ABSTRACT
Islamic
religious militancy is a matter of great concern for the Muslim and the
non-Muslim world today. The analysis of the ideology of the militants reveals
that they find the legitimacy of their military activities in the ideal of the
establishment of an Islamic state to establish the universal rule of Islām, and
in the specific interpretations of some Qur’ānic verses, Aḥādīth of the Prophet ﷺ, and also from the
establishment of the Islamic state in Madīnah by the Prophet ﷺ, his military expeditions and those of his companions
against their opponents and from the treatment of our historians of the
individual military campaigns against the Muslim regimes of their times.
The
Muslim militants also fight against their Muslim governments on the grounds
that they are not the true Islamic governments. The militants do not bother to
kill the common Muslim masses, who vote and support such rulers. They take it
as collateral damage.
The
world naturally reacts to this cult, especially the west, being at the helm of
the world politics. Not only do the West tries to crush the Islamic militants, across
the world, but also, topple the Muslim democratic governments having any ideal
of an Islamic Khilāfah. This frustrates the peaceful political
activists and strengthens the military activists, further.
To end
this ongoing and mounting cult of religious militancy, it is necessary to
review the specific and traditional interpretations of the academic sources of
Islām: Qur’ān, Ḥadīth and Fiqh, regarding the legitimacy of militancy
in Islām. Secondly, to remove their misconceptions, it is necessary to engage
the militants in dialogue through a counter narrative, which the author tried
to present here.
Keywords: Peace, Jihād, Itimām
al-Ḥujjah, Islamic State, Blatant Kufr
The Holy Qur’ān declares the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ as the prophet of
peace and mercy for all the worlds:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً
لِّلْعَالَمِينَ [1]
And We have not sent you, [O Muḥammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.
And it is believed that Islām is the religion of
peace and harmony. But, now, a new narrative of a hardliner, militant Islām has
become the new introduction of Islām to the world. This is a new voice in
Islām, which claims its authority from Islamic academic sources and proclaims
to the world like divine vigilantes, اسلم تسلم ‘Accept Islām, you
will be safe, or else, you will be responsible for the consequences of your
refusal.’ This is the ideology, which believes that Islām has come to dominate
the rest of the un-Islamic world, so that:
وَكَلِمَةُ
اللَّـهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ [2]
While the word of Allāh- that is the highest.
Further:
هُوَ الَّذِي
أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ
كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ[3]
It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate
others with Allāh dislike it.
They believe that the Muslims are enjoined by Allāh
to keep fighting with the non-believers until their enemies be perished or
subdued and subjugated:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ
حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّـهِ [4]
And fight them until there is no Fitnah and
[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allāh.
They, with the complete satisfaction of mind and
heart, in a state of divine ecstasy, are ready to take the lives of others and
render their own lives, too, to achieve this supposed divine destination. This
phenomenon has so intensified in our time that it has become the primary
concern of the Muslim, as well as, of the non-Muslim world, to tackle with. The
indiscriminate militant activities of such private militant groups are causing
havoc with the lives and properties of the Muslim and the non-Muslim societies,
alike; and all this is being carried out in the name of Islām and the Prophet
of mercy and peace Muḥammad ﷺ.
It is true that militancy is not confined to the
present day Muslims only, the followers of other religions, too, practice
militancy, yet, the difference is, the militancy of the followers of other
religions, by and large, is an outcome of their own personal agendas and due to
their socio-political factors, but the militancy in the Muslim groups, by and
large, claims to be an outcome of the directives of their religion, i.e., it
has been taken from the Qur’ān, Sunnah and Fiqh. That is why, when a Christian,
Buddhists or Hindu, for example, practice militancy, the individuals are held
responsible, but when it comes to the Muslim militants, their religion is held
responsible, along with the individuals.
In this paper, the ideology of the militant Islām,
as presented by the present militant activists will be analyzed in the light of
their own arguments, which are supposed to get their legitimacy from the
academic sources of Islām. Also, we will see what role our historians had
played in the promotions of such ideals. Then, a counter narrative, according
to the understanding of the author of this paper, will be presented in the
light of the Qur’ān and Aḥādīth to cure and correct this ideology. The author
used the word, ‘Jihād’ as the holy war, in this paper.
We need to address some fundamental questions,
first. Does the Qur’ān and Sunnah really enjoin the Muslim to establish some Islamic
political system through militancy or through peaceful or democratic measures?
What is the stance of our Fiqh on this matter? What is the role of the Muslim
historian in establishing such ideologies and idealism in the Muslims, which
entice them to set to arms to establish an Islamic state by all means? Are we
in need to review our Fiqh and our attitude of history to see if there are some
mistakes or misconceptions standing in need of correction? Do we need a new
interpretation of the political ideology of Islām?
The fountainhead of this militant ideology of the
Muslim militant groups is that Islām is meant to rule the world. According to
them, the first man and the prophet, Adam, sent to the World, as a Khalīfah Allāh (Deputy, vicegerent
or trustee of Allāh). Many prophets established their states, for example, the
Prophet David (Da’ūd) and Solomon (Sulaymān). The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ
himself established an Islamic state in Madīnah. Not only, he
established a state, but he waged the holy wars against the non-Muslims. He
defeated the ‘Arabs and killed all those who refused to accept Islām, the
evidence, presented is that the Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said:
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»[5]
I have been ordained to keep fighting with the people until they bear
this witness that there is no god but Allāh and that Muḥammad ﷺ is the prophet of
Allāh and that they establish prayer, and pay Zakāh. When they will do all
this, they will save their lives and property from me, except for the right of
Islām and their accountability is the matter with Allāh.
Then his successors, the rightly guided Khulafā’,
extended these holy wars to Byzantine and Persians. First, they offered them to
accept Islām, if they declined it, then, they were asked to be subjugated and
pay the tax to the Islamic state in the name of Jizyah, and if both the
proposals were turned down, then, they were invited to fight and their sword would
decide the fate.
This is the ideal of the political Islām of the
present Islamic or the Muslim militancy. But they do not find such an ideal
political Islamic state in the present so-called Muslim states. They find that the Muslim rulers are not
going to embark upon holy wars against the whole non-Muslims states of the
world. So, having disappointed from their Muslim rulers, these ideologues, set
up their own private military groups and start their private Jihād, because, to
them, Jihād (the holy war) is a religious obligation, which needs to go on
incessantly till the Day of Judgment. This belief comes from a report of the
Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, which states:
«الجهاد ماض إلى يوم القيامة، مذ بعث الله محمدا صلى
الله عليه وسلم إلى آخر عصابة من المسلمين، لا ينقض ذلك جورجائر، ولا عدل عادل»
[6]
Jihād will last till the day of judgment, since
Allāh sent Muḥammad till the last group of the Muslims, no cruelty of any cruel or justice of a just will impede it.
To them, to ensure the continuity of Jihād, a state
power is required. Now, the scenario is, in the absence of such a desired ideal
state power, the militant groups are being established at the private level.
Their foremost aim is to achieve a state to reestablish Islamic Khilāfah, and, after the attainment
of good enough power to declare holy war against the non-Muslim world, one by
one, in the light of the following verse:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُم مِّنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةًوَاعْلَمُوا
أَنَّ اللَّـهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ[7]
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers
and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allāh is with the righteous
Their ultimate aim is to bring the non-Muslim world
under the fold of Islām, or to subjugate them under the rule of the Islamic
state.
One can imagine what can be the reaction of the
world to such an ideal of the militant Islām. They take it as another potential
force of Islamic imperialism in its very spirit. They feel threatened and find
the peace of the world at peril. Their reaction to such militants is naturally
hostile. The west is even more apprehensive about it. The western convert
Muslim, the renowned Islamic scholar, Muḥammad Asad (1900 to 1992), writes in
his famous book,
Islām at the Crossroads, that the western mind was
first introduced to Islām through the crusades. He writes,
“They (the wars
of the crusades) produced one of the deepest and most permanent impressions on
Europe’s mass psychology.”[8]
Further, he writes:
“It was the
Crusades, first and
foremost, that decided
the European attitude
towards Islām for
many centuries to come.”[9]
In the very psychology of the modern western mind, Islām is still a militant
religion. He writes,
“Without
indulging in undue exaggeration we can say that modern Europe was born out of
the spirit of the Crusades.[10]
So, the world powers, especially, the western powers, being at the helm of the
world’s politics, are more sensitive to such an ideology, which can challenge
their position. Therefore, not only they use all their resources to eliminate
such groups, but also, they do not allow the Muslim peaceful political
activists, whose ultimate agenda is to establish an Islamic State or Khīlāfah, to bring the
rest of the non-Muslim world under the fold of Islam or the rule of the Islamic
state. So much so, if these democratic Muslim activists ever succeed to win
election in their countries and come into power, the world powers topple their
governments, by hook or by crook. However, these negative measures from the
world powers are just adding fuel to fire, the peaceful activists feel
frustrated and incline to join the militant groups; the militant activists get
more convinced that peaceful struggle is of no avail, and Jihād or the militant
struggle is the only option left to them.
On the other hand, the world powers, considering it as
an internal affair of the Muslim governments, in whose lands the militant
groups are active, push and involve these Muslim governments, to curb and
control such groups and stop or monitor the means of their education and
funding, which breeds this ideology.
At this point, the private military groups fall into
conflict with their own Muslim governments. Now, they develop good enough
reasons to fight their own Muslim governments. They think that the Muslim
governments are trying to stop Jihād at the behest of the non-Muslim powers. Secondly,
they think that the Muslim governments, which are not implementing the Islamic
law or al-sharī‘ah in their countries, are committing a blatant kufr, as the
verse of the Qur’ān goes:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ
اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ [11]
And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.
And a Ḥadīth goes, ‘Ubādah bin Ṣāmit narrates that the
Prophet Muḥammad r called them:
أَنْ
بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا
وَعُسْرِنَا وَيُسْرِنَا وَأَثَرَةً عَلَيْنَا وَأَنْ لَا نُنَازِعَ الْأَمْرَ
أَهْلَهُ إِلَّا أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ اللَّهِ فِيهِ
بُرْهَانٌ»[12]
so that we give him pledge to listen and obey
in every condition of convenience, or coercion, in distress or with pleasure,
or even if other are preferred over us that we will not contest them. (However,
you can go against them) if you witness blatant Kufr in them for which you have
clear evidence from Allāh.
So, they assume that their Muslim governments are
committing this blatant kufr, therefore, they are kāfir or semi kāfir, so, to fight
against them is legitimate. Moreover, they feel that they have no obligation to
obey their governments. Also, they do not bother to kill the Muslim masses,
too, taking it as a matter of collateral damage, and because they think that
since the Muslim masses are in agreement with their rulers, who do not want to
implement Islamic Sharī‘ah in their countries; these people vote them and
support them, so they are committing a tacit kufr, and they are kāfir, too, or
at the least extreme sinners, and punishment of kufr is death, so to shed their
blood is lawful and at least their blood carries no value.
The militant activists had been getting their
legitimacy from the Fiqh and Islamic history. In a recent post, Mawlānā Zāhid
al-Rāshidī, writes, on behalf of the Islamic militants:
"مسلمانوں کے تمام فقہی مذاہب کا
متفقہ فیصلہ ہے کہ "خلافت اسلامیہ" کا قیام
ملت اسلامیہ کا
اجتماعی دینی فریضہ ہے۔"[13]
It is the unanimous verdict of all the schools of Fiqh of the Muslims to
establish that the Islamic Khilafah is the collective obligation of the Muslim
Ummah.
If this ideology has rightfully come to the Muslims
from Allāh, as the above mentioned statement claims on behalf of the whole
Islamic academic literature, then, the Muslim must be ready, all the time, to
be at a perpetual war with the whole of the world.
Tracing the roots of
this private militant ideology, we find that the adventure of one of the companions
of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, Abū al-Baṣīr, was
the first example of the private Jihād in Islām. He started his private
activities outside Madīnah. The Prophet ﷺ
overtly disapproved his venture:
«وَيْلُ
أُمِّهِ مِسْعَرَ حَرْبٍ لَوْ كَانَ لَهُ أَحَدٌ»[14]
“Woe to his mother, this man is a provoker of war. If some men join him,
The Prophet
ﷺ did not join him, nor
did he support him. But our historians present his venture in a sympathetic
way, which over-shone the disapproval of the Prophet
ﷺ. Then, the campaigns against
the tyrant regimes of Umayyad and Abbasids, by some individuals, have been
treated in the Muslim history as the champions of freedom and truth, who rendered
their life to revive the true system of Khilāfah,
in line with the ways of the Prophet Muḥammad (
على منهاج النبوة) ﷺ. A point worthy to note is
that the official or the state religion of these Islamic dynasties of Umayyad
and Abbasids was Islām, and their constitutional laws were Islamic,
yet, their regimes were considered not true Islamic regimes, so, some
self-righteous individuals or some groups tried to overthrow them to establish
the true system of Khilāfah. Although, all of them fell short of achieving
their goals, but, their heroic legacy carried on. Moreover, our fiction and
poetry, too, fantasized these heroic characters and created awful inspiration of
them. This inspiration kept influencing the Muslim generations all through the
previous centuries till now. It encouraged the self-righteous ambitious individuals
and private groups, which, time to time, raised the standard of the revival of
Khilāfah against their tyrant or even democratic Muslim
governments, which were not truly Islamic in their conduct. We find that a good
number of such military campaigns enjoyed the sympathies of the eminent Muslim
scholars.
[15] So, we can say that the sympathetic treatment of our
historians with such individual political activists is one of the reasons,
which caused the idealism of the revival of Khilāfah al-Rāshidah in the Muslims
and they embarked upon achieving it with whatever sources were available to
them, and in their frenzy, they did not mind the difference of the proportion
of the power between them and their opponents.
Now, we have a look at the classical Fiqh, in this
regard. The classical Fiqh maintains mainly three reasons for an Islamic state
to be at war with the non-Muslims:
1 Just their being non-believers :(
(کفر
Their stance is the following verse of the Qur’ān:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ
فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّـهِ [16]
And fight them until there is no Fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allāh.
They interpret ‘al-Dīn’ as the Islamic monotheism,
which is to prevail upon polytheism. Wherever there is polytheism, the Muslims
need to fight to finish it, until Islām prevails upon the whole world.
In this perspective, they bring the above-mentioned
Ḥadīth of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ (see reference no. 5) to
support their stance.
The whole military expeditions of the companions of
the Prophet ﷺ and his companions were
interpreted to support this view that unless there are non-believers, the
Muslims are to fight against them until they come into the fold of Islām or
they must perish. However, this stance did not get much favour with the
majority of the classical Fiqh.
2. To end the political rule of the
non-Muslims in any part of the world: (شوكة
الکفر)
Again the same verse:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ
فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّـهِ[17]
And fight them until there is no Fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allāh.
The proponents of this jurisprudential stance
maintain the meaning of ‘al-Dīn’ as the Islamic state power. It implies that
the non-believers are not meant to rule the world. They should accept Islām as
their religion, if they do not, then, they must accept the rule of Islām over
them. The same expeditions of the Prophet ﷺ
and those of his companions were interpreted to
support this view that their battles were meant to abolish the political power
of the non-believers and to subjugate them. It implies that the non-believers
are free to choose to become Muslim or not, but they have no right to be in power
while disbelieving their Creator.
3.
Hostility: المحاربه))
This is a natural
right of human beings to defend themselves against any transgression or
hostility. Islām also acknowledges this natural human right. The following Qur’ānic
verse is the foundation of their stance:
أُذِنَ
لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ عَلَىٰ نَصْرِهِمْ
لَقَدِيرٌ [18]
Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought,
because they were wronged. And indeed, Allāh is competent to give them victory.
And
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ
الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ [19]
Fight in the way of Allāh those who fight you
They interpret all the related Qur’ānic verses and
the Aḥādīth of the prophet Muḥammad ﷺ
in this perspective that since the prophet ﷺ
and his companions were wronged, so they fought against the hostile
non-believers, only. Wherever there is the mention to fight the non-believers,
they should be considered as the hostile or aggressive ones.
In addition, the classical Fiqh does not approve any
such peace treaty with the non-Muslims, which does not benefit the Muslims. If
a treaty does not benefit the Muslims, no treaty should be signed.
Among the modern scholars, Abu al-A'lā Mawdūdī (1903-1979)
legitimated the military Islām further by presenting the term ‘al-Dīn’ as a
political system. He equaled the meaning of ‘Ibādah to obey and of al-Dīn to
political State.
[20] According to this interpretation of al-Dīn, the
following verse makes it obligatory upon the Muslims to dominate the political
system of Islām upon all the political systems of the unbelievers.
هُوَ
الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى
الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ [21]
It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of
truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with
Allāh dislike it.
The term اقیموا
الدین,
to establish al-Dīn, would, then, mean to establish the political
system of Islām. This interpretation of the term, Iqāmah al-Dīn, as
the establishment of the Islamic political system, got immensely popular and
almost all the later Muslim military campaigns find their legitimacy from this
peculiar interpretation of the term Iqāmah al-Dīn.
Mawlānā Taqi Usmani, who is supposed to be a moderate Muslim scholar,
presents almost the same view in his own simple way. He deduces that since God
is the Master and the Lord of the universe, His Lordship must prevail upon the
earth, too. So it is binding on the Muslim to establish the system of His
Lordship on the earth, but, through peaceful means.
[22] He presents the following verse to support his
viewpoint:
إِنِ
الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّـهِ[23]
The decision is only for Allāh
These are the premise, by and large, from which the
ideology of the modern Islamic militants gets its legitimacy. Now, the author
of this paper presents his critique. The author begins his criticism in the
ascending order of the arguments presented before, i.e., he will first talk
about the latest argument and then the preceding ones.
To discuss Mawlānā Taqi Usmani’s deduction, there is no single verse in the Holy
Qur’ān that enjoins the Muslim to establish an Islamic polity. Allāh despite
being a Hākim (Master) never asked His believers to establish
a political system to run His rule. This viewpoint can further be understood
with the help of an example. Allāh asks the believer to pay Zakāh and it is
obligatory. But He never obliged them to earn money, so that, they should pay
Zakāh. The same way, He asks the Muslim to run His rules and His laws in their
political system, if they are in power, but He never asked them to create,
establish or carve out a state to run His laws in it. But if Taqi Usmani means
that it is good to have a political Muslim power in a territory with the
majority of the Muslims, to practice Islām peacefully, then, the author finds
himself in agreement with his stance.
The idea that Islām is as a system, rather as a
political system, as presented by Mawdūdī, was refuted by some eminent Islamic
scholars, for example, Mawlānā Waḥiduddīn Khān. According to him, Mawlānā Mawdūdī reversed the
order of the juxtaposition of the meanings of the words ‘al-Dīn’ and ‘Ibādah’. Ibādah is the name of
the feeling of fear and love of God, whose demonstration is that man starts
worshiping Him and tries to please Him with his obedience; and ‘al-Dīn’ is
essentially the way to establish a relationship with God. In order to please
his God, man obeys Him, too, in all spheres of his life, including the
political one. But if al-Dīn is taken as merely or mainly a political system,
the priorities of religion go inverse. To obey becomes first priority and a
feeling of fear and love to worship God went into the backdrop. If a man places
God as a king, first, and His religion as a system, it subsidies the spirit of
religion, which means to create a strong bond of fear and love between man and
his Creator. System, in fact, is an outward phenomenon of the inner feeling of
a man that al-Dīn, indirectly, creates in man through addressing his
conscience. It comes from inward, not form outward. Mawlānā Mawdūdī makes the
outward demonstration the basis of his postulation of al-Dīn and treats the
rest of the religion as its offshoots. So, the whole scheme of al-Dīn goes
upside down.
[24]
This critique implies that Islām does not give the
system. Systems are made by men. Islām just wants his followers to move in any
of his systems the way his God pleases and man should refrain from the ways,
which displeases God. So, to establish al-Dīn would not mean to establish some Islamic
state, it means to obey Allāh in all the spheres of life, consciously and
conscientiously; in the political sphere, too. The meaning to establish the Islamic
state does not fit the meaning of the Qur’ānic term Aqīm al-Dīn
[25]
A viewpoint forward by some contemporary Islamic
scholars is that, both private and the state militancy with the ideal to
dominate the world in the name of Islām is based on some misconceptions and
misinterpretations of the certain verses of the Qur’ān and Aḥādīth. On the basis of
these misconceptions the expedition of the Prophet ﷺ
and those of his companions were misinterpreted.
According to this point of view, there are two laws
of war or Jihād in the Qur’ān. One is the general and the other is the specific
or exclusive. The exclusive law belongs to the Rasūl only, under the law of
Itimām al-Ḥujjah. This law is not applicable to others. This view needs a
little elaboration:
There were some Rusul (Pl. of Rusūl) among the
prophets. Every Rasūl was a special prophet, who was sent to establish a
sign of God in the world to make people believe with a tangible sign of the
divine truth with which he was sent by Allāh. This sign was that he and his
followers definitely won over their opponents and stood victorious in this very
world and their opponents were destroyed with humiliation in this very world,
so that, this win and defeat became the sign of the Doomsday that the same will
happen to the believers and the deniers at a larger scale, in the life hereafter.
That worldly victory of Rasūl against his deniers based on the following Qur’ānic
rule:
كَتَبَ
اللَّـهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي إِنَّ اللَّـهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ [26]
Allāh has written, "I will surely overcome, I and My
messengers." Indeed, Allāh is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
According to this law, once the truth is
communicated to a people through their respective messengers in a conclusive manner and they still deny it, in spite
of being convinced about
it, they are
punished in this very
world. At times, this punishment
appears through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, as
the Qur’ān states:
فَكُلًّا
أَخَذْنَا بِذَنبِهِ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ حَاصِبًا
وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ أَخَذَتْهُ الصَّيْحَةُ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ خَسَفْنَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ
وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ أَغْرَقْنَا وَمَا كَانَ اللَّـهُ لِيَظْلِمَهُمْ وَلَـٰكِن
كَانُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ [27]
So each We seized for his sin; and among them were those upon whom We
sent a storm of stones, and among them were those who were seized by the blast
[from the sky], and among them were those whom We caused the earth to swallow,
and among them were those whom We drowned. And Allāh would not have wronged
them, but it was they who were wronging themselves.
While, for others, it is brought about with the
swords of the believers. As a result, those who have denied the truth are
totally annihilated from their land and the truth reigns supreme in it. In the
case of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, the divine scourge took the
form of swords of the companions of the Prophet ﷺ. The Qur’ānic verse goes:
قَاتِلُوهُمْ
يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ
وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِينَ [28]
Fight them; Allāh will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them
and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people
This was actually a divine plan, executed through the
human beings. It should
be viewed as the
divine
practice (Sunnatu’l-lāh) and
cannot be initiated by the human
beings on their own in any
manner. It was not a part
of the al-sharī‘ah; this was a special law of war in
the Arabian Peninsula and it was specifically against the direct opponents of
the Prophet ﷺ. The above-mentioned Ḥadīth
(see reference No. 5) should be viewed in the perspective of the following
verse under this exclusive divine law:
فَإِذَا
انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ
وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ
مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ
فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ [29]
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait
for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer,
and give Zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allāh is Forgiving and
Merciful.
Only, the people of the Book, the Jews and the
Christians, of the time of the Prophet Muḥammad
ﷺ were spared from the total
annihilation, as a special case, because they had been a special people to
Allāh, and holders of the previous divine books. They were destined to be
subjugated by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and his companions as the sign
of humiliation and Allāh’s wrath on them. This was stated clearly in the Qur’ān:
قَاتِلُوا
الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا
يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ
مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ
صَاغِرُونَ[30]
Fight those who do not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allāh and His Messenger have made unlawful
and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the
Scripture - [fight] until they give the Jizyah willingly while they are
humbled.
Another aspect of this exclusive divine law is that
the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ wrote letters to the kings and
rulers of his time to invite them to Islām. Thus, he made them his direct
addressees. Moreover, the sign of his prophet-hood with the establishment of
his victory over his opponents according to the open challenge and the
prophecies of the Qur’ān and the prophet ﷺ
was known to the other lands, as well. So those
areas, too, became his direct addressees and truth communicated to them
conclusively, but they denied it. So, his companion waged the divine wars
against them, too, after the demise of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. They treated them as they
treated the opponents of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in Arabia.
But, now, after, that the exclusive law of the fight
was over, the Muslims are not supposed
to fight the non-Muslims on the basis of kufr or denying to accept Islām. Now,
the only way to fight is the natural law of survival and conflict of human
rights. In other words, the Muslims can fight against Muḥārabah (transgression)
only, as is the stance of the Hanafid school of thought Now, we are not in need to
wage the divine wars against the non-Muslims to subdue or subjugate them to
accept Islām or to pay Jizyah. Presently, the Muslims can fight against the
persecution, atrocities and violation of human rights, as the verse of the Qur’ān
goes:
وَمَا
لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ
الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا
مِنْ هَـٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ
وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا[31]
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of
Allāh and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our
Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from
Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"
Still, Allāh does not ask the Muslims to go to war without
material preparations. We notice that at the time, when the support of Allāh
and his angels had been promised to the companions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ against their enemies, the
Muslims were asked to make material preparations against their enemies:
أَعِدُّوا
لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ
عَدُوَّ اللَّـهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ
اللَّـهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ ۚ وَمَا تُنفِقُوا مِن شَيْءٍ فِي
سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تُظْلَمُونَ[32]
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of
war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allāh and your enemy and others
besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allāh knows. And whatever you
spend in the cause of Allāh will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be
wronged.
And
وَدَّ
الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْ تَغْفُلُونَ عَنْ أَسْلِحَتِكُمْ وَأَمْتِعَتِكُمْ
فَيَمِيلُونَ عَلَيْكُم مَّيْلَةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِن كَانَ
بِكُمْ أَذًى مِّن مَّطَرٍ أَوْ كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَن تَضَعُوا أَسْلِحَتَكُمْ وَخُذُوا حِذْرَكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ أَعَدَّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ
عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا[33]
Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your
baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is
no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down
your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allāh has prepared for the disbelievers
a humiliating punishment.
Also, Manpower was a matter to consider with due
importance, Allāh says in the Qur’ān:
يَا
أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُونَ
صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا
مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّـهُ عَنكُمْ
وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا فَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ صَابِرَةٌ
يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ
بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ وَاللَّـهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ[34]
O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty
[who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you
one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand of those who
have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand. Now, Allāh
has lightened [the hardship] for you, and He knows that among you is weakness.
So if there are from you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome
two hundred. And if there are among you a thousand, they will overcome two
thousand by permission of Allāh. And Allāh is with the steadfast.
If the companions of the Prophet ﷺ were given relaxation in terms
of manpower due to their said weakness, despite the certified help of the
divine powers at their back, then, how the modern Muslims, without adequate
technological skills and manpower, can think of fighting their enemies, who are
far superior to them in power.
Secondly, we find that all the directives of Jihād
in the Qur’ān are given to a collective system of the Muslims, if it is
established in a peaceful manner, as the state of Madīnah was established
on the basis of Da‘wah through a peaceful process and consent of the native
people: both the Muslim and the non-Muslim.
In the light of Aḥādīth of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, it becomes quite clear to us
that no individual militant quest is allowed at the expense of the peace and
integrity of collective system of the Muslim, no matter how much this campaign
is righteous in its stance and character and the rulers are bad, except that
rulers bend upon committing the blatant kufr. The following Aḥādīth are the
evidences of this statement. Ibn ‘Abbās narrates from the Prophet ﷺ:
مَنْ
کرہ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِرْ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خرج من السلطان شِبْرًا
َمَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً»[35]
The prophet said
who sees in his ruler, something which he does not like, he should
tolerate it because the one who leave the group of the Muslims a little, he will die a death of ignorance
However, to rise against a Muslim government, which
bends upon committing the blatant kufr, is valid under certain conditions: That
the people, who want to rise should have the majority of the Muslims in their
favour on the principle:
وَأَمْرُهُمْ
شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ[36]
“and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves".
The principle of majority vote can be inferred from
the above verse, which is the foundation of the social and the political
affairs of the Muslim community. It is inferred that there can be two
situations in consultation: either the Muslims will agree upon a single
unanimous opinion or there will be a
difference of opinions. If it is unanimous, the consultation is done,
but if there is a difference of opinions, the common sense favors that the
majority opinion should be taken as final.
The second condition is that the people who,
legitimately, go to rebel against a Muslim government, which is bent on doing
some blatant kufr, they must be unable to change their rulers through peaceful,
democratic means; this can also be understood from the preceding verse, that
the matter of dismissal of a ruler should also be done through mutual
consultation. If there is no such peaceful procedure to dismiss the ruler, then
armed struggle can be launched, but, with another condition: the third
condition, that is, the people should be united under a single leadership, and
fourthly, they establish their government in an independent piece of land,
because the directives of armed struggle are given to a collective system of
the Muslim, not to a crowd or a group without a system of government. However,
in the absence of a territory, according to some contemporary scholars, a
unanimous leadership against a Muslim tyrant Kāfir government is possible
without geographical land, as it was practiced in some political cases in the
contemporary world; such a campaign can be driven from outside the country,
where the change has to bring in. Yet, it is never a religious obligation to
rise to arms to bring a political change, no matter how worse the condition is.
Another, issue is of the freedom movements of the
Muslims masses in different parts of the world, where they are in the majority
and still oppressed by the non-Muslim tyranny. The Qur’ānic guidance, in such
cases, according to the author’s understanding of the following verse of the Qur’ān, is:
«إِنَّ
الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ
كُنتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ
أَرْضُ اللَّـهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا
فِيهَا
فَأُولَـٰئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا»[37]
Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves -
[the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say,
"We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not
the earth of Allāh spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For
those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.
The Muslim masses, in such conditions are instructed
to migrate from the land of oppression, if peaceful living or living according
to Islamic ways is not possible. However, in the present scenario, which has
provided more possibilities for human beings to struggle for their rights, they
should launch a peaceful political struggle to win their freedom; and, if they
find that their peaceful political struggle is not allowed, and it is not
working anymore, only then, they can resort to armed struggle on the condition
that they must be united under a single leadership and establish a
self-conceived state within their own land if possible, or if it is not possible,
then, outside the boundaries of their country, and finally, they must have
enough material power and manpower, in the light of the verse 65 and 66 of Sūrah al-Anfāl, which
states that they should have enough power, which makes it probable for them to
defeat their opponents. On these conditions, a Muslim community, deprived of
their basic human rights, can launch organized military activities, to win
their rights and freedom.
In addition, the Muslim governments, which are in an
agreement of peace with such oppressive non-Muslim government, are not supposed
to help their oppressed Muslim brothers, as the Qur’ānic verse goes:
وَالَّذِينَ
آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرُوا مَا لَكُم مِّن وَلَايَتِهِم مِّن شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ
يُهَاجِرُوا وَإِنِ اسْتَنصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَاقٌ وَاللَّـهُ بِمَا
تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ[38]
But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the
religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and
whom is a treaty. And Allāh is Seeing of what you do.
But if any Muslim government, which is in a peace agreement
with such an oppressive non-Muslim government, finds it necessary to help their
oppressed Muslim brothers, it should declare the peace agreement with them as
null and void, overtly.
وَإِمَّا
تَخَافَنَّ مِن قَوْمٍ خِيَانَةً فَانبِذْ إِلَيْهِمْ عَلَىٰ سَوَاءٍ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَا يُحِبُّ
الْخَائِنِينَ[39]
If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty]
back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Indeed, Allāh does not like
traitors
A foreign Muslim governments, which are not in a
peace agreement with the oppressing governments, can help their oppressed
Muslim brothers, rather, they must:
مَا
لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ
الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا
أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَـٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن
لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا[40]
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of
Allāh and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our
Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from
Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"
If a Muslim community faces threats, directly to
their very lives and property, they are allowed to resort to arms, even,
individually, as a matter of self-defence, as the Ḥadīth of the prophet ﷺ goes:
مَنْ
قَاتَلَ دُونَ مَالِهِ فَقُتِلَ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ وَمَنْ قَاتَلَ دُونَ دَمِهِ
فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
[41]وَمَنْ قَاتَلَ دُونَ أَهْلِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ»
The prophet ﷺ
one who fights for his property and gets killed, he is shed, and one who fights
for his life (and gets killed) he is Shahīd, and one who
fights for his family (and gets killed), he is Shahīd.
Conclusion:
Militancy in the name of Islām has become a matter of
great concern for the Muslim, as well as, the non-Muslim countries. These
militant groups find the legitimacy of their activities from the academic
sources of Islām and the Islamic history. Their ultimate goal is to establish
such an Islamic government so as to launch a worldwide military campaign
against the non-Muslim world to bring them into the fold or rule of Islām.
A modern criticism is required to provide a counter
narrative. The author is of the view that there are two laws of Jihād in the Qur’ān:
one is the exclusive to the Rasul and the other is the general. The exclusive
law was directed to eliminate and/or humiliate the direct deniers of a Rasūl in
this very world, and to make the direct followers of a Rasūl victorious and
prosperous in this very world, to establish a tangible sign of the truth of
Allāh and His religion. The misconceptions start when the exclusive law of
Jihād is generalized and applied to other.
While the general law of Jihād allows the Muslims to
fight against persecution and injustice, but with the state power, not
individually. Private Jihād is completely disapproved by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, except, when any rulers bend
upon committing the blatant kufr. But, such private armed struggle is allowed
with certain conditions. Same conditions apply to the oppressed communities of
the Muslim that they should have a majority of the Muslim masses in their favour
to launch armed struggle, they are united under a single leadership, change of
dismissal of the oppressive ruler through peaceful and democratic means is not
possible and they establish a real or self-conceived state within or outside
their land.
The Muslim government in an agreement of peace with
the oppressive non-Muslim government cannot help their oppressed Muslim
brothers, unless they end the agreement, openly. The Muslim governments, which
are not in a peace agreement with such oppressive non-Muslim government, must
help their Muslim brothers. If a Muslim community faces direct threats to their
life and property, they can resort to armed struggle, individually, as a matter
of self-defence.
REFERENCES
[1]) Sūrah al-Anbiyā’: 107.
[2]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 40.
[3]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 33.
[5]) al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl, al-Jami‘
al-Ṣaḥiḥ al Bukhārī, 1st ed (Damascus: Beirut, Dār Ibn Kathīr, 2002) Ḥadīth No. 25.
[6]) al-Ṭibrānī, Sulaymān Ibn Aḥmad, al-Mo’jam al-Awsaṭ
(Cairo: Dār al-Ḥaramayn) Ḥadīth. 4775.
[7]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 123.
[8]) Asad, Muḥammad, Islam at the Crossroads (Andalus: Dār al-Andalus
Gibraltar), 52.
[11]) Sūrah al-Mā’idah: 44.
[12]) al-Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhārī, Ḥadīth
No. 7056.
[13]) Zāhid al-Rāshidī, “Dehshat Gard kā Mawqaf us kī Zubānī”, al-Sharī‘ah, 25:4 (Gojrān
Wālā: al-Sharī‘ah Academy, Kanganī wālā Road).
[14]) al-Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhārī, Ḥadīth
no. 2832.
[15]) For example, the campaign of Imām Zayd was
supported by Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
[16]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 39.
[17]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 39.
[19]) Sūrah al-Baqarah: 190.
[20]) Mawdūdī,
Abū al-A‘lā, Dīn kī Chār Bunyādī Iṣṭalāḥāt (Lahore: Islamic
Publications (PVT) Limited, 13 E, Shāh ‘Ālam Market, Pakistan), 132, 17-104.
(The same concept was forward by Dr Ḥamīdu’llāh, he named it the idealistic
wars: see Mawlānā Faḍal Muḥammad, Da‘wat-e-Jihād,
Faḍā’il, Masā’il,
Wāqi‘āt, (Karachi, Bayt al-Jihād, 1999), 393-398; Ḥāfiẓ Mubashir Ḥusayn Lahōrī, Islām mayn Tasawwur-e-Jihād
awr Dōr-e-Ḥāḍir myan ‘aml-e-Jihād (Lahore: Da‘wat-o-Iṣlāh
centre . 2003), 66-72.
[21]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 33.
[22]) Taqi Usmani, Islām or Siāsī Naẓriyāt (Karachi:
Maktabah Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān,), 173.
[23]) Sūrah al-An‘ām: 57.
[24]) Wahiduddin Khan, Ta‘bīr kī Ghalaṭī
(New Delhi: Maktabah al-Risālah), 140 & 152.
[25]) Javed Aḥmad Ghāmidī, Burhān (Lahore:
al-Mawrid, 51 k Model Town), 178.
[26]) Sūrah al-Mujādalah: 21.
[27]) Sūrah al-‘Ankabūt; 40.
[28]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 14.
[29]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 5.
[30]) Sūrah al-Tawbah: 29.
[31]) Sūrah al-Nisā’: 75.
[32]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 60.
[33]) Sūrah al-Nisā’: 102.
[34]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 65-66.
[35]) al-Ṣaḥiḥ al Bukhārī, Ḥadīth No. 7053.
[36] ) Sūrah al-Shūrā: 38
[37]) Sūrah al-Nisā’, 97.
[38]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 72.
[39]) Sūrah al-Anfāl: 58.
[40]) Sūrah al-Nisā’: 75.
[41]) al-Nisāī, Abū ‘Abd al-Reḥmān Aḥmad Ibn Sho‘yb,
al-Sunan al-Sughrā,. 2nd
ed (Ḥalb: Makatab al-Maṭbo‘āt al-Islāmiyah), Ḥadīth no. 4094.
*****************
