Chapter 81

Section One: Jihad according to Muslim Authors - With Discussion ¶

We will not prolong the discourse in this section, as we have already reviewed in the third chapter (1) of this thesis many excerpts from the works of contemporary Muslim authors and thinkers regarding the definition of jihad and the reasons for its declaration. However, it is appropriate here to present other excerpts concerning what has been written about jihad in the works of contemporary Muslim thinkers and writers, whether in their Islamic writings or in the general encyclopedias they have published. This is done in order to cover all the points surrounding the chapter we are in. ¶

We will address this section - briefly - in two points: 1. First point: Excerpts of what has been said about jihad and its definition by contemporary Muslims. 2. Second point: A quick discussion of the previous excerpts. ¶

First Point: Excerpts of what has been said about jihad and its definition by contemporary Muslims. ¶

A - Muhammad Farid Wajdi says: “If it is said that Islam imposed upon its Messenger and the early believers the duty of war to defend themselves and to eradicate idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula, and that because it is a practical religion that keeps pace with the laws of existence and the developments of humanity, it permitted war to its adherents if necessity called for it.” (1) Page 586 - 596. ¶

to promote consensus, and it is still advocating for it—then this is correct and carries no blame. (2) - Then, the author discussed the Jewish religion's reliance on war to preserve its existence and for the sake of expansion in conquest. He also discussed the Christian religion's resort to combat after it established a state under the leadership of Constantine, in order to eradicate paganism from the Roman Empire. Later, when the Church acquired temporal power, it adopted war as one of its tools. The author further spoke about the human massacres committed by followers of previous religions in the name of religion, then said: 'Islam is not unique, as you have seen, in being a war-religion in the sense we have mentioned; rather, it is unique—as is its custom—in mitigating these human massacres to the furthest extent possible, without compromising the security of the realm. Thus, it set limits for war and stipulated conditions for the ghazis (warriors), all aimed at respecting human life and acting with the highest forms of compassion toward humanity. At the same time, it did not neglect to signal to its followers that a time might come when war would be considered among the barbaric means! When humanity reaches a degree of advancement that allows conflicting parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration, to avoid resorting to the taking of human lives, Islam commanded its followers to enter into this new development and to respect the opinion of the world regarding it, saying: {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and rely upon Allah}.' This is what Muhammad Farid Wajdi said. ¶

B - In the 'Mawrid Arabic Encyclopedia', the definition of Jihad is stated as follows: 'Jihad is a holy war, waged in the way of Allah, to expand the territory of Dar al-Islam, or to defend these territories if threatened by an oppressor with aggression, or if aggression is actually initiated against them. This war is obligatory upon Muslims in various places in the Holy Quran.' ¶

C - And in the 'Concise Arabic Encyclopedia', the definition of Jihad is also stated as follows: 'Jihad: Defending against the enemies of Islam to prevent the continuation of their aggression; thus, it was only legislated for defense, and...' ¶

Among its forms is attacking one who is preparing for combat. The wars of the Muslims were based on the call (Da'wah) to Islam, a treaty, or combat. It is a Fard Kifayah (collective obligation) for which the Ummah makes preparations, unless the enemy enters Muslim lands, in which case it becomes a Fard Ayn (individual obligation) (1). This is some of what has been written regarding the definition of Jihad in the books of the Muslims, and with this, we conclude the first point. ¶

2 - The second point: A brief discussion of the previous excerpts. - Muhammad Farid Wajdi determines the legitimacy of Jihad, or war, based on the following reasons: A - Muslims defending themselves. B - Eradicating polytheism from the Arabian Peninsula. C - If social necessity demands war. He then determines that if an era comes in which relations between nations and states evolve such that disputes between adversaries are resolved through arbitration and peaceful means, and war is considered a barbaric means of resolving such disputes, then Islam commands its followers to enter into this new development and respect the opinion of the world in that regard! I say: The legitimacy of Jihad for the sake of defending Muslims is a matter upon which there is no disagreement. The same applies to the eradication of polytheism from the Arabian Peninsula, and some details on this latter issue have already been provided in the previous chapter. As for the legitimacy of Jihad if social necessity calls for it, the idea in this phrase is undefined; because the term 'social necessity' can restrict the legitimacy of Jihad to the narrowest limits, which is defending the right of Muslims to social life, even if the sovereignty in this social life belongs to someone other than Islam, and authority rests in the hands of the enemy, as long as Muslims are not deprived of their right to social life in any case. Thus, 'social necessity' here does not call for declaring Jihad against the enemy to strip them of authority and re-weave the fabric of social life with the threads of Islamic systems. ¶

(1) Al-Mawsu'ah al-Arabiyyah al-Muyassarah: Supervised by Muhammad Shafiq Ghorbal: p. 653. ¶

Furthermore, just as it may be said regarding the concept of the term 'social necessity' (dharurat al-ijtima') that it constitutes one of the causes of jihad in Islam, it may also be said: Religion is a social necessity, and the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam; for it is the final revelation from heaven to earth, and through it, Allah the Almighty abrogated all previous religions. Thus, Islam, specifically, is the social necessity. Based on this, social necessity dictates that Islam must be the social system governing human existence. Consequently, jihad is legitimate to fulfill this social necessity! Or in other words: Jihad is legitimate for the purpose of bringing the countries of the world under the governance of the Islamic system, even if their inhabitants do not enter into Islam, as has been detailed previously. ¶

I say: The aforementioned term 'social necessity,' in its capacity as a cause of jihad in Islam according to Muhammad Farid Wajdi, can be understood in two ways—the narrow concept and the broad concept. So, which one does the author intend? ¶

The purpose of this question is not to provide an answer, but to highlight that the author's expression is insufficient in defining the idea he adopts regarding jihad. Although it seems he wants to say: Jihad is legitimate to defend the lives of Muslims and Islamic lands, such that authority over them rests with their own people. ¶

Then we arrive at the final issue in the words of Muhammad Farid Wajdi regarding jihad: that Islam commands Muslims to respect global opinion in considering war barbaric if it is possible to resolve disputes between them and others through peaceful means. ¶

Here we ask: If Muslims were to establish a major state, resume their Islamic way of life, and making the message of Islam reach the world becomes the top priority in their foreign policy—in this situation, if this state offers other nations and countries the choice to enter Islam, or to offer allegiance and obedience to the Islamic system without entering it—as is the legal injunction—and then those nations and countries reject both options, despite the use of all peaceful means to achieve this goal, and as a result a conflict arises between the Muslims and them regarding this matter— ¶

Is it considered 'barbarism' in this situation to declare jihad against non-Muslims to implement the Islamic system upon them? That is: Is jihad forbidden for Muslims as long as those peoples and states have not committed aggression against Muslims, nor imposed a ban on Islam, but merely refrained from coming under the Islamic system? ¶

What is understood from the words of Muhammad Farid Wajdi is: Yes, jihad is forbidden here, and it would be barbarism to which one may not resort. ¶

It appears that what he means by 'conflicts that must be resolved through peaceful means' are disputes related to contested rights, such as borders, river waters, and the like. Therefore, one should not initiate war to resolve these matters, unless the state that owes the right remains stubborn and refuses to surrender that right to its owners. In that case, war is legitimized only to the extent of restoring rights to their owners. This is the concept of conflicts that must be resolved through peaceful means according to Muhammad Farid Wajdi. His definition of conflict does not include the refusal of other countries to pledge loyalty to the Islamic state or their refusal to implement the Islamic system. Originally—as understood from Wajdi’s words—Muslims do not have the right to demand this from others except by way of invitation, not by way of compulsion or the use of force to implement it. Consequently, the refusal of those peoples and states to pledge loyalty to the Islamic system should not be considered a matter of conflict to be resolved by jihad, as is the implication of Muhammad Farid Wajdi's words. ¶

Having already addressed this issue in detail previously, we shall not repeat it. We have favored—based on our understanding of the Sharia evidence—that the Islamic state has the right to declare jihad against others to enforce the Islamic system by force, even if no aggression was committed against the call to Islam (Da'wah) or against Muslims, provided that public interest (maslahah) calls for it and no harm results from the declaration of jihad. This is in pursuit of raising the word of Allah on earth and relieving deceived and oppressed peoples from the nightmare of man-made systems that weigh upon their chests through force or deception, so that they may subsequently enjoy living in the shadow of the Islamic system. Then—whoever wishes may believe, and whoever wishes may disbelieve! ¶

This is the comment we wished to make regarding the words of Muhammad Farid Wajdi. ¶

Regarding the definition of jihad in the 'Al-Mawrid Encyclopedia'—that it is a war in the path of Allah, for the purpose of expanding the territories of Dar al-Islam or defending these lands if threatened by an aggressor or if subjected to actual aggression—this definition is acceptable in that it captures the concept that jihad is meant for presenting Islam to other nations and peoples, just as it is for defense and repelling aggression. This is because war in the path of Allah implies, among other things, jihad to raise the Word of Allah. That is, it includes removing material barriers—such as entities and military forces—that hinder the presentation of Islam to people, impede their acceptance of it, or prevent them from living under the system that it brought. Naturally, this results in the expansion of Dar al-Islam, where sovereignty belongs to the Shariah and authority rests with the Muslims. The 'Al-Mawrid Encyclopedia' did not overlook that jihad is also prescribed for the defense of Dar al-Islam, even if that defense is offensive—i.e., to repel anticipated aggression. However, we note that this definition neglected the legitimacy of jihad for the defense of Muslims in the event they exist or reside outside of Dar al-Islam, even though this situation was explicitly addressed in the Almighty's words: 'And if they seek help from you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between whom and yourselves is a treaty.' This matter has been discussed in detail previously. ¶

As for the 'Al-Mawrid Arabic Encyclopedia,' it stated that jihad is prescribed for defense against aggression, including offensive defense, and then mentioned that Muslim wars were based on the call to Islam (Da'wah), treaty, or combat. ¶

I say: If what is meant by 'treaty' here is the 'Jizya contract'—meaning the entry of lands under Islamic sovereignty and their inhabitants becoming part of the Islamic citizenry—then this aligns with the Shariah texts regarding the three options presented to non-Islamic lands: Islam, Jizya, or war. But if 'treaty' refers to external treaties, i.e., peace agreements, non-aggression pacts, and the like, then the context would be different. ¶

Other countries [concluding agreements] without joining the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) — this aligns with the opinion that restricts the legitimacy of jihad to defensive situations only... This, it seems, is what the 'Al-Mawsu'ah al-'Arabiyyah al-Muyassarah' (The Simplified Arab Encyclopedia) intends to assert, as it states in its definition of jihad: 'It was not ordained except for defense.' Thus, waging jihad to reach the aforementioned treaty is a type of defense, in the sense that jihad is legitimate against other nations and states until they agree to enter into a peaceful treaty with the Islamic state, which results in preventing their aggression against Muslims or against the Dawah (call to Islam)... The implication of this is that jihad is not ordained to force other peoples and states to fall under Islamic sovereignty. ¶

As we mentioned before — we have already finished detailing this issue in the third chapter of this treatise. However, this brief return to discuss it was intended to cover all the points surrounding the final chapter that we are addressing. ¶

Before we leave this point, we would like to point out that the word 'jihad' in many contemporary writings has come to be used in the sense of 'efforts' expended for the common good, whether those efforts are in education, preaching and guidance, political action, or in building institutions that benefit the entire Ummah, and so on. ¶

Of this nature is what 'Abd al-Rahman al-Rafe'i mentioned in his biography of the Egyptian leader 'Muhammad Farid' under the title: 'The Leader's Jihad in 1909' (1) — he noted that among the jihad activities of this leader in the mentioned year was that he directed his party, the 'National Party' in Egypt, to 'establish night schools for the people' (2), and also 'he concerned himself with founding labor and artisans' unions to improve their material and moral conditions, so the first labor union in Egypt was established in Bulaq in 1909 under the name of the Artisans' Labor Union' (3). Al-Rafe'i also mentions as part of this leader's jihad in the same year: 'The completion of the Mustafa Kamil statue' (4). Al-Rafe'i says the following in this regard: ¶

A piece was published in some newspapers... the author of which called for desisting from the act of statue-making; because, as he claimed, it is 'a revival of idolatry.' Consequently, the translator [i.e., Muhammad Farid] resolved to put an end to this hesitation and saw the best means to accomplish the statue was to form an executive committee to oversee the matter. The executive committee entrusted the translator with contacting one of the famous sculptors in Europe to craft the statue! And they communicated with the government regarding the selection of a suitable place to erect the statue upon his arrival... (1). ¶

I say: The word 'Jihad,' as I mentioned earlier, when used in such activities, is intended to mean the efforts expended for the public good and similar things, according to the belief of the one using the word...! Even if, under this sublime term, a great deal of dross is sometimes bundled alongside the precious. Therefore, the word 'Jihad' here does not, naturally, refer to the Shari'ah-compliant or true Jihad, which is fighting the enemies to elevate the word of Allah Almighty, nor does it refer to what is related to this fighting, such as urging Muslims to organize into battalions of Jihad or spending wealth in His cause, as indicated by the Hadith: 'Strive (Jahidu) against the polytheists with your wealth, your selves, and your tongues' (2). ¶

Furthermore, among the uses of this word (Jihad) to mean efforts expended for the public good, but in a blessed and clear field—the field of religious guidance and Islamic awareness among the ranks of Muslims—is what appeared in the book 'Min al-Fikr wal-Qalb' in the context of calling upon Muslim scholars in the Levant to unify their ranks, abandon their differences, and begin the process of serious Islamic awakening. In this regard, Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti says: 'Has the time not come, O honorable gentlemen, for you to roll up the carpet of this struggle and disagreement among you..! The eyes of the people have fixed themselves, looking forward to the day of your launch, and their necks have grown weary while they...' ¶

They [the Ummah] are craning their necks, awaiting the hour of your jihad... So when, O noble scholars?! (1). ¶

Also of this nature—that is, the use of the word 'jihad' in the sense of exerting effort to spread Islamic awareness and what benefits the Muslims among the masses of the Ummah—is what appeared in the book 'Al-Mujaddidun fi al-Islam' (The Renovators in Islam) by Sheikh Abd al-Muta'al al-Sa'idi, in the context of his biography of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh. He stated: 'Then he—meaning Sheikh Muhammad Abduh—participated... with his teacher Jamal al-Din in his jihad! He began calling for reform along with him, and working to awaken the Egyptians from their heedlessness' (2). ¶

Furthermore, it appears to me that the insistence of some writers on using the word 'jihad' in its general sense, rather than the specific martial meaning, is intended to impart sanctity to the activity they wish to direct the public towards. There is no objection to this as long as the activity being called for works towards what is good for the people and for the Islamic Da'wah. Indeed, there may be instances of this jihad in the general sense that surpass cases of jihad in the specific Shariah sense... and in both there is good. And Allah is the Granter of Success. ¶

Here we conclude this section to move on to the second section, with the help and guidance of Allah. ¶

(1) Min al-Fikr wa al-Qalb: Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, p. 270. (2) Al-Mujaddidun fi al-Islam: Sheikh Abd al-Muta'al al-Sa'idi, p. 532. See also the book 'Al-Imam al-Bukhari' by Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nadwi, where the author used the term 'jihad' to express the efforts of Imam al-Bukhari in compiling his book 'Al-Sahih' and his service to the Prophetic Hadith, p. 93. The great Da'iyah Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi also used this term—jihad—in his introduction to this book, in the sense of scholarly efforts, pp. 5-7. He also used it in his valuable book 'What the World Lost by the Decline of the Muslims' in both its senses—the specific, and the general or metaphorical, pp. 98-99. ¶

May Allah send blessings and peace upon him and his family. It is the desire of the humble compiler of this collection that should any error be noticed during the study of this book, please inform me so that it may be corrected in future editions. Sincerely yours, Muhammad Ahmed Rizvi, may he be forgiven, Servant of Jamia Rizvia Zia-ul-Uloom, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. ¶

Second Topic: Jihad in the writings of non-Muslims and in encyclopedias - with discussion ¶

We address this topic through the discussion of the following two points: 1. First point: Excerpts regarding Jihad in the writings and encyclopedias of non-Muslims. 2. Second point: A brief discussion of the previous excerpts. ¶

1. First point: Excerpts regarding Jihad in the writings and encyclopedias of non-Muslims. ¶

A. 'Carl Brockelmann' explains under the heading 'Jihad': 'That fighting non-Muslims is a religious duty. As for polytheists, they must be attacked without hesitation. As for the Christians and Jews, they may not be attacked until they are invited to enter into Islam, and they refuse three consecutive times, until, when the enemies of the religion are defeated, the fate of their men is death.'(1). This is what 'Carl Brockelmann' said regarding his concept of Jihad. ¶

B. And 'Philippe Fondacci', head of the French Fifth Bureau (i.e., French intelligence service), says under the heading: 'Holy War - Jihad' - he says about war in Islam, in the following text: ¶

(1) History of the Islamic Peoples, by Carl Brockelmann, translated by Nabih Amin Faris and Munir Baalbaki: p. 78. ¶

This was, at times, a means resorted to by some Muslim conquerors, or some Islamic states, to combat the disbelievers or to combat foreign hegemony (1). ¶

C. Dominique Sourdel writes under the heading 'Jihad' the following: 'Jihad is not a personal obligation (fard shakhsi), but a collective obligation (fard tadamun)... Jihad is carried out by a limited number of members of the Ummah against the polytheists neighboring the lands of Islam. However, before they are fought (2), they are invited to Islam. If they accept, they enter into the fold of the Ummah; otherwise, their lands are occupied by force or after surrender. In the first case, the leader has absolute authority over the prisoners. In the second case, Jews and Christians, as People of the Book, enjoy special privileges and are permitted to practice their religious rites on the condition that they pay the jizya. Some sects have been considered within this category, such as some of the Indian idolaters' (3). ¶

D. In Butrus al-Bustani's 'Da'irat al-Ma'arif' (Encyclopedia), it is stated: 'Jihad, in Islamic legal terminology, is: fighting those who are not Muslim; it is also called al-Maghazi. It holds great merit in their view due to the sacrifice of life and the endurance of hardships and perils. The Prophet [PBUH] placed it in merit after prayer and kindness to parents... He then added: It is the exertion of one's utmost effort in the path of Allah, either directly or through assisting with wealth, opinion, increasing numbers, or otherwise' (4). ¶

E. In the 'Encyclopedia of Islam,' published in German, English, and French, translated into Arabic, and edited by several Orientalists, it is stated under the heading 'Jihad': 'Spreading Islam by the sword is a communal obligation (fard kifaya) upon all Muslims... It then states: The Meccan surahs called for patience in the face of aggression, and there was no other way. However, in Medina...' ¶

The truth became clear in repelling aggression, then this right gradually imposed upon the Muslims the necessity of fighting the people of Mecca—their enemies—and subjugating them. It may be doubted whether Muhammad [PBUH] saw that his position required a continuous war against the infidels without them initiating it against him, until they entered Islam! The Hadiths are explicit on this matter. However, the verses of the Quran always speak of the infidels who must be subjugated, referring to them as aggressive deniers. Furthermore, the story of the Prophet [PBUH] writing to the rulers of surrounding lands indicates that this stance towards all people was on his mind, even if it truly evolved immediately after his passing when the Islamic armies marched beyond the Arabian Peninsula, and Jihad became a communal obligation (fard kifaya)... Consequently, it became obligatory to continue Jihad until all people entered under the rule of Islam. (1) ¶

Sheikh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir commented on the aforementioned text in a footnote of this 'Encyclopedia' as follows: 'It is understood that the author of the article writes while influenced by his own belief regarding Islam and the Messenger of Allah [PBUH]. As for the Muslims and the fair-minded, when they understand the Quran truly, know the purposes and spirit of Islam, and study the Sunnah and Sirah of the Messenger, they will know that the Islamic legislation on Jihad is a precise legislation, not one resulting from evolution or improvisation of opinion. Rather, it is a revelation from Allah, to make this religion prevail over all of humanity and to manifest it over all religions, as Allah promised. And what He has promised will surely come to pass, and you will certainly know its report after a while.' (2) ¶

This is what appeared in the 'Encyclopedia of Islam' regarding Jihad, insofar as it concerns us here. Finally, this is but a drop in the ocean regarding what has been written by orientalists and non-Muslims on the subject of Jihad. It is not our intention here, of course, to be exhaustive or comprehensive regarding this point. With this, we conclude the first point in this research and move on to the second point. (1) Encyclopedia of Islam: 7/188-189. The author of the entry on Jihad here is the orientalist Macdonald. See: 'Jihad and International Law' by Zafir al-Qasimi: p. 212. And see: 'Modern Islamic Thought and its Relation to Western Colonialism' by Dr. Muhammad al-Bahi: pp. 547-548. (2) Encyclopedia of Islam: Footnote: 7/189. ¶

2 - The Second Point: A brief discussion of the preceding excerpts. ¶

A - Carl Brockelmann: ¶

1 - Carl Brockelmann erred in distinguishing between polytheists (ahl al-wathaniyya) and the People of the Book (ahl al-kitab) regarding the Shariah ruling on inviting them to Islam before combat. He stated that it is not permissible to attack the People of the Book before inviting them, whereas, by contrast, the polytheists must be attacked without hesitation, as he put it... meaning: without a call to Islam, as is understood from the context of his words. ¶

I say: This statement is incorrect, because the Shariah text regarding the obligation of inviting to Islam before combat is general and encompasses all mushrikeen. This includes both polytheists and the People of the Book; in fact, it applies to polytheists even before others, as they were the ones facing the commanders of the expeditions (saraya) when the Prophet (peace be upon him) would direct them to combat and command them to invite [the enemy] to Islam beforehand. In the hadith of Buraydah, which has been cited repeatedly: 'And when you meet your enemy among the polytheists, invite them to three qualities (or options); whichever they accept from you, accept it from them and refrain from harming them, then invite them to Islam...' ¶

2 - Brockelmann stated that regarding the belligerent disbelievers, if they are defeated in combat—that is, if they fall into the hands of the Muslims—their fate is death. ¶

I say: We have already established in the previous chapter that the belligerents who fall into the hands of the Muslims after their defeat in battle are left to the discretion of the authority, who may choose from among five rulings, and he may not choose any of them except based on the prevailing public interest (maslaha). These rulings are: execution, enslavement, granting them freedom as a favor (mann), accepting a ransom from them or similar, or granting them Islamic citizenship (tabi'iyyah)—that is, what is termed nationality—in the sense of making them among the ahl al-dhimma and citizens of the Islamic state. ¶

Therefore, it is not correct to say that their only fate is death. We also mentioned in the previous chapter that if agreements or treaties are concluded between the Muslims and others to refrain... ¶

Regarding some of these options in ruling on prisoners, and those who fall under their status, such as refraining from killing them or enslaving them—it is obligatory upon the Muslims to fulfill those treaties. ¶

B - Philip Fondasy: 1 - Fondasy clarified that jihad was resorted to for one of two purposes: The first purpose: fighting the disbelievers. The second purpose: fighting foreign domination. I say: The reality is that these two purposes are among the situations in which jihad is legislated. That is, jihad is legislated to fight the disbelievers in order to apply the Islamic system upon them if they refuse to enter Islam, just as it is legislated to fight the disbelievers who commit aggression against the Muslims and the lands of the Muslims... It would have been better for the author to clarify the goal at which combat ends, which is: the entry of the disbelievers into Islam, or their acceptance of Islamic sovereignty and entry into the obedience of the Muslims. ¶

C - Dominique Sourdel: 1 - By saying 'jihad is not a personal duty, but a duty of solidarity,' this author means that jihad is not a fard 'ayn (individual obligation), but rather a fard kifaya (communal obligation), as was previously clarified in the rulings of jihad. We mentioned there that jihad may sometimes become a fard 'ayn, as in some cases like defense against aggression if the situation requires the participation of all the residents of the region upon which the aggression occurred. 2 - The author clarified the ruling on prisoners as follows: - If they fall into the hands of the Muslims after defeat, the ruling regarding them belongs to the head of authority... However, the author did not clarify that the head of authority is bound in his judgment of them by one of the five options previously stated... and that this choice is also bound by the preponderant interest (maslaha) resulting from the ruling chosen... This is if the prisoners fall into the hands of the Muslims due to the defeat that befell them. - As for if the disbelievers come into the hands of the Muslims by their surrender—the author mentioned that if they are People of the Book, or those who are appended to them such as the Magians, and those whom he referred to by the phrase 'some of the pagans of India'—then these enjoy special privileges, and they are permitted to practice the rituals of their religion. ¶

On the condition that they pay the jizya. It is possible that the author intends by 'special privileges' to exempt them from punishment for drinking wine and eating pork, and other similar matters regarding their non-subjection to Shariah rulings in specific areas related to food, drink, clothing, and marriage... as the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected citizens) were permitted in these matters and similar ones to conduct their affairs according to their own religions. ¶

Furthermore, the author has restricted the right of those disbelievers who have surrendered to enjoy these privileges and the practice of specific religious rituals—limiting this right to the People of the Book and those in a similar status, such as the Magians. It is understood from this that those disbelievers who surrender to the Muslims, if they are not among the People of the Book or the Magians, have no right to these privileges and those practices. He means by this that it is not accepted for them to become Ahl al-Dhimmah; rather, there is nothing before them but Islam or death. It has been noted in the previous chapter that this is the opinion of one group of mujtahidin (jurists), while there is another group among them that believes the door to entering into dhimmah and obtaining the citizenship of the Islamic state is open to all groups of disbelievers, regardless of their religions or races. And this is what we favored there. ¶

D - 'Encyclopedia' by Butrus al-Bustani: Al-Bustani did not offer a special concept of his own regarding 'Jihad' in Islam; rather, he merely quoted what was contained in the books of Islamic Fiqh regarding its definition and the explanation of many rulings related to jihad (1). ¶

E - 'Encyclopedia' by the Orientalists: This encyclopedia raised several issues, the most important of which are: 1. 'Spreading Islam by the sword is a fard kifaya (collective duty).' There has been much refutation by Muslim writers regarding this statement (2), and they have explained that Islam rejects it. ¶

compelling people to become Muslims, and they have cited evidence such as the saying of the Almighty: "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from error." (1) ¶

My view on this matter is that this rebuttal is correct if 'spreading Islam by the sword' is intended to mean forcing people to enter it. Islam has never compelled non-Muslims, not even the idolaters of the Arabs, to enter it. The confusion that arises in this subject stems from several issues: ¶

A- The issue of idolaters in general: That is, those other than the People of the Scripture and the Majus (Zoroastrians), whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, or only Arabs according to the Hanafis. Regarding these idolaters, Jihad is legislated against them until they enter Islam, and they have no other choice according to these jurists. Although other jurists, such as the Malikis, believe that they also have the option of entering into 'dhimmah' (covenant of protection), in addition to what has been previously detailed. However, even according to the first school, the school of the majority—where are these idolaters whose entry into Islam occurred through the sword, i.e., through force? ¶

- As for the Arabs: They were given the option to leave the Arabian Peninsula within its religiously defined borders—only the Hijaz or similar—and they were indeed given the choice, as previously stated. However, they subsequently entered Islam willingly. Some of them actually left the peninsula, or were on their way out, but they stopped to contemplate the matter, and their reflection led them to return and enter this new religion. This is regarding the Arabs. ¶

- As for non-Arabs: It is well-known in the history of the conquests that all those who were neither Jews nor Christians were considered part of the Majus category. Even the Berbers in North Africa were subjected to the ruling of the Majus, and those among them who did not embrace Islam entered into the dhimmah of the Muslims. ¶

This, then, is the detailed discussion on this matter which was presented in the previous chapter, so we shall not repeat it here. ¶

B - The second issue that stirs confusion regarding the subject of compulsion in Islam is the issue of compelling apostates to return to it. This is a specific ruling concerning apostates that has already been explained. However, how many apostates are there in the entire Islamic history who were compelled to return to Islam, such that it would be accurate to describe the vast movement of the spread of Islam as being due to compulsion to enter it? If some Bedouin tribes in al-Yamama and similar places were compelled, after their apostasy, to return to the Islam they were once upon, does this mean the wide spread of Islam in Persia, the Levant, Egypt, Africa, and elsewhere was due to compelling people to embrace Islam? What logic suggests this other than the logic of prejudiced souls or distorted minds? Furthermore, let us assume these Bedouins had not apostatized from Islam after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) but had remained loyal to their faith—would that have made the spread of Islam, in the eyes of Orientalists, a natural movement in which force played no role in its expansion? Is it not clear that the issue with these Orientalists is merely their attachment to anything they imagine might distort that magnificent image firmly rooted in the minds of the masses about Islam—that it is an overwhelming, irresistible, innate power because it resonates with human nature and reason, due to its realism and truth, and because it fulfills what all people aspire to: the justice of which they were deprived by the creeds and systems they followed? ¶

C - The third issue in this subject—the spread of Islam by force or compulsion—is as follows: if a decision is issued by the Islamic authority to execute prisoners of war, whether all or some of them, then there is no option for them to escape execution except by entering Islam, according to the strict faction of jurists. Although others hold that if the prisoners request to be granted the citizenship of the Islamic state—i.e., to enter into 'Dhimma' (covenant of protection)—this also spares them from execution, as mentioned in the previous chapter. According to the strict view, it appears on the surface to be compulsion into Islam; however, upon close examination—as I see it—this matter does not fall under the category of compulsion into Islam, but rather under the category of implementing a sentence issued against the prisoners. And if this matter has any connection to compulsion, it is, in reality, a compulsion exerted upon the Muslims, not the prisoners, so that they may remove the act of killing from them. ¶

When they declare the word of Islam with their tongues, it is not permissible for the Muslims thereafter to say: 'This Islam was only to seek refuge from being killed...' ¶

We say: This is a constraint placed upon the Muslims, and by it we mean binding the Muslims to refrain from killing these prisoners who have declared their entry into Islam. Otherwise, the natural state of Muslims should be that they feel joy at the cessation of killing the prisoners due to their Islam, not that they feel coerced into something they do not desire! ¶

Furthermore, it is observed that when non-Muslims have enemies in their grip and judge them to be killed, the declaration of these enemies that they have entered the religion of the victors—as is often the case—does not change anything of the judgment passed against them. Thus, when Islam lifts the sentence of death from prisoners upon their conversion to it, this falls under the category of Islamic mercy in judging those who are captured, not under the category of coercion into the faith. ¶

I say: This applies if it is meant by the phrase 'the spread of Islam by the sword' that the spread of Islam was through forcing people to enter it. ¶

However, if the aforementioned phrase means that the Muslims used the sword to remove the obstacles that prevented people from entering Islam voluntarily, or to remove the obstacles that discouraged its adoption! That is, removing the entities and authorities that refused to show loyalty to the Islamic authority... then the Muslims assumed this authority and enabled non-Muslims to live under the shadow of the Islamic system, so they witnessed the virtues of Islam, desired to embrace it, and subsequently Islam spread among the masses as a result—then the sword that took over authority and established Islamic rule was the cause, not for coercion into Islam, but for allowing people to see the reality of Islam, and consequently, they entered it with desire and yearning. ¶

I say that if 'the spread of Islam by the sword' is intended in this sense, then it is correct and beyond reproach. Although that phrase, when used to describe this reality, contains ambiguity and confusion that lead to an understanding contrary to the truth, which distorts the image of Jihad in Islam. This is what many Orientalists aim for by using such phrases, even though they know the truth and know the correct way to express it, but they do not do so; because their purpose is to distort the image of Islam, not to clarify it. ¶

Their true face among their own people, and among those who partake of their polluted cultural banquets, and among those who belong to the Muslims—those who are deceived by them, or those with ulterior motives. ¶

2. The 'Encyclopedia of Islam' has also raised the issue of the 'evolution of the purpose of Jihad.' It claims, as understood from its text, that the Quranic verses restricted the legitimacy of Jihad to fighting the disbelievers on the condition that they are aggressors. However, the Prophet ﷺ later saw fit to expand the legitimacy of Jihad to include all disbelievers, even if they had not committed any act of aggression. The Prophet's letters to kings and princes inviting them to Islam were an expression of this new stance. Then, the march of the Islamic armies immediately after his death, beyond the Arabian Peninsula, was an embodiment of this. ¶

This is what is understood from the 'Encyclopedia of Islam.' The intent behind this statement is to imply that the legitimacy of Jihad in the Quran is restricted to defense only. But when the Prophet ﷺ subdued his aggressive opponents, his ambition drove him to subdue all disbelievers, even if they were not aggressors. Thus, he made the legitimacy of Jihad mean fighting disbelievers in general to subject them to the rule of Islam, which was indeed achieved during the time of the Companions after establishing complete control over the Arabian Peninsula. ¶

In response to this, I say: If we were to assume for the sake of argument that there are no Quranic texts making the legitimacy of Jihad an absolute fight against disbelievers—even if they are not aggressors—for the sake of applying the Islamic system to them, then the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ, which permits Jihad against all disbelievers without requiring their aggression against Muslims, is sufficient to make this a legitimate purpose of Jihad in Islam, just as if it had been explicitly stated in the Quran. This is because what is established through the Sunnah—whether verbal, practical, or tacit approval—is as if it were a text in the Holy Quran: 'He does not speak out of his own desire; it is nothing but revelation inspired.' Therefore, the matter does not depend on an 'evolution' driven by the personal ambition of the Prophet ﷺ once circumstances permitted it. In reality, this matter relates to the belief of the author of this entry in the 'Encyclopedia,' who is a non-Muslim. He said what he imagined, what his fantasy depicted, or what his biased soul embellished for him. This is what Sheikh Ahmad Shakir pointed to in his commentary on this statement, which we have cited. ¶