20.6 الاستعانة بالكفار في القتال

20.6 الاستعانة بالكفار في القتال - الشخصية الإسلامية | Quran Course

يُفهم من هذا الحديث أن الاستعانة بالكفار مفوّضة إلى رأي الخليفة؛ فإن شاء استعان بهم، وإن شاء ردّهم. وقد استعان النبي ﷺ في أُحد وفتح مكة، وامتنع عن الاستعانة في بدر وبخُبيب والرجل الذي معه حتى أسلموا. ولمّا ثبت أن النبي ﷺ استعان بأفراد من الكفار وهم على كفرهم، وثبت أيضًا أنه ردّ المعونة من أفراد حتى يُسلموا، كان ذلك دليلًا على جواز الاستعانة بأفراد الكفار في القتال، وأنها موكولة إلى اجتهاد الخليفة؛ إن شاء قبل معونتهم، وإن شاء ردّها. وقد ذكر البيهقي نصّ الشافعي: أن النبي ﷺ فطِن بفراسته إلى أحوال من ردّهم، فردّهم رجاءَ إسلامهم، وقد صدّق الله تعالى ظنّه.

This hadith is is taken to mean that seeking of assistance of disbelievers is delegated to the Khalifah’s opinion; if he wills, he seeks assistance and if he so wills, he refuses. The Messenger (saw) sought assistance in Uhud and the conquest of Makkah and refused to seek assistance in Badr and from Khubayb and the man together with him until they embraced Islam. Since it is established that the Messenger (saw) sought assistance from individual disbelievers while they were upon disbelief, and it is (also) established that he rejected assistance from individuals until they embraced Islam and this is evidence that seeking assistance of individual disbelievers in fighting is allowed and that it is delegated to the opinion of the Khalifah. If he wills he can accept assistance and if he so wills he will refuse it. Al-Baihaqi mentioned the text of Ash-Shafi’: Verily the Prophet (saw) intuitively perceived into the character of those he returned so he returned them expecting their Islam. And Allah (swt) verified his belief.

أمّا الدليل على أنه لا يجوز الاستعانة بالكفار بصفتهم دولةً مستقلةً، فهو ما رواه أحمد والنسائي عن أنس قال: قال رسول الله ﷺ:

As for the evidence that it is not allowed to seek assistance from the disbelievers in their capacity as an independent State, this is due to what Ahmad and An-Nasai narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

رَدَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ مُرَافَقَةَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَلَامٍ مِنْ بَنِي قَيْنُقَاعَ، إِذْ جَاءُوا أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فِي سَرِيَّةٍ كَافِرَةٍ، وَجَاءُوا تَحْتَ رَايَتِهِمْ بِصِفَتِهِمْ مِنْ بَنِي قَيْنُقَاعَ، وَكَانَتْ بَيْنَهُمْ وَبَيْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ عُهُودٌ، وَكَانُوا كَالدَّوْلَةِ. وَلِهَذَا رَفَضَهُمْ، وَكَانَ رَفْضُهُ لِأَنَّهُمْ جَاءُوا تَحْتَ رَايَتِهِمْ وَبِدَوْلَتِهِمْ، بِدَلِيلِ قَبُولِهِ ﷺ نُصْرَةَ الْيَهُودِ فِي خَيْبَرَ حِينَ جَاءُوا أَفْرَادًا. وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ لِأَبِي حُمَيْدٍ السَّاعِدِيِّ يَتَضَمَّنُ الْعِلَّةَ الشَّرْعِيَّةَ، فَإِنْ وُجِدَتْ وُجِدَ الْحُكْمُ، وَإِنْ غَابَتْ غَابَ الْحُكْمُ. وَالْعِلَّةُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَاضِحَةٌ فِي نَصِّهِ حَيْثُ يَقُولُ:

The Messenger (saw) returned the company of Abdullah bin Salam of Banu Qaynuqa since they came as a nation united in a Kafir squadron, and they came under their flag in their capacity as being from Banu Qaynuqa between whom and the Messenger (saw) were treaties; they were like a State. Due to this, he rejected them. Their rejection was due to their coming under their flag and with their State, by the evidence of his (saw) accepting the assistance of the Jews in Khayber when they came as individuals. This hadith of Abu Hameed As-Sa’idi includes the Shari’ah reason (illah), so if it exists the rule exists and if it is absent the rule is absent. The reason in the hadith is clear in the hadith’s text where it says:

فَوَثَبَتْ خُزَاعَةُ فَقَالُوا: نَحْنُ فِي عَقْدِ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ وَعَهْدِهِ، وَوَثَبَتْ بَنُو بَكْرٍ فَقَالُوا: نَحْنُ فِي عَقْدِ قُرَيْشٍ وَعَهْدِهَا. فَدَخَلَتْ خُزَاعَةُ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فِي هَذَا الصُّلْحِ الَّذِي كَانَ بَيْنَ قُرَيْشٍ وَالْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَأَدْخَلَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ ﷺ فِي حِمَايَتِهِ جَمَاعَةً فِي دَوْلَتِهِ وَفْقَ الْعَقْدِ، فَقَاتَلَتْ قِتَالَ قَبِيلَةٍ تَحْتَ رَايَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَجُزْءًا مِنَ الدَّوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِيَّةِ، لَا كَدَوْلَةٍ مُسْتَقِلَّةٍ، فَكَانُوا أَفْرَادًا لَا كِيَانًا. أَمَّا مَا يَتَوَهَّمُهُ بَعْضُهُمْ مِنْ أَنَّ لِخُزَاعَةَ حِلْفًا أَوْ عَهْدًا مَعَ الرَّسُولِ ﷺ، فَهَذَا غَيْرُ صَحِيحٍ. وَبِمُقْتَضَى هَذَا الصُّلْحِ، دَخَلَتْ بَنُو بَكْرٍ مَعَ قُرَيْشٍ بِوَصْفِهَا جُزْءًا مِنْهَا، وَدَخَلَتْ خُزَاعَةُ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ بِوَصْفِهَا جُزْءًا مِنْهُمْ. وَعَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّ حَرْبَ خُزَاعَةَ مَعَ الرَّسُولِ ﷺ لَمْ تَكُنْ حَرْبَ قَبِيلَةٍ كَافِرَةٍ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، بَلْ كَانَتْ حَرْبَ أَفْرَادٍ كُفَّارٍ فِي قَبِيلَةٍ كَافِرَةٍ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ تَحْتَ رَايَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَهَذَا جَائِزٌ لَا إِشْكَالَ فِيهِ. وَأَمَّا مَا رَوَاهُ أَحْمَدُ وَأَبُو دَاوُدَ عَنْ ذِي مِخْمَرٍ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ يَقُولُ:

Based upon this text, Khuza’ah leaped and said: We are in the contract of Muhammad and his pledge, and Banu Bakr leaped and said: We are in the contract of Quraysh and their pledge. So Khuza’ah came together with the Muslims in this treaty which was between Quraysh and the Muslims, and the Messenger (saw) entered them under his protection as a group in his State according to the contract. Therefore it fought as a tribe under the Muslims’ flag and as a part of the Islamic State, not like an independent State so they were like individuals not like an entity. As for what some imagine of Khuza’ah having an alliance or treaty with the Messenger (saw), this is not correct. Based upon this treaty, the tribe of Banu Bakr entered together with Quraysh as a part of them. The tribe of Khuza’ah entered together with Muslims as a part of them. Accordingly the war of Khuza’ah together with the Messenger (saw) was not a war of a disbelieving tribe together with Muslims; rather it was a war of individual disbelievers in a disbelieving tribe together with Muslims under the flag of Muslims. This is allowed without any problem in it. As for what was narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud from Dhu Makhmar who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying:

هناك قرينة على أنهم يكونون تحت راية المسلمين، فيكونون حينئذٍ أفرادًا. ويتأكد ذلك بواقع ما حدث مع الروم، فقد قاتلهم المسلمون، وهزموهم، واحتلوا أرضهم، وقاتل بعض الروم مع المسلمين بصفتهم أفرادًا. ولم يحدث قط أن قاتل الروم بصفتهم دولةً مع أعداء الدولة الإسلامية من دونهم. ولم يقع هذا في أي زمن، وهو ما يؤكد أن معنى حديث الروم هو الأفراد لا الدولة، ويجب أن يُحمل عليه. وهذا يوضح أنه لا يوجد دليل يدل على جواز الاستعانة بالمشركين بصفتهم دولةً؛ بل النصوص الصريحة تدل على تحريم ذلك على الإطلاق.

Is a connotation (qareena) that they are under the Muslims’ flag so they would then be individuals. This is strengthened by the reality of what occurred with the Romans. Muslims fought them, defeated them and occupied their land. Some Romans fought together with Muslims as individuals. It never occurred that Romans fought in their capacity as a State with the Islamic State enemies beyond them. This never occurred at any time which emphasizes that the meaning of the hadith of Romans is individuals and not as a State, and it is obligatory to take it as such. This clarifies that there is no evidence indicating the permissibility of seeking assistance of polytheists as a State; rather the explicit texts are about the absolute impermissibility of this.

كُلُّ هٰذَا مُتَعَلِّقٌ بِطَلَبِ مُسَاعَدَةِ الكُفَّارِ عَلَى القِتَالِ مَعَ المُسْلِمِينَ بِنَفْسِهِ. أَمَّا طَلَبُ المُسَاعَدَةِ مِنَ الكَافِرِ بِأَخْذِ السِّلَاحِ مِنْهُ، فَهُوَ جَائِزٌ سَوَاءٌ كَانَتِ الأَسْلِحَةُ مِنْ فَرْدٍ أَوْ مِنْ دَوْلَةٍ، بِنَاءً عَلَى أَنَّ ذٰلِكَ قَرْضٌ مَضْمُونٌ. وَذٰلِكَ لِمَا رُوِيَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ لَمَّا عَزَمَ عَلَى السَّفَرِ لِلِقَاءِ هَوَازِنَ، ذُكِرَ لَهُ أَنَّ عِنْدَ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ أُمَيَّةَ دُرُوعًا وَأَسْلِحَةً، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيْهِ وَهُوَ مُشْرِكٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ، وَقَالَ:

All this is in relation to seeking assistance of the disbelievers to fight by himself together with Muslims. As for seeking assistance of the disbeliever by taking weapons from him; this is allowed whether the weapons are from an individual or a State based on this being a guaranteed loan. This is due to what was narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) decided to travel to meet Hawazin, it was mentioned to him that there were shields and weapons with Safwan bin Umayyah. He sent to him, while he was still a polytheist on that day, and said: