Fatwah on the use of weapons of mass destruction
((Recently, a well-known Saudi cleric issued a religious edict (Fatwa) granting legal legitimacy to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kufr and against their citizens.
Sheik Nasser bin Hamd al-Fahad is recognized as one of the senior Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia and is associated with Sheikh Bin Laden. Sheikh al-Fahad’s edict, was published on one of the websites identified with al-Qaida and the global Jihad, in reply to a question regarding the Islamic religious basis underlying al-Qaida’s intention to use weapons of mass destruction against the Kufr.
In his edict, Sheik al-Fahad explains that the Muslim world is currently engaged in a defensive war, rather than a war of choice. The US and Britain, he says, are committing acts of aggression against the Muslim world in general and Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.
In a defensive war, according to al-Fahad, Islam makes no distinguish between enemy military personnel and enemy civilians—even women and children. He emphasizes that no means are forbidden—even those that are likely to harm many Muslims. In a defensive war, Muslims must use all means at their disposal and must not recoil from using any method to hit the conquerer.
Sheik al-Fahad, born in Riyadh in 1936, is a graduate of the “Al-Imam” Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he was detained by Saudi authorities, but was released shortly thereafter. He has written dozens of books and publications full of incitement and religious edicts against the US and anyone cooperating with it. Among his well-known pronouncements is that “anyone assisting the Americans is an infidel.” His doctrines have formed the ideological basis for a culture of animosity and hatred towards the West, toward Christianity, and particularly towards the Americans.
Sheik Nasser al-Fahad is considered one of the three most radical Saudi clerics, along with Sheik Ali al-Khadir and Sheik Ahmed al-Khaldi, all of whom favor global Jihad and support the al-Qaida organization. The edicts issued by the three constitute the legal Islamic basis for al-Qaeda’s terrorist activity against the West.
On the eve of the war in Iraq, the three clerics called on Muslims around the world to engage in a war of Jihad against the US and its allies. They also harshly criticized the Saudi rulers for offering assistance and military aid to the allies in their war against Iraq. Moreover, the three accused the Saudi royal house of heresy and deviation (“Murtadin”) from the ways of Islam. Such an accusation, according to Muslim religious law, is tantamount to sanctioning their murder.
Upon the outbreak of war in Iraq , the three went underground, but continued to incite and issue edicts against the US and Britain. These edicts resonated powerfully among many believers, particularly al-Qaida supporters.
Following the Mujahid attacks in Riyadh (May 12), Saudi Ibleese security forces launched an extensive manhunt for the three, which led to their capture in the city of Medina. The arrest of the three immediately aroused a backlash and led to rumors that two of them—Sheik Khadir and Sheik al-Khaldi—were killed during their an arrest attempt. The rumors of their death aroused an outcry and calls for revenge on many web sites associated with al-Qaeda.
Figures close to Sheikh Bin Laden reported that the news that the two clerics had been killed greatly affected Bin Laden, who pledged to avenge their death by harming the al-Saud family “in a way never before seen in the past” .
Meanwhile, the Al-Jazeera network published a warning from al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Sheikhul Mujahid Ayman al-Zawahiri, who called for September 11-style attacks against Americans. He also urged Muslims to attack British, Australian and Norwegian targets. The web site associated with al-Qaeda also issued a call to topple the regime of the “corrupt and infidel” al-Saud royal family in Saudi Arabia.
In the wake of the uproar surrounding rumors of the liquidation of Sheik Khadir and Sheik al-Khaldi, the Interior Minister of Saudi Ibleesian Government confirmed that the two Imam, along with Sheik Nasser al-Fahad, were in custody, but denied any of them had died. Only ALLAH knows the truth.
Here, we publish apart from the study which was done by some great Mujahids. We hope that is a guidline to all Muslims who are fighting against Kuffar in anypart of the world.
- abu muQatil))
In then name of ALLAH. All praises to ALLAH, one who send The Prophet of War with Iron and Quran to establish Islamic Government and to Destroy The Thaghut.
Dear brothers and Sisters in Islam.
After the serial bomb blast in sub urban trains our Leaders and Intellectuals say that “Among the victim were some, innocent and sinless. Among them women and children were there. Islam is not permits to kill Women, Children and innocent peoples in the name of ALLAH. These activities are totally Non-Islamic. Islam forbids these types of activities. The one who done this will not be a Muslim. He is kafir”
They openly announce that these fellows who act against the big Kufrian Government and their towns are kafir. Are they Kafirs? No, Never. They are the real Mujahid’s who are fighting for the sake of ALLAH and to bring ALLAH’s name highest. Yes, they are the real Mujahid’s who try to crush The land of Shirk. They are trying to weak The land of Kufr.
So, I think this is my religious duty to clarify the Islamic version of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is Islam allowed to use Mass Destruction Weapons? Is it possible to kill innocents through bomb blasts? What is the Islamic perspective of it?
For this let us check this from some point of views.
1). Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from that the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikun (Polytheist) when they are attacked at night and their women and children are affected, he said: "they are part of them".
So, this Hadith shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to separate.
This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate".
2. Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.
Ibn Qudamah may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use Catapult because the Prophet may the Salaat and Salaam be with him used Catapult on the people of Ta'if; and Amr bin al-As did the same to the people of Alexandria (Al-Mughniy, vol. 10, p503).
“Fatih Al Hind Muhammad bin Qasim – the first Islamic conqueror of India – used Minjaniek in Sindh. He used it against temples of India. It killed a lot of Hindu poojaris”
And Ibn al-Qasim said "it is permissible to use Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because 'Nikayah' (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of Ulama.
Ibn Rushd said: "'Nikayah' is permissible according to Ijama' and on any type of polytheists" (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)
Here, there is a question we will like to ask those who use the word "Terrorism" on what happened in India, and I want their reply.
The question is: When India attacked Bangladesh to divide the Islamic Pakistan, using its planes and bombs, destroying it and killing everybody in it, staff and laborers, what was this called?
When India conquered Amritsar, Hyderabad , Kashmir and various parts which was under the Islamic rule, destroying and killing our blood in Islam, why you didn’t call that is an act of Terrorism. Indian army entered to Hyderabad in the name of Police action and killed around one million Muslim blood –Khalid bin Waleed and Osmas of tomorrows- why didn’t shout that is terrorism? They raped our sisters in Amritsar, Hyderabad and Kashmir…..O..Ulema where were you? Shouldn't the action of India be considered as an act of terrorism? Else how what those people can did in India be treated as an act of terrorism? Why is everybody condemning and rejecting what was done to those buildings and trains in India and yet we did not hear any such condemnations on the destruction and the mass killing by India?
The first category:
They may be among those who neither fought, nor supported their country by their persons, wealth or opinion and suggestions or anything else. It is not permissible to kill this category, on condition that they can be differentiated from the rest, but if they are mixed up such that they can't be separated, then it is allowed to kill them along with the others and by extension, like old men, women, children, the sick and the disabled or devoted monks.
Ibn Qudamah said: "It is allowed to kill women and children in night attacks and in demolished buildings or ditches, so far as the intention is not to kill them in particular; And it is allowed to kill their (the enemies') animals as a means for killing and subduing them; there is no difference of opinion on this." (Al-Mughniy, with the Sharh -commentary, 10/503)
Similarly he said: "It is permissible to attack enemies at night. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: 'there is no problem with night attacks, were the Romans not attacked at night?' And he said: 'we don't know anybody who disliked night attacks" (Al-Mughniy 10/503)
The second category:
Or, they (the victims) may be part of those who did not participate directly in the war but helped with their wealth or opinions, these cannot be called "innocent", nay they are among the fighters and part of the strength of the enemy.
Ibn Abdil Barr may Allah has mercy on him, said in Al-Istizkar: "There is no dispute among the scholars that whoever fights among women or old men, killing him is allowed, similarly, any child capable of fighting , if he does may be killed." (Al-Istizkar vol. 14, p 74).
Similarly, Ibn Qudamah reported the Ijamaa' on killing women, children and old men if they help their people; Ibn Abdil Barr said: "They have a concensus on the fact that the Prophet killed Duraid bin on the Day of the Battle of Hunayn because he was an experienced in war and contributed his opinions. Thus whoever is like that among old men deserves to be killed according to all (scholars). (At-Tamheed, vol. 16 p 142)
And an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him related the Ijama' (in Sharh Muslim in "the Book of Jihad") that elderly men among the non-Muslims should be killed if they have knowledge of war strategies.
Ibn Qasim also quoted in Al-Hashiyat that: "they had Ijmaa' that the ruling concerning any strategist is that of any fighter in Jihad. This Ijmaa' was reported from Ibn Taimiyyah. Similarly, he related from Ibn Taimiyyah that "those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them"
The third Category:
Or they may be Muslims, and it is not permissible for these to be killed separately; But when they are mixed up with others in such a way that they have to be killed with them, then it is allowed, and these is the case known as 'Mas'alatut Tatarrus' (when non-Muslims hold Muslims as shield against attack), which was discussed earlier.
Thus, what many are babbling and repeating on the case of the "innocent victims", is nothing but the effect of the West and its media, to the extent that many an unwary person repeats the words and expressions of our enemies, which are in direct contradiction with the expressions of Shari'ah.
Let us not, also, forget that it is permissible for us to treat non-Muslims similar to the way they treated us; and in this there is a reply and clear proof to all those who repeat the words "innocent victims", because Allah the Exalted has made that. Among the texts on that:
"Thus, if you retaliate, retaliate with what equals the aggression afflicted upon you" and He said:
"...and those whom, when an aggression afflicts them, they revenge, but the reward of an evil is an evil equal to it".
Also among the sayings of scholars on the permissibility of taking revenge:
Ibn Taimiyyah said: "it is their right to mutilate. So it is their right to do it in revenge and payback in the same coins, OR they may waive it, but patience is better. This is in a case where the mutilation does not lead to a gain in the Jihad, and it is not for an equal treatment from them (the enemies); But when Mutilating them will lead to their accepting the faith or warn them against another aggression, then, it is - in this case - part of recommended Jihad and retribution." (This was quoted by Ibn Muflih in Alfuru' vol.6 p.218)
Else, whoever says that there are "innocent victims" without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet and the Companions and those after them that they killed "innocent victims", according to them! Because the Prophet used Catapult in his war against Ta'if, and it is the nature of Catapult that it does not differentiate.
Similarly, the Prophet (saw) killed all whom those who had attained puberty among the Jews of Bani Quraidah without differentiating between them.
Ibn Hazm, commenting on the Hadith that "Banu Quraidah were paraded before the Prophet, and he ordered the killing of all those who had attained puberty", said: "this is a general ruling from the Prophet, since he did not leave out an old man, a merchant, a farmer or any other person; this was related from him with genuine Ijmaa' (Al-Muhallaa vol. 6 p. 299)
Ibn al-Qayyim said in 'Zaadul Ma'aad': "it is part of his guidance (i.e. the Prophet's) that whenever he made a pact with some people and they broke the covenant, or some of them broke the agreement, and the rest supported them on that , and accepted it; he fights all of them and considers all as having broken the covenant. As he did to Banu Quraizah and Banun Nadheer and Banu Qainuqa', and as he treated the people of Mecca. So this is Sunnah (method or approach to those who betray their covenants.
Similarly, he said: "Ibn Taimiyyah has certainly ruled that the Christians of Mashriq should be fought when they assisted the enemies of the Muslims against them, and helped them with their wealth and weapons, despite the fact that they did not did not fight us. He considered them to have broken the covenant as Quraish did during the time of the Prophet by helping Banu Bakr bin Wa'il in fighting those in alliance with the prophet"
In conclusion, we all know that the non Muslim East and West, especially India, Britain, America and Israel are trying to eradicate Jihad and those who engage in it and it will never succeed; and they will do that in the name of fighting Terrorism.
Thus, it is compulsory to assist this Islamic Nation in Jihad, with whatever we can Allah the Exalted says:
"The Believers, men and women, are helpers of one another"
And He said "Help each other in righteousness and obedience"
Thus, it is compulsory to assist them with wealth and persons and opinions and advices and through the Media by defending them and their honor and their public image; and through prayers for them that they vanquish the enemy and have steadfastness.
And like we said, it is compulsory upon all Muslims to help the Muslims in Afghan or in India. It is also equally compulsory upon the Muslim Governments especially the neighboring countries to assist them against the Kufr of the East and West.
And let those know that that failing to assist Muqatilien that is being fought for its religion and because of the help it gives to Mujahideen and, assisting the kuffar against them is the kind of friendship and support of the kuffar that Allaah warned against when He said:
"Believers, take not my enemy and your enemy as friends in whom you put love"
And He said "Believers take not my enemy and yours as Protecting friends."
Certainly it will go down in history that these countries betrayed their brothers and it will remain as a kind of bad record on them and their people that will remain forever!!
We pray to Allah that He helps His Religion and raises His Word and exalts Islam and the Muslims and the Mujahideen and to destroy America and its followers and those who assist them. Verily He has that Power and is Able to do so.
Dear brothers and Sisters in Islam.
After the serial bomb blast in sub urban trains our Leaders and Intellectuals say that “Among the victim were some, innocent and sinless. Among them women and children were there. Islam is not permits to kill Women, Children and innocent peoples in the name of ALLAH. These activities are totally Non-Islamic. Islam forbids these types of activities. The one who done this will not be a Muslim. He is kafir”
They openly announce that these fellows who act against the big Kufrian Government and their towns are kafir. Are they Kafirs? No, Never. They are the real Mujahid’s who are fighting for the sake of ALLAH and to bring ALLAH’s name highest. Yes, they are the real Mujahid’s who try to crush The land of Shirk. They are trying to weak The land of Kufr.
So, I think this is my religious duty to clarify the Islamic version of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is Islam allowed to use Mass Destruction Weapons? Is it possible to kill innocents through bomb blasts? What is the Islamic perspective of it?
For this let us check this from some point of views.
1). Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from that the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikun (Polytheist) when they are attacked at night and their women and children are affected, he said: "they are part of them".
So, this Hadith shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to separate.
This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate".
2. Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.
Ibn Qudamah may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use Catapult because the Prophet may the Salaat and Salaam be with him used Catapult on the people of Ta'if; and Amr bin al-As did the same to the people of Alexandria (Al-Mughniy, vol. 10, p503).
“Fatih Al Hind Muhammad bin Qasim – the first Islamic conqueror of India – used Minjaniek in Sindh. He used it against temples of India. It killed a lot of Hindu poojaris”
And Ibn al-Qasim said "it is permissible to use Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because 'Nikayah' (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of Ulama.
Ibn Rushd said: "'Nikayah' is permissible according to Ijama' and on any type of polytheists" (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)
Here, there is a question we will like to ask those who use the word "Terrorism" on what happened in India, and I want their reply.
The question is: When India attacked Bangladesh to divide the Islamic Pakistan, using its planes and bombs, destroying it and killing everybody in it, staff and laborers, what was this called?
When India conquered Amritsar, Hyderabad , Kashmir and various parts which was under the Islamic rule, destroying and killing our blood in Islam, why you didn’t call that is an act of Terrorism. Indian army entered to Hyderabad in the name of Police action and killed around one million Muslim blood –Khalid bin Waleed and Osmas of tomorrows- why didn’t shout that is terrorism? They raped our sisters in Amritsar, Hyderabad and Kashmir…..O..Ulema where were you? Shouldn't the action of India be considered as an act of terrorism? Else how what those people can did in India be treated as an act of terrorism? Why is everybody condemning and rejecting what was done to those buildings and trains in India and yet we did not hear any such condemnations on the destruction and the mass killing by India?
The first category:
They may be among those who neither fought, nor supported their country by their persons, wealth or opinion and suggestions or anything else. It is not permissible to kill this category, on condition that they can be differentiated from the rest, but if they are mixed up such that they can't be separated, then it is allowed to kill them along with the others and by extension, like old men, women, children, the sick and the disabled or devoted monks.
Ibn Qudamah said: "It is allowed to kill women and children in night attacks and in demolished buildings or ditches, so far as the intention is not to kill them in particular; And it is allowed to kill their (the enemies') animals as a means for killing and subduing them; there is no difference of opinion on this." (Al-Mughniy, with the Sharh -commentary, 10/503)
Similarly he said: "It is permissible to attack enemies at night. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: 'there is no problem with night attacks, were the Romans not attacked at night?' And he said: 'we don't know anybody who disliked night attacks" (Al-Mughniy 10/503)
The second category:
Or, they (the victims) may be part of those who did not participate directly in the war but helped with their wealth or opinions, these cannot be called "innocent", nay they are among the fighters and part of the strength of the enemy.
Ibn Abdil Barr may Allah has mercy on him, said in Al-Istizkar: "There is no dispute among the scholars that whoever fights among women or old men, killing him is allowed, similarly, any child capable of fighting , if he does may be killed." (Al-Istizkar vol. 14, p 74).
Similarly, Ibn Qudamah reported the Ijamaa' on killing women, children and old men if they help their people; Ibn Abdil Barr said: "They have a concensus on the fact that the Prophet killed Duraid bin on the Day of the Battle of Hunayn because he was an experienced in war and contributed his opinions. Thus whoever is like that among old men deserves to be killed according to all (scholars). (At-Tamheed, vol. 16 p 142)
And an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him related the Ijama' (in Sharh Muslim in "the Book of Jihad") that elderly men among the non-Muslims should be killed if they have knowledge of war strategies.
Ibn Qasim also quoted in Al-Hashiyat that: "they had Ijmaa' that the ruling concerning any strategist is that of any fighter in Jihad. This Ijmaa' was reported from Ibn Taimiyyah. Similarly, he related from Ibn Taimiyyah that "those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them"
The third Category:
Or they may be Muslims, and it is not permissible for these to be killed separately; But when they are mixed up with others in such a way that they have to be killed with them, then it is allowed, and these is the case known as 'Mas'alatut Tatarrus' (when non-Muslims hold Muslims as shield against attack), which was discussed earlier.
Thus, what many are babbling and repeating on the case of the "innocent victims", is nothing but the effect of the West and its media, to the extent that many an unwary person repeats the words and expressions of our enemies, which are in direct contradiction with the expressions of Shari'ah.
Let us not, also, forget that it is permissible for us to treat non-Muslims similar to the way they treated us; and in this there is a reply and clear proof to all those who repeat the words "innocent victims", because Allah the Exalted has made that. Among the texts on that:
"Thus, if you retaliate, retaliate with what equals the aggression afflicted upon you" and He said:
"...and those whom, when an aggression afflicts them, they revenge, but the reward of an evil is an evil equal to it".
Also among the sayings of scholars on the permissibility of taking revenge:
Ibn Taimiyyah said: "it is their right to mutilate. So it is their right to do it in revenge and payback in the same coins, OR they may waive it, but patience is better. This is in a case where the mutilation does not lead to a gain in the Jihad, and it is not for an equal treatment from them (the enemies); But when Mutilating them will lead to their accepting the faith or warn them against another aggression, then, it is - in this case - part of recommended Jihad and retribution." (This was quoted by Ibn Muflih in Alfuru' vol.6 p.218)
Else, whoever says that there are "innocent victims" without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet and the Companions and those after them that they killed "innocent victims", according to them! Because the Prophet used Catapult in his war against Ta'if, and it is the nature of Catapult that it does not differentiate.
Similarly, the Prophet (saw) killed all whom those who had attained puberty among the Jews of Bani Quraidah without differentiating between them.
Ibn Hazm, commenting on the Hadith that "Banu Quraidah were paraded before the Prophet, and he ordered the killing of all those who had attained puberty", said: "this is a general ruling from the Prophet, since he did not leave out an old man, a merchant, a farmer or any other person; this was related from him with genuine Ijmaa' (Al-Muhallaa vol. 6 p. 299)
Ibn al-Qayyim said in 'Zaadul Ma'aad': "it is part of his guidance (i.e. the Prophet's) that whenever he made a pact with some people and they broke the covenant, or some of them broke the agreement, and the rest supported them on that , and accepted it; he fights all of them and considers all as having broken the covenant. As he did to Banu Quraizah and Banun Nadheer and Banu Qainuqa', and as he treated the people of Mecca. So this is Sunnah (method or approach to those who betray their covenants.
Similarly, he said: "Ibn Taimiyyah has certainly ruled that the Christians of Mashriq should be fought when they assisted the enemies of the Muslims against them, and helped them with their wealth and weapons, despite the fact that they did not did not fight us. He considered them to have broken the covenant as Quraish did during the time of the Prophet by helping Banu Bakr bin Wa'il in fighting those in alliance with the prophet"
In conclusion, we all know that the non Muslim East and West, especially India, Britain, America and Israel are trying to eradicate Jihad and those who engage in it and it will never succeed; and they will do that in the name of fighting Terrorism.
Thus, it is compulsory to assist this Islamic Nation in Jihad, with whatever we can Allah the Exalted says:
"The Believers, men and women, are helpers of one another"
And He said "Help each other in righteousness and obedience"
Thus, it is compulsory to assist them with wealth and persons and opinions and advices and through the Media by defending them and their honor and their public image; and through prayers for them that they vanquish the enemy and have steadfastness.
And like we said, it is compulsory upon all Muslims to help the Muslims in Afghan or in India. It is also equally compulsory upon the Muslim Governments especially the neighboring countries to assist them against the Kufr of the East and West.
And let those know that that failing to assist Muqatilien that is being fought for its religion and because of the help it gives to Mujahideen and, assisting the kuffar against them is the kind of friendship and support of the kuffar that Allaah warned against when He said:
"Believers, take not my enemy and your enemy as friends in whom you put love"
And He said "Believers take not my enemy and yours as Protecting friends."
Certainly it will go down in history that these countries betrayed their brothers and it will remain as a kind of bad record on them and their people that will remain forever!!
We pray to Allah that He helps His Religion and raises His Word and exalts Islam and the Muslims and the Mujahideen and to destroy America and its followers and those who assist them. Verily He has that Power and is Able to do so.
Wa-sallaahu wa-sallam 'alaa Muhammad wa aalihi wa sahbihi was-sallam.
