Book on War and Jihad

The following is the text of the book War and Jihad. The book has been written by renowned scholar Dr Muhammad Farooq Khan and has been rendered into English by this blogger-Tahir Ali.

The book is a scholarly discourse on one of the most pressing problems of our times, in fact, all ages- the difference between Jihad, a war in the cause of Allah, and a simple war.

The book also sheds light on the concept of private Jihad and discusses whether or not any private group is entitled to wage war on its own as is being witnessed nowadays.

It also scrutinizes the arguments put forward by those who are for private Jihad.

And more importantly, the book suggests alternate path to the subjugated nations in particular and the Muslims in general that can win them freedom, peace, prosperity and prestige in the world.
...............
War and Jihad


Issues, problems and misconceptions



Written By Dr Muhammad Farooq Khan

Email:dmfkhan@yahoo.com



Translated By Tahir Ali

Email: tahir_katlang@yahoo.com



List of contents



Acknowledgement



Pronunciation guidelines



Foreword



List of contents

Part 1

Meaning of jihad, Qital and patience/perseverance



Part 2

Qital in Allah’s path, definition and guidelines



Part 3

Nexus between state and war



Part 4

Could Muslims revolt against their rulers for a good cause?



Part 5

The special status of the holy prophet on the basis of the great task that Allah completed through him



Part 6

What are the principles of Muslims-non Muslims Relationship?



Part 7

War expeditions of the companions of the holy prophet



Part 8

Some jurisprudential terms



Part 9

War, freedom struggle and the onslaught of extremist organisations



Part 10

Usama Bin Laden’s concept of Qital

Bibliography

Acknowledgement

The book has been translated into English, free of cost, by Tahir Ali, a teacher by profession but who also writes articles for The News, Dawn and Business Recorder. Not only he translated the book but also composed eight chapters of the English parts of the book -the remaining English section and the entire Arabic text have been composed by Nisar Khan, my personal assistant. Mr Ali also reviewed the entire book for at least two times. He has also prepared the outlay of and pronunciation guidelines for the book. I am extremely grateful to him for the hard work that he has done for this noble cause.

Considering his experience in editing and intellectual acumen, I had fully authorised Mr Ali to edit the text as he thought expedient. He did that profusely. And he was kind enough and made review further easy for me as he highlighted his suggestions, additions and diminutions by underlining them. I must hereby acknowledge that I found his editing 99 per cent suitable and agreed to them.

I must acknowledge the contribution and support that I received from my friends, colleagues and family members. This book would/could not have been in your hands had I not got the sincere cooperation of all of my colleagues and assistants. Owais Ahmad Ghani, Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who is a prolific reader himself, for example, suggested some changes in the text. I thank all of them for their valuable comments and suggestions that have gone a long way to present the book in the present shape. Whatever beauty is there in the book is because of their support and guidance. Any errors or omissions are there because of me alone.

Some other friends that attracted me towards the topic or those who made suggestions.


Pronunciation guidelines



The book follows standard rules for transliteration of Arabic words but some changes have been made to make the reading of Arabic names and words easy. Arabic names, words and terms have been used spelled as they are pronounced in the language. For this purpose, the following guidelines should be kept in mind.

 All the Arabic words and names that end in the letter “ ” have ‘TH’ at the end. For example, Lot, Taloot, Ankaboot and Samit have been spelled as Looth, Talooth, Ankabooth and Samith respectively. All the words that begin with “ ”, however, start with ‘T’. For example, Tabook, Taahaa, Taghooth etc.

 The “ ” coming in the names and words has been represented by “ S”. For example in Hadees, Aasaar etc.

 “ ” coming in the middle of words and names has been represented by ’ . For example, in Al’aas, Ka’bah, Sa’ad, Mua’aawia and Fir’awn etc.

 “ ” in Arabic words and names has been represented by “EE”. For example, in Hadees, Ibraheem, Sunnees, Eesaa etc.

 “ ” has been represented with “OO”. For example, in Aboo- Dawood, Hood, Taghooth, Muminoon, Tabook eatc.

 “ ” in Arabic words and names has been represented with “U”. For example, in Khulafaa, Fuqahaa, Muminoon, etc.

 “ and ” have been represented by the words “AA”. For example, in Aasaar Nisaa, Taahaa, Zakaath, Taqwaa etc.

 “ ” coming at the end of names and words has been omitted in transliteration except in Shariah, Fiqah, Makkah and Sunnah. For example, in Sahaaba, Maaeda, Baqara etc.






Foreword

Pakistan is faced with an insurgency like situation in several parts of the country, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and the tribal belt. Southern Punjab and Karachi too are believed to be centres of militant extremism. Every day terrorists and suicide bombers strike and kill dozens of innocent civilians.

These incessant brutal acts of terrorism indeed have played havoc with the lives, properties and businesses of the people but it has also led to an almost nationwide consensus against terrorists and extremists.

Astonishingly, many amongst us still blame foreign hands for all these attacks, though the local extremists always feel pride to own these attacks. They apologists are not ready to do critical self-analysis. The most distressing part of all this is that extremists and their political mentors say that what they are doing constitutes jihad in the cause of Allah. So it is necessary that the matter as to what constitutes Jihad and what not, should be discussed and explained with the help of the Quran and Hadees and the works of Islamic jurists.

Jihad is one of the terms that have been blatantly misused by extremists throughout ages. War and Jihad are not synonymous but distinct terms. For war, Quran and Hadees use the term ‘Qital’ and it is the militant aspect of jihad. Jihad, conversely, comprises both the peaceful and militant aspects of struggle for goodness.

So, the word Jihad doesn’t always mean war when it is used in Quran and Hadees and it is the context of the verse, in which it appears, that determines whether it has been used for peaceful or armed struggle or for both in the cause of Islam.

There is also enough evidence from the Quran, Hadees and the life of Prophet (PBUH), besides others, to suggest that declaration and control of war is not a thing to be decided by non-state actors. There is no concept of private Jihad in Islam. Decision about declaration and cessation of war is the sole authority of the government. But this aspect has also been overlooked. Part 3 of the book discusses whether or not any private group is entitled to wage war on its own as is being witnessed nowadays. It also scrutinizes the arguments put forward by those who are for private Jihad. All these issues are discussed in the first three parts of the book.

Part 4 of the book deals an important issue that whether or not Muslim citizens could wage a war against their rulers for a good cause.

The exponents of private Jihad also fail to realise that certain verses about war in the cause of Islam were specific to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The issue has been discussed at length in part 5 of the book.

Part 6 discusses the issues, problems, misconceptions and principles of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. I have categorised non-Muslims individuals and states and suggested how each of them is to be treated.

In part 7 of the book, the war-expeditions of the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) and their background has been discussed.

Some exponents of private Jihad differentiate between offensive and defensive war and say that offensive war requires governmental approval but for defensive war, no such thing is required. There are some other terms like Nafeer-e-Aam, the land of war and the land of treaty and the land of Islam that needs to be redefined and explained. The issue comes under focus in part 8.

I have also tried, in part 8 of the book, to redefine, in the context of the modern age, several jurisprudential terms that are of importance for understanding the concept of Jihad in Islam.

In part 9 of the book, I have discussed the principles of freedom struggle and the phenomena of terrorism and suicide attacks in the light of both tradition and reason. I have suggested alternate path to the subjugated nations, especially Muslims that can win them freedom, peace, prosperity and prestige in the world.

Supporters of suicide attacks justify and hail it as biggest form of sacrifice and term it as Fidayee attacks. The instances they cite from Muslim history to justify these attacks do not serve the purpose. The reason is that, in the cited examples, Sahaaba were killed by the enemy but the present day suicide attack is fundamentally a suicide as the bomber kills himself with his own hands. And though suicide is also an unforgiveable sin, suicide bombing is even more serious in that it causes death to many others, most of whom are almost always innocent.

I have also explained the phenomenon by giving historical examples, critically examining the justifications put forward by those who legitimise suicide bombing. It is up to the reader to judge whether I have been able to prove that it is not only contrary to religious injunctions but is highly harmful for subjugated nations and their liberation struggles.

The book discusses the ideology of Al-qaeda in part 10. There are several weaknesses and contradictions in its strategy, it adopted after the 9/11 and its agenda, prima facie, seems against Islamic teachings.

I have tried my best to remain as simple in words as possible. This book is basically meant for eradicating misunderstandings about Islam spread by the extremists that Islam allows suicide attacks and private jihad. The book aims at clearing these misconceptions and bringing the true message and teachings of Islam and presenting it in a comprehensible way. Let’s hope that one is successful in this endeavour.



Part 1

Qital and jihad-some important discussions



1.1 Meaning of Jihad





The term Jihad signifies making utmost struggle to achieve an objective. It is a comprehensive term that includes all kinds of endeavours made for any purpose. When the endeavours are made for the sake of Allah, it is called Jihad in Allah’s path.



Every struggle that seeks realization of Allah’s rights, human rights and training of self is jihad. Similarly all endeavours to help the needy and the poor, to disseminate knowledge, to save oneself from sins and propagate religion through Quran is Jihad. This is why Muslim jurists speak of Jihad by knowledge, Jihad by deeds and Jihad by self which engulf every act of virtue. In short, doing any work of virtue is jihad. It is a continuous process that continues through out a Muslim’s life.



The word is distinct from war for which Quran uses the term Qital. Jihad is a whole while Qital is only a part of it. The former is an all encompassing term while the latter denotes just its militant aspect.



The basis of my contention is that the word Jihad and its corollaries have been used in the holy Quran in at least 29 verses. Four of these verses relate to Makkite period. As we all know that Muslims were not authorised armed struggle therein. We have but to restrict the meaning of the term Jihad used in these four verses to peaceful struggle for religion. 25 of these verses are Madinite. It is well known about the period that on the one hand peaceful propagation of religion continued and on the other, they were allowed use of force if attacked in order to protect the nascent state against the threats posed by its enemies. So, in Madinite period, the term Jihad also began representing the aspect of armed struggle or Qital along with that of hitherto known peaceful struggle. The context of the verses makes it clear as to where the word is used for peaceful struggle and where it stands for armed struggle. Now we would narrate the verses one by one. The first four verses were revealed in Makkah.

1. “But verily your Lord, to those who left their homes after trials and persecutions, and who thereafter strived for the Faith and patiently persevered, your Lord, after all this is Often-Forgiving, the Most Merciful.” (Nahl 16:110)

In this verse, the migration of Abyssinia is alluded to and the Jihad referred to is the general struggle.


In this verse, every struggle for the sake of religion has been dubbed as Jihad. Literal meaning of the Kaafir is rejecter. According to the Quran, Kaafir is a person who has received sufficient knowledge about Islam from the best preachers and has fully understood that it is true but despite that he decides to reject it because of prejudice or interest.


2. “So, don’t listen to the unbelievers but strive for the greater struggle against them with this (Quran).” (Furqaan 25: 52)



In this verse the peaceful preaching through Quran has been declared a greater Jihad.


3. “And whosoever that strives in our way is doing it for his own soul: For Allah is free of all needs from all creations.” (Ankabooth 29: 6)



In this verse, every struggle for the sake of religion has been dubbed as Jihad.



4. “And those who strive in Our Cause, We will certainly guide them to Our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do the right.”(Ankabooth 29: 69)


In this verse too, the word Jihad has been used for every effort for religion.


Now we will enumerate the Madinite verses.


5. “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and those who struggled in the Path of Allah, they have the hope of the mercy of Allah: And Allah is Often-forgiving and the most Merciful.” (Baqara 2: 218)


This verse lies at a place where several questions put up by the Muslims have been answered. The four sacred months have been mentioned before this verse while the verse is followed by commandments about wine and gambling. This makes it clear that the word Jihad here signifies general struggle in the path of Islam.


6. “Did you think that you would enter Heaven without Allah knowing those of you who fought (in His path) and who remained steadfast? (Al-e-Imraan 3:142).


As this verse has come in the backdrop of Battle of Uhud, here the word Jihad stands for armed struggle.


7. “Not equals are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those sit (at home). Though to both Allah has promised good but Allah has distinguished those who strive and fight above those who sit by a special reward.” (Nisaa 4:95)


In this part of the chapter Nisaa, war laws are being discussed. So, jihad here refers to militant aspect of the struggle. And it should be borne in mind that while this verse declares that though fighting for Islam is work of great reward, it is not mandatory. Every Muslim is basically duty bound to have faith, do good and to advise others for the truth and perseverance on the right in his respective environment.


Some other injunctions by the Quran make the point that it is indeed a worst kind of hypocrisy to lag behind if an Islamic government asks for compulsory military services in the wake of grave dangers. Unless sincerely repented, its culprit will be thrown to hell but he cannot be given any punishment in this world.



8. “O’ believers! Fear Allah and seek the means of approach to Him and strive in His Path, so that you may prosper.” (Maaeda 6:35)


Coming between the punitive commandments and the punishment to thieves, this verse actually cautions Muslims that they should obey the religious orders with letter and spirit and struggle in the path of Allah at their fullest. Jihad, therefore, here implies the general struggle.


9. “O’ (apparently) believers! If any one from you turns back from his Faith (Allah doesn’t care). Soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they love him- Lowly with the believers and mighty against the rejecters; struggling in the way of Allah and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault.” (Maaeda 5:54)


These verses address the hypocrites. In the era of the Prophet (PBUH), there were certain elements in the Muslim community who despised Muslims and connived with the enemies. This verse predicted the elimination of these hypocrites which got materialised soon. Besides, the verse also lauded the true believers for their strenuous struggle in the path of Allah who cared the least for the reproaches by others. The background suffices to decide that here Jihad refers to the general struggle.


10-12. “Those who believed, migrated (to Madina) and struggled (for the faith) with their property and persons in the cause of Allah (emigrants), as well as those who gave them asylum and aid (their helpers in Madina), these are (all) friends and protectors of each other. While to those who believed but didn’t migrate, you don’t have any duty of protection to them until they (also) come into exile (to Madina). But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to protect them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And remember that Allah sees all that you do.


The unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless you do this (protect each other), there would be oppression on earth and great mischief.


Those who believed, adopted exile and struggled for faith in the cause of Allah, and those who gave (them) asylum and help, these are (all) truthful believers; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and the most generous provision.


And those who embrace the faith hereafter, adopt exile, and struggle for the faith alongside you, they are of you. But kindred by blood have prior rights against each other in the book of Allah. Verily Allah is well acquainted with all the things.” (Anfaal 8:72-75).


The above lines reveal the importance of territorial limits of a state. These verses testify that Islam recognises the existence and significance of nation state. A Muslim state in barred hereby to help Muslims residing beyond its frontiers unless it is sanctioned by international treaties.


As this citizenship comprised all Muslims- those who participated in the war as well as those who didn’t- the word Jihad here refers to its general sense.


13. “Do you think (O’Muslims!) that you will be abandoned whilst Allah hasn’t yet examined (all of you) to know those amongst you who fight (in his path) and take non for friends and protectors except Allah, His Apostle and the believers? Allah is well acquainted with what you do.” (Tauba 9, verse 16)


This verse is preceded by a reference to war, so here the militant aspect is dominant.


14-15. “Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service) of those who believe in Allah and in the Last Day and fight (with main and might) in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: And Allah doesn’t guide those who do wrong. Those who believed, and suffered exile and fought with their properties and persons in the cause of Allah, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will succeed.” (Tauba 9:19-20)


As this verse comes amidst war discussion, here the word Jihad refers to armed conflict.


16. “Say (O’ Prophet) if it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that you have gained; the commerce in which you fear a decline; or the dwellings that you delight in, are dearer to you than Allah, or His Apostle, or the striving in His cause; then wait until Allah brings about His decision: And Allah never guides the rebellious.” (Tauba 9:24)


During the era of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), sometimes all adult Muslims were asked for voluntary services in the event of grave danger. Some of them would be assigned military duties while others non-military ones. Despite this, a few persons would deprive themselves of this reward due to feeble faith. These people are addressed in these verses and told that even if they won’t fight beside other Muslims, Allah would give the final victory to His Apostle. So, here Jihad refers to war.


17. “(O’ Muslims!) Go out (for this war whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive with your goods and persons in the cause of Allah. That is best for you if you knew.” (Tauba 9:41)

This verse came in the backdrop of the Battle of Tabook. It immediately comes after the migration account of the Holy Prophet and Aboo Bakkar. It mentions financial sacrifice as well. Here, therefore, Jihad refers to both its armed and general aspects.


18. “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day will never ask you to exempt them from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knows well those who fear Him.” (Tauba 9: 44)


This verse discusses the Battle of Ditch. So, here the term Jihad is specific to war.


19. “O prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm onto them. Their abode is Hell- an evil refuge indeed.” (Tauba 9:73)

Jihad in this verse means to confront them with full might, i.e., how to confront them to defeat their propaganda, allegations and conspiracies. As war was never fought against the hypocrites in the Prophet’ era, so Jihad here stands for armed struggle against the rejecters but this aspect is not referred to as far as hypocrites are concerned.


20. “(Allah is well aware of the whispers of the hypocrites) who slander such of the believers who give freely/happily in donations as well those who find nothing to offer except the returns of their labour and ridicule them. Allah will throw back their ridicule on them and they will have grievous punishment.” (Tauba 9:79)


The term Jihad here stands for spending money in the cause of Allah.


21. “(On the occasion of Battle of Tabook, the Hypocrites) who were left behind rejoiced in their lagging behind from the Apostle of Allah; they didn’t like to strive and fight in the Path of Allah; they (Hypocrites) said (to others too) not to go forth in the heat. Say (O prophet to them that) the fire of Hell is fiercer in heat. If only they could understand (the fact).” (Tauba 9:81)
This verse was revealed in the backdrop of Battle of Tabook and it declares all those who rendered corporal and financial sacrifices as Mujahideen. So, two aspects of the Jihad –to offer funds for Islam and to go to war when required –are specifically mentioned.

22. “(O Prophet!) Whenever a chapter (of the subject matter) came down that enjoined them to fulfil the obligations of belief in Allah and fight alongwith His Apostle, the affluent amongst them also came to you to seek exemption and said , “Leave us behind with those sit (at homes).” (Tauba 9:86)

As this verse was also revealed in the context of Battle of Ditch, here Jihad also refers to war in the cause of Allah.
23. “But for the Apostle and those who believed with him, who strive and fight with their wealth and persons, are (all) good bounties: and it is they who will prosper.” (Tauba 9:88)

The verse also relates to Battle of Tabook. Though the aspect of fighting in the cause of Allah with one’s goods and person is dominant here, the general aspect of the struggle is also visible.

24. “And strive in Allah’s path as it deserves. He has chosen you for this struggle, and has imposed no difficulty on you in Religion; (Allah has chosen for you) the cult of your father Ibrahim.” (Haj 22:78)

It is clear from the context of the verse that Jihad here connotes general struggle for the cause of Islam.

25. “And (O companions of the Apostle!) We shall try you until we filter out from amongst you as to who are fighters and steadfast. This way will We test your conditions.” (Muhammad 47:31)

The hypocrites of Madina would often complain as to why war wasn’t allowed. When it was, they began avoiding it. Therefore Allah declares through this verse that He will put to test all the Muslims to reveal their true worth. This background shows that Jihad here stands for fighting in way of Allah.


26. “Only those are true believers who have believed in Allah and His Apostle, and have never doubted since then and have strived with their goods and their persons in the cause of Allah: these are the truthful ones.” (Hujraath 15:49)

Verses 14 to18 of the surah had earlier discussed the faith of the people of the suburbs of Madina where it was stated that they had not accepted the faith wholeheartedly but had only apparently conformed to Islam. In this verse, the trait of Muslims is mentioned that a Muslim is ready to offer anything he has in the cause of Allah. Hence, Jihad here means every kind of struggle for Islam.

27. “O Believers! Don’t take My enemies and yours as friends. You offer them love while they have rejected the Truth that has come to you; they have driven the Apostle and yourselves out (from your homes, simply) because you believed in Allah, your Lord. If you have come out to strive in My cause and to seek My Pleasure (then how strange is it that) you send them secret messages of love to them. While I know full well all that you do covertly or overtly. And any of you, who does this, has strayed from the straight path.” (Mumtahina 60:1)

These verses declare that if any state declares our country an enemy state or there is enmity between them and us, citizens have no right and justification to seek friendship or covert relationship with that country or its inhabitants.

The context of the verse reveals that both the general struggle and war are meant here by the term Jihad.

28. “O believers! Should I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous penalty? (It is that) you believe in Allah and His Apostle and that you strive (your utmost) with your belongings and persons in the cause of Allah: that will be best for you if you know.”(Saf 61:10-11)

Before these verses, the atheists were told that ultimate victory in Arab land was reserved for the Prophet (PBUH) though it may be highly repugnant to them. The Muslims are directed in this context that they should struggle in the cause of Allah with their goods and persons to foil the designs of the atheists and the hypocrites. So, Jihad obviously here encompasses very kind of struggle in that connection- even armed struggle would not be spared if need be.
29. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the rejecters and the hypocrites and be firm onto them. And their abode is Hell- an evil refuge (indeed).”(Tahreem 66: 9)

The term Jihad here means how to fight the case of Islam in discussions with non-believers and hypocrites and to defeat their conspiracies. Obviously, the Prophet never waged armed war against the hypocrites.

In the above pages, we have enumerated, as per our capacity, all the Quranic verses related to Jihad. The discussion makes it amply clear that it is wrong to specify the term Jihad to armed struggle only. In eight of the above verses, the term jihad refers to armed struggle. In the rest, it means every kind of struggle for Islam.

 1.2. Jihad and Ahadees



In Ahadees too, the term Jihad sometimes refers to each work of virtue while at other places it indicates participation in the war.


The Holy Prophet said:


“A Mujahid is one who fights with his self in obedience to Allah.”


Similarly, the Prophet (PBUH), according to Hadees, also dubs the service of parents as jihad. It is narrated that a man came to the Prophet. He asked for permission to go to jihad. The Prophet asked him whether his parents were alive. He replied in affirmative. The Prophet then asked him to go and serve them saying that was his jihad. (Bukharee, Hadees 3004).


1.3. The meaning of Qital



Quran uses the term Qital for armed struggle. Every war is Qital irrespective of its objective. Qital is mentioned in fifty four verses of the Quran. All these verses are Madinite. These are:



Baqara 2, verses 154, 190, 191, 193, 216, 217, 244, 246, 251, 253;

Al-e-Imraan 3, verses 13, 108, 111, 121, 167, 169, 195;

Nisaa 4, verses 74, 75, 76, 77, 84, 89, 90, 91;

Maaeda 5, verse 70;

Anfaal 8, verses 16, 17, 39, 65;

Tauba 9, verses 12, 13, 14, 29, 36, 111, 123;

Haj 22, verses 39, 58;

Ahzaab 33, verses 25, 26, 61;

Muhammad 47, verses 4, 20;

Fatah 48, verses 16, 22;

Hujraath 49, verse 9;

Mujadala 58, verse 10;

Hashar 59, verse 11;

Mumtahina 60, verse 9;

Saf 61, verse 4;

Munafiqoon 63, verse 4;

Muzammil 73, verse 20.



Quran mentions three kinds of Qital:



One, a war which is carried out to seek Allah’s pleasure-it is called ‘Qital fi sabee-lil-lah’ (war in the cause of Allah);



Two, any kind of war fought between two sides for any purpose-it is called Qital;



Three, a war which is started against Muslims to annihilate them- it has been dubbed as Qital fi sabeel-ith- Taaghooth (war in support of the evil or transgressor). (If we go by the concept and spirit of Islamic teachings, we can also say that any war for genocide or enslavement of any nation, irrespective of their religion, caste or area, is a war in the cause of Taaghooth.)



The first kind of war is meant when the Holy Quran declares:


“(If need be) the believers fight in the way of Allah while the rejecters fight (against Islam and) in the cause of the Evil. Therefore, fight against the supporters of Satan: feeble indeed are the schemes of Satan.” (Nisaa 4:76)



Similarly, about the general war, it has been said:


“(O Believers!) If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, conciliate between the two: But if one of them transgresses beyond limits over the other, then fight against the transgressor until it complies with the command of Allah. If it submits, then make peace between them with justice and be fair. For, Allah loves those who are fair.” (Hujraath 49:9)

1.4 Meaning of ‘Sabr’ (patience)



The term patience is almost forgotten by Muslims. It has rather disappeared from the utterances and writings of Muslim scholars, reformers and political leaders. Its importance can be judged from the fact that the term and its corollaries have been cited in the Holy Quran for about 103 times. A careful study of these citations reveals that patience is in fact a mentality and a behaviour pattern one aspect of which relates to individual and the other to the community.



As far the meaning of patience related to individual life, it is that that when an individual is faced with odds, he should not lose heart; he should save himself from despair and panic; he should adopt a well-thought out peaceful strategy after careful and cool-minded evaluation of the situation in hand and keep on the strategy despite provocation avoiding any reactionary or violent steps.



Similarly, when a Muslim nation is caught in grave dangers and difficulties, patience demands that it should keep its cool, plan and prepare for the future and avoid reactionary or problematic measures. The strategy would include all possible efforts to avoid damage as far as possible and a belief in Allah that He is witnessing everything. Persistence with the strategy is called patience.



Contrary to that, any instant, reckless and hasty step without any objective analysis and preparation and lack of perseverance in strategy would be called impatience.

Impatience has been the biggest weakness and shortcoming of the Muslim nation through out the past 200 years. Even today its leaders are indoctrinating the malady while those who advocate patience are dubbed as cowards.



Patience has been the hallmark of the history of the prophets and their companions. They persisted with their agenda but didn’t attempt shortcuts to realise goals quickly. Noah and His followers preached for centuries and underwent persecutions by the opponents but they didn’t retaliate. Only Prophet Younas (or Jonah) showed some impatience in his endeavours and his story was made part of the Holy Quran for all times to come.



“So, wait with patience for the command of your Lord, and don’t be like the Companion of the Fish (Younas) when he (from the belly of the fish) cried out in agony. Had the grace from His Lord not reached him, he (for his haste) would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore in contempt.” (Qalam 68:48-49)



The Holy Prophet also adopted the path of patience. He never retaliated for cruelties committed against his self and his companions in the 13 years of Makkite period. Rather he asked them to be patient and steadfast. This despite the fact that Muslims there had the guts and power to defeat a ten times bigger enemy in the words of the Quran. It was only when an Islamic state came into being in Madina that the Muslims were allowed warfare.



In the battle of Badar, enemy was thrice powerful in fighters and arms than Muslims. But the reason rather than emotions prevailed in the Muslim camp. They devised the best well thought out strategy by mutual consultations. Against this, there was disunity in the enemy’s ranks; their steps showed recklessness and disorder. So, with Allah’s grace, the Muslims prevailed.



Muslims were comparatively in a better position in the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet (PBUH) had planned well, so the Muslims initially gained victory. But when, as mentioned by the Quran, some Muslims showed impatience, they violated the orders of their commander for love of bounty and discord ensued, Allah Almighty changed their victory into defeat (Al-e-Imraan 3:144-152)



After that, in the Battle of Ditch, when the enemy had around ten thousand of well armed soldiers and they were unified, the Prophet adopted a defensive strategy. Though the younger and emotional companions of the Prophet argued for open fight outside Madina, the Prophet kept his cool and decided against it. On the advice of Salman Farsee, he adopted the novel and modern strategy of digging a ditch around Madina and thus not only avoided the war but also saved his people from an almost certain defeat.



In the sixth year of migration, the Quresh of Makkah stopped the Muslims unjustly from performing an Umra. But they also offered a truce. The conditions of the truce were apparently entirely against the Muslims so much so that even Umar also expressed his anger over the terms. For example, a term stated that if a Muslim went back on his belief and came to Makkah, he would not be returned but if any atheist embraced Islam and went to Madina, Muslims would have to return him. But the Prophet entered into a truce with the enemy even on these unfair terms. He knew that the truce would open an opportunity to preach Islam. The prophet thereby got a much needed peace interval from them. This is why the Quran dubbed this apparently anti Muslim truce as clear victory.



Later when the truce of Hudaybia was wrapped up after violation by the enemy, the Prophet started preparations silently and patiently. He alienated the enemy through his smart diplomatic manoeuvres. Then he went with a big army and conquered Makkah peacefully- he not only pardoned his enemies but also appointed them as his governors. There is much to learn in these incidences for the Muslims of today if considered.

Immediately after that, in the Battle of Hunain, some Muslims boasted off their strength and said they were invincible that day. Allah expressed His anger upon this by exposing them to initial defeat.


We must understand it well that when Allah didn’t tolerate any weakness related to worldly strategies and patience of even the companions of the Prophet, how would He tolerate ours.



PART 2

Meaning of Qital Fi Sabeelillah, definition and principles


2.1 The meaning of Qital Fi Sabeelillah



It simply means war in the cause of Allah. It means the war is fought according to the principles and laws of Islam for warfare and those who fight the war are only driven by the urge to please Allah. The Prophet (PBUH) said:



“Wars are of two types. He who fought to seek Allah’s pleasure, obeyed his rulers, spent the best of his belongings, behaved meekly with his companions and avoided mischief in it, his sleeping and awakening all will be rewarded. On the contrary, he who fought for grandiosity and to get fame and name, disobeyed his ruler and spread anarchy on face of the earth, he will not be spared.”



Fighting in the path of Allah doesn’t imply that people will be forcefully converted to Islam or that Muslim governments will be established wiping out the democratic governments. Because Islam allows humans in both their individual and collective capacity to lead a life of their own choice provided they do not harm others. Quran asks Muslims to be fair and just with all the nations of the world.



(Please see (Surah and verse) 2:256; 5:8; 7:37; 10:108; 18:29 and 107; 41:40; 42:15; 74:54 and 55; 76: 3 and 29; 78:39; 88:21 and 22 and many other verses.)



2.2 Types of war



Islam declares the following kinds of war as war in the path of Allah.



2.2.1 Defensive war



If a Muslim state is attacked, it has right to defend itself.
“And fight in Allah’s cause against those who wage a war against you, but do not commit excess for verily Allah doesn’t love the transgressors.”(Baqara 2:190)

“Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged; and verily Allah has indeed the power to help them- (these are people) who have been driven out from their homes ( from the land of Makkah) against all right for no other reason than their saying, “Our Sustainer is Allah.” (Haj 22: 39-40)



2.2.2 Support to oppressed Muslims



If people, especially Muslims, are subjected to cruelty in another country or the government there hinders them to follow Islamic injunctions, a war in their support is also allowed. (But this cannot be done against a state Muslims have entered into a treaty with.)
Allah says:



“And how could refuse to fight in the cause of Allah and for the utterly helpless men, women and children who are saying, “O our Sustainer! Lead us (to freedom) out of this land whose people are oppressors and raise for us, out of Your grace, a protector and a helper.” (Nisaa 4:75)



The holy Quran further says:

“Fight them on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes God’s. But if they avoid fighting you, let there be hostility except to those who are oppressors.” (Baqara 2:193)

In the above verse “God’s religion” means the principle laid down by Allah: that everyone in this world should be allowed to exercise free will and have his own belief system. For the Holy Prophet (PBUH), this was decided by God that the people of Arab Peninsula will embrace Islam through their own free will if there is no persecution. This point will be discussed later.



2.2.3 Completion of the task through the Prophet (PBUH)

Allah almighty has been fulfilling one or the other task through each one of his prophets. The Prophet (PBUH) was sent to ensure supremacy of the Laws of Allah in the Arab Peninsula and make it the centre of Islam for all times to come. This was a Divine task that had to be completed. The Prophet (PBUH) was given special powers for it and the task was accomplished in direct supervision by Allah. This issue will be discussed in a separate chapter later.




2.3 Principles of war



War in the cause of Islam is not a haphazardly carried out act of reactionary nature, it has several guiding principles which have to be observed before or during the war.



2.3.1 Only the state can declare war



The first rule regarding war is that no non-state actor has any right to declare or initiate war. Only the state or government is empowered to do so. There is no concept of war without governmental authority- it has to be declared, managed and controlled by the government. There is no idea of a private lashkar or jaish (army) in Islam.



Islam, it should be remembered, authorized the Prophet (PBUH) to wage war only when he became the ruler of the state of Madina. War was prohibited for him in the earlier thirteen years of Makkite period when he didn’t have governmental authority with him. Allah had, through verse 77 of Nisaa, asked Muslims to refrain from war therein.



Mufti Mohammad Shafi states:
“There is unanimity in the entire Muslim community on that war with the unbelievers was prohibited before the migration to Madina. All the Quranic verses in that period advised Muslims to observe restraint and patience over the brutalities committed upon them by the unbelievers.” (Ma’ariful Quran, part 1, page 469)

The first ever Quranic verses that allowed war in case of aggression were revealed in the Al-Haj. Allah states:

“Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged; and verily Allah has indeed the power to help them- (these are people) who have been driven out from their homes ( from the land of Makkah) against all right for no other reason than their saying, “Our Sustainer is Allah.” (Haj 22:39-40).

Some words in these verses warrant some discussion, so these are explained.



“ .” means allowed, that is, the war wasn’t allowed beforehand and it is only now allowed.



“. ” establishes that at first migration took place, then sovereign power ensued and only after that war was permitted.



“ .” establishes that war in Islam is in fact waged against oppression.



Another direction regarding war was revealed through verses 190-193, 216 and 224.


Allah says:


“And fight in Allah’s cause against those who wage a war against you, but do not commit excess for verily Allah doesn’t love the transgressors.”(Baqara 2:190)


Entire history of the prophets bears testimony to the truth that even prophets were not allowed to wage war without sovereign power. This is why no prophet ever pronounced hostilities unless he first got state power. No prophet ever used power to eradicate vices which were plenty in their opponent nations. They were subjected to brutalities by the rulers of their times but neither did they take armed action nor ever they took revenge. They didn’t even give up patience even when they and their companions were forced out of their homes and regions for Allah had asked them for forbearance.


The entire life-spans of Noah, Looth, Hood, Salih, Shoaib, Abraheem (Abraham), Moosa (Moses) Younas (Jonah) and Eesaa (Jesus Christ) are devoid of war. Moosa had postponed armed action until he assembled and organised Bani Israel in desert of Sinai. Eesaa also avoided war because he didn’t have sovereign power though the Old Testament (Tura) the teachings of which he practiced and preached allowed war.

The principle- that only ruler could administer and wage war -was so clear to Bani Israel that once when they wanted to regain their lost state from their enemies by war, they asked their Prophet Samuel to appoint a ruler who could lead them in that war. Allah subsequently appointed Taalooth as their leader. (Baqara 2:246-251)

As Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) didn’t have state authority in Makkah, he too didn’t take armed action and advised his followers for patience. When Sumayya and her husband Yasir were brutally murdered by the atheists, He didn’t incite them to revenge but told them, “I predict paradise for you in return for this cruelty.”

The Prophet (PBUH) has explained the nexus between ruler and war in the following words:

“The ruler of Muslims is their shield. War is fought in his leadership and people seek shelter behind him (i.e. his decisions are followed in all matters and only he decides on peace and war. (Bukharee, 2957)


According to another tradition, the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said:



“Jihad is obligatory upon you alongside all your leaders, whether they are righteous or sinful and even if he indulges himself in greater sins.” (Aboo Dawood, 2171)


In another place, the Prophet (PBUH) said:


“Wars are of two types. He who fought to seek Allah’s pleasure, obeyed his rulers, spent the best of his belongings, behaved meekly with his companions and avoided mischief in it, his sleeping and awakening all will be rewarded. On the contrary, he who fought for grandiosity and to get fame and name, disobeyed his ruler and spread anarchy on face of the earth, he will not be spared.”

On the basis of the above mentioned verses of the Quran and traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), all Muslim jurists unanimously argue that war will only be fought under a ruler and no action will be taken without his consent. All Muslim schools of thought-Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiee, Hanbali and others- agree on the point.


And it is clear that whatever laws and directions regarding treaties have been given to Muslims require a sovereign government to implement them. This aspect will be discussed in detail later.


Islam warns Muslims against disunity in their ranks and enjoins them to live in unity. Now this can be possible only when they are loyal to their government, obey its orders on every collective affair and try to remove any of its faults peacefully.


Allah Almighty says:


“And hold fast, all together, onto the bond with Allah, and do not slit into factions. And remember the blessings which Allah has bestowed upon you: how, when you were enemies, He brought your hearts closer, so that through his blessing you became brethren; and (how, when) you were on the brink of a burning abyss, He saved you from it. In this way Allah makes clear His messages for you, so that might find guidance.” (Al-e-Imraan 3:103)


“And obey Allah and His Apostle, and do not be at variance with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength desert you. And be patient in adversity: for, verily, Allah is with those who are patient in adversity.” (Anfaal 8:46)


It goes with out saying that the best time for unity and harmony is the time of war with enemy. Disunity in that situation increases the prospects of victory for the rival. But when decision of war or truce is in the hands of a government and all inhabitants comply with it, the Muslim state can be safe.


The principle that war will be authorised and organised by the government has been agreed upon in the earlier history of the Muslim Ummah to such an extent that none had disagreed with it throughout the centuries. Assayyed-us-Sabiq writes in the Fiqah-os-Sunnah:


“The third category of non-obligatory duties comprises those that warrant a ruler, e.g. war and enforcement of Hudood (physical punishments for adultery, murder, false accusation, wine-drinking and theft). Only the ruler is entitled to these. No person other than him has any right to enforce Had (physical penalty) over others.” (Fiqah-os-Sunnah, volume3, page10)

Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanavi has also discussed this topic in detail and expressed this agreed upon viewpoint in a separate chapter in pages 3 to 6, volume 12 of the ‘Ala-e-Sunan.’



2.3.2 International treaties must be observed


Islam urges strict compliance to treaties with other nations in their letter and spirit. Besides, if a nation is committing excesses against Muslims but it has also signed a treaty with Muslim government, no war can be initiated against it until the treaty holds.


“Indeed those who embraced faith, migrated and strived hard in the cause of Allah with their lives and possessions (i.e. the emigrants of Makkah) and those who sheltered and assisted them (i.e. Ansars, the helpers of Madina), these are (truly) the friends and protectors of one another. But as for those who have come to believe but didn’t have migrated, you have no responsibility for their protection until and unless they migrated (to the state of Madina). However, if they ask you for your help in religion, it is your duty to give them support provided it is not against a nation between whom and yourselves there is a treaty. Allah sees all what you do (stealthily or openly).” (Anfaal 8:72)

If a Muslim state fears that an enemy nation, which is also its partner in a treaty, will violate the pact and attack it, it is mandatory for it to first openly disown the treaty and then start war against it. Muslims are simply not allowed to indulge in subversive activities stealthily against it in violation of an existing treaty between them.


“And if you fear of treachery from a people (with whom you share a treaty), cast it (the treaty) back at them openly, for verily, Allah doesn’t love the deceitful.” (Anfaal 8: 58)

Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi explains this verse like this:

“In this verse, an important law about war and reconciliation has been revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) in which the importance of observance of pacts has been emphasised. It also states that in the event of fear of treachery or violation from the other side, it is not essential for us to keep following the treaty. But it is unlawful that we take an action against the enemy before we openly disown our mutual covenant. A correct course, instead, would be that they are informed plainly that their malicious intentions or violation has dawned upon us and that their affairs seem doubtful, so we won’t adhere to the treaty any more…….That is when there is a treaty with a nation, an armed action against it is part of treachery and Allah doesn’t like the dishonest, even if this treachery is committed against the unbelievers. However, if treachery is feared from the other side, it can be done if they are openly informed that we won’t be following the treaty any more. But this announcement should be made in such a way that both sides are equal in it –this announcement should not take the shape that first preparations for an encounter with them are made and they, for being unaware, are not prepared. Instead, preparations, if any, have to be made after the warning and announcement.” (Maarif-ul-Quran, volume 4, page 269)


Maulana Syed Abul Aala Maudoodi, after a detailed discussion on this verse, writes:

“As per this verse, if we have a treaty with a person, group or country and its conduct makes us feel and fear that it is lagging behind in following the accord or will indulge in treachery against us if given an opportunity, it is illegitimate for us to decide on our own that the treaty between it and us exists no more and that we start dealing with it the way that can be adopted in absence of a treaty. Conversely, we are duty-bound that if a situation like this arises, we should, before taking any action, tell the second party in unambiguous terms that our mutual treaty doesn’t exist any more so that it also may know about cancellation of the treaty like we do and it is not under misconception that the treaty still holds. Based on this Divine Law, the Prophet (PBUH) has declared it a permanent principle of Islam’s international policy that, “A nation that joins us in a pact should not break the terms of the treaty or else the treaty would be cast back at them in an equal way.” The Prophet (PBUH) then expanded the rule further and set up a principle in all matters, “Don’t be treacherous to one who has been treacherous to you….”

“Also, if we get into a dispute with a treaty-associate nation, and we realise that dialogue or international arbitration is not helpful in resolving the conflict r that the other side is bent upon resolving it by force, we can legitimate for us to use force for its resolution. But the abovementioned verse makes us morally bound that this use of force should come after clear and open declaration. To undertake covert armed activities, which we are not ready to admit openly, is an immorality which is not taught by Islam.” (Tafheem-ul-Quran, volume 2, pp 153-155)


2.3.3 Material strength and a special ratio against the enemy


Jihad is not synonymous with suicidal tendency, emotionalism and shedding of blood for no reason. It is rather a highly serious activity that requires the utilisation of one’s utmost mental, economic, political and military capabilities. It is not an end in itself but a means to an end –that is, to ensure peace in the world. It is not necessary by itself if it can’t be expected to eliminate cruelty. It has certain conditions. It requires that all necessary ingredients of a successful military strategy –enough numerical strength, equipments and other paraphernalia –should be arranged for. A congenial surrounding is also needed. It should be started only if there is a strong likelihood that Muslims will be able to win the war and eradicate injustice thereby. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) entered into pacts with several atheist tribes and Jewish groups and never attacked the enemy unless it was fully alienated beforehand with smart measures.

And when there is no possibility of a victory for Muslims, then it is also necessary that a proper strategy for the security of the people and army should also be adopted. The Prophet (PBUH) did this in the Battle of Ditch. The non-Muslims outnumbered the Muslims by three times in that war. Therefore, the Muslims went for the ditch strategy. They avoided an open war which obviously would have been a suicidal step in that situation. At the time of the Treaty of Hudaybia, when the Muslims were in dejected mood for its apparently insulting conditions. But the Prophet (PBUH) knew that the treaty would ultimately lead to the alienation of the infidels. So he went for the pact despite general negative perceptions on it. Later when the Muslims attacked Makkah, the Qureshites stood isolated from the rest of the Arab tribes and the Muslims enjoyed much greater numerical and military strength than theirs.


Quran has frequently alluded to these phenomena. The entire life of the Prophet (PBUH) is an excellent replica of this strategy. As for the war equipments, Allah almighty says:


“Hence, make ready against them whatever force and tethered horses you are bale to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of Allah and those of yourselves, and others besides these (open enemies) of whom you are unaware but Allah knows them.” (Anfaal 8:60)


Similarly, Muslims must arrange a numerical and military might against the enemy in a ratio that is essential for them to win the war. In the initial days of Islam when the standard of faith of the Sahaaba (companions of the Prophet (PBUH)) as the highest of human history, Allah had said that they would overpower the enemy even in the ratio of 1:10. Later, when the faith didn’t remain the same, Allah said that one Muslim would suffice for two non-Muslims. That is, if numerical strength of non-believers is double that of the Muslims, then war against them is not necessary but some other strategy should/would be adopted.



“O Prophet! Inspire the believers towards war. If there be twenty of you who are patient in adversities, they will overpower two hundred; and if there are one hundred of you, you may overcome one thousand of the unbelievers for they are people who cannot grasp things. For the time being, (however), Allah has lightened your burden, for he knows that you are weak: So, if there be one hundred of you who are forbearing, they would overcome two hundred; and if there be one thousand of you, they would prevail upon two thousand by Allah’s command: for Allah is with those who show forbearance.” (Anfaal 8:65,66)


However, if we take into account the present standard of Muslims’ faith and their standing by the scales of intellectual power and patience, it can be said that there is hardly a ratio of 1:1 between the Muslims and non-Muslims these days. It can in no way be better than one Muslims to two non-Muslims as it was the assessment between the Sahaaba and their enemies while our position is far inferior to theirs.


2.3.4 Peace overtures of the enemy should be accepted


If the enemy requests that it wants to resolve the contentious issues through dialogue and the Muslim government is sure of the veracity of the offer and that it isn’t merely a war-tactic, the offer must be accepted. Allah declares:



“Thus (O believers!) if they turn away from you, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah also doesn’t allow you to take action against them.” (Nisaa 4:90)



“But (O Prophet!) if the enemy inclines to peace, you should also go for it. Keep trust in Allah for verily He alone is all-hearing and all-knowing. And should they seek but to deceive you, Allah alone is enough for you. He it is Who has strengthened you with His own succour and by believers whose hearts He has brought together.” (Anfaal 8:61,62)



2.3.5 Non-combatants must not be targeted



Islam forbids killing or harming the non-combatants. Allah says:

“And fight in Allah’s cause against those who wage war against you but don’t transgress therein.” (Baqara 2:190)


Transgression here means that those who are not directly participating in the war are killed. On the basis of this direction of the Quran, the Prophet (PBUH) prohibited plunder, sacrilege and mutilation of the enemies and inhuman way of killing like burning someone to death. He also forbade the killing of women, the sick, the children, the non-combatants and the animals. Similarly, war against neutral and peaceful countries has also been declared illegitimate. Allah says:


“(O believers!) Allah doesn’t forbid you to be polite and just to those (non-believers) who don’t fight against you on account of your faith nor drive you out of your homes: For, verily, Allah loves those who act equitably. Allah only forbids you to turn in friendship to towards such people who have fought against you because of (your) faith, have driven you out of your homes or aided each other in driving you forth. It is those who befriend them who are the real wrongdoers.” (Mumtahina 60:8-9)



In another place, it is said:



“Those who come to you with their hearts shrinking from making war either against you or against their own people, if Allah had willed, He would have emboldened them and they would have waged against you. Thus, if they turn away from you, do not make war on you and offer you peace, Allah too doesn’t allow you to take any action against them.” (Nisaa 4:90)


It shows that if any country wants to live in peace with us, we are also bound to reciprocate its desire and live peacefully with it.



2.3.6 No war in prohibited months


Four months –Rajab, ZilQa’d, Zilhaj and Muharram –are sacred months according to Islam. In these months pilgrimage to Makkah for Haj and Umra is made. War, therefore, should not be initiated by the Muslims in these months themselves.

“They ask you about fighting in the sacred months. Say (O Prophet!): fighting in it is a gruesome act.” (Baqara 2:217)


2.3.7 Corresponding response by Muslims



If the enemy indulges itself in a war strategy which generally is illegitimate for the Muslims, they can adopt it as well. For example, if the enemy starts war in the sacred months, the Muslim state too can respond to it.

“The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of equality (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against them. and fear Allah, and know that Allah is pious people.” (Baqara 2:194)



PART 3

The state and the war


3.1 Disadvantages of war without state’s authority



The entire world history bears testimony to the fact that only the armed struggle of that nation has succeeded so far who had a territory under their control, had declared independence and formed a government and a united army under a single command. The army should, obviously, have enough personnel and equipments as compared to the enemy.


The logic behind all this is obvious. If different political and religious groups start developing their armed factions and private armies without state authorisation, if they do not respect and violate official treaties with other countries and begin wars on their own, the country would be seized by lawlessness and chaos. This disorder will then have negative effects on its internal situation as well as on its international standing and relations with other states. Most probably, there will also be mutual fighting amongst these militant clichés. To avoid all these negative fallouts, it is, therefore, essential that only the state should have the authority to declare matters of war and truce.



This is why only states have had formed armies round the world. Unjustified wars even by states could result in great losses but if different groups start fighting each other or against states on their own, the losses could be even bigger as its end result is complete anarchy.



This is why declaration of war, as per Islamic teachings, is the exclusive right of the state and government. The state too can’t exercise this power arbitrarily; it can do so only when it has to fight against brutality, it fights when it is in a position of victory and the war itself is within the framework of international treaties.



Unluckily, from 1980s onwards armed clichés were developed by different Muslim sects that began militant activities in different parts if the world. The phenomenon has spread so much that now there is common perception that the enemy can be defeated by even these outfits. This group-based militancy gained widespread acceptance particularly after the Russian army attacked Afghanistan.

It goes without saying that this Russian attack was an unjust and wrong step. But how Pakistan reacted to it was extremely questionable and lamentable.



Pakistan then had three options available to it –those of passive silence, diplomatic strategy and militant resistance. The first one could have entailed dangers and was thus not advisable.



Second, Pakistan could have opted for peaceful political and diplomatic channels to deal with the situation. The problem should have been taken to UNO and a dialogue with USSR should have been started. It certainly would have allayed Soviet apprehensions and most probably it would have withdrawn its forces once an independent, impartial or non anti-USSR Afghanistan had been guaranteed. In this case Pakistan would have UNO, Muslim countries and the non-aligned countries on its side. Besides, it was a correct path from religious point of view as well.



The third option was that of active resistance. But this necessitated formation of a sovereign Afghan exiled government and combined army. That government should have been recognised by the UN and some important countries; this government should have entered into military pacts with USA, Pakistan and other countries under which these states would have promised military support to it. This pact should have been backed by the UN and through the united army under this government Afghanistan’s independence struggle should have been started. This strategy would have helped form a stable government after the cessation of war in Afghanistan. And by religious point of view too, this was a correct path.



But General Zia-ul-Haq, the then military dictator of Pakistan, adopted the third path which was extremely flawed and dangerous of which there is no example of success in history. He divided the Afghan resistance into six factions and various splinter groups were formed across Afghanistan on linguistic, territorial and sectarian grounds. Each group was given money and arms and each started armed struggle against the Russians. This strategy was against Islamic teachings and it was it that served as the basis for subsequent destruction of Afghanistan.



Let me bring home my point with an example from the near past. In 1970, Awami League swept elections in former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). But military dictator General Yahya refused to hand over the power to it and instead started a military operation there against AL in 1971. Millions of people and most of the AL leaders sought refuge in the neighbouring India.



Now India took various smart moves to turn the situation into its favour. First, it announced formation of an ‘independent exiled Bangladesh’ and AL leader Tajuddin Ahmad was made its president. He formed an army, Mukti Bahini, under the command of Colonel Usman. After that, this government made an open treaty with India for training its army and helping it in independence struggle. Then, the Indian government signed a military pact with the erstwhile USSR to pre-empt the possibility of the US coming into the rescue or help of Pakistan. After that, the ‘independent Bangla government’ declared war on East Pakistan and asked India to help it. As a result of this war, as soon as Pak army surrendered in December 1971, the transfer of power took place without nay delay and the ‘independent Bangladesh’ government took reign of power into its hand.



India had developed this policy in the light of its past war experiences. Its success would have been impossible had it not planned that meticulously. Compare this Indian strategy with that of Pakistan it adopted vis-à-vis Afghanistan, the difference will become crystal clear.



Our religion teaches us that only the state has a legitimate authority to declare or initiate war. We are bound to act upon this principle.

3.2 An appraisal of objections raised against the viewpoint



The Muslim world in our times is witnessing an extraordinary surge in militant activities by non-state armed groups. These groups dub their terrorist activities as Jihad. They have attacked the principle that declaration of war is only the concern of the state.



3.2.1 Aboo Baseer’s example



Their first objection is based on the action of Aboo Baseer. They say he came to Madina after he converted to Islam. Quresh sought him as per the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybia. The prophet handed him over to them. When he was being taken to Makkah, Aboo Baseer killed one of the guards while the other escaped. Aboo Baseer later developed a group near the route of trade-caravans of the Quresh with the help of those who embraced Islam but faced persecution in Makkah. This group under his command attacked their trade-caravans making it virtually impossible for them to carry on trade with the outside world. It proves that group-based militancy is legitimate from Islamic point of view, they argue.



This statement is untrue. It, instead, shows that it is illegitimate to indulge in this strategy. It may be remembered that when Aboo Baseer returned to Madina after killing and overpowering his guards, the Prophet told him to leave at once and live outside the jurisdictions of the state of Madina. He was told that if he was there and the Quresh came again to seek his custody, he would be handed over to them as per the terms of the treaty. Aboo Baseer thus had to leave Madina. He was not allowed to form a faction in the limits of Madina to attack and harm the Quresh.



In fact, at the time, when the Prophet (PBUH) and the Quresh signed the Treaty of Hudaybia, many Muslims were living beyond the boundaries of the state of Madina. The Quran had made it clear about these people that unless they migrated to Madina, they are not the citizens of Madina and the Prophet (PBUH) won’t have any responsibility for any of their actions and utterances.


“But as far those who have come to believe without having migrated (to the state of Madina), you are in no way responsible for their protection until they migrate (to you). Yet, if they ask you for help in matters of religion, it is your duty to give them succour, except against a nation between whom and you there is a treaty.” (Anfaal8:72)



Maulana Maudoodi explains this verse this way.



“This verse also impacts the foreign politics of an Islamic state. The responsibility of the Islamic states, as per this verse, is restricted to those living inside its borders. It has no liability whatsoever in respect of Muslims that live outside its borders…thus Islam has uprooted the very dispute that often originates international complexities. Because when a country takes it upon itself to support some minorities living in other countries, it creates such anomalies which could not even be solved by recurrent wars,” (Tafheem-ul-Quran, volume 2, pages 161-162)



Aboo Baseer and others lived outside the boundaries of state of Madina, so the Prophet (PBUH) was in no way accountable for their actions. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) said, “I am not duty bound to support and defend a Muslim who lives amongst the atheists.” Therefore, Muslims scholars believe that Aboo Baseer had formed a small state of his own under his leadership in the shape of that colony and the Prophet (PBUH) was exempted from his activities. It may be reminded that the Prophet (PBUH) had also disliked his strategy and said:


“May his mother be calamity-hit, he would surely provoke war if he found out some partners.” (Bukharee No.2734)


And when the Quresh requested the Prophet (PBUH) to do something to stop Aboo Baseer’s activities, he promptly called him and his companions to Madina to ensure that they discontinued their attacks.



3.2.2 Imam Husain’s approach



Their second objection is that Imam Husain had fought a jihad against Yazeed though he was not the ruler of state.

This objection is historically incorrect as well. In fact, the Imam had received hundreds of letters from Iraqis in which he was asked to come to Iraq as entire Iraq was ready to accept him as their ruler. As is obvious, the letters didn’t tell of the ground situation in Iraq. Therefore, he left for Iraq along with his family in order to assess the real situation there. Neither he had any army nor did he intend to fight wars. Obviously, those who intend to fight never neither take their women and children nor 72 persons with them to fight many a thousands. He was just going to create awareness among the people.

When Ibne Ziad’s army stopped his convoy on his way to Iraq, the Imam put three options to solve the problem. The Imam asked that he should be allowed to return to Madina; that he should be allowed to go to Yazeed and take an oath of allegiance to him; or he should be allowed to go into exile.


All these options were reasonable enough and displayed his desire to avoid the war in a graceful manner. But Ibne Ziad was bent upon his insult. He insisted that Imam should first take oath of allegiance and hand over his arms before any talks could take place. As a result, his army surrounded and attacked the Imam’s convoy and this gruesome tragedy took place.


The above narration makes it crystal clear that Imam Husain tired in every possible and dignified manner to avoid war. He had not attacked any one, rather he was attacked. And he had not taken oath of loyalty to any ruler till then.

And it should also be borne in mind that all the aged companions of the Prophet (PBUH) had forbidden him to proceed on this journey because they knew the hazards involved in it. All these details can be seen in a book ‘The event of Karbala and its background’, written by Maulana Ateeq-ur-Rehman Sunbali, the son of Mualana Manzoor Numani.

3.2.3 Rulers are cowards; for how long we’ll wait



Another of their objection is that the Muslim rulers of today are either afraid of the non-believers or are their stooges. As there is no question of these rulers going ever to war with their masters, we can neither leave jihad nor wait for them any more and will have to wage war against the ‘enemies of Allah’ ourselves.



Answer to this observation is that on similar occasions Allah advises us on restraint and patience. This advice occurs at over a 100 times in the Holy Quran. If we are of the opinion that our government should start war against a certain country, we will repeatedly try to bring it to its notice and exert pressure on it in each peaceful way. But if it still declines to start war, we certainly have no right to form factions and start fighting on out own. This obsession on our part portends great destruction and it is unlikely to benefit any Muslim country. But, ofcourse, we can peacefully struggle to change the government. In democratic societies, you invariably have an opportunity to do that.



This should also be borne in mind that when an independent nation reaches at a high place in terms of morality and worldly power, Allah doesn’t let wrongful rulers govern them. Instead, it gets competent and honest leaders. Similarly, if a subjugated nation gets united, begin following the basic human morals and continue peaceful and non-violent struggle for its liberation, Allah does open the path of freedom for it as He is Just and justice is His way.



There is no bigger force than unity, peaceful struggle and perseverance. If a nation sticks to these three ideals, it is bound to succeed. It is possible that success may be elusive for several years or even some generations, but Allah does decide in its favour at an appropriate time. It is the only correct path. Impatience and haste, conversely, bear no fruit but are a bargain of loss in the long run.



All the Muslim groups and parties that are for armed struggle without authorisation by the state have used the above argument to justify their struggle. This point of view, therefore, necessitates greater and in-depth analysis. Various aspects of this stance warrant detailed discussion.



It has already been stated that Allah didn’t give the right to wage war without the government to even his prophets. They got entitled to initiate war after they established their rule in an area. And it is obvious that when each Prophet of Allah preached, the government of the time was in the hands of their worst enemies who practised each kind of sins. Yet no prophet was allowed to take armed action against them or any other enemy until he had established a state. No Muslim can have faith better than a Prophet and no enemy of Islam can be bitter to Muslims than an enemy of a Prophet. So, how is it possible after all that a right that was not conferred on the prophets would be given to the ‘Mujahideen’ of today? Our faith and struggle have no status in comparison to those of the prophets while at the same time Allah directly supported them. But they were not authorised to declare war without the government. It clearly means that even a group of most pious of Muslims, what to talk of the common Muslims, have no right to carry out any armed activity unless they have formed their state and government.



The second aspect of this issue should also be projected. It is an agreed upon principle that enforcement of Hudood and declaration of war solely rest with the government. Let us suppose that a ruler shows indifference or laxity to enforce Hudood. In that event can any one kill a person or enforce any Had himself? Obviously he cannot. It is also the case as far as declaration of war is concerned. Rather war is greater in significance as human lives are involved in it. Hence, the correct course here it will be that the ruler’s attention and consent would be sought after but no action will be taken without his orders.



The third aspect of the matter is that whatever commandments have been given on war by Islam are the concern of the government. No private organisation can act upon them. For example, there are detailed laws about wars and reconciliation in Islam. Only a government can act upon these directions. No groups without having any governmental authority can implement them. If there had been any room for private jihad, commandments about its certain important aspects would necessarily have been revealed but this is not the case.



The fourth aspect of the issue is that if this kind of war is allowed, it will invariably push the world to anarchy and chaos. Armed groups of the people would decide things on their own everywhere. Hundreds of armed groups would emerge. Sectarianism will be the order of the day. Treaties and directives by the state would be held in derision. In this milieu, various armed groups with extremely sinister and secret agendas would also come into being. Thus the Ummah would stand sharply divided. It will be taken over by the Kalashnikov culture. It will be the same situation that has been dubbed as “being on the verge of burning abyss” by the Quran. It is this situation that gives the enemy an opportunity to cripple the power of the Muslims.

So, the stance, that the people can form armed clichés and declare war on their own if the government is not ready to declare war, is wrong and can lead to extremely dangerous consequences.



It is the unanimous viewpoint of all the four religious schools of thought –Hanafee, Malikee, Shafi’ee and Hanbalee. They agree that declaration of war is the solely the task of the ruler. None else has the right to declare war. There is no room for any concession, exemption and leniency in this principle for any one else.



3.2.4 Difference between offensive and defensive wars



Their fourth objection to this rule is that wars are of two kinds –offensive and defensive ones. They say that while the offensive war is conditioned with declaration and management by the state, the defensive one is mandatory for all and it is but only conditional with Nafeer-e-‘aam (common knowledge of attack).



In fact both offensive and defensive wars are state-specific. When a Muslim state invades an enemy, the war is offensive. When it is attacked by the enemy and it defends itself, the war is defensive on its part. Muslim jurists had differentiated between these two types centuries ago but this difference was specific to that age. Means of communication were limited and poor at that time. Borders were hundreds of miles away as are today. Dissemination of information from there would take lots of time to reach the capital. So, timely directives from the rulers were not possible then. Hence it was a pre-determined policy of each government of the time that in the event of an assault by the enemy, the commander and inhabitants of the boundary areas would start immediate resistance before the information of attack was passed on to the ruler and the regular army could come into action, i.e., in case of attack on the state, it was the standing order from the ruler for all to start resistance without any waiting for any further orders.



Common sense also demands that when the country was attacked while the ruler could not be immediately contacted and there was a standing order for instant resistance beforehand, resistance to the enemy must be started without any further delay. All this shows that the criterion of difference between offensive and defensive wars for legitimatisation of war was only possible in the past. There is no such difference today. Conditions have changed. Minute details from even the remotest frontier regions reach the head-quarter in a flash as means of communication have developed enormously. Regular army also patrols the border and this fully equipped army is ready for combat duties all the time.



The attack and the standing order was a nafeer-e-'aam. Nafeer means a hooter. The term signifies that the hooter has been blown for all to join the war. In that case

, the war certainly is mandatory for all as it is the foremost duty of a state to defend is geographical frontiers against attack.



But the most important thing in this respect is that both the two preliminary war-related verses in the holy Quran deal with the defensive war. Though Al-Haj 22: 39-40, the Muslim state was allowed to declare war if it was attacked. In Al-Baqara 2:190, the Muslims were directed to fight against those who wage war on them. Both these verses address the state. So, it becomes crystal clear that defensive war is also the concern of the state and not of non-state actors.



3.2.5 Wrong inference from Ahadees



According to a tradition, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said, “Jihad continues ever-since I was sent. It will continue till the last people of my Ummah fight Dajjal. It could neither be eliminated by the oppression of an oppressor nor by the justice of a Just ruler.” (Aboo Dawood 2170)



This Hadees implies that till doomsday such conditions would continue to emerge that would require the Muslim rulers to wage war against cruelty. This world has been created for trial and it certainly will have trying periods in it. But this Hadees in no way denotes that Muslims will be busy fighting forever. This neither was the case in the era of the Prophet (PBUH) nor his devoted companions. In their time too, war occurred at times after intervals of several months and lasted for one or two or a few days and in their middle peace prevailed. Similarly, in the last years of caliph Usman and in the entire reign of caliph Ali, no war was fought at all against the non-Muslims.



Likewise, when the Prophet (PBUH) said that Paradise lies beneath the shadow of swords, this he said in a particular background. The real tradition is like this. “Never wish for a war with the enemy and seek safety from Allah. But yes, if you have ever to confront them, then be resolute and know that Paradise lies under the shadow of swords.” (Bukharee 2801)



As is clear from the Hadees, the Prophet (PBUH) rather expressed his displeasure over a desire for war. But if a war is necessary, then every soldier should remain steadfast. Steadfastness on this occasion will be highly rewarded in the hereafter.




PART 4



4.1 Can Muslims fight against their rulers for a good cause?



Quite often the rulers of Muslim states develop some vices that are widely resented: They do not care for the religious commandments; they do no follow the law and consider themselves above it; due to their weaknesses, negligence and bad strategies, the country is taken over by corruption, dishonesty, injustice, immorality and lawlessness. In this situation, every sensitive and patriotic person wishes to rectify the situation. This desire for reformation sometimes increases to such an extent that one is inclined to form an armed group to forcefully eliminate all vices from the society. So, the question is: Can arms be taken up against the rulers of a Muslim country for the promotion of goodness and eradication of evils. This question has paramount importance these days as numerous armed groups are continuing their militant struggle to achieve their objectives.



Islam is very clear on the issue. It strictly prohibits armed struggle against the Muslim rulers of a Muslim country. Reformation struggle will be carried out but it will be a peaceful struggle based on the principle of non-violence. Allah almighty says:

“O believers! obey Allah and obey his Prophet (PBUH) and your men of authority; and if you ever disagree on any matter, refer it to Allah and the Prophet, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. It is the best method and also the best in the end.” (Nisaa 4:59)



This order was revealed when the Prophet (PBUH) was alive and the Quran was being revealed. When there was nay dispute then between the people and the administrators appointed by the Prophet (PBUH), it would be brought to the Prophet (PBUH) and he would decide upon the issue. But then a question arose as to how would be matters resolved after the departure of the Prophet (PBUH) for the life hereafter. The Prophet (PBUH) told the Muslims that a correct path for them would be that they remain linked with their states, that they obey their rulers even if they see some unpleasant things in them and the rulers do not give the people their rights. The Prophet (PBUH) said:



“You are bound to listen to and obey your rulers whether you are in ease or in trouble and whether this obedience is voluntarily or reluctantly given and despite the fact that you are not given your due.” (Muslim, 4754)



Similarly the Prophet (PBUH) said:



“If someone ever hears some disgusting things from his ruler, he should observe patience. Because if any one went out even a hand-sized distance from obedience of his government and died thus, he died in a state of ignorance.” (Bukharee 7053)


The Prophet (PBUH) further said:



“Whoever saw anything abhorrent from his ruler, he should observe patience. For any one who dissociated himself from the Muslim polity a hand-size distance and died in that state, he died in a state of ignorance.” (Bukharee, 7054)

It becomes crystal clear from the above mentioned Ahadees that if vices are observed in the rulers, we would continue our struggle for reformation but would obey their commandments in the meantime.


Now the question is: Ignoring the personal evils of rulers and the systemic drawbacks, what if a ruler ever directs someone to do a sinful act. For example, if he asks him to drink wine, what should such a man do?

The Prophet (PBUH) replied to this question thus:


“It is obligatory for each Muslim to listen to and obey his rulers, whether he likes it or not, except when he asked to commit a sin. So, if he is ordered to commit a sinful act, he will neither listen to him nor obey him.” (Muslim, 4763)


As per the aforementioned Hadees, if a Muslim is ordered to do a sinful act, he must not obey the order. And if, as a consequence of that disobedience, the man is subjected to oppression by the ruler, he should forebear such cruelty for which he will be rewarded on the doomsday. (It should be borne in mind that today no Muslim or non-Muslim ruler is coercing any Muslim to commit a sinful act at all.


Here arises another question. That is, if a ruler ever degenerates to such an extent that he starts ordering his subjects for sinful acts, can armed action be taken against him? The Prophet (PBUH) replied that no arms could be taken up against a ruler until he renounces he prayers and openly adopts heresy while disowning Islam. Ubaada bin Samith reports:

“The Prophet (PBUH) one day called for us for a Bay’at (solemn oath for obedience) and we took the oath wherein we committed ourselves on that we would listen to and obey our rulers, and whether this obedience is voluntarily or reluctantly given and whether we are in ease or in difficulty and despite the fact that we are not being given our rights. We were also made to take oath that we would not fight against our rulers in the matters of governance. The Prophet (PBUH) told us, “You could fight against your rulers only when you see clear heresy on their part and you have a distinct Divine justification in this matter with you.” (Muslim 4771)


Similarly, about the future Muslim rulers, the Prophet (PBUH) said:


“(In future) you would be governed by persons whose some habits you would like and others you would dislike. So, whoever despised their bad things, he would get exemption (from punishment in the life hereafter). And whoever repudiated their bad things, he would also be safe. But whoever agreed to their bad things and followed them, he would be asked about it (on doomsday). Sahaaba (companions of the Prophet (PBUH)) asked: When this is the case (i.e., our leaders ask us to commit sinful acts) shouldn’t we fight against them? The Prophet (PBUH) replied: No, not until they continue offering their prayers (you are not authorised to wage war against them).” (Muslim, 4801)


Here arises another question: what if a ruler, chosen by the people, develops some vices in his characters? The Prophet (PBUH) said revolt against such ruler was a big crime. “When (majority amongst) you agree on a person and you see that someone amongst you wants to disturb your unity or stands up to create dissension in your ranks on the issue of government, kill him.

Now here is a question. If armed struggle against a ruler is prohibited, what could be done to reform the ruler and government? The Prophet (PBUH) responded to this question was that truth would be told in front of such rulers. Obviously, they would either accept the advice or neglect it or would start subjecting the person, who spoke the truth against him, to cruelties. It is a great degree of Jihad to show forbearance and steadfastness on such cruelty. The Prophet (PBUH) said:
“The biggest form of Jihad is to speak the truth on face of a cruel ruler.”


He further said:

“In amongst the greatest of Jihad, ofcourse, is when one speaks the right thing against an oppressive ruler.” (Tirmizi, 2174)

The holy Quran asks the Muslims on several occasions to preach their religion wisely and in a good manner. Their duty is only to advise on and remind the truth. They are not entitled to force the people or government to come to the right path. The prophets of Allah too were sent for this job and were not given any other responsibility beyond that. That is why all the prophets have been given the names of “ ,” (one who gives good tidings and also warns). Both the Quran and Hadees instruct that reformation and change should be sought in such a way as to bring ease rather than hardships for the people. Muslims are also advised to seek change in the behaviour and minds of the people and the administration slowly and gradually.



“Invite (all the mankind) to the path f your Sustainer with wisdom and beautiful wording and argue with them in the best possible way.” (Nahl 16: 125)


“And so, (O Prophet (PBUH),) keep reminding them for verily your task is only to remind and you are not a police-man over them.” (Ghashiya 88:21,22)

“Your duty is no more than to convey the message and (their) reckoning is our duty.” (Ra’ad 13:40)
Again, vice in return for vice has been forbidden. Rather goodness is to be done against it. If a person or ruler is to be advised or corrected, all this should be done in a good manner. Allah said:
“Good and evil are not equal. So, repel the evil with something that is better. You will see that one between whom and you were enmity (may then become) as if he had been your close friend. (And do remember) this wisdom is only give to those who show patience and it is not given to any except those who have a good fortune. Hence, if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs you up (to anger). Seek refuge with Allah. Behold, He alone is all-hearing and all-knowing.” (Fussilaath 41: 34-36)


It means a desire for tit-for-tat response in religious work is a satanic line of action. Religious preaching demands persistent patience on our part. This patience is to be observed both vis-à-vis the reformation of a society and a government. If someone’s mind is ever attracted to violence, he should understand it, renounce it and seek refuge with Allah.

Religious work should always be done peacefully and under good intentions. The Prophet (PBUH) said:


“Religion is goodwill and well-wishing for Allah, for his Prophet, for the leader of Muslims and for the common Muslims.”


Sayyeda Ayesha, the mother of Muslims, says:


“The very first thing revealed in the Quran was Muffassil, the surahs that discuss Paradise and Hell. Later it was when the people entered the sphere of Islam that commandments about the allowed and prohibited things were revealed. (The fact is that) if drinking of wine had been banned from the earliest, people would never have given up drinking it and if it had been ordered not to commit adultery (from day one), people would have said, “We will at no cost give up indulging ourselves in adultery.” (Bukharee, 4707)


It means that every religious thing should be taught to the masses and rulers slowly and gradually so that it inculcates well in their minds and becomes a part of their habits and habits.
Religious preaching should be done in a courteous and affectionate manner. It should be in the form of good tidings rather than being polluted by hatred, anger and violence.


The Prophet (PBUH) said:



“Give good news to the people; don’t harass them,” (Bukharee, 69)

Similarly, he said:
“You (Muslims) have been sent as facilitators and not as trouble-makers or difficulty-creators,” (Bukharee, 217)

4.2 kinds of Muslims and of their governments



Muslims could be of three varieties: the best, the average and the best Muslims. Likewise, their governments could also be divided into the best, the in-between and the worst categories. Just as a Muslim, despite many of his vices, cannot be declared a non-Muslim until he adheres to the fundamental beliefs of Islam, a bad Muslim government is also a Muslim government until it adopts clear heresy. In today’s parlance, the terms Muslim government and Islamic government are one and the same thing.


About these three kinds, the holy Quran says:

“Then We made heirs of this Book those whom We chose from amongst Our servants. Some amongst them are cruel against themselves, some are half-way (between the right and wrong) and some, by Allah’s leave, are foremost in goodness: (and) this indeed is a merit most high,” (Faatir 35:32)


A question arises here: why do the worst person and government are dubbed as Muslim by Islam and why aren’t they cast-out of Islam? There could be several reasons.


The first reason is that as long as a Muslim person or government are deemed part of the Ummah, they have sense of belonging to the community. This realisation keeps them attached to the Ummah. They think like as Muslims. Their conscience is awakened to some extent and there is always a likelihood that that they would return to goodness. Therefore, no person or government should be cut off from the Ummah unless and until they openly renounce Islam themselves.


When a person or government are advised or criticised considering them as Muslims, their hearts are open to that advice and there is always a possibility that this advice, criticism and truth would work on them.
The second reason is that the person or government may not be brought around to the correct path but it can be hoped that, if they are dealt as Muslims, the posterities of the person and the successor government may be ready for change and reformation. Conversely, if they are declared as non-believers, the path to transforming the incoming generation and government is blocked.


The third reason is that undoubtedly the worst Muslim government is better than a government of proclaimed non-Muslims. If common Muslims are allowed to take up arms against their governments due to their vices, each Muslim state would witness civil-war. This will not only entail losses to lives, properties and honours of all but would also weaken their states making them easy targets for their enemies.


The above discussion makes it crystal clear that taking up of arms against even a wrong-doer and bad government is prohibited. On the other hand, each peaceful method for reformation should be taken up.


4.3 Practice of the scholars in past 1400 years


All the Muslim religious scholars for the last fourteen centuries have always utilised peaceful means for reforming the people and governments. There were a thousand shortcomings in the governments of their times but never did they take up arms against their rulers. There were innumerable vices in the rulers related to different dynasties –Banoo Umayya, Banoo Abbas, Samanee, Fathimee, the Slave kings, Taimooree, Usmanee, Mughal, Saljooqee and others. Some of their shortcomings were even greater than those possessed by the present day rulers of the Muslim world. Drinking was rampant in royal-courts of Banoo Abbas and Banoo Umayyah; hundreds of slave-women were kept in each palace of the kings; the shameful tradition of eunuchs was a common sight in their courts; the ruling families and higher officials were generally above the law. But despite all these and other big vices, Ulema just resorted to verbal advice and never took up arms against the government. (For detailed study of the topic, please refer to the book, ‘Ummat-e-Muslima: the way to success, pp 24-64)



Some of the outstanding Muslim scholars were alive during the reigns of these governments. For example, Saeed Bin Musaayib, Urwa Bin Zubair, Hasan Basri, Mujahid Bin Jubair, Sha’abi, Qatadah, Makhool, Yazeed Bin Hubaib, Hammad and Eesaa Bin Umar were present in the Umayyad dynasty but they never took up arms against any bad ruler.



Similarly, during the reign of Banoo Abbas, Imam Aboo Haneefah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’ee, Imam Ahmad, Imam Bukharee and Imam Muslim were alive but they never took up arms against any wrongful government from their own sides. However, they always spoke the truth on their faces for which they were also subjected to persecution.



It is because of the reform struggle of these Ulema that the Muslim society has survived as a whole. If these Ulema had resorted to fighting against their governments, the Muslim community would have been whitewashed by the internal civil-war by now.


4.4 Wrong inference from a Hadees





The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said:



“When any one of you sees any Munkar (disgusting thing), he should stop it (change) it by hands. If he doesn’t have the courage to do that, he should try to stop it by his tongue. And if even he doesn’t have guts to do that, he should deem it bad in his heart (and mind you) it is the weakest form of the faith.”



On the basis of this Hadees, some people have been arguing that it is the duty of each Muslim that whenever he sees something bad, he should stop it by force. However, if this argument is accepted, then there would be not any laws, rules and regulations left in the world. Every person will use force to stop anything that he personally thinks is vice and there would be conflicts, chaos and anarchy everywhere.



This is why men of knowledge have never inferred from this Hadees as such. Such inference also goes against Quran which on several places has told the Prophet (PBUH) that he was not sent as Darugha (inspector) on the people. The Makkite life of holy Prophet (PBUH) also bears testimony that every possible vice, from idolatry to lasciviousness to usury, was present there in the atheists of Makkah, but neither the Prophet (PBUH) nor his Sahaaba ever used force to eradicate these vices. Could we even assume (may Allah forbid us) that the Prophet (PBUH) ever has come down below the highest standard of faith in his entire life? It is obviously an unthinkable supposition. In the Madinite period as well, no Muslim ever did eradicate vice with his own hands but the matter was brought to the notice of the holy Prophet (who was a ‘ruler’) and then a legal action was taken on the issue.



It makes it clear that such inference from the above Hadees is wrong. This is why the learned people say that this Hadees discusses and addresses the people with legal authority only.



That is, wherever a person has legal authority, he should, to the extent of that authority and responsibility, first try to use power to stop a vice from happening. If he doesn’t have courage or prowess to do so, he should try to stop it through verbal advice or should at least deem it bad in his heart. The sphere of authority of a ruler is entire country. The area of authority of a head of an institution is his organisation. A police inspector is responsible for his jurisdiction. Likewise, the sphere of responsibility of parents is their children and so on. The Prophet (PBUH) explained this point thus:

“Every one of you is responsible and he would have to account for his subjects (responsibilities). A man is responsible for his family, so he will be questioned about it. A woman is responsible for the home of her husband, therefore she will be asked about it. A servant is responsible for the property of his master and he will have to account for it. A man has duty towards the property of his father and he will be asked of it. In fact, each one amongst you has a responsibility and he will have to account for his sphere of responsibility.”



This Hadees clearly suggests that a person has real responsibility only about his own sphere of authority and out of it he only is responsible to remind the truth.

Munkar means a known and familiar vice, i.e., a thing which is considered a vice by the entire humanity. Every one should stop vice in his sphere of authority. An example of this was the recent sugar crisis when a few hoarders stocked the commodity. It resulted in unprecedented price-hike of sugar and many hardships for the people. The government, at first, said it would take action against the hoarders. But then having no courage to do that, it backtracked on its commitment and started requesting the hoarders to bring in their stocks to the markets. Later when it realised that the sugar mafia was unhappy even over that, it gave up its verbal advice also. We don’t know as to whether the rulers then even considered this hoarding bad in their hearts or not.



The entire life of the holy Prophet (PBUH) was the highest depiction of faith and practice. The excellent model of his life teaches us that we should use our authority in our own sphere only. No one should take any action outside his jurisdiction because it results in chaos, commotion, quarrels and anarchy in a society.




4.5 Shariah and the way of struggle for it



The word shariah has been used in the Quran on four occasions. It means the entire Deen (religion). Some of the people amongst us consider the word Shariah as synonymous with the judicial laws of Islam. It is not correct. Nowhere in the holy Quran and Hadees has the word been restricted to this meaning. In fact when a person embraces the five fundamental beliefs and admits that Islam has five mandatory pillars, he enters the sphere of Shariah, that is, he becomes a Muslim legally. Now he has several options in front of him for practicing Islam. Going by the standard, he should enter into Islam completely and always follow all the Islamic teachings. However as there are human frailties in Muslims and as no one is innocent except the prophets, compliance to Islam in entirety and forever is not possible. Some Muslims may have very few shortcomings. Some others may have a few more while some others may have plenty of frailties in their characters.



This also is the case with the governments. A government is actually the manifestation of the people composing it. Therefore, some Muslim governments have a few shortcomings, others have comparatively more and some others have too many weaknesses.



As already said, the only way to remove the shortcomings of the Muslim governments or persons is the peaceful way based on the principle of non-violence that comprises the strategies of education, incitement, persuasion, encouragement, giving good tidings and cautioning on the vices.



It should also be borne in mind that the only way for the government to codify the Islamic teachings into laws is the gradual or step by step method. The government will have towards the target slowly as such that first it will train the people for it, then it will remove any possible obstructions to its implementation and then enforce it. The state of Madina under the leadership of the holy Prophet (PBUH) was an Islamic polity from day one but even there laws and rules were enforced slowly and gradually. A law was enforced only when it had been fully inculcated in the minds of the people already and the situation was ripe for it.



When Allah almighty chose the gradual way for the Sahaaba whose faith was the highest and strongest of all in the universe, we certainly would need the step by step method a hundred times more than them.



In verses 44 to 47 of Al-Maaeda, those who do not decide their maters in accordance with the Divine laws have been dubbed as heretic, cruel and corrupt (sinner). The word “ ,” in these verses means to do something with deliberate intention of disobedience. That is, if a person or government says that Islam is a wrong path so I won’t act upon it, that person or government certainly doesn’t remain in the sphere of Islam.



However, there could be situations when implementation of an Islamic injunction is not possible out of compulsion. For example, when the society is not yet trained for it or there is chaos in the society or there are severe security threats due to international situation. A classic example for this could be the reign of Yousaf in Egypt. He didn’t enforce the Israelite laws there for several years because the situation in Egypt was not ripe for them. It has been mentioned by the Quran itself in Surah Al-Yousaf.

The second important thing when a person follows some of the commandments, i.e., he offers prayers, give alms or saves himself from dishonesty, he actually is following Shariah. Allah will hold a person accountable only for that part of Shariah which falls within his jurisdiction. As far as the government and state laws are concerned, a person is bound only to wage a peaceful struggle for reformation.


Today, very Muslim everywhere (save a few exceptions) can fully act upon his religion and no government can obstruct him. Likewise, in all the Muslim states many laws are in conformity with Islam. Though there is room for improvement but it doesn’t imply that Islamic commandments are not being cared for.


The situation in Pakistan is that, to the extent of statute book, all laws (except the interest-based banking) are in consonance with traditional jurisprudence. If the laws are not being rightly followed, it is because the plaintiff and the defendant both lie in courts, the witnesses either decline to given witness or speak lie, the police is corrupt, the lawyers sue delaying tactics and the court officials seek bribes. This situation obviously requires a continuous peaceful reform struggle on our part. No other solution is feasible.

The above discussion brings us to the conclusion that those who take up arms for enforcement of Shariah are on the wrong side. No scholar, jurist and Hadees expert ever used this method in the past fourteen hundred years. It certainly leads to destruction and anarchy. Peaceful struggle for reformation is the best and real way.


PART 5



5.1 Special status of the Holy Prophet on the basis of the great task that Allah completed through him



A Prophet (PBUH) has a special status. Allah sends every prophet for a specific purpose. Allah accomplishes the task Himself but uses the prophet as a means to that end. Allah wanted to form the Ummat-e-Muslimah (the Muslim community) through the Prophet (PBUH). For that purpose, Allah intended the Prophet (PBUH) to give dominance to Islam in Arabia, build an Islamic society by enforcing the Islamic injunctions there and make Masjid-e-Haraam (the sacred mosque at Makkah) as eternal centre for Muslims. As Allah’s intentions invariably materialise, this task too was accomplished through the Holy Prophet (PBUH).



To help him achieve the objectives, a prophet gets some laws different from those of the common people. There is leniency for him in certain laws while some other ones are harsher for him. Likewise, there is a separate law for the target area of his call. In the beginning, the prophet has a status of Basheer and Nazeer for his area and his addressees. But then there is a special time when a Divine court is established for his addressees in this world and his supporters as well as his opponents are rewarded or punished. The companions of the Prophet (PBUH), through a special Divine decision, are given reward and dominance over others while his opponents are condemned in correspondence to their crimes. For example, Noah was a prophet. When, despite his preaching for hundreds of years, a bigger portion of his nation deliberately renounced Islam and opted for enmity with him, Allah inundated his opponents in a formally announced flood, saved his supporters and gave them all the bounties of life afterwards.


The purpose behind this worldly reward and punishment is that it becomes a lesson and proof for the neighbouring and all other people so that should resort to their Sustainer. Those who obeyed or disobeyed Looth, Salih, Shoaib, Hood, Musa and Eesaa were also honoured or punished in this world.


The Quran has mentioned these tales on numerous occasions and told the people that Mohammad too was a prophet. He would first invite people to the religion. Then a time would come when the truth would dawn clear on his opponents. If they persisted with their opposition even after that dawn of truth, his opponents would be punished in this world equal to their crimes and his comrades would be given ascendency. This whole process has been dubbed a great Sunnat-ul-lah, that is, a special course of Allah and it has been said that this method remains intact and never changes.


It was particularly needed in respect of Prophet Mohammad so that his greatest victory could become an eternal proof of his prophet-hood, the last Muslim community come into being and Makkah and Madina turn into centres of Islam forever. So, from the very outset of Makkite period when ascendency for Islam was something unimaginable, the Quran continuously and clearly predicted that Prophet Mohammad would prevail. From scores of such verses, we are presenting here some representative verses. These relate to Makkite period.

“(O Prophet!)We are telling you the stories of the apostles so as to make firm your heart. Through these (accounts) have come the truth to you as well as an advice and reminder for the Muslims. And as far those who are not to going to believe, tell them, “do anything the way you like; we shall also follow our path; and keep waiting (for what is coming); we too are waiting,” (Hood 11:120, 121)


“Those who denied the truth told their apostles: ‘You will have to return forthwith to our community otherwise we shall expel you from our land.’ Thereupon the Sustainer of the apostles revealed this to them, ‘Most certainly shall We destroy these evildoers and shall make you dwell on the land after them. This is (my decision) for those (of your companions) who have fear my accountability and are afraid of my warning.” (Abraheem 14:13-14)

“(O Prophet!) Tell them everyone is waiting (for his outcome): so you should also wait. Very soon you will come to know as to who followed the right path and who found guidance.” (Taahaa 20:135)

“(O Prophet!) It is a small cliché from amongst the clichés which is destined to suffer defeat (Saad 38:11)


Similarly, in the Madinite period as well, the Quran repeatedly predicted the conquest of the Prophet (PBUH). Even in the commentary at the most critical moments like the Battle of Uhud, the Quran persisted with this style.


“(O group of Sahaaba) Neither lose your heart nor feel gloomy for only you will prevail if you are true believers. If this time (in the Battle of Uhud) you have suffered blows, the other side (enemy) too had received similar blows (in the Battle of Badar). For it is by the turns that We apportion to the people such days (of fortune and misfortune). (You were made to suffer shocks) because Allah wanted to ascertain the true believers and to determine some martyrs amongst you. Allah does not like evildoers.” (Ale-Imraan 3:139, 140)



“Allah has thus ordained: ‘I and my apostles shall most certainly prevail. Verily Allah is powerful and almighty.”(Mujadala 58:21)


“The foes of Islam aim to extinguish Allah’s light with their puffs: But Allah has willed to spread His light in perfection, however hateful this may be to all the non-believers. He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it prevail over all (false) religions, though it may be disgusting to Polytheists.” (Saf 61:8-9)



5.2 The way of the Prophet (PBUH)’s dominance



The holy Quran tells us this story of the Prophet (PBUH)’s dominance. When truth dawned upon the chieftains of the Makkah and they chose to oppose Islam for their bias and personal interests, Allah, by a special favour, instilled the love of Islam in the hearts of the Madinites. They invited the Prophet (PBUH) to come and establish his government there in Madina. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) very peacefully formed a Muslim society and Islamic state at Madina. Later too, the Prophet only fought against those who attacked or conspired to attack Muslims. He, in the meantime, always tried to have a peace interval to be able to invite those people to Islam who are out of the influence of the chieftains of Quresh. That is why peace was always the cornerstone of the policy of the holy Prophet (PBUH). For example, he signed the Treaty of Hudaybia with the Quresh despite the displeasure of majority of his companions over the pact which in their view had explicit anti-Muslim conditions and had been signed under coercion. However, the Prophet (PBUH) went for it. The biggest advantage of the treaty was that most of the tribes were now free of the control of the Quresh and just within two years people who embraced Islam outnumbered those who had done so in the preceding 18 years.



Then a time came when Allah reminded the Muslims that notwithstanding the fact that Ibraheem had constructed Masjid-e-Haraam for the worship of one and only God –Allah- but the Polytheists assembled hundreds of statues therein and that as the truth has been made crystal clear to the polytheists, the Masjid should be specified now for the worship of Allah alone. To achieve this purpose, the Prophet (PBUH) devised a strategy that helped accomplished the task almost without any fighting.


The holy Quran later declared that as per the old tradition by which earlier nations were given the final ultimatum after the truth had dawned upon them, the Arabs, after having been conveyed the message of Islam, are also warned for the last time. As far those who thought that they were not yet conveyed the message of Islam in a satisfactory manner, the Quran suggested to them that they should come to Madina, study Islam and Muslims after which they would be despatched to their homes safely. Then they would be at liberty whether they wanted to accept Islam or not. All these directions were revealed in Surah Tauba.

The polytheists were given a timeframe of four months through this announcement. Almost all of the Polytheists embraced Islam in these four months. Those who abandoned Islam later were punished by Aboo Bakkar Siddique.

But it should be borne in mind that this entire issue was specific to the holy Prophet (PBUH). Allah had promised that He would give ascendency to the Prophet (PBUH) and his comrades. That happened exactly as had been predicted and promised. But this promise was specific to the Prophet (PBUH). It is not meant for the common Muslims. Because we see that later Muslims have won battles as well as suffered decisive defeats according to their strategies and the ground situation.



5.3 Quranic account of the future developments



The holy Quran continually discussed the developments in the Prophet (PBUH)’s era and expected future situation. For example, in a Makkite Surah Ar-Ra’ad, the Quran described the future scenario in these words:


“(O Prophet!) Whether We let you see some (of the bad end) we have threatened them (the rejecters) or whether We cause you to die (before its fulfilment), your duty is no more than to deliver the message and the reckoning is Ours. Do the polytheists not see that We are visiting the land (with Our punishment) and gradually curtailing it (the polytheism) from (all) its sides. For it is Allah who decides; no one can repel His judgment and he is speedy in reckoning.” (Ra’ad 13:40,41)


Maulana Maudoodi explains the verse in the following way:


“Aren’t you opponents noticing that Islam’s influence is expanding to every nook and corner of the Arab land and they are being encompassed from al the four sides? Isn’t that a sign of their bad-luck? Allah’s declaration, “We are coming forward in the land” is an exceptionally delicate style of narration. The call for truth (Islam) is from Allah and He is with those who spread it, so when there is an expansion of Islam in any land, Allah refers to it saying He himself is coming forward in the land.” (Tarjuma-e-Quran with short explanatory notes page 657)



This explanation shows that the word “ ” in this verse stands for the Arab land.

Later in the Madinite period, the Quran from the very first day spoke of the future events and the end-result in very clear terms. That is why the directions about war, revealed after verses 39 and 40 of Al-Haj that had allowed war, clarified that Allah would give victory to Muslims on every side. Later, Khana-e-Ka’ba and Majid-e-Haraam would be occupied by Muslims. The Muslims were asked to avoid war as far as possible so the Majid-e-Haraam was conquered peacefully. However, they were allowed war in case the enemy initiated hostilities. It is a matter of great importance that these directions had been revealed even before the Battle of Badar when a victory for the Prophet (PBUH) was beyond any imagination.

“(O Companions of the Apostle!) Fight in Allah’s cause with those who wage war against you, but do no transgress therein for Allah does not like the transgressors. And kill them (fighters with you) wherever you find them and drive them away from wherever they have expelled you- for repression is even worse than killing. Do not fight them near Masjid-e-Haraam if they do not fight you there first; but if they initiate war against you there, then you should also kill them. Such is the reward for the non-believers. But if they avoid (war)-then (remember that) Allah is the most-forgiving and the most merciful.” (Baqara 2:190,193)

You can see how explicitly the Quran has enumerated the directions about the victory of Makkah whereas even the Battle of Badar had not occurred as yet and the Muslims were in such a helpless situation that they were finding it extremely hard to save themselves.


Similarly, on the occasion of the Battle of Badar, the Quran predicted things that occurred precisely under a Divine scheme.

“(O believers!) It was not you who killed the enemy, but it was Allah who murdered them. And it was not you (O Prophet!) who cast (dust) onto them but it was Allah who cast it so that He may succeed the believers in the best test of His own. Verily Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing.” (Anfaal 8:17)

At the time of the defeat in the Battle of Uhud, the Quran clarified that it was inflicted on the Muslims so that their weaknesses were removed however, ultimately, they would be victorious.

“(O group of Sahaaba) Neither lose your heart nor feel gloomy for only you will prevail if you true believers. If this time (in the Battle of Uhud) you have suffered blows, the other side (enemy) too had received similar blows (in the Battle of Badar). For it is by the turns that We apportion to the people such days (of fortune and misfortune). (You were made to suffer shocks) because Allah wanted to ascertain the true believers and to determine some martyrs amongst you. Allah does not like evildoers.” (Ale-Imraan 3:139, 140)

Likewise, about the Battle of Ditch, it was said:

“Allah repulsed the rejecters. They went back without getting any advantage. Allah alone sufficed to (protect) the believers in battle for Allah is the most powerful and almighty.” (Al-Ahzaab 33:25)


The Treaty of Hudaybia, which was apparently signed on terms mostly favouring the enemy, was declared a victory because it ultimately was to lead to ascendancy of Islam peacefully in the entire Arab land.


“Verily, (O Prophet!), We have bestowed upon you an open victory, so that Allah might forgive you for all of your faults of the past or future, and bestow upon you His utmost blessings, and guide you on the straight path and help you with (His) mighty succour.” (Fatah 48:1-3)


It was already clear that had there been no armed resistance to Islam from the enemy, the whole Arab Peninsula would have accepted the religion peacefully much earlier. But as there was armed opposition by the enemy and people were forcefully stopped from embracing Islam and entering Masjid-e-Haraam, so fighting against the armed challengers was allowed. The treaty resulted in a ceasefire and offered the Muslims to preach the message of Islam peacefully. History bears proof that when the call of the call of Islam started reaching the common people after that, all of them, barring a few, embraced Islam. That is why it was declared an open victory.

It is the point that has been made in the following verse:


“The foes of Islam aim to extinguish Allah’s light with their breaths: But Allah will spread His light in all its fullness, however hateful this may be to all the non-believers. He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it prevail over all (false) religions, though it may be disgusting to the Polytheists.” (Saf 61:8-9)

This prediction has been made in the following verses as well:

“They want to extinguish Allah’s light wit their breaths. But Allah has resolved that He will spread his light in all its fullness and perfection, though it may be displeasing to the rejecters. He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it prevail over all (false) religions, though it may be disgusting to Polytheists.”(Tauba 9:32-33)

This exactly has been mentioned in Surah Al-Fatah which had been revealed on the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybia.


"He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it prevail over all (false) religions. And Allah is sufficient to bear witness (to this truth) (Fatah 48:28)


Therefore the Sahaaba were directed to keep fighting until the enemy continued its campaign to stop people forcefully from accepting Islam. However, if they desist this, then they need not fight against them because in that case the people will have an opportunity to consider and accept Islam in a peaceful environment. This situation has been dubbed as Fitnah (persecution) by the Quran. It was said:


“(O companions of the Apostle!) Fight with these (non-believers) until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to Allah. And if they desist (oppression), behold, Allah sees all that they do. And if they abstain (fighting), know that Allah is your Lord Supreme and He is the best Lord Supreme and the best helper.” (Anfaal 8:39,40)


Now a question arises as to why we have restricted the matter of victory in the above verses to the Arab land. There are several reasons for it.

First, it has been a Sunnah (course) of Allah with regard to all the prophets that He gives them dominance over their respective nations. It has been described on a number of places in the Quran. Therefore, it must be the case with the Holy Prophet (PBUH) because Allah never changes His Sunnah.

The second reason is that the context of each of the above-mentioned verses clearly shows that the process of victory and dominance was specific to the Prophet (PBUH). That is why all the Aasaar (traditions of Sahaaba) have informed that Allah blessed the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions with complete victory and eliminated the Fitnah. All the earlier exponents have unanimously upheld the view that these verses were specific to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).


The third reason is that the prophecy in the above verses materialised only in respect of the Prophet (PBUH). The entire Arab peninsula came under the flag of Islam within his lifetime. The Polytheists vanished from there and that is the case even today. Had this prediction of victory been for the entire world, it must/would have been conquered in his life. And if it was to mean that it was the responsibility of the Muslims coming after the Prophet (PBUH) to subjugate the world, the Quran would have clearly stated it and would not have finished its narration on the name of the Prophet (PBUH).

Restricting this matter of victory to the land of Arabia has three practical results:

First, on the basis of the above difference, the land of Arab and the areas outside it have been differentiated in several commandments of Islam. For example, demolition of every statue, temple and other places of worship of the Polytheists inside Arab was mandatory for Muslims whereas they were bound to respect and protect the worship-places of all non-Muslims, including Polytheists, elsewhere. That’s why the statue of Abul Howl in Egypt is till there though Egypt had been conquered in the reign of Umar the great. (The statue of Buddah in Bamaian Afghanistan also remained there for hundreds of year despite Muslim rule before an irrational move by the Taliban.


Therefore, according to a Sahih (sound) Hadees, the Prophet (PBUH) said:

“Never could two religions combine in the Arab peninsula.”

There would only be the religion of Islam there. That is why the permanent dwelling of non-Muslims in the jurisdiction of the Harmain Shareefain (the two holy mosques Masjid-e-Nabavi at Madina and Masjid-e-Haraam at Makkah). However, they are free to live anywhere else either along with or separate from Muslims.


The second consequence is that as the promise of victory is specific to the Prophet (PBUH), the succeeding Muslims could suffer defeat in a war despite their nobility and goodness but this should be deemed as a defeat for them and not for Islam. History has amply proved that later Muslims have had suffered decisive defeats several times despite the fact that they were comparatively far better in terms of beliefs and character than their contenders. Their decency, however, could not save them from defeat. For example, Syed Ahmad Shaheed and his comrades got defeated at the hands of Sikhs.

The third and most important result is that if we extend the application of the verses to the whole world, it would imply that Muslim should not be feel content until they kill all the Polytheists and infidels on face of the earth and wipe out all the governments of people of scriptures. If this meaning is adopted, then all the verses regarding the freedom of will and action of human beings and about the law of reconciliation would become redundant. It will also (Allah forbid) prove the allegation that there are contradictions in Holy Quran. Not only that, non-Muslims would get an excuse and opportunity to malign Islam that it has different sets of standards for Muslims and non-Muslims, that Muslims want freedom of preaching for themselves but at the same time consider it as their duty to eliminate democratic governments of others. In that case, it should not be strange for us if the entire non-Muslim world regard us as their enemy No.1 and think that there could not be any peace in the world in the presence of Muslims. In that case, we should never term as injustice and agitate against the occupation of a country by another state because it is exactly we will do if we have any opportunity.

Therefore, if and when we restrict the application of these verses to the life of the prophet, the above problems and anomalies disappear and all the commandments of the Quran regarding inter-state and interfaith relations will settle down at their proper position and it is proved that there is no inconsistency in Quranic injunctions.





5.4 Last warning by the Prophet (PBUH)

There comes a time in the life of every Prophet (PBUH) when he warns his opponents for the last time. This time is determined by Allah. It is the time when only those remain outside the sphere of Islam who deliberately reject Islam for their prejudice, obstinacy and egotistic approach. It is then that they are meted out their ultimate penalty. It is evident from the stories of Noah, Looth, Hood, Salih and other prophets. This happened exactly to the Prophet (PBUH). When the entire Arab peninsula was perfectly conveyed the message of Islam, the last ultimatum was served on his opponents is Surah Tauba. This is a Surah of condemnation. That is why it doesn’t have Bismillah in its beginning. In this last ultimatum, the Polytheists of the Arab land were given a period of four months to decide whether they wanted to accept Islam or leave Arabia. If they had any doubts and reservations about Islam, they were to be given full opportunity to come to Madina to know more about Islam. After that, they would be sent back to their homes safely so that they could coolly decide on the question. However, at the expiry of these four months, all the Polytheists present in the Arab land were to be murdered.

“Disavowal by Allah and His Prophet is hereby announced to those of polytheists with whom you (O believers!) have made agreements. ‘(O polytheists!) Go, then, (freely) about the land (of Arab) for four months- but know that you can never elude Allah and that, verily, Allah shall bring disgrace upon the non-believers. And a proclamation from Allah and His Apostle is herewith made on this day of the Great Haj to all mankind that: “Allah disowns all the polytheists and so does His Apostle. Hence, if you repent, it shall be better for you but if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from Allah. And (O Prophet!) give the tiding of a grievous punishment to the rejecters. But excepted (from this) shall be those polytheists whom you have made a covenant with and who thereafter have never failed to fulfil their obligations towards you and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. Verily Allah likes those who avoid violation of treaties. And so, when the sacred months are over kill the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every possible place. However if they are penitent, offer prayers and render Zakaath, let them go their own way: verily, Allah is the most forgiving and the most merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant it to him so that he might hear the word of Allah; after that convey him to a place where he can feel secure. This is because they are the people who do no know.” (Tauba 9:1-6)

The people of scriptures, i.e., Jews and Christians, were to be treated differently. That is, they could live in the Arab land but would not have any share in the government and would have to pay Jizya (minority tax) instead of Zakaath (a tax on Muslims).

“Fight against those from the Book-holders who neither believe in Allah or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden all that Allah and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth (Islam), until they pay Jizya after having been humbled (in war).” (Tauba 9:29)

As luck would have it, all the all the Polytheists embraced Islam within that interval. Neither any one had to be killed nor exiled. However, the people, who later accepted the false prophethood of Musailma Kazzaab (Musailma, the Liar) and thus converted from Islam, were punished by Aboo Bakkar.

In the above verses, the last Divine punishment has been described which is announced and meted out by a prophet to his nation when they are conveyed the message of Allah in perfection but they still reject it. This time is determined by Allah Himself. It is the greatest prerogative of a prophet and is the greatest proof of his prophethood. This specific distinction for the holy Prophet (PBUH) should not be confused with ordinary laws of war in Islam. This is, in fact, the greatest evidence of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH).

PART 6



6.1 Relations of Muslims with non-Muslims and principles thereof



Non-Muslims states could be divided into four categories with regard to their behaviour with Muslims.



The first category comprises those states that have friendly behaviour with the Muslims, do not commit aggression against them but are rather cooperative and sympathetic towards them.



The second category consists of those countries that, though, may not be friendly, cooperative and sympathetic to Muslims but are also not openly inimical to them and avoid openly declaring them as their foes.



The third combination comprises those states that are declared enemies of Muslims and are bent upon occupying and damaging the Muslim countries.



The fourth group of states consist of those countries that are friendly to some, even most, countries but are cold, inimical and dangerous for some others.



All these categories have been there all through the ages. The holy Quran has given separate guidelines on how to behave with each of them. As far the first group of states, the holy Quran directs Muslims to be good and fair to them and to reciprocate their friendly gestures. It says:

“(O believers!) Allah doesn’t forbid you to be polite and just to those (non-believers) who don’t fight against you on account of your faith nor drive you out of your homes: For, verily, Allah loves those who act equitably. Allah only forbids you to turn in friendship to towards such people who have fought against you because of (your) faith, have driven you out of your homes or aided each other in driving you forth. It is those who befriend them who are the real wrongdoers.” (Mumtahina 60:8-9)

Similarly it has been ordained:


“(O Muslims!) Never let hatred of any people provoke you so much that you deviate from the path of justice. Be just: this is the closest to piety. And remain fearful of Allah: verily, Allah alone is aware of all that you do.” (Maaeda 5:8)


As far the second category of states, the holy Quran prohibits an armed struggle and war against them, that is, the Muslims should have working relationship with them.


“(And do not take any of them for your ally or helper) unless they are from a nation that has a covenant with you or who come to you with their hearts shrinking from making war either against you or against their own people, if Allah had willed, He would have emboldened them and they would have waged war against you. Thus (O believers!), if they turn away from you, do not make war on you and offer you peace, Allah too doesn’t allow you to take any action against them.” (Nisaaa,4:90)
We can infer from the above verse that basically only those people can/will be considered as enemies who are hostile to us while working relationship can be kept with all of the rest.


The third category comprises those states that are open enemies of a Muslims state. The holy Quran has not made us bound on a particular line of action concerning them. It tells us that it is utterly wrong to have one-sided friendship and love with those who consider us their enemies. Obviously, commonsense also demands that we should be very vigilant and watchful about these states. But as far practical relations with them, Islam has allowed us to adopt our policy in light of the situation. That’s why the Prophet (PBUH) in his lifetime fought defensive wars against them and attacked them as well. He concluded ceasefire agreements as well as peace-treaties with them. He even made alliance with his erstwhile foes (It should be borne in mind that non-Muslim tribes were also made allies in this process). And if any ally had violated the mutual treaty or committed treachery, the Prophet (PBUH) had declared it enemy once again. Therefore, working relationship with these states depends upon the situation at the time. If the situation demands adoption of an apparently friendly demeanour in order to save a Muslim country, it is allowed.


The Quran says:


“The believers should never take for allies the non-believers in preference for those who believe as he who does this has nothing to do with Allah, unless this is done to protect yourselves against them in this way. But Allah warns you to beware of Him because all have to appear before Him ultimately.” (Ale-Imraan 3:28)


It is quite obvious that this task requires extreme care and wisdom on part of Muslim leadership so as not only to save oneself and the country from the enemy but there is also no impression of surrender on part of the Muslims –that the Muslims have been coerced to follow the line of others –so that the honour of the nation is also protected.



6.2 About personal relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims



Similarly, non-Muslim individuals could be divided into five groups.

The first group is of those persons who are sympathetic and fair to Muslims and have sound relations with them on the basis of human brotherhood. These people are found in every nation of the world. The Quran asks Muslims to behave in a friendly, fair and sympathetic manner to these people (Mumtahina 60:8-9 and Maaeda 5:8).


The second groups comprise those non-Muslims who are indifferent to Muslims, that is, they neither have any good nor bad relationship with them. According to the Quran, there can be a working relationship with them and the preaching of Islam to them is also essential if situation allows.


The third group consists of those non-Muslims who are not at war with Muslims but, for being less-informed, raise baseless allegations and lose their tempers while discussing Islam. About such people, it has been directed that they should be invited to Islam in the best possible way. Discussions with them should be held in a pleasant and reasonable way. In case they opt for obstinacy in the course of debate, the debate should be discontinued and their absurdity and unfairness should be neglected. There are several injunctions in this regard. Some of these are reproduced here below.
“Repel the evil with something that is better. We are fully aware of what they (your opponents) attribute (to you and us).” (Al-Mominoon 23:96)
It is further said.

“Good and evil can not be equal. So, repel the evil with something that is better. (If this is done) you will see that one between whom and you were enmity (may then become) as if he had been your close friend. (And do remember) this wisdom is only given to those who show patience and it is not given to any except those who have a good fortune. Hence, if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs you up (to anger), Seek refuge with Allah. Behold, He alone is all-hearing and all-knowing.” (Fussilaath 41:34-36)


It is further revealed:


“The true servants of the Most Gracious are ones who walk gently and gracefully on earth, and who, whenever any obstinate addresses them, leave him by offering salam.” (Furqaan 25:63)



It is further said:


“And whenever you meet such people who make fun of our verses, detach yourself from them until they begin to talk of other things.” (An ‘aam 6: part of 68)


“Those who spend (in Allah’s way) both in time of plenty and distress, who hold in check their anger and pardon the people, Allah loves these doers of good.” (Ale-Imraan 3:134)


“And whenever they hear any frivolous talk, they ignore it and say: “We are to account for our deeds and you for your deeds. Peace be upon you. We simply do not want to behave like the ignorant.” (Qasas 28:55)

“(O Prophet!) Adopt the path of leniency and forgiveness, enjoin the doing of right and avoid all those who choose to remain ignorant. And if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs you up (to anger), seek refuge with Allah. Behold, He alone is all-hearing and all-knowing.” (A’raaf 7:199-200)



The fourth group consists of those people who, though, may come from a country that is at war with the Muslim state but who personally are unhappy and angry over the anti-Muslim policies of their states.


The fifth kind of people in respect of the Muslims are those who belong to a country which is at war with the Muslims and their entire sympathies, support and interests are limited to and reserved for their countries. It is prohibited and criminal to have overt or covert friendly relations with these people. It was why relationship with the people coming from the warring tribes was forbidden after the state of Madina was formed in the time of the Prophet (PBUH). In that time relatives of almost all the Muslims were not only hostile to Islam but also fought against the Muslims. These relatives included the Polytheists, Jews and Christians and other religious groups. Sometimes, due to oblivion or out of love and sympathy for their relatives, some Muslims would divulge even their war secrets in front of them. Some sincere most Muslims too had done that due to human frailty. The Quran, therefore, repeatedly warned against this practice. It said:


“The believers should never take for allies the rejecters in preference for those who believe as he who does this has nothing to do with Allah, unless this is done to protect yourselves against them in this way. But Allah warns you to beware of Him because all have to appear before Him ultimately.” (Ale-Imraan 3:28)


“O Believers! Do not take as intimate friends the people who are not from amongst you. They will spare no effort to harm you; they like to see you in trouble. The enmity they nourish (against you) is evident from their faces but what they conceal in their hearts is worse. We have indeed made the signs (thereof)clear for you, if you would but use you reason.” (Ale-Imraan 3:118)


“O Believers! Do not take the rejecters (of Islam and the truth) for your allies in preference for the believers (companions of the Prophet (PBUH)). Do you want to place before Allah a clear proof of your guilt.” (Nisaa 4:144)
The context and wording of the above verses make it clear that these were revealed about the combatant infidels who were unjustly and cruelly fighting against the state of Madina headed by the Prophet (PBUH).





6.3 Correct explanation of two apparently contradictory verses about Jews and Christians



Some Quranic injunctions about the Jews and Christians give the impression that Muslims should invite them to a working relationship on the basis of Unity of Allah and human brotherhood n a good manner and discuss things with them in a good way. The Quran says that there are also some very good, just and truthful persons in the people of scriptures. Some of them would readily accept Islam if its message is conveyed to them in its right form. The Quran has also sanctioned marriage between a Muslim male and a Jew/Christian female. Obviously, this marriage could succeed only if there is mutual love between the couple, if the husband has a relationship of love and respect with her family and join them in eating, discussion, tours, marriages and condolences. The Quran, mind you, has also legitimised the meals of Jews and Christians for the Muslims. Some guidelines by the Quran on how to behave with them are narrated here below.



“Say: O men of scriptures! Come onto that which is common between you and us: that we would worship none but Allah and that we would not ascribe divinity to anyone/anything beside Him and that we would not take human beings for our lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: “bear witness that we have surrendered ourselves to Him.” (Ale-Imraan 3:64)



“And amongst the men of scriptures there are many a persons that if you entrust them with a treasure, they will return it; and there are also people among them who, if you entrust them a tiny gold coin, will not return it to you unless you keep standing over them which is because of their assertion: “We are exempted from any blame with regard to these illiterate folk”: and (so) they tell a lie about Allah, in full knowledge (that it is a lie).” (Ale-Imraan 3:75)



“They (the men of scriptures) are not all alike: amongst them are upright people, who recite the verses of Allah throughout the night and prostrate themselves (before him). They believe in Allah and in the Last day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid from what is wrong and compete with one another in doing good deeds: and these are the righteous. And whatever they do, it shall not be disregarded for Allah has full knowledge of those who are pious.” (Ale-Imraan 3:113-115)


“And, behold, amongst the people of scriptures there are indeed people who believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to you (the Quran) and in what had been sent to them. They fear Allah and do not barter away Allah’s verses for a trifling gain. They shall have their reward with their Sustainer: Allah indeed is quick in reckoning.” (Ale-Imraan 3:199)



“Today, all the good and pure things (of life) have been made lawful to you, and the food of the people of scriptures is also lawful to you and your food is lawful to them, and (lawful to you are) the noble women (in marriage) from the believers or from the people of scriptures.” (Maaeda 5:5)



“(O Prophet!) They whom We had given the book rejoice at all We have bestowed upon you; but amongst the followers of other creeds there are also people who deny the validity of some of it.” (Ra’ad 13: part of 36)


“As for those whom We had given a book before this (Quran), they believe in this one (as well). And whenever it is conveyed to them, they say: “We have come to believe in it, for it is the truth from our Sustainer and we had surrendered ourselves to Him even before this (came). These shall receive a twofold reward because they remain patient in adversity and because they repel evil with the good and because they spend on others out of what we have provided them as sustenance.” (Qasas 28:52-54)



“And argue with the people of scriptures in a best way but (avoid discussion with them) if it is with those who are bent on evildoing from amongst them.” (Ankabooth 29: part of 46)



A verse with a meaning somewhat different from the above verses is verse 51 of Maaeda that forbids relationship with Jews and Christians. It is one of the most ‘compelling’ arguments by those who are against any kind of association of Muslim states with the Jews and Christians. The Quran says:



“O believers! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of each other. And whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them. Behold, Allah doesn’t guide such evildoers.”(Maaeda 5:51)


In essence, there is no contradiction between this and the above-mentioned eight verses. Because, in this verse there is a prefix of ‘Al” which restricts its meaning to some specific Jews and Christians and it doesn’t apply to all. Now the question is: which are the Jews and Christians, friendship with whom has been prohibited through this verse? A look at the entire Surah Maaeda reveals that these were the Jews and Christians who were at war with the Muslims, would hatched conspiracies against them, teased them, violated the treaties with them and ridiculed Islam. It is with these people that friendship was forbidden. Compassion, love and friendship with these people were indeed a big crime. If a group of the Jews or Christians behave this way even today, Muslims should not hold them dear to their heart and distance themselves from them, they should sever their ties with them.


The above verse has been further elucidated by the following verses wherein it has been explicitly stated that the Jews and Christians in question are those who make mockery of Islam, hold in derision the prayer and other rituals of Islam and have enmity with it and the Muslims.
“O Believers! Do not take for your friends who ridicule your faith and make a jest of it from those who were given the book before you or from the non-believers. Fear Allah if you are (truly) believers. And when you call to prayers, they mock at it and make a jest of it –simply because they can not use their reason. Say: “O people of scriptures! Are you angry with us simply for the reason that we believed in Allah (alone) and in what came to us and in what was revealed earlier than this? Indeed most of you are sinful.” (Maaeda 5:57-59)


This explanation makes it amply clear that we should not make friends with only those Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims who openly deride Islam and nurture hatred and enmity with Muslims.




6.4 A principled directive about polytheists, Jews and Christians



The holy Quran explicitly states that Jews and Polytheists would be generally be inimical towards Muslims while the Christians would be friendly towards them. The reason for this, according to the Quran, is that there is always a class of scholars and monks in them and there is comparatively less arrogance in them.


“You will surely find that the most hostile of all to the believers are the Jews and polytheists. And you will certainly find that of all the people the friendliest towards the believers would be those who say:”behold we are Christians”: this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not given to arrogance.” (Maaeda 5:82)

The secluded monks are those persons who devote themselves to the service of humanity without any greed or personal interest. The verse also indirectly reveals that Muslim states should have working relationships with the Christian countries so that the Jews and Polytheists could not have an opportunity to use them for their power for their own benefit and designs. This verse was revealed thirty verses later from the Maaeda 5:51 and it is another proof that the verse is concerned only with some particular Jews and Christians and not all of them.




PART 7



7.1 The war-expeditions of the companions of the Prophet (PBUH)



After the passing away of the Prophet (PBUH), his companions had fought several wars and conquered countries. A question arises as to what was their status and how far were these justified?


If we analyse the history of that era, we will come to the conclusion that they had to wage wars for three reasons.


The first reason was that Arab land was adjacent to the big Roman Empire on one hand and the vast Iranian Empire on the other. These two empires were not ready to have another great power in their neighbourhood. They had manifested their enmity to Islamic state in the life of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Roman Empire had even made preparations for a war with the Muslims. So, it was under these circumstantial need or compulsions that the Khulafaa-e-Rashideen (the Pious Caliphs) had to fight these empires. Had the Sahaaba not fought and won wars against these enemies, there would have been no sign of Islam today.


The second reason was that several non-Muslim tribes living on the borders had started loot and plunder in the Islamic state. These people would indulge in cross-border terrorism in the Islamic state and then return to their sanctuaries in the adjoining countries. Therefore, it was necessary that they were proceeded against in order to save the nascent Islamic state from hazards.


Quite often, these intruders and plunderers had the blessings and secret support of the hostile neighbouring countries. So, military action against them was also necessary.


And as far the states that hadn’t supported such activities –Ethiopia, Bahrain and Egypt for example –there was no such action. Instead, peace treaties were signed with these countries.


The third reason was that those were the days of monarchy and it was simply impossible for the citizens of a state to accept or adhere to a religion other than that of their rulers. So, the only way to convey the message of Islam to common people was to invite their rulers to Islam. That is why four years before his death, the Prophet (PBUH) wrote letters to, and invited, all the rulers of the neighbouring states to Islam (these letters were written following the Treaty of Hudaybia and eight of these letters still exist.) Along with these letters, the Prophet (PBUH) had also sent his emissaries for giving them detailed briefing on Islam. Though some of these rulers treated the Muslim envoys sent by the Prophet (PBUH) well but most of them were very harsh and disdainful towards them.


After the departure of the holy Prophet (PBUH), the question of how to convey the message of Islam to the general people of the nearby states resurfaced in front of his companions. They didn’t wish to convert these or any other people to Islam by force. They, however, did want to give them a free-hand on the issue of faith of their own choice. For this it was necessary that the dictatorships in these countries were abolished so that people could freely decide as to whether they wanted to accept Islam or not.


This way, Islam spread very fast in all those areas where the Muslims reached. Not because that these people were compelled to embrace Islam but because the difference between the credibility and character of the Muslims and their erstwhile rulers was so visible to them that they happily embraced Islam. History bears proof that not a single person was forcefully converted to Islam.




PART 8



8.1 A few phrases of jurisprudence



Islam, in its essence, is the name of two things –Quran and Sunnah. After the death of the Prophet (PBUH), a simple and clear strategy was adopted to ascertain religious commandments on individual and collective matters. That is guidance was sought first from the Quran and then from the Ahadees (statements of the utterances and actions of the holy Prophet (PBUH)). In case there were no specific directions about an issue in these two primary sources of knowledge, then reasoning was resorted to decide it in a democratic manner. It was a natural method and should have continued. Had this mode of thought persisted and had religion been clarified through Quran and Sunnah without inventing new terms, the understanding and teaching of religion would have been much easier now.


After around 100 years following the death of the Prophet (PBUH), the knowledge of Fiqah (jurisprudence) took over the Muslims. This knowledge was started with very good intentions. At that time, Islam had spread in many corners of the world and new people were accepting Islam vey rapidly. Some Ulema, fearing that these new converts would find it hard to get acquainted with Quran and Hadees quickly, therefore, urged codification of religious requirements for them. So, the codification of religion began this way.


Once this process got underway, there was no end for it. Each school of thought started devising new terms which made this knowledge extremely complicated. Then each school of thought or sect gave its own meaning to each of these terms with the result that a term meant different things to different sects. In the event of a dialogue among these different cults, this difficulty often took very ugly twists as both the contending groups used the same phrase in different meanings. As this tendency continued for sometime, the Fuqahaa (jurists) feared that it could lead to disastrous consequences for humanity. So, they developed a thinking that the process of further dialogue and Ijtehad (ascertaining the teachings of Islam through the use of intellect) should be given up. It was done. It resulted in stagnation, led to strict adherence by each group to its jurisprudential ideas and extremism and inertness in religious matters engulfed the Muslim society.


It is essential for us that, to under stand Islam, we follow the strategy adopted by the companions of the holy Prophet (PBUH). That is, that Quran and Hadees should be the fundamental sources of guidance for us. Then, all the opinions that have been expounded by men of knowledge to deal with the situations at their eras, though, will be respected and taken advantage of in our efforts to get knowledge but compliance to these is in no way obligatory for us.

In respect of Islamic laws of war, several phrases were introduced in Islamic jurisprudence most of which don’t have any relevance to the modern world and have, therefore, become outmoded. A brief introduction and analysis of these terms is being presented below.

8.2 Dar-ul-Islam (The Land of Islam)



The literal meaning of the term is that land or abode of Islam. This phrase was never used in the Quran and Hadees. Initially, the jurists used the term Darul Islam for a country which had a Muslim ruler and where Islamic laws were enforced. We have very simplified the definition of this phrase because there are countless differences amongst Muslim jurists on it. For example, there is wide disagreement on as to what are the essential qualities for a ruler that would qualify his country to be declared a land of Islam or as to whether a country in which polytheists and idolaters also live could be declared a Darul Islam or not.



There was also lengthy discussion amongst the scholars on as to what is meant by the enforcement of Shariah (the laws of Islam). Some jurists went for the extremist view that a land cannot be a Darul Islam unless Shariah is enforced there in its entirety. This definition implies that the establishment of another Darul Islam is virtually impossible after the era of Khulafaa-e-Rashideen (The pious caliphs) as there could be one or the other drawback or weakness in every Muslim government from Islamic point of view. Many other jurists thought otherwise and said that any Muslim country where even a single Islamic law is enforced will be called the land of Islam or Darul Muslimeen (the land of Muslims). Every Muslim government, according to this definition, is the land of Islam as quite a few Islamic laws are the laws of the land in most of these countries besides the fact that no Muslim ruler ever disowns prayer and offer his prayers, even if occasionally and for ostentation.



This disparity in thoughts and perceptions brought about a world of differences and every jurist tried to develop a body of rules and regulations for Darul Islam as per his own outlook. A study of these rules and regulations clearly reveals that most of these were relevant only to the social and local settings of their respective times and the Quran and the accurate Ahadees didn’t force us to comply with them. For example, there is a lot of discussion amongst them on the issue as to for how long a visitor to the land of Islam from another country would be allowed to stay there. However, all the arguments, which have been utilised by all sides to substantiate their viewpoints on the issue, are based on common sense instead of Quran and Hadees.



There is no need for this term and the discussion about it. In Faatir 35:32, the Quran declares that there could be standard and very good, average and very bad persons amongst the Muslims. As a state is a sum of the people, it can also be very good, of average nature or extremely bad. The Prophet (PBUH) himself never used a new phrase for the Arab peninsula but always called it the Arab land. Today, politically, the phrase ‘Muslim state’ or’ Islamic state’ is used for every state that has a majority Muslim population, is ruled by Muslims and which considers itself as part of the Muslim community. It is a loose term and should remain as such. The Quran and accurate Ahadees haven’t devised any phrase in this regard.



8.3 Dar-ul-harb (The land of war)


The phrase literally means the land of war or home of fighting. In the beginning, it was defined as a country which is inhibited by the enemies of Islam, i.e. a country that openly declares itself an enemy of the Muslims and in which the places of worship of the Muslims are not safe.

But countless differences emerged after this initial definition. For example, a question was raised as to who was the enemy of Islam. One answer to it was that only the country that committed aggression against Islam and the Muslims was to be considered an enemy. On the contrary, another reply declared every non-Muslim state as the land of war.

Similarly, a question also arose as to what is meant by the safety of places of worship of Muslim and what will be the status of a country where most places of worship of the Muslims are safe but some of them are damaged.

Another question was that what will be the status of a country which is friendly to most but hostile to a few Muslim states.
The term Darul harb was of significance in the past as there was dictatorship all around and the preaching of Islam in non-Muslim states was somewhat impossible. Most states, therefore, qualified to be declared as Darulharb. Currently, all the states have relationships with each other under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and other international treaties. Preaching of all religions, including Islam, is permitted in each state. Hence, no country remains the land of war from this perspective.


As this term too has been devised beyond the Quran and Hadees, and has led to several misconceptions and intricacies, it is not needed any more and should be discarded.


(To know more about the above two terms, please refer to ‘Encyclopaedia of Islam Urdu, volume 9, and pages 102-104 and 110-112)



8.4 Dar-ul-A’hd or Dar-us-Sulh



The term literally means the land of treaty or reconciliation, that is, a country that has a peace-treaty with a Muslim country.



The Quran explicitly states that peace and reconciliation treaties can be concluded with other states. Rather, it has been stated that if there is a treaty of peace and of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs with a non-Muslim state, no help could be given by any Muslim state or its inhabitants to a Muslim minority living there in violation of this treaty.

This explanation makes it clear that a Muslim state, its parties, groups and inhabitants are bound to avoid interference in the internal affairs of a non-Muslim country that has peace-treaty or diplomatic relations with their country. Each state that has diplomatic relations with a Muslim country is Dar-ul-A’hd for it and its citizens. Islam ordains that all treaties with it must be followed in letter and spirit and these cannot be violated under any pretext, e.g., that the other side is not serious and sincere in following the treaty and as it is also interfering in the internal affairs of the Muslim state and supporting terrorists, so the people and groups have also legitimate right to indulge in cross-border militancy there. It is wrong. The Muslims just cannot indulge in duplicity. They have to follow the treaties if they are in operation. And according to a verse of Tauba, they have to first to publicly disown the treaty in advance before taking an action against any land of the treaty.

In fact making a treaty or reconciliation with other countries is a matter of common sense and has nothing to do with religion. There have always been inter-state treaties and there always will be. Islam, however, directs that once any covenant is agreed with any nation, it should be strictly followed.

(To know more about the term, please read the Encyclopaedia of Islam Urdu, volume 9, pages 114-115 and 133-134).


8.5 Offensive and defensive wars


There have been intense debates amongst Muslim jurists on offensive and defensive kinds of war. An offensive war, according to them, is that war in which an Islamic state attacks another country itself whereas a defensive war is one in which it defends itself against an invasion by another state. There were discussions on their respective conditions and requisites as well.

These debates were, undoubtedly, suitable for the times they were being raised in. Because, in those times, the territorial boundaries of states were not clear and there weren’t also that big regular armies so, manning and patrolling the frontier was a very difficult task. Besides, there dissemination of information about the enemy’s attack on the border zone would take long to reach the capital. Subsequently, despatching of orders and troops would consume more time. In that situation, it is obvious that if the defence of the country had been delayed till further orders from the ruler, the enemy troops would have occupied large area of the land. Hence, it was resolved beforehand that in the event of an attack, resistance to the attack should be deemed as a standing order from the ruler and that all possible efforts should be made to halt the enemy’s advance. Again, it should be remembered that the arms being used by the armies and common people were usually the same in that time so an attempt to counter the attack by the common people was not impossible.


Nowadays, this discussion is irrelevant. News from border region reach the capital in no time, there is an elaborate mechanism for demarcation and security of frontiers of every state. Every action can be guided from a centre located faraway. Also, regular armies are well-equipped in terms of arms than common people and the latter cannot resist an attack by the former beyond a certain point. Therefore, the two kinds of wars cannot be differentiated on the basis of commandments about them. The Quran and correct Ahadees too haven’t made any distinction between the two terms.

8.6 Nafeer-e-Aam (the declaration that war is binding on all)

Another term used in respect of defensive war is that of Nafeer-e-A’am which has been declared to be the sole condition for an obligatory defensive war.
Nafeer means whistle or hooter. The phrase, therefore, indicates that the hooter for war has been blown for all. Nafeer-e-Aam means the calling up by the ruler of every Muslim of his country for war duties.


It is obvious that this kind of situation, when every citizen of a country is called up for necessary military service, could arise in any state. It has always happened before, is needed by several countries today and many more will continue to do in future. It is why there is a law of compulsory military training and service for all adults in a number of countries. If a Muslim country also thinks that it is essential, it can make it obligatory for its citizens. So, this issue is related to the age and circumstances and not with a distinct commandment of religion.
As far the statement of earlier jurists that defensive war is conditional with only Nafeer-e-Aam, it means that there was a standing order from every Islamic government that every capable inhabitant of the country should start immediate resistance in the case of any foreign aggression. This strategy was right for the situation of that time but is impractical these days because the common people simply cannot confront tanks, cannons, missiles, armed personnel carriers, war-planes and other deadly weapons used by the regular armies in our time.


On the issue of ‘mandatory military service’, the Quran ordains that taking part in war in the cause of Islam is a work of great reward but it is not mandatory (Nisaa 4:95).



However, in critical moments, Islamic government can ask every adult person to take part in the war as was done by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the occasion of the War of Tabook. Anyhow, although none of the hypocrites, who didn’t join the war, were punished, but the three truthful Muslims, who confessed of not going to war due to their laxity, were subjected to social boycott from all Muslims for some time by Allah. But this punishment has nothing to do with the ordinary Islamic laws of reward and punishment.



The above discussion proves that the term Nafeer-e-Aam too is not needed nowadays.



















PART 9



9.1 War, freedom struggle and the onslaught by violent extremist organisations



A war which is fought for the objectives narrated in part 2 of this book is called a war in the cause of Islam and the war of the opponent army is dubbed as a war in the path of Taaghooth (the Satan, the cruel and the unjust).



However, as several wars are also fought on other bases such as land disputes, misconceptions and allegations of conspiracies, it is sometimes very difficult to say which side is on the right. So, it is neither essential nor possible to divide all the wars in the above two categories.



That is why whenever the Quran talks of fighting between two Muslim states, it only uses the term Qital (War) for it, as is revealed by Hujarat 49:9. Many wars of today are also of the same nature.



For our convenience, we can divide the wars going on in the world in the following categories.

1. War in the path of Islam;

2. War in the cause of Taghoot;

3. A just war in which the originator is on the right;

4. An unjustified and brutal war in which the initiator fights for injustice;

5. Common war which is the result of a misconception or dispute;

6. War for freedom;

7. War by violent extremist groups.



The first five categories have either been discussed in the book or are too clear to be examined any more. Therefore, we will talk on the latter two categories.



































9.2 Freedom struggle



The first question with regard to the freedom struggle of a nation is that what should be the principles, conditions and sphere of this struggle. World history proves that a nation sooner or later wins freedom provided it is united under a single leadership and the conditions are conducive for the struggle. A freedom struggle is essentially a political struggle and it has greater chances of success if it is based on the principle of non-violence.



As for the armed struggle from the religious point of view, the discussion in part 2 has proved that the existence of a state is the pre-requisite for any armed action. A state is basically the establishment of a government on, and the enforcement of laws in, a given land. Hence, if the occupant nation has no writ over certain areas of the occupied land and the subjugated nation could form a unanimous government in those areas, it can initiate armed action after formation of a government in that area and declaration of war against the occupant state.



There is another option as well. If a neighbouring state, that has no peace treaty with the occupiers, starts openly backing this freedom movement and a unanimous exiled government is established in that country, armed action could be taken through a united army under that exiled government. However, it is essential in that case that the neighbouring state also owns this freedom struggle by signing a treaty with the exiled government to that effect. It means in the first case, armed struggle should be preceded by the following steps:

• Formation of a unanimous government on a certain land;

• Independence struggle under a united and organised army;

As for the second case, the following points should first be met before starting any freedom struggle:

• Formation of a unanimous exiled government in an adjacent state;

• Non-existence of a peace treaty between the occupant and the neighbouring states;

• Recognition of the exiled government and open support for the armed action by the neighbour state through a treaty;

• Waging of the freedom struggle through a united/organised army under that exiled government.



If the above conditions are met, the armed struggle could be termed as a war in the cause of Islam. And if these conditions are not fulfilled, the armed struggle will be declared an ordinary freedom struggle.
The above principles are established as far as religion is concerned but the overall world history also reveals that where these conditions have been met in an armed freedom struggle, it necessarily has succeeded and wherever these were neglected, armed action has resulted in lawlessness, chaos, anarchy and other maladies in societies.
Now the question is: for how long a subjugated nation will have to wait if the above conditions cannot be fulfilled for one reason or the other? The answer is that a subjugated nation is always in a position to fulfil two conditions any time:


......First, that it gets itself organised in a political party. It doesn't mean that scores of parties are formed and they make a loose and fragile alliance because in this case it is not an alliance but a unity of vested/temporary interests in which hearts are poles apart.

.....And second, that it carries on its struggle purely by peaceful political measures. If it continues its struggle with perseverance, Allah will make conditions favourable for it after some time and succeed its struggle. This struggle could take several years or even consume a number of generations. It may even continue for an indefinite period. It should not lose heart and patience but wait for the succour from Allah. For example, a peaceful struggle for independence of the Sub-continent was started after 1857 while freedom could be achieved 90 years later.


If there is no urge for unity and cooperation in a subjugated nation, it simply doesn't deserve freedom at all. An armed struggle in the absence of unity usually further damages the cause of an oppressed nation. Hence, a freedom struggle based on the principles of unity, patience and non-violence is the biggest need of a subjugated nation.


It should avoid idealism and adopt a pragmatic approach. It should not be uncompromising in its struggle, adopt a gradual approach towards its goal and should be ready to accept a solution even if it is less than complete independence, for it, gradually, will be drawing near to its ultimate end ¬– a complete freedom.


It is simply not desirable that a nation is not ready to accept anything less than complete freedom. Development towards democracy throughout the world has made it possible that a nation can be autonomous in its internal affairs, law and culture even if it doesn't have complete independence. The principle in this situation should be as to what measures should be adopted in the given circumstances to achieve as many human and Islamic rights for the subjugated nation as possible.




9.3 Terrorism



Terrorism is comparatively a new term. There is no agreed upon definition of the term as yet. We will discuss its political aspect later. For now, let us define this term for our convenience.


"Every armed action that aims at achievement of objectives by creating fear and in which deliberate steps are taken to harm the life and property of non-combatants amounts to terrorism."


The term terrorism is a highly ambiguous term. We should not waste our energies on defining it because it means different things to different people. A terrorist of one, for example, is a hero and freedom fighter for the other. We should, instead, ponder as to whether a violent and extremist organization, rather any organization, or individual could be allowed to take up arms, challenge the writ of the state and start fighting the government? It is the real issue and question before the Islamic world because it is exactly this that is considered terrorism by the world. As we have ascertained from our previous discussion that declaration of war is the sole prerogative of the state and no organization or person has the authority to take up arms and start fighting on its own. Only the state is empowered to do that and that too under some conditions. An organization or person has, indeed, the right to bring people round to its/his viewpoint and strive for change but that has to be done through peaceful and non-violent means.


We have stated in Part 2 that, according to Islam, only combatants could be killed and non-combatants could not be harmed during a war.


Extremists violate this important principle quite often. They say that non-combatants and common people of the enemy state should also be killed as they assist their armies through their financial, moral and political support.


But it is an untenable position. We should bear in mind that the present day all encompassing state structure leaves no room for people to refuse taxes on the pretext that the tax-payer does not approve of some or all policies of the government. Besides, we all know that world's biggest rallies against the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were held in Western countries. And several parties were rejected by the electorate in these countries for their role or participation in these wars. It means that majority of the people in these states did not favour these invasions. Again, it is possible that even if the non-combatants give financial or moral support to their combat forces, it will be of no use for them if the combatants are defeated. These facts nullify this argument of the extremists.


As Islam wants peace in the world, it has legitimized only a minimum of bloodshed. That is why Islam has disallowed armed action against the civilian non-combatants and has sanctioned armed action against only the combatants. If this ban goes, the killing of each and every individual can be legitimized under one pretext or the other. For example, it can be argued that juveniles and infants should be killed as they are the possible combatants of tomorrow. That is, where there is a will, there is a way.


Terrorism can be committed by a government, a group as well as by an individual. History is replete with examples of terrorism. In the past, the soldiers would generally be allowed to kill and plunder the innocent civilians after conquering an area. The Fir’awn (Pharaoh) committed terrorism by killing the male-children of Bani-Israel (the children of Israel). The Crusaders committed terrorism against Muslims and Jews. Halakoo Khan did that in Baghdad when he massacred the residents of Baghdad. Ameer Taimoor indulged himself in terrorism several times against Muslims and non-Muslims. Nadir Shah had authorized killing the inhabitants of Delhi for four days after his conquest of the city. In the World War 1 and 2, the two sides had time and again committed terrorism. The USA had committed terrorism when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Afghanistan too, all the parties carried out terrorist activities against each other intermittently. These terrorist activities, unfortunately, still continue there unabated.


There could be some civilian casualties in the form of collateral damage in an attack on an military installation. This loss does not constitute terrorism but it also should be avoided as far as possible.


9.4 Suicide attacks.



Suicide attacks have given new shape and contour to resistance struggles. These are carried out by individuals alone or in groups, walking either on foot with suicide belts round their bodies or driving explosive-laden vehicles. The suicide attacks being perpetrated by Muslims these days could be divided into these categories.

¬...The suicide attacks by resistance movements against the occupant non-Muslim armies like those carried out in Afghanistan.

....Those perpetrated against Muslim armies for their "strategic cooperation and alliance" with the non-Muslim states". For example, the suicide attacks carried out against Pakistani Army.


....Suicide attacks carried out by different sectarian groups against each other. These are justified by saying that as these organizations and sects are infidels, so suicide attacks are legitimate against them. The attacks on the mosques, personalities, religious congregations and processions make part of these attacks.


....Some suicide attacks target public places such as schools, offices, hotels and markets. These are justified as being "necessary" for demoralizing the government and the armed forces. As to the killing of innocent persons in these suicide bombings, the extremists say that they will reach the Heaven for being martyrs. They also believe that those who are not part of their organization are sinful and out of Islam because they are not taking part in their "just" war. Hence, their killing, in their view, is legitimate in suicide attacks.


.....Those undertaken against the personalities who speak against the suicide attacks. For example, Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi was targeted in Lahore for his opposition to suicide bombings.
.....Some other suicide attacks target foreign and local aid groups, humanitarian organizations and diplomatic missions such as the UNO and the World Vision.


The fact is that all kinds of suicide attacks are wrong and illegitimate from Islamic perspective. There is no exemption in this rule.
The first argument to be remembered in this regard is that the declaration of war against any sect, government or group is the sole authority of the state. No organization, group or individual has the right to take up arms and declare war on its own. The arguments for this principle have been described in detail in the second chapter. And it is clear to all that suicide attacks are carried out by different organizations as part of their illegitimate war.


The second argument is that Quran and Hadees have very explicitly equated suicide to the crime of killing a human being.
"And let not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands." (Baqara 2:195)


The suicide bombers know it very well that their attacks will necessarily kill many Muslims. Most of them would have nothing to do with war and the foreign or military foreign policies of their state. The suicide attacks conducted thus far have revealed that over 90 percent of those killed in these attacks were innocent Muslims. The Quran says:


"And whoever kills another believer deliberately, his requital is Hell and he will always remain there. And Allah will condemn him and reject him and has fixed for him an awful suffering." (Nisaa 3:93)
Similarly, suicide has also been declared as the worst sin in sound Ahadees. For example, according to a tradition, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "He who kills himself with the iron will be penetrating that iron into his body forever in the Hell-fire. Anyone that commits suicide by jumping down from a high place will always be jumping down in Hell-fire. Whoever kills himself by taking poison will always be taking poison in the Hell." (Bukharee 1275)


Had suicide been allowed in any way, it would have been certainly pointed out in the Quran and Hadees and would have been utilized in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions. A number of people had embraced Islam in the Makkite period. Their faith was stronger by a thousand times than ours. The Prophet (PBUH) could have formed their suicide squads to kill the enemies of Islam but he did not. The Sahaaba too did not avenge any atrocity committed upon them in that way.


Except a legitimate war in the cause of Islam, our religion is totally against any action that can harm the human beings. In the war in the cause of Islam too, Islam allows armed action against only the combatants. As for the killing of non-combatants, it has prohibited and declared it as a crime. (Baqara 2:190)

The Quran says:

"(O’ companions of the Prophet (PBUH)!) there are some people whose views in this worldly life seem very appealing to you; they cite Allah as witness on their (good) intentions. But they, in fact, are your worst enemies. Whenever they move away (from you), they try their level best to spread corruption on earth and destroy the farms and progeny, whereas Allah does not love corruption. Whenever they are told "Beware of Allah", their false prides drive them into sins. Hell will be their allotted position and it is, indeed, a worst abode." (Baqara 2:204-206).
The killing of a human being (and not necessarily a Muslim), according to the Quran, is such a heinous crime that it has been equalised to killing the entire mankind. And if a person saves the life of a person (not necessarily a Muslim), it is as if he has saved the lives of the entire humanity.


The Quran declares:


"(Because of the inclination of human beings to crimes) We ordained it to the Bani Israel that if anyone kills a human being, unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading corruption on the earth, it shall be as if he (the killer) has killed all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it will be as though he has saved the lives of all human beings. Our Prophets came to them with clear directions but despite all that, many of them commit all manners of excesses on earth." (Maaeda 5:32)

Read the above verse carefully time and again. Is there any room for suicide attacks under it? Can anyone satisfy himself/herself by saying that it does not matter at all if some innocent persons are also killed in suicide attacks? Is there any argument for this viewpoint in the Quran and Ahadees?


As far their argument that the killing of innocent people in suicide attacks is justified as they will directly land in paradise, it simply reveals their ignorance about the worth and sanctity of human life from Islamic point of view. Islam attaches so much importance to the safety of human life that on the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybia, when the Muslims had great chances of victory in case there had been a war after the Oath of Rizwan, Allah avoided the war as it would have also harmed those in Makkah who had embraced Islam but had not disclosed it by then. That is, the lives of those persons were also dear to Allah who could not make public their acceptance of Islam for fear of the pagans of Makkah. Allah says:


"(O companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH!) If these rejecters had fought against you (on this occasion)) they would have certainly turned their backs (in fight) and would have found none to protect them and none to bring them succour. It is the prescribed way of Allah, which has ever obtained in the past and you will never find any change in Allah's way (1). And Allah it is who in the valley of Makkah, stayed their hands from you and your hands from them, after He had you prevailed against them (2). Allah, indeed, saw what you were doing (then). They are the people who were bent upon denying the truth, and who prevented you from Masjid-e-Haraam and prevented your sacrificial animals from reaching their destination. Had it not been for those believing men and women (in Makkah), whom you did not know and whom you might have unwittingly trampled under foot which would have brought about bad name to you, (We would have permitted you to fight but Allah did not allow it) so that Allah admit to His grace those He wills. Had these (believers) been clearly discernable (to you), we would certainly have punished these rejecters in a grievous manner (3). And remember, when these rejecters harboured a stubborn hatred (born) of ignorance in their heart (4). Allah bestowed inner peace and satisfaction upon his Apostle and the believers and bound them to the spirit of Taqwaa (piety, Allah-consciousness) for they were the most worthy of it and deserved it too. Allah has the knowledge of all the things."(5) (Fatah 98:22-26)


(Footnotes) 1. The first thing prescribed by Allah in this regard is that when the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) are at the apex of their faith, they can overcome an enemy which is ten-times bigger than them in terms of military equipment and personal. As all the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) who took Bay'at-e-Rizwan (Oath of readiness) had the same capacity, they would have necessarily defeated the enemy had there been a war.

2. That is, Allah didn’t want this war to happen.


3. Here the reason has been stated as to why Allah did not let the war happen. In fact, there were many men and women in Makkah who had secretly accepted Islam and the Sahaaba were not aware of them. Therefore, if there had been a war, these hidden Muslims would also have been targeted. Allah wanted that these hidden Muslim remained safe.


Another reason was that there were also some people in Makkah who had not embraced Islam by then but were about to do so. Allah wished safety for these people as well.


4. Obstinate means that a person works against the truth and justice, just to satisfy his haughtiness. As per the oldest and established Arab traditions, no one could be stopped from performing Umra but the Qureshite chieftains did not let the Muslims do that as it, according to their perception, would have brought about disgrace upon them.

5. Contentment and piety here means that despite numerous doubts in the hearts of the Muslims and not withstanding the fact that they were not clear on the veracity of certain condition of the treaty at that time, they totally submitted themselves to the will and order of the Prophet (PBUH) and restrained themselves from emotionalism. Remember that the most important task of snatching back the Holy Mosque from the Polytheists was to be accomplished and the Muslim had full opportunity to capture Makkah once and for all, but Allah did not allow the war as it would have endangered the hidden Muslim in Makkah. The question here is that when the safety of Muslim's lives is so dear to Allah, then what is the justification of killing hundred of innocent Muslims in suicide attacks?


As far the killing of sectarian opponents on the pretext that they are infidels, the first thing to be remembered in this regard is that, save some groups like Qadianees, the Muslim Ummah has not declared any one as non-Muslim unanimously throughout the ages. Otherwise, they would have been barred from performing Haj. But even if someone considers them as infidels, who has given him the authority to kill them? The Lord of the Universe has forbidden murdering a human being, whether Muslim are non-Muslim. Killing of a Human being is the most heinous crime on face of the earth, whether it is a target killing or in a suicide attack.
It is generally argued that as a particular state and its allies are cruel, suicide attacks are lawful against them. Similarly, suicide attacks are also legitimized against those Muslim governments who support them in any way.

The argument is wrong. Suicide is forbidden and a crime in each and every situation. There is no exemption for any one in this rule.


It should be remembered that war against tyranny is also lawful only when it is declared by a government, when there is no peace treaty with the oppressor and the opponent is not stronger by two times (these conditions have already been discussed in part 2).


If these conditions are not met, one should only speak against the cruelty and adopt every peaceful strategy to correct the situation but war is not allowed.


Numerous Prophets were subjected to a lot of atrocities but due to the absence of these conditions, they did not start armed struggle. The stories of Noah, Hood, Salih, Looth and other Prophets are there and the biggest example is that of Bani Israel. The Pharaohs committed many atrocities against the Bani Israel -they would kill all their boys. Despite that, Musa (Moses) was not allowed to wage war against the pharaohs till the very last. Similar was the case with the rest of the Prophets of Bani Israel. No Prophet of Allah pushed them for war in the absence of these conditions. The Bani Israel were the slaves of Romans in the era of Eesaa (Jesus Christ) but he neither incited them to war, nor prepared his companions for suicide attacks against Romans.

9.5 The Recent History of suicide attacks



Suicide attacks are a centuries-old phenomenon. Khawarij (the excluders or outcasts) had in fact decided to martyr Ali, Ameer Mu'aawia and Amr Bin Al'aas through suicide attacks. Suicide attacks were the biggest weapon of Hasan Bin Sabaah who had established his government in the mountains of Khurasaan (Iran), making the castle of death as its centre. Through it, he had jolted the power corridors of his era till the time when Halakoo Khan annihilated his castle.


In recent times during the Second World War, the Japanese had also utilized suicide attacks. Japanese pilots, flying explosive-Laden warplanes, would ram themselves into the chimneys of British naval ships and thus, by sacrificing their lives, would destroy and submerge the enemy ships along with hundred of soldiers. Though these attacks inflicted huge damage on Britain but it was Japan that ultimately had to bear the brunt of the losses because this strategy led to an acute shortage of war pilots in Japan and it could no more stop the aerial attacks of the allied powers.


The liberation tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) also adopted the strategy of suicide bombing in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. The LTTE carried over 400 suicide attacks against the Sri Lankan government which killed hundreds of civilians and soldiers. But it were the Sri Lankan government that ultimately won the war while the LTTE suffered defeat. The suicide attacks were of no use to the LTTE in the long run.


Iraq also witnessed a lot of suicide bombings in the past. But the frequency of these attacks there has come down considerably of late. The democratic government of Iraq is strengthening day by day. Through its strength, it has proved to the Americans that US troops are no more needed for the restoration of peace there. That's why the USA has promised its withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2010.


Alqaeda's strategy of suicide attacks in Iraq has completely proved as futile. It had carried out hundreds of suicide attacks there that left thousands of people dead, injured or disabled. But these attacks did not benefit Alqaeda in any way and it has lost the war.


A study of suicide attacks in the world history reveals that these harm its perpetrators more than the targeted enemy. This is because of the fact that only the most committed, competent and devoted persons offer themselves for these attacks while those killed comprise mostly common-place people. The nation loses its most capable and committed youth as suicide bombers while those with average capabilities are left behind. Therefore, it is not a correct strategy.


Besides, as time passes by, the rivals also learn preventive strategies for suicide attacks. For example, Israel went for the strategy of arrest and banishment of all the family members of suicide bombers and bulldozing their houses. Though these were highly oppressive measures, these resulted in drastic decrease suicide attacks because the intending suicide bombers also began thinking of the fall-outs of their attacks for their near and dear ones.


Again suicide attacks inculcate the psyche of obstinacy, revenge and hatred in the opponents. These sometimes help create the much needed unity within the ranks of the enemy. For example, when suicide attacks were carried out in India, the whole of India got united against these attacks and they unanimously demanded the government not to accept the demands of attackers. Thus, these suicide attacks greatly strengthened India as a state.


Besides, the suicide attacks also greatly damage the cause of the oppressed nations and the world begins to look at the oppressor and the oppressed from the same angle. Rather, the oppressor nation, sometimes, succeeds in declaring the oppressed people as an aggressor by the strength of propaganda. No distinction has been made between military and civilian installations in all the suicide attacks conducted so far. Therefore when innocent civilian are killed in suicide attacks on public places like markets and hotels etc. collective human conscience disapproves of such acts and condemns them. When the Palestinian suicide bombers hit the public places, it did not harm the oppressor Israel at large. But, it did damage to a great extent the moral standing of the legitimate freedom struggle of the Palestinians.


Further more, when suicide attacks are legitimized on one pretext or the other, no matter how honourable the cause is, this process then stops nowhere. These attacks not only kill the sinful but also hundreds of innocent people. Then each group, accusing its opponents of being heretic and out of Islam, legitimizes suicide attacks against it. It was on this basis that Sunnees and Shias targeted each other in suicide attacks and killed thousands from each other. This is exactly what happened in Pakistan. Different sectarian groups killed hundreds of each other in suicide attacks. Though there were initially accusations of the involvement of foreign hands in these attacks but investigations into these invariably proved that these were in fact carried out by one sectarian group against the other. All this means that suicide attacks are a Pandora box which, if opened once, leads to insecurity for all.


The suicide attacks are also justified by saying that these are in fact a reaction to oppression –that as the oppressed nation has been pushed to the wall, there is no other option left with it other than suicide attacks. Hence these attacks are lawful for them.
The above argument is incorrect. We are not allowed suicide attacks to confront any oppression, even if it exceeds all the limits. Islam has come to this world only to control our actions and reactions and guide us on the limits and principles of every thing. Immediate reaction is a physical law. The spiritual law for human being, as against it, is the law of patience and consideration and not the law of violent reaction.


It is also wrong that there is no other option left with the oppressed nations like Palestinians, Iraqees, Afghanees and Kashmirees. In fact, the biggest weapon of resistance is a democratic struggle based on the principle of non-violence and mutual unity. No oppressed nation has, so far, utilized these two strategies. For example Kashmir's and Palestinians are divided in dozens of organizations and they have not agreed upon a single objective and unanimous leadership as yet. If Afghan Taliban give up armed resistance and adopt democratic struggle today, American and Nato troops could be made to leave Afghanistan within a short time.


It is known to every Muslim that suicide attack is illegitimate as per Islamic teachings. However, some people argue that during the war of Mauta, when the enemy outnumbered the Muslim Army, the Muslim soldiers took solemn Oath on martyrdom and it shows that suicide attacks against the enemy are allowed.


This argument is wrong for two reasons. One, the Muslim army was fighting on the order issued by the state of Madina. This Oath of martyrdom meant that they would fight till the very last and would never run away from the battle-field. This was in conformity with Quranic injunctions that forbid the Muslim soldiers from showing their backs and indulging themselves in disorderly retreat. Obviously, this direction and event has nothing to do with suicide attacks. No Muslim had carried out suicide attack against the enemy in that war. Only 9 Muslim soldiers were martyred by the enemy in it. How can their martyrdom be considered as a justification for suicide attack?
There is a basic difference between killing oneself with one's own hands and being killed by others. It is true that there had been many instances in the earlier Muslim History in which the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) entered the ranks of the enemy single-handedly and were, consequently, martyred by the enemy. But these instances can not be made a justification for present day suicide attacks. While the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were martyred by the enemy, the suicide bombers of today kill themselves with their own hands which is strictly forbidden in Islam. Whereas the Sahaaba targeted the combatants only, the present day suicide bombers, on the contrary, kill but mostly innocent civilians.


In the war of Mauta, commitment and bravery of the Muslim army frightened the enemy. They lost courage and the commander of the Muslim army Khalid Bin Waleed got an opportunity to shift his army to a safer place. The enemy, thereafter, could not dare chase the Muslims. This analysis makes it clear that no comparison and nexus could be found between war of Mauta and the suicide attacks of this age.


All this discussion reveals that the recent spate of suicide bombing is not in the larger interest of the Muslim Ummah and that this strategy is wrong in principle and extremely dangerous and harmful for the Muslims and the world.




PART 10



10.1 Usama Bin Laden's concept of war


In recent years, Usama has emerged as a spiritual, intellectual and practical leader of a group of Muslims called Al-Qaeda. It is, therefore, necessary that his concept of war is also analyzed.

On the 23 of February, 1998, a detailed combined Fatwa (edict) was issued by Usama Bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, Dr Aiman-az-Zawahiri, the head of Jamath-ul-jihad Egypt and Aboo Yasir, the head of Jamath-ul-Islamia of Egypt, from Khosth in Afghanistan. The salient parts of the decree are as follow:


1. The decree commences from chapter Al-Tauba 9:5 in which the Prophet (PBUH) has been ordered to kill the polytheists of the Arab Peninsula after the expiry of the "last ultimatum" of four months.


2. After that, making a political analysis, three things have been stated: First, that American Army is present in the Arab Peninsula ever since 1991; second, that America and its other crusade allies have inflicted huge destruction on the Iraqi nation in the Gulf war of 1991; and third, that their presence and success here will strengthen Israel.


3. It proves that the US has declared war against entire Muslim world. It is in similar situation that Jihad becomes obligatory for all.
4. Therefore, we direct/order all the Muslims to kill each American and their supporters and loot their assets.


5. This direction/order will remain binding until and unless Masjid-e-Aqsaa and Masjid-e-Haraam (the Holy mosques at Jerusalem and Makkah respectively) are freed from the enemy and enemy troops leave each and every Muslim land.
With regard to this edict, the following points are worth consideration.
Who has given these three men the authority to order the entire Muslim Ummah?

Is a non-state group entitled to declare was as per the teachings of Islam? Al-Qaeda and its supporters will say it is, but what is to be done in case certain other clerics issue a decree against this as was the case with this decree? Would it not lead to chaos and anarchy in the Muslim Ummah? Would not it give the US a pretext for more interference in the Muslim world?
The first part of the decree does not reveal as to whether Usama considers the concerned verses of At-Tauba as specific to the Arab Polytheists of the era of the Prophet (PBUH) or whether he deems it a general directive that applies to all the polytheists of the world till the doomsday.


If he is for the first case, that era has elapsed. And if he is in favour of the second supposition, it should be stated in clear terms that the killing of each polytheist is lawful today for every Muslim, anywhere, and anytime until all of them are eliminated.


The cited verses of Surah Tauba are about the polytheists but these have been made a ground for announcing a verdict against the America which is a Christian-majority area. The Quran always makes distinction between the polytheists and Ahle-Kitaab (the people of scriptures, i.e. those who were bestowed with Divine Books). The verse therefore, does not serve the purpose. Instead, the decree should have been based on a verse related to the people of scriptures.


The political analysis made in the decree is also very superficial. The gulf-crisis of 1991 was initiated by Saddam Hussain but his role is not mentioned in the decree. The edict also puts aside the issue as to what were the factors which paved the way for US military intervention in the area and what are the political steps needed now that will compel the US to pull out its forces from the region.


As far as the issue of strengthening of Israel is concerned, it has been on the US agenda ever since 1947. The US was following this very policy when the exponents of this decree were themselves fighting the American war in Afghanistan against the Russians. Again Iraq does not share a border with Israel. Israel will benefit but only in the case of dismemberment of Egypt, Jordon and Syria and this certainly is an unlikely supposition.


How did the US invasion of Iraq of 1991 prove that America had declared a war against the whole Islamic world? Right or wrong, the truth is that this war had been formally validated by the United Nations Organization. All the Muslim countries stood by America in that war. The entire world had condemned Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and armies of 40 states had taken part in the war dubbed as "Operation desert storm".

Islam forbids the killing and looting of non-combatants. But this decree declares that every American, whether he/she is a combatant or non-combatant, must be killed and looted. Is not it a blatant violation of Islamic teachings?

It is not clear as to what does this decree mean by the term "each Muslim Land". Does this stand for all those lands where Muslims are in majority? If it is so, then it is important that there are many other Muslim-majority areas which are under the rule of Russia, India, China and many other non-Muslim countries. Then, as per the argument of this decree, a declaration of war against all these states for having "occupied" these "Muslim lands" was also necessary? Why was not that done?


The above points fully establish that the religious, political, analytical and moral standing of this edict is highly superficial, questionable and lamentable.