have briefly gone through your articles on Jihād. There are few questions in
that regard: What should a Muslim do, if he goes to his house and finds a gang
of so-called Muslims raping his sister to death?
Choice 1: Go to
mosque and pray to Allah for his sister.
Choice 2: Show
the gang verses in the Qur’ān and H~adīth ie do Da‘wah.
Choice 3: Go
get the Pakistani state officials for help (takes too much time)
Choice 4: Use a
gun to shoot the criminals in order to save your sister.
states (confirmed by Ahādith) that Muslims (not the state) should prepare
themselves to fight the enemy. Therefore, in my opinion, the requirement of
state for Jihād is totally baseless. Please reply.
Comment: There is a world of difference
between self-defence and offence. For the former, if it occurs in the form you
have referred to, a person (who is living in a properly instituted state as
Pakistan for example) must stop the criminal by force if he sees that someone is
raping his sister or if someone is trying to kill an innocent citizen. He can
incapacitate him by shooting in the leg or even kill him if there is no other
option. Remember this comes under self-defence and for this, in such emergency
situations, state authority is not required.
However, when one has to wage Jīhad on
another country the requirement of state authority is imperative. This is not
self-defence; it is plain offence (even though for a noble cause as to save
Muslims from persecution.) Only a state has been given this authority, simply
because individual groups if given this license will create more Fasād by
fighting among themselves once they overcome the enemy. The Afghanistan fiasco
should serve as an eye opener for us in this regard.
in which the Muslims were first allowed to lift arms occurs in Sūrah H~ajj
(22:35) which is a Madīnan Sūrah. No Makkan Sūrah contains this directive. All
our jurists agree that the distinction between Makkan and Madīnan Sūrahs is made
to differentiate between the existence of a state from its non-existence. To
further clarify this point, I will give you the example of punishments. Only a
state has the authority to flog criminals for adultery or amputate their hands
for theft. You and I cannot do this even if the state is not doing this. The
reason for this that all punishments are mentioned in Madīnan Sūrahs when the
state authority had come into existence and the plurals : ‘Flog the
criminals...’ or ‘Cut off their hands...’ of the concerned verses are all
directed at our rulers. Similar is the case with Jihād. So categorical is this
principle that there is a consensus among all the celebrated authorities of
Islam on it. If a state is indifferent to its responsibilities, we can only
remind it of this apathy and not take it upon ourselves to discharge them.
Will you start punishing criminals for
theft if the state is not doing so?
If you think that Jihād is allowed
without the state, then you must give arguments from the Qur’ān and the life of
the Prophet (sws). Please don’t forget that the history of Islamic warfare under
Prophets is devoid of Jihād without the state.
It is high time that we Muslims try to
understand a directive of the Sharī‘ah in the proper perspective instead of
trying to change it.