As a matter of Islamic principle, the right to wage war, or armed jihad (in the sense of qital), is given only to the established Muslim state. No non-governmental individual, group or organization is allowed to take up arms, for such an initiative is absolutely unlawful, irrespective of the grounds offered for treading this path. This principle is thus set forth in fiqh(Islamic law) in this manner:
“To declare war is the prerogative of an established state.” (Sahih, Al-Bukhari, Book of the Holy War, Hadith no. 2957)
According to Muslim leaders, Mulis of today face problems that justify waging war against those they hold responsible. But Muslim rulers have not shown themselves willing to wage war.
Muslim leaders find this situation very frustrating. They maintain that these Muslim rulers have colluded with western powers, or have even been acting as their agents. In the light of this opinion, Muslim leaders now contend that such rulers are not true Muslims, but are, on the contrary, the enemies of Islam. Consequently, they engage in overt and covert militant campaigns (like guerilla warfare) against them. This battle continues in almost every Muslim country in one form or the other.
When we study this situation in the perspective of Islamic teachings, we find that this militant campaign against Muslim rulers is totally haraam: it is in no way lawful. In reality, under no circumstances are Muslims allowed to wage war with Muslim rulers. Deviation from the right path by Muslim rulers provides no justification for such a war.
A number of traditions have been recorded in the books of Hadith, under the chapter ‘Kitab al-Fitan’. According to these traditions the Prophet of Islam had predicted that after him a time would come when degeneration would set in in Muslim rulers, but that even then Muslims were not to engage in fighting to oust them. “You had better break your sword, go to the jungles and graze goats, and in no circumstances fight against your rulers,” (Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 4, p. 416) observed the Prophet. Another hadith says:
“Any one of you who finds in his ruler something which he dislikes ought to remain patient.” (Al Tabrizi, Mishkat al Masabih, 2/1086)
Yet another tradition of the Prophet guides in this manner:
“Give the rulers the rights due to them and ask God for your rights.” (Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, p. 384)
This means that in spite of there being causes for complaint against the rulers, we have to remain subservient to them and law-abiding. So far as being given our rights is concerned, we should expect this from God. This is exactly the teaching of Jesus Christ:
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Luke 20:25)
Religious scholars are in agreement that the traditions of the Prophet clearly indicate that revolt against Muslim rulers is unlawful. Drawing on these traditions, (recorded in the chapter Kitabul Fitan), Imam Nawami, the commentator of Sahih Muslim, explains that in case anyone has any difference with or complaint against his rulers, he should convey his opinion to the rulers, quietly, in personal meetings. He further writes:
“So far as revolt or armed confrontation (qital) is concerned, it is haraam, and all Muslim scholars have agreed on this, even though the ruler is a sinner (faasiq) or an oppressor.” (An Nawawi, Commentary of Sahih Muslim, Vol. 12, p. 229).
The injunction against Muslim waging war against Muslim rulers has great wisdom behind it. For, whenever such a war is waged, it will be between a regular army and the common people. Where a ruler can openly make preparations of all kinds, non-governmental organizations are constrained to carrying out some limited kind of activities in secret. Moreover, international law, while permitting rulers to engage in such activities, prohibits members of the public from pursuing similar actions.
For obvious reasons, whenever any non-governmental organization indulges in any act of rebellion, the ruler will exercise all his powers and take all possible measures to crush the revolt. This will result in Muslims fighting with Muslims, thus incurring huge losses of life and property. In the name of national security, the ruler will then put a ban on Islamic activities, thereby causing whatever opportunities had formerly been available to Muslims for the propagation of the faith to be lost. The revolt against the ruler will prove counterproductive.
Most Muslim countries have gone thorugh this after-effect of a revolt against Muslim rulers. In every Muslim country, under the leadership of zealous Muslim leaders, Muslims have launched militant movements against Muslim rulers, but the sole result has been the further destruction of the Muslims.
