Anyone who is in the know of the situation in Iraq — where several factions and different schools of thought are in action — would agree that it is not in the public interest to allow “chaotic” resistance, not organized under a single banner, to flourish.

Wicked elements have exploited the situation caused by the present state of insecurity. They have formed gangs who break into houses and loot wealth, violate honor, kill people and settle old scores.

Some of the people who had gone to Iraq with the intention of participating in a holy war or jihad were disappointed. For they saw there an entirely different state of affairs that does not comply with legitimate jihad.

They said they saw Iraqis kill these foreign jihadists for spreading chaos and confusion in the country and committing murder and destruction. Some of the Iraqis even handed over these foreign fighters to occupation forces for money.

Meanwhile, the occupiers have pledged to leave the country as soon as the situation stabilizes. They are in the process of stabilizing the situation. An interim government has been established and free elections have been promised. In addition, the United Nations has adopted a resolution in this regard and the occupying power has not opposed that with its veto.

In light of these developments it would be better for all to join hands with the present government in order to send the occupiers packing. This can be achieved by bringing about stability in Iraq and holding elections.

If the occupiers do not fulfill their promise and remain in the country, then the issue will be totally different. If that scenario evolves, then efforts must be made by the whole Ummah to solve the problem in a manner that is legitimate.

The religious edicts issued by some people that lend legitimacy to jihad in Iraq in its present situation have no basis. There are also contradictions in the statements of those who issued these edicts, as many muftis (those who issue edicts) contradicted each other.

Some of them issued the edict for the Iraqis, allowing them to fight occupiers, while others addressed Iraqis as well as the jihadists, who have come from abroad and are under the leadership of a foreign ruler.

By doing so they ignored and violated the agreements and charters, which the Shariah has instructed all to honor. Yet some others modified the edict to suit their purposes by allowing the killing of occupying forces, while some others allowed the killing of civilians too.

Some others allowed the killing of innocents as well as the Iraqis, including their women and children. This has distorted the picture of Islam and alienated many from the religion. Some muftis allow resistance only after putting certain conditions. Again this does not comply with the reality and only highlights the contradictions, thereby emphasizing that the edict was not issued in the right perspective.

It is amazing that some of the muftis who call for jihad in Iraq are Saudis. One of them issued an edict while giving a lecture at a mosque. At that time, a student of his inquired: How can you ask us to go to Iraq when there are agreements and charters between our government and the American government, which we are not allowed to violate? The mufti replied: The agreements and charters are between governments only and people are not bound to follow them!

That answer was unbelievable as it was quite contrary to the Shariah and human reasoning. How can we believe that the agreements and charters signed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were just to be followed by him alone and that his followers could do whatever they wished.

If that was the intent, Omar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who became the second Caliph, could have broken the Hudaibiya Treaty and led an army to fight the infidels of Makkah presuming he was not bound by the treaty as said by the mufti. The statement by the mufti does not deserve any answer.

— The writer is a Saudi Islamic scholar.