Ibn Rushd on Jihad
Ibn Rushd summarized a few of the various opinions of Muslim jurists on the issues of peace and war in Islam: Some of those who approved of peace whenever the imam finds it in the Muslims’ interest are Malik, al Shafi’i, and Abu Hanifah. Al Shafi’i only does not approve of a peace duration longer that the period which the Prophet, peace be upon him, made with the nonbelievers... the reason for their differences in approving of peace without necessity is the apparent contradiction between His (Allah’s) saying (in the Qur’an): “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them,” and “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day,” and His saying: “If they incline to peace, incline thou also to it and trust in Allah.” Those who considered that the verse of fighting abrogates the verse of peace did not approve of peace except out of necessity. Those who considered that the verse of peace places limits on that verse (of fighting) did approve of peace if the imam was in favor of it. [i]
[Ibn Rushd Abu al Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad, (al-hafid) (d.594/1198)Bidayat Al-Mujtahid Wa Nihayat al Muqtasid pg 283-284, Cairo ed]
Thought, Herndon, Virginia, USA, 1993, pp. 17-33.)
This demonstrates that peace and peaceful relations are dependent upon what is perceived as the best interests of state. There is no inherent need from an "Islamic" standpoint to be in a conitnual state of war. This dismisses ideas held by al-Qaida, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood), for global expansionist Caliphate being an 'integral part of Islam.
Does Islam Need Perpetual Jihad ?:
Islam can contenance a state of permenant, peaceful coexistence with other nations and peoples who are not Muslims. In other words, contrary to the belief that Islam can only accept a world that is entirely populated by Muslims and, as such. Muslims must, as a religous duty, wage perpetual Jihad against non-Muslims, Islam can peacefully coexist with non-Muslims.
(Jihad and the Modern World by Dr. Sherman Jackson- Journal of Islamic law and Culture Spring / Summer 2002.)
Can we have peace with the Kuffar:
Ibn Taymia (ra) regarding the verse “there is no compulsion in religion…”: ‘The jumhoor (majority) of the salaf (predecessors) that this verse was not abrogated nor specified by anything, rather it is a general text and we do not coerce anyone to the religion of Islam, we only fight those who instigate war on us (Haaribuna). If they submit then there wealth and lives are protected by us and if they are not from the people fighting us (ahl ul-qital), we don’t fight them.” Tafsir al-Kabir Volume 2 page 319 and cited by Shaykh Wahbah Zuhayli in his Athar ul-Harb fil-Fiqh al-Islami Dirasat Maqarina page 82.
Ibn Taymia (ra) said: ‘His Seerah (saw) demonstrates that anyone who signed a pact from the non-Muslims did not fight him (whether from the polytheists of the Arabs or others), this is documented in the Seer (biographical literature), narration, Quranic exegesis, Fiqh (code of conduct), Maghazi (tales of prophetic battles) speak of this. This is Mutawatir (mass transmitted reports) from his Sunnah, the Prophet never initiated war with anyone from the non-Muslims. If Allah had ordered him to fight every non-Muslim, he would have initiated fighting them and warfare.’ Risala ul-Qital page 125 and cited by Shaykh Wahbah Zuhayli in his Athr ul-Harb fil-Fiqh al-Islami Dirasat Maqarina page 105.
‘Is Jihad fought to repel hirabah (enmity and hostility) or to eradicate ‘Kufr’ (Unbelief)?
The position of the majority (Jumhur), and they are the hanafiya, the malikiya, and the hanabila, is that the legal rationale (illah), for Jihad warfare, is the repelling of enmity (hiraba). (See: ‘Bidayat ul-Mujtahid’ of Ibn Rushd Volume 1 page 369-372; al-Mughni of Ibn Qudama Volume 9 page 301; Fat’h al-Qadir of Ibn al-Hummam Volume 5 page 452)’
[Taken from al-Jihad fi’l-Islam by Dr Muhammad Saeed Ramadhan al-Buti – Dar el-Fikr Damascus/Syria & Dar el-Fikr al-Mu’asir Beirut/Lebanon 1997]
The Obligation of Jihad is an Obligation of means and not an obligation of Maqasid [Objectives] (desired for itself)
‘The Messenger of Allah (prayers and peace be upon him) said to Ali bin Abu Talib (may God be pleased with him), “That God guides a single (person) is better for you than a red came.”
Imam Subki stated, “it is understood from this, that what is sought from fighting is not fighting and conflict but rather the spreading of guidance” and “... it should be clear from this that the obligation of Jihad is an obligation of means, not Maqasid, an if guidance can be delivered without fighting Jihad, that is better...” ‘
[Imam Subki -Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyah Volume 10 page 293]
What Islamic Scholars say about Suicide Bombing:
Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller:
"Suicide operations must be decided according to Islamic Jurisprudence, and according to Islamci Jurisprudence, they are forbidden. This is because of the following:
1) Suicide is forbidden
2) The rulings of Islam forbid the killing of women and children.
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Condemnations%20of%20Suicide%20Bombing%20by%20Muslims.pdf
Shaikh Abdal Hakim Murad:
"Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures".
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm
Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Murabit:
Shaykh Abdul Qadir's fatawa on using Suicide as a Tactic:
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art001_17022004.html
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson:
"I have never and will never agree with suicide bombings. That has never sat right with me, ever. I think it is just so antithetical to the truth of Islam, and I have always had that problem with it. No one can ever find anywhere, in the last thirteen or fourteen years of my public speaking, where I have condoned that. I have never been comfortable with that or comfortable with any types of terror because my understandings of Islam is that it is a chivalrous religion. It is a religion that demands honour in engagement, and my belief is that I would rather die than reduce myself to the level of these types of people because I know they certainly use it against us.
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Condemnations%20of%20Suicide%20Bombing%20by%20Muslims.pdf
Pakistani Ulama unanimously declare Suicide attacks Har'aam:
Pakistani Ulama have declared Suicide attacks as Har'aam and Na-jaiz:
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/14-Oct-2008/Suicide-attacks-are-haram-and-najaaiz-in-Pakistan-Ulemas-decree
Thursday, 23 October 2008
One Unified 'Caliphate' ?
The following hadith reported by at-Tirmizi on the authority of Safeenah who said that the Messenger (saw) said: “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulkan ‘aduudan (hereditary rule) after that.” [Similar narrations are also to be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (2/264) and Musnad of Ahmad (1/169)
During the last 50-60 years the Idea that one unified ‘Caliphate’ state existed for 1350 years has been put forward by a couple of Islamist groups. This Idea is not correct and simply wishful thinking.
Throughout Islamic history there have been many Caliphs appearing in different parts of the Muslim world at the same time. For example:
After the tragedy of kerbala Abdullah B. Zubair declared himself Caliph and the people of Makaah and Medina offered allegiance to him. This resulted in a battle with Yazids forces.
In the year 929 C.E the Muslim world had three Caliphs, the Abbasids in Baghdad, the Fatamids in North Africa and the Umayyads in Spain.
In the 17th century we had the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Safavids all with their own Sultan/Caliph. All these empires existed at the same time and independently of each other.
In the Ottoman empire there were no elections or consensus of the Ummah when it came to choosing a Caliph as is Sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W). The Ottomans defeated the Mamluks and became Caliphs by default. The Ottoman Sultanate was hereditary passed down through the family. No Ottoman Sultan claimed the Caliphate until the Ottoman empire was in serious decline. And when they did claim to be Caliphs it was only in a honorific sense. Read history independently.
Did these so called latter day Khilafah’s protect the life and honour of Muslims ? In 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella were killing and ethnically cleansing Muslims in Spain the Ottoman Sultan never sent forces to save them despite the Spanish Muslims asking him for help. The Ottomans never helped fellow Muslim Tipu Sultan when he asked for help because they didn’t want to upset the British. The Mughals never gave bay’ah to the Ottomans and considered themselves superior Sultans. The Abbasids slaughtered the Umayyads. Muhammad Ali Pasha of Eypgt rebelled against the Ottomans and tried to Conquer Istanbul and declare himself Sultan/Caliph. It was actually the western powers which defeated him and saved the ‘Caliphate’. The Ottomans never uled with Shariah, they had ‘French’ penal codes and ‘Commercial’ codes. The Arabs never accepted non-Arab as a Caliphs as they believed the Caliph should be from the Quraish or at least an Arab. During the First World War the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans to claim Sultanate/kingship for themselves.
This fanciful Idea of one unified ‘Caliphate’ for 1350 years that looked after Muslim interests worldwide never existed and is a distorted view of Islamic history.
During the last 50-60 years the Idea that one unified ‘Caliphate’ state existed for 1350 years has been put forward by a couple of Islamist groups. This Idea is not correct and simply wishful thinking.
Throughout Islamic history there have been many Caliphs appearing in different parts of the Muslim world at the same time. For example:
After the tragedy of kerbala Abdullah B. Zubair declared himself Caliph and the people of Makaah and Medina offered allegiance to him. This resulted in a battle with Yazids forces.
In the year 929 C.E the Muslim world had three Caliphs, the Abbasids in Baghdad, the Fatamids in North Africa and the Umayyads in Spain.
In the 17th century we had the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Safavids all with their own Sultan/Caliph. All these empires existed at the same time and independently of each other.
In the Ottoman empire there were no elections or consensus of the Ummah when it came to choosing a Caliph as is Sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W). The Ottomans defeated the Mamluks and became Caliphs by default. The Ottoman Sultanate was hereditary passed down through the family. No Ottoman Sultan claimed the Caliphate until the Ottoman empire was in serious decline. And when they did claim to be Caliphs it was only in a honorific sense. Read history independently.
Did these so called latter day Khilafah’s protect the life and honour of Muslims ? In 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella were killing and ethnically cleansing Muslims in Spain the Ottoman Sultan never sent forces to save them despite the Spanish Muslims asking him for help. The Ottomans never helped fellow Muslim Tipu Sultan when he asked for help because they didn’t want to upset the British. The Mughals never gave bay’ah to the Ottomans and considered themselves superior Sultans. The Abbasids slaughtered the Umayyads. Muhammad Ali Pasha of Eypgt rebelled against the Ottomans and tried to Conquer Istanbul and declare himself Sultan/Caliph. It was actually the western powers which defeated him and saved the ‘Caliphate’. The Ottomans never uled with Shariah, they had ‘French’ penal codes and ‘Commercial’ codes. The Arabs never accepted non-Arab as a Caliphs as they believed the Caliph should be from the Quraish or at least an Arab. During the First World War the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans to claim Sultanate/kingship for themselves.
This fanciful Idea of one unified ‘Caliphate’ for 1350 years that looked after Muslim interests worldwide never existed and is a distorted view of Islamic history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)