When Are Muslims Required to Fight, And Against Whom?
There are verses in the Qur’an instructing Muslims to use force in some circumstances. Along with being a religious and political leader, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a military leader. So when does Islam require Muslims to use force?
Are Muslims required to use force if they are attacked, or if other Muslims are attacked? Are Muslims required to use force to spread Islamic rule? Did the Prophet initiate violence, or did he only respond to it?
Muslims have answered these questions in various ways throughout Islamic history. Some Muslims have argued that Islam requires fighting when Muslims are physically attacked, or when Muslims are prevented from practicing Islam, or when Muslims are prevented from teaching others about Islam. Other Muslims have argued that Islam requires Muslims to fight until the world has come under Islamic rule. (This is different from forcing people to convert to Islam.)
The Prophet himself fought in various circumstances after migrating to Medina. Early on, based on commands from God, the Prophet fought the Meccan pagans who had forced Muslims to leave Mecca. Later on, based on commands from God, the Prophet fought some other pagans and some People of the Book. Some Muslims argue that God’s commands to fight applied only to the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula at a time when it was necessary to solidify the foundation of the new Islamic state, and that these commands cannot be used to justify fighting today. Other Muslims argue that these commands to fight apply everywhere for all time.
The following is a sampling of Qur’anic verses, translated by Yusuf Ali, relating to when Muslims should fight. (All of these verses were revealed after the Prophet left Mecca; Muslims were not permitted to use force before they left Mecca, despite the physical and economic oppression they faced while they lived in Mecca.)
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)
Do these verses apply only when someone attacks Muslims to prevent the practice of Islam (i.e. “suppress faith”), or do these verses apply anytime Muslims are attacked for any reason? Should Muslims only fight those who physically attack them, or should Muslims also fight those who provide financial and political support for attacks on Muslims? Should Muslims fight only if they are personally attacked, or should all Muslims fight when any Muslim is attacked? Should Muslims fight until the attackers accept Islam? Until Islamic rule is established everywhere? Until Muslims are free to practice their faith?
“And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’” (4:75)
Does this verse mean that whenever people are oppressed, all Muslims should fight the oppressors? Should Muslims fight until there is no more oppression in the world?
“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (5:32)
Does this verse mean that anyone who has committed murder or spread “mischief” in the land may be killed? What is “mischief”? Who decides whether someone has spread “mischief” in the land? Can any Muslim determine that someone else has spread “mischief”? Can any Muslim kill those who spread “mischief”?
“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.” (8:39)
This verse appears during a series of verses about “unbelievers.” Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Only “unbelievers” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “unbelievers” everywhere at all times? What sort of “tumult or oppression” does this verse refer to? Does this verse mean that Muslims should fight “unbelievers” until everyone accepts Islam? Until Islamic rule is established everywhere? Until Muslims are free to practice their faith?
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)
Which “forbidden months” does this verse refer to? Which “pagans” does this verse refer to? Only “pagans” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “pagans” everywhere at all times? Only “pagans” who plot against Muslims or attack Muslims? Must Muslims fight these “pagans” until these “pagans” become Muslim?
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)
Which “People of the Book” does this verse refer to? Only “People of the Book” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “People of the Book” everywhere at all times? Does this verse mean that Muslims should fight and subdue “People of the Book,” simply on the basis of the beliefs and religious practices of those “People of the Book”? Are Muslims required to fight only until “People of the Book” accept the political authority of the Islamic state and agree to pay taxes (Jizya) to the state, or does “subdued” mean something more than that?
“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” (9:123)
[NOTE: "who gird you about" means "who are near to you."] Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Should Muslims fight all “unbelievers,” or just “unbelievers” who attack Muslims?
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, (for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’” (22:39-40)
These verses clearly say that Muslims can fight if they are personally expelled from their homes for religious reasons. But are Muslims also allowed to fight if they are expelled from their homes for non-religious reasons? Should all Muslims fight if any Muslim is expelled from her home for religious (or non-religious) reasons? Should Muslims fight only those who directly expel Muslims from their homes, or also those who assist with the expulsion?
Anonymous said
on April 1 2008 @ 5:57 pm
My initial reaction to reading that page from your website is that it seems to encourage the stereotypes that Islam encourages violence. I know you are trying to have an educated debate, but highlighting passages that could be interpreted as encouraging violence without explaining the arguments against violence, doesn’t really help to encourage the notion that our religion encourages peace.
Anonymous said
on April 1 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I found the handout very much useful and thought-provoking. I do agree that we have to think about the meaning of those verses (and legitimate questions the handout raises). Yet, the scope of our interpretative knowledge is pretty limited (at least mine). To this end, I guess it would be a great job if you can circulate these questions among Islamic scholars (as widely as possible, reaching all the mainstream schools of thought) and make a compilation of their answers. That way, we will be able to get ourselves acquainted not only with the controversial verses, but also the answers given by leading scholars. And then, possibly, weighting all the commentaries/interpretations at hand, we can decide for ourselves which one to follow and take as a starting point at our discussions with others.
Anonymous said
on April 2 2008 @ 1:55 pm
I’m afraid that I don’t share your optimism on this front — texts are ambiguous and subject to numerous interpretations. The problem is accepting the notion that Muslims are defined by “texts.” We should reject that premise from the get go, and note simply that Islam as a religion is neither pacifist nor does it incite to war for the sake of making war. What is much more significant is the endorsement of the basic principle of reciprocity: if Muslims are treated fairly, very few Muslims would understand the Quran as allowing violence.
Anonymous said
on April 2 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Of course, I agree with you that “Islam as a religion is neither pacifist nor does it incite to war for the sake of making war. What is much more significant is the endorsement of the basic principle of reciprocity: if Muslims are treated fairly, very few Muslims would understand the Quran as allowing violence.”
But Muslims are not treated fairly today, and the Qur’an must be understood and applied in the current environment of unfair treatment. So the question is what does God ask of us in this current environment of unfair treatment?
Muslims around the world have lots of grievances against America:
1. America’s military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq
2. America’s support for dictatorships in the Muslim world
3. America’s support for others (i.e. Israel) over Muslims
The question is what does God require Muslims to do under these circumstances? What would Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have done if he were alive today?
Isn’t the only way to answer this question to refer to God’s words and related texts? What do you mean when you say, “The problem is accepting the notion that Muslims are defined by ‘texts’?”
Anonymous said
on April 2 2008 @ 2:43 pm
True, the principle of reciprocity is generally accepted principle. Besides, I do not think any respectable person will argue that reciprocity is bad (ICJ even endorses the use of nuclear weapons for that purpose…). Those guys with anti-Muslim agenda would never argue that the verses referring to reciprocity are inhuman, barbarous, whatever… Rather, they would probably play with those verses that are vague enough to infer something clear and exact. At the end of the day, Quran is the main source of reference and thus I think the questions raised in the handout should be addressed by scholar/representatives of different schools of thought.
Anonymous said
on April 2 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Yes the Qur’an is the main source of reference, but quite clearly it has been interpreted differently over the ages on the question of violence, and it isn’t credible to say that it inherently despises violence any more than it is to say that it inherently embraces it in any given context. It permits violence at times, it despises it in others, and the line is in so many cases a question of interpretation. I think overreliance on text as if it provides some clear answer in any fact situation just leads to two groups of people, in Khaled Abou El Fadl’s words, “hurling” hadith and verses at one another, without articulating the underlying normative claims and assumptions that should be expressed (reciprocity being an important one).
Kamran said
on April 2 2008 @ 8:25 pm
We cannot conclusively answer these questions. Unlike in some other established religions (e.g., Catholicism) in which some head of the establishment can decree a conclusive judgment on an issue (e.g., abortion), no single person is conclusively vested with such authority in Islam. The only sources we can point others and ourselves to are: (1) the Quran; (2) the Hadith — with some limitations on which sect or school of thought you follow; and (3) some other sources which claim to have authorities to issue fatwas and the like (e.g. imams, etc.) — which also depends on which sect or school of thought you follow.
I am not sure if we should be looking to answer these questions conclusively. All that we can accurately say is that, “hey my dear American buddy, I know that some Muslims around the world point to some Quranic texts to justify their use of violence, but that is their interpretation; and I think their interpretation is wrong. This is what I think: _____________. And I want you to know that Muslims disagree with each other on many issues and interpretations of the Quran.”
john prassas said
on April 7 2008 @ 8:54 am
The last comment made me curious – who speaks for Islam? Also how can Islam reform itself – if some people wish it to do so? It seems as though you do not have a Doubting Thomas (saint who questioned God and by doing so found God) or anything of that sort in Islam.
Anonymous said
on May 28 2008 @ 7:44 pm
If there was a serious survey of scholars (or say even studious practicing Muslims), i’d bet a nearly unanimity would say that these verses aren’t meant for Muslims as individuals but Muslims as a group (as in a “State”) against another state (why else the talk of “if they break treaties”)….I know there have been large groups of scholars who have made joint statements here and abroad.
I am asserting that there is probably a consensus among Muslim scholars (though, I don’t think any polling has been done) that authorization to use force in the Quran was meant ONLY for state entities and not individuals (or a collection of individuals like al-Qaeda).
This is NOT a minority opinion a whole range of scholars spanning time and viewpoints (from Razi to Asad to Maududi)
For 13 years the Prophet (peace & blessings be unto him) struggled non-violently in Mecca, he nor his companions ever attacked or fought physically with their oppressors. He only responded when he and his companions built a state entity (Medina).
Individual violence as practiced by al Qaeda is prohibited in the Quran.
HANK aka M. J. Sndyer said
on July 30 2008 @ 7:35 am
I HAVE LIVED IN THREE MUSLIM COUNTRIES IN THE PAST. TURKEY, PAKISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA FOR THREE AND SIX MONTHS PERIODS SOF TIME. I HAVE FRIENDS IN TWO OF THOSE COUNTRIES.
THE PROBLEM WITH MUSLIM DOCTRINE IS THAT IT LENDS ITSELF TO RADICALS WITHIN THE RELIGION; IMAMS, MULLAHS, AND AYATOLLAHS TO BASTERDIZE THE RELIGION AND TO TEACH HATE OF THE GENTILE AND JEW: I AM OF GERMAN/SCOTCH/IRISH DESCENT.
I HAVE STUDIED THE KORAN SINCE THE LATE 1940s AND HAVE OFTEN ASKED MYSELF WHY WOULD GOD TELL PROPHETS OF ONE ERA ONE THING AND TELL A PROPHET OF ANOTHER ERA A THING THAT IS 180 DEGREES OPPOSED TO THAT HE HAD TOLD PREVIOUS PROPHETS. GOD DOES NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF!
WHY WOULD A LEADING RELIGOIUS CLERIC IN SAUDIA ARABIA IN THE FALL OF 1988 TELL A READER THAT IT WAS “OKAY FOR A MUSLIMTO LIE IF IT WAS FOR THE GREATER GOOD?” IN THE ORIGIANL TEN COMMANDMENETS WE ARE TOLD NOT TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS; IS NOT A LIE ABOUT AS FALSE AS ONE CAN GO?
WHY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WOULD GOD DIVIDE THE LAND OFF PALESTINE ACCORDING TO THE TEN OR IS IT TWELVE? TRIBES AND STATE THAT JERUSALEM WAS THE PROPERTY OF , DARE I SAY IT- JEWS? TODAY WE ARE TOLD BY MUSLIMS THE ISRAELIS ARE INTRUDERS ON THE LAND OF PALESTINE, YOU WILL NO DOUBT RECALL FROM HISTORY THAT PALESTINE IS A REGION INHABAITED BY MANY DIFFERENT RACES AND HAS NEVER HAD A RECOOGNIZED LEGAL GOVERNMENT AND ONLY IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS HAVE THEY HAD THOSE TO TRY AND TAKE CONTROL TO FORM ONE; I. E. ARAFAT, AND EGYPTIAN MULTI MILLIONAIRE THANKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS WHO POURED MONEY INTO THE PALESTINE MOVEMENT OF WHICH WE ARE TOLD ARAFAT HELPED HIMSELF.
TELL ME WHAT RELIGIONS IN THE RECENT PAST TWENTY YEARS HAVE HAD GROUPS OF SO CALLED RELIGIOUS LEADERS PREACH THE “HATE THE JEW AND GENTILE” AND TO MURDER INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WILL AFFORD A PERSON COMMITING SUICIDE(FORBIDDEN BY THE KORAN)A MARVELOUS PLACE IN PARADISE; THEY EVEN PROVIDE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF DARK EYED BEAUTIES THAT WILL BE AT THEIR BECK AND CALL; NO WHERE IN THE KORAN IS THIS STATED.
THE PROBLEM NON MUSLIMS HAVE WITH SO CALLED MODERATE MUSLIMS IS THAT THEY, THE MODERATE MUSLIM, DOES NOTHING TO CONTROL THE TERRORISTS OTHER THAN TO ISSUE A WORD OR TWO PUBLICLY. HOWEVER IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES THEY TOLERATE NO DISSENT AND ARE QUICK TO PUNISH THOSE THAT DO.
WHEN THE KORAN TEACHES THAT JESUS IS NOT THE CHRIST (SAVIOR) IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR CHRISTIANS TO BELIEVE THAT MUSLIMS ARE SINCERE WHEN THEY SAY WE PREACH LIVE AND LET LIVE AND THA ISLAM MEANS TO SURRENDER TO ALLAH’S WILL. AND WHO DEFINES THAT WILL? OFTEN SOME TERRORIST BENT ON DESTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE.
I TRUST YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHILE MANY OF US NOT OF THE MUSLIM FAITH HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHERE MUSLIMS LEADERS OF TODAY ARE REALLY COMING FROM WHILE TRAING CMAPS ARE TEACHING SOME MUSLIMS HOW TO KILL CHISTIANS AND JEWS CLAIMING THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THEIR LAND. 9/11/01 IS TOO FRESH IN OUR MINDS TO FORGET WHO DID IT AND WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
SINCERELY
HANK
Alkidya said
on April 22 2009 @ 7:35 am
Ah, but if Islam is a religion of Peace,
how would I answer to these statements then?
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
abdulwahid said
on July 21 2009 @ 9:11 pm
I THINK MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AROUND THE WORLD SHOULD FIGHT THE USA THEY SHOULDINT MESS WITH OUR AFAIRS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE AND AMONG ATHERTHINGS TO. BLESS THE MUJAHIDEEN SALAM
Mirakmal Niyazmat said
on January 30 2010 @ 11:24 pm
TO HANK aka M. J. Sndyer
You say “9/11/01 IS TOO FRESH IN OUR MINDS TO FORGET WHO DID IT AND WHERE THEY CAME FROM.” Remembering about human suffering is good but we have to be careful in generalizing or drawing conclusion about Muslims in general. Let me use your logic and put it into context to demonstrate that you are not on the right track.
How about genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany? Do you know “who did it and where they came from?” Nazi army soldiers had belt buckles with “Gott Mit Uns” meaning “God with Us.” In his Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord…” Keep in mind that Hitlers war with his “God with US” belt buckle on his pants led to extermination of about 70 million people.
Let’s get to the next one not to make you forget “who did it and where they came from.”
Apartheid in South Africa – The white supremacist policy of apartheid was formed in the name of Christianity. Many of the key leaders of the oppressive apartheid regime were also devout adherents of the Dutch Reformed Church. There was highly controversial debate on Biblical perspective (justifications) on Apartheid too.
Let’s get to the next one not to make you forget “who did it and where they came from.”
Genocide in Rwanda – Before genocide, Rwanda was Africa’s most Christian country with more than 50% of Roman Catholics. Catholic Church played a sad but key role in polarizing Rwandan society into Hutus and Tutsis that eventually led to genocide in 1994. On top of that, it has been extensively documented that many representatives of Rwandan church societies took active participation in genocide. Several priests and nuns were convicted for that by the International Criminal Court. The number of people killed – 800,000 in about 90 days, i.e. about 9000 people slain per day.
Not to make this note as long as yours, let’s forget for a moment about the use of nuclear weapons by US against Japan, that US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to use against people of Iran or Europe’s occupational wars to “civilize” people all around the world or even near-to-total extermination of native Indian Americans…
Just relying on those 3 points mentioned above, it would be fair to conclude that Christianity is the most violent and extremist religion in the world. I drew this conclusion using your logic.
Paul said
on April 25 2010 @ 9:27 pm
interesting points mirakmal. As a christian, I do believe my religion isn’t violent. Of course in the times of the old testament, there were lots of violence in those times in the middle eastern areas. I do however go by the new testament in which Jesus tells us to live. Basically be peaceful towards your fellow mankind. If you get slapped in the face, turn the other cheek. ( personally I can’t do that, bad temper). And of course we have the 10 commandments, one of them being though shall not kill. Even in self defense we are not suppose to kill. And yet christianity is the most violent religion in the world? I doubt that. Christians I do admit have had their own extremist as well. But the religion itself is not violent. No human life is suppose to be taken for ANY REASON at all. even in self defense or preserving our rights we shall not kill. And yet their are people in the middle east blowing up hospitals full of injured men, women and children, and christians are violent? Christians have done bad things but nothing like that. Me personally, I would never kill anyone. I will accept death before taking another human life and yes I have been in such a situation. Religion in my opinion is suppose to be about peace and a healthy way of life. I don’t know about all the religions in the world but as far as I know, non of them should involve taking another human life. No bible or holy book should ever tell you to take another human life. It is wrong for any reason.