*Selections from the Munir Report (1954)*
a.) Earlier we have pointed out that one of the doctrines on which the Musalmans and Ahmadis are at variance is that of jihad. This doctrine at once raises a host of other allied matters such as the meanings of ghazi, shahid, jihad.bis-sail, jihad fi sabili'llah, dar-ul-Islam, dar-ul-harb, hijrat, ghanima, khums, and slavery, and the conflict or reconciliation of these conceptions with modern international problems such as aggression, genocide, international criminal jurisdiction, international conventions, and rules of public international law.
b.) An Islamic State is dar-ul-Islam, namely, a country where the ordinances of Islam are established and which is under the rule of a Muslim sovereign. Its inhabitants are Muslims and also non-Muslims who have submitted to Muslim control and who, under certain restrictions and without the possibility of full citizenship, are guaranteed their lives and property by the Muslim State. They must, however, be people of Scriptures and may not be idolaters. An Islamic State is in theory perpetually at war with the neighbouring non-Muslim country, which at any time may become dar-ul-harb, in which case it is the duty of the Muslims of that country to leave it and to come over to the country of their brethren in faith.
We put this aspect to Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, and reproduce his views: --
"Q.-- Is a country on the border of dar-ul-Islam always qua an Islamic State in the position of dar-ul-harb?
A.-- No. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the Islamic State will be potentially at war with the non-Muslim neighbouring country. The non-Muslim oountry acquires the status of dar-ul-harb only after the Islamic State declares a formal war against it."
According to Ghias-ul-Lughat, dar-ul-harb is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam, and the consequences of a country becoming dar-ul-harb are thus stated in the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam: --
"When a country does become a dar-ul-harb, it iz the duty of all Muslims to withdraw from it, and a wife who refuses to accompany her husband in this, is ipso facto divorced."
Thus in case of a war between India and Pakistan, if the latter is an Islamic State, we must be prepared to receive forty million Muslims from across the border into Pakistan. In fact, Maulana Abdul Haamid Badayuni, President, Jami'at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, thinks that a case for hijrat already exists for the Musalmans of India. The following is his view on this subject: --
"Q.-- Do you call your migration to Pakistan as hijrat in the religious sense?
c.) We shall presently point out why :Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's version of the doctrine of jihad is relied on as a ground for his and his community's kufr, but before we do that it is necessary first to state how jihad has been or is understood by the Musalmans. There are various theories about jihad, which vary from the crude notion of a megalomaniac moved by religious frenzy going out armed with a sword and indiscriminately slaughtering non-Muslims in the belief that if he dies in the combat he becomes a shahid and if he succeeds in killing attains the status of a ghazi, to the conception that a Musalman throughout his life is pitted against kufr, kufr here being used in the sense of evil and wrong, and that his principal activity in life is to strive by argument and where necessary by force to spread Islam until it becomes a world religion. In the latter case he fights not for any personal end, but because he considers such strife as a duty and an obligation which he owes to Allah, and the only recompense for which is the pleasure of Allah.
The Shorter Encyclopredia of Islam contains the following brief article on djihad: --
"DJIHAD (A), holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth rukn, or fundamental duty, and is indeed still so regarded by the descendants of the Kharidjis. This position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Suras of the Quran, patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Medina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans.
Whether Muhammad himself recognised that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Traditions are explicit on the point; but the Qur'anic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed immediately after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a fard ala'l-kifaya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual, but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number.
So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. It must be controlled or headed by a Muslim sovereign or imam. As the imam of the Shias is now invisible, they cannot have a djihad until he reappears. Further, the requirement will be met if such a sovereign makes an expedition once a year, or, even, in the later view, if he makes annual preparation for one. The people against whom the djihad is directed must first be invited to embrace Islam. On refusal they have another choice. They may submit to Muslim rule, become dhimmis (q. v.) and pay djizya and kharadj (q. v.), or fight. In the first case, their lives, families and property are assured to them, but they have a definitely inferior status, with no technical citizenship, and a standing only as protected wards. If they fight, they and their families may be enslaved, and all their property seized as booty, fourfifths of which goes to the conquering army.
If they embrace Islam, and it is open to them to do so even when the armies are face to face, they become part of the Muslim community with all its rights and duties. Apostates must be put to death. But if a Muslim country is invaded by unbelievers, the imam may issue a general summons calling all Muslims there to arms, and as the danger grows so may be the width of the summons, until the whole Muslim world is involved. A Muslim who dies fighting in the path of Allah (fi sabi Allah) is a martyr (shahid) and is assured of Paradise and of peculiar privileges there.
Such a death was, in the early generations, regarded as the peculiar crown of a pious life. It is still, on occasions, a strong incitement, but when Islam ceased to conquer it lost its supreme value. Even yet, however, any war between Muslims and nonMuslims must be a djihad with its incitements and rewards. Of course, such modern movements as the so-called Mu'tazili in India and the Young Turk in Turkey reject this, and endeavour to explain away its basis; but the Muslim masses still follow the unanimous voice of the canon lawyers.. Islam must be completely made over before the doctrine of djihad can be eliminated."
d.) The generally accepted view is that the fifth verse to Sura-i-Tauba (Sura IX) abrogated the earlier verses revealed in Mecca which permitted the killing of kuffar only in self-defence. As against this, the Ahmadis believe that no verse in the Qur an was abrogated by another verse, and that both sets of verses, namely, the Meccan verses and the relative verses in Sura-i-Tauba, have different scopes and can stand together. This introduces the difficult controversy of nasikh and mansukh, with all its implications.
It is argued on behalf of the Ahmadis that the doctrine of nasikh and mansukh is opposed to the belief in the existence of an original Scripture in Heaven, and that implicit in this doctrine is the admission that unless the verse alleged to be repealed was meant for a specific occasion and by the coming of that occasion fulfilled its purpose and thus spent itself, God did not know of the subsequent circumstances which would make the earlier verse inapplicable or lead to an undesired result.
The third result of this doctrine, it is pointed out, cuts at the very root of the claim that laws of Islam are immutable and inflexible, because if changed circumstances made a new revelation necessary, any change in the circumstances subsequent to the completion of the revelation would make most of the revelation otiose or obsolete.
We are wholly incompetent to pronounce on the merits of this controversy, but what has to be pointed out is the result to which the doctrine of jihad will lead if, as appears from the article in the Shorter Encyclopredia of Islam and other writings produced before us, including one by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi and another by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, it involves the spread of Islam by arms and conquest. 'Aggression' and 'genocide' are now offences against humanity for which, under sentences pronounced by different International tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokio, the war lords of Germany and Japan had to forfeit their lives; and there is hardly any difference between the offences of aggression and genocide on the one hand, and the doctrine of spread of Islam by arms and conquest on the other.
An International Convention on genocide is about to be concluded[ but if the view of jihad presented to us is correct, Pakistan cannot be a party to it. And while the following verses in the Mecca Suras: --
Sura II, verses 190 and 193:contain in them the sublime principle which international jurists have only faintly begun to discover, we must go on preaching that aggression is the ehief characterestic of Islam.
190. "Fight in the Cause of God
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;
For God loveth not transgressors."
193. "And fight them on
Until there is no more
Tumult or oppression,
And there prevail
Justice and faith in God;
But if they cease,
Let there be no hostility
Except to those
Who practise oppression."
Sura XXII, verses 39 and 40:
39. "To those against whom
War is made, permission
Is given (to fight) because
They are wronged;-- and verily,
God is most Powerful
For their aid;-"
40. "(They are) those who have
Been expelled from their homes
In defiance of right,-
(For no cause) except
That they say, 'Our Lord
Is God.' Did not God
Check one set of people
By means of another,
There would surely have been
Pulled down monasteries, churches,
Synagogues, and mosques, in which
The name of God is commemorated
In abundant measure. God will
Certainly aid those who
Aid His (cause);--for verily
God is Full of Strength,
Exalted in Might,
(Able to enforce His Will),"
e.) The law relating to prisoners of war is another branch of Islamic law which is bound to come in conflict with International Law. As for instance, in matters relating to the treatment of prisoners of war, we shall have to be governed by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi's view, assuming that view is based on the Qur'an and the sunna, which is as follows: --
"Q.-- Is there a law of war in Islam?
Q.-- Does it differ fundamentally from the modern International Law of war?
A.-- These two systems are based on a fundamental difference.
Q.-- What rights have non-Muslims who are taken prisoners of war in a jihad? "
A .-- The Islamic law on the point is that if the country of which these prisoners are nationals pays ransom, they will be released. An exchange of prisoners is also permitted. If neither of these alternatives is possible, the prisoners will be converted into slaves forever. If any such person makes an ofler to pay his ransom out of his own earnings, he will be permitted to collect the money necessary for the fidya (ransom).
Q.-- Are you of the view that unless a Government assumes the form of an Islamic Government, any war declared by it is not a jihad?
A.-- No. A war may be declared to be a jihad if it is declared by a national Government of Muslims in the legitimate interests of the State. I never expressed the opinion attributed to me in Exhibit D. E. 12: -- [the Urdu text given in transliteration is omitted here]:'The question remains whether, even if the Government of Pakistan, in its present form and structure, terminates her treaties with the Indian Union and declares war against her, this war would fall under the definition of jihad. The opinion expressed by him in this behalf is quite correct. Until such time as the Government becomes Islamic by adopting the Islamic form of Government, to call any of its wars a jihad would be tantamount to describing the enlistment and fighting of a non-Muslim on the side of the Azad Kashmir forces jihad, and his death martyrdom. What the Maulana means is that in the presence of treaties, it is against Shari'at if the Government or its people participate in such a war. If the Government terminates the treaties and declares war, even then the war started by Government would not be termed jihad unless the Government becomes Islamic'.
About the view expressed in this letter being that of Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, there is the evidence of Mian Tufail Muhammad, the writer of the letter, who states: "Exhibit D. E. 12 is a photostat copy of a letter which I wrote to someone whose name I do not now remember."
Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri's view on this point is as follows:
"Q.-- Is there a law of war in Islam?
Q.-- Does it differ in fundamentals from the present International Law?
Q.-- What are the rights of a person taken prisoner in war?
A.-- He can embrace Islam or ask for aman, in which case he will be treated as a musta'min. If he does not ask for aman, he would be made a slave."
f.) Similar is the opinion expressed by Mian Tufail Muhammad of'Jama'at-i-Islami who says: --
"Q.-- Is there any law of war in Islamic laws?
Q.-- If that comes into conflict with Intemational Law, which will you follow?
A.-- Islamic law.
Q.-- Then please state what will be the status of prisoners of war captured by your forces.
A .--I cannot reply to this off hand. I will have to study the point."
Of course ghanima (plunder) and klums (one-fifth) if treated as a necessary incident of jihad, will be treated by international society as a mere act of brigandage.
On to: *11) Reaction on Muslims of non-Muslim states*