress, it becomes obligatory to proceed for
defense. In this case, there could have been no necessity
for Shafii to pains-takingly fix the time and period for it,
unacceptably using the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as
an evidence; in this case, he should not have laid a fake
foundation for the next generations to build on.
 By the way, on this subject, Shafii is talking about
the Caliph and explains his duty regarding the war. Is it
possible that in the time of the Abbasid Caliphs who
started initial wars, Shafii could not help but issue the
verdict harmoniously with the acts of the Caliphs? This
possibility cannot be definitely rejected. And if so, then
politics has had its effect on this subject.
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.”
It is possible that this conduct narrated about Umar has
some effect on Shafii’s verdict.
However, this verdict of Imam Shafii, obligating
initial war with the peace-seeking unbelievers once a year,
is acceptable in no ways. But, this unacceptable verdict,
has been, unfortunately, recorded in the compiled
jurisprudence of those days, and has been taken for
granted in the seminaries by the passage of time. This
unacceptable verdict has become so dominant that even
Sheihk Toosi discussing this subject has not managed to
escape its dominance and think independently.
Consequently, Sheikh Toosi has contained this verdict of
Shafii in his jurisprudential books without scrutinizing it.
Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi

Sheikh Toosi says:

53[53] Jami al Usool, ibn Athir, vol. 3, p. 223

 “It is obligatory for Imam, to fight once a year,
either himself or by sending the troops, so that
jihad should not be suspended.54[54]”
Suspensions is true about those obligatory duties
that are by their nature desirable, such as prayers and
fasting, but not about issues like defensive war that is a
function of the enemy’s aggression, or their readiness to
aggress. 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. Sheikh Toosi also says: “The
minimum that is obligatory for the Imam is that he should
proceed to fight once each year, and the more he is
involved in fighting, the more virtue he will gain. Because
jihad is enjoined as a group duty (everybody else are
discharged if the duty is done by any one in the group, like
burying a dead body. From translator), therefore, the more
it is done, the more virtue it will create.55[55]”
As we see, the verdict of Shafii is contained in the
jurisprudence book of Sheik Toosi without any scrutiny.
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] Mabsoot Sheikh Toosi, vol. 2, p., 2

55[55] The same, p. 10

 After Sheikh Toosi, the other jurisprudents, who
were impressed by the character of the Sheikh, have
followed him, and included the same verdict in their
jurisprudence books.

The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Helli

In his book, Sharaaye, Mohaqqeq Helli says:
“As for the people with whom fighting is
obligatory, it is incumbent upon Muslims to move
towards them either for repelling them or
converting them to Islam. Thus, if they started
fighting, it is obligatory to fight them, and if they
avoided attacking, then, fighting them is obligatory
to the extent that is possible, and the minimum is
once a year. And, if it is for the interest of
Muslims, having peace with them is permitted.
56[56]
”
Following the suit of Sheikh Toosi, Mohaqqeq
Helli also, with no scrutiny, has mentioned as his verdict
what Sheikh Toosi had done following Imam Shafii.
Incidentally, there are two points in Mohaqqeq’s
statement. One is that he is talking about converting the
unbelievers to Islam, meaning to impose Islam by the
force of weaponry; the other is that by saying: “and if they
avoided attacking, then fighting them is obligatory to the
extent that is possible, and the minimum is once a year”,
he expresses his view that initial fighting with the
unbelievers is obligatory for converting them to Islam.

56[56] Shraaye,p. 88, Abd al Rahim print

 After Mohaqqeq Helli, 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.
Among them, Allameh Helli not only has accepted this
verdict, he also has tried to make it evidenced.

The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli

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

57[57] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, p.406, lithography print

Battle of Ohod also the enemy started the attack and the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) had to defend. And, it was the same in all
the Prophet’s fights. All his fights were functions of the
aggressions of the enemies. It was not that he had so
arranged that he should have had one initial fight each
year. 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. Therefore, one cannot make evidence of the conduct
of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the defensive war for issuing
verdict on initial war.
By the way, Allameh says that the Battle of
Khandaq was in the fifth year, and Bani al Mostalaq in the
the sixth year of Hijrat. But according to Waqedi, both
these wars happened in the fifth year, and Bani al
Mostalaq took place before the Khandaq Battle 58[58]. Thus,
there were two defensive wars in one year because there
were two aggressively attacks from the enemy in that year.
The reality of the issue is that, being impressed by
the character of Sheikh toosi, who had accepted Shafii’s
verdict, Allameh Helli also has mentioned the same
verdict of Shafii as his verdict, and then has tried to
evidence it with the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h),
saying that he had one war each year. But, as explained, it
is not an acceptable reasoning. 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, and it is obligatory once a year in the

58[58] Moqazi Waqedi, vol. 1, ps 404 & 440

 minimum. The reason is that the verse: ‘ ‫لخ‬Z‫فاذا انس‬
‫وهم‬ZZ‫د تم‬ZZ‫ث وج‬Z‫( ’الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حی‬Bara’at, 5)
‘After the forbidden months elapsed, 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 lapse of these
months happen once a year, therefore, every year
after the lapse of the sacred months, jihad also
becomes obligatory, and it is not obligatory in the
rest of the year, because an absolute order to do a
duty does not mean repetition of the duty. And
there is some discussion and views on this
argument.”59[59]
The passage from Sharhe Lum’eh shows that there
is no doubt about jihad itself being obligatory once a year,
but indicates that the argument for it may be scrutinized.
We should know that reasoning by the verse: “ ‫فاذا‬
‫”انسلخ الشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حیث وجد تموهم‬, first has been
done by Allameh Helli in his Tathkireh. 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.
But the scrutiny that we can have on the argument
is that the said verse is about the unbelievers who violated
the treaty, according to which they were given a grace
period of “four months to go about on the earth” “‫فسیحوا فی‬
2 ‫”)الرض اربعه اشهر )توبه‬. The text of the verse shows that
four consecutive months is meant. Thus, it cannot be that
the four commonly recognized sacred months ( ‫ذی القعده‬

59[59] Sharh Lum’eh, vol 1, p 255 Abd al Rahim print

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

The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Thani

In his book, Jame al Maqassid, a commentary on
Qawaede Allameh, Mohaqqeq says:
“Jihad is obligatory once a year, unless some
urgency rises, in which case sometimes it is not
obligatory at all, and sometimes it becomes
obligatory more than once a year. The evidence for
this verdict is the text and the consensus.60[60]”
The blessed Mohaqqeq Thani also, not having
noticed any disaccord among the jurisprudents, has
accepted the common verdict, (he had better not have
accepted it), and then has said: “The evidence for this
verdict is the text and the consensus.” By text, he means
the verse: “ ‫رکین‬ZZ‫اقتلوا المش‬Z‫رم ف‬Z‫هر الح‬Z‫ ”فاذا انسلخ الش‬which was
used by Allameh Helli as evidence. We made it clear that
the verse does not have such a meaning. And by
consensus, he means that all the jurisprudents after Sheikh
Toosi have issued such verdict. 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.
Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “ Jawahir”

On this subject, Sahib “Jawahir” says:

60[60] Jame al Maqassid, vol. 1, p. 186

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

61[61] Jawahir, vol. 21, ps 10, 11

 The necessity for the jurisprudents to
withdraw this fatwa (verdict)
As mentioned before, 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. Now, the question arises: “ Is it really a
divine instruction, and if so, then Ali (a.s.) should have
made a priority of it to initiate war against the unbelievers
once a year during his reign of some years, and why did
he not do it?” The fact that Ali (a.s.) 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, 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, no doubt, do inflict
irreparable damages on Islam, and certainly do destroy its
value, disgracing it through out the world community.
And, this is an error carried out unintentionally against
this precious divine religion by the guardians of Islam
themselves.

One for ten, 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. But this rule changed,
and it became obligatory for Muslim forces to
resist the enemy force that is twice as much as
theirs.”
 To prove it, the interpreters have used verses 65, and 66 of Anfal Chapter as evidence.
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 فیک‬Z‫( الن خفف ا عنکم وعل‬65) ‫الفا من الذین کفروا ذالک بانهم قوم لیفقهون‬
66) ‫ابرین‬Z‫)وان یکن منکم الف یغلبوا الفین باذن ا وا مع الص‬ “O Prophet urge the believers to war; if
there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred
of you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve because they are a people who
do not understand (65). For the present, Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that
there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two
hundred, and if there are a thousand, they shall overcome two thousand by Allah’s permission;
and Allah is with the patient (66).”
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. Patience and perseverance is a very important factor for defeating the enemy,
and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is instructed to encourage Muslims for having patience and
perseverance while facing the aggressing enemy. But this is a two-phased encouragement.
In the first phase, it has been assumed that twenty patient and tolerant persons, with
religious belief, resist two hundred persons who do not have any belief and do not expect any
heavenly rewards. Expecting such rewards, if the Muslims show patience and tolerance to a high
degree, twenty of them may defeat two hundred, meaning one for ten.
In the second phase, it has been assumed that if there are one hundred patient and tolerant
persons, normally such people will resist two hundred, meaning one for two. And, this is the
variety in addressing for encouragement, and an emphasis to the point that even if resisting of
one against ten is not so common, resisting of one believer who is expecting heavenly rewards
against two unbeliever is easily practical. That is why in the second verse it says: “For the
present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you..”
therefore, “if there are a hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred”, in
which case overcoming the enemy will look more natural and expected.
In other words, 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. Since they have
religious belief and expect heavenly rewards, they do not show weakness, and as such, they
normally defeat the enemy. If some are killed, they will become martyrs, 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, resisting of one against two is practically and
easily attainable.

The method adopted by the interpreters

As explained in the previous paragraphs, the two verses are for encouragement, and
promoting the morale in the Muslims who are fighting for defense. But the interpreters have
considered them as rule-setting verses, which ordain the duty. They say:
“In these verses, the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and
instructional statement. In the beginning, according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter, it was
obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad; but later this obligation was
abolished by the next verse, and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two.
Their evidence for this is that the verse 66 says that Allah has made light your burden;
 and ‘making light one’s burden’ can be conceived only if there were already some
obligation and duty ordained for the one.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, one of
you will overcome ten people.” Then to say: “But as weakness in morale is noticed in you, we
make light the burden in the encouragement for patience and tolerance, and now say that if you
are patient, one of you will overcome two of the enemy.” Thus, there is no need to say that since
making light of burden is mentioned in the verse 66, therefore, the declarative statements in the
verses has the meaning of imperative and is ordaining a duty. ‘Making light in burden’ can be
conceived in encouragement as well.

Abolishment of verse 65 of Anfal not acceptable

The interpreters say: “In these verses, the declarative statement has the meaning of
imperative and instructional statement. In the beginning, according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter,
it was obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad; but later this obligation was
abolished by the next verse, and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two. 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, but immediately, in the next verse has abolished it and replaced it with another
rule?’” Was the first rule ordained thoughtlessly, and 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, in the
first verse, God has ordained a rule, and then immediately in the second verse has abolished it!”
Such a matter cannot be attributed to the ordinary legislators, let alone to the Omniscient, Great
God.
In his book, Tibyan, 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, as God recognized that this
is a heavy duty on people, and the practicality was changed, He obligated the believers to
resist one against two, and one hundred against two hundred, thus, making it light on
them. This is the view of Ibn Abbas, Hassan Basri, Akrameh, Qatadeh, Mojahed, Suday,
Ata, Balkhi, Jobaee, Romani, and all the interpreters.64[64]”

62[62] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi, vol. 5, p. 153, Tafsire Tabari, vol. 10, p41, and Tafsir al Manar, vol 10, p.87 2 nd
edition.

63[63] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi, vol. 5, p. 154, Tafsire Tabari, vol. 10, p41, and Rooh al Maani Aloosi, under
the verses.

64[64] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi, vol. 5, p. 154

 One can easily realize how such unfitting stuff is attributed to the Omniscient God, and,
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, and abolished it. 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, the declarative
statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement.”
We ask them: “What do they mean by declarative statement? Do they mean the whole
sentence, containing the main and subordinate clauses?, namely in this sentence: “ ‫م‬ZZ‫ن منک‬Z‫ان یک‬
‫اتین‬ZZ‫و م‬ZZ‫ابرون یغلب‬ZZ‫رون ص‬ZZ‫ ;“ عش‬if there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two
hundred” and in the two similar sentences after it. It is clear that no imperative meaning can be
understood from it. There is only a condition and a consequence in each sentence, with the
consequence being subject to and a function of the condition, meaning that if there are twenty
patients, they will overcome two hundred; and if there are one hundred, they will overcome two
hundred. From neither part of these sentences, one may realize an imperative meaning.
In addition, as for the meaning of imperative (command) claimed by them, we should ask
them: “What is the command for? Is the command for patience, or for conquest?”
If it is a command for patience (in which case it cannot be used as evidence by them.-
from translator) it has no sense, because as mentioned already, neither part of the sentences does
show commanding for patience; only the happening of the consequence as a result of the
condition is understood: happening of conquest resulting from patience.
If they say it is a command for conquest, it will have no rational meaning; conquest is at
no one’s choice, therefore, it is not rational to command for it. The fighters sometimes are
defeating, and sometimes defeated. It has no meaning to say: “If there are twenty patient ones of
you, they should overcome two hundred.”
Of course, the important point here is that, in these two verses, there is the good news of
and assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy. Verse 65 says: “
‫ “ ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین‬if there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome
two hundred”; and verse 66 says: “ ‫“فان یکن منکم ماه یغلبوا ماتین‬If there are one hundred patient ones
of you, they shall overcome two hundred.” In fact, 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, Wherever Patience goes, Conquest follows him.”
In this way, the Muslims are encouraged to be patient and tolerant against the enemy.
Thus, these verses have the consequential meaning that patience and tolerance against the enemy
is desirable. And, the interpreters, having understood the desirability of patience from the
consequential meaning, do take it as a command for patience and say: “In these verses, there is a
command for patience and tolerance, and the declarative statement has the meaning of
imperative and instructional statement.”
But it is clear that the meaning of the two verses, namely, giving the good news of and
assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy, does fall in the
category of declarative, not imperative sentence; there is no command in it, and it does not
indicate ordaining any rule. Zamakhshari says: “This verse is the promise and the good news
from God to the effect that if a group of Muslims are patient and tolerant against the enemy, with
the help of God, they will overcome the enemy force ten times as theirs.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, and one cannot make it
the evidence, as the interpreters do, for issuing an obligatory duty. And, 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. Abolishment may, reasonably apply about an obligatory
duty that has been performed for some period.

Unacceptable justification
Some of the interpreters have noticed that it is a mistake to say that of the two verses that
were revealed together, one ordains a rule, and the next one immediately abolishes the same rule.
Therefore, to rectify this mistake, they have said: “In this context, the second verse has been
revealed some time after the first one.66[66]”
Such a claim having no evidence, and being unacceptable, the author of Almizan has
rejects it, and says: “The context shows that these two verses were revealed together. 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. Thus, there is no interval between the revelation of the two verses,
but the governance of them relate to two periods with intervals.67[67]”
We should emphasize here that the view that these two verses were revealed in two
different periods, and with some interval, but were put together in the Quran, is something
inappropriate to say; some interpreters have to say it out of helplessness. As the author of
Almizan says, the context shows that these two verses were revealed together.
On the other hand, 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.” He
says it because first he has accepted that these verses ordain some obligatory rule; and then has
had to look for justification for the abolishment. Has he had not accepted the un-evidenced issue
first, he should not have had to helplessly look for justification.
As explained earlier, these two verses do not ordain some obligatory duty, but as a change
from the main manner of addressing the Muslims, they state two phases of persuasion and
encouragement for Muslims so as to have patience and tolerance while fighting the enemy. And,
these two phases are stated together with no interval. Thus, there would be no need for the
unacceptable justification mentioned in “Majma al Bayan”, nor would there be any need for the
un-evidenced justification made up by the author of Almizan. Go to contents
65[65] Kashshaf Zamakhshari, vol. 2, p. 235, of the four-vol edition

66[66] Majma al Bayan, vol 2, p. 557, Ketabforoushi Islamiyah

67[67] Almizan, vol. 9, p 127, Akhoondi

Terrible consequences of this view
Those who entertain the view that these two verses ordain an obligatory duty, say that
verse 66 in Anfal has abolished the governance of verse 65. And the rule that is ordained in its
place is that thereafter, one Muslim must resist two unbelievers, meaning that if the number of
enemy force were more than twice of the Muslims’ force even by one single person, then
defending will not become obligatory for the Muslims.
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, but
that of the enemy three thousand; nor it was obligatory in the Battle of Khandaq because
Muslims were three thousand, but the enemy ten thousand; nor it was obligatory in the Battle of
Mouteh, where Jafar Tayyar was martyred because Muslims were three thousand, but the enemy
thirty 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.
These are unfavorable consequences that no one can obligate himself to them. In practice
also, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and the Muslims acted against this view because in all the battles of
Ohod, Khandaq, Mouteh, and Khorramshahr they performed the defense as an obligatory
religious duty, with no attention to what is said by the interpreters. And, this is a valid evidence
to prove that the interpreters have not interpreted these verses correctly.

Reliance of Shafii on the view quoted from Ibn Abbass

In his book Omm, Shafii says:
“Ibn Oteibeh has quoted from Amr ibn Dinar, who quoted from Ibn Abbass, who has
said: ‘when the verse “ ‫اتین‬ZZ‫و م‬ZZ‫ابرون یغلب‬Z‫رون ص‬Z‫“ ”ان یکن منکم عش‬If there are twenty patient
ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred,” was revealed, it became obligatory for
the Believers to resist twenty of them two hundred of the enemy. Then, God revealed this
verse: “‫اتین‬ZZ‫وا م‬ZZ‫اه یغلب‬Z‫م م‬ZZ‫ن منک‬Z‫“ ”الن خفف ا عنکم وعلم ان فیکم ضعفا فان یک‬For the present, Allah
has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a
hundred patient ones of you, 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. Therefore, when the believers face an enemy force whose number is
two times as much as the Believers’ force, then they are religiously forbidden from
running away, but if the number of enemy force is more than two times of that of the
Believers’ force, in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an obligatory
duty is neglected, and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that neglecting
it be reckoned as sin.68[68]”
It is more than clear that based on his quotation from Ibn Abbas, 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, then resistance against them is obligatory,
but if their number is more than twice, even by a single person, then escaping the battlefield is
permitted.

68[68] Omm Shafii, vol.4, p169

 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. But reasoning on a quoted
evidence should be done after making the research to see if there is any other quotation opposing
it. If there were not any contradictory found, then it can be used as evidence. But, there is some
contradictory evidence here. It is a different quotation from Ibn Abbas indicating the opposite of
what Shafii has quoted. Based on his own documentation, regarding verses 65 and 66,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, and be hopeful that God will help them defeat the enemy.
And, this was not an obligatory duty, and nor ordaining a religious rule. It was just a
blessing of encouragement made by God to His Messenger. Then, 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. If fighting the enemy had been
obligatory only when their number were exactly twice that of Muslims’, then, the
Muslims would refrain from fighting the enemy if their number were more than twice.
Therefore, one should not be deceived with what some scholars say. I have heard some
say: ‘It is not appropriate for Muslims to fight the unbelievers unless their number is
twice that of Muslims’ number.’ They think that if the number of Muslims did not amount
to this level, fighting the enemy would be a sin, and if it is less than that level they can
refrain from fighting.69[69]”
We see that this quotation from Ibn Abbass is contradictory with what Imam Shafii has
quoted from him, relying on it as evidence for his verdict. In this quotation, it is explicitly stated
that no religiously obligatory duty is understood from these verses. 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.’ From the last statement he means ‘but we know that, even in such cases, the
Muslims have proceeded to defend themselves against the enemy in the battles of Ohod,
Khandaq, and Mouteh.
The verdict issued by the evidence of the other quotation from Ibn Abbass, as explained
before, has some terrible consequence, and is not acceptable. Now, a question must be answered
here. The question is: “For their verdict, why has Shafii and his followers used the other
quotation (indicating obligatory duty), and not heeded this quotation from Ibn Abbas, 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, or better to say, unreasonable view. Go to contents

Rule for exterminating the nation of Muslim

Interpreting the two verses, the interpreters have said that originally it was obligatory in
jihad for Muslims to resist one against ten of the unbelievers. But this was abolished, and it
became obligatory for Muslims to resist against twice their number of the enemy force. This
means that the second rule has become the permanent rule in Islam on this subject to the end of
the world. This, necessarily, suggests that if the number of the enemy force is more than twice,

69[69] Tafsir Tabari, vol. 10, p. 39

then no defense is obligatory for Muslims. Such a rule, no doubt, would result in the
extermination of the Islamic nation because the Muslims would take it as the Divine Rule; and
whenever the enemy force is more than twice of that of the Muslim force even by a single
person, the Muslims would not consider fighting a religious duty, and thus neither the people nor
the government would engage in the vital defense.
It is natural that under such circumstances, to exterminate the Muslims, the enemy, who
know that Muslims have no religious duty to fight, will wage an all-out attack and wipe out the
Muslims! And, we know that defending the root of Islam is both the Divine duty and the natural
rights of the Islamic nation, and in any case, it must be done by both the government and the
people. History is also a good testimony that, in practice, Muslims have done it in this way,
saving the entity of the Islamic nation by their defense.
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, 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, in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an
obligatory duty is neglected, and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that
neglecting it be reckoned as sin.” 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.” (Anfal,45). The Quran also
is asserting:"‫ار‬ZZ‫وهم الدب‬ZZ‫ا فلتول‬ZZ‫روا زحف‬ZZ‫ذین کف‬ZZ‫م ال‬ZZ‫(“ " اذا لقیت‬O you who believe!) When you meet the
unbelievers marching for war, never turn your back to them.” (Anfal,15). These two verses do
absolutely and explicitly mean that the Believers must resist against the aggressing enemy for
defending, and never turn their back whatever the enemy number may be.
The fact is that the interpreters have spent little time for having comprehensive study on
the meaning of these two verses. First, one of them has said: “the sentence ‘ ‫‘ ’الن خفف ا عنکم‬For
the present, Allah has made light your burden,’ in the second verse indicate that the contents of
these verses is an obligatory duty.” And the other interpreters immediately have accepted him
and contained it in their books. Then, century after century, it has been repeated so much that it
has occupied the minds of all. And, that is why the author of “Almizan” in spite of saying:
“Restricting abatement to obligatory duty is arguable,” 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, yet, he says: “There is no excuse for one to suspect that these two verses, in their
explicitness, convey two different obligatory rules.70[70]”
Our understanding is that, 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. Otherwise,
not only suspecting the explicitness in these verses should be excused, it must be, necessarily,
rejected too. The reason is that for proving their claim that these two verses carry an obligatory
rule, the interpreters use the text of the verse ‘ ‫‘ ’الن خفف ا عنکم‬now God gives abatement’ and
say, “abatement is conceivable only if there is an obligatory rule practiced already.” Now that the
author of Almizan thinks this reasoning is arguable and says: “Restricting abatement to
obligatory duty is arguable,” there will be left no other way for him to prove that ‘these two
verses, in their explicitness, convey two different obligatory rules.’
70[70] Almizan, vol. 9, p.128, Akhoondi
 Moreover, as explained earlier, being obligated by these two so-called obligatory rules,
claimed by the interpreters, will result in the extermination of the Muslims. It also would mean
that jihad was not obligatory in the battles of Ohod, Khandaq, and Mouteh. These are some of
the ill-consequences that it is not possible for one to commit himself to any of them.
Therefore, the explicitness in these two verses to convey two different obligatory rules,
one being lighter than the other, as claimed in Almizan is not acceptable.
Besides, there is another inconsistency in the words of Almizan. On the one hand, it says:
“Two obligatory duties are understood from these verses, one being lighter than the other.” By
the lighter duty, the author means the second one, according to which, as they say, if the number
of enemy force is twice of that of the Muslims’, then, patience is obligatory, but if it is more than
twice, patience is not obligatory. On the other hand, under point “Fifth”, the author says: “The
verse convey the meaning that in any case patience is obligatory in fighting.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, as said
by the author and other interpreters, patience and resistance is not obligatory in case the number
of enemy is greater than twice of that of the Muslims’.

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, but if their number is more than twice, then it is not obligatory. Thus,
fixing the quantity of the enemy force is the prerequisite for making it clear whether jihad has
become religiously obligatory or not. And, as long as this point is not made clear, the Muslims
will not be able to realize whether they are obligated to fight or not. Therefore, as a prerequisite,
it would be obligatory first to find out at what level the quantity of the enemy force stands, so
that the Muslims should realize their religious duty.
But, we know that the quantity of the military force, whether ground force, air force, or
navy, is a military secret and always is kept undisclosed. Therefore, in a normal way it is
impossible to fix the actual number of the enemy force. Even if they send secret agents to find
out the real number of the enemy force, yet, it would prove impossible to discern the actual
number hundred percent correctly. Thus, those who say: “The contents of these two verses carry
two different obligatory rules”, they condition realizing a religious obligation by something
attaining of which normally is impossible for Muslims. And, this is another ill-consequence of
having such a view, besides the other ill-consequences already mentioned.
In addition, while the Muslims are busy investigating the number of enemy force,
naturally they are waiting for the result and are not fighting for defense. Therefore, the enemy
will take advantage of this opportunity, and with the peace of mind, will launch their
overthrowing attack. And, by the time the result of investigation about the enemy quantity is
ready, the Muslims will have received fatal strikes, after which the result of the investigation will
be useless. And, this is the consequence of the view held by those who say: “The condition for

71[71] The same

jihad being obligatory is that the number of enemy should be twice that of the Muslims, and not
more.”
But according to the valid view, which says that these verses do not convey obligatory
duty, the message in these verses is based on some assumption. The first verse says: “If there are
twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred.” Since the message is based on
assumption, there will be no need for specifying the quantity of the enemy force.
It is obvious that the Muslims who are educated in a culture stemming from the valid
view, will recognize it obligatory in any case to fight for defense against the attacking enemy,
and will not condition the defense by the number of the enemy. Thus, these Muslims never put
off the defense for specifying the quantity of the enemy force. They are always watchful and
ready to respond the attacking enemy properly, and do not provide the enemy with the chance to
attack the Muslims with peace of mind, and strike them fatally.
Fundamentally, 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. And,
whenever the enemy makes a militarily attack, or gets ready to do it, whatever their quantity may
be, such-educated Muslims will encounter the aggressing enemy severely and firmly so as to
make them get back confined to their limit, and regret the aggression. Go to contents
 Chapter 2

Jihad with the rebels (boqat)

One of the subjects discussed under the category of jihad is fighting the rebels (boqat);
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,19)
“If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them; but if
one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that
transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but, if it complies, then, make peace
between them with justice and be fair; for, Allah loves those who are fair (and just).

Points on the verse about rebels

Point one: Talking about the occasion for the revelation of this verse, in his book,
Kashshaf, Zamakhshari says:
“While riding a donkey, the Prophet (p.b.u.h), stopped near where some of the Ansars
(Believers of Medina) were sitting. The donkey urinated there. Then, Abdullah ibn Obei
held his nostrils, and said: ‘Let your donkey go. Its bad smell caused us discomfort.’
Abdullah ibn Rawaheh answered him: ‘By God, the smell of the donkey of the Prophet
(p.b.u.h) is better than your musk.’ The Prophet (p.b.u.h) went on his way, but the
discussion between the two Abdullahs lasted for long, till it ended in striking each other.
Then, the relations of these two persons, from the tribes of Ous and Khazraj, came out
and all started striking each other with canes, fists, shoes and palm wood. The Prophet
(p.b.u.h) came back and made peace between them. Then, this verse was revealed.72[72]”
Point two: If this occasion for the revelation of this verse is accepted, then we should
admit that the word "‫( "اقتتال‬The first meaning understood from it in Arabic is killing each other,
and that is why the author has raised point two- from translator) here has a vaster meaning than
killing each other, including striking each other. Another example of such usage in the Quran can
be noticed in the verse, "‫ا رجلن یقتتلن‬Z‫“ "فوجد فیه‬He found there two men fighting” (Qisas, 15),
because the opponent and proponent of Moses had not proceeded to kill each other. His
proponent called for help; Moses struck him with a fist (with no intention of killing – translator)
but he died.
Point three: If at present there is no fight actually taking place, but preparations are
going on to start it, this can also be another one of the vaster meaning of "‫"اقتتال‬, or at least it can

72[72] Tafsir Kashshaf Zamakhshari, interpreting verse 9, Hojorat Chr

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

73[73] Nahj al Balaqeh, letter no 57

 Point six: Logically, many cases may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in
this verse:
1. Both parties may start fighting as aggressors, with awareness and intentionally.
2. Both groups, out of ignorance and because of false assumptions, may feel it their
religious duty to fight the other, as Khawarij did it in the time of Ali (a.s.)
3. One party may start war out of ignorance and false assumptions, but the other party do it
with awareness, and intentional aggression.
4. One party may be the people of truth and rights, but the other party fight for aggression,
like the events of Jamal, and Siffein
5. One party may be the people of truth and rights, but the other party may fight out of
ignorance and false assumptions, like the event of Nahrawan.
In all these five cases, it is obligatory for all the Muslims all over the world, including the
governments, to prevent start of war by negotiation and peacemaking efforts, and to ask both
parties to stop it, if already started, using wise dialogue and deliberated arguments. Naturally,
while such dialogue is going on, it will become clear which party is right and which one is
wrong.
It is obvious that the party to the truth, like Ali (a.s.) in the events of Jamal, Siffein, and
Nahrawan, will have no desire to fight the Muslims, and will welcome the suggestion for
preventing, or stopping the war. Now, if the other party also welcome such a suggestion, war will
not start, or if it is already started, it will be stopped. But, if the other party do not accept the
suggestion, it will mean that they are the rebels and aggressors, and it is ‘obligatory for Muslims
to fight (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah’ and
repent, or else, be overthrown.
In the first three cases that both parties are untrue, if neither party agree with stopping the
war, then both are rebels and aggressors, meaning that it is obligatory to fight both of them till
they repent or are overthrown. If they repent, then naturally, war will cease, and it will be the
time to assess fairly and justly the losses inflicted on the parties and make them compensate each
other. If they do not repent, both will be fought by the Muslims till they are overthrown, and then
naturally the war will cease. If one party repent and agree with ceasing the war, but the other one
do not, then the other party will be considered rebel and aggressor, and will be fought till they
repent or are overthrown.
Point seven: From this verse, it is understood that from the two parties of Muslims
fighting each other, rebel is the one that aggress the other, and do not agree with justly ending the
conflict. And, it does not make any difference whether the two parties are both ordinary
Muslims, or one party is ordinary and the other of the Muslim government, or both are Muslim
governments, meaning that one Islamic state is fighting another, like the imposed war of Iraq
against Iran, which began since 1359.
If one may doubt the belief of the Ba’thist ruling group of Iraq, no one may doubt that the
fighting forces of both countries were Muslims and are included in the verse, “" ‫ن‬Z‫وان طائفتان م‬
‫“ المومنین اقتتلوا‬If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight,..”
According to what is understood from this verse, in all those three cases, the aggressor is
called rebel, and its aggression becomes clear in the process of negotiating the parties to find out
their incentive for fighting. And the letter "‫( "ف‬indicating outcome in Arabic) in the verse, “‫فان‬
‫“ ”بغت احداهما علی الخری‬but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other”, after “
‫ا‬ZZ‫لحوا بینهم‬ZZ‫“ ”فاص‬make ye peace between them”, is pointing to the outcome of the negations
process.
 This verse applies to any of the three groups of rebels in general. But the jurisprudents of
both Sunni and Shia schools, defining rebel say: “A group of people who rise against the ruling
government are called rebels.” Consequently, they have limited their talk on the subject
exclusively to one of the meanings of rebel in this verse. Possibly, the reason was that, what
actually happened often were conflicts caused by the revolts of people against the existing
governments, and most governments had had to tackle such revolts. As an example, three such
revolts happened in the time of Ali (a.s.), which led to the battles of Jamal Siffein, and
Nahrawan. Rebellions of the people against the existing governments also happened in other
periods, and the jurisprudents felt it necessary to discuss about it, and allocate a section for
“Jihad with Rebels”, in the Jihad Chapter of their jurisprudence books.
A parenthetical passage: Now that there was the mention of the Iran-Iraq war, it seems
appropriate here to talk about an event in 1359, pertaining the imposed war of Iraq against Iran,
because that event relate to the concept in this verse:
Not long after the war had started, the distinguished people in the government of Algeria,
having very good relations with Iran, on the journey of the Head of the Consultative Assembly
(Parliament) of Iran to Algeria, had suggested him that they wanted to act as mediator and
negotiate for stopping the war and establishing the peace. They had told the Head of the
Parliament that in the Holy Koran, God instructs Muslims: “ ‫لحوا‬Z‫وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاص‬
‫“ ”بینهما‬If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them.” Thus,
as Muslims, they had felt it a duty to mediate, as instructed by God, between the two countries to
stop the war and establish the peace.
The Head of the Parliament says: “Replying them, I said if there is a war in which one
party is not transgressing, the rule is as you state; the Muslim should interfere and reconcile. But,
if one party is transgressing, then the Quran has a definite rule for it and, in the same verse, says:
“‫“ ”فان بغت احداهما علی الخری فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرا‬but if one of them transgresses beyond
bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies
with the command of Allah.74[74]
With such argument, the Head of the Parliament rejects the suggestion of the Algerian
dignitaries. They get disappointed and the war continues.
Here, 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, the rule is as you state. But, if
one party is transgressing, then the Quran has a definite rule for it; the transgressor should be
fought, and mediating has no sense.”
We reply him:
The conception is that the Algerian dignitaries, as a third impartial party, wanted to
enter into negotiations with the fighting parties so as to identify the transgressor and manage to
have their efforts productive. Their standing, before starting the peace making negotiations,

74[74] Mashroohe Mozakerate Majlese Shooraye Islami, 6 Bahman 1359

was the standing of an impartial force that presumably did not know who the aggressor was,
because each side accused the other side of transgressing.
Since the dignitaries wanted to identify the aggressor while negotiating with both
parties, it was not proper to say to them: “As one party is the transgressor, then the Quran has a
definite rule for it; the transgressor should be fought, and mediating has no sense.” They reply
that before entering into negotiation with both parties, we cannot ascertain who the aggressor is
so as to fight them. And it is through the peace negotiations process that we may identify the
aggressor and fight them if so required.
Remark two
He has said:
“I said if there is a war in which one party is not transgressing..”
We say:
It is not valid, because earlier, (under point six,) we explained that logically, five cases
may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in this verse; in three of the cases both
parties fight unduly and aggressively; in the other two cases, one group is fighting justly, and
the other unjustly. This verse covers all the five cases.
On the other hand, it is obvious that no part of the verse indicates that it is talking about
a war in which there is no aggressor, if so, the verse would mean: “If two parties among the
Believers, neither of whom is transgressor, fall into a fight, make ye peace between them.” This
would indicate that if either side, or both sides are aggressors, then no action for peace making
is required.
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.
Remark three
Basically, 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. We know that aggressor is the
group who start the war, and if neither group start fighting, then, there will be no aggressor, and
naturally no war will take place. Thus, wherever there is a war, there is aggression as well. No
war can be conceived, which was not started by an aggressor. Therefore, the statement of the
Head of the Parliament, “If there is a war in which one party is not transgressing, the rule is as
you state; the Muslim should interfere and reconcile”, is not valid.
It is possible that both parries may be aggressors, but it is not conceivable to assume
neither of them aggressor. Even in the cases where (case 5, translator) the party who fight out
of ignorance and false assumptions, like the event of Nahrawan, where the Khawarij believed it
was their religious duty to fight Ali (a.s.), there is also an aggression. It is true that they thought
they were fighting justly, and were not aggressors, but their false belief does not change the
reality that aggression was taking place because Ali (a.s.) tried very seriously to avoid the war,
but the Khawarij started it, and Ali (a.s.) could not help but defend. That the Khawarij started
the war is the evidence of their aggression.
However, the suggestions of the political figures of Algeria, who wanted to proceed for
peace making between Iran and Iraq, was a very appropriate and philanthropic act, and was in
accordance with the Quran. Considering the good relations of Algeria with both parties to the
war, it was highly probable that justly peace could be established, but it was a chance that was
missed. And the response of the Head of the Parliament to the dignitaries of Algeria was
unreasonable, and unacceptable, blocking the road to a justly peace making process.
 Even if the dignitaries of Algeria could not have succeeded in stopping the war and
ascertaining the peace, the peace negotiating process that, naturally, would have been broadcast
world over, by its nature, could have great help in pointing figures to the aggressor. This could
be a victory for Iran, in the same way that through the negotiations that was going on between
Vietnam and the USA in Paris, it became clear that the USA was the aggressor, and ultimately,
it led to the defeat of the USA, and expulsion of their soldiers from Vietnam. Go to contents

Now, we are going back to the main subject. Already, we said that, in their books, the
jurisprudents have limited discussions on the “‫اه‬ZZ‫“ ”بغ‬rebels’ exclusively to the case that some
ordinary people revolt against the existing government. But, this is only one of the meanings of
‘rebel’ in this verse, and more specific than the broad meaning understood from the verse.

Jurisprudents’ definition of rebels

1.Hanbalis’ definition of rebels
Abdullah ibn Qudameh, (died, 630 Hijri), in his book, Moqni, a commentary on
Kharaqi’s digest, under the definition of “‫“ ”بغاه‬rebels”, says: “A group of the people of Truth,
who out of expounding and authorized interpretation, evade the governance of Imam, and want
to remove him from power; they have centralized power, and for repelling them, mobilization of
warriors is required. These are called ‘rebels’, and in this chapter we will talk about the religious
rule with regards to them.75[75]”
There is some point for the reason why Ibn Qudameh defines the rebels as the people of
the Truth, with expounding and authorized interpretation. The point is that, apparently, by such
definition, 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.b.u.h) ) are just.” Thus, there should be some justification for the rebellious
movement of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Siffein, which originators were among
the companions; and, what justification can serve this end better than being people of Truth, and
acting out expounding and authorized interpretation?

2.Hanafis’ definition of rebels

Ala’eddin Hanafi (died, 587 Hijri), while defining “‫“ ”بغاه‬rebels”, says: “ ‘Rebels’ are the
revolters, and they are a group that have centralized power; they believe that any sin, either small
or big, is blasphemy; they revolt against the Imam of the people of justice, and with the
justification that any sin is blasphemy, they believe that war, bloodshed, and confiscating the
properties are religiously authorized.76[76]”

75[75] Moqni, Ibn Qudameh, vol. 10, p. 52

76[76] Badi al Sanaye fi Tartib al Shraye, vol. 7, p. 140

 The reason why Ala’eddin Hanafi defines rebels as the revolters is that by the revolters he
means those who revolted against Ali (a.s.) in Nahrawan; and he says it for the acquittal of the
originators of the battles of Jamal and Sefein.
It is not clear for us why these jurisprudents think retrospectively, and interpret this verse
in a way as if it were revealed specifically for those groups whose biography is recorded in
history. Why do they not interpret it in such a way to introduce the rebels of their own time, and
the times thereafter till the end of the world, so that the people in any period can identify them
and know their duty with regards to them?
In Hanafis’ jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, defining rebels, says: “‫آلباغی هوالخارج عن‬
‫ق‬ZZ‫ر ح‬ZZ‫ق بغی‬ZZ‫ام الح‬ZZ‫اعه ام‬ZZ‫“ ”ط‬Rebel is one who, with no rights, escapes following the Imam of the
rights.77[77]”
This definition of Aoudeh is different from what Ala’eddin has presented in Hanafis’
jurisprudence. Possibly, Ala’eddin has expressed his personal view about the definition of rebels,
and Aoudeh has presented what is common among Hanafis.

3.Maalekis’ definition of rebels

In Maalekis’ jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, defining 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, or his deputy, so as not to give him what is due from them, or
remove him from power.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 adding
‘remove him from power’ was to make it harmonious with the revolters who wanted to remove
the Third Caliph.

4.Shafiis’ definition of rebels

In Shafii’s jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, 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, either by revolting against him, or not paying what is due to him, on the
condition that they have centralized power, and rely on some interpretation and expounding, and
among them there is a leader whom they obey.”
Application of ‘not paying what is due to Imam’, in the definition of ‘rebels’, 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, vol. 2, p. 673

78[78] The same

79[79] The same

and he fought them. And this fact, (that in his book, Omm, Shafii has discussed war with rebels,
together with the First Caliph’s war with the evaders of Zakat, and has applied the same rule on
both,) can be a testimony to this issue.80[80] Go to contents

5.Shiates’ definition of rebels

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

80[80] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, ps,214-216

81[81] Khelaf Sheikh Toosi, vol. 3, p 164

 these qualifications required in Imam, then a person from Bani Kananeh (tribe) must
be appointed; if not found, then a man form the family of Ishmael must be assigned.’
And, this is invalid in our view because according to our belief, there are exclusively
twelve Imams; 12. Infallible; according to Shia, 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 mistakes lead to confusion and
disorder in the system; on the other hand, it is obvious that there is the possibility of
intra-community struggle for exclusion.
Thus, it is required that there must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler, with merits
exceptional among the human being, to become the imam. And, 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, and the possibility of intra-community struggle for
exclusion.) So, imam should be appointed by God, and should be infallible, not to
make mistakes; otherwise, he will need another imam, and this will end in the
vicious circle going on indefinitely. Therefore, it is obligatory that imam must be
infallible. 13. explicitly appointed by wording from God, from the Prophet, or from
the one whose being explicitly appointed as imam is proved; because infallibility is
of inner characteristics, and no one (but God) can be aware of it. Thus, if there is not
such a wording about the appointment of imam, then, the obligation for knowing the
Imam will be compelling people to the impossible... 14. more knowledgeable than
the people of his time. 15. with good etiquette,(occasioned by infallibility) to avoid
mean conducts such as eating in the thoroughfares, uncovering his body. The Sunni
scholars disagree with all these from number 9 onward.82[82]” Go to contents

Two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents

Here, we have two scholarly questions from Allameh Helli and his equals of the other
jurisprudents.

Question One
Do Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents think that jihad with rebels is a
permanent rule, lasting with the lasting of Islam? Or, do they think that it is some seasonal rule,
pertaining to the time of the ruling of the Infallible Imam? In the latter case, naturally, it would
be limited to the ruling of Imam Ali (a.s.) and Imam Hassan for the period of some five years.
Allameh, on the one hand says: “We mention the subject of Imam here so that one could
know the Imam whose obedience is obligatory, and that by revolting against him one becomes a
rebel..” On the other hand, he views infallibility as the condition required in Imam. This,
necessarily means that jihad with rebels is periodically and seasonally obligatory, and is limited
to the ruling of the two Infallible Imams, Ali (a.s.) and Hassan for the period of some five years,
when the revolt against them was rebellion. As for the other Imams, since they were not in
power, naturally, no revolt against them took place, and consequently, there was no rebellion too.
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, and after that the rule

82[82] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, ps 452 & 453, lithographic edition
of the verse, its validity date being expired, 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, but say: “The tone of this verse (Hojorat, 19) is indicative of a
permanent rule that is needed by man till the end of the world.”, then, they should obligate
themselves to its meaning. And, the meaning is that, in the period of occultation too, wherever in
the world, there is established a government like the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the people
elect its leader freely, and assign him as the Imam of the nation, then, a group with weapon revolt
against him, and it leads to fight, in such instances too, (according to this verse) the Muslims are
obligated, ‘to make peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against
the other, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of
Allah.’

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; and mistakes lead to confusion and disorder in the system; on the other
hand, it is obvious that there is the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion…. there
must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler, with merits exceptional among the human being, to
become the imam.”
Do they mean that, the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes in the community,
or that, if mistakes happened, he fixes them?
If they mean that the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes, it is not valid
because neither Imam, nor the Prophet can prevent happening of mistakes or crime in the
community. According to the history texts, in the lifetime of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and in the
government of Ali (a.s.), their agents committed crime and treason, and they could not manage to
prevent it.
The story of Khaalid ibn Walid is very well known in history. He was appointed as
missionary by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) after the conquest of Mecca, and doing this duty, he killed
nearly thirty innocent Muslims by mistake; the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was extremely upset from this
horrible crime, and had to pay blood-money for the murdered.83[83]
And, In Nahj al Balaqeh, the letters of reprimand from Ali (a.s.), addressed to his agents,
contain some of their treasons. Among such letters, we can mention letters 41 and 71, which
convey the harshest reprimand from Imam to those treacherous agents. Therefore, as we see,
neither the Prophet (p.b.u.h), nor the Imam could prevent happening of crime.
And, if they mean that after the happening of mistakes or crime, Imam fixes them, it is
something that fallible imams can do it as well.
Thus, the reasoning of Allameh Helli, and his equals of jurisprudents to prove that the
leader and imam of the people, necessarily, must be infallible, is futile and vain, and can serve no
purpose.
Another question may be asked here. What do these jurisprudents say regarding the
period of occultation, when there is not a ruling Infallible Imam? Do they say that, in the period
of occultation, exceptionally, there is no need for the ruling Infallible Imam, and a fallible person
83[83] Amali Sadooq, Majlis 32, hadith 7, with valid narration, And Moqazi Waqedi, vol 2, p 875
also can become a leader and imam? Of course, such saying does not fit their reasoning which is
absolute and for all the periods.
However, this is a dead-end that these jurisprudents have created for themselves with
such a reasoning of theirs, and they should try to find a way to exit from it by themselves. And,
there is no way to exit; so, they have to forsake this reasoning, and return back to find another
way with no dead-end. Go to contents

Jurisprudents’ argument on the assumption of the impossible

Allameh Helli, and his equals, on the one hand, say that only the governments of the
Prophet (p.b.u.h), and the Infallible Imam, is the government of Truth. On the other hand, despite
their living in the period of occultation, when there is no ruling Infallible Imam, in their
jurisprudence, they discuss such matters that, in their own view, particularly pertain the rank of
the Infallible Imam, and his function.
Matters such as initial jihad with the unbelievers, and jihad with the rebels; having treaty
with the unbelievers; getting tax from the peoples of book; collecting Zakat (tax) from Muslims
and using it for the purpose specified in the Quran; administering the legal punishments and
retribution on the murderers, thieves, adulterers, and other criminals; payment of salary to the
government employees, and such other matters that are relevant to the managing of the
community, in the view of Helli, and his equals, do all specially pertain the ruling of Infallible
Imam, and the fallible have no rights to deal with them.
Now, these jurisprudents are asked: “These subjects make up a major section of
discussions in the jurisprudence, and contain important political, militarily, executive, penal,
economical, and other such issues; are all of them written in the jurisprudence books, and taught
on some assumption, 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, there is a ruling Infallible Imam. Under such
assumption, the rules on these various subjects, execution of which pertains only to the
impossibly assumed Imam, should be in the manner that we are discussing in the books. In fact,
as jurisprudents, we are spending time and budget, only for making the rules on these subjects
clear for the ruling Infallible Imam, not ruling during occultation.”?
Do these jurisprudents want to say: “All the verses in the Quran, containing the rules on
these subjects, were revealed only for the time of the ruling Infallible Imam; and it was limited to
the short period while the two infallible Imams, Ali (a.s.) and Hassan were ruling; and after that
the rule of these verses, their validity date being expired, were considered lifeless.”?
Do these jurisprudents want to say: “The verses on jihad with the unbelievers and the
rebels; the verses on Zakat (tax); the verses on punishing thieves, adulterers, accusers of adultery,
warmongers, usurers, and so on, are all out of date, and have no usage in the time of the absence
of the Infallible Imam; and these verses are only to recite for heavenly rewards and being
blessed.”?
Of course, according to these groups of jurisprudents who say: “Only the governments of
the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and the Infallible Imam, is the government of Truth,” the answer to such
questions is positive.
This way of thinking, by Shia jurisprudents about the government of Truth, might be one
of the reasons why jurisprudence has stayed static, particularly on the issues of governance
relating to the running of the community. While the jurisprudent is of the idea that the
government of Truth is exclusively the government of the Infallible, which is impossible in the
time of occultation, it is natural that such a jurisprudent will have no motive to think about the
issues concerning government, and running the community so as to try to infer new verdicts
suitable for the ongoing issue in administering the community. In his view, the Infallible Imam
should be in charge of such issues, and, he is not ruling at present.
But if the jurisprudent believes that if, in the time of occultation too, a capable person is
elected by the free vote from the people to become a leader and Imam, his government also is the
government of Truth, then, such a jurisprudent, will naturally believe that all the affairs of the
community should be administered by this imam. Looking at the issues of the government and
community from this point of view, the jurisprudent will be incited to think about the entire
issues concerning the community, and will try to find new answers appropriate for the new
questions in any period.
By this new way of thinking, all the political, military, economical, and other issues of
the community, will be analyzed and scrutinized by the jurisprudent with the greatest care to find
the solution for all the ongoing questions. Thus, harmoniously with the advancement in the ways
of life, the jurisprudent will take steps forward to issue advanced verdicts for solving any new
questions. And thus, the jurisprudence will leave the static mode behind, to become dynamic,
moving forward to keep itself abreast with any progress in the community.
Had such evolutionary movements started from the time of Sheikh Toosi, during this time
of almost ten centuries, there should have been immensely great progressive changes in the
jurisprudence. But, unfortunately, it did not happen, and the jurisprudence has stayed static as it
was then, badly needing a very serious revision, because with its present status, it cannot solve
the ongoing needs of the society.

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. And the meaning of interpretation is that the rebellious
group have made interpretations and inferences, and have revolted by the rule so inferred. Since
inference from interpretations is a religiously accepted proof, the actions of the rebels is not sin
and transgress, even though their inference is a mistake, and their revolt is rebellion.
This justification is valid about the Khawarij because they believed Ali (a.s.) was an
unbeliever, and considered fighting him the religious obligatory duty.
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.s.) unduly and unjustly. 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.” And, they noticed that if the revolt of the
companions in the battles of Jamal and Siffein is considered as sin and crime, then, such
companions would not fit in this baseless principle. Therefore, they have added this term,
(interpretation) in the definition of rebels to justify the actions of the companions against Ali, and
say that their actions were based on interpretation, and they thought it their religious duty to fight
Ali; and, this do not damage the justness. Sunni scholars have made this statement to safeguard
the validity of this baseless principle.
But contrary to the expectation, Sheikh Toosi also has contained this term in his
definition of rebels, and says:
“The third condition for ‘rebels’ is that they break up from the imam on the basis of their
own authorized interpretation, and oppose him. And, if they break up without such
 interpretation, then, they will be considered bandits, and the rule for warmongers will
apply to them.”84[84]
We know that Sheikh Toosi does not entertain the view that all the companions (of the
Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) are just, and there is no need for him to purify from sin and crime the
companions waging the battles of Jamal and Siffein. However, on this subject he has become
equal of the Sunni jurisprudents, conditioning ‘rebels’ by interpretation. How can it be justified?
We know of no justification for it. But, it should be mentioned that (in those days) there
had been cultural exchanges between Sunni and Shia jurisprudents; in many cases, Shia
jurisprudence was written in coordination with Sunni jurisprudence. Since Sunni jurisprudence
was dominant in the seminaries, Shia jurisprudence was affected by Sunni jurisprudence. And.
this is an example of such instances, where Sheikh toosi has chased the Sunnis in writing his
jurisprudence.
There is a very commonly known statement by the late Ayatollah Boroojerdi. He said.
“The jurisprudence of Shia is the annotations to Sunni jurisprudence.”
Sunni jurisprudents have defined rebels by jurisprudential terminology and have said:
“There should be three conditions for being ‘rebels’: 1.- They should be centrally organized
group, prevention of which would be impossible unless military force is used. 2.- They should
have broken out from the dominance of the government. 3.- They should be people of
interpretation.”
Of course none of these conditions is mentioned in the verse on rebels. Only the
transgression of a group is expressed, and then, it is stated that after the transgressor is discerned,
they should be fought until they comply with the command of Allah. However, the jurisprudents
have made up their own terminology, and discuss the subject. Using their terminology, they have
mentioned the three conditions for ‘rebels’.
Perhaps, there was some reason for making up this terminology. Talking about the verse,
which refers to the fight between groups of Muslims, the most outstanding examples of it, battles
of Jamal, Siffein, and Nahrawan, immediately strike one’s mind. Therefore, those jurisprudents,
who think that all the companions (of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) were just people, had to find a way
for justification. They needed the way so as to make the meaning of the verse correspond these
three events, and, at the same time, not to damage the justice of the companions who took part in
those three battles. But, the rule in the verse is general, with no reference to any particular event.
Go to contents

Disagreement on the condition for occurrence of rebellion

Sunni and Shia jurisprudents call ‘rebel’ a group that revolt against the government. This
is a more specific meaning than what is meant in the Quran. Then, the Shia jurisprudents make it
even more specific than what is meant by Sunnis; they say that rebel is a group who revolt
against the Infallible Imam. This is more specific because Sunnis do not condition infallibility in
the imam for occurrence of rebellion; some of the Sunnis, even do not condition it with the
justice in the imam.
Ibn Qudameh Hanbali, in his book. Moqni, says:

84[84] Mabsoot Sheikh Toosi, vol. 7, p 265

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

85[85] Moqni Ibn Qudameh, vol. 10, p. 53

86[86] Moqaddemeh ibn Khaldun, p 217

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

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

88[88] 84 ‫شعرا‬
 Narrative from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) against the views of the
Jurisprudents
There is a narrative from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), narrated by Imam Hussein (a.s.). This
narrative, directly, contradicts the so-called ‘preferred view’ of these jurisprudents, and makes it
obligatory to revolt against the cruel ruler.
Addressing Horr ibn Yazid and his soldiers, Imam Hussein says:
“O people, verily I heard the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying: ‘If any person notices that a cruel
ruler is aggressing the boundaries of God; violating obligations to God; acting against the
conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h); and behaving towards the God-obedient unjustly and
criminally, the person must proceed through words and action to make such a ruler
change his manner; otherwise, God is obligated to assign him to the same place with the
cruel ruler.’
“O people be aware that these agents of the government have made plans to follow Satan;
they have neglected obedience to God; overtly, have become corrupt; suspended the rules
of God; embezzled the public funds; have authorized the-God-forbidden; have forbidden
the-God-authorized; and I am the most suitable person to change the unjustly state…89[89]”
Here, Imam Hussein has explained the reason for his revolt: as it was obligatory to act
according to what the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, he had moved to change the unjustly state. Is such a
move for rectification called aggression and rebellion? And the person who does it, is he a rebel
that must be suppressed according to the Islamic rule?
And, what does Qaazi Abubakr ibn Arabi think when he says: “The revolt of Imam
Hussein against Yazid was rebellion; and according to Islam, the rebel must be suppressed;
therefore, Hussein was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.”
Suppose it is impossible to have the unjust, corrupt ruler back in the right track by
admonishing and guidance. In such a case, the jurisprudents of the four Sunni school and
Zeidiyeh Shia, say: “the ‘preferred view’ is that do not revolt against the cruel ruler.” Then, for
preventing and repelling the aggression and cruelty of such ruler, 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.s.), himself also oppressed, to lead the revolt, and he so
does, then, is the nature of such revolt rebellion and aggression that must be suppressed by the
force of weaponry? As we know, since rebels are aggressors, God has instructed to fight them
until they comply with the command of Allah and repent. Now, on the basis of which criteria,
one can consider such movement rebellion and aggression, and its leader,(Imam Hussein) a rebel
whose suppression is obligatory and according to Islam?
If Imam Hussein were a victor; had saved Islam and Muslims from the aggression and
evil of Yazid; had established an Islamic government to provide democracy, freedom and justice
to the people, instead of the tyranny, and injustice, in such case too, could people, such as Qaazi
ibn Arabi, say: “Imam Hussein was a rebel and deserved suppression”? But, since he was not
victorious militarily, and his blood was, unjustly, shed with the sword of injustice, such people
want to make up some justification for the cruel act of the government, and say: “He was killed
by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.”

89[89] Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 304, events of year 60

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

90[90] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p.216

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

91[91] Khelaf Sheikh Toosi, vol. 3, p 164

92[92] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, p 455, lithographic edition

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

93[93] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p.214

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

95[95] Nahj al Balaqeh, letter 12

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