Question:
Assalamu
alaikum to my brother, Sheikh and Ameer
1. In a discussion I had with one of the
Shabab, we disagreed in regards to the women in the situation of war. Does the
Hukm (ruling) of the women that go out to the battle field to encourage the
army apply upon them or does the Hukm of Asraa' (captives/prisoners of war)
apply to them whilst acknowledging that today there are women fighters like men
in terms of carrying weapons, using aircraft, artillery or participate in naval
warfare.
2. The following was stated in the
publication of Introduction to the Constitution of the Khilafah State,
(Mashroo' Dustoor Dawlat ul-Khilafah) in the fourth point of Article 188: "(In regards to) the actual
warring states like Israel for example it is obligatory to take with it the
state of war as the basis for all actions and dealings just as if we are in an
actual war with it and this is whether a Hudnah (truce) exists between them or
not, and all of its subjects are forbidden from entering the lands..."
I referred to this article in the book Introduction to the Constitution, and I
did not find any details explaining this article and its four points. The
question here is: Is it permitted for the Khilafah State to have a Hudnah
(treaty) with the Jewish entity whilst it is usurping our lands?
From
Ziyad Ziyad
Answer:
Wa
alaikum assalam wa Rahmat Allahu wa Barakatahu
Firstly:
Yes, the Hukm (ruling) in respect to the women who go out to the battle field
whether to encourage the troops or fight alongside them, is the same Hukm.
However it is not permitted to kill the women who have come out to the battle
scene to encourage the soldiers whereas it is permitted to kill those who are
fighting. This is in accordance to the Hadith that is agreed upon on the
authority of Naafi' that Abdullah Ibn 'Umar (ra) informed him: "That a
woman had been found killed in one of the battles of the Prophet (saw): "So the Messenger of Allah (saw) condemned the killing of women and
children."
This
is in addition to a Saheeh Hadeeth collected by Abu Dawood from 'Umar Bin
Al-Muraqqa' Bin Saifi Bin Rabaah who said, My father narrated that his
grandfather Rabaah Bin Rabee' said:
"We were with the Messenger
of Allah (saw) in a military expedition and saw the people gathering around
something so he sent for a man and said: "Go and look at what they are
gathering around?" He returned and said: Around a woman who has been
killed. So he (saw) said: "This one did not participate in the
fighting."
The
Mafhoom (understanding) from this statement is that had she been fighting then
it would have been permissible to kill her.
This
is the difference; however in all other Ahkam, there is no difference between
women who go to the battlefield to encourage the troops and those who fight
alongside the troops.
This
all applies to the case when women go out to the battlefield. However if the
women remain in their houses without exiting to the battlefields then there is
nothing in that regards to them.
And
in all circumstances, the application of the Shari’ah rulings is referred to
the Khaleefah and not to the leaders of the battlefields. And the action of the
Khaleefah proceeds in accordance to the requirements of the war policy in
dealing with the enemies. Since it is from the war-related dealings, which is
at the discretion of the Khaleefah's command. He acts according to what he
deems fit in regards to the enemy in agreement with the Ahkam Shari'.
As
for the Hukm (legal ruling) of the Asraa (captives/prisoners of war), this
applies to the male fighters because the word 'Aseer' (captive) when it is
mentioned refers to the male fighter. The Hukm of the Asraa is mentioned in
Surah Muhammad (saw) in the following Aayah:
"Therefore when you meet [fighting in Allah's Cause] those who are
kafir strike their necks. Then when you have decimated them, tie their bonds
tightly and set them free or ransom them, until the war is finally over. That
is how it is to be. If Allah willed, He could avenge Himself on them. But it is
so that He can test some of you by means of others. As for those who fight in
the Way of Allah, He will not let their actions go astray."
(Muhammad: 4)
Therefore
they are either set free (Mannan) or they are ransomed by money or a prisoner
exchange with Muslims captives or captives from the Ahl al-Dhimmah. Other than
these two options is not permitted.
Secondly:
The relationship of the Islamic State with belligerent countries (that are in
an actual state of war) (Muharabah Fi'lan).
It
appears that you still have an older version of the book, Introduction to the
Constitution, as you mentioned that this is Article 188 whilst in the official
version of 1431 AH (2010) it is Article 189. And secondly in the older version
the subject of truce (hudnah) in the case of the actual war was not explained
in detail whilst in the new official adopted version it has been detailed. We
explain in it that the permanent truce (hudnah) is not permitted as it means
the abandoning of Jihad. However, a temporary truce may be held with the disbelieving
(kufr) countries by the entity on the land have not yet opened by Muslims. The
Daleel (evidence) for this is the Truce of Al-Hudhaibiyah with the Quraish who
were upon land that Muslims had yet to conquer.
As
for the entity that is established entirely upon usurped Islamic land then it
is not permitted to contract a Hudnah (truce) with it albeit permanent or
temporary. The reality of the Truce of Al-Hudhaibiyah with the Quraish does not
apply upon it because the reality is different. This is because the Quraish
were established upon land which had not previously been conquered by the
Muslims whereas the Jewish entity is established upon land which it has usurped
from the Muslims. So the reality is different and as such the Treaty of
Al-Hudhaibiyah is not applied upon it. Rather it is obligatory for the state of
actual war to maintain this state of actual war whether or not a Hudnah has
been convened between it and the illegitimate rulers in the Muslim lands. This
continues until the usurping entity is removed and the land that has been
usurped is returned to its rightful people.
"And expel them from where they expelled
you." (Al-Baqara: 191)
This
is because the Hudnah (truce) with the usurping entity means its recognition,
its surrender of the land to the usurpers. This is forbidden in accordance to
the Shari’ah and indeed it is a major crime and the one who does this will
carry its sin.
The
subject is discussed in full detail in Introduction to the Constitution.
Or,
See
this Link:
No comments:
Post a Comment