“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS:

I had concluded in my last session that “At this point, I realise that the ayahs on qitaal with controversial interpretation I meant to discuss in this article appear a little down the line. We will take up these ayahs  in our next session, Insha Allah.

“They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour”^[3].

“You will find [that there are] others who would like to be safe from you as well as safe from their own folk, [but who,] whenever they are faced anew with temptation to evil, plunge into it headlong. Hence, if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]”^[4].

We will therefore start now with a discussion of these ayahs. My main objective in our present discussion is to explain and defend the segment of the ayah making the headline of this article “seize them and slay them wherever  (and whenever) you may find them”. Additionally, I would like to call attention to the general reasoning and wisdom of Qitaal—battle, fighting—and its rules and regulations in the Quran.

Before I proceed, further let me point out to a problem in understanding our Holy Text. The second ayah quoted here has a phrase كُلَّمَا رُدُّوۡۤا اِلَى الۡفِتۡنَةِ i.e. “all of then are sent back to fitnah”. This term fitnah has a broad semantic range starting form hostility to strife or sedition, temptation or trials and oppression. Hence this phrase has been rendered variously as “sent back to idol worship, sent back to the mischief, sent back to temptation, are returned to hostility, are returned to [the influence of] disbelief and are faced anew with temptation to evil”.

Note the translation of the phrase “ يُهاجِروا في سَبيلِ اللَّهِ”  by the noted scholar Dr. Mohammad Asad in his exegesis “The Message of the Quran” as “they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God”. He also comments further down that the words of the ayah “And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour” is referring to any of those who have not “forsaken the domain of evil and are wavering between belief and disbelief.” The eminent scholar then clarifies that the term “hijrah” used frequently in the Quran means literally “exodus” and is derived from the verb “hajara” meaning “he migrated”. Therefore the most common and popular meaning of this term is the historical migration of the the Holy Prophet from Makkah to Medina along with his companions. But he further elaborates “Ever since the earliest days of Islam, however, the term hijrah has had a spiritual connotation as well-namely, a “forsaking of the domain of evil” and turning towards God  and since this spiritual connotation applies both to the historical muhajirun (“emigrants”) of early Islam and to all believers of later times who forsake all that is sinful and “migrate unto God”, I am using this expression frequently.” It is this wider, moral and ethical meaning of the term hijrah to which the above passages refer in the ayahs under discussion. The physical migration has ceased to be obligatory after the conquest of Makkah. However, “the spiritual exodus from the domain of evil to that of righteousness continues to be a fundamental demand of Islam; in other words, a person who does not “migrate from evil unto God” cannot be considered a believer”. It should be emphasised that mistaking the spiritual migration for the physical has resulted in gross misinterpretation of some of the ayahs of the Quran.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize that the ayahs under discussion are primarily referring to the physical migration which was at that time the acid test for Eemaan and Islam, as mentioned by the  research scholar and mentor Javed Ahmed Ghamdi in his tafseer “Al Bayan”.

Dr. Asad is not alone in this definition of the word hijrah. Allaamaa Yousuf Ali has also translated   حَتّىٰ يُهاجِروا في سَبيلِ اللَّهِ    as “until they flee” and follows it up by a long elaboration: “Flee: the verbal form from which the noun hijrah is derived. Bukhari interprets this rightly as fleeing from all that is forbidden. This would include hijrah in the technical sense of leaving a place in which the practice of religion is not allowed. But it is more general, in time of war, if a man is willing to submit to discipline and refrains from infringing orders issued, he has proved his fidelity and may be treated as a member of the community at war. On the other hand, if he by false pretenses comes into the inner counsels merely to betray them, he may rightly be treated as a traitor or deserter and be punished for his treason or desertion; or if he escapes, he can be treated as an enemy and is entitled to no mercy. He is worse than an enemy; he has claimed to be one of you in order to spy on you, and been all the time helping the enemy”.

The great scholar, Mufti Mohammed Shafi also supports this rendering of hijrah in his popular tafseer “Ma’aariful Quran”: “There remains, however, another form of Hijrah which has been identified in a hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari where it was said which means that Hijrah (not in the sense of abandoning one’s homeland, but in the sense of abandoning one’s sins) will continue to exist until there remains the time to repent. This subject also finds elucidation in a hadith of the Holy Prophet where he is reported to have said: It means that a Muhajir (Emigrant) is one who emigrates (‘hajara’:abandon, leave) from everything prohibited by Allah Almighty (al-Mirqat,v.1)”. He continues: “The discussion appearing above tells us that, technically, the word, Hijrah is applied in a dual sense:

1.To leave one’s homeland in order to save one’s faith as was done by the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all – they left their homeland of Makkah and emigrated to Madinah and Ethiopia.

2. To leave one’s sins”.

The first of these two ayahs depicts the the damaging phrase which taken alone by itself is used by the extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeeda to support their own offensive and destructive agenda and by the anti-Muslim groups to slander Islam “…… seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them…….”. Very frightening and explicit indeed. However the whole impact and meaning changes dramatically when you add what precedes this segment of the ayah “Hence, if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them…….” Additionally the last segment of the ayah clearly restricts this command to a certain group of people in a certain period: وَاُولٰٓـئِكُمۡ جَعَلۡنَا لَـكُمۡ عَلَيۡهِمۡ سُلۡطٰنًا مُّبِيۡنًا meaning “in their case WE have provided you with a clear argument against them”.

It cannot be overemphasized that the first step in understanding our Holy Text is to identify who are being addressed in a given situation. So who are the people addressed in these ayahs? There are various opinions available. It seems the main stress is on exposing the attitude and intentions of the hypocrites.

“This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state” explains the outstanding scholar Maudoodi in his master piece exegesis “Tafheemul Quran”. I have noted here some other opinions about the addressee in these ayahs.

Mufti Mohammed Shafi, another celebrated scholar declares in his classic tafseer “Ma’aariful Quran”: “The verses quoted above describe three groups of people about whom two injunctions have been given. In short, the three groups mentioned here are:

1. Those who do not emigrate despite their ability to do so in a period of time when emigration was a pre-requisite of faith in Islam. Or, after having emigrated, they go out of the new abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and return to the abode of disbelief (Dar al-Kufr).

2. Those who themselves enter a no-war pact with Muslims or those who join hands with those entering into such a pact.

3. Those who make peace to buy time and once there comes an occasion to fight a war against Muslims, they would readily join the enemy camp throwing all treaty obligations to winds. These verses yield a total of two injunctions, that is, fighting in the absence of peace; and not fighting in the event of peace”.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein et al in their Modern tafseer “The Study Quran” state “These verses have been reported to concern different incidents or a set of similar incidents in the Islamic community’s early Madinan years. All of these incidents involve a group of professed believers in Islam who either refuse to settle in Madinah, refuse to remain there, or refuse to meet their obligations, namely, to fight in the way of God as Muslim residents of Madinah……. not only half-committed Muslims, but disbelievers putting on an air of belief”. Hence Muslims are warned not to take them as their awliyā—protectors till—they migrate. They are even encouraged to “seize them and slay them wherever they find them” if they turn against. It needs to be reminded here that the Quran forbids Muslims from fighting those who do not fight or harm them and urges them to agree to peace when their opponents seek peace.

The eminent scholar Sayyed Qutb has these suggestions in his remarkable tafseer “Fee Zilalil Quran”:

1) The hypocrites who lived away from Madinah
2) Those who were associated with a community that had a covenant with the Muslims
3) Neutral people who had an aversion to warfare against the Muslims or against their own people, while they continued to follow their own religion
4) Those who wished to play games with faith, pretending to be Muslims whenever they visited Madinah, but who declared their disbelief when they returned to Makkah

The information provided by these academics on these ayahs highlights a cardinal feature in interpreting the Quran. Namely, the Taveele Khaas—local implication in time and place— should be understood completely and then analyse if there is any Taveele Aam—general implications for all times. These  mufasserins have clearly shown that the ayahs under discussion relate to specific people in a specific time. Obviously therefore they do not have a general application in our times.

Interpreting and analyzing these ayahs endorses the latest findings that the Quran has an organized and meaningful structure. No one ayah in this part of the Quran under discussion can be taken by itself. All of them are inter connected.

It appears relevant here to quote the ayah which allowed the Muslims to fight back for the First Time:^[5]

“PERMISSION [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged – and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them”.

All relevant Traditions, quoted, particularly by Tabari and Ibn Kathir show that this is the earliest Quranic reference to the problem of war as such. This ayah was revealed just before the hijrah or shortly after. For almost the full tenure of the Makkan period, the Muslims had to suffer severe emotional and physical abuse and torment without any resistance. Kindly note the Muslims are allowed even in this ayah to defend themselves as they are “those against whom war is being wrongfully waged”.

The Holy Quran repeatedly stresses that Muslims are allowed to take up swords only against aggression and  for the period of  aggression ie in self defense and till the enemy is pushed back. A few examples of such ayahs:^[6]

“AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression -for, verily, God does not love aggressors.”

Dr. Mohammed Asad records here  that “Most of the commentators agree in that the expression in this ayah  وَلا تَعتَدوا —wa la ta’tadu —signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by ا المُعتَدينَ—al-mu’tadin —“those who commit aggression” are meant.” The fight “in God’s cause” means in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God.

2) “And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away – for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.”

Once again, the first part of the ayah “And slay them wherever you may come upon them” sounds very immoral. But add the previous ayah and what follows in this ayah, and this becomes moral, acceptable and desirable.

The next ayah lifts it up to a high moral ground:

3) “But if they desist – behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.”

And finally

4) “Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong.”

In this ayah, the phrase وَيَكونَ الدّينُ لِلَّهِ هِ means literally “and religion belongs to God [alone]”. It should not be taken (as is frequently done) to mean “Islam prevails over all”. Mostly it has been rendered as “all worship is devoted to God alone” or “(all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)” or “[until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. It is required that no one is compelled to bow down before another human being. Dr. Mohammed Asad offers here a very sane and sensible explanation “The term din is in this context more suitably translated as “worship” inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man’s faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith.”

This insistence on self-defense as the only reason for Qitaal is valid in the entire Madinah period. As it’s evidence, let me quote ayahs which were revealed much later:

“As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably”.^[7]

It is emphasised by Zamakhshari that the  phrase “God does not forbid you” carries a positive exhortation. This incitement is obvious in the next ayah:[8]

“God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!”

These two ayahs taken together clearly indicate additionally that Muslims’ attitude and approach towards non-Muslims depends entirely on their behavior and conduct with the Muslims. The differences of Faith and Belief between the two are irrelevant here.

Some remarks by Sayyed Qutb in the explanation of these ayahs have generated the views and ideas which are, in our times responsible for lot of controversy and violent conflict. Since this in not a subject in our present session, I have added them in the footnotes^[9]

Lastly I would like to quote a few Quranic verses that clearly define the regulations and directives for Qitaal.

“[Hence,] O you who have attained to faith, when you go forth [to war] in God’s cause, use your discernment, and do not – out of a desire for the fleeting gains of this worldly life – say unto anyone who offers you the greeting of peace, “Thou art not a believer” for with God there are gains abundant. You, too, were once in the same condition – but God has been gracious unto you. Use, therefore, your discernment: verily, God is always aware of what you do”.^[10]

“But if they incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing!”^[11]

Herein the Muslims are forbidden from fighting those who do not fight or harm them and urges them to agree to peace when their opponents seek peace.

“Hence, if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them; but then, if one of the two [groups] goes on acting wrongfully towards the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God’s commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably [with them]: for verily, God loves those who act equitably!^[12]

……..and Allah knows best.

May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.

Dr. Khalid Mitha