Surah Al-Baqara (2) — Ayah 193

(Ayah 193) ➊ That is, keep fighting them until every kind of fitnah (polytheism and the oppression and persecution to force it) is completely eradicated and the religion of Allah becomes dominant in every way. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight all people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah, and establish prayer and pay zakah. Then when they do this, they have protected their blood and their wealth from me except by the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with Allah.” [ بخاری، الإیمان، باب « فإن تابوا و أقاموا… » : ۲۵ ]
➋ {اِلَّا عَلَى الظّٰلِمِيْنَ :} That is, if they desist from polytheism or from fighting the Muslims, then after that, whoever fights them will be the oppressor and he will receive the punishment for this excess. Here, the word {”عُدْوَانَ“} is used in the sense of such punishment. (Ibn Kathir) The second meaning is that if they desist from oppression, that is, polytheism, then now excess against them is not permissible, because now they are not oppressors. ‘Transgression’ refers to the excess that occurs in retaliation, as in the next verse: «فَمَنِ اعْتَدٰى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوْا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدٰى عَلَيْكُمْ» [ البقرۃ : ۱۹۴] “So whoever transgresses against you, then transgress against him in the same manner as he transgressed against you.” (Ibn Kathir)

The exegesis of this verse has been done along with the previous verse.

193. And fight them until there is no more persecution [255] and religion is for Allah alone. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the wrongdoers [256].

[255] By "fitnah" is meant every resistance and force that stands in the way of the propagation and dissemination of Islam, making it impossible to live life according to Allah's religion. From this verse, it is understood that Islam does not only advocate defensive war, but rather, it is necessary to wage offensive war against any force that becomes an obstacle in the propagation of Islam, until such obstacles are removed and Allah's religion prevails. However, those who desist from their mischief and accept to pay jizyah should not be harmed. This does not mean at all that they should be forced to accept Islam against their beliefs, religion, or faith, because no one can be compelled to accept Islam.

Is Islam a militant religion or a peace-loving one? Based on this verse and the previous one, opponents of Islam object that by making jihad obligatory, Islam has created a state of perpetual war, and therefore, it cannot be called a peace-loving religion. The Arab tribes were always at war with each other. Islam only changed the direction of their fighting from internal civil wars to the outside world, but did not change their warlike nature. Islam divided the whole world into two parts: one is Dar al-Islam, where Islamic government is established, and the other is Dar al-Harb, where non-Muslim government exists. In other words, one part is the world of Islam and the other is the world of war. Dar al-Islam is responsible for fighting against Dar al-Harb or non-Muslims and including them into Dar al-Islam, until it brings the whole world under its authority. This is the summary of the rational and textual arguments by which it can be proven that Islam is not a peace-loving or conciliatory religion, but by its nature, it wants to remain in a state of struggle at all times.

Islam Has Made a Distinction Between Polytheists and People of the Book:

Before examining this objection from different angles, two things need clarification. The first is that Islam does not treat all non-Muslims the same; rather, it has made a distinction between polytheists and the People of the Book. The slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are halal, their food is permissible, and marriage with a woman from the People of the Book is allowed, whereas nothing from the polytheists is permissible. Three conditions are presented to the People of the Book before war: the first condition is that they accept Islam, and if this is not acceptable, then they should live in Dar al-Islam as obedient subjects, enjoying religious freedom, and pay jizyah or its alternative as a defense expense. If this too is not acceptable, then the third condition is to prepare for war.

But for polytheists, there is no provision for living as obedient subjects, at least in the Hijaz. Three conditions are also presented to them, as mentioned at the beginning of Surah Tawbah: (1) accept Islam; if not, then (2) leave Dar al-Islam; and if this too is not acceptable, then (3) prepare for war. Thus, for them, condition number 2 is to leave the Hijaz, instead of living as obedient subjects.

Why the Strictness Against Polytheists?

The general definition of a polytheist is one who does not believe in any book revealed by Allah and does not have a clear belief about Allah, and associates other things in His attributes. From the above conditions, it is also clear that in the view of Islam, not all non-Muslims are the same. Islam adopts a relatively lenient attitude towards the People of the Book and is strict in the case of polytheists, and the above two verses from which this objection is derived relate to polytheists, not the People of the Book. The reason for the strictness against polytheists is that Islam is a movement that wants to eliminate fitnah, and in its view, the greatest fitnah is shirk (polytheism). Therefore, eliminating shirk is its foremost objective.

The second point to clarify is that, in terms of residence, Dar al-Islam is of three types:
1. The Haramain, i.e., the sacred precincts of Makkah and Madinah—only Muslims can reside in these places; neither polytheists nor People of the Book can reside here.
2. The Arabian Peninsula or Hijaz—here, the People of the Book can reside as treaty-bound subjects as long as they abide by their covenant. If they rebel, etc., they can be transferred to another area of Dar al-Islam. But polytheists are not tolerated in this region.
3. In the rest of Dar al-Islam, the People of the Book can live as obedient subjects with full freedom, but polytheists are tolerated only to the extent of being bearable. [اسلام كے قانون جنگ و صلح ص 148]

First Answer to the Objection: Muslims Are Naturally Peace-Loving and Conciliatory:

After these clarifications, let us now turn to the main objection. This objection is wrong for two reasons:
The first reason is that, no doubt, most Arab tribes were warlike, but not all their individuals were warlike. Rather, there was a large class among them that was the target of this killing and bloodshed. They were weak, oppressed, unarmed, and naturally hated killing, bloodshed, and oppression. Even among the nobility, there was a class that was peace-loving and hated killing and injustice. The incident of Hilf al-Fudul before the advent of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is historical evidence of this. Such people were the first to enter Islam, as evidenced by the following verses:
1. ﴿كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ﴾ [216: 2]
Fighting has been prescribed for you, and it is disliked by you.
2. ﴿يٰٓاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا مَا لَكُمْ اِذَا قِيْلَ لَكُمُ انْفِرُوْا فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ اِلَي الْاَرْضِ ﴾ [38: 9]
O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are told to go forth in the way of Allah (for jihad), you cling heavily to the earth?
The state of the Muslims' "warlikeness" in the very first battle of the Prophetic era, Badr, is described in these words:
3. ﴿كَمَا أَخْرَجَكَ رَبُّكَ مِن بَيْتِكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنَّ فَرِيقًا مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لَكَارِهُونَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ فِي الْحَقِّ بَعْدَ مَا تَبَيَّنَ كَأَنَّمَا يُسَاقُونَ إِلَى الْمَوْتِ وَهُمْ يَنظُرُونَ﴾ [6، 5: 8]
"As your Lord caused you to go forth from your home with the truth, and indeed, a group of the believers disliked it. They disputed with you concerning the truth after it had become clear, as if they were being driven to death while they were looking at it."
4. On this basis, you are commanded:
﴿ يٰٓاَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ عَلَي الْقِتَالِ ﴾ [65: 8]
"O Prophet! Encourage the believers to fight."
Consider: if the Muslims were already warlike, what need was there for these verses and commands? And these very people were the initial and precious asset of Islam. The real fact is that these early devotees of Islam were peace-loving and conciliatory. Then, when fighting was made obligatory upon them to end oppression and corruption, they undertook it, despite disliking it, as a command of Allah. However, the young and courageous class kept asking for permission to fight even in the Meccan period, but they were always advised to be patient.

Second Answer to the Objection:

The second reason for the invalidity of this objection is that only those people can be called warlike who take aggressive actions. To consider this standard, one must take a cursory look at the causes of the wars in the Prophetic era.
1. The battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq were purely defensive wars that the Muslims were compelled to fight.
2. The battles of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza, and Khaybar were all fought due to the treachery and mischief of the Jews. If they had kept their covenants, these wars would never have occurred.
3. The cause of the conquest of Makkah was the Quraysh's violation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
4. The expedition of Mu'tah and the battle of Tabuk occurred due to the killing of an envoy and for the protection of the borders, and which government remains silent over the killing of its envoy or does not send an army to protect its borders?
5. In the battles of Hunayn, Awtas, and Ta'if, the enemy itself challenged the Muslims to war, and the Prophet ﷺ borrowed cash and weapons from disbelievers while away from home to fight these wars. [موطا، ابو داؤد، باب الضمانه]
Consider: which of these wars can be called aggressive or unjust?
Now, regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, no doubt these terms were coined by the jurists of Islam, but presenting them in the sense of general Islam and general war involves several misconceptions, which are as follows:
1. Non-Muslim governments that wish to remain neutral and neither attack Muslims nor support those against Muslims—whether the government is of the People of the Book or polytheists—Islam does not permit fighting them at all. On the contrary, it supports better treatment of them. As Allah says:
﴿ لَا يَنْهيٰكُمُ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الَّذِيْنَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوْكُمْ فِي الدِّيْنِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوْكُمْ مِّنْ دِيَارِكُمْ اَنْ تَبَرُّوْهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوْٓا اِلَيْهِمْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِيْنَ﴾ [8: 60]
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes—from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

Misconceptions Regarding Dar al-Harb:

Thus, Dar al-Harb is also divided into two parts: one is the neutral area, which in reality is not Dar al-Harb, and peace-loving countries are generally neutral. Therefore, Dar al-Harb is less than half.
2. Among the remaining hostile areas, there may be countries with whom peace treaties have been concluded, and the duration of such treaties is generally ten years. As long as such countries do not break their treaties, there is absolutely no permission to fight them.
3. The difference between a state of war and the threat of war: After this, the countries that remain are in fact "Dar al-Harb," and these can only be those countries that are hostile to Muslims or support their enemies, and are not willing to make peace. Obviously, such countries are very few. But even in such countries, a "state of war" cannot be applied, because a state of war is one thing and the threat of war is another. The closest example is that of Pakistan and India. Pakistan upholds the two-nation theory, and India supports the one-nation theory. This ideological conflict has created a constant threat of war, but a state of war arises only after a long time, and that too when a country exceeds its rights. In today's civilized nations, the protection of one's interests by force is considered the greatest right. For example, recently Russia considered it its right to reach a warm-water port, so it should have dominance over Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan. But the concerned or rival countries did not consider this right legitimate and did not accept it. War broke out in Afghanistan, and for Pakistan and Iran, a state of war arose.

In What Cases Does a State of War Arise in Islam:

But Islam does not permit fighting even for such worldly and personal interests. In its view, war can be fought for the following reasons:
(1) Defensive war for the protection of life and property, which includes the protection of borders.
(2) When oppressed Muslims in any area call for help and face obstacles in fulfilling the commands of Shariah.
(3) Due to violation of treaties, breach of agreements, or the killing of an envoy—and all these are, in fact, ultimatums for war.
It was for these purposes that wars were fought in the Prophetic era, and all these are different forms of "fitnah." Not a single one of these clauses can be called a war for worldly interests. Thus, the general law for the permissibility of fighting in Islam is the eradication of oppression and fitnah. Islam has also laid down principles for waging war and for refraining from war or its impermissibility, and Muslims are always required to adhere to them. Even in the cases where Islam has permitted or commanded war, the command is not to start fighting immediately. Rather, the command is to present three conditions to the enemy. The first condition is to become Muslim and, as our brothers, keep your land and government with you. The second condition is to abandon enmity against Islam, maintain your religious freedom, and pay jizyah as a sign of obedience and for defense expenses. If this too is not acceptable, then the third and final option is war. After these limits and restrictions, does any doubt remain that Islam is a militant religion?
When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ attacked Khaybar due to the repeated breaches of covenant by the Jews, he gave the flag to Ali ؓ and said, "If even one person accepts Islam through your preaching, it is better for you than red camels." [بخاري، كتاب الجهاد۔ باب الدعاء للمشركين بالهدي ليتا لفهم]

Reasons for War:

The following conclusions are drawn from this hadith:
1. This war was fought in unavoidable circumstances, the basis of which was the repeated breaches of covenant by the Jews.
2. The purpose of Muslims in war is neither conquest nor plunder.
3. The most beloved objective for Muslims is that people accept Islam of their own free will, and if they cannot do this, then at least they should abandon enmity against Islam.
And if they cannot even do this, then as a last resort, permission for war is given, and it becomes obligatory to fight against such treacherous and stubborn people.
[256]
Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Even after such obstacles are removed or overcome, only those individuals may be punished who had gone to extremes in oppressing, torturing, and seeking to eliminate Muslims or continued to conspire against them. For example, in the Battle of Badr, the Prophet ﷺ had ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ayt and Nadr bin Harith executed among the prisoners, and the rest were released for ransom. Similarly, at the conquest of Makkah, despite the general amnesty, the Prophet ﷺ ordered four men to be killed; all four were notorious criminals. One of them was ‘Abdullah bin Khatal, who was involved in three crimes for which the punishment in Islam is death: (1) he had apostatized from Islam, (2) he had committed unjust murder, and (3) he used to satirize the Prophet ﷺ, i.e., he was guilty of blasphemy. Anas bin Malik ؓ narrates that on the day of the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet ﷺ entered Makkah wearing a helmet. When he removed the helmet, someone said: O Messenger of Allah ﷺ! ‘Abdullah bin Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka‘bah. The Prophet ﷺ said, "Kill him." [بخاري، كتاب المغازي، باب اين ركز النبى الرايه يوم الفتح]
There can be only two reasons for killing such notorious criminals in Makkah, even in the Ka‘bah: one is that perhaps this was the very moment about which the Prophet ﷺ had said, "Makkah has been made lawful for me only for a few moments," and it was sacred land before and will remain sacred land until the Day of Judgment; and the second is that even the sanctity of the Ka‘bah cannot grant refuge to such notorious criminals. «والله اعلم بالصواب»