Jihad: Some Important Questions
Queries
Waging War against the Disbelievers
Question: There is a Qur’anic verse (9:29)1 that states that we should fight the Ahl al-Kitab (the People of the Book) until they pay the Jizyah tax. Then we also have verses like 9:52 which state that the Idolaters should be put to death. The following H~adith also contains a similar directive:
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. (Muslim:No. 22)
So are we required to kill Idolaters and spare the People of the Book if they pay Jizyah?
Answer: Neither of these inferences is correct. Since these verses and the Hadith you have quoted have a specific context and background, I’ll try to explain this context, which, hopefully, will bring out the true purport of these verses:
It is evident from the Qur’an3 that the basic truths for which man shall be held accountable on the Day of Judgement are:
1. Belief in the One and Only God.
2. Belief that a person shall be held accountable on the Day of Judgement.
3. Belief that this accountability shall be based on the deeds a person does in this world.
The Almighty selects and sends certain personalities called Messengers (Rusul) to elucidate and explain these basic truths to their respective people. With His special help and assistance, they remove misconceptions which may surround these concepts and vehemently say that if people do not accept these truths they shall be doomed in this world and in the Hereafter too. People who deliberately deny these truths are punished in various degrees in this world so that this whole episode can become an argument for the reward and punishment that is going to take place on similar grounds in the Hereafter. In the language of the Qur’an, this process of delineating the truth in its ultimate extent so that no one is left with an excuse to deny it is called shahadah ‘ala al-nas (bearing witness to the truth before other people) and those who establish it are called shuhada (witnesses to the truth).
According to the Qur’an, Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) were conferred this status by the Almighty:
وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا (143:2)
And similarly, O Companions of the Prophet! We have made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [of this religion] before [other] nations, and the Rasul be such a witness before you. (2:143)4
So Muhammad (sws), like the previous Messengers, explained these truths in their ultimate form through the special help of the Almighty. When it became evident that his addressees were deliberately denying him, they were punished in varying degrees to prove to mankind for the last time that a similar court of justice shall be set up on the Day of Judgement, and that the reward and punishment given by the Almighty through His Prophets (sws) to their addressees in this world would be given in the Hereafter to all the people who deny such basic truths. The Idolaters of Arabia were given the options of accepting faith or death and the People of the Book were given the options of accepting faith or remaining subservient by paying Jizyah, a tax imposed on them. This difference seems to stem from the fact that the Idolaters subscribed to polytheism even after being convinced about its baselessness, while the People of the Book were basically monotheistic though were involved in certain polytheistic practices. We know from the Qur’an that polytheism is something which the Almighty will never forgive simply because those who associate partners with Him have no divine sanction for this:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ افْتَرَى إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا(48:4)
God never forgives those guilty of polytheism though he may forgive other sins to who He pleases. Those whom commit polytheism devise a heinous sin. (4:48)
It also needs to be appreciated that it is the Almighty who actually punished people who knowingly denied the truth as revealed by His Messengers. His Messengers and their Companions in this exercise were no more than agents of His retribution. The Qur’an asserts:
قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمْ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ (14:9)
Fight them [O Believers!] and God will punish them with your hands and humiliate them. (9:14)
فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ (17:8)
It is not you [O believers] who slew them; it was [ in fact] Allah [who slew] them. (8:17)
After Muhammad (sws), his immediate Companions (rta) in the background of the shahadah established by him extended this shahadah through their collectivity to various other nations of the world. They subsequently waged war against these nations to punish them for their deliberate denial.
As far as the Hadith5 you have referred to is concerned, it must be understood in the light of 9:5. If understood thus, it relates to the Idolaters of Arabia who were to be put to death if they refused to accept Islam. Consequently, another text of this Hadith specifically mentions them by name:
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)
It is evident from this analysis that verses like 9:5 and 9:29 and A%hadith of similar meaning specifically relate to the age of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta). After their departure, no Muslim preacher can deliver the truth in its ultimate form and neither has he any means to know if his addressees are deliberately denying him. In other words, after them, no one can establish the shahadah.
Muslims of today must realize this difference and not insist on doing something which is the prerogative of only the Prophets of Allah and their companions. Therefore, today Muslims cannot wage war on the non-Muslims of the world to forcibly make them accept faith. They must keep on presenting Islam to them in a polite and humble manner.
Treatment of Prisoners of War
Question: What is the Islamic law regarding the prisoners which are caught in war? There are instances when Generals and senior army officers may be caught. There may be those among them who are guilty of genocide and other war crimes. Can they be put to death if they are captured in war?
Answer: According to the Qur’an, prisoners of war of an enemy with which peace has been concluded must be treated generously and set free at all costs – whether after accepting ransom or whether as a favour by just setting them free:
فَإِذا لَقِيتُمْ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا (4:47)
So, when you meet those who disbelieve [in the battlefield], strike off their heads. Then when you have shed their blood fully, bind them [as captives]. Thereafter, free them as a favour or free them with ransom till war lays down its weapons. (47:4)
Although these verses were revealed for the Ismaelites of the Prophet’s times, yet they present an eternal directive regarding prisoners of war.
Those among the prisoners who are guilty of war crimes must be given a fair trial and given any punishment on the basis of a court verdict. Without any such sanction, a state has no authority even to punish them let alone execute them.
The Sole Ground for Jihad
Question: What is the basis of launching Jihad against other countries? Are we required to fight them merely because they are non-Muslims or is there another reason for it?
Answer: As explained in a previous query6, fighting non-Muslims into subjugation was the prerogative of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) only. It was actually a form of divine punishment meted out to people who had deliberately denied the truth. After their departure, according to the Qur’an, the only legitimate reason for an Islamic state to undertake Jihad is to curb oppression and persecution in some other state whether Muslim or Non-Muslim. The Qur’an says:
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنْ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ نَصِيرًا(75:4)
And why is it that you not fight in the cause of God and for the cause of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed – men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from unto You one who will protect and raise for us from unto You one who will help!’ (4:75)
In other words, to fight for the defence of the weak and the oppressed is something which the Qur’an upholds as the only valid reason for an Islamic state to wage war. Whether a particular people are oppressed and subjected to persecution and injustice is something which the elected representatives of the Muslims must themselves decide keeping in view the data they have.
Also, countries that have signed the UN charter are bound in a no war pact with all the member nations. So if ever a situation comes when they have to wage Jihad, they must first openly annul this pact, and of course be ready to face its consequences as well.
Belligerence of Muslim Minorities
Question: I am living in the US for the last two decades. I want to know the rights and duties Islam imposes on me. What should I do if I am asked by the government to do something that is against Islam? Also am I not required by Islam to strive and wage Jihad if required to establish an Islamic state wherever I live? I have been told that this is my religious obligation.
Answer: Muslims like you who have settled in non-Muslim countries are bound in a contract of citizenship. They must always honour this contract while living in such areas. They should respect the laws and live peacefully. They are bound by Islam to abide by the terms and conditions of any contract they make and they must never violate them in the slightest way. Such violations according to Islam are totally forbidden and, in fact, amount to a grave transgression. The Qur’an says:
وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا(34:17)
And keep [your] covenants; because indeed [on the Day of Judgement] you will be held accountable for them. (17:34)
Consequently, you must never break the laws of the country you live in and if a situation comes when, owing to some law, you are not able to follow a directive of your religion which seems imperative to you, then you should first of all bring the matter in the notice of the authorities. If it is not resolved, then instead of violating the law or creating nuisance you should migrate from the US.
As far as the question of striving to establish an Islamic state is concerned, let me tell you that you as a Muslim are not required by your religion to fulfill any such obligation. Some religious scholars do present the example of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and say that since he had established an Islamic state in Arabia, Muslims, wherever they are, should follow his example. I am afraid that neither did the Prophet (sws) ever undertake the task of establishing an Islamic state nor was he ever directed by the Almighty to do so. The truth of the matter is that it is the Almighty Who according to His established practice regarding His Messengers took matters in His own hand in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and bestowed him and his Companions (sws) the supremacy of Arabia.
Scholars who are of the opinion that Muhammad (sws) strove to establish an Islamic state in Arabia typically present the following verse in support of their view:
هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ(9:61)
It is He Who has sent his Messenger [–Muhammad–] 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 belongs to the class of directives that relate to the established practice of the Almighty regarding His Messengers (Rusul)according to which a Messenger (Rasul)always triumphs over his nation:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُحَادُّونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ فِي الأَذَلِّينَ كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ(58: 20-1)
Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messengerare bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘I and My Messengersshall always prevail’. Indeed, Allah is Mighty and Powerful. (58:20-1)
Muhammad (sws) was also informed that he would triumph over his nation. He and his Companions (rta) were told that they would have to fight the Idolaters of Arabia until the supremacy of Islam was achieved therein and that these Idolaters should be informed that if they did not desist from their evil ways they too would meet a fate no different from those of the other nations who denied their Messengers:
قُلْ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ يَنتَهُوا يُغْفَرْ لَهُمْ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ وَإِنْ يَعُودُوا فَقَدْ مَضَتْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ (8: 38-40)
Say to the Disbelievers that if they now desist [from disbelief] their past would be forgiven; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already [a warning for them]. And fight against them until there is no more persecution and there prevails the religion of God. (8:38-40)
Consequently, it is to be noted that the word ‘al-Mushrikun’ (the Idolaters) is used in 61:9 quoted above. 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. So, the verse has no bearing on Muslims after the times of the Prophet (sws).
Therefore, striving to achieve the political supremacy of Islam is no religious obligation of a Muslim, let alone waging Jihad to achieve this supremacy. The verses from which this obligation has been construed specifically relate to the Prophet Muhammad (sws).
Serving in the Army of a Non-Muslim Country
Question: I am serving in the British Armed Forces. Recently, I have become a practicing Muslim. My concern is about the legality of my job from the Islamic point of view. Also, as a worst case scenario, I would like to know the duties Islam imposes on me in case Britain some day decides to attack a Muslim country. Would I be required to resign at that time? Conversely, if a Muslim country attacks Britain, what should I do?
Answer: In principle, you can serve in the army of any country whether Muslim or non-Muslim if you are freely able to practice your religion. Such a job is perfectly legal from the Islamic point of view.
In the extreme situation you have mentioned, the following points should help you in taking a decision:
1. If you are bound in a contract with your employer to perform certain duties in case of war, you must honour them to the best of your ability.
2. According to the Qur’an, there is only one valid reason for a Muslim to wage Jihad today under the command of some state: The objective of the whole campaign should be to curb oppression and injustice perpetrated by the enemy country. Injustice and oppression deserve to be uprooted whether they are perpetrated by Muslims or by non-Muslims. So if this is the case, you can participate in the war in whatever capacity you have been appointed.
3. If you think that Britain has some other objective in mind while attacking a country, then of course you are required by your religion not to take part in such a war – even if this implies that you have to suffer losses like penalties or even being dismissed from your job.
4. If a Muslim country attacks Britain, the parameter you have to analyze is identical. If it is undertaking this exercise because Britain is guilty of oppression and injustice, then you should not fight for Britain. If this is not the case and the warring Muslim country has some other objective to fulfill you can participate fully in defending the frontiers of Britain.
Suicide Bombers
Question: To what extent is suicide bombing allowed by Islam? Is not suicide, whatever the reason maybe, prohibited in Islam? Is killing people in market places including women, children and old people through suicide permitted in Islam? If yes, then to what extent. We have recently seen such events in Kashmir and now very much in Palestine.
Answer: Suicide bombing cannot be objected to provided the following conditions are fulfilled.
1. It is carried out by a state against an enemy against which war has been openly declared.
2. It does not target civilians of the enemy country.
Consequently, individuals and groups who carry out this activity against innocent civilians, as seems to be the case in Kashmir and Palestine, are doing something which is totally prohibited. No individual or group has been given the right to take human life. Only a state has this authority. And a state too has this authority over the combatants of an enemy against which war has been openly declared. Clandestine suicidal attacks against a country with which a pact has been made amounts to a breach of law which is a severe crime in the eyes of Islam. Similarly, civilians and innocent citizens must be protected at all costs if a state has to undertake such an activity. Muslims who kill innocent civilians must know that they are violating the directives of Islam and committing a crime against humanity. The Qur’an calls the killing of an individual in this manner as tantamount to killing the whole mankind:
مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ (32:5)
He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or being guilty of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he had killed all mankind. (5:32)
As far as the legitimacy of committing suicide bombings if the above mentioned conditions are fulfilled is concerned, let us first see why suicide is prohibited in Islam and whether such bombings can be termed as suicide.
It must be appreciated that the basic reason for which suicide is prohibited in Islam is that it amounts to rejecting the scheme of the Almightyaccording to which He has created man to test him through good and evil circumstances7. One should also remember that the Almighty has specifically mentioned in the Qur’an that He never burdens a person with a responsibility he cannot bear8. So, however tough be the circumstances, a person should boldly face them knowing that they have been ordained for Him by the Almighty, and that he has also been equipped with the required resilience by the Almighty to face them.
If the above bases are true, then suicide bombings cannot bear the label of prohibition since a person is not committing suicide out of depression and desperation by rejecting the scheme of the Almighty. He is actually sacrificing his life to root out oppression and injustice on this earth – the only reason for which today a Muslim can wage Jihad – which surely is a noble cause.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Question: What does Islam says about nuclear and atomic warfare? I am asking this question because some Muslim countries have such weapons. Also can we keep such weapons as deterrents?
Answer: According to the war ethics thatIslam upholds a Muslim state should wage war against the combatants among the enemy only. They have no right to target innocent civilians during a war. Consequently, weapons which cause mass destruction must never be used because they result in the death of civilians.
Keeping such weapons as deterrents should also be avoided because as part of wartime ethics, it should be a declared policy of Muslim states that come what may, they would never use weapons which kill civilians.
Is Jihad only for Self-Defence?
Question: There are some scholars who believe that all wars fought by the Prophet of Islam were defensive. Muhammad (sws) never carried out unprovoked attacks. Please comment.
Answer: I am afraid that this is not true. There are indeed scholars who hold this view Sir Thomas Arnold is one prominent authority who holds this view. He writes:
There are no passages to be found in the Qur’an that in any way enjoin forcible conversion, and many that on the contrary limit propagandist efforts to preaching and persuasion. It has further been maintained that no passage in the Qur’an authorizes unprovoked attacks on unbelievers, and that, in accordance with such teaching, all the wars of Muhammad were defensive.9
In my opinion, this view point has emerged because of a misunderstanding of certain verses of the Qur’an. Following is a typical verse10 that is quoted in support of this stance:11
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا (190:2)
Fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds. (2:190)
The verse apparently says that Muslims should only fight their enemy when the enemy initiates the attack. However, if the context of the verse is kept in consideration, this seems to be an erroneous interpretation. The verse is not talking about war in general. It is talking about war in the vicinity of the Baytullah and that too in the forbidden months. The succeeding verses read:
وَلَا تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِنْ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ (192:2)
But do not initiate war with them near the Baytullahunless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. (2:192)
الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنْ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ(194:2)
A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]. (2:194)
So, in other words, verses like 2:190 have a specific context and do not relate to Jihad waged in general.
Moreover, the propounders of the view that Jihad is only for self-defence must reflect on other verses of the Qur’an which explicitly ask the Muslims to wage offensive war. Perhaps the most explicit of these verses are 4:75 and 9:29.
When does Jihad Become Obligatory?
Question: What are the circumstances that make Jihad obligatory? What is the punishment for not taking part in Jihad when it has become obligatory?
Answer: The first part of your question can have two aspects:
i. When does Jihadbecome obligatory on a state?
ii. When does Jihadbecome obligatory on an individual?
As far as the first aspect is concerned, the answer is that Jihadbecomes compulsory on a state if in the opinion of its rulers it has the military and moral might to curb the oppression and injustice12 of the country against which Jihadis to be waged. This inference is based on the guidance provided by the Qur’an to the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta). They were told that if they possessed a certain level of military strength (ie number of combatants), it was imperative upon them to wage Jihad. This principle is spelled out in the following verses:
يَاأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضْ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ إِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ وَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ مِائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا مِنْ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّهُ عَنكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا فَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ مِائَةٌ صَابِرَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ وَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ(8: 65-66)
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the Disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. [From] now, God has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is now weakness amongst you: But [ever so], if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred, and if a thousand, they will subdue two thousand, with the leave of God: for God is with those who patiently persevere. (8:65-6)
It is evident from these verses that the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) were required to fight if they were outnumbered by 1:10 and later by 1:2 because it was their inner strength – the strength of faith which would compensate for their numbers. However, since these ratios specifically pertained to the Companions (rta) whose level of faith one can only imagine, in later times the rulers must exercise their judgement in working out a ratio for themselves. What can be said with certainty is that Muslim to enemy ratio should be at least 1:2.
Of course, a natural pre-condition to waging Jihad is that all diplomatic level negotiations have failed.
As far as an individual is concerned, Jihad becomes compulsory upon him if both the following conditions are fulfilled:
i. The rulers give a call to each an every citizen of their country to participate in Jihad.13
ii. The individual himself is convinced that his rulers are waging war on the only legitimate basis on which war can now be waged: to uproot injustice and oppression perpetrated by a country. If a person is convinced that his country has some other objective in mind, he can of course refuse their call.
Now I come to the second part of your query:
A study of the Qur’an shows that there is no worldly punishment for either a state or an individual if they do not undertake Jihad when it becomes obligatory upon them. The reason for this is that the Qur’an does not mention any such punishment. It seems that it is the Almighty Himself Who directly punishes such negligence in this world or in the Hereafter.
Is Qital a lesser Jihad?
Question: There is a persistent notion among many Muslims that fighting in the battlefield is something very inferior to fighting againstone’s desires.While the former is termed as Jihad i Asghar (the lesser Jihad), the latter is called the Jihad i Akbar (the greater Jihad). Does this mean that we should be more anxious to take part in Jihad i Akbar?
Answer: First let me tell you that the terms Jihad i Akbar and Jihad i Asghar are supposedly attributed to the Prophet (sws). However, this attribution does not have a sound basis. The chain of narrators of this narrative is very weak. Authorities of Hadith like Ibn Hajr, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Bani have convincingly challenged the authenticity of this narrative14. So one can safely conclude that there is no such thing as a greater Jihad or a lesser one.
It needs to be appreciated that the word Jihad is used in the Qur’an to connote striving in the way of Allah. One particular form of such a struggle is that in which one might have to fight for Allah’s cause. This is also termed as ‘Qital’. In other words, striving in the way of Allah in whatever form one is able to in accordance with the needs that arise is what is required from a believer. Whether striving in His way in a particular form is more superior than some other one has not been indicated in any authentic source.
Jihadin the Bible
Question: What is the Biblical view on Jihad. Did the Prophet Moses (sws) and the Prophet Jesus (sws) wage Jihad in their times?
Answer: As far as theBible is concerned, while the Old Testament contains explicit directives on Jihad, the New Testament is devoid of them. The reason is that while the Prophet Moses (sws) was bestowed with political authority by the Almighty, the Prophet Jesus (sws) was not.
However, since the Bible we have today has been tampered with and is not available in its pure and un-interpolated form, it is necessary to interpret the directives of Jihadgiven in the Old Testament in the light of the Qur’an. If interpreted thus one finds a marked resemblance in these directives given by these two great scriptures.
We know from the Qur’anthat the Almighty punished certain nations in history because they were guilty of deliberately denying the truth15. One form of this punishment assumed the shape of waging Jihad against them by their respective Messenger. This form of punishment was meted out by the Almighty in case of the Prophet Moses (sws). He waged Jihad to punish people who were guilty of deliberately denying the truth. A study of the Old Testament shows that the Jihad he waged was of two forms. One form of Jihad was that nations who subscribed to polytheism were to be put to death in all cases, while another form was that some nations were spared in case they agreed to remain subservient.
The following verses depict the first form of Jihad:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)
The following verses depict the second form of Jihad:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, and children, the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Deuteronomy, 20:10-15)
Quite similarly, we determine from the Qur’an, on the basis of the Jihad waged by the Prophet (sws), that while the polytheists were put to death, the monotheists among them (ie the People of the Book) were allowed to live if they submitted to Islamic rule. If the second form of Jihad waged by Moses (rta) as stated in (Deuteronomy, 7:1-5) is interpreted in the light of the Qur’an, one can conclude that it must have been against those nations which basically subscribed to monotheism.
Consequently, the two books are very similar in this regard.
The comparison continues:
It is evident from the Qur’an (2:143) that just as the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) were conferred the status of Shuhada ‘ala al-Nas (witnesses to the truth before other peoples), the Israelites after Moses (sws), in their collective capacity were conferred this status. In the Old Testament, the areas of Canaan, on which the Israelites were to wage war after the Prophet Moses (sws) were divinely demarcated:
The Lord said to Moses, ‘Command the Israelites and say to them: When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance will have these boundaries: Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zinalong the border of Edom. On the east, your southern boundary will start form the end of the Salt Sea, cross south of Scorpion Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea. Your western boundary will be the coast of the Great Sea. This will be your boundary on the west. For your northern boundary, run a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor and from Mount Hor to Lebo Hamath. Then the boundary will go to Zedad, continue to Ziphron and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the north. For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea. This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.’ (Numbers, 34:1-12)
After Muhammad (sws), his immediate Companions (rta) continued his mission and punished certain other nations who were guilty of knowingly denying the truth. The area that came under this punishment was demarcated by the Prophet (sws) when he wrote letters to the heads of state of certain territories in this area.
Spreading Islam by the Sword
Question: In the early period of Islam, we find that the Islamic rule was extended by the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) to a large part of the world. They conquered Persia, Rome, Egypt and many other countries of their times. My question is that why did they impose Islam on these countries? Why were they not given the option of accepting Islam if they wanted to?
Answer: Indeed, it is generally held that the rise of Islam in the early period was due to a wave of ‘Arab Imperialism’ that shook the super powers of those times and forced them into submission. In an astounding series of conquests, country after country fell to the sword of Islam. It was not long before the Muslim empire stretched from the shores of the Mediterranean in the west to as far as Indonesia in the east.16
The fact that all these conquests took place is established history and hence cannot be denied in any way. However, the thesis that it was ‘Arab Imperialism’ that accounted for these conquests is something which cannot be condoned. While looking at the spread of Islam in the early period, one must resort to the basis which the Qur’an itself offers for these conquests:
It has already been explained in a previous query17 that those who are divinely invested with the status of shuhada ‘ala al-nas (witnesses to the truth before people) are ‘used’ and ‘employed’ by the Almighty to punish people who deny the truth in spite of being convinced about it. According to the Qur’an, Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) were invested with this status.
Consequently, the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) in their collective capacity were only enforcing the implication of their status as witnesses of the religion of the truth. Their conquests were not basically aimed at spreading Islam as such. Their basic objective was to subjugate and punish people who had deliberately denied the truth. Muhammad (sws) himself initiated their task by writing letters to eight heads of state and thereby demarcated the areas where the Companions (sws) could go. It was only these areas upon which the process of shahadah would get completed before the Companions (rta) would reach them.
However, after the departure of the Companions (rta) from this world, no one has the authority to subjugate people in the name of Islam. This is so because no one after them has been conferred the status of Shuhada (witness to the truth). Moreover, the conquests that took place after their departure by their followers must be viewed separately. Whether they were justified or not must be viewed in the light of the Qur’an.
Summing up, it can be said that it is erroneous to conclude that Islam was spread by the sword. The whole exercise of the Companions (rta) must be viewed as a specific practice of the Almighty according to which He punished people who deny the truth even though they are fully convinced about it.
Is the Qur’an a Manual of Jihad?
Question: As a non-Muslim who is very interested in studying Islam, I have gone through the Qur’an many times. During these readings, I have developed a particular notion about it and every time I finish it, this notion gets stronger and stronger. I find that it is a book which primarily motivates a believer to fight for Islam and kill and humiliate those who do not accept it. Seldom do I find a section of the Qur’an devoid of war. Those which are seem to threaten the non-believers of a dire doom if they do not give up their religion and embrace Islam. So my question is: Is the Qur’an a manual of Jihad for the believers?
Answer: You have made an interesting observation and I think that the answer to your question lies in having an awareness of the whole theme of the Qur’an.
Before a reference is made to this theme, some other things need to be appreciated:
In my humble opinion. the religious history of mankind can be divided in two distinct periods. In the first period, which occupies the major portion of this history, the Almighty directly interacted with the inhabitants of this earth by selecting certain personalities as His representatives. To them, He revealed His guidance for the benefit of mankind. They were deputed by Him to fully explain and elucidate the basic truths18. Although these truths are inherently known by a heedful person through the testimony of his conscience and intuition, the Merciful Allah supplemented this arrangement by appointing His representatives from among mankind to remind them of these truths. Over a period, which extends to several thousand years, numerous personalities were chosen for this purpose. In religious parlance, they are called Anbiya (Prophets). The last of these personalities was Muhammad (sws). With his demise in 632 AD, the institution of Nabuwwat (Prophethood) was terminated and this first period of history was brought to an end.
Today we are living in the second period of history, which is to extend until the end of this world. In this period, divine interaction through appointed representatives no longer takes place.
The first period of history has a certain feature which is wholly and solely specific to it. The Qur’an, a Book which belongs to this first period, mentions this feature. As per this feature, the judgement which is going to take place in the Hereafter is visually substantiated in this period during the lifetime of certain Anbiya(Prophets) who are designated as Rusul (Messengers) of Allah.. Those who deliberately deny the basic truths are punished in this world and promised a severer torment in the Hereafter and those who accept and profess faith are rewarded in this world and promised even greater reward in the Hereafter.
It was through Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) that the last time that this worldly judgement took place. The Qur’an is nothing but a record of this last judgement. The various phases of Muhammad’s preaching mission are discussed in detail in this book – which in fact is the real theme of the Qur’an. These phases culminate in the worldly retribution of Muhammad’s addressees.
If this background is kept in mind, the conclusion one may reach is that the Qur’an is not a manual of Jihad; rather it is a manual of Muhammad’s preaching mission which culminates in divine retribution of his addressees in this world.
Divine Right to Rule
Question: As a student of international relations, I feel that all over the Muslim world, there is a strong feeling that Muslims have a divine right to dominate and rule this world. All those who deprive them of this right are their enemies. Why is this?
Answer: You are very right in yourobservation. In my opinion there is one root cause of this Muslim behavior. Muslims believe that Islam is the final truth and therefore they have a divine right to rule in this world.
In my humble opinion, the first part of this premise is true; but the second is not: Islam may be the final truth, yet nowhere in the Qur’an do we find that only the final truth has the absolute right to rule.
What perhaps is the cause of this misconception is that the struggle of the Prophet (sws) of Islam and his Companions (rta) is viewed in a certain perspective. It is contended that they in their times established the political supremacy of Islam because it was the ultimate truth; therefore each and every Muslim must follow suit.
This as is explained in an earlier query is not the case19. The whole struggle of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) is related to an established practice of the Almighty regarding people who are divinely conferred the status of shuhada ‘ala al-nas(witnesses to the truth before people).