ISLAM AND TERRORISM: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF JIHAD?
In the name of God (who is) the most beneficent (and) the most gracious.
Peace be upon our Master Muhammad - the Seal of the Prophets - and his purified progeny of the infallible Imams.
Long story short. You see Muslims suicide bombing and mass massacring innocent civilians everyday in the name of Islam. You assume Islam's actually a fanatical religion that obligates its adherents to eliminate all non-Muslims from the face of the earth. You suppose that terrorists represent the genuine Koranic Mohammedan Islam. Well, to be honest, you are completely wrong if you think jihad is terrorism or if you think God of Islam commanded Muslims to commit such acts of gross insanity. Islam is neither a religion of peace nor a religion of violence. Islam is a faith system that believes in peace with the peaceful and violence with the violent. Here I have gathered opinions of several Islamic jurists and scholars to show that Islam is different from what these lunatics from ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas, Sipah-e-Sahabah, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Tayyibah and other groups teach.
Islamophobs often cite this verse to prove that Qur'an condones terrorism and asks Muslims to butcher non-Muslims:
"And kill them wherever you overtake them..."
However, they either deliberately or unintentionally ignore to quote the verse preceding this one which states:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress..,"
Also, they forget/decline to copy/paste the verse succeeding the previously-quoted one:
"And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Now, if we refer to the exegesis of these koranic quotations, we see that these verses clearly instruct Muslims never to fight those who don't wish to fight Muslims. Abdullah ibn Abbas, a cousin of Prophet Muhammad who was taught by Ali ibn Abi Talib and is considered one of the greatest scholars among the Ashab (Companions), interpreted these verses in the following manner:
 |
| Tafsir Ibn Abbas 3:291 Download original Arabic version from this link |
"Do not kill women, children, old men, or whoever comes to you offering peace and refrains from fighting. If you did so, you would have certainly transgressed."
If someone brings the hypothesis of abrogation in question according to which the Sword Verse abrogated all peaceful instructions of Qur'an, we can show him this commandment by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz who is counted among the Rashidun Caliphs of Islam:
You can find this brief inscription from Umar II's letter on the previous page (i.e. Tafsir Ibn Abbas 3:290). On the next page (i.e. Tafsir Ibn Abbas 3:291), we have Mujahid's explanation that:
The same page holds another commandment of Umar II who wrote:
If the Sword Verse had abrogated the peaceful instructions of shari'ah, why did Umar II rule against fighting non-combatant non-Muslims then?
Ibn Taymiyah, the founder of the Salafi ideology to which most terrorists ascribe today, said:
It must be noted that, according to the explicit instruction of God:
Ibn al-Qayyum was a great jurist of Islam. He wrote entire books regarding the behavior of Muslims towards Jews, Christians and Dhimmis. He writes:
On the next page (page #30), he writes:
Then he rambles on explaining how Jews broke their covenant with the Prophet, forcing him to military tackle the Hebrew community in Medina. Then, on the same page (page #30), Ibn al-Qayyum makes a marvelous observation:
In his other book, the great theologian makes it clear:
A further proof that the Sword Verse did not obligate Muslims to execute all non-Muslims once they'd conquered an infidel country is the hadith of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam who expanded his empire's territory from Palestine to Central Asia and stretched the Arab-Islamic Empire to such glorious heights the likelihood of which Byzantines and Sassanids had never even imagined. Though I have found this hadith attributed to him in Sunan Sa'id ibn Mansur but I was unable to locate it in the online Arabic version of this lesser-known collection of Mohammedan quotations. Though a mere Google search led me to discover both narrations attributed to Umar in Ibn al-Qayyum's Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah. Some parts of these narrations are also available in this obscure online fiqh book.
Umar, in this sense, followed in the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad who declared:
After Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had received allegiance of terrorists as the Caliph of ISIS, Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to him describing in detail how he had utterly messed up the dream of a proper Islamic State and disgraced the name of jihad.
Let us talk about the Hanafi school of though which is the most followed theology in Islam; approximately 45% Muslims belong to the Hanafi school. Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, one of the pupils of Abu Hanifah, writes in his book Sharh Kitab Siyar al-Kabir:
Again comes Ibn al-Qayyum who has made it very clear what the actual reason behind performing military campaigns is, when he writes in his lesser-known work Uddah al-Sabirin wa Dhakhirah al-Shakirin:
Yet again some people might raise doubts over the legitimacy of these peaceful scholarly injunctions and question what exactly the Sword Verse meant when Muslims couldn't kill non-combatant non-Muslims. Let us allow Baydawi to answer these objections.
Jihad is fought just for the elevation of Islam and if someone adds another reason (nationalism, sectarianism, politics, economical issues, personal agenda, sexual desires etc.) in jihad, he violates the entire concept of jihad. So, far from being mujahidin, these terrorist organizations are violating the entire Islamic ideology of jihad. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explains in his Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari:
As Prophet Muhammad himself told a person who asked him thrice what the heavenly reward of a man would be who had fought for God and His Apostle but also for worldly gains. The hadith goes like this:
Islam certainly doesn't believe in world domination. Islam considers jihad as a Muslim government's last resort to defend its sovereignty. Military campaigns are certainly not an option if Muslims can defend themselves and promote Islam peacefully. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami has beautifully explained this in his book Tuhfah al-Muhtaj:
Muslims are forbidden from attacking non-combatant non-Muslims. Baydawi further explains:
The Prophet forbade Muslims from fighting unnecessary battles or engage in hostilities with a people who were peaceful. He said:
Thus, in the end, it must be clear that Islam is not a religion constructed by barbarians. It was a social movement that brought reforms into a barbarian civilization.
"This is about women and children and whoever doesn't wage war among them."
You can find this brief inscription from Umar II's letter on the previous page (i.e. Tafsir Ibn Abbas 3:290). On the next page (i.e. Tafsir Ibn Abbas 3:291), we have Mujahid's explanation that:
"(This verse was revealed) so that the Companions of Prophet shall fight the fighters of the infidels."
The same page holds another commandment of Umar II who wrote:
"Don't fight him who doesn't fight or (as per a different source for Tabari) doesn't fight you. (Tabari explains that it) means women, children and monks."
If the Sword Verse had abrogated the peaceful instructions of shari'ah, why did Umar II rule against fighting non-combatant non-Muslims then?
Ibn Taymiyah, the founder of the Salafi ideology to which most terrorists ascribe today, said:
 |
| Nubuwat, 570 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"As for the oppressor who does not fight, then there are no texts in which Allah commands him to be fought. Rather, the unbelievers are only fought on the condition that they wage war, as is practiced by the majority of scholars and is evident in the Book and Sunnah."
It must be noted that, according to the explicit instruction of God:
"...But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."
Ibn al-Qayyum was a great jurist of Islam. He wrote entire books regarding the behavior of Muslims towards Jews, Christians and Dhimmis. He writes:
 |
| Hidayatah al-Hayara, 29 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"The Prophet never forced the religion upon anyone, but rather he only fought those who waged war against him and fought him first. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion, as his Lord the Almighty had commanded him: There is no compulsion in religion, for right guidance is distinct from error (2:256). The negation in the verse carries the meaning of prohibition, namely, you may not force your religion upon anyone."
On the next page (page #30), he writes:
"And one who reads the sirah of the Prophet, it reveals upon him that he never forced his religion upon anyone, nor he always fought only who fought him."
Then he rambles on explaining how Jews broke their covenant with the Prophet, forcing him to military tackle the Hebrew community in Medina. Then, on the same page (page #30), Ibn al-Qayyum makes a marvelous observation:
"He never forced anyone to enter his religion and people entered his religion voluntarily and freely. And the majority of people entered his religion when guidance was revealed unto them and (they learnt) that he (Muhammad) was a genuine apostle."
In his other book, the great theologian makes it clear:
 |
| Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, 110 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"Fighting is only necessary to confront war and not to confront unbelief. For this reason, women and children are not killed, neither are the elderly, the blind, or monks who do not participate in fighting. Rather, we only fight those who wage war against us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, with the people of the earth. He would fight those who declared war on him until they accepted his religion, or they proposed a peace treaty, or they came under his control by paying tribute."
A further proof that the Sword Verse did not obligate Muslims to execute all non-Muslims once they'd conquered an infidel country is the hadith of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam who expanded his empire's territory from Palestine to Central Asia and stretched the Arab-Islamic Empire to such glorious heights the likelihood of which Byzantines and Sassanids had never even imagined. Though I have found this hadith attributed to him in Sunan Sa'id ibn Mansur but I was unable to locate it in the online Arabic version of this lesser-known collection of Mohammedan quotations. Though a mere Google search led me to discover both narrations attributed to Umar in Ibn al-Qayyum's Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah. Some parts of these narrations are also available in this obscure online fiqh book.
 |
| Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, 165 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"And (Ibn Qudamah) said in al-Mughna: As for the farmers who haven't fought, it's believed that they are not killed. It has been narrated from Umar who said: Fear Allah regarding farmers who have not waged war against you. Auza'i said: Farmers are not killed when it is known that they are not fighters ... We adhere to the saying of Umar. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - did not kill farmers when they liberated the lands because they do not fight. In this, they resemble old men and priests."
Umar, in this sense, followed in the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad who declared:
"Do not kill children or workers."
After Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had received allegiance of terrorists as the Caliph of ISIS, Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to him describing in detail how he had utterly messed up the dream of a proper Islamic State and disgraced the name of jihad.
Let us talk about the Hanafi school of though which is the most followed theology in Islam; approximately 45% Muslims belong to the Hanafi school. Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, one of the pupils of Abu Hanifah, writes in his book Sharh Kitab Siyar al-Kabir:
 |
| Sharh Kitab Siyar al-Kabir, 131 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"Thawri said: Fighting the idolaters is not an obligation unless they begin it themselves, in which case it is required to fight them in defense which is apparent from this word: So if they fight you, fight them."
Again comes Ibn al-Qayyum who has made it very clear what the actual reason behind performing military campaigns is, when he writes in his lesser-known work Uddah al-Sabirin wa Dhakhirah al-Shakirin:
 |
| Uddah al-Sabirin wa Dhakhirah al-Shakirin, 57 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"It is the purpose of jihad that one defends himself and the Muslims."
Yet again some people might raise doubts over the legitimacy of these peaceful scholarly injunctions and question what exactly the Sword Verse meant when Muslims couldn't kill non-combatant non-Muslims. Let us allow Baydawi to answer these objections.
 |
| Tafsir al-Baydawi, 1:127 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"This verse was before the command to fight the idolaters entirely, those who fight and those who remain in their lands. It is said that it means those who wage war against you and from whom that is expected, with the exception among them of elders, children, religious teachers, and women."
Jihad is fought just for the elevation of Islam and if someone adds another reason (nationalism, sectarianism, politics, economical issues, personal agenda, sexual desires etc.) in jihad, he violates the entire concept of jihad. So, far from being mujahidin, these terrorist organizations are violating the entire Islamic ideology of jihad. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explains in his Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari:
 |
| Fath al-Bari 6:28 Download the original Arabic version from this link |
"The meaning of the (کلمة اللہ) ‘Word of Allah’ is the invitation to Islam. It is interpreted to mean that jihad would not be in the cause of Allah unless the purpose is only to raise the word of Allah, such that if anyone were to add another reason to it that would violate it."
As Prophet Muhammad himself told a person who asked him thrice what the heavenly reward of a man would be who had fought for God and His Apostle but also for worldly gains. The hadith goes like this:
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّ رَجُلًا قَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ الرَّجُلُ يُرِيدُ الْجِهَادَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ يَبْتَغِي عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ فَأَعْظَمَ النَّاسُ ذَلِكَ وَقَالُوا لِلرَّجُلِ عُدْ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَعَلَّهُ لَمْ يَفْهَمْ فَعَادَ فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ الرَّجُلُ يُرِيدُ الْجِهَادَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ يَبْتَغِي عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ ثُمَّ عَادَ الثَّالِثَةَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ"Abu Huraira reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gains.” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There is no reward for him.” The people found that very difficult and they said, “Return to the Messenger of Allah, for perhaps he did not understand you.” The man returned and he said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gain.” The Messenger of Allah said, “There is no reward for him.” Then he returned a third time and the Messenger of Allah said, “There is no reward for him.”"
Islam certainly doesn't believe in world domination. Islam considers jihad as a Muslim government's last resort to defend its sovereignty. Military campaigns are certainly not an option if Muslims can defend themselves and promote Islam peacefully. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami has beautifully explained this in his book Tuhfah al-Muhtaj:
وَإِنْ جَزَمَ الزَّرْكَشِيُّ بِأَنَّ وُجُوبَهُ (الجهاد) وُجُوبُ الْوَسَائِلِ لَا الْمَقَاصِدِ إذْ الْمَقْصُودُ مِنْهُ الْهِدَايَةُ وَمِنْ ثَمَّ لَوْ أُمْكِنَتْ بِإِقَامَةِ الدَّلِيلِ كَانَتْ أَوْلَى مِنْهُ
"Zarkashi asserted that the obligation of jihad is a necessary means but not an end in itself, as the purpose of it is to preach guidance. Hence, if it were possible to provide guidance otherwise, then that would be more appropriate."
Muslims are forbidden from attacking non-combatant non-Muslims. Baydawi further explains:
 |
| Tafsir al-Baydawi 1:128 Download the original Arabic version from think link |
"(و لا تعتدوا) ‘Do not transgress’ means by initiating the fighting, or by fighting those protected by a peace treaty, or by fighting those who never received the call to Islam, or committing mutilation, or killing whomever it has been forbidden to kill."
The Prophet forbade Muslims from fighting unnecessary battles or engage in hostilities with a people who were peaceful. He said:
"Let the Negroes alone as long as they let you alone, and let the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone."
Thus, in the end, it must be clear that Islam is not a religion constructed by barbarians. It was a social movement that brought reforms into a barbarian civilization.
Comments
Post a Comment