Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Jihad and Islamic Peace as in Sharia law.

In this post, the position of Shafi'i Sunni school of Islamic law on Jihad is put up; nothing is deleted or added from their law book. The whole text, presented here, is copied from Reliance of Traveller, English translation of Shafi'i Islamic law, originally written in Arabic. It was mentioned before (here) that this translation was certified by Al-Azhar University, supreme authority in Sunni Islam.

Note: My comments are in purple and italics.

Division with index 'O'.
Part *2*
Chapter: O9.0: Jihad

@(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
"We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:
-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) (This concept of lesser Jihad and greater Jihad did not exist in Shafi'i manual until 19th century when it(greater jihad) was added. Similarly the concept of Jihad too did not go under any radical changes with this new introduction of lesser and greater. The ahadith supporting this version of greater jihad does not exist in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. Al-Banna, the founder of Muslim Brotherhood, rejected this ahadith and the so called concept of greater Jihad. Late Syed Qutb famously called this concept as product of influence of Oriental-ism.)

@O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad
Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"
and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. (Jihad becomes communal when Muslims invade other countries (of infidels) for the sole purpose of establishing Islam.)

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). (Jihad is an obligation on Muslims with two characteristics; communal and personal. Jihad becomes personal when Muslims are attacked. In normal times, it is communal meaning if there are enough Muslims fighting Jihad then there is an exemption for others. But nevertheless it says Jihad should be waged. It also implies it is the religious duty of Muslims to carry out Jihad.)

Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: p11) ) (O: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). (This is of little significance. It is merely a reflection of a verse 008:066. What can be noted is the subtle difference between fighting and Jihad.)

Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).(There is nothing wrong here. Who will object to self defense other than Muslims rejecting the self defense of Kafirs? So according to this law, defensive war is another form of Jihad, where Jihad is obligatory on every one. )

@O9.4: Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad
Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.)

The following may not fight in jihad:
-1- Someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave;
-2- or someone with at least one Muslim parent, until they give their permission;
unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.

It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required). (This at the best is obfuscation. Koran literally says Non Muslims are always enemies of Allah and Muslims. Non Muslims are the vilest of all creation. Any way who are hostile Non Muslims? The simple answer is: The ones who do not convert to Islam after Muslims tell them to embrace Islam; you will understand this as you read.)

Muslims may not seek help from non-Muslims allies unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims. (That is what I said. Non Muslims are always enemies of Muslims! Considering  Koran even bans friendship between infidels and Muslims, it is Muslims who fanatically believe every Non Muslim is an enemy. It is interesting right; on one hand Islamic law is saying it is Muslims obligation to war against Non Muslims to bring them under Islamic rule and at the same time it believes all Non Muslims are enemies of Muslims. Muslims are never at fault. If Muslims start a war against Kafirs, it is the fault of Kafirs by not converting to Islam. I always said mere presence disbelief in Islam is an affront to Islam and Muslims. They simply can not tolerate. Which ideology self proclaims that it is its duty to conquer all other people? Which ideology can not respect others right to self defense? Answer: Ideologies which are fascist in nature.)

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). (So much so about modern day deceit of Muslims saying Jihad is spiritual and it is only defensive in nature.)

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

@O9.10: The Rules of Warfare
It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks. (Actually this is bit too much. Read this ahadith saying: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).)

It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled. (Islam is tolerant and respects women? Islam imbibes true spirit and brings out noble virtues from its followers? Muslims just keep quoting these trites with out ever bothering to follow it up with evidence. I am always amazed at their perseverance in this Jihad of tongue, Taqiyya.)

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.

@O9.16: Truces (If readers do not understand this part in their first reading then then re-read it because it is very important in understanding that Islam is continuously at war with infidels from its inception. And it is now and it will be in the future too.)

(O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:
-1- "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1);
-2- "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8.61); (Ibn Ishaq in his Sira gives wonderful explanation of this verse: It simply says peace on Islamic terms. One will know about this shortly.)
as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative).  When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.
There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. (Preservation of status quo means Non Muslims continuing to live in their beliefs.And this also implies Islam is, by default, at war with Non Muslims. Peace or truce is temporary in Islam. When Muslims say Islam is a religion of Peace, they really mean when the whole world is under Islamic rule, then there will be peace. And also what is written in this section corroborates that definition.)
Allah Most High says,

"So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran 47:35).

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: o11); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)
(Can there be any two opinions regarding what is Jihad after reading this section? One need not be a genius to see the truth of Islamic-never stop-war against Non Muslims. Muslims will call for peace only when they are weak; like Indian Muslims supporting secularism because they are in less numbers for now. The legal position of all Islamic schools on Jihad and Peace is same. That is precisely, they have dichotomous view of the world: Us and Them; Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb; The land of peace and The land of war.) ........end........

P.S. Every Non Muslim is at war with this fatalistic and nihilistic, fascist faith i.e. Islam, at least if they value democracy, secularism and human rights like freedom of speech and equality of men and women, whether they like it or not. When I say we are at war, it means we are at war with ignorance in this battle of ideas and ideologies. This war is not physical at all. This does not involve violence; I am against it. What I mean is that every one who value democracy and secularism and believe in what is written here should take this message to others like nearest relatives and friends. One does not have to lie at all for this i.e. battling intellectually against Islamic imperialism. Islamic doctrines are no longer  esoteric. They are wide open to infidels to read and learn for them selves. The research is done by scholars. One just have to read. It is a battle for minds.

I have seen many Hindus boasting that they are liberal Hindus and they do not believe in God.

I have this message for them: It does not matter what you are; because Islam only sees you as a Non Muslim, infidel and a Kafir; you are still an enemy and are no different from others to Muslims; your life and property is not sacred to them. There will never be or can never be equality between Muslims and Non Muslims in Islamic law or Islamic theology. You are like cattle to Muslims. They will tolerate you as long as you are good to them and when you are of no use to them, they are not forbidden to harm you. When Muslims say Islam is a kind religion they mean two things; Islam is kind to Muslims universally; Islam is kind to infidels like men are kind to their pets.

Similarly some Hindus tend to see even Christians in the same light; and in the process they are only furthering leftist and secularist propaganda that the problem is with Hindu extremists not with Muslims and Islam. These people (Hindus) having such opinions are becoming, indirectly, accessory to Jihadists. The same is true with Christians; as they are treated as minorities along with Muslims, they feel their interests are served better by aligning with Muslims. By doing this, they are just working against themselves.

Right now, world, more so India, is at cross roads. Future is uncertain but there will be lot of instability and many discords.

Some think that if Non Muslims are nice then there will be no trouble at all. This is oxymoron. There is no peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Non Muslims; Islam does not believe in this. Islam will be at peace only when every other is subjugated. I do not think people should have doubts on this after reading what is Jihad and Islamic Peace from above.

No comments: