JIHAAD: A MISUNDERSTOOD DOCTRINE
Reflections
Nadir Aqueel Ansari
These days one often hears calls to raise arms from various quarters of our religious bureaucracy in the name of Jihaad. The target for Jihaad, however, varies from case to case depending upon who is making the call and with what motive. It ranges from Jihaad against the oppressive rule in Afghanistan to Jihaad against non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan. Jihaad (in the sense of Holy War) has become a key to all problems and every day the rising sun witnesses yet another application of this cliche. In this age, when most religious concepts have been distorted through abuse by fanatics, the distortion of the concept of Jihaad has gone almost unnoticed.
But the consequences of this transformation are manifest. They start from declaration of war against all infidels, pagans and non-Muslims. Usually the war cry is based on insufficient religious insight and a lack of appreciation of one's capabilities. Sermons are replete with the slogans of "Rise and Crush" being usually directed against the super powers of the world. The Indian Muslims are provoked to rebel; the Muslims in Russia are incited to revolt, and so on ! Here the foe is unmistakable and undisputed, because he is a Non-Muslim.
Then a step forward! Even the Muslim rulers are not spared for a plethora of reasons. There are countries where Jihaad is being pursued against rulers who are Muslims but are not ready to accept their demand to adopt a certain variant of theocracy as a form of government. In other countries, the rulers are targets of guerilla warfare because the government is not succumbing to the pressure of religious groups. A group will revolt against a Muslim rule because differences on minor "fight" (legal) issues remain unresolved. The incidence of taking over of the Khana Ka`aba in Mecca a few years ago is an example of such militancy in the name of Jihaad.
The abuse of this holy concept is stretched to the last limit when it is misused to justify armed struggle between two sects of Islam, between two political parties and even between two factions of students ! It is quite often that a group of students is using firearms against another under the pretext of Jihaad with a solemnity only paralleled by Muslim fighters during the Crusades of the middle ages. These Muslim youth commit cold blooded murders without any qualms of conscience because they have been convinced that in doing they would fulfil the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. A lot of bad blood exists in the colleges, universities, mosques, and madrassahs because of ruthless killings for the sake of the so called `Jihaad'. A significant number of celebrated religious scholars have faced the blade of this intolerance and terrorism because petty sectarian differences have allowed the use of arms under the licence of Jihaad. This situation calls for a re-examination of the doctrine of Jihaad as found in the Quran and Sunnah.
Jihaad in the sense of armed struggle is only allowed in the following circumstances:
1. A sovereign state can declare Jihaad to defend its frontiers when it is attacked or its integrity is threatened.
2. Jihaad can be declared by a sovereign Muslim state against a non-Muslim state guilty of persecuting its Muslim minority and not permitting them to retain their identity.
3. The third form of Jihaad is what was undertaken during the Rightly Guided Caliphate. This Jihaad requires the establishment of a Muslim state comprising all Ummah, observing all injunctions of the code of Islam and presenting before the world a benign welfare society. By doing this, the Ummah, in fact, discharges its duty of Shahaadat-i-Haq and, then expects the world to emulate it. When such a model glitters in the world of reality, and when in the words of the Prophet Jesus (sws) "The Kingdom of God" is at hand, truth becomes so manifest that no further validation or corroboration is required. It is presumed that other governments would follow it. It is accepted that individual non-Muslims may or may not convert to Islam but the right of non-Muslim rulers to oppress fellow human beings stands abolished. They are offered the following three options:
a) To accept Islam.
b) To abdicate peacefully and yield before the Caliphate and pay Jizya.
c) To get ready for war (Jihaad).
This type of Jihaad, however, has as its prerequisite the unification of Ummah under one rule and that too on the lines of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. Until this requirement is fulfilled, initiating Jihaad is out of place.
4. The fourth type of Jihaad is peculiar to the age of the Prophet (sws) of Allah. The Quran articulates it as an unerring pattern in the history of Prophethood that, unlike a Nabi, a Rasool is not sent only to preach and sermonize, but to decide the fate of the nation he addresses. He is not to be ridiculed, rejected or killed. `I and my Rusul will definitely be victorious', says Allah (58:21). So the advent of a Rasool amounts to setting up of a court for the nation in which the final judgment has to be passed. He warns the people that time is running out and that they should mend their ways. If the majority of the people accept faith, blessed are they. If they decline even after the long and painstaking work of the Rasool despite his unparalleled character and miracles, their fate is sealed and they have to face the wrath of Allah. This scourge may assume one of the Rasool following two dimensions:
a) If the Rasool gathers only a small following, he quietly leaves the place with his followers and the cursed nation is destroyed by flood, earthquakes, storms or other natural calamities. The nations of Noah, Shoaib, and Saleh (May peace be upon them) met this fate.
b) If the Rasool gathers a sufficiently large party of believers and is also able to obtain political power in an independent piece of land, the unbelievers do face the wrath of God but now the scourge appears clad in the swords of the believers and they are wiped out by the armed forces of the Rasool.
It is this fourth type of Jihaad that was waged during the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sws). As we know, all the Bani Ismail either accepted faith or were killed in the battlefield. But it is evident that this form of Jihaad was permissible only during the life time of the Prophet of God and citing this Jihaad as an example from the Prophet's age to justify the current war efforts would amount to willful distortion of both Islam and history.
So what are our so-called Mujahideen up to? Which of the above mentioned forms of Jihaad are they carrying on? It is clear that unless an armed effort is being declared by a sovereign Islamic State or by a Rasool of God, it does not qualify to be termed as Jihaad. Then what is the legal status of the armed activities of these groups?
Here, let me introduce another term of Islamic law Khurooj (rebellion). Rebellion against a government is allowed in Islam. But it is linked with a set of conditions. A rebellion can only be allowed when:
1. The ruler is non-Muslim or is Muslim who is guilty of explicit rejection of faith.
2. The rule is oppressive and it is not possible to change it through constitutional means.
3. The rebels enjoy the support of the majority of the nation and are united under an undisputed leader.
Even when this set of conditions is met, a rebellion does not become obligatory (fardh) but is at best permitted (mubah).
If we review the militant efforts going on around us in the name of Islam, we would discover that most of them do not qualify to be termed as either Jihaad or Khurooj. They are terrorism pure and simple, under the garb of `reformation' and Jihaad, only bring a bad name to Islam, and to add intolerance, hatred and blood to the world already groaning under various forms of narrow-mindedness and bigotry.