Go to Almighty

Chapter 1 Which one is primary, war or peace?

It should be realized that in the Arabic language, and as commonly used in the Quran, the meaning of “jihad” is vaster than “qital” meaning war. In this vaster usage, “jihad” means effort in general, in any way and for any purpose and cause, the context showing it being for evil or decent purpose.

In the verse “ جاهد وا فی الله حق جهاده” (hajj,78), the word “فی الله” makes the context for jihad being used for efforts in positive and decent ways and causes, and means efforts towards good ends. But in the verse “وان جاهداک علی ان تشرک بی ما لیس لک به علم” (Loqman, 15), the words “علی ان تشرک” make the context for jihad being used in negative and indecent way, and means efforts for evil ends. Thus, war for the cause of God is a lexical meaning of “jihad”, and in fact, means efforts in special meaning. In this book we will discuss this meaning of “jihad”, which should be referred to as “idiomatic jihad”

Before discussing jihad itself, it seems essential to outline two points in this regard:

First it should be cleared whether or not from the point of view of Islam war is permitted for imposing the ideology.

Second, when facing an aggressing enemy, whether peace is primary and we should try to create peace by repelling the enemy and putting an end to the war, or war is primary and we should try for the more rekindling of it.

On the first point

In this regard, it should be stated that in Islam, war is not permitted for imposing the ideology because the verse in the Quran, لا اکراه فی الدین قد تبین الرشد من الغی": says” “there is no compulsion in religion, truly the right way has been clearly distinct from error” (Baqareh,256). This declarative statement: “there is no compulsion in religion,” here has an imperative intent, meaning that no force and compulsion should be used for inviting to the religion, because naturally and through conscience the right way is distinct from the wrong one, and there is no need for compulsion. Thus, compulsion in any form, whether in the form of threat or war should not be used for imposing the religion and ideology.

In other words, fundamentally, idea or belief is a subject of heart and mind, and cannot be entered into a person’s mind by force because one would believe in what his nature testifies being acceptable. Force and compulsion neither could change one’s existing belief, nor could create some anew. And that is why exerting force in this regard is ineffective and useless; and that is why the Quran says no force and compulsion should be used for inviting to the religion.

On the second point

On this point, we should say that against an attacking enemy, peace is primary, not war. This means that war is a state of urgency, and becomes necessary after being attacked by the enemy; and as soon as the enemy is defeated there is no necessity for war. And, that is why, in the Holy Koran, the duration of the defensive war is limited to repelling of the enemy, and ending of the persecution: “وقاتلوهم حتی لاتکون فتنه” “fight them (the attacking enemy) till there is no persecution ” (Baqareh,193).

It may be objected that the Quran orders fighting till there is no persecution in the whole world, since such negative syntax in Arabic means in general, not just the persecution committed by the attacking enemy in this particular instance. The answer to this objection is that there is a context made by the previous verse: “ فان قاتلوکم فاقتلوهم " “ if they fight you slay them”, in which verse slaying the enemy and fighting them is conditioned with their attack, and consequently “no persecution” in such context means “non of the persecution exerted by the attacking enemy”.

On the other hand, it is obvious that mentioning end and aim for the war means that when the persecution and the aggression by the enemy is over, fighting is no more permitted. In fact, what this verse wants to convey is this: you must fight against the war-mongering enemy who started the war, and must dry the roots of persecution so that there should be no war, and peace would prevail.

The Holy Koran in the Anfal Chapter, major part of which is about Badr War, says: “وان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها وتوکل علی الله " “if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal,61). In this same chapter, before this verse, comes a verse reading: “واعدولهم ماستطعتم من قوه ومن رباط الخیل ترهبون به عدوالله وعدوکم " “make ready against them whatever force and string of horses you can, to terrify the enemy of God and your enemy”(Anfal,60). Three verses after it, there is this verse: “یا ایها النبی حرض المومنین علی القتال " “O Prophet urge on the believers to fight” (Anfal,65). Now, in verse 61, positioned between the verses on war, God orders: “if they incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in Allah”, meaning that if, even in the middle of war, the attacking enemy inclined to peace, you also incline to it and accept the peace. Thus, it is clear that in Islam, peace is recognized as the infrastructure in the relations between the societies; and peace must be sought after; and efforts must be made for creating peace and keeping it up.

Here, one point should be well understood. Considering such an infrastructure, if non-Muslims are always peace seeking and looking for friendly association with Muslims, there never happens any war between them because what is stipulated in verse 61 is an order and obligating instructions on peace and friendly coexistence, violation of which is not permitted; and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and his followers are obligated to seek peace at all times, and never initiate military clash with non-Muslims. Go to contents

Peace, the primary nature of communities

As health is the primary nature of a person, and illness is a secondary state, peace and calm also is the primary nature of the human societies, and war is an incidental and secondary situation. Thus, the verse,: “وان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها و توکل علی الله " “if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal, 61) is conveying this important point, and means that peace and friendly association is the primary situation in the societies. Therefore, if the attacking enemy showed inclination to peace, such inclination must be welcomed and positively answered so as to save the societies from a social illness and restore health to it.

It is obvious that the other party who have initiated the attack and disturbed the primary situation of the societies is condemned. Basically, the conscience of humanity hates initiating attack on others, and considers it injustice and not justifiable. And, that is why wherever there is a military conflict, always they try to distinguish the initiating party so as to condemn them locally, regionally and internationally. And, this clearly shows that initiating military attack on others, for any purpose it may be, does oppose the nature of man, even if it may be named a religious war

Kindness to unbelievers

There are some religious persons who are of the belief that doing kindness to those who are not their coreligionist is undesirable. The possibility of having such a belief among Muslims also existed and still exists. But the Holy Koran forbids such a thought and warns that God does not forbid you, the Muslims, from being kind and doing good to the unbelievers who are not bothering you. And, never is goodness and justly behavior towards them forbidden. These are the exact words of the relative verse: “لاینهاکم الله عن الذ ین لم یقاتلوکم فی الدین ولم یخرجوکم من دیارکم ان تبروهم و تقسطوا الیهم ان الله یحب المقسطین " “God forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them, surely God loves the just.” (Momtaheneh,8).

This verse, inviting to good behavior, justly treatment and being benefactor towards the non-bothering unbelievers, does clearly show that Islam wants to fuel the Muslims with the spirit of sincerity, good willing, and respect for human. It shows that Islam wants the hearts of all men and women to foster kindness for each other. This verse means that Islam wants to set the backdrop for social peace. And, this verse is a good evidence for the fact that from the point of view of Islam, peace is a fundamental and infrastructural principle, for the cause of which all Muslims should make move.

Only, in case the unbelievers attack militarily on the Muslims and expel the Muslims from their habitations causing them vagrancy, friendship with the unbelievers is forbidden because friendship in such situation paves the way for the unbelievers to penetrate in the Islamic society and inflict heavy strikes on the Muslims. This case is mentioned in verse 9, immediately after the verse in question. Go to contents

One Question.

Considering what so far is said that imposing idea by the force of weaponry is not permitted in Islam, and that peace is an infrastructural principle, for the creation and upholding of which efforts must be made, then, what is jihad in Islam, and under what circumstances fighting the unbelievers is permitted?

For answering this question, we must explore the verses revealed in the Quran in regard to fighting the unbelievers so that it may become quite clear under what circumstances jihad is permitted.

The verses on war and Jihad

The verses revealed on fighting the unbelievers are of two groups. One group is the verses in which war is restricted and conditioned, and the other is the ones mentioning war absolutely and with no conditions. First we will talk about a few of the verses from the first group.

First group: the conditioned verses

1. “ وقاتلوا فی سبیل الله الذ ین یقاتلونکم ولاتعتدوا ان الله لایحب المعتدین " And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not. God loves not the aggressors (Baqareh,190). In this verse, there are some points that needs consideration:

Point one: War must be in the way of God and in His cause, not for the opening out new territories, revenge, and satisfaction of natural ambitions, hegemony, and similar aims. (What is the way God?). And the way of God is the way to the humanity’s goodness and interests in which lie God’s blessings, such as opening the atmosphere for freedom, through which people can attain the happiness of this world and the world hereafter; through which the oppressed can defend themselves; through which the oppressors, who are the originators of persecution and corruption and are the cause of injustice and tyranny, can be eradicated.

Point two: This verse says: “Fight with those who fight with you..”. Therefore, if no militarily attack is made by the enemy, then the subject matter of fight is negated; thus, conditioning war by the attack from the enemy. In other words, if there is no attack on Muslims, initiating of war by them is not permitted.

Point three: This verse is forbidding any type of assault, and aggression in a general sense, such as killing children and women, burning houses and farms, cutting down trees (with no necessity), mass murdering of the captives, and so on. Of course, the meaning of aggression is very obvious, and the nature of human and their conscience would discern its occurrences. And, that is why the Quran only mentions: “ but aggress not” without giving details about it, so that everyone could recognize it by appealing to his own conscience.

It must be realized that the environment of war is an environment of anger and fury, in which, individuals sometimes are caught in excitement and thrill, and therefore, may exceed the limit of justice and fairness, proceeding to do adverse actions. And, that is why the Quran warns the commissioners of war, either the commanders or the warriors, not to commit any aggression under such circumstances.

Incidentally, there is some view on the interpretation of this verse. According to this view “but aggress not” means “do not attack those who have not made militarily attack on you, and do not become the initiator of attack, since it will be aggression and assault”. (Majma al Bayan, interpretation under verse 190 of Baqareh). Based on this view, the sentence “aggress not” is emphasizing what is understood from the stipulation “with those who fight with you”. This latter stipulation, implicitly, means that if you were not militarily attacked, you are not to initiate the attack. But, according to this interpretation of “but aggress not”, it explicitly emphasizes, and fixes the condition meant and understood from “with those who fight with you ”.

Point four: This verse, after forbidding the warriors for Islam from aggression and assault, admonishes them that God does not love the aggressors. This admonition means that now that you are fighting in the way of God and for His cause, you should know that if under the circumstances of war, you exceed the limits of justice and fairness, and commit improper acts, God will not consent and will not love you because God hates aggression, and consequently the aggressor will be hated by God.

As jihad in Islam is ordained for the aims of elimination of injustice and aggression, and for the revival of justice and fairness, it is obvious that Islam will not accept committing actions against those aims while trying to achieve them. And, this, very well, indicates how the rules of jihad in Islam enjoy being in the peak of sanctity

2.“و اقتلو هم حیث ثقفتموهم و اخرجوهم من حیث اخرجوکم والفتنته اشد من القتل ولا تقاتلوهم عندالمسجد الحرام حتی یقاتلوکم فیه فان قاتلوکم فاقتلوهم کذالک جزاء الکافرین. " “And slay them whenever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you slay them – such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Baqareh,191).

This is the second of the verses wherein the conditions and stipulations for war is mentioned. The pronoun ‘them’ in “slay them” refers to “those who fight with you” which is in the previous verse. So, it is saying “ repelling the wickedness of the aggressing unbelievers who initiated the war is possible by slaying them”. Then, it goes on: “But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them – such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”

In this verse too, there are some points that needs consideration:

Point one: This verse is telling Muslims that as the unbelievers are the initiators of war, and they want to eradicate you, so, in the battlefield, wherever you come upon them, slay them in defense of yourselves because repelling their wickedness is possible only by slaying.

Point two: This verse forbids Muslims from initiating war, and prescribes it as self-defense only when the unbelievers start militarily aggression

Point three: Since this verse is addressing the Muslims whom the unbelievers had expelled from Mecca, in turn, it tells the Muslims: “You, expel the unbeliever from where they expelled you” namely, from Mecca, which action is some type of defense.

Point four: This verse is telling that the persecution inflicted by the unbelievers through torturing Muslims in Mecca; confiscation of their belongings, and imposing war on them in Medina by mobilizing army against them, all such actions are more grievous than the unbelievers being slain by Muslims. It means that the unbelievers are the source of persecution, agony, and suffering; and the war they have imposed on Muslims is more ruthless; and, its destructive consequences are more grievous than the unbelievers being killed by Muslims.

Point five: To prescribe slaying of the aggressing unbelievers is for punishing them because of their actions in starting the aggression and shedding the blood of Muslims. Is it not a just punishment?

A note

Some say that the word “فتنه " (translated into persecution) which is used in this verse, and in:"وقاتلوهم حتی لاتکون فتنه " “fight them (the attacking enemy) till there is no persecution ” (Baqareh,193) has the meaning of polytheism. But Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh says: “This is contrary to the context of the verses to have it for the meaning of polytheism”[2]

What Abdoh says seems correct because the verse says: “And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you (impose it on you),” (Baqareh,190). The circumstances for this verse, and the next verses is such that the unbelievers were putting pressure on the Muslims; persecuting those in Mecca, and, sometimes, even killing them; and were imposing war on those who were in Medina.

These were the calamities and agonies that the unbelievers had inflicted on Muslims. So, verse 193 in Baqareh says: “ fight them (aggressors) till there is no persecution,” meaning that when the unbelievers are defeated, no more can they persecute the Muslims, and impose war on them. " Regarding “ فتنته " in the verse, “وقاتلوهم حتی لاتکون فتنه” “ fight them (aggressors) till there is no persecution,” Abdullah Ibn Umar is quoted to have said : “In the life time of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), when the unbelievers persecuted, tortured, jailed and killed the Muslims for their religion, we fought the unbelievers till Islam became strong and “ فتنته " (persecution) was over.”[3] This narration also confirms that the meaning of “ فتنته " in this verse is persecution and calamities exerted by unbelievers on Muslims.

In addition to this, fighting the polytheists will never eliminate polytheism, which is an inner belief, because even if a polytheist were defeated in the war, his belief would not change. To change one’s belief, dialogue and argument is required, so that the party may get convinced, and change his belief, and, unless he is not truly convinced, his inner belief would stay. Therefore, there would be no sense telling Muslims to fight the polytheist. Go to contents

In Arabic the lexical meaning of “فتنه” (translated to persecution)

The root of the word, i.e. the infinitive “فتن” means placing gold into fire to see if it is pure or impure.[4] And the verse: “ ان الذ ین فتنوا المومنین والمومنات” “those who persecute the believers, men and women” ( Borooj, 10) is about the people who burned the believers in fire. The Holy Koran also talks about the people in Hell, using some derivative of it: “یوم هم علی النار یفتنون * ذوقوا فتنتکم” “ upon the day, they shall be tried at the fire * taste your trial”(Zaaryat, 13,14). And in the verse: “واتقوا فتنه لا تصیبن الذ ین ظلموا منکم خاصه” “And fear a trial which shall surely not smite in particular the evildoers among you” (Anfal, 25) ‘فتنه’ means calamity and affliction. Zmakhshari also says: “ ‘فتنه’ is used to mean war ‘بینهم فتنه ای حرب ’” (and in Arabic ‘حرب’ means war).

In general, there is the implication of hardship in all the instances of the usage of the infinitive: ‘فتن’. Even, in the instances where it is used for trial, there is also the implication of hardship. Thus, ‘polytheism’, in the meaning of which no hardship is implied, cannot be a meaning for ‘فتنه’.

By the top guess, interpretation of ‘فتنه’ to polytheism is put forth by the individuals who believed that jihad in Islam is for imposing the belief by the force of weaponry. This group does not accept that ‘idiomatic jihad’ is for defense, and for repelling the calamities inflicted by the aggressing enemy who has initiated the war. And, that is why they say: “وقاتلوهم حتی لا تکون فتنه” means: “Initiate war against the polytheists so that polytheism is eradicated”. And, this means that as long as there is polytheism, initiating war against them is obligatory. Therefore, this group have their own interpretation and inference in the meaning of a word, based on the concept that they had from jihad. But, the reality is that there is no room for interpretation and inference in the meaning of a word, and its meaning should be asked from the native users of the language. Thus, the word ‘فتنه’ should not be interpreted to mean polytheism.

3. “وقاتلوهم حتی لا تکون فتنته ویکون الد ین لله فان انتهوا فلاعد وان الا علی الظالمین” “And fight them till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s; then, if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers” (Baqareh,193)

The word ‘fight’ in this verse is connected with the word ‘fight’ in verse 190 of this chapter, and the pronoun ‘them’ refers to ‘those-who-fight-you’ in that verse. It should be realized that in verse 190, the starting point of war is stated, and in this verse, the ending point of it. Verse 190 says: “fight with the aggressing unbelievers” as they are the originator and cause of the war, and their being defeated is the just punishment for them; and verse 190 says: “fight them till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s”. ‘Religion’ is the translation of “دین” and one of the meanings of “دین” is to dominate and govern. Context wise, this meaning applies here, because while the enemy has the power for aggression and attack, their domination and command is ruling, but after they are defeated and crushed by the defending force of Muslims, and their dominance and governance is wiped out, then in their place, the governance and religion of God will prevail.

Next, this holy verse refers to the circumstances when the attacking enemy has refrained from aggression, and says if they themselves ceased the assault and stopped aggression, you, also, refrain from killing them and stop the war. It means that your war with them is a counter attack and a reaction to the aggression, and when they stop it, then there is no room for it, and the subject matter for counter attack becomes nonexistent. And thereafter, slaying them is not allowed because killing the unjust aggressor is necessary as long as the injustice and aggression exists, but when it was stopped by them, then no aggressor is in the field to be punished. In this verse, two reasons for ending the war is mentioned: one, the enemy’s being completely defeated, and the other, their refraining from the war.

Incidentally, a literary point should be noticed here. The word, ‘عدوان’ translated into ‘aggression’ is metaphorically used in its application for Muslims, and only has a type of homographic usage, with the explanation that as the aggression by the unbelievers is discussed, counter attacking and punishing them is also referred to as ‘عدوان’, which usage is just for having similarity in the form but not in meaning, because repelling and slaying the aggressing enemy is the same of that done by the aggressor only in the form of the word, not in the meaning. What Muslims do is just a defense. This usage is like the usage in the verse: “تعلم ما فی نفسی و لا اعلم ما فی نفسک”. Jesus Christ (a.s.) says to God:“ Thou knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within thy soul” (Maaedeh, 116). It is obvious that God has no soul ‘نفس’, but as this word is used for Jesus, homographicly it is used for God too.

It should be repeated that what is obvious here is that the instructions to fight the aggressing unbelievers in this verse, like the instructions in the two previous verses, has defensive spirit. Go to contents

4. “اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون بانهم ظلموا وان الله علی نصرهم لقد یر (39) الذین اخرجوا من دیارهم بغیر حق الا ان یقولوا ربنا الله و لولا دفع الله الناس بعضهم ببعض لهد مت صوامع وبیع و صلوات ومساجد یذکر فیها اسم الله کثیرا ولینصرن الله من ینصره ان الله لقوی عزیز (حج 39 – 40 )” “Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them(39). Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others, there would have been pulled down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Alstrong, Almighty”(Hajj, 40).

In these verses, the Quran says that war is allowed and permitted when militarily attack is initiated by the enemy, and a group of people are being aggressed and persecuted. Under such circumstances, not only are such people not forbidden from war, but also it is obligatory for them to fight to defend themselves against the aggressor. It is obviously understood from it that when there is no attack initiated by the enemy, it is not permitted to start fighting the people who are seeking peace and friendly association. In other words, starting war and destroying an existing atmosphere of peace and quiet, in no way, is allowed, even by the way of imposing the religion, because, religion cannot be, and should not be imposed on any individual, (let alone on a group). The Quran says: “لا اکراه فی الدین” “There is no compulsion in the religion” (Baqareh, 256).

And, in the next verse, it is pointed out that the rights for proceeding to the defensive war is given to those who, unjustly, and only for believing in God, have been expelled from their homes. In this verse, reference is made to the migrant Muslims, who had to migrate from their homes because of tortures and persecutions by the Meccan unbelievers.

Of course, this verse explains the events that had happened, and intends to show the harshness in the situation of the migrant Muslims, and how they were expelled from their homes. It does not want to say that permission to proceed to a defensive war is conditioned by the exodus and wandering of the people who have been attacked; and if the attacked do not have to migrate, then they have no rights to proceed to the defensive war. This verse does not convey such a meaning.

Then, the holy verse describes some benefits of such a defensive war, and explains if the aggressed people were not given the rights to proceed for fighting against the militarily attack of the enemy, then, far more severe evil would spread, including pulling down of the holy places such as cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques.

In this verse, divinely authorization for war is referred to as God’s defense: “.had there not been Allah’s repelling..”, meaning that, by permitting the aggressed to have such a disciplined fight with the aggressor, God involves them in the war so that He eliminate the evil of the aggressors from the Muslims. Therefore, defense in this verse is not an “intrinsic, and natural” defense, but defense by ordaining the war, and this ordained meaning would suit and fit the meaning of the last part of the verse: “ ولینصرن الله من ینصره” “surely Allah will help him who helps His cause ”. Helping God means obeying his instructions, meaning that those who carry out God’s instructions on such defensive war are obeying God’s order, and God will help them to defeat the aggressing enemy. In another chapter, the Quran says: “ان تنصرو الله ینصرکم” “ If you help God, God will help you “ (Mohammad, 7).

Some interpreters of the Holy Koran reflect on an “intrinsic” meaning for defense in the verse, and say: “ the verse means that with the blessings of the good, God will protect and defend the bad from evil”. This interpretation does not seem correct and does not fit the context of the verse. The verse is about war and God’s permitting the aggressed to fight the aggressor so that they could repel the evil of the aggression by fighting the aggressor. Therefore, it does not fit the context to say that with the blessings of those who pray and give alms and go for Hajj, God will keep away evil from those who do not pray, do not give alms, and do not go for Hajj, as stated in Majma al Bayan, on the interpretation of verse 251 of Baqareh Chapter. Besides, such interpretations do have some misguiding consequences and effects, and implicitly would encourage and invite to neglect praying, alms giving, and Hajj performing.

If the verse wanted to say that with the blessings of the good, God protects and defends the bad, then it should have read: “ولولا دفع الله ببعض الناس عن بعض” because the root word “د فع” if used in Arabic to mean ‘defend and protect’ it must become a transitive verb used with “عن” so that the meaning of protection could be understood from it. For example, note the usage: “ان الله یدافع عن الذ ین آمنوا” “ God defends those who believe” (Hajj, 38). But if it used without “عن”, taking the object directly as in the verse “اد فع باالتی هی احسن السیئه” “repel evil by what is best”(Momenoon, 96) then, as we see, it will mean repelling, and has taken the object ‘evil’ directly.

However, as explained, the interpretation by some who say: “ the verse means that with the blessings of the good, God will protect and defend the bad from evil”, is not correct and does not fit the context, and therefore, must be rejected.

Another point is that according to this interpretation, there will be no logical correlation between the condition in the verse: “And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others”, and its consequence. Suppose it is said: “And had there not been Allah’s defending the bad from evil by the blessings from the good, there would have been pulled down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques.” In that case, what kind of rational meaning it would have? What logical connection could exist between not defending the bad, and the sacred places being destroyed? On the contrary, if God perish the bad by calamity, the sacred places would be immune from the wickedness of the bad people

Go to contents

5. “الشهر الحرام بالشهرالحرام والحرمات قصاص فمن اعتدی علیکم فا عتد واعلیه بمثل ما اعتدی علیکم واتقوا الله واعلموا ان الله مع المتقین” “the Sacred month for the Sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever, then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you, and heed God, and know that God stands by the heedful”(Baqareh, 194).

It is said: “This verse relates to the issue of Hudaybiyyah, in the month of Zilqaadeh, year six after Muslims’ migration from Mecca. In that month, the unbelievers of Mecca did not allow the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and the Muslims to take pilgrimage to Kabah for performing Omreh rituals. They even attacked the Muslims with arrows and stones. Finally, a peace accord was reached, and it was agreed that the Prophet and the Muslims return to Medina in that year, and return to Mecca the next year to perform the rituals for three days in the month of Zilqaadeh. Based on this accord, the next year, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) accompanied by Muslims set out to Mecca to perform the rituals in the month of Zilqaadeh, which is one of the sacred months, and to observe the sanctity of the month, they disliked fighting” (Aloosi, interpreting this verse).

It is also said: “The unbelievers in Mecca had the intention to catch the Muslims unawares, and have militarily attack on them, and this verse was revealed under such circumstances to point out that Sacred month is for Sacred month, meaning that war in the Sacred month is against war in the Sacred month” (Majma al Bayan, on this verse).

So, by using ‘Sacred month for Sacred month’, the verse tells Muslims if the unbelievers initiated war in the sacred month, you too can proceed for defensive war in the same month, and all sacred things are under the law of retaliation, meaning that if the unbelievers dishonored the sanctity of such months and initiated war, you are given the rights to proceed onto the defensive war, not being obligated to observe the sanctity of the month.

Then, one general rule is mentioned in the verse: “whoever, then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you,”. The real occurrence of which, naturally is a defensive war. This verse is in the context of jihad; therefore, the main focus of it is on jihad and the defensive war. And it should be noticed that in this verse too, proceeding onto war is conditioned with the initiation of aggression by the enemy. It naturally follows that if no attack is initiated by the enemy, the Muslims are not permitted to initiate militarily attack on others. This is clearly understood from the condition, “whoever then acts aggressively against you..”, the consequence: ‘your attack” will follow.

It should be noted that this condition being clearly understood from the verse needs no argument, and that is why the group of jurisprudents who consider jihad an initial war in Islam say:

“This verse is abolished by the verse: ‘وقاتلواالمشرکین کافه’ ‘and fight the unbelievers all together’ (Toubeh, 36) and thus initial war with unbelievers has become obligatory”(Tabari., on the verse)

And by the abolishment of the verse, they intend abolishment of what is meant not what is uttered. Therefore, this group also have taken for granted that considering the implication of this condition, no initial war is permitted in Islam.

Of course, abolishment of the verse (194) by this verse “وقاتلواالمشرکین کافه” is not acceptable. There is the universal rule for the absolute to be read by the restricting. (e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read by ‘give me the math book’). This universal rule applies everywhere. In our case, it requires that the unconditioned verses about the war should be read and restricted by the conditioned ones. Thus, the verse “فمن اعتدی علیکم فا عتد واعلیه بمثل ما اعتدی علیکم” “whoever, then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you” (Baqareh, 194), in which act of aggression is restricted and conditioned, will rule over the verse, “وقاتلواالمشرکین کافته” “and fight the unbelievers all together” which mentions fight unconditionally. Andو this is an evidence that initiating fight against the unbelievers is not permitted until they initiate it against the Muslims.

It is appropriate to give here the summary of the remarks of Sheikh Abdoh, quoted meaning-wise on this subject:

“ The rule in the verse: “فمن اعتدی علیکم فا عتد واعلیه بمثل ما اعتدی علیکم”, which conditions fighting the unbelievers by their initiating the war, is a permanent rule, and has never been abolished. This verse and the verses before it in this chapter of the Quran are in the same context and correlated. There is no requirement to take the verse, “وقاتلواالمشرکین کافه” from a different chapter (Baraat) and interpose it among the verses in this chapter. And it is quoted from Ibn Abbass that no abolishment was done on these verses. Therefore, if a person considers the instructions for war in these verses as absolute, and perceives that war is obligatory even in the case of the absence of the condition, namely, in the event of no attack being initiated by the enemy, such a person is driving the verses out their context, and is imposing onto the verses such a meaning that non of these verses would reflect.

“The verses on war in the AleImran Chapter are about the war of Uhud, in which the unbelievers had aggressed. The verses in the Anfal Chapter are about the Badr war, which also was an aggression by the unbelievers, and they had initiated the war. And the verses regarding war in the Bara’at Chapter are about the unbelievers who breached the bond and initiated aggression, and that is why the verse on them says: “فما استقاموا لکم فاستقیموا لهم” “َAs long as they go straight with you, go straight with them” (Bara’at, 7). Another verse also says: “الا تقاتلون قوما نکثوا ایمانهم ....وهم بداوکم اول مره” “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths …..and they attacked you first” (Bara’at, 13).

“It was the unbelievers who always initiated the war against Muslims so as to make them abandon the religion. Thus, all the wars fought by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were for defending the rights and the people of rights, and for supporting the call for the rights. If there is no one to aggress us, the Muslims, and to ruin our refuge and security, and to shed our blood, then, God has not made it obligatory for us to fight the others and shed their blood and slay them.

“And the wars fought by the companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were for the purpose of supporting the call to the rights, and stopping the aggressors from defeating the Muslims. They were not for aggressing others. But the wars that took place in the later periods, [he means the wars fought by the Caliphates of Bani Umayyeh and Bani Abbass] were requisite of the nature of power and dominance. It was not such that all those wars were corresponding with the rules of the religion. And, it is the nature of the world that the possessors of power attack the weak in their neighborhood, and invade them.” (Tafsire Alminar, 3^rd edition, Vol.2 page 215 ) Go to contents

Reading the absolute by the restricting

So far, we talked about five verses mentioning the condition by which war is permitted in Islam. The condition is the aggression by the enemy, in which case the war becomes necessary for repelling the enemy and defending the aggressed. According to these verses, the jihad that is obligatory in Islam is a defensive war, the necessity of which is certainly confirmed by the nature of every human being. The verses containing the condition are referred to as the restricting verses, meaning that they contain some condition. On the other side, there are verses that call the Muslims to war absolutely and with no conditions.

As indicated before, it is obvious that according to the universal rule of reading the absolute by the restricting (e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read by ‘give me the math book’), the restricting verses, in fact, are interpreting the absolute verses, and consequently are ruling over them. This is a general rule that applies universally, everywhere and in every terminology.

Second group: the absolute verses

Now, we are talking about some of the absolute verses, wherein Muslims are called to fight the unbelievers unconditionally, with no restrictions:

“کتب علیکم القتال و هو کره لکم وعسی ان تکرهوا شیئا و هو خیر لکم وعسی ان تحبواشیئا و هو شر لکم والله یعلم و انتم لاتعلمون” “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is bad for you, and Allah knows while you do not know” (Baqareh, 216).

“فلیقاتل فی سبیل الله الذ ین یشترون الحیواه الد نیا بالاخره و من یقاتل فی سبیل الله فیقتل او یغلب فسوف نوتیه اجرا عظیما” “ Those who sell the world’s life for the Hereafter must fight in the way Allah, and whoever fight in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward” (Nissa, 74)

“الذین آمنوا یقا تلون فی سبیل الله والذ ین کفروا یقا تلون فی سبیل الطاغوت فقاتلوا اولیاء الشیطان ان کید الشیطان کان ضعیفا” “Those who believe fight in God’s way, those who disbelieve fight in the way of the arrogant; therefore, fight Satan’s patrons. Satan’s plot is weak.” (Nissa, 76).

“قاتلوا الذ ین لا یومنون باالله ولا بالیوم الاخر ولا یحرمون ما حرم الله و رسوله ولا ید ینون د ین الحق من الذ ین اوتوالکتاب حتی یعطوالجزیته عن ید وهم صاغرون ” “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Latter Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Bara’at, 29).

“یا ایهاالذ ین آمنوا قاتلوا الذ ین یلونکم من الکفار ولیجد و فیکم غلظه واعلموا ان لله مع المتقین ” “O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you hardness; and know that God is with the god-fearing.”(Bara”at, 123).

“فاذا لقیتم الذ ین کفروا فضرب الرقاب حتی اذا اثخنتموهم فشدواالوثاق فاما منا بعد اما فداء...” “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then tie them up as prisoners and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves).” (Mohammad, 4).

These six verses are of the absolute ones, which without any condition call Muslims to fight the unbelievers. Previously, we discussed five verses that are restricting fighting of Muslims with the unbelievers. In those verses, Muslims are permitted to fight the unbelievers on the condition that the unbelievers are the initiator of the war. Andو as said before, it is obvious that according to the universally observed rule of reading the absolute by the restricting (e.g. ‘give me the book’, is read by ‘give me the math book’), the restricting verses, in fact, are interpreting the absolute verses, and consequently are ruling over them. This is a general rule that applies universally, everywhere and in every terminology. And, it means that in Islam, fighting the unbelievers is permitted only when the unbelievers are the initiator of war, in which case it becomes obligatory for Muslims to proceed for defending. Go to contents

The wars fought by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were defensive

As it was made clear that the verses in the Quran prescribes only defensive war, but not the initial war, and as we know that the first individual who put these verses into action was the Prophet (p.b.u.h) himself, it logically follows that the wars fought by this holy person himself were all defensive, and for crashing the aggression of the enemy. Thus, the expressions of the Pioneer Allameh, Sheikh Mohammad Jawad Balaqi concerning the wars of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) are absolutely valid. He says: “..فکانت حروبه باجمعها دفاعا لعدوان المشرکین الظالمین عن التوحید وشریعه الاصلاح والمسلمین . ومع ذالک فهو یسلک فی دفاعه احسن طریقه یسلکهاالمدافعون واقربها الی السلام والصلاح. یقد م الموعظه ویدعو الی الصلاح و السلام و یخبح الی السلم و یجیب الی الهد نه ویقبل عهد الصلح مع عرفانه انه المظفر المنصور.. ”[5] “All the wars of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were for defending and protecting monotheism, Muslims, and the religion of reformation against the aggression of the aggressive unbelievers. Nevertheless, he used to follow the best way that the defenders took. Even before proceeding to such a war, he engaged himself in admonishing and calling for conciliation and pacification, and showed inclination for peace. While he knew that he would be the conqueror, he used to accept ceasefire and agreed to peace treaty.” Go to contents

The view of Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh

Sheikh Mohammad Abdoh also is of the same view as that of Sheikh Mohammad Jawad Balaqi on the Prophet’s wars being of defensive nature, and says: “فقتال النبی (ص) کله کان مدافعه عن الحق واهله وحمایه لدعوه الحق و لذالک کان تقد یم الدعوه شرطا لجواز القتال وانما تکون الدعوه بالحجه والبرهان لا بالسیف والسنان ”[6] “Therefore, all the wars of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were for defending the rights and the people of rights, and for supporting the call to the truth. And, that is why calling (to Islam) before proceeding to the war is a precondition for the war to be authorized. And, calling takes place not by sword and spear, but only by reasoning and dialogue.”

Up keeping peace: the behavior of the Prophet (p.b.u.h)

So far it became clear that imposing belief is not authorized in Islam, and that in Islam peace is an infrastructural and fundamental principle, and that God has asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to attempt for maintaining the peace. It also was made clear that the verses in the Holy Koran do not authorize initial war.

Now, it seems appropriate to narrate as an example the way that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) practically behaved in the Badr war to show how he practiced, word for word, the instructions of the Quran for avoiding war and up keeping the peace.

After the trade caravan of Qureish reached Mecca safe and sound, the warmongers of Mecca accumulated an army of approximately one thousand heads to pound the Muslims. To accomplish it, they encamped in the district of Badr. Among the group, a man by the name of Otbeh ibn Rabieh, one of the esteemed persons of Mecca, was riding a red-haired camel. While moving about inside the group, he was shouting:

یا قوم! لاتقاتلوا هذاالرجل واصحابه واعصبوا هذالامر براسی واجعلوا جبنهالی فان منهم رجالا قرابتهم قریبه و لا یزال الرجل منکم ینظر الی قاتل ابیه و اخیه فیورت ذالک بینکم شحناء و اضغانا ولن تخلصوا الی قتلهم حتی یصیبوا منکم عددهم مع انی لا آمن ان تکون الدا ئره علیکم ...

یا قوم! ان یک محمد کاذ با یکفیکموه ذ ئبان العرب وان یک ملکا اکلتم فی ملک ابن اخیکم وان یک نبیا کنتم اسعدالناس به

یاقوم! لا تردوا نصیحتی ولا تفسهوا رایی ”[7]

“O my kinfolk! Accept my words, and do not fight this man and his companions. Leave it to me, and attribute the shame of the cowardice to me. You have relatives and kin among them. If fight take place, a number will be killed. Then, you will, for the whole life, have to face the murderer of your father and brother. This will cause hatred, enmity and hostility to breed among you. And you should realize that you will have no access for killing them unless they kill from you as many as you kill from them. Besides, you may be defeated…

“O my kinfolk! If Mohammad is a liar, the wolves of Arab will repel his evilness. If he is a king, you will be enjoying life under the governance of the son of your brother, and if he is a prophet, you will be the luckiest people.

“O my kinfolk! Do not reject my well-wishing for you, and do not regard my view as stupid.”

Regarding Otbeh ibn Rabieh, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said:

“ان یک فی احد من القوم خیر ففی صاحب الجمل الاحمر ان یطیعوه یرشد وا”[8]

“If there is goodwill to be found in any of the people, it can be found in the owner of the red camel. If the people obey him, they will be in the right path.”

The outstanding step taken by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in that very sensitive point was that he sent a message to the people by Umar in which he wrote: “ارجعوا فانه یلی هذاالامر منی غیرکم احب الی من ان تلوه منی والیه من غیرکم احب الی من ان الیه منکم”[9] “Go back and avoid the war. If people other than you had taken such a position against me, it would be better with me than your taking such a position. And if I had taken such a position against people other than you, it would be better with me than my taking it against you”

This endeavor of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to advise the people of Mecca to go back and avoid war, and his attempt to avert militarily clash by any means possible, and to prevent bloodshed, all of these are because the Holy Koran, in accordance with the human nature, has proclaimed peace an infrastructural principle and instructed the Prophet (p.b.u.h): “و ان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها و توکل علی الله " “if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal,61).

Thus, the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was in accordance with the Quranic verses on preserving the peace and avoiding initial war, and he did strictly practice as was instructed in the Quran.

If initiating war for imposing the religion were authorized in Islam, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) would be more apt than the others to do it, and would have done it in the event of Badr, and should have taken the lead to attack those who had gathered there. And, his not doing so was because he was acting in response to the cry of human nature, and was obeying the command of God. He avoided war and was seeking peace.

Unfortunately, some westerners, who have been lead to misread the truth as they have been misinformed, say: “ Islam authorizes war and bloodshed for imposing the religion.” Should this group of westerners take a good note of how the Prophet (p.b.u.h) acted in Badr, they may feel ashamed for this accusation. Go to contents

Peace seeking: the harmony of nature

The goodness of peace and harmony is a matter of nature and conscience. And, it is for positively responding to this natural phenomenon that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is forbidding and avoiding initial war. The desirability of peace is so clearly mixed with the human’s nature, and to such extent that, every human being, no matter what his belief may be, instantly would admire anyone who is avoiding initial war and is calling to peace.

A good proof: when the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was asking the Meccan unbelievers to avoid war, and was calling to peace, Hakim ibn Hezam, the nephew of Khadijeh bint Khoweiled, and Kabah born[10], was in the unbelievers camp then. He later became a Muslim. Upon hearing the Prophet’s words, Hakim ibn Hezam said: قد عرض نصفا فاقبلوه والله لاتنصرن علیه بعد ما عرض من النصف ”[11] “Mohammad has a fair suggestion, and it should be accepted. By God, after this fair suggestion that he made, if you fightو you will not defeat him”

There was the cry coming from the nature and conscience of this unbeliever, accentuated by swearing to God, telling his kinfolk: “..By God, after this fair suggestion that Mohammad made, if you fight, you will not defeat him.” This cry is a good testimony to the fact that, seeking peace, by the head of Muslims, is a desirable and pleasing issue, and opposing it, is aggression and injustice that will have terrible consequences, leading to the defeat. And, ultimately, it was what happened: the warmongers of Mecca were severely defeated.

Criticizing the views of jurisprudents, based on the Quran and the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h)

So far, it was explained that according to the Quranic verses, and as the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) shows, it is well obvious that initiating war for imposing the religion is not authorized in Islam. In spite of it, with great wonder, it is noticed that wherever the jurisprudents discuss the Islamic jihad, they introduce it as initial war for inviting to Islam, or in a more precise term, for imposing Islam on the unbelievers. This is in direct opposition with the verses and with the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) .

Now, we are paraphrasing some of the writings of such jurisprudents on this subject for the analytically minded to think on them.

Passages from Imam Shafii

In his book, “Omm”, Imam Shafii says:

“ولما مضت لرسول الله (ص) مده من هجرته انعم الله تعالی فیها علی جماعه باتباعه وحد ثت لهم بها مع عون الله قوه بالعد د لم تکن قبلها ففرض الله علیهم الجهاد بعد اذ کان اباحه لا فرضا فقال تبارک وتعالی : "کتب علیکم القتال و هو کره لکم" .... وقال تبارک وتعالی: "وقاتلوا فی سبیل الله "....وقال عز وجل: "وجاهدوا فی الله حق جهاده" وقال: "فاذا لقیتم الذین کفروا فضرب الرقاب حتی اذا اثنختموهم فشدواالوثاق" وقال عز وجل: "ما لکم اذا قیل لکم انفروا فی سبیل الله اثاقلتم الی الارض...."”[12]

“After some time passed from the Prophet’s migration, God blessed some groups to follow him, and by God’s help, number wise, they gained such a power that they did not have before. Then, God made jihad obligatory for them while it was not obligatory before that phase. So, regarding jihad being obligatory, in the Quran God said: “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it” God also said: “Fight in the way of Allah”, and said: “Strive for God’s sake, the way He should be striven for”. God also said: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then tie them up as prisoners”. Allah also said: “.. What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah’s way, you should incline heavily to earth”.

Imam Shafii wants to say that as daily prayers, and yearly fasting became obligatory for Muslims, so did initial fighting with the unbelievers because of the verses he is referring to.

In his argument, Imam Shafii has referred to the absolute group of verses, and left out the conditioned ones wherein fighting is conditioned by the aggression from the enemy. It is not because he ignored those verses, but because he considers them abolished. Before discussing the absolute verses, Imam Shafii refers to some of the conditioned verses, such as: “اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون بانهم ظلموا وان الله علی نصرهم لقد یر “Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them” الذین اخرجوا من دیارهم بغیر حق Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause “ وقاتلوا فی سبیل الله الذ ین یقاتلونکم ولا تعتدو ان الله لایحب المعتد ین “And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not. God loves not the aggressors” لا تقاتلوهم عندالمسجد الحرام حتی یقاتلوکم فیه فان قاتلوکم فاقتلوهمو " “But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you slay them.”

After quoting these verses, Imam Shafii says: “نسخ هذا کله والنهی عن القتال حتی یقاتلوا...بقول الله( عز وجل): وقاتلوهم حتی لا تکون فتنه " ونزل هذه الایه بعد فرض الجهاد.”[13]

“All these, and prohibition of war ‘till they fight..’…are abolished by these words of Allah(SWT) : “And fight them till there is no persecution”.

This view that the conditioned verses on jihad are abolished existed among the jurisprudents, and interpreters of the Quran before Shafii. ‘Abdu al Rahman ibn zeid ibn Aslam, and Rabi ibn Anas had the same idea.’[14] Shafii too has quoted it from others, not mentioning their names. Go to contents

One very important and amazing question

One very important and amazing question that must be answered here is this: What factors were in use that caused the evident, universally accepted ‘rule-of-reading-the-absolute-by-the-restricting’ to be ignored? Such an important rule, the validity of which was and is accepted by all the experts regarding the terminology of legislators and interpreters of law, anywhere, in all tenets and through out history, why was it ignored regarding the verses on jihad? This ignorance has resulted in portraying an ugly face for Islam before the world community, and has caused the naturally desired defensive phenomenon, as ordained in the Quran, to be distorted and introduced to the world as initial war for imposing a belief. (‘And what an unfairness about a religion all the moralities of which are nature oriented’ translator)

Did politics of the day affect the subject?

Were individuals such as Rabi ibn Anas, and Abd al Rahman ibn Zeid ibn Aslam under the influence of the governing atmosphere, where the oppressor Caliphs started initial wars and bloodshed in the name of Islamic jihad for the purpose of territorial expansion?

It is obvious that under such atmosphere, dictatorship and strict tyranny would govern, and no one would have the courage to issue a verdict or interpret verses of the Quran in such a way that may have the consequences of condemning such unjust and cruel militarily attacks as were done by the pitiless Caliphs. As Sheikh Abdoh says, the wars fought by the cruel Caliphs were according to the nature of their hegemony and domain of aggression against their neighbors, and this action of theirs was not in accordance with the Islamic rules.[15]

An example of the cruel fight by the rulers in the period of the Caliphs

In the period of the caliphate of Bani Umayyeh, Hajjaj ibn Yousef Thaqafi assigned Quteibeh ibn Muslim Baheli to the governorship of the then Khorassan province. In a military expedition, Quteibeh attacked Bukhara and conquered it. Then, he set out for Taliqan, where Batham was in dominance.

Batham’s son was in the company of Quteibeh. Quteibeh seized Batham’s son, and hanged him together with a group. Then, for a few days, he fought Batham, and finally, defeated him and murdered him together with all his children and wife.

While Quteibeh conquered Bukhara and Taliqan, Nizak Tarkhoon, who by then had become a Muslim, and had adopted the name, Abdullah, asked for permission from Quteibeh to go his homeland, Takharestan. When he got there, he began corresponding with the non-Arabs, and gathered some force.

Quteibeh started an expedition to Takharestan. He sent Salim Nassih, one his friends, for dialogue with, and in fact for deceiving Nizak. On behalf of Quteibeh, Salim Nassih assured Nizak that whatever he may demand will be accepted. Finally, they gave him formal respite, and sent him to Quteibeh.

In spite of the formal respite, when Nizak reached Quteibeh, Quteibeh beheaded him together with his nephew, and sent their heads for Hajjaj ibn Yousef.

Quteibeh then seized Nizak’ wife for raping. In this privacy, she said: “What a foolish person you are! Do you think that by killing my husband and depriving me of my domain, I may submit myself to you?” Quteibeh had to take hands off her, and said : “ Go wherever you want.[16]”

All such crimes, and offenses were committed under the umbrella of the Bani Umayyeh Caliph by the name of Islamic jihad.

Within such a dictatorial and tyrannical environment, those groups of verdict-issuers jurisprudents, and interpreters of the Quran who are really pious, are caught in dilemma (تقیه) and out of helplessness, cautiously give such a view not be considered outright opposition with the ruling regime. But those groups who are less pious possibly issue their verdict and give interpretations to the liking of such governing regime.

Such a statement that “the restricting and conditioned verses on jihad whereby initial war is prohibited, all were abolished” would be in conformity with the actions of such cruel Caliphs, not in accordance with the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). However, this view prevailed among a group of jurisprudents and the interpreters of the Quran, and continued up to the period of Shafii, who also accepted it, and issued his verdict on that basis. It is not clear whether it was Shafii’s actual view, or he expressed it being compelled under the dictatorial and tyrannical atmosphere. But the point is clear that in the jurisprudence of Shafii.s period this view was stable and unquestionable, and Shafii was impressed by it.

And naturally, the jurisprudence after Shafii was affected by this view, and it was reflected in the books and verdicts of the jurisprudents thereafter. That is why we notice this view in the verdicts and books of the jurisprudents of both the Sunni and Shiah after Imam Shafii, and that is why all of them coordinately have said that jihad in Islam means initiating war for inviting to Islam, or better expressed, for imposing Islam on others by the force of weaponry.

This view of Imam Shaffi is an example of how the jurisprudents have treated this subject. As said earlier, other examples from other jurisprudents are given below. Go to contents

Passages from Ibn Homam Hanafi

In his book, ‘فتح القد یر’ Ibn Homam Hanafi says: قتال الکفار واجب وان لم یبد ئونا لان الادله الموجبه له لم یقید الوجوب ببدائتهم ...وصریح قوله فی الصحیحین وغیرهما : امرت ان اقاتل الناس حتی یقولوا لا اله الا الله یوجب ان نبد ئهم بادنی تامل “Fighting the unbelievers is obligatory even if they are not the initiators of the war because the evidences raised for confirming that jihad is obligatory are not conditioning it by the unbelievers initiating the war. Besides, the narration from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as mentioned in Sahihe Bukhari, and Sahihe Muslim and other books is explicitly saying: ‘I am instructed to fight people till they utter there is no God but One’. This narration needs little thought for proving that jihad is obligatory.” Ibn Homam says: “the evidences that show jihad is obligatory do not condition it by the unbelievers’ initiating it. [17]”

To disprove Ibn Homam’s argument, we say: “ The main evidences for jihad being obligatory are the verses from the Quran. Earlier, it was explained that some of the verses are absolute, and some are conditioned or restricting. In the restricting verses, jihad being obligatory is conditioned by the unbelievers initiating it. And, according to a general rule, the absolute verses are read and restricted by the restricting ones.

Suppose, you are told: “ Entertain the scholars” and then, this absolute command is followed by a restricting and conditioned one: “Don’t entertain the Persian scholars”. You, as the addressee entertained the Persian scholars and now are questioned by your commander. Can you excuse yourself by saying that I acted on the basis of the absolute command: “Entertain the scholar”? Now, why can you not excuse yourself for doing so? It is clear. When the restricting command was issued, it overruled the absolute one; therefore, you cannot use the absolute one to reason for fulfillment of the duty.

Now, what Ibn Homam says: “the evidences that show jihad is obligatory do not condition it by the unbelievers’ initiating it” would mean that he does not heed the restricting verses, but only the absolute ones. Then, how can he excuse himself? In his case, there is the possibility of one of two issues:

1. He did know nothing about reading the absolute by the restricting. This is beyond the status of a well educated jurisprudent.

2. In the atmosphere that governed the jurisprudence of his time, Ibn Homam has not been able to think freely and to release himself from the captivity of the verdict that was common and prevailing in those days, and like Imam Shafii, has claimed: “The restricting verses on jihad are abolished, and have no worth as evidence”

As we explained earlier, such a claim is baseless and is not acceptable. To argue that the restricting verses on jihad were abolished is so illogical that Tabari, the man of concept on interpretation of the Quran, calls such a claim hegemony and self-supremacy while he is discussing the verse : “وقاتلوا فی سبیل الله الذ ین یقاتلونکم ولا تعتدوا” (Baqareh, 190), “And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not”. Tabari’s words translated reads: “And that somebody say ‘this verse is abolished’ is, in fact, a kind of hegemony and self-supremacy, and there is no evidence for it”

This saying of Tabari is absolutely correct. And, whoever says: “The restricting verses on jihad are abolished”, his saying is, in fact, out of hegemony and self-supremacy from which a free thinker jurisprudent should avoid.

Now, let us talk about the narration from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) mentioned in Sahihe Bukhari, and Sahihe Muslim and other books, saying: ‘I am instructed to fight people till they utter there is no God but One’. Ibn Homam uses it also as evidence for his view. But, it should be realized that this narration is an absolute evidence that, with the assumption of its validity, must be treated like the absolute verses on the subject. Thus, naturally it will be read by the restricting verses and will be explained as: “I am instructed to fight the aggressing people who initiated the war as long as they are unbelievers and continue their aggression till the time they utter ‘there is no God but One’, at which point they naturally will stop fighting and the war will be over.

In any code of law the articles are never practiced separately with no attention to other relative articles in the same code. The code is considered a correlative complex, and the absolute articles are read by the restricting ones. Likewise, the verses of the Quran together with the valid narrations is considered a correlated complex, the absolutes in which must be read by the restricting ones, as explained above. The absolutes alone cannot be used as evidence.

Ibn Homam has applied the narration in its absoluteness, with no attention to the restricting verses, as has done so using the absolute verses, not paying attention to the restricting verses. And this, of course, is a non-scholarly and unacceptable manner. Go to contents

Passages from Sheikh Toosi

We know that there existed cultural exchange between the scholars of Sunni and Shiah, and it was a common manner to have cross-reference of views among the scholars of the two sects. In the environment of Baqdad, where Sheikh Toosi was making his scholarly efforts in his studies on the questions of jurisprudence, interpretation of the Quran, and other Islamic subjects, his normal method was to refer to the Sunni sources to make extraction from them . A look at Tafsire Tebyan, written by Sheikh Toosi on the interpretation of the Quran, would show how he had been reliant on Tafsire Tabari, Tafsire Ramani, and other interpretations of the Sunni scholars.

On the subjects of jurisprudence too, part of his work-plan was to refer to the books written by the Sunni scholars. His most comprehensive book on jurisprudence, ‘Mabsoot’, is written according to the style of the Sunni scholars. Therefore, it is natural for him to have been, occasionally, affected by the views and assumptions prevailing in that environment. It is even possible that he may have plainly accepted a verdict that had been compulsory for the public and may have included it in his books on jurisprudence.

In such an environment where the Sunni jurisprudence was ruling over the seminaries, neither Sheikh Toosi, nor any other jurisprudent could have been expected otherwise. And that is why we notice that on the subject in question about jihad, Sheikh Toosi has included in his books the same view that Imam Shafii has expressed in ‘Omm’, and accepted it without any scrutiny and criticism. In his book, ‘Nehayah’, which include his verdicts, Sheikh Toosi says:

"کل من خالف الا سلام من سائر اصناف الکفار یجب مجاهد تهم و قتالهم غیر انهم ینقسمون قسمین: قسم لا یقبل منهم الا الاسلام والدخول فیه او یقتلون وتسبی ذراریهم و توخذ اموالهم وهم جمیع اصناف الکفار الاالیهود والنصاری والمجوس. والقسم الاخر هم الذین توخذ منهم الجزیه و هم الاجناس الثلا ثه الذ ین ذکرناهم فانهم متی انقادوا للجزیه و قبلوها وقاموا بشرائطها لم یجز قتالهم ولم یسغ سبی ذراریهم ومتی ابوالجزیه اواخلوا بشرائطها کان حکمهم حکم غیرهم من الکفار فی انه یجب علیهم القتل وسبی الذراری واخذالاموال ...[18]."

“Fighting as jihad with all groups of unbelievers is obligatory. And the unbelievers are divided into two groups. From one of them nothing but Islam is accepted. And if they do not accept Islam, they are killed, their children are captured, and their wealth is confiscated. This includes all groups of unbelievers except the Jews, Christians, and the Magus. These three groups, if they accept to pay the tax and act according to its terms, it is not permitted to fight them, and to capture their children. And if refuse to pay the tax, or do not comply with its terms, they will be treated like the other groups of unbelievers, and it will become obligatory to fight them, capture their children, and confiscate their wealth”

We can see how the jurisprudential view governing the seminaries of that period has affected Sheikh Toosi, and he has not managed to release himself from its influence. Consequently, he has issued the same verdict that was included by Imam Shafii in his book, ‘Omm’

We certainly believe that if Sheikh Toosi had made efforts for analyzing the jihad verses in an environment beyond the governance of the Sunni jurisprudence, he should have concluded that the restricting verses are ruling over the absolute ones, and this would mean that initial war with others is not permitted, and only when the enemy initiate aggression, it is then that fighting, which by its nature is abhorred, becomes a necessity for defense, and becomes obligatory wisdom-wise, religion-wise, and social-wise. And this is all what Islamic jihad is about.

But Sheikh Toosi has not managed to escape the influence of the environment. Therefore, under the circumstances that the Sunni jurisprudence was governing the atmosphere of inferring the Islamic legal rules from its sources, Sheihk Toosi has taken Imam Shafii’s verdict that was common in those days, and included it as his own verdict in his book, ‘Nehayeh.

Of course, we cannot be follower of Sheikh Toosi, and therefore, not only do not accept his inference on this subject, but also would criticize it in the same way that we did on Imam Shafii’s verdict earlier. Go to contents

Passages from Ibn Idriss

Ibn Idriss Helli, in his book, ‘Sara’er’, says:

"ولا یجوز قتال احد من الکفار الا بعد دعائهم الی الاسلام واظهار الشهاد تین والاقراربالتوحید والعد ل والتزام جمیع شرائط الاسلام فمتی دعوا الی ذالک ولم یجیبوا حل قتالهم " [19] “Fighting the unbelievers is not authorized unless they are invited to Islam, and to utter witness that there is nothing to be worshipped but God, and that Mohammad is God’s Messenger, and that God is unique, and He is Just, and that they will observe all the terms set by Islam. After such invitation, if there was no response from the unbelievers, then fighting them is authorized.”

What Ibn Idriss says has this meaning: “Invitation to Islam is to be done by the force of weaponry; therefore, if the unbelievers did not accept the invitation, then, initial fight against them must be started so that they either accept Islam, or are killed.”

It is obvious that Ibn Idriss also has not paid attention to the restricting verses on jihad, and consequently has considered initial war against unbelievers to be obligatory if they did not accept Islam. In fact, Ibn Idriss has accepted the verdict of Sheikh Toosi, who himself had followed Imam Shafii, and included it in his book, Nehayeh.

We already have criticized and disapproved Shafii’s view, and there is no need to repeat it here.

However, we should add here that verse 90 of the Nissa Chapter is explicitly prohibiting initial war with the unbelievers. The verse says: “ فان اعتزلوکم فلم یقاتلوکم والقوا الیکم السلام فما جعل الله لکم علیهم سبیلا “ Therefore, if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.”(Nissa,90)

This verse is also one of the restricting verses that we did not mention under that group. Anyhow, according to this verse and the other restricting ones that already were discussed, initiating war against unbelievers is, in no way, permitted.

This verse clearly prohibits initiating war against the peace-seeking unbelievers. But in the next verse, defensive war against the warmonger unbelievers, who initiate fighting, has become obligatory. It says: “ " فان لم یعتزلوکم ویلقوا لیکم السلم ویکفوا ایدیهم عنکم فخذوهم واقتلوهم حیث ثقفتموهم واولئکم جعلنا لکم علیهم سلطانا مبینا" (91Nissa, ) “Therefore, if they do not withdraw from you and (do not) offer you peace, and hold back their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these, We have given you clear authority.” Go to contents

Passages from Allameh Helli

Allameh Helli, in his book, ‘تذ کره’ has written: "کل من یجب جهاده فاالواجب علی المسلمین النفور الیهم اما لکفهم او لنقلهم الی الاسلام فان بد ئوهم بالقتال وجب جهادهم وانما یجب جهاد من یطلب اسلامه بعد دعائهم الی محاسن الاسلام والتزامهم شرائطه فان فعلو ذالک والا قوتلوا.." [20] “..So there is the obligation for Muslims to migrate to all those who fighting with them is obligatory, either for repelling them or converting them to Islam; then, if they started war, it would be obligatory to fight them. And those who are asked to convert to Islam, first should be called to Islam and being bound by its terms. If they accepted it and became bound by its terms, then they are free; otherwise, war must be initiated against them.”

What Allameh Helli has said about initial war with the unbelievers is the same as what was said by Sheikh Toosi, and Ibn Idriss. It means that Allameh Helli also has not paid attention to the restricting verses on jihad, wherein fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their initiating the war. If he had duly considered these verses, he should not have issued such a verdict to make it obligatory to initiate war against the unbelievers in case they did not accept Islam. However, Allameh’s view is criticized and rejected by the same argument that was given on the views of Shafii, Sheikh Toosi, and Ibn Idriss.

Passages from Shahide Thani

In his book, Sharhe Lum’eh, Shahid Thani says:کتاب الجهاد وهو علی اقسام: جهادالمشرکین ابتدائا لدعائهم الی الاسلام وجهاد من یدهم علی المسلمین من الکفار ..."[21] “Jihad is several kinds; one is initiating war against the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam, another is fighting the unbelievers who have attacked the Muslims.”

Shahid Thani has also neglected the restricting verses on Jihad; so, he has expressed such a view that, like the ones expressed by the jurisprudents named before, is not based on a valid evidence, and is, therefore, rejected. Of course, if he had taken into account the meaning of the restricting verses, whereby fighting has been conditioned by the unbelievers’ having attacked the Muslims, he should not have issued such a verdict. Go to contents

Passages from Sahib “Jawahir”

Sahib ‘Jawahir’ says:"لاریب ان الا صلی منه قتال الکفار ابتدائا علی الاسلام وهوالذ ی نزل فیه "کتب علیکم القتال وهو کره لکم وعسی ان تکرهوا شیئا وهو خیر لکم وعسی ان تحبواشیئا وهو شر لکم."“No doubt, the main jihad is what is fought initially against the unbelievers to make them accept Islam, and it is this type of jihad that this verse was revealed about: ‘Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is bad for you.’ ( 216Baqare) [22] ”

Here, Sahib ’Jawhir’ claims two points. First, he claims that the main jihad is what is fought initially for making the unbelievers accept Islam. Second, he states that the verse: “"کتب علیکم القتال وهو کره لکم (Baqareh, 216) “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it” was revealed for initially fighting the unbelievers to invite them to Islam.

As for his first claim, it was absolutely cleared in the previous sections that the restricting verses on jihad are overruling the absolute ones. And, the restricting verses say that fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their aggression. Therefore, as proved earlier, this type of war is the main jihad in Islam, not initiating war against the unbelievers to make them accept Islam.

Regarding, his second claim, we should have a look at the verse immediately after verse 216, which reads: ( Baqareh, 217 ) "..ولایزالون یقاتلونکم حتی یردوکم عن دینکم ان استطاعوا.."“And they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion if they can.”

A plain look at this verse, very clearly shows us what the backdrop was for the revelation of verse 216. Is it other than Muslims having been constantly attacked by the unbelievers? Therefore, contrary to what is claimed by Sahib “Jawahir”, verse 216 was not revealed to make initial war with unbelievers obligatory. It was revealed under the circumstances that Muslims were, gravely and constantly, attacked by the unbelievers to turn them back from their religion.

Thus, considering the circumstances, verse 216 is saying: “ Defensive fighting against the aggression of the enemy is enjoined on you; and, you may dislike it because you may be in trouble and have losses; and, it may be that you dislike a thing like defensive war, while it is good for you since it repels the evil of the enemy; and, it may be that you love a thing like comfort and evading to fight the aggressing enemy, while, it is bad for you since in that case you will be beaten by the enemy, and your comfort-seeking, ultimately, will be the cause of discomfort and misery for you. Go to contents

Calling to belief by the force of weaponry!!

Ibn Idriss, Allameh Helli, Shahid Thani, and Sahib “Jawhir” state that it is obligatory to initiate war against the unbelievers to invite them to Islam. In other words, they say that Jihad in Islam is initial war with unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. This, in fact, means that, according to these jurisprudents, imposing Islam by the force of weaponry is ordained in Islam.

It should be realized that what these jurisprudents are saying is in direct contrast with what is expressed in the verses of the Quran.

Talking about invitation to Islam, the Quran instructs the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and other Muslims to do it in this manner: “"ادع الی سبیل ربک بالحکمه والموعظه الحسنه وجادلهم بالتی هی احسن :(Nahl, 125 ) “Call to the way of your lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputation with them in the best manner.”

The Quran also says: "لا اکراه فی الد ین " (Baqareh,256). “There is no compulsion in religion.” And says: انا هد یناه السبیل اما شاکرا واما کفورا " (Dahr,3) “Surely, We have shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful”

In another verse, it says: "قل الحق من ربکم فمن شاء فالیومن ومن شاء فالیکفر" (Kahf, 29) “And say: Truth comes from your Lord. Let anyone who wishes to, believe, and let anyone who wishes to, disbelieve.”

Basically, calling to the right way, by its nature is together with logic, dialogue, argument, admonishing, and benevolence. It is never compatible with threat, and compelling. Wherever the force of weaponry is used for imposing, invitation with the correct sense cannot exist. In such cases, only the glow of weaponry, and spear do govern. It is a kind of unpleasant joke, or irony to call it invitation.

Anyhow, the view that jihad is ordained in Islam for imposing the religion on the people by armed and weaponry invitation, as stated by these jurisprudents, is neither in accordance with the text of the Quran, nor compatible with human nature and intellect, and nor is it acceptable by humanity.

Such observation should be condemned as an irrational and unacceptable view. The sphere of the Holy Koran also must be kept clean and away from such vision. And, never should it be claimed that the verse, “"کتب علیکم القتال وهو کره لکم (Baqareh, 216) “Fighting is enjoined on you; and you dislike it”(discussed earlier), was revealed for having initial fight with unbelievers. Go to contents

Rational calling in the battlefield

In some narrations (aha’dith) there is the mention of calling the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them, such as the one narrated from Ali (a.s.), in which he says that when the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was sending him to Yemen, he advised him: "لا تقاتلن احدا حتی تدعوه الی الاسلام وایم لله لئن یهدی الله عزوجل علی ید یک رجلا خیر لک مما طلعت علیه الشمس وغربت.[23] “O Ali, do not fight anyone unless you invite him to Islam before fighting. By God, if you become the instrument of God for one person to be guided, it is better for you than whatever is covered by the setting and rising of the sun.”

In the narration of Bureideh, it is also quoted from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) that whenever he assigned a commander for an army, he advised him: "اذا لقیت عد وک من المشرکین فادعهم الی ثلاث خصال فایتهن ما اجابوک فاقبل منهم وکف عنهم ادعهم الی الاسلام فان اجابوک فاقبل منهم وکف عنهم..[24].... " “When you encounter the unbeliever enemy, invite them to one of the three. Which one of the three they accepted, be satisfied and avoid fighting them. First, invite them to Islam. If they accepted it, be satisfied and avoid attacking them…..”

Now considering that in the Holy Koran, as fully was explained earlier, the initial war against the unbelievers is prohibited, it naturally follows that these two narrations are talking about the aggressing enemies. The narrations mean that repelling the evil of the aggressing enemy is not necessarily to be done by the way of fighting. There is another or other ways to do it, which way or ways that have priority over fighting. One of them, which enjoys the first priority, is inviting to Islam. Such invitation, of course, is an effort for guidance and showing the right way. And, such an effort is the most major and chief function of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and the other messengers of God. It is obvious that if the aggressing enemy accepted the invitation to Islam, automatically their aggression will be over, peace will prevail, and, thereafter, the aggressors will become brothers in Islam.

Invitation of this type, done before fighting the aggressing unbelievers, is something rational and favorable. It is a great means for preserving peace and eliminating the settings for the fight. For example, we can mention the invitation made by Ali (a.s.) to the aggressing unbeliever, Amr ibn Abdwad, in the Battle of Khandaq. Ali (a.s.) said to him: “ I propose you three issues. The first of them is acceptance of Islam. [25]” Considering the social standing of Amr, if he had accepted Islam, there would have been a great ideological and cultural revolution in the enemy camp, and, it would have been a major factor for ceasing the aggression, and sustaining the peace.

This type of invitation is, in its nature, completely different from what is said that the main jihad is initial war with the unbelievers for inviting them to Islam. As explained earlier, this type of invitation is an effort for guiding the aggressing unbelievers to the right way, and is done by the commander of the Muslims power while he is ready to defend themselves against the aggressors. The commander says to the aggressors: “If you are satisfied with the invitation, freely and with no compulsion, at your choice, accept Islam; thus, you will be in the right path, and, at the same time, it will lead to the prevention of bloodshed as well.”

But what the jurisprudents say, with the effect that it is obligatory to initiate war with the peace-seeking unbelievers to invite them to Islam, (in fact, to impose Islam on them by the force of weaponry) is a different style of invitation that is short of the guidance and admonishing mentioned in those two narrations, and is not compatible with the spirit of Islam.

Ali’s journey to Yemen was for admonishing

It should be realized that Ali’s trip to Yemen, mentioned in the first narration, was a guidance journey, not a military expedition. It was planned because before Ali, Khalid ibn Walid was sent for admonishing the people of Yemen. But during his six-month stay there, no one had shown any inclination to Islam. Then, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) sent Ali to replace Khalid.

So, Khalid, together with all the men accompanying him, except Bura ibn Aazib, had to return. Bura ibn Aazib is quoted to have said:

“Accompanying Ali, when we reached the fringe of Yemen, and the people got the news of it, they became ready for war. Ali said the dawn prayer with us. Then, he arranged us in files, and stood up, facing us and the people of Yemen. After expressing praise and gratitude to God, he read the letter from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) for the people of Yemen. As a result of this, the whole tribe of Hamdan accepted Islam in one day. Ali informed this to the Prophet (p.b.u.h), who became very pleased and performed prostration in gratitude to God [26].”

From the contents of this event, it is realized that Ali’s mission to Yemen was for guidance and admonishment, and, at the same time, he had deterrent power with him. Therefore, when the Prophet (p.b.u.h) advised Ali : “O Ali, do not fight anyone unless you invite him to Islam before fighting..” his advice has the meaning that if in this admonishment journey, in case the people wanted to attack you, before having militarily conflict, invite them to Islam. It is obvious that in case of the happening of such attack, it would not have been Ali who initiated the war; as he was not the initiator of war in the battles of Jamal, Seffein, and Nahrewan, but the aggressing forces imposed war on Ali. Go to contents

The reasoning of Allameh Tabatabaee

In the previous paragraphs, it was explained that the earliest jurisprudents viewed the main jihad in Islam as initial fighting for imposing the religion by the force of weaponry. As far as we know, this view became contained in the books of jurisprudence in the time of Imam Shafii (died in year 204 after Hijreh). In the later periods too, the jurisprudents accepted it with no hesitation. Consequently, by the passage of time, this view became the dominant verdict among the jurisprudents. Earlier in this book, we mentioned seven examples of the verdicts of the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents, and rejected them.

Of the contemporary scholars, the author of Almizan also has accepted initial war with the unbelievers, and views it as a natural and innate phenomenon. For his view on this subject, he argues as follows:

“ The Quran states that Islam and the religion of theism is based on the nature of human, and it undertakes advancement of humanity. God says in the Quran: "فاقم وجهک للد ین حنیفا فطره الله التی فطر الناس علیها." (Rum, 30) “Then set your face upright for religion in the right state, the nature made by Allah in which He has made men.”

“Therefore, upholding Islam and the religion of theism, and maintaining it, is the most important rights of humanity. Defending this most vital rights is also another natural rights, regarding which the Quran says: “ و لولا دفع الله الناس بعضهم ببعض لهد مت صوامع وبیع و صلوات ومساجد یذکر فیها اسم الله کثیرا"(حج 40) “And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others, there would have been pulled down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned;.”

“ The Quran also says: "یاایها الذ ین آمنوا استجیبوا لله و للرسول اذا دعاکم لما یحییکم (انفال 24) “You who believe, respond to God and the Messenger whenever he invites you to something that will make you live”

“And jihad is the thing that will make humanity live. Be it for defending the Muslims, or for protecting the core of Islam, or be it the initial fight with the unbelievers, in all of these cases, war, in fact, is defending the human rights that should prevail. Disbelief in God would cause bereavement for human, and death of the nature made by God for man. War and jihad would breathe life into humanity after it is perished (by disbelief).

“The wars mentioned in the Quran are either for eliminating disbelief in God, or for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book and making them obligated to pay tax.

“What is said that war would cause compelling people to accept religion, and imposing religion on them, does no matter. Because revival of humanity depends on imposing the truth on some people after rational argument is completed. And, this is common among the nations and governments. They invite people to follow the civil code, and if somebody violated it, first he or she is invited to obey the code. Then, if they did not accept it, the law is imposed on them, even if it may lead to fight.

“Besides, imposing and compelling will only apply to the first generation, and generations thereafter, will be educated by the true religious practice, and will accept the religion of human nature at their own choice and free will.”

In connection with Allameh’s words, we should talk on some points:

First point: As said before, there is not such a jihad in Islam with the meaning of imposing the religion by the force of weaponry, and consequently, one is not required to have to justify it. In other words, we don’t have to accept the view of imposing, which is contrary to the Quran and logic, and then have to look for justification.

Second point: As accepting theism is the rights of humanity and people, with the same token, the freedom in accepting or rejecting theism is also the rights of humanity and people. Islam have never deprived man from this rights because these verses,

“There is no compulsion in religion” 1. " لااکراه فی الد ین " (بقره 256) “Let anyone who wishes to, believe, and let anyone who wishes to, disbelieve” 2. "فمن شاء فلیومن ومن شاء فلیکفر (کهف 29) “ Surely We have shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful” 3. " انا هدیناه السبیل اما شاکرا واما کفورا " (دهر 3) ,

have never been abolished, and to the end of the world are calling that human being is free in the choice of religion. It is neither logical nor fair to deprive humanity from some rights, namely the rights of being free in the choice of belief and religion, only to preserve some other human rights, namely the rights of natural theism.

Third point: The claim of Allameh, to the effect that a kind of jihad is for eliminating polytheism and disbelief in God, cannot be a valid claim, because, Islamic jihad is a natural reaction against the aggression and injustice of the enemy.اذ ن للذ ین یقاتلون بانهم ظلموا “Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed.”

If initial war for eliminating disbelief were obligatory, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should not have arranged peace treaty with the unbelievers at Hodeybiya, but should have fought them till Islam was imposed on them.

If initial war were obligatory, after conquering Mecca, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should not have let the unbelievers go free to maintain their disbelief, and participate in the Hajj ceremony of the next year, practicing their own ritual.

He also should never have entered into a bilateral defensive accord with the unbelievers of Khuza’eh, to undertake defending them against the aggression of their enemies. Instead, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) should have defeated them by initial war to impose Islam on them.

In addition to all of these, disbelief being a function of mind and heart cannot be eliminated by war and with the force of weaponry because weapons operate on one’s body not on his mind, and disbelief has its place in one’s mind.

Fourth point: In his words on one kind of jihad, “..or for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book and making them obligated to pay tax.”, Allameh has reference to verse 29, of Baraat, “قاتلوا الذین لایومنون باالله ولا بالیوم الاخر ولا یحرمون ما حرم الله و رسوله ولا یدینون د ین الحق من الذ ین اوتوالکتاب حتی یعطوالجزیته عن ید وهم صاغرون ” “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Latter Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

As mentioned before, this verse is one of the absolute verses, and according to the universally practiced rule of reading the absolute by the restricting, it will be read by the conditioned verses and will mean: “ Fight with those groups of the people of Book who initiated attack, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” Thus, the verse does not want to say that (as Allameh says) you should initiate and start war against the People of Book for having the True Word of God rule over the word of the people of Book, and so that they become obligated to pay tax.

Fifth point: Allameh compares imposing religion by the force of weaponry on unbelievers with imposing civil code on the violators by their own government. This is a comparison with no similarity. Executing civil code is imposed on the people who have accepted the regime having such a civil code. So, if they violate it they must be punished. In fact, the people themselves at their own choice have accepted, and obligated themselves for such imposition.

But the case is different with the unbelievers. The unbelievers themselves have not accepted such imposition, and we cannot say war should be imposed on them as obligated by themselves.

Besides, executing the civil code by the force of weaponry is not imposing a belief. It is just some executive work, and is done because they violate a code that they themselves have become obligated to it at their choice under the regime of their own selection.

Sixth point: Allameh says: “Disbelief in God would cause bereavement for human, and death of the nature made by God for man. War and jihad would breathe life into humanity after it is perished (by disbelief).” Now, the question is whose bereavement, and the perishment of whose God-made nature is meant. Is it meant that humanity will die and perish in the individual who has disbelief? Or does it mean that humanity and the God-made nature in general will perish and be in bereavement?

It is obvious that the disbelief of an individual does not perish humanity and kill the God-made nature in general and in everybody. The disbelief of any individual has personal effect, and would cause perishment of humanity, bereavement, and death of God-made nature in his own personality. For instance, we cannot say that the disbelief of some unbelievers in Mecca, had perished humanity in the whole world, so it should have been revived by initiating war against them.

Therefore, Allameh’s words in its generality, with the meaning that disbelief would cause the death of God-made nature in humanity, cannot be valid. Disbelief will perish the individual himself because he was free in choosing the right from the wrong, and he has chosen the wrong freely and at his own choice.

Seventh point: If initating war, as main jihad, for imposing Islam on the unbelievers were obligatory, (the view that Allameh and others hold), then, before anyone else, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) himself should have done it. And, the best time that he would do it, was when Mecca was conquered, and Muslims became dominant there. But, on the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not ask any one to choose either Islam or death by sword. On the contrary, he announced that whoever closed the door of his house, he was given asylum; whoever entered the Mosque was given asylum; and whoever went into Abusofian’s home was in asylum.

Of course, granting such a refuge was for protecting the unbelievers only. Those who were Muslims did not need such a protection. (And can you guess how the Prophet (p.b.u.h) treated those unbelievers?) To those unbelievers, he said: “اذهبوفانتم الطلقاء” “Go, you are free!” As we see, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) left the unbelievers hold onto their belief, and did not impose Islam on them by the force of weapons under the name of Jihad. Go to contents

How can the jurisprudents respond?

Earlier it became understood that from Imam Shafii’s time onward, the jurisprudents have neglected the restricting verses on jihad, which condition fighting the unbelievers by the aggression from their side. They have viewed the main jihad as an initial attack on the unbelievers for imposing Islam on them.

Now, to illustrate the actuality of such a thought, and to show the negative effects of it clearly, imagine a scene as follows:

Suppose for complying with the verdicts of these jurisprudents, the military force of Islam are ready to initiate attack on a country in which the people are innocent and harmless unbelievers, and are earnestly seeking peace. They wish to have friendly relations with Muslims. However, precautionarily they have gathered some force to defend themselves, and now the two force are on alert, facing each other, ready for attack.

Before doing anything the commander of the Islamic forces is addressing the unbelievers and the dialogue is going on as follows:

Muslims’ commander: We invite you to accept Islam; otherwise, we will start fighting you.

Unbelievers’ commander: But in your Koran in Nahl Chapter, verse 125 says:

“"ادع الی سبیل ربک بالحکمه والموعظه الحسنه وجادلهم بالتی هی احسن" (نحل 125)

“Invite to the way of your lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputation with them in the best manner.”

Now, instead of inviting with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and having disputation with them in the best manner, you are using military force and are threatening them. What kind of invitation is that you are doing it by the force of weaponry?

Militarily threat does not pacify and soften the heart and mind of the rival. It does not make them ready for recognition. On the contrary, it has negative consequences, and makes the rival become stubborn, and inflexible. Do not name this action of yours an invitation. It is an ultimatum of war, and that is given to a group of innocent and harmless people who wish to have friendly and sociable life with you.

So, they say to you:

“We seek peaceful an friendly life and coexistence with you. We hate war and bloodshed.”

But, in their response, you say:

“We are warmongers, and according to the verdicts of our jurisprudents, we have to initiate militarily attack and fight the unbelievers, as it is the main jihad in Islam!”

Replying you, they say:

“But your Koran, in the Anfal Chapter tells you: “وان جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها وتوکل علی الله” “If they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah” (Anfal,61). So, your Koran is inviting to peace, but you are shouting for war!! We want to associate with you friendly. Why do you want to act against what your Koran tells you to do, and want to initiate war with the peace seeking people like us?!”

In reply to them, you say:

“Our heart is filled with animosity towards you. And true believer is the one who encounters the unbelievers sternly and hardheartedly. And our Koran says: "محمد رسول الله والذین معه اشداء علی الکفار" (فتح 29) “ Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers”

Replying you, they say:

“But you are to be hard and strict against the aggressing unbelievers, not the innocent and harmless ones. Your own Koran in the Momtaheneh Chapter says: لا ینهاکم الله عن الذ ین لم یقاتلوکم فی الدین ولم یخرجوکم من دیارکم ان تبروهم و تقسطوا الیهم ان الله یحب المقسطین " “God forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them, surely God loves the just.” (Momtaheneh,8). So, as you see, God is encouraging you to be kind, and act justly towards us who are harmless. Now that we are of no animosity towards you, is your initiating the fight against us and shedding our blood, and killing the fathers and leaving the children and wives in misery, the kindness and justice that your Koran recommends for the unbelievers like us?”

Your Commander replies:

“According to the verdicts of our jurisprudents, the main jihad in Islam is the initial war with the unbelievers for imposing the religion on them. And, it is greatly rewarded by God. So, we must impose the religion on you by initial fight.”

Their commander argues:

“Your Koran, in Baqareh Chapter, verse 256, says: “لا اکراه فی الدین قد تبین الرشد من الغی “ there is no compulsion in religion, truly the right way has been clearly distinct from error”. Despite such a clear instructions, how do you dare to initiate fighting with us to impose the religion on us with the force of weaponry, while we are reluctant to accept it?!”

Your Commander replies: “We are soldiers. Do not talk with us on the Quran. We do not understand the Quran. We are obligated to act in accordance with the verdicts of the jurisprudents who understand the Quran. So, we have to initiate fight against the unbelievers to compel them to unwillingly accept Islam because this is what our jurisprudents have instructed us to do.”

Their commander argues:

“You rely only on the verdicts of your jurisprudents. Is what the jurisprudents say exactly and hundred per cent what the Quran mean it? The verses I read to you from your own Koran are talking of inviting with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and having disputation in the best manner, and friendly relations, kindness and justly act towards the harmless unbelievers, and of no compulsion in religion. But the verdicts of your jurisprudents are in the opposite direction of all these!! Is it because your jurisprudents possibly have made a mistake in inferring their verdict from the Quran?”

Your Commander replies: “We are obedient to the verdicts of our jurisprudents, and cannot tolerate attributing a mistake to them. And we have no choice but initiate fighting with you”

Finishing his last sentence, the commander of the Muslim forces, orders start of fighting by the name of jihad so as to impose Islam on the unbelievers by the force of weaponry, and get the reward of jihad from God!

(Muslim commander as a soldier is not to blame.)

But the jurisprudents who view main jihad as initiating war against the unbelievers, how can they respond such strong argument as validated in the illustration by the commander of the imaginary enemy force? Can they do anything but withdraw this verdict of their own; and, to avoid portraying an ugly face for Islam, hereafter, never repeat that the main jihad in Islam is to initiate war with the unbelievers to impose the religion on them? This verdict of the jurisprudents would damage the universal prestige of Islam, as it has, unfortunately, done it so far.

Based on this verdict in the books of jurisprudence, and the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs that are regarded as Islamic, westerners have got some very effective propaganda vehicle, and use it to crush Muslims whenever the occasions prove appropriate. The westerners say: “Initial war in Islam against peace-seeking people have been prescribed as well as practiced.” And, in this arena, it is Islam that is being oppressed and aggressed; and is being crushed pitilessly between the hammer of the brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs, and the anvil of the jurisprudents; and is crying loud for help to save it from such strikes. And, it is the same Islam that the strength of its logic and reasoning have been conquering the minds, but is accused of having the thirst for human blood, and being imposed on them by sword!! My God! You are Untainted!!

Jihad conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam

The views on jihad, common with both Shia and Sunni groups of jurisprudents, were discussed in the previous sections. But, there is an issue on jihad that is specially raised in Shia jurisprudence. Shia jurisprudents condition jihad by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam, meaning that, basically, no jihad is religious if it is not by the instructions from the Infallible Imam. Sahib “Jawahir” claims that the verdicts of jurisprudents on the subject clearly mean that the religiousness of jihad is conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam who is in the reign;[27] meaning that the Infallible Imam must be at the head of the state and be in action, ruling the state and managing its affairs, like the time of Ali (a.s.).

As far as we know, the Shia jurisprudents have no disaccord on the issue that jihad will be religious if it is instructed by the governing Infallible Imam. And, earlier it was explained that the Shia Jurisprudents view the main jihad as initial fighting with the unbelievers, and condition it by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam. As for defensive war, which is done against the aggressing enemy, they do not condition it by the instructions from the Infallible Imam because defense is a vital and unavoidable issue that necessarily must be done to repel the evil of the enemy.

And conditioning jihad by the instructions from the governing Infallible Imam means that the command of the war should be with the Infallible Imam, who either directly himself will act as commander, or will ask others to do it.

The origin of such a thought

In some narrations from Imam Saadiq, and Imam Reza (a.s.) it is mentioned: “الجهاد واجب مع امام عادل [28] ” “jihad must be done by the instructions from the just imam.” There are other narrations also to this effect. It should be realized that such narrations are from the Imams who lived in a period when jihad was recognized obligatory under the reign of any cruel and unjust ruler. In those periods, the actions of the cruel rulers were confirmed by the ruling body and propagated. It is obvious that a cruel ruler acts on the basis of his personal ambitions and desires. And, in the case of jihad, which is prone to the bloodshed of human, if the function is delegated to a whimsical ruler who is self-indulgent, selfish and following his personal desires, no doubt, justice will not prevail, human blood will be shed unduly, and the limits will not be observed.

However, the ruling machinery of those days, based on a so-called narrations from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) emphasized that jihad is obligatory by the instructions from any cruel ruler. The narrator of the narration is Abu Horeireh, who is proverbial in lying. This is the text of Abu Horeireh’s narration:"الجهاد واجب علیکم مع کل امیر برا کان او فاجرا ...[29]." “Jihad is obligatory for you under any ruler, be he just or unjust.”

Under such circumstances that the cruel Caliphs started war against the peace-seeking people, and invited national forces to participate in such fights, and unduly shed human blood by the name of jihad, to awaken the nation, the Imams did warn: “ الجهاد واجب مع امام عادل” “jihad must be done by the instructions from the just imam.” They made the warning so that the people should realize the actual rule in the religion and not to participate in such brutal fights. Thus, in such narrations, just imam is vis-a-vis unjust and corrupt Imam that matched the cruel Caliphs of those periods.

In principle, in the sphere of narrations, the phrase ‘just imam’ is used to make comparison with ‘cruel and unjust imam’, not for comparing with ‘fallible imam’. While admonishing Uthman, the third Caliph, Ali (a.s.) says: “The best obedient to God is the ‘just imam’ who himself is in the right direction and direct others to the right direction as well, and the worst obedient to God is the ‘unjust imam’ who is in the wrong direction and direct others the wrong direction too.”[30] It is clear that in the words of Ali (a.s.) ‘just imam’ is spoken of against ‘unjust imam’. Ali is not talking about ‘Infallible Imam’ against ‘fallible imam’.

And now that we realize the circumstances under which such narrations were uttered, no more should we conceive that ‘just’ imam in those narrations mean ‘Infallible’ Imam.

But Shia jurisprudents view ‘just’ imam in the narration corresponding with ‘Infallible’ Imam. The reason for such a view is that on the issue of Imam, Shiites believe that Imam must be infallible; meaning that not to make a mistake. This point is discussed extensively in the books on theology, and Shia scholars have outstanding arguments on this subject. Having such a mentality, while the Shia jurisprudents discuss the issue of jihad, they correspond the ‘just’ imam mentioned in the narration with the ‘Infallible’ Imam discussed in the theological books. Consequently, they have issued the verdict that jihad must be by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.

This point is taken for granted to such an extent that the late Feiz Kashani, in his book Shafi says: “"ولما کان الجهاد الحق ساقطا فی زمان الغیبه طوینا ذکر آدابه وشرائطه" [31] “Since in the period of occultation, the true jihad is suspended, therefore, we refrain from mentioning its conditions and methods”. Feiz is saying that since in the time of occultation, there is no Infallible Imam present to practically hold the reign, and since jihad must be done by the instructions from the Infallible Imam, therefore, why should we waste time discussing it. And by jihad, he means the initial war that according to the jurisprudents is obligatory for imposing the religion on unbelievers; otherwise, the jihad for defending against the aggressing enemy is of social vitality, and never can it be suspended. Go to contents

Mistake in corresponding the ‘just’ imam with the ‘Infallible’ Imam

But corresponding ‘just’ imam with ‘Infallible’ Imam is not valid because what is required for running jihad is the justice in the leadership of the war so that jihad should be performed considering justice and fairness, in the whole phases of war, towards both the parties involved in fighting, and not to act like the cruel rulers without considering any justice and fairness. And, this type of justice is what the narrations talk about, not the infallibility in the leadership of the war, because these narrations were intended to prevent the cruel rulers of those periods from the unjust and cruel conducts in the battles. As for the claim that there is consensus and accord on jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam,[32] we should say that such consensus and accord is not an independent evidence because it is based on the same narrations that say jihad must be by the instructions from a ‘just’ imam, and the jurisprudents have taken it for ‘Infallible’ Imam. But, as we said, this is not valid, and a ‘just’ imam should not be matched with the ‘Infallible’ Imam.

In the meantime, a point is raised here. The lengthy arguments that the jurisprudents have had on the main jihad, after the periods of Imams, to the effect that jihad is conditioned by the instructions from the ruling Infallible Imam, is it not based on the assumption of the impossible? Is such argument not going like this: ‘let us assume that in the time of occultation there is the Infallible Imam who is holding the reign, and then the main jihad will be obligatory and the people must participate in it’? Does it fit the status of the argumentative jurisprudence to argue about something that has no practical use but waste of time?!

And it is strange that non of the Shia jurisprudents have any hesitation on main jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam, except Imam Khomeini(R.A), who says: “This needs argument and deep thinking[33].” He has raised the subject in the book of “بیع” in the section discussing the guardianship of the Faghih(jurisprudent). By saying that it needs argument and deep thinking he means that there is the probability that the instructions for initiating war against the unbelievers, i.e. for main jihad is not exclusively rested with the Infallible Imam, and the Guardian Jurisprudent, who is in the reign, may have the rights or the duty to issue such instructions.

Responding to the Voice of America

It is appropriate to talk about a point broadcast by the Voice of America in the morning of Thursday, Shahrivar 18, 1361(Iranian date) on the program tilted “You and Us”. While answering letters from the listeners, they presented the contents of a letter that had 18 questions, the last of which read: “By the consensus from the Shia scholars, jihad must be under the reign of the Infallible Imam. Therefore, how in spite of such consensus, has Imam Khomeini issued instructions for jihad and has said: ‘We must fight Israel’? Is attacking Israel Jihad or defense? If it is Jihad, then it is not permitted without the presence of the Infallible Imam.”

From the point of view of Imam Khomeini(R.A), the reply to the question is that according to what he has written in his book "بیع" that it(jihad being conditioned by the instructions from the Infallible Imam) needs argument and deep thinking, he means that there is the probability that the instructions for initiating war against the unbelievers, i.e. for main jihad is not exclusively rested with the Infallible Imam, and the Guardian Jurisprudent, who is in the reign, may have the rights or the duty to issue such instructions. This means that Imam Khomeini (R.A.) does not accept the claimed consensus, or does not consider it valid.

But the response to the VOA’s question from our point of view is that, basically, no initial war with the unbelievers is ordained in Islam, and, what is ordained is the defensive war against the aggressing enemy, and, that is the natural rights that is confirmed by the whole world, and is not conditioned by the instructions from the ruling Infallible Imam. But, the leadership for the defensive war must rest with a just and virtuous ruler so that all the issues are handled on the basis of justice and fairness.

Based on this view, there will be no subject-matter for the question whether the rights for initial war with unbelievers rests exclusively with the Infallible Imam, or the Guardian Jurisprudent also may have it. The subject-matter itself is negated. Go to contents

Initiating attack unawares on unbelievers

Based on the concept that the main jihad is initiating war against the unbelievers, Sunni and Shia jurisprudents have raised two points with reference to the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). One is that attacking unawares initially on unbelievers is permitted, because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did it in the war against Bani al Mostalaq. And the other is that if the invitation to Islam was already heard by the unbelievers, then, there would be no need to invite them to Islam before attacking them, because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not invite the unbelievers to Islam before attacking Bani al Mostalaq.

The jurisprudents have issued verdicts on these two points, evidencing their verdicts with the narration by Abdullah Umar, which reads as follows:

“Abdullah Aoun says: In a letter I asked Naafe Moula ibn Umar if it is obligatory to invite unbelievers to Islam before initiating war against them. And he wrote to me: ‘Early in Islam it was necessary, but later it was abolished, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) attacked Bani al Mostalaq unawares while they were giving water to their animals, killed their fighters, captured their families. In this attack the Prophet (p.b.u.h) got hold of Juwairiyya, the daughter of Harith (leader of Bani al Mostalaq).” Naafe adds: ‘This story was told to me by Abdullah Umar, who was present in that war.[34]”

Here, we are going to mention the verdicts of some of the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents, which they have issued evidencing them with the said narration:

The fatwa (verdict) of Ibn Homam Hanafi

Ibn Homam Hanafi, (d.881 Hijri) talking about the unbelievers who have already heard the message for invitation to Islam, in his book, Fath al Qadir says: “If the invitation to Islam were heard by unbelievers before the initial war, then, no more is it required, because of the narration quoted in Sahih Muslim from Abdullah Aoun.[35]” Ibn Homam then quotes the text of the narration mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Ibn Homam is saying that since the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had military attack on Bani al Mostalaq without inviting them to Islam, his action is the evidence that we can initiate attacking unbelievers who already have heard invitation to Islam, without any need for invitation.

The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi

To prove that the leader of Muslims in the initial war with the unbelievers is authorized to attack the enemy unawares and assault them, Sheikh Toosi says: “The commander of Muslims has the rights to have militarily attack unawares on the unbelievers and kill them because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did it on Bani al Mostalaq.[36]”

And to prove that there is no need for inviting to Islam if the unbelievers have already heard about it, Sheikh Toosi says: “The commander of Muslims enjoys the rights to send his force to fight the unbelievers without priorly inviting them to Islam, because so much that the enemy have heard about Islam is sufficient, and the commander of Muslims can kill and capture them unawares, as the Prophet (p.b.u.h) attacked Bani al Mostalaq unawares and killed them.[37]”

The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli

On the subject of having no need to prior invitation for attacking unawares on the unbelievers who are aware of Islam’s invitation, Allameh Helli says: “As for those who are aware of the invitation to Islam, and know about the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), but do not confess Islam, initial war with them, without prior invitation to Islam, is permitted, because the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is known for them, and they know that he is inviting to confession, and fights those who do not confess, and protects those who become believers. Such groups of unbelievers are considered aggressing unbelievers, and initial war with them is authorized, because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to their camels.[38]” Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Shahid Thani

On this subject, Shahid Thani says: “The obligation for inviting unbelievers to Islam before the war, is discharged about the unbelievers who are familiar with the invitation to Islam from the previous war or from any other way. And, that is why the Prophet (p.b.u.h) fought Bani al Mostalaq without prior notice, and eradicated them. However, in such instances too, though not obligatorily, there is the recommendation for inviting to Islam as well, as was done by Ali (a.s.) while fighting Amir Abduwud and others, even though they knew about Islam before.[39]”

The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “Jawahir”

Discussing this subject, Sahib Jawahir says: “Sheikh Toosi, Mohaqqeq Helli, Allameh Helli, Shahid Thani, and others have expressed that the obligation for inviting unbelievers to Islam before the war is discharged about the unbelievers who are familiar with the invitation to Islam from the previous war or from any other way. Reason one for it is that the original rule on every issue is no-obligation. Another reason is that some have narrated that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to their camels. And, possibly there is no disagreement on this issue.[40]”

The truth in the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar

The jurisprudents clearly attribute two issues to the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as his conduct. One is that he had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq, and the other is that he did not invite them to Islam before fighting as is understood from the narration.

Here, it is crucial to find out if what is contained in Aabdullah’s narration is true or not. The best way to find out the truth is to refer to the history text. The more detailed history text on this event is what Waqedi, the expert on the Prophet’s wars, has contained in his book, ‘Moqazi’. He says:

“Harith ibn Abi Zerar, the head of Bani al Mostalaq, went around in his tribe and other tribes of Arab and invited them to fight the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and managed to have their accord. Eventually, they gathered some force to fight the Prophet (p.b.u.h). They bought horses and weaponry and got ready to move forth to the fight. This news that was publicized by the caravans reached the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He sent Bureideh Aslami to that region to investigate this issue. Bureideh, anonymously, went into the force that were ready to fight. They asked him: ‘Who are you?’ He said: ‘I am on your side. I heard that you are ready to fight this man; I came to tell you that I would call my clan for cooperation and gather some force to become integrated with your force so that we can eradicate him.

“Very gladly, Harith ibn Abi Zerareh told him: ‘Make haste on it.’

“Bureideh came back and informed the situation to the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He invited Muslims to mobilize some force. A force including some cavalry was mobilized and moved towards Bani al Mostalaq and camped near the Mureisi Water in the Bani al Mostalaq region, while the enemy force too had already camped there. The enemy force got ready to fight. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) arranged his force in files and gave them militarily array.

“When the two forces were facing each other, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked Umar to make a call to the enemy force and invite them to Islam. Umar made the call and said: ‘If you say there is no true god but theGod, then you and your property is secured.’ But they did not accept the invitation, and shot the first arrow at the Muslims and started the fight. Then shooting started from both sides.

“The Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered his force to attack promptly and altogether. Doing so, they disbanded the enemy force and seized their command post. Ten persons were killed from the enemy force, and one was killed from Muslims, mistakenly by the Muslims.[41]”

After narrating this event, Waqedi quotes the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar that reads: “the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq…” Then Waqedi says: “This narration of Abdullah is not acceptable by us.[42]”

What Waqedi says to the effect that Bani al Mostalaq had become ready to fight the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the same is said in Tabaqat Mohammad ibn Saad, vol.2, p. 63, onward, in Sireh ibn Hosham, vol. 2. p. 290 onward, in Tarikh Tabari, vol. 2, p. 260 onward, in Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p. 168, Sireh Halabiyah, vol.2, p 293, and in Sireh Zeini and Hallan, on the margin of Sireh Halabiyah, vol. 2, p. 107.

Therefore, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) has repelled the militarily attack of Bani al Mostalaq, and has not had initial militarily attack unawares on them. In other words, he has been defensive, not offensive. Consequently, as Waqedi says, the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar is not acceptable, and neither is the view of the jurisprudents based on this narration to the effect that ‘the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not invite Bani al Mostalaq to Islam before fighting them.’ Because Waqedi says that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked Umar to invite them but they did not accept it. Go to contents

What is causing astonishment

What is the cause of wonder and amazement is that how all these jurisprudents have relied on such an invalid narration from Abdullah ibn Umar, and made an evidence of it for issuing such an important verdict. And, they have done it while Moqazi of Waqedi as a compiled and reliable history was available for them, and they were aware of it. They also were familiar with Omm Shafii, Sireh ibn Hosham, Tabaqat Mohammad ibn Saad, and Tarikh Tabari, all of which confirm Waqedi’s narration.

With such reliable sources available for these jurisprudents, one deeply wonders why the jurisprudents have ignored them. If they had referred to these reliable sources, they should never have attributed such unfitting acts to the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and said that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq to shed their blood while they were resting in peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to their camels.

The words of Ibn Homam Hanafi in his book shows that the Sunni jurisprudents relied on Abdullah ibn Umar’s narration on Bani al Mostalaq issue with no hesitation at all, and made it the evidence to issue their verdict. It may be that since Abdullah’s narration confirmed the initial and brutal wars of the cruel Caliphs, and naturally was promulgated by the governing machinery, so it was taken as an absolute evidence for a jurisprudential verdict! Or, since Abdullah was the son of Umar, possibly this position of Abdullah’s had the effect on his narration to be accepted!!

But, while Moqazi of Waqedi and other reliable history sources was available for him, why has Sheikh Toosi acted on such an unreliable narration of Abdullah ibn Umar, and made an evidence of it for this verdict of his on such a sensitive issue that entails human bloodshed?!

Has it happened because the Sunni jurisprudence, and the verdicts issued by Sunni jurisprudents, who were in majority, had been so dominant in the seminary environment that even Sheikh Toosi, the jurisprudent of the Shia minority, has not been able to escape its dominance to think freely for inferring his own verdict? This point not only does not seem improbable, it also appears rather natural for a pressured minority to willingly or unwillingly follow the majority; and the jurisprudence of a minority is of no exception. Thus, Sheikh Toosi being impressed by the dominant verdict, has contained in his book of jurisprudence what was taken for granted by the Sunni jurisprudents, and left it as memory. Then, the other Shia jurisprudents after him, being greatly optimistic of Sheikh Toosi, have followed, and in fact, imitated him till the time of Sahib Jawahir, who, in his turn, has claimed that “And possibly there is no disagreement on this issue[43].”

The image portrayed by Allameh Helli from the Prophet (p.b.u.h)

Earlier we quoted Allameh Helli’s words that read: “As for those who are aware of the invitation to Islam, and know about the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), but do not confess Islam, initial war with them, without prior invitation to Islam, is permitted, because the mission of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is known for them, and they know that he is inviting to confession and fights those who do not confess…”

It seems necessary to pause here a moment and elaborate on what Allameh Helli says. Was it really the character of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) to tell people to confess Islam, and to initiate fighting them if they did not accept it? Does Allameh Helli know the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with such a character? Which history text introduces the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with such a character? On the basis of which historical sources, has Allameh talked about such thing? Such an issue is not mentioned in any historical sources.

The Prophet whose Koran encourages people to do good to and act friendly and fairly towards the harmless unbelievers, and says a: “لااکراه فی الدین” “There is no compulsion in religion”, and also says:فمن شاء فالیومن ومن شاء فالیکفر” “Let anyone who wishes to, believe, and let anyone who wishes to, disbelieve.”, does such a Prophet violate acting in accordance with his Koran?! The Prophet, who at the conquest of Mecca with that unrivalled power of his, did not tell any one to choose either sword or Islam, but let the unbelievers free to stay on with their own belief if they so wished, did such a Prophet used to tell people to accept Islam, otherwise, he would initiate fighting them and shedding their blood onto the earth?! My God! You are Untainted!!

Definitely, Allameh Helli has not said such things based on evidence from history because there is not such a thing in history. Then, what has happened for him to say things different from the truth, and consequently disguise the kind and humanitarian personality of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and portray him as a brutal and ruthless character that would impose the religion on the people by the force of weaponry and bloodshed?!

It seems that Allameh Helli has had no intention to talk about a historical issue based on history. He has just made a historical issue himself based on the verdict of the jurisprudents. He has noticed that according to the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar, initial militarily attack unawares on the unbelievers who are already aware of the invitation has been permitted. Thus, Allameh Helli has made a history of this jurisprudential verdict about the Prophet (p.b.u.h), naturally as characterized by the verdict.

Making history based on a jurisprudential verdict is not uncommon. But, as the evidence for this verdict is some invalid narration, therefore, the verdict itself is invalid too, and so is the history based on it. Go to contents

Were the people of Taiif massacred?

In addition to the militarily attack by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) on Bani al Mostalaq as explained before, Sheikh Toosi has talked about a similar issue regarding the time when the fortress of Taiif was besieged by the Prophet (p.b.u.h). Sheikh Toosi says:

“When Imam descends a city, he has the rights to besiege it, and to forbid entry to and exit from it; as the Prophet (p.b.u.h) besieged Taiif. Imam has the rights to erect ballista and catapult, and to demolish the walls and dwellings onto the heads of their dwellers, and to massacre them, as the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did to the people of Taiif. And, if there is no Muslim among the dwellers, Imam has the rights to pound it with ballista, even if there are women and children among them, as the Prophet (p.b.u.h) did it to the people of Taiif, while there were women and children among them. …..And, Imam has the rights to drown them in water, or using the catapult, to drop on them fire, snakes, scorpions, and any destructive object.[44]”

The readers of this passage from Sheikh Toosi cannot but think that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) destroyed the dwellings of the people of Taiif onto their heads by ballista, and massacred them together with the women and children.

These words of Sheikh Toosi are a type of extraction from what Shafii says in his Omm:

“When the enemy take refuge in a mountain, a valley, a fortress, or any other place, it is permitted to attack them by ballista, and catapult, and to drop on them fire, snakes and any thing that may destroy them, and to drown them in water, even if there are women and children among them. The evidence is that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) erected ballista for the people of Taiif while there were women and children among them.[45]”

From the habit of Sheikh Toosi, we have realized that he was impressed by the Sunni jurisprudence, and in many cases, he used to discuss the jurisprudence issues harmoniously with the Sunni jurisprudents, and issue the verdicts accordingly. And this case is one of the instances on which he has done it, and followed Imam Shafii. But, already it was explained that the Sunni jurisprudents have relied on the invalid narration of Abdullah ibn Umar, and contrary to the fact, have said: “the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had initial militarily attack unawares on Bani al Mostalaq while they were resting in peace, did not know about it, and were giving water to their camels; he killed them and captured their families.”

And Sheikh Toosi has followed them.

It is imperative here to clearly understand whether what Imam Shafii, and following his steps, Sheikh Toosi have said on this subject, is correct or not.

Referring to history sources on the Battle of Hunein, and on the siege of Taiif, we have concluded:

1. After the conquest of Mecca, the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif gathered a large army under the commandership of Malik ibn Ouf Nasri to attack the Muslims in Mecca. To avoid the enemy attack, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) moved to Hunein, but it ended up with Hunein battle and the defeat of the enemy. Thus, the movement of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the Battle of Hunein was defensive, and not an example of initial jihad.

2. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) besieged the Taiif Fortress where the defeated warmongers had taken refuge. During the siege, he did some tactical acts so that he could conquer the center of the evil with the least possible losses. These acts were as follows:

A. They drove a fortified carriage towards the wall of the fortress so that the men inside the carriage could make a hole in the wall and get into the fortress. But the people at the top of the fortress dropped heated pieces of iron on the carriage and burned its leather. The men inside the carriage, some wounded, had to get out. The people inside the fortress shot arrows at them. Some were martyred; and this plan had no result[46].

B. To make the aggressors surrender, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered to cut down the vines the grapes of which were picked. But they shouted: “Do not cut down the trees. Either you will conquer and the trees will be yours, or for the sake of God and kinship keep them!” The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: “We avoid cutting them down for the sake of God and kinship.”

C. The Muslims burned down the palace of Malik ibn Ouf, the commander of the aggressing enemy after it was made sure that no one was therein[47]. The purpose of inflicting this economical strike, possibly, was to diminish the arrogance of the aggressive commander and his subjects, to weaken their morale, and to prevent using the palace as a battlefield fortress. An arrogant commander, who unnecessarily had mobilized such a large army to wipe out Islam, and had caused shedding the blood of Muslims, well deserved such punishment.

D. Outside the fortress, there was an orchard with walls around it. It belonged to a man from the Thaqif tribe. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) sent him the message: “Either come out of the orchard, or we will set fire on it.” And since he did not come out, the orchard (probably its gate) was set on fire[48].

If he had come out, he should have been captured as a member of the aggressing force, and the Muslims could have acquired valuable information from him. Since he did not come out, they set fire on the gate to know what was therein, and at the same time prevent it from being used as an enemy fort.

E. By the instructions from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the herald called out loudly: “Any slave who comes out of the fortress and join the Muslims will be freed (from slavery)”. More than ten slaves ran out of the fortress, and joined the Muslims. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) entrusted each of the slaves to a Muslim for supporting and teaching them the Quran and the rituals of Islam. Later, when the Thaqif tribe became Muslims, they asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h) for returning to the slavery of their masters, but it was not accepted[49].

In that system of slave-ownership, escaping of the slaves from the fortress, was another economical and psychological blow on the aggressing enemy, while the Muslims could get valuable information from them as well.

These were the tactical acts that, at the instructions from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the Muslims had done against the aggressing enemy while having theTaiif Fortress under siege. And, after having the Fortress under siege for some days, the Muslims had two views about it: to continue the siege, or to disregard it. Finally, they agreed on discontinuing the siege, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered the Muslims to return.

None of the unbelievers were killed with ballista

Even though the historians have written: “While besieging the Taiif Fortress, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ordered erecting of ballista,” or have written: “By the instructions from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the Muslims struck the Taiif Fortress,[50]” none of the historians have written that anyone was killed with ballista.

The historians have written some details on the Hunein Battle, and the siege of the Taiif Fortress. For instance, they have recorded the number of the martyrs of Hunein four persons, and those killed from the enemy force between 70 and 100 persons; and have written down 12 as the number of the Muslim martyrs in the siege of the Taiif Fortress; and a lot of the events of the siege days was told by the people of Taiif who became Muslim later. Yet, no historian has written that even a single person was killed with ballista at the instructions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). Only one of them, who had murdered a Muslim with arrow, was captured by the brother of the Muslim, and punished in revenge by the instructions from the Prophet (p.b.u.h).

Reading the history text that says: “The Prophet (p.b.u.h), while besieging the Taiif Fortress, ordered erecting of ballista,” possibly, Imam Shafii has jumped to the conclusion that inevitably, thereby they have demolished the dwellings of them onto their heads and massacred them together with the women and children. Then, Imam Shafii has made some analogy for drowning in water, and for burning alive of the enemy and contained it in his writing. And, this is very strange that Imam Shafii has prescribed burning of human being, even the women and children! And far more stranger is that Sheihk Toosi has followed Shafii’s steps!!

Erecting ballista, and even hurling stones thereby in a way that would not cause losses, can be practiced as a militarily warning for threatening the fugitive enemy and making them surrender, while it may prevent slaying of human being, particularly the slaying of women and children.

What we know about the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is that unless there was some coercion, he never gave consent for the murder of any human being, particularly the innocent ones, and he had the same conduct besieging the Taiif Fortress, and no single one of the aggressing enemy was killed then.

Therefore, what the passages from Imam Shafii, and Sheikh Toosi indicate cannot be valid. They indicate that while besieging Taiif, the Muslims demolished the dwellings of its dwellers by ballista onto their heads and massacred them together with their children and the women. What they say has no historical evidence, and must be seriously criticized.

Possibly, the mentality of the jurisprudents, being obsessed that there should be no rights of life for the unbelievers and their wives and children, has been helpful for issuing the verdicts on mass-killing of children and women. This mentality and obsession should be corrected by deeply thinking and practicing in accordance with verse eight from Momtaheneh Chapter, which reads: “ لا ینهاکم الله عن الذ ین لم یقاتلوکم فی الدین ولم یخرجوکم من دیارکم ان تبروهم و تقسطوا الیهم ان الله یحب المقسطین " “God forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them and act justly towards them, surely God loves the just.” (Momtaheneh,8). As we see, the Quran introduces the harmless unbelievers as respectable persons who deserve kindness and justly acts.

By the way, Forouq Abadiyat contains the passage: “Officers of Islam erected the ballista with the guidance of Salman, and showered stones on the Fortress and the towers inside it for almost twenty days.[51]”

If it is meant that the people of Taiif, including women and children, were killed under the stone-shower, it is not true because no single person was reported to be killed by ballista. But, if it is meant that the stone-shower was for threatening the enemy, it is acceptable. Go to contents

Incumbency of initiating war: once a year

It was said earlier that the jurisprudents view initial fighting with the harmless unbelievers obligatory, in a manner that such a war by its nature is God’s favorite, with the same token that prayers, fasting, and pilgrimage to Kabah are His favorite. Consequently, they have conceptualized and thought that, now that, for instance, prayers is obligatory five times a day, fasting one month each year, and pilgrimage to Kabah once in the whole life of a person, what about jihad? Is it obligatory every month, every year or once in one’s life?

If they had conceptualized the truth on jihad, being obligatory whenever there is an attack from the enemy, logically it should have followed that it is obligatory neither once a month, nor once a year, and nor once in one’s whole life, but only whenever there is an attack by the enemy. Unfortunately, the jurisprudents do not think so. They say that it is religiously obligatory to initiate war against the peace-seeking unbelievers. Therefore, they have had to fix a time for it such as that fixed for the other religious duties, like prayers, which is obligatory daily; or fasting, yearly; or Hajj, once in the whole life. But, there is no evidence either from the Quran or from the tradition to make it clear, because basically, not only initial war against the harmless unbelievers has not been made obligatory either in the Quran or in the valid narrations, but it also has been prohibited. But, contrary to what is said in the Quran and was practiced by the Prophet (p.b.u.h), the jurisprudents say: “Initial war against the peace-seeking unbelievers is obligatory like praying and fasting.” Therefore, they have had to clearly fix the times and period for that, too.

The first jurisprudent who has tried to clear it in a book of jurisprudence was Imam Shafii.

The fatwa (verdict) of Imam Shafii

In his book, Omm, Imam Shafii, taking very great pains, wants to infer the rule for the initial jihad from the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He says:

“If the Muslims are strong, then there should not pass a year in which the Caliph of Muslims has not had militarily attack once on the unbelievers’ territories neighboring the Muslims on all sides. And, if it is possible for him, I would like him to proceed to fight in the unbelievers countries as many times as he can without endangering the Muslims. And the minimum that is obligatory for the Caliph is that no year should pass unless he has had one battle, so that jihad should not become suspended year long with no excuse. And, I am telling this because since the time jihad became obligatory for the Prophet (p.b.u.h), each year, either himself or through his agent he fought one or two fights, or he sent some groups to fight in his absence. And, occasionally, some period passed during which neither he had a fight, and nor did he send groups to fight in his absence.[52]”

To prove that initial war with the harmless unbelievers is obligatory once a year, as an evidence, Shafii uses the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the manner that he explained in the passage. Talking about Shafii’s own passage, one may ask how does it show that at least one initial war is obligatory each year? Shafii himself says: “each year, either himself or through his agent he fought one or two fights, or he sent some groups to fight in his absence. And occasionally, some period passed during which neither he had a fight and nor did he send groups to fight in his absence.”

It is obvious that this conduct was for the sole reason that whenever there was an aggression by the enemy, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) started defending the Muslims either with his presence at the fight, or just by sending groups to do it in his absence. And, sometimes the aggression of the enemy happened once a year, sometimes twice a year and sometimes no aggression happened in a year. Thus, the acts of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were functions of the enemy aggressions, and never did he initiate fighting the harmless unbelievers. If you ask someone: “How many times a year do you go to see the physician?” He normally answers: “Whenever I do not feel good, I go to see the physician.” By its nature, going to see a physician is not desirable. The battles of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were all like it. Initial war is never desirable. And, as stated by Mohammad Jawad Balaqi, and Sheikh Abduh, and the true historical events are proof of it, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) too never proceeded to initial fight. Only whenever, due to the aggression of the enemy or their readiness to aggress, it was felt necessary to defend, did the Prophet (p.b.u.h) proceed to fight

It is clear that from this conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), as mentioned by Imam Shafii himself, never can one infer that initial fighting with the peace-seeking unbelievers is obligatory once a year.

What has caused Shafii to try pains takingly is that, as mentioned earlier, in his view, all the restricting verses on jihad, whereby fighting the unbelievers is conditioned by their aggression, are abolished. Consequently, in accordance with the absolute verses, he is of the idea that initial fight with the unbelievers is obligatory. So, he has had to try to fix the time and the period for its performance. And, since there is no evidence either in the Quran or in the narration regarding such a fixation, Shafii, with great pains-taking, has had to use this conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as an evidence, while, as explained, it has not such a meaning!

Had Shafii taken the right steps from the beginning, and not had considered the restricting verses abolished, he should have had the view that according to these verses, initial war with the harmless unbelievers is not permitted; only when the enemy has aggressed or is ready to aggress, it becomes obligatory to proceed for defense. In this case, there could have been no necessity for Shafii to pains-takingly fix the time and period for it, unacceptably using the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) as an evidence; in this case, he should not have laid a fake foundation for the next generations to build on.

By the way, on this subject, Shafii is talking about the Caliph and explains his duty regarding the war. Is it possible that in the time of the Abbasid Caliphs who started initial wars, Shafii could not help but issue the verdict harmoniously with the acts of the Caliphs? This possibility cannot be definitely rejected. And if so, then politics has had its effect on this subject.

Another point is that it is mentioned about the conduct of the Second Caliph: [53]“کان عمر یعقب الجیوش فی کل عام” “Umar used to send his army for war every year.” It is possible that this conduct narrated about Umar has some effect on Shafii’s verdict.

However, this verdict of Imam Shafii, obligating initial war with the peace-seeking unbelievers once a year, is acceptable in no ways. But, this unacceptable verdict, has been, unfortunately, recorded in the compiled jurisprudence of those days, and has been taken for granted in the seminaries by the passage of time. This unacceptable verdict has become so dominant that even Sheihk Toosi discussing this subject has not managed to escape its dominance and think independently. Consequently, Sheikh Toosi has contained this verdict of Shafii in his jurisprudential books without scrutinizing it. Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Sheikh Toosi

Sheikh Toosi says:

“It is obligatory for Imam, to fight once a year, either himself or by sending the troops, so that jihad should not be suspended.[54]”

Suspensions is true about those obligatory duties that are by their nature desirable, such as prayers and fasting, but not about issues like defensive war that is a function of the enemy’s aggression, or their readiness to aggress. Such statements from the jurisprudents is the evidence that initial war with the harmless unbelievers is considered worshipping like prayers and fasting that are by their nature desirable. Sheikh Toosi also says: “The minimum that is obligatory for the Imam is that he should proceed to fight once each year, and the more he is involved in fighting, the more virtue he will gain. Because jihad is enjoined as a group duty (everybody else are discharged if the duty is done by any one in the group, like burying a dead body. From translator), therefore, the more it is done, the more virtue it will create.[55]”

As we see, the verdict of Shafii is contained in the jurisprudence book of Sheik Toosi without any scrutiny. The Sheikh of Jurisprudents (Toosi) has only changed the word ‘Caliph’ to ‘Imam’ by which he means the Infallible Imam because the Shia jurisprudents condition initial fight by the instructions from the Infallible Imam.

After Sheikh Toosi, the other jurisprudents, who were impressed by the character of the Sheikh, have followed him, and included the same verdict in their jurisprudence books.

The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Helli

In his book, Sharaaye, Mohaqqeq Helli says:

“As for the people with whom fighting is obligatory, it is incumbent upon Muslims to move towards them either for repelling them or converting them to Islam. Thus, if they started fighting, it is obligatory to fight them, and if they avoided attacking, then, fighting them is obligatory to the extent that is possible, and the minimum is once a year. And, if it is for the interest of Muslims, having peace with them is permitted. [56]”

Following the suit of Sheikh Toosi, Mohaqqeq Helli also, with no scrutiny, has mentioned as his verdict what Sheikh Toosi had done following Imam Shafii.

Incidentally, there are two points in Mohaqqeq’s statement. One is that he is talking about converting the unbelievers to Islam, meaning to impose Islam by the force of weaponry; the other is that by saying: “and if they avoided attacking, then fighting them is obligatory to the extent that is possible, and the minimum is once a year”, he expresses his view that initial fighting with the unbelievers is obligatory for converting them to Islam.

After Mohaqqeq Helli, the other jurisprudents too have accepted the same verdict of Shafii that Sheikh Toosi had accepted and mentioned it as a verdict in their books. Among them, Allameh Helli not only has accepted this verdict, he also has tried to make it evidenced.

The fatwa (verdict) of Allameh Helli

Allameh Helli says: “If the unbelievers are in their own territory, and have no intention to fight the Muslims, fighting them is enjoined as a group duty, not as a personal one, and it is obligatory at least once a year, and the more it is done, the more virtue it will create. And the Prophet (p.b.u.h) fought the unbelievers once a year because the Battle of Badr was in the second year, Ohod in the third, Thaat al Reqa in the fourth, Khandaq in the fifth, Bani al Mostalaq in the sixth, Kheibar in the seventh, Conquest of Mecca in the eighth, and Tabook in the ninth year of Hijrat.[57]”

The argument against Allameh Helli is that he and other jurisprudents talk about initial war against the unbelievers, and view it as the main jihad while all the fights of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) were defensive. Now, the question is this: how can one make evidence of the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the defensive war for issuing verdict on initial war?

In the Battle of Badr, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) tried very hard to prevent the war but the enemy did not accept it and started attack on the Muslims, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) could not help but proceed for defense. In the Battle of Ohod also the enemy started the attack and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had to defend. And, it was the same in all the Prophet’s fights. All his fights were functions of the aggressions of the enemies. It was not that he had so arranged that he should have had one initial fight each year. And, that is why he did not have any war in the first year of Hijrat because there was no enemy attack in that year. Therefore, one cannot make evidence of the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in the defensive war for issuing verdict on initial war.

By the way, Allameh says that the Battle of Khandaq was in the fifth year, and Bani al Mostalaq in the the sixth year of Hijrat. But according to Waqedi, both these wars happened in the fifth year, and Bani al Mostalaq took place before the Khandaq Battle[58]. Thus, there were two defensive wars in one year because there were two aggressively attacks from the enemy in that year.

The reality of the issue is that, being impressed by the character of Sheikh toosi, who had accepted Shafii’s verdict, Allameh Helli also has mentioned the same verdict of Shafii as his verdict, and then has tried to evidence it with the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), saying that he had one war each year. But, as explained, it is not an acceptable reasoning. Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Shahidein

In the Lum’eh and its Commentary, Shahidein say:

“Jihad is obligatory in the way of group duty as required, and it is obligatory once a year in the minimum. The reason is that the verse: ‘ فاذا انسلخ الاشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حیث وجد تموهم’ (Bara’at, 5) ‘After the forbidden months elapsed, slay the unbelievers whenever you come upon them’ is conditioning jihad by the lapse of the sacred months that are four in a year. And lapse of these months happen once a year, therefore, every year after the lapse of the sacred months, jihad also becomes obligatory, and it is not obligatory in the rest of the year, because an absolute order to do a duty does not mean repetition of the duty. And there is some discussion and views on this argument.”[59]

The passage from Sharhe Lum’eh shows that there is no doubt about jihad itself being obligatory once a year, but indicates that the argument for it may be scrutinized.

We should know that reasoning by the verse: “ فاذا انسلخ الاشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین حیث وجد تموهم”, first has been done by Allameh Helli in his Tathkireh. And the same reasoning of Allameh is mentioned in Sharhe Lum’eh and then it is indicated that the argument may be scrutinized, without explaining the nature of the scrutiny therein.

But the scrutiny that we can have on the argument is that the said verse is about the unbelievers who violated the treaty, according to which they were given a grace period of “four months to go about on the earth” “فسیحوا فی الارض اربعه اشهر (توبه 2)”. The text of the verse shows that four consecutive months is meant. Thus, it cannot be that the four commonly recognized sacred months ( ذی القعده و ذی الحجه ومحرم ورجب ) are meant, because the month of "رجب" comes separate and not successively with the other three. Therefore, if the Quran says: ‘After the forbidden months elapsed’, it means that after the grace period of the four months fixed for forbidding war with the unbelievers elapsed, and the treaty-violating unbelievers still insisted on their violation, then they should be beaten by the force of weaponry whenever they were found.

Thus, what the Quran means here is not the four months that is commonly recognized as sacred each year so that one can say: “every year after the lapse of the sacred months, jihad becomes obligatory in the minimum once a year, and it is not obligatory in the rest of the year, because an absolute order to do a duty does not mean repetition of the duty”

The fact is that since Allameh Helli has accepted initial war being obligatory once a year, he has had to look for evidence on it. Sometimes, he wants to evidence it by the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and says that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had one initial war each year. Earlier, we proved that it is not correct. And sometimes, he uses the verse: “ فاذا انسلخ الاشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین” which we also explained that it is not a valid evidence. While starting to discuss this subject, the exact way for Allameh should have been not to accept the initial war being obligatory once a year, so that he should not have had to use such types of reasoning that are not acceptable, and do not prove his claim.

It is obvious that Shahidein have accepted the initial war being obligatory once a year because of their following the steps of Sheikh Toosi, who himself has accepted Imam Shafii’s verdict. In the relative paragraph, we made it clear that Shafii’s verdict is not evidenced by the correct reasoning used for inferring verdicts in jurisprudence.

The fatwa (verdict) of Mohaqqeq Thani

In his book, Jame al Maqassid, a commentary on Qawaede Allameh, Mohaqqeq says:

“Jihad is obligatory once a year, unless some urgency rises, in which case sometimes it is not obligatory at all, and sometimes it becomes obligatory more than once a year. The evidence for this verdict is the text and the consensus.[60]”

The blessed Mohaqqeq Thani also, not having noticed any disaccord among the jurisprudents, has accepted the common verdict, (he had better not have accepted it), and then has said: “The evidence for this verdict is the text and the consensus.” By text, he means the verse: “ فاذا انسلخ الاشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین” which was used by Allameh Helli as evidence. We made it clear that the verse does not have such a meaning. And by consensus, he means that all the jurisprudents after Sheikh Toosi have issued such verdict. Earlier it was realized that the verdicts of the jurisprudents from Sheikh Toosi onward all were based on Omm Shafii, and consequently there was not such a consensus acceptable for reasoning. Go to contents

The fatwa (verdict) of Sahib “ Jawahir”

On this subject, Sahib “Jawahir” says:

“It is quoted from Sheikh Toosi, Fazil, Shahidein, and Mohaqqeq Karaki that the minimum jihad that should be performed is once a year; besides, Mohaqqeq Karaki is quoted to have claimed consensus on this subject. And the main evidence here is the consensus, if it is full, not what they say that the verse: “فاذا انسلخ الاشهر الحرم فاقتلوا المشرکین” is an evidence here, because, as you may notice, such an argument is subject to scrutiny and deliberation from some aspects.[61]”

Sahib “Jawahir” has no dispute about the subject itself that the initial war is obligatory once a year; but he has question and scrutiny on this verse indicating it as Allameh Helli has pointed out. He continues to say: “And the main evidence here is the consensus if it is full.” And, we realized there is no full consensus on this subject, because all the verdicts from Sheikh Toosi onward ends up in the individual verdict of Shafii’s, which verdict is not evidenced with any acceptable reasoning.

Now that Sahib “Jawahir” says: “And the main evidence here is the consensus if it is full” it may cause one to think that Sahib Jawahir is hesitant about the existence of the consensus, and if has such a doubt about it, then from his point of view there is no evidence for this verdict, because he rejects this verse serving as an evidence. Therefore, the verdict itself, namely, initial jihad being obligatory once a year, will be negated from his point of view for having no evidence. I wonder whether we can relate it to Sahib “Jawahir” or not?

The necessity for the jurisprudents to withdraw this fatwa (verdict)

As mentioned before, the jurisprudents say: “ It is obligatory to initiate war against the peace seeking unbelievers once a year” and consensus too was claimed on this subject. Now, the question arises: “ Is it really a divine instruction, and if so, then Ali (a.s.) should have made a priority of it to initiate war against the unbelievers once a year during his reign of some years, and why did he not do it?” The fact that Ali (a.s.) did not do it, is it not a valid evidence that initiating such a war is not a divine instruction?

If the jurisprudents have no answer to this question, then it is due on them to withdraw their fatwa (verdict) and never again attribute such stuff to Islam so that it would not be accused by its own guardians that it has ordained as divine duty to initiate wars against peace seeking unbelievers. Such accusations, no doubt, do inflict irreparable damages on Islam, and certainly do destroy its value, disgracing it through out the world community. And, this is an error carried out unintentionally against this precious divine religion by the guardians of Islam themselves.

One for ten, one for two

Interpreters have said:

“Originally it was obligatory in jihad for the Muslim forces to resist one person against ten persons of the enemy force. But this rule changed, and it became obligatory for Muslim forces to resist the enemy force that is twice as much as theirs.”

To prove it, the interpreters have used verses 65, and 66 of Anfal Chapter as evidence. The verses say: "یاایها النبی حرض المومنین علی القتال ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین وان یکن ماه یغلبوا الفا من الذین کفروا ذالک بانهم قوم لایفقهون (65) الان خفف الله عنکم وعلم ان فیکم ضعفا فان یکن منکم ماه یغلبوا ماتین وان یکن منکم الف یغلبوا الفین باذن الله والله مع الصابرین (66) “O Prophet urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve because they are a people who do not understand (65). For the present, Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand, they shall overcome two thousand by Allah’s permission; and Allah is with the patient (66).”

The tone of these two verses is the tone of encouragement and persuasion for patience and perseverance against the attack of the enemy so that the Muslims repel the evil of the aggressing enemy. Patience and perseverance is a very important factor for defeating the enemy, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is instructed to encourage Muslims for having patience and perseverance while facing the aggressing enemy. But this is a two-phased encouragement.

In the first phase, it has been assumed that twenty patient and tolerant persons, with religious belief, resist two hundred persons who do not have any belief and do not expect any heavenly rewards. Expecting such rewards, if the Muslims show patience and tolerance to a high degree, twenty of them may defeat two hundred, meaning one for ten.

In the second phase, it has been assumed that if there are one hundred patient and tolerant persons, normally such people will resist two hundred, meaning one for two. And, this is the variety in addressing for encouragement, and an emphasis to the point that even if resisting of one against ten is not so common, resisting of one believer who is expecting heavenly rewards against two unbeliever is easily practical. That is why in the second verse it says: “For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you..” therefore, “if there are a hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred”, in which case overcoming the enemy will look more natural and expected.

In other words, the main purpose of these two verses is to strengthen the morale for patience and resistance in the Muslims by reviving the hope for conquest. Since they have religious belief and expect heavenly rewards, they do not show weakness, and as such, they normally defeat the enemy. If some are killed, they will become martyrs, and be fortunate according to their religious understanding.

And the two-phase encouragement is to establish the point that even if for some weakness resisting of one against ten is not highly expected, resisting of one against two is practically and easily attainable.

The method adopted by the interpreters

As explained in the previous paragraphs, the two verses are for encouragement, and promoting the morale in the Muslims who are fighting for defense. But the interpreters have considered them as rule-setting verses, which ordain the duty. They say:

“In these verses, the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. In the beginning, according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter, it was obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad; but later this obligation was abolished by the next verse, and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two. Their evidence for this is that the verse 66 says that Allah has made light your burden; and ‘making light one’s burden’ can be conceived only if there were already some obligation and duty ordained for the one.[62]”

But we already explained that it is also correct to make light the burden in encouragement for patience and tolerance and to say: “If your people are very highly patient and tolerant, one of you will overcome ten people.” Then to say: “But as weakness in morale is noticed in you, we make light the burden in the encouragement for patience and tolerance, and now say that if you are patient, one of you will overcome two of the enemy.” Thus, there is no need to say that since making light of burden is mentioned in the verse 66, therefore, the declarative statements in the verses has the meaning of imperative and is ordaining a duty. ‘Making light in burden’ can be conceived in encouragement as well.

Abolishment of verse 65 of Anfal not acceptable

The interpreters say: “In these verses, the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement. In the beginning, according to verse 65 of Anfal Chapter, it was obligatory for Muslims to resist one against ten in jihad; but later this obligation was abolished by the next verse, and the Muslims became bound to resist one against two. [63]”

We say: “But is it wise of one to say: ‘God has revealed a rule in one verse for the people to practice it, but immediately, in the next verse has abolished it and replaced it with another rule?’” Was the first rule ordained thoughtlessly, and then, God immediately discovered that it was not for the interest of the people and should be abolished? God save one from attributing such thoughtlessness to Him by saying: “In these two verses that were revealed together, in the first verse, God has ordained a rule, and then immediately in the second verse has abolished it!” Such a matter cannot be attributed to the ordinary legislators, let alone to the Omniscient, Great God.

In his book, Tibyan, Sheikh Toosi says:

“Verse 66 has abolished the rule in the verse before it because in the previous verse the resistance and tolerance of one against ten is obligatory, then, as God recognized that this is a heavy duty on people, and the practicality was changed, He obligated the believers to resist one against two, and one hundred against two hundred, thus, making it light on them. This is the view of Ibn Abbas, Hassan Basri, Akrameh, Qatadeh, Mojahed, Suday, Ata, Balkhi, Jobaee, Romani, and all the interpreters.[64]”

One can easily realize how such unfitting stuff is attributed to the Omniscient God, and, that is done by all the interpreters of the Quran by saying that God ordained a rule and then immediately realized it was hard for people, and abolished it. Good God! You are Untainted!! Go to contents

What is meant by declarative sentence?

Those who think that verse 65 was abolished say: “In these two verses, the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement.”

We ask them: “What do they mean by declarative statement? Do they mean the whole sentence, containing the main and subordinate clauses?, namely in this sentence: “ ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین “; if there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred” and in the two similar sentences after it. It is clear that no imperative meaning can be understood from it. There is only a condition and a consequence in each sentence, with the consequence being subject to and a function of the condition, meaning that if there are twenty patients, they will overcome two hundred; and if there are one hundred, they will overcome two hundred. From neither part of these sentences, one may realize an imperative meaning.

In addition, as for the meaning of imperative (command) claimed by them, we should ask them: “What is the command for? Is the command for patience, or for conquest?”

If it is a command for patience (in which case it cannot be used as evidence by them.- from translator) it has no sense, because as mentioned already, neither part of the sentences does show commanding for patience; only the happening of the consequence as a result of the condition is understood: happening of conquest resulting from patience.

If they say it is a command for conquest, it will have no rational meaning; conquest is at no one’s choice, therefore, it is not rational to command for it. The fighters sometimes are defeating, and sometimes defeated. It has no meaning to say: “If there are twenty patient ones of you, they should overcome two hundred.”

Of course, the important point here is that, in these two verses, there is the good news of and assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy. Verse 65 says: “ ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین “ if there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred”; and verse 66 says: “ فان یکن منکم ماه یغلبوا ماتین“If there are one hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred.” In fact, the meaning of these two verses is what the Persian poem says: "صبر وظفرهردو دوستان قدیم اند در اثر صبر نوبت ظفر آید " “ Patience and Conquest are two old friends, Wherever Patience goes, Conquest follows him.”

In this way, the Muslims are encouraged to be patient and tolerant against the enemy. Thus, these verses have the consequential meaning that patience and tolerance against the enemy is desirable. And, the interpreters, having understood the desirability of patience from the consequential meaning, do take it as a command for patience and say: “In these verses, there is a command for patience and tolerance, and the declarative statement has the meaning of imperative and instructional statement.”

But it is clear that the meaning of the two verses, namely, giving the good news of and assurance for conquest by the condition of being patient against the enemy, does fall in the category of declarative, not imperative sentence; there is no command in it, and it does not indicate ordaining any rule. Zamakhshari says: “This verse is the promise and the good news from God to the effect that if a group of Muslims are patient and tolerant against the enemy, with the help of God, they will overcome the enemy force ten times as theirs.[65]”

It is obvious that the promise and good news about victory conditioned by patience and tolerance does not have the meaning of command and order for patience, and one cannot make it the evidence, as the interpreters do, for issuing an obligatory duty. And, that is why we reject the concept of abolishment in the verse under discussion because abolishment has no reasonable meaning about good news and promise. Abolishment may, reasonably apply about an obligatory duty that has been performed for some period.

Unacceptable justification

Some of the interpreters have noticed that it is a mistake to say that of the two verses that were revealed together, one ordains a rule, and the next one immediately abolishes the same rule. Therefore, to rectify this mistake, they have said: “In this context, the second verse has been revealed some time after the first one.[66]”

Such a claim having no evidence, and being unacceptable, the author of Almizan has rejects it, and says: “The context shows that these two verses were revealed together. But the governance of the second verse relates to a period that has some interval with the governance of the period of the first verse. Thus, there is no interval between the revelation of the two verses, but the governance of them relate to two periods with intervals.[67]”

We should emphasize here that the view that these two verses were revealed in two different periods, and with some interval, but were put together in the Quran, is something inappropriate to say; some interpreters have to say it out of helplessness. As the author of Almizan says, the context shows that these two verses were revealed together.

On the other hand, the author of Almizan says: “The governance of the second verse relates to a period that has some interval with the governance of the period of the first verse.” He says it because first he has accepted that these verses ordain some obligatory rule; and then has had to look for justification for the abolishment. Has he had not accepted the un-evidenced issue first, he should not have had to helplessly look for justification.

As explained earlier, these two verses do not ordain some obligatory duty, but as a change from the main manner of addressing the Muslims, they state two phases of persuasion and encouragement for Muslims so as to have patience and tolerance while fighting the enemy. And, these two phases are stated together with no interval. Thus, there would be no need for the unacceptable justification mentioned in “Majma al Bayan”, nor would there be any need for the un-evidenced justification made up by the author of Almizan. Go to contents

Terrible consequences of this view

Those who entertain the view that these two verses ordain an obligatory duty, say that verse 66 in Anfal has abolished the governance of verse 65. And the rule that is ordained in its place is that thereafter, one Muslim must resist two unbelievers, meaning that if the number of enemy force were more than twice of the Muslims’ force even by one single person, then defending will not become obligatory for the Muslims.

The consequence of such a view is that it was not obligatory for Muslims to defend themselves in the Battle of Ohod because the number of Muslims’ force was seven hundred, but that of the enemy three thousand; nor it was obligatory in the Battle of Khandaq because Muslims were three thousand, but the enemy ten thousand; nor it was obligatory in the Battle of Mouteh, where Jafar Tayyar was martyred because Muslims were three thousand, but the enemy thirty thousand; and nor it was obligatory while defending Khorramshahr when it was besieged by the Ba’athi Forces from Iraq because at that time their number was tens of times of the home forces available in Khorramshahr.

These are unfavorable consequences that no one can obligate himself to them. In practice also, the Prophet (p.b.u.h) and the Muslims acted against this view because in all the battles of Ohod, Khandaq, Mouteh, and Khorramshahr they performed the defense as an obligatory religious duty, with no attention to what is said by the interpreters. And, this is a valid evidence to prove that the interpreters have not interpreted these verses correctly.

Reliance of Shafii on the view quoted from Ibn Abbass

In his book Omm, Shafii says:

“Ibn Oteibeh has quoted from Amr ibn Dinar, who quoted from Ibn Abbass, who has said: ‘when the verse “ ان یکن منکم عشرون صابرون یغلبو ماتین” “If there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred,” was revealed, it became obligatory for the Believers to resist twenty of them two hundred of the enemy. Then, God revealed this verse: “الان خفف الله عنکم وعلم ان فیکم ضعفا فان یکن منکم ماه یغلبوا ماتین” “For the present, Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred” and made light their burden and made obligatory for the Believers to resist one hundred against two hundred of the enemy force. Therefore, when the believers face an enemy force whose number is two times as much as the Believers’ force, then they are religiously forbidden from running away, but if the number of enemy force is more than two times of that of the Believers’ force, in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an obligatory duty is neglected, and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that neglecting it be reckoned as sin.[68]”

It is more than clear that based on his quotation from Ibn Abbas, Shafii has inferred obligatory duty from the two verses and has issued the verdict saying that the ultimate injunction by God is that if the number of enemy force is twice, then resistance against them is obligatory, but if their number is more than twice, even by a single person, then escaping the battlefield is permitted.

It is amazing that Shafii has not done any jurisprudential analysis himself and is flatly submitted to the view that he himself quoted from Ibn Abbass. But reasoning on a quoted evidence should be done after making the research to see if there is any other quotation opposing it. If there were not any contradictory found, then it can be used as evidence. But, there is some contradictory evidence here. It is a different quotation from Ibn Abbas indicating the opposite of what Shafii has quoted. Based on his own documentation, regarding verses 65 and 66,Tabari quotes Ibn Abbass having said:

“God put ten persons of enemy against one person of Muslims to encourage them to get ready for fighting the enemy, and be hopeful that God will help them defeat the enemy. And, this was not an obligatory duty, and nor ordaining a religious rule. It was just a blessing of encouragement made by God to His Messenger. Then, God made light their burden and put two persons of enemy against one person of Muslims so that the Believers should realize that God has special blessings for them. If fighting the enemy had been obligatory only when their number were exactly twice that of Muslims’, then, the Muslims would refrain from fighting the enemy if their number were more than twice. Therefore, one should not be deceived with what some scholars say. I have heard some say: ‘It is not appropriate for Muslims to fight the unbelievers unless their number is twice that of Muslims’ number.’ They think that if the number of Muslims did not amount to this level, fighting the enemy would be a sin, and if it is less than that level they can refrain from fighting.[69]”

We see that this quotation from Ibn Abbass is contradictory with what Imam Shafii has quoted from him, relying on it as evidence for his verdict. In this quotation, it is explicitly stated that no religiously obligatory duty is understood from these verses. It is also stated that ‘if fighting the enemy had been obligatory only when their number were exactly twice that of Muslims’, then the Muslims would have refrained from fighting them if their number were more than twice.’ From the last statement he means ‘but we know that, even in such cases, the Muslims have proceeded to defend themselves against the enemy in the battles of Ohod, Khandaq, and Mouteh.

The verdict issued by the evidence of the other quotation from Ibn Abbass, as explained before, has some terrible consequence, and is not acceptable. Now, a question must be answered here. The question is: “For their verdict, why has Shafii and his followers used the other quotation (indicating obligatory duty), and not heeded this quotation from Ibn Abbas, although this is in tune with the tone of the verses and says: ‘the verses are not ordaining an obligatory religious rule?’” The answer to this question must be supplied by those who entertain this unacceptable, or better to say, unreasonable view. Go to contents

Rule for exterminating the nation of Muslim

Interpreting the two verses, the interpreters have said that originally it was obligatory in jihad for Muslims to resist one against ten of the unbelievers. But this was abolished, and it became obligatory for Muslims to resist against twice their number of the enemy force. This means that the second rule has become the permanent rule in Islam on this subject to the end of the world. This, necessarily, suggests that if the number of the enemy force is more than twice, then no defense is obligatory for Muslims. Such a rule, no doubt, would result in the extermination of the Islamic nation because the Muslims would take it as the Divine Rule; and whenever the enemy force is more than twice of that of the Muslim force even by a single person, the Muslims would not consider fighting a religious duty, and thus neither the people nor the government would engage in the vital defense.

It is natural that under such circumstances, to exterminate the Muslims, the enemy, who know that Muslims have no religious duty to fight, will wage an all-out attack and wipe out the Muslims! And, we know that defending the root of Islam is both the Divine duty and the natural rights of the Islamic nation, and in any case, it must be done by both the government and the people. History is also a good testimony that, in practice, Muslims have done it in this way, saving the entity of the Islamic nation by their defense.

These interpreters should be asked: “Why do they attribute to the Quran a rule that if practiced would entail the extermination of the Islamic nation? Why do they view verses 65 and 66 of the Anfal Chapter to have contained this rule, without thinking of its destructive consequences?!”

Imam Shafii explicitly says: “but if the number of enemy force is more than two times of that of the Believers’ force, in that case running away is not sin because sin occurs if an obligatory duty is neglected, and in this case resisting the enemy is not obligatory so that neglecting it be reckoned as sin.” Shafeii says this while the Quran is asserting: “یا ایها الذین آمنوا اذا لقیتم فئه فاثبتوا " “O you who believe! When you meet a force be firm.” (Anfal,45). The Quran also is asserting:"اذا لقیتم الذین کفروا زحفا فلاتولوهم الادبار " “(O you who believe!) When you meet the unbelievers marching for war, never turn your back to them.” (Anfal,15). These two verses do absolutely and explicitly mean that the Believers must resist against the aggressing enemy for defending, and never turn their back whatever the enemy number may be.

The fact is that the interpreters have spent little time for having comprehensive study on the meaning of these two verses. First, one of them has said: “the sentence ‘ الان خفف الله عنکم’ ‘For the present, Allah has made light your burden,’ in the second verse indicate that the contents of these verses is an obligatory duty.” And the other interpreters immediately have accepted him and contained it in their books. Then, century after century, it has been repeated so much that it has occupied the minds of all. And, that is why the author of “Almizan” in spite of saying: “Restricting abatement to obligatory duty is arguable,” meaning that one cannot commit himself that the abatement in the verse ‘الان خفف الله عنکم’ does apply only where there is an obligatory duty, yet, he says: “There is no excuse for one to suspect that these two verses, in their explicitness, convey two different obligatory rules.[70]”

Our understanding is that, these words in Almizan do originate from the same mentality that is created for all the interpreters through the repetition of this point in centuries. Otherwise, not only suspecting the explicitness in these verses should be excused, it must be, necessarily, rejected too. The reason is that for proving their claim that these two verses carry an obligatory rule, the interpreters use the text of the verse ‘ الان خفف الله عنکم’ ‘now God gives abatement’ and say, “abatement is conceivable only if there is an obligatory rule practiced already.” Now that the author of Almizan thinks this reasoning is arguable and says: “Restricting abatement to obligatory duty is arguable,” there will be left no other way for him to prove that ‘these two verses, in their explicitness, convey two different obligatory rules.’

Moreover, as explained earlier, being obligated by these two so-called obligatory rules, claimed by the interpreters, will result in the extermination of the Muslims. It also would mean that jihad was not obligatory in the battles of Ohod, Khandaq, and Mouteh. These are some of the ill-consequences that it is not possible for one to commit himself to any of them.

Therefore, the explicitness in these two verses to convey two different obligatory rules, one being lighter than the other, as claimed in Almizan is not acceptable.

Besides, there is another inconsistency in the words of Almizan. On the one hand, it says: “Two obligatory duties are understood from these verses, one being lighter than the other.” By the lighter duty, the author means the second one, according to which, as they say, if the number of enemy force is twice of that of the Muslims’, then, patience is obligatory, but if it is more than twice, patience is not obligatory. On the other hand, under point “Fifth”, the author says: “The verse convey the meaning that in any case patience is obligatory in fighting.[71]”

Bu it is obvious that patience in fighting being obligatory in any case is not consistent with the meaning of the second verse because according to the second rule on patience, as said by the author and other interpreters, patience and resistance is not obligatory in case the number of enemy is greater than twice of that of the Muslims’.

It is unfeasible to specify the quantity of the enemy

The interpreters claim that if the number of enemy force is twice that of the Muslims’ then jihad is obligatory, but if their number is more than twice, then it is not obligatory. Thus, fixing the quantity of the enemy force is the prerequisite for making it clear whether jihad has become religiously obligatory or not. And, as long as this point is not made clear, the Muslims will not be able to realize whether they are obligated to fight or not. Therefore, as a prerequisite, it would be obligatory first to find out at what level the quantity of the enemy force stands, so that the Muslims should realize their religious duty.

But, we know that the quantity of the military force, whether ground force, air force, or navy, is a military secret and always is kept undisclosed. Therefore, in a normal way it is impossible to fix the actual number of the enemy force. Even if they send secret agents to find out the real number of the enemy force, yet, it would prove impossible to discern the actual number hundred percent correctly. Thus, those who say: “The contents of these two verses carry two different obligatory rules”, they condition realizing a religious obligation by something attaining of which normally is impossible for Muslims. And, this is another ill-consequence of having such a view, besides the other ill-consequences already mentioned.

In addition, while the Muslims are busy investigating the number of enemy force, naturally they are waiting for the result and are not fighting for defense. Therefore, the enemy will take advantage of this opportunity, and with the peace of mind, will launch their overthrowing attack. And, by the time the result of investigation about the enemy quantity is ready, the Muslims will have received fatal strikes, after which the result of the investigation will be useless. And, this is the consequence of the view held by those who say: “The condition for jihad being obligatory is that the number of enemy should be twice that of the Muslims, and not more.”

But according to the valid view, which says that these verses do not convey obligatory duty, the message in these verses is based on some assumption. The first verse says: “If there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred.” Since the message is based on assumption, there will be no need for specifying the quantity of the enemy force.

It is obvious that the Muslims who are educated in a culture stemming from the valid view, will recognize it obligatory in any case to fight for defense against the attacking enemy, and will not condition the defense by the number of the enemy. Thus, these Muslims never put off the defense for specifying the quantity of the enemy force. They are always watchful and ready to respond the attacking enemy properly, and do not provide the enemy with the chance to attack the Muslims with peace of mind, and strike them fatally.

Fundamentally, those who are educated in such culture believe that jihad in Islam is not initial militarily attack on the peace-seeking people, but it has the defensive nature. And, whenever the enemy makes a militarily attack, or gets ready to do it, whatever their quantity may be, such-educated Muslims will encounter the aggressing enemy severely and firmly so as to make them get back confined to their limit, and regret the aggression. Go to contents

Chapter 2 Jihad with the rebels (boqat)

One of the subjects discussed under the category of jihad is fighting the rebels (boqat); and the base for this subject is verse 19 of the Hojorat Chapter of the Quran which says: “وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاصلحوا بینهما فان بغت احداهما علی الاخری فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرالله فان فائت فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا ان الله یحب المقسطین” (Hojorat,19)

“If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but, if it complies, then, make peace between them with justice and be fair; for, Allah loves those who are fair (and just).

Points on the verse about rebels

Point one: Talking about the occasion for the revelation of this verse, in his book, Kashshaf, Zamakhshari says:

“While riding a donkey, the Prophet (p.b.u.h), stopped near where some of the Ansars (Believers of Medina) were sitting. The donkey urinated there. Then, Abdullah ibn Obei held his nostrils, and said: ‘Let your donkey go. Its bad smell caused us discomfort.’ Abdullah ibn Rawaheh answered him: ‘By God, the smell of the donkey of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) is better than your musk.’ The Prophet (p.b.u.h) went on his way, but the discussion between the two Abdullahs lasted for long, till it ended in striking each other. Then, the relations of these two persons, from the tribes of Ous and Khazraj, came out and all started striking each other with canes, fists, shoes and palm wood. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) came back and made peace between them. Then, this verse was revealed.[72]”

Point two: If this occasion for the revelation of this verse is accepted, then we should admit that the word "اقتتال" (The first meaning understood from it in Arabic is killing each other, and that is why the author has raised point two- from translator) here has a vaster meaning than killing each other, including striking each other. Another example of such usage in the Quran can be noticed in the verse, "فوجد فیها رجلان یقتتلان" “He found there two men fighting” (Qisas, 15), because the opponent and proponent of Moses had not proceeded to kill each other. His proponent called for help; Moses struck him with a fist (with no intention of killing – translator) but he died.

Point three: If at present there is no fight actually taking place, but preparations are going on to start it, this can also be another one of the vaster meaning of "اقتتال", or at least it can have the criterion for the obligation of making peace as enjoined by the verse which says “ فاصلحوا بینهما” “make ye peace between them.” Thus, it is obligatory for the Believers to make peace between such groups as well, so as to avoid the war, like the time when the preparations for the battles of Jamal, Seffein, and Nahrawan was going on, but fighting had not then started.

Point four: In this verse there are three phases in the orders and instructions for making peace.

First, there is the order for making peace between the parties. This is to be done by dialogue and any other action that may lead to peace.

Second, there is the order to “fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah”. It is natural that by acting according to the first order, the transgressor will be defined and known.

Third, there is the order for peace making after the transgressor stops the transgression, as the verse says ‘but if it complies then, make peace between them with justice and be fair.’

Here, it should be realized that the ‘peace making process’ in the first phase is different from that in the third phase. The first order is to try to stop the fight, but this one means that after the aggressor complies with the command of Allah, then to stabilize the peace, the losses inflicted on the enemy must be compensated fairly. And, that is why after the word, “فاصلحوا” “ make ye peace” in this third phase, the word, "باالعدل" “with justice”, is mentioned, but not in the first phase.

Point five: This verse points to the intra-national conflicts that, sometime, may occur among the Muslim nations in the Islamic countries. The instructions are addressed to all the Muslims in the whole world, who are aware of the conflict, and can act to stop the war, or fight the aggressing party and ultimately make it compensate the losses. This address includes the governments, and the ordinary people all over the world; and everybody is obligated to act at the top of his capability. Letter No. 57, in Nahj al Blaqeh, shows that under such circumstances, the ordinary people also are obligated to get involved and act according to the instructions in the verse.

While moving from Medina to Basra to encounter the Jamal aggression, in the letter to the people of Kufeh, Ali (a.s.) wrote: “"اما بعد فانی خرجت من حیی هذا اما ظالما او مظلوما اما باغیا او مبغیاعلیه وانی اذکرالله من بلغه کتابی هذا لما نفر الی فان کنت محسنا اعاننی و ان کنت مسیئا استعتبنی [73]" “I have left my domicile, either as the oppressor, or as the oppressed; either as the rebel, or as the rebelled; verily, I remind of God those who hear of this letter, and ask them to move to me; if I am oppressed to help me, and if I am oppressor to rebuke me and make me go back to my bounds.”

From this letter, it is understood that when the preparations for the Jamal Battle were going on, the ordinary people also were obligated and had the duty to perform the instructions in this verse. That is why Ali (a.s.) invites them to get involved, and discern the oppressed and the oppressor, and then perform their duty accordingly.

By the way, from this letter, it is also understood that before the start of the war, it is obligatory for the people to investigate the standings of the parties, and define the party of justice and injustice, and rush to help the party of justice.

Point six: Logically, many cases may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in this verse:

1. Both parties may start fighting as aggressors, with awareness and intentionally.

2. Both groups, out of ignorance and because of false assumptions, may feel it their religious duty to fight the other, as Khawarij did it in the time of Ali (a.s.)

3. One party may start war out of ignorance and false assumptions, but the other party do it with awareness, and intentional aggression.

4. One party may be the people of truth and rights, but the other party fight for aggression, like the events of Jamal, and Siffein

5. One party may be the people of truth and rights, but the other party may fight out of ignorance and false assumptions, like the event of Nahrawan.

In all these five cases, it is obligatory for all the Muslims all over the world, including the governments, to prevent start of war by negotiation and peacemaking efforts, and to ask both parties to stop it, if already started, using wise dialogue and deliberated arguments. Naturally, while such dialogue is going on, it will become clear which party is right and which one is wrong.

It is obvious that the party to the truth, like Ali (a.s.) in the events of Jamal, Siffein, and Nahrawan, will have no desire to fight the Muslims, and will welcome the suggestion for preventing, or stopping the war. Now, if the other party also welcome such a suggestion, war will not start, or if it is already started, it will be stopped. But, if the other party do not accept the suggestion, it will mean that they are the rebels and aggressors, and it is ‘obligatory for Muslims to fight (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah’ and repent, or else, be overthrown.

In the first three cases that both parties are untrue, if neither party agree with stopping the war, then both are rebels and aggressors, meaning that it is obligatory to fight both of them till they repent or are overthrown. If they repent, then naturally, war will cease, and it will be the time to assess fairly and justly the losses inflicted on the parties and make them compensate each other. If they do not repent, both will be fought by the Muslims till they are overthrown, and then naturally the war will cease. If one party repent and agree with ceasing the war, but the other one do not, then the other party will be considered rebel and aggressor, and will be fought till they repent or are overthrown.

Point seven: From this verse, it is understood that from the two parties of Muslims fighting each other, rebel is the one that aggress the other, and do not agree with justly ending the conflict. And, it does not make any difference whether the two parties are both ordinary Muslims, or one party is ordinary and the other of the Muslim government, or both are Muslim governments, meaning that one Islamic state is fighting another, like the imposed war of Iraq against Iran, which began since 1359.

If one may doubt the belief of the Ba’thist ruling group of Iraq, no one may doubt that the fighting forces of both countries were Muslims and are included in the verse, “" وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا “If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight,..”

According to what is understood from this verse, in all those three cases, the aggressor is called rebel, and its aggression becomes clear in the process of negotiating the parties to find out their incentive for fighting. And the letter "ف" (indicating outcome in Arabic) in the verse, “فان بغت احداهما علی الاخری” “but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other”, after “فاصلحوا بینهما” “make ye peace between them”, is pointing to the outcome of the negations process.

This verse applies to any of the three groups of rebels in general. But the jurisprudents of both Sunni and Shia schools, defining rebel say: “A group of people who rise against the ruling government are called rebels.” Consequently, they have limited their talk on the subject exclusively to one of the meanings of rebel in this verse. Possibly, the reason was that, what actually happened often were conflicts caused by the revolts of people against the existing governments, and most governments had had to tackle such revolts. As an example, three such revolts happened in the time of Ali (a.s.), which led to the battles of Jamal Siffein, and Nahrawan. Rebellions of the people against the existing governments also happened in other periods, and the jurisprudents felt it necessary to discuss about it, and allocate a section for “Jihad with Rebels”, in the Jihad Chapter of their jurisprudence books.

A parenthetical passage: Now that there was the mention of the Iran-Iraq war, it seems appropriate here to talk about an event in 1359, pertaining the imposed war of Iraq against Iran, because that event relate to the concept in this verse:

Not long after the war had started, the distinguished people in the government of Algeria, having very good relations with Iran, on the journey of the Head of the Consultative Assembly (Parliament) of Iran to Algeria, had suggested him that they wanted to act as mediator and negotiate for stopping the war and establishing the peace. They had told the Head of the Parliament that in the Holy Koran, God instructs Muslims: “ وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاصلحوا بینهما” “If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them.” Thus, as Muslims, they had felt it a duty to mediate, as instructed by God, between the two countries to stop the war and establish the peace.

The Head of the Parliament says: “Replying them, I said if there is a war in which one party is not transgressing, the rule is as you state; the Muslim should interfere and reconcile. But, if one party is transgressing, then the Quran has a definite rule for it and, in the same verse, says: “فان بغت احداهما علی الاخری فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرالله” “but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.[74]

With such argument, the Head of the Parliament rejects the suggestion of the Algerian dignitaries. They get disappointed and the war continues.

Here, it is essential that we should give some remarks as critique on the argument of the Head of the Parliament:

Go to contents

Remark One

He has said:

“If there is a war in which one party is not transgressing, the rule is as you state. But, if one party is transgressing, then the Quran has a definite rule for it; the transgressor should be fought, and mediating has no sense.”

We reply him:

The conception is that the Algerian dignitaries, as a third impartial party, wanted to enter into negotiations with the fighting parties so as to identify the transgressor and manage to have their efforts productive. Their standing, before starting the peace making negotiations, was the standing of an impartial force that presumably did not know who the aggressor was, because each side accused the other side of transgressing.

Since the dignitaries wanted to identify the aggressor while negotiating with both parties, it was not proper to say to them: “As one party is the transgressor, then the Quran has a definite rule for it; the transgressor should be fought, and mediating has no sense.” They reply that before entering into negotiation with both parties, we cannot ascertain who the aggressor is so as to fight them. And it is through the peace negotiations process that we may identify the aggressor and fight them if so required.

Remark two

He has said:

“I said if there is a war in which one party is not transgressing..”

We say:

It is not valid, because earlier, (under point six,) we explained that logically, five cases may be conceived about the two groups mentioned in this verse; in three of the cases both parties fight unduly and aggressively; in the other two cases, one group is fighting justly, and the other unjustly. This verse covers all the five cases.

On the other hand, it is obvious that no part of the verse indicates that it is talking about a war in which there is no aggressor, if so, the verse would mean: “If two parties among the Believers, neither of whom is transgressor, fall into a fight, make ye peace between them.” This would indicate that if either side, or both sides are aggressors, then no action for peace making is required.

It is more than obvious that no one can claim such a meaning for this verse because it would be imposing the improper on the verse of the Quran.

Remark three

Basically, is it possible for any war to start while there is no aggression and both parties have started fighting justly? Never is such a thing possible. We know that aggressor is the group who start the war, and if neither group start fighting, then, there will be no aggressor, and naturally no war will take place. Thus, wherever there is a war, there is aggression as well. No war can be conceived, which was not started by an aggressor. Therefore, the statement of the Head of the Parliament, “If there is a war in which one party is not transgressing, the rule is as you state; the Muslim should interfere and reconcile”, is not valid.

It is possible that both parries may be aggressors, but it is not conceivable to assume neither of them aggressor. Even in the cases where (case 5, translator) the party who fight out of ignorance and false assumptions, like the event of Nahrawan, where the Khawarij believed it was their religious duty to fight Ali (a.s.), there is also an aggression. It is true that they thought they were fighting justly, and were not aggressors, but their false belief does not change the reality that aggression was taking place because Ali (a.s.) tried very seriously to avoid the war, but the Khawarij started it, and Ali (a.s.) could not help but defend. That the Khawarij started the war is the evidence of their aggression.

However, the suggestions of the political figures of Algeria, who wanted to proceed for peace making between Iran and Iraq, was a very appropriate and philanthropic act, and was in accordance with the Quran. Considering the good relations of Algeria with both parties to the war, it was highly probable that justly peace could be established, but it was a chance that was missed. And the response of the Head of the Parliament to the dignitaries of Algeria was unreasonable, and unacceptable, blocking the road to a justly peace making process.

Even if the dignitaries of Algeria could not have succeeded in stopping the war and ascertaining the peace, the peace negotiating process that, naturally, would have been broadcast world over, by its nature, could have great help in pointing figures to the aggressor. This could be a victory for Iran, in the same way that through the negotiations that was going on between Vietnam and the USA in Paris, it became clear that the USA was the aggressor, and ultimately, it led to the defeat of the USA, and expulsion of their soldiers from Vietnam. Go to contents

Now, we are going back to the main subject. Already, we said that, in their books, the jurisprudents have limited discussions on the “بغاه” “rebels’ exclusively to the case that some ordinary people revolt against the existing government. But, this is only one of the meanings of ‘rebel’ in this verse, and more specific than the broad meaning understood from the verse.

Jurisprudents’ definition of rebels

1.Hanbalis’ definition of rebels

Abdullah ibn Qudameh, (died, 630 Hijri), in his book, Moqni, a commentary on Kharaqi’s digest, under the definition of “بغاه” “rebels”, says: “A group of the people of Truth, who out of expounding and authorized interpretation, evade the governance of Imam, and want to remove him from power; they have centralized power, and for repelling them, mobilization of warriors is required. These are called ‘rebels’, and in this chapter we will talk about the religious rule with regards to them.[75]”

There is some point for the reason why Ibn Qudameh defines the rebels as the people of the Truth, with expounding and authorized interpretation. The point is that, apparently, by such definition, Ibn Qudameh wants to justify the destructive movement of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Siffein because Ibn Qudameh and his equals say: “All the companions (of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) are just.” Thus, there should be some justification for the rebellious movement of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Siffein, which originators were among the companions; and, what justification can serve this end better than being people of Truth, and acting out expounding and authorized interpretation?

2.Hanafis’ definition of rebels

Ala’eddin Hanafi (died, 587 Hijri), while defining “بغاه” “rebels”, says: “ ‘Rebels’ are the revolters, and they are a group that have centralized power; they believe that any sin, either small or big, is blasphemy; they revolt against the Imam of the people of justice, and with the justification that any sin is blasphemy, they believe that war, bloodshed, and confiscating the properties are religiously authorized.[76]”

The reason why Ala’eddin Hanafi defines rebels as the revolters is that by the revolters he means those who revolted against Ali (a.s.) in Nahrawan; and he says it for the acquittal of the originators of the battles of Jamal and Sefein.

It is not clear for us why these jurisprudents think retrospectively, and interpret this verse in a way as if it were revealed specifically for those groups whose biography is recorded in history. Why do they not interpret it in such a way to introduce the rebels of their own time, and the times thereafter till the end of the world, so that the people in any period can identify them and know their duty with regards to them?

In Hanafis’ jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, defining rebels, says: “آلباغی هوالخارج عن طاعه امام الحق بغیر حق” “Rebel is one who, with no rights, escapes following the Imam of the rights.[77]”

This definition of Aoudeh is different from what Ala’eddin has presented in Hanafis’ jurisprudence. Possibly, Ala’eddin has expressed his personal view about the definition of rebels, and Aoudeh has presented what is common among Hanafis.

3.Maalekis’ definition of rebels

In Maalekis’ jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, defining rebels, says: “البغاه فرقه من المسلمین خالفت الامام الاعظم او نائبه لمنع حق وجب علیها او لخلعه” “Rebels are a group of Muslims who disagree with the Great Imam, or his deputy, so as not to give him what is due from them, or remove him from power.[78]”

It seems that containing ‘not to give what is due’ in the definition of rebels was for being harmonious with those who refused to pay Zakat (a type of tax) to the First Caliph, and adding ‘remove him from power’ was to make it harmonious with the revolters who wanted to remove the Third Caliph.

4.Shafiis’ definition of rebels

In Shafii’s jurisprudence, Abdulqaadir Aoudeh, defining rebels, says: “البغاه المسلمون مخالفوا الامام بخروج علیه او منع حق بشرط شوکه لهم وتاویل و مطاع فیهم [79]” “Rebels are the Muslims who disagree with the Imam, either by revolting against him, or not paying what is due to him, on the condition that they have centralized power, and rely on some interpretation and expounding, and among them there is a leader whom they obey.”

Application of ‘not paying what is due to Imam’, in the definition of ‘rebels’, in Shaffi’s jurisprudence also has reference to a group who refused paying Zakat (tax) to the first Caliph, and he fought them. And this fact, (that in his book, Omm, Shafii has discussed war with rebels, together with the First Caliph’s war with the evaders of Zakat, and has applied the same rule on both,) can be a testimony to this issue.[80] Go to contents

5.Shiates’ definition of rebels

Defining rebels, Sheikh Toosi says:

“Rebel is one who revolts against the just imam, and fights him, and evades paying what is due to him. ‘Rebel’ is a vilifying noun. Among our companions, there are some who say that a rebel is a pagan. And a group of scholars agree with us on rebel being a vilifying noun. Among them are all the Mu’tazilites, who call rebels crooked. And a group of the companions of Abu Hanifeh, and Shafii also think so. And Abu Hanifeh has said: ‘Rebels are corrupt within the religion.’ And the companions of Shafii have said: ‘In Shafii’s view, ‘rebel’ is not a vilifying noun, but it is the name of a person who has tried to infer the rule, but has made a mistake in his inference, in the same way that jurisprudents do and disagree with each other.[81]”

It should be realized that by just imam, Sheikh Toosi means the Infallible Imam, and in several instances he has explicitly stated it, such as the ones in his book Khelaf volume 3 page 310 case 2, volume 1 page 281 case 31, volume 2 p331 case 14, volume 2 page 223 case 6, and volume 3 page 97 case28, and in his book Mabsoot volume 2 page56.

Wherever in jurisprudence books they talk about the Ruling Imam, or use Imam absolutely, with no modifier, other Shia jurisprudents also mean the Infallible Imam. Among them, Allameh Helli, in his book, Tathkireh, under jihad with rebels, says:

“There is no disaccord among Muslims about jihad with rebels being obligatory.” And then he continues:

“It has been the ongoing manner for the jurisprudents to mention the subject of Imam here so that one could know the Imam whose obedience is obligatory, and that by revolting against him one becomes a rebel. But, this is not a subject matter in jurisprudence; it pertains theology. Herein, in brief, we would talk about the subject matter, and say that some qualifications are the condition for becoming Imam. He should be:

1. Mature; 2. Muslim; 3. Just; 4. Free (not slave); 5. Male; 6. Learned, so as to know the rules; 7. Brave; 8. Efficient and a man of concept; 9. with healthy ear, eye, and tongue. (There is no disaccord regarding these nine qualifications mentioned.) 10. with no defect in such limbs as hands, legs and other parts of the body ….And this is the first one of the two qualifications mused by Shafiis; 11. from Qureish (tribe), because the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: “Imams are from Qureish”, and the more outstanding of the two views of Shafiis is this one. But Juweini has disagreed with it...And Shafiis have said: ‘If no one was found in Qureish with all these qualifications required in Imam, then a person from Bani Kananeh (tribe) must be appointed; if not found, then a man form the family of Ishmael must be assigned.’ And, this is invalid in our view because according to our belief, there are exclusively twelve Imams; 12. Infallible; according to Shia, it is essential that imam must be infallible because appointment of imam is obligatory due to the fact that there is the possibility of mistake by the ordinary people; and mistakes lead to confusion and disorder in the system; on the other hand, it is obvious that there is the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion.

Thus, it is required that there must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler, with merits exceptional among the human being, to become the imam. And, appointment of imam should not be at his choice or at the choice of the general public because it will have the same risk (of mistake, and the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion.) So, imam should be appointed by God, and should be infallible, not to make mistakes; otherwise, he will need another imam, and this will end in the vicious circle going on indefinitely. Therefore, it is obligatory that imam must be infallible. 13. explicitly appointed by wording from God, from the Prophet, or from the one whose being explicitly appointed as imam is proved; because infallibility is of inner characteristics, and no one (but God) can be aware of it. Thus, if there is not such a wording about the appointment of imam, then, the obligation for knowing the Imam will be compelling people to the impossible... 14. more knowledgeable than the people of his time. 15. with good etiquette,(occasioned by infallibility) to avoid mean conducts such as eating in the thoroughfares, uncovering his body. The Sunni scholars disagree with all these from number 9 onward.[82]” Go to contents

Two scholarly questions from the jurisprudents

Here, we have two scholarly questions from Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents.

Question One

Do Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents think that jihad with rebels is a permanent rule, lasting with the lasting of Islam? Or, do they think that it is some seasonal rule, pertaining to the time of the ruling of the Infallible Imam? In the latter case, naturally, it would be limited to the ruling of Imam Ali (a.s.) and Imam Hassan for the period of some five years.

Allameh, on the one hand says: “We mention the subject of Imam here so that one could know the Imam whose obedience is obligatory, and that by revolting against him one becomes a rebel..” On the other hand, he views infallibility as the condition required in Imam. This, necessarily means that jihad with rebels is periodically and seasonally obligatory, and is limited to the ruling of the two Infallible Imams, Ali (a.s.) and Hassan for the period of some five years, when the revolt against them was rebellion. As for the other Imams, since they were not in power, naturally, no revolt against them took place, and consequently, there was no rebellion too.

Do Allameh Helli and his equals of the other jurisprudents accept that the rule in the verse was limited to the short period while the two infallible Imams were ruling, and after that the rule of the verse, its validity date being expired, is considered lifeless? Does it fit the scholarly position of these jurisprudents to commit themselves to such an issue?

If Allameh Helli and his equals cannot accept that the rule of this verse has become obsolete after some five years, but say: “The tone of this verse (Hojorat, 19) is indicative of a permanent rule that is needed by man till the end of the world.”, then, they should obligate themselves to its meaning. And, the meaning is that, in the period of occultation too, wherever in the world, there is established a government like the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the people elect its leader freely, and assign him as the Imam of the nation, then, a group with weapon revolt against him, and it leads to fight, in such instances too, (according to this verse) the Muslims are obligated, ‘to make peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.’

Question Two

Allameh Helli together with his equals say: “It is essential that imam must be infallible because appointment of imam is obligatory due to the fact that there is the possibility of mistake by the ordinary people; and mistakes lead to confusion and disorder in the system; on the other hand, it is obvious that there is the possibility of intra-community struggle for exclusion…. there must be an all-obeyed powerful ruler, with merits exceptional among the human being, to become the imam.”

Do they mean that, the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes in the community, or that, if mistakes happened, he fixes them?

If they mean that the Infallible Imam prevents happening of mistakes, it is not valid because neither Imam, nor the Prophet can prevent happening of mistakes or crime in the community. According to the history texts, in the lifetime of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and in the government of Ali (a.s.), their agents committed crime and treason, and they could not manage to prevent it.

The story of Khaalid ibn Walid is very well known in history. He was appointed as missionary by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) after the conquest of Mecca, and doing this duty, he killed nearly thirty innocent Muslims by mistake; the Prophet (p.b.u.h) was extremely upset from this horrible crime, and had to pay blood-money for the murdered.[83]

And, In Nahj al Balaqeh, the letters of reprimand from Ali (a.s.), addressed to his agents, contain some of their treasons. Among such letters, we can mention letters 41 and 71, which convey the harshest reprimand from Imam to those treacherous agents. Therefore, as we see, neither the Prophet (p.b.u.h), nor the Imam could prevent happening of crime.

And, if they mean that after the happening of mistakes or crime, Imam fixes them, it is something that fallible imams can do it as well.

Thus, the reasoning of Allameh Helli, and his equals of jurisprudents to prove that the leader and imam of the people, necessarily, must be infallible, is futile and vain, and can serve no purpose.

Another question may be asked here. What do these jurisprudents say regarding the period of occultation, when there is not a ruling Infallible Imam? Do they say that, in the period of occultation, exceptionally, there is no need for the ruling Infallible Imam, and a fallible person also can become a leader and imam? Of course, such saying does not fit their reasoning which is absolute and for all the periods.

However, this is a dead-end that these jurisprudents have created for themselves with such a reasoning of theirs, and they should try to find a way to exit from it by themselves. And, there is no way to exit; so, they have to forsake this reasoning, and return back to find another way with no dead-end. Go to contents

Jurisprudents’ argument on the assumption of the impossible

Allameh Helli, and his equals, on the one hand, say that only the governments of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and the Infallible Imam, is the government of Truth. On the other hand, despite their living in the period of occultation, when there is no ruling Infallible Imam, in their jurisprudence, they discuss such matters that, in their own view, particularly pertain the rank of the Infallible Imam, and his function.

Matters such as initial jihad with the unbelievers, and jihad with the rebels; having treaty with the unbelievers; getting tax from the peoples of book; collecting Zakat (tax) from Muslims and using it for the purpose specified in the Quran; administering the legal punishments and retribution on the murderers, thieves, adulterers, and other criminals; payment of salary to the government employees, and such other matters that are relevant to the managing of the community, in the view of Helli, and his equals, do all specially pertain the ruling of Infallible Imam, and the fallible have no rights to deal with them.

Now, these jurisprudents are asked: “These subjects make up a major section of discussions in the jurisprudence, and contain important political, militarily, executive, penal, economical, and other such issues; are all of them written in the jurisprudence books, and taught on some assumption, only to take up a great portion of the time of the jurisprudential seminaries at huge cost?”

Do these jurisprudents want to say: “Let us assume the impossible assumption that in the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam, there is a ruling Infallible Imam. Under such assumption, the rules on these various subjects, execution of which pertains only to the impossibly assumed Imam, should be in the manner that we are discussing in the books. In fact, as jurisprudents, we are spending time and budget, only for making the rules on these subjects clear for the ruling Infallible Imam, not ruling during occultation.”?

Do these jurisprudents want to say: “All the verses in the Quran, containing the rules on these subjects, were revealed only for the time of the ruling Infallible Imam; and it was limited to the short period while the two infallible Imams, Ali (a.s.) and Hassan were ruling; and after that the rule of these verses, their validity date being expired, were considered lifeless.”?

Do these jurisprudents want to say: “The verses on jihad with the unbelievers and the rebels; the verses on Zakat (tax); the verses on punishing thieves, adulterers, accusers of adultery, warmongers, usurers, and so on, are all out of date, and have no usage in the time of the absence of the Infallible Imam; and these verses are only to recite for heavenly rewards and being blessed.”?

Of course, according to these groups of jurisprudents who say: “Only the governments of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), and the Infallible Imam, is the government of Truth,” the answer to such questions is positive.

This way of thinking, by Shia jurisprudents about the government of Truth, might be one of the reasons why jurisprudence has stayed static, particularly on the issues of governance relating to the running of the community. While the jurisprudent is of the idea that the government of Truth is exclusively the government of the Infallible, which is impossible in the time of occultation, it is natural that such a jurisprudent will have no motive to think about the issues concerning government, and running the community so as to try to infer new verdicts suitable for the ongoing issue in administering the community. In his view, the Infallible Imam should be in charge of such issues, and, he is not ruling at present.

But if the jurisprudent believes that if, in the time of occultation too, a capable person is elected by the free vote from the people to become a leader and Imam, his government also is the government of Truth, then, such a jurisprudent, will naturally believe that all the affairs of the community should be administered by this imam. Looking at the issues of the government and community from this point of view, the jurisprudent will be incited to think about the entire issues concerning the community, and will try to find new answers appropriate for the new questions in any period.

By this new way of thinking, all the political, military, economical, and other issues of the community, will be analyzed and scrutinized by the jurisprudent with the greatest care to find the solution for all the ongoing questions. Thus, harmoniously with the advancement in the ways of life, the jurisprudent will take steps forward to issue advanced verdicts for solving any new questions. And thus, the jurisprudence will leave the static mode behind, to become dynamic, moving forward to keep itself abreast with any progress in the community.

Had such evolutionary movements started from the time of Sheikh Toosi, during this time of almost ten centuries, there should have been immensely great progressive changes in the jurisprudence. But, unfortunately, it did not happen, and the jurisprudence has stayed static as it was then, badly needing a very serious revision, because with its present status, it cannot solve the ongoing needs of the society.

Justification of the actions of Perjurers and Aggressors

The word ‘تاویل’ ‘interpretation’ is contained in the definition made of ‘rebels’ in the jurisprudence of Hanbali and Shafii. And the meaning of interpretation is that the rebellious group have made interpretations and inferences, and have revolted by the rule so inferred. Since inference from interpretations is a religiously accepted proof, the actions of the rebels is not sin and transgress, even though their inference is a mistake, and their revolt is rebellion.

This justification is valid about the Khawarij because they believed Ali (a.s.) was an unbeliever, and considered fighting him the religious obligatory duty.

But it is not true about the companions who fought the battles of Jamal and Siffein because they knew that they were fighting Ali (a.s.) unduly and unjustly. Sunni scholars have obligated themselves to think on the basis of the baseless principle that reads: “الصحابه کلهم عدول” “The companions (of the Prophet) all are just.” And, they noticed that if the revolt of the companions in the battles of Jamal and Siffein is considered as sin and crime, then, such companions would not fit in this baseless principle. Therefore, they have added this term, (interpretation) in the definition of rebels to justify the actions of the companions against Ali, and say that their actions were based on interpretation, and they thought it their religious duty to fight Ali; and, this do not damage the justness. Sunni scholars have made this statement to safeguard the validity of this baseless principle.

But contrary to the expectation, Sheikh Toosi also has contained this term in his definition of rebels, and says:

“The third condition for ‘rebels’ is that they break up from the imam on the basis of their own authorized interpretation, and oppose him. And, if they break up without such interpretation, then, they will be considered bandits, and the rule for warmongers will apply to them.”[84]

We know that Sheikh Toosi does not entertain the view that all the companions (of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) are just, and there is no need for him to purify from sin and crime the companions waging the battles of Jamal and Siffein. However, on this subject he has become equal of the Sunni jurisprudents, conditioning ‘rebels’ by interpretation. How can it be justified?

We know of no justification for it. But, it should be mentioned that (in those days) there had been cultural exchanges between Sunni and Shia jurisprudents; in many cases, Shia jurisprudence was written in coordination with Sunni jurisprudence. Since Sunni jurisprudence was dominant in the seminaries, Shia jurisprudence was affected by Sunni jurisprudence. And. this is an example of such instances, where Sheikh toosi has chased the Sunnis in writing his jurisprudence.

There is a very commonly known statement by the late Ayatollah Boroojerdi. He said. “The jurisprudence of Shia is the annotations to Sunni jurisprudence.”

Sunni jurisprudents have defined rebels by jurisprudential terminology and have said: “There should be three conditions for being ‘rebels’: 1.- They should be centrally organized group, prevention of which would be impossible unless military force is used. 2.- They should have broken out from the dominance of the government. 3.- They should be people of interpretation.”

Of course none of these conditions is mentioned in the verse on rebels. Only the transgression of a group is expressed, and then, it is stated that after the transgressor is discerned, they should be fought until they comply with the command of Allah. However, the jurisprudents have made up their own terminology, and discuss the subject. Using their terminology, they have mentioned the three conditions for ‘rebels’.

Perhaps, there was some reason for making up this terminology. Talking about the verse, which refers to the fight between groups of Muslims, the most outstanding examples of it, battles of Jamal, Siffein, and Nahrawan, immediately strike one’s mind. Therefore, those jurisprudents, who think that all the companions (of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) were just people, had to find a way for justification. They needed the way so as to make the meaning of the verse correspond these three events, and, at the same time, not to damage the justice of the companions who took part in those three battles. But, the rule in the verse is general, with no reference to any particular event. Go to contents

Disagreement on the condition for occurrence of rebellion

Sunni and Shia jurisprudents call ‘rebel’ a group that revolt against the government. This is a more specific meaning than what is meant in the Quran. Then, the Shia jurisprudents make it even more specific than what is meant by Sunnis; they say that rebel is a group who revolt against the Infallible Imam. This is more specific because Sunnis do not condition infallibility in the imam for occurrence of rebellion; some of the Sunnis, even do not condition it with the justice in the imam.

Ibn Qudameh Hanbali, in his book. Moqni, says:

“If a person revolts against an imam, and defeats him, and with the force of sword, suppresses people to accept obedience to him, such a person becomes the Imam. Revolting against him, and fighting with him will be prohibited. The reason for this is that Abdulmalik ibn Marwan revolted against Abdullah ibn Zubeir, killed him, ruled over the territories, and subdued their people until the people, willingly or unwillingly, promised allegiance to him. So, he became the Imam. And, revolt against him was prohibited because revolting against him would lead to rift among Muslims; would cause shedding their blood, and destruction in their property. And, whoever, would revolt against him, he would be one of those about whom the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said: ‘If a person revolts against my nation while it is united, smite his neck whoever he may be.’ [85]”

Qaazi Abubakr ibn Arabi also entertains a view similar to that of Ibn Qudameh, and says: “The revolt of Imam Hussein against Yazid was rebellion; and according to Islam, the rebel must be suppressed; therefore, Hussein was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.”

But Ibn Khaldun has rejected Qazi’s view, and says: “The Imam who suppresses a rebel must be a just person, and Yazid was a corrupt one, so, they should not have fought with Imam Hussein by his instructions; and Hussein acted on interpretation, so, the truth was for him; he is a martyr, deserving heavenly rewards.[86]”

What a big difference between the views of Shia, and the two Sunni scholars! On one side, Shia jurisprudents say that for the rebellion to become true, there must be the Infallible Imam. While, on the other side, Ibn Qudameh, and Qaazi ibn Arabi, think it is rebellion to revolt against Abdulmalik ibn Marwan, and Yazid! This is a vivid example of going to the extremes; and it is not acceptable from either side.

Those who say that for the rebellion to become true, there must be the Infallible Imam, are thinking excessively on the justice side, and there is no evidence for such a view. Earlier, we said that the Shia jurisprudents tend to match ‘just’ imam, in the narratives, with ‘Infallible’ Imam, and it is not correct. (As was explained, what is required for running jihad is the justice in the leadership of the war so that jihad should be performed considering justice and fairness, in the whole phases of war, towards both the parties involved in fighting, and not to act like the cruel rulers without considering any justice and fairness.)

And those who say that it is rebellion to revolt against Abdulmalik ibn Marwan, and Yazid, are thinking excessively on the injustice side. As Ibn Khaldun also says, revolt against a just imam is rebellion, not against a corrupt one.

Thus, the moderate way is that armed revolt against a just imam is rebellion. For example, according to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its leader must be just. Now, if there is an armed revolt against such a leader, then rebellion will occur, regarding which the rule of the verse will govern: ‘..then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.’

Is rebellion against an unjust imam permitted?

Abdulqaadir Aoudeh says:

“Even though, justice is requisite for becoming an imam, the preferred view among the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and in the jurisprudence of Zeidiyeh Shia, is that no revolt is permitted against the unjust, corrupt imam. The revolt is not permitted even for ‘forbidding the wrong’, and ‘enjoining the right’ because revolting against the government, normally, causes happening of wickedness that is far worse than what is committed by the ruler. Thus, ‘forbidding the wrong’ is not permitted in this case; one of the conditions for ‘forbidding the wrong’ to become obligatory, is that the ‘forbidding’ should not be the cause for the happening of the wickedness that is greater than the one to-be-forbidden. For example, the ‘forbidding’ should not cause persecutions to happen; bloods to be shed; corruptions to spread; regions to go to commotion; people to be misguided; security to vanish; the system to be in disorder. Although, it is the common rule that the nation enjoys the rights to revolt against the corrupt imam because of his corruption, the verdict of the jurisprudents is that, if his removal would cause turmoil, not to remove him.[87]”

On this subject, the jurisprudents of the four Sunni schools should pay attention to the rational principle of “Priority of ‘the more Important’ over ‘the Important’.” According to this principle, ‘the more important’ always, enjoys priority over ‘the important’, and, in comparison, it has more value.

Now, in case there is the hope of victory, we should make an analysis to see if revolting, or non-revolting against the corrupt ruler, enjoys the higher value. The comparison should be made between what will be gained and what will be lost, so as to act in a manner that will entail the least loss and the highest gain. If victory were attained, what will be gained would be far more precious than what was lost. But, the cause for hesitation is that what will be lost is definite, while, what will be gained, i.e., victory, is only likely. Then, is it rational to bear some definite loss with the hope of some probable result?

Some points must be noticed here.

Point one: Now, there is a cruel, and corrupt ruler governing. If no revolt takes place against him, he will continue his cruelty. Thus, continuously during his reign, the nation will bear losses that will be equal to, or more probably, higher than the losses that would occur if a revolt had taken place. He will kill the innocent people, confiscate their wealth, plunder the public coffer, destroy moral values, etc. Under such circumstances, if no revolt takes place against the ruler, there will be no hope of victory for the people, who, at the same time, will continuously suffer moral, economical, and physical losses; and the community will continue to tremble in the grip of the cruel ruler.

Is it rational for the community to bear definite material and spiritual losses continuously, for fear that some losses occur due to the revolt against the injustice? Of course not. Sunni jurisprudents, fearing the occurrence of wickedness, prohibit revolting against the cruel ruler, consequently inviting people to tolerate the cruelty of the wicked ruler! Is this the correct way? And does Islam approve it?

Point two: The groups, who revolt against a corrupt ruler, are defenders, not aggressors. Here, it is the cruel ruler who transgress the rights of the nation by his all out attack on the material and spiritual values of the community, making the people his captives. He sheds the blood of the innocent people; and creating tyranny and denying freedom, unduly, dominate the fate of people, and deprive them of all the human rights. Thus, the groups, who revolt against the corrupt ruler, want to defend the rights of the community, as well as theirs. They want to regain what was unduly taken from them. And, this is the natural rights of any human being, and, it is praiseworthy and religious as well.

Point three: A believer human being entertains the belief that whatever he loses in his devoted revolt against the unjust ruler, God will give him the reward for it. Thus, the Believer group of the rebels will be inflicted with no irreparable losses. And, in fact, the fighting Believer is carrying on, waiting for either of the two virtues to happen: victory in this world, or grace of martyrdom in the other one.

Point four: The revolting groups, with favorable conditions, hoping victory, start their rebellion against the unjust ruler, and continue it. This movement of theirs, in itself, enjoys sanctity because it is started with the objective of eradicating injustice and corruption. Now, if they are victors, they have achieved their goal for eradicating injustice and corruption, and have performed their religious duty as well. But if they fail, they will feel exalted in their conscience and in the conscience of the community; they did perform their moral and social duty for defending the oppressed. Therefore, in no case are they losers. What they lose, they will get the heavenly reward for it from God; and, in this world too, they will be mentioned with honor and good name, opening good space for themselves in the hearts of the people. This is a very precious moral value that the Quran refers to it as “goodly mention”, which Abraham, the Patriarch has asked God for it: “[88]واجعل لی لسان صدق فی الاخرین ” “And ordain for me a goodly mention among posterity.”

These four positive aspects will be enjoyed in case of revolt against the cruel ruler, not otherwise. Now, the jurisprudents forbid revolt, fearing the occurrence of wickedness more than what is committed by the corrupt ruler. Let us suppose that this concept is also correct and it is important and enjoys sanctity. However, there is no doubt that the importance and sanctity of this concept does not match the importance and sanctity of revolt that has those four advantages. Thus, the value of revolt, and its objective is higher than the value of non-revolt and its objective. So, we can say: “The objective of revolt is more important than the objective of no-revolt.” It is specifically so, because the main objective in such revolt is to free Islam from the captivity of the corrupt.

And it is here that the rational principle of “Priority of ‘the more Important’ over ‘the Important’ will govern, and the Sunni jurisprudents should observe this golden principle so as not think vice versa.

By the way, one may ask if it is possible that the jurisprudents of the four Sunni schools, and of the school of Zeidieyah Shia, had been impressed by the tyrannical atmosphere of the time, and the will of the cruel rulers, and were driven to say: “..no revolt is permitted against the unjust, corrupt imam. The revolt is not permitted even for ‘forbidding the wrong’, and ‘enjoining the right’.” Such possibility cannot be negated. Go to contents

Narrative from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) against the views of the Jurisprudents

There is a narrative from the Prophet (p.b.u.h), narrated by Imam Hussein (a.s.). This narrative, directly, contradicts the so-called ‘preferred view’ of these jurisprudents, and makes it obligatory to revolt against the cruel ruler.

Addressing Horr ibn Yazid and his soldiers, Imam Hussein says:

“O people, verily I heard the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying: ‘If any person notices that a cruel ruler is aggressing the boundaries of God; violating obligations to God; acting against the conduct of the Prophet (p.b.u.h); and behaving towards the God-obedient unjustly and criminally, the person must proceed through words and action to make such a ruler change his manner; otherwise, God is obligated to assign him to the same place with the cruel ruler.’

“O people be aware that these agents of the government have made plans to follow Satan; they have neglected obedience to God; overtly, have become corrupt; suspended the rules of God; embezzled the public funds; have authorized the-God-forbidden; have forbidden the-God-authorized; and I am the most suitable person to change the unjustly state…[89]”

Here, Imam Hussein has explained the reason for his revolt: as it was obligatory to act according to what the Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, he had moved to change the unjustly state. Is such a move for rectification called aggression and rebellion? And the person who does it, is he a rebel that must be suppressed according to the Islamic rule?

And, what does Qaazi Abubakr ibn Arabi think when he says: “The revolt of Imam Hussein against Yazid was rebellion; and according to Islam, the rebel must be suppressed; therefore, Hussein was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.”

Suppose it is impossible to have the unjust, corrupt ruler back in the right track by admonishing and guidance. In such a case, the jurisprudents of the four Sunni school and Zeidiyeh Shia, say: “the ‘preferred view’ is that do not revolt against the cruel ruler.” Then, for preventing and repelling the aggression and cruelty of such ruler, what means do they suggest using to eradicate his system of cruelty and injustice? If the people revolt against him and ask an eligible person like Imam Hussein (a.s.), himself also oppressed, to lead the revolt, and he so does, then, is the nature of such revolt rebellion and aggression that must be suppressed by the force of weaponry? As we know, since rebels are aggressors, God has instructed to fight them until they comply with the command of Allah and repent. Now, on the basis of which criteria, one can consider such movement rebellion and aggression, and its leader,(Imam Hussein) a rebel whose suppression is obligatory and according to Islam?

If Imam Hussein were a victor; had saved Islam and Muslims from the aggression and evil of Yazid; had established an Islamic government to provide democracy, freedom and justice to the people, instead of the tyranny, and injustice, in such case too, could people, such as Qaazi ibn Arabi, say: “Imam Hussein was a rebel and deserved suppression”? But, since he was not victorious militarily, and his blood was, unjustly, shed with the sword of injustice, such people want to make up some justification for the cruel act of the government, and say: “He was killed by the principle of his grandfather’s religion.”

Are the rebels liable for the perished wealth and lives?

There is one legal question that must be answered here. Are the rebels liable, or not, for the lives and wealth perished by them from the other side?

Imam Shafii says:

“The rebels are not liable, for two reasons. Reason one is that there are no words of liability in the verse on rebels. Reason two is that Ali (a.s.) fought the rebels who were people of interpretation, and did not hold them liable for the lives and wealth.”

Imam Shafii then continues:

“Somebody asked me: ‘As for the lives and wealth perished from the other side, why do you not put the liability on the rebels, but if some one killed some one, or perished some wealth by interpretation, then you put the liability on him?’ I told him: ‘I see that God says: “ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا فلایسرف فی القتل” “And whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation, or forgive) but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for, he is helped (by the law)”. Based on this verse, I put the liability on the murderer. On the other hand, God has mentioned fighting the rebels in the verse about rebels, but has not mentioned retaliation between the two sides; therefore, I said that the rebels are not liable for the lives. Thus, the retaliation that is mentioned in the Quran applies if the murder is not done by an organized group of the people of interpretation. Ibn Muljam’s murdering Ali is an example, for which Ali authorized Ibn Muljam be killed in retaliation.[90]”

But this reasoning of Shafii is not valid. He says: “The verse has not mentioned retaliation between the two sides; therefore, I said that the rebels are not liable for the lives.” It should be understood that if liability is not mentioned in this verse, it does not mean that there is no liability. The main theme in this verse is ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah’. In other words, this verse intends talking about only the ‘aggression’ of the rebels, and nothing else. Therefore, it is silent about rebels being liable or unliable, and neither proves it, nor disproves it.

To prove or disprove liability, some other evidence should be used. And, considering the absolute meaning of the verse: “ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا فلایسرف فی القتل” “And whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation, or forgive) but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for, he is helped (by the law)”, it is required that liability for the blood, shed by the rebels from the rebelled (oppressed) side, should be put on the rebels. This means that if a person from the rebels group kills a person from the rebelled, the killer will be liable for his blood, and the heir to the murdered can make the claim.

And, there is no evidence that Ali (a.s.) deprived the heirs to the martyrs of Jamal and Siffein of the rights for making claim for the blood. It is severe injustice to prevent the oppressed from making claim while they have lost the lives and wealth. Besides, the lives and wealth of the rebelled destroyed by the rebels, before and after the war, undoubtedly, create liability. And, the fight of the rebels against the rebelled (oppressed), in its nature, is aggression. Therefore, is it wise to say that the aggression does not create liability, and thus, give some scores to the aggressor? On this subject, Sheikh Toosi says:

“While fighting, if the rebels group destroy any wealth or lives from the rebelled, they are liable, but, if the rebelled destroy any wealth or lives from the rebels group, they are not liable; there is consensus on it.[91]”

In this regard, Allame Helli also says:

“While fighting, if the people of justice destroy any wealth from the rebel, they are not liable. As they are instructed to fight, with no disaccord (among jurisprudents), they do not become liable for any thing that happens due to the war. Because, after the repentance of people with whom Abu Bakr fought, he told them: ‘You must pay the blood money for our dead, but we do not pay it for your dead’.

Besides, there are two groups of Muslims, people of justice, and people of injustice. It is not right that they be treated equally on having no liability.

As for the wealth of the people of injustice, destroyed by the people of justice, before or after the war, they are liable for it because they have destroyed it unduly.

And, if the people of injustice destroy the wealth of the people of justice, before or after the war, by the consensus, they are liable.

But, if the people of injustice destroy the wealth or lives of the people of justice while fight is going on, in our view, they are liable. Our evidence is the verse which says: “وجزاء سیئه سیئه مثلها” “The recompense to any injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) (Shoora, 40). Besides, the perished are legitimate wealth and lives that were unduly, and with no necessity, destroyed. Thus, liability for them is obligatory; like the lives and wealth destroyed without war.

But, Abu Hanifeh, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Shafii have said: ‘The people of injustice are not liable for the lives and wealth destroyed from the people of justice while the fight is going on,’ because it is attributed to Ali (a.s.) that he did not hold liable any of the companions in the battles of Jamal and Siffein for what was destroyed by them.[92]”

What Sheikh Toosi, and Allameh Helli have said is valid. It should be said that the liability for the lives and wealth, destroyed by the rebels from the rebelled while the fight is going on, is rested with the rebels. There is some indication to this effect in the verse itself as well. The verse says: “فان فائت فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا” “..but if it complies then, make peace between them with justice and be fair.”

‘Making peace with justice’ naturally should have some process. After the war is over, the oppressed puts forth the claim, and says: “The wealth and lives of ours destroyed by the rebels during the war should be compensated. As the aggressive rebels, with no rights, waged the war on us, killed our people, and destroyed our wealth, therefore, justice must prevail in this case.”

It is obvious that prevailing of justice requires to compensate the oppressed for what is, unduly, destroyed by the oppressor. It means that if some body were killed, his murderer should be killed, or pay the blood money; if some wealth were destroyed, the owner must be compensated.

Imam Shafii also has noticed this point. Despite the fact he has issued verdict for the unliability of the rebels group, he has said something with this meaning:

“It is probable that there is some point in God’s words: ‘فان فائت فاصلحوا بینهما بالعدل واقسطوا’ ‘but if it complies then, make peace between them with justice and be fair.’ The point is that if they have done something that requires judgment, make the judgment between them justly. And, judgment by justice means that what is due from some one to the other, it should be paid to him. And, in such case, the rebels group should be held liable for the lives and wealth perished from the rebelled in the war, and pay what is due to them.[93]”

What Shafii refers to it as ‘probable’ is the explicit meaning of the verse. It is not clear for us why Shafii has issued verdict otherwise, though he does not reject this meaning. What was preferable in ‘unliability’ that caused Shafii to issue such verdict?

It has been said: “In the battles between the companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), no liability was put on any of the rebels.” Perhaps this saying was settled in Shafii’s mind, and he issued his verdict on that basis. There is some proof for this possibility.

In that same page of Omm, immediately, Shafii quotes Zohari having said:

“The first wickedness caught the companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). There, bloods were shed, injuries inflicted, and lots of wealth destroyed. But, the liability for the lives, injuries, and wealth was not put on those who revolted on the basis of interpretation.”

Shafii, then continues: “In our view, the issue is like what Zohari has said. In that wickedness, bloods were shed for some of which the murderer and the murdered were identified; and lots of wealth were destroyed. But, when fighting was over, and the rule was applied on them, we have not heard of any person to kill another person for retaliation, or take compensation for wealth from any one.”

If Imam Shafii had shown any specific case, and said: “This person wanted to retaliate for his father killed by such a person from the rebels group in the battle. But Ali, or another companion stopped him, and said that liability for the perished lives and wealth is null,” then it could be some jurisprudential evidence that the liability is null. Merely saying that: “We have not heard of any person to kill another person for retaliation, or take compensation for wealth from any one,” is not sufficient to prove his claim. For two reasons:

First: ‘Not having heard’ does not prove ‘nonexistence.’ Liability might have been put on the rebels group, but it may not have been narrated for us.

Second: Unliability is a jurisprudential verdict. For issuing jurisprudential verdict, jurisprudential evidence is required. What Shafii has mentioned is not a jurisprudential evidence; it is only lack of information about putting liability on the rebel. And, lack of information does not prove lack of liability.

We tell Imam Shafii suppose one of the heirs to the martyrs of the battle of Siffein or Jamal had come to Ali (a.s.), and said: “In the battle, my father was killed in the hands of such a person from the rebels group, and I want to make claim.” Should Ali (a.s.) have deprived him of making claim to get his due?

There is no doubt that the murderer was an unjust rebel; that the murdered was killed unjustly; that the verse “ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لولیه سلطانا ” “And whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority (to demand retaliation, or forgive,” covers this case. Despite all these, does Shafii think that Ali (a.s.) could have prevented the heir to the murdered from claiming his due? Never can one obligate himself to such a subject. Go to contents

Necessity of dialogue with the rebels before war

Sheikh Toosi says:

“In any event that a revolting group is judged as rebels, fighting them is not permitted unless the Imam send his agent for dialogue with them. In this dialogue, the agent of the Imam tells them: “What has been the cause for your discontent?” Then, if what they respond is true, the agent should comply with it. If there has been misunderstanding, it should be clarified. After the realities were explained for them, if they return, then, the goal is achieved. But, if they do not return, then fight them. The reason why we say that it is obligatory to have the dialogue before fighting is that, in the verse on rebels, first, God has ordered for peace, and then has ordered for fight: “وان طائفتان من المومنین اقتتلوا فاصلحوا بینهما..” If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them; ...[94]”

In connection with Sheikh Toosi’s words, we should mention some points.

Point one: Having dialogue with the rebels before proceeding to fight them is on the basis of the general policy of Islam on the subject of war and peace. In Islam, peace is considered a fundamental principle, but war only a state of emergency. Therefore, it is obligatory that, before starting any militarily action, some political solutions must be sought so that fighting is avoided as far as possible. Then, if the dialogue and discussions proved useless for solving the problem, there will be no remedy but fighting. And, in this phase too, it is required that the people of the right do not initiate the war until the people of the wrong start it. Since the initiators are recognized as the aggressor and warmonger, and everybody condemns them, the people of the right should not do something to be condemned for it by the general public.

In the battle of Siffein, before the start of the war, Ali (a.s.) told his companions: “لاتقاتلوهم حتی یبداوکم فانکم بحمدالله علی حجه وترککم ایاهم حتی یبداوکم حجه اخری لکم علیهم [95]” “Do not, you, start the war until they start it. Thanks God you have the convincing proof; your avoiding to start the war is another proof against them.”

Point two: Sheikh Toosi says: “In the verse on rebels, first, God has ordered for peace, and then has ordered for fight. And, that is the reason why we say fighting the rebels is not permitted unless the Imam send his agent for dialogue with them.”

Now, the question is: on what aspect does Sheikh Toosi reason this view?

Does Sheikh Toosi mean that the two orders ‘Make ye peace between them’ ‘فاصلحوا بینهما’, and ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses’ ‘فقاتلوا التی تبغی’, include the parties to the war as well?

Or, he wants to say that negotiating for peace before starting the war is recommended. And, it can be done by the parties to the war also. So, they must do it. In fact, the criterion (trying to prevent war) for ordering to make peace exists with the parties involved as well. Thus, based on the existence of the criterion, the wisdom has necessitated negotiation for peace by the parties as well. And, this principle, “کلما حکم به العقل حکم به الشرع” “Whatever is the rule of the wisdom, it is the rule of the religion” is governing here.

It seems that the second aspect is meant by Sheikh Toosi. The addressees in the verse on rebels are those groups of Believers who are witnessing the conflict between two groups of Muslims. The addressees should first act to make peace between them; if one side does not submit to the justly peace, and wants to rebel and aggress against the other side, then, the addressees must fight the rebels group. Thus, the two instructions in the verse, ‘Make ye peace between them’ ‘فاصلحوا بینهما’, and ‘fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses’ ‘فقاتلوا التی تبغی’, are intended for those who are beyond the battlefield, and have two obligatory duties regarding the two fighting groups: one, to make peace, the other, to fight the aggressing group. Therefore, the addresses in this verse do not include the two fighting groups.

Point three: What rational or legal principle confirms the legitimacy of fighting the rebels and eradicating them? Sometimes, the rebels are people of interpretation and inference, like Khawrij, who considered it their religious duty to fight Ali (a.s.). Suppose, they made a mistake in their interpretation. But in their own idea, they thought it the heavenly duty to fight. Then, why should they deserve suppression and eradication?

To answer this question, we should notice that the verse itself is pointing to a rational and legal principle that requires suppression of the rebels. The verse says: “فان بغت احداهما علی الاخری فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتی تفیئ الی امرالله” “but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.”

The duty of fighting the rebels is attached to and connected with the state of transgression. And, attaching a rule to any state or condition does indicate that the state or condition is the cause for ordaining the rule. In our case, it means that fighting the rebels is obligatory because there exists the state of transgression. Now, to say that the group fight, based on their interpretation and belief, does not change the reality; what is done by them is injustice and transgression; and, that, against a nation; a nation that has elected its leader, and would like to live under his leadership.

Thus, the rebels group is encountering a unified nation that has chosen its way by electing its leader; the group wants to suppress and eradicate the nation by its aggression and injustice. Therefore, the injustice and transgression of groups like Khawarij, is not injustice towards the Imam only, but towards the whole Islamic nation.

It is assumed that if the rebels refrain from transgression and injustice, then, chaos will be over, and peace and order will take place. Thus, the main source of the evil is the transgression of the rebels. One may ask: “Is it fair to leave free such a group that is the root of evil and chaos to drive the community to disorder, and trample the rights of a nation?

The natural wisdom of any human being would rule that aggression must be repelled; the natural wisdom of any human being also would rule that any individual or group that is aggressed has the rights and the duty to resist aggression and injustice, and repel the evil of the unjust by defending against them.

Thus, the instruction to fight the rebels is firmly rooted in a rational and legal principle. Now, if in this defensive war, some ignorant group, who think it their duty to fight the Imam of the nation, are suppressed and wiped out, they will be the victims of their own double ignorance, and transgression, and are themselves liable for their own action.

Go to contents

[1] Footnote added by the translator. Ch.60, verse 7 reads: “ It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

[5] Al Rehlat al Madrasiyah, p212, publ. Aalami Karbala

[7] Moqazi waqedi, vol. 1, p63 publ. Nashre Daneshe Islami

[10] Sireh Ibn Hosham, vol. 1, 2^nd edition, 1375 Qamari, footnote p. 203. and Asado alqabeh, vol.2. p20

[12] Omm Shafii, vol. 4, p.161, Daro almarefah, Beirut

[14] Majma al Bayan, under verse 190 of Baqareh

[15] Tafsir Almanar, vol. 2, p. 216, 3^rd esition

[16] Tarikhe Yaqubi, vol. 3, ps.31,32, Najaf print

[19] Sara’er Ibn Idriss, 165, lithographic print

[20] Tathkireh Allameh Helli,, vol. 1, p.409 lithographic print

[21] ُSharhe Lum’eh, vol. 1 p. 255, Abdu al Rahim edition

[23] Wasael al Shia, vol. 11, p. 30, hadith no 1

[26] Tarikhe Tabari, vol. 2, p.398, and Irshade Mufid, p.29, Isfahan print

[28] Wasa’el al Shia, vol. 11, p. 35, hadith 9 & 10

[29] Sunan Abi Dawood, vol. 3, p. 18, hadith 2533

[33] کتاب بیع از امام خمینی ج 2 ص 496

[35] Fath al Qadir, ibn Homam Hanafi, vol.5, p. 196

[38] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, page 409 lithography print

[39] Sharh Lum’eh, vol. 1, p. 257, Abd al Rahim print

[41] Moqazi Waqedi, vol. 1, ps.404-407, Nashre Danish

[57] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, p.406, lithography print

[59] Sharh Lum’eh, vol 1, p 255 Abd al Rahim print

[62] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi, vol. 5, p. 153, Tafsire Tabari, vol. 10, p41, and Tafsir al Manar, vol 10, p.87 2^nd edition.

[63] Tibyan Sheikh Toosi, vol. 5, p. 154, Tafsire Tabari, vol. 10, p41, and Rooh al Maani Aloosi, under the verses.

[65] Kashshaf Zamakhshari, vol. 2, p. 235, of the four-vol edition

[66] Majma al Bayan, vol 2, p. 557, Ketabforoushi Islamiyah

[72] Tafsir Kashshaf Zamakhshari, interpreting verse 9, Hojorat Chr

[74] Mashroohe Mozakerate Majlese Shooraye Islami, 6 Bahman 1359

[76] Badi al Sanaye fi Tartib al Shraye, vol. 7, p. 140

[77] Al Tashri al Jina’e al Islammi, vol. 2, p. 673

[82] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, ps 452 & 453, lithographic edition

[83] Amali Sadooq, Majlis 32, hadith 7, with valid narration, And Moqazi Waqedi, vol 2, p 875

[87] Al Tashri al Jina’e al Islammi, vol. 2, p. 677

[89] Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 304, events of year 60

[92] Tathkireh Allameh Helli, vol. 1, p 455, lithographic edition