An Old Chapter in Deconstructing Offensive Jihad
This is another article, that I have promised, which will deal with the classical understanding of “expansionist jihad”. Majid, yet again, in almost heretical under tones describes the consensus of the classical scholars of Islam from the time of the companions onwards as “impractical”, “counter-productive”, “and dangerous”. Surprisingly, as with the law of apostasy, Hizb al Tahrir is also blamed for following this consensus.
This is another article, that I have promised, which will deal with the classical understanding of “expansionist jihad”. Majid, yet again, in almost heretical under tones describes the consensus of the classical scholars of Islam from the time of the companions onwards as “impractical”, “counter-productive”, “and dangerous”. Surprisingly, as with the law of apostasy, Hizb al Tahrir is also blamed for following this consensus.
Inshallah, I will deal with the source of Majid’s views on the sabab (reason) of Jihad. I will then go through the classical understanding and finally I will deal with the hadiths which he claims support his case. This camp does use quite a few other evidences but the point of this article is to show how Majid, time and time again, attacks views well within the consensus
Polemics in the Guise of Reasoning
Majid says
“the Sabab (legal cause) of Jihad is the presence of obstacles to the Da'wah, and the purpose of Jihad is to remove those obstacles so that such Da'wah can take place, then where those obstacles no longer exist, due to the rituals of Islam and it's preaching being permitted by the state, then the Sabab for Jihad no longer exist in that land.”
He is not creating a “new chapter” but is relying on a certain modernist trend that has infiltrated even the likes of Sayid Sabiq (the author of Fiqh al Sunnah). There are quite a few but I will mention three scholars of note.
In the book “The Politics of Shariah” Shiekh Abd al Wahab al Khalaf holds onto the view that Jihad is proscribed if non Muslim nations do not instigate any enmity towards the Muslims or prevent them from preaching Islam in peace. He even goes onto the cherished “divine” reason for this. The initial starting point is peace and not contractual i.e. the acceptance of a limited peace treaty or the authority of Islam and Jizya.( Al Siyasah Al Shari3eh page 74-75)
Similarly Sayid Al Sabiq says the same thing in Fiqh al Sunnah where he only provides two reasons for Jihad, the defence of one’s nation and the defence of Muslims who propagate the religion in non Muslim lands. (2/611-612)
Finally we have Shiekh Abd al Allah Bin Zayd Al Ma7hmud, the head of the Islamic courts in Qatar who also prohibits any military strike on those who allow the Muslims to propagate their religion. (alJihad wa Al 7uquq al Dawlea fil Islam by Professore Dhaffir Al Qassimi page 184)
Strangely these are just a sample and there are many more modern scholars who hold onto this modern trend but I will leave it at that.
On the other hand the modern “Wahabi” acolyte Shiekh Nasr Al Deen Albani holds onto the traditional view and defines two types of Jihad. The first one is a defence of the realm and the other is of an offensive nature with a desire to make non-Muslims pay Jizya while living under Islam law.
( Shari7h al AlAqueedah Al Ta7awiya p49)
Dr Abd Al Karim al Zaydan in his Majmu3 bu7uuth Faqhiea page 53-54 also says that the Islamic state has the right to initiate jihad to bring nations under the laws of Islam. Of course the non Muslims also pay Jizyaah. He also mentions an Ijma of the Sahaba on this on page 57.
The Classical Tradition
The Hanafi Madhab
Imam Shaybani in al ‘sair al kabir has the following to say
“If the soldiers from the Muslim authority enter Dar Harb... and they enter a city from the many cities that they ( the non Muslims) hold ....if they refuse Islam then the Muslims should ask them to pay Jizya and if they accept and do not want to migrate from their lands and they say “We stay in our positions and will not leave” ....then there is no shame that the Muslims appoint a ruler over them who will legislate according to Muslim law and who will also be provided with a force to establish his postion. This is because it is obligatory for the non-Muslims to accept jizya. Allah says in the Quran
(Fight those who believe not in Allah, and in the Last Day, and accept not as unlawful what Allah and His messenger made unlawful, and follow not the true faith that is to say those who were Coven the Book until they pay the required tax with their own hands being brought low)
With the establishment of Muslim ruling over them the city becomes the city of Islam because Dar Al Shirk becomes Dar Islam with the establishment of Muslim Law.” (5/2190-2193)
Clearly the ahkam relate to the authority that implements it! (See Majids understanding of Imam Shaybani’s view)
Imam al-Jassas another well know Hanafi scholar says in his Ahkam Al Quran (3/189)
“...and we do not know anyone from the Fuqaha that prohibits the fighting of those who do not fight us among the Mushrikeen. In fact the difference is in whether we are allowed to leave fighting them and not whether it is forbidden. In fact an agreement has been reached from everyone on the abrogation of the prohibition of initially fighting those we have described.”
Imam Jassas also holds onto the classical teleology of offensive jihad i.e. Islam, jizya or war. It is allowed to have a limited peace treaty if it is in the interest of the Muslims though.
In the Ha7sheea of Ibn Abideen Offensive Jihad is a collective duty even if the Mushrikeen do not initiate hostilities. Again he holds onto the traditional formula (3/342)
The Shafi Madhab
Imam Shafi also says in explanation of the ayah that the term “saghiuruun” ( Surat Al Tauba Ayah 29) refers to ahl Dhimma having the authority of Islamic law implemented on them.” (4/176)
Imam Shafi again in another section says with regards to all non Muslims “It is obligatory to call nations to Islam or the payment of Jizya for those who have not received the message”
Also see 4/168.
In fact this is the position of all the later Shafis as well.
The Hanbali madhab
Ibn Taymiaah says “and it is strange that the Christians take into captivity those who fight them or even those who do not fight them and Christ says who so ever strikes you on the cheek then provide him with the left and if someone (among them) says “ you had attacked us first”. We say this is invalid for those you have attacked first. As for those who initiated the attack they are excused because Allah and his prophet have ordered this...!” (Al-Risala Al Qubrisa page 255-256)
Also See Ibn Qudammah al Maqdisi’s view (Al-Mughni10/387)
The Maliki Madhab
Imam Qurtubi in his Ahkam Al Quran while giving the exegesis of ayah 193 in surat Al Baqarah again describes the same teleology of Jihad. The Kufaar either accept Islam or pay jizya under the authority of the Islamic State
Polemics in the Guise of Reasoning
Majid says
“the Sabab (legal cause) of Jihad is the presence of obstacles to the Da'wah, and the purpose of Jihad is to remove those obstacles so that such Da'wah can take place, then where those obstacles no longer exist, due to the rituals of Islam and it's preaching being permitted by the state, then the Sabab for Jihad no longer exist in that land.”
He is not creating a “new chapter” but is relying on a certain modernist trend that has infiltrated even the likes of Sayid Sabiq (the author of Fiqh al Sunnah). There are quite a few but I will mention three scholars of note.
In the book “The Politics of Shariah” Shiekh Abd al Wahab al Khalaf holds onto the view that Jihad is proscribed if non Muslim nations do not instigate any enmity towards the Muslims or prevent them from preaching Islam in peace. He even goes onto the cherished “divine” reason for this. The initial starting point is peace and not contractual i.e. the acceptance of a limited peace treaty or the authority of Islam and Jizya.( Al Siyasah Al Shari3eh page 74-75)
Similarly Sayid Al Sabiq says the same thing in Fiqh al Sunnah where he only provides two reasons for Jihad, the defence of one’s nation and the defence of Muslims who propagate the religion in non Muslim lands. (2/611-612)
Finally we have Shiekh Abd al Allah Bin Zayd Al Ma7hmud, the head of the Islamic courts in Qatar who also prohibits any military strike on those who allow the Muslims to propagate their religion. (alJihad wa Al 7uquq al Dawlea fil Islam by Professore Dhaffir Al Qassimi page 184)
Strangely these are just a sample and there are many more modern scholars who hold onto this modern trend but I will leave it at that.
On the other hand the modern “Wahabi” acolyte Shiekh Nasr Al Deen Albani holds onto the traditional view and defines two types of Jihad. The first one is a defence of the realm and the other is of an offensive nature with a desire to make non-Muslims pay Jizya while living under Islam law.
( Shari7h al AlAqueedah Al Ta7awiya p49)
Dr Abd Al Karim al Zaydan in his Majmu3 bu7uuth Faqhiea page 53-54 also says that the Islamic state has the right to initiate jihad to bring nations under the laws of Islam. Of course the non Muslims also pay Jizyaah. He also mentions an Ijma of the Sahaba on this on page 57.
The Classical Tradition
The Hanafi Madhab
Imam Shaybani in al ‘sair al kabir has the following to say
“If the soldiers from the Muslim authority enter Dar Harb... and they enter a city from the many cities that they ( the non Muslims) hold ....if they refuse Islam then the Muslims should ask them to pay Jizya and if they accept and do not want to migrate from their lands and they say “We stay in our positions and will not leave” ....then there is no shame that the Muslims appoint a ruler over them who will legislate according to Muslim law and who will also be provided with a force to establish his postion. This is because it is obligatory for the non-Muslims to accept jizya. Allah says in the Quran
(Fight those who believe not in Allah, and in the Last Day, and accept not as unlawful what Allah and His messenger made unlawful, and follow not the true faith that is to say those who were Coven the Book until they pay the required tax with their own hands being brought low)
With the establishment of Muslim ruling over them the city becomes the city of Islam because Dar Al Shirk becomes Dar Islam with the establishment of Muslim Law.” (5/2190-2193)
Clearly the ahkam relate to the authority that implements it! (See Majids understanding of Imam Shaybani’s view)
Imam al-Jassas another well know Hanafi scholar says in his Ahkam Al Quran (3/189)
“...and we do not know anyone from the Fuqaha that prohibits the fighting of those who do not fight us among the Mushrikeen. In fact the difference is in whether we are allowed to leave fighting them and not whether it is forbidden. In fact an agreement has been reached from everyone on the abrogation of the prohibition of initially fighting those we have described.”
Imam Jassas also holds onto the classical teleology of offensive jihad i.e. Islam, jizya or war. It is allowed to have a limited peace treaty if it is in the interest of the Muslims though.
In the Ha7sheea of Ibn Abideen Offensive Jihad is a collective duty even if the Mushrikeen do not initiate hostilities. Again he holds onto the traditional formula (3/342)
The Shafi Madhab
Imam Shafi also says in explanation of the ayah that the term “saghiuruun” ( Surat Al Tauba Ayah 29) refers to ahl Dhimma having the authority of Islamic law implemented on them.” (4/176)
Imam Shafi again in another section says with regards to all non Muslims “It is obligatory to call nations to Islam or the payment of Jizya for those who have not received the message”
Also see 4/168.
In fact this is the position of all the later Shafis as well.
The Hanbali madhab
Ibn Taymiaah says “and it is strange that the Christians take into captivity those who fight them or even those who do not fight them and Christ says who so ever strikes you on the cheek then provide him with the left and if someone (among them) says “ you had attacked us first”. We say this is invalid for those you have attacked first. As for those who initiated the attack they are excused because Allah and his prophet have ordered this...!” (Al-Risala Al Qubrisa page 255-256)
Also See Ibn Qudammah al Maqdisi’s view (Al-Mughni10/387)
The Maliki Madhab
Imam Qurtubi in his Ahkam Al Quran while giving the exegesis of ayah 193 in surat Al Baqarah again describes the same teleology of Jihad. The Kufaar either accept Islam or pay jizya under the authority of the Islamic State
Imam Malik is known to have taken exception to the Turks and the people of Ethiopia; otherwise he falls into the consensus. (Bidayat al Mujtahid p455-456, 10.1.2, English translation)
Two more scholars to note down
Ibn Rushd in his Bidayaat al Mujtahid Vol 1 p464 section 10.1.7 "Why wage war?" (English translation) says"The Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting the People of the Book, excluding the (Qurayshite) People of the Book and the Christian Arabs is one of two things: it is either conversion to Islam or the payment of Jizya....."
Two more scholars to note down
Ibn Rushd in his Bidayaat al Mujtahid Vol 1 p464 section 10.1.7 "Why wage war?" (English translation) says"The Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting the People of the Book, excluding the (Qurayshite) People of the Book and the Christian Arabs is one of two things: it is either conversion to Islam or the payment of Jizya....."
Imam Shokani also says in Al Sail Al 7rar 4/518-519
“As for the campaigns against the non Muslims ..... and putting forward the options of Islam or the payment of Jizya or a military attack then this is know by a religious necessity....and what has been revealed about ...leaving them if they do not attack, then this abrogated by the consensus of the Muslims. ....”
It is clear from the above references (and they are obviously not exhaustive) that Majid’s purported position is in fact an innovation unheard of in the traditional camp.
The Quoted Evidence
Again Majid says
“This is a perfectly legitimate line of arguing backed by Prophetic tradition such as that narrated by Anas who said: “Wherever the Prophet, upon him be peace, raided some people he would not raid except in the morning. If he heard the call to prayer (Azan) he would refrain [from raiding], if he did not he would invade after dawn.” Moreover, al-Muzny reported that the Prophet, upon him be peace, said “If you have seen a mosque or heard a call to prayer, then don't kill anybody”.”
What do the scholars have to say about these two hadiths? To my surprise some scholars have used this very evidence to put forward an even harsher version of offensive jihad!
In Nayl Al Awtar by Imam Shokani we have the following texts
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Library/BooksCategory.php?idfrom=2409&idto=2410&bk_no=47&ID=1022 (for the original Arabic)
The first narration is narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Tirmidhi and is Sahih. The second narration has been narrated by the five except for Nisai. Tirmidhi has classified it as Hassan gharib. It is from the narration of Ibn 3saam on the authority of his father who is unknown according to al Taqrib.
Imam Shokani collects the conclusions that one can get from these narrations
1-This is evidence that one can attack a people without the traditional requirement to offer Islam first. Gathered with the other evidences it shows that is recommended and not obligatory. This is the view of Ibn Hajr al Asqlani in his Fath al Bari
2-It is an evidence that one can use circumstantial evidence to avoid bloodshed (i.e. the hadiths give an indirect indication that we are facing muslims)
3-It is an evidence that the call to prayer i.e. Takbeer is unique to Islam
4-The last narration shows that the presence of a mosque among a people is an indication that they are muslim.
As noted Ibn Hajr in Fath Al Bari has understood the hadith in a similar way. What astounds me is Majid’s interpretation. No scholar has seen it this way! This is how Majid’s logic goes
1- If a nation has a mosque or has people who call for adhan without any hindrance it is Dar Islam even though the authority is in the hands of the non Muslims and they are not paying Jizyah
2- Since it Dar Islam, Jihad is forbidden!
Can I ask this? If a Muslim nation is occupied by force but allowed to practice its religion is defensive Jihad forbidden?
What about the consensus of the companions on offensive Jihad and on pronouncing the options of Islam, Jizyah or war in all their campaigns ? (See Jihad wal Qital by Dr. Muhammad Khair Haykal on the campaigns of the Khulufah al Rashiden page 541-578)
It is clear from the above references (and they are obviously not exhaustive) that Majid’s purported position is in fact an innovation unheard of in the traditional camp.
The Quoted Evidence
Again Majid says
“This is a perfectly legitimate line of arguing backed by Prophetic tradition such as that narrated by Anas who said: “Wherever the Prophet, upon him be peace, raided some people he would not raid except in the morning. If he heard the call to prayer (Azan) he would refrain [from raiding], if he did not he would invade after dawn.” Moreover, al-Muzny reported that the Prophet, upon him be peace, said “If you have seen a mosque or heard a call to prayer, then don't kill anybody”.”
What do the scholars have to say about these two hadiths? To my surprise some scholars have used this very evidence to put forward an even harsher version of offensive jihad!
In Nayl Al Awtar by Imam Shokani we have the following texts
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Library/BooksCategory.php?idfrom=2409&idto=2410&bk_no=47&ID=1022 (for the original Arabic)
The first narration is narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Tirmidhi and is Sahih. The second narration has been narrated by the five except for Nisai. Tirmidhi has classified it as Hassan gharib. It is from the narration of Ibn 3saam on the authority of his father who is unknown according to al Taqrib.
Imam Shokani collects the conclusions that one can get from these narrations
1-This is evidence that one can attack a people without the traditional requirement to offer Islam first. Gathered with the other evidences it shows that is recommended and not obligatory. This is the view of Ibn Hajr al Asqlani in his Fath al Bari
2-It is an evidence that one can use circumstantial evidence to avoid bloodshed (i.e. the hadiths give an indirect indication that we are facing muslims)
3-It is an evidence that the call to prayer i.e. Takbeer is unique to Islam
4-The last narration shows that the presence of a mosque among a people is an indication that they are muslim.
As noted Ibn Hajr in Fath Al Bari has understood the hadith in a similar way. What astounds me is Majid’s interpretation. No scholar has seen it this way! This is how Majid’s logic goes
1- If a nation has a mosque or has people who call for adhan without any hindrance it is Dar Islam even though the authority is in the hands of the non Muslims and they are not paying Jizyah
2- Since it Dar Islam, Jihad is forbidden!
Can I ask this? If a Muslim nation is occupied by force but allowed to practice its religion is defensive Jihad forbidden?
What about the consensus of the companions on offensive Jihad and on pronouncing the options of Islam, Jizyah or war in all their campaigns ? (See Jihad wal Qital by Dr. Muhammad Khair Haykal on the campaigns of the Khulufah al Rashiden page 541-578)
What about the ayahs in the Quran that are general and the hadiths that have to do with offensive jihad? (See Jihad wal Qital page 609-628 and also 739-789)
Do we throw all this out of the window along with the consensus of the companions because of a possible understanding of these hadiths?
Let us allow this though. Let’s say that we do meet people that have these “sha3ir” of Islam. Does this abrogate the implication of all the other evidences that are know by necessity according to Imam Shokani? No we use both texts based on the Usuli principle that acting on two evidences is better than prioritising one (there are logical reasons for taking this principle as well). So we leave these people alone in the immediate area and attack the non muslim authority which refuse to bow to the authority of Islam and pay jizya. In a similar vein we attack the occupying forces but leave the people in the immediate vicinity alone who have the noted symbols of Islam.
Yet again we see how Majids “legitimate understanding” is in the end polemic rhetoric.
I have in no way though addressed all the evidences on this topic but I will leave that for another time.
All that is mistaken is from me and all that is good is from Allah and I am happy to be corrected if I have made a mistake.
Do we throw all this out of the window along with the consensus of the companions because of a possible understanding of these hadiths?
Let us allow this though. Let’s say that we do meet people that have these “sha3ir” of Islam. Does this abrogate the implication of all the other evidences that are know by necessity according to Imam Shokani? No we use both texts based on the Usuli principle that acting on two evidences is better than prioritising one (there are logical reasons for taking this principle as well). So we leave these people alone in the immediate area and attack the non muslim authority which refuse to bow to the authority of Islam and pay jizya. In a similar vein we attack the occupying forces but leave the people in the immediate vicinity alone who have the noted symbols of Islam.
Yet again we see how Majids “legitimate understanding” is in the end polemic rhetoric.
I have in no way though addressed all the evidences on this topic but I will leave that for another time.
All that is mistaken is from me and all that is good is from Allah and I am happy to be corrected if I have made a mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment