Is Jihad Fard Kifayah Or Fard Ayn?‏

Realize that attacking the non-believers in their territories is a collective duty (fardh kifayah) with the consensus (ijmaa) of the scholars. However ibn al Musayeb and ibn Shubrumah state that it is a duty (fardh ayn) on each and every individual.

“The minimum participation in Jihad is once a year, and more is always better. It is not allowed to have a year pass you by without any fighting except out of necessity like the weakness of Muslims and the great numbers of the enemy, or fear of extermination if you attack them first, or lack of provisions, or similar excuses. Otherwise, if there is no necessity it is not allowed to delay attacking the non-believers for more than a year.” Imam Shafi’i states that.

The imam of al Haramain says: “I adopt the opinion of the scholars of usool. They stated that Jihad is a mandatory call and must be established according to the ability until none remains in the world but a Muslim or one who has submitted to Muslims. Thus, Jihad is not limited to once a year. It should be done more frequently if possible. What the scholars of fiqh stated is because usually the time spent in preparations for combat limit the ability to wage war to once a year.”

The author of al Mugni from the Hanbali school states: “The minimum jihad is once a year, so it is mandatory every year. If there is a need to fight more than once a year, it becomes mandatory on the Muslims to fulfill that need.”

Al Qurtubi states in his tafseer: “It is mandatory on the Imam to send an army of Muslims to the land of the enemy once every year and the Imam should participate himself in such expeditions. If not, then he should send someone capable whom he trusts, to call them to Islam, keep away their harm, to give victory to the religion of Allah, until they enter Islam or pay jizyah”*

*[Note: Notice that al Qurtubi states that one of the objectives of sending the armies is to keep the harm of the enemy away. This is an indication that Muslims will never taste peace in their lives if they do not attack the enemies of Allah and on their turf. The consequences of not fulfilling that duty is the price we are paying today. If you don’t keep shaytaan in check he will not leave you alone.]

Jihad is not mandatory on children, the mentally incapable, women, and the ill. It is mandatory however, on the one-eyed, the one who is suffering from a mild illness such as a headache, a sore tooth, or fever, or the one who has a slight limp. This is in the madhab of Imam Ahmad, and I don’t know any disagreement regarding that and Allah knows best.

It is the consensus of scholars that one cannot participate in Qazw* without the permission of the parents.

*[Note: Qazw: Linguistically refers to “pursuit” It is used in Islamic terminology to refer to pursuing the enemy in order to fight him.]

This is all regarding the Jihad, which is a collective duty (starting the non believers with war and on their territory). But if the enemy enters the Muslim land, or even approaches it and masses on its borders, even if they do not actually enter it, and there armies are double the size of that of the Muslims or less, then Jihad becomes mandatory on each and every individual. Then, the slave leaves without the permission of the master, the woman without the permission of her husband (if she has the strength to fight according to the stronger opinion), the son without the permission of the parents, and the one indebt without the permission of the lender. All of the above stated is the opinion of Imam Malik, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah*.

*[Note: in addition to the madhab of the author which is Shafi’i]

If the enemy ambushes the Muslims in a certain area and they don’t have a chance to assemble together and prepare to fight, then whoever is faced by a nonbeliever, or a group of nonbelievers, and the Muslim knows that if he surrenders he would be killed, then he must fight. There is no difference in this ruling between a freeman, slave, man, woman, blind, limp, or ill. If there is only the possibility of being killed if surrendered, but would defiantly be killed if he refuses to surrender, then it is allowed to either surrender or fight, but fighting is better.

If a woman thinks if she is taken prisoner she would be sexually abused, it is mandatory on her to fight, even if that would lead to her death because if a person is forced to commit adultery or fornication it is not allowed to give in even if to save one’s life.

Now if some of the Muslims in the attacked area go to fight the enemy and they are sufficient in numbers and are capable of fighting the enemy alone, it is still a duty on the rest to help. Al Mawardi states that because it is a Jihad of defense so it remains a duty on every Muslim capable of fighting in that territory.

If the nonbelievers descend on an unpopulated Muslim land that is far away from populated areas there are two opinions in that, and Al Gazali narrates both;

The first is that of the Imam al Haramain. He states that it does not become mandatory on Muslims to fight and put their lives in danger to protect such a secluded, unpopulated land.

The other opinion, which is the position of the madhab, is that it is mandatory for Muslims to fight for that land.

Imam Nawawi says the opinion of the Imam (of al Haramain, al Juwaini) is unacceptable. How can we -the Muslims-allow the non-Muslims to take away part of the Dar al Islam with our ability to protect it?

Al Qurtubi says: If the enemy just comes close to Muslim territory, even without entering it, it becomes mandatory on Muslims to go and meet the enemy in order for the religion of Islam to prevail and gain the upper hand and to humiliate the enemy.

Al Baghawi states that it is mandatory on the Muslims who are closest to the invaded land, and is a collective duty on the Muslims who are far away.

[Mashari Al-Ashwaq Ila Masari Al-Ushaaq]

» Posted by Seifeddine-M on 26th January 2011

0 Comments