Question

Muslim scholars these days agree that an Islamic State should not attack any other nation/state unless one of the two conditions are satisfied:

1. In self defense, when other nations have attacked the Islamic state; and
2. When another state is oppressing a section of its own people

Please clarify if these are indeed the only two conditions under which an Islamic state can attack other states?

With regard to the nature of expansion of the early Khilafah, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the “Khulafa-e-Rashideen“, at least from the outset, it looks like the only main purpose of attacking the other soveriegn states [such as Persia etc.] was that they refused to accept Islam. History tells us [clarify if I’m wrong] that early Muslims conquered a large portion of the then civilized world, not because there was a major threat from other nations, but with the primary intention of spreading Islam and with the secondary intention of acquiring booty. I agree totally that Islam was not spread by sword in the sense that non-Muslims were not coerced into accepting Islam, but do you differ that various nations were conquered by Muslim armies solely for the sake of the two intentions listed above? This expansion continued even after the death of Mohammad (pbuh) and the complete subjugation of Bani Ismail so that the reasoning of “the people who rejected the messenger of God” should be “conquered and killed” is not applicable in this case [Qur’an: Surah Al-Taubah 9: 5]. What justification did the “Khulafa-e-Rashideen” have for the [largely] unprovoked expansion of the Islamic State?

Applying the same Islamic logic, would it be justifiable for the US, which considers itself to be a ‘just’ and ‘un-oppressive’ society [at least to its own people] to indiscriminately bomb or advance to conquer Pakistan, which oppresses certain sections of its people that include both non-Muslims and Muslims [muhaajir]? Would it be justifiable for a non-Muslim government to plunder an Islamic state and take Muslim women as slaves because the same treatment could potentially be given to non-Muslims by invading Muslim armies of an Islamic State?

These are difficult questions, which few Muslims have the heart to ask and even fewer Muslim scholars have the heart or knowledge to answer. I hold your knowledge and your attitude of moderation in high respect and am eager to read your answer.

Wassalam

Answer

I tend to agree, to a great extent, with the cited opinion of the Muslim scholars regarding the reasons for aggression against another state. As I see it, this opinion, is coherent with the directives of the Qur’an. However, it is important to note that according to the Qur’an itself, the case of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) is different.

The Qur’an tells us that just as the Prophet (pbuh), in his individual capacity – like all other messengers of God – was the ultimate witness of God’s truth on his addressees, in the same manner, the collectivity of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) shall be a witness of the truth of God on the rest of mankind(1). This position of being an ultimate witness of God’s truth on mankind and thereby removing all excuse of rejection of God’s message was bestowed upon the collectivity of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) by God Himself (Al-Baqarah 2: 143, Al-Hajj 22: 78). Thus, just like the rejecters of God’s messengers, who are punished by death (in case of their adherence to polytheism) or by political subservience of the believers (depending on the political condition of the believers), those who avoided accepting Islam and persisted in their rejection, even after the manifestation (Shahadah) of God’s truth by the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) lost their right of political independence and autonomy.

It was this special (and exceptional) position of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), not shared by their succeeding generations, which gave them the authority of the Jihad that you have mentioned in your question. After the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), no other generation has the right to shed blood in the name of Da`wah or the spread of Islam.

Thus, after the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), an Islamic state can only show aggression against another (Muslim or non-Muslim) state to stop it from injustice and oppression of humanity. However, even the allowance of this aggression is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions(2).

You ask:

Applying the same Islamic logic, would it be justifiable for the US, which considers itself to be a ‘just’ and ‘un-oppressive’ society [at least to its own people] to indiscriminately bomb or advance to conquer Pakistan, which oppresses certain sections of its people that include both non-Muslims and Muslims [muhaajir]? Would it be justifiable for a non-Muslim government to plunder an Islamic state and take Muslim women as slaves because the same treatment could potentially be given to non-Muslims by invading Muslim armies of an Islamic State?

I would not like to comment on the oppression or otherwise, at the state level, of any class of Pakistanis whether Muslims or non-Muslims, as whatever opinion I may have in this respect, has nothing to do with the understanding or the explanation of Islam. I, as a principle, avoid giving any personal opinions on aspects that are not directly related to or a clear application of the teachings of Islam. I would therefore rephrase your question as follows:

Applying the same Islamic logic, would it be justifiable for the US [or any other political power], which considers itself to be a ‘just’ and ‘un-oppressive’ society [at least to its own people] to indiscriminately bomb or advance to conquer Pakistan [take aggressive action against an Islamic state], which oppresses certain sections of its people that [may] include both non-Muslims and Muslims [muhaajir]? Would it be justifiable for a non-Muslim government to plunder an Islamic state and take Muslim women as slaves because the same treatment could potentially be given to non-Muslims by invading Muslim armies of an Islamic State?

I would like to clarify a few things, which would also insha’Allah suffice as answers to your questions.

• To stop injustice, if one has the power and the moral and legal authority to do so, is not merely an Islamic principle, but a basic moral principle. Based on this fact, it is the prime duty of those in power, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, to take all measures, within their moral, legal, political and physical powers to remove injustice. This may also be in the shape of an aggression against the oppressive and the unjust state – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
• Injustice and oppression are a crime against mankind. The fact that the oppressor is a Muslim rather than a non-Muslim state does not make oppression and injustice any less criminal.
• If a non-Muslim or a secular state takes the decision to take aggressive action against an oppressive and unjust state, it would be the religious duty (of all those Muslim states, who hold such aggression to be justified to cooperate with such non-Muslim or secular state in the fight against injustice, irrespective of the fact that such aggression shall be against an oppressive and unjust Muslim or a non-Muslim state. The Qur’an says:

And let not the hatred of a people(3), that they hinder you from the Masjid al-Haraam, incite you to transgression [against them]. Cooperate in matters of obedience and piety but not in matters of sin and transgression. (Al-Maaidah 5: 2)

And again:

Believers, remain steadfast for God, bearing witness of justice. Do not allow your hatred for another nation to turn you away from justice. Deal justly, that is closer to true piety.” (Al-Maaidah 5: 8)

• Taking women and children, of a conquered territory, as slaves was a part of the international socio-political norm during the times of the Prophet (pbuh). After the abolition of the institution of slavery in the world, it would be against all international agreements – and therefore against Islam – to hold women and children of a conquered territory as slaves. Therefore, under the prevailing international circumstances, it would not be allowed for the conquerors – whether Muslims or non-Muslims to make slaves of the women and children of a conquered territory.

Moiz Amjad

UIUK team

11^th February 2000

1. It should be noted that this position of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) – of being witnesses of God’s truth for mankind – relates only to their collective capacity, not to the individual capacities of these companions.
2. For a brief explanation of some of these conditions, please refer to one of my previous responses, titled: “Regarding suicide bombers…..what exactly is Jihad“.
3. The reference here is particularly to the Quraish.

You may share this on your social media timeline:

Views: 362