THEORY OF WAR AND PEACE IN
ISLAM
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam
and Modern Age, September 2009)
[Highlighting
of portions of the text in Red by the editor of this site]
Islam has been much maligned today as religion of war, not peace and
compassion. The acts of terrorism on the part of some international terrorist
groups who indulge in needless and wanton killing has further aggravated this
image in the contemporary world. During medieval ages also crusades threw up an
image of Islam which pictured Muslims as sword in one hand and Qur’an in the
other.
It would be interesting to
note that both during medieval as well as contemporary times the images of
Islam thrown up was not based on the wholistic study of the Qur’an but on
situation of war and conflict between Christians and Muslims and Huntington’s
theory of ‘clash of civilizations’ too is based on situation of conflict
between the western and Islamic world. Crusades, as well as today’s confrontation is primarily
political in nature and not religious as it would appear to be.
Let alone common people, even
scholars, historians and political scientists confuse what is political for
religious though there is obvious difference between the two. For, example in Qur’an both
Judaism and Christianity have been accepted as religions sent by Allah
through His prophets Abraham, Moses and Christ and yet we find clashes between
Jews, Christians and Muslims in history.
Both with Jews and Christians
no less than the
Prophet of Islam (PBUH) himself entered into treaties and gave followers of
both religions guarantee of freedom to follow their faith, their
lives and properties. The Prophet had entered into such pact with Jews of
Madina and Christians of Najran. He even insisted that Christians say their prayer into his
own mosque when a delegation of Christians came to meet him in Madina.
What more tolerance and respect one can show to other religion.
Though there were no clashes with
Christians during the Prophet’s life time later Muslims fought
against Roman Empire and conquered many of its territories. But with Jews there
were clashes during the Prophet’s own life time. Though Judaism was
shown all respect and Prophet even prayed for initial few years facing
Jerusalem Jews resented Muslim domination in Madina and betrayed the Mithaq-e-madina and conspired with kuffar of Mecca to attack Muslims.
Thus in no way these clashes were religious in
nature but political and yet often they are portrayed as religious.
It is nothing but biased and sectarian view of history. Islam recognized previous
religions as equally respectable as all religions were sent by Allah through
His prophets and it is not for nothing that Muslims believe that Allah has sent one hundred
and twenty four thousand prophets to guide the people of the world
and if it is so all religions become respectable. Where is the question then of
fighting with peoples of other religions.
All the wars in history are
wars of political power and result of clash of interests between rulers
fighting for political supremacy. One should not go by declaration by these
rulers that they are fighting for their religion. Use of ‘jihad’ or holy war by these rulers is
nothing but a religious cover for their political designs.
Here we would like to discuss the theory of war
and peace in the Qur’an so that such misunderstandings could be
clear. Before we discuss theory of war from Qur’an we would also like to say
that many
formulations of theologians and jurists are contextual and secondary to Qur’an
and cannot be treated as normative pronouncements and hence cannot be binding
on subsequent generations. Also there are significant differences
between various jurists in this respect. Thus theories of jihad developed by
jurists of middle ages cannot be cited to discuss Qur’anic theory of war and
peace. These jurists were pronouncing their theories in their own conflict
situation and we
have to formulate theory of war one, in the light of Qur’an and two, in the
context of our own situation.
Also, today the nature and structure of state has
radically changed and new political theories have come into
existence. Our state is of democratic nature and there is broad participation
of people in political processes which was not so during medieval ages. Though
concept of ijma’ (consensus) was
somewhat democratic but it was generally ijma;
between ‘ulama and it was also often restricted to ‘ulama of particular group
or school. These limitations of ijma’
cannot be disregarded. Thus theories of jihad propounded by medieval jurists has to
be taken cautiously.
Now coming to the Qur’anic theory of war, it is important to say
that war is
sanctioned only in exceptional circumstances and peace is the norm.
The permission for war in Qur’an is given reluctantly and extreme conditions of
persecution and oppression. War is not permissible if people of other
persuasions, religious faith and nationality are part of any treaty or causing
any kind of harm to Muslims. Also, to begin with Muslims should only preach their faith
peacefully and even put up with resistance and opposition and bear
adverse conditions with patience and endurance of high degree.
Patience, sabr is projected as great virtue and Qur’an says innallaha m’as sabirin (Surely Allah is
with those who are patient). And also Qur’an says, “By the time, Surely man is
in loss, except those who believe and do good and exhort one another to Truth,
and exhort one another to patience.” (Chapter 110) Thus it would be seen that
truth and patience go together and one cannot be bearer of truth without
inexhaustible patience. Truthful have often to suffer as they come in clash
with those whose interests are harmed.
Also, truth takes long time to bear fruit sometimes
entire life time or even more. Thus those who are eager to see immediate result
often get frustrated and loose faith and hence Qur’an’s emphasis on patience and joining truth
with patience. All the Prophets and saints and sages have shown great patience and never lost
faith in their mission even in most adverse circumstances.
Thus Qur’an resorts to
morality as truth is basically a moral category. War advocated in
Qur’an is not for propagation of truth as alleged by those who
promote stereotype of sword and Qur’an.
Truth and war can never go together. Truth goes only with patience. War is advocated,
as we will see to fight oppression and persecution only and secondly to defend
against aggression.
In Mecca the Prophet (PBUH)
and his followers bore with great patience utmost humiliation and persecution
without any retaliation. The Prophet himself suffered insults and personal
injuries from the hands of his persecutors. He was prevented from offering his
prayers, he allowed himself to be spat upon, to have dust thrown upon him, and
to be dragged out of Ka’ba by his own turban fastened to his neck.
The Prophet bore all this with
utmost patience as he was convinced of truth of his message and did not
retaliate even once. After the death of his uncle Abu Talib who had extended
his protection to him, a conspiracy was hatched to assassinate him and had he
not fled from his bed at dead of the night, he would have been assassinated.
Along with the Prophet his followers also bore even more indignities and
torture but never gave up their faith.
Islam had given them a new
spiritual message and it was spiritual and moral teachings of Islam which had
given them inner strength to bear all this. Sir W.Muir writes, “Few and simple
as the positive precepts of Mahomed up to this time appear, they had wrought a
marvelous and a mighty work. Never since the days when primitive Christianity
startled the world from its sleep, and waged a moral combat with heathenism,
had men seen the like arousing of spiritual life, the like faith that suffered
sacrifice and took joyfully the spoiling of goods for conscience sake.”
Thus even Sir William Muir who was not very favourably
inclined towards Islam accepts that it was a great spiritual movement for which
its followers, like early Christians, were ready to sacrifice everything
including their lives. So there was no question of preaching it with
sword. They suffered rather than make others suffer.
Then when does war comes into
picture? Not until the Holy Prophet migrates to Madina and the context changes
entirely. It is true that Muslims after going to Madina did attack some trade caravans
of Meccans. But this was not war in any sense of the word. Firstly it was in keeping with the ghazwa (attacking caravans) tradition of the tribal Arabia. Secondly,
the Meccan migrants had lost every thing they had, their homes, their trade and
their economy was ruined completely only due to Meccan kuffars who had
persecuted them in most inhuman ways.
The tribals used to survive in Arabia through such attacks only and hence Muslims used this
tradition to find their bearings in Madina and to establish themselves
there. This also delivered a blow to Meccan economy and these Meccan Arabs felt
that they and their trade was insecure. The first permission in Qur’an to fight
also came under similar circumstances. Thus Qur’an says: “And what reason have
you not to fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the
women and the children who say: Our Lord, take us
out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend,
and grant us from Thee a helper” (4:75).
This verse is quite clear as
to why Muslims should fight. All conditions have been mentioned. Also, justice
is very central in Islam and is one of the most fundamental values so much so
that Allah’s name is ‘Adil. And Muslims were subjected to gross injustices so permission to
fight was given and again the words of the verse clearly shows, it had nothing to
do with spreading of religion.
Had people of Mecca not
committed such gross injustices and persecuted helpless Muslims in minority
there was no question of permission being granted to fight. And for war, if it
is war and not mere ghazwa Qur’an
clearly lays down that “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against
you and do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.”
(2:190).
From above verse also it is clear that in Islam
nature of war can only be defensive, not aggressive. And during
Prophet’s (PBUH) lifetime Muslims fought all wars in defence. It is people of
Mecca who attacked Muslims in Madina without any provocation. What Muslims did after
the death of the Prophet is a different story. Islam cannot be held
responsible if Muslims behave otherwise and violate norms laid down by their
religion.
Maulana Muhammad Ali of Lahore
observes commenting on this verse, “This is one of the earliest revelations
permitting the Muslims to fight….It is remarkable that fighting in the way of
Allah, is here expressly limited to fighting in defense. Muslims were
required to fight in the way of Allah
but they could fight only against those who waged war on them. Exactly the same
limitation is placed on what was in all probability the first revelation
permitting fighting: ‘Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is
made because they are oppressers’”(22:39) (The
Holy Qur’an ,Lahore, 1973)
It is also important to note
that fighting in
defense of faith is not mentioned even once in the Qur’an as alleged
by opponents of Islam. Fighting has been permitted to defend those who believed in
Islam. These two things are very different. And as for faith Qur’an
clearly lays down that “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). If there is no
compulsion where is the question of spreading it with sword? Also,
for spreading faith Qur’an says:”Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and
goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125)
What the opponents of Islam or
those with half baked knowledge of Qur’an do is not to read Qur’an in totality
but in pieces and pick and choose verses as suits them and out of context. That
is how they prove their case.
The next verse i.e. 2:191
appears to be disturbing, if not read in proper context. The very fact that it
in continuation to verse 190 shows it talks of state of war, not of peace. The
verse is as follows, “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them
out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter..”
Here when the verse says “kill them wherever you find them” obviously refers to
those who are at war with Muslims and not those unbelievers who live
in peace with them.
This is shown by the fact that
Muslims had entered into treaties with many non-Muslim tribes and also Qur’an
lays down in chapter 109 that disbelievers can worship the way they like and
the Prophet and his followers will worship the way they like. So where is
question of killing any disbeliever but only those who are at a state of war
with Muslims?
And this verse also says that fitnah which many lexicologists tell us means
persecution, is worse
than slaughter. Persecution is worse because it takes place because of one’s
faith and one is driven out of one’s home and place of worship and
this persecution referred to here is not of one or two persons but whole
community of Muslims and that is why permission to fight was given to Muslims because they were
being persecuted and driven out of their homes.
This verse (i.e.2:191) is used
to prove that look Qur’an believes in indiscriminate violence against
disbelievers and non-Muslims and that proves the thesis ‘sword in one hand, and
Qur’an in the other.’ Nothing can be further from the truth. No religion can be
accepted by large number of people which advocates such violence; religion is
generally accepted by virtue of its spiritual appeal. And Islam was accepted by almost all Arabs except
Arab Christians who had their own revealed religion).
Islam became a political power
much later. It originated in Mecca as a result of
general spiritual and moral degeneration and hence its whole emphasis was on
justice, equality of all human beings, doing away with distinctions of low and
high, of color and caste and of tribal affiliations and nationalities.
Hence equality
and brotherhood are very important aspects of Islamic teachings.
Also, it is important to note
that Qur’an would not have referred to war and violence had it not existed in
the Arab society. What was from heaven was compassion, mercy, peace,
reconciliation and forgiveness and what was from earth, especially Arab part of
it where it appeared and grew, was violence, conflict and revenge. As opposed
to immediate earthly conditions Qur’an presents transcendent moral view of the
world to come and that part of the Qur’an is most valuable and is often
neglected and what was highly contextual in view of the
then existing condition of Arabia is over-emphasized. It totally distorts view
of Islam.
Early Muslims in Mecca were
confronted by diehard tribal chiefs, powerful, arrogant, proud of their tribal
affiliations rather than their human origin, having no mercy and compassion
towards more unfortunate sisters and brothers and when an orphan, having no
wealth and power challenged them, their anger knew no bounds. How can a poor,
helpless orphan teach them how to behave and share their wealth with weaker
sections of their society.
As the wealthy and powerful
often do they tried to silence the Muhammad, the Prophet and his followers by
inflicting inhuman torture on them which has been so well documented by early
historians of Islam but when they did not succeed drove them out of their homes and
hearth and most
of them migrated to Ethiopia and then to Madina. And they were not
left in peace even there as their moral and spiritual superiority could not be
accepted vis-à-vis their material superiority.
It is in this background that
one has to understand Qur’ans permission to fight. These wealthy and powerful Arabs were totally a
lawless horde as there was no state which could regulate them and
apply some rules and regulations. As against that Muslims in Madina were busy
establishing a state structure based on some laws with their own political
theory partly based on revelation and partly their own experience and wisdom.
It is for this reason that the
Prophet repeatedly tried to develop a model of peace so that Muslims can derive
inspiration from. First, for the sake of peace he preferred treaty with
disbelievers of Mecca at Hudaibiyah which was thought by his most prominent
companions, as humiliating, rather than go to war for which all Muslims were
prepared. Secondly, when he finally conquered Mecca, he preferred reconciliation
with worst of his enemies rather than revenge and bloodshed. It won
over all people of Mecca to his religion.
Subsequent writings on war or jihad (which does not mean war in Qur’an
at all) by various jurists and ‘ulama cannot be taken as real Qur’anic or based
on sunnah of the Prophet and does not draw
any inspiration from Hudaybian or Meccan model given by the Prophet. These
theories reflect Muslim situation in medieval ages and struggle for power
between Muslims and Muslims and non-Muslims, especially Christian powers.
Though these theorists,
jurists and scholars quoted Qur’an and referred to sunnah here and there, their main preoccupation was their own
political situation rather than Qur’anic or Prophetic model. There is urgent
need to develop theories of war and peace on this Qur’anic model and Prophet’s sunna but unfortunately the ‘ulama and
jurists of Islamic world even today are preoccupied by the medieval theories
and hardly do any original thinking.
Like opponents of Islam al-Qaida and other
terror groups also quote Qur’anic verses very selectively and very cleverly to
mislead young Muslims to prepare them for becoming suicide bombers. There is great need
to refute their point of view which is political and not at all religious,
spiritual and moral as advocated by Qur’an. These verses on war, as shown
above, deal with the then situation prevailing in Arabia and apply it to
today’s situation. They are thus doing greatest disservice to Islam than all
opponents of Islam put together.
It is for young scholars and
intellectuals to come forward study Qur’an and sunnah in totality and develop Islamic theory of war and peace. Let
us not forget Islam
is primarily religion and its religious, moral and spiritual teachings must get
absolute priority over political situation. It is then and only then
religion of Islam can challenge what is politically contingent and transient.
Eternal message of Islam is
spiritual, not political and we must disabuse Islam from this political misuse.
----------------------------------------------------
Institute of Islamic Studies,
Mumbai.
E-mail:
csss@mtnl.net.in