Good post Raziq!

Quran 9:60, “As-Sadaqat (here it means zakat) are only for the Fuqara’ (poor), and Al-Masakin (the poor), and those employed to collect (the funds), and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam), and to free the captives, and for those in debts, and FOR ALLAH’S CAUSE (i.e. fo5r Mujahidun – those who fighting in a HOLY BATTLE), and for the wayfarer (a traveler who is cut off from everything); A DULY IMPOSED BY ALLAH. And allah is All knower, All wiser”.

Three elements have been mentioned pertaining to the word, jihad and there are:

a) Jihad should be meant for Allah’s cause. Or in other words, this battle should be directed by Allah. Only when Allah has given us instruction to fight, then we trigger off the war. If Allah says, ‘no’, we, muslims, must stop fighting. Quran 4:90, “…so IF THEY WITHDRAW FROM YOU, AND FIGHT NOT AGAINST YOU,, and offer you peace, THEN ALLAH HAS OPENED NO WAY FOR YOU AGAINST THEM”. As the phrase, If they…fight not against you, is mentioned in Quran 4:90 with the phrase, Allah has opened no way for you against them, it implies that Allah discourages muslims to fight when non-muslims offer peace and stop fighting with them. However, the current situation is different since muslim extremists trigger off the battle against non-muslims even when non-muslims do not start fight with them. Bear in mind for Quran 4:90 that mentions that once non-muslims stop fighting, muslims must stop since Allah has opened no way for us, muslims, against them.

b) Jihad should be meant for Holy War. As the word, holy, is mentioned, it implies that this war should not be evil. The war that is against non-muslims when non-muslims are the first to fight with us, muslims or to destroy our mosques. This war is considered to be holy since we, muslims, intend to protect our people, muslim fellows and our mosques. The war that is against non-muslims that non-muslims are not the first to fight with us. This war is not to be considered as holy since non-muslims do not fight and yet we, muslims, are the first to fight and that we have violated Quran 4:90 that mentions that muslims must stop fighting when non-muslims cease in fight. Muslim extremists have acted against Quran 4:90 since they fight when non-muslims have stopped their fighting against them.

c) Jihad should be a duty imposed by Allah as mentioned in the verse. Or in other word, muslims only fight when we, muslims, receive clearly instruction from Allah. If Allah calls us to stop or Allah does not give any instruction for us to fight, we, muslims, must stop fighting.

I hope you are well. I’ve looked through my copy of Abdullah Azzams ‘Join the caravan’ and I can’t find Ibn Rushd quoted anywhere. Can you tell me which page or section Ibn Rushd is used to justify Military Jihad? – we can then proceed with that point. I know some groups do quote classical texts and thats why it’s important to see how these texts have been understood by mainstream Scholars and not Jihadists. If it’s in the best interests of the Muslims then not fighting is recommend. A quote from Ibn Rushd on making truce:

10.1.6 Section 6 The permission for truce

Is truce permissible? A group of jurists permitted this initially (without warfare) without necessity, if the imam considered it to be the interest of the Muslims. Another group of jurists did not permit it, except on the basis of a compelling necessity, such as the avoidance of disturbances or for gaining from them some concessions for the Muslim community, which are not in the nature of jizya as the condition for is that they be subject to the laws of the Muslims, or even without taking anything from them. Al-awza’i permitted that the imam may negotiate a truce with the disbelievers on the basis of something that the Muslims would give to the disbeliever if that is required as a necessity for avoiding (greater) trials, or on the basis of any other necessity. Al-Shafi said that the Muslims are not to make any concession to the disbelievers, unless they fear that would be over-whelmed by the sheer number of the enemy (in relation to) their own small numbers, or because of a severe ordeal they are subjected to.

Those who upheld the permission of making a truce when the imam saw an interest (of the Muslims) is the Al-Malik, Al-Shafi and Abu Hanifa, except that Al-Shafi stipulated that the duration of the truce should not be for a period greater than the one transacted by the Messenger of Allah (saw) with the disbelievers in the year of Al-Hudaybiya. (Bidayat al-Mujtahid – Section 6)

Muslims have no need to be in perpetual state of war. The best interests of Muslims dictate this. Masalaha (best interests) is one of the sources used in usul al Fiqh.

Regarding Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyya is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misquoted scholars. His words are often taken out of context and used by Jihadists to justify violence. Ibn Taymiyya lived in troubled times: the Crusaders and Mongols were attacking Muslim majority lands and various Muslim factions were fighting each other. It was in this period that Ibn taymiyyah gave his Fatawa on the permissibility to fight Mongol invaders. This fatawa was then picked up many centuries later and used to justify the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Sadat was not invading any lands and comitting genocide. Sadat had upset Islamists by making peace with Israel and this in turn led to takfir being made against him. His killers were inspired by Qutbism which makes takfir on all Muslim leaders. Ibn Taymiyyas fatawa was given in a totally different context.

Ibn Taymiyyah did not split the world up into two parts; namely Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Kufr/Harb, but recognised a third type, and as in the case of Mardin. (Please read the four Mardin fatawas). It’s the Islamists who polarise the world into two camps.

Ibn Taymiyyah has become a controversial figure and much has been written and discussed about him. I would recommend you read: Muslims under non-Muslim rule – Ibn Taymiyya. This book clarifies the common misconceptions about him and his rulings.

Ibn Taymiyyah was more open minded and a broad thinker than he is given credit for. His religious ideas and thoughts were far from being black and white. His rulings need to be understood in the context of the socio-political uncertainty and upheaval that he lived through.

By Raziq

Interesting argument, though I have a couple of points to raise:

1) As far as I understand it Ibn Rushd concluded that Jihad in Islam can only be applied a military definition. This is my record of what he says:

“According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on sura II.216: ‘Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.’… The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, … Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought; This founded on sura VIII.39: Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely”…. Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealing with captives, various policies are open to the Imam. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [non-Muslim, second class subject of the Islamic state], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya) ….Sura VIII.67 “It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land.” as well as the occasion when this verse was revealed [viz.the captives of Badr] would prove that it is better to kill captives than to enslave them. The Prophet himself would in some cases kill captives outside the field of battle, while he would pardon them in others. Women he used to enslave …. The Muslims are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book …is two-fold :either conversion to Islam or payment of poll-tax –jizya). This is based on Sura IX.29 ”

In fact, Abdullah Azzam, one of the godfather’s of modern jihad, uses Ibn Rushd to justify military jihad in his book ‘Join the Caravan’.

Is this incorrect?

2) Ibn Taymiyya does not strike me as a good example of moderation, according to the translations of Rudolf Peter:

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”

Also you quote Taymiyya’s reference to the pact of non-Muslims which will prevent them from attack. Is this not the same pact which classes those who sign it as dhimmis who must pay the jizya tax to ensure their safety?

I would be very interested in your response if possible.