Today, we find Muslim countries making military alliances with the kuffar and fighting alongside them. Turkey is a member of NATO and has sent troops to Afghanistan under the UN International Security Assistance Force.
Pakistan has entered a military alliance with America to fight Muslims in the tribal areas and support the Afghan war.
Many Muslim countries participate in numerous other military alliances and collective security agreements.
Historically, the Khilafah entered in to military alliances with kafir states at certain times.
In America and Europe we find a small minority of Muslims joining the western armies and being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan with some scholars even issuing fatwas that this is permissible in Islam.
The Islamic ruling on military alliances and their permissibility is given below. This is taken from the book Shakhsiya Islamiyya (Islamic Personality) Volume 2 by Sheikh Taquideen an-Nabhani. The extract below is based on a draft translation from Arabic.
"Al-hilf" linguistically means covenant (‘ahd) and friendship. It is said "halifuhu" derived from "'ahiduhu" (he covenanted with him). However, the technical definition of the word "al-hilf" specifically means military alliance.
Military alliances are the alliances contracted between two or more states that make their armies fight together with a common enemy, or exchange military intelligence and weapons between them, or if one of them enters in to war they will consult with the other state to enter war with them or not according to the interests they see.
These alliances could be dual treaties (mu'ahadat thinaiyya) contracted between two, three or more states, but they do not consider aggression upon one state as an aggression against all of them. Rather if aggression occurs upon one of the treaty states, the other states with which it has a military alliance have the option of joining the war alongside the state facing aggression or not according to what is in their interests.
These alliances could also be collective alliances in which aggression against one of the treaty states is an aggression against all of them. So if war occurs between one treaty state and another state then the other states with which it has a military alliance will enter the war alongside it.
All of these alliances, whether they were dual, collective or other than these, necessitate that the army fights with its ally to protect it and its entity whether there were numerous leaders or a single leader.
These alliances are void from their basis and are not contracted legitimately in Islam. The Ummah is not obliged to follow them even if the Muslims' Khaleefah contracted them since they contradict the Shar'a. This is because these alliances make the Muslim fight under a kafir leadership, under a kufr banner, in order to preserve a kufr entity, all of which is haram. It is not allowed for a Muslim to fight except under a Muslim leadership and under the Islamic banner.
There came a prohibition in the sahih hadith against fighting under the disbelievers' banner and their leadership.
Ahmad and An-Nisa'I narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Do not seek light with the fire of polytheists." i.e. do not make the polytheists' fire a light for you.
The fire is an indication of war. It is said the "fire of war was kindled" (awqada nar) i.e. its evil and violent passion was called into existence. The fire of fright (tahweel) is a fire the Arabs in jahiliyyah would kindle during alliances. The hadith alludes to war with polytheists and adopting their banner, so the prohibition of war together with polytheists is understood from it.
Alliances would also make the disbelievers fight with Muslims while preserving their entity i.e. they would fight as a state and not individuals. The Messenger prohibited seeking assistance of the disbelievers as an entity.
It came in the hadith of Adh-Dhahhak (RA), "that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out on the day of Uhud, when all of a sudden there was a good squadron or a harsh squadron so he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Who are these?' They said: ‘The Jews of so and so.' So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘We do not seek assistance of disbelievers.'"
Al-Bayhaqi said: The authentic report is what Al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah informed us via a chain leading to Abu Hameed as-Sa'idi who said: "The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out until he left behind Thaniyya al-Wada', and all of a sudden there was a squadron. He said: ‘Who are these?' They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the people of Abdullah bin Salam.' He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Have they embraced Islam?' They said: ‘Rather they are on their deen.' He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Tell them to return for we do not seek assistance of the polytheists."
The Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected assistance from the Jews and said in general manner: "We do not seek assistance of the disbelievers...We do not seek assistance of the polytheists."
One should not say that we seek assistance with disbelievers against our enemy and seeking assistance with the disbeliever is allowed because the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم consented to Quzman fighting together with him in Uhud and he was a disbeliever, and he صلى الله عليه وسلم accepted assistance from some Jews of Khaybar in war. One should not say this because seeking assistance with disbelievers is allowed if they are individuals under the Muslims' banner. Those whom the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم sought assistance from were individuals not an entity or state.
When Banu Qaynuqa came to the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم they came as a tribe with their own leader, and they were like a state that previously made a treaty with the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. They came to fight with the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and they were upon this situation and it was said to him: "They are the company of Abdullah bin Salam" so he refused to seek assistance from them due to this. Accordingly it is not allowed to seek assistance from a kafir army and under the banner of their disbelieving state.
Imam As-Sarakhsi said in ‘Al-Mabsut' in the book of ‘Siyar': "From the hadith of Adh-Dhahabi (ra) ‘that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out the day of Uhud where there was a husna squadron or he said khushna. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Who are these? They said: The Jews so and so. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: We do not seek assistance of disbelievers.' Its interpretation (ta'weel) is that they were powerful in themselves not fighting under the Muslims' banner. For us, we only seek assistance from them if they were fighting under the Muslims' banner whereas if they come independent with their own banner then we do not seek assistance from them. This is the interpretation of what was narrated when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists' narrated by Ahmad and An-Nisa'I via the way of Anas and he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "I am free (bariu) from every Muslim who fights together with a polytheist' meaning if the Muslim is under the polytheists' banner."
From this it becomes clear that military alliances with disbelieving states are haram in the Shar'a and they are not contracted.
It is not allowed for the Muslim to shed his blood in the way of defending the belligerent disbeliever. Rather the Muslim only fights people so that they enter into Islam from disbelief (kufr). As for fighting disbelievers to enter from kufr into kufr and to shed his blood for that, this is also haram.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Muhammad Ibrahim
said:
 |
Asalam Walaikum Brothers, Ok i may not have this correct, but what about those signs of the last days - during the time of the Mahdi when the Muslim Army and the Christian Army will unit as one army to fight the Jews... Again, regardless if that group of the christian army falls under under the Muslims or not its considered a full group. also after they will win the war together - then they will after betray the Muslims... Can someone confirm based on the major or minor signs of the last day. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
Throughout the long history of the Caliphate there were numerous interactions (at time complex) with other influential states. The Caliphate in Cordoba broke away from the Abbasids after the Umayyad dynasty was overthrown. The Emir of Cordoba used diplomacy in dealing with Emperor Charlemagne. The Ottoman State is a later stage of an Islamic ruling entity after 1400. Hungary was a strong Christian Kingdom in Central Europe which actually provided the cast for cannon that would lay siege to Constantinople. During the Ottoman expansion into Europe, there were fluctuating alliances and conflicts between various states. Venice was usually in conflict with the Ottomans. Yet these Venetians also became allies of Mameluk Egypt and the nascent Ottoman State against the Portuguese. Venice desperately sought to maintain its lucrative trading monopoly and access to precious goods with the East, which Portugal could now access due to circumventing southern Africa. Central Europe during the period 1500 – 1700 was split between patchworks of numerous kingdoms. This period saw Spanish hegemony and the emergence of France. Sweden was also a powerful state at this time. The Ottomans were at times in alliance with Sweden especially when Sweden was engaged in war against Russia. For a brief period France became an ally of the Ottomans during the reign of Sultan Suleiman. During the 1700’s Tipu Sultan of Mysore also was an ally of France, which he tried to use as a counter to British influence in India. Other Muslims states such as Safavid Persia at times had sought alliances with Austria and Poland. Persia sought assistance from England to eject Portuguese intrusion in Hormuz. Some maritime Muslim kingdoms around southern Arabia even allied towards Portugal (which was a very hostile towards the Muslims at the time). One reason why the Ottomans were trying to seize Malta was because the Muslims chieftains of North Africa had conflicting loyalties. Sometimes they could be paid to fight for either Spain or the Ottomans which made Malta a better option for pushing into the Mediterranean. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Muhammad Elijah
said:
 |
Assalaamu 'Alaikum There is an alibi given by some Muslims who think that Pakistan supported US due to coercion/Ikraah. Another alibi is that Muslim militants are causing harm to Muslims by fighting against an army of Muslim soldiers, and thus damaging the life and property of Muslims which is sacrosanct. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdullah
said:
 |
Asa "It is not allowed for a Muslim to fight except under a Muslim leadership and under the Islamic banner." Is it allowed for Muslims living in Muslim countries to join their national armies? Furthermore, say if a Kaafir nation like Greece attacked a Muslim though secular country like Turkey, would it be allowed for Muslims in Turkey to serve in the Turkish army under its nationalistic secular flag? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul Maalik
said:
 |
It is clear enough about the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) that 'What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear...' We seek Allah's refuge from the manipulation of His words and His noble messenger(saw). Majority of the Islamic leaders are puppet in the hands of the kuffar, and if this is happening what is our position and option on how to address this preposterous state of the muslim ummah? Words remain words until being put to action. May Allah bring back khilafah if we are willing to change our ways as Allah opined in His noble kitab. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Mohammad Yassen
said:
 |
Salam brothers of this Ummah! Ummah of our loved Prophet Muhammad SAW! Its a shame that Islamic Republic of Pakistan makes partrnership with America, why? What are the motives? Amercia has no historic ties with Unites States, why they fight their own brothers? Why dont ask for help of Iran, Syria , ask help not fight them to mediate a peace! We muslim had so respect during the ruling of the Otoman Empire, its our own fault, and Remember Allah dont need us the HE loves us more then a mother loves a child! SO we must listen to what our Prophey said to stick to the Quran and Sunnah, then we will not fall for anything! Lets meditate about that..... |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
 |
Ibn al Qasim said: "It is not my opinion that they may seek their assistance in fighting alongside with them unless they occupy servant roles, then I see no problem with this." (Al Maduna 2/40) Imam Malik said: "It is not my opinion that they may seek help from disbelievers against disbelievers unless they occupy servant roles". (Al Qurtubi 8/100) |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|