|
Salaam Raza,
Thank you for your question.
Please, allow me first to clarify a few points regarding the mentioned three choices you stated.
First of all, the three choices toward non-Muslims, particularly people of the Book, were not the position of only Abu Bakr (ra), but they were originally the position of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is as well as being the position of the rightly guided caliphs (ra) and most of the Muslim caliphs.
Secondly, although these choices appear as three independent choices, they actually can be categorized into two categories only.
* Accepting Islam; whereby the non-Muslim becomes a Muslim - an equal member of the ummah (Muslim nation). He/she shares the same rights and has the same obligations.
* Rejecting Islam; if the non-Muslim community rejected Islam, then they have two choices…
Paying the jizyah, which is a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state. The word jizyah is derived from the Arabic word jazaa’ (reward, return, or compensation). Scholars disputed on the purpose of jizyah; is it a return for saving the non-Muslims’ lives - a return for protection, or is it a return for enjoying the same rights as the Muslims of the ummah? I personally disagree with the first, leaning towards the second.
My evidence is the agreement between Khalid ibn al-Waleed (ra) and Saluba ibn Nastuna in Iraq. This agreement says:
“This is a letter of Khalid ibn al-Waleed to Saluba ibn Nastuna and his people; I agreed with you on al-jizyah and protection. As long as we protect you we have the right in al-jezyah, otherwise we have none.”
This agreement was signed in the year 12 after Hijrah. It was then adopted by all the governors and officials, who came after Khalid (ra).
Imam al-Shafi`i summarized the rule of jizyah by saying that if the non-Muslims rejected Islam and accepted jizyah then, “on them is al-jizyah, and for them is the protection.”
If the non-Muslim community - after rejecting Islam - refused to agree to the jizyah, then the only option left is fighting.
However, brother Raza, one should perceive these options under the light of certain important elements:
* The Islamic framework of launching jihad, which is governed by two conditions:
- In self-defense, when other communities and nations have attacked the Muslim ummah.
- In defending others, when another state is oppressing a section of its own people.
* Full awareness of the social and political realities, regionally and globally. Islam is not a faith of dreamers or imaginers; it is the faith of realists. It is the faith of those whose endeavor is to implement the values of Almighty Allah (swt) in real life. Thus, the implementation of these values does not depend on miracles, but on real means. Also, this implementation is affected by constant universal laws and by the surrounding realties, within all aspects of life.
In the early days of the Muslim state, Muslims fought on various fronts and against different nations. These three choices, you mentioned, were given to different people in different places. Yet, there is no doubt whatsoever that the intention of all the Muslims’ wars was not to convert people forcefully into Islam… These wars, as mentioned earlier, were self-defense against the aggression of other states, or defending others whom are oppressed in their lands.
In addition, although Muslims initiated some of these wars against other nations, in their essence, they were defensive wars. These wars were against nations, which constituted a great threat to the Muslim ummah. In other words, these wars fall under the requirements of the national security of the Muslim ummah. This is similar to what is now a day classified as “clear and present danger.”
Finally, the Muslim state - while fighting other empires - offered justice, equal rights, security, and protection. Therefore, as reported in the books of history, many non-Muslims, due to the rights and justice they enjoyed under the Muslim rulers, preferred to pay al-jizyah than to go back under sovereignty of the previous rulers.
As regarding your question, Abu Baker (ra) and the rest of the rightly guided caliphs (ra) fought against external threats after the internal front was fixed. It was running according to the teaching and rules of Almighty Allah (swt). Thus, Muslims - spiritually and materially - were able to fulfill the obligations of jihad and to meet the requirements of the surrounding reality.
Also - most importantly - the Muslim state had justice and protection, which can be offered and maintained. Contemporary Muslim countries, in contrast, have a long way to travel, in order to repair their internal fronts according to the teaching of Islam. This is even before exporting Islam outside their borders…
If the issue is merely fighting, thus realistically speaking, the Muslim countries today are suffering from a power deficit. This makes them less able to confront many of the surrounding powers. Also, if the intent of fighting is to serve Islam, these countries cannot offer values that are not applied within their borders…
Allah knows best.
Wa-salaam.
Useful Links:
When and How to Fight…
Jihad of Average Muslim
Preemptive War
|
