The reason for my lack of any regular updates is due to the lack of time I have available. Not only is work quite hectic right now, the
in the history of London public transport, has meant I have to make a very long and awkward journey, changing three, sometimes four times, to get from East London to South London and back again. This leaves me quite exhausted!
. I have had to split it into two posts, because of the length! Even then, the length of the posts is considerable, so I apologise in advance.
The first part looks at the views of two prominent Muslims on the Blogosphere. The second post is my understanding of warfare inside the Islamic framework.
, a few other posts will go up sometime later this coming week.
:: this was posted by thabet at 05:53
Misuse, abuse and apologetics: the concept of Jihaad (II)
Part II: The concept of Jihaad
According to the Qur'an
[1], God has allowed for force to be used to check nations, who exceed their limits, and engage in disturbing the peace and freedom of other nations on earth. In Islamic Qur'anic parlance this is called
Jihaad.
This use of force can only be justified on the following grounds:
1. Defence
Defending ones homeland is probably not even an issue one must look up in a holy text. It is morally justified to use force to expel an invader from ones homeland, and thus this requires nothing from any Islamic text.
2. Fighting the Rejectors of Faith
Perhaps the most controversial reason to conduct warfare. However, it has to be understood in the light of the following.
As a Messenger of God, Muhammad (p), was to bring the Justice of God upon this Earth. The Qur'an makes it clear that those who oppose a Messenger of God were to be humiliated in the land.
[2] Thus the Ishmaelites, the first addressees of the Qur'an, were morally obliged to accept Muhammad's (p) Message, else they were to face the fate of previous nations, who also rejected their Messenger. The Qur'an asks them to look to their histories and see what happened to those who had rejected their Messenger.
[3]
After a set time Muhammad (p) was told to migrate.
[4] This marked the end of immunity for the Rejectors. Now one of two courses could be taken:
i. If Muhammad (p) and his followers could not form an organised collective, then God Himself would punish the Rejectors. This happened in the case of Noah and Lot (pbut), for example, and in the case of Salih (p), an Arab Prophet unknown to the Israelite tradition.
ii. However, if they did form a collective (which is what happened in Medinah), then God would punish the Rejectors "through the hands" of the Believers.
[5] The Qur'an explicity states, "it was not you who slew, it was God who slew".
[6] The implication here is clear: God, Himself, is delivering a punishment upon the Rejectors. The wars are not being delivered at the behest of Muhammad (p).
Bearing that in mind, the Qur'an makes it clear that the Rejectors were to be fought and subdued; the polytheists were punished by death from this world, while the Jews and Christians were punished by the (now controversial)
Jizyah.
[7]
As an extension of the role of Muhammad, the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (p) were made "the middle nation"
[8] between the Prophet (p) and the rest of the world. This provided them with the moral justification to wage war and gain political control, if those around them refused to accept the political domination of Islam. Is it any wonder that historians, Muslim and non-Muslim, have differed over the reasons as to why, not only did the early Muslims achieve such astonishing victories, but why so many people became Muslims. While non-Muslims are, obviously, going to look for mundane reasons (the usual one being that of the "forced conversion"), the Muslim ought to realise why from the Qur'an. It was simple: people saw Truth being manifested before them. Only an arrogant and foolish soul can see such a manifestation and yet turn away. He in fact becomes a criminal, liable for punishment.
After the leadership of the collective passed away from the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (p), this moral right was
removed from the Muslims, whether or not they were in their collective capacity. Consequently,
no Muslim today has this justification, and indeed any Muslim who does wage war to for this reason, is in fact committing an injustice, since he is trampling on a right; a right not granted to him by any moral authority.
[9] This person then becomes a criminal himself, and must be punished to protect the ordinary law-abiding person from his "pious crime".
3. Offensive Jihaad
for moral reasons
The other justification to conduct offensive war, is to provide support to a group of people who are being injustice and oppression.
[10] This group, often held that they must be Muslims, might have called on the Muslim state to support their land is being invaded, or indeed has been invaded and they are being persecuted. There is no need to deny the fact that offensive warfare ought to be engaged in, if such a moral justification can be made. Warfare, then, is not merely "defensive" as some Muslim apologetics like to claim.
Of course, this act of aggeression, must adhere to ethical and moral limits at all times.
[11] There is no place here for the lazy and morally ambivalent excuse of "collateral damage". These limits are:
i. From a Muslim view point, fighting is prohibited in the "Sacred Months" - unless they are the subject of an aggression, in which case they can retaliatle. Further, they must not fight near that which is Sacred.
[12]
ii. Even if the people being oppressed are Muslims, the Muslim state which has been called for help
cannot engage in a war if they have a treaty with the oppressing nation.
[13] To break an oath, a treaty or a contract is a sin for Muslims. They must ahdere to these in letter and in spirit. (Though allowances can be made if the Muslim state fears treachery from the other party.)
iii. Muslims should refrain from pomp and glory when conducted a war. This avoidance of pomp is, in fact, something which a Muslim must strive to at all times.
[14]
iv. Those who wish to remain neutral during a conflict must not be troubled.
[15]
v. Numerous
ahadeeth point to the disallownace of overstepping ethical limits. Some of these can be said to be known by man from his own intellect. We do not need someone to tell us that killing a woman or a child or an eldery man, all of whom are unlikely to be engaged in a war directly, is not allowed. Further, plundering and looting, setting up obstructions to rob people, and desecrating the sacred are all disallowed.
[16] In fact, in the modern era, these acts would be disallowed by international conventions, so would have to be adhered to anyway.
The authority to wage Jihaad
It is clear from the above that Muslims can wage wafare, offensive warfare, to free their brethren from oppression and injustices. It is clear that we do see injustices today. This has sparked many Muslim groups to pick up arms and engage in hostilities with their oppressors. However, this has also led to renegade groups, who use this allowance to fight oppression as a reason to engage in a megalomania of their own. Often it is hidden under a very thin public face of piety. Yet they commit an injustice for these people to who carry out armed aggresssion have no moral authority to do so. They do something which a Prophet of God never did! Yet they claim to be the followers of these men!
It is evident from the Qur'an itself
[10], that "permission" was "granted" after a certain time. What situation did the Muslims find themselves in before this "permission"? It is evident: the Muslims had no political authority. Only once a 'state' (organised collective) had been established was this permission granted. Even under the most horrendous torture, never once was an allowance made to launch retaliatory missions, the likes of which we see so many of today's so-called
Mujahideen and
Jihaadi groups engaged in. Are these people better than the Prophet (p)? May God forgive me for even suggesting such a blasphemy!
The histories of the Prophets (p) of God make it clear that warfare to save people from persecution was never granted until they (the Prophets and their followers) had a political authority. The Books of Moses, which do contain directives to fight, were only revelaed once they had gained independence on a piece of land.
The reason why political authority must be attained is clear. Groups and individuals who launch acts of aggression lead to the situation becoming worse. They cause the spread of chaos, anarchy and terror, all things held in contempt by Islam. In fact such anarchy is punishable by death. Under a single, legitimate leadership, the propensity for such anarchic behaviour is restrained. Muslims need not look very far in our history to see how activities of such groups and individuals have led to devestation, very often at our expense. Afghanistan was a prime example. With so many groups fighting, once the Russians were expelled, they were unable to subdue their egos and lust for power, to the detriment of the very people they had claimed to relieve of oppression.
In addition, as has been made clear: any such directive ordering Muslims to "make the Word of God supreme" was actually restricted to the Prophet (p) and his direct Companions (ra). For a Muslim to engage in such a war is the height of
arrogance, for he has established himself as the sign of Justice from the Almighty - a blasphemy worthy of condemnation. For people who engage in such acts the only temporal punishment, in my humble opinion, is the death sentence. It the least that can be done to protect people from the delusions of the 'pious criminal' - someone who will probably not be deterred any other way.
Further, Muslim jurists of all ages have held that the authority to wage war, offensive war, is the sole right of a leader. As Sayyid Sabiq states in his
Fiqh-us-Sunnah:
"Among Kafayah
obligations, the third category is that for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihad and execution of punishments. Therefore, only a ruler has this prerogative. Because, indeed, no one else has the right to punish another person.
In such cases where no such help from a Muslim state is available, Muslims are commanded to either (i) bear with patience (and follow the example of the previous Prophets (pbut)), or (ii) migrate the land - no allowance was made for the Prophets of God; so there is no reason why one must be made for them.
Notes
[1] Qur'an 22: 40.
[2] Qur'an 58: 20-
1.
[3] The Qur'an gives the examples of the peoples of Noah, Lot, Moses and Jesus (pbut), among others.
[4] Qur'an 8: 33 and
68: 48.
[5] Qur'an 9: 14.
[6] Qur'an 8: 17.
[7] Qur'an 9: 29.
[8] Qur'an 2: 143.
[9] This idea of Divine Manifestation of Justice in this world is an entire topic in itself, and has been the subject of much research by contemporary Muslim scholars, especially those in
Pakistan. I have limited the presentation of this concept because of the already enourmous length of this post!
[10] Qur'an 22: 39-
40. See also
Qur'an 8: 39. It should be borne in mind that the verse also grants permission to fight until "faith in Allah" has become supreme. But as explained in "Fighting the Rejectors of Faith", this is limited to the Messenger (p) and his Companions (ra) who had to do so until the religion was supreme in Arabia.
[11] Qur'an 2: 190.
[12] Qur'an 2: 194.
[13] Qur'an 8: 72.
[14] Qur'an 8: 47.
[15] Qur'an 4: 90.
[16] As examples, see Bukhari: No. 2474; Bukhari: No. 2705 ; Bukhari: No. 2613; and Bukhari: No. 2629.
:: this was posted by thabet at 05:22
Misuse, abuse and apologetics: the concept of Jihaad (I)
Part (I): Some observations on Jihaad on the Blogsophere
The one thing that strikes fear into the hearts of many a Westerner, and justifies in their eyes retaliatory strikes on the Muslim world, is the concept of
Jihaad.
Much has been written about this subject - and not just in contemporary times, where Muslims are coerced to abandon their faith, or at least secularise
[1] it. The greats of the past have written volumes on this subject. So is it any wonder that Muslims today are no closer to understanding this concept?
In the blogosphere, two Muslims, in stark contradistinction to each other, have written fairly extensively about
Jihaad. Unfailingly unapologetic (and now seemingly departed), Adil (aka
Muslim Pundit) has blogged a
scathing attack on Muslims who try and deny that
Jihaad means forcefully fighting, and furthermore means fighting and subduing the "infidel". He quotes authorities on Islamic law, and does indeed show that
Jihaad is meant to fight the "disbeliever", and to "make God's Word supreme".
Support for Adil's view comes from Zachary Latif. Though not a Muslim, he is from Pakistan and so any dicussions on Islam by him are always pertinent. He posted an
article by his father, which backs up Muslim Pundit's claims. He quotes extensively from Muslim authorities, including a great like al-Ghazzali, to prove that
Jihaad meant fighting to "make God's Word supreme".
This was
rebutted by Aziz Poonawalla, of
Unmedia. Being an Ismaili, he bypasses the Sunni authorities used by Adil (and in the article on Zachary's weblog), and makes a direct appeal to the Qur'an. The essence of what he says is right when he argues that:
"[A]s far as I am concerned as a Muslim, if the Qur'an meant qitaal when it says jihad, it would say qitaal, not jihaad."
I completely agree, that it is the Prophet (p) that is accepted as the sole source of Islam (since he told us what constitutes the Qur'an and what consitutes the Religion). Further I agree with the importance of bearing in mind the correct meaning of the word. For this reason, we must go back to earlier times and ascertain what the Arabic words meant and understood. Vain appeals to appease modern culturisms is something that should be avoided. Clearly, the early Muslims understood
Jihaad to mean something. And this something might have been
to wage war.
However, and with all due respect to Aziz, I do not feel he can represent a view on "mainstream" Islam, given that he is a minority within a minority in Islam. His view, though important for discussion, is not an authority for most Muslims. In addition, in his sect within Islam, I understand that estoeric interpretations are freely made at the higher levels. So it easy to make an appeal to symbolic interpretations which would be outside of most Muslims, unless they were to undertake the Sufic path, where everything becomes possible. (This is not to deny the richness of the Arabic language, nor deny that the Qur'an uses symbolism; it most certainly does - but there is a tendancy to interpret everything symbolically as a sort of backstop.)
The truth of the matter is that
Jihaad, as understood Classically,
does mean to fight and make the Islam supreme. It
does mean to fight the polytheists and subdue the People of the Book. There is no way anyone can deny this. To back up the quotes from both Adil and Zachary's article, I'll show just one more set of examples.
`Umdat al-Salik wa'uddat al-naasik (
The Reliance of the Traveller)
[2] is a 14th Century text of Islamic law, covering the second largest of the Traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence, that of
Shafi'i. It was written by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and was commented upon by `Umar Badawat in the 19th Century. The latter writes in his commentry on the chapter headed "Jihad":
"Jihad
means to [wage] war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada
, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]..."
Further down, al-Misri himself says:
"Jihad
is a communal obligation..."
Further, he adds:
"If none of those concerned perform Jihad
, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possiblity of having performed it.
Under the section entitled "The Objective of Jihad", al-Misri writes:
"The caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax...
And he adds in the case of all other peoples:
"The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim..." [3]
The above is sufficient, I think, to maintain that Classical Islamic law does allow for wars of aggression against non-Muslims, until either is victorious (the implication being that a Muslim army must always win). However, for completeness, it has to be stressed: this "obligation" is upon the Muslim collective, and primarily upon the head of the collective, the caliph. Individuals cannot take up arms for such a cause. In fact the latter, which includes so many renegade groups who preach their own form of megalomania, is condemned and punishable by death in Islamic law.
So where does this leave Muslims? Proponents of Traditional Islam suggest that we must follow a particular school of jurisprudence and theology in the Classical Islamic framework, and that free interpretations of the Qur'an are not called for. This is another issue, but I agree to that understanding, albeit only to a certain extent.
So, according to the above, our leaders who are in charge of the collective(s), are committing a "sin" if they do not take up arms and fight the non-Muslims. And the three sets of quotations from the jurists of Traditionalism (
1,
2 and this post) provide justification for wars of aggression to fight and "make religion supreme". None of these posts suggests a 'free interpretation' of the Qur'an; they are all exactly as Sunnis would have it; citations from qualified scholars of Islamic law. I shall leave it for other Muslims to decide their own path, especially to those who subscribe to a certain school, and only a certain school (not that there is anything neccessarily wrong with this). No doubt contemporary jurists of Traditional Islam have added yet more to the already massive corpus of Classical Islamic law, or at least found loop holes to satisfy the modern predicament, that Muslims are militarily too weak to fight.
Aziz stresses:
"It is critical to note that the great wars of conquest in Islam were initiated by the three Sunni Caliphs after the Prophet's death."
Again, and with much respect as I can lay claim to, it is not Aziz who is considered as the criterion for the majority of Muslims. The majority of Muslims accept the first three "Sunni" Caliphs (ra), and most would find Aziz's implication that they usurped the Caliphate from Ali (ra) a heresy, to say the least. That the "Sunni" Caliphs (ra) conducted wars, and that the majority of Muslims have respect for them and regard them as the correct upholders of the Religion, is very important and cannot be dismissed lightly. The defence offered by Aziz is that the majority of early Muslims "missed" the "real" meaning of the word
Jihaad in their bid to wage war on foriegn lands, and that it was only Ali (ra) who understood this "real" meaning. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense - not for "mainstream" Muslims.
The other defence might be that
Jihaad means "to strive with the utmost force". Evidently "utmost force" can mean a wide number of things. However, it seems to have been understood as "utmost physical force".
Further, Aziz goes on to quote some verses of the Qur'an, which preach tolerance. Yet why does he ignore other verses, notably Chapter Nine, dedicated to fighting the Rejectors? In addition it has to be noted that offensive wars
were also carried out by the Prophet (p). To deny these is to merely regurgitate apologia from the likes of Sayyid Amir Ali.
Putting aside the rather naked sectarianism of Aziz (to which he is entitled, of course), where he goes onto show some spurious
ahadeeth about the "leg of God" (and, more importantly, which have absolutely nothing to do with the argument!) and make some snide remarks about the "Wahhabiys"
[4], I shall endeavour to give an explanation, in light of my, albeit limited, understanding. I hope to steer clear of apologetics; but I shall also aim to highlight abuse and misuse by Muslims themselves.
Notes
[1] In my understanding, it is unlilkely you can secularise Islam, without destroying it or its very essence. Secularisation of Islam is usually put forward by people with a Euro-centric view of history. They equate the progression of Christian Europe with secularism - which is correct. But they erroneously apply this to the current predicament in the Muslim world. Further, it seems strange to suggest that secularising Islam, will temper the propensity for renegade groups to take arms and declare "holy war". As if there is some logical axiom that says secularism will bring peace!
[2] al-Misri, Ahmad Ibn Naqib (translated by Nuh Ha Meem Keller),
The Reliance Of The Traveller, 1997 (Revised Edition), Amana Publications, pp. 599-603.
[3] To the best of my understanding this is the position of most of the Classical schools of Islamic law. However, the
Hanafiy jurists have declared that an idolator may live under Muslim rule, provided he pays the poll-tax. This one reason why this school flourished in India.
[4] As a complete aside: there exists, to my mind, no group, sect or schism in Islam, who call themselves "Wahhabiys". It is often a derogatory term used on the subcontinent. Anyone can be called a "Wahhabiy", especially anyone who contradicts the Traditional schools and forms of worship, such as praying to the dead Saints.The closest I have come to reading about a group who did call themselves "Wahhabiys" were the Ikhwan of al-Saud, a brotherhood who were used by the Saudis to "mop up" any opposition to their sweep across the peninsula. A 19th Century explorer, John Lewis Buckhardt, makes mention of "Wahhabiys" in his account of the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian peninsula, the bi-volume
Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys. But even he says,
"The Wahabys call themselves by no other name but Moslims..."
:: this was posted by thabet at 05:18
Monday, February 10, 2003
Update
I have been busy with work etc., so I haven't been paying much attention to the blog.
Nonetheless, I have been working on the next part of my history of Muslim philosophy series (the second part of the foundations of Islamicity, the Qur'an). I have also been writing a post on the concept of Jihaad, to be entitled "Misuse, abuse and apologetics: the concept of Jihaad". Insha'Allah, they will be published sometime later this week. Also, I would like to mention a few words on Iraq, the attempts to secularise Islam, and the way forward for Muslim polity (especially in light of Zachary Latif's
latest blog).
I would like to wish all Muslims a wonderful and blessed
Eid-ul-Adha.
Regards and Salaam
:: this was posted by thabet at 15:09
