A Handbook of Islam > Title Page > List of Contents

Previous / Next (16. Marriage)

15. Jihād

Significance of Jihād

A very great misconception prevails with regard to the duty of jihād in Islam, by assuming that the word jihād is synonymous with war or even war undertaken for the propagation of Islam. This is a glaring misstatement. Even some of the greatest Western research scho­lars of Islam have not taken the pains to find out the true meaning of the word. According to Raghib’s classical Arabic dictionary, the word jihād is derived from jahd or juhd meaning ‘ability’, ‘exertion’ or ‘power’, and jihād and mujāhida mean ‘the exerting of one’s power in repelling the enemy’.1 It goes on to say:

“Jihād is of three kinds; namely, the carrying on of a struggle: 1. against a visible enemy, 2. against the devil, and 3. against self (nafs).”

Another authority gives the following significance:

“Jihād, inf. n. of jahada, properly signifies the using or exerting of one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavours or ability, in contending with an object of disapprobation; and this is of three kinds, namely a visible enemy, the devil, and one’s self; all of which are included in the term as used in the Kur. xxii. 77 [the Quran, 22:77].” 2

Jihād is therefore far from being synonymous with war, while the meaning of “war undertaken for the propagation of Islam” is unknown equally to the Arabic language and the teachings of the Holy Quran.

Use of the word jihād in Makkah revelations

Just as important, or even more so, is the consideration of the sense in which the word is used in the Holy Quran. It is an admitted fact that permission to fight was given to Muslims when they had moved to Madinah, or, at the earliest, when they were on the eve of leaving Makkah. But the injunction relating to jihād is contained in the earlier as well as in the later Makkah revelations. Chapter 29 of the Quran was undoubtedly revealed in the fifth and sixth years of the Call of the Prophet; yet there the word jihād is freely used in the sense of ex­erting one’s power and ability, without implying any war. In one place it is said:

“And those who strive hard (jāhadū) for Us, We shall certain­ly guide them in Our ways. And Allah is surely with the doers of good.” — 29:69

The addition of the words “for Us” shows, if anything further is needed to show it, that the jihād, in this case, is the spiritual striving to attain nearness to God, and the result of this jihād is stated to be God’s guidance of those striving in His ways. The word is used precisely in the same sense twice in a previous verse in the same chapter:

“And whoever strives hard (jāhada), strives (yujāhidu) for himself [i.e., for his own benefit]. Surely Allah is above need of His creatures.” — 29:6

In the same chapter, and in chapter 31, the word is used in the sense of a contention carried on in words:

“And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents. But if they strive (jāhadā)3 to make you set up partners with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them.” — 29:8 (see also 31:15)

Among the later revelations at Makkah may be mentioned the 16th chap­ter, where it is said, towards the close:

“Then surely your Lord, to those who flee after they are persecuted, then struggle hard (jāhadū) and are patient, surely your Lord after that is Protecting, Merci­ful.” — 16:110

There is another prevalent misconception, namely, that at Makkah the Quran enjoined patience (ṣabr) and at Madinah it en­joined jihād, as if these were two contradictory things. The error of this view is shown by the verse quoted, since it enjoins jihād and patience in one breath.

Two more examples may be quoted of the use of the word jihād in Makkah revelations:

“And strive hard (jāhidū) for Allah with due striving (jihād).” — 22:78

“So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive (jāhid) against them a mighty striving (jihād) with it.” — 25:52

The last word of the second verse above, “it”, refers clearly to the Quran, as the context shows. In the first verse it is a jihād to attain nearness to God, and in the second it is a jihād which is to be carried on against the unbelievers, not of the sword but of the Quran. The struggle made to attain nearness to God and to subdue one’s passions, and the struggle made to win over the unbelievers, not with the sword but with the Quran is, therefore, a jihād in the termi­nology of the Quran, and the injunctions to carry on these two kinds of jihād were given long before the command to fight in self-defence.

Jihād in Madinah revelations

A struggle for national existence was forced on the Muslims when they reached Madinah, and they had to take up the sword in self-defence. This struggle also went, and rightly so, under the name of jihād; but even in the Madinah chapters the word is used in the wider sense of a struggle carried on by words or deeds of any kind. The following verse may be quoted which occurs twice:

“O Prophet, Strive hard (jāhid) against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them.”

— 9:73 and 66:9

Here the Prophet is commanded to carry on a jihād against both unbelievers and hypocrites. The hypocrites were those who were outwardly Muslims and lived among, and were treated like, Muslims in all respects. They came to the mosque and prayed with the Muslims. They even paid the zakāt. A war against them was unthinkable, and none was ever undertaken. On the other hand, they sometimes fought along with the Muslims against the unbelievers. Therefore the injunction to carry on a jihād against both unbelievers and hypocrites could not mean the waging of war against them. It was a jihād carried on by means of the Quran as expressly stated in 25:52, a striving hard to win them over to Islam. In fact, the word is almost always used in the general sense of striving hard, including fighting where the context so requires. The following description:

“Those who believe and those who fled [their homes] and strove hard (jāhadū) in Allah’s way” — 2:218, 8:74

applies as much to the fighters as to those who carry on the struggle against unbelief and evil in other ways.

Again, a Madinah revelation speaks together of those who exercise ṣabr, i.e., are steadfast or patient, and those who undertake jihād, as they are spoken of in a Makkah revelation:

“Do you think that you will enter the Garden while Allah has not yet known those from among you who strive hard (jāhadū) nor known the steadfast?” — 3:142

Jihād in Hadith

Even in Hadith literature, the word jihād is not used exclusively for fight­ing. For example, ḥajj is called by the Holy Prophet as “the most excellent of all jihāds”.4 Of all the collec­tions of Hadith, Bukhari is the most explicit on this point. In his collection, in the book entitled “Holding fast by the Quran and the Sunnah”, the 10th chapter is thus headed:

“The saying of the Prophet, A party of my community (ummah) shall not cease to be trium­phant being upholders of Truth, and these are the people of learning (ahl al-‘ilm).” 5

Thus Bukhari’s view is that the triumphant party of the Prophet’s community does not consist of fighters, but of the men of learning who disseminate the truth and are engaged in the propagation of Islam. Again, in his Book of Jihād Bukhari has several chapters the headings of which speak of simple invitation to Islam; for instance, “May the Muslim guide the followers of the Book to a right course, or may he teach them the Book”, “To pray for the guidance of the poly­theists so as to develop relations of friendship with them”, “The excellence of him at whose hands another man accepts Islam”, “The excellence of him who accepts Islam from among the followers of the Book”, and “How should Islam be presented to a child”.6 These headings show that up to the time of Bukhari, the word jihād was used in the wider sense in which it is used in the Quran, a simple invitation to Islam being looked upon as jihād.

Other books of Hadith contain similar references. Thus Abu Dawud quotes, under the head­ing “The continuity of jihād”, a hadith to the effect that “a party of my community will not cease fight­ing for truth and it will be triumphant over its opponents”,7 and these words are thus explained in a commentary of Abu Dawud:

“This party consists of different classes of the faithful, of them being the brave fighters, and the jurists, and the collectors of Hadith, and those who abstain from worldly pleasures and devote themselves to the service of God, and those who command the doing of good and prohibit evil, and a variety of other people who do other good deeds.” 8

This shows that jihād in Hadith includes the service of Islam in any form.

Use of the word jihād by jurists

It is only among the jurists that the word jihād lost its original wider significance and began to be used in the narrower sense of fight­ing or qitāl. The reason is not far to seek. The books of jurisprudence (fiqh) codi­fied the Muslim law, and in the classification of the various subjects with which the law dealt, qitāl (fighting) found a necessary place, but invita­tion to Islam, though a primary meaning of the word jihād, being a mat­ter of free individual choice, did not form part of the law. The jurists who had to deal with qitāl, therefore, used the word jihād as synonymous with qitāl, and, by and by, the wider significance of jihād was lost sight of, though the commentators of the Quran accepted this significance when dealing with verses such as 25:52 (“and strive against them a mighty striving with it”). But that was not the only misuse of the word. Together with this narrowing of the significance of jihād, the further idea was developed that Muslims were to carry on a war against all unbelieving nations and countries, whether they were attacked or not, an idea quite foreign to the Quran.

The spread of Islam by force

The propagation of Islam is no doubt a religious duty of every true Mus­lim, who must follow the example of the Holy Prophet, but the spread of Islam by force is a thing of which no trace can be found in the Holy Quran. In fact, the Holy Book lays down the opposite doctrine in clear words:

“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is clearly distinct from error.” — 2:256

The reason why there is no compulsion in religion is added here, that the right way is clearly distinct from error. This verse was revealed after the permission for war in self-defence had been given, and it is therefore certain that the permission to fight has no connection with the preaching of religion. That the Quran never taught such a doctrine, nor did the Holy Prophet ever think of it, is a fact which is now being gradually appreciated by Western scholars of Islam. And if the Quran and the Prophet never taught such a doctrine, how could it be said to be the religious duty of Muslims?

Circumstances under which war was permitted

It is a mis-statement of facts to say that patience under attack was taught at Makkah, because there was no alternative, and that the right to repel attack came at Madinah. The attitude was no doubt changed but that change was due to the change of circumstances. At Makkah there was individual persecution, and patience was taught. If the conditions had remained the same at Madinah, the Muslim attitude would have been the same. But at Madinah individual persecution could no more be resorted to by the Quraish of Makkah, as the Muslims were living out of their reach. This very circumstance fanned the fire of their wrath, and they now planned the extinction of the Muslims as a nation. They took up the sword to annihilate the Muslim community or to compel it to return to unbelief. That was the challenge thrown at the Muslims, and the Holy Prophet had to meet it.

The Holy Quran bears the clearest testimony to it. The earliest permission to repel attack is conveyed in words which show that the enemy had already taken up the sword or decided to do so:

“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 are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, surely cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps His cause.” — 22:39–40

The very words of this verse show that it is the earliest on the subject of fighting, as it speaks of a permission being given now which evidently had not been given up to this time. This permission was given to a people upon whom war was made by their enemies, and it was not a permission to make war against others in general but only against those who made war on them, and the reason is stated plainly “because they are oppressed” and have been expelled from their homes “without a just cause”. It was clearly an aggressive war on the part of the enemies of Islam who thus sought to exterminate the Muslims or to compel them to forsake their religion, as the Quran says:

“And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can.” — 2:217

It was a holy war in the truest sense because, as stated further on, if war had not been allowed under these circumstances, there would be no peace on earth, no religious liberty, and all houses for the worship of God would be destroyed. Indeed there could be no war holier than the one which was needed as much for the religious liberty of Muslims as for the principle of religious liberty itself, as much to save mosques as to save cloisters and syna­gogues and churches. If there had ever been a just cause for war in this world, it was for the war that had been permitted to Muslims. And undoubtedly war with such pure motives was a jihād, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.

The second verse giving to Muslims permission to fight runs as follows:

“And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, and do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors.” — 2:190

Here again the condition is plainly laid down that Muslims shall not be the first to attack. They had to fight — it had now become a duty — but only against those who fought against them; aggression was expressly prohibited. And this fighting in self-defence is called fighting “in the way of Allah” (fī sabīl-illāh) because fight­ing in defence is the most noble and just of all causes. The words fī sabīl-illāh are misinterpreted by the critics of Islam as meaning the propagation of Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Muslims were not fighting to force Islam on others; rather they were being fought to force them to renounce Islam, as shown by 2:217 quoted above.

It is sometimes asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in chapter 9. Yet that chapter does not make the slightest change in the principles laid down earlier. Fighting with idolaters is enjoined in the ninth chapter, but not with all of them. In the very first verse of that chapter, the declaration of immunity is directed towards only “those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement”, not all idolaters — and even in their case an exception is made:

“Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agree­ment, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their terms. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.” — 9:4

This shows that there were idolatrous tribes on friendly terms with Muslims, and Muslims were not allowed to fight with them; it was only the hostile tribes who broke their agreements and attacked the Muslims that were to be fought against. And individual idolaters, even if belonging to hostile tribes, could still have safety, if they wanted to enquire about Islam, and were given a safe conduct back home even if they did not accept Islam:

“And if anyone of the idolaters seek your protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who do not know.” — 9:6

The idolater who stood in need of protection evidently belonged to a hostile tribe, because the friendly tribes, being in alliance with the Muslims, had no need of seeking protection of the Muslim government. Thus even a hostile idolater was to be sent back safely to his own tribe and not molested in any way, as the words of the verse show.

The idolaters with whom fighting was enjoined were those who had violated treaties and were foremost in attacking the Muslims, as the words that follow show:

“If they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship, nor covenant in your case.” — 9:8

“Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first?” — 9:13

Thus chapter 9, which is supposed to abrogate the earlier verses, still speaks of fighting only against those idolaters who “attacked you first”, and this is the very condition laid down in earlier ver­ses, such as 2:190.

So-called “verse of the sword”

Even though chapter 9, as shown above, does not go beyond what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war, the fifth verse of that chapter is called by some people “the verse of the sword”, as if it inculcated the indiscriminate massacre of all idolaters or unbelievers. The misconception is due to the fact that the words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced on them which the context cannot bear. The following words occur in the 5th verse:

“So when the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters, wherever you find them…” — 9:5

But similar words occur also in the earliest revelation on the subject: “And kill them wherever you find them” (2:191). In both places it is the context which makes it clear as to the identity of the persons regarding whom the order is given. In both cases those against whom the order is given are the people who have taken up the sword and attacked the Muslims first.

It has already been shown that the injunction to fight against the idolaters, as contained in the opening verses of the 9th chapter, relates only to such idolatrous tribes as had made agreements with the Muslims and then broken them and had attacked the Muslims, and not to all idolatrous people, wherever they may be found in the world. If only we read the verse that precedes the fifth verse, not the sha­dow of a doubt will remain that all idolaters are not spoken of here. For the fourth verse, as quoted already, states that those idola­ters were not within the purview of the order who had remained faithful to their agreements. The order was therefore directed against specified idolatrous tribes, the tribes that had made agreements with the Muslims and broken them repeatedly, as expressly stated in 8:56 — “those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time”.

It is a mistake to regard the order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the world or even in Arabia. And if the verse preceding the so-called “verse of the sword” makes a clear exception in case of all friendly idolatrous tribes, that following it immediately makes a clear exception in favour of such members of idolatrous hostile tribes as ask the protection of the Muslims (see 9:6, quoted earlier). And then continuing the subject, it is further laid down that the order relates only to people “who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first” (9:13). With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret it as meaning the killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked war against all idolatrous tribes.

When shall war cease

It is thus clear that Muslims were allowed to fight only in self-defence, to preserve their national existence. They were forbidden to be aggressive. The Quran nowhere gives them permission to enter on an unprovoked war against the whole world. Conditions were also laid down as to when war should cease:

“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.” — 2:193

The words religion is only for Allah are sometimes misinterpreted as meaning that all people should accept Islam, a significance utterly opposed to the very next words: “But if they cease, there should be no hostility except against the oppressors”. The ceasing plainly refers to desisting from persecution. Similar words occur in another early Madinah revelation:

“And fight them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah. But if they cease, then surely Allah is Seer of what they do.” — 8:39

Both expressions, “religion is only for Allah” and “all religions are for Allah”, carry one and the same significance, namely that religion is treated as a matter between man and his God, a matter of conscience, in which nobody has a right to interfere.

It may be added that, if the words had the meaning which it is sought to give them, the Holy Prophet would have been the first man to translate that teaching into practice, while as a matter of fact he made peace with the enemy on numerous occasions, and stopped fighting with idolatrous tribes when they wanted peace. Even when he subjugated a people, he gave them full liberty in their religion, as it happened in the conquest of Makkah.

Peace recommended

Notwithstanding what has been said above, the Holy Prophet was told in the Quran to accept peace in the middle of war if the enemy wanted peace:

“And if they incline to peace, you must incline to it also, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive you — then surely Allah is sufficient for you.” — 8:61–62

It should be noted that peace is here recommended even though the enemy’s sincerity may be doubtful. The Holy Prophet was so prone to make peace, whenever the enemy showed the least desire towards it, that on the occasion of the Hudaibiyah truce he did not hesitate to accept the position of the defeated party, though he had never been defeated on the field of battle, and his Companions had sworn to lay down their lives, one and all, if the worst had come to the worst. Yet he made peace and accepted terms which his own followers looked upon as humiliating for Islam. He accepted the condition that he would go back without performing a pilgrimage and also that if a resident of Makkah embraced Islam and came to him for protection, he would not give him protection. Thus the injunction contained in the Quran to make peace with the idolaters if they desired peace, combined with the practice of the Holy Prophet in concluding peace on any terms, is a clear proof that the theory of preaching Islam by the sword is a pure myth so far as the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet are concerned.

To sum up, neither in the earlier revelations, nor in the later, is there the slightest indication of any injunction to propagate Islam by the sword. On the other hand, war was clearly allowed as a defensive measure up to the last. It was to be continued only so long as religious persecution lasted, and when that ceased, war was to cease ipso facto. And there was the additional condition that if a tribe, against whom Muslims were fighting because of its aggressive and repeated violation of treaties, embraced Islam, it then and there became a part of the Muslim body politic, and its subjugation by arms was therefore foregone, and war with it came to an end. Such remained the practice of the Holy Prophet during his lifetime. And there is not a single instance in history in which he offered the alternative of the sword or Islam to any tribe or individual, nor did he ever lead an aggressive attack.

The last of his expeditions was that of Tabuk, in which he led an army of thirty thousand against the Roman Empire, but when he found, on reaching the frontier, after a very long and arduous journey, that the Romans did not contemplate an offensive, he returned without attacking them. His action on this occasion also throws light on the fact that the permission to fight against the Christians, contained in 9:29, was also subject to the condition laid down in 2:190 that Muslims must not be aggressive in war.

Wars of conquest after the Holy Prophet’s time

It is held by some Western critics of Islam that, though the Prophet did not make use of force in the propagation of Islam, nor lead an aggressive attack against an enemy, in the whole of his life, yet this position was adopted by his immediate successors, and was therefore a natural development of his teaching. This opinion is also due to a misconception of the historical facts which led to the wars of the early Caliphate with the Persian and Roman empires. After the death of the Holy Prophet, when Arabia rose in insurrection and Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, was engaged in suppressing the revolt, both Persia and Rome openly helped the insurgents with men and money. It is difficult to go into details of the history in this book, and this subject has been dealt with fully by this author in the book The Early Caliphate.9 In brief, Persia and Rome were the aggressors, and Muslims, in sheer self-defence, came into conflict with those mighty empires. The idea of spreading Islam by the sword was as far away from their minds as it was from that of the great Master whom they followed. We may quote here Sir William Muir, a writer in no way friendly to Islam:

“The thought of a world-wide mission was yet in embryo; obligation to enforce Islam by a universal Crusade had not yet dawned upon the Muslim mind.” 10

This remark, which occurs under Muir’s heading Omar refuses an advance on Persia, relates to the year 16 A.H., when more than half the battles of the early Caliphate had already been fought. According to Muir, even the conquest of the whole of Persia was a measure of self-defence, and not of aggression, on the part of the Muslims:

“The truth began to dawn on Omar that necessity was laid upon him to withdraw the ban against advance. In self-defence, nothing was left but to crush the Chosroes [Persian emperor] and take entire possession of his realm.” 11

And if the wars with the Persian and Roman empires were begun and carried on for five years without any idea of the propagation of Islam by arms, surely there was no occasion for the idea to creep in at a subsequent stage.

Hadith on the object of war

As already stated in this book, Hadith cannot go against the Holy Quran. Being only an explanation of the Holy Book, it must be rejected if it contains anything against the plain teachings of the Quran. The propagation of Islam by force is neither contained in the Quran nor did the Holy Prophet ever entertain such an idea. There is one hadith, however, which has sometimes been miscon­strued as meaning that the Prophet was fighting people to make them believe in the Unity of God. It runs thus:

“It is reported from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight people until they bear wit­ness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and keep up prayer and pay the zakāt. When they have done this, their lives and their properties are protected unless there is an obliga­tion of Islam, and their account is with Allah.” 12

This report begins with the words I am commanded to fight, and surely the commandments to the Prophet were given through Divine revelation and are therefore all of them contained in the Quran. The reference in the report is thus undoubtedly to a Quran­ic verse. In fact, such a verse is met with in the 9th chapter:

“But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the zakāt, they are your brethren in faith.” — 9:11

The subject-matter of the report is exactly the same, and clearly the commandment referred to in it is that contained in this verse. One has only to read the context to find out the purport of these words. Some of these verses have already been quoted but, on account of the importance of the subject, four of these are repeated below:

9:10 “They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.”

9:11 “But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the zakāt, they are your brethren in faith.”

9:12 “And if they break their oaths after their agreement and openly revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief — surely their oaths are nothing — so that they may cease.”

9:13 “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger and they attacked you first? ”

The context clearly shows that there were cer­tain tribes that had no regard for ties of relationships or for agreements entered into, and they were the first to attack the Muslims and made plans to expel the Prophet. These were the people to be fought against. The 9th chapter was revealed in the year 9 A.H. and this was the time when tribe after tribe was coming over to Islam, and so the condition was laid down that if one of the tribes, that had been hostile to Islam, and had broken its agreements, and was at war with the Muslims, came over to Islam, all hostilities against it were to be stopped immediately, because those people became brethren in faith with Muslims. Old wrongs and in­iquities had to be forgotten and not one individual of it was to be harmed, however guilty he may have been, unless, in the words of the hadith, an obligation of Islam rendered punishment necessary. The hadith does not mean that the Holy Prophet was commanded to wage war against people until they accepted Islam; it simply means, as a reference to the Quran shows, that he was commanded to cease fighting with people who were at war with the Muslims if they of their own accord embraced Islam. Even people who had been guilty of the murder of a Muslim were not to be put to death if they accepted Islam afterwards, and examples of this are mentioned in Hadith.13

One such case may be cited here:

“Miqdad ibn Amr al-Kindi… said to the Messenger of Allah: ‘I meet in battle a man from among the unbelievers and we two fight against each other; he cuts off one of my hands with his sword, then he takes the shelter of a tree and says, I submit to Allah; can I kill him, O Messenger of Allah, after he has spoken those words?’ The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Do not kill him’. But he said: ‘He has cut off one of my hands, O Messenger of Allah, and then he says this after he has cut it off’. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Do not kill him, for if you kill him, he would be what you were before you killed him, and you would be what he was before he uttered those words which he spoke’.” 14

This shows that the Holy Prophet had given definite orders, which were known to his Com­panions, that fighting should immediately cease when the person or tribe fighting declared Islam. It is in this light that the hadith under discussion has to be read, namely, that the Holy Prophet had been commanded to cease war when an enemy at war with him professed Islam. Numerous examples of this are met with in the history of the Prophet’s wars, but there is not a single instance in which he declared war against a peaceful neighbour because that neighbour was not a believer in Islam. The fact that treaties and agreements were entered into by the Holy Prophet with the Arab idolaters and the Jews and the Christians is proof that this hadith refers to particular tribes which, as the Quran shows, violated their treaties again and again.

There are many Hadith reports which speak of the excellence of jihād or of the excellence of fighting, and these are sometimes misconstrued as showing that a Muslim must always be fighting with other people. War is undoubtedly a necessity of life, and there are times when fighting becomes the highest of duties. Fighting in the cause of justice, fighting to help the oppressed, fighting in self-defence, fighting for national existence are all truly the highest and noblest of deeds, because in all these cases a man lays down his life in the cause of truth and justice, and that is, no doubt, the highest sacrifice that a man can make.

The question is simply this, What was the object for which the Prophet fought? There is not the least doubt about it, as the Quran is clear on the point, as already shown: “Permission to fight is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed” (22:39), “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first” (9:13); and so on. If then there are Hadith reports which speak of the excellence of keeping horses ready on the frontier of the enemy, or recommending practising with implements of war, or speaking of swords and shields and armour and so on, they show, not that Muslims were spreading Islam by force of arms, not even that they were waging aggressive war against peaceful neighbours, but that they were compelled to fight, and hence all deeds done to carry on a successful war are praised.

Jurists’ wrong notion of jihād

The wrong notion of jihād, as being the obligation upon Muslims to wage unprovoked war against unbelievers, was introduced by the jurists of Islam. It was based on a misconception of certain verses of the Holy Quran due, in the first place, to the fact that no regard had been paid to the context, and, in the second place, to a disregard of the circumstances under which the Prophet fought.

It is, however, also found that the jurists themselves have challenged the accuracy of the principle on which their wrong notion of jihād is based. Giving the reason for jihād being obligatory, they acknowledge that it is for the repelling of evil (daf‘ al-sharr).15 This shows that jihād in its origin is only for repelling evil and is therefore defensive, not offensive. Again, when discussing the reasons for the prohibition of killing women, children, the old, the blind, and those who refrain from fighting, it is stated that what makes the killing of a man lawful is his fighting.16 Thus it is not his unbelief which makes the killing of a man lawful, but his fight­ing in war (ḥirāb), for, if people could be killed for unbelief, even women, chil­dren, and old and incapacitated men would not be spared. And if it is unlawful to kill anyone merely on account of unbelief, it is also unlawful to undertake war against a people because they are unbelievers. Also, the jurists recognize the making of peace with unbelievers:

“… [if] it is in the interests of the Muslims, there is no harm in peace, on account of what Allah says, ‘And if they incline to peace, you must incline to it also, and trust in Allah’ [the Quran, 8:61], and the Holy Prophet entered into agreement with the people of Makkah in the year of Hudai­biyah, that there shall be no war between him and them for ten years; and because entering into agreement is jihād in spirit, when it is for the good of the Muslims, as the object, which is the repelling of mischief, is attained thereby.” 17

The above references show that even the jurists felt that their exposition of jihād was opposed to its basic principles laid down in the Quran. Probably the new doctrine grew up slowly. It is clear that the earlier jurists did not go as far as their later annotators. Notwith­standing the wrong conception which was introduced into the meaning of jihād, they still recognized that the basic principle of jihād was the repelling of the enemy’s mis­chief, and that hence peace with the unbelievers was jihād in spirit. But the later gene­ration would not tolerate even this much.

With the new notion introduced into the word jihād, the jurists artifi­cially divided the whole world into two domains: dār al-ḥarb, ‘the abode of war’, and dār al-Islām, ‘the abode of Islam’. The words are not used in the Holy Quran, nor are they traceable in any hadith. Bukhari uses the word dār al-ḥarb in the heading of one of his chapters,18 but it does not occur in the reports under this heading. Dār al-Islām is evidently a place where the laws of Islam prevail and which is under a Muslim ruler. The jurists apply the word dār al-ḥarb to all states and countries which are not dār al-Islām, though they may not be at war with Muslims, and thus look upon a Muslim state as being always in a state of war with the whole of the non-Muslim world. This position is not only inconsistent with the very basic principles of Islam but actually it has never been accepted by any Muslim state that has ever existed in the world. The difficulty has been met by some jurists by bringing a third class, called dār al-ṣulḥ or dār al-‘ahd, or a coun­try which has an agreement with Muslims. But even this does not exhaust the whole world. Many of the laws framed by the Muslim jurists relating to war are based on this fictitious divi­sion of the world, for which there is not the least authority either in the Quran or in Hadith.

Jizyah

The word jizyah is explained as meaning “the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government, whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection”, or “a tax that is paid by the owner of land”, being derived from jazā which means to give satisfaction or to compensate someone for a certain thing or for what he had done.19 In the Holy Quran, jizyah is spoken of only in one place, and there in connection with wars with the people of the Book:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah… out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizyah in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of sub­jection.” — 9:29

The Holy Prophet made treaties subject to the condition of payment of jizyah with certain Magian, Christian and Jewish tribes. But in all these cases, the jizyah was a tribute paid by the state and not a poll-tax. Bukhari opens his book of jizyah with a chapter headed as follows: “Jizyah and concluding of peace with ahl al-ḥarb (those at war with Muslims)”.20 Continuing, he is more exp­licit, remarking un­der the same heading:

“And what is related in the matter of taking jizyah from the Jews and the Christians and the Magians and the non-Arabs (‘Ajam).”

The rule of the jizyah was thus applicable to all enemy people, and the Prophet’s own action shows that treaties subject to the payment of jizyah were concluded, not only with the Jews and the Chris­tians but also with Magians. It would be seen from this that the words “those who have been given the Book” used in 9:29, quoted above, must be taken in the wider sense of followers of any other religion. But jizyah, which was originally a tribute paid by a subject state, took the form of a poll-tax later on in the time of Umar; and the word was also applied to the land-tax which was levied on Muslim owners of agricultural land.21

Jizyah was not a religious tax

Western writers on Islam have generally assumed that, while the Holy Quran offered only one of the two alternatives, Islam or death, to other non-Muslims, the Jews and the Christians were given a somewhat better position, since they could save their lives by the payment of jizyah. This conception of jizyah, as a kind of religious tax whose payment entitled cer­tain non-Muslims to security of life under the Muslim rule, is as entirely opposed to the fundamental teachings of Islam as the myth that Mus­lims were required to carry on an aggressive war against all non-Muslims till they accepted Islam. Tributes and taxes were levied before Islam, and are levied to this day, by Muslim as well as non-Muslim states, yet they have nothing to do with the religion of the people affected. The Muslim state was as much in need of finance to maintain itself as any other state on the face of this earth, and it resorted to exactly the same methods as those employed by other states.

All that happened in the time of the Holy Prophet was that certain small non-Muslim states were, when subjugated, given the right to administer their own affairs, but only if they would pay a small sum by way of tribute towards the maintenance of the central govern­ment at Madinah. There was no military occupation of their territories, no in­terference at all with their administration, their laws, their customs and usages, or their religion; and, for the tribute paid, the Muslim state un­dertook the responsibility of protecting these small states against all ene­mies.

In the later conquests of Islam, while it became necessary for Muslims to establish their own administration in the conquered terri­to­ries, there was still as little interference with the usages and religion of the conquered people as was possible, and for enjoying complete protec­tion and the benefits of a settled rule they had to pay a very mild tax, the jizyah.

It may, however, be said that the Muslim state made a discrimi­nation between the Muslim and the non-Muslim and that it was this feature of jizyah which gave it a religious colouring. A discrimination was indeed made, but it was not in favour of the Muslim but that of the non-Muslim. The Muslim had to do compulsory military service and to fight the bat­tles of the state, not only at home but also in foreign countries, and in addition had to pay a tax heavier than that which the non-Muslim was required to pay, as will be shown presently. The non-Muslim was entire­ly exempt from military service on account of the jizyah he paid. So the Muslim had to pay the zakāt, a far heavier tax than jizyah, and do military service, while the non-Muslim had only to pay a small tax for the privilege of enjoying all the benefits of a settled rule.

The very name ahl al-dhimmah (lit., ‘people under protection’) given to the non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state, or to a non-Muslim state under the protection of Muslim rule, shows that the jizyah was paid as a compensation for the protection afforded; in other words, it was a con­tribution of the non-Muslims towards the military organization of the Mus­lim state. There are cases on record in which the Muslim state returned the jizyah when it was unable to afford protection to the people under its care. Thus, when the Muslim forces under Abu Ubaidah were engaged in a struggle with the Roman Empire, they were compelled to beat a retreat at Hims, which they had previously conquered. When the decision was taken to evacuate Hims, Abu Ubaidah sent for the chiefs of the place and returned to them the whole amount which he had realized as jizyah, saying that as Muslims could no longer protect them, they were not entitled to the jizyah.

Further it appears that exemption from military service was granted only to such non-Muslims as wanted it, for where a non-Muslim people offered to fight the battles of the country, they were exempted from jizyah. The Bani Taghlib and the people of Najran, both Christians, did not pay the jizyah.22 Indeed the Bani Taghlib fought alongside the Muslim forces in the battle of Buwaib in 13 A.H. Later on in the year 17 A.H., they wrote to the Caliph Umar offering to pay the zakāt, which was a heavier burden, instead of the jizyah. Muir writes:

“The tribe deeming in its pride the payment of ‘tribute’ an indignity, sent a deputation to the Caliph:— They were willing, they said, to pay the tax, if only it were levied under the same name as that taken from the Muslims. The liberality of Omar allowed the concession; and the Beni Taghlib enjoyed the singular privilege of being assessed as Christians at a ‘double Tithe,’ instead of paying the obnoxious badge of subjugation.” 23

Military service was also accepted in place of jizyah from some others in the time of Umar.

The manner in which the jizyah was levied also shows that it was a tax for exemption from military service. The following classes were ex­empt from jizyah: all females, males who had not attained majority, old people, people whom disease had crippled, the blind, the poor who could not work for themselves, the slaves, slaves who were working for their freedom, and the monks.24 And besides this, “in the first century… many per­sons were entirely exempt from taxation, though we do not know why”.25 These two facts — the exemption of non-Muslims unfit for military serv­ice, and of the able-bodied who agreed to military service mentioned earlier — lead to but one conclusion, namely, that the jizyah was a tax paid by such Dhimmis (i.e., ‘people under protection’) as could fight, for exemption from military service.

In spite of exemptions on so vast a scale, the rate of jizyah was very low. The Muslim was, apparently, more heavily taxed, for he had to pay at the rate of 2½ per cent of his savings, and, in addition, to perform military service. The jizyah was also levied in a very sympathetic spirit, as the following anecdote will show. Caliph Umar once saw a blind non-Muslim begging, and finding on enquiry that he had to pay jizyah, he not only exempted him but, in addi­tion, ordered that he be paid a stipend from the state treasury, issuing further orders at the same time that all Dhimmis in similar circumstances should be paid stipends.

Islam, jizyah or the sword

It is a myth that Muslims were out to impose their religion at the point of a sword, and that Muslim armies were over-running all lands with the message of Islam, jizyah or the sword. If this were true, how was it possible for non-Muslims to fight in their ranks? The fact that there were people who never became Mus­lims at all, nor ever paid jizyah, and yet were living in the midst of Muslims, even fighting their battles, explodes the whole theory of Muslims offering Islam or jizyah or the sword.

The truth of the matter is that Muslims, finding the Roman Empire and Persia bent upon the subjugation of Arabia and the extirpation of Islam, refused to accept terms of peace without a safeguard against a repetition of the aggression; and this safeguard was demanded in the form of jizyah, or a tribute, which would be an admission of defeat on their part. No war was ever started by Muslims by sending this message to a peaceful neighbour; history belies such an assertion. But when a war was undertaken on account of the enemy’s aggression, it was only natural that the Muslims did not terminate the war before bringing it to a successful con­clusion. They were willing to avoid further bloodshed after inflicting a defeat on the enemy, only if he admitted defeat and agreed to pay a trib­ute, which was only a token tribute as compared with the crushing war indemnities of the present day. The offer to terminate hostilities on pay­ment of jizyah was thus an act of mercy towards a vanquished foe.

The only question that remains is whether Muslim soldiers invited their enemies to accept Islam; and whether it was an offence if they did so? Islam was a missionary religion from its very inception, and every Muslim deemed it his birthright to invite other people to embrace Islam. The envoys of Islam, wherever they went, looked upon it as their first duty to deliver the message of Islam, because they felt that Islam impart­ed a new life and vigour to humanity, and offered a real solution to the problems of every nation. Islam was offered, no doubt, even to the fight­ing enemy, but it is a distortion of facts to say that it was offered at the point of the sword, when there is not a single instance on record of Islam being enforced upon a prisoner of war; nor of Muslims sending a mes­sage to a peaceful neighbouring state to the effect that it would be invad­ed if it did not embrace Islam.

All that is recorded is that, in the midst of war and after defeat had been inflicted on the enemy in several battles, when there were negotiations for peace, Muslims in their zeal for the faith related their own experience before the enemy chiefs. They stated how they themselves had been deadly foes to Islam and how, ultimately, they saw the truth and found Islam to be a blessing and a power that had raised the Arab race from the depths of degradation to great moral and spiritual heights, and had welded their warring elements into a solid na­tion. In such words did the Muslim envoys invite the Persians and the Romans to Islam, not before the declaration of war, but at the time of the negotiations for peace. If the enemy then accepted Islam, there would be no conditions for peace, and the two nations would live as equals and brethren. It was not offering Islam at the point of a sword, but offering it as a harbinger of peace, of equality and of brotherhood.

Directions relating to war

The directions given to his soldiers by the Holy Prophet also show that his wars were not due to any desire to enforce religion. It is reported that, in a certain battle fought by the Holy Prophet, a woman was discovered among the slain. On this, he forbade the killing of women and children in wars.26 Hadith reports relat­ing to this prohibition are repeated very often in all collections.27 The fact that there is an express direction against killing some 75% of the population, as women and children must be in every community, shows that the propagation of religion was far from being the object of these wars. In some Hadith reports, in addition to women and children, there was also a prohibition against killing people who were taken along with the army as ‘labour units’.28 There is yet another hadith prohibiting the killing of very old men who are unable to fight.29 Monks were also not to be molested.30 It was only in a night attack that the Holy Prophet excused the chance killing of a woman or child saying, “They are among them”;31 what he meant was that it was a thing which could not be avoided, for at night children and women could not be distinguished from the soldiers.

The above examples may be supplemented by some others taken from Syed Ameer Ali’s Spirit of Islam. The following ins­tructions were given to the troops dispatched against the Byzantines by the Holy Prophet:

“In avenging the injuries inflicted upon us, molest not the harmless inmates of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the female sex; injure not the infant at the breast, or those who are ill in bed. Abstain from demolish­ing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy not the means of their subsistence, nor their fruit trees; and touch not the palm.” (p. 81)

Prisoners of war

The treatment of prisoners of war, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Hadith, also bears evidence of the fact that the idea of enforcement of Islam by the sword is entirely foreign to the conception of Islamic warfare. If the wars, during the time of the Holy Prophet or the early Caliphate, had been prompted by the desire of propagating Islam by force, this object could easily have been attained by forcing Islam upon prisoners of war who fell into the hands of the Muslims. Yet this the Quran does not allow, expressly laying down that they must be set free:

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, strike the necks; then when you have over­come them, make them prisoners, and afterwards set them free as a favour or for ransom until the war lays down its burdens.”

— 47:4

It will be seen from this that the taking of prisoners was allowed only as long as war conditions prevailed; and even when the prisoners are taken they cannot be kept so permanently, but must be set free either as a favour or at the utmost by taking ransom. The Holy Prophet carried this injunction into prac­tice in his lifetime. For instance, in the battle of Hunain, six thousand prisoners of the Hawazin tribe were taken, and they were all set free simply as an act of favour.32 Seventy prisoners were taken in the battle of Badr, and it was only in this case that ransom was exacted, but the pri­soners were granted their freedom while war with the Quraish was yet in progress.33 The form of ransom adopted in the case of some of these prisoners was that they should be entrusted with some work for the Muslims connected with teach­ing. When war ceased and peace was estab­lished, all war-prisoners would have to be set free, according to the verse quoted above.

Slavery abolished

This verse also abolishes slavery forever. Slavery was generally brought about through raids by stronger tribes upon weaker ones. Islam did not allow raids or the making of prisoners by means of raids. Prisoners could only be taken after a regular battle, and even then could not be retained forever. It was obligatory to set them free, either as a favour or after tak­ing ransom. This state of things could last only as long as war conditions existed. When war was over, no prisoners could be taken.

The treatment accorded to prisoners of war or slaves in Islam is unparalleled. No other nation or society can show a similar treatment even of its own members when they are placed in the relative position of a master and a servant. The slave or the pri­s­oner was, no doubt, required to do a certain amount of work, but the condi­tion, in which it was ordained that he should be kept, freed him of all abject feelings. The golden rule of treating the slave like a brother was laid down by the Prophet in clear words:

“Ma‘rur says: I met Abu Dharr in Rabdha and he wore a dress and his slave wore a similar dress. I ques­tioned him about it. He said: I abused a man [i.e., his slave] and found fault with him on account of his mother [addressing him as son of a black woman]. The Prophet said to me: Abu Dharr! You find fault with him on account of his mother, surely you are an ignorant man; your slaves are your brethren, Allah has placed them under your hands; so whoever has his brother under his charge, he should give him to eat out of what he him­self eats, and give him to wear of what he himself wears, and impose not on them a task which they are not able to do, and if you give them such a task, then help them [in doing it].” 34

The prisoners were distributed among the various Muslim fami­lies because no arrangements for their maintenance by the state existed at the time, but they were treated honourably.

War as a struggle to be carried on honestly

It will be seen from what has been stated above, concerning the injunc­tions relating to war and peace, that war is recognized by Islam as a strug­gle between nations — though a terrible struggle — which is sometimes necessitated by the conditions of human life; and when that struggle comes, a nation is bound to acquit itself of its responsibility in the matter in an honourable manner, and fight it to the bitter end whatever it is. Islam does not allow its followers to provoke war, nor does it allow them to be aggressors, but it commands them to put their whole force into the struggle when war is forced on them. If the enemy wants peace after the struggle has begun, Muslims should not refuse, even though there is doubt about the honesty of his purpose. But the struggle, as long as it lasts, must be carried on to the end. In this struggle, honest dealing is enjoined even with the enemy, throughout the Holy Quran:

“And do not let hatred of a people … in­cite you to transgress. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression.” — 5:2

“And do not let hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just, that is nearer to observance of duty.” — 5:8

This is in a chapter which was revealed towards the close of the Holy Prophet’s life. The directions given by Islam purify war of the elements of barbari­ty and dishonesty in which warring nations generally indulge. Neither in­human nor immoral practices are allowed.

A hadith is sometimes cited as allowing deceit in war. It is reported about the Holy Prophet that “he called war a deception”.35 These words were uttered by the Holy Prophet while he was prophesying that the power of both the Persian and the Byzantine empires shall depart in their wars with the Muslims. Evidently these concluding words, “and he called war a deception”, explain how these empires will perish. War is a deception in the sense that sometimes a great power makes war upon a weaker power thinking that it will soon crush it, but such war proves a deception and leads to the destruction of the great aggressive power itself. This was what happened in the case of the wars of Persia and Rome against the Muslims. They both had entered upon an aggres­sive war against the Arabs, thinking that they would crush the rising power of Arabia in a little time. They were drawn into a war with the Muslims which ultimately crushed their own power.

These words have been explained as follows: “The meaning is that war deceives people; it gives them hopes but does not fulfil them”.36 It is only imperfect knowledge of the Arabic language which has led some people to think that this hadith means that it is lawful to practise deception in war. The Islamic wars were in fact purified of all that is unworthy when Muslims were plainly told that a war fought for any gain (which includes acquisition of wealth or territory) was not in the way of Allah.37

Apostasy

There is as great a misconception on the subject of apostasy (irtidād), i.e., the act of going back to unbelief from Islam, as on the subject of jihād. The general impression among both Muslims and non-Muslims is that Islam punishes the apostate (murtadd) with death. If Islam does not allow the taking of the life of a person on the score of religion, and this has already been shown to be the basic principle of Islam, it is immaterial whether unbelief has been adopted after being a Muslim or not, and therefore as far as the sacredness of life is concerned, the un­believer and the apostate are at par.

Apostasy in the Quran

The Holy Quran is the primary source of Islamic laws and therefore we shall take it first. In the first place, it nowhere speaks of someone who becomes an apostate by implica­tion. Apostasy consists in the expression of unbelief or in the plain denial of Islam, and it is not to be assumed because a person who professes Islam expresses an opinion or does an act which, in the view of a learned man or a legist, is un-Islamic. Abuse of a prophet or dis­respect towards the Quran are very often made false excuses for treating a person as an apostate, though he may avow in the strongest terms that he is a believer in the Quran and the Prophet.

Secondly, the general impression that Islam condemns an apostate to death does not find the least support from the Quran. The article on murtadd in the Encyclopae­dia of Islam begins with the following words:

“In the Quran the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only.” 38

There is mention of apostasy in one of the late Makkah revelations:

“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief — not he who is compelled while his heart is con­tent with faith, but he who opens his heart for disbelief — they incur Allah’s displeasure, and for them is a grievous punishment.” —16:106

Clearly the apostate is here threatened with punishment in the next life, and there is not the least change in this attitude in later revelations, when Islamic government had been established immediately after the Holy Prophet reached Madinah. In one of the early Madinah revelations, apostasy is spoken of in connection with the war which the unbelievers had waged to make the Muslims apostates by force:

“And they will not cease fight­ing you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can. And whoever of you turns back from his religion (yartadda from irtidād), then he dies while an unbeliever — these it is whose deeds are fruitless in this world and the Hereafter. And they are the companions of the fire: in it they will abide.” — 2:217

So if a person becomes apostate, he will be punished — not in this life, but in the Hereafter — on account of the evil deeds to which he has reverted, and his good works, done while he was yet a Muslim, become null because of the evil course of life which he has adopted.

The third chapter, revealed in the year 3 A.H., speaks again and again of people who had resorted to unbelief after becoming Mus­lims, but always speaks of their punishment in the Hereafter:

“How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and after they had borne witness that the Messenger was true … As for these, their reward is that on them is the curse of Allah … except those who repent after that and amend.” — 3:86, 87, 89

“Those who disbelieve after their believing, then increase in disbelief, their repentance is not accepted.” — 3:90

The most convincing argument that death was not the punishment for apostasy is contained in the Jewish plans, conceived while they were liv­ing under the Muslim rule in Madinah:

“And a group of the People of the Book say: Affirm belief in what has been revealed to those who believe, in the first part of the day, and disbelieve [in it] in the latter part of it, perhaps they may turn back.” — 3:72

If apostasy had been punishable with death, how could people living under a Muslim government con­ceive of such a plan to throw discredit on Islam, by accepting it and then deserting it the same day?

The fifth chapter of the Quran was revealed towards the close of the Holy Prophet’s life, and even in this chapter no worldly punishment is mentioned for apostates:

“O you who be­lieve! if anyone of you should turn back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him…” — 5:54

Therefore, so far as the Quran is concerned, there is not only no mention of a death sentence for apostates but such a sentence is negatived by the verses speak­ing of apostasy, as well as by that magna charta of religious freedom in the Quran: lā ikrāha fi-l-dīn (2:256), meaning “There is no compulsion in religion”.

Hadith on apostasy

It is on the authority of Hadith that the books of Muslim jurists have based their death-sentence for apostates. The words in cer­tain reports in Hadith have undoubtedly the reflex of a later age, but still a care­ful study leads to the conclusion that apostasy was not punishable unless combined with other circumstances which called for punishment of offenders. Bukhari is explicit on the point. He has two books dealing with the apostates, one of which is called “the Book of those who fight [against Muslims] from among the unbelievers and the apostates”, and the other is called “the Book of calling to repentance of the enemies and the apostates and fighting with them”. The heading of the first book clearly shows that only such apostates are dealt with in it as fight against Muslims, and that of the second associates apostates with the enemies of Islam.

That is really the crux of the whole question, and it is due to a misunderstanding on this point that a doctrine was formulat­ed which is quite contrary to the plain teachings of the Quran. At a time when war was in progress between Muslims and unbelievers, it often happened that a person who apostatized went over to the enemy and joined hands with him in fighting against the Muslims. He was treated as an enemy, not because he had changed his religion but because he had changed sides. Even then there were tribes that were not at war with the Muslims and, if an apostate went over to them, he was not touched. Such people are expressly spoken of in the Quran:

“Except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance… So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them.” — 4:90

The only case of the punishment of apostates, mentioned in trustworthy Hadith reports, is that of a party of the tribe of Ukul, who accepted Islam and came to Madinah. They found that the climate of the town did not agree with them, and the Holy Prophet sent them to a place outside Madinah where the state milch-camels were kept, so that they might live in the open air and drink of milk. They got well and then killed the keeper of the camels and drove away the animals. This being brought to the knowledge of the Holy Prophet, a party was sent in pursuit of them and they were put to death.39 The report is clear on the point that they were put to death, not because of their apostasy but because they had committed the crime of murder by killing the keeper of the camels.

Much stress is laid on a hadith which says: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”.40 But in view of what Bukhari’s collection itself has indicated by describing apostates as fighters or by associating their name with the name of the enemies of Islam, it is clear that this refers only to those apostates who join hands with the enemies of Islam and fight with Muslims. It is only by placing this limitation on the meaning of the hadith that it can be reconciled with other reports or with the principles laid down in the Holy Quran. In fact, its words are so comprehen­sive that they include every change of faith, from one religion to any other religion whatsoever, even to embrace Islam! So the hadith cannot be accepted without placing a limitation upon its meaning.

An instance of a simple change of religion is also contained in Bukhari:

“An Arab of the desert came to the Prophet and accepted Islam at his hand. Then fever overtook him while he was still in Madinah. So he came to the Prophet and said, Give back my pledge, and the Prophet refused. Then he came again and said, Give me back my pledge, and the Prophet refused. Then he came again and said, Give me back my pledge, and the Prophet refused. Then he went away.” 41

This hadith shows that the man first accepted Islam, and the next day on getting fever he thought that it was due to his becoming a Muslim, and so he came and threw back the pledge. This was a clear case of apostasy, yet it is nowhere related that anyone killed him. On the other hand, the hadith says that he went away unharmed. Another example of a simple change of religion is that of a Christian who became a Muslim and then apostatized and went over to Christiani­ty, and yet he was not put to death.42 This was at Madinah when a Muslim state was well-established, and yet the man who apostatized was not even molested, though he spoke of the Holy Prophet in extremely derogatory terms and gave him out to be an im­poster.

Apostasy and fiqh

Turning to Islamic jurisprudence, or Fiqh, we find the jurists first laying down a principle quite opposed to the Holy Quran and Hadith, namely, that the life of a man may be taken on account of apostasy. But this principle is con­tradicted immediately afterwards when the apostate is called “an unbeliever at war whom the invitation of Islam has already reached”. And in the case of the apostate woman, the rule is laid down that she shall not be put to death, because women are unable to fight in war due to “the unfitness of their constitution”. It is also stated: “The killing for apostasy is obligatory in order to pre­vent the mischief of war, and it is not a punishment for the act of un­belief”. And again: “For, mere un­belief does not legalize the killing of a man”.43

It will be seen that, as in the case of war against un­believers, the legists are labouring under a misconception, and a struggle is clearly seen going on between the principles as established in the Quran and the misconceptions which had somehow or other found their way into the minds of the legists. Thus, even the Fiqh recognizes the principle that the life of a person cannot be taken for mere change of religion and that, unless the apostate is in a state of war, he cannot be killed. It is quite a different matter that the legists should have made a mistake in defining a state of war by considering the mere ability of someone to fight as the existence of a war condition. The law of punishment is based not on potentialities but on facts.

Go to: List of Contents   •   Previous / Next (16. Marriage)

Notes to Chapter 15

1. Raghib’s Mufradāt.

2. Lane’s Lexicon.

3. Editor’s Note: Here the striving, or jihād, is said to be conducted by unbelievers against Muslims!

4. Bukhari, book 25: ‘Pilgrimage’, ch. 4, h. 1520.

5. Bukhari, book 96: ‘Holding fast to the Quran and Sunnah’, ch. 10, ch. heading (above h. 7311).

6. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. headings of chs. 99, 100, 143, 145, 178, res­pectively.

7. Abu Dawud, book 15: ‘Jihād’, ch. 4, h. 2484.

8. ‘Aun al-Ma‘būd, a commentary of Abu Dawud; comment on hadith referred to in note 7 above, on the authority of Nawawi.

9. Maulana Muhammad Ali is here referring to his book The Early Caliphate.

10. The Caliphate by Sir William Muir, chapter xvi, p. 120.

11. Ibid., chapter xxiii, p. 172.

12. Bukhari, book 2: ‘Faith’, ch. 17, h. 25.

13. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. 28, h. 2826, h. 2827.

14. Bukhari, book 64: ‘Military Expeditions’, ch. 12, h. 4019.

15. Hidāyah, v. 1, p. 537.

16. Ibid., v. 1, p. 540.

17. Ibid., v. 1, p. 541.

18. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. heading of ch. 180 (above h. 3058).

19. Lane’s Lexicon.

20. Bukhari, book 58: ‘Jizyah’, ch. 1, ch. heading.

21. The jurists, however, made a distinction by giving the name kharāj to the land-tax.

22. Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition, art. Djizya, v. 1, p. 1051, col. 1.

23. The Caliphate, chapter xix, p. 142.

24. Hidāyah, v. 1, p. 571–572.

25. Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition, art. Djizya, v. 1, p. 1052, col. 1.

26. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, chs. 147–148, h. 3014, h. 3015.

27. Muslim, book 32: ‘Jihād and Expeditions’, ch. 8, h. 1744a, 1744b (DS: h. 4547, h. 4548). Abu Dawud, book 15: ‘Jihād’, ch. 121, h. 2668, 2669, 2672 (DS: ch. 111). Tirmidhi, book 21: ‘Military Expeditions’, ch. 19, h. 1569 (DS: book 19). Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, v. 1, p. 256; v. 2, pp. 22, 23; v. 3, p. 488.

28. Abu Dawud, book 15: ‘Jihād’, ch. 121, h. 2669 (DS: ch. 111). Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, v. 3, p. 488; v. 4, p. 178.

29. Mishkat, book 19: ‘Ādāb al-safar’, ch. 3, sec. 2, h. 3778 (v. 2, p. 251). In some editions of Mishkat, this book is included as part of the book ‘Jihād’, and the report is in ch. 5, sec. 2.

30. Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, v. 1, p. 300.

31. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. 146, h. 3012.

32. Bukhari, book 40: ‘Wakālat’,ch. 7, h. 2307–2308.

33. Abu Dawud, book 15: ‘Jihād’, ch. 131, h. 2690–2692 (DS: ch. 121). Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, v. 1, p. 30.

34. Bukhari, book 2: ‘Faith’, ch. 22, h. 30.

35. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. 157, h. 3027–3030.

36. Nihāyah of Ibn Athīr (dictionary of Hadith).

37. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. 15, h. 2810.

38. Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition, v. 3, p. 736; second edition, v. 7, p. 635.

39. Bukhari, book 56: ‘Jihād’, ch. 152, h. 3018.

40. Bukhari, book 88: ‘Apostates and fighting with them’, ch. 2, h. 6922.

41. Bukhari, book 93: ‘Judgments’, ch. 47, h. 7211.

42. Bukhari,book 61: ‘Virtues of the Prophet and his Companions’, ch. 25, h. 3617.

43. For these references see Hidāyah, v. 1, p. 576–577.