Voices of Islam (111 page)

Islam does not advocate ‘‘the law of the jungle.’’ It is a religion in which both human life and the way it is taken hold utter sanctity. Thus Islam does not give Muslims any right to take life unless certain conditions are fulfi So, it was

222
Voices of the Spirit

not until an Islamic state was established in Madinah that the Qur’an gave the Muslims permission to take up arms against the onslaught mounted by the Quraysh: ‘‘To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they have been oppressed and verily God is Most Powerful to help them. [They] are those who have been expelled from their homes without any basis, only because they said: ‘Our Lord is God’’’ (Qur’an 22:39–40).

Consequently, the Prophet never retaliated in Makkah to the inhuman treat- ment which was given to him as well as to some of his Companions. He preferred to suffer and be persecuted than to counterattack his enemies, since Muslims at that stage had not fulfi this all-important prerequisite of combative Jihad: establishment of a state.

Similarly, the earlier prophets were not allowed by the Almighty to wage war unless they had established their political authority in an independent piece of land. For instance, the Prophet Moses, as is evident from the Qur’an, was directed to wage war only after he had fulfilled this condition. Since the Prophet Jesus and his Companions were not able to gain political authority in a piece of land, they never launched an armed struggle to defend themselves, despite intense persecution.

Consequently, there is a consensus among all authorities of Islam that only an Islamic state has the authority to wage Jihad. [And where is the Islamic state to- day, with its fundamental principles? Therefore one easily concludes that today there is no valid state under which to wage combative Jihad.] Groups parties and organization have no authority to raise the call to arms. Whoever undertakes war without the authorization of the ruler in fact disobey the religion.
26

Referring to the prerequisite of state authority, the Prophet said: ‘‘A Mus- lim ruler is the shield (of his people). A war can only be waged under him and people should seek his shelter (in war).’’
27

Sayyid Sabiq

This last condition is so explicit and categorical that all the scholars of the Muslim Umma unanimously uphold it. Sayyid Sabiq, while referring to this consensus, writes:

Among
kifaya
obligations, there is a category for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., [combative] Jihad and administration of punishments.
28

Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani

Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani, a Hanafite jurist, writes:

It is obvious from the Hadith narrated by Makhul
29
that Jihad becomes obligatory with the ruler who is a Muslim and whose political authority has been established either through nomination by the previous ruler similar to how Abu Bakr transferred the reins [of his Khilafah to ‘Umar] or through pledging of allegiance by the
‘ulama
or a group of the elite
...
in my opinion, if the oath of

Jihad in Islam
223

allegiance is pledged by the
‘ulama
or by a group of the elite to a person who is not able to guard the frontiers and defend the honour [of the people], organize armies, or implement his directives by political force, and neither is he able to provide justice to the oppressed by exercising force and power, then such a person cannot be called ‘‘Amir’’ (leader) or ‘‘Imam’’ (ruler). He, at best, is an arbitrator and the oath of allegiance is at best of the nature of arbitration and it is not at all proper to call him ‘‘Amir’’ (leader) or an ‘‘Imam’’ (ruler) in any [offi- cial] documents nor should the people address him by these designations
...
. It is not imperative for the citizens to pledge allegiance to him or obey his directives and no [combative] Jihad can be waged alongside him.
30

Imam Farahi

In the words of Imam Farahi:

In one’s own country, without migrating to an independent piece of land, [combative] Jihad is not allowed. The tale of Abraham and other verses pertain- ing to migration testify to this. The Prophet’s life also supports this view. The reason for this is that if [combative] Jihad is not waged by a person who holds political authority, it amounts to anarchy and disorder.
31

Albani

The Salafi scholar Albani, stressing the necessity of Jihad being established by the ruler of the Muslims, said:

In the present time there is no Jihad in the Islamic land. While undoubtedly there is combat taking place in numerous places, there is no Jihad, established under a solely Islamic banner that abides by Islamic legislation.

From this we can understand that it is not permitted for a soldier to act according to his own wishes, but that he is obliged to follow the rules of the commander and his commands and that the commander must be delegated with proper authority by the caliph of the Muslims. So we can ask ourselves today, ‘‘Where is the Caliphate of Muslims in the present time?’’ Since there is no Caliphate, the fundamental principle of leadership is no longer present. Thus, while there still remains combat between one nation and another, it is no longer considered as fulfi ng the religious obligation that Jihad entails.

The preceding quotations represent only a sampling of many quotes from scholars regarding combative Jihad and demonstrate the responsibility of the Imamate in ordering it. The Imam (Ruler) in fact is the only one respon- sible for repelling aggressors and for seeing what actions are fitting for the country. The actual title, whether he be called Imam, caliph, king, or president, is not important—his position as ruler is what counts. The leader is the one who has been elected to administer the foreign policy of his

224
Voices of the Spirit

nation, and he has been entrusted by the people to conduct the common affairs of the state, sign treaties, forbid wrong deeds, suppress criminals, fight aggressors, and settle people down in their homes and the like.

This specific duty can never devolve on a group of people living in a country who act against a government by terrorizing innocent citizens. It is not acceptable in Islam by any means for someone to declare combative war if he is not in the position of leadership.

The many aforementioned rulings of scholars and the many verses of Qur’an and Hadith refute the methods of the so-called ‘‘Islamic parties’’ who establish states within the state and act as if they are the rightful rulers of the Muslims.

Their methodology is to initiate war by attacking non-Muslims in their countries, and they do this without the permission of the Muslim rulers or the Muslim nation and without the consensus of its scholars. What happens then? The result is that everyone suffers from the disastrous consequences of their actions. This subject is discussed in detail in Rebellion Against Rulers.

Self-Defense

Naturally every community has the right to self-defense, and in the case of Islam, where religion is the primary dimension of human existence, war in defense of the nation becomes a religious act. A lack of understanding of this quality of Islam, its nonsecularism, has also contributed considerably to the fear that when Islam talks about war it means going to war to convert. This might be true in other cultures, but Islam must be allowed to speak for itself.

Dardir says of this:

Jihad becomes a duty when the enemy takes [Muslims] by surprise.
32

Dr. Buti shows that fighting in this case is an obligation of the community as a whole.

This is based on the Prophet’s saying, ‘‘He who is killed in defense of his belongings, or in self-defense, or for his religion, is a martyr.’’
33

God said:

God does not forbid you from those who do not remove you from your homes (by force) and who do not fight you because of your religion, that you act kindly and justly towards them
...
.

(Qur’an 60:8)

This verse mentions a fundamental principle of Islam regarding Muslim/ non-Muslim relationships. Muslims are enjoined to act kindly and justly

Jihad in Islam
225

toward members of other faiths except in two circumstances: first, if they dispossess Muslims of their legitimate land rights, and second, if they engage in hostilities toward Muslims by killing or attacking them, or show clear intent to do so (
al-hiraba
) because of their religion. In the second eventual- ity, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler to declare combative Jihad as a defensive action to repel such attacks.

It is evident from the Qur’an and other sources that the armed struggle against the polytheists was legislated in the context of specific circumstances after the Prophet had migrated from Mecca to Medina. There he secured a pact with the Jewish and Arab tribes of the city, who accepted him as the leader of their community. In the milieu of this newly founded base of opera- tions, under the governance of Divine legislation and the leadership of the Prophet, Islam attained the status of a nation with its corequisite territory and the accompanying need to protect its self-interests. At that time the divine command was revealed permitting Jihad, but this occurred only after:

• Persistent refusal of the Meccan leadership (the Prophet being in Medina at the time) to allow the practice of Islam’s religious obligations, specifically to perform the Hajj at Mecca. Note that despite this belligerency, the Prophet agreed to a truce.
  

• Continuous unabated persecution of Muslims remaining at Mecca after the Prophet’s emigration to Medina triggered an armed insurrection against Qurayshite interests in the Hijaz.
  

• Meccans themselves started military campaigns against the Muslims at Medina with the sole objective of eradicating Islam.
  

• Key security pledges were abrogated unilaterally by a number of tribes allied to the Prophet, forcing him into a dangerously vulnerable position.
  

These conditions for defensive Jihad involving armed struggle were then clearly specified in the Qur’an:

And fight in the way of God those who fight against you, and do not transgress [limits] for God likes not the transgressors.

(Qur’an 2:190)

Explaining this verse, Sayyid Sabiq states:

This verse also consists of prohibiting aggression due the fact that God does not love aggression. This prohibition is not abrogated by any verse and is a warning that aggression is devoid of God’s love. Verses that consist of such warnings are not abrogated because aggression is tyranny and God never loves tyranny. Therefore a legal war is justified only when it is to prevent discord and harm to the Muslims and for them to have the freedom to practice and live according to their religion.
34

226
Voices of the Spirit

God says:

Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first?

(Qur’an 9:13)

The clear picture that emerges here is that the command to fight was given in relation to specific conditions. Thus, the declaration of war is not an arbitrary act at all.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, God is most powerful for their aid.

(Qur’an 22:39)

Expulsion

The Qur’an then goes on to describe the conditions of those who are permitted to fight:

They said: ‘‘How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?’’

(Qur’an 2:246)

(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defi of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, ‘‘our Lord is God.’’ Had not God checked one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

(Qur’an 22:40)

Explaining this verse, Imam Abu Ja‘far ibn Jarir at-Tabari explained that were God not to check one set of people by means of another, then ‘‘monasteries belonging to Christians, synagogues belonging to Jews and mosques belonging to Muslims, where God’s Name is often mentioned, will all be destroyed.’’ Thus, Islam advocates the upholding of religious freedom, not for Muslims alone, but as is stressed by the order of the religions mentioned in the verse in which the rights of non-Muslims are upheld first, and lastly those of Muslims.

Jihad in Islam
227

The Qur’an then goes on to describe the attributes of those whom He ordains for defense of the faith, and who protect the right of religious freedom, saying:

(They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with God rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

(Qur’an 22:41)

Here God describes the defenders of the faith as those who are sincere and pious, for they establish prayer and give charity, prevent wrongdoing, and enjoin good conduct.

Denial of Religious Freedom

In later times, the Muslims engaged in warfare to establish the ‘‘Pax Islamica’’ or Islamic Order. The legal and political order must flow from the divine imperative (the Qur’an and the Sunna). It alone guarantees the rights of every individual by keeping in check all the dark psychic tendencies of man and so prevents him from indulging in antisocial behaviors and from political aggression, right down to the commonest criminal act. It is for this reason that the Qur’an calls on the believers to go forth in defense of those whose rights and liberty have been trampled by the unbridled tyranny of oppressors and conquering armies, or who are prevented from freely hearing the word of God espoused to them by preachers and educators. God says:

How should ye not fight for the cause of God and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying, ‘‘Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender.’’