Do the disbelievers fight before they are called to Islam?

The Shaykh : I am asking you now, do you allow me to ask a question in exchange for a question?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : One question: Is it permissible to fight a people, to combat a people, is it permissible before calling them to Islam?

The questioner : The original ruling is that it is not permissible.

The Shaykh : The word "original" worries me, because I fear there is something behind the veil. Is there something?

The questioner : This is my answer.

The Shaykh : "Behind the veil" means that if we remove it, does the existence change?

The questioner : For the sake of the story of the Banu Mustaliq, the hadith of Nafi'.

The Shaykh : Very good. So the question returns: Is it permissible to fight a people without conveying Islam to them and calling them to Islam before they fight? So, is it permissible?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This differs from your previous answer when you said the original ruling is that it is not permissible. What is the difference between "permissible" and "the original ruling is not permissible"? Is this not the debate, Shaykh Saleh? May Allah forgive me and you. Say, "Ameen."

The questioner : Ameen. May Allah reward you with good, but it is not so.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Why? Because here we need to distinguish between two things.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : The call of the scholars and the call of the leaders, and the call of the individuals. So now, for example, as you know, may Allah preserve you, the story of the apostates. The command was only to return and pay the zakah and acknowledge it. The command was only for the leaders, even though the Companions testified that the killed ones were in the Fire. Why? Because they followed those leaders. The followers are the common people. The followers have the ruling of the scholars or the leaders.

The Shaykh : Okay, if that is so, how do you understand the hadith of Ibn Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah did not fight a people until he called them"? How do you understand "a people" here?

The questioner : Absolute.

The Shaykh : I am not asking you if it is absolute or restricted. You are an Arab man. What does "a people" mean? Does it mean the leader of the people? Tell me.

The questioner : That is the apparent ruling.

The Shaykh : The leader of the people.

The questioner : That is the apparent ruling.

The Shaykh : And is this a style in the language? That is, in the manner of the interpreters of the saying of Allah the Exalted: meaning "the King of your Lord" or "the mercy of your Lord"?

The questioner : Because it is difficult to convey the message to everyone.

The Shaykh : This is not my statement. Everyone, my statement is in Arabic: "a people." If you walk with me and delete the omitted possessive that has spoiled the Arabic meaning for us, and you do not hold me to be an intruder if I speak in Arabic, because I do not forget my origin and my eloquence.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I am Al-Albani, but what I have learned from you does not help me to understand this hadith by deleting an omitted possessive, estimating it as: "The leader of a people did not fight until he called them," meaning he called him. I do not understand this style.

The questioner : Why? Like the saying of Allah the Exalted: .

The Shaykh : Even though I told you, like the saying of Allah the Exalted: .

The questioner : No, the situation is different, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How is it different?

The questioner : It differs greatly. Here, in the saying: , "a people" is an indefinite noun that came in the context of negation, so it is absolute.

The Shaykh : You did not make it absolute, Shaykh.

The questioner : It is not a generalization.

The Shaykh : I did not debate with you about generalization. You restricted "a people" to mean an individual.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And I am saying that it is not the Arabic style. And I did not mean by "a people" that the people are one hundred persons, that one of ninety-nine was not reached by the call. So, the people were not reached by the call. I did not say this to you, but you said: if you reached one of a hundred, the call was reached. That is what you said.

The questioner : I did not say that.

The Shaykh : How not?

The questioner : I say that if you reached the leader and he refused to respond, then it is permissible or obligatory to strive against them and fight them, even if one of the individuals of the army is killed under his banner.

The Shaykh : Professor, may Allah guide us and you. Do not hold me to this. I repeat and say frankly: You are now following the paths of the scholars of theology. You decide an opinion in your mind and leave the text aside. We are facing a text: "a people," not an individual. You are facing this text. Speak whatever you want, but do not turn away from the text. This talk you are giving, "the leader of the people," say for example: the leader of the people conveys to the group around him, and those around him go to the house and say, "I was told such and such," and so on, and thus the call becomes established. Because it is not just that the message reached the king directly, and he sent the atomic bomb and destroyed the people. No, the matter takes time. It is not permissible, may Allah bless you. You interpret it in this narrow sense, one man. But who described this man? He is the leader of the people. No, this is from one side. From another side, you do not imagine that when the Messenger, peace be upon him, sent a letter to Heraclius or to others calling them to Islam, that these people had not heard the call of the Messenger. No doubt that the battles of the Messenger and his fighting his people had reached them. The greatest proof is the story of Abu Sufyan. This is it. And so you do not imagine that the call is reached merely by sending a letter that no one reads except this leader. No, So when he saysThe Shaykh : Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, that there are people who imitated those who were stubborn after the call reached them. This is a basic condition: the reaching of the call. How is the call reached? This differs from time to time, from person to person, and so on. We need to return to the original subject, may Allah bless you. We are now in a situation where history repeats itself. Whoever the call reached, the proof has been established against him. Whoever the call did not reach, the proof has not been established against him. But we were in another matter, I think we strayed from it, which is imitation: that the followers imitate the leaders without the call reaching them. This is how I understood from you. And this is an understanding I hope you will correct for me, meaning that my understanding of you is wrong. Is my statement clear?

The questioner : It is clear.

The Shaykh : Okay, correct it for me.

The questioner : It is correct.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : I meant that if these leaders reject the call, and the individuals fight them, and they fight, then we testify against them that they are in the Fire and that they are disbelievers, because they fought under the banner of this polytheist, even if it did not reach them specifically.
Al-Halabi : Can imitation be imitation without knowledge of the matter being imitated?

The Shaykh : Well done. Our question is: did the call reach them or not? The best speech is what is little and effective. I understand from your words that they were fought and the call did not reach them.

The questioner : As individuals, as every specific individual.

The Shaykh : No, that is not my intention. As a people?

The questioner : They must have been reached.

The Shaykh : So, any people the Messenger, peace be upon him, fought, the call must have reached them, any people.

The questioner : Meaning every individual?

The Shaykh : Allah knows best. This is a matter for my Lord, like we discussed that hour about a person.

The questioner : This is difficult.

The Shaykh : Difficult, yes. But do we want to declare them disbelievers? Allah is the one who will hold them accountable.

The questioner : No, it is difficult to rule that we say every person before us fights, because these are, may Allah protect you, matters of reality.

The Shaykh : No, allow me. What is difficult? Do not stray. What is the difficulty we did not understand?
Al-Halabi : The specific ruling.

The questioner : The difficulty is to say that every person requires that the call reach him.

The Shaykh : I did not say this. Glory be to Allah. You are binding me to what I did not say, and you are binding me to the opposite of what I say. I do not say this.

The questioner : This is what I understood.

The Shaykh : And what do you think? You say it is difficult, and I say it is difficult.

The questioner : And it is so.

The Shaykh : Where is the point of disagreement? Limit the issue, for the session has lasted longer than necessary.
Al-Halabi : But it is very good. May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. The point of disagreement is that the Messenger does not fight a people merely because the leader of the people was reached by the call only. Rather, he fights a people after the call has reached them. "A people" does not mean every individual of the individuals. "A people" means the call spread. Glory be to Allah, I heard myself just now, and the tape is preserved. Now I say that many were not reached by the Islamic call. What do you think?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : You said this with the existence of means that were not present before. So how do you imagine that I would say the call of the Messenger reaches every individual of the individuals? And you say it is difficult. So I said, "I understand the issue," and I said, "No, but it is more difficult." So the point of disagreement is: it is not valid to fight a people except after calling them to Islam. As for how many were reached and how many were not reached? We are not obligated to know that. These people were reached by the call, and the call with its condition as it came previously, a correct call, and so on. You say the leader of the people is sufficient, and we said it is not sufficient. Based on that, these misguided peoples today, from the Muslims, these people, it is not permissible to declare them disbelievers, neither outwardly nor inwardly. Give it a thought. Why? Because they raised the banner of Islam. And you see the fighting in Afghanistan and the problems that come to us about them. You know, I do not say?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : These people fight for Islam, but do they have shirk (associating partners with Allah) and misguidance among them? Of course, I say, for example, are all their leaders like this? I say, no, by Allah, we have not learned that their leaders call for aid from other than Allah or seek nearness to Allah through other than Allah. There may be some among them as well; I do not deny it, but it is not permissible to say in a lump that these are mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah). Some of our Saudi brothers came here and argued with me regarding my statement that jihad in Afghanistan is obligatory. They wanted me to say, "No, it is not obligatory." I told him, "It is obligatory for you, for two reasons. First, you go to fight in the path of Allah so that this communist disbeliever who occupied the lands is driven out of the country. Second, so that you convey the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) to the people. This is your obligation, twice over. And we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to inspire us with the right in everything we do and say."

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And if a harsh word has come out of me that does not fit the occasion, I hope you will not hold me accountable for it.

The questioner : You, our Shaykh, we never hold you accountable for anything.

The Shaykh : Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise be to You. We bear witness that there is no deity but You. We seek Your forgiveness and turn to You in repentance.