Was Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

Was Prophet Muhammad a pedophile?

By defendtheprophet.com

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his followers altogether.

Anti-Muslim activists often make the claim that Islam allows sexual relations with children. For example, Reverend Jerry Falwell claimed on national television that Prophet Muhammad was a “demon-possessed pedophile.” They cite without any context the following narration:

Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5 Book 58 Number 236]

Many lay Muslims are not equipped with the historical knowledge to explain this narration. This article aims to explain to Muslims the context of the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha and to refute the charges that he was a pedophile.

The conditions of the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha

The Prophet initiated the marriage contract under the supervision of Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, when she was six years old and he consummated the marriage with her permission after she reached the age of puberty. It is completely false to suggest that the Prophet had sexual relations with her when she was a prepubescent child.

The Prophet was married to one wife, Khadija, for several years. When she died, it was suggested to him by others that he take another wife. Martin Lings describes the scenario that led to Aisha’s marriage:

Khawlah, the wife of Uthman ibn Mazun, had been very attentive to the various needs of the Prophet’s household ever since Khadija’s death; and one day when she was in his house she suggested to him that he should take another wife. When he asked her whom he should marry, she said: Either Aisha the daughter of Abu Bakr or Sawdah the daughter of Zamah.

[Lings, M. (1983). Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources. New York: Inner Traditions International.p. 109]

The fact that Khawlah suggested this marriage to the Prophet demonstrates that such marriages were acceptable in local customs for reasons we will explain. No one objected to it, most notably Aisha’s father and Aisha herself.

In the ancient world, people were considered adults as early as age seven

In ancient societies, the modern concept of childhood did not exist. This is because people did not need the level of literacy and education they need today to function as adults in society. Neil Postman, a prominent media critic, describes this phenomenon:

In a literate world, children must become adults. But in a nonliterate world there is no need to distinguish sharply between the child and the adult, for there are few secrets, and the culture does not need to provide training in how to understand itself…  And that is why, in all the sources, one finds that in the Middle Ages childhood ended at age seven. Why seven? Because that is the age at which children have command over speech. They can say and understand what adults can understand. They are able to know all the secrets of the tongue, which are the only secrets they need to know. And this helps explain why the Catholic Church designated age seven as the age at which one was assumed to know the difference between right and wrong, the age of reason. It also helps to explain why, until the 17^th century, the words used to denote young males could refer to men of thirty, forty, or fifty, for there was no word – in French, German, or English – for a young male between the ages of seven and sixteen. The word child expressed kinship, not age.

[Postman, N. (1982). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Delacorte
Press. P. 13-14]

Since it is known that the Prophet lived in a largely illiterate society, a similar situation existed in 7^th century Arabia. At the age of 9, having reached puberty and equipped with all the education needed to function as an adult, there is simply no reason in these circumstances why Aisha should not be married. 

This is confirmed by Colin Turner of the University of Durham Middle East Studies department:

A marriage between an older man and a young girl was customary among the Bedouins, as it still is in many societies across the world today. It was not unheard of in Muhammad’s time for boys and girls to be promised to each other in marriage almost as soon as they were born, particularly if the union was of direct political significance to the families concerned. However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the 7^th century tended to reach at an earlier age than Westerners today. It is highly unlikely that Muhammad would not have taken Aisha into his bed until she was at least in her early teens, which was wholly in keeping with the customs of the day, and in context not in the least improper.

[Turner, C. (2006). Islam: the basics (pp. 34-35). London: Routledge]

High death rates were a reason ancient societies consummated marriage early

The harsh living conditions and high death rates of ancient societies necessitated that men and women marry much earlier than they do in the present time. Walter McCall of St. Mary’s University, writing in review of an in-depth study on marriage in ancient Rome, states:

In the opening chapter, the authors inform us that, traditionally in pre-modern societies, age-at-first-marriage for girls corresponded with the visible onset of puberty. In these early societies, high mortality rates demanded an offsetting high-birth rate. As a result, younger marriages were required to facilitate population growth.

The importance of the scientific anthropological principle of relativism

It is unfair and ahistorical to apply 21^st century Western cultural standards to an ancient society that existed under very different and much harsher living conditions. Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, writes:

Aisha was not the first case, for many girls married at her same age to men who were at their fathers’ age… After the passage of many centuries, we find now some Orientalists who try to strike a comparison between the conditions of our present time and what existed 1400 years ago. They are trying to apply the criterions of the Western society to that society that existed in the Arabian Peninsula very long ago.

This coincides with the anthropological principle of relativism; that any objective study of other cultures, particularly ancient ones, must discard ethnocentric ideas and not misjudge other societies based on a limited understanding of social conditions. This view was articulated by anthropologist Alfred Kroeber:

Anthropologists became aware of the diversity of culture. They began to see the tremendous range of its variations. From that, they commenced to envisage it as a totality, as no historian of one period or of a single people was likely to do, nor any analyst of his own type of civilization alone. They became aware of culture as a "universe," or vast field in which we of today and our own civilization occupy only one place of many. The result was a widening of a fundamental point of view, a departure from unconscious ethnocentricity toward relativity. This shift from naive self-centeredness in one's own time and spot to a broader view based on objective comparison is somewhat like the change from the original geocentric assumption of astronomy to the Copernican interpretation of the solar system and the subsequent still greater widening to a universe of galaxies.

[Kroeber, A. L. (1923). Anthropology: With Supplement. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. p. 11]

Ancient societies should be compared to other ancient societies of the same time period that lived under the same conditions, rather than comparing ancient societies to modern societies living under drastically different conditions. This point is made by George Readings who criticized those who claim Muhammad is a pedophile, saying: “This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of pedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy.”

Christian sources confirm that early marriage was acceptable in the ancient world

Christian sources record that St. Joseph at age 90 had married the Virgin Mary when she was 12 or 14 years old. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates…

Many Christians will dismiss this story as apocryphal, but the fact that it was recorded at all testifies that early marriages in the ancient world were acceptable social practices.

Forced marriages are forbidden in Islam

Aisha was not forced to marry the Prophet, but rather she wanted to marry him. Islam in general forbids women to be married against their will.

Allah Almighty says, “O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will…”

[Surat an-Nisa 4:19]

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her, and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission."

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 Book 62 Number 67]

The Prophet and Aisha had a healthy, loving relationship

The Prophet and Aisha were known to have a very good relationship that benefitted the Muslim community. Islam in general encourages love and mercy between spouses.

Allah Almighty says, “Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquility. He ordained love and kindness between you. There truly are signs in this for those who reflect.”

[Surat Ar-Rum 30:21]

Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “The superiority of Aisha to other women is like the superiority of tharid (a very good traditional Arabic dish) to other kinds of food.”

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 Book 65 Number 330]

Narrated Aisha that while she was on a journey with the Messenger of Allah: “I had a race with him and I outran him on my feet. When I became heavier, I had a race with him and he outran me. He said: Tit-for-tat.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14 Number 2572]

The Prophet never hit women or servants

Aisha herself testifies that the Prophet never hit or abused women or servants.

Narrated Aisha: “The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant or a woman.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41 Number 4786]

It is claimed that the Prophet abused or raped Aisha, but she herself completely disproves this charge.

The Prophet’s strong ability to control his sexual desires

Aisha herself testifies that the Prophet was most capable of all men at controlling his sexual urges and desires.

Narrated Aisha: “The Prophet used to kiss and embrace his wives while he was fasting, and he had more power to control his desires than any of you.” 

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 Book 31 Number 149]

The legacy of Aisha as a great scholar

The Prophet married the young Aisha with the intention of teaching her to become a great scholar, which in fact occurred. Hundreds of beautiful traditions are narrated on her authority, such as the following:

Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: “O Aisha, indeed Allah is kind and He loves kindness and confers upon kindness which he does not confer upon severity and does not confer upon anything else besides it.”

[Sahih Muslim, Book 32 Number 6273]

For this reason, Aisha was a scholarly authority for the early companions of the Prophet, as demonstrated by the following tradition:

Narrated Abu Musa: “Never was a hadith unclear to us – the companions of Muhammad – and we asked Aisha but that we found with her some knowledge about it.”

[Jami at-Tirmidhi, Book 46 Number 3883]

The Prophet’s kindness towards children

We mentioned that Aisha had reached womanhood when she went to live with the Prophet, so she was not a child by local custom, but it is worth mentioning that the Prophet in general encouraged kindness and mercy towards children.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As: The Prophet said: “Those who do not show mercy to our young ones and do not honor the rights of our elders are not from us.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41 Number 4925]

The age of marriage is not fixed in Islam

Traditional pre-modern societies considered puberty the appropriate age of adulthood and marriage, but the Holy Quran does not fix the age for marriage, although it does mention “maturity” (Surat an-Nisa 4:6). The wisdom behind not fixing the age of marriage is that human societies may find that the age of “maturity,” both physical and mental, changes in different times and places. Islam was revealed with a measure of flexibility that has allowed it adapt to different cultures on every continent. For this reason, many Muslim countries have legislated different minimum age requirements for marriage and there is no standard practice in this respect.

Some people, even ignorant Muslims, claim that because Muhammad is the perfect model of Muslim behavior, then it is appropriate for any man to marry any young girl regardless of the circumstances. But this opinion disregards the fact that conditions (shuroot) are an integral part of Islamic law. Furthermore, there is a difference between emulating the Prophet in his character, which all Muslims must do, and emulating the Prophet with respect to social customs, which change according to social conditions.

George Readings challenges this argument:

The “argument” goes that Muslims believe Muhammad to be a perfect model for behavior and therefore the fact of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha somehow proves Islam to be a depraved religion. That no good can come of following it etc. etc. ad nauseam. This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of pedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy…

In the jurisprudence of the main schools of Islamic law it was accepted that a child could have a marriage arranged for them by their marriage guardian but it should not be consummated until puberty was reached, when the child would have the “Option of Puberty” (khiyar al-bulugh). This meant that the child would be allowed to repudiate the marriage if it had been contracted by a marriage guardian who did not have the right of ijbar (i.e. who was not their father or, apart from the Hanbalis, their father’s father). As the Quran does not deal with these matters many of the rules governing them would have been drawn from pre-Islamic custom and Muhammad’s implicit endorsement of them through not rejecting them.

In considering the question of marriage age in Islam it is, therefore, entirely appropriate to discuss Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. A book entitled ‘Does God Hate Women?’, which looks at various religious attitudes towards women, would do a disservice to its readers if it were to ignore a matter of such relevance: marriage to a pre-pubescent child with whom consummation occurs upon reaching puberty is not a model most people would be happy with in the modern world (although Bolivia sets the age of consent at puberty).

Which is probably why nearly all Muslim countries have reformed these rules beyond recognition. The age of consent in Algeria and Malaysia is 16, in Indonesia it is 19 for males and 16 for females. In Egypt it’s 18 for both and Tunisia 20. Reform has not, however, come to Saudi Arabia. Back in April the world followed the case of a mother trying to obtain a divorce for her eight-year-old daughter who had been married off by her father to a friend he owed a debt. In the end she succeeded and now there is even talk of Saudi Arabia preventing marriage before the age of 18.

Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would logically only be of real concern to a non-Muslim living in 21st century Britain if Muslims were, following his model, regularly involved in child marriages. But, apart from possibly in Saudi Arabia and Iran, they aren’t. If your claim is that Islam is fundamentally depraved because Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad and he married a six-year-old, then it is entirely shot down by Muslims not emulating Muhammad on this matter.

Conclusion

Prophet Muhammad never had sexual relations with children and he never allowed such practices. Although she was young by modern standards, the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha was consummated when she had reached womanhood according to legitimate social custom. She was never abused, but rather she grew to become a great scholar and a role model for all Muslims. The attempt to misconstrue this blessed marriage as pedophilia is an ignorant or dishonest smear tactic which ignores the scientific anthropological principles. In contrast, many honest non-Muslim scholars who study the Prophet have praised his character and teachings. Annie Besant, a prominent 20^th century women’s rights activist, had this to say about him:

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

[Besant, A. (1932). The life and teachings of Muhammad: Two lectures by Annie Besant. Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Pub. House.]
 

We ask Allah Almighty to send peace and blessings upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his followers altogether.

Ameen

Islam and War: Analysis and Commentary of Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut’s treatise, “Quran and Fighting”

By Justin Elias

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his followers altogether.

The teachings of Islam on war have been misconstrued by both opponents of Islam and extremist Muslims. To clarify common misconceptions, an authoritative explanation of Islamic teachings about war was published by Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut in 1948. Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut served as Shaykh al-Azhar, the rector of Al-Azhar University, the Sunni Islamic community’s premier academic institution. He was a prolific author on many Islamic topics, especially Islamic law and the interpretation of the Qur’an.

His treatise “Quran and Fighting” was translated into English by Rudolph Peters and published in 1996 as part of the compilation, “Jihad in classical and modern Islam.” Peters notes that Shaykh Shaltut’s explanation of Jihad expresses peace as the normative relationship between nations and is representative of the vast majority of mainstream established Islamic universities throughout the world.

The following is an analysis of Shaykh Shaltut’s explanation with additional commentary for the purpose of instructing Muslims in the correct understanding of this important Islamic teaching.

The Exemplary Method of Quran Interpretation

In this section, the Shaykh discusses two methods of Quran interpretation. The first method, which was widely practiced in the classical period, interprets each verse one by one in their traditional order. The Shaykh criticizes this method, claiming it obscures the divine guidance and often explains verses contrary to their intended meaning. For this reason, many commentators of the past wrongly claimed numerous peaceful verses of the Quran were abrogated when they had no proof to say so. He says some commentators applied the doctrine of abrogation so haphazardly that it “created an intellectual anarchy and an aversion to the Quran and its interpreters.”

The second method, supported by the Shaykh, involves bringing together all the different verses on a given topic and analyzing how they relate to each other. By doing so, he shows that the wisdom of the Quran’s teaching about war is found in “its desire for peace and its aversion against bloodshed and killing for the sake of the vanities of this world and out of sheer greediness or lust.”

I say; this second method is the correct way to understand the Quran. The first principle of interpreting the Quran is that the Quran explains itself. Verses in one place will explain those in another. By viewing verses in isolation, extremists of both the Muslim and anti-Muslim camps are able to construct a false picture of the Quran’s message. It opens the door for anyone to abrogate verses they do not wish to follow, thus resembling those who said, “Bring us a different Qurʾan, or change it.” (10:15). In contrast, by harmonizing between the different verses of the Quran, the believers will resemble those who said, “We believe in it. It is all from our Lord.” (3:7).

The Nature of the Islamic Mission

In this section, the Shaykh demonstrates that Islam has forbidden religious conversion by force and instead encourages human beings to accept Islam on the basis of reasoned arguments. Islam, the religion of nature and nature’s God, is clear, self-evident, and easy to understand. Therefore, to force others into Islam “would be an insult to it, would make it revolting, and would put obstacles in its way.” He further explains, “The Quran instructs us clearly that God did not wish people to become believers by way of force and compulsion, but only by way of study, reflection, and contemplation.” To prove this point he cites the following verses.

Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet] compel people to believe? (10:99)

If your Lord had pleased, He would have made all people a single community, but they continue to have their differences… (11:118)

If you find rejection by the disbelievers so hard to bear, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky, if you can, and bring them a sign: God could bring them all to guidance if it were His will, so do not join the ignorant. (6:35)

Next, the Shaykh points to the stories of the Prophets in the Quran. Each Prophet is shown to have called his people to Islam not by compulsion but rather with beautiful preaching and reasoned arguments. He cites the example of Noah:

He said, ‘My people, think: if I did have a clear sign from my Lord, and He had given me grace of His own, though it was hidden from you, could we force you to accept it against your will? (11:28)

Then he cites the example of Abraham when he called his father to Islam using reason. Abraham said:

Father, knowledge that has not reached you has come to me, so follow me: I will guide you to an even path. Father, do not worship Satan—Satan has rebelled against the Lord of Mercy. Father, I fear that a punishment from the Lord of Mercy may afflict you and that you may become Satan's companion [in Hell].’ His father answered, ‘Abraham, do you reject my gods? I will stone you if you do not stop this. Keep out of my way!’ Abraham said, ‘Peace be with you: I will beg my Lord to forgive you—He is always gracious to me. (19:43-47)

The Shaykh says that the method of beautiful preaching and reasoned argument is the basic rule Prophet Muhammad and his companions used to spread Islam. He cites the following verse:

Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided. (16:125)

Say, “This is my way: based on clear evidence, I, and all who follow me, call to God—glory be to God!—I do not join others with Him.” (12:108)

The Shaykh cites more verses to prove this point:

There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God is all hearing and all knowing. (2:256)

This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the straight path.(81:27-28)

So warn them: your only task is to give warning, you are not there to control them. (88:21-22)

I will add the following verses as additional proof:

The messenger's only duty is to give clear warning. (29:18)

We know best what the disbelievers say. You [Prophet] are not there to force them, so remind, with this Qurʾan, those who fear My warning. (50:45)

The Shaykh notes that this message is consistent throughout the Medinan chapters as well:

Say, ‘Obey God; obey the Messenger. If you turn away, [know that] he is responsible for the duty placed uponhim, and you are responsible for the duty placed upon you. If you obey him, you will be rightly guided, but the Messenger's duty is only to deliver the message clearly.’ (24:54)

Finally, the Shaykh summarizes this section with the following points:

1. In the nature of the Islamic mission there is no complexity, obscurity, or unintelligibility that would require the use of manifest or secret compulsion.
2. The Islamic legislation, on the strength of the Book of God, is not in conflict with God’s principle of creation, which accounts for the fact that some people believe whereas others do not. This principle consists in leaving people free to choose for themselves the basis of examination and conviction.
3. The Islamic legislation, on the strength of the Book of God, rejects in plain and unambiguous words the use of compulsion as a means to propagate religion.
4. The Prophet of Islam was responsible towards his Lord only in so far as his missionary task was concerned. This task has been expounded in both the Meccan and Medinan parts of the Quran. It consisted in communicating the mission and admonition. He was not responsible for the conversion of people which might have induced compulsion and the use of force.
5. The Book of God, the source of the Islamic mission, does not respect faith brought about by compulsion, and it denies its having any consequence on the Day of Resurrection. How then can it enjoin compulsion or allow the use of it as a means to conversion?

Therefore, religious freedom is paramount in Islam because God can only be truly worshipped by people who freely choose Him. After establishing this important principle, the Shaykh moves on to discuss the consistency of this principle with the verses of fighting.

Understanding the Verses of Fighting

The Shaykh provides the context of the verses that discuss fighting non-Muslims, “In Mecca, the Muslims suffered for several years under the worst kinds of punishment, oppressed in their religious freedom, persecuted for the sake of the creed in which they found reassurance and terrorized with regard to their property and personal safety. For all these reasons they were compelled to emigrate. They left their dwellings and settled in Medina, patiently submitting to God’s orders and gladly accepting His authority.”

He notes that the Muslims at first were forbidden to fight against their oppressors and the Prophet used to hold them back, saying, “I have not been ordered to fight.” Finally, in Medina, the following verses were revealed giving the Muslims permission to defend themselves:

God will defend the believers; God does not love the unfaithful or the ungrateful. Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged—God has the power to help them—those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God's name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. God is sure to help those who help His cause—God is strong and —those who, when We establish them in the land, keep up the prayer, pay the prescribed alms, command what is right, and forbid what is wrong: God controls the outcome of all events. (22:38-41)

The Shaykh explains, “This permission (to fight) was motivated by the fact that the Muslims suffered injustice and were forced to emigrate and to leave their dwellings without justification.”

I say; these verses begin with God’s promise to “defend” the believers, indicating that what is discussed here is the law of self-defense. The right of self-defense is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The Shaykh points out that the right of self-defense belong not only to Muslims but to all people, as mentioned in the verse, “If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God's name is much invoked, would have been destroyed.” As such, Jews, Christians, and other people have the right to defend themselves if Muslims transgress by unlawfully attacking them.

The next verses discussed by the Shaykh are the following:

Fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not transgress: God does not love those who transgress. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them—this is what such disbelievers deserve—but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility except towards aggressors. A sacred month for a sacred month: violation of sanctity [calls for] fair retribution. So if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him as he attacked you, but be mindful of God, and know that He is with those who are mindful of Him. (2:190-194)

About these verses the Shaykh says, “They prohibit the provocation of hostility and this prohibition is reinforced by God’s repugnance of aggression and by his dislike of those who provoke hostility. Then they point out that expelling people from their homes, frightening them while they are safe, and preventing them from living peacefully without fear for their lives or possessions is persecution worse than persecution by means of murder and bloodshed.”

I say; this is how the verse was understood by the companions of the Prophet, the earliest Muslims, and popular classical authorities of Islam, as shown by the following reports:

Ibn Abbas said: “Do not kill women, children, old men, or anyone who meets you with peace restraining his hand from fighting. If you did that, then indeed you would have committed transgression.”

[Tafsir al-Tabari, verse 2:190]

Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that transgression, "includes mutilating the dead, theft, killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''

[Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 2:190] 

Some opponents of Islam cite the phrase, “Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God,” also repeated in verse 8:39, as a prescription for conquest, but as the Shaykh makes clear, this verse was revealed “so that people obtain religious freedom and are not oppressed or tortured because of their religion.” This is proven by the phrase immediately following it, “If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility except towards aggressors.”

The Shaykh reminds us, “In these verses and the principle they contain with regard to the reason and aim of fighting, there is not a single trace to be found of any idea of conversion by force. On the contrary, these verses, like the previous ones, say in plain and distinct words that the reason for which Muslims have been ordered to fight is the aggression directed against them, expulsion from their dwellings, violation of God’s sacred institutions, and attempts to persecute people for what they believe. At the same time they say that the aim upon the attainment of which Muslims must cease fighting is the termination of aggression and establishment of religious freedom devoted to God and free from any pressure or force.”

The Shaykh cites more verses that confirm this basic principle:

Why should you not fight in God's cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’? (4:75)

But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, God could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way against them. You will find others who wish to be safe from you, and from their own people, but whenever they are back in a situation where they are tempted [to fight you], they succumb to it. So if they neither withdraw, nor offer you peace, nor restrain themselves from fighting you, seize and kill them wherever you encounter them: We give you clear authority against such people. (4:90-91)

If one reads these verses carefully, the Shaykh says, “then you will realize that these verses were revealed with regard to people lawlessly practicing persecution, amongst whom the elements of depravation were so deeply rooted that they did not respect pledges anymore and that virtue became meaningless to them. There is no doubt that to fight these people, to purify the earth from them, and to put an end to their persecution is to serve the commonwealth and benefaction of mankind as a whole.”

Finally, the Shaykh explains two verses which are commonly misunderstood. In these examples, we see the importance of interpreting the Quran as a complete book rather than interpreting verses in isolation.

The first verse reads:

Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit. (9:29)

The Shaykh points out that this chapter previously stated that those groups mentioned here are aggressors, namely the Byzantine Romans, who did not honor peace treaties with the Muslims:

But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief—oaths mean nothing to them—so that they may stop. How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers. (9:12-13)

Therefore, he says, “this verse does not say that the quality of being a disbeliever constitutes a sufficient reason for fighting them.” I add; this has always been the majority position of the four orthodox Sunni schools of law:

Among the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence only one, the Shafi‘ee school, contains the view that a person’s belief can be a reason for fighting against them. This view, however, is mitigated by the fact that an opposite view, in agreement with the majority, is also attributed to Shafi‘ee.

[Jihad and the Islamic Law of War, Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, p. 36]

The prescribed tax was the method used to pacify opponents subdued in war or to ally with those who wished to be protected by the Muslim armies. The Shaykh explains, “The poll-tax is not as some people think, a sum paid in return for the right to refuse conversion to Islam or in return for their lives. It is, as we have said, a symbol of their submission (to the law) and for their desistance from fighting and impeding the Islamic mission, and a token of their participation in the affairs of the state, which grants them protection of their lives and properties.”

He proves this by citing Hanafi scholar Abu Yusuf in his Book of Taxes (Kitab al-Kharaj): “After Abu Ubayda had concluded a peace treaty with the people of Syria and had collected the poll-tax and land-tax from them, he was informed that the Romans were raising troops against him and that the situation had become critical for him and the Muslims. He then wrote to the governors of those cities with which he had concluded a treaty that they must return the poll-tax and land-tax they had collected and say to them: We return to you your property since we have been informed that troops are being raised against us. You have stipulated that we should protect you, whereas we are now unable to do so. We now return what we have taken from you, but we will abide by the stipulation and what has been written down, if God grants us victory over them.”

In this example, the Muslim leader returned the taxes he collected when he discovered he was no longer able to protect the people of Syria from the Byzantine Romans. So rather than an instrument of theft or oppression, this tax was intended to be a fair contractual relationship that Muslims were obligated to honor. In this respect, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz said, “God did not send Muhammad as a tax collector, but rather as a guide for humanity.”

The second misunderstood verse reads:

You who believe, fight the disbelievers near you and let them find you standing firm: be aware that God is with those who are mindful of Him. (9:123)

The Shaykh points out that previous verses clearly determined the reason and aim of fighting. Having been established then, this verse discusses a practical battle plan for defending against aggression already underway. The command is to fight the hostile enemies nearest to the Muslims so that the road can be cleared for use by common people. In this case, the disbelievers refer to “those hostile polytheists who fight the Muslims, commit aggression against them, expel them from their homes and property and persecute them because of their religion.”

The Shaykh concludes this section with the following points:

1. That there is not a single verse in the Quran which could support the opinion that the aim of fighting in Islam is conversion.
2. That there are only three reasons for fighting: to stop aggression, to protect the mission of Islam, and to defend religious freedom.
3. That in giving its prescriptions for fighting, the Quran did not allow greed, selfishness, and humiliation of the poor as motives for it, but intended it as an instrument for peace and tranquility and for a life founded on justice and equality.
4. That the poll-tax is not a financial compensation for the granting of one’s life or preservation of one’s own religion, but a symbol of submission (to the law) and desistance from harmful acts and a contribution in carrying the burdens of the state.

The Islamic Charter on Relations with Non-Muslims

The Shaykh reinforces his conclusions with what he describes as the “Islamic charter concerning the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.” This is the following verse:

God may still bring about affection between you and your present enemies—God is all powerful, God is most forgiving and merciful—and He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just. But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers. (60:7-9)

I say; this verse clearly distinguishes between aggressive and peaceful non-Muslims. The reason these verses were revealed was to make this distinction, as recorded in the authentic tradition:

Narrated Asma bint Abu Bakr: My mother came to me hoping (for my favor) during the lifetime of the Prophet. I asked the Prophet, “May I treat her kindly?” He replied, “Yes.” Ibn Uyaina said, “Then God revealed: He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes…” (60.8)

[Sahih Bukhari, Book 73 Number 9]

Although Mecca and Medina were not on friendly terms at the time, the Prophet gave Asma bint Abu Bakr permission to treat her polytheist mother well, knowing that she was a peaceful woman. She was not in the same category as Abu Jahl or Abu Lahab, who were the leaders of violent oppression against the new Muslim community.

In this way, the Shaykh demonstrates that the verses of forgiveness and the verses of fighting do not contradict each other nor abrogate each other. Rather, they apply to different categories of people; namely, the verses of forgiveness apply in general to all people, whereas the verses of fighting apply only to those who initiate aggression or commit crimes. He explains, “Legislation based upon consideration for different situations, and for different conditions of individuals and groups, a legislation that requires of people that they follow in every situation that which is most suitable, cannot be accused of being inconsistent or of being a legislation of which one part abrogates the other. People with common sense will consider it as a wise and very precise legislation that promotes the interest of those who fall under its authority and will realize its ultimate aim: the happiness of the individual and the community.”

The Aim of Peace and Good Will

I will mention here some additional texts which prove that the aim of fighting in Islam is the establishment of peace and religious freedom. The Holy Quran states:

But if they incline towards peace, you [Prophet] must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing. (8:61)

Ibn Kathir explains this verse by citing the following report:

Narrated Ali: The Prophet said: “After me there will be many differences, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do it.”

[Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 8:61]

As we can see, the Prophet commanded his close companion Ali, the fourth rightly guided Caliph, to seek a peaceful solution to conflicts whenever possible. This has always been the basic understanding of war in Islam. As Ibn Taymiyyah said,

Islamic warfare is always defensive, because the basis of relationships with non-Muslims is peace. If one reflects deeply on the causes of the Prophet’s military expeditions, one will find that all of them were of this type. [Majmu, Volume 8, Section 28]

That war is to be fought only as a last resort is further established by the following report:

Narrated Salim Abu An-Nadr: I was Umar's clerk. Once Abdullah bin Abi Aufa wrote a letter to Umar when he proceeded to Al-Haruriya. I read in it that God’s Messenger, in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited until the sun declined and then he got up among the people saying, “O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask God for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Then he said, "O God, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them.”

[Sahih Bukhari, Book 52 Number 266]

In general, the Prophet taught his companions to spread a climate love and harmony amongst themselves and others, and that this is done by establishing peaceful relations:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Messenger of God said: “By the One in whose Hand is my soul, you will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I tell you something which if you did you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves.”

[Sahih Muslim, Book 1 Number 96]

As such, peace treaties are sacred in Islam. The Prophet warned his companions in the strongest terms that whoever breaks his peace treaty will go to Hell:

Narrated Abdullah bin Amr: The Prophet said: “Whoever killed a person protected by a treaty shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be found at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”

[Sahih Bukhari, Book 83 Number 49] 

Furthermore, the Prophet characterized lawless killing and bloodshed as a rejection of God and His laws:

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: The Prophet said, “After me, do not become disbelievers by striking the necks of one another.”

[Sahih Bukhari, Book 83 Number 7]

For all of these reasons, Islamic legal theorists have universally accepted that the objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Sharia) are the protection of life, religion, property, family, mind, and honor. Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, one of the most brilliant Muslim thinkers in history, states that, “It is known with certainty that preservation of human life, the faculty of reason, chastity, and material possession are the intent of the Law.” [Shifa al-Ghalil]

Conclusion

Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut has proven that Islam teaches just war theory as an instrument for the maintenance of peace and human rights, specifically the rights of life, safety, and religious freedom. Islam has forbidden conversion by force and allows war only to repel aggression and injustice. The normative relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is peace and good will, as clearly stated in the Holy Quran. This has been the view of Muslims since the time of Prophet Muhammad until our time today, as demonstrated by Shaykh Shaltut, whose treatise represents the view of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious academic institution in Sunni Islam. If Muslims ever fail to live up to these ideals, it is because of their inability or unwillingness to support the Islamic mission according to the method of Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet is free from all of those who commit injustice in the name of Islam.

May God send His peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his followers altogether. Ameen.