|
There are many misread and misinterpreted verses of the Qur'an on Jihad. One of the most commonly quoted verses is the "verse of the sword," which states:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful. (9:5)
This verse was revealed in the specific context of a continuing war between the Muslims and certain factions of the Meccan polytheists in Arabian Peninsula. The first inference from this verse which must be taken is, "when the sacred months have passed," which is giving a period of working to avert hostilities. If there is no aversion of hostilities after these sacred months have passed, then the verse gives permission for the Muslim army to fight only those Meccan pagans whom have breached al-Hudaybia Peace Treaty.
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi, a modern Islamic jurist, wrote an excellent work called Mudaf`I al-Mazlum fil Radd `ala Qatl man La Qatul, or Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless Against the Killing of Civilians, in which he says:
Keep in mind that there are more than 100 Verses in the Qur'an commanding us at all times to be patient in the face of humiliation and to turn away from violence, while there is only one famous Verse in which war (which does not last forever) becomes an option (in our modern context: for a particular Muslim authority and not an individual). That option exists when a particular non-Muslim force has drawn first blood.
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi then proceeds to explain the meaning of verse (9:5) of the Qur'an:
We say: It is well known among scholars that the following verse, [kill the idolaters wherever you find them] (al-Tawba, 9:5) is in reference to a historical episode: those among the Meccan Confederates who breached the Treaty of Hudaybiyya [Sulh al-Hudaybiyya] which led to the Conquest of Mecca, and that therefore, no legal rulings, or in other words, no practical or particular implications can be derived from this Verse on its own. The Divine Irony and indeed Providence from the last part of the Verse, "wherever you find them" - which many of our Mufassirs understood in reference to place (i.e., attack them whether inside the Sacred Precinct or not) - is that the victory against the Meccans happened without a single battle taking place, whether inside the Sacred Precinct or otherwise, rather, there was a general amnesty for the Jahili Arabs there. Had the Verse not been subject to a historical context, then you should know that it is of the general type and that it will therefore be subject to specification by some other indication. Its effect in lay terms, were it not related to the Jahili Arabs, is that it can only refer to a case during a valid war when there is no ceasefire. Among the well known exegeses of ["the idolaters"] from this verse are: [specifically, those who have breached (the Treaty)] [al- Nawawi al-Jawi, Tafsir, 1:331]; [those who have declared war against you] [Qadi Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 2:889]; and [specifically, the Jahili Arabs and not anyone else] [al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 3:81].
The context of this verse is specifically speaking of a group of pagans which broke the treaty of Hudaybiyya, giving permission for the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to fight them after the sacred months have passed. Some claim that this verse is proof for Islam being a terrorist-loving religion; the truth of the matter is that the events which later transpired were a peaceful surrender of the Pagan armies averting hostilities as well as a general amnesty given by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to all of those who fought him, which was an unprecedented act of mercy especially in his time period.
Many of the great Prophets of old used military force in a specific context under order from God and this is found not only in the Qur'an, but in the Bible and Torah as well. The Prophet Joshua (peace be upon him) fought in the Battle of Jericho, and the Prophet David (peace be upon him) and other major prophets all engaged in military combat. I am at no position to comment on the Bible, but an example of this is in Deuteronomy 7:17-26, where God promises to help the Jews against their enemies as long as the Jews pick up the sword and, "wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them." Now, if I were to interpret this verse, I would most likely be severely mistaken because I am uninformed of current Biblical scholarship, Greek, Hebrew and Latin and methods of Biblical interpretation and other such matters--just as I would hope those unqualified to interpret the Qur'an do not quote isolated verses and paint their own pictures of an entire religion with them. What can be inferred from these situations in the Bible is that even though under most sects of Christianity the verses concerning warfare are abrogated through the New Testament of the Bible, the fact of the matter is that God has ordered warfare historically for specific purposes, and this is recognized by all three Abrahamic faiths.
In Christianity itself, the Just War theory exists, especially in Catholicism, through which the definitions and the circumstances in which war is considered good and permitted are expounded. All wars failing to meet the definitions and circumstances are considered sinful. King David (peace be upon him), the King of the Jews, was a strong and powerful military leader, and many Jews expect their Messiah to likewise be as such. War is no stranger to any of the Abrahamic faith traditions; the problem is not in the concept of war in and of itself but when this concept because distorted to justify the evils of murder, terrorism and injustice. In Islam, war is not as Carl Von Clausewitz said--"politics by other means"--and with the intention of imposing our egotistical whims upon the enemy. Rather, war is as Ibn Tuffah said: either a barrier to the good in which it is an unjust war or acting to destroy the barriers to the good in which it is a just war.
Religious history of all three of the major monotheistic religions has its fair share of unfortunate events, many of which were later regretted and given full apologies. In Christianity itself, there exists the doctrine of St. Augustine of Hippo's cognite intrare or "lead them in," which justifies and encourages torture, vandalism, forced conversions and using violence to convert others in the name of Christianity. This doctrine was in place in North Africa after the appearance of the Donatist heresy; however, it would be foolish and to justify any attack on Christianity because of this doctrine, which was in effect in a specific time and place during Christian history and would be ineffective today. The crux of the matter is that misinterpretations of texts, pick-and-chose classical doctrines and the bad actions of any religion cannot be used to justify an attack on the entire religion itself.
Shaykh Sa'eed al-Bouti discusses the concept of military Jihad in Islam in his monumental work Fiqh al-Sira, wherein he states this, commenting on an episode of war in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (may God bless him and give him peace):
Jihad does not mean hatred for non-Muslims. This is indicated clearly by the incident mentioned above in which, as the Prophet (may God bless him and give him peace) was departing from al-Ta'if with his companions following their siege of the city, some of them said to him, "O Messenger of God, call down God's curse upon Bani Thaqif!" But instead he, may God bless him and give him peace, said, "O God, guide Thaqif and bring them here!" Which tells us that Jihad is nothing but the action of commanding that which is good and forbidding that which is evil. It is, in essence, all people's responsibility towards one another to deliver themselves and each other from being relegated to [God's]... punishment [for evil deeds] on the Day of Resurrection.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is painted by some to be a ruthless mercenary and war monger, yet this is far from the truth. The start of hostilities and warfare and their initiation in the life of the Prophet Muhammad are apparent when one realizes the circumstances which led to the permission for combat in his life. The first battle in the history of Islam was totally defensive and hostilities were not brought about by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Before the Battle of Badr, the first major battle in the history of Islam, the Muslims were oppressed, shown absolutely no compassion, physically attacked and starved through economic sanctions for many years until they were finally driven from their homes and migrated to the city of Madina because they refused to stop worshipping their God rather than worshipping pagan idols. After migration to the city of Madina, the property of the Muslims was stolen by the Meccan pagans and then sold in an arms trade with caravans from Syria. The Meccan pagans then hired assassins in the city of Madina to kill the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself, such that it was a state of war and permission to fight was given to the Muslims against the arms-trading threat, which resulted in the Battle of Badr.
The intent and purpose of military Jihad itself is not aggression; it is the removal of aggression. Military Jihad is seen as a form of worship when the necessary conditions arise to establish justice, eliminate oppression and earn God's pleasure. The Muslim does not fight for honor or glory, for anger or malice or for vain worldly ends. The Muslim fights when it is obligatory for the sake of God alone. It is reported that once an enemy in battle spat in the face the cousin of the Prophet, `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him) before `Ali (may God be pleased with him) was about to kill the man with his sword. `Ali (may God be pleased with him) put down his sword and let the man free, saying "First it was for God, and now it is for revenge" and thus the true military Jihad cannot be fought except with the performance of the inner greater Jihad.
The Yemeni scholar Habib `Ali al-Jifri said concerning the true purpose of combative Jihad:
The reality is in our religion that combative Jihad is not even one half of Jihad, it's not even one third of a meaning of Jihad - it's only one part of a principle of Jihad and it is for this reason in our tradition that we do not seek combative Jihad as an end in and of itself and it is only seen as a means - a means to stop belligerence and prevent harm from occurring. And if there is a path without combat necessary to prevent belligerence - Muslims are desirous of this path if they are following their tradition. Therefore the idea of aggression being in any way associating with Islam is in error. It is actually the removal of aggression that is at the root of combative Jihad.
I ask God to make it easy for all of us, Muslim or non-Muslim, to strive against our lower selves and perform the greater Jihad of destroying the poisons of our egos and desires, for indeed, perhaps then the world will be a better place and peace will prevail.
Omar is Whim's resident homeboy.
|
