IV. Behavior of Muslim Minorities: Some Misconceptions
    Muslim interaction with non-Muslims is more pronounced in countries where Muslims live as minorities. The aggression of the religious activists among them, besides factors mentioned and analyzed before²⁷, hinges on some other perceptions as well. Some of the important ones are:
    a. Muslims are a chosen race of God, and therefore only they have the right to rule.
    b. The struggle to achieve the supremacy of Islam is a religious requirement of every Muslim. Therefore, if Muslims are living as minorities in some non-Muslim country they must strive to achieve this by whatever means they can.
    c. Since Islam is not in conformity with democracy, so instead of democratically changing a non-Muslim government or an un-Islamic Muslim government, militant means can be resorted to.
    d. Jihad is the solution to all the woes Muslims are facing today.
In the opinion of this writer, all these perceptions are unfounded and based on misinterpretation of certain verses of the Qur’an.
    All these issues shall now be addressed:

a. Muslims are the Best Nation
    The following verse is contended to be the basis of this ‘self-righteousness’:

You are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and truly believe in God. (3:110)

    It is to be appreciated that this verse specifically pertains to the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) who bore witness to the religion of truth before certain non-Muslim nations of their times. It has already been explained before that the Almighty had chosen them for this task:

He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this [Qur’an]: [He chose you so that] the Rasul may be a witness [to this religion] before you, and you be witnesses to this religion before non-Muslims. (22:78)

    The following verse also mentions their obligation:

Thus have We made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [to this religion] before the nations, and the Rasul be such a witness before you. (2:143)

    The context of 3:110 must be understood in the light of 2:143 and 22:78. The reason why the Companions (rta) have been called the ‘Best Community’ in 3:110 is that after Muhammad (sws) himself had borne witness to the religion of truth before them, the truth had manifested itself in their collectivity. Since this testimony by Muhammad (sws) was confined to them and not to later Muslims, the title ‘Best Community’ is specifically meant for the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) and does not relate to other Muslims.

b. Struggle for Islamic Supremacy
    It is held by some Muslim scholars of contemporary times that it is the religious obligation of Muslims to strive for the supremacy of Islam. If a Muslim country is not following Islam, Muslims must organize an effort to topple its rulers and enforce Islam. An obvious corollary of this view point is that if they are living as minorities in some non-Muslim country, here also they should strive to achieve the supremacy of Islam. They term this struggle an ‘Islamic Revolution’ and present the following verse in support of this view:²⁸

It is He Who has sent his Rasul with Guidance and the Religion of Truth that he may proclaim it over all religions, even though the Idolaters may detest [this]. (61:9)

    On the basis of the phrase ‘all religions’, it is understood that the followers of Islam must struggle for its dominance in their respective countries and territories.
    An analysis of the context of this verse shows that it also belongs to the class of directives that relate to the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta). It is to be noted that al-Mushrikin (the Idolaters) is used in this verse. The Qur’an uses this word specifically for the Idolaters of Arabia of the Prophet’s times. As a result, ‘all the religions’ in the conjugate clause can only mean all the religions of Arabia at that time.²⁹ Therefore, the verse has no bearing on Muslims after the times of the Prophet Muhammad (sws).
    It has already been shown in an earlier section that the Companions (rta) of Muhammad (sws) were promised sovereignty in the land of Arabia after the Idolaters of Arabia had knowingly denied the message of Muhammad (sws).

God has promised, to those among you who professed belief and did righteous deeds that He will, of a surety grant them political authority in this land as He granted it to those before them; that he will establish their religion – the one which He has chosen for them. (24:55)

    Consequently, striving to achieve the political supremacy of Islam is no religious obligation of a Muslim. The verses from which this obligation has been construed specifically relate to Muhammad and his Companions (rta).³⁰

c. Islam and Democracy
    A strong perception that prevails among quite a number of Muslims is that Islam and democracy are at poles with each other. They contend that in a democracy, laws are made by the people and in this regard the ambit of law making is infinite. On the other hand, they maintain, that Muslims are bound to follow certain Divine laws and not make laws by themselves. Consequently, there is no compatibility between the two.
    In this regard, it needs to be appreciated that there are two basic aspects of democracy:
    1. The process of electing representatives of the people to run the country.
    2. The scope of legislation done in the parliament of a country by the elected representatives.
    The first aspect is in complete harmony with the political law of Islam as mentioned in the Qur’an:

The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual consultation. (42:38)

    Keeping in view linguistic considerations, it is evident that a consensus or majority opinion of the Muslims can in no way be overruled. The Qur’an has not said: ‘The believers are consulted in their affairs’; it has, on the contrary, declared: ‘Their affairs of state are run by their mutual consultation’. The style and pattern of the verse demands that an Islamic government should be established through the consultation of the believers, continue to exist on this basis and should cease to exist without it. It should conduct its affairs, in all cases, on the basis of a consensus or majority opinion of the believers.
    As far as the second aspect is concerned, Islam imposes a broad restriction on it. The scope of legislation must never exceed the directives of the Qur’an and Sunnah. In the words of Ghamidi:

Obey God and the Prophet and those of you who are in authority, and if you disagree among yourselves in any matter, refer it to God and the Prophet, if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and more seemly as regards the consequences. (4:59)

The above quoted directive was given to the Muslims when the Qur’an was being revealed and the Prophet (sws) himself was present among them. Consequently, they had the opportunity to refer back all their disagreements to the Prophet (sws). Obviously, since the authority of Allah and His Prophet (sws) are eternal, therefore in all affairs in which an eternal directive has been given by them it is incumbent upon those in authority whether they are the rulers or members of the parliament to forever submit to them. Their orders and directives can only be obeyed after obeying Allah and his Prophet (sws), and if they do not overrule or exceed the limits adjudicated by these authorities. Therefore, in an Islamic State no law can be enacted contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah or one which does not take into consideration the guidance provided by them. The believers indeed have a right to disagree with thosein authority, but they can have no disagreement with Allah and His Prophet (sws). In fact, if such a situation arises even with those in authority, the decision must be made in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah.³¹

    It can be said that with the above quoted qualification, the political system of Islam resembles democracy in its essence.
Muslims must therefore adopt democratic means to bring a change in the society they are living in. They must also remember that as citizens of non-Muslim countries they are bound in contract with that country. They must follow the laws of the country -- whose citizens they have become by their own free choice -- in letter and in spirit. Abiding by laws is their religious duty. Moreover, if they feel that it is not possible for them to practice their religion because of some hindrance created by a law or ruling of that country, even then they should not disobey the law and cause any disruption. The correct attitude in such a case would be to migrate from that country.

d. Jihad³²
    For many Muslims Jihad is the answer to all their woes. Taking up arms and destroying the enemy is the solution to the injustices they are suffering. In this regard, guerrilla warfare, hidden attacks, clandestine offensives on an enemy are considered part of Jihad by these activists.
    In the opinion of this writer, Jihad has unfortunately become one of the most misunderstood directive of Islam. Here, in this section two of its important aspects shall be elaborated upon:

    1. The Authority to wage Jihad
    2. The Sole Grounds for Jihad

1. The Authority to Wage Jihad
    Both the Qur’an and the established practice of the Prophets of Allah explicitly say that Jihad can only be waged by a state. No group of people has been given the authority to take up arms, because individual groups if given this license will create great disorder and destruction by fighting among themselves once they overcome the enemy. A study of the Qur’an reveals that the Makkan Surahs do not contain any directive of Jihad for the simple reason that in Makkah the Muslims did not have their own state. One must remember that Islam does not advocate ‘the law of the jungle’. It is a religion in which both human life and the way it is taken, hold great sanctity. Islam does not give us any right to take life unless certain conditions are fulfilled. So, it was not until an Islamic state was established in Madinah that the Qur’an gave the Muslims permission to take up arms against the onslaught mounted by the Quraysh:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they have been oppressed and verily Allah is Most Powerful to help them. [They] are those who have been expelled from their homes without any basis, only because they said: Our Lord is Allah. (22:39-40)

    Consequently, the Prophet (sws) never retaliated in Makkah to the inhuman treatment which was given to him as well as to some of his Companions (rta). Muslims must remember that the torment suffered by the Prophet (sws) particularly at Ta’if. Bilal (rta) was put through the gravest of tortures. The limbs of Ammar Ibn Yasir (rta) were torn apart by strong camels. In spite of this reign of terror let lose by the Quraysh, the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) never retaliated with force even though they could have easily done so. The Prophet (sws) preferred to suffer and be persecuted than to counter attack his enemies, since Muslims at that stage had not fulfilled this all important pre-requisite of Jihad: establishment of a state.
    Similarly, the earlier Prophets were not allowed by the Almighty to wage war unless they had established their political authority in an independent piece of land. For instance, the Prophet Moses (sws), as is evident from the Qur’an, was directed to wage war only after he had fulfilled this condition. Since the Prophet Jesus (sws) and his Companions (rta) were not able to gain political authority in a piece of land, they never launched an armed struggle.
    Consequently, there is a consensus among all authorities of Islam that only an Islamic State has the authority to wage Jihad. No group, party or organization has the authority to lift arms. People who undertake such activities disobey the religion they follow. Without state authority Jihad is no more than a terrorist activity. Referring to this pre-requisite of state authority, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:

A Muslim ruler is the shield [of his people]. A war can only be waged under him and people should seek his shelter [in war]. (Bukhari: No. 2957)

    This condition is so explicit and categorical that all the scholars of this Ummah unanimously uphold it. Sayyid Sabiq, while referring to this consensus, writes:

Among Kafayah obligations, there is a category for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihad and administration of punishments.³³

    ‘Uthmani, a Hanafite jurist writes:

It is obvious from the Hadith narrated by Makhul³⁴ that Jihad becomes obligatory with the ruler who is a Muslim and whose political authority has been established either through nomination by the previous ruler similar to how Abu Bakr transferred the reins [of his Khilafah to ‘Umar] or through pledging of allegiance by the ulema or a group of the elite …in my opinion, if the oath of allegiance is pledged by ulema or by a group of the elite to a person who is not able to guard the frontiers and defend honour [of the people] organize armies or implement his directives by political force neither is he able to provide justice to the oppressed by exercising force and power, then such a person cannot be called ‘Amir’ (leader) or ‘Imam’ (ruler). He, at best, is an arbitrator and the oath of allegiance is at best of the nature of arbitration and it is not at all proper to call him ‘Amir’ (leader) or a ‘Imam’ (ruler) in any [official] documents nor should the people address him by these designations. The reason for this is that the basis of leadership and rulership is power and authority and it does not hinge only upon the fact that he gets famous by this name. It is not imperative for the citizens to pledge allegiance to him or obey his directives and no Jihad can be waged alongside him.³⁵

    Ibn Qudamah, a Hanbalite jurist, writes:

The matter of Jihad rests with the ruler [of a state] and his Ijtihad. The opinion he forms in this regard must be obeyed by the citizens of his country.³⁶

    Mawardi, a Shafite authority, while enumerating the obligations of a Muslim ruler says:

His sixth obligation is to conduct Jihad against those who show hostility against Islam…³⁷

    In the words of Imam Farahi:

In one’s own country, without migrating to an independent piece of land, Jihad is not allowed. The tale of Abraham (sws) and other verses pertaining to migration testify to this. The Prophet’s life (sws) also supports this view. The reason for this is that if Jihad is not waged by a person who holds political authority, it amounts to anarchy and disorder.³⁸

    While commenting on the underlying reasons which form the basis of state authority for Jihad, Amin Ahsan Islahi, writes:

The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the dissolution and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those who are out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative and a righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them....this confidence [that a group will be able to harmonize a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be reposed in such a group only as has actually formed a political government and  has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that the group can be termed as Al-Jama‘ah [the State]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by religiously allowable means] to become Al-Jama‘ah -- and that endeavour  would be its Jihad for that time -- but it does not have the right to wage an ‘armed’ Jihad.

The second reason is that the import of power, which a group engaged in war acquires over the life and property of human beings, is so great that the sanction to wield this power cannot  be given to a group the control of whose leader over his followers is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence on them  [rather than being based on legal authority]. When the control of a leader is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence, there is not sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from fasad fi’l-ard [creating a situation of disorder in the society]. Therefore, a  religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords [that is to wage an armed struggle] merely on the basis of his spiritual influence over them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Such radical groups as desire revolution and the object of whom is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous party must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the life and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances and to create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end.³⁹

    Here some people justify that in some cases Islam allows Jihad without state authority by citing the skirmishes carried out by Abu Basir against the Quraysh. I am afraid this is a misinterpretation of facts: It is known historically⁴⁰ that after the treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Abu Basir defected to Madinah. However, according to the terms of the treaty, he was duly returned back to the Quraysh by the Prophet (sws). He was sent back in the custody of two people of the Quraysh. On the way back, he killed one of his two custodians and again defected to Madinah. When he arrived in Madinah, the Prophet (sws) was angry with what he had done. Sensing that the Prophet (sws) would once again return him to the Quraysh, he left Madinah and settled at a place near Dhu’l-Marwah, where later on other people joined him. From this place, they would attack the caravans of the Quraysh.
    If these guerrilla attacks are analyzed in the light of the Qur’an, the basic thing which comes to light is that whatever Abu Basir and has Companions (rta) did was not sanctioned at all by Islam. The Qur’an says that the actions and deeds of a person who had not migrated to Madinah were not the responsibility of the Islamic state:

And as to those who believed but did not migrate [to Madinah], you owe no duty of protection until they migrate. (8:72)

    Not only did the Qur’an acquit the newly founded Islamic state of Madinah from the actions of these people, we even find the following harsh remarks of the Prophet (sws) about Abu Basir when he returned to Madinah after killing one of  his two custodians:

His mother be cursed, if he is able to find some supporters he is bound to ignite the flames of war. (Bukhari: No. 2734)

    So, one can safely conclude that Jihad without state authority is terrorism and is totally prohibited in Islam. Moreover, clandestine attacks on a country even with state authority are not allowed. Jihad must be openly declared against the enemy country. If a peace treaty has been made with it, then it should first be openly declared null and void. Similarly, non-combatants of the enemy country should never be targeted. No one has the right to take the life of innocent civilians.

2. The Sole Ground for Jihad
    In this regard, it needs to be understood that, apart from self-defence, the only legitimate reason for an Islamic state to undertake Jihad is to curb oppression and persecution in some other state whether Muslim or Non-Muslim. The Qur’an says:

And why is it that you not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed -- men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourself one who will protect and raise for us from Yourself one who will help!’ (4:75)

    Again, this should be resorted to when all diplomatic means fail. Moreover, Muslims should be in a position to successfully combat the enemy, otherwise the whole venture would be no more than a suicide. Again whether or not a country is in a position to wage war is a decision that should be taken by the elected representatives of the state and of course as human beings the possibility of error is always there.
    The guideline to give due consideration to one’s military might is found in the life of the Prophet (sws) also. According to the Qur’an, it was necessary in those times that the believers should be in a certain number before they launch an attack. Initially, the believer to enemy ratio was 1:10 (The Qur’an, 8:66). However, later, after large scale conversions to Islam in later years of the Prophet (sws), this was reduced to 1:2 (The Qur’an, 8:66). It seems that in both these situations, the Almighty would be providing the remaining support Himself for this noble cause of curbing oppression. The above ratios were meant for the time of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta). Today, of course, the overall extent of faith Muslims have cannot be compared to that found in the days of the Prophet (sws). Therefore, an Islamic State should realize that if it wants to wage Jihad, its military might should never be less than half of the enemy’s military might if it wants to even expect Divine help.
    Consequently, Muslim countries of today should keep consolidating and developing their military might to check any aggression from its enemies. The Qur’an says:

Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. (8:60)

    I have also attempted to explain in the previous sections of this article that Jihad is or was never carried out for territorial aggrandizement or for forcibly converting people to Islam. People who erroneously justify either or both of these two bases draw their arguments from the Jihad carried out by the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta). It has already been shown that the Jihad carried out by the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) after him was governed by a specific law meant only for the Prophets of Allah and their immediate addressees, and has nothing to do with later Muslims. A study of the Qur’an reveals that the purpose of their Jihad was neither territorial aggrandizement nor forcible conversion of people to Islam: contrary to both, it was a Divine punishment meted out to people who had arrogantly denied Muhammad (sws) in spite of being convinced about the truth of his message.⁴¹
    In the light of these details, it is evident that Muslims today have no right to carry out Jihad to subjugate other countries to establish the supremacy of Islam or to forcibly convert people to Islam.