Some individuals today may be under the impression that offensive Jihād is an extremist concept, however this could not be further from the truth. Rather, all Muslim sects and groups for the past 14 centuries have agreed upon this as being a part of the religion. This includes the mainstream orthodox Sunni Muslims. Imām Abū Manşūr al-Māturīdī [d. 333 AH / 944 CE] is the founder of the Māturīdī school of traditional Sunni creed, which along with the Ashárīs, represents a more rational and logical approach to the Islamic texts.
We see that himself, in his exegesis of the Qur’ān, affirmed the command of offensive jihād, as did the Hanafī Māturīdī scholars and jurists that succeeded him over the centuries. He elaborates on the purpose and logic behind jihād, and contrary to modern-day imaginations, he did not say it was in order to pre-empt attacks or to simply remove tyrant rulers. He writes:
If an infidel says unto us:
“You fight the disbelievers due to their disbelief, then when they give you some wealth you leave fighting them, thus if your fighting them was due to that and not for greed for the world [i.e. material gain], you would not leave fighting them due to what they offer to you.
Similarly, if fighting was due to disbelief in of itself, the men and women would be equal in that, as both are equal in disbelief in the sharīáh.”
They say:
“If fighting them was due to what we have mentioned, and it is wisdom, and the one who commanded that is Wise, then all of mankind would be equal, and not one would be left due to anything of that [i.e. wealth], rather they would be fought forever, and you would not be pleased with anything from them except that [i.e. Islām].”
It is said unto them:
“We do not fight the disbelievers due to disbelief, however we call them unto Islām, thus if they accept that [we leave them be] and if not, then we fight them so that [fear of] being killed compels them towards Islām.
It is for this reason, and we do not fight them for anything other than this.
Then if there was a [material] intent in the taking of jizyah, we would not call them unto Islām. Thus, when they accept that, we leave them upon that so that they may incline to Islām when they observe our laws and rulings.
We do not leave them out of desire of what we take from them [i.e. jizyah] or out of greed for that.”
TA’WĪLĀT AL-QUR’ĀN, 6/330.
He further writes:
“As for their statement that we fight the men, and we do not fight the women but we enslave them, this is because they are the followers of men in all states and serve them. Thus, when the men accept Islām, the women accept Islām, this is well-known; when they are in the hands of the men, they do with them as they will.”
TA’WĪLĀT AL-QUR’ĀN, 6/330-331.
In the section between these two parts, he mentions that this world is a place of trials and tests, and that this falls under such trials and tests, and that the punishment for kufr in the Hereafter is equal for both men and women, and that is the Fire.
He further goes on to explain why the jizyah was not taken from the Arab pagans as compared to all other disbelieving nations, from whom jizyah is accepted, according to the Ĥanafī position.
From this we see he did not deny jihād is offensive but rather, just like all classical scholars of the four schools, upheld the command of offensive jihād against the disbelievers with whom there is no treaty, when they do not accept Islām nor pay the jizyah. He mentions the casus belli is so that they may embrace Islām; either out of fear of being killed, or by living under Muslim rule and witnessing the sharīáh as dhimmīs paying the jizyah.
Ramon Harvey, who himself disagrees that the verses of jihād are general commands in relation to all disbelievers if they do not accept Islām or pay the jizyah, states that this was indeed the understanding of Imām al-Hudā, and was the well-established classical view:
The Qur’ān and the Just Society, 107.
This is very different to the pseudo-intellectual narrative we hear today; that jihād is only defensive and initiating offensive jihād is prohibited, or that offensive jihād is permitted only in order to pre-empt attacks of the disbelievers, or in order to topple a tyrant that rules that land.
We see that himself, in his exegesis of the Qur’ān, affirmed the command of offensive jihād, as did the Hanafī Māturīdī scholars and jurists that succeeded him over the centuries. He elaborates on the purpose and logic behind jihād, and contrary to modern-day imaginations, he did not say it was in order to pre-empt attacks or to simply remove tyrant rulers. He writes:
If an infidel says unto us:
“You fight the disbelievers due to their disbelief, then when they give you some wealth you leave fighting them, thus if your fighting them was due to that and not for greed for the world [i.e. material gain], you would not leave fighting them due to what they offer to you.
Similarly, if fighting was due to disbelief in of itself, the men and women would be equal in that, as both are equal in disbelief in the sharīáh.”
They say:
“If fighting them was due to what we have mentioned, and it is wisdom, and the one who commanded that is Wise, then all of mankind would be equal, and not one would be left due to anything of that [i.e. wealth], rather they would be fought forever, and you would not be pleased with anything from them except that [i.e. Islām].”
It is said unto them:
“We do not fight the disbelievers due to disbelief, however we call them unto Islām, thus if they accept that [we leave them be] and if not, then we fight them so that [fear of] being killed compels them towards Islām.
It is for this reason, and we do not fight them for anything other than this.
Then if there was a [material] intent in the taking of jizyah, we would not call them unto Islām. Thus, when they accept that, we leave them upon that so that they may incline to Islām when they observe our laws and rulings.
We do not leave them out of desire of what we take from them [i.e. jizyah] or out of greed for that.”
TA’WĪLĀT AL-QUR’ĀN, 6/330.
He further writes:
“As for their statement that we fight the men, and we do not fight the women but we enslave them, this is because they are the followers of men in all states and serve them. Thus, when the men accept Islām, the women accept Islām, this is well-known; when they are in the hands of the men, they do with them as they will.”
TA’WĪLĀT AL-QUR’ĀN, 6/330-331.
In the section between these two parts, he mentions that this world is a place of trials and tests, and that this falls under such trials and tests, and that the punishment for kufr in the Hereafter is equal for both men and women, and that is the Fire.
He further goes on to explain why the jizyah was not taken from the Arab pagans as compared to all other disbelieving nations, from whom jizyah is accepted, according to the Ĥanafī position.
From this we see he did not deny jihād is offensive but rather, just like all classical scholars of the four schools, upheld the command of offensive jihād against the disbelievers with whom there is no treaty, when they do not accept Islām nor pay the jizyah. He mentions the casus belli is so that they may embrace Islām; either out of fear of being killed, or by living under Muslim rule and witnessing the sharīáh as dhimmīs paying the jizyah.
Ramon Harvey, who himself disagrees that the verses of jihād are general commands in relation to all disbelievers if they do not accept Islām or pay the jizyah, states that this was indeed the understanding of Imām al-Hudā, and was the well-established classical view:
The Qur’ān and the Just Society, 107.
This is very different to the pseudo-intellectual narrative we hear today; that jihād is only defensive and initiating offensive jihād is prohibited, or that offensive jihād is permitted only in order to pre-empt attacks of the disbelievers, or in order to topple a tyrant that rules that land.
