which threatens the Muslims that if they prefer their comfort and that of their families and friends, and so become unresponsive to the call to jihād, then they might expect the worst from God:
Say (O Muḥammad): If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your clan, and the wealth you have acquired, and the goods for which you fear that there will be no sale, and the dwellings you love – if these are dearer to you than Allah and His way, then wait till Allah brings His command. Allah guide not the people of ungodliness. [al-Tawbah 9:24]
The way of jihād has always been depicted as the Muslims’ way to success and succour in this world and the next. It has also been commended by countless sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his rightly guided Caliphs. The Qur’ān commands the way of jihād in forceful and vivid language, which takes account of the fact that many of the early Muslims were traders:
O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a commerce that shall deliver you from a painful chastisement? You shall believe in Allah and His Messenger, and struggle in the way of Allah with your wealth and yourselves. That will be better for you if you but knew. [al-Ṣaff 61:10-11]
In the foregoing we hope to have shown that jihād and fighting in the way of God is not just meant to safeguard the Muslims’ homeland and defend their rights to live in freedom and dignity, worshipping the One True God, Allah, without fear of molestation. It is also commanded in order to defend the same rights for mankind, the two objectives, internal and external, are by no means contradictory; rather, they are complementary. Should the Muslim states allow unjust and tyrannical regimes which deny their people religious freedom to thrive around their boundaries unchecked, then its very security, defence and indeed its survival would be seriously threatened and jeopardized. Taking the offensive against such regimes, if the situation so demands, is part and parcel of the overall defence commitment of the Muslim state.
The above interpretation of the doctrine of jihād would appear to be incompatible with the so-called Āyat al-Sayf, to which we referred earlier. As a matter of fact, there is a school of Muslim thinkers who believe that Āyat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword) were revealed in Sūrah al-Tawbah, much later than the other sūrahs in which other jihād verses are found, so they have abrogated or otherwise superseded all earlier Qur’ānic verses on the issue.
8.2 Āyat al-Sayf (Verses of the Sword)
The verses of the sword (Āyat al-Sayf) are interpreted as predominant and overriding by the hard-liners among Muslim thinkers, as also by some orientalists who favour this interpretation because they give substance to the view which they are inclined to hold, that Islam is a militant religion, prone to violence and aggression. Let us first give the text of these verses: one of them is verse number 29 of Sūrah al-Tawbah.
Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practice not the religion of Truth, from amongst the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [al-Tawbah 9:29]
Some Orientalists3 have taken this verse as signifying the impossibility of peaceful coexistence and co-operation between Islam and the outside world. They see it as implying that a Muslim state is committed to be in constant war with non-Muslim forces until they (a) accept Islam, or (b) pay jizyah (a defence tax, against Non-Muslims) and thus become subdued, or (c) are utterly defeated and destroyed.4
On the other hand, the hardliners among Muslim thinkers claim that this verse of the sword is overriding because it is part of Sūrah al-Tawbah which is one of the very last sūrahs to be revealed. They claim that earlier verses reflect earlier stages in the history of Islamic daʿwah, stages which had subsequently been superseded by the prevalence of new circumstances and new legislation. But this line of argument seems quite untenable, if pressed in every case, and without producing tangible evidence that a change in the direction of legislation had been made, either by abrogation or otherwise modifying the previous legislation. It would indeed be very damaging to the Islamic daʿwah if the above line of argument is pressed without further evidence. One of the consequences of adopting the above line of thinking would be the cancellation of all the sharīʿah, excepting those aspects of it revealed in the very last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him). To evade such a possibility, the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to point out promptly and very clearly any verse of the Qur’ān which God had abrogated. The practice of verse abrogation was governed by very exact and specific rules, and it is one of those topics with respect to which independent personal opinion has no role to play. Succession in time alone does not constitute a valid reason for abrogation. The difference in the content of Qur’ānic verses dealing with the same issues, e.g. fighting in the way of God or jihād, revealed at different times in succession, is to be understood by jurists in the light of (a) the principles and ultimate goals of the sharīʿah (b) previous Qur’ānic revelation unless abrogation had been explicitly pointed out, the requirement here being that of harmony and consistency, (c) the reason behind the revelation (asbāb nuzūl al-Āyah), (d) the change in the situation and times especially when these tend to militate against the reasons and wisdom behind the earlier revelation in the historical development of the Islamic society and state. The mild verses revealed before the verses of the sword could be viewed as alternative policies and strategies that continue to be valid and which are to be practised should the circumstances require a less militant handling than the verse of the sword. Moreover, some of these mild verses consist of valid and very broad principles of universal applicability, and therefore need not be abrogated just because some stronger verse was revealed later, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
Indeed, the situation with regard to jihād and war is not a typical one in that it appears to consist of two apparently contrary tendencies: one towards fighting and waging war in the way of God, the other towards kindness, mercy and tolerance. In many major issues, this same feature of sharīʿah seems to be present: there are always two strands of attitude, apparently contradictory but actually fused into a harmonious whole; perhaps comparable to two electrical poles, one negative, the other positive, which working together supply useful energy. Thus, in sharīʿah, there is always the passing temporal aspect of any legislation and also the positive, eternal one. The temporal one is needed to cater for the changing, earthly human conditions reflective of man’s weakness, evil intentions and his base passions of envy, greed and aggression, while the eternal, more permanent aspect embodies the Divine will and purpose for man, stating as it does normally universal principles.
In the issue of war and peace, these two aspects are there. They complement each other, and they naturally fuse together to give a consistent policy of war and peace. Yet peace is clearly the more basic, more permanent option in Islam, while war is only necessitated by man’s unavoidable passions for aggression and injustice. That peace is the foremost overriding option in Islam is clearly demonstrated by the following considerations:
a. As-Salām (or peace) is one of the Beautiful Names of God.
b. It is well known that salām (peace) is the ordinary salutation of the Muslims, every time they meet or depart. Salām is also the salutation of the Muslims in the Hereafter.
c. After each of the five obligatory daily prayers, a Muslim’s supplication and duʿā’ is:
‘O Lord! You are the Peace.
All peace proceeds from You.
All peace returns unto You.
Help us to live in peace, O our Lord.
Allow us to enter
