Question :
A question was asked regarding the aims of Jihad for the sake of God.
Fatwa in Brief: Jihad against non-Muslims (kuffar)
is obligatory if they have been given notification (balagh)
and called either to worship God alone and to believe in
Mohamed’s (upon him be peace) message, or to pay the
poll tax (jizya).
Shaykh Ibn Baz, Risalat Fadl al-Jihad wal-Mujahidin,
p. 12-15
Response:
The purpose of Jihad is to call people to embrace
Islam. Fighting is not needed if we could do the call
peacefully.
Commentary:
Jihad for the sake of God was defined as the war
to promote God’s word and to spread the call for Islam.
It is generally considered a communal obligation (fard
kifayah), and should be done through the ruler – not
the individuals or groups – unless a specific Muslim
community comes under direct attack in which case it may
be considered as a personal obligation (fard ‘ayn)
for every [sane, adult] male Muslim.
However, it should be made clear that forcing people to
embrace Islam [coercion in matters of religion] is not
allowed:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands
out clear from Error”.
(Q. 2:256)
The purpose of Jihad is only to call people [to
the faith] not coercion. If calling people to Islam
could be effected peacefully, then there is no religious
sanctification for fighting to promote any religion.
As Muslims, we are bound to support good and condemn
evil to the best of our ability. We condemn the unjust
killing of any human being, be it Muslim or non-Muslim.
The sanctity of life is the cornerstone of Islam. “No
one will be able to enter paradise if he has a palm full
of blood he spilled” (Al-Bukhari 97152).
God says:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but
do not transgress limits”. (Q. 2: 190).
Islam is a message with an international appeal which
must be delivered to the whole world. And in the past,
this was only made possible through traveling the earth.
However, because Islam was a new phenomenon, it is not
surprising that the existing powers, protecting their
authority at the time of Revelation, wished to fight
against it. This was how people of all eras have always
behaved. The new religion had to be defended so that its
political presence stabilized, and its message was
communicated. If the sword was once necessary to secure
the call, these days it is not needed, except in defense
against those who aim to harm Islam and its people (yuridun
bil-Islam sharan wa ahlu).
These days Islam can spread without needing to fear
danger from travel or from delivering the message
globally. Muslims live in more countries than ever
before. The media traverses boundaries, reaching people
in their own houses, and it may not be limited through
the closing of borders or doors. It is possible,
therefore, for Muslims in foreign or non-Muslim lands to
call all non-Muslims to embrace Islam using all
available peaceful and legal means. Where this can be
done without fear of reprisal or repression Muslims who
live in foreign and non-Muslim lands should never resort
to violence to achieve these aims. It is not justified
to betray protections and freedoms provided in foreign
or non-Muslim lands. For more people will embrace Islam
when it is borne in peace and more will reject it when
it is borne in violence. The Islamic call is voluntary,
not obligatory. Our beliefs are never to be implemented
through force. This is why God told Noah to ask his
people: “Shall we compel you to accept it when ye are
averse to it?” (Q. 11: 28). And God says to Mohamed
(upon him be peace):
“Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to
believe!”. (Q. 10: 99)
When the Prophet (upon him be peace) sent ‘Ali to fight
the Jews of Khaybar, he said: “Do I fight them until
they become like us? By which he meant ‘do I force them
to become Muslim?’ and the Prophet replied to him: “Move
slowly unto you arrive in their quarters; then invite
them to embrace Islam, and tell them of their duties to
God. If Allah guides even one man to you [i.e. to become
Muslim], it shall be better for you than if you were to
take all their property” (narrated by Muslim). If texts
exist, then, whose apparent meanings seems to indicate
an absolute necessity to fight, there are plenty others
that limit fighting to when an attack occurs, or as the
penalty for breaking treatises of peace, or for
thwarting an imminent attack. And the above are only
examples of many.
And God knows best.
Dr. Anas Abu Shadi