Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Maharaba: brigandage and public insecurity > Jihad: categories and conditions of the obligation
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Jurists divide jihad into two great kinds: jihad of defense, when the enemy falls upon the Muslims, and jihad of seeking (al-jihad at-talab), when one goes out to meet him in his own land. The sheets below fix the ruling of each, the cases in which the obligation becomes individual, and the conditions that exempt: masculinity, freedom, physical and financial ability, parental permission, absence of debt and the permission of the imam.
Jihad of seeking, also called ghazwa (the expedition), is the Muslims' departure from their lands with the imam, once a year, toward the land of disbelief, to conquer it, spread the call in it, purify it of association and raise above its quarters the word: there is no god but Allah. If the people refuse, the imam fights them and compels the people, by their wealth and their persons, to the departure described, until it is known that among those who go out there is what suffices against the enemy; the duty then falls from the rest, the great reward belongs to those who rose, and all are not asked to go out (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/439; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/98).
The jurists of the four schools agree: jihad of seeking is a collective obligation; if a part undertakes it, it falls from the others. Allah promises the fighters and the seated ones: "Allah has preferred the strivers, by their wealth and their lives, over the seated ones by a degree, yet to each Allah has promised the good" (Surah an-Nisa 95). Were jihad individual in every state, the seated would have received no promise, for their sitting would be unlawful. Likewise: "the believers should not all go out; if a company of every group went out to deepen their understanding of the religion and to warn their people on their return" (Surah at-Tawba 122). The aim of jihad, the call to Islam, the raising of the true religion and the repelling of the disbelievers' harm, is obtained by the action of a part; and the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, himself dispatched the expeditions (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/98; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/124; al-Kafi 1/205).
Al-Kamal Ibn al-Humam explains: were jihad individual, all would be taken up with it and livelihood would perish, in farming as in trade; the material of jihad would be cut off at the same time: horses, weapons and provisions; imposing it on all would lead to its abandonment. It is like hajj: all do not set out at once, yet each must set out, once this year, once the next, without ruin of this world's life; the obligation therefore rests on sufficiency, as the word "the seated are not equal" attests. The imam must not leave a frontier without a garrison sufficient to fight the enemy; if the people of a frontier weaken and fear is felt for them, the Muslims behind them, nearest then nearest, must join them, aiding them with weapons, horses and money, so long as sufficiency is not reached (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/439; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/124).
Ibn Abd al-Barr specifies: the imam sends an expedition toward the enemy once a year, himself or a man he trusts, to call to Islam, incline hearts, repel harm, raise the religion of Allah and fight until they enter Islam or pay the jizya; the people must support this departure with their wealth and persons until sufficiency (al-Kafi 1/205). An-Nawawi sets out: the disbelievers have two states; in their lands, jihad is a collective obligation, provided in two ways: the imam garrisons the frontiers with a troop that matches the enemy opposite, fortifies the strongholds, digs trenches and appoints over every frontier a commander charged with jihad and the Muslims' affairs; or the imam himself enters the land of disbelief, or sends an army led by a capable man, at least once a year, and more if possible. It is preferred to begin with the disbelievers nearest the land of Islam, unless fear of the far ones is greater. It is not permitted to leave a year without jihad, save necessity: the Muslims' weakness, the enemy's multitude to the point of fearing extermination, scarcity of provisions and fodder on the road, awaiting reinforcements, or the hoped-for conversion of a people one wishes to win by holding back. Imam al-Shafi'i chose the path of the usulists: jihad is a compelling call, conducted according to ability until none remains but a Muslim or a protected one; it is not bounded to once a year, and increase is required when possible (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/209-210; Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/210).
The jurists' words on the yearly expedition bear, per an-Nawawi, on the ordinary custom: wealth and numbers seldom allow equipping the troops more than once a year. If the imam can spread armies over every frontier, he does; else he begins with the gravest, rotating the soldiers in fairness. Al-Juwayni rejects the fixed term: the compelling call continues according to ability, with no duration defined by time; if one war ends and an opening appears in another direction, the imam must send an army there, even if he senses weakness in the troops and prefers a ten-year truce: the criterion is ability, not time. When the soldiers of Islam are many and the imam can equip an army after the departure of another, let him do so earnestly, without leaving men of means and strength to monopolize jihad: they go out by the view of the holder of command, to be a support and not strays (Ghiyath al-Umam 155-156). Al-Bujayrimi reports lastly that shaykh al-Burullusi judged insufficient the choice between garrisons and invasion, requiring their combination, and that he submitted his reasoning to many scholars of his time, who approved it (Hashiyat al-Bujayrimi 4/333; Hashiyat al-Jamal 5/180).
Ibn Qudama defines sufficiency: a people rise for jihad and suffice for the fighting, soldiers maintained by registers, or volunteers who prepare for it, defenders at the frontiers, and an army sent each year against the enemy in his land (al-Mughni 9/162). The jurists of the four schools agree that jihad becomes an individual obligation in four cases.
Ibn Taymiyya writes: combat of defense is the strongest manner of repelling the assailing enemy from honor and religion; it is obligatory by consensus. The assailing enemy who corrupts religion and world has nothing after faith more imperative to repel; no condition is required, he is repelled according to ability. If the enemy intends to attack the Muslims, repelling him becomes obligatory upon those targeted and upon the others to aid them: "if they seek your help in the religion, help is due from you" (Surah al-Anfal 72). The Prophet ordered aiding the Muslim, whether a stipended soldier or not; it is owed according to ability, by person and wealth, in small number and great, on foot or riding, as in the year of the trench, without Allah permitting anyone to miss it; rather He blamed those who asked leave (al-Fatawa al-Kubra 4/608; Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/458-459). Ibn Abd al-Barr and al-Qurtubi set out the same general obligation: young and old, light and heavy, each according to his strength; the Muslims are all a hand against the others; when the people of the attacked region repel the enemy, the duty falls from the rest; and if the enemy nears the land of Islam without entering it, going out to him is likewise binding until the religion of Allah appears, the community is shielded and the enemy humbled, with no divergence (al-Kafi 4/254; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/151).
The general departure includes the rich and the poor, as Ibn Qudama says: none stays except he whose staying is needed to guard the place, the family and the wealth, he whom the imam prevents, or he who has no strength to go out or to fight. The Prophet said: "and when you are called to campaign, go forth":
No migration after the conquest, but jihad and intention; and when you are called to campaign, go forth.
reported by al-Bukhari (2631) and Muslim (1353)
That general departure finds its proof in "go forth, light and heavy" (Surah at-Tawba 41), and its refusal is threatened by "why, when it was said to you: go forth... did you sink heavily to the earth?" (Surah at-Tawba 38-39). The conduct of war, however, belongs to the imam and his judgment: one does not raid without him, for he knows the enemy's number, ambushes and guile; unless the enemy's surprise makes consultation impossible, and then fighting becomes binding and none may stay behind, save those whose staying is needed to guard the place, the family and the wealth (al-Mughni 9/174; Kashshaf al-Qina 3/72-73).
Jihad is not obligatory upon the woman, by consensus reported by Ibn Hazm, nor upon the hermaphrodite whose sex is doubtful, for it is not known of him that he is male and an obligation does not bind amid doubt over its condition. Aisha, mother of the believers, said: "I asked: Messenger of Allah, is jihad granted to women? He said: yes, a jihad without fighting is due from them: hajj and 'umra":
I said: Messenger of Allah, is jihad granted to women? He said: yes, a jihad without fighting is due from them: hajj and 'umra.
reported by Ahmad (6/75), Ibn Maja (2901), al-Daraqutni and al-Bayhaqi; sahih hadith
She also reported: "jihad is withdrawn from you, but accepted hajj is among you the best of jihad": reported by al-Bukhari (1448). The reason is that the woman's nature does not, as a rule, bear war, that she is not of the people of fighting, and that the intended going-out runs against what is demanded of her of concealment and avoidance of men; accepted hajj is therefore better for her. For the boy, the sheet reports from Arfaja b. Shurayh: "the Prophet refused me at fourteen, and permitted me at the trench at fifteen" (al-Bukhari 2664, Muslim 4944, Ibn Hibban 4728, Ibn Maja 2543).
The imam may, however, permit women and adolescents to go out, to draw water, nurse the sick and treat the wounded, never permitting the insane (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/209; Asna al-Matalib 4/176). Muhammad b. Isa al-Azdi writes: the going-out with women for the army's interests and the care of the wounded belongs to the sunna, unless the troop is few and the enemy might reach them: then one guards and holds them back (al-Insad fi Abwab al-Jihad 78). Ibn Qudama specifies: one does not permit the young beautiful woman, for she is not of the people of fighting and harm is not ruled out from her and because of her; the old woman is permitted for water and care (al-Kafi 4/264). The proof of women's going-out is Anas's hadith: the Prophet went on expedition with Umm Sulaym and auxiliaries among the Ansar women, who gave drink and tended the wounded:
The Messenger of Allah went on expedition with Umm Sulaym and women of the Ansar: they gave drink and tended the wounded.
reported by Muslim (4785)
And Anas reports that Umm Sulaym took a dagger on the day of Hunayn; the Prophet laughed and said: "Allah has sufficed you, and well". He also reports, of the day of Uhud: "I saw Aisha bint Abi Bakr and Umm Sulaym, skirts tucked, hauling water-skins on their mounts and pouring into the people's mouths, returning, filling, and pouring again" (Muslim 4783; al-Bukhari 2880, Muslim 4786).
Yet jihad may bind the woman: it is the jihad of defense, in which it becomes for her an individual obligation, as the majority of jurists declared. Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar says: "an individual obligation if the enemy attacks: all go out, even without leave", and the husband sins by preventing her; Ibn Abidin explains: all of them, the woman, the slave, the debtor and the rest; the husband's and master's right does not appear before individual obligations, like prayer and fasting. As-Sarakhsi adds that immature boys able to fight may go out and fight in the general muster even if fathers and mothers refuse; az-Zayla'i states the same rule for the boy, the slave and the woman, and for every dangerous journey, the anxiety over them harming the near ones; outside the general muster, leave remains required, and grandparents take the parents' place in their absence (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/78; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/127). Among the Malikis, Khalil says: "it binds by the enemy's surprise, even upon a woman or a slave, and upon their neighbors if they fail, or by the imam's designation"; ad-Dardir explains: repelling may be directed upon a woman and a slave (Mukhtasar Khalil 101; al-Sharh al-Kabir 2/174). Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani writes: jihad is at root a collective obligation, without precluding that it become binding upon individuals: if the enemy attacks a people, it binds every one, down to the women, and the neighbors if they fail, as well as by the imam's designation and by vow (al-Fawakih ad-Dawani 1/396). Al-Shirbini says for the Shafi'is: when the enemy enters a town of ours or settles on its islands or mountains, defense binds its dwellers according to ability, and jihad then becomes individual: each owes the possible of repelling the disbelievers (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/219).
Jihad is not obligatory upon the slave: it is an act of worship requiring the covering of a distance, like hajj, and the slave cannot cover it of his own. Ability is then physical: jihad is not obligatory upon the sick prevented from fighting and riding a mount, nor upon one who can fight only with great hardship; but mild sickness, which does not preclude jihad, like toothache, slight headache or a light fever, does not remove the obligation, for jihad remains possible. So with limping: no jihad upon evident lameness even if a mount is found, whether it affects one leg or both; no account is taken of a slight limp that does not preclude walking; no jihad upon one dumb of a hand nor upon one who lost most of his fingers, unlike one who lost few. No jihad upon the blind; it is obligatory upon the one-eyed, the weak-sighted and the nearly blind if he can aim and ward off weapons. The proof is: "no blame upon the blind, nor upon the lame, nor upon the sick" (Surah al-Fath 17): Allah excused them the delay and lifted the burden; they lack the strength of fighting and none is charged beyond his capacity (al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 2/357; al-Mughni 9/163).
The Hanafis say: no jihad upon the blind, the impotent nor the amputated, by this verse, for they are incapable; hajj likewise falls from them; the finger-amputated and the hand-dumb are alike, for fighting needs a hand that strikes and a hand that parries (al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 2/357; al-Hidaya 2/135). Ibn Qudama summarizes: soundness from harm is absence of blindness, lameness and sickness, and it is a condition (al-Mughni 9/163). As for the poor man, the sheet notes that the obligation weighs upon him according to his capacity, as upon the child and the debtor in the case of defense: the safeguards are lifted when the town is threatened, for the threat is a great matter not to be neglected; and ar-Rafi'i says the woman may dispense with the husband's leave in this case (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/219).
Jihad is not obligatory upon one who has no spending: "no blame upon the weak, nor upon the sick, nor upon those who find nothing to spend, if they are sincere to Allah and His messenger" (Surah at-Tawba 91). Jihad is not done without an instrument, and the capacity to procure it is taken into account. Ibn Rushd concludes: jihad weighs upon free adult men who find the equipment, sound save sickness and blindness, and in this there is no divergence (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/278).
The Hanbalis say: if jihad is at a distance where prayer is not shortened, it is required that he find provisions and his family's upkeep during his absence, and a weapon to fight with; the mount is not taken into account, for it is a near journey; if the distance allows shortening the prayer, the mount is taken into account, because of "nor upon those who, coming to you to be carried, you said: I find no mount for you, went away their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they find nothing to spend" (Surah at-Tawba 92) (al-Mughni 9/163). The Shafi'is add poverty: no jihad upon one unable to procure a weapon and the means of fighting, and it is required that he find the expenses of the road going and returning; if he has neither family nor kin, two views dispute the requirement of the return's expense, as in hajj; if the fighting is at the town's gates or around it, the requirement of road expense falls; the mount is required if the journey is at the shortening distance; all this must exceed the upkeep of those he must maintain; and every impediment of hajj impedes jihad, save the road's safety: it is required there, not here, for the raid is founded on confronting dangers. Refusing a gift is not blameworthy for the destitute, unless the imam grants it: then he must accept and fight, for the imam's grant is his due. The dhimmi is not charged with jihad. In sum: jihad is obligatory only upon the adult, sane, male, free and capable Muslim, and not upon the slave (Rawdat at-Talibin 10/210).
Jihad is not permitted without the leave of the two Muslim parents, or of one of them if the other is a disbeliever, unless jihad becomes individual, as when the enemy falls upon Muslims: then aid binds whoever can give it, leave granted or not, unless the parents are lost or one of them in his wake: it is then not permitted to abandon them, by consensus. Ibn Hazm says: all agree that one whose parents are lost by his going-out is exempt from jihad (Maratib al-Ijma 119). Ibn Rushd writes: the generality of jurists agree that the parents' leave is a condition of this obligation, unless it becomes individual, when none other can assume it (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/278). The foundation is the hadith of Abd Allah b. Amr:
A man came to the Prophet asking leave for jihad. He said: are your parents alive? He said: yes. He said: in them lies your jihad.
reported by al-Bukhari (2842) and Muslim (2549)
Filial duty therefore precedes jihad: it is an individual obligation not delegated, while jihad is collective and delegated, and the individual precedes. A man said to Ibn Abbas: "I vowed to raid the Romans, and my parents prevented me". He said: "obey your parents: you will find others than you to fight them" (Ibn Abi Shayba 33459; al-Maruzi, al-Birr wa-s-Sila 71). Ibn Abidin adds: if they sin by preventing him, going out does not thereby become permitted so long as their sin remains, even though they have latitude to prevent him, if their hardship enters in (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/124).
If both parents are disbelievers, or one of them: al-Shafi'i and Ahmad judge that jihad without their leave is permitted, for the Prophet's companions fought, among them those with disbelieving parents, like Abu Bakr and Abu Hudhayfa b. Utba, whose father was chief of the associators; the disbeliever is suspect in religion and would bar jihad to weaken Islam. The Hanafis, and some Malikis said it explicitly, judge: he does not go out without his disbelieving parents' leave if they loathe his going out from fear of hardship and suffering; but if they loathe his fighting the people of his religion, he does not obey them so long as no loss is feared; one does not substitute a collective obligation for an individual one. If he has no parents but a grandfather or grandmother, their leave is required, for they stand in the parents' place in filial duty; but the maternal uncle and paternal aunt are like strangers, unless the first ones are missing. If father and grandfather coexist: the Shafi'is in the soundest view, which is a Hanbali view, require the grandfather's leave along with the father, for their existence does not cancel the duty owed the elders; the Hanbalis in the madhhab, and the Shafi'is in another view, hold it not required, for the parents block the grandparents. Finally: the parents' leave is asked in collective jihad; when jihad becomes individual, it has no place, with no divergence: jihad is then an individual obligation, its neglect a sin, and none is obeyed in disobeying Allah (al-Mughni 9/170; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/124).
When jihad binds someone, his parents' leave is no longer weighed, because jihad has become an individual obligation and its neglect a sin, like hajj, congregational prayer, Friday and travel for the binding science. Al-Awza'i said: no obedience to parents in neglecting the obligations, the Fridays, hajj and fighting, for these are acts of worship that bind him (al-Mughni 9/171). Allah did not condition hajj on that leave: "it is a duty owed Allah, binding upon mankind, the pilgrimage to the House, for whoever can find a way to it" (Surah Al Imran 97). The Malikis add: if the son has discernment, he may go out without their leave, for he lacks no instructor in his land (Bulghat as-Salik 2/178).
The eighth condition is absence of debt. The jurists debated: may the debtor set out for jihad of seeking without his creditor's leave? The Hanafis say: if he wants to go out and the creditor is absent, if he has the means to settle, he may go out, enjoining a man to pay his debt from his estate should anything befall him; if he lacks the means, it is better he stay and attend to repayment; if he goes out despite that without leave, it is disliked; if the creditor permits while he remains insolvent, it is likewise better he stay; and if he goes out in that state, no harm. The same with deferred debt when he knows he will return before the term; and with the cases of the agent, the surety given without his order, the surety of person, and the bankrupt who can settle only by trading with the troops in the land of war. All that when the muster is not general: when the muster is general, the debtor goes out, solvent or not, whether the creditor permitted or barred; arriving at the camp, if there is danger to the Muslims he fights, else he fights only on his creditor's leave (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 2/190; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/98; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/124-125). The Malikis say: one with a due debt and the means to pay does not go out, does not hold the frontier, does not do 'umra and does not travel before paying; without means, he may go out (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 3/349). The Shafi'is say: debt bars jihad; one with a due debt to a Muslim or a dhimmi does not go out without leave, the creditor may bar him every journey and detain him if he refuses, unless insolvent, for no pursuit is possible; if the solvent one names a substitute, he may go out; once the creditor consents, he goes out and joins the people of the collective obligation. For deferred debt, he may go out toward a journey where danger does not predominate; and deferred-debt jihad is debated in five views, the soundest: the creditor cannot bar him. Al-Shirbini reports from al-Mawardi and ar-Ruyani: one who goes out to fight with leave does not expose himself to martyrdom nor stand at the head of the ranks, but holds the middle and the edges, preserving the debt by preserving his life (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/217; Rawdat at-Talibin 10/210).
As for the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudama says: one with a due or deferred debt does not go out without his creditor's leave, unless he leaves the means of payment, or sets up a surety, or pledges it; al-Shafi'i said the like. Malik tolerated the insolvent's departure, for no pursuit nor detention can follow it. The reason advanced is that jihad aims at martyrdom by which the debt is lost: a man is reported to have told the Prophet: "if I am slain in the way of Allah, will my sins be forgiven me? He said: yes, if you are patient, expecting reward, advancing and not turning back, save the debt: Jibril informed me of that":
A man came to the Messenger of Allah and said: if I am slain in the way of Allah, will my sins be forgiven me? He said: yes, if you are patient, expecting reward, advancing and not turning back, save the debt: Jibril informed me of that.
reported by Muslim (4988)
But when jihad binds, the creditor has no authority, for the obligation attaches to the person and precedes what lies in his charge, like the other individual obligations; it is only recommended that he avoid the places of death, duels and the first ranks, for that would forfeit the debt's due. If he leaves the means of payment or sets up a surety, he fights without leave: Ahmad declared it for one who leaves the means, for Abd Allah b. Haram, Jabir's father, went out to Uhud laden with debts, was slain, and his son paid in his stead, the Prophet knowing it without blaming him, praising him even: "the angels did not cease shading him with their wings until you had raised him" (al-Mughni 9/171-172).
No jurist required the imam's leave for jihad of defense, nor any condition of jihad of seeking. Ibn Taymiyya writes: combat of defense is obligatory by consensus; the assailing enemy has nothing more imperative to repel, no condition is required, he is repelled according to ability; one must distinguish repelling the unjust assailant from pursuing him in his land. He writes further: when the enemy enters the land of Islam, it is certain that repelling him binds the nearest then the nearest, for the whole land of Islam is as one town; the departure is made without a parent's or creditor's leave, and Ahmad's texts state it plainly (al-Fatawa al-Kubra 4/608-609). Al-Mawardi says: the collective obligation of jihad is undertaken by the imam so long as it does not become individual (al-Iqna 175). Abd Allah b. Ahmad was asked on his father's behalf about people of Khurasan separated from the enemy by a wall: may they fight? He answered: if they fear for their persons and their children, they may fight before the commander's leave (Masa'il Abd Allah 259). Ibn Qudama sets out: the people go out only by the imam's authorization, for war is entrusted to him and he best knows the enemy's number, ambushes and guile; unless a victorious enemy surprises them so that they cannot consult him; Salama b. al-Akwa' then pursued raiders outside Medina and fought without leave, and the Prophet praised him: "the best of our footmen is Salama b. al-Akwa'", granting him the horseman's share and the footman's (al-Mughni 9/174).
For jihad of seeking, the jurists diverge. The Hanafis permit it without the imam's leave, distinguishing the one or two who enter the land of war without him, whose taking is not subject to the fifth (khumus), for it is not spoils, and the numerous troop possessing power, whose taking is subject to the fifth even without leave; Seyr al-Kabir specifies: if a powerful troop appoints an amir and enters raiding, what they take is subject to the fifth and the rest shared at the spoils' shares, for their power makes what is taken a taking that exalts the religion; and their amir may take, for their agreement upon him stands as investiture, as the supreme imamate is established by the Muslims' consensus; even the people of rebellion, if they appoint an amir and ravage the land of war, what he takes before their repentance is licit (Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabir 2/804; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 2/317). The Malikis distinguish the near imam, whose leave is sought, and the distant imam, whose leave is not sought; the just imam, who is consulted, and the unjust, whose consultation is not required; Ibn Arafa reports: the army goes out only by the imam's leave and the appointment of a leader; Malik eased it for one who finds an opening near the enemy while the imam is days' march away; Ibn Habib says: if the imam forbids fighting for an interest, defying him is forbidden, save an enemy's surprise. Ashhab reports Malik saying: I prefer that you ask the imam's leave if you can, and I do not see you raiding by yourselves to be slain without armor or number; asked about the enemy settled on a Muslim coast fought without the governor's investiture, he said: if the governor is near, ask before fighting; if far, do not leave them. Ibn Rushd concludes: fighting without the imam's leave is not permitted save a surprise that bars consultation; obedience to the imam is part of the expedition's obligations, just or not, so long as he does not order disobedience (Mawahib al-Jalil 3/349-350). Ahmad az-Zarruq warns: marching to jihad without the Muslims' community's consent and their authority is the ladder of fitna, and rare is the one who engaged in it and succeeded (Mawahib al-Jalil 3/350).
The Shafi'is, and Ahmad in a transmission, say: the imam's or deputy's leave is not binding, but the expedition without him is disliked. An-Nawawi writes: "the raid without the imam's or deputy's leave is disliked" (Minhaj at-Talibin 137). Al-Shirbini explains: out of deference to him and because he knows better the interests of jihad; it is not unlawful, for there is in it only the staking of lives, permitted in jihad; but this is reserved to the volunteer: the stipended soldier does not do it, for he is assigned to Islam's emergencies where the imam directs him (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/220). Al-Bulqini excepts from the dislike three cases: an occasion lost by the trip of asking, an imam busy with the world's affairs and neglecting the raid, and a strong presumption of refusal (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/220). The Hanbalis, in the madhhab, require the imam's leave for the raid: al-Buhuti says: "the raid is not permitted without the amir's authorization", for he knows war better and war is entrusted to him; unless an enemy they fear surprises them: then they go out without his leave so as not to lose the opening, for jihad becomes individual (al-Iqna 175; Kashshaf al-Qina 3/72-73). Al-Mardawi specifies this as the madhhab stated by most of Ahmad's companions (al-Insaf 4/151-152). Ahmad has three views on entering the land of war without leave by a troop without power: spoils subject to the fifth and shared, the view of the majority including al-Shafi'i by "know that whatever spoils you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah" (Surah al-Anfal 41); the spoils wholly theirs, Abu Hanifa's view, for it is licit acquisition outside jihad, pilfering; and no right for them, reported from Ahmad, for they disobeyed (al-Mughni 9/244-245).
There remains the case where no imam exists: jihad is not deferred for that. Ibn Qudama says: if the imam is absent, jihad is not deferred, for its interest would be lost by deferral; and if spoils are obtained, their people share them by the law (al-Mughni 9/166). Al-Juwayni, treating the age without an imam, writes: those who permit the people to act by themselves add thereto the duty to follow the holders of authority and the age's men of standing, for Friday prayer, raising the jihad armies and applying retribution in life and injury: in an age empty of an imam, these charges fall to men of experience and strength; when the time is empty of any experienced sultan, affairs revert to the scholars, and the people must, at every degree, return to their scholars and act upon their view in all the charges (Ghiyath al-Umam 279-282).
In practice, hold the shared rule: jihad of seeking is a collective obligation led by the imam; it becomes individual when the enemy attacks, when the defenders fail or shrink away, when the imam names someone, and when the lines clash; then no parent, creditor or husband may bar it. The adult, sane, free and capable Muslim goes out weighing his debts, his family and his parents' leave in the ordinary case, and the woman goes out on expedition only permitted, for water and care, while defense binds her like everyone.