Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) of Qadian, the man who claimed under Divine revelations that he is the long- awaited Messiah of the Latter Days and the Mujaddid and ‘Imam Mahdi’ of the 14th century of Islam, lived his life at a very significant period in world history (1835-1908 AD; 1250-1326 AH). The times witnessed a great political transition in India and elsewhere, with the decline and fall of the mighty Mughal Empire (1526-1857) and the simultaneous rise and rise of the British colonial suzerainty over the whole subcontinent (1857-1947) as well as other regions/nations around the world. As it happened, the Christian-missionary activities among the Muslim peoples became yet another front in the larger battle of the European imperial powers in Asia and Africa for land, riches and souls. Hence, the world of religious debates also became a battle field, with Islam coming under relentless attack at the hands of an ascendant Christianity. Hence, along with the political flux, also came profound questions of spiritual doctrine and of practical significance for the Muslims of the day.
The debate around the doctrine of Jihad in Islam is fairly representative of the kind of issues and concerns that characterized the Muslim-Christian encounter in the colonial era in India. Against the backdrop of the anti-Muslim rhetoric by the Christian missionaries in India, there were incidents of violence involving such preachers, and those who attacked them were apparently motivated by religious hate. There are searing ironies in the whole episode: the Christian missionaries, in their zeal for tarnishing the fair name and image of Islam, propagated a false doctrine of Jihad among the ignorant masses, whereby they claimed that it is obligatory for Muslims to kill disbelievers/enemies. Certain Muslim divines, without a deeper examination of all issues, also agreed with this false notion of Jihad that legitimated extreme intolerance and indiscriminate violence against all non-Muslims. The expressions of bigotry and senseless acts of violence against innocent victims is often directly linked to the myth-making around Jihad.
The debate around the doctrine of Jihad in Islam is fairly representative of the kind of issues and concerns that characterized the Muslim-Christian encounter in the colonial era in India. Against the backdrop of the anti-Muslim rhetoric by the Christian missionaries in India, there were incidents of violence involving such preachers, and those who attacked them were apparently motivated by religious hate. There are searing ironies in the whole episode: the Christian missionaries, in their zeal for tarnishing the fair name and image of Islam, propagated a false doctrine of Jihad among the ignorant masses, whereby they claimed that it is obligatory for Muslims to kill disbelievers/enemies. Certain Muslim divines, without a deeper examination of all issues, also agreed with this false notion of Jihad that legitimated extreme intolerance and indiscriminate violence against all non-Muslims. The expressions of bigotry and senseless acts of violence against innocent victims is often directly linked to the myth-making around Jihad.
Several
learned Muslim scholars during the period wrote treatises against the
widespread distortions and grave misunderstandings that characterized
the popular concept of ‘Jihad’. For instance, Maulvi Chiragh Ali
of Hyderabad (1844-1895) wrote the classic ‘A
Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad’, setting
forth the historic/persecuted circumstances of the early Muslim
community forming the actual context of the Qur’anic verses
concerning Jihad. He wrote:
‘...A
cruel or revengeful tyrant may not be justified in taking up arms in
his own defence, or in seeking to redress his personal wrongs and
private injuries; but the whole Muslim community at Makkah was
outraged, persecuted and expelled- and the entire Muhammadan
commonwealth at Madina was attacked, injured and wronged- their
natural rights and privileges were disregarded- after such miseries
the Muslims took up arms to protect themselves from the hostilities
of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were justified by
every law and justice’. (A
Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad, p.
xxiv-xxv, Delhi: Idarah-i-Adabiyati Dilli, written in 1885; reprint 1984)
Likewise,
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), the illustrious founder of the
Aligarh Muslim University and a towering Muslim personality of the
age, also wrote extensively to elucidate the true concept of Jihad in
Islam. He emphatically asserted that ‘as long as the Muslims can
affirm their faith in One God and preach it in peace, the religion
does not permit them to rise against the rulers irrespective of their
faith or race’.
Further,
he avers that ‘Islam admits
no
scope for mischief, treachery, mutiny or rebellion. In fact,
whosoever guarantees peace and security, he be a believer or
disbeliever, is entitled to Muslim gratitude and obedience’.
Following
in this great tradition of Islamic scholarship in India, Al Imam Al Mahdi
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) explained the true conception of
Jihad in numerous writings, including the profound mistakes that have crept into a proper
appreciation of it in popular mindset. Speaking about the history and philosophy of Jihad
with the Sword, the Promised Messiah (as) writes:
‘The
philosophy of Jihad and its true significance is so recondite and
profound a matter that the people of this age and those of the middle
ages have committed grave mistakes on account of their failure to
understand it, which has rendered the teachings of Islam open to the
criticism of its opponents, whereas Islam is a holy religion which is
a mirror of the law of nature and manifests the glory of God.
The
root of the Arabic word Jihad means striving and has been
metaphorically applied to fighting in the cause of religion….
Why
did Islam have to resort to fighting and what is the purpose of
Jihad? With the very birth of Islam it was confronted with great
difficulties and all peoples conceived enmity against it. It has
always been the case that on the advent of a Prophet or a Messenger
his opponents, perceiving that his followers are a company of
earnest, righteous and courageous people who are likely to march
forward quickly, begin to entertain rancour and jealousy
against
them. More particularly is that the case with the divines and leaders
of every religion.... They begin to devise projects to harm the new
faith. Very often they feel in their hearts that by persecuting a
righteous one of God they have become subject to God’s wrath and
their wrongful conduct also betrays that their hearts feel guilty,
yet the fierce fire of jealousy drives them into the pits of enmity.
These were the causes which not only prevented the leaders of the
polytheists and the Jews and the Christians from accepting the truth,
but also incited them to bitter enmity and they began to consider
means of wiping out Islam from the face of the earth.
As
in the beginning the number of Muslims was small, their opponents,
out of the natural arrogance which inspires the minds of people who
consider themselves superior to the followers of the new faith in
respect of wealth, numbers, esteem and rank, treated the Muslims with
bitter hostility as they did not desire that Islam, the heavenly
plant, should take root upon the earth. They put forth their utmost
effort to destroy the righteous and left out no means of causing them
hurt. They were afraid lest the new religion should become firmly
established and its progress might ruin their own religion and
culture. Out of this fear, which terrified their hearts, they had
recourse to every type of coercion and cruelty in the attempt to
destroy Islam. They killed Muslims savagely and during a long period
which extended over thirteen years, they persisted in this form of
persecution.
The
swords of these wild beasts cut to pieces most cruelly the faithful
servants of God who were the pride of mankind; and orphan children
and weak and humble women were slaughtered in the streets of Mecca.
Throughout this period it was the Divine command that evil should not
be
opposed
and the righteous ones carried out the command in every case. The
streets became red with their blood but they raised no cry. They were
slaughtered like sacrificial lambs but they breathed no sigh. The
Holy Messenger of God, upon whom be the endless peace of heaven and
earth, was repeatedly made the target of stones that drew his blood;
yet that mountain of truth and steadfastness bore all these torments
with a cheerful and loving heart. This attitude of humility and
steadfastness encouraged their enemies to intensify their persecution
and they made this holy community their quarry. Then God who does not
permit that cruelty and mercilessness should exceed all bounds turned
with compassion towards His persecuted servants and His wrath was
kindled against the wicked, and He informed His servants through the
Holy Qur’an that He was a witness to everything that had been
inflicted upon them and that He now gave them permission to oppose
their opponents and that He was Mighty and would not leave the
wrongdoers
unpunished. This was the commandment which was designated Jihad. The
original text of this commandment is there in the Holy Qur’an,
which is as follows:
‘Permission
to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they
have been wronged—and Allah indeed has the power to help them.
Those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly…’—Al-Hajj,
22:40-41.
---[Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Government Angrezi Aur Jihad, pp. 3-6, written in 1900. ]
'The Holy Qur’an clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and the good example of the Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. That sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self-defence against the enemies of Islam and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith'. (Sitarah Qaisariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 15, p. 120-121, 1899)
---[Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Government Angrezi Aur Jihad, pp. 3-6, written in 1900. ]
'The Holy Qur’an clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and the good example of the Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. That sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self-defence against the enemies of Islam and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith'. (Sitarah Qaisariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 15, p. 120-121, 1899)
Taking
Up Arms Against a Just Non-Muslim Government is not Permitted
'It
should also be remembered that Islam permits the taking up of the
sword only in opposition to people who themselves take it up first,
and it permits the slaughter only of those who embark upon slaughter
first. It does not lay down that the Muslims while they are the
subjects of a non-Muslim sovereign who deals with them with justice
and equity should take up arms against him as rebels. According to
the Holy Qur’an this is the way of the wicked and not of the
righteous. But the Torah has not made this distinction clear at any
place. This shows that the Holy Qur’an in all its commandments,
whether of majesty or of beauty, adheres to the straight line of
equity, justice, mercy and beneficence and is unique in this respect
also among all the scriptures'. [Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Anjam-e-Atham, Ruhani Khaza’in,
vol. 11, p. 37]
In a poem, Hadhrat Ahmad (as) speaks about the futility of force in the Way of the Divine:
(Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, Ruhani Khaza’in,vol. 15, p. 132, 1902)
In a poem, Hadhrat Ahmad (as) speaks about the futility of force in the Way of the Divine:
My dear! The way to support faith is quite different!
Not that you draw the sword if someone disagrees!
Why do you need to draw the sword to support your faith;
What survives on bloodshed cannot be faith.
(Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, Ruhani Khaza’in,vol. 15, p. 132, 1902)