|
Chapter 4 THE LIMITS OF WAR We concluded, in the foregoing
discussion, that the aim of war is not to propagate or spread Islam, nor is it to expand
the territory of the Islamic state or dominate, politically or militarily, non-Muslim
regions. Rather, the aim of war is to establish and assure justice, and to annihilate
oppression and abolish tyranny. It is true that the right to communicate the message of
Islam is protected under Islamic law, and the Islamic state must, therefore, respect and
defend this right. But the obligation to protect the right of Muslims, and for this matter
all religious communities, to promote their belief and values should be carried out
through peaceful means and in a friendly manner. The assurance of justice and destruction
of tyranny are therefore the underlying objectives of war. However, since the terms
"justice" and "tyranny" cover wide ground and permit broad
interpretation, they need to be translated into more concrete forms. We can distinguish
five situations where the violation of the principle of justice and the excessive
misconduct of tyranny call the Islamic state to war and justify its use of violence
against the political entity that is implicated in such practices. 1. War against
oppression It is incumbent upon Muslims to challenge
any political authority that either uses its free exchange of ideas, or prevents people to
freely professing or practice the religion they chose to embrace.
It should be made clear here that
oppressiveness of a particular regime is not to be determined by comparing the values and
conduct of that regime with Islamic norms and standards, but rather by its toleration of
the Muslim interaction with its subjects and the communication of Islam to the general
public. Corruption and mismanagement should not be considered, therefore, the criteria
that classify a particular regime as oppressive, deserving, thus, to be fought, because,
it may be recalled, Muslims are commanded to invite mankind to Islam through friendly
means and effect social and political change using the peaceful methods of education and
moral reformation. Only when their peaceful efforts are frustrated and met with violence,
are they justified to use violence to subdue the aggressive party. As it was shown above,
the Prophet did not resort to war against the Pagan Arabs until they persecuted the
Muslims and violated their lives and properties; nor did he fight the Jews of Madinah
until they betrayed the Muslims and conspired with their enemies. Similarly, the Prophet
declared war against Byzantium and its Arab allies only when they killed the messengers
and missionaries who were sent to peacefully summon people to Islam and introduce to them
the new revelation of God. 2. War in
defense of Muslim individuals and property When wrong is inflicted on a Muslim
individual by a member, or members, of another political community, whether this wrong is
done to his person, by assaulting or murdering him, or to his property by robbing or
unjustly confiscating it, the Islamic state is obligated to make sure the individual, or
his family, is compensated for his suffering, and that his rights are upheld. Because it
is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the legal procedure of this matter, it
suffices to say that the Islamic state should ensure that justice has been done to the
wronged Muslim, even if that take a declaration of war against the political community
that tolerates such an aggression, provided that the authority of the political community
has refused to amend the wrong inflicted on the Muslim individual after it has been
formally notified and given reasonable time to respond.
. . . whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according
to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that
Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (2:194) 3. War
against foreign aggression The clear-cut case of foreign aggression
is a military attack on the Islamic state or its allies. The Muslims, however, are not
obliged to wait until the enemies launch their attack, to respond. Rather, the Islamic
state can initiate war and carry out a preemptive strike if the Muslim authorities become
convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the enemy is mobilizing its forces and is about
to carry out an offensive, or if a state of war already exists between the Islamic state
and its adversaries. If aggression is committed against
another political entity with which the Islamic state has entered into mutual alliance, or
has signed a treaty that stipulates military protection, the Islamic state is also obliged
to fulfill its commitment to its ally and provide the military support needed. The
conquest of Makkah was precipitated by Quraysh's attack on Khuza’ah, which was an
ally of the Islamic city-state of Madinah, violating thereby a provision of the Treaty of
al Hudaybiyah that prohibited such an act. 4. War of law
enforcement When a proportion of the population
residing within the boundaries of the Islamic state violently oppose the application of
the Islamic law, or threaten the territorial integrity of the Islamic state, the Muslim
authorities are justified in using armed force to subdue the rebellion. It should be
emphasized, however, that what is at issue here is not just opposition to a particular
public policy, but an insurrection that attempts to achieve its goals through military
tactics, threatening thereby the lives and property of other members of the society. Three
types of dissension, however, should be differentiated, two of which are merely causes of
rebellion, which can be forcefully subdued, while the third is a case of legitimate
political opposition that should be dealt with in a peaceful manner. a) Apostasy: When a group of Muslim
individuals fortify themselves in an area of the Muslim territory and refuse to permit the
application of certain fundamental Islamic principles or laws, such as the establishment
of public prayer (salah al jama'ah), the payment of zakah, and the like, it is a case of
apostasy, for which, the group is to be fought until its members cease their rebellion
with respect to the law. It should be clear that apostates are to be fought not because
they refuse to profess or practice Islam, but because they disobey the Islamic law.
Therefore, nobody should be questioned or prosecuted for not fulfilling his personal
duties toward Allah – for he is answerable to Allah, not to the Muslim community,
insofar as his personal duties are concerned-as long as he fulfills his public duty. For
example, the individual who privately neglects prayer is not subject to any punitive
measures, so long as he does not publicly denounce prayer. Nor can he be forced to attend
public prayers because attending congregations is a voluntary duty and matter of personal
choice. He can, however, be forced to pay zakah, and can be punished for refusing to
render his share to the Muslim authority because zakah is not only a personal duty, but a
public obligation as well. b) Insurrection: When a group of Muslim
individuals fortify themselves in area of the Muslim territory, refuse to implement a
public policy formulated by just authority and through due procedure, and use the force of
arms to prevent the authorities from taking custody and prosecuting those who do not
comply with public policy, it is a case of insurrection which justifies the use of armed
force by the Muslim authority to subdue the rebellion. c) Political Opposition: When a group of
Muslim individuals peacefully opposes a public policy, uses a public forum to object to
its application, and attempt to persuade the rest of the population to adopt their view
regarding this policy, it is a case of political opposition which does not justify the use
of force by the authority to circumscribe the influence of the opposition or to destroy
it. The authority can, if it perceives that the opposition constitutes a threat to the
general welfare, respond by initiating legal proceedings through the courts or by inducing
sanctions through the institution of al Shura (consultation), or by using any other
peaceful measures that the general law of the Islamic state permits. Peace and the State of WarPeace in Islam does not mean the absence
of war, but the absence of oppression and tyranny. Islam considers that real peace can
only be attained when justice prevails. Islam, therefore justifies war against regimes
that prevent people from choosing their ideals and practicing their beliefs. It does not,
however, justify war against non-Muslim entities that neither prevent the preaching of
Islam nor inflict wrong upon Muslims. The Islamic state should thus maintain peace with
those who show goodwill to Muslims. The Islamic state is justified, on the other hand, in
declaring war against those who commit aggression against it or its mission. "This
movement," Sayyid Qutb wrote, "uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for
reforming ideas and belief, and uses physical power and jihad for abolishing the
organizations and authorities of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming
their ideas and beliefs. " The classical jurists, who devised the
doctrine of two divisions, dar al Islam and dar al Barb, indiscriminately classify all
non-Muslim communities under one category and advocate a permanent state of war against
them, insisting that Muslims should not establish peaceful relations unless they are
forced to. Clearly, this doctrine, which reflects the factual relationship between the
Islamic and non-Islamic states during the 'Abbasid era, fails to take into account the
total principles as well as the real objectives of the Islamic Ummah. As Ibn Taymiyah
points out in his book Al Syiasah al Shar'iyah, fighting against non-Muslims is, not the
aim of the Islamic state, but fighting can be employed against those who deny Muslims the
right to carry out their mission – the propagation of Islam. Fighting has been permitted so that the
object of making the religion only for Allah and making the word of Allah supreme can be
advanced. It has been agreed that whoever prevents (the Muslims from carrying out) this
(mission) is to be fought. But those who do not fight (against the Muslims), such as
women, children, monks, elderly, the blind and the crippled, and the like, except when
they fight by words or by actions, should not be killed, according to the majority of
scholars. Some (scholars), however, argue that all (unbelievers) should be killed because
of their blasphemy-except women and children, because they are Muslim property. Only the
first argument, however, is correct, because fighting is (permitted) against those who
fight us to prevent us from calling (people) to the religion of Allah. As the Almighty
said: "And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but commit no aggression,
for Allah does not love aggressors."(2:190). As Ibn Taymiyah states, because Allah
has permitted taking the life only insofar as it is necessary to promote righteousness
(and good behavior) ". . . Therefore, any (unbeliever) who does not prevent Muslims
from practicing the Religion of Allah, he hurts by his disbelief no one but his own
soul". The categorization of all non-Muslims
under one category and declaring a permanent state of war against them all is unjustified
and completely wrong. It is true that a state of war may exist between the Islamic state
and a hostile power, but hostility should be evident first before the state of war is
declared. The Muslims, therefore, should distinguish between the peaceful and the hostile
and treat each accordingly. This distinction has been made by the Qur'an; and subsequently
by Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) and his companions, long before the doctrine of the two
territorial division was articulated. Surah al Mumtahinah (Ayat 8-9) make it quite clear
that non-Muslims are not one category but two, and state that they should be dealt with
differently.
|
|
| Copyright © 2001 Louay Safi |