Jihad in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions

Modernists stress the oppressive environment and danger faced by the early community, pointing out that the Quran itself mentions a number of times that the believers were forced to migrate to Medina, and according to early tradition (especially the first letter of 'Urwa b. Zubayr), previously migrated to Abyssinia following the first and second fitna (persecutions), respectively.

There was a consensus among commentators that {{Quran|2|217}} was revealed following a caravan raid which was controversial in terms of whether or not the sacred months in which fighting was prohibited had finished.<ref>Reuven Firestone, ''Jihad'' p. 57</ref> This raid was the first expedition mentioned by 'Urwa' b. Zubayr in his letters about the early history of Islam. These letters are regarded as an important early source and the relevant letters are summarised in a later section in this article. In that verse, the Quran justifies killing in the sacred months in the context of the "fitna" (oppression) and forced migration of the believers to Medina.

Mohamad Khalil in his academic book on Jihad describes the views of medieval commentators as well as modern interpretations of the key verses.<ref>Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad, Radicalism and the New Atheism'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017</ref> Khalil notes that the conditional instruction to end hostilities when the enemies "cease" in Q 2:193 was reinterpreted by medieval exegetes to mean that they have ceased not only fighting but also their disbelief.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 12</ref>  

Hashmi argues that "religion is for Allah" in 2:193 and "religion is all for Allah" in Q 8:39 should be understood not in a religious hegemonic sense, but rather in terms of the oppressed believers (hence, "fitna") not being forced to include pagan gods alongside their worship of Allah. His interpretation is one also mentioned by al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. The preceding verses, Q 8:34-38 arguably support this view better than they do the traditional interpretation. <ref name="HashmiPart12hr14to22" /> In further support of his interpretation, Hashmi has also argued that wiping out pagan religion would not have been a viable goal at that early, post-migration time period. It may similarly be worth noting that the second of 'Urwa b. Zubayr's letters states that Q 8:39 was revealed before Muhammad called the remaining Muslims in Mecca to migrate.

Khalil highlights Q 22:39-40 and Q 4:75 as early Medinan verses calling for fighting in self defence and the defence of others.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 9</ref> According to the traditional exegesis of the Qur'an in Sunni Islam (for example, Ibn Kathir), the first verse revealed to Muhammad about fighting was Q 22:39. In Q 22:40 even synagogues and churches as considered worthy of protection.

Surah 9, al-Tawbah, was traditionally revealed the year after the conquest of Mecca, though Hashmi, crediting [[w:Cheragh Ali|Cheragh Ali]] (d. 1895), argues that the opening of the surah was more likely revealed soon after the treaty of Hudabiya was violated by the Meccans, but before what turned out to be a peaceful conquest of the city.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l_9WwaoDYQ Jihad, War and Peace in Islam by Dr. Javad Hashmi (Part 1)] - Youtube.com, April 2020 (see 2 hours 38 minutes)</ref> Hashmi argues that the principles discussed above are evident even in the opening verses of surah al-Tawbah.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l_9WwaoDYQ Jihad, War and Peace in Islam by Dr. Javad Hashmi (Part 1)] - Youtube.com, April 2020 (see 2 hours 42 minutes)</ref> Similarly, Khalil notes that the early part of the surah has various qualifiers congruous with the restraining principles of earlier passages.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 14</ref>

Khalil writes that Q 9:5 was interpreted by scholars in the Umayyad and Abbasid imperial centres as abrogating certain earlier verses and opening the door for expansionst warfare against pagans, not just the treaty breakers who are explicitly the target of the verse. In contrast, scholars who did not live near these centres or lived at later times did not hold such a view and had a far more conservative opinion on abrogation generally.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 13</ref> A minority extreme view was that "all" peaceful passages were abrogated.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 16</ref> See also the introductory discussion in [[List of Abrogations in the Qur'an]].

Another verse, Q 9:29, was associated with the expedition to face the Byzantines in northern Arabia at Tabuk in 630 CE.<ref>Reuven Firestone, ''Jihad'' p. 64</ref> Tabuk is not mentioned in the letters of 'Urwa (discussed below), though later traditional sources claim there were rumours that the Romans (Byzantines) were going to invade. There are possibly some problems with the chronology of this expedition and the battle of Mu'tah in Jordan against the Byzantines and their Ghassanid vassals in 629 CE.<ref>See this [https://twitter.com/ShahanSean/status/1388882455738920971 Twitter discussion] (2 May 2021) between Sean Anthony and Juan Cole</ref>

According to Khalil, various Muslim scholars have related these and other verses in surah al-Tawbah each to either a perceived threat from the Byzantines (Q 9:29) or to nearby Arab enemies (9:36, 9:73, and 9:123), especially in light of Q 2:190 ("Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress"). In contrast, according to scholars of what Khalil calls the abrogationist-expansionist paradigm these verses in surah al-tawbah supported expansionist warfare.<ref>M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 15</ref> Such scholars devised a particularly convoluted abrogational scheme to deal with Q 2:190.

====Terrorising the enemy====

A few commonly cited verses tend to draw attention in modern times due to the word l-ruʿ'ba, commonly translated as fear or terror. {{Quran|3|151}} states, "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. [...]"). Hashmi stresses that this surah mentions a post-Badr context and that the surrounding verses are intended to reassure the believers who are feeling weak and under threat.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz8ebohksjo On The Origins of Jihad | Dr. Javad T. Hashmi] - Youtube.com, December 2022 (see 2 hours 4 to 8 minutes)</ref> Certainly these verses are intended to raise the confidence and steadfastness of dispirited believers, though at the same time, the verse in question condemns the enemy for their theological claims. This is a theme of Surah Imran more broadly, which extensively condemns most (though not all) of the people of the book for leading believers astray on religious matters.  

External sources on early Islam and Islamic sῑra-maghāzī literature (biographical/expedition narratives) literature present a picture of forceful conquest or aggressive expeditions towards the end of Muhammad's career or after his death, though some have argued that archaelogical evidence suggests a more harmonious picture.

The concept of the Prophet's dominion became important to the early Caliphates. Quranic verses such as Q. 24:45 were interpreted from Umayyad times and by later scholars such as al-Tabari in terms of this triumphalist vision.  

{{Quote|{{Quran|24|45}}|Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them [...]"}}

For this and other reasons, Islamic modernist scholars urge intense skepticism of the aggressive / expansionist expeditions attributed to Muhammad and his companions in this literature (though it may be questionable to what extent this stretches credulity too far the other way). Preference is given to the letters of 'Urwa b. Zubayr (Aisha's nephew), which were in answer to historical queries from the early Umayyad court.

'Urwa's first letter describes the persecution of Muhammad and his early followers, forcing some of them to flee to Abyssinia and later to Medina. His second letter concerns the battle of Badr. It mentions that the first war with the Quraysh was triggered by a party, some of whom were companions sent by Muhammad, which conducted a raid on the Quraysh at Nakhlah (later biographies portray Muhammad as just sending them on an observational mission, but that the companions decided to raid the caravan in controversial circumstances). The letter recounts that Muhammad later decided to raid Abu Sufyan and a small number of Quraysh on their return from a trading expedition in Syria. The latter were able to call reinforcements by the time they encountered Muhammad and his forces at Badr, but were nevertheless defeated. Badr was the first of nine major battles or seiges fought by Muhammad based on other early sources.  

The third letter concerns Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, and the fourth letter details the treaty of Hudaybiya between the Medinans and Meccans in 928 CE, the topic of {{Quran-range|60|10|12}}. The fifth letter details the fairly bloodless conquest of Mecca enabled by a Meccan violation of the treaty after they had sent arms to an allied clan who were fighting another clan allied to Muhammad. It also describes a battle at Hunayn in 630 CE, briefly mentioned as one of many victorious battles in {{Quran-range|9|25|26}}. This battle was against two Arab clans, Hawazin and Thaqif, who had camped at Hunayn in preparation to attack the believers in Mecca, having previously thought that Muhammad was coming for them when he left Medina on his way there. The tribes were defeated and their women, children and cattle taken as booty. Muhammad led his troops straight on to al-Ta'if where he beseiged the Thaqif stronghold for two weeks. Afterwards, he freed the captives from the battle at Hunayn as they had accepted Islam. Delegates from Thaqif gave their allegiance and secured a treaty with Muhammad when he had returned to Medina. The remaining letters concern a range of topics not relevant to this article.<ref>'Urwa's letters are translated in full in chapter 4 of ''Muhammad and the Empires of Faith'' by Sean Anthony</ref>

Islamic Modernists tend to count all of the battles as defensive, especially in the overarching context of the danger from the Meccans. Khalil cites modern academic scholar Ahmed al Dawoody (who also taught at the famous al-Azhar University in Cairo) for arguing in his book, 'The Islamic Law of War', that all Muhammad's major battles and sieges were defensive in nature (Khalil lists Badr, Uhud, the Ditch, Khaybar, Hunayn and Ta'if; Dawoody also includes Banu Qurayza, Mustaliq and the conquest of Mecca). Such a view is, of course, contested. Khalil quotes Reuven Firestone as an example of a contrasting view who maintains that "it was Muhammad and not the Meccan Quraysh who initiated the battles" between them.<ref>Reuven Firestone, ''Jihad'' p. 110 cited in M. H. Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 15</ref>