A Legal Fatwa On The Situation In Iraq (After The 2003 Occupation Of Iraq)

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our master Muhammad and his family and companions, and after:

Two days ago, we saw on the television screen a great and strange scene that it would not have occurred to us to see, neither in wakefulness nor in sleep. We saw a mixture of his women and men, including clerics, who were chosen by the American governor of Iraq to be the so-called (Governing Council). A delegation came in the word of this world: that the Governing Council began its first meeting with a decision that canceled all the holidays that were celebrated by the race regime, and the council also decided to consider the 9th of April of each year a national holiday for Iraq, and this day is the day the armies of infidels entered Baghdad, so they are the hall of applause Sharp by the members of the Governing Council and the invitees, and this clapping was so intense, loud and long lasting, that if the women were alone in styling, they would not have been able to come out louder and louder than this clap that was made by the men present, although clapping is permissible for women and not Permissible for men in the provisions of Islamic law.

In commenting and commenting on what this religious scholar said in the opening speech, we should mention him and others that the legitimate holidays in Islam are only two holidays: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, and other than them are not considered legitimate and Islamic holidays. Considering the day of the occupation of infidels: Iraq and its capital, Baghdad, is a national holiday.

Then one of the council members responded to a question from one of the attendees about the position of the Governing Council on the armed resistance to the occupation forces, and he said: I begin my words with thanks and appreciation to Bush and Blair for the service they rendered to Iraq by sending their armies to liberate Iraq.

As for the armed resistance, he said about it: It is a fragmentation of the covenants of the previous era that wants to confuse the Liberation Army. The hall erupted with a warm clapping, which came louder and stronger than the applause that was won by the words of the religious scholar who preached to the attendees that the first decisions of the Council were to cancel the previous feasts and make the day of April 9, which is The day of the occupation of Baghdad is a national holiday for Iraq. The strange thing is that the praise of Bush and his army refuses to consider this army when they are occupied or as occupiers, even though the Americans say that they are occupiers and their authority is an occupation authority, and so he also said and decided that the Americans in Iraq are an occupation authority.The truth is that we were astonished by this praise of Bush and his attack on the legitimate resistance of a man attributed to the people of Iraq and considered one of the members of the Governing Council and the head of a party. We did not find anything similar to what we saw and heard of the presentation on the screen of the Governing Council , except what history tells us of praise and welcome from Minister Al-Alqami and his followers upon the arrival of the Hulagu of Iraq and its occupation of Baghdad.

The legal ruling of the reality in which we live:

The reality in which we live can be described simply: an Islamic country, Iraq, which was occupied by the infidels from the Americans and the British on the pretext that this country and the system in which it and its ruler pose a threat to the neighbors and the world because this regime and its ruler are weapons of mass destruction, so it must be rid of it and its weapons, and on this basis came Their armies occupied Iraq, and they ended the regime and those of its rulers were killed and those who fled fled, and the rule became in the hands of these occupiers infidels and announced first that they had come as liberators, not occupiers, then they came back and said with them the Security Council said that they are (occupiers ).  People differed in their attitude towards them. Some people declared their happiness over their occupation of Iraq and requested that they stay for a long time so that their liberation of Iraq from the evils of the past would be completed, and some of them asked for cooperation with them as allies and not enemies, and some of them viewed their fight with different reasons for this fighting, so what is the legal ruling The position of the Muslim from the reality of the occupation and its people ?

Ono

The Islamic ruling regarding the position of the Muslim towards these occupying infidels is the obligation to fight them, because fighting them - and they occupied Iraq, which is a Muslim country - has become a specific duty on every Muslim who is able to fight them, and on this the scholars of Islam agree.

It came in the great explanation of Hanbali jurisprudence:  “  If the infidels descended into a country, its people must fight them and repel them.” It also states: “It, i.e. Fighting the infidels, is an individual obligation in two places (one of them) if the two marchers meet – that is, the two armies – and he is present. (And the second) if The infidels descended into the country of the Muslims whose people had to go out to them, except for one of two men: the one whom there is a need to leave behind to save family, place, or money, and the other is the one whom the ruler prevents from going out .”

And Imam al-Qurtubi said in his interpretation: “If jihad was called for because the enemy had defeated one of the countries - that is, the Islamic ones, they said: All the people of that house should go out and go out to it light and heavy, young and old, each according to his ability, whoever has a father without his permission, and whoever does not have a father.” For him, and no one who is able to get out of a fighter or a large number of fighters - that is, the number of fighters increases if he is not able to fight - is left behind. And if the enemy approaches the abode of Islam and does not enter it, they must also go out to it until the religion of God appears, the egg is protected , the walnut is preserved, and the enemy is disgraced, and there is no dispute regarding this.

And after the Hanafis said that if the infidels enter an Islamic country, fighting them becomes an individual duty on the people of this country, they said: Likewise the boys who have not reached puberty if they can bear the fighting, there is nothing wrong with them going out and fighting, even if the fathers and mothers dislike it.

Secondly

Among the legal rulings for the Muslim’s attitude towards the occupying infidels is their lack of loyalty, affection, advocacy, and assistance to them. This is indicated by the verses of the Noble Qur’an, including:

The Almighty said in Surat Al-Nisaa

(بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا * الَّذِينَ يَتَّخِذُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۚ أَيَبْتَغُونَ عِندَهُمُ الْعِزَّةَ فَإِنَّ الْعِزَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا)

(Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment * Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely)

The commentators said in the interpretation of these two verses: Reinforcement is by God, not by the unbelievers, as the hypocrites imagine it, who take the unbelievers as their guardians, befriend them, sympathize with them, and support them rather than the believers.

And the Almighty said in Surat Al-Mujadila, verse 22:

(لَّا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءَهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُم....)

(You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred…), Its interpretation stated:

" Do not find any people who believe in God and the other day, they will be seen from the sharpness of God and His Messenger, even if they are their parents, children, brothers, or their children," he said .  And it came in its interpretation: You will not find a people who believe in the correct and required oaths who love and be loyal to those who oppose God, i.e. Those who are hostile to God and His Messenger and hardship them, and for this reason Abu Ubaidah killed his father in the battle of Badr on the day he was a polytheist fighting Muslims with the polytheists.

And the Almighty said in Surah Al-Mumtahinah:

(يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِم بِالْمَوَدَّةِ وَقَدْ كَفَرُوا بِمَا جَاءَكُم مِّنَ الْحَقّ)

(O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth)

And it came in its interpretation: (Glory be to God added the enemy to himself in order to venerate their guilt and to exaggerate it. The verse indicates the prohibition of allegiance to the infidels in any way: “You receive them with affection,” meaning: you convey to them the news of the Prophet , peace be upon  him ,  because of the affection between you and them.  And in the verse there is a warning to the spies who inform the believers who are striving against the infidels because of the affection that exists between them and the infidels, or because of what they get from them for money.

Third

It is not permissible to support the occupier infidels and cause the removal of the previous unjust ruling, because it is not from the norm of Sharia to allow a Muslim to accept the ruling of an infidel because he removed an unjust ruling and a corrupt system.  Moreover, these infidels did not come for our benefit and to rid us of an unjust rule, but rather they came to achieve their interests and the interests of the Jews in Iraq.  In any case, it is not permissible and forbidden for a Muslim to rejoice at the infidels’ arrival and their occupation of Iraq, or to say that they deserve to be rewarded for causing the removal of the unjust ruling by accepting and not accusing us and their ruling on us and their occupation of our country because this false statement contradicts and contradicts the command of the Sharia that it is obligatory to fight the infidels who occupy an Islamic country.

Fourthly

What confirms the necessity of fighting these occupier infidels is that, in addition to their corruption and partisanship in Iraq, they have attacked and are still encroaching on the sanctities of homes and terrorizing the safe. And this aggression alone against the honor of women is enough to break the treaty with a people who do that, so how about those who do it from the infidel occupiers, an infidel occupier, a sinful aggressor, who came to us from overseas, so he squandered our dignity and smothered it with dust, then he dared to attack the dignity and honor of our women, this aggression is rejected by Islam and no Muslim is allowed That he accepts it, but makes him who fights without his family and is killed, then he is a martyr, as it came in the hadith of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon  him  . Then we say, if it is not necessary to fight against these occupiers infidels, then when should it be? The treaty of the Messenger of God ﷺ  With the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, it was annulled by a Jewish attack on a Muslim woman’s offer to tie his dress and she was sitting in a Jewish jeweler’s shop in Medina to buy some of what he had from him, so he tied the end of his dress so that when she got up, something of her private parts appeared and she pleaded with the Muslims, so a Muslim came and killed the Jew, and the Jews came and killed the Muslim, and so it spread Fighting, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, considered  what  the Jew had done as a violation of the treaty with the Muslims. Rather, what happened was a result of the violating the Jews who supported the Jew, the goldsmith, and the result of that was that the Prophet, peace be upon him, expelled them  as  a  result of their actions, and the Prophet ,  Attacking the honor of chaste Muslim women can never be accepted, nor can it be tolerated, and it doubles the necessity of resisting these infidels, occupying our country, aggressors against us with all kinds of aggression.

Fifth

The Muslim’s position on armed resistance groups:

We said that fighting the infidels occupiers of our country is a specific duty, and the armed resistance men carry out this specific duty, so it is not permissible at all to belittle them, criticize them, or spy on them.  Because these resistance fighters are striving for the victory of Islam to expel the infidels from a Muslim country, and their dead is a martyr, and their jihad terrorizes the enemy and casts terror in the hearts of its members, and it is he who will lead, God willing, to expel them from Iraq.  And on all Muslims to support them and kill them and incite the able to fight to join them because incitement to Jihad Jihad, says the Almighty in Surat al-Al-Nisaa:

(فَقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ لَا تُكَلَّفُ إِلَّا نَفْسَكَ وَحَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ … )

([O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself. And encourage the believers [to join you]), And the Almighty said in Surat Al-Anfal:

(يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَال)

(O Prophet, urge the believers to battle)

And we, through the Messenger of God, have a good example of inciting the believers to fight - fighting the occupiers of the infidels.

Intercept And Pushand

If it is said that armed resistance does not expel the infidels who are occupiers from Iraq, then its action is in vain and a reason for the occupiers’ hatred of the people of Iraq and their deliberate harm and harm to them. Also, in this armed resistance there is an aid to the former president and his aides from the Baath Party, and aiding those who did what they did is not permissible. The answer to this objection is that the Muslim performs a specific legal duty upon him, which is to resist the occupiers infidels, and when he performs this legal duty he performs it in obedience to God and seeking His pleasure and support. He does not carry out this resistance for the sake of the former President Saddam Hussein, nor for his support or aid, or for the Baath Party. Of course, it has no Saddam or his aides.As for the saying that the armed resistance does not expel the occupying enemy from Iraq, then its action is in vain. The answer is that the Muslim performs what is a legitimate duty that he is obligated to perform, and whether or not someone else falls short in this duty, or does not, rather the Muslim performs this jihadi duty even if he remains He alone does this duty. Imam al-Qurtubi said in his interpretation of the question and answer: What does an individual do if everyone falls short in jihad? He said, may God have mercy on him: They invade - that is, fight those who must be fought - by themselves if they are able, otherwise prepare an invader, and this is with our belief that the armed resistance terrorizes the enemy and will force him, God willing, to leave Iraq.They invade - that is, fight those who must be fought - by themselves if you are able, otherwise prepare an invader, and this is with our belief that the armed resistance terrorizes the enemy and will, God willing, force him to leave Iraq.They invade - that is, fight those who must be fought - by themselves if you are able, otherwise prepare an invader, and this is with our belief that the armed resistance terrorizes the enemy and will, God willing, force him to leave Iraq.

Sixthly

The Muslim’s Position On The Governing Council

This council was established, and its members were chosen by the American governor of Iraq. What is the Muslim’s legal position on this council ?  This is what we answer:

The members of this council were chosen by the infidel who appointed himself or the infidels appointed him occupiers and made him the guardianship over Iraq and its Muslim people, and one of the manifestations of his mandate is his appointment of members of this council, and the Muslim rejects the guardianship of the infidel over him, the Almighty said in Surat Al-Nisaa

(وَلَن يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا)

(and never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them])

The members of this council do not carry Islamic meanings or Islamic scales, and they do not accept the reference of Islamic Sharia in what they take, remember, say, and what they want. That is why we heard from one of them praising and praising the infidel occupying and ordering the occupation, Bush and Blair, and we did not see any of those sitting denying this praise, as We have not seen any of the council members deny that disguised as the scholars, who said that the council decided to make April 9 a national holiday, which is the day of the infidels’ occupation of Baghdad. Members? He can not be said that those who accept their mutations and participate in their decisions they are exported away from the meanings of Islam and its scales as a member of it, it is meaningless, which shows him in Surah Al-Nisaa

(وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِّثْلُهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَامِعُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْكَافِرِينَ فِي جَهَنَّمَ جَمِيعًا)

(And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together)

It was stated in the interpretation of this verse:

A) In the verse, he indicates the avoidance of every situation in which his family engages in what serves to belittle and mock the legal evidence [Explanation of Fath al-Bayan fi Maqasid al-Qur’an by the scholar Siddiq Hasan ]

B) Imam Al-Qurtubi said in his interpretation of this verse, “Everyone who sits in an assembly of disobedience and does not denounce them if they speak of disobedience and act upon it, and if he is not able to denounce them, he must stand up for them so that he is not among the people of this verse .”

C) In the interpretation of Ibn Attia, called Al-Muharrir Al-Wajeez in the Interpretation of the Mighty Book [and in this verse there is strong evidence that the people of innovation and the people of disobedience should not be seated] and all the indications of the noble verse and the sayings of the commentators in it do not help to say that it is permissible for a Muslim to participate in this assembly. The need to stay away from it.

This council is intended to be a tool for implementing what the occupying infidel decides, even if the issuance of this decision is in the name of the council, and among the axioms of the meanings of Islam is the sanctity of aiding the occupier infidel, because he deserves nothing but seeking to expel him, not to keep him, so it is not permissible for a Muslim to participate in this forbidden aid through Issuing the decisions that the occupying infidel wants.

The members of this council do not carry Islamic meanings and they do not have Islamic scales by which they know what is permissible and what is not permissible because Islamic Sharia is not their reference in their lives or in the matters of this council, and therefore this council and this is the nature of its members and their ideas they do not allow a Muslim member of it to speak in the name of Islam And if he wants them to listen and hear what he says, they will not allow, and if they allow him to speak and listen to him, what he says will not be implemented because opinions are taken by the majority and not by the majority of Islam and its people in this assembly whose identities and personalities of its members and personalities have been revealed and the truth of God Almighty (( وَلَتَعْرِفَنَّهُمْ فِي لَحْنِ الْقَوْلِ ).

What the members of this council say, expressing with their words what they believe in, is something that should never be tolerated, as happened to what some council members stated and the ideas they presented. It was hoped that someone would respond to their false statements, but what happened was that their words were met with applause that shook the meeting hall. It is hoped and hoped for good from this council.

Based on the foregoing, the  legal ruling  with regard to this council is not to participate in its membership, and the Muslims who participated in its membership should withdraw from it at once  with an explanation of the reasons for withdrawal, and they are legitimate reasons that we referred to in the previous paragraphs. And thank Allah the god of everything.

Dr. Abdel Karim Zeidan

16 Jumada I 1424 AH  corresponding to July 16, 2003 AD