|
Should the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims be of war or peace?
In other words, if non-Muslims are being nonviolent, harmless, harbor no grudge against Muslims, or aid an enemy of Muslims, should Muslims fight against them in such a case?
Or should Muslims only fight against those who attack them--that is, those who harm Muslims and their folks and try to deprive them of their money or property? Should Muslims fight against those who prevent them from propagating Islam, from carrying out their , stand in their way, and force those who newly embraced Islam to renounce it by harming and torturing them?
To put it in other words, what is the reason that led Muslims to fight against polytheists? Is it because of their disbelief in Allah? Or is it because of the harm polytheists did to Muslims in one way or the other?
The issue of Jihad is a real controversial one which Muslim scholars in contemporary and old times alike, held opposing views about. Unfortunately, Jihad in Islam became known to mean fighting against those who oppose Islam, be they polytheists, people of the book (Jews or Christians), atheists or seculars who dismiss religion in general. So it is wrongly thought that the abovementioned people should be fought against till they show complete submission and embrace Islam or pay Jizyah (poll-tax).
|
The issue of Jihad is a real controversial one which Muslim scholars in contemporary and old times alike, held opposing views about…
|
|
Nowadays, Muslim scholars and researchers should examine and analyze this controversial issue. They should examine the authentic texts instead of only citing the words of others--especially the modern-day writers. The misconceptions about Jihad should be examined accurately, doubtful matters should be proven decisively, and fundamental issues should replace secondary ones. In addition, a link should be made between texts especially those cited from the Glorious Qur’an. All related literature should be studied closely and, above all, examined 'in context'. Then, after discussing, reasoning, analyzing, and proving all the points, the nearest viewpoint to the collective legal texts and purposes, and that which will be of great benefit to the Muslim Ummah (nation) should be given preponderance.
|
The misconceptions about Jihad should be examined accurately, doubtful matters should be proven decisively, and fundamental issues should replace secondary ones.
|
|
It is worth mentioning that the controversy between scholars is about what is called Jihad as a 'defensive' strategy and 'offensive' Jihad.
First, Jihad as a 'defensive' strategy means to strive in order to evacuate the Muslim land from the occupiers who attack it and occupy any part of the Muslim land. Undoubtedly, there is no disagreement regarding such a kind of Jihad. It is agreed upon by old and modern scholars that this kind of defensive Jihad is an obligation on all Muslims. The Ummah with all its doctrines, schools, and sects agree that armed Jihad should be resorted to in order to expel the occupier and emancipate the Muslim lands from the evils inflicted by him. The legitimacy of such a kind of Jihad and combat is universally accepted.
Now we move to the 'offensive' Jihad. In this kind of precautionary Jihad, Muslims march into the lands of the disbelievers in order to avoid the harm they may cause in the future, and to secure the Ummah from the disbelievers' mischief. Muslims may resort to this Jihad to get through to the people in the non-Muslims lands to propagate Islam and convey to them its teachings. Further, Muslims may march into a non-Muslim territory to make it submit to the Islamic state and to the supremacy of the Islamic law which governs human life with its just legislation, and superior guidelines and instructions.
The Ruling of Fighting Against Peaceful People
In the present age, there is an issue that is considered to be one of the most important ones concerning physical Jihad. Probably it is the most important of all critical issues. That issue should be studied and examined well, and preponderance should be given to the most probable. This issue is the lawfulness of fighting against non-Muslims whom Muslims have peace with and who are being non-violent. Nevertheless, the examination of this issue should be done by the subjective viewing of the proofs derived from the Qur’an and from the sanctified Prophetic Tradition. Further, texts should be linked together, minor details should be related to major ones, secondary issues should be referred to the original ones, and the texts should be linked with the purposes intended from them. Then all the former points should be connected with the current life. In fact, true jurisprudence should be applied on reality for it aims at providing a legal solution for problematic issues. So jurisprudence offers solutions that are derived from the teachings of Islam solely.
How should Muslims deal with those who do them no harm, do not fight against them, do not expel them from their houses, and try to come upon them?
Throughout history, some Muslim scholars from the 'offensive school have argued that Muslims are obliged to spread Islam whenever there is a chance. Besides, those same scholars agreed that Muslims should conquer the countries of non-Muslims that fall under their control at least once in a year in order to demonstrate how powerful Islam is. Muslims should work at showing that Islam has the upper hand while the lower is that of the disbelievers. Further, Muslims should make non-Muslim states follow the Islamic rule in order to show its inhabitants how just the Islamic legislation and guidelines are. However, non-Muslims should be given the freedom to submit to Islam as a ruling system not as a creed, because according to Islam force should not be resorted to in such matters. Concerning this point, Allah, the Almighty, says:
"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" ( 2: 256)
|
Throughout history, some Muslim scholars from the 'offensive school have argued that Muslims are obliged to spread Islam whenever there is a chance.
|
|
On the other hand, other Muslims jurists in throughout history agreed that according to Islam Muslims are forbidden to fight against non-Muslims who are in peace terms with them, did not fight them because of their faith, did not expel them from their homes, and did not try to come upon them.
The jurists who have adopted this notion believe that if non-Muslims did no harm to Muslims and they were peaceful instead, then Muslims would have no right to fight them. Besides, Muslims are ordered to give such a kind of non-Muslims their due rights and do them justice because Allah likes those who are just.
Nevertheless, the cases where Muslims are allowed to fight against non-Muslims are when they start fighting first, when they violate the privacy of Muslims, expel them from their homes, or hinder them from conveying the message of Islam. Also, Muslims are permitted to fight against non-Muslims when they confiscate Muslims' right to propagate Islam through providing clear evidence and proof. Physical Jihad is allowed when non-Muslims wage war against Muslims, or when they kill Muslim callers, these were the things done by the Romans and Persians.
Thereby, scholars and thinkers have divided into two parties concerning the issue of Jihad:
The first party is pro-peace. They believe that as long as non-Muslims do not attack Muslims, try to tempt them to renounce their faith, prevent them from practicing their religion, or assault the helpless from amongst them or their allies, they should not be fought against. Those who adopt such a notion are called the 'defensive' school because they believe in Jihad as a defensive strategy, which should come as a result of any foreign attack (we have discussed this kind of Jihad earlier).
The second party is pro-war. This party believes that fighting should be the essence of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Members of this party think that non-Muslims should be fought against merely because they are disbelievers, not because of attacking Muslims or the message they are trying to convey. This party deems fighting non-Muslims right because they believe that Islam should be propagated, and it should make non-Muslim systems submit to its ruling. They consider that the Prophet’s expeditions and his Companions' were carried out for such a reason. This party is called the 'offensive' school because they disagree with the “defensive” school in the sense that Jihad is not only resorted to as a means of defense, rather they think that physical Jihad is the right decision supported by evidence from the Islamic guidelines. This party believes that Jihad is a message to the whole world that gives three choices, either to embrace Islam, pay Jizyah (poll-tax), or war.
The Legal types of offensive Jihad that are agreed upon:
In this point, I would like to tackle the debate between the moderates and the extremists, or the 'defensive' and the 'offensive' as some people describe them in this case. Actually, some of the advocates of the 'offensive' school were unfair with the 'defensive' one, where they attributed to them opinions that they did not give and have nothing to do with. For instance, they say that the 'defensive' advocates are against the preemptive Jihad and totally deny it no matter what the circumstances are. Besides the 'offensive' say that the 'defensive' think Jihad is only permissible if Muslims are being attacked in their own country. This is how the 'defensive' opinion is depicted.
|
Actually, some of the advocates of the 'offensive' school were unfair with the 'defensive' one, where they attributed to them opinions that they did not give and have nothing to do with.
|
|
I think that the abovementioned view of 'offensive' school about the 'defensive' one is unfair. Besides, there is a lack of honesty and accuracy in projecting the other party’s point of view. In fact, the person who reads the views of the 'defensive' he will find out that they acknowledge the preemptive Jihad, and waging war against non-Muslims in their own lands for a number of reasons, among them:
1- To ensure the freedom of the Muslim call, to avert being forced to leave their religion, and to prevent the emergence of physical boundaries that may stand as an obstacle between people and learning about the message of Islam. For these reasons, the battles of the Caliphs and those who rightly followed them took place. So the true aim of the early Muslim battles was to eliminate the tyrannical powers that were oppressing people trying to deprive them of choosing what they wanted. The best example in this regard is what Pharaoh said to his people: You believe in him before I give you permission" (26:49);Therefore, Allah gives His instruction saying: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression" (2:193).
2- The second case why the 'defensive' acknowledged physical Jihad is when it brings about safety to the Muslim state and security its borders, especially when the state is being threatened by enemies who are plotting against it. Such a kind of fight is referred to in our age as 'the precautionary war'. This kind of war is considered to be an important strategy in a state, and a method to be followed in repulsing enemies. In the Prophet’s lifetime, most of the Islamic battles were under the category of precautionary war. To put it more clear, the Prophet’s fights took place after the Islamic state conflicted with the greatest of all empires; namely, the Roman and Persian ones. The expedition of Mu’tah and the battle of Tabuk marked the beginning of the fight with the Romans. Moreover, since Kashrus, the Persian king, tore the message of the Prophet (PBUH) into pieces and vowed him, the fight broke out between Muslims and the Persians.
3- The 'defensives' approved of physical Jihad when it aims at saving the helpless from among Muslims who were taken as captives, or to liberate the minorities who are being oppressed by the unjust systems. In this regard, the Holy Qur'an reads:
" How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!' "(2:75)
If the Muslim state is capable of helping others, then it is mandatory upon it to rush to support the helpless and oppressed people if they asked for help, even if they were non-Muslims. In fact, saving the helpless is not only an ethical duty (that is followed in any society that is established on virtues and noble values), but it is also a legal obligation that should be done, be the oppressed a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
|
If the Muslim state is capable of helping others, then it is mandatory upon it to rush to support the helpless and oppressed people if they asked for help, even if they were non-Muslims.
|
|
4- Jihad is allowed in order to restore and preserve Islam within the Arab peninsula, the nucleus of the Muslim land. In Islam, that is a Divine will; in other words, Allah willed that Al-Hijaz province and all other parts of the Arab peninsula should be the secured resort that shall be sought by Muslims in times of hardships. This has been proven necessary through the crises and afflictions that took place during the history of the ummah.
In this regard, the verses of Surah (the chapter) of At-Tawba (The Repentance) were revealed where Allah told the disbelievers to wander in land for four months then they have to choose either between Islam, to depart the land, or to fight. These four months are what is called the sacred months because fight is prohibited in them. Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” At-Tawba, verse:5).
However, Allah willed that those Arabs were to embrace Islam before the passage of the four months. Thus, Islam spread all over the Arab peninsula, and all its inhabitants became Muslims who defended Islam and conveyed its message to the whole world.
This was another bliss bestowed by Allah on the Arabs in addition to the other privileges given by Him. For instance, the Qur'an is revealed in the Arabs' language, and the Messenger of Allah was sent to them. Besides, the Ka'bah, the holy shrine, and the Sacred Sanctuary, Prophet’s Mosque are located in the Arab lands. Further, the Arabs became the protectors of Islam and they conveyed its message to the world.
Underlining the Controversy between the Two Parties
What is the cause of the conflict between the two parties: the moderates and the extremists, 'defensive' and 'offensive', or the callers for peace and the callers for war?
The point which caused the conflict is whether Muslims should fight against non-Muslims who are peaceful, did not fight against Muslims because of their religion, did not expel them from their houses, and did not come upon them. Besides, should Muslims fight against non-Muslims whose words and deeds show no hatred against Muslims, rather they refrained from hurting Muslims be it by words or deeds?
The party of the moderates, or the 'defensive' school, says that those non-Muslims should not be fought against because they have done nothing that deserves such retaliation. Further, many Qur'anic verses order Muslims not to fight against non-Muslims. From among those verses:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."(2:190). In the same Surah, Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error." (2:256)
In Surah of Al-Imran, Allah says: " Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). "(3:64)
"Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."(4:90)
A verse the same Surah also reads:"… if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them." (4: 91)
Allah says about the People of the Book (the Christians and the Jews) in Surah Al-Maeda: "… Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly." ( 5:13)
Allah says in Surah Al-Anfal: "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower: And if they would deceive thee, then lo! Allah is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers” (8:61-2).Mind that even if there is deception, Muslims are ordered to incline towards peace if the enemy did.
Further, Surah of At-Tawba (The Repentance) is a declaration of war against the disbelievers, who have breached the peace agreement with Muslims, so about them Allah says: " And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."(9:6) Also in the same Surah (Chapter) Allah says: "… except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." (9:7) In Surah Al-Hijr, Allah says: "So proclaim that which thou art commanded, and withdraw from the idolaters.” (15:94).
Moreover, In Surah Al-Nahl, Allah says: " Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright. " (16:125)
In the same Surah Allah says:" And do thou be patient, for thy patience is but from Allah; nor grieve over them: and distress not thyself because of their plots."(16:127)
In Surah Al-Ahqaf, Allah says: "Therefore patiently persevere, as did (all) messengers of inflexible purpose; and be in no haste about the (Unbelievers). Then have patience (O Muhammad) even as the stout of heart among the messengers (of old) had patience, and seek not to hasten on (the doom) for them."(46:35)
In Surah (Chapter) Al-Mumtahina, Allah says: "Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers. "(60:8)
All the abovementioned Qur'anic verses and many others are the evidence given by the ‘moderate party’ to prove that Islam is peaceful with those who are peaceful and is hostile with those who harbor grudge and hatred against Islam. Furthermore, Islam only fights against those who fight it and stand against its call and drive the believers to renounce their belief. On the other hand, the extremists who hold the contradictory notions deny those Qur'anic verses by a simple justification, but which is truly serious, as they say that all the former verses have been abrogated. They say that those verses were abrogated by a verse or a part of a verse that is revealed in surat At-Tawba ( 10:9). That verse is what is referred to as the verse of the sword.
Therefore, in order to clear all these misconceptions related to the verse of the sword we had to discuss this issue in details. Besides, this shows us that we should not take the misconceptions regarding major issues for granted.
The 'offensive' advocates say that fighting against the non-Muslims, or to put it other
words, the fight against the polytheists should not be resorted to due to an assault against the Muslims, tempting them to renounce their belief, or in order to secure propagating the message of Islam.
The 'offensive' advocates believe that physical Jihad should only be resorted to for one cause; namely, disbelief. In other words, they think that disbelief is a sufficient cause for Jihad. And if there are any other causes, they are to support the physical Jihad.
|
