(2) IBN TAMĪYAH'S CONCEPTION OF JIHAD (F16) by Muhammad Amin Samad

INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM

397-604D

Dr. C.J. Adams

IBN TAYMĪYAH’S CONCEPTION OF JIHĀD

Muhammad Amin A. Samad

INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES MCGILL UNIVERSITY

Montreal, 1 April, 1974 **** (Degree: B)

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ………………………………………….

I. THE OUTLINE OF IBN TAYMĪYAH’S BIOGRAPHY …..

II. THE JIHĀD ………………………………………………..

A. THE DOCTRINE OF JIHĀD …………………………… 1. Definition of Jihād ………………………………. 2. Obligation of Jihād ……………………………… 3. Reason of Jihād …………………………………

5 5 5 6

B. TYPES OF JIHĀD ………………………………….. 1. Jihād against Polytheists ……………………….. 2. Jihād against the People of the Book ………….

12 12 13

TREATIES ……………………………………………… 1. Permanent Treaties ……………………………… 2. Temporary6 Treaties ……………………………

14 14 14

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………..

ENDNOTES ………………………………………………….

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………..

[Dr. Adams’ Comments on the Term Paper] …………………

[My Personal Note] …………………………………………….

IBN TAYMĪYAH’S CONCEPTION OF JIHĀD INTRODUCTION In this term paper I would like to present Ibn Taymīyah’s conception of jihād. As jihād is a very vast topic and full of controversies, I shall confine myself to one of the categories of jihād, i.e., jihād against unbelievers, presenting his arguments, and comparing his doctrines with those of some other scholars. The main sources which I shall refer to are Ibn Taymīyah’s works: a. Majmū‘at Rasā’il, chapter “Qitāl al-Kuffār”, which is usually called “Risālat al-Qitāl”. b. Al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah, chapter “Jihād al-Kuffār” Laoust’s English translation of al-Siyāsah is helpful, especially his introduction in which he presented to us the nature and object of alSiyāsah, its historical and doctrinal interests and influence. Farrukh’s English translation helped me much in understanding the original text, though sometimes I refer to my own understanding of the text. In his introduction he stated that he was indebted to Laoust’s translation and found some mistakes. At the end of this paper I attempt to analyze some of the backgrounds of the controversies according to my own understanding and try to reconcile them.

I. THE OUTLINE OF IBN TAYMĪYAH’S BIOGRAPHY Ibn Taymīyah was born at H.arrān, northern Syria in 661/1263, and died in Damascus in 728/1328. His life was full of challenging events: he had to leave his native town in 667/1269, fled from the fear of Mongol troops to Damascus when he was a small boy; the insult of a Christian against the Prophet caused him to write his book Kitāb alS.ārim al-Maslūl ‘alā Shātim al-Rasūl; the invasion of the Mongols caused some scholars to flee from Damascus, but it made Ibn Taymīyah a soldier; at the request of the people H.amas. he wrote alH.amawīyah al-Kubrā in which he attacked the monism of Ibn ‘Arabī, the Ah.madīyah Rifā‘īyah, and the innovations (bid‘ah). He was accused of anthropomorphism (tajsīm) as he repudiated ta’wīl and concentrated on the tafwīd. (leaving to Allah the ultimate mystery of things), and taslīm (submission to the word of Allah and of the Prophet). Preferring the idea of the salaf (the companions of the Prophet and their successors) to the doctrines of the founders of schools caused him to be in conflict with his contemporary ‘ulamā’.1 Being accused of attempting usurpation of political power he was once called by the ruler, al-Nās.ir Lidīnillāh for interrogation. He said firmly: “Did I do that? By Allah, your kingdom and the kingdom of the Mongol are worth not a single fils (cent) for me.” The ruler smiled and said: “By Allah, you are surely right.”2 He died in his imprisonment in the citadel of Damascus in 728/1328. His funeral was attended by more than a half million people excluding about fifteen thousand women. This great number of mourners was only exceeded by that of the funeral of Imam Ah.mad ibn H.anbal in which they were one million seven hundred thousands in number.3 Ibn Taymīyah was a prolific writer. He based his views on the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, He wrote books on different subjects in Islam:

tafsīr, usūl, hadīth, kalām, repudiation of bid‘ah, and some fatāwā. The historian al-Hāfiz al-Dhahabī said that his writings reached five hundred volumes.4 He was considered one of the reformers (mujaddidīn) in Islam, and one of the mujtahidīn.

II. THE JIHĀD A. THE DOCTRINE OF JIHĀD 1. Definition The term jihād is derived from the verb jāhada, yujāhidu which means “to strive, to exert, to struggle”. Jihād means: a. exertion of one’s power in Allah’s path and in making His word supreme over this world.5 b. Muslims’ fighting against their enemy in defence of the religion.6 c. exertion of one’s power in spreading the Islamic mission and in defending it.7 In the Meccan period, when fighting was still not allowed, jihād meant, “to strive for salvation of the soul”8 as mentioned in the Qur’ān:

“And whoever strives, strives only for himself, for Allah is altogether independent of (His) creature” (Q. 29:6)

“But those who strive in Our cause, surely We shall guide them in Our ways; Allah is with the good-doers.” (Q. 29:69). “But obey not the unbelievers, but strive with them thereby mightily.” (Q. 25:52).

2. Obligation of Jihād

Explaining the gradation of the law of jihād Ibn Taymīyah says that the Prophet was not permitted to kill anyone or to fight him on the account of religion until he had migrated to Medinah. In Makkah before the migration the Muslims were small in number, so that any prompt and active resistance against this powerful Quraysh would have meant suicide. When the Prophet migrated to Medinah the first thing he did was to build his community and to consolidate it by making the muhājirīn and the ansār brothers. Then Allah permitted His Prophet and the Muslims to fight to defend themselves.

“Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them—those who have been driven from their homes wrongfully only because they say ‘Our Lord is Allah…’” (Q. 22:39-40). Afterwards fighting was enjoined on the Muslims.

Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is hateful unto you; and it may be that you hate a thing while it is good for you, and it may be you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows while you know not.” (Q. 2:216). Then Allah emphasized His order to fight. Ibn Taymīyah mentions several verses of the Qur’ān and some traditions of the Prophet.9 3. Reasons of Jihād What is the reason for fighting the infidels? Is it because of their infidelity (kufr) or their hostility (‘udwān) to the Muslims? Ibn Taymīyah gives two opinions:

a. It is because of their infidelity, according to al-Shāfi‘ī and some H.anbalī jurists. They based their view on the Qur’ān: “Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the polytheists wherever you find them…” (Q. 9:5) “And slay them wherever you find them… (Q. 2:191) They also mentioned the saying of the Prophet:

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them [i.e., he and his father ‘Umar]) reported that the Messenger of Allah (blessing and peace from Allah be upon him) said: ‘I have been commanded to wage war on the people till they testify that there is no deity save Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, (till) they establish salāt (the regular prayers) and give the zakāt. If they do that they have preserved their blood and their property from me, save that to which Islam has right10, and their reckoning is with Allah, exalted be He.” (Related by al-Bukhārī and Muslim).11 From this opinion we draw the conclusion that the only relation between Muslims and non-Muslims is war, and there should be a permanent state of war between the Muslims and their neighbours. This is similar to the opinion of Prof. Philip K. Hitti, as follows: “One of the principal duties of the caliph is to keep pushing back the geographical wall separating the dār al-Islām (the land of Islam) and the dār al-h.arb (the war territory). This bipartite

division of the world into an abode of peace and an abode of war finds a parallel in the communistic theory of Soviet Russia.”12 Describing the beginning of the hostility between the Prophet and the Quraysh, Wismar said: “Muhammad was the sole and only mouthpiece of Allah and men must heed his very word under pain of eternal damnation. That is the point the Makkans would not concede. Because of his insistence on this particular the Makkans became his bitter enemies…. Fearing that Muhammad’s doctrine would gain too many adherents in Yathrib (Madina) and realizing that success for Muhammad would mean disaster for the prestige they enjoyed due to the fact that Makka was the center of worship for a large number of Arab tribes, the Quraysh of Makkah had resolved to settle their old grievance with Muhammad in summary fashion. They wanted to kill him.”13 Speaking about the Prophet’s tolerance he said: “Muhammad did not know enough about tolerance to permit anyone to differ with him openly and aggressively. But we must also remember that Muhammad, at least at his later years, regarded difference of religion as sufficient cause for attack.”14 He then drew the conclusion that it was not the Makkans who began hostilities, but Muhammad.15 Khadduri stated that Judaism was not a missionary religion, Christianity was a non-state religion, while Islam combined the dualism of a universal religion and a universal state. 16 This universalism of Islam in its creed “is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”17 Jihād did not mean continuous fighting, but a doctrine of a permanent state of war.18 b. It is because of their hostility. This is the opinion of the majority of the jurists, like Mālik b. Anas, Abū H.anīfah, Ah.mad b. H.anbal and others, according to Ibn Taymīyah.19 Defending this opinion and

repudiating the arguments of the former, he said that if the infidels should be fought due to their infidelity, then all infidels should be killed—either they constitute a defensive or an offensive power, or they do not constitute such power, like women, children, monks, old people, blind and permanently disabled—which is an opinion against what has been agreed upon by the majority of Muslims.20 Then Ibn Taymīyah mentions that during one of the Prophet’s campaigns, he happened to pass by a woman who had been killed. He said: “This woman could not have been a fighter”; then he said to one of those who were around him: “Make hast to Khālid and say to him: ‘Kill neither a dhurrīyah (a woman or a child) nor an ‘asīf (a hireling).’” He also mentions that the Prophet used to say whenever he sent an expedition: “Kill neither an old man, nor a little child, nor a woman.”21 These two h.adīths indicate that the reason of slaying the infidels is not their infidelity, but their hostility. Commenting the verse “And slay them whenever you find them” (Q. 2:190) Ibn Taymīyah says that this verse is related to the previous one, namely,

“Fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you, but aggress not; surely Allah loves not the aggressors.” (Q. 2:190). Then it follows:

: ‫(البقرة‬

“And slay them whenever you find them, and expel them from where they expel you, for persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight not with them in the Holy Mosque until they dfirst attack you there; but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of unbelievers. But if gthey give over, su;rely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and the religion is for Allah; but if they give over, then let there be no hostility except against evildoers. The holy month for the holy month, and holy things demand retaliation. Whoso commits aggression against him like as he has committed against you; and fear you Allah, and know that Allah is with the god-fearing.” (Q. 2: 190-4). Here Ibn Taymīyah emphasizes the word “those who fight against you” as the cause (‘illah) for fighting.22 Fighting is a defensive means. Aggression is forbidden (wa lā ta‘tadū). Al-‘udwān means transgression; and fighting those who do not fight against us is transgression. “And slay them wherever you find them” means slay those who fight against you. Since the cause of jihād exists, i.e., their hostility against the Muslims, Allah does not say qātilūhum (fight them) any more, but He says wa’qtulūhum (and slay them). This emphasizes Muslims’ retaliation against the aggressors.23 Fitnah (persecution), says Ibn Taymīyah, is to persecute a Muslim against his religion. Though killing is evil, the fitnah of the infidels is more evil and wicked.24 Ibn Taymīyah says further that the infidel who does not prevent Muslims from establishing the religion of Allah suffers only the disadvantages of his infidelity. The jurists have decided that the preacher of heresy contrary to the teachings of the Book and the Sunnah, should be punished with punishment, which the infidel who takes no action never punished with. The Prophet says: “If the guilt was kept secret, it would be injurious only to its author; but when it is made public, and no one combats it, then it would be injurious to the community at large.”25

Interpreting the verse “and the religion is for Allah” Ibn Taymīyah says that this would be achieved if they pay poll-tax.26 Ibn Taymīyah interprets further the saying of the Prophet: “I am ordered to fight infidels until they say there is no god but Allah and I am His Prophet” to mean that the Prophet was ordered to fight only to this end, not until he reached this end.27 To support his arguments Ibn Taymīyah also mentions the following verse, “There is no compulsion in religion; the right way has been made clearly apparent from the wrong…” (Q. 2:256). He says: “If the infidel was to be killed until he professed Islam this would have meant a severe compulsion in religion.”28 The Prophet had never compelled his captives to embrace Islam.29 At the subjugation of Makkah the prophet did not compel its inhabitants to Islam, like S.afwān b. Umayyah and others.30 Ibn Taimīyah cites the verse,

“When you meet in the battle those who disbelieve, smite or their necks then, when you have made slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; and afterwards set them free either grace or ransom…” Q. 47:4). Ibn Taymīyah says that if the reason to fighting were infidelity, then Allah would not have permitted us to set them free or to accept ransom from them.31 He further argues that the Prophet’s Sīrah tells us that he never attacked the infidels who did not fight him. “The books of Sīrah, H.adīth, Tafsīr, Fiqh, and Maghāzī affirm this fact… that he never initiated fighting.”32 “The majority of the ‘ulamā’ said that the Prophet fought because of the war; he did not fight peaceful people, either they were People of the Book or polytheists.”33

This conception of Ibn Taymīyah about jihād is supported by that of Shaykh ‘Alī Ah.mad al-Jarjāwī who states that the Prophet was not sent for bloodshed and destruction of what people had built. 34 Jihād is having war against the seceders, dissenters, apostates, or against the people who want to quench the light of Allah and hostile to the Muslims, drive them away from their homes and break the treaties.35 Jihād, then, is merely a defensive measure.36 The Prophet’s campaigns were due to the polytheists’ hostilities, like the battles of Khandaq, Banī ’l-Mus.t.aliq, or their breaking of the treaty, like the battle of Badr.37 When the polytheists saw people converted to Islam in crowds they were afraid of their power, and so the pagan tribes gathered together, and wanted to eradicate Islam. Then Allah ordered the Prophet to fight them.38 Among other scholars of the same conception as that of Ibn Taymīyah are: Mu’ayyid al-Kīlānī,39 S.ubh.ī al-S.ālih.,40 and ‘Abd alWahhāb Khallāf Bik.41 ‘Alī ‘Abd al-Rāziq had an opinion about jihād quite different from those mentioned above. He denied entirely jihād as a duty of religion, but it was merely a means to stabilize power and to enlarge territory. The call to religion was the call to Allah; its prop is only bayān (explanation, description, argument).42 He said further that if the Prophet used force it meant neither that it was for the Islamic call nor for the conveyance of his message, but it was to seize power. 43 Then he came to the conclusion that the right view was that the prophetic kingdom was an act separated from the Islamic call, and outside the domain of the Prophet’s message.44 This theory is against the verses of the Qur’ān, some of which have been mentioned before. Therefore, this theory was rejected, and he himself was dropped from the ‘ulamā’ rank by the corps of the ‘ulamā’ of al-Azhar (hay’at ‘ulamā’ al-Azhar) in August 12, 1925.45 B. TYPES OF JIHĀD There are three categories of jihād: a. against non-believers, either polytheists or People of the Book

b. against believers, either because of apostasy (al-riddah), dissension (al-baghī), or secession (al-muh.āribūn) c. al-ribā t., safeguarding of frontiers.46 As I am confining myself to Ibn Taymīyah’s views on the jihād against non-believers, his views on the other categories of jihād will not be dealt with here. 1. Jihād against Polytheists Ibn Taymīyah said that the hostility between the Muslims and the polytheists should cease if they accept one of the following: either they convert to Islam and emigrate to dār al-muhājirīn (the land of the emigrants), or convert without emigration, or pay poll-tax. He bases this opinion on: a. the Prophet’s command to the army on its campaign to ask the infidels to choose either Islam and emigration, or Islam without emigration, or pay poll-tax. b. the fact that the Prophet took poll-tax from the people of Najrān and Yemen. He said that the Tradition did not say if there was any distinction between the polytheists and the people of the Book, in spite of the fact that there were polytheists and people of the Book in Yemen.47 Dealing with the captives, he says that infidels taken captive in the battle48 or otherwise, for instance if he is thrown on the shore from the wrecked ship, or if he losses his way, or if he is taken in ambush, etc., the ruler can treat him as he deems fit: he may kill him, enslave him, set him free, demand for him a ransom (fidyah), or exchange him for a Muslim captive. He says that this is the opinion of the majority of the jurists (fuqahā’), though some jurists consider the liberation of such captive as well as the ransom for his liberty as abrogated.49 2. Jihād against the People of the Book Citing the words of Abū ’l-Faraj, Ibn Taymīyah said that the Prophet did not fight the Christians until he sent his emissaries to the kings asking them to convert to Islam. This event happened after the pact of al-H.udaybīyah. He sent his emissaries to the Roman Caesar,

the Emperor of Persia, the Governor of Egypt, the Negus of Abyssinia, the King of Ghassān and the chief of Yamāmah. In Shām (Syria) some Muslims who were formerly Christians were slain by the Christians. So, the Prophet sent an expedition led by Zayd b. H.ārithah, his adopted son and freed slave, and engaged with the enemy in the battle of Mu’tah. This was the first battle between the Muslims and the Christians.50 The people of the Book and the Magians (Zoroastrians) should be fought until they convert to Islam, or they pay poll-tax at the time they are captured.51 According to Ibn Taymīyah the Magians were more polytheist than the Arab polytheists, as they believed in two creators, the light and the dark, while the Arab polytheists believed in the Oneness of the Creator, as mentioned in the Qur’ān:

“They worship beside Allah that which neither hurts them nor profits them, and they say ‘These are our intercessors with Allah’…” (Q. 10:18).

“… We only serve them that they may bring us nigh in nearness to Allah…” (Q. 39:3). On the other hand the Magians did not acknowledge the prophethood of Jesus, Moses and Abraham.52

C. THE TREATIES Dealing with the treaties with non-Muslims Ibn Taymīyah gives two categories of treaty: permanent and temporary. 1. Permanent Treaties

A permanent treaty is not admitted according to one of the views of al-Shāfi‘ī and some H.anbalī juristst53 in parallel with their opinion that the relations between the Muslims and non-Muslims are warlike. A permanent treaty means the end of these warlike relations.54 The majority of the jurists agree that both permanent and temporary treaties are allowable since the relations with non-Muslims are peaceful,55 but a permanent treaty is admissible to be terminated. This is also the view of the H. anbalī school, and of al-Shāfi‘ī.56 2. Temporary Treaties It was reported that Abū H.anīfah was of the opinion that the imām may break a temporary treaty basing his argument on the Qur’ān:

“And if you fear treachery of any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty); verily Allah loves not the treacherous.” (Q. 8:58).57 The majority of the jurists believe that the terms of this temporary treaty should be executed as long as the other side does the same.58

CONCLUSION Let us summarize the two different opinions as follows: The first opinion regarded infidelity as the reason of jihād based upon the following arguments: a. The Qur’ānic verses enjoin fighting.59 b. The Prophet was ordered to fight the infidels till they convert to Islam.60 c. The Muslims are prohibited from taking the unbelievers for friends.61 d. Since Islam is the true religion, force is used when arguments and reasons fail. The relation with the non-believers is war; peace is only an emergency means. Dār al-h.arb is the country that is not under the rule of the Muslims. The second opinion regarded hostility as the reason of jihād, to repel the wrong, to stop persecution, and to protect religious propagation, based on the following arguments: a. The Qur’ānic verses prohibit aggression.62 b. The Prophet forbade killing women, children, monk, etc.63 c. There is no compulsion in religion.64 The relation with non-believers is peace; war is only an emergency means. The argument that is not mentioned by Ibn Taymīyah is the prohibition to the Muslims to take the unbelievers for friends. The Qur’ān says:

“O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them h is friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers.” (Q. 5:51).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers—for whoso does that belongs not to Allah in anything—unless you have a fear of them.” (Q. 3:28).

“O believers, take not the unbelievers as friends instead of the believers; or do you desire to give Allah over you a clear authority” (Q. 4:144). This prohibition is applied to hostile unbelievers with the following reasons: a. Allah does not forbid the Muslims from taking the peaceful unbelievers. The Qur’ān says:

“Allah forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause, nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them, and act justly towards them; surely Allah loves the just; Allah only forbids you as to those who have fought you in religion’s cause, and expelled you from your habitations and have supported in your expulsion, that you should take them for friends. And whose ever takes them for friends, those—they are evildoers.” (Q. 60:8-9). In another verse Allah besides forbidding the Muslims from taking them for friends, also mentions the reason, i.e., hostility.

“O believers, take not my enemy and your enemy for friends. Do you give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord…?” (Q. 60:1).

b. Allah permits the Muslims to marry the people of the Book. As we know marriage is a kind of relation based on friendship and love.65 I would like to affirm some views based on the Qur’ān as our premises, as follows: Firstly, that Islam is a universal religion. It is natural if the Prophet confined himself in his missionary effort at the beginning of his career to his immediate environment, as the Qur’ān put it: “ And warn thy near kindred” (Q. 26:214). After a short time he was ordered to widen his narrow horizon, i.e., to warn the inhabitants of the Mother of Cities (Makkah) and its surroundings. Allah says, “And this (the Qur’ān) is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming (the revelations) which came before it, so that you may warn the Mother of Towns (i.e., Makkah) and all those around it…” (Q. 6:92(; and “And thus We have revealed to you (O Muhammad) a Qur’ān in Arabic that you may warn the Mother of the Towns (Makkah) and all around it…”(Q. 42:7); further he was informed that he was sent as a mercy to the whole world. He said, “And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the worlds” (Q. 21:107).66 Secondly, that the Prophet was not allowed to compel people to the religion from the beginning of his call, as the Qur’ān says:

“If thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wilt thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?”(Q. 10:99). “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error …”(Q. 2:256)

“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the better way…” (Q. 16:125). Thirdly, that the jihād was enjoined to the Prophet and the Muslims.67 Fourthly, that the Prophet and the Muslim community were ordered to enjoin the ma‘rūf (what is religiously good) and to forbid munkar (what is religiously bad).68 Now let us draw some assumptions from history in general and Islamic history in particular, as follows: a. Some rulers from pre-Islamic era till later after the birth of Islam were despots.69 b. Raiding among the tribes was common in the pre-Islamic Arabia.70 c. From the early birth of Islam hostilities had already existed between the Muslims and the infidels. d. Wars other than jihad often occurred in the Islamic history71. It seems to me that the difference of opinions among the jurists lies in their interpretations of the facts of history, the Qur’ānic verses, and the Sunnah. If we put the assumptions “b” and “c” together, the conclusion would be that war is a normal relation between the Muslim community and the infidels. If we put together the second and the third view, the conclusion will be that jihād is a defensive means; but if the first, the third and the fourth views were put together, then the conclusion will be that jihād is offensive; but if we add it with the second view and the assumption “a”, then the jihād will be justified; again if we add assumption “d” to it, then not all Muslim wars are holy, and so, not all of them are justified. In making our decision and drawing our conclusion were are facing some problems among which are as follows: a. The interpretation of Islamic history through the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, and that is presumably the idea of Ibn Taymīyah and later jurists. They refer to the theory.

b. The interpretation of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah through Islamic history, and that is the opinion of some earlier jurists and nonMuslim scholars. They refer to the facts of history. c. The conception of ma‘rūf and munkar. What is right or good according to Islam is not necessarily right or good according to nonMuslims; and what is with wrong and bad. Otherwise, they would have become Muslims. If the Prophet asked the pagans of Makkah to worship the One God, which is right and good according to Islam, this might be considered evil and unnatural by them.72 The Hindus might say that the God of the Muslims had to be busy and tired, because He did alone what many deities did. This Islamic call might be considered even an attack against other religions. History tells us that in some areas people preferred the Muslim rulers to the Byzantine ones,73 and the Tartar under Jengis Khan who plundered and slew the Muslims, their descendants become Muslims, among which are the Muslims of the Soviet Union. 74 John, the Bishop of the islands of Nakius (Nikiou) regarded the Muslim victories over the Byzantines as a divine punishment for their persecution of the Monophysites in Egypt.75 But he told us that the Muslim conquerors “ … compelled the city (Nikiou) to open its gates, and put to sword all that surrendered, and they spared none, whether old men, babe, or women. 76 d. The interpretation of the words “defence” and “offence” which are relative. When Abraham crushed the idols of his people and tried to sacrifice his son (Isaac according to the Christians and Ishmael according to the Muslims) in performing Allah’s command, was he offensive and an evildoer? If some Indonesian Christians in this twentieth century accuse the Muslims of being offensive when they read sūrat al-Ikhlās. (chapter 112) which is against the Christian doctrine of Trinity, why should not the pagan Arab of the sixth century do the same? Indeed, there are more than seventy verses of the Qur’ān, which attack the idols and give arguments about the unity of God. When the Muslims in Indian sub-continent slaughter cows on the Qurbān Bairam, is this practice offensive against Hinduism? Were the Muslims to be blamed when they conquered the land of a tyrant when his people welcome the conquerors? Wismar quoted from Balādhurī the following:

“When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubayda pitched his tent at Fihl, the Christians of the country informed the Arabs that they preferred them to the Byzantines, although the latter were Christians. The people of Hims closed the gates of their city against the army of Heraclius, declaring they [sic] they preferred Muslim justice and government to Byzantine oppression. The Jews of this city swore by the Torah to sacrifice their lives in the attempt to keep the Emperor from gaining possession of it.”77 Wismar said further: “In judging him (Muhammad) we must not apply the standards of the twentieth century.” 78 The Qur’ān is a book of awakening. One of its most important objects is to cause awakening in the human soul. Its verses should not be used to attack each other, but to explain each other. It seems to me that Ibn Taymīyah’s arguments are strong enough. He scrutinizes the Qur’ānic verses which explain the verses used as arguments of his opponents, and he finds the ‘illah of the jihād. Compulsion in religion is not only forbidden, but also unreasonable, and impossible, for it would only create hypocrisy which is to the Muslims more dangerous than infidelity. Otherwise, it would make people run away from religion, or even make them hateful to the Muslims. In the meantime, if we consider the first opinion carefully “the offence” of the jihād could only mean to crush anything that prevents or opposes the march of the Islamic call, and to carry out the duty of amr bi ’l-m ma‘rūf wa ’l-nahy ‘an al-munkar in this world, as Islam is a universal religion. I think any practice outside this, either one’s thirst for bloodshed or hunger for power and new territories, or greediness for booty, etc., has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, and Islam is not to be blamed. Herewith the two opinions have been reconciled. Allah knows best.

ENDNOTES 1

Encyclopaedia of Islam Shaykh Muh.ammd Bahjat al-Bītār, H.ayāt Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyah (N.p, 1380/1961), p. 26. 3 Ibid., pp. 37-38. 4 Ibid., p. 20. 5 Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Beltimore, 1955), p. 55. 6 Jabrān Mas‘ūd, al-Rā’id: Mu‘jam Lughawī ‘Asrī (Beirut, 1964). 7 Majma’ al-Lughah al-‘Arabīyah, Mu‘jam Alfāz. al-Qur’ān al-Karīm (Cairo, 1390/1970). 8 Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 56. 9 Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah fī Is.lāh. al-Rā‘ ī wa ’l-Ra‘īyah, ed. By ‘Alī Sāmī al-Na s.s.ār and Ah.mad Zakī ‘At.īyah, 2nd ed. (Cairo, 1151), pp. 126132; Omar A. Farrukh, Ibn Taymiyya on Public and Private Law in Islam (Beirut, 1966), pp. 135-140. 10 Illā bih.aqqihā is translated by Farrukh as “except if they commit offence against the Muslim faith”, see Farrukh, Ibn Taymiyya, p. 143; Laoust’s translation is “en dehors de droits [de l’Islam] que je puis avoir sur eux,” which is nearer to the Arabic text, see Laoust, Le Traite de Droit Public d’Ibn Taimia (Beyrouth, 1948), p. 130. 11 Ibn Taymīyah, “Risālat al-Qitāl”, Majmū‘at Rasā’il, ed. By Muhammad Nas.īf (Cairo, 1949), pp. 116-117; idem, al-Siyāsah, 134-135; see also Imām alNawawī’s Collection of Forty H.adīth (Matn al-‘Arba‘īn al-Nawawīyah), h.adīth no. 8 12 Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs (London, 1953), pp. 137-138. 13 Adolph L. Wismar, A Study of Tolerance (New York, 1966), p. 20 14 Ibid., p. 61. 15 Ibid., p. 23. 16 Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 63. 17 Ibid., p. 64. 18 Ibid. 19 According to Khadduri this was the opinion of later jurist-theologians “who thought of the jihād as a defensive measure….”, see ibid, p. 98. 20 Ibn Taymīyah, “Risālat al-Qitāl”, p. 116; idem, al-Siyāsah, p. 132, and Farrukh, Ibn Taymiyya, p. 140. 21 Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah, p. 133; idem, “Risālat al-Qitāl”, p. 122, , and Farrukh, Ibn Taymiyya, p. 141. 22 Ibn Taymīyah,“Risālat al-Qitāl”, p. 116. 23 Ibid., p. 117 and p. 119. 24 Idem, al-Siyāsah, p. 133; Farrukh, Ibn Taymiyya, p. 141. 25 Ibid. 2

23 26

Ibn Taymīyah,“Risālat al-Qitāl”, p. 117. Ibid. 28 Ibid., p. 123. 29 Ibid., p. 124. 30 Ibid., p. 125. 31 Ibid., p. 140. 32 Ibid., p. 125. 33 Ibid., p. 136. 34 ‘Alī Ah. mad al-Jarjāwī, H.ikmat al-Tashrī‘ wa Falsafatuh, 4th ed. (Cairo, 1357/1938), vol. 2, p. 324. 35 Ibid., p. 325. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., p. 329. 38 Ibid., p. 354. 39 Mu’ayyid al-Kīlānī, Kayfa Intashar ’l-Islām (Beirut, n.d.), pp. 79 ff. 40 S.ubh.ī al-S.ālih., al-Nuz.um al-Islāmīyah, 1st ed. (Beirut, 1956), pp. 517 ff. 41 ‘Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf Bik, al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah (Cairo, 1350 A.H.), p. 76; Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 293. 42 ‘Alī ‘Abd al-Rāziq, al-Islām wa Us.ūl al-H.ukm, a study and documents by Muh.ammad ‘Ammārah (Beirut, 1972), p. 147. 43 Ibid., p. 148. 44 Ibid., p. 149. 45 Ibid., pp. 74-91; he was trying to reject the idea of the nomination of King Fu’ād of Egypt for Caliph, and in so doing he rejected the caliphate totally as a religious duty, see ibid, pp. 12-14. This theory of the khilāfah was also rejected by Sanhūrī in; his dissertation, Le Califat: son evolution vers une Societé des Nations Orientale (Paris, 1926), see Khadduri, War and Peace, pp. 291-292. 46 Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 74. 47 Ibn Taymīyah, Risālat al-Qitāl, p. 129. This opinion is in contrast with that of the majority of the jurists, which agreed that the Prophet did not take polltax from Arab polytheists, but he took it from the inhabitants of Najrān and the Arab People of the Book in Yemen, see al-T.abarī, Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’, ed. J. Schacht (Leiden, 1933), p. 200; see also Wismar, A Study of Tolerance, p. 9, Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 80; but Ibn Taymīyah admits that the majority of the jurists were agreed that no poll-tax may be levied from the Arabs, see Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah, p. 134. 48 Both Farrukh and Laoust translated fī ’l-qitāl with “in a state of war” and “á la guerre” respectively (see Farrukh, Ibn Taymīyah, p. 142 and Laoust, Le Traite, p. 129), but I prefer the word “in the battle”, so that it my be closer to Ibn Taymīyah’s opinion that hostility is the cause of fighting, and not infidelity. 49 Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah, p. 134; al-Qād.ī Abū Ya‘lā (d. 458 A.H.), Ah.kām al-Sult.ānīyah (Cairo, 1356/1938), p. 31; Ibn Taymīyah repudiated the 27

opinion of the abrogation of some jihād verses in the Qur’ān assumed by some jurists, see Ibn Taymīyah, Risālat al-Qitāl, pp. 118-128; a Muslim scholar, ‘Abd al-Muta‘āl al-Jabrā repudiates any abrogation in the verses of the Qur’ān, see ‘Abd al-Muta‘āl al-Jabrā, al-Naskh fī al-Sharī‘ah al-Islāmīyah (Cairo, 1380/1969), p. 1. 50 Ibn Taymīyah, Risālat al-Qitāl, p. 126; Waheed-ud-Din, The Benefactor (Karachi, 1964), pp. 56 ff; Khadduri, War and Peace, pp. 241-242. Commenting on this expedition Hitti said: “The ostensible object of the raid was to avenge the martyrdom of the Prophet’s emissary sent to the Ghassanid Prince of Busra; the real one was to secure the coveted Musharrifiyah swords manufactured at Mu’tah and neighbouring towns with a view to using them in the impending attack on Mekkah.” See Hitti, History, p. 147. 51 Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah, p. 134. 52 Idem, Risālat al-Qitāl, pp. 131 ff. 53 Ibid., p. 152; Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 219; al-T.abarī, Ikhtilāf alFuqahā’, p. 15. 54 Khadduri, War and Peace, p. 220. 55 Ibn Taymīyah, Risālat al-Qitāl, p. 127. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., pp. 126127. 58 Ibid., p. 127. 59 See al-Qur’ān, 2:216; 7:65; 9:5, 29 and 36; 4:74. 60 See the h.adīth mentioned on page 6 above. 61 See the Qur’ān: 5:51; 3:28; and 4:144. 62 See the Qur’ān: 20:39; 2:190-194; 4:75-76; and 8:29. 63 See the h.adīth mentioned on page 8 above. 64 See the Qur’ān: 2:256 and 10:99. 65 Khallāf, al-Siyāsah, p. 79. 66 See also the Qur’ān: 38:87; 63:52; 34:27; 12:104; 36:68 and 69; and 25:1. Some scholars argue that this conception of the universality of Islam came later and that the Prophet “confined his endeavours and ambitions to a very small portion of the peninsula,” see Wismar, A Study of Tolerance, p. 14. 67 See the Qur’ān, 2:216 68 See the Qur’ān: 9:71; 3:104 and 110; and 5:78-79. Ma‘rūf literally means “known”; what is known becomes familiar and good. Munkar literally means “disapproved”; something is disapproved because it is strange and regarded as evil; see Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concept in the Qur’ān (Montreal, 1966), p. 213. 69 This fact influenced Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his theory about state in his book Il Principe (The Prince), where he asserted that the king should always concern with the interests of the state even if they are against morality. “Even religion—for which he had a deep feeling though he was not outwardly pious—was subordinated by him, in matters of state to the state’s iron necessity and made him an instrumentum regni, or tool of power,” see

“Machiavelli”, Encyclopaedia Britannica (N. Ed., vol. xiv, 1970), p. 520; compare with the words of Palmerston: “Right or wrong, my country”, and those of Bismarck: “Staatsraison geht vor Staatsmanier”, see “Machiavelli,” Ensiklopedia Indonesia, vol. 2; the Qur’ān alludes it the words of the Queen Sheba when she received the letter of the Prophet-King Solomon, “She said: ‘Kings when they enter a city they ruin it and make the noble ones of its inhabitants abased…’” (Q. 27:34). 70 Hitti, History, p. 25. 71 Khadduri, War and Peace, pp. 69-70. 72 ”And the unbelievers say ‘This is a lying sorcerer. What, has he made the gods One God? This is indeed a marvelous thing’” Q. 38:4-5). 73 Hitti, History, p. 165; the Bishop of the Copts of Egypt said: “Are not you content to be safe, you, your children, and your wealth in the whole life by paying two dinars per year?,” see al-Jarjāwī, H.ikmat al-Tashrī‘, p. 356. 74 Al-Jarjāwī, H.ikmat al-Tashr ī‘, p. 351. 75 Wismar, A Study, p. 86. 76 Ibid., pp. 89-90. 77 Ibid., pp. 104-5. 78 Ibid., p. 60.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abd al-Rāziq, ‘Alī. Al-Islām wa Us.ūl al-H.ukm, a study and documents by Muh.ammad ‘Ammārah. Beirut, 1972 Abū Ya‘lā, al-Qād.ī. Ah. kām al-Sult.ānīyah. Cairo, 1356/1938. Abū Zahrah, Muhammad. Ibn Taymīyah, 2nd ed. Cairo, 1958. Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. London, 1964 Bīt.ār, Shaykh Muh.ammd Bahjat al-. H.ayāt Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyah N.p, 1380/1961. Ensiklopedia Indonesia Encyclopaedia of Islam Farrukh, Omar A. Ibn Taymiyya on Public and Private Law in Islam. Beirut, 1966. Hitti, Philip K. History of the Arabs. London, 1953 Ibn Taymīyah, Taqī al-Dīn, “Risālat al-Qitāl”, Majmū‘at Rasā’il, ed. by Muhammad Nas.īf. Cairo, 1949. ________. Al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah fī Is.lāh. al-Rā‘ ī wa ’l-Ra‘īyah, ed. by ‘Alī Sāmī al-Nas.s.ār and Ah.mad Zakī ‘At.īyah, 2nd ed. Cairo, 1151 Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-Religious Concept in the Qur’ān. Montreal, 1966. Jabrā, ‘Abd al-Muta‘āl al-, al-Naskh fī al-Sharī‘ah al-Islāmīyah. Cairo, 1380/1969 Jarjāwī, ‘Alī Ah.mad al-, H.ikmat al-Tashrī‘ wa Falsafatuh, 4th ed. Cairo, 1357/1938 Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Beltimore, 1955 Khallāf Bik, ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. Al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah. Cairo, 1350 A.H. Kīlānī, Mu’ayyid al-. Kayfa Intashar ’l-Islām. Beirut, n.d . Laoust, Henri. Le Traite de Droit Public d’Ibn Taimia. Beyrouth, 1948. Majma’ al-Lughah al-‘Arabīyah, Mu‘jam Alfāz. al-Qur’ān al-Karīm. Cairo, 1390/1970. Mas‘ūd, Jabrān. Al-Rā’id: Mu‘jam Lughawī ‘As.rī. Beirut, 1964. Nawawī, Imām al-. Matn al-‘Arba‘īn al-Nawawīyah h.adīth (A collection of Forty H.adīths) no. 8

Pickthall, Mohamed Marmaduke. The Meanings of the Glorious Koran. The New American Library, n.d. S.ālih., S.ubh.ī al-. Al-Nuz.um al-Islāmīyah, 1st ed. Beirut, 1956 T.abarī, al-. Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’, ed. J. Schacht. Leiden, 1933. Waheed-ud-Din, Fakir Syed. The Benefactor. Karachi, 1964 Wismar, Adolph L. A Study of Tolerance. New York, 1966.

[Dr. Charles J. Adams’s] Comments on the term paper of Mr. M. Amin Samad Page 7 at the top [i.e. 6-7]. I think that Wismar is wrong in what he says about the real point of conflict between Muhammad and the Meccans. I think that the issue was largely a political and economic one, that Muhammad’s claim to prophecy would have made him the chief man in the town and that this in turn would have affected not only the prestige and power but also the economic fortunes of the principal families of the city. For this reason they opposed him. He also I think has an old-fashioned notion of the basis for the prestige of the city of Mecca. The city was important not because it was a religious center but because of its great trade and wealth. Mr. Samad, It is clear that you have done a great deal of work on this paper, and I am especially pleased with the fact that you did a lot of it from the original sources themselves. No doubt, your ability to use Arabic is a great asset in the field where you are now. On the whole I think you have done a fairly good job of explaining what Ibn Taymīyah’s attitude toward the jihād was and in trying to point out some of the issues which are raised. My one criticism of your paper is that it slightly loses its focus in the latter parts. In the beginning you were concerned to explain what Ibn Taymīyah was teaching and to contrast this with the opinions of some other jurists. In that part you give a straightforward description of certain ideas and the reasons why those ideas were advanced and held. In the latter part, however, you attempt to give a judgment about what should be the right attitude of a Muslim toward the matter of the jihād. I think that this is essentially a different subject from the other one and it calls for a different kind of argument. I do understand why the question interests you, and I have no quarrel at all with one studying in order to decide what he should think on an issue of this kind. I do, however, believe your paper would have been better if you had strictly confined yourself to the analytical question of what Ibn Taymīyah taught, its relation to the opinions of other scholars, and the issues that emerge from it.

PERSONAL NOTE The conclusion of a research paper is usually short, but the length of the conclusion of this term-paper is almost half of its length. The main reason for making this extraordinary length of conclusion is lack of time. There was a deadline for submitting the paper and should fulfill its minimum length requirement. This was first year of my post-graduate study at McGill University which was very crucial, as it was considered the year of probation. A student who was unable to prove his competence in this first year might not be admitted to study for the second year. This was understandable, as there was no test to take to be admitted at the Institute of Islamic Studies. Why? It needed and is always in need of students. As a foreign student who was not on scholarship, I had to work to survive and pay for my tuition fees, from six to eleven o’clock in the morning. It took time to find a good topic, and when I found Ibn Taymīyah’s view on jihād different, to some extent, from that of other scholars, I found it interesting. Ibn Taymīyah as a reformer and jihād as a sensitive subject were and are always interesting to study, and therefore and decided to study them in my paper. At the same time, making a research from the first source in Arabic would give credits for the paper. But I wanted to limit my research on the reason for jihād and to give my own commentary to make the paper long enough as required. By the grace of Allah, alh.amdu lillāh, Dr. C.J. Adams who was the Head of the Institute of Islamic Studies at that time, stated his criticism in his comment on the paper without knowing my strategy in giving my “personal analysis” in it, namely, to make it long enough to become acceptable. The original paper was without any Qur’ānic texts. They are-with one h.adīth text--included in this edited one for the reader’s convenience.