Resistance Against Occupation: Elucidation of the Paradigm of "Resistance" in Islamic Military Doctrine

Context & Objective: The concept of "occupation" remains one of the most challenging topics within the International Law of Hostilities, particularly concerning territories such as Gaza and other occupied Islamic lands, including Palestine, Yemen, and Afghanistan, which have become pervasive issues for Muslim societies. This phenomenon necessitates a systematic and independent investigation from the perspective of Islamic Political Jurisprudence (Fiqh). Previous scholarly investigations into occupation have generally been fragmented or limited in scope, focusing only summarily on specific dimensions, leaving a substantial theoretical vacuum regarding the Sharī‘a's unified position. Therefore, the central research purpose is twofold: first, to clarify the fundamental nature of occupation within Islamic Fiqh, and second, to elucidate the practical stance prescribed by the Sharī‘a when confronting occupation. The core research question addressed by this article is: What is the authoritative and systematic position of Islamic Law when faced with the phenomenon of military occupation? The discussion outline involves identifying the core Fiqhī definitions of occupation, analyzing the two primary jurisprudential approaches—"Resistance" and "Compromise" —and rigorously examining the legal and theological evidence underpinning both.
Method & Approach: The present research adopts a rigorous doctrinal methodology utilizing a descriptive-analytical approach. The analysis relies exclusively upon authentic library resources, including seminal works of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), established narratives (Riwāyāt), and primary textual evidence from the Qur’an. Methodologically, the study first defines occupation in Islamic Law, noting its reflection in terms such as occupation (derived from the root meaning of descent and entrance) and its two essential components: the people of a land being subjected to oppression (Ẓulm), and the enemy gaining actual dominance (Istīlā) over all or part of the Islamic territory. The investigation further incorporates an analysis of the International Law paradigm on occupation, noting that International Law treats occupation as an unjust act accompanied by aggression, contingent upon the real exercise of authority and governance by the hostile force, as stipulated in instruments like Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1874 Brussels Declaration. Subsequently, the arguments of the two identified jurisprudential viewpoints—Resistance (primarily among Shia jurists and many Sunnī jurists) and Compromise (attributed to certain Sunnī jurists)—are critically examined and evaluated against the weight of transmitted and rational proofs.
Findings: The central finding validates the research hypothesis, establishing the Theory of Resistance Against Occupation (Naẓarīyyah al-Muqāwamah) as the authentic and preferred position of Islamic Fiqh. The study demonstrates that the evidence supporting the Compromise view—which sometimes relies on weak narratives urging absolute obedience to even an oppressive ruler (e.g., Imām Ghāshūm khayr min fitnah tadūm)—is unsound and fundamentally contradicted by the definitive tradition of the Ahl al-Bayt (PBUH). Conversely, the requirement of resistance is firmly established by three categories of evidence: 1) Transmitted Proofs, including explicit Qur'anic permission for self-defense (e.g., sūrat al-Ḥajj, verse 39: "Permission [to fight] has been granted to those who are being fought, because they were wronged"). This is reinforced by the Sīra of Imam Ali (PBUH), who vehemently condemned the passive stance of the people of al-Anbār against Shāmī aggression, asserting that non-resistance leads to humiliation and conquest. 2) Rational Proofs, which dictate the ethical necessity (Ḥusn) of defending Islamic domain (the entirety of the Islamic community/territory) and the corresponding ethical repugnance (Qubḥ) of submission when resistance is feasible. 3) Consensus (Ijmā‘), as numerous jurists across both Imāmī (Shia) and Sunnī schools have declared the individual obligation (Wujūb ‘Aynī) of defending Islamic territory and existence when under external threat. Consequently, resistance is deemed the primary and essential principle in confronting occupation.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the research establishes that Islamic Political Jurisprudence mandates Resistance as the principled and obligatory response to military occupation and aggression, particularly when the existence and integrity of the Islamic domain are threatened. The systematic invalidation of the Compromise viewpoint, coupled with the robust support from the Qur'an, established narratives, and rational principles, confirms the "Theory of Resistance" as the authentic paradigm within Islamic Military Thought. This finding provides a necessary and systematic jurisprudential basis for defending occupied Islamic territories. Given the compatibility of resistance with recognized international norms, specifically the Right to Self-Determination and the Right to Resist Occupation, the study recommends that future scholarly endeavors focus on the practical operationalization of the Jurisprudence of Resistance within the framework of contemporary international relations. Furthermore, Islamic governments are advised to collaborate in developing a coordinated "Defense and Security Cooperation Document" founded upon the tenets of this established Fiqhī paradigm.