Shafey Danish
Islam is a system that not only deals with the dos and don’ts of an individual’s life, but also of the community as a whole. Thus there are laws dealing with the responsibility of the state or its representative towards its citizens, the responsibilities of the citizens towards the state, laws guiding the working of the judiciary, laws for the treasury etc, etc.
These laws deal even with some very minor aspects of community life which do not explicitly relate to the state; for example Islam makes it an article of faith for every believer that a man should be given due burial and his last prayers are said. This is obligatory for the community as a whole. Were a person to die and be buried without this, the entire community would be collectively held responsible.
It is equally the duty of the community as a whole that they ensure an appropriate numbers of scholars are present in the community. So on and so forth. These commandments are called Farz e Kifaya. Or that which is obligatory for the community as a whole.
There are two principle authorities for Islamic jurisprudence, the Quran and the Sunnat of Prophet Muhammad. Since the Prophet was also an administrator, Islam has elaborate laws and precedents for almost every aspect of statecraft. Where there are no specific rules, subsidiary sources for jurisprudence Kayas (extrapolation) and Ijma(consensus among scholars), are invoked to determine what ought to be the law.
It lays down when a Muslim state can make war and conclude peace. It tells us how the prisoners of war ought to be dealt with, and what conditions are to be imposed on a conquered nation. It lays down the broad contours of domestic and foreign policy, or at least the aims of domestic and foreign policy, how people of different faiths ought to be treated and so on.
All these are such an integral part of Islam, and they are dealt with such detail that they inevitably give it a worldly and political colour. Indeed in these things Islam is unrelentingly political. A Muslim ruler would face none of the dilemmas that a ruler who is the follower of a non violent creed may face, in that he can only punish the lawbreakers at the cost of going against the basic tenets of his religion.
This aspect of Islam, Jehad or war, in particular has often been unfairly used to portray Islam as a war mongering religion. As a religion that cannot live in peace with other religions. This is not true.
Islam tries to soften, and set boundaries on things that become inevitable in running a state. For example though Islam does not ban warfare for obvious reasons, it clearly sets down what cannot be done during war. It prohibits the killing of women and children, it prevents the burning of crops, and exhorts Muslims to leave places of worship and priests alone. It puts a high premium on keeping promises with the other side and adhering to treaties.
During the time of the Prophet in the very first battle, the battle of Badr, when 313 ill armed Muslims had to fight against an army of almost 700, two Muslims came to the Prophet, who were till then prisoners of the Meccans and said they had been released by the Meccans on the condition that they would not participate in the battle. “What is a treaty with enemy? We will fight on your side against them.” The Prophet was very pleased to see them, but forbade them from participating them from the battle on the grounds that they must keep to the terms of their agreement.
During the time of the fifth Caliph Amir Muawiya, a peace treaty was signed between him and the Roman empire for a period of 10 years. As soon as the end of the treaty neared, anticipating war the Caliph began moving his armies to the border.
A soldier came up to him and said that this was a violation of the treaty as the 10-year period had not elapsed and he was taking actions hostile to the Roman empire. The Caliph concurred and the armies were immediately withdrawn.
Several other instances can be cited about the kind of politics Islam enjoins upon its followers. There is a common misconception that Islam enjoins continuous wars with non Muslims. Were it to be true, the large body of traditional Coptic Christians that still remain in the Arabian peninsula would not have existed. These are people who have lived there since the time of the Prophet, and while the rest of Arabia became Muslim, they kept to their faith. If Islam really required its followers to force Islam on others, they would have been converted to Islam sometime during the 1000 years of unbroken Muslim rule there.
Jawaharlal Nehru writes in his Glimpses of World History that the Jews prospered in Spain under Muslim rule and their downfall came when Ferdinand, after defeating the Moorish Arabs, decided to make up the cost by confiscating the wealth of the Jewish community. The Jews would likewise have not prospered, and would have wilted if Islam really was an oppressor of the non Muslims.
The misunderstanding arises from the fact that the Quran asks Muslims to fight Kafirs in several places. The idea that Muslims would fight with Muslims is alien to Islam and therefore no laws are prescribed for it. It is taken that those whom they would fight would not be Muslims. The Quran for this reason, talks only about fighting the Kafirs. How that fight is to be conducted, when inevitable, I have already discussed.
Political Islam
When I see the warmongering going on today in the name of Islam, I often think back to the incident when Hazrat Ali spared the man who had spit in his face, so that the fight may not become personal. When the term Jehad in indiscriminately used, I think of the time when Babur had to get a fatwa from the muftis of his time to declare his fight against Rana Sanga as Jehad. It tells me that any and all war is not a religious was, not Jehad.
The insurgencies in different parts of the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, are fights not for the sake of Islam but for territory, against oppression, occupation and so on. These are not religious wars. How is it possible to use gruesome, and abhorrent methods like suicide bombing and call it a religious war? How is it possible to kill unknowing citizens, who are not responsible for what their government does, and call it a religious war? Some terrorists organizations say that there is no difference between the government and the people who elect them. Are they so politically naïve as to believe that governments of the day have the full support of the people of that country? Would it be possible to hold the Pakistanis, who have just packed off Musharraf, accountable for his sins of omission and commission? Would it be possible to hold the Americans who took out long marches against the Iraq war, responsible for the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan?
And if they claim that it is possible, then the entire population of Saudi Arabia is responsible for the presence of American troops there and not just the government. The citizens of Pakistan are a party to the destruction of Afghanistan, and the citizens of Kuwait and other Gulf nations have participated in the crime of Iraq’s destruction. Would these jehadis now turn their ire on all the people of all these countries?
The truth is that that instead of using politics and diplomacy for the furtherance of Islamic peace these organisations seek to use Islam for the purpose of their regional and communal wars. They seek to justify their heinous methods by invoking Islam. I am surprised that they could do this and call themselves Muslims, as in doing this they impute the wrongs they do to Allah himself.
I agree that fighting against oppression is enjoined in Islam. A Muslim can neither be a victim or a victimizer, neither an oppressor nor oppressed. He must necessarily fight when he sees wrong. Yes, but there are precedents as to how this could be done.
For 13 long years, the Prophet and Islam languished in Mecca, under the most severe oppression. And yet the Prophet did not call upon Muslims to take up arms. His struggle against oppression in this period was without violence. He preached, persuaded and prayed. But did not fight.
When he went to Taaif, the leaders there set the children of tribe upon him. They followed him as the left the place, taunting, jeering and throwing stones at him. So much so that his shoes were soaked in blood by the time he was able to leave them behind.
He wept and prayed to Allah that he should be forgiven if indeed he has done something to displease the Lord. He did not curse the people of Taaif or call upon Allah to destroy the race.
And how did the Prophet behave when he entered victorious into the city of Mecca, the city that had driven him to exile, the city that had killed one of his own daughters, the city that had oppressed and tortured his followers, that city that for 10 years since the Prophet left Mecca and settled in Medina had relentlessly sought his destruction?
He entered Mecca with his head bowed so low with humility that it almost touched the neck of his camel. He went to the Kaaba and announced peace to those who had taken shelter within the precincts of the Kaaba, and to those who had taken shelter in the house of Abu Sufiyan (the man who led most of the attacks against Muslims) and to those who had taken shelter in their own houses.
He said that all the sins committed previously were forgiven. So taken aback were the Meccans by this act of mercy that they all without exception accepted Islam.
It is not for nothing that the Prophet, may peace be upon him, was called Rahmatal Lil Alameen, ‘a blessing to the entire world.’ Are these not sufficient precedents in the ways he conducted his wars and his peace for Muslims that they should evolve brutal theories as an answer to the oppression they face?
If this is not enough they should consult their holy book the Quran, that divine font of wisdom. When they do this they would find that their Lord has taken special care to tell them the story of Hazrat Musa (Moses) and the Israelis. He has referred to him by name in all but two of the chapters of the Quran. And what is the message of this story told again and again by Allah, in different words, from different angles. Among other things it tells us how the Israelis were asked to behave when their children were being slaughtered by the Pharoah, and they were living a life of slavery. Allah did not ask the Israelis to take up arms. He had the Hazrat Musa preach to the Pharoah for 40 long years and had the Israelis practice and perfect their religion in that period. After this, they were still not asked to take up swords and rebel; they were asked to leave Egypt.
It was only when the Pharoah came to attack them with his army that, says the Quran did Allah with his power drown his army in the Nile.
The Prophet’s wars too followed the same pattern. First exile, and then when the enemy came after him, war.
The Prophet showed tolerance and forbearance both when he was weak and when he was strong. Those terrorist organizations that claim that mercy is only from the strong to the week should study the life of the Prophet, because they seem to be unaware of the struggles that he faced in the first 13 years his Prophethood and his responses to them. Islam is a religion that deeply believes that good ends can only be achieved by good means.
Those who think otherwise should look within and ask themselves whether they really are the followers of the Prophet or of their own dreams and desires.
