WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

 

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

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…..”

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?

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.

Just to add one point, of course we must realise that this applies only with the presence of the Islamic state. Indeed according to Ibn Rushd in Bidayat al Mujtahid Vollume p463 section 10.1.6, a significant number of Ulema prefer to have a truce if it is in the interest of the Muslims with the opposing states. This “interest” is identified with one the evidences that they apply

i.e. “And if they incline to peace,incline thou also to it and trust in Allah” (Quran 8:61)

Now if a states refuses peace, and if it is in the interest of the Islamic State then the Imam has the option of inviting them to Islam, accepting the authority of Islam and paying Jizyah, or as a last result war. In other words a “preemptive” war is really a strategic option against a hostile opponent who refuses any peaceful interaction (this is personally my view). This is the view of at least a considerable section of traditional Islam. Also it is not the right of any individual to proclaim this area a “real” state of war, rather it is the right of a Islamic Caliphate alone. (this is the view of the vast majority of Ulema). Obviously this has implications in the Muslim world if the Caliphate is established and does not apply to the western world as any sane understanding of reality would imply.

Finally it is important to know that this is not a creedal issue and one must remember that there are many good modern scholars that only hold onto defensive Jihad. Still, the main purpose of this article was to show that this party can be hardly faulted for following the virtual consensus of Islamic scholarship. Again this position is held by the majority of the  ”apolitical” scholars of Taswwuf that are favoured by the Quilliam Foundation and the British Government itself! For example Abdul Hakim Murad utters the same view in an obviously more nuanced way!

While non-retaliation against a personal injury is frequently a virtue (see the Holy Qur’an, chapter 41 verse 34), Islam believes that human communities have the right to collective self-defense, since non-resistance to aggression would result in a world dominated by tyrants (see Holy Qur’an, 22:40). Under some circumstances, Muslim scholars will allow oppressed peoples to rebel against their oppressors. They might, therefore, classify the American War of Independence as a form of jihad, broadly understood. When Bosnia was faced with ethnic cleansing in 1992, the Muslim authorities there authorized the use of force to defend the country’s Muslim minority. The alternative would have been mass murder and mass rape, and therefore jihad was lawful. Furthermore, some Muslim scholars will permit a non-defensive ‘idealist’ war to establish justice and freedom in a neighboring country. This is analogous, perhaps, to the decision of the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, in response to the German invasion of Poland. There are more recent analogies as well, including very recent instances in which Western powers have used force to overthrow tyrants such as Saddam Hussein.

 

Interestingly, though it is more than “some” as Abdul Hakim Murad would like it (more like the vast majority)  In fact this position of dividing Jihad into two types is held by the Haba’ib, his very own scholars. 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.