|
Chapter 3 ISLAM AND PEACE A systematic examination of Islamic
texts and Muslim history shows that peace is and has always been the original position and
final aim of Islam. War can and must be fought, however, to repel aggression and lift
oppression, but only as the last resort. War should not be seen as an instrument of the
state to advance ideological commitments of the bearers of political power.
We argue in the chapter that peace must be governing principle of
political action, both locally and globally. War is not, and should never be, a political
choice. War in Islam has specific objectives, and these objectives revolve around
defending human rights. Advancing narrow interests and imposing religious beliefs are not
legitimate objectives of war in Islam. Peace is the EssenceFrom its inception, the Qur'an emphasized
peace as an intrinsic Islamic value. In fact, the terms "Islam" and
"peace" have the same root, salam. Furthermore, Allah has chosen the word peace
(salam) as the Muslim's greeting. Reviewing the early Muslim era and reflecting on the
experience of the early Muslim generations, one can clearly see that peace was always the
original position of Muslims, and that war was either a punitive measure to annihilate
tyranny and oppression, or a defensive measure to stop aggression. From the very
beginning, Prophet Muhammad was instructed to use a friendly and polite approach to call
people to Islam. Invite to the way of your Lord with
wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most
gracious. (16:125) Despite the violent opposition of the
Quraysh, the Prophet proceeded to summon people peacefully to Islam, and the Muslims were
further commanded, for prudential reasons, not to respond to the violence of the Quraysh.
As it will be discussed in more detail below, Muslim pacifism during the Makkan period was
a political tool to influence change and to protect Muslims from mass destruction. After the immigration to Madinah, the
Muslims were permitted to fight against those who declared war against them. To those against whom war is made,
permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most
Powerful for their aid; (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in
defiance of right, for no cause except that they say, "our Lord is Allah."
(22:39-40) As a result, the Muslims fought a series
of battles against the Quraysh, including the Battles of Badr and Uhud. The war against
the Islamic city-state of Madinah was further escalated when other Arab tribes joined with
the Quraysh in the war against the infant Islamic state in an attempt to destroy it. The
campaign to eliminate Muslims reached its climax in the Battle of al Khandaq (The Trench)
when ten thousand fighters of the Quraysh and their allies surrounded Madinah.34 The
Muslims, nonetheless, made several attempts to neutralize their foes by signing a peace
treaty with the Quraysh and their allies at al Hudaybiyah. Unfortunately, the Arab
tribesmen of Quraysh and its allies, who had thrived historically on war and developed,
consequently, a warlike culture, did not respect the treaty and violated its provisions.
It became, thus, quite clear that the only way to neutralize these people was by annulling
the cultural basis of their hostility and infidelity, which could be only done by coercing
them into Islam. The original position of Muslims
concerning the Jews of Madinah was also based on the principle of peaceful coexistence. A
few months after the Prophet arrived in Madinah, he concluded a covenant of friendship,
alliance, and cooperation between the Muhajirun and the Ansar on one side and the Jews on
the other. The covenant not only recognized the freedom of religion of the Jews and
assured their security, but also provided them with complete autonomy, bound with certain
duties and obligations, mutually applicable on both Jews and Muslims, as the following
excerpt of the document reads: . . . As the Jews fight on the side of the
Muslims, they shall spend of their wealth on equal par with the Muslims. The Jews have
their religion and the Muslims theirs. Both enjoy the security of their own populace and
clients except the unjust and the criminal among them. The unjust or the criminal destroys
only himself and his family. The friendly relationship between the
Jews of Madinah and the Muslims continued until 'Abdullah ibn Salam, a rabbi and a
prominent Jewish leader, embraced Islam. This incident, evidently, sparked grave panic
among Jewish leaders, who became apprehensive about the Muslim presence in Madinah and
feared that Islam would penetrate their ranks. It was at this stage that Jews began their
campaign against Muslims; first through a war of words, aimed at refuting the Qur'anic
teaching and inducing a state of suspicion about the Prophet and his message, and later
through conspiring with the enemies of Islam. The first confrontation between Jews and
Muslims took place after the Battle of Badr when some Jews of Banu Qaynuqa' violated the
right of a Muslim woman by forcefully exposing her nakedness. This incident developed into
fighting between a Muslim passerby and the Jewish assailants in which a Jew and the
passerby were killed. Consequently, general fighting between the clan of the murdered
Muslim and Banu Qaynuga' erupted. When the Prophet was informed of the confrontation, he
sent word to Banu Qaynuqa; asking them to stop the attacks and keep the covenant of mutual
peace and security. Banu Qaynuqa' responded by ridiculing the Prophet's request, leaving
the Muslims no option but to fight. Likewise, the campaign against Banu al
Nadir was triggered by their infidelity and misconduct, when they openly violated the
provisions of their covenant with the Muslims by sending three of their leaders, Huyayy
ibn Akhtab, Salam ibn Abu al Huqayq, and Kinanah ibn al Huqyaq, together with two leaders
of the tribe of Banu Wa'il, to Makkah in order to instigate the Quraysh and their allies
to attack the Muslims in Madinah, and to pledge their support. Indeed, the Jewish
delegation was able to mobilize the Pagan Arabs against the Muslims, and their counsel led
to the campaign of al Khandaq, invoking the most horrible experience the Muslims had ever
had in their struggle against the Quraysh and its allies.
In like manner, the fighting between the Islamic state and both
Byzantium and Persia was commenced not because the Muslims wanted to extend the dominion
of the Islamic state, or dar al Islam, using the classical terminology, but rather because
both the Byzantines and the Persians either assailed Muslim individuals and caravans or
prevented the peaceful spread of the Islamic message. The campaign of Dawmah al Jandal, the
first campaign against the northern Christian tribes which were Byzantine protectorates,
was a punitive expedition to avenge the attacks on the Muslim caravans to al Sham (Syria)
by some of these tribes, such as Qada'ah and Banu Kalb. Likewise, the campaign of Mu 'tah
was also a punitive expedition to avenge several grave violations against the Muslim
messengers and missionaries whom Muhammad had sent north to call people to Islam and
introduce the new faith to the northern regions. For example, the Prophet sent al Harith
ibn 'Umayr to the governor of Busrah. Upon reaching Mu'tah, alHarith met with Sharhabil
Amir ibn al Ghassani, who asked him"! "Are you a messenger of Muhammad? Al
Harith answered: Yes. Then Sharhabil ordered his men to kill him, and he was
executed." The Prophet also sent "five men to
Banu Sulayman for the sole purpose of teaching them Islam, and he endured their
cold-blooded murder by their hosts. Only their leader managed to escape, and he did so
purely accidentally. He also sent fifteen men to Dhat al Talh on the outskirts of al Sham
in order to call its people to Islam. Therefore, too, the messengers of Muhammad and the
missionaries of faith were put to death in cold-blood." It was also reported that the
northern Christian tribes killed those among them who had professed Islam, leaving the
Muslims therefore no choice but to fight them for their aggression and tyranny. These
incidents, and others, triggered the campaigns of Mu'tah and al Hudaybiah, and led
eventually to the conquest of al Sham and al 'Iraq. Evidently, the doctrine of the two
territorial divisions of the world, and its corollary concept of the permanent state of
war, was influenced by the factual conditions that existed during the period when this
conception was conceived, namely the hostile relations between the 'Abbasid caliphate and
Byzantine empire. The jurists who devised the classical doctrine had, obviously,
overlooked not only the peaceful coexistence between the early Islamic state and
Abyssinia, but also the earlier hostility of Byzantium and its allies against the emerging
Islamic state. Muhammad Abu Zahrah wrote protesting the classical doctrine: We object to including this division (i.e., dar al lslam and dar al
Harb) in the Muslim legal theory as one of its principles. As a matter of fact, this
division under the 'Abbasids corresponded to the factual relations between the Islamic
state and non-lslamic state. Classical writers only intended to give a legal justification
to that situation. Respecting Individual Freedom of Belief We concluded in the foregoing discussion
that, contrary to the claims of the classical doctrine of the territorial division of the
world, war is not the instrument of the Islamic state to propagate Islam and extend its
territory. We turn now to examine a question that closely relates to the previous
argumentation: Does Islam recognizes individual freedom of conscience i.e. , are people
free to accept or reject Islam? And if the answer is yes, how can we explain the fact that
the Muslims fought the apostates (Murtaddun) during the administration of AbuBakr? The answer to the first question is an
emphatic yes. The principle of the freedom of belief has been unequivocally established in
two Qur'anic verses: If it had been the Lord's will, all those
who are on earth would have believed; will you then compel mankind, against their will, to
believe? (10:99) Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error. (2:256) The first verse was revealed in Makkah
before Hijrah, while the second was revealed in Madinah after Hijrah. As al Qurtubi
mentioned in his Qur'anic commentary, Al Jami' Li Ahkam at Qur'an, some commentators claim
that the second verse has been abrogated by the verses of Surah Bara'ah which permitted
the Muslims to fight the "People of the Book", while others ascertain that it
has not been abrogated. Al Qurtubi quotes Abu Ja'far's interpretation of this verse:
"The meaning of 'let there be no compulsion in religion' is that no one is to be
forced to accept Islam. The al has been added to the world din so that their combination
al din would indicate Islam." Nor can this principle be abrogated by
the hadith: "I have been commanded to fight
people until they say: 'There is no god but Allah."' For as it
was indicated above, the hadith embodies a particular rule (hukm khass) which is
applicable only to the Pagan Arabs. Even if we were to hypothetically treat the hadith as
a general rule, it could not be used to abrogate a Qur'anic verse. For while the previous
hadith is an exclusively narrated hadith (hadith ahad) and therefore uncertain (zanni al
dalalah), the verse, like all other Qur'anic verses, is extensively narrated (mutawatir)
and, therefore, certain (qat'i al dalalah). The claim of abrogation is clearly
flawed; for both verses embody firm rule (muhkam). The first verse points out in
unequivocal fashion that it had not been God’s that mankind should be forced to
believe; and the second verse provides more explanation as to why people should not be
compelled to accept Islam by indicating that "Truth stands out clear from
error." Because God’s will is not subject to change, and because truth stands
always clear from error, the two verses are not, therefore, subject to abrogation. But if the general rule is that no one is
to be forced to accept Islam, how should Muslims deal with the questions of apostasy
(riddah)? The classical position concerning the apostates is that they should be killed.
This position is predicated primarily on two pieces of evidence: The jihad of Muslims,
under the leadership of AbuBakr, against the Arab apostates, and the Hadith: "The
blood of a Muslim may not be legally split other than in three instances: the married
person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and
abandons the community (jama'ah)." We should distinguish, when dealing with
the question of apostasy, between two different cases. First, when a collectivity of
people revolt against Muslim authority and refuse to obey the law of Islam, as was the
case of the apostates (murtaddun) who refused to pay zakah to AbuBakr and mobilized their
forces to prevent him from collecting it. These apostates are to be fought, not because of
their rejection of Islam, but because of their rebellion against and disobedience of the
law. The war against them can, thus, be considered as a law-enforcement war. Second, when
an individual refuses to fulfill one of his public obligations, such as a person who
refuses to pay zakah to the Muslim authority, he is to be compelled to pay it, according
to the opinion on the majority of the Muslim jurists-not to be fought or killed. Only when
he violently resists the Muslim authorities, and uses force of arms to prevent them from
discharging their duties and exacting the law, can he be fought against. The above cited
hadith vividly states that the individual apostate could be killed not merely because of
his rejection of Islam, but because of his rebellion and revolt against the Muslim
community. In other words, a quiet desertion of personal Islamic duties is not a
sufficient reason for inflicting death on a person. Only when the individual's desertion
of Islam is used as a political tool for instigating a state of disorder, or revolting
against the law of Islam, can the individual apostate then be put to death as a just
punishment for his act of treason and betrayal of the Muslim community. The war against the apostates is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order. Therefore, the individual apostasy, which takes place quietly and without causing any public disorder, should not be of concern to the Islamic authority. Only when the individual openly renounces Islam and violates Islamic law, should he be punished for breaking the law and challenging the norms and beliefs of the Muslim community; and only when a group of people revolt against the Muslim authority, and refuse to implement the Islamic law in the area it controls - by failing, for instance, to establish public prayers, or by abolishing the institution of zakah-can the Islamic authority declare war against them. It follows that if a group of Muslims oppose certain views widely accepted by the general public or protest certain decisions made by the public authority, they are not to be fought as long as they do not violate the Islamic law or pose a threat to the Islamic state – i.e., by initiating war against Muslims or allying themselves with their enemies. When the Kharijite (Khawaraj) opposed 'Ali ibn Abu Talib and refused to recognize his authority, confronting him with the slogan: "authority is only to Allah," he did not declare war against them and stated that they could claim three rights: "Not to be prevented from attending Mosques, not to be preemptively attacked, and not to be denied their share of booty so long as they fight with us." "If an opposing group revolted against a just community," al Mawardi wrote, "and controlled a region, making it their exclusive territory, the group cannot be fought so long as they do not violate any rights or disobey the general law." |
|
| Copyright © 2001 Louay Safi |