Sharing is caring!

Under Islamic jurisprudence, when a Muslim land is attacked, its defence becomes an obligation upon those nearest — beginning with the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have not only failed in this obligation but have actively facilitated the aggression by hosting American military bases and providing logistical support, constituting muwalat (alliance with aggressors against Muslims). Islam requires these states to terminate their alliances, expel foreign forces, and support Iran’s defence. The fact that Iran is a Shia state with a compromised regional record does not alter this obligation — classical Islamic jurisprudence mandates the defence of Muslim lands against non-Muslim aggression regardless of the theological or political failings of those under attack.

The Ruling on a Muslim Land Under Attack in Light of the US-Israeli-Iran-Gulf war

The American and Israeli war on Iran lacks authorisation under the UN Charter and is illegal under international law, once again highlighting the hypocrisy of the West.

Within that context, we ask three questions about the position of normative Islam regarding the war and its circumstances:

1. What is the normative Islamic ruling when a Muslim land is attacked by non-Muslims?
2. What is the Islamic obligation that falls upon the surrounding Muslim nations?
3. And what is the ruling on nations who not only fail to assist but actively facilitate the aggression through the hosting of military bases and the provision of logistical support?

The Obligation

The Islamic obligation on Iran and the surrounding Muslim countries is to resist the US-Israeli attacks, with jihad considered to be an obligation on those capable.

In Islamic jurisprudence, when non-Muslims attack Muslim territory, jihad becomes oblgatory upon those in the lands being attacked, and the obligation to support them spreads upon those further away until the aggression is repelled.

 The Gulf states  share a region, a sea, and in some cases a land border with Iran. The obligation of falls upon them before it falls upon anyone else.

This is consistent with what the Prophet ﷺ established as the foundational principle of Muslim solidarity: “المسلمون كالجسد الواحد، إذا اشتكى منه عضو تداعى له سائر الجسد بالسهر والحمى” — the Muslims are like a single body; when one limb complains, the rest of the body rallies to it with sleeplessness and fever.

And more directly: “دماء المسلمين متكافئة وهم يد على من سواهم” — the blood of Muslims is equal in value, and they are one hand against all others.

The Gulf Alliance with the US/ Israel and Its Consequences

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain all host American military installations. The United States has stated openly that these states have been providing substantial assistance to its military operations against Iran.

None of these governments has condemned the attacks, expelled the forces operating from their territory, or severed the alliances enabling the aggression. Any public claim of neutrality is clearly disingenuous.

In the language of Islamic jurisprudence, this is muwalat — active alignment with those waging war against Muslims.

Allah ﷻ has prohibited this in terms that admit no equivocation:

 “لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۖ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ” (3:28).

“The believers should not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does that has nothing [to do] with Allah in anything.”

The status of those who extend material support to enemies attacking Muslim lands, whether they aid them or protect them, is that such parties are treated as part of the attacking force for the purposes of Islamic jurisprudence.

A military base is not a tourist hotel. It is a facility from which aircraft fly and operations are coordinated. The distinction between hosting that base and participating in the attack is, in any Islamic framework, a distinction without a meaningful legal difference.

The Real Distinction: Governments and Peoples

The rulers of the Gulf — those who signed the basing agreements, maintain the alliances and have given their silent assent to the aggression — bear the legal and moral burden of this position.

The populations of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain did not negotiate these arrangements. They live under governments that made this choice while suppressing any organised dissent. The ruling on the government therefore is not the ruling on the people.

For the peoples of the Gulf, the obligation remains clear: to oppose this facilitation by whatever political means available, to refuse participation in the aggression, and to recognise that their silence, where it is freely chosen, is itself a position with juristic consequences.

The Islamic Requirement: What the Gulf States Must Do

To enter an alliance which results in supporting disbelievers against other Muslims is indisputably haram.

The American basing agreements do not exist in a political vacuum. They exist in the context of a military campaign being waged against a Muslim country. Their continuation is not a matter of realpolitik to be balanced against other considerations; it is a legal nullity that has become an active sin.

The requirement, then, is threefold and sequential:

First, the termination of the alliances and treaties that have now been instrumentalised for this aggression.

Second, the expulsion of the foreign military forces whose presence on Gulf soil has made them participants in the attack. A base that serves an aggressor is an extension of that aggression, regardless of what the treaty governing its establishment says.

Third, and most directly, the active material support of Iran against the attacking forces.

These three are what Islam requires of the Muslim states involved in this event.

However, none of this addresses the root question: the forbiddance of the separation of Muslims into nation-states. The Islamic solution is for these states to be subsumed into a single Islamic political identity that represents the ummah on the global stage. Without that, these crises will recur — the nation-state ensures each group pursues its own interests whether or not they align with Islam, and this applies to all parties involved.

Sectarianism, Deviation and the Question of the Oppressor

Some will raise two objections at this point:

The first is sectarian: Iran is a Twelver Shia state whose official theological positions the Sunni scholarly tradition has long and substantively criticised.

The second is political: the Iranian government has the blood of Muslims on its hands — most visibly in Syria, where its forces and proxies participated in the killing of enormous numbers of Sunni Muslims.

Should Muslims be obligated to support a deviant government, or an oppressive one, when it is attacked by non-Muslims?

The question may be a genuine one, though it is held only by a fringe who deeply misunderstand the Islamic principles of loyalty, or by those who suffered directly at the hands of Iranian interference and so are naturally disinclined to support them.

The answer has already been given — supporting Muslims against disbelievers is an obligation, and this is irrespective of their corruption or deviation as it is a question of Islam against the kufr of the disbelievers.

Imam Shaybani mentions this in al siyar al Saghir, where he states that if there are some Muslims in an area of the Khawarij whom the disbelievers have attacked, these Muslims will have no option except to fight alongside the Khawarij to defend the honour and homeland of the Muslims.

To use the crimes, or deviation, of the Iranian government as a reason for supporting American and Israeli military dominance over the region is not a justifiable position. It is, at heart, the kind of reasoning that has historically served imperial interests far more reliably than Islamic ones.

The tragedy — and it is a profound one — is that it should fall to Iran, a state with a troubled theological identity and a deeply compromised regional record, to invoke the classical principles of Islamic self-defence, while the Sunni-majority Gulf states and their mouthpieces from the scholars abandon those same principles in exchange for the protection of their thrones.

The question of who speaks most consistently for Islamic interests in this moment is not answered by examining creeds or counting sins. It is answered by asking a simpler question: who are the ones fighting back against the crusading disbelievers, and who is enabling them?