Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

This is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyyahs fatwa on the tatars from Majmoo Al

Fatawaa, Volume 28 , page 576. In response to the following question:

What do the great fuqahaa Scholars of this ummah say, concerning these Tatars (Mongol
Tatars), who emerged in the year 699 hijri. And they did what they became famous for, the
killing of the Muslims, and taking captives from the women and children, and plundering
anyone of the Muslims they could find. And they also disgraced the honour of the religion
by humiliating the Muslims and damaging the mosques, especially Baytul Maqdis (al-Aqsa
mosque in Jerusalem) and debased it by committing evil inside it. And they took from the
wealth of the Muslims, and took from the treasure (baytul maal) a huge amount, and they
made prisoners from a very large number of Muslim men, and removed them from their
homeland. And with all of these acts, they claim to cling on to the shahadah, and they claim
that it is prohibited to fight against their fighters because of their claims to Islam, and their
following of the fundamentals of Islam, and because of this, their extermination of the
Muslims will be forgiven. So therefore, is it allowed to fight against them, or is it obligatory
to fight against them? And whichever is the answer, from which perspective (proofs from
the Quran and sunnah) is the permissibility to fight them? Or (what are the proofs) of the
obligation to fight them?
The Sheikh replied:

All praise is to Allaah. Every group of people that completely stops complying with any law
from the laws of the Shariah, which is apparent and agreed upon, whether it is from this
group of people (tatars) or other than them ; then it is obligatory to fight them until they
comply to all of the Shariah, even though they may utter the Shahaadataayn and comply
with some of its laws, just as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq and the sahaba fought those who stopped
giving zakah. And on this note, the scholars agreed upon this (ijma) after the debate
between Umar RA and Abu Bakr RA. So the sahaba, all of them agreed upon fighting for the
sake of Islam, acting according to the Quran and sunnah.

So it has been proven from the Messenger from tens of different ahadith concerning the
khawaarij, he informed us that they were the worst of creation even though he said
(concerning their worship): You (the sahaba) will belittle your own salaat after comparing
with their salaat, and your fasting compared to their fasting . So it became known that
merely clinging on to Islam without fully complying and obligating oneself with all of the
Shariah, without this, it is not sufficient grounds to stop the fighting. For verily, the fighting
is obligatory until the whole of religion is for Allah alone and until there is no more fitnah. So
whenever the religion is for other than the sake of Allah, then fighting is obligatory.
So any group of people that stops from some of the obligatory prayers or stops fasting or
hajj or rejects the prohibition of blood (spilling Muslim blood) or wealth (taking unlawfully)
or drinking intoxicants, or the prohibition of adultery or gambling or prohibition of marrying
the mahram (those whom one cannot marry), or rejects (complying to the command of
Allah in Surah Tawbah) fighting against the disbelievers (jihad), or imposing jizyah upon the
people of the book , from these and other obligations from the religion - for which there is

no excuse in rejecting it and leaving it - and where the rejecter is the one who disbelieves in
the obligations; verily the group that completely stops is fought against due to its
abandonment (of action) even though the group believes in the obligation. And concerning
this, I do not know any difference of opinion amongst the ulamaa. But indeed when they
differed (the ulema), they differed about the group that abandons some of the sunnah, such
as the two rakah sunnah before salaat-al-fajr, and the adhan and iqaamat (with those
people who do not agree to their obligation) and other things like these from the religion.
Can one fight a group who abandons things like these, or can we not? As for the obligations
and prohibitions mentioned (above), and things like these, there is no dispute concerning
fighting to uphold these.

And these people (tatars and other groups that abandons some of the Shariah); the
researchers from the ulamaa does not take them to the level of the rebels who rebel against
an imam (ruler) or those that leave his obedience; such as the people of Sham vis--vis Ali
bin Abu Taalib. Verily, they (people of sham) were leaving the obedience of following a
particular amir (leader), or rebelling against the amir to remove him from authority. But as
for the mentioned group, then they are outside the fold of Islam, in the same degree as
those who stopped the zakah, and the same level as the khawaarij whom Ali fought against.
And in this way; Ali differed in his way of fighting, concerning fighting against the people of
Basra and Sham and the way he fought against the people of Nahrawaan. And his fighting
against the people of Basra and Sham, was fighting of brothers against brothers . And with
the khawaarij, his fighting them was different.
And the texts from the Messenger have been authenticated which also agrees with the
sahabas consensus (ijma) concerning the fighting of Siddeeq and the fighting against the
khawaarij (i.e. as Abu Bakr fought the people who stopped the zakah and as Ali fought the
khawaarij); which is different from the trials and tribulations the people of Sham and Basra
fell into. Verily, the text (hadeeth) proves that which has been proved, and the sahabas and
the taabieen differed concerning these (the understanding).

There are some fuqahaa from the imams (Shaafiee, Maalikee, Hanafee, Awzaaee, Hanbali
etc) who saw that the people of rebellion are those who rebel against the ruler, having with
them an acceptable taweel (interpretation), not those who rebel to leave his authority. And
other scholars say that both of the groups are also from the Bughaath (people of
rebellion), and between the people of rebellion and the Tatars, there is indeed a manifest
clear difference . As for those who do not accept or obligate themselves with the ways and
Shariah of Islam which is clear, apparent and narrated from many sources (is mutawaatir),
then I do not know any difference of opinion concerning the obligation of fighting them.
So, if you agree with this principle, then these people whom the questions are being asked
about (the Tatars), their military includes people from the disbelievers such as Christians
and polytheists, also there are people who claim to be Muslims and these type of people
are the majority of their army personnel - narrating the Shahaadatayn when it is required
from them, and holding high esteem for the Prophet, and most of them pray only a little.
And those who fast in Ramadan are more than those who pray the regular salaats, and they

consider the Muslim greater in status compared to others, and to the righteous and pious
people from the Muslims, they have respect for them. And they have some of the parts of
Islam, and among themselves they differ concerning their adherence.

But those that which the people are generally upon; for which they are fought against,
consists of leaving (or abandoning) many of the laws of the Shariah or most of it. For verily,
they first of all, obligate themselves with Islam, but do not fight those who leave it, yet
those who fight for the sake of the Mongol nation, they elevate their status and leave them
alone, even if he is a kafir enemy to Allah and His Messenger. And everyone that rebels
against the state (nation of Mongols), they allow fighting against them even though the
rebels are from the best of the Muslim people. And they (the mongol army) do not fight the
kuffar, and do not impose upon the Christians and Jews the jizyah and lowliness . And their
military does not forbid its personnel from worshipping whatever they want, whether it is
the sun or the moon or other than that, but nay what is apparent is that the status of the
Muslims with them are the degree of a just person or a righteous pious person, or one who
does a lot of voluntary deeds from Islam, and the kafir, they consider him the same degree
as a faasiq from the Muslims or someone who leaves the voluntary deeds from Islam.

And in the same way also, the general people of them, do not prohibit the blood and wealth
of the Muslims, except when their sultan prohibits it, that is, they do not comply with
leaving it alone (wealth and blood of the Muslims). And when they are ordered not to take
the wealth and blood or other than that, they obey because of their sultan, not because of
their religion. Their people in general do not obligate themselves on performing the
obligatory, neither from the salat nor from the zakat, and not from the hajj and other than
that. And they do not obligate themselves to judge between them by the judgments of Allah
(the Shariah); but nay! They judge according to what has been placed for them, agreeing
with Islam sometimes, and disagreeing with Islam other times . But indeed As-Sheezbiroon
is the one who showed adherence to Islamic Shariah outwardly, and he is the one who
practiced from among Islamic Shariah what was common among the people. And as for
these people, then they have entered it but they do not comply with its laws.
And fighting against these types of people is obligatory by the ijma (consensus) of the
Muslims and no one who knows the religion of Islam and knows its reality, doubts this fact ,
for verily this peace which they are upon (between the kuffar apostates and Muslims) and
the religion of Islam, will never, ever be in conformity.

And hence, if the kurds and the Bedouin Arabs and other than these people from the desert,
who do not adhere to the Islamic Shariah; if it is waajib to fight them, even if they do not
pose a danger to the people in the cities; what about these people (that does pose a danger
to everyone)?
Yes, it is compulsory to adhere to the Islamic Sharee way when fighting, such as inviting
them (calling to them) to comply with all of the Shariah if the call to it has not reached
them, just as the disbelievers are called to Islam, first of all (before fighting), if the Dawah

has not reached them.

So if it is agreed upon that whoever fights them will do so in the complete way ,then it is to
fight them for the pleasing of Allah, and making supreme His word, and establishing His
religion, and in obedience to His messenger; even if among them (mujahideen); there are
those who are sinners; and those with bad intentions, such that they fight for the sake of
leadership, or they transgress in some matters.And it was that the evil of not fighting
against them is greater in danger to the religion; than fighting them in this context (with
transgressors and sinners within the mujahideen); as this wajib was also fighting them to
prevent the greater evil from the two evils, by complying with the lesser of the evil. And
indeed, this is from the usool (principles) of Islam, that which it is necessary to review and
understand. And in this regard it is from the fundamentals of the Ahlus-Sunnah walJamaaah, to go on military expeditions with every pious, righteous person and with sinful
transgressors (as well). And verily, Allah helps this religion with even the sinful man, and
with nations who are oppressive, as informed by the Messenger. That is because if there is
no agreement in fighting alongside sinful rulers, or under armies which consists mostly of
sinful people, then verily it is one of the two matters: either refusing to fight alongside sinful
rulers, and this necessitates that the other party will be victorious, who are a great danger
and evil to the religion and the worldly affairs; or fighting alongside the sinful Muslims, and
thereby preventing the more evil people and establishing the Shariah of Islam as much as
possible; even if it is not established in a complete sense (such as Khilaafah Raashidah). And
this is the obligation within this situation and every situation similar to this. But nay! Many
of the military expeditions that were achieved after the four rightly guided khaleefahs did
not take place except in this way.

And it has been authenticated from the Messenger that he said: there will be goodness and
blessings tied to the forelocks of horses (used in jihad) until the day of judgment: reward
and war booty (narrated in Bukhaari 2750, Muslim 1783). And so, this sahih hadith proves
the meaning of the hadith narrated by Abu Dawud in his sunan; the Messenger said:
Military expeditions will remain since the day Allah sent me until the last of my ummah
fights the Dajjaal; it will not be annulled due to the tyranny of a tyrant, or the justice of a
just ruler .And what has been detailed concerning the matter (is that), the Messenger said:
there will not cease from my ummah, the existence of a group upon the truth, they will not
be harmed by those who oppose them; until the day of judgment .And other texts such as
these elaborating in the matter, which the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah are agreed upon,
from all of the groups; to act upon this for fighting (jihad) against those who deserve to be
fought, with the leaders who are righteous, and even sinful; contrary to the Rawaafidh and
the Khawaarij (who do not believe in fighting with sinful rulers), (and they) who are out of
the fold of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah.
This is the case; even with what has been informed by the Messenger : there will follow
(come) leaders who are oppressive, treacherous, and sinful. So whoever concurs with them
(to make it appear as the truth) with their lies; and helps them; then surely he is not from
me and I am not from him, and he will not be returned to me at the hawdh . And whoever

does not concur and justify their lies, and does not help them in their aggression, then
surely he is from me, and I am for him, and he will be returned to me at the hawdh. So if a
man comprehends what has been commanded by the Prophet - by making jihad which is
established under leaders, which will continue until the day of judgment, even with the
Messenger prohibiting the helping in tyranny, it is known that the correct middle path,
which is the religion of Islam, consists of fighting those who deserve to be fought, such as
these people, whom the questions are being asked about, under every group of Muslims
who are better in Islam, than these people (the Tatars), if fighting them is not possible
except in this way (under sinful Muslims).
And refraining from helping the fighting group; it consists of disobedience to Allah, but nay!
Helping them (the fighting group) is from the obedience to Allah, but there is no obedience
to them in disobeying Allah as there is no obedience at all to any creation in committing
disobedience to the Creator.
And this is the best path of the ummah, before our time and after. And it is an obligation
upon everyone who is able to do so. And this path is the middle path between the
Hurooriyyah and their likes, those who adhere and cling onto chaos and destruction due
to lack of knowledge, and between the way of the murjiah and their likes who obey the
rulers completely , even though the rulers are not righteous or just.

And we ask that Allah enables us and our brothers leading to what He loves and is pleased
with, from the sayings and actions. And Allah knows best. And may peace and blessings be
upon our Messenger Muhammad, his family and his companions.