What Is Jihad In Islam- The Most Authoritative Answer From The Islamic Theology Of Consensus Of All Four Sunni Schools Of Islamic Jurisprudence Or Fiqh – Concluding Part 5
Main aspects covered in Part 5:
1.
Disagreement among the jurists about drowning and burning the palm-tree.
2.
Turning one’s back from the army.
3.
Possibility of Victory with the small numbers.
4.
Fortress of inhabitants of the country against their enemies.
5.
Fleeing and gaining the war booty.
6. The
ruling of night raid during the fighting
7. The
Kuffar using children and women as shields.
8.
What ends up fighting?
9.
Using the properties of the enemy, their weapon and the rulings of the
war booty.
------
Translated by New Age
Islam Edit Desk
23 April
2021
36. Disagreement among the jurists about drowning and burning the
palm-tree
The
Shaafiis, the Hanbalis and the common scholars including Al-Awzai and Al-Laith
hold the view that it is not permissible to drown and burn the palm-tree,
because it is narrated by Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him)
that he said to Yazid Bin Abi Sufiyan, recommending him, “do not burn a
palm-tree and do not drown it. (Al-Mughni 8/451)
And this is
a corruption that is included in the general meaning of the words of Allah
Almighty:
“When he turns his back his aim everywhere is
to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah
loveth not mischief.”
(2:205)
And because
the animal has a soul, it is not allowed killing it, for enraging the Mushrikin
[polytheists].
As for the
reason of its being permissible for the Hanafi School, it causes to enrage and
weaken them, so it is identical to killing their beasts during their fighting.
(Ibn Abidin 3/223)
The Malikis
explained the statement, “if the intention of damaging it [palm-tree] is for
the cause of taking honey, it will be permissible to damage the palm-tree,
regardless of honey being more or less. If the intention is not as such, it
will be Makrooh [disliked] to damage
it in case of its being less, whereas if the honey is more, it is permissible
despite Karaha [dislike] according to
one opinion. However, according to another opinion, in that case, it is not
permissible but only when the honey is more. (HashiyatudDusuqi 2/181)
(H) Turning One’s Back From The Army
37. There is no disagreement among the jurists
that standing firm [Thabaat] during
Jihad is Wajib [imperative] and
turning one’s back from it is haram [forbidden], because Allah Almighty says:
“O ye who believe! when ye meet the unbelievers
in hostile array never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them
on such a day unless it is in a stratagem of war or to retreat to a troop (of
his own) He draws on himself the wrath of Allah and his abode is Hell and evil
refuge (indeed)!”
[8:15-16).
Allah
Almighty says: “O ye who believe! when ye
meet a force be firm and call Allah in remembrance much (and often); that ye
may prosper.” [8:45).
The prophet
(peace be upon him) counted the act of turning one’s back from the army as one
of the seven destroyers of deeds, as he said: “Stay away from the seven
destroyers of your deeds”, then he mentioned, “turning one’s back during
battle” (Ibn Abidin 3/224, Al-Badaai’ 7/99, HashiyatudDusuqi 2/178,
Al-Muhadhdhab 2/322, NihayatulMuhtaj 2/65, Al-Mughni 8/484, KashshafulQina’
3/45,46)
Then the
jurists differed in explaining it:
38. The Malikis, the Shaafiis and the Hanbalis
hold that turning one’s back is forbidden [haram] and the standing firm in
Jihad is Wajib [imperative] with two conditions:
First: that
the size of the Kuffar’s army is not
more than twice that of the Muslims. If they are more than twice the number of
Muslims, then turning one’s back is permissible, because Allah Almighty says:
“Now Allah has lightened [the hardship] for you, and He knows that among you is
weakness. So if there are from you one hundred steadfast, they will overcome
two hundred. And if there are among you a thousand, they will overcome two
thousand by the permission of Allah. And Allah is with the steadfast"
(Surah Anfal 8: 66)
Though the
words of this verse are that of Khabar
[literally means; news, report, information etc.], there is a command, as Allah
Almighty says, “Now Allah has lightened [the hardship] for you” (8:66). If it
had been Khabar in its origin, our
turning from ‘one’s overcoming ten to two’
[ghalabatulwahidlila’sharahilalithnain] would not occur decreasingly, because
the Khabar of Allah Almighty is true and nothing happens against it. It has
been known that victory and domination are not achieved by Muslims in every
place where the size of the enemy is more than twice the number of Muslims or
less than that. Hence, it is known that there is a command and obligatory [in
this verse] and nothing came to abrogate this verse, neither in the Qur’an nor
in Sunnah, therefore its rule is Wajib
[imperative]. Ibn Abbas said, “when the verse: “If there are twenty steadfast
amongst you [Muslims], they will overcome two hundred [Kuffar in the battle]” was revealed, it became hard on the Muslims
when it became compulsory that one Muslim ought not to flee [in war] before ten
[Kuffar]. So Allah Almighty lightened
the command by revealing: “For the
present Allah hath lightened your (task) for He knoweth that there is a weak
spot in you: but (even so) if there are a hundred of you patient and
persevering they will vanquish two hundred and if a thousand they will vanquish
two thousand with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently
persevere.” (Surah Anfal 8: 66). So when Allah Almighty reduced the number
of enemies which Muslims should withstand, their patience and perseverance
against the enemy decreased as much as their task was lightened for them. Ibn
Abbas said: “If one man runs away from three, he hasn’t turned his back in
battle. If he runs from two then he has turned his back in battle”. It is Wajib [imperative] for Muslims to stand
firm [during the war], in case they think of damage [if they flee away from the
battle] because Allah Almighty says: “O ye who believe! when ye meet the
unbelievers in hostile array never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his
back to them on such a day unless it is in a stratagem of war or to retreat to
a troop (of his own) He draws on himself the wrath of Allah and his abode is
Hell and evil refuge (indeed)!” [8:15-16).
The Malikis
said: This is what Ibn Abidin mentioned quoting from Al-Khaniyah: If the number
of the Muslims reaches twelve thousand, it is forbidden [haram] to flee from
the battlefield. If the number of Kuffar
is much more, fleeing is still forbidden, unless the words of Muslims differ
[from one another during the battle]. [However, there is a condition that] If
the number of Kuffar is much more and
the Kalima of Muslims differ, then, in that case, it is permissible to flee
[from the battle], even though the Muslims are twelve thousand (Ibn Abidin
3/224, HashiyatudDusuqi 2/178). They infer that prophet (peace be upon him)
said, “Twelve thousand will not be overcome through the smallness of numbers”
(related by Abu Dawud)
The second
condition in which it is Wajib to stand firm on the battlefield is that by
turning one’s back one neither aims at joining a troop for support nor at
manoeuvring for the battle. If one aims at either of them, it is then
permissible for him to turn one’s back, because Allah Almighty says: “And
whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy]
for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger from
Allah” (8:16)
The word Taharruf for Qital used [in the Arabic text of the verse] to refer to turning
away towards a certain side obliquely where fighting is more possible, such as
turning the face-direction from the sun or the wind and positioning the back to
them, or turning from low to high, or from the thirsty land to the land with
water, or turning to attack the enemy or separate their horses from their
people, or find a chance upon them, or rest on the mountain and all that
usually takes place during the war.
The word Tahayyuz towards a group [in the verse]
refers to turning to join up a group of Muslims to gather additional support
and strengthen them for defeating their enemy, no matter whether the distance
is far or near. So if the war is on at Khurasan and the group is at Hijaz, it
is permissible to turn to join the group. This is because Ibn Umar (may Allah
be pleased with him) narrated that the prophet (peace be upon him) said to
those who turned away towards Madina while he was there: “Rather you are
al-Akkarun [the Arabic term Akkar refers to the one who flees to his Imam so
that he may help him, it does not mean fleeing from the advancing army] and I
am reinforcement of Muslims” (related by Abu Dawud 3/107)
There is
evidence that the one who turns to join a group is called to be Akkar rather than the one who turns
one’s back from the battlefield. Therefore there is no warning for Akkar. (Al-Bada’i 7/99, NihayatulMuhtaj
8/66, Al-Muhadhdhab 2/232, Al-Mughni 8/485, KashshafulQina’, 3/46)
Possibility Of Victory With The Small Numbers
39. If the enemy is more than twice the number of
Muslims and the Muslims have a strong probability of victory, it is Mustahabb [commendable] for these
Muslims to stand firm [in the battlefield] for the cause of Maslaha [public interest/advantage]. If
these Muslims go away from it [battlefield], it is permissible, because they
[with the small numbers] are not safe from the damage and the rule is based on
their probability i.e. they are less than half the number of their enemy. If
the Muslims are more than half the number of their enemy, then it is incumbent
upon them to stand firm, even though they have a strong probability of their
destruction in it.
Muslims
shall probably stand firm [in the battlefield] if they have a strong
probability of victory for the cause Maslaha
[public interest] (Al-Mughni 8/486 and KashshafulQina’ 3/47)
If the
Muslims have a strong probability that they will be destructed in case they
stand firm, then there are two forms:
First that they should turn their back [to the
battlefield] because Allah Almighty says: “Do not cast yourselves into
destruction with your own hands” (2:195)
Second that
they should not turn their back and this is proper because Allah Almighty says:
“O ye who believe! when ye meet a force be firm and call Allah in remembrance
much (and often); that ye may prosper.” (8:45). The reason is that a Mujahid fights for attaining either of
the two honours; Shahadah [martyrdom]
or victory, war booty and reward. Allah
Almighty says: “Allah hath purchased of
the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the
garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause and slay and are slain: a promise
binding on Him in truth through the Law the Gospel and the Qur'an: and who is
more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye
have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)
Muhammad
bin Al-Hasan said, there is nothing wrong with the Muslims if they are defeated
by the enemy, in case the numbers of the enemy are more [than twice the number
of Muslims] and there is also nothing wrong with the Muslims having patience.
Some people say it is similar to ‘cast one’s life into destruction, but rather
it is to achieve [the rank of] laying down the life in the way of Allah.
Al-Haskafi
said: If Muslims know that they will be killed while fighting [the enemy] and
if they do not fight, they will be seized, it is then not incumbent upon these
Muslims to fight. (Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir 1/88, Addur Al-Muhtar bi
HashiyatiibnAabidin 3/222)
With the
strong probability, if the Muslims think that whether they stand firm in the
battle or turn their back to it, they will be destructed, then standing firm
[in the battle] is incumbent, so that they get the rank of Shuhada [martyrs] who tend to fight with the intention that they
will be better than the Muwallin
[those who turn back] and that they shall overcome too because Allah Almighty
says: “How oft by Allah's will hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah
is with those who steadfastly persevere.”(2:249)
The
Shaafi’is said: however, it is forbidden [haram] for one hundred brave Muslims
to turn their back to two hundred and one weak enemies. It is permissible for
one hundred weak Muslims to turn their back to one hundred and ninety-nine
brave [enemies]. This is the preferred view considering the meaning [of verse
8:66]. Accordingly, it is permissible to deduce from the Nass [text of the Qur’an] related to forbiddance of turning back
from the row [of battle] a meaning that specifies it, because they will have to
resist them if they stand firm for them and the number is taken into account
when approaching the capacities [of fighting].
Therefore, the dissimilarity will not be characterized by the increase
or decrease of one number, nor by the rider and the foot soldier. However, the
criterion is if Muslims have power and a strong probability for resisting their
enemies who are more than twice the number of Muslims and Muslims hope that
they will gain victory over them, or if Muslims have a weakness with a strong
probability of not being able to resist their enemies, where turning back from
the battlefield is permissible. So if there is a strong probability of
destruction without damaging the Kuffar,
then it is imperative [Wajib] to turn back, and if there is a strong
probability of getting destructed with inflicting some damage on the Kuffar, then it is commendable [Mustahabb]
to turn back. (NihayatulMuhtaj 8/66,67)
The Hanafis
hold the view that the rule in this regard will be made according to strong opinion
[ghaliberaae] and strong probability without [considering] the number. If the
Warriors have a strong probability that they may resist them [enemies], it is
incumbent to stand firm [in the battlefield], even though they are less than
them in number. If they have a strong probability that they may be overcome [by
the Kuffar], then there is nothing
wrong with their turning away to take sides with the Muslims to seek support
from them, even though they are more than the Kuffar in number. Similarly, if one warrior who has no weapon faces
two [enemies] who have weapons or one enemy holding weapon, in all that case
there is nothing wrong with turning away to join a group of comrades for
gaining support.
Muhammad
bin Al-Hasan said: it is disliked [Makrooh]
for one powerful [Muslim] to flee away from two disbelievers [Kaafir]. It is also disliked for one
hundred Muslims to flee away from two hundred disbelievers [during fighting].
But, there is nothing wrong with one Muslim warrior fleeing away from three
disbelievers, and one hundred Muslim warriors fleeing away from three hundred
[enemies]. (Al-Badai’ 7/98,99, Ibn Abidin 3/224)
Fortress Of Inhabitants Of The Country Against
Their Enemies
40. if the enemies come to a Muslim country, the
Shaafi’is and the Hanbalis state that the inhabitants of the country must be
fortified from the enemy, even though they are more than half the number of the
enemies, so that they can have assistance or strength. This is neither regarded
as the act of turning back nor that of fleeing, because the act of turning back
occurs after confronting the enemy. If they [Muslims] confront them [the enemy]
outside the fort, they should turn towards the fort because it is like Taharruf for fighting [Taharruf i.e. turning away towards a
certain side obliquely] or Tahayyuz
i.e. turning away to join a group of Muslims to seek support from them. [Note:
turning back or fleeing from the ongoing war is permissible while tahayyuz and
taharruf are permissible as they are of war tactics]
While
fighting if Muslims lose their riding animals, it will not be any ‘uzr [excuse]
for fleeing away from the battlefield, because the fighting is possible on foot
[without being on riding animals]. If they turn away towards a mountain to
fight there on foot, there is nothing wrong with it, because this is regarded
as Taharruf for fighting. If their
weapons become useless they should turn towards a place where they can fight by
throwing a stone, hiding behind the trees and so on. Or if turning towards the
place results in well-being [Maslaha],
this is permissible. (Al-Muhadhdhab 2/233, RaudatutTalibin 10/249,
NihatyatulMuhtaj 8/65, and Al-Mughni 8/486)
Fleeing And Gaining The War Booty
41. If some people flee away before gaining the war booty and the rest of
them gain it, the Hanbalis state that those who fled away would not be given
any share because the war booty has been gained by others and therefore the
share will be given to those have gained it. If they mention that they fled
turning to join a group [of Muslims] to gain support or as taharruf for
fighting, in that case too, there is no share for them. But If they flee after
gaining the war booty, their right will not fall from them, because they have
owned the war booty on their strength, so their possession will not be seized
as a result of their fleeing later (Al-Mughni 8/486). This has been discussed
in detail in the chapter ‘Ghanimah’.
The Ruling Of Night Raid During The Fighting
42. The jurists hold the view that it is
permissible to do night raids on Kuffar
and kill them in their carelessness [Ghaflah],
even though it unintentionally leads to the killing of those whose killing is
prohibited in Islam such as women, children, the insane and the old. It is
reported on the authority of Saab bin Jaththama that “the Prophet of Allah (may
peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists
being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them” (related by
Bukhari –Alfatah 6/146 and Muslim 3/1364). The rulings of night raid during the
battle have been discussed in detail in the previous chapter ‘Tabyeet’
(Al-Mausua’ 10/125,126)
Similarly,
it is permissible to kill the Kuffar
[during the war] in the underground granary, without the intention of killing
the women, children and so on. It is permitted to cut off the water for them
and break the much-trodden road, even though it results in the killing of women
and children on the strength of the hadith of Saab bin Jaththama and because
the purpose is to weaken them and terrorize them so that they accept the call
towards Allah. And it is also permissible to attack those who sell the animal
fodder to them and their woodcutters and so on. (Al-Mughni 8/44, KashshafulQina’
2/48, Al-Muhadhdhab 2/34, NihayatulMuhtaj 8/64, t. Mustafa Al-Halabi)
The Kuffar using children and women as
shields
43. The Arabic word At-turs means ‘shield’ by
which one protects oneself during the war. It also means a piece of wood or piece
of iron put behind the door for sealing it. The shield during the war has been
referred to in the Holy Qur’an: “They are the ones who denied revelation and
hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals detained from
reaching their place of sacrifice. Had there not been believing men and
believing women whom ye did not know that ye were trampling down and on whose
account a crime would have accrued to you without (your) knowledge. (Allah
would have allowed you to force your way but He held back your hands) that He
may admit to His mercy whom He will. If they had been apart We should certainly
have punished the Unbelievers among them with a grievous punishment.” (48:25).
This verse
refers to the Muslims including al-Walid bin al-Walid, Salamah bin Hisham,
Ayyash bin Abi Rabi’a and Abu Jundal bin Suhail. If the disbelievers [Kuffar] had set apart from the believers
at Makkah, Allah Almighty would have punished the disbelievers with a painful
torment by the hands of those believers who were outside Makkah. (Ahkam
al-Qura’n by Ibn Arabi 4/176, Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/192, Seerate Ibn Hisham
2/322).
As regards
the ruling of shield [turs or tatarrus], there is no disagreement among the
jurists about the permissibility of firing on the disbelievers [Kuffar], even though these disbelievers
use Muslims or their prisoners as shields during the fighting, but this is only
when fighting is necessary so much that abstaining from the fighting will
result into the defeat of Muslims and fear that the fundament of Islam will be
rooted out. At that time, the Muslims should aim at firing only on the
disbelievers [and not on those who have been used by Kuffar as shields].
However, as
regards when there is no such need of firing on them, in case the war is off or
they [Muslims] have the capability of defeating them without it, the jurists
hold different views that have been mentioned in the chapter ‘Tatarrus’.
(Al-Mausua’ Al-Fiqhiyyah 10/137,138, the term ‘Tatarrus’).
What Ends Up Fighting?
44. The people of book and Majoos
[Magians/Zoroastrians/Magos] will be fought until they accept Islam or give the
Jizyah with their own hands while
they are humbled. By paying Jizyah,
they can remain on their religion. The reason is that Allah Almighty says,
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden
which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion
of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya
with willing submission and feel subdued.” (9:29). So if they give the Jizyah,
the contract of their protection will be made and their blood and riches will
be guaranteed protection except where it is justified by law. (Fathul Qadeer
5/197, Al-Mahalli 7/316)
The Kuffar [disbelievers] other than the
aforementioned, will be fought until they accept Islam, for it is not
permissible for them to remain on the disbelief [Kufr], because the prophet (peace be upon him) said, “I have been
commanded to fight the people, till they testify to the fact that there is no
god but Allah” (related by Sahih Bukhari 1/22, Al-Muhadhdhab 2/231, Al-Mahalli
7/345)
Three types of Kuffar:
1. The People of the book includes Jews and
Christians and those who made the Torah and the Bible a book such as Samaritans
and Franks (faranjah) and so on. These are those from whom jizyah is accepted
and they can remain on their religion if they pay jizyah.
2. The Zoroastrians (Magians/Majoos) are
suspected to have a book. The ruling of Zoroastrians is similar to that of the
people of the book, about accepting the jizyah and letting them remain on their
religion after they pay Jizyah.
Narrated by
Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali that the prophet (peace be upon him) wrote to the
Magians [Zoroastrians] of Hajar, calling them towards Islam. So the one who
embraced Islam, it [his Islam] was accepted from him and the one who refused
[to accept Islam] was called to pay jizyah on the condition that their
slaughter will not be eaten, nor will their woman be married to” (related by
Al-Baihqi 9/192 and it is said this hadith is Mursal)
3. The Kuffar
who have no book [of Allah] nor are they suspected to have the book. Unlike the
two aforementioned types [of Kuffar],
these are from the idol worshippers and the rest of the Kuffar. So jizyah will not be accepted by them. Other than Islam,
nothing will be accepted from them.
This is the view of Shaafiis and also of some
Hanbalis.
As regards the view of Abu Hanifa; as reported
by Ahmed, that Jizyah will be accepted from all the Kuffar, except the idol worshippers of Arab, because they are
stable on their religion by slavery, so they will pay Jizyah like the
Zoroastrians [Magi/Majoos]. Its explanation is mentioned in the chapter
‘Jizyah’.
Similarly,
the fighting ends up by truce, that is, by peace-making [Musalaha] which according to Islamic Sharia is a contract that
guarantees peace with the people of war [Ahlulharb] and thus the war stops for
a period by compensation or other than that. [In Arabic] It is also called Muwaadaa’h, Musalamah, Mua’ahadah and Muhadanah. Its origin is found in the
first verse of Surah Baraa’h [Surah 9), as Allah Almighty said: “Excepted are
those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not
been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so
complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah
loves the righteous [who fear Him]” (9:4). The prophet (peace be upon him) made
a contract of peace with the Quraish in the year of Hudaybiyah. (Fathul Qadir
5/205, JawaharulIklil 1/269)
According
to Hanafis and Malikis, as reported by Ahmed, the truce [hudnah] is permissible
for the period in which the Imam sees public interest [Maslaha], even though it exceeds more than ten years. The Malikis
said: it is commendable [Mustahabb]
if the truce does not exceed more than four months.
According
to Shaafiis, the truce with the Kuffar
is not permissible for more than one year, because this is the period in which
[paying] Jizyah becomes imperative [Wajib], hence their remaining on it [the
truce] without paying Jizyah is not permissible. As for the permissibility of
the truce for more than four months and less than one year, there are two
opinions; this is when the Muslims are in powerful condition. But when Muslims
live in a weak condition, it is permissible to make a truce for ten years. It
is apparent from the statement of Ahmed that the truce is not permissible for
more than ten years and this is what Abu Bakr and the Shaafi’i preferred
because the prophet (peace be upon him) made a treaty of peace with the Quraish
for ten years.
The truce
is not permissible but after considering the condition of Muslims; if the
Muslims have weakness and are incapable of fighting the Kuffar, or when it is wished that the Kuffar will embrace Islam during their truce or pay jizyah and adhere
to the rulings of the religion or other public interests. So if it [such
condition] is established, the truce would not be permissible without any
specification of the period, because it would result in giving up the Jihad
completely. (Al-Mughni 8/459, KashshafulQina’ 3/111,112, and Al-Muhadhdhab
2/259)
This topic
has been discussed in detail in the chapter ‘Hudnah’.
Using the properties of the enemy, their weapon
and the rulings of the war booty:
45. It is permissible to slaughter from the war booty
for eating the animals whose meat is permissible, for this [the ruling of the
meat] is like all other food. It is not permissible for anyone to use it to
make shoes, water skins, buckets and furs. If anything is made from it, it is
imperative [Wajib] to return it to
the war booty.
If they
acquire a dog [in war booty], so if it is a severely biting dog, it will be
killed, due to its being harmful and if the dog is beneficial, it will be
handed over to someone from among the gainers of the war booty or the
ahlulkhumus [the people who deserve one-fifth of the gain] who can benefit from
it. However, if no one among them needs it, it will be freed, because
possessing it without any benefit is forbidden [haram].
Having
acquired the property of the Kuffar during
the war, in case the Muslims fear that it will return to them [Kuffar], then it will be pondered over,
and if the property is other than the animal, it will be damaged till they [the
Kuffar] cannot benefit from it and
cannot gain strength by it over the Muslims [during the war]. But if the war
booty is animal, it is not permissible to damage it without necessity.
(Al-Muhadhdhab 2/240)
It is
mentioned in the hadith that “Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of
that, will possess his spoils” (related by Bukhari, Al-Fath 6/247, and Sahih
Muslim 3/1371 from the hadith of Abu Qatadah). If he kills him [the enemy]
during the war, and not before or after the war, he will possess his spoils
such as cloths, ornaments, turban and skullcap. Similarly, he will possess [the
enemy’s] weapon, sword, bow and spear; such kind of spoils is better than that
of cloth. He will also possess riding animals and their instruments such as
saddle and bridle; as all of them are beneficial during the war.
(KashshafulQina’ 2/72, Al-Mughni 8/394, Al-Mahalli 7/316 and HashiyatudDusuqi
2/191)
Other Parts of the Article: