Chapter Six
A Jihad with Words or a Jihad with Swords?
I believe that one of the sources of security disruption in Islamic countries and one of the reasons in the deficiency in the relationship between Muslims and others is the confusion of the conception of Jihad as an obligation that some Muslims suffer from. Therefore, I consider it my duty to touch upon this subject in as much as appropriate to the subject and purpose of this study. I seek the assistance of God, the Most Glorious and Sublime, Who guides people to the straight path.
Scholars know well that the first verse of the Qur'an that mentions Jihad is that which says:
Do not obey unbelievers, and strive most vigorously against them with it (Al-Furqaan XXV: 52).
Scholars also know well that the sura of Al-Furqaan, in which this verse occurs is, as the majority believe, one of the suras revealed in Makkah. The word “strive” (in Arabic a derivative of the same root as jihad) is encyclopedic in its denotations and connotations. It refers, inclusively, to every effort and energy that may be made or spent. It is noteworthy that the phrase “strive with them” has the form that expresses mutual action, and therefore, it signifies a two-sided action. It also signifies persistence in refuting all doubts that are raised by skeptics about the Glorious Qur'an and that are used as a shield by those who deny the mission of God’s Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him. That reciprocity and persistence are indicated by the phrase “most vigorously.”
To discuss and argue with unbelievers and skeptics; to confront, with evidence and sound arguments, the doubts of rejecters and those who are careless about the message of divine guidance; and to introduce Islam and its values and principles wisely and eloquently—that is the Major Jihad. Upon his way back from a military confrontation, God’s Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, addressed his Companions, saying:
You are back from Minor Jihad to Major Jihad.
They asked, “What is Major Jihad?” He said:
Striving against one’s passions.[1]
Ahmad’s Musnad (Book of Attributed Traditions) quotes Fudhala Ibn 'Obaid, who in turn quotes God’s Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, as saying:
A striving person is one who strives against one’s passions in obedience to God, the Most Glorious and Sublime.
This clearly means that in origin and in Islamic Law, jihad means striving against one’s whims and passions, against the seduction and temptations of Satan, and against human devils as well. This is accomplished by challenging their falsehoods, fabrications, stubbornness, and boastfulness with the arguments and evidence supplied in the Glorious Qur'an and with its inimitable discourse and eloquence. Such evidence distinguishes truth from falsehood and hurls the truth against falsehood, refuting it and leveling it to the ground.
Nay, but We hurl the truth against falsehood, and it crushes the latter, and it withers away. But woe to you for what you describe (Al-Anbiya XXI: 18).
Blessed is He who sent down to His servant the discerning standard, so that it might be a warning to all the worlds (Al-Furqaan XXV: 1).
Jihad is also the persistence in introducing Islam and its international message to all people, in various locations and through the ages, with all available means and skills. In all this, wisdom and pleasant preaching are to be followed, tuned to what is socially and culturally suitable to the people addressed.
Call [people] to the path of your Lord through wisdom and pleasant preaching, and reason with them in a graceful manner (Al-Nahl XVI: 125).
Talk to people about what they know.[2]
When the first verse dealing with jihad was revealed in Honored Makkah, Muslims had not been permitted to fight yet. On the day of the second pledge of allegiance at Al-'Aqaba, 'Abbas Ibn Nadhlah said, “If you wish, Messenger of God, we will turn at the people of Mina tomorrow with our swords.” God’s Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, answered:
We have not been ordered yet. You should rather sneak to your beds as if you were kite birds.[3]
All during the Makkah period, Muslims continued to practice the jihad obligation through argument, evidence, demonstration, wisdom, preaching, and with patience and pacification.
Lord, as long as you feel no anger at me, I do not care what happens to me.
When Gabriel came to God’s Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, on the latter’s way back from Taif, having suffered the abusiveness, aggressiveness, and injury of its people, Gabriel said to him, “Your Lord sends you His greetings and tell you that He has ordered the King of Mountains to clamp down the Akhshabain, [two great mountains in Makkah,] and squeeze these people if you wish.” The merciful Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, said:
No, Lord, perhaps out of their loins, people will come who will worship You alone.
Muslims continued to behave the same way for some time at the beginning of the Medina period. When God enabled His religion and His Messenger to prevail among the immigrants (muhajireen) and supporters (ajar) and the Islamic state began to form and the message of Islam to spread, the frustration of unbelievers and polytheists mounted and the anger of Makkah’s notables increased. They saw in Islam a strong competitor for their authority and glory and for what they worship other than God, and intrigue and alliances began for the purpose of uprooting and eliminating that religion, before it would become too dangerous for tribal and religious leadership that had deep roots in Arabia. Wars began to be waged by Quraish, the Jews, and other Arabian tribes. Faced with this determination to be at enmity with Islam and Muslims and with incidents of armed offensives, God permitted His messenger and other believers to fight those unjust aggressors:
Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is waged, because they have been wronged and because God is able to support them (Al-Haj XXII: 39).
Fighting is ordained for you, even though it is hateful to you. But it may well be that you hate a thing while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing while it is bad for you. God knows, whereas you do not (Al-Baqarah II: 216).
Thus, permission to fight was given by God, the Most Sublime – and yet it is noted that it is a hateful means (even though it is hateful to you) – and an exception is made in the Islamic approach:
If they desist, let there be no aggression except against the wrongdoers (Al-Baqarah II: 195).
Fighting is permitted only as a response to the aggression of others and by the way of dealing the same measure to them.
If anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you. Have fear of God, and be sure that God is with those who fear Him (Al-Baqarah II: 194).
Fight for the cause of God those who fight you, and do not commit aggression. God does not love aggressors (Al-Baqarah II: 190).
A magnificent example of God’s kindness to His creatures and a most outstanding illustration of God’s loathing of injustice and the unjust is the Lord’s use of the word “attack” for the resistance of aggression (attack him). He stresses further his loathing of fighting by urging Muslims to fear Him while they are warding off an attack by not going to extremes in their fighting: “Have fear of God.” He even goes further in urging Muslims to fear him in all their actions and in repulsing aggression; He reassures them and gives them good tiding that he is on the side of those who fear Him: “and be sure that God is with those who fear Him.”
This emphasis on the hatefulness of killing and fighting and on the abhorrence of attacks and aggression as a principle, as well as the emphasis on fearing God while using the license to resort to fighting, as an extraordinary method dictated by the necessity to ward off aggression and tyranny—this emphasis is an emphasis on a major principle in the Islamic approach, namely, that Islam came to give life to people, rather than to kill and annihilate them.
Believers respond to the call of God and the Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life (Al-Anfaal VIII: 24).
Islam brings mercy to all creatures; it is by no means an act of revenge, anger, or hatred:
We have sent you only as an act of mercy for all creatures (Al-Anbiya XXI: 107).
The message of Islam gives a higher value to human life and its inviolability.
… if a person kills a soul, unless in punishment for murder or corruption on earth, it is as if he has killed all people, and if he saves a life, it is as if he has saved the lives of all people (Al-Maidah V: 32).
It is a message of respect for human dignity.
We have honored the children of Adam (Al-Israa XVII: 70).
Isn’t that a soul?
The message of Islam even aims at protecting the earth and the environment from corruption and corrupters, for the earth is the dwelling place and source of sustenance for all.
Do not spread corruption on earth after it has been so well ordered (Al-A'raaf VII: 56).
“My people, always give full measure and weight, in all fairness, and do not deprive people of what is rightfully theirs. Do not cause mischief on earth, spreading corruption” (Hood XI: 85).
These things are confirmed by Islamic battlefield ethics, which emphatically enjoin soldiers
· not to kill an old person, a woman, a child, nor a hermit devoting himself to his worship in his hermitage;
· not to cut off any fruitful trees, except when there is an urgent need to do so;
· not to sink any water source;
· not to finish off a wounded person;
· not to mutilate a corpse;
· not to follow a person running away from the battlefield, which confirms that fighting is not an end in itself, but rather a means to repulse aggression;
· to bury the dead of their enemies, because a human soul in Islam is in itself honored (Isn’t that a soul?);
· to be kind to their prisoners of war and not to offend them; and
· to respect the messengers of their enemies and refrain from detaining, imprisoning, or offending them.
The instructions of the Islamic approach emphasize such ethics and ideals with non-Muslims who do not get involved in any fighting, nor drive Muslims out of their homes or encourage their being driven out. Charity and equity are required in dealing with these people:
God does not forbid you, in regards to those who did not fight you over your religion nor driven you out of your homes, to be kind and just to them. God loves the just (Al-Mumtahinah LX: 7-8).
The discussion above confirms that the normal thing in regards to jihad is for it to be a jihad of demonstration, argument, evidence, proof, and invitation to the course prescribed by God, wisely and with pleasant preaching. It is the act of introducing God’s religion and the objectives of its message and Law through discussion and dialogue, in the best possible way, with people. Fighting is an exceptional method of jihad, dictated by the condition of aggression and injustice against Muslims, and it should be ended when its legal causes and justifications end.
If they incline to peace, incline to it yourself, and place your trust in God. He alone hears all and knows all. (Al-Anfaal VIII: 61).
If they desist, God is All-Forgiving and Merciful (Al-Baqarah II: 190).
If they desist, let there be no aggression except against the wrongdoers (Al-Baqarah II: 195).
Ibn Taimiyah, may God have mercy on him and make him satisfied, defines jihad as follows.
It covers all kinds of evident and latent types of worship, including loving God, being true to Him, depending on Him, yielding one’s soul and property to Him; patience; renunciation of worldly pleasures; and invoking and God’s Name. They also include worships with the hand and those in the heart, as well as worships through Da'wa, argument, utterance, and expression of opinion, management, industry, and ownership.[4]
In his book Al-Irhab (Terrorism), Abdullah Ibn Baiyah says:
The truth is that the concept of Jihad in Islam is not always synonymous to “fighting.” Jihad is a broad concept; it is a defense of the truth and invitation to it with the tongue, and that is the first meaning. God, the Most Sublime, says, “… strive most vigorously against them with it.”
This means to use the Qur'an in order to offer a winning argument and to advance one item of evidence after another. It is well-known that reciting the Qur'an does not involve military action. Therefore, not every jihad is an act of fighting and not every act of fighting a jihad. Jihad is a call for freedom.
Islamic war, then, is defensive war, because originally the relationship with non-Muslims is a state of mutual peace. On consideration, the battles (gazawat) fought by the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, imply this meaning. In his Epistle on Fighting, Ibn Taimiyah, may God have mercy on him and make him satisfied, says:
The battles that the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, fought against polytheists are twenty seven, in which the latter were the aggressors or the direct or indirect cause. This confirms that the normal state with unbelievers is peace, rather than war. Had war been the normal thing, the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, would have initiated it against them. The corroborated account of his life, peace and blessing be upon him, is that he initiated fighting against no one.
The Messenger, peace and blessing be upon him, fought only in defense or to ward off an act of belligerence, rather than to coerce people to embrace Islam (There is no coercion in religion). Ibn Taimiyah, may God have mercy on him and make him satisfied, says in his book Legal Islamic Policy, commenting on the argument that this verse was annulled:
The majority of past scholars are of the opinion that it is neither annulled nor specified, and that the statement is general. We do not coerce anyone in the matter of religion. Fighting is for those who fight us, and if they embrace Islam, they safeguard their property and their religion. If they are not fighting people, we do not kill them. No one can quote an account to the effect that God’s Messenger, peace and blessing be upon him, coerced anybody into Islam, whether a reluctant or an easily overcome person. There is no use in the conversion to Islam of a person of that kind, although when such a person embraces Islam, he is admitted into it.
Also in Legal Islamic Policy, Ibn Taimiyah, may God have mercy on him, says, “Because we fight those who fight us when we want to announce God’s religion. Killing people just because they are unbelievers is impermissible.”
This, as I understand it, does not reduce the importance of fighting, the greatness of its reward, and the high ranks accorded by God to martyrs; this is something in religion which is known with absolute certainty. Only a defector from God’s religion would turn against, undervalue, or deny that importance. There is no doubt that fighting, when its conditions and justifications are met and its ethics and controls are observed, is the most sublime level of Jihad in God’s consideration, and the best offering to God when it is offered according to His wish and His Law. Still, it remains an exceptional means, contingent upon its causes and subject to its conditions, which are determined by influential people and the people of authority. Undoubtedly, if the Nation cancels the method of fighting from the jihad system and abandons the obligation to make all preparations to repel the onslaught of any aggressors, to frustrate and deter the ambitions of greedy enemies, and to crush the malice of the spiteful and the intrigue of the cunning—it voluntarily chooses for itself a condition of humiliation and disgrace and allows itself to be subordinated and subjected or to be annihilated and fade away.
Mobilize for them whatever power and war steeds you can, to strike terror with it into God’s and your enemies, and others besides them of whom you are unaware, but of whom God is well aware. Whatever you spend for God’s cause will be paid back to you, and you will suffer no inequity (Al-Anfaal VIII, 60).
Once, at one of the Dialogue-with-the-Other conferences, one person asked me, “Do you not think that the Qur'an lays a foundation for terrorism?”
“How is that? What is your evidence?” I said.
That person recited to me the verse: “Mobilize for them whatever power and war steeds you can, to strike terror with it into God’s and your enemies, and others besides them of whom you are unaware, but of whom God is well aware. Whatever you spend for God’s cause will be paid back to you, and you will suffer no inequity (Al-Anfaal VIII, 60).
I asked, “Are you an enemy of God?”
He said, “No!”
I asked again, “Are you an enemy of Muslims?”
He said, “No!”
I said, “What then bothers you or frightens you about such mobilization?
“Furthermore, does not every nation have the right to employ all methods that guard it against aggressors?
“Does it not have the right to prepare to defend its sovereignty and interest against oppressors and attackers?
“On the other hand, kindly answer this: For whom have you prepared the nuclear stockpiles you have been producing in Western countries? And for whom are those produced by others in the East?
“For whom have you prepared the lethal chemical and biological weapons with which you have filled plains, mountains, seas, and skies?
“For whom have you prepared those huge armies, equipped with the most recent and most lethal weapons of mass destruction, and with the most recent and most destructive fighters, which drop their bombs and destroy life on a very large scale?
“After all this, do you find it too much for us merely to think of getting prepared to deter oppressors and repel greedy and malicious attackers?
“After all this, do you find it too much for us to muster war steeds or their equivalent of weapons which are benign when compared with the weapons of mass destruction, which you have gone too far in producing and piling at the expense of the basic needs of your peoples, such as food, medicine, and the like?
“Now tell me, why is this madness in the industry of death?
“Have you and the Soviet Union not piled enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth ten, or perhaps a hundred, times, as former Soviet president Gorbachev says:
The major part of nuclear weapons is centered in the Soviet Union, and at the same time, ten or even one per cent of their potential is sufficient to make irreparable damage to our planet and to human civilization as a whole [Perestroika, p. 272].
“Do we need, if they agree to commit such an abhorrent folly, to have the earth destroyed more than once?
“Answer me, please, if you can.”
The person in question started to play with his earlobe and look around, and he kept silent.
I went on to tell him, “You actually know that the phrase ‘strike terror’ in the passage of the Qur'an you have quoted, does not imply terrorism in the confused sense in which it is used by people today. It is a phrase that refers to warning and means deterrence and intimidation to prevent the waging of wars and initiation of fighting, because fighting is detestable in Islam: ‘Fighting is ordained for you, even though it is hateful to you.’
“On the other hand, you must realize that preparation by having legitimate means of power is a precautious, defensive measure, aimed at the enemies of God and Muslims, and the enemies of humanity at large. It is not, as some people assume, preparation against non-Muslims, who belong to other cultures and civilizations, indiscriminately.
“Preparation and armament in the Islamic approach is directed specifically against aggressors, the enemies of God and His Muslim and other creatures. After all, God’s enemies are not enemies of Muslims alone, but rather of all people, because they are enemies of the Lord of people. This clearly signifies that the verse refers – from a very early age, specifically more than fourteen centuries ago – to the phenomenon of international aggression, waging wars against God and His creatures and servants. The human race has suffered, throughout its history, from a general phenomenon of aggression which it called ‘terrorism.’ No country in the world is free from one form of it or another and no cultural or religious group has been spared its contamination. Terrorism is truly an international phenomenon that has no citizenship, religion, or homeland. It is a state of revolt against God’s objective and His pleasure and a state of aggression against Him, His servants, and all creatures: ‘… to strike terror with it into God’s and your enemies, and others besides them of whom you are unaware.…’
“This terrorism, with all its types and forms, which the world today faces and suffers from, falls under the general title of ‘God’s enemies.’ Therefore, it is terrorism against the universe and all creatures, being at enmity with their Lord, Creator, and Manager of their affairs, Most Glorious is He. Based on this, I can define terrorism by saying, ‘It is every act of aggression – whether intellectual, religious, social, political, military, security-related, or related to something else – which is committed by an individual, a group of individuals, an organization, a state, or a group of states, and which is contrary to God’s pleasure and brings about a violation of justice, an aggression against human life and dignity, a corruption to the earth or the environment, or a damage to people’s interests, security, stability, or any of their vital necessities.’
“In short, ‘terrorism is every aggression against God’s right and the rights of His creatures.’
“Thus, the verse you have quoted, my friend, by no means signifies the laying of a foundation for terrorism among Muslims, nor an encouragement of it, as you imagine. It rather means an invitation to Muslims and others to be prepared to face every act of terrorism and aggression against God, the Lord of all human beings. Consider with me how the verse says first ‘to strike terror with it into God’s enemies,’ stressing that the mobilization is not for the defense of a national or religious concern only, but also, and first of all, for the defense of God’s right, values, and ideals, which is in fact a defense of the rights of His servants and of all the creatures He has created, and a defense of the safety of their greater homeland, the earth, to keep it from being corrupted.”
Yes, we are all for preparation and mobilization for confrontation with aggressors; deterrence of attackers; protection and strengthening of Islam and Muslims; protection of human dignity and respect for human life; preservation of homeland sovereignty and of the inviolability of the countries, interests, security, and stability of Muslims; and preservation of the earth’s usability, environmental safety, the interests of people, and their common security. We are all for the creation of armies, skills, and industries which enable us to live up to our responsibilities in the fields of war and peace, according to our values and the standards of our faith and Islamic religion, without angry, irrational reactions.
Yes, we are a nation that feels angry when the sacredness of its religion is violated, its pride and sovereignty are offended, or the security of its homeland and the interests of its peoples are undermined. Still, its anger is guided by the values of its Lord, principles of its religion, and standards of its Law:
… And who, when oppressed, redress their wrongs. ◘ The payment for a bad deed is a similar bad deed, but the reward of a person who forgives and effects reconciliation shall be from God; God does not love the unjust. ◘ A person who redresses his wrong after being wronged is free from guilt. ◘ The ones who bear guilt are those who are unjust to people, and commit oppression in the land with no justification; they will receive woeful punishment. When one endures and forgives, that would be an act of resolution in the conduct of affairs (Al-Shura XLII: 39-43).
This is what I want to make clear and to stress to our generation and to people around us, in order to understand ourselves correctly; be understood by others in a sound and correct manner; be dealt with by others in a manner appropriate for our religious and cultural identity, and with our sovereignty and the independent progress of our culture. This manner of dealing should be within a framework of complementarity and cooperation with the other in everything that may guarantee human dignity, honor human life, preserve environmental safety, and achieve the equitable and secure coexistence of communities.
Some people restrict jihad by reducing it to one of its exceptional means, which is fighting, and promote this concept by promoting the purport of the sword verses, which according to them annul other meanings of jihad. In order to clarify further the original meaning of jihad in the Islamic approach and illustrate the error of those people, I have reviewed and reflected upon all the verses on the subject of fighting. My attention has been drawn to the fact that all mention of fighting is in the form of derivatives of qaatal, which denotes reaction. Derivatives of the form qatal, which denotes a one-sided action and means “to kill,” are used only three times. Yet, in the context where they are used, the meaning intended is to repel aggression, resort to similar treatment, or punish hypocrites:
Kill them, wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they have driven you away; for oppression is even worse than killing. Do not fight them near the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there first. Should they fight you, then kill them. Such is the punishment of the unjust. (Al-Baqarah II: 191).
They wish you would renounce your faith, as they have done, and thus be on the same footing. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies, until they migrate for God’s cause. If they turn against you, then seize and kill them wherever you my find them. Do not take any of them for your ally or supporter (IV: 89).
This definitely confirms that fighting signifies a reaction: a reaction to an action initiated by another party, an opposition of an aggressive action committed by that party.
Some people of learning have questioned my insistence on the opinion that fighting is a reaction. Some said jokingly, “This is chemical jurisprudence (Fiqh), for reactions belong to chemistry. Therefore do not project the influence of the idioms of your scientific specialization upon jurisprudence terminology. Is there any precedent for this unusual interpretation?” I would answer, “‘We have made the Qur'an easy to remember, so is there anyone who pays attention?’ [Al-Qamar LIV: 17-18] What is so unusual about this interpretation, which is perfectly compatible with God’s command, ‘Fight for the cause of God those who fight you, and do not commit aggression’ [Al-Baqarah II: 190], as well as with His words, ‘If anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you. Have fear of God’ [Al-Baqarah II: 194].”
Still, I would not ignore or neglect their question, “Is there any precedent among our righteous predecessors for this unusual interpretation?” I have searched the books of past scholars, may God have mercy on them and make them satisfied, until I was guided to a firm opinion that confirms the interpretation I had been guided to by God. The striking thing is that the upright scholar expressing this point of view uses the term reaction, although he, of course, is not a chemist that can be taunted for using that term, as I was taunted by one of my friends. Here is that opinion in detail:
It is mentioned in Imam Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani’s Fattah Al-Bari: Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari (Guidance of the Creator: Explanation of Al-Bukhari’s Collection of Verified Traditions), version 2.01, volume 1, The Book of Belief, Section 17, “Yet if they should repent, perform prayers, and pay zakat, release them” [Al-Tawbah IX: 5] is an explanation of the tradition that says: “I am ordered to fight people until they testify that there is no deity other than God, and that Muhammad is God’s Messenger; perform prayers, and pay zakat. Once they do that, they safeguard from me their lives and property, except for the claims of Islam. It is for God to bring them to account.”
Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid elaborates in Sharh Al-'Omdah in criticizing those who use this tradition as evidence, saying, “The permission to fight does not necessarily mean a permission to kill, because fighting is a reaction and involves two-sided fighting, but killing is not the same.
Al-Baihaqi quotes Al-Shafi'I as saying, “Fighting by no means signifies killing. It might be permissible to fight a man and not permissible to kill him.”
Next, he says, “If the meaning of the tradition is that everyone who declines to be a monotheist should be fought, then how is it that fighting is abandoned in the case of Jiziyah payers and people covered by a covenant?”
There are several possible answers. The first is the claim of cancellation, which argues that permission to accept Jiziyah and enter into covenants is given later than these traditions, on the ground that it was given later than the order of God, the most sublime: “Kill polytheists.”
The second answer is that this might be a case of something general of which a part is specified. The intention is for the desired thing to be accomplished, and when a part does not meet the condition, with a justification supplied by evidence, that does not affect the general thing.
The third answer is that this might be a case of using something general to refer to something specific. In this case the word people in the phrase “to fight people” would be used to refer to “polytheists who are not included in People of the Book.” This is supported by the version cited by Al-Nisaaii, which reads: “I am ordered to fight polytheists.”
It might be said, “If this case does apply to those who pay Jiziyah, it does not cover people who have entered into a covenant or declined to pay Jiziyah.” My reply is, “The renunciation of fighting is because it is cancelled, rather than postponed as in a truce, and those who decline to pay Jiziyah are to be fought as the verse makes clear.
The fourth answer is that the meaning of the testimony and other things that are mentioned is that an expression is made signifying that God’s word is dominant and that those who have opposed it are submitting. This in the case of some is achieved by killing them, others by paying Jiziyah, and a third group by concluding a covenant.
The fifth answer is that fighting signifies itself and its equivalents, such as jiziyahand other things.
This, praise be to God, supports my own understanding, to which God has guided me. The phrases referring to fighting in the Glorious Qur'an are in a form that implies reaction (derivatives of qaatala), except for three cases, and this means we fight whoever fights us first. I have already mentioned how Ibn Taimiyah, may God extend mercy to him, says in his book Epistle on Fighting that “the corroborated account of the Prophet’s life, peace and blessing be upon him, shows that he initiated fighting against no one.” Ibn Taimiyah also says in his book Legal Islamic Policy that “fighting is for those who fight us when we desire to spread God’s religion. It is not permitted to kill people merely because they are unbelievers.”
This also clearly confirms that jihad is not fighting as a rule and the two terms are not synonyms, as, unfortunately, understood by an abnormal group of Muslims. They believe fighting continues until the Day of Resurrection, and they base this opinion on a wrong understanding of the word of God’s Messenger, peace and blessing be upon him:
Jihad will go on until the Day of Resurrection.
Yes, it will undoubtedly go on, in as much as it is a jihad of demonstration, argument, and proof, which introduces and explains God’s religion to all human beings through the ages. It will undoubtedly go on also as a jihad of fighting whenever there are reasons and justifications for fighting, whenever fighting is waged on Muslims, and whenever the nation decides, through the officials in charge of its affairs and its decision-makers, that fighting serves its interests.
It is not true that fighting, as some people think, is all what jihad means, and that Muslims are commanded to persist in fighting up to the Day of Resurrection. Such a view is indeed odd and curious. Does it make sense for a nation that upholds mercy, peace, and the continuance of life, and that is the Islamic nation, to be fighting and stationed in battlefields through the ages? How can that be compatible with God’s assertion:
It is not desirable that all the believers should go out to fight. A group from each contingent should stay behind, instruct themselves in religion, and admonish their people when they return to them, so that they may take heed” (Al-Tawbah IX: 128).
When one contemplates the opening of this verse, i.e. “It is not desirable that all the believers should go out to fight,” he will clearly discern that fighting is not an obligation for the whole nation, because there is another obligation, which, as I understand, the jihad of learning, seeking knowledge on religion, working out the rules and controls of the correct course to follow in life, and managing the affairs and realizing the interests of Muslims: “A group from each contingent should stay behind, instruct themselves in religion.”
Let us contemplate together the word “group” as used in this verse. The Arabic word nafar implies that the party that stays behind to get instruction in religion and to learn is also in a state of mobilization and of jihad. It is the constant jihad which is an obligation for every individual in the nation in accordance with his position within it and with the abilities assigned to him and the course he is directed to by God, the Most Sublime.
He said, “It is our Lord who gives to everything its constitution, and then He gives guidance” (Taha XX: 50).
Everybody is directed towards what he is created for.[5]
The word also emphasizes that going out and fighting is an obligation for those specialized in such pursuit, the same way that the jihad of learning, seeking knowledge, and acquiring experience in managing national affairs and raising living standards are duties for every one who is mobilized for these pursuits.
Therefore, this verse is a basic source concerning the obligation for a great group of Muslims to seek learning, as a community obligation, which means it applies to a number of people sufficient to accomplish the objective of that obligation. I feel that the applicability of the obligation of all Muslims to go out and fight is negated, while it is confirmed for a group from each contingent. I also feel that those obliged to go out and fight are not greater in number than the ones who stay behind for instruction and admonition, and that neither case takes priority over the other. So it is inferred that the number is contingent upon the need to go out and fight, while the rest continue their usual pursuits. It is also inferred that the scope of mobilization for jihad is determined by what the condition of the enemy is, that as many as possible remain for instruction, and that the two groups are equal.[6]
This refutes that claim of some people that fighting is the only means that meets the obligation of jihad, that it is the method that cancels all other methods of jihad.
Once I heard some young people chant the slogan: “To die for God’s cause is our highest desire.” As a young man, I had loved that slogan, and chanted it the same way that they did. I said to those young people:
Undoubtedly, to die for God’s cause is something that every Muslim wishes, because the ranks accorded by God to martyrs are great, far greater than any other honor. But the death and martyrdom which God has promised to receive the best and highest rewards is a means to an end that God considers greater. That end is the fortification of God’s religion and of Muslims in this life, the establishment of God’s Law, and the spread of His authority over people. Therefore, we should chant another motto and try to realize it through all legitimate methods, skills, and values, with the belief that it is the normal condition of jihad, and the longer-lasting way to accomplish the eternal divine objectives. That chant is, “To live for God’s cause is our highest desire.”
Some people objected and made some accusations, but as days passed I heard some of those who had objected repeat what they objected to. Actually, they repeated the chant in a manner that made the listener believe the motto is their own idea, because they failed to give credit to the motto’s author. Now it has become common and it is often repeated today by speakers and preachers. This means that it is gaining acceptance that the normal condition of jihad is the jihad of demonstration, argument, and evidence; the jihad of inviting people to follow God’s way wisely and with pleasant preaching; the jihad of introducing God’s religion and Law, as well as the objectives of His global message through argument and dialogue with the other in the most refined way.
It is being accepted that fighting remains a license and an exceptional form of jihad, contingent upon its legal causes and justifications. Death for God’s cause is not limited to death in the battlefield. A person who gets drowned, burnt to death, or missing is also a martyr. The master of all martyrs is Hamzah and a person who approaches an unjust leader, advises him, and is therefore killed by him. Reflect with me upon the phrase “advises him.” It means the person in question does not rebel against the leader’s authority or start sedition among people. He merely advises the leader under the legitimate conditions of extending advice. That is why God’s Messenger, peace and blessing be upon him, considers a person who is killed under such circumstances one of the masters of martyrs in God’s eyes. Living for God’s cause and extending advice, demonstration, and counter arguments in order to rationalize such life and make it righteous and good is a type of great jihad for God’s cause. A person who dies in such a pursuit joins the masters of martyrs in the honor and veneration he receives.
The spirits of martyrs are in the crops of green birds, which go to and fro between lanterns of light which are hanging down from the Throne of the Merciful.
Still, fighting remains in the Islamic system subject to the controls, ethics, and standards of Islamic Law. It never suspends them, nor suspends the rules, values, and principles of life, following the claim that “The voice of the battle drowns all other voices.” That is a motto used to suspend values, standards, and principles, and in doing so it humiliates the Nation and dwarfs its mission in life. In Islam, fighting does not entail or impose emergency laws with which the lives of nations are subjected to injustice and aggression, and the values of justice are suspended. A Muslim remains subject to the controls and values of Islamic Law even in the battlefield.
God, I renounce any responsibility for what Khalid has done (a tradition of the Prophet’s).
Here God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, exonerated himself from an action committed by the greatest of his military leaders, Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, the man whom the prophet himself described as “God’s drawn-out sword,” because Khalid had killed a woman in the battlefield. In doing so, Khalid violated the guidance of Islam. Earlier, God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, was angered by the behavior of Osama Ibn Zaid, may God be pleased with him, because he killed an enemy fighter after the latter had uttered the testimony signifying his conversion to Islam. Osama's excuse was that the utterance was merely an act of deceit and that it was not the first time for the fighter in question to use that kind of deceit. The Prophet asked him:
Have you opened his heart and looked in it?
God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, is here arguing with Osama by saying something to the effect of: “How can you tell whether or not he really meant it the last time he uttered it?”
The truthful Abu Bakr, the successor of God’s Messenger, instructs soldiers who are on their way to battle, saying:
I fear for you the triumph of your sins more than I fear the triumph of your enemy. Therefore, fear God and listen to Him in what He has ordered and forbidden.
Now, the purpose of this presentation and explanation concerning jihad, its meanings, and its objectives is to make a modest contribution towards ending the state of confusion that the Nation suffers from in regards to the jurisprudence (Fiqh) of jihad. The leaders of jihad have multiplied, and so have the banners of fighting for God’s cause. The leaders of jihad disagree with each other and each disparages the others. They even fight with each other, and some of them, unfortunately, enter into alliances with the enemies to defeat the opponents of today, although they used to be, supposedly, fellow leaders of jihad and of clear victory.
All this is done in the name of Islam. Death slogans are chanted for God’s cause, and to serve this querulous state, verses of the Qur'an and guiding traditions of the Prophet are cited as evidence. In this manner, each tries to support his stand and prove that he stands in the middle of a white road and that anyone who strays away from it shall perish. It is not my purpose here to cast doubt over the sincerity of any Muslims; I am mot a judge, the unknown has not been revealed to me, and I have not opened the hearts of people and look in them. Every one is free to have his own intention and objectives. The thing I do not hesitate to say that such frivolous understanding of the meanings of the jihad jurisprudence (Fiqh), such folly and crime, that are performed under the pretext of jihad for God’s cause, are nothing but calumny against God and an attack against the sacredness of jihad and its sublime objectives. It is a deviant, crooked course through which, for no justifiable reason, the lives of Muslims and others are ended, properties are destroyed, and safe and secure people are terrorized. Thus, the lives, security, and stability of people are undermined, and their interests and affairs are halted. Undoubtedly, this is great capriciousness and deviation, serious corruption, and terrible evil. It has no place in God’s religion, or in His Law, and it is completely incompatible with the objectives of the tolerant, international message of Islam.
From His Book (Partners ... not Guardians) Part Four / Chapter Six
|
To the Nation’s leaders - To the Nation’s scholars and intellectuals - To leaders of the world |
All Rights Reserved For The Author Prof. Dr. Hamid Al-Rifaie