Neither Violence Nor Peace Is An Absolute Value in Islam

From Sherman Jackson’s On Faith Blog:

The fact is that Islam holds neither violence nor peace to be absolute values. Both are conditioned by geopolitical reality and the Muslim assessment of which is most consistent with a dignified existence. Many in the West have been misled to believe that this “dignified existence” can only obtain when the world is emptied of all non-Muslims. This makes for good fear-mongering and sells lots of books. But we should remind ourselves that at the height of Muslim power — with no United Nations and no Amnesty International! – Jews thrived in Morocco, Christians in Cairo and even Zoroastrians in Shiraz. Meanwhile, one could not be a Muslim in Paris, London or the Chesapeake Bay before the 19th century!

In the interest of honest communication and meaningful global dialogue, I think that all of us should abandon our hypocritical claims to passivism and honestly lay out the circumstances under which we will sanction violence and those under which we will accept peace. At the very least, this could provide us with an opportunity to recognize our respective contributions to peace and violence in the world, instead of always seeing our violence as noble and justified and our enemy’s violence as gratuitous and barbaric.

and

And yet violence — senseless, gratuitous, mean-spirited violence — continues to haunt us, in the East and in the West. Perhaps it is time we expand our investigation beyond Islam and ask if there is something about Modernity that pushes so many of us to seek redemption in publicly directed violence. (emphasis added)

Use of human shields in warfare and the classical Juristic opinions concerning offensive tactics in this situation

Use of human shields in warfare and the classical Juristic opinions concerning offensive tactics in this situation
This post relates to a specific issue brought up concerning warfare. War and peace are issues that relate to Internation relations, and because of this it was posted in the Internation relations category.

Use of Muslims as Human shields by Non-Muslims

Jurists agreed that if Muslims were used as human shields during battle then attacks can still be carried out.
The following points should then be considered:
A. that the battle is taking place
B. that the disbelievers are targeted
C. that if the battle did not continue then the position of the Muslims would be compromised or would lead to losing the battle

If however there is no necessity to attack, being that the battle is not taking place or there being the possibility that they can be subdued in another manner then the Jurists of the Hanbali and Shafi schools did not allow attacking them unless there was a necessity (Darurah). Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad of the Hanafi school was of the same opinion.

As for the Hanafi school then they permitted attack without the call for necessity, being that in such a strike the Muslim society would be protected from general harm of assault by their enemies.

The Maliki school allowed for them to be attacked, while stipulating that that human shields are not to be targeted unless there is the possibility that a majority of the army is feared for (regardless of whether the number of human shields is more than the soldiers, or less, and regardless of the strategy used in placing them as shields), then in this case the sanctity of the human shield is not considered when lack of offense would lead to a loss for the Muslim army.

Non-Muslims using their women and children as Human Shields

The Hanafi jurists saw the unrestricted permissibility of attack, as long as those fighting are targeted; this is the official position of the Hanbalis as well. Their evidence is the Prophet’s use of the catapult in attack, those attacked having their women and children with them. This position sees no difference between time of attack as well, being that no prescribed time for attack was reported from the Prophet.

The jurists of the Shafi and Maliki schools saw it impermissible to attack them unless their is a necessity. If there is no necessity for attack then they are to be left alone. Details in the Shafi schooll stipulate that this would be obligatory, yet the supported opinion related in al-Rawdah is that it is permissible yet discouraged.

God bless America? Hmmm………

In the long hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, Hind bint Abi Umayyah says, after describing the ordeal that happened between the emissaries of Quraysh and Ja’far ibn Abi Talib before the Negus of Abyssinia:

Here is the arabic text:

الت : فوالله إنا على ذلك إذ نزل به يعني من ينازعه في ملكه قالت : فوالله ما علمنا حزنا قط كان أشد من حزن حزناه عند ذلك تخوفا أن يظهر ذلك على النجاشي فيأتي رجل لا يعرف من حقنا ما كان النجاشي يعرف منه قالت : وسار النجاشي وبينهما عرض النيل قالت : فقال أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : من رجل يخرج حتى يحضر وقعة القوم ثم يأتينا بالخبر قالت : فقال الزبير بن العوام : أنا قالت : وكان من أحدث القوم سنا قال : فنفخوا له قربة فجعلها في صدره ثم سبح عليها حتى خرج إلى ناحية النيل التي بها ملتقى القوم ثم انطلق حتى حضرهم قالت : ودعونا الله للنجاشي بالظهور على عدوه والتمكين له في بلاده واستوسق عليه أمر الحبشة فكنا عنده في خير منزل حتى قدمنا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو بمكة
الراوي: أم سلمة هند بنت أبي أمية - خلاصة الدرجة: إسناده صحيح - المحدث: أحمد شاكر - المصدر: مسند أحمد - الصفحة أو الرقم: 3/180

Here is the translation:

“…By Allah, we remained as such (safe in the protection of the King) until a day when someone came to him -i.e. challenging his authority- we had never been as depressed as we were in that day, when we feared that he may be defeated, and someone other than the Negus would rule, a person who would not recognize our rights like he did. The Negus then set out to the shore of the Nile, and the companions of the Messenger of Allah said : ‘Who will go over, attend the battle, and bring us back some news?’ Al-Zubair ibn Al-Awwam said ‘I will’, and he was the youngest amonst us. A tube was inflated for him and he swam across the nile, and proceeded until he attended the battle field. We supplicated to Allah for the Negus, asking that he be given victory over his enemies, and dominon in the land. After this Abysinnia came under his rule, we lived therein in the best possible manner until we came to the Messenger when he was in Makkah.”

Hadith 1740 (Mu’assasat’l-Risalah Ed.) Vol 3. P.262 (or Page 202, Vol.1 from the asl)
Ahmad Shakir declared it sahih

Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part IV: Special circumstances)

See also:

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part I: Relevant texts)”

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part II: Analysis)”

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part III: American Inheritance Law)”

Special circumstances

Impermissible wealth

Of concern to many Muslims is the nature of the inheritance which is being passed on to them, and whether or not it is permissible or not (Halal). in this case, a principle or legal maxim pertaining to appropriation of wealth should be mentioned. The following legal maxim “The changing of hands necessitates change of the ruling.” (Ikhtilaf al yad yastalzim ikhtilaf al Hukm) is deduced from the ˛adíth of Aishah, narrated by Bukharí, that states that a woman by the name of Barírah gave some meat to the Messenger of Allah. Upon this ‘Aishah informed him that this was originally given to her (i.e. Barírah) as charity, upon which he replied “It was charity for her, but a gift to us.” In this is evidence for the previous maxim, which implies that the ruling on wealth from a particular source though impermissible for a particular reason, after changing ownership through gift or bequest become permissible for the one to whom it was bequeathed ^([1]).

Thus any wealth regardless of its source, when a Muslim is named benefactor of it by a relative, is permissible for his utilization and consumption and is deemed legally permissible for him (Halal).

Discharge of Wealth destined for improper use

As described previously, a Muslim who was not designated in the will of the decedent, or whose non-Muslim relative died intestate (i.e. without leaving a will) will generally not be able to partake in this wealth.

However, there is one situation in which some scholars permitted him to take the wealth offered in inheritance, despite the general prohibition from doing so. This situation is defined as when the said wealth, if left, will be used for impermissible and improper uses, and/or particularly to harm Muslims. One condition stipulated by those scholars was the presence of the said wealth in non-Islamic lands (Dar al Harb) as opposed to Islamic lands (Dar al Islam).

Other scholars viewed the issue as one of empowerment, and as such it is permissible for the Muslim to take the inheritance of his non-Muslim relative regardless as to where they may be. This opinion was held by several of the companions of the Prophet, and was substantiated by them with his general statement “Islm rises, and is not risen over.” (Al Islam ya’lu wa la yu’la)^([2]).

---

([1]) See Al Tamhíd of Ibn ‘Abd al Barr

([2]) narrated by Al Daraqutní, and Al Bukhari in Ta’líq form

Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part III: American Inheritance Law)

See also:

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part I: Relevant texts)”

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part II: Analysis)”

American Inheritance Law

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” - attributed to Leonardo da Vinci

After a brief survey of the laws of the fifty states, the inheritance laws pertaining to fifteen of the fifty states follow the Uniform Probate Code (albeit with minor alterations). Other numerous states have adopted the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) in an incomplete form ^([1]).

If ever a more relevant quote could be mentioned here, I would have to say it is this one above attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. The sheer superfluity of laws on this subject state to state, as well as the attempt to unify Probate laws in all fifty states, lends credence to those who stand in defense of the justice of Islamic Inheritance Laws (as outlined under Islamic Family Law). In fact, the notion that Islamic Inheritance Laws somehow disenfranchise some to the enrichment of others is somewhat of misnomer to anyone who has had the pleasure of reading the UPC.

Per the UPC, the decedent has full right to bar whom he deems unworthy from his Will, as well as designate whomever he pleases to the exclusion of all of his blood relatives. With this, it is safe to say that unless you are mentioned in the will, or the decedent does not leave a will at all, you will not receive any wealth left behind by the decedent.

Because of the large taxes placed on monies gained by inheritance, most people in the United States opt to write wills or variants of, in order to avoid taxes and leave a larger portion of their wealth for their descendants or the charitable causes of their choice. Thus in most cases, a Muslim who is designated in the will of a relative, has the right both under Islamic and state law to freely benefit from the said monies bequeathed. If however, the relative dies without having written a will, or has died in a state that does not recognize an oral will attested to by witnesses, the general ruling will be that he is not permitted to inherit/receive inheritable wealth, barring of courses special circumstances.

---

([1]) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/probate.html

Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part II: Analysis)

See the first post:

“Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part I: Relevant texts)”

Analysis

From these previous texts a view of pre-Islamic and early inheritance can be derived. The former being one of primogeniture (i.e. one that allotted all wealth to the male son(s) of the deceased, with exception to that mentioned in the deceased’s will) and the latter being inferred from the exegesis of Surat √l Anfl verse 75, in that the believers upon first emigration to Medinah were joined in an association of brotherhood, Medinians with Makkans, and thus inherited from each other as blood relatives would. There is nothing in the texts however to suggest the manner in which this was performed. This was latter abrogated and a method of Partible inheritance based upon blood relations remained the only valid method for inheritance as per the verse in Al Anfl, while Will remained as a method of imparting wealth to non-relatives and those not allotted prescribed amounts in the Qurnic scripture as per the first ˛adíth mentioned above.

The question that now must be answered is “Can a Muslim inherit from a non-Muslim relative or vice versa?” The decisive answer to this question would be a simple: no. However one must look first at the area of application before simply giving a blanket response to this question. For many Muslims with Non-Muslim relatives, and many having strong family relationships, a deeper look must be taken into the texts above as well as the situation of the questioner to determine the proper response.

After a second look above, it can be seen that the “will” which was is forbidden for the inheritor is different than inheritance. If we were to combine the texts above we could argue that the meaning would be something along the lines of:

“Indeed God has given everyone there due, therefore there is no willing to an inheritor; A Muslim does not inherit from a Non-Muslim, Nor does a Non-Muslim inherit from a Muslim;
Since the Muslim here is not an inheritor, it is permissible for him to accept the wealth designated to him in the deceased’s will and vice versa.”

Simplistic as it may sound, this is the only logical method of combining these texts into one homogenous legal standpoint. Any other method would either bring about undue hardship or simply defy the common sense which God has endowed us with. As an appeal to authority this is substantiated by the consensus (Ijm) that was reported by Ibn Qattn √l Fsí in his book “Al √Iqnaa” [V.3 Pp.1381-1382, #2552]

Thus without special circumstance, a Muslim will not inherit anything from his non-Muslim relative even if that relative’s religious or state affiliation designates for the said Muslim to inherit from the deceased. However, if the Muslim is included in the Will of the deceased, he then has the right, both legally and ethically, to accept the wealth designated for him. With this said, a bit of light has to be shed on the various legal systems that a Muslim may be subjected to as per inheritance and will.

Inheritance, Islamic Law, and State probate laws (Part I: Relevant texts)

A frequent question among converts to Islam is “One of my deceased relatives has left me something, so what do I do with it? I know that a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim nor vice versa.” Here I’ll try to cover this topic with some brevity.

Relevant texts

There are only a few texts which deal with the topic directly of them is the following verse from Surat √l Anfl verse 75:

((Blood relationships are closer to each other then other relationships according to God’s writ. God is Aware if everything))

Another verse of comparable meaning is found in Surat √l A˛zb verse 6.

Of the various ˘adíth relevant to the topic are the following:

1. Abu Dawüd narrates from Abü Ummah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Indeed God has given everyone there due, therefore there is no willing to an inheritor.” [2870]

2. Bukharí and Muslim narrate from Usamah ibn Zayd that the Messenger of Allah said: “A Muslim does not inherit from a Non-Muslim, Nor does a Non-Muslim inherit from a Muslim.” [1511 and 1614 respectively] This hadíth took place at the conquest of Makkah, after the Messenger of Allah was asked where he would reside. He answered “Has Aqíl left a home for us?” Aqíl being his cousin and the son of Abü Tlib. After the latter died, his two non-Muslim children Aqíl and Tlib inherited him, and his two Muslim children Ali and Jafar did not. Later Aqíl became Muslim, thus his property becoming the right of his Muslim relatives.

3. Bukharí narrates from Ibn Abbas that he said “Previously, the son would inherit all wealth, and the parents would take what ever was mentioned in the will. God then nullified this practice and affirmed that which is beloved by him…” he then mentioned the method of wealth distribution as described in the Qurn.