The truth about terrorism is self-explicit the above discussion. It also in indicates that reduction in the components of Jihad would result into terrorism. The absence of even a single component of Jihad in real sense would make an act as perfect terrorism.
The so far discussion concludes that:
- The announcement and management of Jihad can only be done by a recognized regular government.
- No Jihad is possible outside the international treaties.
- Jihad can only be launched against oppression.
- Jihad can only be undertaken after having acquired all worldly sources necessary for a successful war strategy.
- If the above conditions would not be fulfilled, the element of terror in this war would be included with the same rate.
The analysis of the present Era BOSNIA:
Yugoslavia started its journey towards decline with the death of Martial Teeto. The mutual differences started emerging out of all states with the pace of time and the states of Slovenia and Croatia became independent. The parliament of Bosnia passed the resolution of its freedom with absolute majority and elected Alijah Izzat begovich as the president of Bosnia. Almost 99% people voted in favor of freedom through a referendum conducted in February 1992 for this purpose. Bosnia announced its independence in March 1992 and the European Community and the United Nations accepted it as its member in April 1992.
The Bosnian Muslims started suffering from intense oppression but the nation remained united under the leadership of its President. The Bosnian army or public did not use the tool of oppression in retaliation to any sort of cruelty. They cold have killed Serbs at several places if that desired so but they restricted themselves to their self-defense. They kept the world well informed of the Serb oppression and their tolerance on all occasions. As a result they succeeded in winning the favor of the whole world (including the non-Muslim world). All this resulted in the Datten Peace Accord which brought peace for the Bosnian Muslims.
The whole of this movement was in accordance with the Islamic teachings. The Bosnian people launched their struggle against the oppression of the enemy but never turned to be oppresser themselves. They followed the path of law and justice from the very first day and the result of their struggle is open to the whole world today.
Chechenia is a state with one million Muslim population (after the previous two wars the figure has come down to a bit above .85 million). The love for Islam runs in the viens of these people like blood. This area has been a part of the Russian Federation after the dismemberment of Soviet Union. Unfortunately this area is surrounded by Russia on all the four sides which is obviously the biggest hurdle in the way of their independence. We never find an independent state on the world map which has its borders on all the four sides common with a big country. Hence it was more proper for Chechenia to make practical demand; total autonomy within Russian Federation. It was easy for Russia to accept this demand and Chechans could have formed a real Muslim society as such. This step could have opened the way for several independent Muslim regions in Russia (it must be kept in mind that there are several regions in Russia with Muslim population in majority). If this demand had been tendered in a peaceful way repeatedly on the different international forums, possibly Chechenia and several other areas of Muslim majority within Russia could have sought local autonomy and this dream could have come true without having magnified Russian’s superiority feeling. Afterwards, depending on the suitability of the circumstances around a demand for absolute freedom could also have presented.
However, the things went otherwise. Chechens just thought of their own freedom and without having considered other Muslims of Russia announced their independence. Their announcement cannot be criticized from the religious point of view as the whole nation was united under the leadership of Johar Daud. The announcement was made in very peaceful manner by those who had practical control of the whole country. Russia’s own condition was miserable. Russia launched a half-hearted military action which could not meet success.
However, there was a basic flaw in the freedom of Chechenia. The Chechens could not contact anyone nor could seek any foreign assistance without the consent of Russia. Obviously this state was absolutely dependent upon Russians and thus this action of Chechens brought misery upon rest of the Muslims in Russia.
Ultimately the same happened which was feared. A nation bent upon taking emotional decisions is likely to commit blunders. Chechenia attacket the neighbouring state of Daghistan and captured five villages. This attack was entirely contrary to Islamic teachings and wisdom. Russia availed this opportunity and accused Chechens for having the designs for its disintegration. Russia had become stable to a great extent by that time and had no real challenge from within or outside. It had an army three times bigger than that of total population of Chechnia. Therefore Russia conquered Chechenia through an attack, devastated Grozne and killed almost 80,000 Muslims in the second war. Another important aspect of this war is that the whole Russian nation was at the back of its government and they considered Chechans as aggressors.
Chechens proved themselves to be extra-ordinarily bold, courageous and determined. The wrongs done to Chechens by Russia must be condemned but the steps of
Chechens were contrary to the teachings of Islam and averse to wisdom. The Muslims suffered a serious set back and the period hereafter brought utmost for them. If guidance had been sought from faith and wisdom, the result would have been different.
Pakistan’s decision to resist the Russian aggression in Afghanistan in 1979 was just as it was against oppression. It was the decision of a Muslim country. Although Russia was a big country, it was impossible for her to deploy her army in Afghanistan beyond a certain limit. The whole Afghan population was against Russian troops. It was not possible for Russia to take a military action against Pakistan. Thus it was the right decision according to Islamic and strategic point of view.
However, according to Islamic point of view a blunder had been committed after this right decision. It was essential for Pakistan to form an interim government of Afghanistan and the whole process of Jihad should have been carried out under the supervision of that government or the Pakistani government itself should have managed it directly formed all fighting groups, trained them, elected their leadership and controlled every action. Each of the two steps would have been religiously and strategically just. On the contrary, the government of Pakistan adopted a policy against all such standards and encouraged Afghans to form several militant groups and allocated a quota in arms and money for each group. Obviously when a private group gets excess money and armament, it is liable to indulge it in numerous vices. These were eight groups in total and each of these groups formed a government of its own. Their mutual differences in ideology and practice grew stronger. On one side they were fighting against Russians while on the other side their mutual skirmishes were also in progress. These mutual battles claimed thousands of lives. Pakistan’s strategy of forming more than one group was under the fear that a single group might be so powerful as to come out of its influence. It was not a principled policy. The government of Pakistan had neglected the fact that the formation of eight militant groups would mean eight parts of Afghanistan. One Kalashinkov does not tolerate the presence of another Kalashinkov. Their civil war was dangerous for Pakistan and one day they had to come out of the influence of Pakistan. Above all any sincere assistance should have been above any desire for influence.
It was a blunder from the religious point of view as all these private militant organizations should have been emerged as just one organization if they were being controlled by the government of Pakistan. If they were not controlled by the government of Pakistan they had no right for an armed struggle because they had no government of their own in Afghanistan. In fact each of their bullets and each of their pennies were being supplied by Pakistan rather by U.S.A. The whole truth is revealed through this. Someone may say that these groups had their headquarters within Afghanistan and hence they could be called, technically as government. If we accept this logic, we should accept the fact too that the government of Pakistan had acknowledged Afghanistan as a state divided into eight separate governments. This unIslamic act resulted into severe mutual hatred among all these groups after Russians had left Afghanistan. They came at war with one another. The country had been stricken to a state of anarchy and disorder. Every commander at a distance of almost ten miles became independent and started levying takes of various kinds. Thus his desire was the law in practice. This situation had been practically when the government of Pakistan became fed up of all this, stopped the aid to different groups and started according military and financial assistance to just one group (Taliban). It restored peace in most of the parts of Afghanistan within the period of a year. (Taliban’s concept of Islam and its seclusion from the whole world as a result brought several problems for Pakistan and Afghanistan; this issue will be discussed later).
If this struggle had been purely in accordance with Islamic teachings, there would have been an organized government to replace the Russian control. These groups would not have indulged themselves in mutual strife’s rather their separate entities would not have been there at all. The Afghan nation would not have been divided and disordered. The reconstruction of Afghanistan would have begun from the very first day and it would have emerged as a responsible and honorable country on the map of the world. This status of Afghanistan would have benefited Pakistan as well. Unfortunately, the then Pakistani government and some religious cum political organizations remained negligent towards Islamic teachings and the loss is being sustained by all of us today.
Here it may be pleaded by some quarter that the Afghan nation was already divided into eight groups. It is historically wrong because there was just one organization named Jamiyet-e-Islami in the beginning with professor Rabbani as its president and engineer Hekmatyar as its secretary general. The process of disintegration started later. It is practically wrong too as all these organizations would have been dissolved in a few days providing a sound basis from the worldly and religious point of view, if Pakistan had told them to grant aid only in case of their merger.
Every nation has an undeniable right of self – desired existence. It is a fact established and accepted by the world conscience. Hence the Kashmiris have the right of self – determination to about their own being. It is a debt of Kashmir upon the world community which has to be discharged sooner or later. It is a challenge to the world conscience and it is awaited when the world takes practical steps towards the resolution of Kashmir issue.
However, it is essential for us to keep certain things in mind fulfilling the requirement of religion and morality.
(1) In the wake of this struggle for self – determination, it is important for Pakistan to abide by the terms of every treaty she has made with other countries. We have been instructed the same through Al-Anfal: 72. Since Pakistan has vowed through similar agreement that it would settle all affairs with India in a peaceful manner and both the countries would not take action against each other open or secret, religion disallows Pakistan to take any armed step till the treaty is intact.
Here it cannot be taken as a plea that Pakistan had accepted similar agreement under pressure because every accord takes place as a result of some pressure. If a Muslim government consider a treaty as wrong and unjust, it is religiously bound upon it to declare its annulment openly. It has been instructed through verse 58 of Al-Anfal. It is not possible to keep the treaty intact and violate it as well under different pretexts. It is worth mentioning here that Maulana Maudoodi said it clearly on one such occasion in 1948:
“You can not remain in treaty with a country and take war actions against it at the same time. This duality is contrary to Islamic ethics, law of jihad and rules for international relations. Government of Pakistan must remove the hurdles that are upon us through religion and morality by serving its contracts with India, as these are the impediments in the way of the applications of our force. I consider Kashmir as an integral part of Pakistan. In my opinion a lot more efforts are required in this context than those done so far. But we have just two options: either we get the right of kashmiris acknowledged in a peaceful way or enter our forces openly in Kashmir in the same way as Indian Union did so in Junagarh. No other option could be called just and true”.(Roodad-i-Jammat-I-Islami vol 8)
It is also unjust to justify a non-violation under the plea that a similar sort of violation is being done from the other side. It is against the established principles of religion and morality. When Quraish violated the Treaty of Hundaibya, the holy Prophet declared its announcement. When Abu sufian, the chief of Quraish came to the Prophet with the request for revival, the Prophet refused to do so. Some people hold the opinion that since the treaties are signed by the governments, masses have no concern with it. These people say it openly that they neither accept Simla Agreement nor admit any control line. Such a stance is contrary to the teachings of Islam. Maulana maudoodi writes while explaining verse 72 of Al-Anfal:
“The words used in this Quranic verse are, people you have a treaty with”. It makes the fact clear that an agreement signed by a government of Darul-Islam with a non-muslim government are not merely a binding upon the two governments rather they bind the masses of the two countries as well and they equally share the responsibilities of their Muslim government in this dimension. Islamic Shariah does not validity the evasion of Muslim masses from the moral obligations they have due to the treatiesmade by their government with other government and people. (Tafheem-ul-Quran, vol2, page:162).
Hence , Pakistan, in accordance with its treaties with India is religiously bound to adopt purely means in the matter of Kashimir. Any other action is against the religion and would render it unreliable in the world community.
(2)We have proved it earlier through the discussion on previous pages that Jihad can only be declared by an independent government which must control it as well. Since the government of AJK is under the control of the government of Pakistan in the matters of defenses, finance foreign policy and other important decisions like the provinces of Pakistan, it is also bound to accept the agreements made by Pakistan. Hence, it is wrong to consider AJK as a base camp for Jihad.
(3)Since no group outside government has the right to undertake any armed step, it is absolutely wrong and against the religious ethics to form private militant organizations that get themselves indulged in violent activities in Kashmir. All citizens of Pakistan are bound to abide by the treaties signed by their government. Any such militant action is disallowed by Islam and amounts to violation of treaty on behalf of Pakistan as well.
(4)Pakistan may take a military action against India but after having declared all mutual accords cancelled. No private group would have the right to undertake Jihad even in that case rather it could still be possible under the auspices of the government which would control all practical and strategic steps.
(5)According to Islam, it is not obligatory upon Pakistan to declare Jihad for the assistance to Kashmiri Muslims as India is five times bigger than Pakistan. If we have our commitment to Islam even equal to that of the companions of Holy Prophet, Jihad can only be admissible for Muslims if the number of the enemy is not more than two times to them.
The above points make it clear that Pakistan can help kashmiris through a peaceful way only. Therefore Pakistan should try to attain this objective purely through non violence. How is such a peaceful struggle possible? What are its requirements? It is not a question of religion rather it pertains with a timely and practical strategy. We shall discuss it separately lest faith and strategy should be intermixed. It is essential that our discussion on religion is based on ideology and principles while the discussion related to strategy deals with the ground realities. Hence, we shall restrict ourselves to the discussion on strategy only on the forthcoming pages.
KashmirIssue- A few Requirements of Strategy:
(a)It is an important question whether Pakistan can get Kashmir liberated from the subjugation of India. The answer is obviously in negative. Pakistan and India both are big countries. Such big countries normally occupy a few hundred square miles of each other’s territories after a few week’s traditional warfare. Since both are poor countries, both lack in weaponry, ammunition and spare parts for a war that lasts more than one and a half month. It is obvious that both the countries can’t fight with each other for more than this duration. U.N. would intervene, there would be a cease-fire, treaties would be signed for the with drawl of forces and both the countries would keep licking their respective wounds for years but the Kashmir issue would remain unsettled as such.
The situation painted above is conditional with equality on both sides. We know that India is three times stronger than Pakistan in terms of weaponry and other equipment. It more self- sufficient in the production of arms as compared to Pakistan. Its foreign exchange reserves are twenty times more than Pakistan. Pakistan on the other side is dependent on West to an extent for arms and economy. We must keep in mind too that now India has made Kashmir as an issue of its prestige. The Indian nation stood united in June 1999 on Kargil issue while Pakistan could not display any enthusiasm on massive level.
The presence of an atomic bomb is also of no use in an open war. In the same way this hypothesis has no basis that India would not be able to retaliate with full force in case of war owing to the fact that its seven laces troopers are engaged in Kashmir. It must be borne in mind that world would change Pakistan into Iraq if Pakistan goes for either of these two options for a consequential victory. Is it profitable to put a country with a population of fifteen crores at stake for the liberation of 6 million Kashmiris?
(b) It is said that seven laces Indian troopers are being engaged by the militant groups in Kashmir and thus India getting tired of this all would agree to some solution for Kashmir issue within few years.
The theory of exhausting the enemy has lost its value nowadays. At this time, so many movements for separation are being launched by different groups. All such movements rear feelings against themselves in that country and the conflict becomes a battle of honor for that country. If a small country like Sri Lanka is not yet exhausted against Tamil Separatists, if a poor country like Sudan is still countering the separatists and if Turkey is still sustaining the struggle for separation in its territories, how can we expect India to get tired. The facts may go contrary. What would happen in that case?
(c) We admire the sincerity and passion of all organizations busy in armed activities. Certainly they are doing their best to help the oppressed Kashmiris with a religious spirit. However, this struggle has caused some negative results as well which are too grave to be neglected. Hence it is essential that they are also analyzed.
At the moment almost forty organizations are engaged in armed struggle. Four or five out of these are stronger than the rest. It is important to note that all main groups are formed on the basis of their sectarian beliefs and they are very rigid in this regard. In other words their primary motive is not Islam rather their respective creeds. Each of these groups rears hatred and prejudice against other groups. They have all such controversial matters well settled in their minds and all things otherwise trivial in Islam have assumed great importance for them.
It is said that they have fought several battles mutually which had claimed several lives. The proposals of unification keep floating among them but all proves to be just an illusion as their mutual differences increase with the passage of time. People from the same sect have been divided into several groups. A large number of these trained mujahidin belongs to Pakistan and hence the possible impact they cast on Pakistani society and its future are not concealed from the people having insight.
(d) The issue if Kashmir and its complexity is mainly due to the wickedness of some Hindus and some Britons hostility towards Muslims. This is also an undeniable fact that Pakistan’s strategy on Kashmir has also been not up to the mark and its present policies have annoyed the whole world including the Muslim countries. It seems proper that some facts are glanced at for self-accountability.
There were almost 600 states in the undivided India. At the time of partition, the question of their annexation to either Pakistan or India arose. Congress leaders were of the opinion that the choice of annexation should rest with the masses of every state while the Muslim leadership, on the contrary wanted this right to be allocated to the Nawab or Raja of every state. The Muslims gave this proposal as the expected the Muslim chieftains of some states with non Muslim majority to declare their annexation with Pakistan. These states were like Junagarh, Manawdar, Kathiawar and Hyderabad. It was an unjust and impracticable stance. It was quite an undemocratic proposal. It was as fact the all army and arms had to be retained by India after Partition. All these states were far from Pakistan and were surrounded by the Indian Territory. Their masses were against Pakistan and Pakistan could not reach for their assistance. In such a situation Indian occupation of these states was quite natural.
However, the British government decided that the real power would lie with the chiefs of these states but that would take decisions keeping before the wishes of their people and their geographical situation. The last sentence was just a formality and hence Pakistan did not take it into account in the cases of Junagarh, Hyderabad manawder etc wile India did the same in the matter of Kashmir. If the principled policy of referendum in very state had been decided at that time, Kashmir issue would not have any existence and there would have been a plebiscite here too like NWFP and Silhet.
The Muslim leaders committed the second blunder by granting the unconditional attorney to Redcliff Award and showed their inclination to accept its decisions as such. It was a fatal mistake. It could have easily asserted that there would be a separate agreement on every disputed territory and hence it would have become impossible for Redcliff to include Guardaspur in India.
There was a golden opportunity to win Kashmir by force during China- India war of 1962 but the then Pakistani military rulers got trapped by India. On the contrary, when the circumstances, were quite unfavorable in 1965, Pakistan imported its gorillas in Indian held Kashmir and launched a ground attack later. The stock of ammunition and spare parts with Pakistan exhausted just in fifteen days and thus this fruitless war reached its end. India benefited itself a lot politically through the Tashkent Declaration.
At the time of Indian occupation of Siachin in 1985, Pakistan could have accused India of violating Simla Accord and hence could have taken the matter to U.N. But this opportunity also went unutilized.
The principled stand of some of Pakistani circles is also weak.
Pakistan has no right over several Hind majority areas of Kashmir. If Pakistan had accepted the partition of Punjab and Bengal, there should be no justification for rejecting a plan for the partition of Kashmir.
Claiming Kashmir to be the integral part of Pakistan is surely a smart emotional dialogue but it is not a strong stance. It is impossible for India to construct a dam on river Indus so as to accord irrevocable loss to Pakistan. Furthermore all such matters can be referred to International bodies for an agreement rather both the countries have already entered into many such agreements.
(e) Pakistan is a great blessing for us. We are breathing a free air. Pakistan is today an important country in the world. The Muslim world is incomplete without Pakistan. However, all good steps have certainly supplementary impacts. Almost thirty core Muslims of the sub-continent are leading independent lives in Pakistan and Bangladesh but about 18 core Muslims in India are living as a weak and helpless minority. We must be thankful to Allah for our freedom. One way of showing such gratitude is to devise such policies which help Indian Muslims get more comports in life in a peaceful environment. The gulf between Hindus and them should be lessened. We should help them in leading the maximum Islamic way of life.
It is an undeniable fact that the rift between the two countries aggravates the situation against Indian Muslims. The militant activities in Kashmir are in progress for the last ten to twelve years. The Hindu extremists gained power during the same period. It is impossible for 18 core Indian Muslims to leave the Indian soil. Hence they blame Pakistan for all their miseries and find their redress through being vocal against Pakistan more than Hindus.
On the other side, the normalization of situation between the two countries brings peace and comfort for Indian Muslims. We should accord ease to them rather than to create more problems. We must remember that a greater number of Muslims in India are paying the cost of our freedom constantly. Hence they can only find peace if we formulate a peaceful policy about Kashmir.
(f) If Pakistan had not faced the issue of Kashmir or had settled it properly, it would have been a country five times better than the present status. We planned to get Kashmir by force. Consequently we had to spend several times more money than other countries. We had to borrow loans from foreign countries in this connection. Resultantly 75% of our budget is being consumed under these towheads. The reason for the successive military rule in Pakistan is the same. Obviously, the Kashmir issue has made us beg before the West, undemocratic governments and backwardness. For the same reason we could not promote true Islamic values in our society. It is essential to pay attention towards Kashmir issue but to get accessories at the cost of the main body can not be called wisdom. If we had decided from the very beginning to adopt a wise and peaceful strategy on Kashmir, we would have been far more developed country. We would not have been dependent on the West, democracy would have been well established and we would have made remarkable progress towards the establishment of a true Islamic society.
(g) the real motive behind the establishment of Pakistan was to safeguard the rights of the maximum number of the Muslims of sub-continent and to secure an environment for them so as to establish an Islamic society. The Muslim league accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 for the same reason as it ensured the fulfillment of these two purposes even without the establishment of an independent state. The Cabinet Mission Plan guaranteed three groups of the provinces within a united India. Out of these three groups, two would comprise of northern and eastern provinces of Muslim majority. The federal government had to retain just the departments of foreign affairs, defense, communications and revenue. Rest of all powers had to rest with these three groups. Since this plan ensured security for Muslims against Hindu majority, Muslim League accepted it. Congress accepted the Plan in the beginning but Nehru rejected its true spirit later on. Hence this plan could not be materialized(Abu-ul-Kalam Azad’s posthumous publication “ India Wins Freedom” throws light on the whole affair. This book came into print from thirty years after his death. He had laid down very clearly in the book that Pakistan came into being due to Nehru).
Thus if the Kashmiri Muslims cannot get absolute freedom from the tyranny of India under the prevalent circumstances, we should try to adopt all other peaceful alternatives such as lobbing in the U.N.O. and winning the favor of big. However, we should not divert out attention form the inward strategy which may secure maximum rights for the Kashmiri Muslims through solid steps and which may promote the Islamic values in the society. It is quite possible and costs nothing.
(h) In order to achieve the above two objectives the Muslims of Indian held Kashmir must assemble themselves under the banner of one political party that works on the real democratic patterns. This party should works for the right of self-determination. There can be two wings of the party strategically. One wing should purely struggle for the right of self-determination and should not participate in the elections while the other wing should contest elections. The second wing should have certain short term motives like granting a special status to Kashmir, acquisition of maximum autonomy for Kashmir and the establishment of an Islamic democratic society in Kashmir. If this party acts wisely through non-violence and does not give any opportunity to India for any aggression, it can possibly come into power very soon in Indian held Kashmir. This way an obvious change may take place on political and social level, the miseries of the Kashmiris may be lessened; they may rebuild their homeland and hence may get both of their objectives without having merged themselves into Pakistan. During this political struggle, India, at any stage might become forced to grant right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Pakistan certainly would continue its political and moral support. At times, a sudden turn in the internal circumstances of a country or the international situation gives way to the oppressed nations.
However, till the attainment of the real destination through peaceful ways, Kashmiri Muslims can lead their lives according to the Islamic values in their province with the special status of semi-independence and the situation of terror and oppression would, anyhow not continue.
Some historical and technical arguments are tendered in favor of a private Jihad. Although they are merely of supplementary nature, it seems proper to discuss them briefly.
The first argument in this context is that Abdullah Bin Zubair fought against the ruler of his time.
It is historically wrong. Ibn Zubair established his rule first and then suffered defeat while defending it. In fact, after the death of Yazeed in 64 Hijrah (683 A.D.) there erupted a civil war in the whole country and any centralized government was non-existent. Ibn Zubair (the grandson of Abu Bakar) availed this opportunity and proclaimed himself to be the ruler in Hijaz. All people accepted his rule and he introduced his own coin as well. His rule continued for nine years. In the meanwhile an Ummayad ruler, Abdul Malik established his rule in Iraq and Syria. After that he launched an attack against Abdullah Bin Zubair and remained successful.
We are not concerned with the logical justification of the rule of Ibn Zubair at the moment. However, from the religious point of view his step was above board because he had established his independent rule in a peaceful manner with the support of the Muslims. He did not attack anyone rather just defended himself. The complete detail of this incident can be suited in “Urdu Daira Ma’arif Islamia: vol 12, page 781-784.
The second argument tendered in this regard is that Ibrahim and his brother Nafs Zakia launched a militant struggle against the abbasid ruler, Mansur which was also supported by Imam Azam Abu Hanifa.
The above statement is untrue as well. In fact, Nafs Zakia (Muhammad Bin Abdullah) was the grandson of Hasan Bin Ali. The alavi family, on accountr of their relation with the Holy Prophet considered themselves the most deserving for the caliphate from the very beginning. Therefore, this family kept inviting all Muslims peacefully to accept their caliphate even during the regimes of abbasid and Ummayyads. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (Nafs Zakia) also did the same. When he found his followers in sufficient number, he declared himself as the caliph in a peaceful manner. The polace was Madinah and the year was 145 Hifrah (762 A.D). Abu Jaffar, an Abbasid was the caliph at that time whose seat was Baghdad. He offered absolute remission to Nafs Zakia repeatedly. He even tried to avoid any bloodshed by instructing so to his army. In the meanwhiule, Nafs Zakia started losing his companions. It was generally realized that this civil war was a futile exercise. Hence Nafs Zakia was killed during a brief battle and his rebellion was thus subside. The total period of his rule was not more than one and a half month. The struggle of Nafs Zakia has no religions ground as Islam does not allow caliphate on account of relationship. The most appropriate way for him was to avail the offer of abu Jaffar and annexed his areas to the larger Muslim state. This way, he could launce his peaceful struggle to rectify the shortcomings of the government.
Imam Abu Hanifa considered Nafs Zakia better than Abu Jaffar and hence accorded even financial assistance to him. But he did not take paty in this struggle actively because he realized that this struggle was fruitless. If he had considered it a conflict between right and wrong or had thought it a religious requirement, he would certainly have participated actively.
Some narratives are referred in this context like this. “Abu Hanifa said that taking part in this battle amounts to the reward of 50 pilgrimages”. These seem to be concocted narratives rather it is, in a way the character assassination of the Imam. If we believe in the narrative, it means that the Imam abstained from taking active part in this religious duty just for the fear of death which is never possible. In fact, the Imam always kept himself away from all kinds of political disputes during his time. It was certainly his commendable strategy. During his time, several governments had changed even the Kharijis captured the territory at a stage but he always restricted himself to his work. Neither he opposed any government nor accepted any office for himself. Consequently, no student of religious studies today can even think of neglecting his work.
We had to discuss some supplementary issues too so as to put the things on record. We simply wanted to say that Nafs Zakia established his rule in a peaceful way and then fought a war in his defence but failed.
The full detail of the avobe incident can be studied in Urdu Daira Ma’arif Islamai vol 19: pages 328-331.
Third argument is tendered about the Jihad Launched by Syed Ahmad Shaheed and Shah Ismaeel. Ahmad was such a staunch believer of the condition for a leadership in Jihad that he covered a distance of hundreds of miles and made the area of independent border tribes as his base camp. He invited people to accept his leadership, established his rule and then started war against cruel Sikhs. All these facts are so common at even a beginner of the Islamic history knows them. A valuable works done on the life of Syed Ahmad Shaheed can be studied on several places like Urdu Ma’arif Islamia, vol 2: pages 137-143.
The fourth argument given in this context is about the participation by the religious scholars of India in the 1857 War of Independence. In fact the scholars of that time accepted Bahader Shah Zafar as their ruler, established a joint organization at thana Bhavan with his permission and then started Jihad through a declaration made by the king in this context. The whole detail can be studied in “Ulama-i-Hind Ka Shandar Mazi” vol 4: pages 265-282 by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian.
The fifth argument is related to a narrative about the Battle of Mautah laid down in the Bokhari. The Bokhari discusses the issue of the leadership in a war in case the commanders and their successors die one after another. The book gives the provision of appointing a leader on the emergent basis if the battle is in full wake and the Khalifa is too far to grant any advice in time. One such incident took place during the Battle of Mautah when Khalid Bin Waleed assumed the charge of the commander after the martyrdom of all the three successive commanders appointed by the Holy Prophet. The war was ultimately won.
Since Mautah (in Syria) was thousands of miles away from Madinha and it was impossible for a messenger to seek advice of the Prophet during war, it was a just decision and hence the provision given in the Bokhari is quite proper.
The above incident, however in no way proves that the formation of several militant groups is valid even without an emergency and outside a state patronage particularly when they launch their violent activities according to their own priorities and even fight mutually. Obviously it is no admissible at all.
By the way, we must realize that the eminent leaders of the Ummah were so particular about the state patronage of Jihad that they always used to look for any exception even during acute emergency though they were common sense exceptions.
The detail about the Battle of Mautah can be seen in “Al-Raheeq-al-Makhtoom” Pages 617 to 625 and “Translation of the Bokhari” by Maulana Waheed-Uz-Zaman vol: 5 Pages 446-449.
The sixth argument is about the opinion of Ibn-al-Khas, a theologian. As we have already mentioned that just one theologian Abu Hafs Balqeeni has differed with the viewpoint of all other theologians in the whole history of the Ummah and we have already discussed this stance. Ibn-al-Khas has also mentioned about a relief. He believes “Jihad, without the Khalifa or his assistant is undesirable but is not disallowed because a Jihad without permission is, in any case, not a severer guilty than treachery though treachery to the pagans during Jihad is permissible”.
The above argument of Ibn-al-Khas is very weak rather wrong. Treachery accords a loss, great or small to an individual or a group. On the contrary, a battle causes bloodshed of people on both sides at a far larger scale. The undue bloodshed of even a single person amount, in fact to the assassination of the whole mankind in the eye of God. How could the two be equal? Moreover a Jihad without the permission of the “Ameer” is not a treachery with the enemy rather it is a deceit against Muslims and amount to endangering their lives.
The seventh argument is granted with reference to the opinion of Ibn Qadamah. He believes that the Jihad would not be delayed if such situation arises at some place and the advice from the Khalifa can not be awaited in that state of emergency. This opinion is true and is about the similar situation as it arose diring the war of Mautah. It is also a common sense exception.
The eighth argument given in this regard is that the British had tried to sabotage the Jihad of Haji Sahib Tarangzai as well by confusing it with the permission of Khalifa. It was so that the Brithish said that the Jihad against them was invalid as long as it was not declared by Wali-e-Afghanistan who was the king of the Muslims of Afghanistan and the frontier areas.
As we study other religions and try to take the benefit of certain points, some no-Muslims do the same by their study of Islam and get their motive by missing up 99% of falsehood with just 1% of truth. The British point of view about the affair of Haji Sahib Tarangzai was totally misleading. In fact, the independent tribes of Frontier were not under the control of Wali-e-Afghanista. Haji Sahib, on reaching the tribal area, established his rule. He used to take all decisions and punished the criminals. He sued to fight against the British in collaboration with the chieftains of suburban independent tribes. He also tried to convince Ameer Habib Ullah Khan, the Wali-e-Afghanistan to attack the British but the Ameer did not agree. The Ameer took the stance that he was not well prepared to fight against the British but answered Haji Sahib of all kinds of moral and financial support.
After that Haji Sahib sent a delegation to Sultan Abdul Hameed, the ruler of Turkey who was the Khalifa of the Muslims at that time. Obviously Haji Sahib considered himself to be the representative of the Muslim caliphate. The Khalifa accepted it and advised Haji-Sahib to launch Jihad against the Brithis in black and white. A similar type of written order was issed by Ghalib Pahsa, the governor of Hijaz. Hence, Haji Sahib first established his rule in the territories of Mahmand, annexed it to the Muslim caliphate and launched Jihad with the written orders of the caliph. Later, the British acknowledged his status at the time of the treaty of Ghalnai in 1935. (all these details and the copies of all treaties and orders are still in record a work is being done on them at the Pakistan study centre Peshawar University).