I say, and success is by Allah, that it is obligatory for the Amir al-Mu’minin, if there is one, to attack brigands and those Muslims who live with them voluntarily. If there is no amir, it is obligatory for the whole community of Muslims, if the situation demands it and it is feasible. Ibn Juzayy said in the Qawanin, “To fight them is jihad. If they are killed, their blood can be shed with impunity. Whoever is killed by them is a martyr.”
Shaykh al-Khalil said in al-Mukhtasir, “A brigand is a highway robber who blocks the roads and takes the property of Muslims or anyone else in a situation in which it is impossible to seek help.”
Ash-Shabrakhiti said in his commentary on the Mukhtasir, “This means that the brigand is any highwayman on the roads or anyone who stops people in order to take their property even if he does not actually block the road. It also applies to anyone who enters a house or alley and fights to take property or robs the drunk or deceives children or anyone else to take what they have.”
Al-Kharashi said in his commentary as-Saghir about this, “It is taking the property of a Muslim or anyone else. With the expression ‘or’ Khalil extends the active participle of the highwayman. So he defines the one who takes property in the above manner as being a brigand (muharib), even if he does not block the road, and this is how things are.”
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdu’l-Karim said in the Ajwiba in response to the questions of the Askia:
“Brigands must be attacked. There is nothing held against you if any Muslims who are among them are killed because they have wronged themselves by staying with them. You incur no blame for whatever harm is done to their status and that property has been destroyed. If you become aware of that before the property is ruined, it should not be ruined but rather returned to its owner. That is in the case of a Muslim who lives with them voluntarily but does not raid with them. As for the one who lives with them voluntarily, raids with them and helps them in corruption, he possesses and do not accept any repentance from him if Allah gives you power over him.”
Abu’l-Qasim al-Burzuli said in his book, “The sultan was victorious over a group of men from the deserts of North Africa, most of whom had made money illicitly. Ibn ‘Arafa gave a fatwa that their property was permissible as booty based on the circumstances of the majority of them until it could be ascertained who among them had gained his property lawfully.”
He said, “This is because they were all rebels in that they increased the number of brigands and increased their strength.” So he did not grant them the same inviolability as someone who had kept himself apart and not mixed with them. This is when they have some alternative. Otherwise it is like the case of someone who is forced to be in the abode of War since he is unable to leave and fears for himself, his property and children.
As for the difference between fighting brigands and fighting rebels, Ibn al-Hajj said in al-Madkhal, “Fighting rebels is different from fighting idol worshippers in thirteen ways:
- Rebels are to be fought with the aim of deterring them and not intentionally killing them.
- They are fought when advancing but left when retreating.
“Fighting brigands is like fighting a band of rebels in all aspects except for five differences:
- They may be fought while advancing and while retreating.
- It is permitted to intend to kill them in war.
- It is permitted to imprison those of them who are captured.
- They are liable for any blood they spill or property they destroy in the war when that war comes to an end, while that is not the case with a rebel group.
- Whatever kharaj-tax or sadaqa they have collected is considered to have been taken by force, so whatever they have taken must be paid back.”
This is enough to achieve the answer to the point.
Intro and Summary
