Islam and Non-Muslims: A New Perspective (Part 3/4)
Special Article
d. Misplaced Directives
It shall be shown on the basis of the above discussion that there are some directives of Islam which are solely related to the Kuffar and cannot be related to other non-Muslims. The two principles which have been kept in consideration in ascertaining these directives are:
a. The fact that the basic truths have been revealed in their ultimate form can be ascertained.
b. People who have knowingly denied these truths can be pinpointed.
Both these points are based on the fact that knowledge of both is dependent on wahi (revelation) which, of course, is no longer available. It is also to be noted that deliberately denying Muhammad (sws) the last Messenger of God is equivalent to denying these basic truths since it was he who for the last time delineated them in their ultimate form on the face of this earth.
First, here is a summary of these directives:
1. The Punishment of Apostasy
2. Waging War against Non-Muslims
3. Dhimmi Status of Non-Muslim Minorities
4. Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims
5. The Superiority of Muslim Blood
6. Greeting non-Muslims in an Inferior Way
7. Non-Muslims to be necessarily Doomed in the Hereafter
8. Assassination of Non-Muslims
9. Cursing Non-Muslims
10. Prohibition of asking for Forgiveness for Non-Muslims
11. Reward of Killing Non-Muslims
I will now elaborate upon each of these:
1. The Punishment of Apostasy
According to almost all Muslim jurists14, a Muslim who leaves the folds of Islam is punishable by death. They base their verdict on the following H~adith as narrated by Ibn Abbas in the following way:
مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ (بخارى: 6922)
Execute the people who change their faith. (Bukhari: No. 6922)
In their opinion, the ruling pronounced in this Hadith is regarded to have a general application for all times upon every Muslim who renounces his faith from the times of the Prophet (sws) to the Day of Judgement.
It has been shown in the previous sections that once the Idolaters of Arabia had deliberately denied the message of Muhammad (sws), they were sentenced to death because of this denial:
فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (9 :5)
When the forbidden months are over, slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and everywhere lie in ambush for them. But if they repent of their wrong beliefs and establish the prayer and pay Zakah, then spare their lives. God is Oft-Forgiving and Ever Merciful. (9:5)
The above quoted Hadith is merely a statement of this law for the Arab Idolaters of the Prophet’s times. It has no application to any other people or nation. It does not even relate to the People of the Book of the Prophet’s times. For reasons already explained, the law for these Idolaters was to either accept faith or face extinction. Hence, it follows that if a person among the Idolaters after accepting faith reverted to his original state of disbelief, he had to face the same penalty. The following Hadith is of similar meaning also:
أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ (مسلم: رقم 22)
‘I have been directed to fight against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and to the prophethood, of Muhammad, establish the prayer and pay Zakah. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other violation that entails their execution by Islamic law and [in the Hereafter] their account rests with God’. (Muslim:No. 22)
The following text of this Hadith clearly shows that by the word ‘الناس’ (al-Nas), the people implied are the Mushrikin (The Idolaters of Arabia) :
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ فَإِذَا شَهِدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَصَلَّوْا صَلَاتَنَا وَاسْتَقْبَلُوا قِبْلَتَنَا وَأَكَلُوا ذَبَائِحَنَا فَقَدْ حَرُمَتْ عَلَيْنَا دِمَاؤُهُمْ وَأَمْوَالُهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا (نسائ رقم: 3966)
Anas Ibn Malikreports from the Prophet: ‘I have been directed to fight against these Idolaters until they testify to the oneness of God and to the fact that Muhammad is his servant and messenger. If they testify to the oneness of God and to the fact that Muhammad is his servant and prophet, establish our prayer and face our Qiblah [while praying], and eat our slaughtered animals, their life and wealth we shall hold sacred except if they commit some violation. (Nasa’i:No. 3966)
The onslaught launched by the first Caliph Abu Bakr (rta) against those who had desisted to pay Zakah in his times should also be understood in this perspective. Since, according to Islam, a person who refuses to pay Zakah does not legally remain a Muslim, those who had evaded Zakah from among the Idolaters had actually reverted to their state of disbelief. About them the directive was either to accept faith or face death. So, the Caliph Abu Bakr (rta) was merely administering the punishment of death upon them.
Consequently, apart from the Idolaters of Arabia of the Prophet’s times, it has no bearing upon any other person or nation.15
2. Waging War against Non-Muslims
Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah16.
The following verses are generally presented in support of this view:
فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (9 :5)
Slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and everywhere lie in ambush for them. But if they repent from their wrong beliefs and establish regular prayers and pay Zakah, then spare their lives. God is Oft-Forgiving and Ever Merciful. (9:5)
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنْ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ (9 :29)
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah after being subdued and live a life of submission. (9:29)
It has been shown in the previous sections that these verses and other verses of similar meaning specifically pertain to the polytheists, the Jews and the Christians of the Prophet Muhammad’s times. They had deliberately denied the message of Muhammad (sws) and were as a result given this punishment. Today, after the termination of the institution of Wahi (revelation), it cannot be known whether people are knowingly denying his messengerhood or not; therefore, no action can be taken against them. Muslims must continue to develop friendly relations with them and cordially invite them to Islam without threatening their existence or authority.
After Muhammad (sws), his authorized Companions (rta) carried on the mission against the major political powers of their times. This onslaught, it has been discussed earlier, was specific to their status as witnesses to the truth, and their endeavour was basically a manifestation of a divine scheme. Consequently, the age old debate about whether Islam was spread through the sword or not should also be understood in this perspective. The Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) in their collective capacity were only enforcing the implication of their status as witnesses to the religion of the truth. In reality, they were not spreading Islam; they were punishing people who had deliberately denied the truth.
Consequently, after them, as has been stated earlier, Muslims have no right to subdue nations and countries in the name of Islam or impose Jizyah upon them.
3. The Dhimmi Status of Non-Muslim Minorities
It is held by Muslim authorities that the non Muslim citizens of an Islamic state are of two categories17 regarding their citizenship in a state:
(i) Dhimmis, viz. those who have come under an Islamic State on account of being subdued in a battle.
(ii) Musta’mins, viz. non-Muslim residents of Daru’l-Harb who temporarily reside in Daru’l-Islam.
Since subduing non-Muslims by force is no longer permitted today, Dhimmis and Musta’mins are categories of non-Muslims specific to the age of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta). The directives of Fiqh related to Dhimmis and Musta’mins consequently cannot be related to the non-Muslims of today.
The Non-Muslim minorities of today living in Muslim countries can only be classified as Mu‘ahids (citizenship by contract)18. Keeping in view the general welfare of the state, through mutual consent, any contract can be made with non-Muslims of today regarding their rights. As such, all dealings with them should be according to the terms of the treaty concluded with them.19
4. Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims
On the basis of the following verses of the Qur’an, some Muslim scholars20 are of the view that Muslims should never make friends with non-Muslims; in fact, they should show hostility and venom towards them:
لَا يَتَّخِذْ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (3:28)
Believers should not make friends with the Kuffar against the interest of the believers. (3:28)
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا (4 :144)
O believers do not make friends with the Kuffar against the interest of the believers. Do you wish to offer God an open argument against yourselves? (4:144)
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاءَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ (5 :51)
Believers take not these Jews and the Christians for your friends. They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you who turns to them [for friendship] is of them. (5:51)
If the third verse is understood in the light of the first two, it is evident from the first two verses that the actual word used for the Jews and Christians is ‘Kuffar’. Consequently, owing to reasons discussed earlier, these verses cannot be related in any sense to the non-Muslims of today.
5. The Superiority of Muslim Blood
The following Hadith is presented as evidence to support the view that a Muslim will not be killed if he is guilty of killing a non-Muslim21 whereas the reverse will be carried out:
لَا يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ (ابو داؤد: رقم 4506)
No Muslim will be killed in Qisas of a Kafir. (Abu Da’ud: No. 4506)
It is evident from another text of this that here the word Kafir signifies an Idolater:
لَا يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِمُشْرِكٍ (دارمى: رقم 2356)
No Muslim will be killed in Qisas of an Idolater. (Darmi: No. 2356)
Here again it is to be noted that after Muhammad’s migration to Madinah, the Idolaters had lost their right to live after having deliberately denied him. As a result, this H~adith and other A%h~adith of similar meaning are solely related to the Idolaters of the Prophet’s times.22 This directive has no bearing on the non-Muslims of today.
Consequently, today if a Muslim is guilty of murdering a non-Muslim, he shall certainly be sent to the gallows if he is not forgiven by the family of the slain.
6. Greeting Non-Muslims in an Inferior Way
Some Muslim scholars hold that non-Muslims should not be greeted in the ceremonial way by saying Assalamu ‘alaykum (peace be to you)23. It is argued that non-Muslims do not deserve this prayer. The following H~adith is presented in support of this view:
قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا سَلَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ (بخارى: رقم 6288)
The Prophet (sws) said: ‘When the People of the Book greet you, reply them by saying wa alaykum’. Bukhari: No. 6288)
If all the texts of this H~adith are collected and analyzed, what comes to light is the fact that some among the People of the Book of the Prophet’s times used to mischievously twist their tongue in a swift manner and instead of saying the proper words of the salutation would say Assamu ‘alaykum (death be to you), which when quickly pronounced sounded very near to the original words of Assalamu ‘alaykum. It was to counter this devilish prank that the Muslims were directed to say: Wa ‘alaykum (to you too). It must be borne in mind that the Muslims were asked to give this particular reply only after the basic truths had been revealed in their ultimate form by Muhammad (sws) to the People of the Book after many years of propagation, and in spite of that they were not willing to submit to them. Had this ultimate stage not come, one can safely conclude that Muslims would never have been asked to reply with equally harsh words and would have continued to say the words: Assalamu ‘alaykum, the best of prayers and the best of wishes.
Today no Muslim preacher can ever be in a position to say that non-Muslims have deliberately denied the message of Muhammad (sws). Therefore, he must continue his efforts of propagation all his life, and remain a well-wisher of all the non-Muslims of the world, and continue to greet them with Assalamu ‘alaykum.
Consequently, the following H~adith (which contains a similar directive) also relates specifically to the People of the Book of the Prophet’s times. It has no bearing with the People of the Book of later times:
لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَلَا النَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِهِ (مسلم: رقم 1602)
Don’t initiate salutations to the Jews or the Christians, and force them to the narrowest of paths when one of them meets you on your way. (Muslim: No. 1602)
Even in the time of the Prophet (sws), before the non-Muslims of his times had become Kuffar by deliberately rejecting his message, they too were greeted as Muslims were. In this period, the Prophet (sws) himself said Assalamu ‘alaykum to the non-Muslims of his times. Uthamah Ibn Zayd reports:
أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَرَّ بِمَجْلِسٍ وَفِيهِ أَخْلَاطٌ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْيَهُودِ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَيْهِمْ (ترمذى: رقم 2702)
The Prophet (sws) once passed by a mixed gathering of Muslims and Jews and said Assalamu ‘alaykum to them. (Tirmadhi: No. 2702)
7. Non-Muslims to be Necessarily Doomed in the Hereafter
It is generally held that all non-Muslims will necessarily go to Hell. Verses like the following usually form the basis of this view:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَـابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِى نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَـالِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَوْلَـئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ (98 :6)
The disbelievers among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] and the Idolaters shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98:6)24
Once again, it must be appreciated that these verses speak of the Jews and Christians and the Idolaters of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sws) times, who had deliberately denied the message of Muhammad (sws). As far as the non-Muslims of later times are concerned, they will meet this fate only if they also deny Messengerhood of Muhammad (sws) in spite of being convinced about its veracity.
8. Assassination of Non-Muslims
One of the arguments on the basis of which it is held that blasphemy is punishable by death is the assassination of certain non-Muslims of the Prophet’s times who had allegedly blasphemed against Allah and the Prophet (sws)25. If all these cases are analyzed, it comes to light that this conclusion is incorrect.
Once again we are faced with a situation in which the people assassinated are those who had already become worthy of punishment after the Prophet’s migration to Madinah. While most of them were given more time and respite to contemplate on the consequences of their denial, those among them who assumed the role of active adversaries and were spreading disorder and anarchy in the society were punished by death after they were repeatedly warned on their highly antagonizing behaviour.
These steps specifically relate to the adversaries of Muhammad (sws), who had stuck to their subversive activities and cannot be extended for general application.
9. Cursing Non-Muslims
The common Muslim thinks that he must curse non-Muslims and have an ill-intent for them. In this regard, a supplication called the Qunut-i-Nazilah in which the Almighty’s help is invoked to destroy and crush non-Muslims is at times read in the prayer.
Again it needs to be pointed out that cursing non-Muslims or expressing ill-intention towards them is only related to the Kuffar who no longer can be pin pointed. For this very reason, today, a Muslim preacher must continue his efforts of propagation all his life, and remain a well-wisher of all the non-Muslims of the world. So, as far as reading the Qunut-i-Nazilah is concerned, it was only Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) who had the prerogative to read it. Later Muslims do not have this right.
10. Prohibition of asking for Forgiveness for Non-Muslims
A common perception among Muslims is that the following verse of the Qur’an has stopped them from asking the Almighty for forgiveness of non-Muslims
مَا كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُوا لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ وَلَوْ كَانُوا أُوْلِي قُرْبَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ (9 :113)
It is not proper for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allah’s Forgiveness for the Mushrikun, even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire. (9:113)
Again, it needs to be appreciated, as the verse itself clarifies that the Idolaters of Arabia of the Prophet’s times were condemned to Hell because of their persistence in denying the truth in spite of being convinced about it. Today, since no one is in a position to ascertain this denial, this verse does not relate to non-Muslims of times after the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta).
11. Reward of Killing a Non-Muslim
On the basis of the following H~adith, it is contended that killing a Non-Muslim absolves the Muslim who kills him from the wrath of Hell:
لَا يَجْتَمِعُ كَافِرٌ وَقَاتِلُهُ فِي النَّارِ أَبَدًا (مسلم: رقم 1891)
A disbeliever and his killer will never be together in Hell. (Muslim: No. 1891)
In other words, what is construed from this H~adith is that a Muslim will be rewarded with Paradise if he kills a non-Muslim. Consequently, Imam Abu Da’ud, the celebrated Muslim scholar and compiler of H~adith has placed this H~adith in a chapter entitled: ‘ باب فى فضل من قتل كافرا’ (bab fi fad~li man qatala kafiran~: Chapter on the Reward of a Muslim who Kills a Kafir)26.
Again, it needs to be appreciated that these words relate to the Idolaters of the Prophet’s times who had lost their right to live after they had deliberately rejected the truth. These words are not related to later Muslims.
IV. Behavior of Muslim Minorities: Some Misconceptions
Muslim interaction with non-Muslims is more pronounced in countries where Muslims live as minorities. The aggression of the religious activists among them, besides factors mentioned and analyzed before27, hinges on some other perceptions as well. Some of the important ones are:
a. Muslims are a chosen race of God, and therefore only they have the right to rule.
b. The struggle to achieve the supremacy of Islam is a religious requirement of every Muslim. Therefore, if Muslims are living as minorities in some non-Muslim country they must strive to achieve this by whatever means they can.
c. Since Islam is not in conformity with democracy, so instead of democratically changing a non-Muslim government or an un-Islamic Muslim government, militant means can be resorted to.
d. Jihad is the solution to all the woes Muslims are facing today.
In the opinion of this writer, all these perceptions are unfounded and based on misinterpretation of certain verses of the Qur’an.
All these issues shall now be addressed:
a. Muslims are the Best Nation
The following verse is contended to be the basis of this ‘self-righteousness’:
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ (3 :110)
You are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and truly believe in God. (3:110)
It is to be appreciated that this verse specifically pertains to the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) who bore witness to the religion of truth before certain non-Muslim nations of their times. It has already been explained before that the Almighty had chosen them for this task:
هُوَ اجْتَبَـكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكمْ فِى الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّـكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِى هَـذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيداً عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ (22 :78)
He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this [Qur’an]: [He chose you so that] the Rasul may be a witness [to this religion] before you, and you be witnesses to this religion before non-Muslims. (22:78)
The following verse also mentions their obligation:
وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَـكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا (2 :143)
Thus have We made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [to this religion] before the nations, and the Rasul be such a witness before you. (2:143)
The context of 3:110 must be understood in the light of 2:143 and 22:78. The reason why the Companions (rta) have been called the ‘Best Community’ in 3:110 is that after Muhammad (sws) himself had borne witness to the religion of truth before them, the truth had manifested itself in their collectivity. Since this testimony by Muhammad (sws) was confined to them and not to later Muslims, the title ‘Best Community’ is specifically meant for the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) and does not relate to other Muslims.
b. Struggle for Islamic Supremacy
It is held by some Muslim scholars of contemporary times that it is the religious obligation of Muslims to strive for the supremacy of Islam. If a Muslim country is not following Islam, Muslims must organize an effort to topple its rulers and enforce Islam. An obvious corollary of this view point is that if they are living as minorities in some non-Muslim country, here also they should strive to achieve the supremacy of Islam. They term this struggle an ‘Islamic Revolution’ and present the following verse in support of this view:28
هُوَ الَّذِى أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ (61 :9)
It is He Who has sent his Rasul with Guidance and the Religion of Truth that he may proclaim it over all religions, even though the Idolaters may detest [this]. (61:9)
On the basis of the phrase ‘all religions’, it is understood that the followers of Islam must struggle for its dominance in their respective countries and territories.
An analysis of the context of this verse shows that it also belongs to the class of directives that relate to the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta). It is to be noted that al-Mushrikin (the Idolaters) is used in this verse. The Qur’an uses this word specifically for the Idolaters of Arabia of the Prophet’s times. As a result, ‘all the religions’ in the conjugate clause can only mean all the religions of Arabia at that time.29 Therefore, the verse has no bearing on Muslims after the times of the Prophet Muhammad (sws).
It has already been shown in an earlier section that the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) were promised sovereignty in the land of Arabia after the Idolaters of Arabia had knowingly denied the message of Muhammad (sws).
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمْ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ (24 :55)
God has promised, to those among you who professed belief and did righteous deeds that He will, of a surety grant them political authority in this land as He granted it to those before them; that he will establish their religion – the one which He has chosen for them. (24:55)
Consequently, striving to achieve the political supremacy of Islam is no religious obligation of a Muslim. The verses from which this obligation has been construed specifically relate to Muhammad and his Companions (rta).30
c. Islam and Democracy
A strong perception that prevails among quite a number of Muslims is that Islam and democracy are at poles with each other. They contend that in a democracy, laws are made by the people and in this regard the ambit of law making is infinite. On the other hand, they maintain, that Muslims are bound to follow certain Divine laws and not make laws by themselves. Consequently, there is no compatibility between the two.
In this regard, it needs to be appreciated that there are two basic aspects of democracy:
1. The process of electing representatives of the people to run the country.
2. The scope of legislation done in the parliament of a country by the elected representatives.
The first aspect is in complete harmony with the political law of Islam as mentioned in the Qur’an:
وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ (42 :38)
The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual consultation. (42:38)
Keeping in view linguistic considerations, it is evident that a consensus or majority opinion of the Muslims can in no way be overruled. The Qur’an has not said: ‘The believers are consulted in their affairs’; it has, on the contrary, declared: ‘Their affairs of state are run by their mutual consultation’. The style and pattern of the verse demands that an Islamic government should be established through the consultation of the believers, continue to exist on this basis and should cease to exist without it. It should conduct its affairs, in all cases, on the basis of a consensus or majority opinion of the believers.
As far as the second aspect is concerned, Islam imposes a broad restriction on it. The scope of legislation must never exceed the directives of the Qur’an and Sunnah. In the words of Ghamidi:
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا (59:4)
Obey God and the Prophet and those of you who are in authority, and if you disagree among yourselves in any matter, refer it to God and the Prophet, if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and more seemly as regards the consequences. (4:59)
The above quoted directive was given to the Muslims when the Qur’an was being revealed and the Prophet (sws) himself was present among them. Consequently, they had the opportunity to refer back all their disagreements to the Prophet (sws). Obviously, since the authority of Allah and His Prophet (sws) are eternal, therefore in all affairs in which an eternal directive has been given by them it is incumbent upon those in authority whether they are the rulers or members of the parliament to forever submit to them. Their orders and directives can only be obeyed after obeying Allah and his Prophet (sws), and if they do not overrule or exceed the limits adjudicated by these authorities. Therefore, in an Islamic State no law can be enacted contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah or one which does not take into consideration the guidance provided by them. The believers indeed have a right to disagree with those in authority, but they can have no disagreement with Allah and His Prophet (sws). In fact, if such a situation arises even with those in authority, the decision must be made in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah.31
It can be said that with the above quoted qualification, the political system of Islam resembles democracy in its essence.
Muslims must therefore adopt democratic means to bring a change in the society they are living in. They must also remember that as citizens of non-Muslim countries they are bound in contract with that country. They must follow the laws of the country -- whose citizens they have become by their own free choice -- in letter and in spirit. Abiding by laws is their religious duty. Moreover, if they feel that it is not possible for them to practice their religion because of some hindrance created by a law or ruling of that country, even then they should not disobey the law and cause any disruption. The correct attitude in such a case would be to migrate from that country.
d. Jihad32
For many Muslims Jihad is the answer to all their woes. Taking up arms and destroying the enemy is the solution to the injustices they are suffering. In this regard, guerrilla warfare, hidden attacks, clandestine offensives on an enemy are considered part of Jihad by these activists.
In the opinion of this writer, Jihad has unfortunately become one of the most misunderstood directive of Islam. Here, in this section two of its important aspects shall be elaborated upon:
1. The Authority to wage Jihad
2. The Sole Grounds for Jihad
1. The Authority to Wage Jihad
Both the Qur’an and the established practice of the Prophets of Allah explicitly say thatJihad can only be waged by a state. No group of people has been given the authority to take up arms, because individual groups if given this license will create great disorder and destruction by fighting among themselves once they overcome the enemy. A study of the Qur’an reveals that the Makkan Surahs do not contain any directive of Jihad for the simple reason that in Makkah the Muslims did not have their own state. One must remember that Islam does not advocate ‘the law of the jungle’. It is a religion in which both human life and the way it is taken, hold great sanctity. Islam does not give us any right to take life unless certain conditions are fulfilled. So, it was not until an Islamic state was established in Madinah that the Qur’an gave the Muslims permission to take up arms against the onslaught mounted by the Quraysh:
أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَقُولُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ(22 :39-40)
To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they have been oppressed and verily Allah is Most Powerful to help them. [They] are those who have been expelled from their homes without any basis, only because they said: Our Lord is Allah. (22:39-40)
Consequently, the Prophet (sws) never retaliated in Makkah to the inhuman treatment which was given to him as well as to some of his Companions (rta). Muslims must remember the torment suffered by the Prophet (sws) particularly at Ta’if. Bilal (rta) was put through the gravest of tortures. The limbs of Ammar Ibn Yasir (rta) were torn apart by strong camels. In spite of this reign of terror let lose by the Quraysh, the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) never retaliated with force even though they could have easily done so. The Prophet (sws) preferred to suffer and be persecuted than to counter attack his enemies, since Muslims at that stage had not fulfilled this all important pre-requisite of Jihad: establishment of a state.
Similarly, the earlier Prophets were not allowed by the Almighty to wage war unless they had established their political authority in an independent piece of land. For instance, the Prophet Moses (sws), as is evident from the Qur’an, was directed to wage war only after he had fulfilled this condition. Since the Prophet Jesus (sws) and his Companions (rta) were not able to gain political authority in a piece of land, they never launched an armed struggle.
Consequently, there is a consensus among all authorities of Islam that only an Islamic State has the authority to wage Jihad. No group, party or organization has the authority to lift arms. People who undertake such activities disobey the religion they follow. Without state authority Jihad is no more than a terrorist activity. Referring to this pre-requisite of state authority, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
وَإِنَّمَا الْإِمَامُ جُنَّةٌ يُقَاتَلُ مِنْ وَرَائِهِ وَيُتَّقَى بِهِ (بخارى: رقم 2957)
A Muslim ruler is the shield [of his people]. A war can only be waged under him and people should seek his shelter [in war]. (Bukhari:No. 2957)
This condition is so explicit and categorical that all the scholars of this Ummah unanimously uphold it. Sayyid Sabiq,while referring to this consensus, writes:
من الفروض الكفائية ما يشترط فيه الحاكم مثل: الجهاد وإقامة الحدود.
Among Kafayah obligations, there is a category for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihad and administration of punishments.33
‘Uthmani,a Hanafite jurist writes:
ولا يخفى أن الأمير الذي يجب الجهاد معه كما صرح به حديث مكحول إنما هو من كان مسلما ثبتت له الإمارة بالتقليد إما باستخلاف الخليفة إياه كما نقل أبو بكر رضي الله عنه ’ وإما ببيعة من العلماء أو جماعة من أهل الرأي والتدبير …قلت : فلو بايع العلماء أو جماعة من المسلمين رجلا لا يقدر على سد الثغور وحماية البيضة وجر العساكر و تنفيذ الأحكام بشوكته و بأسه ولا على إنصاف المظلوم من الظالم بقدرته وسطوته لا يكون ذلك أميرا ولا إماما ’ وإنما هو بمنـزلة الحكم ومبايعة الناس له منـزلة التحكيم ولا يجدي تسميته إماما أو أميرا في القراطيس وأفواه الناس فإن مدار الإمارة والإمامة على القوة والقدرة دون التسمية والشهرة فقط ’ فلا يجب على عامة المسلمين مبايعته ولا إطاعة أحكامه ’ولا الجهاد معه
It is obvious from the Hadith narrated by Makhul34 that Jihad becomes obligatory with the ruler who is a Muslim and whose political authority has been established either through nomination by the previous ruler similar to how Abu Bakr transferred the reins [of his Khilafah to ‘Umar] or through pledging of allegiance by the ulema or a group of the elite …in my opinion, if the oath of allegiance is pledged by ulema or by a group of the elite to a person who is not able to guard the frontiers and defend honour [of the people] organize armies or implement his directives by political force neither is he able to provide justice to the oppressed by exercising force and power, then such a person cannot be called ‘Amir’ (leader) or ‘Imam’ (ruler). He, at best, is an arbitrator and the oath of allegiance is at best of the nature of arbitration and it is not at all proper to call him ‘Amir’ (leader) or a ‘Imam’ (ruler) in any [official] documents nor should the people address him by these designations. The reason for this is that the basis of leadership and rulership is power and authority and it does not hinge only upon the fact that he gets famous by this name. It is not imperative for the citizens to pledge allegiance to him or obey his directives and no Jihad can be waged alongside him.35
Ibn Qudamah, a Hanbalite jurist, writes:
وأمر الجهاد موكول إلى الإمام واجتهاده ويلزم الرعية طاعته فيها يراه من ذلك
The matter of Jihad rests with the ruler [of a state] and his Ijtihad. The opinion he forms in this regard must be obeyed by the citizens of his country.36
Mawardi, a Shafite authority, while enumerating the obligations of a Muslim ruler says:
والسادس: جهاد من عاند الإسلام
His sixth obligation is to conduct Jihad against those who show hostility against Islam…37
In the words of Imam Farahi:
In one’s own country, without migrating to an independent piece of land, Jihad is not allowed. The tale of Abraham (sws) and other verses pertaining to migration testify to this. The Prophet’s life (sws) also supports this view. The reason for this is that if Jihad is not waged by a person who holds political authority, it amounts to anarchy and disorder.38