Title: Fighting against Oppression, in the Absence of the State Question: You have written that the existence of an independent state is a necessary condition for Jihad . Suppose a Muslim country is overcome by the ' Kaafirs ' and they establish their political supremacy and there is no chance of help from some other Islamic country and forming some independent state after migration as well. Now if the Muslims struggle in unity choosing their leader, then there this struggle would be called Jihad and justified? Regards, Asif Answer: An Islamic state, like any other, is responsible to guard its territories against foreign aggression. In its attempt to protect its boundaries against foreign aggression, an Islamic state, again like any other, has the right to call upon its citizens to participate, in all senses of the word, in the defense of their country. Under such circumstances, all Muslims living in that Islamic state should try their utmost to cooperate with their rulers and be willing to sacrifice their lives and wealth, in the way of protecting their state. Such a defense would obviously be considered as one undertaken by the state and would not only be considered as allowed but also as the natural right of every state - whether Muslim or non-Muslim. It seems that your question relates to a situation where the rulers of the Muslim state - with or without any resistance - have surrendered to a foreign power, due to which that foreign power has established a rule over that Muslim land. What should the Muslims do in such a situation? If seen in the light of the directives of the Qur'an and the information provided in the Qur'an relating to the life and teachings of the prophets of God, it is clear that due to the potential social and political repercussions of such an act, God did not allow any of His prophets or their followers an armed conflict against their oppressors, even of the nature of retaliation, till the time that these prophets or their followers established a rule on a piece of land. Living under non-Muslim rules - whether such a rule is established by local non-Muslims or through the aggression of a foreign power - Muslims can be faced with a number of varying situations. It seems that most, if not all, of such situations and the corresponding response that Muslims should give to these situations can be derived from the Qur'an and the life and teachings of the prophets of God. For instance, a non-Muslim rule, over a Muslim population can be fall in any of the following categories: A non-Muslim rule, where Muslims are neither persecuted nor hindered from practicing their religion; A non-Muslim rule, where Muslims are persecuted due to their religion and are not allowed the freedom to practice their religion. In the first situation, fighting against the foreign rule is not a religious requirement, even though it is the right of every nation to seek freedom. It is clear that had Islam required the believers to fight against their foreign rulers, even under such non-oppressive circumstances, then the prophet Jesus (pbuh) - who delivered God's message to the Israelites while they were under a foreign rule - would have diverted all his attention toward organizing the Israelites against that foreign rule. Obviously, if such circumstances obligated upon the believers to fight against the foreign rule of non-believers, then the prophet Jesus (pbuh) would not have ignored this obligation. Nevertheless, as stated earlier, even though it is not a religious obligation upon the believers to fight their foreign rulers under such circumstances, yet it is the natural right of every nation to seek freedom from a foreign rule. Thus, the believers have the right to seek freedom from foreign rule, under such circumstances, with the condition that this right must be exercised without disregarding any of the express directives of the Shari`ah relating to the prohibition of wrongfully depriving any one of his right to life and wealth. This really implies that under such circumstances, the believers may undertake a peaceful movement of freedom and self-governance, but they cannot resort to fighting their rulers, as this would invariably lead to bloodshed and persecution - of Muslims as well as non-Muslims - which is not allowed by the Shari`ah , except under specific circumstances. In case of the second situation, where the foreign rule is bent upon persecuting the believers and is not even willing to grant them the freedom to practice their religion, any of the following two circumstances may be available for these believers: Where the believers have a choice of migrating from the land of oppression; Where the option of migration from the land of oppression is not available to these believers. Where the believers have a choice of migrating from the land of oppression and of settling in a place where they would be free to live a life which is consonant with the tenets of their religion, the Qur'an directs the believers to do so, for the sake of God. Under such circumstances, it is not only recommended for the believers to migrate from the land of persecution, but is, in fact, an obligation upon them to do so, thereby providing themselves the freedom to live a life which is consonant with their religion and saving themselves from becoming a target of persecution [1] . Such a migration was undertaken by Moses (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh) and their followers [2] . It should be noted that before their migration and the subsequent establishment of their respective states, neither of these prophets of God, ever organized their followers to declare a war against their oppressors. Where the believers cannot, due to any reason, migrate from the land of oppression, then they may request an existing state for help. It is the moral and religious obligation of such other state to come to the rescue of the oppressed, if it is in a position to do so and if it is not under a no-war pact against them, by declaring a war against the oppressors [3] . Finally, if the believers can neither migrate from the land of oppression nor can request another state to help them, then the Qur'an directs the believers to bear the oppression with steadfastness and perseverance, till the time that God grants them freedom from such oppression [4] . You write: Now if the Muslims struggle in unity choosing their leader, then there this struggle would be called Jihad and justified? As should be clear from the foregoing explanation, till the time that an independent state is organized or till the time that an organized state comes to the rescue of the oppressed, openly declaring war upon the oppressors, Muslims cannot undertake an armed struggle against their oppressors. They, however, have the right to organize a peaceful movement for their freedom. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad September 22, 2001 [1] See Al-Nisaa 4: 97. [2] In fact, the followers of the Last Prophet (pbuh) undertook this migration twice: Once toward Mesopotamia (Habsha) and the second time toward Yathrib (which later came to be known as Medinah). The migration of Moses (pbuh) and his followers was toward the Sinai. [3] See Al-Anfaal 8: 72 and Al-Nisaa 4: 75. [4] See Al-Aa`raaf 7: 87.