A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 12/90

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[Sidenote 90. The Common Law and Jihad.]

All the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only in self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that they were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered positive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for coming generations.[1] They were only temporary measures to meet the emergency of the aggressive circumstances. The Mohammadan Common Law is wrong on this point, where it allows unbelievers to be attacked without provocation. But this it places under the category of a non-positive injunction. A positive injunction is that which is incumbent on every believer. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or offensively, is not incumbent on every believer. The Hedaya has:—"The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one "party" or tribe of Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest."[2]


Footnotes[edit]

  1. Ata, a learned legist of Mecca, who flourished at the end of the first century of the Hegira, and held a high rank there as a juris-consult, (vide para. 112) held, that Jihad was only incumbent on the Companions of the Prophet, and was not binding on any one else after them. See para. 112, and Tafsír Majma-ul-Bayán by Tabrasee under Sura II. 212.
  2. The Hedaya or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 140 London, MDCCXCI.