Introduction
After the introduction and preliminary definitions, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi discusses the reality of jihad, as well as its concept and rulings.
The core issue in the first chapter is the ruling of jihad and whether it is an obligation at all times and in all situations, or whether it is an obligation only in the case of self-defense, not as in the case of preemptive jihad.
Supported by a number of scholars, many Muslims are convinced that jihad is an obligation in both self-defense and preemption, and that the imam (community leader) of the Muslims has to perform jihad at least once a year. The Sheikh took on the huge task of convincing people of an opinion that greatly differed to what the youth learn in their early years and the elderly have been adopting throughout their lives.
The Sheikh examined every aspect of Islamic jurisprudence to provide what he considers the proper opinion, then he corroborates his stance with convincing evidence. Before delving into this important issue, he concentrates on some of the definitions related to the fiqh of jihad, because a precise understanding of these definitions leads to the correct understanding of this issue.
Difference Between Jihad and Fighting
Many people and scholars are confused about the difference between jihad and fighting. Every time the word jihad is mentioned it is misunderstood and thought to mean fighting or engaging in battle. In fact, jihad has a broader and more comprehensive meaning than simply fighting, which is only one type of jihad. The comprehensive meaning of jihad extends to spending one's wealth, to jihad by the word, internal jihad, and so on.
The term jihad has a broader meaning than fighting
Expanding the meaning of jihad and not confining it to "fighting" provides every Muslim, male or female, capable or incapable, with the opportunity to play an important role in the realm of jihad.
The Sheikh says, "So, we see that the term jihad has a broader meaning than fighting, even though it has been established in the convention of Islamic jurisprudence that it means fighting. That is what has been normally acceptable and it is not subject to contention."
Although the term comprises one's personal struggle, jihad against oneself and against Satan, one's jihad by calling for virtue and prohibiting vice, speaking the truth to a despotic ruler, and so on, Jihad also involves fighting for Allah's sake.
Scholars have juristically designated it as "Legitimate fighting against the disbelievers or aggressors." Some scholars defined it as "Calling people to the right religion and fighting against those who do not accept it." Others defined it as, "Exertion of all effort and capability in fighting for Allah's sake, whether physically, by spending from one's wealth, by opinion, by speech, or by adding to the magnitude of the Muslims' militant power, and so on."
If the distinction between these two types of jihad is not clearly understood, Muslims will be led to error.
This last definition is probably the most acceptable as it includes most of the types of jihad referred to in the Noble Qur'an and Sunnah. Moreover, the definition does not confine jihad to fighting the disbelievers, but it also comprises all those who reject a well-established ritual of Islam such as ritual Prayer, zakah, prohibition of riba, adultery, and drinking alcohol.
Defensive Jihad and Preemptive Jihad
If the distinction between these two types of jihad is not clearly understood, Muslims will be led to error. The Sheikh defines defensive jihad as resisting the enemy that enters a Muslim land, and occupies part of it, regardless of how small this area is; or the enemy that launches an assault against Muslim lives, property, or sanctities even without entering or actually occupying their land.
Jihad is necessary against those who persecute Muslims because of their faith, or those who plot to dissuade Muslims away from their faith or deprive them of their right to choose their own religion, or force them to renounce it through harm and torture.
On the other hand, preemptive jihad is directed against the enemy whom Muslims pursue and target in their own land, in order to expand and secure the land of Islam.
In this case, we surprise the enemy before the enemy surprises us. We may do that to enable the enemy to listen to the new call of Islam as these barriers must be removed to enable Muslims to convey Allah's call to all people, or to liberate nations from the tyrants who dominate and harm them.
Jihad Ruling: Obligatory or Voluntary?
After the introduction, the Sheikh defines the ruling on the important issue of jihad. In doing so, the Sheikh presents the views of early jurists before offering his own opinion in order to avoid being accused of disbelief. Some Muslims believe that any unique opinion is an innovation and that all innovations are false.
Opinion of Imam Al-Jassass
The Sheikh cites the statements of Imam Al-Jassass concerning the tafseer (exegesis of Qur'an and Sunnah) and related rulings of Ibn Shubruma, Al-Thawry, and others that jihad is voluntary and not obligatory. The same view is said to be shared by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar and 'Amr ibn Dinar. After Al-Jassass discusses this view, he says,
It is believed by all Muslims that if the inhabitants on the frontier with the enemy fear being attacked and they do not have the means of resistance and they are concerned about their lands, their lives, and their offspring, jihad becomes obligatory on the entire Muslim Ummah (nation). The enemies must be fought so that the Muslims can be saved from their aggression. This is a matter of consensus among the whole Ummah. No Muslim has ever said it is permissible to let the enemy shed Muslim blood or capture Muslim offspring. However, the point of disagreement among them is, "If there is adequate Muslim resistance and the Muslims do not fear being defeated, can the Muslims stop their jihad until the enemies surrender or pay the jizyah?" Ibn `Umar, `Atta', `Amr ibn Dinar, and Ibn Shubruma say that the imam and the Muslims may stop fighting the enemy and wait.
There are others who say that the Imam and Muslims must invade them at all times until they either embrace Islam or pay the jizyah. This is the view of our contemporary jurists as well as the predecessors we have already mentioned: Al-Miqdad ibn Al-Aswad, Abu Talhah, and other Companions and the first generation after Prophet Muhammad.
The Sheikh comments on the foregoing by saying, "It is not only our right but our duty to highlight the importance of such views, which Imam Al-Jassass cited from some of the Ummah's jurists, including the Companions, such as Ibn `Umar, and the first generation after Prophet Muhammad, such as `Ataa' and `Amr ibn Dinar, and imams such as Al-Thawry and Ibn Shubruma, stating that it is the Muslims' duty to invade the disbelievers even if they are protected against them. Jihad is necessary when their evil and aggression against the Muslims is feared."
Opinion of Imam Abu Ja`far An-Nahas
The Sheikh then mentions the opinion of Abu Ja`far An-Nahas concerning the abrogating and the abrogated verses when Almighty Allah's words are interpreted:
(Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it.) (Al-Baqarah 2:216)
Then, he cites all the relevant views of the predecessors and discusses them one by one.
A group of people say, "This verse abrogates disallowing fighting against them since they were ordered to be tolerant and forgiving in Makkah." Another group says, "It is abrogated." They say the same about Almighty Allah's words
(Go you forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah.) (At-Tawbah 9:41)
The abrogating verse is
(Nor should the believers all go forth together: If a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion and admonish the people when they return to them — that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil).) (At-Tawbah 9:122)
A third group says, "It is recommended, not obligatory." A fourth group says, "It is obligatory, and jihad is an obligation." `Ataa' says, "It is obligatory for others, not for us," meaning it was addressed to the Companions.
Abu Ja`far says that there are five views on this issue. Then, he chose to call it an abrogating verse, and that jihad is an obligation which must be performed.
Opinion of Al-Hafez Ibn Hajar
After jihad was legislated, was it an individual or a collective duty?
As far as people are concerned, jihad applies to two cases; one was in the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and a second after his death.
The first case was when jihad was legislated: after the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) Hijrah (emigration from Makkah) to Madinah by consensus. However, after jihad was legislated, was it an individual or a collective duty? There are two well-known scholarly opinions in this respect. They both pertain to the Shafi`i school of fiqh.
Al-Mawardy said, "It was an individual duty imposed on the emigrants from Makkah, and no one else." He corroborates this view by referring to the obligation of emigration to Madinah on every Muslim convert before the conquest of Makkah to defend Islam."
Al-Suhaily says, "It was an individual obligation imposed on the Ansar (Muslims of Madinah) and no one else." He corroborates this view by their pledging allegiance to Allah's messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) on the night of Al-'Aqaba, promising to shelter and protect him. From these two sayings we conclude that it was an individual obligation for both parties and a collective duty for the others. However, generalization is not applicable to both parties. It was the duty of the Ansar if an enemy attacks Madinah, and it was the duty of the emigrants if it was a preemptive war against the disbelievers. This is supported by the event of Badr as related by Ibn Ishaq, which is explicitly indicative in this respect.
The second case is as follows: After the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), passed away the most famous opinion is that jihad is a collective duty unless there is a necessity, like when the enemy launches an attack. It is imposed on whoever is assigned by the Imam. It is the view of the majority of jurists that a collective duty must be carried out once a year. Their argument is based on the fact that jizyah may replace it and they agree that it should not be paid more that once a year. This also applies to its replacement.
There is an overriding saying, that jihad is an obligation whenever possible. The ruling of jihad continued as it had been at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) till the conquest of most countries was completed, and Islam had spread in most parts of the world. At that time, its ruling changed to the views mentioned above.
It is the duty of each Muslim to do one of the kinds of jihad against the disbelievers; whether it is physical jihad, jihad by speech, jihad by spending from one's wealth, or jihad by the heart.