On International Relations             The summons to Islam began secretly. When publicized, it aroused a great deal of controversy, resulting in the persecution of Muslims. The Prophet then suggested that his embattled followers migrate to Abyssinia, which they did, thus inaugurating the earliest international relations of the Muslims.       Muhammad remained in Mecca, an outcast, preaching the way of God with wisdom and fair exhortation, and the Hashimites and Muttalibites took refuge in a valley in Mecca, where they remained until the boycott instituted against them by the Meccan leaders was lifted.       There followed a period of calm during which the people from the valley and the emigrants in Abyssinia, men, women, and children, returned to Mecca on the assumption that they would receive shelter. But matters became worse once more, and the Prophet ordered them to migrate for the second time to Abyssinia, where, even in exile, they met with new dangers. For Quraysh again sent emissaries, headed by Amr ibn-al-'As, 1 bearing gifts to the Negus (emperor) and to the Abyssinians in order to persuade them to extradite the emigrants. The Muslims defended themselves by resorting to reason and clung to the right of protection for refugees, thus establishing their first relationship as a separate entity between the nation of Muhammad and Abyssinia.      Soon after Muhammad arrived in Yathrib, where he found the emigrants who had preceded him and the Helpers who had offered him their support, he concluded his first agreement as leader of the Islamic state, between Muslims on the one hand and Jews and polytheists on the other. 2 The Pact of Yathrib is one of the most valuable international agreements ever concluded by a state. It deserves analysis and evaluation, for it may serve as a lantern for Muslims, casting light on the fundamentals governing relationships between themselves and members of differing religious communities. With this covenant, the Muslims became a nation and the Islamic state was born.        The Pact amounted to an agreement for peaceful coexistence, a defensive alliance for cooperation against aggression that sought to protect a group of small states, each enjoying under the provisions of the Pact control over its own people and freedom to preach its own religion. The signatories guaranteed to aid one another and to protect each other's beliefs against anyone who wished to bring harm upon their lands and peoples. Thus, they guaranteed freedom of belief and freedom of preaching to members of the Pact, despite the diversity of their beliefs.       With this covenant, the foundations of the Muslim state were laid. All Muslims became subjects of this state, despite differences in race and tribe. From tribal leaders down to associates (mawali), all formed a single nation distinct from all others. Through the Pact, this nation bound itself with nations adhering to alien creeds, and there emerged a "league of nations," formed to aid the oppressed, to give proper counsel for peace, and to respect the sanctity of the Muslim nation and of those who were party to the Pact and accepted the security it provided. The purpose was to safeguard the beliefs and sentiments of the signatories and their freedom to propagate their religion irrespective of differences. It was a covenant between Islamic peoples and Jews and even pagans, for in Yathrib at that time dwelt many idol worshipers who joined the Pact and thereby became another link in the chain. If there had been Christians in Yathrib then, they would not have been excluded. With the conclusion of this agreement, Islam anticipated the modern era of the League of Nations and the United Nations by more than thirteen centuries.        Before the alliance was established, there was a period of mutual defense against persecution and oppression lasting some fourteen years. Unrestrained by the benevolent preaching of the Muslims or by their conciliatory and merciful attitude, and notwithstanding blood kinship and the fact that the Muslims had peaceably abandoned their homes, Quraysh and its allies employed all the tools of malice and tyranny to strike at the Muslims possessions and honor, tearing them apart and scattering them far and wide. For years the Muslims refused to retaliate, and called for the judgment of reason, for sanity as opposed to error; they did not favor returning force for force or resorting to compulsion.     But when the Muslims were rapidly approaching the peak of persecution and destruction, they received God's permission to join battle. War was sanctioned for self-defense, their nation, and their freedom of belief. The decision of God came down in these verses:      Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah-For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty-[We will give victory to] those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor tax and enjoin kindness and forbid iniquity. 3        By means of this Pact, the Prophet paved the way for a world order and laid a new basis for international relations, for the alliance was concluded on the basis of freedom, in dependence, and mutual security for all the signatories. Then God sent down His sanction of war for noble and limited purposes. Certain of these decrees, such as those concerned with repulsion of aggression and the prevention of tyranny, are negative; others, pertaining to maintaining the general welfare and righteousness, are positive-in the words of Allah, "those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor tax and enjoin kindness and forbid iniquity."4       The duties following on victory are revealed. The aims of war are circumscribed. Contrary to the aims of all the imperialist states, they do not include territorial expansion or the incapacitation and paralysis of other nations; they do not envision the destruction of their capacity to compete in life by their exclusion from markets and fields of trade, or the monopolizing of sources of wealth, the treasures of the world, and the raw materials essential for industry, or any other action designed to enhance the power of one nation. Nor do these aims advocate the supremacy and self-magnification of any nation in this world so that it becomes more populous and "racially" superior to others. Instead, the aims of war have a defined and limited purpose: to establish freedom of worship of Cod, give the poor their due, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity.       When Europeans and Americans attempted to define the bases for legitimate war after having been consumed by the fires of World War I, when they sought to limit the objectives of war and curb their own lusts, and concluded pacts to that effect, like the covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, we considered these events good omens, and said to ourselves that the principles of Muhammad had begun to find a place in the universal discourse. We are still hoping that World War II will bring in its aftermath an end to perdition. We pray that mankind will find guidance in the rules for international relations incorporated in Islamic principles, and that people will discover a solution for the woes that beset them. For the pact of Muhammad with the Jews and polytheists of Yathrib was the first pact of the body politic for the purpose of safeguarding peace on the basis of welfare and freedom for all.       Thirteen centuries ago, the Islamic Shari'ah produced a system comprising pacts, alliances, mutual guarantees, and arbitration. The Islamic law considered war against aggressors a form of reprimand and discipline, not a means for torturing and crushing them. As the Koran says,      "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah." 5      "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed ...."6     "And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable." 7                               Pledges , Pacts ,and Treaties       Muhammad's Message bases international relations on the concept that the peoples of the world are (1) Muslims or non- Muslim citizens (dhimmi status), (2) non-Muslims in treaty relations with Islam (mu'ahid status), or (3) non-Muslims having no treaty relations with Muslims. In implementing Muslim law concerning these three general classifications, later Islamic thinkers arrived at the corresponding but larger categories of (1) dar al-lslam (Muslim lands), (2) dar aI-sulh (abode of peace), and (3) dar al-harb (abode of war or enmity).       As for the believers, their brotherhood is complete under Muslim law. Non-Muslims in treaty relations with Muslims are dealt with according to the terms of their pact or treaty, which, no matter what its form, represents a bond of amity. Non-Muslims having no treaty relations with Islam are broadly considered under two aspects: a land which actively persecutes Muslims and denies them the right to practice and preach their faith is Islam's perpetual enemy, whether a war is being waged or not; but a nation which treats Muslims peacefully, allowing them freedom of religion, is treated to peace in turn, and Islam may not war against it.      It is a fundamental Islamic principle that hostility may not be resorted to without reason. Islam confines the aims of war to guaranteeing freedom in worship and preaching and to guarding other fundamental human rights. The history of the Message of Muhammad is explicit in this respect. If a situation should call for disputation and active hostility with others-and Muslim law requires that all peaceful means of settlement be exhausted first-it is not necessary, as some tend to think, that these others be given a choice of one of three alternatives: Islam, jizyah taxes,8 or the sword.       The tendency for some critics to consider these three alternatives as exclusive possibilities under Muslim law, since they were prevalent in the first stage of Islamic conquests, is contrary to the record of history. The truth of the matter is that these alternatives were preceded by many pacts and treaties made by the Prophet himself and later by his successors which did not require by law any of the three choices. The right of the Muslims and their imams to conclude whatever agreements they deemed essential for their welfare has not been disputed. The Truce of Al-Huday biyah, for instance, did not demand such conditions. To the contrary, it contained terms so tolerant of the other signatories that at the time `Umar considered them a debasement of the Islamic religion and a humiliation for Muslims in the struggle with the polytheists, and resigned himself to these peace conditions only in obedience to and respect for the Prophet.       On delving into the various pledges, agreements, and treaties made by the Prophet himself, we discover in them one persistent aim: the freedom to preach and worship peacefully. Insuring the freedom of the faith was considered by the Prophet a requisite for the triumph of the Message. Thus, it is clear that all conditions, including the jizyah, that might constitute an obstacle to the understanding and peaceful diffusion of the Message become obstructive, unwarranted, and invalid. It is not true, therefore, to maintain that the leaders or followers of Islam must base the establishment of peace upon a choice between Islam or jizyah and tribute.      If we glance over the world of Islam today, individuals or groups; if we consider the relationships of Muslims with their neighbors and with each other and investigate the treaties, pledges, and agreements with which they have bound themselves; and if we then realize that such agreements enjoy the respect of all Muslims, in accordance with the words of the  Prophet, we will be able to visualize the whole of mankind within a framework of common security.       We have seen how the relations of Islam are based on the classifications of believers, non-Muslims in treaty relations with Muslims, and non-Muslims having no established relations with Muslims. As for the believers, peace among them is eternal, according to the revealed Law, and can be disturbed only by acts of apostasy. In the case of aggression by one Muslim group on another, all Muslims must oppose the wrongdoers until the latter awaken to the ordinance of God and accept arbitration. Through arbitration, equity and justice, not suppression and force, will prevail, for equity and justice constitute the scales on which the conditions of reconciliation are weighed.       And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace among them. And if one party of them doeth wrong 9 to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. "Lo! Allah loveth the equitable. The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace between your brethren . . . ."10     Muslims throughout the world have to surrender to this law as an article of faith. They are not separated by national boundaries, clannish loyalty, denominations, interests, fear, servitude, or any other circumstance. The Muslims are one community bound by fraternal relations.      The Muslim is a citizen of whatever Muslim country he finds himself in. He is entitled to all the rights of a resident citizen and is responsible for all the obligations prescribed in Muslim law wherever he may be. For example, should he find himself in Egypt as a transient from the Maghrib 11 on his way to make the pilgrimage, and Egypt were at war, he would be expected to fight alongside the Egyptians under the same obligation he would owe his own country were it under attack. Also, were he destitute or in difficult circumstances, he would be entitled to share in the poor tax (zakah) of the country through which he is passing. The Muslim community is duty-bound to guarantee his security, as he is entitled to the same rights, whatever his origin or nationality. The Islamic brotherhood between the black and the white, the slave and the free is complete; no Muslim, regardless of sectarian affiliation, entertains any doubt about this.       On this basis, the six hundred million Muslims of the world are brothers, and according to the ordinances of the Shair'ah, they cannot war on each other under pretext of service to God, homeland, or state. If perchance they should fall into such a situation, Muslims not involved in the dispute must intervene to put an end to fighting and re-establish peace according to the Koranic ordinance mentioned above.       From this it can be seen that the ramifications of Muslim law are international and that its precepts are founded on universal human truths. Such precepts can apply to all humanity, regardless of religious or national affiliation.      In the Muslim concept of world order, a commitment made by the Muslim state and even by the individual Muslim can commit the entire Muslim community (ummah). Within Islam the individual possesses an authority in certain cases which approximates the authority of the community, as in situations involving the maintenance of the law and public morals. The Islamic order permits the individual to offer protection and assurance to an enemy and to make a pledge to an individual or a group of people, and his assurance and pledge will be respected according to the words of the Prophet: "Muslims are one, and the humblest among them is entitled to pledge them."      This respect was accorded even to a pledge given by a slave. Abu-'Ubaydah once wrote to the Caliph `Umar that a slave had given a pledge of security to the inhabitants of a town in Iraq, and asked him for his opinion in the matter. `Umar answered, "Allah has magnified the fulfillment of promises, and you are not faithful until you fulfill promises. Therefore, fulfill your promises to them and leave them alone." In like manner, the Muslims confirmed a woman's pledge of security. In the words of the Prophet, "We have protected whom you protected, O Mother of Hani!" Early Muslim jurists differed over the merits of a pledge given by a slave or a woman in the name of all Muslims, and some made the honoring of such a pledge contingent on the acquiescence of the head of state; however, the majority upheld unconditionally the sanctity of a pledge given by a free Muslim male.      Let us now deal with relations between Muslims and non Muslims. Those who have treaty relations with the Muslims may enjoy either a pledge of protection, which in modern terms means citizenship, or one of the many kinds of pledges of security; both types of commitment insure the parties to the pledge a share in mutual benefits.      The dhimmi pledge or pledge of protection grants security to individuals or whole communities living in the realm of Islam. The Muslims pledge guardianship and protection in the name of God, of His Prophet, and of the Muslims in exchange for the yearly jizyah, the individual poll tax or community tribute. Although for a time in Islam's history the term dhimmi caused embarrassment, because it came to imply second-class citizenship, originally it signified superior merit, for the title came from dhimmat Allah (God's custody). It constituted the greatest possible affirmation of the protected one's right to enjoy complete religious, administrative, and political freedom, a right which was guaranteed him in return for loyalty and the payment of what amounted to a reasonable tax to help in the defense of the state.      The dhimmi subject is the neighbor of the Muslim, who befriends and associates with him. None of his rights are impaired: juridically he is entitled to exactly the same justice as is received by the Muslim in Muslim courts. It is unlawful to oppress, persecute, or insult him or deprive him of his rights. He has his religion and the Muslim has his. It is the duty of the Muslim to help and protect him when necessary and to safeguard his religious and personal freedom and the freedom of his people. In return the dhimmi subject is expected to refrain from undertakings which might prejudice the beliefs and security of Muslims.      The early Muslim conquerors were extremely conscious of their obligations to the ahl al-dhimmah, the protected of God. Khalid ibn-al-Walid returned the jizyah to the Christians of Homs (Emesa) following his failure to defend that city,12 feeling that he did not possess the power to repel the attacks of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius on the city. In his words, "We accepted [the jizyah] as a token of your good will and in return for defending you, but [in this] we have failed [you]."13 More than five centuries later, during his wars with the Crusaders, Salah-al-Din (Saladin) returned thejizyah to the Christians of Syria when he was compelled to withdraw. The jizyah was not a right of conquest given the victor over the vanquished; it was rather a benefit in exchange for a benefit, a compensation for a fulfilled task.      Once agreement is reached and the jizyah is paid, the protected, be he an individual or a community, is guaranteed equal justice with the Muslims. Moreover, the payment of this tax absolves him from any obligation for military service or for payment of the poor tax (zakah), though he enjoys the right to share in the distribution of the zakah since all the poor and needy, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are designated as its recipients. If, however, the non-Muslim citizen or protected person enlists in the ranks of the Muslims, he receives an equal share in the spoils of war and is also exempted from paying the tribute.     Unlike the treaty commitments of many secular states, the dhimmi commitment in Muslim law is based on the principle of human brotherhood and the sanctity of faith. No distinctions of race, citizenship, religion, economic status, or personal capabilities can obliterate the human rights of a dhimmi subject. Just as a Muslim shares rights and obligations with every other Muslim everywhere, regardless of nationality, so does the dhimmi subject. Accordingly, he enjoys in any Islamic state a security and equal justice disturbed only if and when he should violate the terms of the pledge. The prescriptions of the Shari'ah are universal and require submission from all Muslims.      The dhimmi commitment is but one of the many kinds of relationships Muslims may establish with other peoples. They may conclude pacts of security, nonaggression pacts, concordats of friendship, trade agreements, alliances to secure peace, treaties of recognition, diplomatic relations, and so forth.      The brotherhood taught by the Message of Muhammad has the power to guarantee durable peace not only among its peoples and countries but all over the world. The Koran says:      "O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim [your rights] of one another . . ."14     It has been shown that war has no purpose acceptable to God other than the peace that is based on justice, equity, and human brotherhood; and that victory entitles the victor to one right only: prevention of aggression and injustice. Any agreement concluded at the end of a war would contradict the Islamic spirit if it were based on tyranny and oppression or the usurpation and annihilation of what constitutes the rights of men as brethren in one human family. Allah says, "And be not like unto her who unraveleth the thread, after she hath made it strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because of a nation being more numerous [or greater] than [another] nation."15      Islam's view is that the purpose of peace agreements is not to perpetuate a state of conquest by keeping the defeated in constant deprivation and humiliation, but rather to establish the form of justice which God decrees equally for enemies and friends alike: ".... and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty."16 Had the nations of the earth in former and in modern times, Muslim and non-Muslim, followed the guidance of the Koran in this context, the reaches of war would have been circumscribed and the reasons for rebellion removed.      When the leaders of modern nations assert that the purpose of war is to establish justice and equity and to prevent tyranny, they are confirming the tenets of Muhammad's Message, although their assertions lack the force of faith based on piety; for, as we have seen again and again, war is sanctioned by the Islamic Shari'ah only in order to repel tyranny and aggression, and is terminated when tyranny and aggression are thwarted and the justice and right enjoined by Allah prevail. In like manner, conditions of peace are not dictated by the agents of fear and greed because Allah, Who champions the right and strengthens the believers in it, assures true victory only where it serves His ends: beneficence and justice.      Had the European nations acted justly and equitably, the war of 1870 would not have engendered the causes of the war of 1914, nor would the latter have given rise to the war of 1939. Many lived to witness the great disillusionment. Guile and deceit will add but calamities to their perpetrators. The aim here is not to single out any one nation or group of nations for blame, or to claim that Muslims have been any more truthful in their sayings and views than members of other nations or religions, but to point out that few have observed the spirit of Muhammad's Message or abided by the truthfulness of its principles.      From the viewpoint of the Message of Muhammad, all agreements are sacred in that they are conducted within the sight of God, in Whose name they are guaranteed. They enjoy a religious sanctity which does not permit deception or hypocrisy. Upon his succession to the caliphate, `Uthman wrote in a message to his officials and governors: Truly, Allah has created creation in right; He accepts but right. Take right and give right. And dwell upon your trust. Do not be the first to violate it and become accomplices of your successors. . . . Fulfill your vows and do not oppress the orphan or the ally [those in treaty relations]. Allah is the opponent of him who oppresses them.      Neither we Muslims nor others seem to partake of this most important aspect of Muhammad's ethics: that the sanctity of a pledge is above all other considerations, even, in certain cases, above the sanctity of religion. Indeed, the Shari'ah has placed the sanctity of pledges above that of Muslim brotherhood. For example, non-Muslims are entitled to blood money (diyah) if they are in treaty relations with the Muslims, while there is no diyah to the relatives of a Muslim who belong to a people with no treaty relations with the Muslims.     The Shari'ah has also forbidden a Muslim to aid another Muslim against a non-Muslim who enjoys the protection of a pledge even for a religious cause. The Almighty declares: "But if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help [them] except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty."17
The propagator of the Message himself set the highest example of respect for pledges when he was negotiating with Suhayl ibn-'Amr at al-Hudaybiyah. While he was wording the terms embodied in the truce agreement, the son of Suhayl, Abu-Jandal ibn-Suhayl, appeared before Muhammad weighted down with chains; he had fled the ranks of the Prophet's enemies whom his father was representing and in whose name Suhayl was negotiating with the Prophet. When Suhayl saw his son he stood up, seized him by the collar, and said, "O Muhammad, the matter between you and myself has [already] been settled." In other words, they had agreed on terms before Abu-Jandal had come to the Prophet. Muhammad replied, "You speak the truth." Abu Jandal then shouted, "O Muslims, am I to be returned to the idolaters to be divested of my religion?" But this was of no avail to him; the Prophet returned him according to the terms he had approved, although they had not yet been written down or sealed. There was no hesitation or reconsideration, as he had given his consent. Suhayl's son, a Muslim, was returned to the unbelievers over the objection of the Prophet's own followers.      Another principle stressed in the Message of Muhammad and extremely important in our times is that a pledge may never be betrayed. Islam forbids the betrayal of a pledge, secretly or openly, as it forbids the betrayal of any trust, materially or spiritually.     What is the value of a pledge or a treaty when made to be broken or treacherously interpreted to justify the narrow interests of one party to the detriment of the other, particularly when one party has the military power to back up its arbitrary position?     Furthermore, fulfillment of a pledge may be withheld only when the common welfare of the Muslims is betrayed by the other party whose deception and ill will are beyond doubt. It is permissible then to cast off the pledge: "And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them [their treaty] fairly. Lo! Allah loveth not the treacherous."18 But Muslims may not employ artifice in so doing, nor are they to surprise the other party with its denunciation, without previous warning and a period of delay. This constituted both ethics and law within the provisions of the Shari'ah long before such principles were recognized by modern international law. The Prophet and the orthodox caliphs 19 advised their governors and military commanders to give warning before engaging in war. The jurists of Islam have agreed that the enemy must be forewarned, served with the reasons the pledge is to be discarded, and informed that the purpose is not to lay hands on his wealth, deprive him of life, or to capture him, for he might respond to what is requested and thus avoid war. To fight without previous warning deserves the wrath of God; but if all reason is lost and war becomes inevitable, then, and only then, Allah directs: "So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye [will be] the uppermost"20                                                          Legitimate War       Only when persecuted, oppressed, and prevented from migrating to Yathrib, where they could enjoy the protection provided for in the pact concluded between them and their neighbors of other religions, did the Muslims seek and receive permission to fight.      Let us now consider the causes, concomitants, and purposes of war from the Islamic viewpoint; these will help us understand a situation in which we may find a remedy for the illness of the modern world and which may open the mind to guidance and contemplation. In sanctioning war, Islam defined its aims and purposes: to suppress tyranny, insure the right of a man to his home and freedom within his nation, prevent persecution in religion, and guarantee freedom of belief to all people.      This freedom for all people is manifest in the Koran's citation of all places of worship for the various religions-monasteries and churches for the Christians, synagogues for the Jews, and mosques for the Muslims. Islam permitted war to safeguard all these religious freedoms, as well as its own, against the attacks of aggressors. Thus says Allah: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."21      With this honored verse, the Message of Muhammad stands exalted over all other ideologies, for it limits the aims of war to repelling tyranny and dictates the cessation of war as soon as the aggressor ceases his indulgence in persecution of people because of their faith. Thus, war is not renewed or perpetuated except against a tyrant who insists on acts of tyranny, compelling people to abandon their religion. Persecution, forced conversion, and the deprivation of religious freedom are more distasteful to God than the taking of life:

     "They question thee [O Muhammad] with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great [transgression], but to turn [men] from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can."22
If we were to analyze the verses of the Koran which pertain to warfare, and revert to the circumstance of their revelation and follow the events of the Prophet's life, his wars and expeditions, war by war and expedition by expedition, there would be not the slightest doubt that the war sanctioned by Islam is the war of self-defense. Space does not permit a thorough investigation and enumeration of events, but in the books of the traditions (sunnah), in the Koran, and in the biographies of Muhammad, there is sufficient explanation and detail to satisfy the inquirer concerning the objectives of legitimate war in Islam and the manner in which Islam commits itself to a war of defense. Warring on polytheists, wherever they may be, taking strong measures against them, inflicting punishment on them from behind their lines, and taking them captive are measures allowed to Muslims once war begins; they are the result and not the cause of a declaration of war.

In the decrees of the Almighty, it is said,       "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is Hell, a hapless journey's end."23      ". . . fight the heads of disbelief-lo! they have no binding oaths [pacts or pledges]-in order that they may desist. Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the Messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers. Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise."24     " And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."25      "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out . . . ."26      "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they [the disbelievers] are a folk without intelligence. "27      " And wage war on all the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you. And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty [unto Him]."28      These verses reveal to the reader that a state of war is assumed; they urge persistence and patience in war and en-courage its pursuit until a satisfactory conclusion is attained. They imply security and peace for the believers, the achievement of permanence and stability for religion, the prevention of persecution and apostasy by pressing the polytheists and defeating them, and the hope that the assailants will refrain in the end from aggression.      One of the attainments of the Shari'ah is its practical application to everyday life; it faces human and religious facts and tackles problems with practical solutions. As long as benevolent preaching does not repel tyranny and aggression, the enemies of Islam refuse to exercise neighborliness and accept a pledge based on justice and freedom, and men of evil possess dangerous power, war will inevitably occur. Islam did not stand before these facts with crossed arms, but faced them instead with the resolution and determination that attended the Prophet when he preached the Message. Throughout his life, he enjoined that believers be prepared: "Make ready for them all thou canst of [armed] force and of horses tethered, and thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy . . . "29 It made of the same tools used for invoking terror tools that could prevent war and preserve peace.       Once Muslims were left no alternative but war, and their right to that became clear, war was sanctioned, and peace became its supreme objective; in the words of the Almighty, "But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."30 "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah."31      Once the sanctioned defensive war has been decided on and its causes have been ascertained, then war becomes the duty of the entire populace. By God's ordinance, sanctioned war (jihad)32becomes the obligation of every Muslim, man and woman. This obligation is to be met from the innermost conscience in accordance with the decisions of the Islamic command, as personified by him who holds the reins of the nation's affairs.      At this juncture, the lofty aspirations desired by Islam will manifest themselves, forbidding retreat and flight, demanding patience, fortitude, sacrifice, courage, and a generous expenditure of lives and possessions and even departure from home and country during enemy occupation. "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whose on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be Hell, a hapless journey's end."33      Islam would not commit people to so severe a duty that to flee from it would incur the curse, anger, and tortures of God unless the battle were truly declared in defense of the most sacred of beliefs. Such an obligation demands that the believer be so persevering that the infidel will not be able to put him to flight, even if the odds be ten to one against him! This fortitude would be impossible if the warrior were not thoroughly convinced that he fights for a right that allows no room for doubt-the right to defend himself and his belief against his assailant. It would not be possible in a war of aggression to compel people to be patient while fighting at a ratio of one against ten, for they cannot exercise patience when they know they are the aggressors, the ones who have lit the fuse of war; they cannot exercise patience when there is no incentive to self-sacrifice.      The verses which incite to battle, the display of courage to the point of martyrdom, and the tactics of pressing the enemy, taking him by surprise, bearing down on him, lying in wait for him, blocking all his means of access and exit; and those verses which call for the sacrifice of possessions and lives and flight from the homeland for the sake of achieving victory for God-all these noble exhortations clearly urge only a sanctioned defensive war in accordance with the legislation of Islam.      It is therefore evident from the collection of verses pertaining to war in the noble Book, from the works of the Prophet himself as revealed in his traditions (sunnah), and from his biographies and the annals of his wars that Islam does not sanction any war of aggression, nor does it unleash war to acquire worldly gains, for with God there are many treasures. As for the other purposes motivating people to battle-the striving of one race or one people to dominate another; the exaltation of one monarch or one social class over another; the territorial expansion of a dominion for military and strategic or economic aims, to acquire raw materials and commercial markets or to civilize those who lag behind in culture-in all these cases, there is no Islamic sanction for war. The aims of Islam are humanitarian and universal: its blessings should extend to all people; and the outlook of Islam is a lofty one: it regards the whole of mankind as one family to be secured against injustice. Almighty God is not the God of Muslims alone, but of the entire universe.       "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. "34       "O ye who believe! . . . say not unto one who offereth you peace [the salutation "Peace be upon you"]: "Thou art not a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life [so that ye may despoil him].35     "Allah forbiddeth you not, with regard to those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers. Allah only forbiddeth you, with regard to those who war against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, from making friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them-[all] such are wrongdoers."36      " So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them."37      Islam is constantly prepared to conclude various types of agreements with its neighbors and other nations guaranteeing the perpetuation of peace; and this would cost these nations no more than the display of a genuine desire for peace and a sincere intention to be faithful to their pledge. With such a true interest in perpetuating peace, Islam does not hasten war or make surprise attacks, but rather sets up the reason, presents it to its opponent, warns him, and lays before him the ways out of his predicament. If he is still defiant, insists on his enmity, and accepts nothing short of battle, then war will take place, and with it will come the enthusiasm, the courage and patience and fortitude, the sacrifice of self and property, exile, and all that is stipulated in the noble verses cited.       Certain people, particularly the opponents of Islam, have taken these injunctions as a pretext for smearing the Message of Muhammad as a sanguinary ideology that uses war as a tool for overpowering peoples and depriving them of their possessions and lives; but the Message of Muhammad is clear. It began with the abnegation of war, but when its people were oppressed and its survival became impossible without the repulsion of force by force, it sanctioned war, and upon doing so, it commanded its pursuit with the thoroughness conducive to victory. When such a victory was Islam's, it declared, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error."38       Islam is a successful ideology because it faces truth with truth, with frankness, and with fidelity. But as long as evil men wish only evil, it would be self-defeating for people to tolerate injustice and allow themselves to be weakened in the land.     "Lo! as for those whom the angels take [in death] while they wrong themselves, [the angels] will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. [The angels] will say: Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be Hell, an evil journey's end; except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way. As for such, it may be that Allah will pardon them. "39     The Message of Muhammad discourages its followers from committing aggression, since Almighty Allah declares, "Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."40But it also decrees that they should temporarily forfeit their homelands and suffer martyrdom rather than accept a life of humiliation and deprivation.                                 War in Aid of the Oppressed     The Message of Muhammad considers warfare admissible and a virtue when undertaken to repel aggression against the weak, be it against an individual or a group, in the interest of erecting the edifice of justice desired by God on earth.     The Prophet devoted himself to the repulsion of tyranny, as did his successors, inasmuch as he commanded the authority of the Islamic polity to defeat aggressors and avert tyranny. While confirming Hilf al-Fudul,41a pledge made in pre-Islamic days, Muhammad declared,  "Were 1, a Muslim, called upon to uphold its tenets, truly would I respond, for Islam but adds strength to it." Islam the religion and Islam the state legally obligated the believers to war on oppression and in aid of the oppressed, whether individuals or communities, Muslims or non-Muslims, because while still a youth and before he was called to his mission Muhammad had pledged support to Hilf al-Fudul.      A war in defense of the oppressed may be waged by one powerful party against another, even though it may not have ties with the aggrieved. It follows, therefore, that an Islamic state may ally itself with one or more states to defend a victim.     Adherence of an Islamic state to the Charter of the United Nations is not considered objectionable from the point of view of the Shari'ah. When the intent of a United Nations action under the Charter is deemed honorable, respectful of the general welfare and justice, and aimed at guarding against oppression and repulsing aggression, then Muslims regard the Charter as meritorious, for its decree is that of Hilf al-Fudul to which Islam added emphasis and authority.     On the other hand, if pacts are concluded for the purpose of perpetuating tyranny, suppressing the defeated, and exterminating the weak, they become instruments of crime and aggression in the eyes of Islam and hostile to its tenets, which preach piety and beneficence. The Koran instructs, but help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression42In Islam's view, deeds are judged by their underlying intention the intention can render a deed upright or corrupt. A deed acquires sanctity only if it leads to welfare and justice, this being the order decreed for all creation. "And the sky He hath uplifted; and He hath set the measure . . . ."43 "O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or [your] parents or [your] kindred . . . . "44      The Koran, sunnah, and ijma' concur in regarding justice as the ultimate aim of the Shari'ah. Therefore, to fight in support of the oppressed is a deed deserving of God's reward. In this context, when the Islamic state declares war, it is within the bounds of the Shari'ah provided the goal of the war is to establish justice and suppress tyranny.     This may be considered generally the only condition under which war is sanctioned, however immune to attack the Muslims may be, and notwithstanding the fact that such a war may not be a defensive one.      With this understanding, an Islamic state may join an organization like the United Nations if it can contribute there by to the advancement of justice among peoples of the world. It may also propose a pact or commit itself to a pledge designed to repel tyranny and mete out justice to the weak.     Naturally, the Islamic state is not entitled to commit itself to or participate in a battle it is called to join unless it is convinced that it would be fighting in defense of a people oppressed and seeking justice, which justice could be secured only with the participation of the Muslim state.      Another pledge of early Islamic days which enjoined battle on behalf of the oppressed is to be found in the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah,45concluded between the Prophet and Quraysh. The fourth condition of the truce permitted third parties to choose sides as they wished. Accordingly, the BanuBakr allied themselves with Quraysh, and the Khuza'ah tribe46 with the Prophet. In the times of Ja'hiliyah, the Khuza'ah had been the allies of `Abd-al-Muttalib, and they sought to renew their pledge as given to the Prophet's grandfather.     The Prophet reaffirmed the terms of the alliance and renewed the pledge, adding two conditions: first, not to aid the Khuza'ah if they turned oppressors, and second, to aid the Khuza'ah if they became oppressed. Two copies of the pact were then drawn up, and each party was handed one.       At that time, the Khuza’ah had not been converted to Islam; they were still polytheistic in their beliefs. The only relationship that existed between them and the Prophet was that tie they had had with his grandfather in pre-Islamic days, a tie that had not made any distinction between good and bad acts. The conditions added by the Prophet, therefore, point to the following.        First of all, he would not confirm the alliance on the basis of an undefined cooperation which might lead to action condemned by law, inasmuch as he was God's Messenger for the establishment of justice; rather, he expressly stated the condition that he would not support his allies the Khuza’ah if they should turn oppressors.     Second, he would not withhold his support of an oppressed person, even though he might be a polytheist.      Third, he vowed to aid any oppressed person, including a polytheist or a member of a differing religion.      Fourth, the sine qua non of the legitimate war is defense, whether self-defense or voluntary defense of a victim of aggression deserving aid. In the absence of a pact, a Muslim state may choose neutrality; when it has a pact, as with the Khuza’ah, it must honor the treaty and go to the support of the oppressed ally.     Prior to the advent of Islam, other religions made efforts to curb the excesses of war and to circumscribe its evils and calamities, but all genuine attempts succumbed before the incorrigibility of human nature.      Christianity came forward with a complete abnegation of war in the words of Jesus (may peace be with him) in the Gospel of Saint Matthew: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. . . And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."47Those who adhere to the view that war should be abolished entirely also advert to the words of Jesus to Saint Peter: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."48It would appear from these Bible verses that Christianity forbids not only war but the bearing of arms as well, and in the early centuries the adherents of the Western Church resisted the idea of war, even war for self-defense, with all their power.       But Christians came to different conclusions in later times. The followers of the Eastern Church, in Byzantium, made no distinction between the person of the emperor, lord of this world, and religious leadership. He had both spiritual and temporal powers. The Byzantines pursued a course contrary to that accepted by members of the Western Church. They did not stop at sanctioning the war forbidden by Christ, nor did they pursue a middle course confining war to self-defense or to the defense of the oppressed, as the Islamic Sheri'ah advocated: they consented to the emperor's sole possession of the right to declare war, and in gathering authority and power into his own hands he was bound by nothing but state interest.      The emergence of Christianity was a benefit and a blessing to humanity in the early centuries, for it taught the followers of Christ to resist the causes of evil and averted much bloodshed, plunder, spoliation, aggression, and tyranny that would otherwise have occurred. Although Christianity maintained its struggle for a long time, its adherents soon forgot the religion and mission of Christ and made of their lusts, ambitions, and interests the pretexts for oppressive wars which scarred humanity with their consuming fires in the East and in the West from the late Middle Ages until our present time.       Yet there were Christians who sacrificed their lives to up hold their beliefs concerning the prevention of war and of the formation of armies. Still others made gigantic efforts to reconcile the decrees of the Gospels with the necessities of the state. These men made distinctions between legitimate war and forbidden war, and promoted discussions concerning the nature of the just war. To them, the just war was one declared by the ruler, and it conformed with sound intentions and truthfulness; he was to be free of selfish motives and savagery. In the eyes of those righteous Christians, war was a means for carrying out a just judgment rendered by the legitimate authorities; it was not instigated by egotism, and it was circumscribed by justice and clothed in mercy.     An investigation of the Christian views arising from the debates and discussions that have endured for over a thousand years points to the fact that righteous Christians did reach agreement on principles akin to the Islamic dicta for a sanctioned war-that is, a just war in aid of the oppressed. Islamic principles could constitute the sound bases for the establishment of world justice, the exercise of mercy, and the display of human brotherhood through the curtailment of evil desires, the protection of human lives, and a durable peace built on a sacred foundation. Men of vision and intelligence cannot fail to draw upon the Islamic Shari'ah in laying the foundation for international relations and world peace, for in the light of the noble and practical principles advocated by Muhammad, it is possible to reinforce the pact of the United Nations and to avoid the utilization of war as a means of fulfilling human aims and ambitions. "And there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency."49      Pacts among nations may be guided by the spirit found in the verse of the Koran that reads,       "And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable."50      Undoubtedly, this order prescribed for the believers can form an order for all peoples. It is possible for Islamic states to enter into pacts to that effect, to fight to win respect for this order, and to turn back those who violate it.      The war waged in support of the oppressed advances no worldly aims, no national ambitions, and no revenge through envy and hatred; its purpose, rather, is to establish truth and avert falsehood. On the surface, it may appear to lead to a situation whereby a third party will intervene on the side of one party against another; yet this intervention can only be undertaken for the purpose of defense, to repel attacks on the weak. Were we to consider human solidarity as the cause of progress and human justice as the foundation of that solidarity, then the act of taking a stand against the aggressor, that is, against the destruction of justice and hence of peace and progress, is an act constituting a defense of enlightenment. Under such circumstances, this act may be regarded even as the defense of the aggressor himself in that it prevents him from bringing evil upon himself.       It may be argued that such a stand constitutes an interference in the affairs of others bordering on aggression on the part of the Islamic state; it could be said that this state should concern itself only with its own affairs and should avoid the self-elected role of the policeman. But there is no escaping the fact that interference is unavoidable when the rights of the oppressed are at stake.      Thirteen centuries had elapsed from the date of Hilf al Fudul and the pledge of the Khuza’ah before the European states attempted to bind themselves in the covenant of the League of Nations to a pledge similar to that desired by Islam-namely, to aid the oppressed-and thereby to affirm the principle of collective security through collective intervention in order to uphold the right and destroy falsehood.     In the last analysis, the criterion for judging an act is its underlying intention, as only the intention can render this act upright or corrupt. The purity of intention of an Islamic state that intervenes in a situation leading to war cannot be questioned,provided the act is motivated by good conscience aatended by faith in a noble purpose which aims at the fulfillment of the will of God and the realization of the truth.51

The Rules and Etiquette of War      When the Message of Muhammad made its debut, war was the general rule, and it was firmly rooted in the mind of man and in his communal life. Islam began its history not by outlawing war but by restricting it to the deterrence of aggression and the defense of the oppressed. It thereby circumscribed the purpose of war, decreeing that war should cease when the enemy inclined to peace and that  obligations based on pacts commanded priority over the rights of Muslims in certain legal cases. It surrounded warfare with limitations, rules, reasons, aims, and pledges and with common law, applicable also during battle, designed to render its occurrence less frequent and  to minimize its horrors.       Recognizing the inherent and manifest evils of war, the Message of Muhammad circumscribed warfare with common rules of  right conduct (adab), defining its aims and limiting it to the repulsion  of aggression, the protection of freedom of belief, and the termination  of battle with just and durable agreements. Islam also applied special rules of conduct to war effective during combat that were to be observed by the warring parties.      Whenever developments between Muslims and other peoples seem likely to lead to war, it becomes a matter of duty for Muslims to warn their enemy of their intentions and to allow him time to answer and  negotiate if he should so desire. Some jurists have maintained that this  interval that follows what is called today the "final ultimatum" must be of sufficient duration to enable the enemy to alert all sections of his country. Such conduct conforms to modern international law.     Certain states nowadays prefer surprise attacks on their enemies without any previous warning. Preliminary precautions prior to attack are such that the aggression-bent state can surprise its enemies completely by pretending all along to favor peace; often the true motives and pretenses for waging war may not be revealed prior to combat. Champions of modern civilization have become skilled in deception to a degree unprecedented in the history of nations. They have even concluded agreements deliberately designed to lull the other party into a sense of false security, for to catch the other party off balance assures more successful results.      This is a new form of conduct in war, or, more appropriately, a misuse of the old forms of war. There is nothing more distasteful to Islam than this, and the tenets of Muslim law reject it in spirit and in practice. Those who resort to such conduct are considered criminals deserving the wrath of God.       Along with providing that the opponent should be warned of impending war when negotiations have been terminated, the Islamic Shari’ah also does not sanction surprise attack techniques as utilized by modern states. It respects the sanctity and security of person and abode of the opponent's citizenry in Muslim territory during the course of war. Under the provisions of the Shari'ah, those foreign subjects (musta'mn)52are entitled to rights that cannot be violated by reason of war between the Muslims and their country of origin, even though they reside in a land judicially controlled by the enemy of their native country. They cannot be molested; nor can their possessions be confiscated or their lives jeopardized. They are entitled to security of life and property until arrangements have been made for them to return to their original homeland and enter the protection of their people. Then and only then should they be exposed to conditions applicable in war between combatants. The Koran says, "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection [O Muhammad], then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety."53       Muslims have taken considerable precautions to respect the rights of the musta'rnin. As a matter of fact, Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the head of a Muslim state should set no time limit for the enjoyment of security by citizens of a nation at war with that state in order to eliminate the possibility of having to settle affairs under adverse conditions. The just treatment meted out to citizens of nations at war with the Muslim state reached the point where they could enjoy complete freedom while war raged between both nations, provided these citizens observed the laws of the host country, were honest in their conduct, and did not conspire to harm citizens of the host country.     Islam has established this relationship with those who enjoy the sanctity of protection during conditions of war on the basis of equity and justice. In the last analysis, are not wars but the result of the loss of equity and justice?     One of the finest episodes illustrating the respect due a man who seeks neighborliness is told of Wasil ibn-'Ata', leader of the Mu'tazilah.54 Wasil and some of his friends fell into the hands of the Kharijites (Khawarij)55 a Muslim group that observed the tenets of religion rigidly and were regarded as most prejudiced in their views. Anticipating trouble, even death, Wasil asked his friends for permission to handle them. The Kharijites inquired about his faith and that of his friends. In reply, Wasil declared that they were polytheists seeking protection, and would like to hear the words of God and to learn of His promises. The kharijites then undertook to teach them their doctrines; later they said, "Depart as friends, for you are brethren." To this Wasil replied, "This is not for you to bestow, for Allah (may He be honored and glorified) has said in the Koran, "`And if any one of the idolaters seeketh thy protection [O Muhammad], then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety."56Therefore, escort us to our place of safety." When confronted in such a manner, the Kharijites granted them their request, and escorted them until they reached safety. This episode shows how protection accorded those who sought safety of abode was, in the view of certain champions of the Message of Muhammad, a greater duty than the protection required of Muslims for each other. One sees in the basic rules in the Message of Muhammad regarding the conduct of war that noble principle forbidding the extension of warfare to or the harming of non- combatants. The rules decree against the killing of the aged, the young, women, the handicapped, those who had withdrawn from life to worship or meditate, those who have refrained from participating in battle, the mass of workers, farmers, and tradesmen-in other words, those who today are called civilians. It is not lawful to kill civilians. The Shari'ah has provided precautionary measures to insulate civilians from the horrors and evils of war and to confine injury to the fighting forces. Jurists have advocated even the temporary cessation of hostilities should those whose death is not permitted be exposed to death between the ranks of the fighting forces. If we consider the extent of involvement of civilians during World War Il-people indiscriminately bombed and blasted by explosives from their lands and abodes-we will perceive the merits of the Islamic injunctions governing conduct in war.     Is respect for human lives not to be found in this age? Is it not possible in modern warfare to apply the sword only to the bearer of the sword? Are the extremes of conduct in warfare today any different from the methods used by the Mongols in the days of Genghis Khan and his successors in their barbaric massacre of noncombatants and destruction of cities and towns, which have remained classic examples of brutality and savagery?      What is wrought today by the air and artillery bombardment of civilians is more barbaric than the methods employed by that Mongolian tyrant of seven and a half centuries ago. The destruction of all sanctified places today through unrestricted air raids defies comparison. The Islamic Shari'ah condemns and shuns such methods, regardless of whether the Islamic state is strong or weak, triumphant or defeated. Even if Muslim jurists sanction retaliation in kind against indiscriminate destruction and killing once the enemy has begun, they certainly do not fail to agree that the Islamic state ought not to take the initiative. Those who admit retaliation in kind recall the words of the Almighty, "And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you,"57and "The reward of an evil deed is an evil the like thereof. But whosoever pardoneth and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah."58 It is clear in the words and spirit of these and other verses that the purpose of retaliation in kind is to warn the enemy and persuade him to refrain from commit ting such crimes. The truth "But whosoever pardoneth and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah" is also an assurance of the Lawgiver's wish not to sanction retaliation for hostile acts, even though they are contrary to the precepts of mercy and proper conduct.59      Would that the rules of conduct for war sanctioned in the Message of Muhammad might govern the conduct of states which today resort to slaying civilians, destroying establishments, and burning people, their possessions, and the products of their land in order to compel them to submit and lay down their arms!      Where lies the precedent for the actions of certain modern civilized states which utilize strafing from airplanes, bombs, and machineguns in fighting bedouins who possess no more of the weapons of war than rifles handed down to them from the last century-states which turn machineguns on tents and on camels and sheep roaming in their grazing grounds?        Truly it is time for men to remember their God and the beliefs preached by Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, and to create rules of conduct for war which will minimize destructiveness. And where can we find such rules of conduct in warfare set forth better than in the Message of Muhammad, which decrees that war should not aim at distortion and destruction but at making the word of God supreme?-for the word of God stands only for truth, justice, and equity, and encompasses all peoples.       This principle, engendered by humanitarianism and based on mercy, forbade the Muslims in their wars to force their enemy into submission by starving the warring nation or by preventing sinews of life like medicine and clothing from reaching the nonbelligerents.      Modern warfare has become so ruthless that armies in retreat resort to a scorched- earth policy, even if it means death for their compatriots as well as their enemies. Such a practice is not sanctioned under any circumstance by the Shari'ah. Attacks on the possessions of inhabitants left behind by advancing or retreating Islamic armies would be in conceivable. Muslims are strictly forbidden by their religion to burn plants, cut down trees, and deprive resident civilians of their means of livelihood in land that lies in the path of advancing and withdrawing armies.        Muslim jurists agree that it is permissible to kill in battle adult male polytheist fighters. They also agree, regardless of other differences, that it is unlawful to kill women and children if they do not participate in war. One can deduce from this that it is unlawful to cause harm to civilians, that is, those who do not actually participate in war, or to destroy buildings and vegetation. Rabah ibn-Rabi'ah60has related that, while out on a raid in the company of the Prophet, they came upon a slain woman. Standing over her body, Muhammad declared, "She should not have been killed." And immediately he dispatched one of his companions with instructions to Khalid ibn-alWaIid61 not to kill a single child, woman, or laborer. Further, the Prophet is not known to have ever killed an animal. Malik?62relates that the Caliph Abu-Bakr once said, "You will encounter those who claim they have devoted themselves to God. Leave them alone to do what they have chosen to do; and do not kill a woman, a boy, or an elderly person." Zayd ibn-Wahb63 received a message from `Umar ibn-al-Khattab which stated, "Do not indulge in excesses or deceive, or kill a child; and be fearful of God when you are dealing with peasants." `Umar also said, "Kill not the aged, a woman, or a child; and avoid doing so even when armies meet and when raids are conducted." The Imam Ibn-Rushd64 said that Abu-Bakr warned against cutting down trees and destroying establishments. It was not possible for Abu-Bakr to differ with the Prophet of God, although he knew that Muhammad had cut down the palm trees of the Banu-Nadir. The jurists explained this as a special case by asserting that Abu-Bakr knew of the incident which concerned only this tribe, referred to in the Koranic chapter "al-Hashr" ("The Exile").     In connection with this incident, Muslims agree on the prohibition of exemplary punishment. The Koran does not relate the episode of the Banu-Nadir in detail but only refers to it in the course of narration and preaching. Like- wise, the incident of the Banu-Qurayzah was referred to only casually in the course of preaching, in this verse in the chapter "al-Ahzab" ("The Clans" or "The Confederates"):       "And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is able to do all things."65      There is not a single decree in the Koran allowing the slaying or enslaving of a prisoner, and it has never been said that the Prophet enslaved a captive. The Koran clearly grants the head of the Muslim state one of two choices (no third)- grace or ransom: ". when ye have routed them, then [make] fast [their] bonds; and afterward [give them] either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens."66      Ibn-Rushd relates67that the consensus of the Companions of the Prophet was that the slaying of a captive was unlawful.      According to the common precepts of the law, it is unlawful to slay civilians or soldiers after they have surrendered. Should the head of any Muslim state deviate from this precept, as the Prophet did with the Banu-Qurayzah, it is for special circumstances and reasons requiring an exceptional judgment.      The sanction that certain Muslim jurists give the slaying of polytheists and idolaters does not accord, in my view, with the decrees and spirit of the Koran regarding the application of force or with the deeds of the Prophet and the Muslims in their conquests during the forty years from the Hijrah until, the last days of the orthodox caliphs (AD. 661). Those jurists who sanction death because of unbelief are not up- right thinkers in a religion which requires the Muslim to pay compensation (al-diyah) to a polytheist whose people enjoy treaty relations with Muslims and are therefore entitled to equal justice: "And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood money [compensation] must be paid until his folk and [also] a believing slave must be set free."68     If death for nonbelief were permissible, as certain jurists claim, the Prophet would have put to death the unbelievers of Mecca when he conquered it as well as the Hawazin following the Battle of Hunayn, and he would not have allied himself with the Khuza`ah while they were still unbelievers, And the Muslims in their conquests from India to France would have become a plague on earth sparing no unbeliever from death. Many episodes have been related about the prophet's pardons and acts of mercy toward powerful enemies and slayers of his most cherished friends and relatives. The biographies of his life reveal his merciful treatment of `Ikramah ibn-abu-Jahl and of Safwan ibn-Umayyah, two enemies whose fathers were also his enemies; his forgiveness of Wahshi, the slayer of his uncle Hamzah; although he was but an Abyssinian slave of no significance; and his pardoning of Abu-Sufyan ibn-al-Harith. after the latter had insulted and expressed his enmity against Muhammad's preachings. Such examples are clear testimony of the justice that does not permit the slaying of civilians or prisoners or those who incline toward peace.      The Prophet was informed after one of the battles that youngsters had been caught between the ranks and killed. He was seized by deep sorrow, and some said to him, "Why do you grieve? Are they not the children of polytheists?" The Prophet became very annoyed and replied, "They are more worthy than you, for they are innocent; are you not sons of polytheists? Beware of killing children! Beware of killing children!"     Bukhari related that a funeral procession once passed by. The Prophet stood up out of reverence, and his Companions followed suit, though saying to him, "It is the funeral of a Jew." To this he replied, "Is it not that of a soul! If you behold a funeral, then stand."     This respect for the human being is general, and allows for no exceptions. The slaying of noncombatants or prisoners for unbelief alone cannot be permitted.     I am totally convinced of what I have said concerning the decrees prohibiting the starving or slaying of civilians and captives, the destruction of property and land, and the use of exemplary punishment. I emphasize that the modern methods of war and their attendant destruction-the aimless artillery bombardment without previous warning of children and women, the aged and the sick, planters and laborers, on land, at sea, or from the air-are not sanctioned by the Islamic Shari'ah. Tradition (sunnah) and common law (‘urf) provide ample rules for proper conduct in war, such as respect for the enemy's emissaries and their safe conduct and kindness to captives who, insofar as they are entitled to such benevolence, become equal in this respect with the orphans and poor of Islam: “And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan, and the prisoner, for love of Him [saying]: We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you”69                                                         Lasting Peace       There is a sophisticated but perhaps exaggerated theory among some Muslim jurists and Orientalist scholars regarding dar al-harb and dar al-lslam, that a state of war is in fact perpetual in the former until Islam is established politically, while in the latter permanent and uninterrupted peace prevails. But it is not exaggerated to say that the provisions of the Message of Muhammad call only for a lasting, universal peace. We have explained the circumstances which gave rise to the permission to fight and the purpose as well as the range of sanctioned war. We have also shown that the war sanctioned by the Shari'ah is an exception to the general rule calling for peace among all men.    Ample testimony for this can be found in the Koran, sunnah, and the history of the Muslims.      The Prophet said, "Do not desire to meet the enemy [in battle], and ask God to preserve the peace." He discouraged hopes for war, even with the worst of enemies, and be sought God to perpetuate the blessings of peace.       Bukhari related that a man approached the Prophet and said, "There is the man who fights for gain, the man who fights for fame, and the man who fights for status, but who fights for the way of God?" The Prophet replied, "He who fights for the word of God to become supreme"__not for worldly gains or ambition-"fights for the way of God." In the days of nascent Islam, when the early believers had to defend themselves in Yathrib against the attack of the Ahzab (the Confederation), the Prophet would help move dirt while they dug trenches, reciting: O Allah, were it not for You we would not have found the path, nor believed, nor prayed. Send down Your calm and strengthen our stand once we meet them [in battle]. It is they who covet this [war] upon us, for they desire the hostility70which we refused.    Had it not been for such aggression, which had to be met, peace, which constitutes the rule, would have prevailed. Further evidence, in letter and in spirit, can be seen in the following verses of the Koran: "O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into peaceful submission [unto Him]; and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you."71     "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they would deceive thee, then lo! Allah is sufficient for thee."72      ".... and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art riot a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life [so that ye may dispoil him]."73 " Allah forbiddeth you not, with regard to those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers. Allah only forbiddeth you, with regard to those who war against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, from making friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them -[all] such are wrongdoers74So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.75
Then witness the spirit of peace and love that radiates from these noble verses:     "Unto this, then, summon [O Muhammad]. And be thou. upright as thou art commanded, and follow not their lusts, but say: I believe in whatever Scripture Allah hath sent down, and I am Commanded to be just among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Unto us our works and unto you your works; no argument between us and you. Allah will bring. altogether, and unto Him is the journeying."76      "And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those`who read not: Have ye [too] surrendered [to God]? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the Message [unto them]. "77    "Tell those who believe to forgive those who hope not for the days of Allah, in order that He may requite folk what they used to earn ."78    " And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in [a way] that is better, save with such of them as do wrong. . . ."79     "For each. We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you [He hath made you as ye are]. So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return."80 "And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have `believed together. Wouldst thou [Muhammad] compel men until they are believers?"81    " And We have not sent thee [O Muhammad] save as a bringer of good tidings and a warner unto all mankind. . . "82      Certain critics contend that the chapters of the Koran revealed at Mecca abound with the spirit of love and forgiveness while those revealed at al-Madinah bear down heavily on infidels and hypocrites and incite to battle and war. Such an assertion is untenable; the Book of Allah is indivisible, and most of the verses relating to war encourage patience, self-sacrifice, and strength during a war that is already in progress, a war to be concluded when an assuring peace is in sight. This conduct, therefore, is a consequence and not a cause of war. But let us look at some of the verses revealed at a1-Madinah:      "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is hence forth distinct from error "83     Say:" Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if ye turn away, then [it is] for him [to do] only that wherewith ye have been charged, and for you [to do] only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the Messenger hath no other charge than to convey [the Message] plainly. "84    And the Almighty said to His Messenger: "Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly."85      Following all the Prophet's preaching, at both al-Madinah and Mecca, Islam relied solely on reason and resorted to the sword for defense only. This is amply borne out in the long history of the diffusion of the Message in the world. According to Sir Thomas Arnold,86the spiritual conquests of Islam were not affected by the decline of the Islamic state or the decrease in its political strength. Sir Thomas maintains that in the days of its political defeats Islam achieved its greatest spiritual victories.     In the annals of Islam there are two important events which testify to this. First, when the Mongols and Seljuk Turks trod on the necks of the Muslims, Islam conquered their hearts, for although they were the conquerors, they adopted the religion of the conquered. In this transformation Islam was assisted by neither sword nor authority. Second, if we turn once more to the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah, which distressed some Muslims because the terms called for the sheathing of the sword for ten years, we discover that it was in this period that Islam achieved its greatest spiritual victory. The peaceful conquests for the faith ensuing from the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah paved the way for the conquest of the Meccans' hearts and the conversion of all Arabia. The military triumphs of the Muslims were not the product of an organized standing army.87The idea of an organized army was not considered until the Muslims had common boundaries and frontiers established with their enemies. Only at that time88did an organized standing army come to be regarded as essential to the safety of Muslim lands. This was more than half a century after the death of Muhammad.     To the Muslims, then, war is accidental; peace is the rule. And for that reason, Islam's international relations are based on the concept of lasting, universal peace, disturbed only by aggression.