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.
|