Muslim Jurists on Jihad
Jihad is a precept
of Divine institution. Its performance by
certain individuals may dispense others from
it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim Jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable
not to begin hostilities with the enemy before
having invited the latter to embrace the religion
of Allah except where the enemy attacks first.
They have the alternative of either converting
to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizzya),
short of which war will be declared against
them. The jizya can only be accepted
from them if they occupy a territory where
our laws can be enforced. If they are out
of our reach, the jizya cannot be accepted
from them unless they come within our territory.
Otherwise we will make war against them....
It is incumbent upon us to fight the enemy
without inquiring as to whether we shall be
under the command of a pious or depraved leader.
It is not prohibited to kill white non-Arabs
who have been taken prisoner. But no one can
be executed after having been granted the
amân (protection). The promises made
to them must not be broken. Women and children
must not be executed and the killing of monks
and rabbis must be avoided unless they have
taken part in battle. Women also may be executed
if they have participated in the fighting.
The amân granted by the humblest Muslim
must be recognized by other [Muslims]. Women
and young children can also grant the amân
when they are aware of' its significance.
However, according to another opinion, it
is only valid if confirmed by the imam (spiritual
leader). The imâm will retain a fifth
of the booty captured by the Muslims in the
course of warfare and he will share the remaining
four fifths among the soldiers of the army.
Preferably, the apportioning will take place
on enemy ground (p. 163).
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d.
966)
In the Muslim community,
the holy war is a religious duty, because
of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission
and (the obligation to) convert everybody
to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are
united (in Islam), so that the person in charge
can devote the available strength to both
of them (religion and politics) at the same
time.
The other religious groups did not have a
universal mission, and the holy war was not
a religious duty to them, save only for purposes
of defense. It has thus come about that the
person in charge of religious affairs (in
other religious groups) is not concerned with
power politics at all. (Among them) royal
authority comes to those who have it, by accident
and in some way that has nothing to do with
religion. It comes to them as the necessary
result of group feeling, which by its very
nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as
we have mentioned before, and not because
they are under obligation to gain power over
other nations, as is the case with Islam.
They are merely required to establish their
religion among their own (people).
This is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority
for about four hundred years. Their only concern
was to establish their religion (1:473).
Thereafter, there were dissensions among
the Christians with regard to their religion
and to Christology. They split into groups
and sects, which secured the support of the
various Christian rulers against each other.
At different times there appeared different
sects. Finally, these sects crystallized into
three groups, which constitute the (Christian)
sects. Others have no significance. These
are the Melchites, the Jacobites, and the
Nestorians. We do not think that we should
blacken the pages of this book with discussion
of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they
are well known. All of them are unbelief.
This is clearly stated in the noble Qur'an.
(To) discuss or argue those things with them
is not up to us. It is (for them to choose
between) conversion to Islam, payment of the
poll tax, or death (1: 480).
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406)
Sources: Bat Ye'or, The
Dhimmi. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson
University Press, 1985.
|