Читать книгу War and Peace in the Life of the Prophet Muhammad - Zakaria Bashier - Страница 8
Оглавление1. PROLOGUE
Throughout the Makkan phase of his mission, the Prophet (peace be upon him) endured the oppression and persecution of the polytheists of Makkah, with an ever-patient forbearance. He ordered his besieged and hard-pressed Companions and followers to do the same. So, for thirteen years, their strategy was one of peaceful resistance. They argued and reasoned, they explained the theses of Islam; the promise it holds for mankind in this life and in the next. The most they allowed themselves was to engage their interlocutors in polemic; wherein they attempted to substantiate their claims, and criticize the false beliefs of the polytheists and their foolish, irrational habits of idol-worship and glorifying their ancestors.
This line of action was, in fact, prescribed by God Almighty Himself. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not given any mandate to fight back against his persecutors at that stage. The most he could do was to permit a number of those of his followers who were exposed to the worst persecution, on account of their lack of defenders and tribal allies, to make the first minor hijrah to Abyssinia.
However, as soon as the Prophet (peace be upon him) assumed political authority in Madīnah and Islam came into statehood, that policy of passive resistance was reversed. Very soon after the Prophet (peace be upon him) settled in Madīnah, he received clear and unequivocal Qur’ānic permission to fight back and not passively endure the aggression and malpractices of the polytheists against him and his followers. This new policy is expressed in verses 39-40 of Sūrah al-Ḥajj (Pilgrimage).1
These verses ushered in a new phase in the history of Islam. They were revealed at a very early stage of the Madīnan period, only a few months after the Prophet’s arrival there, and initiated a wholly new orientation for the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the evolving society of Muslims. From then on, the newly formed Islamic regime was geared up to face the impending armed struggle with the polytheists, championed by the Quraysh from their base in Makkah. It was time to end the tyranny of the Quraysh, and destroy their power and influence. Not only were the Quraysh responsible for opposing the Muslims, and unjustly evicting them from their homes and lands, they were also a major obstacle in the way of Islam, preventing it from freely reaching the people of Arabia.
2. PERMISSION TO WAGE WAR
In effect, verses 39-40 of Sūrah al-Ḥajj not only made it permissible for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fight back against his oppressors, they even suggest to him he should take up the challenge of armed resistance to polytheists in all earnest. This is implicit in the oblique promise, that God Almighty was capable of making the Muslims victorious over their enemies, despite the obvious disparity in their respective military strengths:
Leave is given to those against whom war has been waged (to fight back) because they have been wronged, surely Allah is capable of giving them victory – those who have been driven out of their homes without right, only because they said our Lord is Allah. For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some people by means of others, then cloisters and churches, oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is much mentioned, would assuredly have been destroyed. Surely Allah helps those who help Him; surely Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty. [Al-Ḥajj 22:39-40]
The importance of these verses of Sūrah al-Ḥajj cannot be over-stated. As well as launching a new period for the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims, that was destined to last for the next eight years up to the opening of Makkah, these verses give first expression to the philosophy of waging war in Islam, basically, in defence of Islam and justice. But the term defence here, we must state at the outset, is used in a broad sense that will be better understood as we proceed to explicate the dynamics of the campaigns; military actions in which the Prophet was engaged. In some cases, these actions were indeed in retaliation against attacks by enemy. In other cases, the Prophet (peace be upon him) initiated military actions, for example, against the unjust and oppressive regimes bordering Arabia, whose existence and flourishing influence constituted a threat to the nascent Islamic state in Madīnah. Also, punitive campaigns were initiated against the Bedouins surrounding Madīnah, in view of their bellicose disposition and traditions of predatory raiding: the only way to deter them was to demonstrate to them that the new state of Madīnah was not an easy prey; they had to be persuaded that it would be unwise for them to consider attacking the Muslims, in hope of plunder and booty.
The disposition of the Quraysh was obviously the central concern behind these verses of Sūrah al-Ḥajj. In a sense, these verses amounted to a declaration of war against the Quraysh. But the Quraysh was no insignificant enemy. If the Muslims were to fight them effectively, and in the hope of victory, all the proper preparations and plans needed to be made. Within an overall strategy, every action needed to be thought out ahead of time, and every risk carefully weighted. Contingencies had to be anticipated and Muslims trained to cope with them. The strategic objectives of individual actions and the campaign as a whole had to be well-defined, and necessary precautions and preparations made to ensure success. War is always a most serious endeavour, with the gravest implications for costs in life and property, but in this instance the future of the nascent Muslim society as a whole was at stake. Therefore, meeting the challenge of war against the Quraysh demanded commitment from Muslims and morale of the very highest quality.
Verse 41 of Sūrah al-Ḥajj, following the verses cited above, makes it both an obligation and a privilege for the Muslims to fight in the cause of justice, and to uphold the values and norms of Islam:
Those who, if we establish them in the land, seek to establish ṣalāh and to pay zakāh, and they enjoin goodness and forbid evil and corruption.[Al-Ḥajj 22:41]
It is clear that it is almost a necessary condition and consequence of the Muslims being established in the land, that they fight to uphold good and to establish Islamic precepts, norms and ideals in the actual reality of their social order.
Thus, seen in its historical and sociological context, waging war by the Prophet of Islam was quite a natural development from the Makkan phase. The old Christian polemic that Islam is a war-like religion is misconceived. Islam does not condole war as such, nor condole arbitrary resort to it. If anything, warring for its own sake is abhorred in the Qur’ān. But religious persecution, injustice and oppression are regarded as more abhorrent. If war becomes a necessary means of repelling aggression and removing evil and oppression, then the Muslims should not shy away from it. The military campaigns that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Muslim followers waged against the Quraysh, during the first eight years of the Hijrah era, and which culminated in the conquest of Makkah, were essentially wars of liberation with the strategic aim of containing, and then putting an end to the abuses of authority and power of the oppressive and tyrannical Quraysh.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) drew up and put into practice comprehensive, thorough and meticulous plans to achieve that aim. These plans were meant to, and did, fit into a grand strategy of security and defence for the Madīnan community. The comprehensive and effective nature of this strategy showed that the Prophet (peace be upon him), was working with very sophisticated and broad concepts of security and defence, and that he displayed a very clear vision of things to come.
His strategy was multi-dimensional, with educational, political, economic, as well as intelligence and military components. He was fully aware of the psychological and ideological consequences of particular policies, and combined these with hard-headed military tactics. The practical measures adopted by the Prophet (peace be upon him), were chiefly intended to achieve two goals:
a. To enhance the security and status of Madīnah as a ḥaram or religious sanctuary;
b. To put pressures on the Quraysh, that would frustrate their aims, reduce their ability to incite the Bedouins around Madīnah against the Muslims, and weaken or destroy their commercial trading within and beyond the Arabian peninsula.
3. MILITARY EXPEDITIONS (SARĀYĀ)
The military expeditions were perhaps the first practical measures undertaken by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to implement the new orientation in policy, commanded by the verses of Sūrah al-Ḥajj cited earlier.
3.1 Ḥamzah’s Expedition
The first expedition, led by Ḥamzah, was dispatched barely five months after the Prophet’s arrival in Madīnah, on the 12th Rabī’ al-Awwal, year 13, of his mission (24th July, 622). Ḥamzah’s expedition took place in Ramaḍān of the first year of the Hijrah (December 622). Thirty Muslims took part in the expedition, all of them exclusively of the Muhājirīn or emigrants from Makkah. They succeeded in intercepting a large commercial caravan, belonging to the Quraysh, comprising of 300 camels and their riders, led by ʿAmr ibn Hishām (Abū Jahl). However, no fighting took place, as the two groups were separated, through the influence and good offices of an Arabian leader, by the name of Majdī ibn ʿAmr, in a place known as al-ʿĀṣ on the Red Sea coast.
3.2 The Expedition of ʿUbaydah ibn al-Ḥārith
The following month, that is to say, Shawwāl of the same year, ʿUbaydah ibn al-Ḥārith of the Banū Hāshim, a first cousin of the Prophet (peace be upon him), led a second expedition, comprising twice the number of men in Ḥamzah’s expedition and also exclusively made of the Muhājirīn. They too succeeded in intercepting another commercial caravan of the Quraysh, led by Abū Sufyān himself, one of the Quraysh’s foremost leaders. Abū Sufyān’s force consisted of two hundred camels loaded with goods. The two forces met face to face, this time with no third party to intervene, at the valley of Rābigh, on the Red Sea coast between Makkah and Madīnah. A minor skirmish took place, during which the gallant Saʿd ibn Abī al-Waqqāṣ, who later distinguished himself in leading the Muslim armies to an astonishing victory against the Persians at Qādisiyyah, shot the first arrow in Islam, fatally wounding one of the polytheists of the Quraysh. However, no full scale military engagement followed, and the two parties departed to their respective destinations.
3.3 The Expedition of Saʿd ibn Abī al-Waqqāṣ
In the next month Dhū al-Qaʿdah (January 623), a third expedition was dispatched, comprising twenty men led by Saʿd ibn Abī al-Waqqāṣ himself. They pursued a small caravan of the Quraysh, but missed it.
3.4 The Expedition of ʿAbdullāh ibn Jaḥsh
This was the most worthwhile of all the expeditions, and perhaps had the most far-reaching consequences and repercussions. It was led by ʿAbdullāh ibn Jaḥsh, a cousin of the Prophet (peace be upon him), with a small force of twelve Muslims (some sources put their number as only eight), also exclusively from the Muhājirīn. The Prophet’s instructions to Ibn Jaḥsh were quite different from his previous ones which indicated the uniqueness and special character of this expedition.
Ibn Jaḥsh and his men were to head southward in the direction of Makkah. He was given a letter, but ordered not to open it until the party had travelled for two complete days. He was also told that the mission was a voluntary one. No one should be obliged to take part in it. When Ibn Jaḥsh opened the secret letter, it read: ‘If you read this letter, proceed until you descend the valley of Nakhlah, between Makkah and Ṭā’if. There, watch the Quraysh, and gather for us information about them.’
Ibn Jaḥsh responded to this instruction with: ‘I hear and obey.’ He then informed the others that, on the orders of the Prophet (peace be upon him), they were to proceed to Nakhlah, south of Makkah on the route from Ṭā’if. None was required to participate against his will. He also told them that he himself would act on the orders of the Prophet (peace be upon him), even if he had to go it alone. However, all of the men voiced their willingness to participate. And so the expedition proceeded to Nakhlah, deep in the territory of the enemy, the farthest any Muslim force had ventured to penetrate so far. It was indeed a mission fraught with grave dangers, owing to the proximity of Nakhlah to Makkah, the fact that it lay on the Makkans’ trade route to Ṭā’if, and the smallness in number of the Muslims’ force. That explains the Prophet’s directive, that participation in the mission should wholly be voluntary.
This expedition took place in the sacred month of Rajab, in the second year of the Hijrah, about seven months after the expedition led by Saʿd ibn Abī al-Waqqāṣ. During these months, other expeditions did take place, including two led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. But I have not included these expeditions in this group because it formed a unity in that all of the expeditions were directed against the commercial interests of the Quraysh. No sooner had Ibn Jaḥsh and his men descended the Valley of Nakhlah, than a Quraysh caravan, evidently coming from the south (Yemen), appeared, well stocked with goods and poorly guarded, because southern routes of Quraysh trade had never before been threatened by the Muslims. It was guarded by only four men. Ibn Jaḥsh and his company attacked the caravan, killing one man by the name of ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī, and capturing two others, while the fourth fled to Makkah. Ibn Jaḥsh took the two captives and the caravan, and hastened northwards to Madīnah, lest the Quraysh should catch up with him.
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw the two captives and learned of the killing of ʿAmr al-Ḥaḍramī, he was visibly displeased and said to Ibn Jaḥsh: ‘I did not order you to conduct any fighting in the sacred month!’
The emphasis of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not on fighting as such, but on fighting in the holy month of Rajab. This incident proved a major embarrassment to the Prophet (peace be upon him) initially, since it was considered scandalous to Arabian customs to conduct fighting during four holy months, of which Rajab was one. The incident caused a great row throughout Arabia. The Quraysh made the most of it in their propaganda war against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims! ‘They claimed to be religious and now they are profaning the sacred months,’ they were clamouring.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) initially disassociated himself from the affair, had his stance publicly known, and refused either to deal with the captives or to accept his khums (or fifth of the booty). Ibn Jaḥsh and his men found themselves in a very difficult situation, and the Muslims did not make it easier for them. They rebuked and criticized them for having caused the Prophet (peace be upon him) such embarrassment.
3.5 The Qur’ānic Revelation on the Nakhlah Incident
However, the crisis was relieved by God’s Grace, in the following Qur’ānic revelation:
They question you concerning the sacred month, and fighting therein. Say: fighting therein is a great (sin). But to bar men from the way of Allah, And uphold disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque and expelling its people from it, that is indeed a greater (sin) in the sight of Allah. Indeed persecution (fitnah) is more heinous than killing people (in the sacred month)! They will not cease to fight with you till they turn you from your religion, if they could. [al-Baqarah 2: 217]
The above verse constituted a valid and most effective reply to the polemics of the Quraysh, that the Muslims, despite their claims to piety, had violated the holy month, killing and plundering their adversaries. The Quraysh, of all people, had no right to talk about sacred obligations, since they had totally disregarded the Arabian code of chivalry, by persecuting the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his followers, for no cause other than their saying: ‘God is our Lord.’ They had shown no regard for the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and many of his followers were close relatives of theirs, as well as being men of honour and integrity. Moreover, a just war had its own rules. The Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims were brought, by the verses just cited, to understand that the Quraysh intended the total annihilation of the Muslims, and that they should think more about the importance of their survival than about rules to do with the holiness of particular times or places. Their faith and their own lives, the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the principle of freedom from religious persecution, and the whole future of Islam, were all at stake.
The Nakhlah expedition proved to be a decisive turning-point, marking the end of light skirmishing between the Quraysh and the Muslims. More than any other encounter before it, Nakhlah intensified the frustrations of the Quraysh to a high pitch. They felt that if they were to maintain their eminence in Arabia, then they must get out to destroy the power of Muḥammad. The Prophet (peace be upon him), too, knew that he had crossed his Rubicon in his relations with the Quraysh, that he could only expect the worst from them, and that harsh, prolonged wars were ahead of him, which he must win if he was to survive at all.
4. THE RESULTS OF THE EXPEDITIONS AGAINST THE QURAYSH
As we noted, those four expeditions are grouped together even though the last one of Ibn Jaḥsh took place much later, because they were all primarily directed against the Quraysh. We now ask: did they achieve what they were meant to achieve? What were the Prophet’s major objectives in launching them in the first place? It would seem that these expeditions had very decisive and quick results on the following accounts:
a. Firstly, the once thriving international commerce of the Quraysh, the mainstay and backbone of their economic prosperity, was seriously disrupted. Their trade to Syria in the north, and Yemen in the south, were blocked and rendered unsafe. The Quraysh could do little to prevent this eventuality. As for the Muslims, they stood to lose nothing by effecting this blockade. Rather, they stood to perhaps gain some provisions and wealth in order to compensate for their lost wealth, and property at Makkah, which they had been forced to leave behind. In addition, this blockade made life difficult for the Quraysh.
b. Secondly, the Quraysh’s prestige among the inhabitants of Arabia at large, especially among the Bedouin tribes, was severely damaged. Some tribes who were not particularly friendly with the Quraysh, for example, Khuzāʿah who had long-standing feuds with the Quraysh, rejoiced at the humiliation that these expeditions had inflicted on the Quraysh, and began to ponder the possibility of allying with the emerging power of the Muslim community in Madīnah.
c. Thirdly, these expeditions achieved a strategic aim for the Prophet (peace be upon him), namely provoking and inciting the Quraysh to the battlefield, where their political, religious and moral authority in Arabia might once and for all be tested and defeated. Whereas the Quraysh was quite oblivious to such considerations and totally ill-informed about the growing power and preparedness of the Prophet and his camp, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had the most up-to-date information about the whereabouts of the Quraysh and their commercial caravans. The superb network of informants and intelligence at the disposal of the Prophet (peace be upon him), can be inferred from the way he masterminded the expedition of Ibn Jaḥsh, in particular, its timing, its secrecy, the location to which it was directed, and the sense of danger and anticipation associated with it.
d. Fourthly, these expeditions helped to train Muslims for combat fitness and war-readiness that would be needed in the inevitable battles ahead. More importantly, the prestige of the Quraysh and their reputation for invulnerability, were thoroughly undermined, so that the Muslims no longer feared military confrontation with the Quraysh.
e. Finally, the Nakhlah expedition brought into the hands of Muhājirīn a considerable amount of money, food provisions and maybe some armaments, all of which they were in dire need, since they had left their wealth in Makkah when forced to migrate. Those four expeditions were not the only expeditions against the Quraysh, but they were the only ones before Badr.2
5. EXPEDITIONS LED BY THE PROPHET IN PERSON
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is said to have led in person at least two major expeditions in those early days of Islam in Madīnah.
a. The Expedition of Waddān: This was directed chiefly at the Bedouins of Banū Ḍamrah, who as a result of this expedition were duly impressed by the personality of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and by his political and military power. They decided to become the allies of the Prophet (peace be upon him), concluded a Muwādaʿah (peace treaty) with him, and the Muslims returned to Madīnah, without encountering any hardship.
b. The Expedition of al–ʿAshīrah: Like that of Waddān, this expedition was directed chiefly at the Bedouins, though both expeditions had implications for the Quraysh, and it too ended in the conclusion of a Muwādaʿah with the Bedouin tribe of Banū Mudlij, thus, it is safe to infer that the primary motive of the expeditions, led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in person, was not military, but political; hence the need for his presence as head of state. The presence of the tribal head or shaykh was required by the custom of the Bedouins, in order to dignify and secure inter-tribal agreements. For them, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the head of the Muslim tribe, and therefore it was necessary that he be present for treaties to be concluded. The Prophet (peace be upon him) attached considerable importance to the matter of securing alliances with any power that could help defend the Muslims against their enemies. At no stage of his mission, was the Prophet (peace be upon him) without liable allies: in Makkah, it will be recalled, he was first allied to the Banū Hāshim and Banū ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, led by his own uncle Abū Ṭālib. When Abū Ṭālib passed away, the Prophet (peace be upon him) became temporarily allied with al-Muṭ‘im ibn ʿUdayy, a non-Muslim, but a man of considerable courage and integrity, with a large and effective tribal following. Then, before the hijrah, the Prophet (peace be upon him) took the Pledges of the Two ʿAqabas. Very soon after he settled in Madīnah, he concluded the momentous Ṣaḥīfah Pact between the Anṣārs, the Muhājirīn and the Jewish tribes of Madīnah.
c. The Jewish tribes of Madīnah: When war with the Quraysh became inevitable, the Prophet (peace be upon him) actively sought new allies among the powerful tribes of the Bedouins around Madīnah. To this end, by means of the expeditions mentioned and other methods, further alliances were secured with Khuzāʿah, Banū Ḍamrah and Banū Mudlij. Over time, the numbers of the Prophet’s followers were to increase tremendously. Thus it is clear that the concluding of alliances was a major element of his diplomatic policy as well as being a powerful instrument of his daʿwah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was keenly aware of how and where political power lay in Arabia. He had a clear vision of how and why it should become a unified, unitary power. Within his unwavering commitment to the cause of Islam, and to the ennobling of his followers through Islam, he handled political issues with extraordinary skill and acumen.
5.1 Results of the Expeditions led by the Prophet
a. By going out to meet with the tribal chiefs, the Prophet (peace be upon him) projected himself as the political and military leader. An Arabs’ chief had to make public appearances, meet frequently with his counterparts, make his person felt and his view widely known. To be able to take a public role, and to sit in public council, was considered by the Arabs of the time as an indication of good lineage and excellent manners. However, Muḥammad (peace be upon him) was not just a tribal chief or a mere statesman, he was a Prophet and the Messenger of God. His mission was to call the people to the service, and worship of the One, True God, Allah. It is his claim to Prophethood that was a reason for the Arabs around Madīnah to be drawn to him, to take a glance of him and assess his person at first hand. Many of them were instantly won over by his noble looks. Many went around affirming: ‘I have seen Muḥammad, and by God, his face is decidedly not the face of a liar or an impostor,’ they said.
b. The Bedouins were very appreciative of power and might. They would only respect and fear a powerful chief; they would not respect a weak or meek chief. But when they saw the great love and esteem the Prophet (peace be upon him) enjoyed among his followers, they were duly impressed, and only desired to be allied with him.
c. Those who did not choose to ally themselves with the Prophet (peace be upon him) were, nonetheless, persuaded that they should not choose to make him an enemy. We can be sure that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to deter those tough and war-like Bedouins accustomed to raiding and plunder as a way of life.
d. Most particularly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) aimed to secure alliances with or, failing that, the neutrality of those Bedouin tribes who lived and roamed in the area that lay between the Muslims and the Quraysh. This policy, implemented through the campaigns and expeditions led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in person, and those led by his commanders, was an essential preparation for the impending war with the Quraysh.
e. Last but not least, these expeditions were a very powerful tool for the dissemination of information about the new state and authority of Madīnah, about its leading figures, about the nature and high purpose of its mission and its institutions. As news travels fast in the desert by word of mouth, Bedouins tribes, far and wide, came to hear about the Prophet’s marches. At the very best, they began to fear and respect him, for that they were not to raid the Muslims or to ally with the Quraysh against Muslims. In this way, the image and prestige of the Quraysh was further tarnished, just as the star of the nascent Islamic society shone ever more brightly.
6. OTHER EXPEDITIONS
There were minor expeditions, but of an inconclusive nature and therefore not meriting very detailed study in the present context. Two of these minor expeditions were led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. In the expedition of Bawāt, he led a contingent of two hundred Anṣārs as well as Muhājirīn, and tried, unsuccessfully, to intercept a caravan led by Umayyah ibn Khalaf. He stopped at Bawāt and then returned to Madīnah.
He led a second expedition against Kurz ibn Jābir al-Fihrī, who had raided the outskirts of Madīnah and managed to get away with some camels belonging to the Muslims. The Prophet (peace be upon him) set out immediately in hot pursuit of Kurz who was, however, able to make good his escape. When the Muslims got to the valley of Ṣafwān, in the vicinity of the wells of Badr, they stopped and camped for a few days. For this reason, some Muslim historians call this expedition, even though it involved no fighting, the first Battle of Badr.
7. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THESE EXPEDITIONS (SARĀYĀ)
We can now give a clearer account of the outcome of these expeditions and their implications for:
a. The Muslim home front.
b. The standing of the Quraysh.
c. Relations with Bedouins.
a. On the home front: Through these expeditions, the Muslims learnt a new military vigorous discipline, and combat fitness. The jihād became instilled into them. Alongside a mobilization of resources and of the people, a great increase in solidarity was achieved, as every single Muslim acquired thorough knowledge of the terrain around Madīnah, and as far south as Nakhlah. They gained vital experience in the techniques of preparing and fighting battles, in the logistics of manpower and provisions, and the tactics of pursuit and engagement. They also got ample opportunity to know the demography of the Madīnah area, and habits, characters and disposition of the various Bedouin tribes in the vicinity and of some of the areas of desert that separated them from the Quraysh. Moreover the Muslims were able to win many strong, reliable allies, and to deter others from offensive action against them.
b. With regard to the Quraysh, the Muslims managed to amount an effective threat to the trade routes upon which the Quraysh depended, and were eventually able to disrupt about half of their trade. The standing and prestige of the Quraysh among the Arabs was thoroughly undermined, obliging them to contemplate open battle with the Muslims. Little by little the Quraysh were separated from their former allies and supporters, many of whom were won over to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his cause. Their status as overlords in Arabia was compromised, and their reputation as models of the Arab traditions of honour and chivalry permanently eroded by their unjust and hysterical hostility towards the Muslims, and especially by their persecution of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
c. With regard to the Bedouins, the expeditions helped to win some of them as allies of the Prophet (peace be upon him), to deter others from attacking the Muslims and to deter still others from supporting the Quraysh.
In general, the Prophet (peace be upon him) set the highest ideal of a tough fighter, who was both resourceful and vigorous and also absolutely sincere and disinterested in his devotion to the cause of Islam. His superb skill as a commander and his readiness for combat, both physically and psychologically, at the advanced age of over fifty, were astonishing, and excited the highest admiration. The expeditions put the Muslims firmly on the road to victory. They afforded them ample opportunity to perfect their military skills, and to gather considerable military forces. They gained from the wealth of the Quraysh provisions as well as armaments. They became well-versed in the techniques of managing and winning battles, and acquired valuable expertise and experience in such matters as field intelligence and the management of information and psychological advantage. They had the chance to test the quality of their faith in what the power, and help of God could achieve for them. When fighting, a Muslim expected to realize either of two objectives:
a. Total victory over an unjust and belligerent enemy, or;
b. Shahādah (martyrdom) in the way of God knowing fully that his death is not brought on by the risk of military engagement, but only if the destined end of his fate has been reached.
8. THE PHILOSOPHY OF FIGHTING IN ISLAM
Fighting in Islam is only sanctioned within the context of daʿwah or a calling to Islam. This means in part that it fits within a certain conceptual system, alongside religious faith, ethical norms and a world-view based on recognition and worship of the True God, Allah. Seen within that framework, fighting or waging war is not the primary concept nor is it the first priority. There are more fundamental concepts and more important priorities which must be clarified before one can meaningfully talk about war or fighting in Islam. We have already seen that the concept of fighting or waging war was totally absent during the whole of the Makkan period. Only after the Hijrah, and the setting up of the Islamic State in Madīnah, was fighting in the way of God prescribed and sanctioned.
Islam calls on mankind to submit to the authority of God Almighty Alone, and warns them not to associate partners with Him. The Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) was commanded to exert himself to the utmost, invoking the Qur’ān, in the pursuit of this goal. This command came in one of the early Makkan revelations in which the word jihād is explicitly used:
So obey not the unbelievers but strive against them with your utmost effort, making use of the Qur’ān. [al-Furqān 25:52].
Fighting in the way of God is one phase of jihād, a phase that was only sanctioned in the Madīnan stage, thirteen years after the commencement of the Islamic daʿwah. Thus war or fighting is the subsidiary function of jihād, and jihād is a function of the daʿwah to Islam. It stems from the Arabic ‘jāhada’ which means ‘emptying’ or ‘exhausting’. A man is said to have ‘jihād al-nafs’ when he has exhausted his utmost effort. Thus the injunction to make Jihād in the way of God is basically the injunction that a Muslim should exert himself to the utmost in his efforts to bring that state of affairs described in the Qur’ān as, ‘when the word of Allah is supreme’… ‘ḥattā takūna kalimatu Allāhi hiya al-ʿulyā,” not in a particular region, but the world over:
And fight them (the unbelievers) until religious persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then surely Allah is Seer of what they do. [al-Anfāl 8:39].
The Arabic phrase used in the above verse to refer to the enforcement of God’s authority is: ‘Wa yakūna al-dīnu kulluhu lil’lāh.’ This could be interpreted as the condition when non-Muslim powers accept the principle of religious freedom and totally desist from religious persecution and agree, in principle and practice that all people at any time have the full right to convert to Islam, or any other divine religion for that matter, and desist from placing any obstacles in the way of religious freedom.
Thus, in the light of this interpretation, waging war against a non-Muslim state, would only be justifiable in Islam, if that non-Muslim state resorts to oppression and practises religious persecution against its people. War will also be justified if that state seeks to impose a religion or ideology against the will of its people, because there is no compulsion in religion.
In the light of the above Qur’ānic verse, Islam seems to be committed to the view that armed resistance to injustice and oppression is sanctioned. It is the duty of the Muslims to help alleviate the suffering of the mustaḍʿafīn (the powerless) wherever they exist, be they Muslims or non-Muslims. By implication, a truly Muslim state will make it one of the pillars of its foreign policy to help promote the cause of liberty and justice where and wherever it can. This commitment is bound to set that Muslim state at variance with unjust and tyrannical regimes, should they exist. The odds are that it will find itself in conflict or outright war with such regimes. Could a Muslim state be charged with aggression or belligerence on this account? If such an accusation is made it would be unjustified. If in fact a Muslim state does champion the cause of liberty and justice, could it be said, on this account, that a Muslim state can never coexist peacefully with non-Muslim states? It is conceded that a truly Muslim state would indeed be in conflict with unjust, tyrannical and oppressive regimes. But this conflict need not, at all times, assume the proportion of armed conflict or war. It is conceivable that the conflict could take the form of a cold war of words and ideology. It may, for example, take the form of severing of trade or diplomatic ties. Be that as it may, outright war cannot be ruled out. But war can be evaded if the oppressive regimes declared their willingness to improve their commitment to basic human rights and to be more sensitive to the demands of religious freedom and human dignity. Also, a Muslim state may best serve the goals of upholding the ideals of justice and liberty by embarking on policies of dialogue and negotiations, rather than war and confrontation. If the Muslims’ overriding goal is the spread of the true faith in the One True God, Allah, then this cannot be brought about by war and hostilities. The only road to influence the convictions of mankind is across the bridge of dialogue and persuasion. ‘There is no compulsion in religion,’ declares the Qur’ān, and the power of war and coercion of mankind is very limited indeed. It is very difficult to see how humanity can be persuaded that there is just One, True God, Allah, through the use of force and coercion.
The foregoing interpretation which we suggest for the Arabic phrase: ḥattā lā takūna fitnatan, wa yakūna ad-Dīnu kulluhu lil’lāh is supported by other verses from the Qur’ān, which we will cite presently. But, on the other hand, it seems to be opposed by the so called ‘Āyat al-Sayf’ (the verses of the sword). We will first give those verses which seem to support peaceful coexistence between Muslim and non-Muslim nations and powers, and which advocate basic human rights and liberties, before we proceed to discuss the verses of the sword, so called.
First of all, there is a group of Qur’ānic verses which clearly enjoin the Muslims to be fair-minded and peace oriented in their dealings with non-Muslims, even if the latter are lacking in justice. Moreover, these verses unequivocally shun aggression and the initiation of hostilities by the Muslims: God says in the Qur’ān:
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not begin hostilities. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors. And slay them, whenever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the sacred Mosque, until they first fight you, but if they fight you therein then slay them. Such is the reward of the unbelievers. [al-Baqarah 2:190-191]
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. [al-Baqarah 2:193]
You who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, witnesses to fair dealing. And let not the hatred of others for you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. But be just, that is nearest to piety. [al-Mā’idah 5:8]
You who believe! Enter peace all of you and follow not the steps of Satan. [al-Baqarah 2:208]
And if they incline to peace, so incline you to it, and trust in Allah. [al-Anfāl 8:61]
Reconciliation (and settlement) is better for you. [al-Nisā’ 4:128]
There is also a group of Qur’ānic verses which seem to be addressed to the Prophet (peace be upon him), reminding him that religious freedom is a matter ordained by God Himself. The implications of these verses is that it is both morally wrong and practically futile to try to change the religious convictions of people by force or by waging war. There is no need for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to organize or to be excessively domineering over the recalcitrance of the unbelievers:
And if your Lord willed, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Would you (Muḥammad) compel men until they become believers? [Yūnus 10:99]
So remind them! You are but a reminder, you are not a controller over them. [al-Ghāshiyah 88:21-22]
The methods of the Prophet (peace be upon him), in seeking to spread his faith, did not include coercion or intimidation, manipulation or domination. His methods were essentially reasoning by varied ways and convincing arguments, and all available means of legitimate persuasion. He could appeal to common sense, to ethical ideals which are highly cherished and valued by all decent human beings, or he could appeal to noble and positive passions. It is dubious techniques of manipulating the affairs of men, exploiting their illegitimate desires, interests, fears or animosities, playing up rivalries and unwarranted ambitions, that he should totally shun. Nor did his methods embrace domination, exploitation and control. It was not his ultimate goal to seize power and authority for their own sake, but to use it to transform people’s souls and lives so that they would form a community and society of brotherhood and equity, to bring about and realize God’s Will and Purpose for mankind.
8.1 The Fight to Liberate the Oppressed
The Qur’ānic command, that religious belief can not be changed by the use of force or by waging war, is not incompatible with the policy of declaring war against tyrannical and oppressive regimes. As a matter of fact, the Muslims were commanded by God to fight in the cause of human liberty and dignity. They were even reminded of the days when they themselves were powerless and oppressed. It was through God’s Help and Grace that they became victorious over their former oppressors. Would they not then desire to fight for the sake of al-mustaḍ‘afīn (the powerless)? It would indeed be very strange and unacceptable that those who had suffered aggression, and tasted the bitterness of injustice, should not or would not come to the aid of the oppressed; even more unthinkable that they themselves turn to aggression or oppression should they assume political power and authority.
God, in the Qur’ān, enjoins the Muslims to fight in the cause of human emancipation:
How is it with you that you do not fight in the way of God, and the abased, feeble men, women and children who say: Our Lord, bring us forth from this city, whose people are unjust, and appoint to us protector from You, and appoint to us from You a help. [al-Nisā’ 4:75]
The fight to oppose religious persecution is deemed essential for the progress and well-being of humanity at large. Hence the duty of the Muslims to be involved in it. This notion is presented in the Qur’ān in the context of survival of human civilization and progress. The will to fight in this cause is deemed, in the Qur’ān, essential if evil and destructive powers, inculcated in the dark side of human passions, are to be thwarted.
For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches, oratories and mosques, wherein the name Allah is much mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. [al-Ḥajj 22:40]
This verse highlights the fact that war is justifiable as a means of survival, a means of repelling and combating much worse possibilities. As the Qur’ān had indicated, persecution and discriminating against people on account of their religions, is a greater evil than war. Also the domination of evil, tyrannical powers is a greater evil than war. The Qur’ān told the Muslims, in clear unequivocal language, that if they lacked the will to fight against injustice and oppression, then a great fitnah (religious oppression) and corruption would spread on the surface of the earth. It even went so far as to threaten them of dire consequences, both in this life and in the next, if they fail to meet the commandment to answer the call to jihād:
O you who believe, what is the matter with you? That when it is said to you ‘go forth in the way of Allah’, You sink down heavily to the earth, do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort if this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth, He will punish you with a grievous punishment. And instead of you, He will substitute another people and you will not hurt Him anything. For Allah is Powerful over everything. [al-Tawbah 9:38-39]
In Sūrah al-Tawbah (Repentance), we find another Qur’ānic verse which threatens the Muslims that if they prefer their comfort and that of their families and friends, and so become unresponsive to the call to jihād, then they might expect the worst from God:
Say (O Muḥammad): If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your clan, and the wealth you have acquired, and the goods for which you fear that there will be no sale, and the dwellings you love – if these are dearer to you than Allah and His way, then wait till Allah brings His command. Allah guide not the people of ungodliness. [al-Tawbah 9:24]
The way of jihād has always been depicted as the Muslims’ way to success and succour in this world and the next. It has also been commended by countless sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his rightly guided Caliphs. The Qur’ān commands the way of jihād in forceful and vivid language, which takes account of the fact that many of the early Muslims were traders:
O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a commerce that shall deliver you from a painful chastisement? You shall believe in Allah and His Messenger, and struggle in the way of Allah with your wealth and yourselves. That will be better for you if you but knew. [al-Ṣaff 61:10-11]
In the foregoing we hope to have shown that jihād and fighting in the way of God is not just meant to safeguard the Muslims’ homeland and defend their rights to live in freedom and dignity, worshipping the One True God, Allah, without fear of molestation. It is also commanded in order to defend the same rights for mankind, the two objectives, internal and external, are by no means contradictory; rather, they are complementary. Should the Muslim states allow unjust and tyrannical regimes which deny their people religious freedom to thrive around their boundaries unchecked, then its very security, defence and indeed its survival would be seriously threatened and jeopardized. Taking the offensive against such regimes, if the situation so demands, is part and parcel of the overall defence commitment of the Muslim state.
The above interpretation of the doctrine of jihād would appear to be incompatible with the so-called Āyat al-Sayf, to which we referred earlier. As a matter of fact, there is a school of Muslim thinkers who believe that Āyat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword) were revealed in Sūrah al-Tawbah, much later than the other sūrahs in which other jihād verses are found, so they have abrogated or otherwise superseded all earlier Qur’ānic verses on the issue.
8.2 Āyat al-Sayf (Verses of the Sword)
The verses of the sword (Āyat al-Sayf) are interpreted as predominant and overriding by the hard-liners among Muslim thinkers, as also by some orientalists who favour this interpretation because they give substance to the view which they are inclined to hold, that Islam is a militant religion, prone to violence and aggression. Let us first give the text of these verses: one of them is verse number 29 of Sūrah al-Tawbah.
Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practice not the religion of Truth, from amongst the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [al-Tawbah 9:29]
Some Orientalists3 have taken this verse as signifying the impossibility of peaceful coexistence and co-operation between Islam and the outside world. They see it as implying that a Muslim state is committed to be in constant war with non-Muslim forces until they (a) accept Islam, or (b) pay jizyah (a defence tax, against Non-Muslims) and thus become subdued, or (c) are utterly defeated and destroyed.4
On the other hand, the hardliners among Muslim thinkers claim that this verse of the sword is overriding because it is part of Sūrah al-Tawbah which is one of the very last sūrahs to be revealed. They claim that earlier verses reflect earlier stages in the history of Islamic daʿwah, stages which had subsequently been superseded by the prevalence of new circumstances and new legislation. But this line of argument seems quite untenable, if pressed in every case, and without producing tangible evidence that a change in the direction of legislation had been made, either by abrogation or otherwise modifying the previous legislation. It would indeed be very damaging to the Islamic daʿwah if the above line of argument is pressed without further evidence. One of the consequences of adopting the above line of thinking would be the cancellation of all the sharīʿah, excepting those aspects of it revealed in the very last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him). To evade such a possibility, the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to point out promptly and very clearly any verse of the Qur’ān which God had abrogated. The practice of verse abrogation was governed by very exact and specific rules, and it is one of those topics with respect to which independent personal opinion has no role to play. Succession in time alone does not constitute a valid reason for abrogation. The difference in the content of Qur’ānic verses dealing with the same issues, e.g. fighting in the way of God or jihād, revealed at different times in succession, is to be understood by jurists in the light of (a) the principles and ultimate goals of the sharīʿah (b) previous Qur’ānic revelation unless abrogation had been explicitly pointed out, the requirement here being that of harmony and consistency, (c) the reason behind the revelation (asbāb nuzūl al-Āyah), (d) the change in the situation and times especially when these tend to militate against the reasons and wisdom behind the earlier revelation in the historical development of the Islamic society and state. The mild verses revealed before the verses of the sword could be viewed as alternative policies and strategies that continue to be valid and which are to be practised should the circumstances require a less militant handling than the verse of the sword. Moreover, some of these mild verses consist of valid and very broad principles of universal applicability, and therefore need not be abrogated just because some stronger verse was revealed later, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
Indeed, the situation with regard to jihād and war is not a typical one in that it appears to consist of two apparently contrary tendencies: one towards fighting and waging war in the way of God, the other towards kindness, mercy and tolerance. In many major issues, this same feature of sharīʿah seems to be present: there are always two strands of attitude, apparently contradictory but actually fused into a harmonious whole; perhaps comparable to two electrical poles, one negative, the other positive, which working together supply useful energy. Thus, in sharīʿah, there is always the passing temporal aspect of any legislation and also the positive, eternal one. The temporal one is needed to cater for the changing, earthly human conditions reflective of man’s weakness, evil intentions and his base passions of envy, greed and aggression, while the eternal, more permanent aspect embodies the Divine will and purpose for man, stating as it does normally universal principles.
In the issue of war and peace, these two aspects are there. They complement each other, and they naturally fuse together to give a consistent policy of war and peace. Yet peace is clearly the more basic, more permanent option in Islam, while war is only necessitated by man’s unavoidable passions for aggression and injustice. That peace is the foremost overriding option in Islam is clearly demonstrated by the following considerations:
a. As-Salām (or peace) is one of the Beautiful Names of God.
b. It is well known that salām (peace) is the ordinary salutation of the Muslims, every time they meet or depart. Salām is also the salutation of the Muslims in the Hereafter.
c. After each of the five obligatory daily prayers, a Muslim’s supplication and duʿā’ is:
‘O Lord! You are the Peace.
All peace proceeds from You.
All peace returns unto You.
Help us to live in peace, O our Lord.
Allow us to enter the Paradise which is Your lodge, the lodge of peace.’
d. Paradise itself is depicted essentially as the abode of peace, in the gracious Qur’ān:
Surely this is the path of Your Lord, Straight, We have detailed the verses (thereof); For those people who take heed For them is the abode of peace with their Lord. And He is their Protector for that they were doing… [al-Anʿām 6:126-127]
The ultimate goal to which Islam is calling humanity is to lead them to the abode of peace. God says in the Qur’ān:
And Allah calls to the abode of peace, and leads whom He will to the straight path. [Yūnus 10:25]
War as envisaged in the verses of the sword, and indeed in many other contexts, is far from diminishing this fundamental, unshakable commitment to peace as the permanent, ultimately desirable reality, as a necessary means to ensure and secure the right of everyone to live in peace. But peace cannot be achieved if tyrannical powers, and agents of oppression, evil and ungodly religions and cults are allowed a free hand over the affairs of men. Where such evil powers tend to prevail, then it is the sacred duty of Muslims to resist them and indeed engage them in the battlefield, with the aim of destroying them and their power bases.5
9. THE VERSES OF THE SWORD AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK
We have alluded to the two aspects of the sharīʿah, the temporal and the eternal. Through its temporal aspect it remains in touch with, concerned with, and interacting with, the changing, fluid human condition of this life. But through the eternal aspect, the sharīʿah expresses God’s last will and purpose for man. Thus it would be a gross mistake to hold the view either that all of sharīʿah rules and injunctions are absolute or that they are all relative in the sense of being history-bound. The right view is the balanced one that both aspects are there together always, thus making it uniquely possible for the sharīʿah to be both the eternal, unchangeable will of God Almighty, and at the same time malleable and flexible, suited to the changing conditions and circumstances of human development on this earth.
What is shocking to many regarding the verses of the sword is that one of them is not directed against the Arab polytheists, towards whom the Qur’ān had adopted a hard, uncompromising attitude from the start, but against the People of the Book, i.e. Jews, Christians and Magians. The prevailing attitude towards Ahl al-Kitāb (People of the Book) is one of tolerance and magnanimity. The Qur’ān enjoins that they be allowed to live in peace, practise their religions in freedom and that they be protected by the Muslims, if they opt to come under the protection of Muslims, by paying a special tax towards that end called al-jizyah. Moreover, the Qur’ān has in fact enjoined pro-active tolerance, charity and love to be shown to those People of the Book, who showed themselves to be peacefully inclined towards the Muslims, and did not initiate any hatred or hostilities against them. This line of policy regarding the People of the Book, is expressed in many verses of the Qur’ān:
God forbids you not, with regard to those who did not fight you on account of your faith, nor did they drive you out of your homes, that you may deal kindly and justly with them. For God loves those who are prone to justice… [al-Mumtaḥinah 60:8]
If they withdraw from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them. [al-Nisā’ 4:90]
Far from permitting the Muslims to wage war against the People of the Book, the Qur’ān forbids the Muslims even to utter harsh words, when engaged with them in arguments or polemics.
And argue not with people of the Scripture, save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong, and say ‘We believe in what has been sent down to us, and has been sent down to you; And our God and your God is one, and unto Him we have surrendered.’ [al-ʿAnkabūt 29:46]
Qur’ānic verses, such as the ones cited above, are expressive of the permanent, overriding norms and rules that govern the relation of Muslims with the People of the Book. The verse of the sword, number 29 of Sūrah al-Tawbah, is thus a departure from those fundamental, permanent norms. The hardened attitude of this verse of the sword pertains more to the temporal aspect of sharīʿah, in the context of inter-communal relations with the People of the Book. This is not to be taken to mean that the verse of the sword is relative. It is perfectly universal; enforceable whenever circumstances demand its enforcement and application. It is an exception to fight the People of the Book rather than the rule. Verse 46 of Sūrah al-ʿAnkabūt above, clearly envisages such as exception… ‘except for those of them that do wrong.’
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) first descended on Madīnah, his relations with the People of the Book, namely the Jews, since no Christians or Magians lived there, were very cordial. But soon afterwards they began to sour and tensions began to mount. Then tribe after tribe of the Jews of Madīnah became hostile to the Prophet (peace be upon him), as they saw him rise in power and prosperity, and succeed in spreading the message of Islam far and wide, scoring decisive victories over his enemies. Their place of pride and eminence in Madīnah, and in Arabia at large, were compromised and later undermined. They then embarked on the road of confrontation, and became involved in intrigues and conspiracies against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims. Not only this, but they waged a war of slant and slander against the Muslims, and ultimately joined hands with the polytheists of the Quraysh in waging direct war against the Muslims, during the Battle of the Trench (al-Khandaq). Thus, the rules of the game were changed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) unsheathed the sword against them, because that was the path they chose to follow in their relations with the Muslims, in total disregard for the friendly approach and kindness which the Prophet (peace be upon him) had shown towards them, and despite the pact (ṣaḥīfat al-Madīnah) which they signed with him.
The theory proposed by some militant Muslim thinkers on the issue, namely that the verse of the sword in question (No. 29 of al-Tawbah) is in fact overriding, on account of its being revealed later in time than the other more lenient verses, is clearly untenable:
First of all, the verse of the sword indicates that it is directed, not against all the People of the Book without discrimination, but against those whom war is to be waged who are carefully delineated as:
a. Not believing in God and the Hereafter.
b. They do not forbid what God has forbidden.
c. They do not accept the true religion.
d. Furthermore they are pointed out as a group within Ahl al-Kitāb ‘min Ahl al-Kitāb’.
The Arabic article (min) clearly indicates ‘some’, thus, not all the People of the Book are being meant by the verse of the sword.
This line of interpretation is borne out by the actual practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his conflict with the People of the Book.
a. Firstly, he never waged war, nor even threatened war against the Christians of Arabia, especially the Christian Arabian tribe of Banū Taghlub in northern Arabia. It is doubtful if he threatened the Christians of Najrān by the use of force if they did not pay jizyah, although, of course, he had asked for it and they agreed to pay. However, the case with Banu Taghlub was different in this respect, in that they were not even asked to pay jizyah.
b. Secondly, even when open hostilities with the Jews of Madīnah broke out the Prophet (peace be upon him) never attacked them, all at once, nor did he attack them arbitrarily and without a reason. In every case, he attacked only a particular group, in retaliation against their misdeeds and aggressive designs against himself, while sparing the other peaceful groups. There was never an all-out war against all the Jews indiscriminately, let alone such a war against all the People of the Book, in general, Jews as well as Christians!
Thus, this verse of the sword could not, under any interpretation, be taken as warranting an all-out war against the People of the Book. Nor could it be interpreted, as some orientalists and some militant Muslims would like it to be interpreted, as an abrogation of all previous legislation concerning the relationship of Muslims with the People of the Book. The dominant norms governing that relationship were ones of pro-active tolerance and cordiality, as long as they abided by the spirit of peaceful co-operation and coexistence. Muslims and the People of the Book have thereafter, coexisted peacefully together for many centuries. This is a testimony of the tolerant views expressed about them in the Qur’ān and the sunnah. If the twentieth century has been characterized by tensions and conflicts between Muslims and the People of the Book in such places as Palestine, India, Philippines and Lebanon, it is because evil and sinister forces were stirring things up and instigating enmity and hatred between Muslims and their non-Muslim compatriots from amongst the People of the Book. Otherwise, the Muslims and the People of the Book, especially the Christians, would have lived together, visiting each other’s homes, intermarrying and mingling together for social, cultural and commercial purposes. Last but not least, the verses of the Sword reflected a special historical stage in the relationship of the Muslims with the Jews of Madīnah and later on against the Byzantine Christians of the Roman empire, when they started to amass their soldiers at the northern frontiers of the Muslim state. It was never directed against the peaceful groups: (a) the Christians of Abyssinia, (b) the Christians of Najrān, (c) or the Christians of the northern Arabia tribe of Banū Taghlub.
Thus, the verses of the sword, though of course an eternally valid and universal Qur’ānic revelation, is reflective of a temporal phase in the relationship of the Muslims with the People of the Book; it is not an overriding rule applicable irrespective of whether or not the People of the Book were peaceful or otherwise.
10. EPILOGUE: THE PROPHET OF MERCY AND THE PROPHET OF WAR
The Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) is described as ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah wa nabīy al-malḥamah,’ i.e. the Prophet of mercy and the Prophet of combat. As we have explained, in the arguments above, these two epithets are not necessarily contradictory: rather, they are complementary. The wars which the Prophet (peace be upon him) launched during his life were means of daʿwah and were carried out in the context of his religious and spiritual mission to liberate humanity from the tyranny of false gods, and oppression of unjust systems and regimes. The wars of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were almost all defensive, in the broad sense of the word (defensive), to which we have been alluding.
These wars were never fought in the spirit of personal or national glory, nor were they carried out with a view to material gains. They were fought in the way of God, so that religious persecution was no more and religion became totally a godly affair. Religion could not be exploited by the force of tyranny or superstitions. The Muslims were commanded, by the Qur’ān, to go to war if need be, so as to remove the obstacles of tyranny and oppression, and clear the way for the freedom of man to worship God Almighty Alone.
That Prophet Muḥammad is ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ is attested to by no lesser testimony than the Qur’ān itself. God said: ‘We have not sent you save as mercy unto mankind.’ [al-Anbiyā’ 21:107]
However, no equivalent Qur’ānic text exists to the effect that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is also a warrior Prophet. But Qur’ānic exhortations to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fight in the way of God and to wage all-out war against the Arabian polytheists are abound in the Qur’ān. Yet the discrepancy in the relative weight of the two epithets of ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ and ‘Nabīy al-malḥamah’ is not to be lost. We venture to say that the first epithet is the more fundamental and the more expressive of the essence of Muḥammad’s mission, personality and career. It is the more permanent, everlasting definition of his essence and reality.
Thus war is merely a passing, temporary instrument of his daʿwah and policy. War had been necessitated by certain circumstances and contingencies. If these circumstances and contingencies ceased to exist, so would war become obsolete, according to the prevalence of altogether new conditions. The concept of a warrior Prophet is not alien to the Judaic tradition or history (witness the careers of David and Solomon). Nor was it abhorrent to the Abrahamic tradition. It was only uncongenial to the particular mission of Jesus and of his immediate predecessors, John the Baptist and Zachariah of the Holy Altar. They were passive victims of the violent, soulless Israelites of the time.
The murdering of Zachariah and his son John, and the attempt on the life of Jesus by the forces of evil amply showed, I think, that changing times and human conditions both demanded and called for the resumption of the Prophet-warrior tradition of Judaism. However, the concepts of mercy, love and tolerance emphasized in the mission of Jesus were neither lost nor wasted. They were incorporated in the eternal mission of Muḥammad (pbuh), in his superior capacity as ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ (i.e. The Prophet of Mercy). It is indeed remarkable that a man of such gentle nature, of such pacific and friendly disposition, as Muḥammad was during his whole life until the age of fifty-three, should suddenly take to the battlefield and become involved in military challenges and conflicts, and even more remarkable that he emerged victorious. With the possible exception of the Battle of Uḥud, which was not a decisive defeat, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a victor throughout his military career. Nevertheless, it is the portrait of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as the gentlest and mildest of all men that has survived in the sīrah sources (i.e. Life of the Prophet) and is narrated over and over again. The violent phase of his life and career did not overshadow or compromise his most gentle nature:
He was neither gruff, nor impolite nor was he taken to raising his voice like a hawker in the market-place. If he passed by, a flaming candle would no more than flicker owing to the serenity of gait; and if he walked over reeds, not a sound would come from below his feet. He never used obscene language. Through Him, the Almighty God opened eyes that were blind, ears that were deaf, and hearts that were sealed.6
Not only is it clear that he was quite averse to war and violence by disposition and style for the greater part of his life, it is also perfectly clear that he never used war as a tool of personal ambitions, aggrandisement or other material interests. The conclusion, therefore, inescapable that, in waging the wars he did, he was constrained into doing so by the realities and necessities of his religious and political mission, that is, by the need and obligation to fulfil God’s commandments and achieve His will and purpose for man at the time. Moreover, the forces of evil would not leave the Muslims alone, but were adamant in their determination to destroy them.
That eventually also made military confrontation inescapable. Throughout the last three centuries that witnessed the decline of Muslim religious and political power, the military dimension of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was totally ignored. Through decline and weakness, the Muslims of modern times came very close to losing their hearts and spirits. They clamoured for peace at any cost or any price, even if that meant a dishonourable and unconditional surrender to a cruel and ruthless enemy. They failed to see that, in certain circumstances, preparing for a possible war and demonstrably possessing the will to fight is the Muslims’ best defence against their enemy. Otherwise, the Muslims will be easy targets for the aggressive attacks of their enemies; ‘sitting ducks’ for the enemy to shoot at, to use a phrase which Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, the celebrated Muslim thinker and lecturer, was very fond of repeating. The Qur’ān has repeatedly warned the Muslims against such slackening and failure of spirit vis-à-vis their enemies, warned them against neglecting the exhortation to jihād and being content with dishonourable peace.
So do not faint and call for peace, when you should be the uppermost, and Allah is with you and He will not deprive you of your labours. [Muḥammad 47:35]
Muslims today are subjected to the worst sorts of victimization, oppression and domination, yet they fail to resort to jihād, with the exception of a few cases, and thus continue to be the target of the aggression of their enemies. Worse still, the malicious, but very powerful and effective propaganda machines of these enemies are portraying them as terrorists and aggressors. So powerful and so effective is this campaign of the anti-Islamic mass media, that the Muslims are cowed into a passive defensive posture. Had they heeded the repeated calls of the Qur’ān to the legitimacy of jihād for the purposes of self-defence, and in defence of justice and liberty, and had they emulated the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him), they could not have found themselves in the pitiful state of affairs in which they are now living.
We end this chapter with the general conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion. Far from being apologetic or polemical, our construal of the Islamic theory of jihād and peace is that it should be considered the normal state of affairs for Muslims to peacefully coexist with the People of the Book in honour, dignity, mutual trust and reciprocated equality and friendship. But should the People of the Book revert to aggression and enmity, then it would be quite cowardly and reprehensible for the Muslims to shy away from the prospects of military engagement and confrontation. To clamour for peace in these circumstances is tantamount to an unconditional and cowardly surrender. It is in the light of such unfavourable conditions that we should understand the Qur’ān’s repeated calls to the Muslims, never to abandon the preparations for the engagement of their enemy under all circumstances of war and peace:
Make ready against them all that you can of (armed) force, and of horses tethered, that you may terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not. [al-Anfāl 8:60]
Thus, jihād, in the broad sense of the word, which means to exert oneself to the utmost of one’s effort and ability, is a way of life for a Muslim community. It is to be followed in times of war and times of peace – particularly times of peace because it is an essential prerequisite of waging jihād in the narrow military sense. It is also a method for successful nation-building, which is based on the solid foundation of totally developed, trained and mobilized individuals. Underscoring this interpretation, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
Whosoever died and he never participated in a military campaign, nor told himself of such participation, he would die and a residue of hypocrisy still in his heart.7
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said:
Whenever a group of Muslims abandoned jihād, and became totally absorbed in cultivating the land and the raising of cattle, then God would impose humiliation and abasement upon them, and would not remove it, until they return to their religion, and be ready for jihād in self-defence.8
