Jihad

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (1)

Khaled Fahmy

Jihad (1)

Qu’ranic Verses on Jihad

It is a sacred religious duty incumbent on the Muslim nation at large to set forth defensive war against unbelievers to repel their persecution upon the believers or aggression upon Muslim territories.


This divine duty of religious war is laid down in several verses of the Glorious Qu’ran as well as in the Tradition of the Prophet. The following are translated quotations from the Qu’ran bearing on the subject of religious wars. In Sura 4, verses 75-76, we have the following injunctions:
“Muslims are to fight in defence of the cause of their Lord and to redeem their weak Muslim brethren and sisters and children who are oppressed, who cry for help from God to save them from such oppression and to send them some champion to redeem them. Muslims are to fight to defend the cause of God, while the unbelievers do fight to defend the cause of the devil: surely the struggle of the devil is so weak.”


These verses explain what is meant by fighting for God. While most of the believers who had the means had escaped from Makkah, there remained those who were weak and unable to emigrate. These were still persecuted and oppressed by the Makkahn idolaters. The verses imply a prophecy that those who are fighting for the devil shall be ultimately vanquished.


In Chapter 2, verse 214, the Muslims who emigrated to Al-Medina are addressed by the Qu’ran as follows:
“Do you think that you would enter Paradise, while yet the critical state of those who have passed away before you had not come upon you: Distress and affliction had befallen them and they were shaken violently, so that the Apostle of God and those who believed with him said: “When would the help of God come to us’? . Now surely the help of God is well nigh.”


This verse clearly inculcates faith and perseverance under the hardest trials and is an indication of the Prophet’s own unequalled endurance and faith. It refers not only to the great trials and hardships which were yet in store for them, and which they could clearly see in the masses of all forces that could be used to annihilate them. In Chapter 2, verse 216, we have the following injunctions:
“Fighting is enjoined on you [Muslims], though fighting is an ****** of dislike to you; and it may be that you may dislike something while it is good for you; and it may be that you may like something while it is evil for you. Now let it be known that God knows best what is good and what is evil while people know not.”


This verse shows that Muslims did not fight for the booty. They were too weak to carry out the struggle against the might forces of the idolaters that were bent upon their destruction, and also they disliked war. Foreign critics of the history of the advent of Islam are quite mistaken to pretend that the Prophet had now [at Al-Medina] to resort to the sword to accomplish what is preaching at Makkah had failed to do [1].


It is to be borne in mind that not a single instance is recorded in the whole of the Prophet’s history showing the conversion of an unbeliever under the pressure of the sword, not a single instance is recorded of an expedition being undertaken to convert a people. If ever in the world’s history a people were compelled to fight in defence of a grand cause, no nobler instance of it could be given than that of the Prophet Muhammad with his few faithful followers braving the whole of Arabia in the midst of enemies, who had taken the sword to annihilate them for no other reason than that they were holders of the cause of the Unity of God. The injunction upon Muslims to fight is but an injunction to fight to end persecution and to establish religious freedom and to save the houses of worship of every true religion from being ruined. This noble ****** is made quite clear by verse 40 of Chapter 22, of which the following is a rendering:
“Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: ‘Our Lord is God’. Certainly there would have been destroyed cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques where God’s name is much remembered should God had not enjoined upon the believers defensive war against the persecution of aggressive people and surely will God grant victory to those who defend His cause. Most surely God is Mighty and Powerful.”


This verse ought to remind those foreign malignant critics who charge Islam of being a religion of fanaticism that the religious freedom which was established by Islam in a country like idolatrous Arabia over fourteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It is noticeable that the lives of believers are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to protect churches, synagogues and cloisters as well; in fact, to establish religious freedom against any persecution or oppression by infidels and idolaters. No other religious teacher had taught that noble principle. Muslims closely followed these directions, and every commander of any army had express orders to respect all houses where God was worshipped and even the cloisters of monks, along with their inmates.


In Chapter 9, verse 29, we read the following interpreted injunction: “Fight those who believe not in God, nor in the day of judgment, nor do they prohibit what God and His Apostle have prohibited nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, among those who were given the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizia with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

[1] Vide Wherry’s Commentary

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (2)

Khaled Fahmy


Jihad (2)

“jizia” in Arabic stands for a poll-tax levied from those who were vanquished by the Muslim defensive forces and yet did not accept to embrace Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of the Muslims, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the rulings of the Muslim state, saving only their personal liberty of conscience as regarded themselves. There was no account fixed for the jizia, and in any case it was merely a symbol, an acknowledgement that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam.

Imam Shaf’i suggests one dinar a year for the poll-tax, about half a sovereign. The tax, however, varied in amount and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children and for slaves, if any, and for monks and hermits. The jizia, being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. It was partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, in symbolic character predominated.

As to the directions given to the Muslims to fight the followers of the scriptures, the subject requires some explanation.

The last word on the wars with idolaters of Arabia having been said, the verse under consideration introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews had for a long time assisted the idolaters in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian power of the Roman Empire had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabouk [a place in the northern Arabia near Jordon now] expedition followed, which constitutes the subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this Sura 9 of the Qu’ran. The ****** of this Christian mobilization was simply the subjection of the Muslims.

The Qu’ran neither required the idolaters to be forced to accept Islam, nor did it require the Muslims to compel the Christians to embrace the new religion. They, on the other hand, had determined to compel the Muslims to give up Islam and to bring them under subjection. Therefore, the orders given to the Muslims to fight the people of the Scriptures, as mentioned in the above verse, was merely given with a view to save the religion from the threatening oppression of the Christian forces and to repel the latter. The followers of the Scripture are described in the verse as not believing in God and the day of resurrection as long as they do not follow the religion of Truth, because they do not attribute to God the perfect attribute of His Unity by ascribing to Him a son, and do not understand the real nature of life after death when every soul will be punished for any evil deed committed in this world. It may also be added that the permission or order to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject always to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, “Fight for the cause of God with those who fight with you” [2:190].

The Prophet never overstepped this limit. He fought against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition against the Christian when the Roman Empire had first mobilized its forces with the ****** of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the initiative but desisted, he did not attack the Roman forces, but returned with his expedition without fighting. The following verse throws further light on the conviction that the Islamic Institution of religious wars is exclusively defensive, with the ****** of repelling any aggression, persecution and encroachment carried by the parties of unbelievers. Thus verse 39, 40 – Chapter 8, instructs the Muslims as follows:

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allâh. But if they cease, then lo! Allâh is Seer of what they do. And if they turn away, then know that Allâh is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!”

Now we have to quote a few traditions of the Prophet on the subject of Jihad on which a whole chapter is dedicated in the authentic books of Hadîth, especially those collections of the Imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet is recorded to have said: “The example of a Mujahid in Allâh’s cause – and Allâh knows better who really strives in His Cause – is like a person who fasts and prays continuously and prays continuously. Allâh guarantees that He will admit the Muhahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return return him to his home safely with rewards and booty.” [Al-Bukhari Book 52, Hadîth 24. English Translated version 1204, book 4, Hadîth 44, O.B.]

“By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allâh's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.” [Al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Hadîth 54. Ibd Book 20 Hadîth 4626].

“The Messenger said: 'Anybody who equips a warrior going to Fight in the Way of Allâh is like one who actually fights.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 20, hadîth 4668]

“This religion [of Islam] will ever be established, even to the day of resurrection, as long as Muslims do fight in defence of it.” [Sahih Muslim].

“He who dies and has not even said in his heart: “Would to God I were a champion that could die while defending the cause of God,’ is even as a hypocrite” [i.e. not an earnest believer]. [ibid: 3099]. “The Prophet said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allâh's Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.'” [Al-Bukhari, 4:52, 50]. “Anyone whose feet get covered with dust in Allâh's Cause will not be touched by the Hell fire.” [Al-Bukhari, 4:52, 66]

“Religious war is permanently established until the day of judgment [meaning the ordinance respecting Jihad]”[1]

[1] Vide “Authentic Collections of Traditions”, by Imams Al-Al-Bukhari, Muslim, etc., in Chapter on “Jihad”.

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (3)

Khaled Fahmy

Jihad (3)

Observance of Jihad

The sacred injunction concerning religious war “jihad” is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. The observance in the degree above mentioned suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of repelling aggression or persecution started by non-believers against the due advancement of Islam or for crushing its message; and when this end of defending the cause is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as the prayers for the dead, when answered by some Muslims, they are no longer binding on the rest. If, however, no Muslims were to make war in defence of actual oppression against the cause of God, the whole of the Muslim community would incur the criminality of neglecting it.
Misconception of the Duty of Jihad
A very great misconception prevails in the West with regard to the Islamic injunction of jihad. In a statement by Dr. A.B. Macdonald in the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” on the article of jihad, we find that the writer goes even as far as to begin his article thus:
“The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general”; as if Jihad meant not only war but was undertaken for the propagation of Islam.
Another eminent Christian writer makes a similar statement. “Jihad” -he writes - “means the fighting against unbelievers with the ****** of either winning them over to Islam, or subduing and exterminating them in case they refuse to become Muslims; and the causing of Islam to spread and triumph over all religions is considered a sacred duty of the Muslim nation[1]
It is really a great pity that such learned scholars had not taken the trouble to consult an ordinary dictionary of the Arabic ********, so that they could have avoided such glaring misrepresentation. “Jihad” in Arabic means the exerting of one’s utmost power in repelling an enemy. It is of three kinds, viz. the carrying on of struggle:
1) against a visible enemy
2) against the temptation of the devil
3) against one’s own passions.
In ******** “Jihad” is far from being synonymous with war, while the meaning of war undertaken for the propagation of Islam which is supposed by Western writers to be the significance of Jihad, is unknown equally to the Arabic ******** and to the teachings of the Glorious Qu’ran. There is prevalent conception that “At Makkah the Glorious Qu’ran enjoined patience, but when at Medina [when the Muslims became somewhat in power] Jihad were two contradictory attitudes. The error of this view is clearly shown by verse 110 of Chapter 16 which was revealed at Makkah; it enjoins patience and Jihad in the same breath: “God the all-Merciful and Forgiving shall bless those who emigrate [from Makkah] after they are persecuted, then struggle hard [adopt Jihad] and are patient” It should be noted that the Jihad spoken of here is certainly not in connection with the fighting, for the verse was revealed at Makkah, when the believers began to emigrate to Al-Medina, so that they may not again be afflicted by the Makkahn idolaters.
Islam was not spread by Force
The propagation of Islam is no doubt a religious duty incumbent upon every true Muslim who must follow the example of the Prophet, but the spread of Islam by force is a thing of which no trace can be found either in the Glorious Qu’ran or in the traditions of the Prophet. Islam is against aggression, sanction is given for war only in self-defence: “Fight in defence of the cause of God against those who attack you begin ye no hostilities. Verily God loveth not the aggressors. And if they [the enemies of Islam] incline towards peace incline thou [the Prophet] also to peace, and have trust in God” [8:61]. There is not the least ground for the oft-repeated allegation that Islam is intolerant and was propagates by the sword. The Qu’ran states clearly: “There is no compulsion in religion,” and the reason is added: “the right course is clearly distinct from the wrong one [2:256]. It was only when the Muslims' liberty and particularly their freedom of worship was threatened and actually attacked that Islam seized the sword in self-defence as it will ever do. But Islam never interfered with the dogmas of any moral faith. It never invented the rack or the stake for stifling difference of opinion, or strangling human conscience, or exterminating heresy.

[1] Dr. Klein’s article on “Jihad” in the “Review of the Religion of Islam”

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (4)

Khaled Fahmy

Jihad (4)

Payment of Tribute Called “Jizia”

Forign writers on Islam have generally assumed that while the Qu’ran offered one of the alternatives, Islam or death, to other non-Muslims, the Jews and Christians were given a somewhat better position since they could save their lives by the payment of a tax known as jizia. This conception of jizia, as a kind of religious tax of which the payment entitled certain non-Muslims to security of life under the Muslim rule, is as entirely opposed to the fundamental teachings of Islam, as is the myth that the Muslims were required to carry on aggressive wars against all non-Muslims till they had accepted Islam. Tributes and taxes were levied before Islam, and had been levied to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim states, yet they had nothing to do with the religion of the people affected. All that happened in the time of the Prophet was that certain small non-Muslim states were, when subjugated, given the right to administer their own affairs, but only if they would pay a small sum by way of tribute towards the maintenance of the central government at Al-Medina. It was an act of great magnanimity of the Prophet to confer complete autonomy on a people who raised war against the Muslims but were ultimately conquered by them, and a paltry sum of tribute [jizia] in such conditions was not a hardship but a boon. There was no interference at all with their administration, their own laws, their customs and usages, or their religion and, for the tribute paid, the Muslim state undertook the responsibility of protecting these small states against all enemies.


There are cases on record in which the Muslim state returned the jizia, when it was unable to afford protection to the people under its care. Thus when the Muslim forces under the Muslim commander Abu-'Ubaida were engaged in a struggle with the Roman Empire in Syria, they were compelled to beat a retreat at Homs, which they had previously conquered. When the decision was taken to evacuate Homs, Abu-'Ubaida sent for the chiefs of the place and returned to them the whole amount which he had realized as jizia, saying that as the Muslims could no longer protect them, they were not entitled to the payment of jizia[1].


It further appears that exemption from military service was granted only to such non-Muslims as wanted it, for where a non-Muslim people offered to fight the battles of the country they were exempted from jizia. The Bani-Taghlib and the people of Najran, both Christians, did not pay the jizia [2]. Indeed, the Bani-Taghlib fought alongside with the Muslim forces in the battle of Buwaib in 13 A.H. Later on, in the year 16 A.H. they wrote to the Khalifa 'Omar offering to pay the zakat [the legal alms] which was a heavier burden, instead of the jizia.

From the foregoing, it is quite clear the jizia was levied not as a penalty for refusal to accept the faith of Islam, but it was paid in return for protection given to non-Muslims by the Muslim army, to which they were not compulsorily conscripted like the Muslims. This tribute was levied only on able-bodied men and not on women or children, the aged and the indigent, the blind and the maimed were specially exempted as were the priests and the monks.
Islam, Jizia or the Sword
It is generally though that the Muslims were out to impose their religion at the point of the sword, and that the Muslim hosts were overrunning all lands with the message of Islam, jizia or the sword. This is, indeed, a distorted picture of what really happened. The fact that there were people who never became Muslims at all, nor ever paid jizia, and yet were living in the midst of the Muslims, even fighting their battles, explodes the whole theory of the Muslims offering Islam or the jizia or the sword. The truth of the matter is that the Muslims finding the Roman Empire and Persia bent upon the subjugation of Arabia and the extirpation of Islam, refused to accept terms of peace without a safeguard against a repetition of the aggression and this safeguard was demanded in the form of jizia or a tribute, which would be an admission of defeat on their part. No war was ever started by the Muslims by sending this message to a peaceful neighbour or otherwise. History contradicts such an assertion. But when a war was undertaken on account of the enemy's aggression his advance on Muslim territory or help rendered to the enemies of the Muslim state - it was only natural for the Muslims not to terminate the war before bringing it to a successful issue. They were ever willing to avoid further bloodshed after inflicting a defeat on the enemy, only if he admitted defeat and agreed to pay a tribute, which was really a token tribute as compared with the crushing war indemnities of the present day. The offer to terminate hostilities on payment of jizia was thus an act of mercy towards a vanquished foe. But if the token tribute was not accepted by the vanquished power, the Muslims could do nothing but have recourse to the sword until the enemy was completely subdued.


The only question that remains as to whether the Muslim soldiers invited their enemies to accept Islam, and whether it was an offence to do so. Islam was a missionary religion from its very inception, and every Muslim deemed it his sacred duty to invite other people to embrace Islam. The representatives of Islam, wherever they went, looked upon it as their first duty to spread the message of Islam, because they felt that Islam imparted a new life and vigour to humanity, and offered a real solution of the problems of every nation. Islam was offered, no doubt, even to the fighting enemy, but it is a distortion of facts to assume that it was offered at the point of the sword, when there is not a single instance on record of Islam being enforced upon a prisoner of war, nor of Muslims sending a message to a peaceful neighbouring people to the effect that they would be invaded if they did not embrace Islam. All that is recorded is that in the midst of war and after defeat had been inflicted on the enemy in several battles, when there were negotiations for peace, the Muslims in their zeal for the faith related their own experience before the chiefs of the enemy. They stated how they themselves had been deadly foes to Islam, and how ultimately they found Islam to be a blessing and a power that had raised the Arab race from the depth of degradation to great moral and spiritual heights, and had welded their warring elements into a solid nation. In such words did the Muslim representatives invite the Persians and the Romans to Islam, not before the declaration of war but at the time of negotiations for peace. If the enemy then had accepted Islam, there would be no conditions for peace, and the two parties would live as equals and brethren. It was not offering Islam at the point of the sword but offering it as a sign for peace of equality and of brotherhood. The early Khalifas had to wage wars, but these wars were never aggressive nor were they raised for the desire of propagating the faith of Islam by force. They could not do anything which their Prophet never did, and which the Glorious Qu’ran never taught them to do.

[1] Al-Sira Al-Halabiya, a standard book on "The Life of the Prophet"; Ibn Hisham, Al-Tabari.

[2] Vide Encycl. of Islam.

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Jihad (5)

Khaled Fahmy

Jihad (5)

Directions Relating to War

The following instructions were given by the Prophet to the troops dispatched against the Byzantine force who threatened to invade the Muslims: “In avenging the injuries inflicted upon us molest not the harmless inmates of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of female ***; injure not the infant at the breast, or those who are ill in bed. Abstain from demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy not the means of their subsistence, nor their fruit trees and touch not palm” [1].
The Khalifa Abu-Bakr also gave the following instructions to the commander of an army in the Syrian battle: “When you meet your enemies quit yourselves like men, and do not turn your backs; and if you gain the victory, kill not the little children, nor old people, nor women. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any fields of corn or wheat, cut down no fruit trees, nor do any mischief of cattle, only such as you kill for the necessity of subsistence. When you make any covenant or treaty, stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find some religious persons who live retired in monasteries and who propose to themselves to serve God that way. Let them alone, and neither kill them nor destroy their monasteries.” [2]. Similar instructions were given by the succeeding Khalifas to their respective commanders of the troops, all tending to the treatment of the hostile enemies with justice and mercy.
Treatment of the Prisoners of War
If the wars, during the time of the Prophet or early Khalifas had been prompted by a desire of propagating Islam by force, this ****** could easily have been attained by forcing Islam upon prisoners of war who fell helpless at the hands of the Muslims. Yet this the Glorious Qu’ran does not allow; but on the contrary it expressly lies down that those prisoners of war better be set free. To this effect we read in the Glorious Qu’ran the following instruction: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allâh willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allâh, He rendereth not their actions vain.” [47:4].
Here we are told that prisoners of war can only be taken after meeting an enemy in regular battle, and even in that case they may either be set free, as a favour, or after taking ransom. The Prophet carried this injunction during his lifetime. In the battle of Hunain, six thousand prisoners of the Hawazin tribe were taken, and they all set free simply as an act of favour [3]. A hundred families of Bani Mustaliq were taken as prisoners in the battle of Mura'isi, and they were also set at liberty without any ransom being paid [4]. Seventy prisoners were taken in the battle of Bader, and it was only in this case that ransom was exacted; but the prisoners were granted their freedom while war with the Koraishites was yet in progress [5].
The form of ransom adopted in the case of these prisoners was that they should be entrusted with teaching some of the illiterate Arab Muslims how to read and write.[6] When war ceased and peace was established, all war prisoners would have to be set free, according to the verse quoted above.
Prisoners of War not Slaves
The treatment accorded to prisoners of war in Islam is unparalleled. No other nation or society can show a similar treatment. The prisoners were distributed among the various Muslim families as no arrangements for their maintenance by the state existed at the time, but they were treated mercifully. A prisoner of war states that he was kept in a family whose people gave him bread while they themselves had to live on dates [7]. Prisoners of war were, therefore, not only set free but so long at they were kept prisoners they were treated generously.
War As a Struggle to Be Carried out Honestly
It will be seen from the foregoing statements concerning the injunctions relating to war and peace, that war is recognized by Islam as a struggle between nations which is sometimes necessitated by the conditions of human life. But Islam does not allow its followers to provoke war, nor does it allow them to be aggressors, yet it commands them to put their whole force into the struggle when war is forced on them. If the enemy wants peace after the struggle has begun, the Muslims should not refuse, even though there is doubt about the enemy’s honesty of purpose. But the struggle, so long as it exists, must be carried on to the end. In this struggle, honest dealing is enjoyed even with the enemy throughout the Glorious Qu’ran verse 2, Chapter 5, runs thus: “And let not hatred of a people incite you to exceed the proper limits; and help ye one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression.”
Again verse 8 of the same Chapter reads thus: “Let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; see that you act equitably, that is nearer to piety.” The tradition of the Prophet too enjoins honest dealing in war: “Fight and do not exceed the limits and be not unfaithful and do not mutilate bodies and do not kill children”[8] Such are some of the directions given which purify war of the elements of barbarity and dishonesty in which Western warring nations generally indulge. Neither inhuman nor immoral practices are allowed by Islam in war or peace.

[1] Mair's “Caliphate”, p. 142. “The Preaching of Islam”, by Sir Thomas Arnold, p. 60.

[2] cf. Ibn Hisham, Al-Tabari, etc.

[3] Vide Sahih Al-Al-Bukhari, 40: 7.

[4] Ibn Jarir, Tabari's History III: op. 132, Cairo Edition.

[5] Ibn Jarir, Vor. III, P. 66.

[6] Musnad ibn Hanbal, I: 247; “Sharhul-Mawahib”, by Al-Zurqani, Vol. I: 534.

[7] Al-Tabari's History, Vol. 2-287.

[8] “Imam” Muslim’s Collection of Hadith, Vol. 3: 32.