Jihad in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions

In her article "War" for the Encyclopedia of the Quran, Crone says fighting is legitimised in the Quran for self defence, including pre-emptively ({{Quran|9|8}} and {{Quran|60|2}}), as well as for the defence of others ({{Quran|4|75}}) and against treaty breakers ({{Quran-range|9|13|14}}). She says that throughout the Quran it is stressed that fighting must stop when the enemy does so and the language of forgiveness is reiterated amidst the often militant language. To Crone, the only verse which seems to endorse aggressive warfare is {{Quran|9|29}}, though this perhaps can be read as a continuation of {{Quran-range|9|1|23}} concerning the treaty breakers.<ref name="CroneWarSummary">A brief summary of Crone's Encyclopedia of the Quran article can be seen[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Islamic_International_Law_and_Jihad_War/YgazDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA22&printsec=frontcover here]</ref>

In the sections below, important Quranic themes and verses are examined, along with their interpretations by traditional Muslim scholars, Islamic modernists and modern academic scholars. Early Islamic historical literature is also discussed in relation to the interpretations of the verses.

====Early fighting verses====

There was considerable discussion about the scope of the obligation to fight mentioned in the previous verse, Q 2:216, especially on whether it was a collective obligation (fard kifiya) that could be met by just a group of believers without involving everyone. In this regard, {{Quran|9|122}} was also a key verse ("And the believers should not all go out to fight [...]").<ref>Reuven Firestone, ''Jihad'' pp. 60-61</ref>

Mohammad Khalil in his academic book on Jihad describes the views of medieval commentators as well as modern interpretations of the key verses.<ref>Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad, Radicalism and the New Atheism'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017</ref> Khalil notes that the conditional instruction to end hostilities when the enemies "cease" in Q 2:193 was reinterpreted by medieval exegetes to mean that they have ceased not only fighting but also their disbelief.<ref>Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 12</ref>  

Medieval commentators interpreted fitna as shirk/kufr and the command to fight in Q 2:193 and Q 8:39 in terms of religious expansionism, supported by a famous hadith shown below. Some scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted that narration in a more limited sense through the Quran, in terms of fighting those who are waging war but not if there is a peace treaty. Modernists typically question its authenticity altogether (in line with the modern academic view that hadiths in general cannot be relied upon at face value).

{{Quote|{{Quran|9|5}}|And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}}

Khalil writes that Q 9:5 was interpreted by scholars in the Umayyad and Abbasid imperial centres as abrogating certain earlier verses and opening the door for expansionst warfare against pagans, not just the treaty breakers who are explicitly the target of the verse. In contrast, scholars who did not live near these centres or lived at later times did not hold such a view and had a far more conservative opinion on abrogation generally.<ref>Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 13</ref> A minority extreme view was that "all" peaceful passages were abrogated.<ref>Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 16</ref> See also the introductory discussion in [[List of Abrogations in the Qur'an]].

The letters of 'Urwa are free from miraculous or other embellishments seen in later sources, and are taken to be an important early source on Muhammad by academic scholars like Sean Anthony, who translates them in full in ''Muhammad and the Empires of Faith''. The letters broadly come in two recensions (preserved in the work of al-Tabari and some narratives also in other sources). Goerke, Motzki, and Schoeler have robustly defended the authenticity of the letters of 'Urwa as probably in some way originating from him, arguing that several traditions can convincingly be traced back to 'Urwa.<ref>See in particular pp. 16-21 of Goerke, A, Motzki, H & Schoeler, G (2012) [https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/12692843/First_Century_Sources_for_the_Life_of_Muhammad_a_debate.pdf First-Century Sources for the Life of Muhammad? A Debate], Der Islam, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 2-59. https://doi.org/10.1515/islam-2012-0002</ref>  

The fourth letter details the treaty of Hudaybiya between the Medinans and Meccans in 928 CE, the topic of {{Quran-range|60|10|12}}. The fifth letter details the fairly bloodless conquest of Mecca enabled by a Meccan violation of the treaty after they had sent arms to an allied clan who were fighting another clan allied to Muhammad. It also describes a battle at Hunayn in 630 CE, briefly mentioned as one of many victorious battles in {{Quran-range|9|25|26}}. This battle was against two Arab clans, Hawazin and Thaqif, who had camped at Hunayn in preparation to attack the believers in Mecca, having previously thought that Muhammad was coming for them when he left Medina on his way there. The tribes were defeated and their women, children and cattle taken as booty. Muhammad led his troops straight on to al-Ta'if where he beseiged the Thaqif stronghold for two weeks. Afterwards, he freed the captives from the battle at Hunayn as they had accepted Islam. Delegates from Thaqif gave their allegiance and secured a treaty with Muhammad when he had returned to Medina. The remaining letters concern a range of topics not relevant to this article.<ref>'Urwa's letters are translated in full in chapter 4 of ''Muhammad and the Empires of Faith'' by Sean Anthony</ref>

Islamic Modernists tend to count all of the battles as defensive, especially in the overarching context of the danger from the Meccans. Khalil cites modern academic scholar Ahmed al Dawoody (who also taught at the famous al-Azhar University in Cairo) for arguing in his book, ''The Islamic Law of War'', that all Muhammad's major battles and sieges were defensive in nature (Dawoody defines these as Badr, Uhud, the Ditch, Khaybar, Hunayn and Ta'if). Such a view is, of course, contested. Khalil quotes Reuven Firestone as an example of a contrasting view who maintains that "it was Muhammad and not the Meccan Quraysh who initiated the battles" between them.<ref>Reuven Firestone, ''Jihad'' p. 110 cited in Mohammad Hassan Khalil, ''Jihad'' p. 15</ref>  

===Jihad in the Hadith===