by L Takim · Cited by 10 — Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare special tax. The jizya was also levied in compensation for ex- emption from military service in Muslim forces. If a dhimmi.
75 KB – 23 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
˛-00˙ˇˇ˙˘/1Peace and War in the Qur’an and JuridicalLiterature: A Comparative PerspectiveLiyakat Takimˆ˝˛-**-“”‘1′-,-/)1&9!&-*˜/4-/)0+’!˜/0*˜12″‘#-++-,0#˜!-,812″‘#-++-,0ˆ-!’˜*˚-++-,07’/1-2%&/#!!#0-!’1ˆ!&-*˜/˚-/)˝+˜1*#˜0-,1˜!1+˜’/˜ 2,”+’!&#”2ˇ#!-++#,”#’1˜1′-,˙˜)’5˜)˜#˜!˜˜2/'”‘1#/˜12/-+.˜/˜1’3#/0.#!1’3#˚˙˘˘-*00/13˜’*˜ 1&9!&-*˜/4-/)0+’!�-0brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.ukprovided by ScholarWorks at WMU
PAGE – 2 ============
Peace and War in the Qur’an and JuridicalLiterature: A Comparative PerspectiveLIYAKAT TAKIMInstitute on Globalization and the Human ConditionMcMaster UniversityThe Qur’anic period of Islamic history took place in a social con-text of significant diversity. A number of important verses in theQur’an reflect this diversity and encourage Islamic believers to seekpeaceful coexistence with those of other faiths, especially those des-ignated as “people of the Book,” specifically Christians, Jews andSabeans. In the later classical period of Islamic history, the exegesisof Islamic jurists markedly de-emphasized peaceful coexistence infavor of interpretations encouraging conquest and religious uni-formity. Although the classical jurists have exercised enormousinterpretive authority in subsequent Islamic history, their author-ity was never understood to be absolute or equal to the authorityof the Qur’an itself. It is the challenge for Muslims in contempo-rary times to recover the authority of Qur’anic verses encouragingpeaceful coexistence and respect for human diversity, not merelyas a social strategy, but as an integral devotional aspect of betterunderstanding the God who transcends all human understanding.Key words: Islam, Qur’an, authority, peaceful coexistenceUntil recently, nations lived in relative isolation. But withthe advancement of communications technology and in-creased emigration, the many different religious and ethnictraditions must now share common space. More than ever itis imperative that they learn to understand, respect, and livewith the “other.” More importantly, citizens of all nations mustcome to terms with the human diversity that characterizes ourJournal of Sociology & Social Welfare, June 2011, Volume XXXVIII, Number 2137
PAGE – 3 ============
Jourmal of Sociology & Social Welfareexistence on this planet. Dealing with human diversity requiresa proper articulation of the means of peaceful coexistence.While there has been plenty of public discussion concern-ing violence and Islam, Islam as a religion has all too often beensingled out and targeted as violent and extremist. A reasoneddiscourse on the issue of peace within the Islamic tradition hasbeen sorely neglected. In this paper, therefore, I will delineatethe Qur’anic position on peaceful coexistence with the “other.”I will also examine the classical Sunni and Shi’i pronounce-ments on peace and war. In the final section, I will assess thepossibility of an Islamic theology of peace in modem times.Peace and Coexistence in the Qur’anHistorically, the Qur’anic view of engagement with the”other” was shaped by the socio-political milieu in which itoriginated. Islamic revelation found expression in a pluralisticworld in which Muslims had to deal with Arab pagans andadherents of other monotheistic religions. To comprehend theQur’an’s response to the Muslims’ interaction with the “other,”it is essential, at the outset, to examine the moral basis of suchinteraction and the Qur’an’s teachings on human diversity.The Qur’anic view of peace and tolerance is interwovenwith its view of a universal moral discourse uniting all humanbeings. According to the Qur’an, human beings are createdwith an innate disposition (fitra) that leads to knowledge ofand belief in God. In fact, the Qur’an posits a universal moral-ity for humankind that is conjoined to values ingrained in theconscience of all human beings (30:30). This suggests a univer-sal, ethical language to which all human beings can connectand engage. As the Qur’an states, “He (God) has inspired in[human beings] the good or evil [nature] of an act, whosoeverhas purified it (the soul) has succeeded, one who corrupts ithas surely failed” (91:8-10).The Qur’anic concept of a universal moral order is thusgrounded in the recognition of an innate disposition engravedin the human conscience. Through this notion, Islam embracedcertain universal human values that could form the basis forinteraction with a diverse “other.”The basis of such a universal moral order can also be tracedto verses like the following: “Humankind, be aware of your138
PAGE – 4 ============
Peace and War in the Qur’an and Juridical Literatureduties to your Lord, who created you from a single soul, andfrom it created its mate, and from the pair of them scatteredabroad many men and women” (4:1). The verse suggests acommon genesis and unity of human beings based on God’screation. It also implies that human beings must recognize andlive with their differences. On the basis of universal guidanceand a common human origin, the Qur’an posits the presenceof an objective and universally binding moral standard thatis accessible to all intelligent beings. A striking feature of theQur’anic discourse is an emphasis on the capacity of humanbeings to use their innate intelligence to comprehend univer-sal truths. It is on the basis of their innate capacity and sharedmoral values that human beings can deal with others based onprinciples of fairness and equity.The ramification of the preceding passages is that, sinceguidance is the function of God, it is He alone who has theright to decide the “spiritual destiny” of human beings. TheQur’an categorically maintains that the ultimate fate of humanbeings is left to God, the true judge of human conduct. Noteven the Prophet has the right to judge the ultimate fate ofhuman beings. As it states, “Upon you [0 Prophet] is the de-liverance [of the message], upon us is the reckoning [of thedeeds]” (13:40). In another verse, the Qur’an states, “Had Godwilled, they would not have been idolaters. We have not ap-pointed you as a watcher over them, neither are you theirguardian” (6:107). By elevating judgment to the divine realm, theQur’an creates the necessary space for peaceful coexistence onthe human plane.The tolerant and universalistic tone of the Qur’an can befurther discerned from the much-cited verse, “There is no com-pulsion in religion” (2:255). The famous twentieth-century Shi’iexegete Muhammad al-Husayn al-Tabataba’i contends thatfaith is a matter of individual conscience and as such it cannotbe created by coercion and compulsion. “Belief,” al-Tabataba’icontinues, “follows reason and understanding; and nothingbut reason and understanding can create it” (Tabataba’i, n.d.,Vol. 3, p. 342). According to Zamakhshari (d. 1144), not only thepeople of the book but all human beings have the right to exer-cise free volition in matters of faith. The “no compulsion” verseis not to be limited to the people of the book (Zamakhshari,1987, Vol. 1, p. 387). The Qur’an clearly does not advocate the139
PAGE – 5 ============
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareuse of force in matters of faith. Thus, verse 10:99 further states,”And if your Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth wouldhave believed, all of them. Can you [0 Muhammad] coerce thepeople to believe?” The overall emphasis in the Qur’an is onvoluntary consent to the will of God, which is predicated onthe universal guidance of reason and understanding engravedin all human beings.Fundamental to the Qur’anic conception of peaceful coex-istence, then, is the view that human beings are united underone God (2:213). They are to strive towards virtuous deeds(5:48), for the most noble person in the eyes of God is the onewho is most pious (49:13). These and other verses commandMuslims to build bridges of understanding and cooperationwith fellow human beings so as to create a social order rootedin and reflecting the highest ideals of justice and equality.The Qur’anic Vision of Religious PluralismThe modern era has accelerated the intensity and pace ofinteraction among believers in different religious traditions.However, intense awareness of and interaction with otherfaiths has been present in the Islamic tradition from its in-ception and are not characteristics unique to the modem era(Eickelman, 2002). The Qur’an originated in the multiculturalmilieu of seventh century Arabia, and thus addressed topicssuch as freedom of conscience, rights of minorities, humanrights, and religious pluralism-all issues with which a multi-faith community is bound to encounter and grapple with.Among Muslim scholars, both those who favor and opposereligious pluralism have invoked Qur’anic verses to supporttheir positions. The pluralistic outlook of the Qur’an is ex-pressed by verse 2:62, which appears to provide salvation to,”whoso believes in God and the Last Day among the Jews, theChristians, and the Sabeans.” This inclusive position is then ap-parently contradicted by verse 3:85, which states that, “whosodesires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted ofhim. In the next world he shall be amongst the losers.” Thisverse is often quoted by those who claim it abrogated thepromise of salvation offered to the people of the book in 2:62.Verse 3:85 provided a major impetus to those who see salva-tion restricted to Islam, and interpret the Qur’an according to a140
PAGE – 6 ============
Peace and War in the Qur’an and Juridical Literature 141hermeneutic that later verses trump earlier ones. However, it isimportant to bear in mind that the verse that affords salvationto other monotheistic religions (2:62) is repeated almost verba-tim in 5:69, which was apparently revealed after 3:85 (Hashmi,2002a, p. 34).Peaceful coexistence further necessitates that people abstainfrom abusing those who do not share their beliefs. Deridingand mocking others can often engender violence and hatred.Therefore, the Qur’an urges respect for the beliefs of others.The Qur’an further states, (this is a repeat of an earlier page)Had God willed, they would not have been notidolaters; and we have not appointed you a watcherover them, neither are you their guardian. Abuse notthose to whom they pray, apart from God, otherwise,they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge.So we have decked out fair to every community theirdeeds; then to their Lord they shall return, and He willtell them what they have been doing. (6:107-108)Qur’anic tolerance extends protection not only to Muslimsand the people of the book but even to strangers who openlydeclare idolatry. As it says, “If one of the idolaters seeks protec-tion, then grant him protection so that he may hear the wordof God, and after that, send him to a place of safety” (9:6). Thisverse instructs Muslims not only to protect but also to ensurethat no harm comes to them when they leave Muslim territory,and to send them to a place of safety. The discussion above in-dicates that the Qur’an envisioned a diverse community thatwas united under common moral values. Human beings areto coexist in peace and harmony. Diversity and differences infaith are to be judged by God only since, “Isn’t He (God) thebest of judges?” (95:8)Jihad in the Qur’anThe Qur’anic vision of tolerance and peaceful coexistenceis mitigated by verses that encourage Muslims to wage war.It is important, therefore, that we properly understand theQur’anic pronouncements on jihad. The Qur’anic world-viewis to bring the world under the sway of God’s guidance so as toestablish a righteous order based on justice and equality. Thus,
PAGE – 8 ============
Peace and War in the Qur’an and Juridical Literature 143overtures (8:61) from the enemy. Verses 2:192-93 command theProphet to cease hostilities if the enemy desists. In order notto transgress, Muslims are required to respond proportionallyto the injury done to them. Even here, the Qur’an urges re-straint by accepting blood money and forgiveness. The Qur’ansuggests that jihad is a product of defense against aggressionrather than initiation of hostilities against enemies (22:39-40).The People of the Book in the Qur’anThe discussion on pluralism in the Qur’an is essential toour understanding of peace in Islam. Confinement of salvationto a particular religious tradition frequently leads to margin-alization and demonization of those who espouse other reli-gions. As I shall discuss, by characterizing the “other” as non-believers and therefore doomed, Muslim jurists justified thehumiliation and even killing of non-Muslims.In the sectarian milieu of seventh-century Arabia, Muslimsencountered other monotheists like the Christians and Jews.These encounters generated inter-religious polemics, whichare reflected in the Qur’anic verses, especially those revealedin Medina. In its discourses with the people of the book, theQur’an invites them to the notion of a shared religious com-munity based on the belief in one God. Thus, the Prophet isinstructed to tell them, “Say! 0 people of the book! Come toa word common between us and you, that we serve nonebut God, and that we associate not aught with Him, and donot some of us take others as Lords, apart from God. And ifthey turn their backs, say, ‘bear witness that we are Muslims'(3:64).The ahl al-dhimma in the Qur’an and early history of Islamwere the protected minorities, both Jewish and Christian,who had chosen not to convert to Islam. They were allowedto follow their own laws and modes of worship, providedthis would not impinge on the Muslim community. The termdhimma refers to a pact drawn up with the people of the bookwhich the believer agrees to respect, the violation of whichmakes him liable to blame (dhamm).In return for security and protection, the people of thebook were required to pay a poll tax (fizya), mentioned in verse9:29. The poor and dependents were exempt from paying this
PAGE – 9 ============
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfarespecial tax. The jizya was also levied in compensation for ex-emption from military service in Muslim forces. If a dhimmijoined the service, then jizya was not levied (Safi, 1988, p. 39).But later on, this jizya became symbolic of Muslim ascendancyand subjugation of non-Muslims.Initially, the issue of the collection of a poll tax and the cir-cumstances under which it could be collected were not fixed.Umar, for example, is reported to have accepted the zakat ratherthan jizya from Banu Taghlib, when they argued that as Arabs,they should not be treated differently from their Muslim com-patriots (Abu Yusuf, n.d. pp. 120-121). He also refused to acceptthe jizya from a group that he could not offer protection againstByzantine aggression (El Fadl, 2002, p. 21).Early Sunni schools of law adopted different positions onthe question of the collection of jizya. The Shafi’is and Hanbalisclaimed that jizya is acceptable only from the people of the bookand the Magians. It is not acceptable from any of the polytheists.The Hanafis and Malikis and several other jurists stated that jizyais acceptable from all non-Muslims except the Arab polytheistswho had incited war against the Prophet (Sulayman, 2001, p.67).Al-Shafi’i (d. 820) also ruled that if a person was intro-duced to Islam when he was not one of the peoples of thebook, and he made an offer to the imam to pay the tribute inreturn for permission to remain in his religion, then it wasnot permissible for the imam to accept that offer. Rather, theimam was obliged to fight him until he surrendered, justas he was required to fight idol worshippers until they sur-rendered. Al-Shafi’i further stated that if the Muslims foughtthose about whose religious affiliation they had no informa-tion, and who claimed to belong to the people of the book,Muslims had to ask them when they and their ancestors ac-cepted that religion. If they said it was before the Qur’anwas revealed to the Prophet, the Muslims could accept theirstatement and allow them to remain in their ancestral reli-gion. But if Muslims suspected that what they were sayingwas not true and could establish proper evidence to thateffect, then the Muslims had to spurn the tribute and chal-lenge them to surrender or to fight (as cited in Sachedina,2001, p. 49). The clear understanding is that if non-Muslims144
PAGE – 10 ============
Peace and War in the Qur’an and Juridical Literature 145refuse to accept Islam or pay the jizya, the male unbelieversmay be killed. This implies that the guilt of refusing to adoptIslam deprives a non-Muslim of the right to life, and there-fore, such a person deserves whatever harm may come tohim. Clearly, such rulings contravened the Qur’anic visionof peaceful coexistence.The Qur’anic discourse with the people of the book in-dicates that, despite the polemics and differences with thedhimmis, it encouraged the Muslim community to seek meansof peaceful coexistence. Recipients of earlier traditions wereacknowledged by the early Islamic state to be autonomous re-ligious communities, to be governed in their communal affairsaccording to their own laws. As long as they did not threatenthe Muslim community, and paid the jizya, the Islamic statewas to assure their security and autonomy.However, subsequent interactions between the Muslimsand the people of the book did not reflect these principles ofpeaceful coexistence. Instead, Muslims often imposed discrim-inatory measures on the people of the book. Qur’anic versesurging tolerance towards them were often considered abro-gated by verses requiring jihad against them.The Historical Encounter with the People of the BookThe historical record of Muslim engagement with peoplesof other faith lies in stark contrast to the tolerance and aware-ness of other religions set forth in the Qur’an and the prac-tices of the early Muslim community. The distinction betweenthe Qur’anic concept of coexistence with non-Muslims and thepolicies advocated by subsequent Muslims can be seen fromthe following comparison. The Qur’an allowed the evidenceof non-Muslims when no Muslim was available to witness thewill of a Muslim who died on a journey (5:106). Abu Hanifa (d.767), however, rejected the evidence of non-Muslims in such acase, and Abu Yusuf (d. 798) declared the Qur’anic passage tohave been abrogated by verse 65:2. The Medinese jurists wenteven further, rejecting the evidence of non-Muslims altogether,even against one another (Schact, 1950). Gradually, a series ofrestrictions were regulated so as to enforce Muslim supremacyand to reflect the inferior status and identity of non-Muslims.Several discriminatory measures such as the prohibition
PAGE – 11 ============
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareagainst building new churches or repairing old ones wereenacted. Muhammad b. ‘Abdun (d. 1100), for example, statedin his treatisethat priests must be forcibly circumcised simplybecause they persist in following the example of JesusChrist who was, states Ibn ‘Abdun, circumcised. A Jewor Christian should not be allowed to dress like animportant person. A Muslim may not wash a Jewish orChristian toilet. (Williams, 1971, pp. 159-160)Other jurists held that Muslim authorities may prohibitdhimmis from marrying Muslims. Dhimmis were to wear dis-tinctive clothing, or more specifically, special emblems on theirclothes as a token of their inferior or different status.They were to live in houses that were smaller than Muslimhouses. They were not permitted to ride horses, which waspublic proof of one’s affluence. Most schools, apart from theHanafis, paid a lower blood price for a dhimmi who was killed.Jizya, said Zamakhshari (1987), should be taken from themwith belittlement and humiliation. “The dhimmi is to comewalking, not riding. When he pays the jizya, he shall be slappedon the nape of his neck” (Lewis, 1984, p. 15). Others addedsymbolic acts of humiliation-for example that the dhimmi’shand was to be lower than the tax collector’s hand when hepays the jizya. These regulations were incorporated into thejurisprudence as a divinely sanctioned system of discrimina-tory provisions (Khadduri, 1955). Not all jurists agreed withsuch acts of humiliation. Abu Yusuf, for example, stated thatdhimmis should not be treated harshly or humiliated, rather,they should be treated with considerable leniency (Abu Yusuf,n.d., pp. 122-125).Such discriminatory regulations contravene the spirit ofpeaceful coexistence and egalitarianism in the Qur’an. Thetendency among jurists of the eighth and ninth centuries wasto seek justification for the discriminatory rulings by claimingthat the unbelievers had chosen to refuse the offer to convert.Hence, their inferior status was the product of their ownchoice.Overall, Muslims discriminated against but did not perse-cute the dhimmis. According to Bernard Lewis, ” in contrast146
75 KB – 23 Pages