Bridging the Chasm in the Holy Lands: The Antithesis of Islamic Law to Warfare in the Middle East.

The present article scrutinizes the intricacies surrounding defensive warfare aimed at reclaiming territories perceived by Muslims as under non-Muslim occupation through the lens of the four Sunni schools and Twelver Shia perspectives. In Shia jurisprudence, in the absence of the twelfth Imam, the concept of defensive war does not extend to reclaiming Islamic territories per se; rather, Muslims are not sanctioned to engage in warfare solely for territorial defense. Instead, the imperative for Muslim involvement in armed conflict arises only when the fundamental tenets of Islam face jeopardy. According to Shia's legal interpretation, jeopardizing the core principles of Islam implies a scenario where the erasure of Prophet Muhammad's legacy and the utter annihilation of Sharia law are imminent. Such a predicament is not contingent upon the occupation of Islamic lands. However, Sunni jurisprudence posits a prerequisite for Muslims to engage in warfare, even in defense, necessitating a certainty of prevailing in the conflict. Consequently, given the contemporary milieu, wherein the requisite conditions for assured victory remain unattainable and are likely unattainable, defensive warfare for territorial reclamation is deemed impermissible. The findings of this inquiry propose an Islamic legal framework that advocates abstention from resorting to warfare concerning the mentioned territories in current circumstances, absolving Muslims of any obligation in this regard. Closing the avenue of armed conflict thereby paves the way for alternative avenues such as negotiation, reconciliation, and peace-building. It underscores Islam's reverence for human life, prioritizing it over territorial concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]