It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. Reported by Bukhari and Muslim
Perhaps no other authentic hadith has been employed to justify violence as this has been employed. Similarly, no other authentic hadith has been cited as much as this in accusing Islam of being a religion of violence that spread by the sword. This hadith has caused much confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The isnad (chain of narrators) of this hadith is agreed upon, and it has been narrated from numerous isnads. Among them are by Ibn ‘Umar, Anas Ibn Masood, Abdullah ibn ‘Amr Ibn al-Aas and the narrations on Abu Huraira exceed 30. Despite the observations by Ibn Hajar on the isnād of this hadith in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, they do not detract from the authenticity of the hadith.
The problems in this hadith are crystallised in two points:
Its clear contradiction with several verses of the Qur’an that guarantee the freedom of religion for non-Muslims, such as the verse: “Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)…” [18: 29], and “To you be your Way, and to me mine.” [109: 6], and “Thy duty is but to convey (the Message)” [42: 48], and “Thou art not one to manage (men’s) affairs.” [88: 22].
Its legalisation of starting a war for the mere fact that the fighters are not Muslims, and therefore permitting jihad in a manner contrary to the explicit verse in the Qur’an, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.” [2: 190].
Researchers in the interpretation of Muslim scholars concerning this hadith and their recommendations have long opposed the stance prevailing among advocates of contemporary jihadist movements who employ this hadith to justify their unruly and destructive agendas. Their interpretations contradict the correct and explicit understanding of the Muslim scholars, led by the Four Imams. The Four Imams are agreed that the text of the hadith is general yet it carries a specific meaning, i.e. that although the words present an open address, the meaning is intended for a specific group of people and not the general population. The intended meaning is that it addresses the disbelievers among the Quraysh who showed open hostility towards the Apostle and invested all efforts and energies to fight and try to eradicate his religion, i.e. Islam. For this reason, he was ordered to fight them in defence of the religion and its followers. The hadith is not intended as a command to the Prophet to fight all nations until they believe. Evidence of the specific meaning of this generally phrased hadith is its similitude to the use of the terms al-Nas (people) in the verse, “Men said to them: “A great army is gathering against you” [3: 173]. The unanimously agrees upon interpretation of the first reference to ‘Men’ is a single person, namely, the companion Naim Ibn Masood Althaqafi in the Battle of the Confederates when discord was inflicted between the combined armies that surrounded Medina to fight the Muslims.
On this hadith, a beautiful explanation was offered by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that the hadith should not be taken to mean that the Prophet was commanded to fight all the servants of Allah to force them into his religion. Rather, the hadith is a deceleration of war on all those who sought to kill the Prophet and put an end to his message. The hadith is a statement on the extent to which the Prophet must continue to fight those who fight him, which is until this enter into Islam or stop their aggression against Muslims. Ibn Taymiyyah and a large number of Muslim scholars compiled evidence to demonstrate this beautiful understanding of this hadith. Among such evidence is when the Prophet, upon the conquest of Makkah, granted safety to all those who entered their homes and locked their doors. He did not impose Islam on any of them in spite of their defeat. What’s more, the Prophet sought the assistance of some of them in the Hanin War in Hanin as was the case when Safwan ibn Umayyah borrowed armour from the Messenger of Allah while still in a state of disbelief.
It is evident from this explanation that the use of this hadith by certain advocates of jihad to justify their attacks in Western countries and to justify their jihadist manifesto does not rest on the correct understanding of this hadith. Rather, the genuine meaning of the hadith advocates for the tolerance of Islam and the prohibition of aggression whatever the cause.
*Dr.Tarik Ladjal is Professor of History at Effat University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
