The Myth of the Qur’ân and Sword

 The myth of the Qur’ân and sword arose much later and, as pointed out before, its causes should be seen in history, not in the Qur’ân. Also, the Qur’ân makes a distinction between faith (which includes ways of worshipping and associated rituals) and one’s overall situation, social as well as political. It is certainly not faith which calls for violence, it is one’s own socio-political situation which might demand it. Violence used under certain social circumstances cannot be blamed on one’s din (faith). The Qur’ân adopts a radically different position as far as faith is concerned. It is most tolerant and liberal.

Islam believes that all those who believe in the Day of Judgement (that is, when one will have to account for one’s deeds) and perform good deeds will be equally rewarded, irrespective of their religion. Be one a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian or a Sabian, if he has faith in God and in the Day of Judgement and does good things, will have his reward. It is a most tolerant position one can think of. It is wrong to think that Islam condemns all other religions. On the contrary, it repeatedly says that the Prophet has come to confirm the truth which already exists (musaddiqan li ma bayna yadayhe). He is no bringer of a new truth and hence there is no question of condemning truth revealed to other prophets.

What is the place of violence in Islam? Is Islam a non-violent religion, then? The answer, to be honest and to be truthful to life is, both yes and no. Islam does not advocate violence but does not shut it altogether. Life is full of contradictions and these contradictions do reflect themselves in what we can call a contextual theology, if it wishes to be true to life. The Qur’ân does not advocate mere abstract theological and metaphysical doctrines. The Qur’ânic theology does not neglect the concrete socio-political context. All scriptures, on close scrutiny, would be found to contain contextual contradictions. The Qur’ân is no exception to that. In fact, the scriptures provide both normative as well as contextual answers. Normatively speaking, the Qur’ân opposes violence but permits it contextually.

When it comes to the context, we must take socio-political and socio-economic conditions of the society in which a particular religion originates. Hinduism is a non-violent religion in the ideal sense. However, in the midst of the Mahabharat war, the conditions were different and even Lord Krishna had to urge Arjuna to fight even if it meant shedding the blood of his near and dear ones, in fact, his own cousins. War has justification in certain circumstances, especially if inflicted by exploitative and oppressive forces. But war can have no justification for spread of religion. Even the concept of jihad in Islam has to be seen in this light. Jihad has nothing to do with the spread of religion, it is only a war against oppression and exploitation. The Qur’ân sanctions war if the weaker sections of the society are being persecuted and there is no way left out to rescue them. Thus the Qur’ân says:

“And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allâh, and of the weak among the men and the women and children, who say our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend, and grant us from Thee a helper.”

It can, thus, be clearly seen that the Qur’ân urges upon believers to fight against oppression being perpetrated against men, women, and children, who are weak (mustad, ifin). Commenting on this verse, Maulana Muhammad Ali says:

“This verse explains what is meant by fighting in the way of Allâh. While most of the believers who had the means had escaped from Makkah, which is here spoken of as the city whose people are oppressors, there remained those who were weak and unable to undertake a journey. These were still persecuted and oppressed by the Makkans, as is clearly shown by the words of the verse, and not only men, but even women and young children, were persecuted. Fighting to deliver them from the persecution of the oppressors was really fighting in the way of Allâh”.

Thus, to fight against persecution is to fight in the way of Allâh. The next verse also makes it clear when it says:

“Those who believe fight in the way of Allâh and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the devil (taghut).”

Taghut, it must be remembered, represents the forces of oppression and exploitation. Also, it is necessary to wipe out those who in no other way can be persuaded to give up persecution. The Qur’ânic doctrine in this respect is that persecution is worse than slaughter. Uninterrupted persecution, therefore, should in no way go unchallenged. If allowed to persist, it may lead to much greater slaughter in future. The Qur’ân does not want exploitation and persecution to go on in society. It must be nibbed in the bud. There are, also, several verses in the Qur’ân which talk of fighting and killing unbelievers. For example, the Qur’ân says:

“Fight those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allâh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of their defeat (wa hum saghirun).”

Here, it appears as if the Qur’ân is declaring a general war against all unbelievers until they accept superiority of Islam and agree to pay jiziyah. However, it would be a gross simplification. It is far from the Qur’ân’s intention. One has to go into the background of this revelation. Firstly, these verses relate not to idolaters but to what the Qur’ân refers to as Ahl al-Kitab (people of the book), that is, Jews and Christians. There was an understanding between the Muslim and Jews that when attacked by idolaters of Makka, the Jews will fight on the side of Muslim. However, the Jews had never reconciled themselves to the rising power of Muslim in Madinah and repeatedly betrayed Muslim and assisted the idolaters of Makka. They were conspiring to uproot Islam from Arabia.

The Roman Empire, the great Christian Power at the time, was, on the other hand, trying to mobilise its forces against Islam which it sought to subjugate. It was obvious from the Tabuk expedition. It was far from Qur’ân’s intention either to compel the idolaters to accept Islam or the Jews and Christians to be subjugated. The Prophet otherwise would not have drawn up a pact on reaching Medina with the Jews, Christians, and pagans, giving them the right to follow their religions. It was the idolaters of Makkah and the Jews who repeatedly sought to vanquish Islam with the power of sword.

The Qur’ân sanctions violence only to counter violence. If one studies the history of Arab tribes before Islam and fierce fighting in which they indulged, one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment. A concept emerges in a particular context and works only in that context. Non-violence, a concept of great value undoubtedly, and also upheld by Islam as an ultimate norm, could not have worked in the conditions prevailing in Arabia then. Moreover, in the verse quoted above, the idea is not to kill unbelievers if they do not accept Islam but to bring them under control by making them accept defeat and pay jiziyah.

Islam does not permit Muslim to take up sword against those who are unarmed. It only permits them to fight against aggressors. It is obvious from the Qur’ânic verse:

“Fight in the way of Allâh those who fight you but be not aggressive. Surely, Allâh loves not aggressors”.

It is absolutely clear from this verse that the Qur’ân does not approve of war of aggression and that Allâh does not love aggressors. The following verse also makes this point:

“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of disbelievers”.

In this verse too, fighting has been permitted in retaliation only. If the leaders of disbelievers break their pledge, Qur’ân permits Muslim to fight them. The Qur’ân declares:

“And if they break their oaths, alter their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief—surely their oaths are unreliable— so that they may desist.”

Here, permission is given to fight the leaders of disbelief if they break oath and if they revile Islam. Muslim have already been told by the Qur’ân not to revile others’ religion. Thus, Muslim also do not allow their religion to be reviled. Permission is also given to fight if Muslim are oppressed.

“Permission is given (to fight) to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allâh is able to assist them.”

If we scan through the Hadith literature, it would be seen that the earliest permission given to the Muslim to fight. The words in which permission is granted clearly show that war was made against Muslim and that the Muslim were greatly oppressed in Makkah. The verse that follows the above verse:

“Those who were driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allâh...,”

also clearly indicates that permission to fight was given on account of such persecution of Muslim. It was far from being a general license to fight. It is also interesting to note that in the same verse it is made clear that it is not Allâh’s desire that any house of worship, to whatever religious denomination it belongs, be demolished. Allâh replaces those who demolish any house of worship by others who would protect them. The Qur’ân says:

“And if Allâh did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allâh’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down....”

It is clear from this verse that all places of worship—churches, synagogues, temples and mosques— are to be protected by Muslim as in all these places Allâh’s name is remembered. In India, the great Sufi saints extended this to Hindu temples also. Thus, it would be against the will of Allâh to demolish any such places of worship too. There are some more verses which are often quoted to prove that the Qur’ân required either Islam be accepted by all or they be put to the sword. The verse often quoted is as follows:

“so when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-tax, leave their way free. Surely, Allâh is Forgiving. Merciful.”

This verse does not refer to any unbeliever but to those who had broken their agreement with Muslim. This verse does not refer to killing individual disbelievers as it refers to ambush, taking captive, besieging and lying in wait which clearly indicates a state of war. And war is permitted, as pointed out above, only if disbelievers persecute, commit aggression or break their agreement, not otherwise. Such disbelievers, if caught in the war, must be made to pray and pay the poor-tax with a sincere change of heart. That the intention of the verse is not to kill for refusal to accept Islam is clear from the verse next to the above verse. It says:

“And if anyone of the idolaters seeks thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allâh, then convey him to the place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not”.

This verse hardly needs any comment. Any disbeliever who seeks refuge, give him refuge and take him to the place of safety.

There is no injunction to compel him to embrace Islam. Only he may hear the word Allâh. If he decides to accept the word, it is fine. But that cannot be a condition to giving him refuge and taking him to the place of safety. The Qur’ân also requires that to those disbelievers and polytheists, who fulfil their part of agreement, Muslim should also honour theirs and should not treat them as enemies. Thus the Qur’ân declares:

“Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, and they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely, Allâh love those who keep their duty”.

This verse is also a clear proof, if any proof is needed, that the Qur’ân does not require every idolater to be killed if he does not embrace Islam. If he fulfils his part of the agreement, it is the duty of Muslim to fulfil their part of the agreement also till the end of the term.

The jurists and the ulema have divided, in view of such Qur’ânic verses, the idolaters into two categories: harbi and ghayr-harbi, i.e. war mongering and non-war-mongering idolaters. While the former should be treated as enemies and fought against, the latter should be treated as allies and friends and Muslim should live in peace with them. During the freedom struggle in India, the leaders of Jami’at al-Ulama (Organisation of Muslim Theologians) decided to treat the Indian National Congress as their ally in view of such verses of the Holy Qur’ân.

They opined that the Indian National Congress had given them the assurance that the Muslim will be free to follow their religion in India and would be fully protected and hence Hindus were our allies as long as they fulfilled their part of agreement. India would remain for Muslim dar al-aman (abode of peace). Ulemas enjoined upon Muslim to wage a struggle against the Britishers along with their Hindu brethren to make India free and a dar al-aman.

The concept of jihad in Islam has been generally misunderstood. Muslim, too are responsible for this misunderstanding. They often justified wars of aggression by Muslim rulers—often power seekers—as constituting jihad. Nothing could be farther from Islamic teachings. The Qur’ân permits war against oppression to defend the oppressed and the exploited. Only such wars could constitute jihad. It should also be remembered that Islam, besides being a religion, was also a revolutionary movement of its time. It sought to change not only religious beliefs but also the social structure aspiring to build up a just society favouring the oppressed and weaker sections. Allâh Himself declares in the Qur’ân:

“We desire to bestow favours upon those oppressed in the land, and to make them the leaders, and to make them the inheritors”.

The Qur’ân initiated what can be termed as the biggest project for social justice ever attempted until then. Since such an attempt would harm the vested interests, violence was unavoidable. No society can ever be restructured in favour of the oppressed without shedding a drop of blood. Vested interests would never allow it to happen, whatever the intentions of revolutionaries. The Prophet entered into an agreement with idolaters too, to avoid bloodshed but the vested interests fearing the consequences, did not allow it to happen. Thus, wars became inevitable. Bloodshed could not be avoided. Peace is very central to Islam. But peace is not possible without justice and justice cannot be established peacefully even in a modern democratic society. All attempts of justice with peace are derailed by vested interests who can easily manipulate democracy.

Four key concepts advocated by the Qur’ân are adl, ihsan, rahmah, and hikmah; that is, justice, benevolence, compassion, and wisdom. None of these concepts would promote violence. Yet, the vested interests would see to it that none of these concepts is established in the society. Islam, in fact, did not seek to fight peaceful idolaters, much less seeking their forceful conversion. In fact, it sought to fight the idols of greed, desire, and interests, to establish a society based on unity and equality of all human beings. Could violence be avoided?