What he said (may Allah show mercy to him) is indeed true for when a section of the Muslims treaded the path of those who incurred the wrath of Allah and the Muslim armies started to be for show and parade and guarding the rules and regulations, or for attacking the neighbouring Muslim brothers; and then another section from the Ummah treaded the path of the Astray and thus neglected Jihad and became heedless of preparation for it; then the punishments came on us from all places.
Included in this punishment is our enemy defiling our sacred sites, desecrating our values and having the enemy's forces exploiting us in all spheres and then none embarks on Jihad or takes its name and characteristics except scattered groups who have no banner, nor a manhaj (systematic course) nor a tarbiya (means of education, cultivation and refinement). So if they did well it is from Allah and if they did otherwise then it is due to our negligence and shortcoming along with their negligence and shortcoming.
NINE
After the Ummah divided into small nations and the banner of the uniting Caliphate fell, each section - be it a nation or a group - began to represent itself and became independent of others with its affairs and its standpoints on issues - be that showing of love or hatred, making war or peace, signing pacts or breaking them - such that a tiny country like Bahrain has its own political positions which differ from those of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Its enemy may be a friend of the others and vice versa. It may draw a pact with America or others besides it or it may break the pacts without anyone else besides that small nation having any thing to do with the whole affair. And similar is the case with the Muslim Groups. Every Group that may have engaged in a war with its enemy regardless of which side provoked it, or may have broken a pact on equal terms and then no pact remains thereafter between it and its enemy even if the situation was not the same between that enemy and the rest of the Muslim countries and groups. But it solely bears the responsibility of its pacts, wars, profits and losses. Although it may not be compulsory for Muslims other than that country to help it but without a doubt it is not permissible for them to help the Kafir against that Muslim country!!
The incident of Abu Baseer is one from which Scholars of Fiqh can deduce laws and rulings, and branch off from them as much as Allah wills.
That incident, in brief, involves the Prophet (s.a.w) making a pact with the Quraish - on the Day of Hudaibiya - that whoever of the Quraish becomes a Muslim and comes to the Prophet (in Medina) the Prophet should return him back to them.
The end of this incident as reported in the Sahih is as follows, 'So a man, called Abu Baseer from the Quraish came to him (i.e. the Prophet), while the man was a Muslim. So they (Quraish) sent two men demanding his return to them. They said, "The pact you had made with us?" So he (the Prophet) gave him to the two men.
The two set out with him (to Mecca). When they reached Dhul-Hulaifa, they stopped and began eating from their dates. Abu Baseer said to one of the two men, "By Allah, I see that this sword of yours is good, O So and so!" The other one unsheathed it and said, "Yes, By Allah it is good. I have tried it then tried it and then tried it! Abu Baseer said, "Show me I will look at it." So he allowed it to him and he struck him until he became cold. The other one escaped until he reached Medina.
He entered the Mosque racing. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) upon seeing him said, "This one has indeed seen something alarming." When he reached the Prophet (s.a.w), he said, "By Allah, my companion has been killed and I was (almost) dead." Abu Baseer came and said, "O Prophet of Allah, Allah has indeed kept up your guarantee as you did return me to them and then He saved me from them." The Prophet (saw) said, "Woe! His mother is flaring a war, if only there was someone for him!" When he heard that he knew that the he would return him to them (once again). So he left until he came to the seashore.
Abu Jandal ibn Suhail left them (i.e. the Meccan polytheists) and joined Abu Baseer. Not a man would leave Quraish who became a Muslim except that he joined Abu Baseer until they became a gang. Then By Allah they would not hear of a caravan of Quraish leaving for Sham except that they intercepted it and killed them and took their wealth…"
We can learn from this the following.
ONE: The one killed from the Polytheists was a messenger (an ambassador) and messengers as is well known are not to be killed. Despite that the Prophet (s.a.w) did not disapprove of Abu Baseer having killed him nor did he order him to pay the blood money or ransom, but affirmed Abu Baseer's saying, as is reported in another narration, "O Messenger of Allah, there is no covenant or pact between me and them." So that was an approval from the Prophet for what he did, and that he has an independent liability and guarantee, separate to that of the Muslims, and if the Prophet waved the (demands on the) blood of that messenger then others besides him are more fitting of that. [See Fath (vol 5, pp412)].
TWO: The Prophet (s.a.w) urged the Muslims to join Abu Baseer as is understood from his saying, "Woe! His mother is flaring a war, if only there was someone for him!" And in another version of the narration, "if only there was a man for him!" So he added to his approval a further encouragement of others to join him.
Ibn Qayyim (may Allah show mercy to him) mentions in his piece titled, Fawaid Fiqhiyya lisulhilHudaibiya (Fiqh Points benefited from the Treaty of Hudibiya), 'And amongst (the benefits), if those with a treaty made a treaty with the leader, and a party of them came out from them and fought them and took the spoils of the war but did not go to the leader, it does not become compulsory on the leader to defend them from them nor to stop them from the people of treaty regardless of whether they were included in the pact of the leader, his treaty and religion, or were not included in it. The pact that was between the Prophet (s.a.w) and the Polytheists was not a pact between the Polytheists and Abu Baseer and his companions.
Given this, if there was a treaty between some of the Muslim kings and some of the AhleDhimma from the Christians and others, it remains permissible for another king of the Muslims to attack them (i.e. those AhleDhimma) and take their wealth in booty so long as there is no treaty between them and the Polytheists. This is what Sheikhul Islam Taqi-uddin ibn Taimiya (may Allah purify his soul) gave as a verdict for the Christians of Multiya and their prisoners basing his verdict on the incident of Abu Baseer with the Polytheists.' [See Zaad ulMa'ad (vol3, pp309)]
This is clear with regards to the independence of each country or group and their guarantees and treaties and the West itself believes in this reality. It is also one of the well-known principles in the International Law. Had it not been so then the Pope in Rome would have been responsible for the terrorism of the Catholics in Ireland and Germany would have been responsible for the new Nazis and Japan would have been responsible for the Red Army. Particularly in this incident, Americans know well that those whom they oppose and who oppose them with animosity between them and those with whom they broke off and who broke off with them are the 'al-Qaida Organization' or more correctly 'the frontline of Jihad against the Crusaders', these people specifically and in particular, whereas the rest of the Muslims don't enter into this matter nor take this ruling. Thus, while America warns its citizens about them - and not from every Muslim - it is acting accordingly, due to the enmity and present breaking of ties, and while Clinton acknowledged that he ordered the killing of these people, deliberately and knowingly, by the earlier missile attack - this all dictates that it is the right of the other side to do the same.
Millions suffered in Sudan and Afghanistan due to the scarcity of medicine and the imposing of a boycott and this is besides those who died during the actual attack. So then there are no treaties or pacts between the two sides.
Therefore there remains nothing from the Sharia preventing them from retaliation nor is their any ruling from the Sharia that remains to be observed in this situation except the ruling of retaliating with similarity and equality and refraining from exceeding the bounds in doing that.
So here it is asked, did these exceed and transgress in what they did with America - if it ever gets proven that they in fact did it - is it exceeding what America did with the Muslims everywhere?
We leave the answer to the readers and say that the saying of Allah, the Exalted, {Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him.} may not necessitate the equality in the number of the dead or the wealth for this is a matter that cannot be specified in every case. But what is intended is to meet an action with an action: killing with killing, taking prisoners with taking prisoners and causing wreckage and destruction with causing wreckage and destruction.
As for the point that it is not permissible for this group - nor any other party - to bring upon the Ummah an animosity for which there is no parallel and to drag it to a war which is not matched (and equal), for which it was not prepared nor ready, this we surely raise our voice in protest and will not let our voice be subdued. But if that group refused except to be dictatorial in its view and did whatever occurred to its mind without consulting or regarding the better welfare and the good (maslaha), then in that situation we will be the innocent ones and free from responsibility and we will be the sacrificial prey to the vengeance of a savage enemy. This is what will happen to the Afghan people and others besides them for they are innocent, and the one who falls is not from the enemy!!
The solution is not that we stand alongside the enemy against that party (of Muslims) for this is forbidden in any case, but it (i.e. the solution) is in holding a dialogue with it (i.e. that group of Muslims) in the matters of the various range of welfare and harms (i.e. the pros and the cons), and in clarifying its mistake, even if this led to shunning it and moving to distance others from it.
In any case that is an internal matter between the Muslims and it is not permissible to refer/forward it to the circles of Kufr who keenly await to see calamities befall all of the Muslims, and to see the crisis extend to become a world war where some Muslims are used (by them) against others.
TEN
If a Muslim did ijtihad (strove to find the correct standpoint according to Islam) in aiding the religion and taking revenge against the unjust Kuffar (Non-believers) for his Muslim brothers and in order to cause a loss amongst the Kuffar but he erred in his judgement then he is nevertheless rewarded for his intention despite the mistaken action. This person is not like (i.e. does not fall in the category of) the one who is waging a war (in the land) with aggression. This latter one his goal is to loot the wealth, violate the chastity and honour and cut off the roads. More importantly for the Muslims, [the one who did ijtihad and erred] his rights of the Islamic brotherhood (based on Iman or Faith) do not cease and amongst the things that show this is the saying of the Prophet (s.a.w), "The Muslim is the brother of a Muslim, he doesn't desert him nor submit him." Deserting him is to leave helping him and submitting him is to draw away from him leaving the enemy to do with him as he pleases.
